1: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}

4: \begin{document}

5: 

6: \def\mdr{\mathit{\delta r}}

7: 

8: \title{On the Aizenman exponent in critical percolation}

9: \author{Lev N. Shchur \dag\ and Timofey Rostunov}

10: \affiliation{Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, 142432 Chernogolovka,

11: Russia \\

12: \dag\ \sl e-mail: lev@itp.ac.ru}

13: 

14: \begin{abstract}

15: The probabilities of clusters spanning a hypercube of dimensions two to

16: seven along one axis of a percolation system under criticality were

17: investigated numerically. We used a modified Hoshen--Kopelman algorithm

18: combined with Grassberger's ``go with the winner" strategy for the site

19: percolation. We carried out a finite-size analysis of the data and found

20: that the probabilities confirm the Aizenman's proposal of the multiplicity

21: exponent for dimensions three to five. A crossover to the mean-field

22: behavior around the upper critical dimension is also discussed.

23: \end{abstract}

24: 

25: \pacs{02.70.-c; 05.50.+q; 64.60.Ak; 75.10.-b}

26: 

27: \maketitle

28: 

29: Percolation occurs in many natural processes, from electrical conduction

30: in disordered matter to oil extraction from field. In the latter, the

31: coefficient of oil extraction from oil sands (the ratio of the actually

32: extracted to the estimated oil) can be as much as 0.7 for light oil and as

33: low as 0.05 for viscous heavy oil. An increase in this coefficient by any

34: new point requires appreciable investment. Additional knowledge about the

35: percolation model could reduce the amount of additional investment.

36: 

37: A remarkable breakthrough in the theory of critical percolation was

38: established in the last decade thanks to a combination of mathematical

39: proofs, exact solutions, and large-scale numerical simulations. Recently,

40: Aizenman has proposed a new exponent that describs the probability

41: $P(k,r)$ of a critical percolation $d$-dimensional system with the aspect

42: ratio $r$ being spanned by at least $k$ clusters~\cite{Aiz97},

43: \begin{equation}

44: \ln P(k,r) \propto -\alpha_d\; k^\zeta\; r,

45: \label{Aiz-proposal}

46: \end{equation}

47: where $\alpha_d$ is a universal coefficient depending only on the

48: universality class, and $\zeta=d/(d-1)$.

49: 

50: In two dimensions, Aizenman's proposal~(\ref{Aiz-proposal}) was proved

51: mathematically~\cite{Aiz97}, confirmed numerically~\cite{SK1}, and derived

52: exactly~\cite{Cardy98} using conformal field theory and Coulomb gas

53: arguments. This exponent seems to be related to the exponents of

54: two-dimensional copolymers~\cite{Dup}. In three dimensions,

55: proposal~(\ref{Aiz-proposal}) was checked numerically in~\cite{Lev99} and,

56: more recently and more precisely, in~\cite{Grass02}.

57: 

58: The upper critical dimension of percolation is $d_c=6$, which follows from

59: the comparison of the exponents derived on the Cayley tree with those

60: satisfying scaling laws (see, e.g.,~\cite{StAh} and~\cite{BH}). The

61: fractal dimension $D_f$ of percolating critical clusters is equal to 4

62: above $d_c$, and the number of percolating clusters becomes infinite for

63: $d>d_c$. This fact would imply that $\zeta=0$ at $d=6$ if we supposed

64: (rather naively) that Aizenman's formula applies at the upper critical

65: dimension. Supposing that this is true and taking into account that the

66: values of $\zeta$ for $d=2$ and $d=3$ are, respectively, $2$ and $1.5$, we

67: can place all three points on the straight line $\zeta=(6-d)/2$, as

68: depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig.naive}. We can then estimate the respective

69: values of $\zeta$ for $d=4$ and $d=5$ to be $\zeta=1$ and $\zeta=0.5$;

70: these values are far from those predicted by Aizenman's formula giving

71: $4/3$ and $5/4$, respectively. In contrast, based on simulations,

72: Sen~\cite{Sen97} claims that $\zeta=2$ for all dimensions from two to

73: five.

74: 

75: \begin{figure}

76: \centering

77: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{fig1.eps}

78: 

79: \caption{Variation of Aizenman exponent $\zeta$ with the space dimension

80: $d$ as predicted by Aizenman (circles and dotted line), claimed by Sen

81: (dashed line) and discussed in the text (solid line).}

82: 

83: \label{fig.naive}

84: \end{figure}

85: 

86: 

87: The main purpose of our simulations is to estimate the exponents for the

88: dimensions from two to six with an accuracy sufficient for distinguishing

89: between the values predicted for $d=4$ and $d=5$ by the Aizenman's formula

90: and a naive application of cluster fractal-dimension arguments and by the

91: straight-line fit, as discussed above.

92: 

93: In the rest of the paper, we briefly summarize the highlights of our study,

94: then present some details of our research, and finally discuss the results

95: for the Aizenman exponent and the physics of a crossover from the Aizenman

96: picture to the mean-field picture.

97: 

98: Our main results can be summarized as follows:

99: 

100: 1. {\em Modified combination of the Hoshen--Kopelman algorithm and

101: Grassberger's strategy.} We use the Hoshen--Kopelman (HK)

102: algorithm~\cite{HK} to generate clusters and Grassberger's ``go with the

103: winner" strategy~\cite{Grass02} to track spanning clusters. We add a new

104: tag array in the HK algorithm, which allows the reduction of the tag

105: memory order from $L^d$ to $L^{d-1}$, where $L$ is the linear size of the

106: hypercubic lattice. As a result, the amount of memory is about two orders

107: less for large values of $L$, and the program is about four times

108: faster---the complexity of the algorithm is compensated by the lower

109: memory capacity needed for for swapping to and from the auxiliary array.

110: 

111: 2. {\em Efficient realization of combined shift-register random number

112: generators.} We use an exclusive-or ($\oplus$) combination $z_n$ of two shift

113: registers:

114: \begin{eqnarray}

115: x_n &=& x_{n-9689}\oplus x_{n-5502},

116: \nonumber

117: \\

118: y_n &=& y_{n-4423}\oplus y_{n-2325},\qquad z_n=x_n\oplus y_n

119: \label{eq.rng}

120: \end{eqnarray}

121: (see~\cite{RNG} and the references therein). We reduce the computational

122: time for generating random numbers by a factor 3.5 through an efficient

123: technical modification: we use the SSE command set that is available on

124: processors of the Intel and AMD series starting from the Intel Pentium III

125: and AMD Athlon XP.

126: 

127: 3. {\em Extraction of the exponents for dimensions three to five.} We

128: first use finite-size analysis to estimate the logarithm of the

129: probability $P(k,r)$ in the limit of infinite lattice size $L$. We then

130: fit data as a function of the number of spanning clusters $k$ to obtain

131: the Aizenman exponent $\zeta$.

132: 

133: 4. {\em Confirmation of Aizenman's proposal.} The estimates of the exponent

134: $\zeta$ for the dimensions $d=2,3,4$, and $5$ coincide well with those

135: proposed by Aizenman.

136: 

137: 5. {\em Qualitative interpretation of Aizenman's conjecture.} Cardy

138: interpreted Aizenman's result qualitatively in two dimensions on the basis

139: of assumption that the main mechanism for reducing the number of

140: percolation clusters is that some of them terminate. The same result can

141: be derived for the cluster confluence (or merging) mechanism. This means

142: that, in low dimensions, the percolation clusters consist of a number of

143: closed paths (loops), while, in higher dimensions, clusters are more

144: similar to trees. Indeed, it is well known that the probability of

145: obtaining loop becomes lower for higher dimensions and goes to zero in

146: the limit of infinite dimensions (Cayley tree)~\cite{StAh,BH}.

147: 

148: 6. {\em Crossover to mean-field behavior.} We found evidence that the

149: probability of clusters spanning a hypercubic lattice tends to unity in

150: the limit of high dimensions, as it follows from the well-accepted

151: picture. We did not find any dramatic changes in the probabilities around

152: the upper critical dimension $d_c=6$, but rather found evidence for a

153: crossover. Therefore, Aizenman's formula~(\ref{Aiz-proposal}) can also

154: apply to dimensions higher (but not too much higher) than the upper

155: critical dimension and describe approximately the probabilities of

156: spanning clusters in large, though finite-size systems.

157: 

158: We follow with the details of the critical percolation, simulations, and

159: data analysis.

160: 

161: \begin{figure}

162: \centering

163: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{fig2.eps}

164: 

165: \caption{The logarithms of the probabilities of exactly $k$ clusters

166: $P(k,r;L)$ ($+$) and of at least $k$ clusters $P_+(k,r;L)$ ($\times$) for the

167: dimension $d=4$ and the number of clusters $k=5$ as functions of the aspect

168: ratio $r$. The linear size of the hyperrectangle is $L=16$. The solid line is

169: the linear approximation to $\ln P(k,r;L)$ on the interval $r=[1.5;5.0]$.}

170: 

171: \label{fig.pr}

172: \end{figure}

173: 

174: {\sf Spanning probability.}

175: 

176: \noindent We can define the probability $P(k,r;L)$ that $k$ clusters

177: traverse a $d$-dimensional hyperrectangle $[0,L]^{d-1}\times[0,Lr]$ in the

178: $Lr$ direction~\cite{Aiz97}. Provided that the scaling limit exists (this

179: was proved recently by Smirnov for the percolation in

180: plane~\cite{Smirnov}), the probability $P(k,r)$ can be defined as the

181: limit of $P(k,r;L)$ as $L\to\infty$. Aizenman proposed that $P(k,r)$

182: should behave according to~(\ref{Aiz-proposal}) in dimensions from three

183: to five. The validity of formula~(\ref{Aiz-proposal}) for the percolation

184: in plane was well established in \cite{Aiz97,Cardy98,SK1}.

185: 

186: Numerical results (\cite{Lev99} and~\cite{Grass02}) for the exponent $\zeta$

187: for critical percolation on cubic lattices seems to confirm Aizenman's

188: proposal for the value of $\zeta=1.5$

189: 

190: Actually, we could consider the probability $P(k,r)$ as the probability of

191: obtaining $k$ clusters at the distance $r$ from the left side of the

192: hyperrectangle if clusters grow to the right. Only two processes can

193: change the number of clusters: cluster merging and cluster terminating.

194: 

195: The differential $dP$ of the probability is

196: \begin{equation}

197: dP\propto P(k,r)\;k^{1/(d-1)}\;k\;dr,

198: \label{difP}

199: \end{equation}

200: where the right-hand side represents the product of the probability

201: $P(k,r)$ and the differential of the total border hyperarea of $k$

202: clusters, each with the hyperarea differential $k^{1/(d-1)}\;dr$. This

203: expression follows from the fact that area unit of measure is proportional

204: to the characteristic transverse length of ``infinite" clusters.

205: Therefore, the transverse area remains constant as $k$ changes, while the

206: longitudinal length increment in these units is $\propto k^{1/(d-1)}dr$.

207: Integrating~(\ref{difP}), we recover probability~(\ref{Aiz-proposal}).

208: Thus, $P(k,r)$ describes the probability that $k$ clusters do not merge

209: together.

210: 

211: The same probability could be obtained by the process of cluster

212: termination, as given by Cardy in plane~\cite{Cardy98}, which can easily

213: be extended to dimensions $d>2$.

214: 

215: This means that the exponent $\zeta$ cannot be larger than the one

216: proposed by Aizenman, and $\zeta=d/(d-1)$ is the upper bound for the

217: exponent.

218: 

219: \begin{table}

220: \begin{tabular}{cccccll}

221: \hline

222: d & k & $L_{min}$ & $L_{max}$ & $\delta L$& $ \qquad p_c$ & Ref.\\ \hline

223: 2 & 1-5 & 16 & 256 &16-32 & 0.59274621(13) & \cite{pc2} \\ 

224: 3 & 1-6 & 8 & 64 & 4,8 & 0.3116080(4) & \cite{pc3} \\ 

225: 4 & 1-6 & 8 & 48-56 & 4,8 & 0.196889(3) & \cite{pc45}\\ 

226: 5 & 1-6 & 4 & 32,24 & 4,8 & 0.14081(1) & \cite{pc45}\\ 

227: 6 & 1-6 & 4 & 15-16 & 3-5 & 0.109017(2) & \cite{pc6}\\ 

228: 7 & 1-4 & 4 & 10 & 1 & 0.0889511(9) & \cite{pc6} 

229: \end{tabular}

230: 

231: \caption{Minimal $L_{min}$ and maximal $L_{max}$ linear sizes of the

232: percolation lattice and the interval $\delta L$ between two consecutive

233: values of $L$ depending on the dimension $d$ and number of clusters $k$.

234: The values of $p_c$ are taken from the references in the last column.}

235: \label{tab.L}

236: \end{table}

237: 

238: {\sf Algorithms and realizations.}

239: 

240: \noindent The classical realization of the HK algorithm~\cite{HK} requires

241: memory for two major structures: an array for keeping a

242: $(d{-}1)$-dimensional cluster slice and a tag array. The total memory

243: required by the algorithm is $\propto L^{d-1}+p_crL^d$, where $p_c$ is the

244: site percolation threshold value. Therefore, for large $rL$, one of the

245: main advantages of the HK algorithm (i.e., relatively low memory

246: consumption) is negated by the second term. Our modification of the

247: original algorithm allows the memory for the tag array to be reduced to

248: about $3p_cL^{d-1}$.

249: 

250: Instead of keeping all tags in memory and selecting new tags with

251: increasing tag numbers, we create two arrays, of which one keeps the tag

252: value and the other one keeps the number $N$ of the slice where the

253: corresponding tag was last used. When we build a cluster, we update this

254: array with $N=N_\mathrm{current}$ for the tags used. If

255: $N<N_\mathrm{current}-1$, then this tag is not on the front surface of the

256: sample, and it will never be used again so that we can, therefore, reuse

257: it. We note that cluster size information should be taken into account

258: before reusing the associated tag, if the size information is required.

259: 

260: We use the ``go with the winner" strategy~\cite{Grass02} as follows. If

261: the system has $k$ spanning clusters for some aspect ratio

262: $r=n\mathit{\delta r}$, it is stored in memory and is grown for $\mdr$. If

263: the resulting configuration has $k$ spanning clusters, it is stored, and

264: the growth process continues. Otherwise, we return to the previously saved

265: state. Using this procedure, we calculate the probability $P_i(\mdr)$ that

266: the system propagates at the distance $\mdr$ from the position

267: $r=(i-1)\mdr$. Finally, we obtain $P(r=n\mdr)=\prod_{i=1}^nP_i(\mdr)$. By

268: choosing sufficiently small values of $\mdr$, we can achieve rather high

269: probabilities of $P_i(\mdr)$ (which can be determined from a few

270: realizations), while the total probability may be very small (down to

271: $\propto 10^{-100}$ in our case).

272: 

273: The random number generator was optimized for the SSE instruction set as

274: follows. Because the length of all four RNG legs is $\{a|b\}_{\{x|y\}}>4$,

275: the $n$th step of the RNG does not intersect with the ($n{+}3$)th step.

276: Therefore, we can pack four consecutive 32-bit values of

277: \{$x_{n-\{a_x|b_x\}}$\} and \{$y_{n-\{a_y|b_y\}}$\} into 128-bit XMM

278: registers, process them simultaneously (see Eq.~(\ref{eq.rng})), and thus

279: obtain $z_n$, $z_{n+1}$, $z_{n+2}$, and $z_{n+3}$ within one RNG cycle.

280: 

281: \begin{figure}

282: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{fig3.eps}

283: \caption{Plot of $s(k;l)$ for $k=3$ clusters in the dimension four as

284: a function of $1/(L+L_0)$ with the fitting parameter $L_0=4.12$ ($\square$)

285: and for $k=4$ clusters in the dimension six with $L_0=4.03$ ($\diamond$).

286: Straight lines result from the fitting to the corresponding data as discussed

287: in the text.}

288: \label{fig.ldep}

289: \end{figure}

290: 

291: {\sf Data analysis.}

292: 

293: \noindent The lattice size was varied from $L_{min}$ to $L_{max}$ with the

294: step $\delta L$. In Table~\ref{tab.L}, particular values of the simulation

295: parameters are presented together with the interval of the number of

296: clusters $k$ depending on the dimension $d$. The direct result of the

297: simulations is the probabilities $P(k,r;L)$ that exactly $k$ clusters

298: connect two opposite surfaces (separated by the distance $rL$) of the

299: rectangle with size $L^{d-1}$ in the ``perpendicular" direction in which

300: we apply periodic boundary conditions. We use the values of the site

301: percolation thresholds on hypercubic lattices from~\cite{pc2}--\cite{pc6},

302: as shown in Table~\ref{tab.L}.

303: 

304: \begin{table}

305: \begin{tabular}{clllll}

306: \hline

307:  &\multicolumn{5}{c}{d} \\ \cline{2-6}

308: $k$ & \quad3 & \quad4 & \quad5 & \quad6 & \quad7 \\ \hline

309: 1 & -1.377(1) & -1.774(3) & -1.859(9) & -1.76(2) & -1.48(4) \\ 

310: 2 & -6.919(6) & -6.330(15) & -5.57(6) & -4.73(8)& -3.55(11) \\

311: 3 & -13.655(15) & -11.64(4) & -9.95(12) & -8.27(12) & -6.25(16) \\ 

312: 4 & -21.47(3) & -17.77(6) & -14.65(20)& -11.95(25)& -9.3(3) \\ 

313: 5 & -30.23(3) & -24.02(8) & -19.9(3) & -15.75(30)& \\ 

314: 6 & -40.02(6) & -31.0(1) & -25.0(3) & -22.7(2) & \\ 

315: \end{tabular}

316: \caption{Values of $s(k)$ for different numbers of clusters $k$

317: and dimensions $d$ for site percolation on hypercubic lattices with periodic

318: boundary conditions in directions perpendicular to the spanning direction.}

319: \label{alpha}

320: \end{table}

321: 

322: 

323: Data analysis consists of three steps. First, we compute the slope $s(L)$

324: of $\ln P(k,r;L)$ for a given dimension $d$, number of clusters $k$, and

325: linear lattice size $L$. An example of such a function is given in

326: Fig.~\ref{fig.pr} for $\ln P(5,r;16)$ in the dimension four. We also plot

327: the logarithm of the probability $P_+(k,r;L)=\sum_{k'\geqslant

328: k}P(k',r;L)$ of the event that, {\em at least}, $k$ clusters span the

329: (hyper)rectangle at the distance $rL$. To calculate $s(L)$, we use data

330: only in the interval of the aspect ratio $r$ between $1.5$ and $5$. We

331: note that the probability of five clusters spanning a rectangle with the

332: linear size $L=16$ at the distance $5\cdot 16=80$ is extremely small

333: $\approx 10^{-52}$.

334: 

335: Second, we compute probabilities in the limit of an infinite system size $L$,

336: fitting slopes $s(k)$ with the expression (see Fig.~\ref{fig.ldep})

337: \begin{equation}

338: s(k;L)=s(k)+\frac{B}{(L+L_0)^t},

339: \label{fit-L}

340: \end{equation}

341: where $B$, $t$, and $L_0$ are fitting

342: parameters~\cite{Ziff92,Lev99,Ziff02}. The resulting values of the slopes

343: $s(k)$ are presented in Table~\ref{alpha}. The number of runs used to

344: compute each particular entry in Table~\ref{alpha} varied from $10^6$

345: to several tens for higher dimensions.

346: 

347: \begin{table}

348: \begin{tabular}{llll}

349: \hline

350: $k$ & this paper & exact from \cite{Cardy98} &

351:  from \cite{Lev99} \\ \hline

352:  1 & -0.6541(5) & -0.6544985 & -0.65448(5) \\

353:  2 & -7.855(3) & -7.85390 & -7.852(1) \\ 

354:  3 & -18.32(1) & -18.3260 & -18.11(15) \\ 

355:  4 & -32.99(3) & -32.9867 & \\ 

356:  5 & -51.83(2) & -51.8363 & \\

357: \end{tabular}

358: \caption{Values of $s(k)$ in two dimensions for different $k$

359: calculated in this paper, using the exact Cardy formula~\cite{Cardy98}, and

360: estimated in~\cite{Lev99} for site percolation on a tube.}

361: \label{tab.d2}

362: \end{table}

363: 

364: We checked the accuracy of our simulations, as well as the validity of the

365: approach in general for site percolation on a square lattice.

366: Table~\ref{tab.d2} shows a comparison of our results for the slope $s$

367: with the exact values and with earlier simulations, in which the other

368: modification of the HK algorithm, but not the Grassberger strategy, was

369: used. We note that our results coincide well with the exact results and

370: give a higher accuracy for larger values of $k$ in comparison with the

371: previous numerical results, despite the smaller computation time used. Our

372: data for $k=1$ is less accurate because of the smaller statistics ($10^6$

373: runs, compared to $10^8$ samples in~\cite{Lev99}). This is a direct

374: demonstration of the effectiveness of the Grassberger strategy for large

375: values of $k$.

376: 

377: Finally, we use values in Table~\ref{alpha} to determine the Aizenman

378: exponent $\zeta$ by fitting data in each column to

379: \begin{equation}

380: s=A(k^2-k_0)^{p/2}

381: \label{eq-fit1}

382: \end{equation}

383: in two and three dimensions, as proposed by Grassberger~\cite{Grass02},

384: and to

385: \begin{equation}

386: s=A(k^p-k_0)

387: \label{eq-fit2}

388: \end{equation}

389: in higher dimensions. Here, $A$, $k_0$, and $p$ are fitting parameters. We

390: take only the leading behavior in $k$ into account.

391: 

392: \begin{table}

393: \begin{tabular}{llll}

394: \hline

395: $d$ & $\quad A $ & $\quad k_0$ & $\quad p$ \\ \hline \hline

396: 2 & 2.090(4) & 0.244(5) & 2.0012(10) \\ 

397:  & 2.0940(5) & 0.2489(7) & 2 \\ \hline 

398: 3 & 2.81(4) & 0.64(4) & 1.489(7) \\ 

399:  & 2.757(2) & 0.587(3) & 3/2 \\  \hline

400: 4 & 3.06(20) & 0.41(6) & 1.315(30) \\ 

401:  & 2.949(5) & 0.373(3) & 4/3 \\ \hline 

402: 5 & 2.8(1) & 0.40(4) & 1.24(3) \\ 

403:  & 2.78(2) & 0.38(2) & 5/4 \\ \hline 

404: 6 & 2.8(8) &0.5(3) & 1.12(14) \\ 

405:  & 2.41(5) &0.33(6) &6/5 \\ \hline

406: 7 & 1.4(10) & 0.08(116) & 1.4(4)\\ 

407:  &2.03(12)&0.50(13)&7/6

408: \end{tabular}

409: \caption{Values of the fitting parameters $A$ and $k_0$ and the power $p$ as

410: defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq-fit1}) and~(\ref{eq-fit2}) for the dimension $d$.}

411: \label{tab.res}

412: \end{table}

413: 

414: {\sf Spanning, proliferation, and crossover to mean-field behavior.}

415: 

416: \noindent The results of the final fit to (\ref{eq-fit1}) and

417: (\ref{eq-fit2}) are shown in Table~\ref{tab.res}. The second row for each

418: particular dimension $d$ is the fit with the power $p$ fixed to the

419: Aizenman exponent value. This is done to check the fit stability. Indeed,

420: the values of $A$ and $k_0$ coincide within one standard deviation for the

421: dimensions two to five.

422: 

423: The larger deviations of parameters for the dimensions six and seven may

424: be attributed to appearance of cluster proliferation---the number of

425: clusters is known~\cite{Aiz97} to grow as $L^{d-6}$ in dimensions

426: $d>d_c=6$. We plot the coefficient $\alpha_d$ (defined by

427: expression~(\ref{Aiz-proposal})) in Fig.~\ref{fig.coeff2} as a function of

428: the dimension $d$. The probability of exactly one cluster spanning at the

429: given distance $r$ becomes smaller as the dimension increases from two to

430: five and larger for larger dimensions, as can be seen from the first row

431: ($k=1$) of Table~\ref{alpha} and from the lower curve dependence in

432: Fig.~\ref{fig.coeff2}.  For any fixed $d$, the value of $\alpha_d$

433: approaches some limit for the dimensions two to five and $k>2$, which

434: suggests the value of the corrections to the leading behavior in $k$ (see

435: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-fit1}) and (\ref{eq-fit2})).

436: 

437: \begin{figure}

438: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\columnwidth,keepaspectratio]{fig4.eps}

439: \caption{The coefficient $\alpha_d$ (as a function of the dimension $d$)

440: extracted from the probabilities $P(k,r)$ for different numbers of clusters

441: $k$.}

442: \label{fig.coeff2}

443: \end{figure}

444: 

445: The fact that the value of $\zeta$, which we formally extracted from our

446: data for $d=6$, more or less coincides with $\zeta=d/(d-1)=6/5$, as

447: formally calculated using the Aizenman expression, may be interpreted as

448: an indication that the number of clusters depends logarithmically on the

449: lattice size $L$. One can expect that the logarithmic behavior is visible

450: only for somewhat larger values of $L$ than we have used so far (see

451: Table~\ref{tab.L}). With the values of $L$ of the order we have used in

452: simulations, we see effectively the same picture as for the lower

453: dimensions---clusters spann according to the Aizenman formula. This means

454: that at small (or moderate) values of $L$, the main mechanism is as

455: discussed above: cluster merging and terminating. And only at sufficiently

456: large system sizes we will see cluster proliferation. An indication of

457: that can be seen from the values of $\alpha_d$ in the dimension seven in

458: Fig.~\ref{fig.coeff2}. The probabilities become closer, and this can be

459: attributed to cluster proliferation and treated as a crossover to the

460: mean-field behavior.

461: 

462: {\sf Discussion.}

463: 

464: \noindent The results have shown the validity of the Aizenman's proposal

465: in the dimensions three to five (results on plane were already proved

466: rigorously) and do not support Parongama Sen claims based on their

467: simulations (Fig.~\ref{fig.naive}).  We have found evidence for cluster

468: proliferation for the dimension seven. The analysis can be extended to the

469: number of spanning clusters to distinguish exponential decay with the

470: system size of the number of clusters for the dimension five, logarithmic

471: growth of them for the dimension six, and linear growth for the dimension

472: seven. The same technique can be used to establish numerically such a

473: crossover to the mean-field picture, although a significantly longer

474: computational time, than we used, is needed for this. In fact, the linear

475: growth of the multiplicity of spanning clusters for seven-dimensional

476: critical percolation was confirmed numerically in preprint~\cite{ACF}

477: posted at {\em arXiv} preprint library a few days after our

478: cond-mat/0207605.

479: 

480: \acknowledgments

481: 

482: We acknowledge useful discussions of algorithms with P.~Grassberger and

483: R.~Ziff. Our special thanks to S.~Korshunov and G.~Volovik for the

484: discussion of the results. This work supported by grants from 

485: Russian Foundation for Basic Research.

486: 

487: \begin{thebibliography}{9999}

488: \frenchspacing

489: 

490: \bibitem{Aiz97} M. Aizenman, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 485} (1997) 551--582,

491: cond-mat/9609240.

492: 

493: \bibitem{SK1} L.N. Shchur and S.S. Kosyakov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C {\bf 8}

494: (1997) 473--481, cond-mat/9702248.

495: 

496: \bibitem{Cardy98} J. Cardy, J. Phys. A, {\bf 31} (1998) L105,

497: cond-mat/9705137.

498: 

499: \bibitem{Dup} B. Duplantier, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82} (1999) 880,

500: cond-mat/9812439.

501: 

502: \bibitem{Lev99} L.N. Shchur, in {\em Computer Simulation Studies in

503: Condensed-Matter Physics XII}, eds. D.P. Landau,

504: S.P. Lewis, and H.-B. Sch\"uttler, (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin,

505: 2000), cond-mat/9906013.

506: 

507: \bibitem{Grass02} P. Grassberger, Comp. Phys. Comm., 147 (2002) 64,

508: cond-mat/0201313; P. Grassberger and W. Nadler, cond-mat/0010265.

509: 

510: \bibitem{StAh} D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, {\em Introduction to

511: Percolation Theory} (Taylor \& Francis, London, 1992).

512: 

513: \bibitem{BH} A. Bunde and S. Havlin, in {\em Fractals and Disordered

514: Systems}, eds. A. Bunde and S. Havlin, 2nd Edition

515: (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996).

516: 

517: \bibitem{Sen97} P. Sen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C {\bf 8} (1997) 229,

518: cond-mat/9704112.

519: 

520: \bibitem{HK} J. Hoshen and R. Kopelman, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 14} (1976) 3438.

521: 

522: \bibitem{RNG} L.N. Shchur, Comp. Phys. Comm., {\bf 121-122} (1999) 83--85,

523: hep-lat/0201015.

524: 

525: \bibitem{Smirnov} S. Smirnov, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris {\bf 333} (2001) 239,

526: www2.math.kth.se/$\tilde{\phantom{a}}$stas/papers/percras.ps.

527: 

528: \bibitem{pc2} M.E.J. Newman and R.M. Ziff, Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf 85} (2000)

529: 4104--4107, cond-mat/0005264.

530: 

531: \bibitem{pc3}C.D. Lorenz and R.M. Ziff, J. Phys. A {\bf 31} (1998) 8147,

532: cond-mat/9806224.

533: 

534: \bibitem{pc45} G. Paul, R.M. Ziff, and H.E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. E. {\bf 64} 

535: (2001) 026115, cond-mat/0101136.

536: 

537: \bibitem{pc6} P. Grassberger, cond-mat/0202144.

538: 

539: \bibitem{Ziff92} R.M. Ziff, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69} (1992) 2670.

540: 

541: \bibitem{Ziff02} One could expect an increase in finite-size effects as $k$

542: increases. Indeed, this was found by R.~Ziff (private communication) 

543: in two dimensions for large values of $k\approx 10$.

544: 

545: \bibitem{ACF} G. Andronico, A. Coniglio, S. Fortunato, hep-lat/0208009.

546: 

547: \end{thebibliography}

548: \end{document}

549: