1: \documentclass[prl,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{psfrag}
4: \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
5:
6: %\RequirePackage{FuturaLT}
7: \usepackage{times}
8: \usepackage{pifont}
9: \usepackage{ae,aecompl}
10: \usepackage{amsmath}
11: %\usepackage{concmath}
12: %\usepackage{epsf}
13: \usepackage{graphicx}
14:
15: \newcommand{\dd}{\mbox{d}}
16: \newcommand{\DD}{\mbox{D}}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20:
21: \title{Fractal Structure of High-Temperature Graphs of O($N$) Models in
22: Two Dimensions}
23: %
24: \author{Wolfhard Janke and Adriaan M. J. Schakel}
25: %
26: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Leipzig,
27: Augustusplatz 10/11, 04109 Leipzig, Germany }
28: %
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: The critical behavior of the two-dimensional O($N)$ model close to
32: criticality is shown to be encoded in the fractal structure of the
33: high-temperature graphs of the model. Based on Monte Carlo
34: simulations and with the help of percolation theory, De Gennes'
35: results for polymer rings, corresponding to the limit $N \to 0$, are
36: generalized to random loops for arbitrary $-2 \leq N \leq 2$. The
37: loops are studied also close to their tricritical point, known as the
38: $\Theta$ point in the context of polymers, where they collapse. The
39: corresponding fractal dimensions are argued to be in one-to-one
40: correspondence with those at the critical point, leading to an analytic
41: prediction for the magnetic scaling dimension at the O($N)$
42: tricritical point.
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \date{\today}
46:
47: \maketitle
48:
49: The high-temperature (HT) representation of the critical O($N$) spin
50: model naturally defines a loop gas, corresponding to a diagrammatic
51: expansion of the partition function in terms of closed graphs along the
52: bonds on the underlying lattice \cite{Stanley}. In the limit $N\to 0$,
53: the loops reduce to closed self-avoiding random walks first considered
54: by de Gennes as a model for polymer rings in good solvents at
55: sufficiently high temperatures, so that the van der Waals attraction
56: between monomers is irrelevant \cite{deGennes}. In his seminal paper,
57: de Gennes related the fractal structure of self-avoiding random walks to
58: the critical exponents of the O($N\to0$) model. Invoking concepts from
59: percolation theory and recent Monte Carlo (MC) data
60: \cite{geoPotts,Dotsenko} of the HT representation of the two-dimensional
61: (2D) Ising model ($N=1$), we extend in this Letter de Gennes' result to
62: arbitrary $-2 \leq N \leq 2$ in 2D. We consider the loops also close to
63: their tricritical point where they collapse, known as the $\Theta$ point
64: in the context of polymers. We argue that the 2D fractal dimensions at
65: the tricritical point are in one-to-one correspondence with those at the
66: critical point, allowing us to also predict the magnetic scaling
67: dimension at the O($N)$ tricritical point. We support our theoretical
68: prediction by comparing it with recent high-precision MC data
69: \cite{bloeteetal}.
70:
71: A particularly simple representation of the O($N$) universality class is
72: specified by the partition function \cite{DMNS}
73: \begin{equation}
74: \label{ZS}
75: Z = \mathrm{Tr} \prod_{\langle \mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}' \rangle} (1 + K
76: \mathbf{S}_\mathbf{x} \cdot \mathbf{S}_{\mathbf{x}'}),
77: \end{equation}
78: where the product is over all nearest neighbor pairs, and the spins have
79: $N$ components $\mathbf{S}_\mathbf{x} = (S^1_\mathbf{x}, S^2_\mathbf{x},
80: \dots , S^N_\mathbf{x})$ and are of fixed length
81: $\mathbf{S}_\mathbf{x}^2=N$. The trace Tr stands for the sum or
82: integral over all possible spin configurations. The weighting factor is
83: obtained by truncating the more standard Boltzmann weight
84: $\exp(K\mathbf{S}_\mathbf{x} \cdot \mathbf{S}_{\mathbf{x}'})$. This
85: choice mimics the weighting factor of the Ising model, where $\exp(\beta
86: S_\mathbf{x} S_{\mathbf{x}'}) \propto (1 + K S_\mathbf{x}
87: S_{\mathbf{x}'})$ with $K = \tanh \beta$. When formulated on a
88: honeycomb lattice, which has coordination number $z=3$, the HT graphs of
89: the truncated model are automatically nonintersecting and self-avoiding.
90: The partition function can then be written simply as a sum over all
91: possible closed graphs \cite{DMNS}, $Z = \sum_{\{G\}} K^b N^l$, with $b$
92: and $l$ the number of occupied bonds and separate loops forming the
93: graph $G$. The parameter $K$ in the spin formulation (\ref{ZS}) appears
94: as bond fugacity in the loop model. By mapping it onto a solid-on-solid
95: model, the critical exponents as well as the critical point were
96: determined exactly \cite{Nienhuis}.
97:
98: In the high-temperature phase, the HT graphs have a finite line tension
99: $\theta_\mathrm{G}$ and are exponentially suppressed. A typical graph
100: configuration in this phase shows only a few small loops scattered
101: around the lattice. Upon approaching the critical point from above, the
102: lattice starts to fill up with more and also larger graphs. At the
103: critical point, the line tension vanishes, causing the exponential
104: suppression to disappear. Graphs of all sizes now appear in the system
105: as they can grow without energy cost, i.e., the HT graphs proliferate.
106: A graph spanning the lattice can be found irrespective of the lattice
107: size--much like the appearance of a spanning cluster at the percolation
108: threshold in percolation phenomena \cite{StauferAharony}. The average
109: number density $\ell_b$ of graphs containing $b$ bonds takes
110: asymptotically a form similar to that of clusters in percolation theory,
111: \begin{equation}
112: \label{ellb}
113: \ell_b \sim b^{- \tau_\mathrm{G}} {\rm e}^{- \theta_\mathrm{G} b}, \quad
114: \theta_\mathrm{G} \propto (K-K_{\rm c})^{1/\sigma_\mathrm{G}},
115: \end{equation}
116: with $\sigma_\mathrm{G}$ and $\tau_\mathrm{G}$ two exponents whose
117: values define the universality class. The line tension vanishes upon
118: approaching the critical point at a pace determined by the exponent
119: $\sigma_\mathrm{G}$. When present, this Boltzmann factor exponentially
120: suppresses large graphs. The algebraic factor in the graph distribution
121: is an entropy factor, giving a measure of the number of ways a graph of
122: size $b$ can be embedded in the lattice. The configurational entropy is
123: characterized by the exponent $\tau_\mathrm{G}$. As in percolation
124: theory \cite{StauferAharony}, it is related to the fractal dimension
125: $D_\mathrm{G}$ of the HT graphs via
126: \begin{equation}
127: \label{tau}
128: \tau_\mathrm{G} = d/D_\mathrm{G} +1,
129: \end{equation}
130: with $d=2$ the dimension of the lattice.
131:
132: When summed over all sizes, the graph distribution yields the scaling
133: part of the logarithm of the partition function,
134: \begin{equation}
135: \label{lnZ}
136: \ln Z \sim \sum_b \ell_b.
137: \end{equation}
138: Each graph therefore contributes equally to the scaling part of the free
139: energy, irrespective of its size.
140:
141:
142: %
143: %
144: \begin{table}
145: \begin{tabular}{l|rc|r|rcccc|ccc}
146: %
147: \hline \hline & & & & & & & & \\[-.4cm]
148: %
149: Model & $N$ & $\bar\kappa_-$ & $c$ & $\alpha$ & $\beta$ & $\gamma$ & $\eta$
150: & $\nu$ & $D_{\rm G}$ & $\tau_\mathrm{G}$ & $\sigma_\mathrm{G}$ \\[.1cm]
151: %
152: \hline & & & & & & & & & & \\[-.4cm]
153: %
154: Gaussian & $-2$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $-2$ & $1$ & $0$ & $1$ & $0$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{5}{4}$ &
155: $\frac{13}{5}$ & $\frac{8}{5}$\\[.1cm]
156: %
157: SAW & $0$ & $\frac{2}{3}$ & $0$ & $\frac{1}{2}$ & $\frac{5}{64}$ &
158: $\frac{43}{32}$ & $\frac{5}{24}$ & $\frac{3}{4}$ & $\frac{4}{3}$ & $\frac{5}{2}$ & $1$ \\[.1cm]
159: %
160: Ising & $1$ & $\frac{3}{4}$ & $\frac{1}{2}$
161: & $0$ & $\frac{1}{8}$ & $\frac{7}{4}$ &
162: $\frac{1}{4}$ & $1$ &
163: $\frac{11}{8}$ & $\frac{27}{11}$ & $\frac{8}{11}$ \\[.1cm]
164: %
165: XY & $2$ & $1$ & $1$ & $-\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\frac{1}{4}$ & $\infty$
166: & $\frac{3}{2}$ & $\frac{7}{3}$ & $0$\\[.1cm] \hline \hline
167: %
168: %
169: \end{tabular}
170: \caption{Critical exponents of the two-dimensional critical O($N$) spin
171: model, with $N=-2,0,1,2$, respectively, together with the parameter
172: $\bar\kappa_-$ and the central charge $c= 1 - 6(1-\bar\kappa_-)^2/\bar\kappa_-$.
173: In addition, the fractal dimension
174: $D_\mathrm{G}$ of the HT graphs as well as the two exponents
175: $\tau_\mathrm{G}, \sigma_\mathrm{G}$ characterizing their
176: distribution are given. For $N=1$, the values of the latter two were recently
177: established numerically in Ref.~\cite{geoPotts}.
178: \label{table:On}}
179: \end{table}
180: %
181: %
182:
183:
184: Table \ref{table:On} summarizes the critical exponents and fractal
185: dimensions of the four most common O($N$) models. The negative value
186: $N=-2$ corresponds to the noninteracting model, for which the critical
187: exponents take their Gaussian values \cite{BalianToulouse}. In the
188: polymer limit $N\to 0$, first studied by de Gennes \cite{deGennes}, the
189: fractal dimension of the HT graphs is simply the inverse of the
190: correlation length exponent $\nu$. In general, however, it follows from
191: Table \ref{table:On} that $D_\mathrm{G} \neq 1/\nu$. To generalize de
192: Gennes' result, we note that in percolation theory a similar relation
193: between the fractal dimension $D$ of clusters and the correlation length
194: exponent involves the Fisher exponent $\sigma$, viz.\
195: \cite{StauferAharony}
196: \begin{equation}
197: \label{nuD}
198: D = 1/\sigma \nu.
199: \end{equation}
200: A closer look at de Gennes' derivation reveals that
201: $\sigma_\mathrm{G}=1$ in that case, implying that the result for
202: polymers in good solvents or self-avoiding random walks is consistent
203: with Eq.~(\ref{nuD}). In a recent MC study of the HT graphs of
204: the 2D Ising model \cite{geoPotts}, we numerically found
205: the value $\sigma_\mathrm{G} = 0.732(6)$. This estimate is within one
206: standard deviation from the value $\sigma_\mathrm{G} = 8/11 = 0.7273
207: \dots$ expected from Eq.~(\ref{nuD}), with $\nu=1$ and the fractal
208: dimension $D_\mathrm{G}=11/8$ appropriate for the Ising model.
209:
210: Parameterizing the 2D O($N$) models as \cite{Nienhuis_rev,SLE} $N = - 2
211: \cos(\pi/\bar\kappa_-)$, with $\frac{1}{2} \le \bar\kappa_- \le 1$, we
212: obtain from Eq.~(\ref{nuD}) $\sigma_\mathrm{G} = 8
213: (1-\bar\kappa_-)/(2+\bar\kappa_-)$, where use is made of the known
214: results \cite{Nienhuis} $1/\nu = 4 (1-\bar\kappa_-)$ and
215: \cite{Vanderzande}
216: \begin{equation}
217: \label{dh}
218: D_\mathrm{G} = 1+ \bar \kappa_-/2.
219: \end{equation}
220: The entropy exponent (\ref{tau}) follows similarly as $\tau_\mathrm{G} =
221: (6+ \bar\kappa_-)/(2+\bar\kappa_-)$, yielding $\tau_\mathrm{G}=5/2$ for
222: a self-avoiding random walk and $\tau_\mathrm{G}= 27/11 = 2.4546 \dots$
223: for the Ising model. Through the exact enumeration and analysis of the
224: number of self-avoiding loops on a square lattice up to length 110, the
225: expected value $\tau_\mathrm{G}=5/2$ has been established numerically to
226: very high precision \cite{Jensen}. In our MC study \cite{geoPotts}, we
227: numerically obtained the estimate $\tau_\mathrm{G} = 2.458(5)$ for the
228: Ising model in good agreement with the theoretical prediction.
229:
230: The O($N$) spin-spin correlation function $G(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}') =
231: G(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}')$ is represented diagrammatically by a modified
232: partition function, obtained by requiring that the two sites
233: $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{x}'$ are connected by an open HT graph
234: $\Gamma$ \cite{Stanley}. On a honeycomb lattice, the scaling part of
235: the correlation function is given by the connected graphs
236: \begin{equation}
237: \label{GR}
238: G(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}') \sim \sum_{\{\Gamma\}} K^b = \sum_b
239: z_b(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}') K^b,
240: \end{equation}
241: where $z_b(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}')$ is the number of (open)
242: nonintersecting and self-avoiding graphs along $b$ bonds connecting
243: $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{x}'$. It is related to the graph distribution
244: (\ref{ellb}) through $ \ell_b = (1/V b) \sum_\mathbf{x}
245: z_b(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x})$, with $V$ the lattice volume. Since
246: $z_b(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x})$ refers to closed graphs starting and ending
247: at $\mathbf{x}$, the factor $1/b$ is included to prevent overcounting as
248: a given loop can be traced out starting at any lattice point along that
249: loop. Strictly speaking, $G(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}') < \sum_{\{\Gamma\}}
250: K^b$ as the cancellation of the disconnected graphs in the numerator and
251: $Z$ in the denominator, required for an equality, is not complete: For a
252: given open graph $\Gamma$, certain loops present in $Z$ are forbidden in
253: the modified partition function as they would intersect $\Gamma$, or
254: occupy bonds belonging to it, which is not allowed. In other words, the
255: presence of an open graph influences the loop gas and \textit{vice
256: versa}. Since each loop carries a factor $N$, the loop gas is absent in
257: the limit $N \to 0$. The inequality in Eq.~(\ref{GR}) then becomes an
258: equality and the open graphs become ordinary self-avoiding random walks
259: with $D_\mathrm{G}=4/3$. For $N>0$, the loops obstruct the formation of
260: graphs connecting the two endpoints, so that the fractal dimension of
261: these self-avoiding graphs on the honeycomb lattice is larger.
262:
263: The magnetic susceptibility $\chi$ follows as $\chi = \sum_{\mathbf{x}'}
264: G(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}') \sim \sum_b z_b K^b$, with $z_b =
265: \sum_{\mathbf{x}'} z_b(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}')$ the number of open
266: graphs of size $b$ starting at $\mathbf{x}$ and ending at an arbitrary
267: lattice point. For the susceptibility to diverge with the correct
268: exponent $\gamma$, it must behave close to the critical point as
269: \begin{equation}
270: \label{asymp}
271: \chi \sim \sum_b b^{\sigma_\mathrm{G} \gamma-1}
272: \mathrm{e}^{-\theta_\mathrm{G} b},
273: \end{equation}
274: for large $b$, where like in the closed graph distribution (\ref{ellb}), the
275: Boltzmann factor suppresses large graphs as long as the line tension
276: $\theta_\mathrm{G}$ is finite. Indeed, replacing the summation over the
277: HT graph size $b$ with an integration, we find $\chi \sim
278: |K-K_\mathrm{c}|^{-\gamma}$. The asymptotic form (\ref{asymp})
279: generalizes the de Gennes result for $N\to 0$ with $\sigma_\mathrm{G}=1$
280: to arbitrary $-2 \leq N \leq 2$ with $\sigma_ \mathrm{G} \neq 1$. Note
281: that on account of Fisher's scaling relation $\gamma = (2-\eta) \nu$,
282: the combination $\sigma_\mathrm{G} \gamma$ in Eq.~(\ref{asymp})
283: satisfies $\sigma_\mathrm{G} \gamma = (2-\eta)/D_\mathrm{G}$.
284:
285: The ratio of $z_b(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}')$ and $z_b$ defines the
286: probability $P_b(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}')$ of finding a graph connecting
287: $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathbf{x}'$ along $b$ bonds \cite{Cloizeaux}. On
288: general grounds, it scales at criticality as ($d=2$):
289: \begin{equation}
290: \label{P}
291: P_b(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}') = z_b(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}')/z_b \sim
292: b^{-d/D_\mathrm{G}} \, \mathsf{P} \left(
293: |\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}'|/b^{1/D_\mathrm{G}} \right),
294: \end{equation}
295: with $\mathsf{P}$ a scaling function. Since \textit{at} the critical
296: point, $z_b K^b_\mathrm{c} \sim b^{\sigma_\mathrm{G} \gamma-1}$
297: according to Eq.~(\ref{asymp}), we obtain for the correlation function
298: \begin{equation}
299: \label{G}
300: G(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}') \sim \sum_b z_b
301: P_b(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x}') K_\mathrm{c}^b \sim
302: 1/|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{x}'|^{d-2 + \eta},
303: \end{equation}
304: where use is made of Eq.~(\ref{nuD}) and Fisher's scaling relation.
305: Equation (\ref{G}) is the standard definition of the critical exponent
306: $\eta$, whose exact value is given by \cite{Nienhuis}
307: \begin{equation}
308: \label{etakappa}
309: \eta=2-3/4\bar\kappa_- - \bar\kappa_-,
310: \end{equation}
311: and thus provides a consistency check. Also, with $\nu =
312: (\tau_\mathrm{G}-1)/d \sigma_\mathrm{G}$, as is implied by
313: Eqs.~(\ref{nuD}) and (\ref{tau}), Eq.~(\ref{lnZ}) yields the scaling
314: relation $d \nu = 2 - \alpha$, where $\alpha$ determines the scaling
315: behavior of the free energy close to the critical point, $\ln Z \sim
316: |K-K_\mathrm{c}|^{2-\alpha}$. Apart from $\nu$ and $\alpha$, the
317: exponents have no simple dependence on the graph distribution exponents
318: $\sigma_\mathrm{G}, \tau_\mathrm{G}$. This is because the operator
319: whose scaling dimension $y_\mathrm{G}$ is given by the fractal dimension
320: $D_\mathrm{G}$ of the HT graphs is not a simple one, consisting of two
321: spin components at the same site $S_\mathbf{x}^i S_\mathbf{x}^j$ which
322: measures the tendency of spins to align \cite{Nienhuis}.
323:
324: In our MC study \cite{geoPotts}, rather than determining the
325: scaling dimension $y_\mathrm{G}$ directly, we measured the so-called
326: percolation strength $P_\infty$, giving the fraction of bonds in the
327: largest graph. This observable obeys the finite-size scaling relation
328: $P_\infty \sim L^{-\beta_{\rm G}/\nu}$, where the exponent $\beta_{\rm
329: G}$ is related to $y_\mathrm{G}$ via $y_\mathrm{G} = d -
330: \beta_\mathrm{G}/\nu$. We found $\beta_{\rm G} = 0.626(7)$ for the
331: Ising model in perfect agreement with the value $\beta_{\rm
332: G}=5/8=0.625$, leading to $y_\mathrm{G} = 11/8$, which coincides with
333: the fractal dimension $D_\mathrm{G}$ of the HT graphs.
334:
335: We next extend our results for the HT graphs at the \textit{critical}
336: point to the \textit{tricritical} point. It is generally accepted that
337: including vacancies in the O($N$) model gives in addition to critical
338: behavior rise to also tricritical behavior. By gradually increasing the
339: activity of the vacancies, the continuous O($N$) phase transition is
340: eventually driven first order. The endpoint where this happens is a
341: tricritical point. In the context of polymers ($N \to 0$), the latter
342: obtains by lowering the temperature to the $\Theta$ point where the
343: increasingly important van der Waals attraction between monomers causes
344: the polymer chain to collapse. Coniglio \textit{et
345: al.\/}~\cite{Coniglioetal} argued that a polymer ring at the $\Theta$
346: tricritical point is equivalent to the hull of a percolation cluster.
347: With the known dimension for the percolation hull \cite{SDFK}, the
348: analogy then gives $D_\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{t}=\frac{7}{4}$ as fractal
349: dimension for a polymer chain at the $\Theta$ point (the superscript
350: ``t'' refers to the tricritical point). It also implies that polymer
351: chains at the critical and tricritical point share the same central
352: charge $c$ because both the O($N \to 0$) model and percolation have
353: $c=0$ \cite{DStheta}.
354:
355: To generalize the analogy found by Coniglio \textit{et
356: al.\/}~\cite{Coniglioetal}, we consider the $Q$-state Potts model,
357: which in the limit $Q\to 1$ describes ordinary, uncorrelated percolation
358: \cite{Potts}. In the Fortuin-Kasteleyn (FK) formulation \cite{FK}, the
359: model with $Q>1$ is mapped onto a \textit{correlated} percolation
360: problem. Clusters are formed by lumping together with a certain
361: temperature-dependent probability nearest neighbor spins in the same
362: spin state. These so-called FK clusters percolate at the critical
363: temperature and their fractal structure encodes the entire critical
364: behavior. In 2D (and in 2D only), also the geometrical clusters, formed
365: by unconditionally lumping together nearest neighbor spins in the same
366: spin state, percolate at the critical temperature. Their fractal
367: structure encodes the \textit{tricritical} $Q_\mathrm{t}$-state Potts
368: behavior, which emerges when enlarging the pure model to include
369: vacancies. The tricritical point shares the same central charge $c$
370: with the critical point, but apart from $c=1$, $Q(c) \neq
371: Q_\mathrm{t}(c)$. Both fractal structures and thus both critical
372: behaviors are intimately related, being connected by replacing
373: $\bar\kappa_-$ with $\bar\kappa_+ = 1/\bar\kappa_- \geq 1$ in the
374: appropriate expressions (for details, see Ref.~[\onlinecite{geoPotts}]
375: or Ref.~[\onlinecite{DBN}], where similar conclusions were reached
376: independently). This map conserves the central charge. With increasing
377: $Q$ or $c$, the critical and tricritical points approach each other
378: until merging at $c=1$, where $Q=Q_\mathrm{t}=4$ and the scaling
379: behaviors of FK and geometrical clusters coincide. Beyond $Q=4$, the
380: transition becomes discontinuous.
381:
382: The hulls of the geometrical clusters of the $Q(c)$-state Potts model at
383: the same time represent the HT graphs of the critical O($N$) model, with
384: $0\leq N(c) \leq 2$, sharing the same central charge
385: \cite{DS89,geoPotts}. Since the geometrical clusters encode the
386: tricritical Potts behavior, while the FK clusters encode the critical
387: Potts behavior (characterized by the same central charge), it is natural
388: to expect the FK hulls to represent the HT loop gas not at the critical,
389: but at the tricritical point. For the special case of polymers ($N \to
390: 0$), this reproduces the result by Coniglio \textit{et
391: al.\/}~\cite{Coniglioetal}. Note that in both Potts and O($N$) models,
392: including vacancies leads to tricritical behavior. However, the
393: critical and tricritical points get interchanged when passing from one
394: model to the other. The fractal dimension $D_\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{t}$ of
395: the tricritical loops follows by applying the central-charge conserving
396: map $\bar\kappa_- \to \bar\kappa_+ = 1/\bar\kappa_-$ to Eq.~(\ref{dh}).
397: We submit that the exponent $\eta_\mathrm{t}$ follows in the same way
398: from Eq.~(\ref{etakappa}). Given $\eta_\mathrm{t}$, the scaling
399: relations then yield values for the ratios
400: $\beta_\mathrm{t}/\nu_\mathrm{t}$ and
401: $\gamma_\mathrm{t}/\nu_\mathrm{t}$.
402:
403: To verify these predictions we rewrite our results, given as a function
404: of $\bar \kappa_-$, as entries in the Kac table
405: \begin{equation}
406: h_{p,q} = \frac{[(m+1)p -m q]^2 -1}{4m(m+1)}.
407: \end{equation}
408: Here, the parameter $m$ is related to $\bar\kappa_-$ and the central
409: charge via $\bar\kappa_- = m/(1+m)$ and $c = 1 - 6/m(m+1)$,
410: respectively, while the central-charge conserving map becomes $m \to
411: -m-1$. Specifically, for $0 \leq c \leq 1$
412: \begin{equation}
413: \label{Dt}
414: D_\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{t} = 1+ 1/2\bar \kappa_- = 2 -2 h_{m,m},
415: \end{equation}
416: leading to the correct result \cite{DStheta}
417: $D_\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{t}=2-2h_{2,2}=\frac{7}{4}$ for a polymer at the
418: $\Theta$ point ($m=2$), and
419: \begin{equation}
420: \label{etat}
421: \eta_\mathrm{t} = 2-3\bar\kappa_-/4 - 1/\bar\kappa_- = 4 h_{m/2,m/2}.
422: \end{equation}
423: The right hand of this equation is in agreement with the results
424: $\eta_\mathrm{t}=4 h_{1,1}=0$ \cite{DStheta} for the $\Theta$ point
425: ($m=2$) and $\eta_\mathrm{t}=4 h_{2,2} = \frac{3}{20}$
426: \cite{Zamolodchikov} for the tricritical Ising model ($m=4$). After
427: circulating a draft of this paper, we have been informed about a recent
428: high-precision MC study of the tricritical O($N$) model in
429: Ref.~\cite{bloeteetal} previously unavailable to us, in which the
430: authors extend earlier numerical work on the tricritical
431: O($\frac{1}{2}$) model \cite{GBN}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:xh_c}, we compare
432: our theoretical prediction (\ref{etat}) for $\eta_\mathrm{t}$ with the
433: magnetic scaling dimension
434: $x^\mathrm{t}_h=2-y^\mathrm{t}_h=\eta_\mathrm{t}/2$ obtained numerically
435: in that study. For $0 \leq c \leq \frac{7}{10}$, the MC data
436: are within one standard deviation of our prediction. Beyond the
437: tricritical Ising model ($c=\frac{7}{10}$) the numerical data start
438: deviating from our analytic result. A detailed future investigation is
439: required to clarify this discrepancy.
440:
441:
442: \begin{figure}
443: \centering
444: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{xh_c.eps}
445: \caption{Our analytic prediction for the tricritical exponent
446: $\eta_\mathrm{t}$ (solid line) as a function of the central charge $c$
447: compared with high-precision MC data (marks with error bars)
448: \cite{bloeteetal}. Our prediction extends only to $c=1$, indicated by
449: the vertical line, while the numerical results continue to the
450: tricritical O(2) model with $c=1.149(1)$ \cite{bloeteetal}.
451: \label{fig:xh_c}}
452: \end{figure}
453: %
454: The tricritical HT graphs, representing simultaneously the hulls of FK
455: clusters, have a distribution again of the form (\ref{ellb}),
456: characterized by two exponents
457: $\sigma_\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{t}, \tau_\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{t}$. Given our
458: result (\ref{Dt}) for the fractal dimension of these graphs,
459: $\tau_\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{t}$ is determined exactly through
460: Eq.~(\ref{tau}) with $\tau_\mathrm{G}$ and $D_\mathrm{G}$ replaced by
461: their tricritical counterparts $\tau^\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{G}$ and
462: $D^\mathrm{t}_\mathrm{G}$.
463:
464: In conclusion, we have shown that for $-2 \leq N \leq 2$ the fractal
465: structure of 2D HT graphs of the O($N$) spin model encodes the O($N$)
466: critical behavior. We thereby extended de Gennes' result for
467: self-avoiding loops in the limit $N \to 0$ to random loops for arbitrary
468: $-2 \leq N \leq 2$. We studied the loops also close to the point where
469: they collapse, corresponding to the HT representation of the tricritical
470: O($N$) model. The fractal structure of the tricritical loops was argued
471: to be in one-to-one correspondence with that of the critical loops,
472: allowing us to also predict the magnetic scaling dimension
473: $x^\mathrm{t}_h =\eta_\mathrm{t}/2 = 2 h_{m/2,m/2}$ at the O($N)$
474: tricritical point, in very good agreement with recent MC data in the
475: range $0 \leq c \lesssim 0.7$.
476:
477: % \acknowledgments
478: %
479: The authors thank H. Bl\"ote, C. von Ferber, Y. Holovatch, and B.
480: Nienhuis for useful discussions and communications. This work is
481: partially supported by the DFG grant No. JA 483/17-3 and by the
482: German-Israel Foundation (GIF) under grant No.\ I-653-181.14/1999.
483:
484: \vspace{-.4cm}
485:
486: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
487:
488: \vspace{-.4cm}
489:
490: \bibitem{Stanley} H. E. Stanley, \textit{Introduction to Phase
491: Transitions and Critical Phenomena} (Oxford University Press, New
492: York, 1971).
493: \bibitem{deGennes} P. G. de Gennes, Phys. Lett. A \textbf{38}, 339
494: (1972).
495: \bibitem{geoPotts} W. Janke and A. M. J. Schakel, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf
496: 700} [FS], 385 (2004); Comp. Phys. Comm. {\bf 169}, 222 (2005).
497: \bibitem{Dotsenko} For an alternative numerical estimate of $\tau$,
498: using Eq.~(2) \textit{at} criticality, see V. S. Dotsenko \textit{et
499: al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 448} [FS], 577 (1995).
500: \bibitem{bloeteetal} W. Guo, H. W. J. Bl\"ote, and Y.-Y. Liu, Commun.
501: Theor. Phys. (Beijing) {\bf 41}, 911 (2004).
502: \bibitem{DMNS} E. Domany \textit{et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{190},
503: 279 (1981).
504: \bibitem{Nienhuis} B. Nienhuis, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 49}, 1062 (1982);
505: J. Stat. Phys. \textbf{34}, 731 (1984).
506: \bibitem{StauferAharony} D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, {\it Introduction
507: to Percolation Theory}, 2nd edition (Taylor \& Francis, London,
508: 1994).
509: \bibitem{BalianToulouse} R. Balian and G. Toulouse, Phys. Rev. Lett.
510: {\bf 30}, 544 (1973).
511: \bibitem{Nienhuis_rev} B. Nienhuis, in: {\it Phase Transitions and
512: Critical Phenomena}, edited by C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (Academic,
513: London, 1987), Vol. 11, p. 1.
514: \bibitem{SLE} For consistency with Ref.~\cite{geoPotts}, we adopt here
515: the notation (apart from normalization) of the stochastic Loewner
516: evolution (SLE$_\kappa$) formalism which puts various known results
517: cited below on a mathematical rigorous footing. Specifically,
518: $\bar{\kappa}_- := \kappa/4$. For an overview on SLE$_\kappa$, see O.
519: Schramm, Israel J. Math. {\bf 118}, 221 (2000); S. Rohde and O.
520: Schramm, Ann. Math. {\bf 161}, 879
521: (2005); B. Duplantier, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 110}, 691 (2003).
522: \bibitem{Vanderzande} C. Vanderzande, J. Phys. A {\bf 25}, L75 (1992).
523: \bibitem{Jensen} I. Jensen, J. Phys. A {\bf 36}, 5731 (2003).
524: \bibitem{Cloizeaux} J. des Cloizeaux, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 10}, 1665
525: (1974).
526: \bibitem{Coniglioetal} A. Coniglio \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. B {\bf
527: 35}, 3617 (1987).
528: \bibitem{SDFK} B. Duplantier and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58},
529: 2325 (1987).
530: \bibitem{DStheta} B. Duplantier and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
531: 59}, 539 (1987); \textit{ibid.} {\bf 62}, 1368 (1989).
532: \bibitem{Potts} R. B. Potts, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. {\bf 48}, 106
533: (1952).
534: \bibitem{FK} C. M. Fortuin and P. W. Kasteleyn, Physica {\bf 57}, 536
535: (1972).
536: \bibitem{DBN} Y. Deng, H. W. J. Bl\"ote, and B. Nienhuis, Phys. Rev. E
537: {\bf 69}, 026123 (2004).
538: \bibitem{DS89} B. Duplantier and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63},
539: 2536 (1989).
540: \bibitem{Zamolodchikov} A. B. Zamolodchikov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf
541: 44}, 529 (1986).
542: \bibitem{GBN} W. Guo, H. W. J. Bl\"ote, and B. Nienhuis, Int. J. Mod.
543: Phys. C {\bf 10}, 291 (1999).
544: \end{thebibliography}
545:
546: \end{document}
547:
548: