1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{epsfig}

4: \usepackage{psfig}

5: %\usepackage[dvips]{color}

6: % put your own definitions here:

7: \def\lsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

8: \def\gsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

9: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10: % The lines below are necessary in order to enumerate the equations

11: % according to the sections where they are.

12: %\makeatletter

13: %\@addtoreset{equation}{section}

14: %\makeatother

15: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

16: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------

17: \setlength{\parskip}{2ex}

18: \setlength{\textwidth}{15cm}

19: \setlength{\textheight}{22.5cm}

20: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.5cm}

21: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.5cm}

22: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5cm}

23: % this causes footnotes to be numbered by letters rather than numbers

24: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}

25: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.01}

26: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.99}

27: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.99}

28: %

29: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.25}

30: \arraycolsep3mm

31: %

32: \newcommand{\lima} {\stackrel{\scriptstyle a \rightarrow 0}{ \longrightarrow}}

33: \newcommand{\tilsub}[1] {\raisebox{-1ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle \bf #1}

34: {\scriptstyle \sim}$}}

35: 

36: % DEFINITIONS

37: \newcommand{\<}{\langle}

38: \renewcommand{\>}{\rangle}

39: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

40: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

41: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

42: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

43: \newcommand{\tr}{\mathop{\rm Tr}\nolimits}

44: %\ltapprox and \gtapprox produce > and < signs with twiddle underneath

45: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}

46: \def\ltapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

47:  \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}

48: \def\gtapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

49:  \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}

50: %SOME OTHER DEFINITIONS

51: \def\s#1{\tilde{{\bf #1}}}

52: \def\t#1{{\bf #1}}

53: \def\ad#1{$\,^{\rm #1}$}

54: \def\NT{N_\tau}

55: \def\nt{\ifmmode\NT\else$\NT$\fi}

56: \def\NS{N_\sigma}

57: \def\ns{\ifmmode\NS\else$\NS$\fi}

58: \def\ZP{{ Z.\ Phys.\ }}

59: \def\PR{{ Phys.\ Rev.\ }}

60: \def\PRep{{ Phys.\ Rep.\ }}

61: \def\PRL{{ Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ }}

62: \def\PL{{ Phys.\ Lett.\ }}

63: \def\NP{{ Nucl.\ Phys.\ }}

64: 

65: %

66: \def\PBP{{\langle \bar\psi\psi \rangle }}

67: \def\OP{{\langle M \rangle }}

68: \def\OPQ{{\langle M^2 \rangle }}

69: \def\MO{{\langle |M| \rangle }}

70: \def\EN{{\langle P \rangle }}

71: \def\ENQ{{\langle P^2 \rangle }}

72: \def\p{^\prime}

73: \def\v{\vec}

74: \def\n{\noindent}

75: \def\nn{\nonumber}

76: \def\bn{\bigskip\noindent}

77: \def\mn{\medskip\noindent}

78: %

79: 

80: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

81: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

82: 

83: \begin{document}

84: \begin{titlepage} 

85: \thispagestyle{empty}

86: 

87:  \mbox{} \hfill BI-TP 2001/07\\

88:  \mbox{} \hfill May 2001

89: % \mbox{} \hfill hep-lat/01050xx

90: \begin{center}

91: \vspace*{1.0cm}

92: {{\Large \bf Finite-size-scaling functions for  \\         

93:   $3d$ $O(4)$ and $O(2)$ spin models and QCD\\}}\vspace*{1.0cm}

94: {\large J. Engels\ad a, S. Holtmann\ad a, T. Mendes\ad b and

95:  T. Schulze\ad a}\\ \vspace*{0.8cm}

96: \centerline {{\large $^{\rm a}$}{\em Fakult\"at f\"ur Physik, 

97:     Universit\"at Bielefeld, D-33615 Bielefeld, Germany}} \vspace*{0.4cm}

98: \centerline {{\large $^{\rm b}$}{\em IFSC-USP, Caixa postal 369,

99:     13560-970 S\~ao Carlos SP, Brazil}} \vspace*{0.4cm}

100: \protect\date \\ \vspace*{0.9cm}

101: {\bf   Abstract   \\ } \end{center} \indent

102: We calculate numerically universal finite-size-scaling functions for

103: the three-dimen\-sio\-nal $O(4)$ and $O(2)$ models. The approach of these

104: functions to the infinite-volume scaling functions is studied in 

105: detail on the critical and pseudocritical lines. For this purpose we

106: determine the pseudocritical line in two different ways. We find that 

107: the asymptotic form of the finite-size-scaling functions is already 

108: reached at small values of the scaling variable. A comparison with QCD 

109: lattice data for two flavours of staggered fermions shows a similar 

110: finite-size behaviour which {\em is compatible} with that of the 

111: spin models.

112: \vfill \begin{flushleft} 

113: PACS : 64.60.C; 75.10.H; 12.38.Gc \\ 

114: Keywords: Finite-size-scaling function; $O(N)$ model; Quantum chromodynamics \\ 

115: \noindent{\rule[-.3cm]{5cm}{.02cm}} \\

116: \vspace*{0.2cm} 

117: E-mail: engels,holtmann,tschulze@physik.uni-bielefeld.de; mendes@if.sc.usp.br

118: \end{flushleft} 

119: \end{titlepage}

120: 

121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

122: 

123: \section{Introduction}

124: 

125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

126: At finite temperature quantum chromodynamics (QCD) undergoes a chiral phase

127: transition. For two degenerate light-quark flavours this transition is 

128: supposed to be of 

129: second order in the continuum limit and to belong to the same universality 

130: class as the $3d$ $O(4)$ model \cite{PW}-\cite{RW}. QCD lattice data have 

131: therefore been compared to the universal $O(4)$ scaling function 

132: \cite{first}-\cite{Ejiri}. The scaling function or equation of state describes

133: the system in the thermodynamic limit, that is for $V\rightarrow \infty$.

134: It was first determined numerically in Ref.\ \cite{Toussaint} and later

135: studied in more detail in Ref.\ \cite{EM}. Lattice results for Wilson 

136: fermions \cite{Iwas,wilson} seem to agree quite well with the predictions,

137: though for the Wilson action the chiral symmetry is only restored in the 

138: continuum limit. In the staggered formulation of QCD a part of the 

139: chiral symmetry is remaining even for finite lattice spacing, and that

140: is $O(2)$. Nevertheless, comparisons with $O(4)$ or even $O(2)$ scaling 

141: functions \cite{o2} have up to now not confirmed the expectations for

142: staggered fermions \cite{JLQCD}-\cite{MILC}. Among the many arguments 

143: \cite{MILC,Ber}, which have been put forward to explain this failure,

144: one is obvious, namely, that lattice QCD simulations are still performed

145: on relatively small volumes and therefore will show substantial

146: finite size effects. More adequate tests may be carried out, if

147: universal finite-size-scaling functions for the $O(N)$-spin models are

148: available. This exactly is the aim of the paper: the  calculation of 

149: finite-size-scaling functions for the $O(4)$ and $O(2)$ models and a 

150: corresponding test of QCD lattice data. 

151: 

152: We shall make extensive use of the results of two of our papers: a study 

153: of the three-dimensional $O(4)$ model, Ref.\ \cite{EM}, and another one

154: for the $O(2)$ model, Ref.\ \cite{o2}. There we determined the respective

155: equations of state. In the following we briefly review the equations

156: which are relevant for this paper.

157: 

158: The $O(N)$-invariant nonlinear $\sigma$-models, which we 

159: investigate are defined by

160: \be

161: \beta\,{\cal H}\;=\;-J \,\sum_{<i,j>} {\bf S}_i\cdot {\bf S}_j

162:          \;-\; {\bf H}\cdot\,\sum_{i} {\bf S}_i \;,

163: \ee

164: where $i$ and $j$ are nearest-neighbour sites on a $d-$dimensional 

165: hypercubic lattice, and ${\bf S}_i$ is an $N$-component unit vector 

166: at site $i$. It is convenient to decompose 

167: the spin vector ${\bf S}_i$ into a longitudinal (parallel to the magnetic 

168: field ${\bf H}$) and a transverse component 

169: \be

170: {\bf S}_i\; =\; S_i^{\parallel} {\bf \hat H} + {\bf S}_i^{\perp} ~.

171: \ee

172: The order parameter of the system, the magnetization $M$, is then the 

173: expectation value of the lattice average $S^{\parallel}$

174: of the longitudinal spin component

175: \be

176: M \;=\; <\!\frac{1}{V}\sum_{i} S_i^{\parallel}>\; =\; <  S^{\parallel}>~.

177: \ee

178: There are two types of susceptibilities: the longitudinal 

179: susceptibility is defined as usual by the derivative of the magnetization, 

180: whereas the transverse susceptibility corresponds to the fluctuation 

181: of the lattice average ${\bf S}^{\perp}$ of the transverse spin per component

182: \ba

183: \chi_L\!\! &\!=\!&\!\! {\partial M \over \partial H}

184:  \;=\; V(<{ S^{\parallel}}^2>-M^2)~, \label{chil}\\

185: \chi_T\!\! &\!=\!&\!\!{V \over N-1}< {{\bf S}^{\perp}}^2> 

186: \;=\; {M \over H}

187: ~. \label{chit}

188: \ea

189: We do not discuss here as in \cite{EM} and \cite{o2} the singularities of 

190: the susceptibilities on the coexistence line which are

191: due to the Goldstone modes. We simply note, that 

192: the general Widom-Griffiths form of the equation of state \cite{Griffiths},

193: which describes the critical behaviour of the magnetization

194: in the vicinity of $T_c$, is compatible with these singularities. It

195: is given by

196: \be

197: y\;=\;f(x)\;,

198: \label{eqstate}

199: \ee

200: where 

201: \be

202: y \equiv h/M^{\delta}, \quad x \equiv t/M^{1/\beta}.

203: \label{xy}

204: \ee

205: The variables $t$ and $h$ are the normalized 

206: reduced temperature $t=(T-T_c)/T_0$ and magnetic field $h=H/H_0$.

207: We take the usual normalization conditions 

208: \be

209: f(0) = 1, \quad f(-1) = 0~.

210: \label{normal}

211: \ee

212: The critical exponents $\delta$ and $\beta$ appearing in Eqs.~\ref{eqstate}

213: and \ref{xy} specify all the other critical exponents

214: \be

215: d\nu=\beta(1+\delta),\quad\gamma=\beta(\delta-1),\quad \nu_c=\nu/\beta\delta~.

216: \ee

217: Possible irrelevant scaling fields and exponents are however not taken 

218: into account in Eq.\ \ref{eqstate}, the function $f(x)$ 

219: is universal. Another way to express the dependence of the magnetization 

220: on $t$ and $h$ is

221: \be

222: M\;=\;h^{1/\delta} f_G(t/h^{1/\beta\delta})~,

223: \label{ftous}

224: \ee

225: where $f_G$ is a scaling function. This type of 

226: scaling equation is used for comparison to QCD lattice data.

227: The scaling forms in Eqs.\ (\ref{eqstate}) and (\ref{ftous}) are 

228: clearly equivalent, since the variables $x$ and $y$ are related 

229: to the scaling function $f_G$ and its argument by

230: \be

231:  y\;=\;f_G^{-\delta} \;, \quad  

232: x \;=\;(t/h^{1/\beta\delta})\, f_G^{-1/\beta}\;.

233: \ee

234: In Refs. \cite{EM} and \cite{o2} we had parametrized the equation of

235: state by a combination of a small-$x$ (low temperature) form $x_s(y)$,

236: which was inspired by the approximation of Wallace and Zia \cite{WZ} close

237: to the coexistence line ($x=-1;~y=0$)

238: \be

239: x_s(y)+1 \;=\; ({\widetilde c_1} \,+\, {\widetilde d_3})\,y \,+\,

240:              {\widetilde c_2}\,y^{1/2} \,+\, 

241:              {\widetilde d_2}\,y^{3/2} \;,

242: \label{PTform}

243: \ee

244: and a large-$x$ (high temperature) form $x_l(y)$ derived from  

245: Griffiths's analyticity condition\cite{Griffiths}

246: \be

247: x_l(y)\;=\; a\, y^{1/\gamma} \,+\, b\,y^{(1-2\beta)/\gamma}~.

248: \label{highx}

249: \ee

250: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

251: \begin{table}[ht]

252: \begin{center}

253:   \begin{tabular}{|ccc||cc||cc||c|}

254:     \hline

255: ${\widetilde c_1} \,+\, {\widetilde d_3}$ &${\widetilde c_2}$ &

256: $ {\widetilde d_2}$ & $a$ & $b$ & $y_0$ & $p$& \\ \hline \hline

257:  0.345(12)& 0.674(08)& -0.023(5)& 1.084(6)& -0.994(109)

258: & 10.0 & 3 & $O(4)$ \\ \hline                 

259:  0.352(30)& 0.592(10) & 0.056 & 1.260(3)& -1.163(20)

260: & $\;~3.5$ & 6 & $O(2)$ \\ \hline                 

261:   \end{tabular}

262: \end{center}

263: \caption{Parameters of the fits to the scaling functions for $O(4)$

264: and $O(2)$.}

265: 

266: \label{tab:param}

267: \end{table}

268: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

269: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

270: \begin{table}[ht]

271: \begin{center}

272:   \begin{tabular}{|ccccc||ccc||c|}

273:     \hline

274: $\beta$ &$\delta$ & $\gamma$ & $\nu$ & $\nu_c$ 

275: & $J_c$ & $T_0$ & $H_0$ & \\ \hline \hline

276:  0.380 & 4.86 & 1.4668 & 0.7423 & 0.4019

277: & 0.93590 & 1.093 & 5.08 & $O(4)$ \\ \hline                 

278:  0.349 & 4.7798 & 1.3192 & 0.6724 & 0.4031 

279: & 0.454165 & 1.18 & 1.11 & $O(2)$ \\ \hline                 

280:   \end{tabular}

281: \end{center}

282: \caption{Critical parameters used in the $O(4)$ \cite{EM} and $O(2)$ \cite{o2}

283: calculations.}

284: 

285: \label{tab:critic}

286: \end{table}

287: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

288: \n The two parts can be interpolated smoothly by an ansatz of the kind

289: \be

290: x(y) \;=\; x_s(y)\,\frac{y_0^p}{y_0^p + y^p} \,+\,

291:            x_l(y)\,\frac{y^p}{y_0^p + y^p}~,

292: \label{totalfit}

293: \ee

294: from which the total scaling function is obtained. In Table

295: \ref{tab:param} the parameters of these fits are listed. Two remarks

296: are necessary here: for $O(2)$ the coefficient ${\widetilde d_2}$ was 

297: fixed by the normalization $y(0)=1$, that is ${\widetilde d_2}= 1-(   

298: {\widetilde c_1}+{\widetilde d_3}+{\widetilde c_2})$, and in the $O(4)$

299: case the coefficient $b$ was incorrectly cited in Ref.\ \cite{EM}. Of course,

300: the scaling functions are not independent of the critical points, amplitudes

301: and exponents, which had been used in their determination. For completeness

302: we therefore give in Table \ref{tab:critic} the relevant input.

303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

304: 

305: \section{Finite-Size-Scaling Functions}

306: \label{section:FSSF}

307: 

308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

309: The general form of the finite-size-scaling function for the magnetization

310: is given by

311: \be

312: M = L^{-\beta/\nu} \Phi ( tL^{1/\nu}, hL^{1/\nu_c}, L^{-\omega})~,

313: \label{fssm}

314: \ee

315: that is, we have a function of three (or even more) variables, which describes

316: the dependence of the magnetization on the thermal, magnetic and possible

317: irrelevant scaling fields and the characteristic linear extension $L$ of the

318: volume. Here we have specified only the leading irrelevant 

319: scaling field proportional to $L^{-\omega}$, with $\omega >0$. A universal 

320: scaling function is obtained, when we expand the function $\Phi$ in 

321: $L^{-\omega}$ and consider the first term only 

322: \be

323: M = L^{-\beta/\nu} \Phi_0 ( tL^{1/\nu}, hL^{1/\nu_c})  + \dots~.

324: \label{mexpan}

325: \ee

326: %Figure for \chi_L

327: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

328: \begin{figure}[htb]

329: \begin{center}

330:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

331:         file=fgc.ps,width=84mm}

332: \end{center}

333: \caption{The scaling function $f_{G\chi}(z)$ of the longitudinal

334: susceptibility for the $O(4)$ and $O(2)$ models.} 

335: \label{fig:chil}

336: \end{figure}

337: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

338: The function $\Phi_0$ still depends on two variables.

339: In order to handle the two-variable dependence of $\Phi_0$ in an economic

340: way, we consider in the following paths in the $(t,h)$-plane defined by

341: fixed values of $z=th^{-1/\beta\delta}$. At fixed $z$ we can express one

342: of the two variables of Eq.\ (\ref{mexpan}) by $z$ and the other variable,

343: leaving us with a function of one variable only

344: \be

345: M = L^{-\beta/\nu} Q_z ( hL^{1/\nu_c})  + \dots~,

346: \label{mq0}

347: \ee

348: where $Q_z$ is again universal.

349: The procedure has the additional advantage that $z$ is the argument of

350: the scaling function $f_G$ of Eq.\ (\ref{ftous}), thus requiring only 

351: one point of $f_G$ to calculate the asymptotic form $Q_{z,\infty}$

352: of the finite-size-scaling function $Q_z$

353: \be

354: Q_z \rightarrow  Q_{z,\infty} = f_G(z)( hL^{1/\nu_c})^{1/\delta}

355: \quad \mbox{for}\quad L\rightarrow \infty~.

356: \label{Qasy}

357: \ee

358: Examples of lines of fixed $z$

359: are the critical line where $z=0$ and the pseudocritical line, the line of

360: peak positions of the susceptibility $\chi_L$ in the $(t,h)$-plane

361: for $V\rightarrow \infty$. There are two ways to find that value of $z$ for

362: $O(N)$, which corresponds to the pseudocritcal line. One way amounts to

363: locating the peak positions of $\chi_L$ as a function of the temperature at 

364: different fixed small values of the magnetic field on lattices with increasing 

365: size $L^3$. This method has been used in QCD. For staggered fermions the 

366: pseudocritical line thus found shows up to now the most convincing agreement 

367: with the $O(N)$ models. The scaling function offers a more elegant way 

368: to determine the pseudocritical line. Since $\chi_L$ is the derivative of $M$ 

369: \be

370: \chi_L={\partial M\over \partial H}={h^{1/\delta-1} \over H_0} f_{G\chi}(z)~,

371: \label{max}

372: \ee

373: its scaling function $f_{G\chi}(z)$ can be calculated directly from $f_G(z)$

374: \be

375: f_{G\chi}(z)={1 \over \delta}

376: \left ( f_G(z) - {z\over \beta}f_G\p(z) \right)~.

377: \label{fgc}

378: \ee

379: Evidently, the maximum of $\chi_L$ at fixed $h$ and varying $t$ is at 

380: the peak position $z_p$ of  $f_{G\chi}(z)$ and  $z_p$ is another universal

381: quantity. In Fig.\ \ref{fig:chil} we show the result for $f_{G\chi}(z)$ from 

382: Eq.\ (\ref{fgc}) using the scaling functions $f_G$ for $O(4)$ and $O(2)$ 

383: as obtained from Table \ref{tab:param}. In this calculation we have 

384: interpolated the small-$x$ and large-$x$ derivatives $y(dx/dy)$ to smooth the

385: result. We see from Fig.\ \ref{fig:chil} that there is a relatively broad

386: peak at positive $z$ and we can read off the value of $z_p$ for the two

387: models. They are listed in Table \ref{tab:zp} together with the peak height

388: of $f_{G\chi}$. It is instructive to use the 

389: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

390: \begin{table}[h!]

391: \begin{center}

392:   \begin{tabular}{|cc||c||c|}

393:     \hline

394: \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{Scaling function} & $L=24$ to 96 & \\ \cline{1-3} 

395: $z_p$ & $f_{G\chi}(z_p)$ & $z_p$ & \\ \hline \hline

396: $1.33 \pm 0.05$ & 0.341(1)  & $1.35 \pm 0.10$ & $O(4)$ \\ \hline                 

397: $1.56 \pm 0.10$ & 0.350(1)  & $1.65 \pm 0.10$ & $O(2)$ \\ \hline                 

398:   \end{tabular}

399: \end{center}

400: \caption{The peak position and height of the scaling function $f_{G\chi}\,$, 

401: and $z_p$ from calculations on lattices with size $L=24$ to 96.}

402: 

403: \label{tab:zp}

404: \end{table}

405: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

406: 

407: \n QCD method for $z_p$ determination on finite 

408: lattices as well. For that purpose we have calculated at eight values of the 

409: magnetic field on lattices of size $L=24,\dots,96$ the peak positions and heights 

410: for $O(4)$. The infinite volume estimates for the two quantities are compared

411: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:poshei} and Table \ref{tab:zp} to the results from the scaling 

412: function. We observe in Fig.\ \ref{fig:poshei}a that the agreement is very

413: good for the peak positions at small $h$. At larger $h$ there is a slight

414: tendency towards somewhat higher pseudocritical temperatures than expected

415: from the fixed $z$ relation between $t$ and $h$ at the peak. The peak heights 

416: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:poshei}b on the other hand are following nicely the

417: prediction $\chi_L=0.244 H^{1/\delta -1}$ from the scaling function for all

418: $H$. We have obtained similar results for $O(2)$ at two values of $H$. Fig.\

419: \ref{fig:poshei}a contains also lines for several other fixed $z$ values 

420: to give a better overview of the $(t,h)$-plane. As examples we shall 

421: investigate in the next two subsections the finite-size behaviour of the 

422: magnetization on the lines $z=0$ and $z=z_p$.

423: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

424: 

425: \subsection{Finite-Size Scaling in the $O(4)$ Model}

426: 

427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

428: \n Our simulations are done on three-dimensional lattices with periodic

429: boundary conditions and linear extensions $L$ up to 120. We use the same

430: cluster algorithm as in Refs.\ \cite{EM,o2}. Let us first consider the 

431: critical line in $O(4)$. In Fig.\ 4b of Ref.\ \cite{EM} we had 

432: observed, that there are essentially no corrections to scaling on the 

433: critical line. Here we extend this investigation by including more 

434: points at higher and also very

435: \newpage

436: %------------------------------------------------------------------------

437: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

438: \begin{picture}(13,7.3)

439: \put(0,0){

440:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

441:        file=zf4.ps, width=67mm}

442:           }

443: \put(7.5,0){

444:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

445:        file=ch4.ps, width=67mm}

446:           }

447: \end{picture}

448: \begin{figure}[h!]

449: \caption{(a) Lines of fixed $z=0.5,1,1.5,2$ (dashes), the pseudocritical

450: line (solid) at $z_p=1.33\pm 0.05$ and measured peak positions

451: (squares). (b) the peak height of $\chi_L$ as a function of $H$, measured

452: (squares) and from the scaling funtion (solid line).

453: Both parts of the figure refer to the $O(4)$ model.}

454: \label{fig:poshei}

455: \end{figure}

456: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

457: 

458: %------------------------------------------------------------------------

459: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

460: \begin{picture}(13,6.5)

461: \put(0,0){

462:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

463:        file=o4jcp.ps, width=67mm}

464:           }

465: \put(7.5,0){

466:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

467:        file=o4logjcp.ps, width=67mm}

468:           }

469: \end{picture}

470: \begin{figure}[h!]

471: \caption{(a) Finite-size scaling of $ML^{\beta/\nu}$ for $O(4)$, Eq.\ 

472: \ref{mq0}, on the critical line. The solid line shows the

473: asymptotic form $Q_{0,\infty}$, the symbols denote different lattice

474: sizes $L$. (b) is a double-log plot of (a).}

475: \label{fig:o40}

476: \end{figure}

477: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

478: 

479: \n 

480: small values of the scaling variable $HL^{1/\nu_c}$. The new scaling plot 

481: is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:o40}a. With the higher amount of data we find 

482: that the finite-size-scaling function $Q_0$ is actually reached from below

483: with increasing $L$, though the differences between different $L$ are 

484: hardly visible. In Fig.\ \ref{fig:o40}b, where we show the same data

485: logarithmically, we see that $Q_0$ approaches $Q_{0,\infty}$ from below

486: and coincides with its asymptotic form already at about $HL^{1/\nu_c}

487: \approx 20$. 

488: 

489: \n We have also calculated the magnetization on the pseudocritical line

490: (for $O(4)$ at $z_p=1.33$) on a variety of finite lattices. The scaling plot

491: is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:o4pc}a. It differs from Fig.\ \ref{fig:o40}a 

492: in several respects. There are strong corrections to scaling and the

493: approach to the universal function $Q_{z_p}$ is from above. If one looks at

494: the logarithmic plot, Fig.\ \ref{fig:o4pc}b, one finds a similar increase

495: at small $HL^{1/\nu_c}$ as in the case of the critical line. Here the

496: asymptotic form $Q_{z_p,\infty}$ is reached around $HL^{1/\nu_c}\approx 30$.

497: Since $Q_{z_p,\infty}$ was calculated from Eq.\ \ref{Qasy} we confirm 

498: herewith also the value of $f_G(z_p)$.

499: %------------------------------------------------------------------------

500: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

501: \begin{picture}(13,7.2)

502: \put(0.5,0){

503:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

504:        file=o4psp.ps, width=67mm}

505:           }

506: \put(8.0,0){

507:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

508:        file=o4logpsp.ps, width=67mm}

509:           }

510: \end{picture}

511: \begin{figure}[h!]

512: \caption{(a) Finite-size scaling of $ML^{\beta/\nu}$ for $O(4)$

513: on the pseudocritical line. The solid line shows the

514: asymptotic form $Q_{z_p,\infty}$, the symbols denote different lattice

515: sizes $L$. (b) is a double-log plot of (a).}

516: \label{fig:o4pc}

517: \end{figure}

518: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

519: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

520: 

521: \subsection{Finite-Size Scaling in the $O(2)$ Model}

522: 

523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

524: In Ref.\ \cite{o2} we have found negative corrections to scaling on the 

525: coexistence line and less pronounced ones also on the critical line of the 

526: $O(2)$ model in the thermodynamic limit. The occurrence of these corrections

527: is well understood by renormalization-group theory \cite{Bagnuls}. On finite 

528: lattices we expect because of the corrections considerable finite-size 

529: effects on the critical line. We have calculated the magnetization on 8 

530: lattices with $L=8$ to 96 \cite{latt} and show the results from the

531: reweighted data in Fig.\ \ref{fig:o20}a. From these curves we have estimated

532: the universal scaling function $Q_0$ by square fits in $L^{-\omega}$ at fixed

533: values of $HL^{1/\nu_c}$. The exponent ${\omega}=0.79(2)$ was taken from 

534: Ref.\ \cite{Hase}. In Fig.\ \ref{fig:o20}b we compare $Q_0$ to the asymptotic

535: form $Q_{0,\infty}$ and data for

536: \newpage

537: %------------------------------------------------------------------------

538: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

539: \begin{picture}(13,7.2)

540: \put(-0.15,0){

541:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

542:        file=o2jcp.ps, width=67mm}

543:           }

544: \put(7.35,0){

545:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

546:        file=o2logjcp.ps, width=67mm}

547:           }

548: \end{picture}

549: \begin{figure}[h!]

550: \caption{(a) $ML^{\beta/\nu}$ on the critical line for $O(2)$ from reweighted

551: data (solid lines) on lattices with different $L$. The dashed line shows

552: the estimate for $Q_0$. (b) is a double-log plot of (a), including the

553: asymptotic form $Q_{0,\infty}$ (solid line) and  with the direct data 

554: for $L \ge 24$ (notation like in Fig.\ \ref{fig:o40}a) replacing the 

555: reweighting lines.}

556: \label{fig:o20}

557: \end{figure}

558: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

559: 

560: %------------------------------------------------------------------------

561: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

562: \begin{picture}(13,6.5)

563: \put(-0.15,0){

564:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

565:        file=o2psp.ps, width=67mm}

566:           }

567: \put(7.35,0){

568:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

569:        file=o2logpsp.ps, width=67mm}

570:           }

571: \end{picture}

572: \begin{figure}[h!]

573: \caption{(a) Finite-size scaling of $ML^{\beta/\nu}$ for $O(2)$ 

574: on the pseudocritical line. The solid line shows the

575: asymptotic form $Q_{z_p,\infty}$, the symbols denote different lattice

576: sizes $L$. (b) is a double-log plot of (a).}

577: \label{fig:o2pc}

578: \end{figure}

579: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

580: 

581: \n $L \ge 24$ in a logarithmic plot. As for the $O(4)$ model we observe an

582: approach  

583: of $Q_0$ from below to $Q_{0,\infty}$; from $HL^{1/\nu_c}\approx 10$ on

584: the two curves coincide, that is $Q_0$ is asymptotic. On the pseudocritical 

585: line (we have used a somewhat larger value $z_p=1.67$ for $O(2)$ ) we find

586: again - like for $O(4)$ - an approach of the finite lattice results from

587: above to the asymptotic finite-size-scaling function as can be seen from

588: Fig.\ \ref{fig:o2pc}. From the different correction behaviours along the 

589: critical and pseudocritical lines in both $O(N)$ models one may speculate 

590: upon the existence of an intermediate $z$ value where the corrections 

591: disappear. It is unclear, however, what type of corrections to the universal

592: scaling functions $Q_z$ will be present in QCD.

593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

594: 

595: \section{Comparison to $N_f=2$ QCD}

596: \label{section:QCD}

597: 

598: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

599: We mentioned already in the introduction QCD lattice calculations 

600: for two light-quark flavours in the staggered formulation 

601: \cite{JLQCD}-\cite{MILC}. The temperature and the magnetic field which 

602: one uses in our context here are defined, except for two metric factors, by

603: \be

604: t \sim {6 \over g^2} -  {6 \over g_c^2(0)}\quad \mbox{and} \quad 

605: h \sim m_q aN_{\tau}~.

606: \label{tandh}

607: \ee

608: The coupling $g_c(0)$ denotes the critical coupling in the limit 

609: $m_q \rightarrow 0$ on a lattice with a fixed number $\NT$ of points in 

610: the temporal direction. The critical point is that of the chiral transition 

611: with $\PBP$ as order parameter or magnetization. 

612: Correspondingly, the pseudocritical coupling $g_c(m_q)$ is given by the 

613: location of the peak of the chiral susceptibility $\chi_m$ at fixed quark

614: mass $m_q$. By universality arguments the pseudocritical line is then

615: predicted as

616: \be

617:  {6 \over g_c^2(m_q)} = {6 \over g_c^2(0)} +c m_q^{1/\beta\delta}~.

618: \label{psline}

619: \ee 

620: If the two metric factors normalizing $t$ and $h$ are known, the constant 

621: $c$ in Eq. (\ref{psline}) is fixed by the universal value of $z_p$.

622: 

623:  In 1998 the JLQCD collaboration \cite{JLQCD} determined the peak heights 

624: and positions of $\chi_m$ at $m_qa=0.01,0.02,0.0375,0.075$ on lattices 

625: with spatial sizes $8^3,12^3$ and $16^3$ and $\NT=4$ and found reasonable

626: agreement with Eq. (\ref{psline}) for $O(4)$ or $O(2)$. We have evaluated

627: the $\PBP$ data \cite{Kazuy} of the JLQCD collaboration at the peak 

628: positions listed in Table II of their paper. The resulting values are 

629: shown in a finite-size-scaling plot with $O(4)$ exponents in Fig.\ 

630: \ref{fig:scjpbi}a.

631: On lattices of the same sizes and also at the same quark masses, apart 

632: from the lowest one, the Bielefeld group \cite{Edqcd} calculated $\PBP$ at 

633: their own peak positions \cite{Edw}. These data are plotted in Fig.\ 

634: \ref{fig:scjpbi}b in the same way as those of the JLQCD collaboration. 

635: In both parts of Fig.\ \ref{fig:scjpbi} we see a behaviour which is similar

636: to the one in Fig.\ \ref{fig:o4pc}a. The corrections to scaling are such

637: that the finite-size-scaling function seems to be approached from above. 

638: Only at smaller values of the scaling variable, that is here for smaller 

639: values of the quark mass, it appears that the data from all lattices are

640: higher than expected. This is even more visible in the logarithmic plot,

641: Fig.\ \ref{fig:comp}, where we show all the data together. Evidently,

642: instead of falling rapidly at small masses, there is even a relative

643: increase.

644: \newpage

645: %

646: %------------------------------------------------------------------------

647: \setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}

648: \begin{picture}(13,7.2)

649: \put(-0.15,0){

650:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

651:        file=psijpp.ps, width=67mm}

652:           }

653: \put(7.35,0){

654:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

655:        file=psibip.ps, width=67mm}

656:           }

657: \end{picture}

658: \begin{figure}[h!]

659: \caption{$L^{\beta/\nu}\PBP$ at the peak positions of $\chi_m$ versus

660: $m_q a L^{1/\nu_c}$ from QCD lattice data with two degenerate staggered 

661: fermions. The exponents are from the $O(4)$ model.

662: (a) JLQCD collaboration \cite{Kazuy}, (b) Bielefeld group

663: \cite{Edw}. The lines are drawn to guide the eye.}

664: \label{fig:scjpbi}

665: \end{figure}

666: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

667: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

668: \begin{figure}[hb]

669: \begin{center}

670:    \epsfig{bbllx=127,bblly=264,bburx=451,bbury=587,

671:         file=logjpbip.ps,width=84mm}

672: \end{center}

673: \caption{Logarithmic plot of Fig.\ \ref{fig:scjpbi}. The QCD data of JLQCD

674: (empty symbols) and Bielefeld (filled symbols) are compared to the 

675: asymptotic $O(4)$-finite-size-scaling function (solid line). The notation

676: for the symbols is as in Fig.\ \ref{fig:scjpbi}.} 

677: \label{fig:comp}

678: \end{figure}

679: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------

680: 

681: \n On the other hand the value of $\PBP$ at very small $m_q$

682: is more sensitive to the exact position of evaluation, because $\PBP$ is steeper

683: there. Moreover, we are not precisely on a line of fixed $z$ and there is an

684: additional finite-size effect due to the separate position determination

685: at each point and for each lattice size. The error in the position location has

686: not been taken into account in the plots. With increasing quark mass the data 

687: points in Fig.\ \ref{fig:comp} must follow a straight line with slope

688: $1/\delta$, if the universality hypothesis \cite{PW}-\cite{RW} is true.     

689: We have therefore compared the data to a line $\bar c +(1/\delta)\ln (m_q 

690: a L^{1/\nu_c})$, which represents the asymptotic finite-size-scaling 

691: function. Because of the unknown metric factors of QCD the constant $\bar c$ 

692: was chosen freely. We see in this comparison that the data are indeed

693: compatible with the expected behaviour, especially when we take into account  

694: that the lattice sizes are still small and corrections are probably present.

695: We have repeated the analysis with $O(2)$ exponents. They differ only slightly

696: from the ones of $O(4)$: $\beta/\nu$ by 1.4\%, $\nu_c$ by 0.3\% and

697: $\delta$ by 1.7\%. The result is very similar to $O(4)$ and because of the

698: spread of the data, one cannot really distinguish the two cases. 

699: 

700: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

701: 

702: \section{Summary and Conclusions}

703: \label{section:conclusion}

704: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

705: 

706: We have investigated finite-size-scaling (FSS) functions for the 

707: three-dimensional $O(4)$ and $O(2)$ spin models. Our aim was to provide

708: a more suitable basis for a test of QCD lattice data on the conjectured 

709: universality class. In order to reduce the number of variables on which

710: these FSS functions depend, we have calculated these functions along lines

711: of fixed $z=th^{-1/\beta\delta}$ in the $(t,h)$-plane. This choice was 

712: motivated by two prominent examples of such lines: the critical line with

713: $z=0$ and the pseudocritical line of peaks of the susceptibility.

714: Simulations of QCD are usually performed in the neighbourhood of that line.

715: In the $O(N)$ models we found the pseudocritical line from the known 

716: universal scaling functions for $V\rightarrow \infty$. The result was

717: confirmed by a search with finite volume calculations.

718: 

719: On the critical line we found almost no corrections to scaling for $O(4)$,

720: while for $O(2)$ strong ones appear, as would be expected. For both models

721: the universal FSS functions are approached from below with increasing

722: volume. On the pseudocritical line there are considerable 

723: corrections to scaling for both models. Here the approach to the universal

724: FSS functions is from above. In both models and on both lines the 

725: asymptotic forms of the FSS functions are reached already at small values

726: around 10 to 30 of the scaling variable $HL^{1/\nu_c}$ from below.   

727:  

728: We have made FSS plots from two sets of $N_f=2$ QCD lattice data for $\PBP$

729: at the peak positions of the susceptibility $\chi_m$. The general behaviour

730: of the data is similar to that of the $O(N)$ models from finite volumes.

731: We find an approach to a limiting function from above, though at small 

732: quark masses (that is at small magnetic fields) the QCD data seem to be too

733: high. The slope in the logarithmic plot of the data is nevertheless in 

734: nice agreement with the expectation $1/\delta$ of the $O(N)$ models.

735: A test on the critical line would be even more preferable, because there 

736: the $t$ value is independent of $h$. The exact critical point of QCD

737: is however difficult to determine and up to now unknown.

738: 

739: 

740: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

741: \vskip 0.2truecm

742: \noindent{\Large{\bf Acknowledgements}}

743: 

744: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

745: 

746: \n We owe special thanks to Kazuyuki Kanaya for sending us his complete 

747: chiral condensate data and to Edwin Laermann for helpful discussions

748: and his QCD data on the pseudocritical line. We are grateful to David 

749: Miller for a careful reading of the manuscript. Our work was supported 

750: by the Deutsche Forschungs\-ge\-meinschaft under Grant No.\ Ka 1198/4-1,

751: the work of T.M. in addition by FAPESP, Brazil (Project No.00/05047-5).

752: 

753: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

754: 

755: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

756: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

757: 

758: \bibitem{PW} R. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, \PR D29 (1984) 338.

759: 

760: \bibitem{Wil} F. Wilczek, J. Mod.\ Phys.\ A7 (1992) 3911.

761: 

762: \bibitem{RW} K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, \NP B399 (1993) 395.

763: 

764: \bibitem{first} F. Karsch, \PR D49 (1993) 3791;\\

765:                 F. Karsch and E. Laermann, \PR D50 (1994) 6954.

766: 

767: \bibitem{Edwin} E. Laermann, \NP B (Proc. Suppl.) 63A-C (1998) 114.

768: 

769: \bibitem{Ejiri} S. Ejiri, \NP B (Proc. Suppl.) 94 (2001) 19.

770: 

771: \bibitem{Toussaint} D. Toussaint, \PR D55 (1997) 362.

772: 

773: \bibitem{EM} J. Engels and T. Mendes, \NP B572 (2000) 289.

774: 

775: \bibitem{Iwas} Y. Iwasaki, K. Kanaya, S. Kaya and T. Yoshi\'e,

776:               \PRL 78 (1997) 179.

777: 

778: \bibitem{wilson} A. Ali Khan et al.\ (CP-PACS Collaboration),

779:        \NP B (Proc. Suppl.) 83-84 (2000) 360 and

780:            \PR D63 (2000) 034502.   

781: 

782: \bibitem{o2} J. Engels, S. Holtmann, T. Mendes and T. Schulze, 

783:            \PL B492 (2000) 219.

784: 

785: \bibitem{JLQCD} S. Aoki et al.\ (JLQCD Collaboration), 

786:                           \PR D57 (1998) 3910.

787: 

788: \bibitem{Edqcd} E. Laermann, \NP B (Proc. Suppl.) 60A (1998) 180.

789: 

790: 

791: \bibitem{MILC} C. Bernard et al.\ (MILC Collaboration), 

792:                           \PR D61 (2000) 054503.

793: 

794: \bibitem{Ber} A. Berera, \PR D50 (1994) 6949.

795: 

796: \bibitem{Griffiths} R.B. Griffiths, \PR 158 (1967) 176.

797: 

798: \bibitem{WZ} D.J. Wallace and R.K.P. Zia, \PR B12 (1975) 5340.

799: 

800: \bibitem{Bagnuls} C. Bagnuls and C. Bervillier, \PR B41 (1990) 402 and

801:                          \PL A195 (1994) 163. 

802: 

803: \bibitem{latt} J. Engels, S. Holtmann, T. Mendes and T. Schulze, 

804:                         \NP B (Proc. Suppl.) 94 (2001) 861.

805: 

806: \bibitem{Hase} M. Hasenbusch and T. T\"or\"ok, 

807:                       J. Phys. A32 (1999) 6361.

808: 

809: \bibitem{Kazuy} K. Kanaya, private communication.

810: 

811: \bibitem{Edw} E. Laermann, private communication.

812: 

813: \end{thebibliography}

814: 

815: \clearpage

816: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

817: 

818: \end{document}

819: