1: \section{Introduction}
2:
3: The continuum limit of the lattice regularized $\phi^4$ theory in
4: 4 dimensions with $n\ge1$ components is thought to be trivial.
5: The evidence comes from renormalization group studies and numerical
6: simulations; remarkably however there is still no rigorous proof.
7:
8: After a period of intense numerical investigations about 15 years ago,
9: interest in this model within the lattice community dwindled.
10: Occasionally however some authors have questioned
11: the usual procedures of renormalization
12: in the broken phase. In their latest paper \cite{CCC}
13: Cea, Consoli and Cosmai claim to present further numerical evidence
14: for their scenario.
15: From the presentation of the results in their paper a neutral reader
16: would, accepting their analysis, indeed conclude that the
17: conventional wisdom (CW) concerning the critical behavior in the
18: lattice $\phi^4$ was incorrect.
19: The purpose of this paper is to point out the
20: deficiencies of their analyses, and to show that the numerical data is
21: completely consistent with the conventional picture.
22:
23:
24: \section{The lattice theory and renormalization group predictions}
25:
26: The standard lattice $\phi^4$ model is characterized by two bare
27: parameters $\kappa,\lambda$; the action is
28: \footnote{We use the notations in refs.~\cite{LWsymm,LWbroken}.}
29: \be
30: S=\sum_x\left[-2\kappa\sum_{\mu=1}^4\phi(x)\phi(x+\hat{\mu})+\phi(x)^2
31: +\lambda(\phi(x)^2-1)^2\right]\,.
32: \end{equation}
33: There are two phases separated by a line of
34: critical points $\kappa=\kappac(\lambda)$. For $\kappa>\kappac(\lambda)$
35: the symmetry is spontaneously broken and the bare field $\phi(x)$
36: has a non-vanishing expectation value $v$. As usual this is defined by
37: first taking the thermodynamic limit in the presence of an external
38: uniform magnetic field $h$ and then letting this field tend to zero
39: \be
40: v=\lim_{h\to0}\lim_{V\to\infty}\langle\phi(0)\rangle_h\,.
41: \label{vevh}
42: \end{equation}
43:
44: This study will restrict attention to the vacuum expectation
45: value and the connected two-point function
46: \be
47: G(x)=\langle\phi(x)\phi(0)\rangle_{\rm c}=
48: \langle\phi(x)\phi(0)\rangle-v^2\,.
49: \end{equation}
50: A renormalized mass $\mr$ and a field wave function renormalization
51: constant $\Zr$ are defined through the behavior of Fourier transform of
52: $G(x)$ for small momenta:
53: \be \label{eq:tGk}
54: \tilde{G}(k)^{-1}=\Zr^{-1}\left\{\mr^2+k^2+\rmO(k^4)\right\}\,.
55: \end{equation}
56: The susceptibility $\chi$ and the second moment $\mu$ are defined through
57: \ba \label{eq:susc}
58: \chi&=&\sum_x G(x)=\Zr/\mr^2\,,
59: \label{chi}
60: \\
61: \mu&=&\sum_x\,x^2G(x)=8\Zr/\mr^4\,.
62: \ea
63: We also define the normalization constant associated with the
64: canonical bare field through
65: \footnote{In various papers a different notation is employed
66: and the quantity $16\kappa\chi^2/\mu$ is denoted by $\Zr$.}
67: \be
68: \Zrhat=2\kappa\Zr=2\kappa\mr^2\chi\,.
69: \end{equation}
70: In the framework of perturbation theory correlation functions of
71: the multiplicatively renormalized field
72: \be
73: \phir(x)=\Zr^{-1/2}\phi(x)\,,
74: \end{equation}
75: have at all orders finite continuum limits after mass and coupling
76: renormalization are taken into account.
77: Correspondingly a renormalized vacuum expectation value is
78: defined through
79: \be
80: \vr=v\Zr^{-1/2}\,.
81: \end{equation}
82: Here we adopt the generally accepted
83: assumption that the structurally same multiplicative
84: renormalization is required to define the continuum
85: limit of the theory non-perturbatively.
86: We see no evidence for the claim in ref.~\cite{CCC}
87: that the vacuum expectation value and the fluctuating part
88: of the bare field should be renormalized differently.
89: Finally a particular renormalized coupling is defined by
90: \be
91: \gr\equiv 3\mr^2/\vr^2=3\mr^4\chi/v^2\,,
92: \label{gr}
93: \end{equation}
94: as is one popular choice in the perturbative framework.
95:
96: The commonly accepted picture of the critical behavior of the theory
97: is mainly due to the work of the Saclay group \cite{BGZ}. In their
98: framework the renormalization group equations predict that
99: the mass and vacuum expectation value go to zero according to
100: \ba
101: \mr&\propto&\tau^{1/2}|\ln(\tau)|^{-1/6}\,,
102: \\
103: \vr&\propto&\tau^{1/2}|\ln(\tau)|^{1/3}\,,
104: \ea
105: for $\tau=\kappa/\kappac-1\to0$,
106: and correspondingly the renormalized coupling is predicted
107: to go to zero logarithmically which is the expression of triviality.
108: The critical behavior in the broken phase is conveniently expressed in
109: terms of three integration constants $C'_i\,,i=1,2,3$ appearing in the
110: critical behaviors:
111: \ba
112: \mr&=&C'_1(\beta_1\gr)^{17/27}\rme^{-1/\beta_1\gr}
113: \left\{1+\rmO(\gr)\right\}\,,\,\,\,\,\beta_1=\frac{3}{16\pi^2}\,,
114: \\
115: \Zr&=&C'_2\left\{1-\frac{7}{36}\frac{\gr}{16\pi^2}+\rmO(\gr^2)\right\}\,,
116: \label{zrrg}
117: \\
118: \kappa-\kappac&=&\frac12 C'_3\mr^2\gr^{-1/3}\left\{1+\rmO(\gr)\right\}\,.
119: \ea
120: In ref.~\cite{LWbroken} these constants were estimated by relating
121: them to the corresponding constants $C_i$ in the symmetric phase. These
122: in turn were computed by integrating the renormalization group
123: equations with initial data on the line $\kappa=0.95\kappac(\lambda)$
124: obtained from high temperature expansions.
125:
126: \section{Some proposed criticisms of CW}
127:
128: In ref.~\cite{CCC} the authors present two quantitative arguments against
129: the conventional wisdom. Their work considers just the Ising limit
130: ($\lambda=\infty$). Firstly they
131: claim $\Zr$ grows logarithmically as one approaches the critical
132: point instead of going to a constant as predicted
133: by the RG (see Eq.~\eqref{zrrg}).
134: Unfortunately they only measure $v,\chi$ which is not sufficient
135: to determine $\Zr$. To overcome this deficiency they compute
136: $\widetilde{\Zr}=m_{\rm input}^2\chi$, where $\chi$ is their MC
137: measurement at a given value of $\kappa$ but $m_{\rm input}$ is an
138: estimate of $\mr$ at the same $\kappa$ taken from Table~3 of
139: ref.~\cite{LWbroken} (referred to as T3 below).
140: This ``composed" quantity $\widetilde{\Zr}$ indeed
141: seems to grow as the critical point is approached. Accepting that
142: their measurements of $\chi$ are correct (and indeed we agree with
143: their values on the lattices we checked), the crucial question is whether
144: the estimates $m_{\rm input}$ of $\mr$ are reliable.
145:
146: At this stage two
147: details of the analysis in ref.~\cite{LWbroken} must be appreciated.
148: Firstly the values of $\kappa$ cited in the last column of T3
149: are written using $\kappac$ obtained from
150: the same procedure of analysis for all values of $\lambda$
151: \footnote{In hindsight it would have been better to
152: have tabulated estimated values of $\kappa-\kappac$}.
153: For the particular case of the Ising model there
154: are (presumingly) more accurate values;
155: some comparisons are made in Table~\ref{kappac}.
156: Hence, even if one
157: accepts the estimated errors in T3, estimates of $\mr$ for a given
158: $\kappa$ obtained using this table naively are subject to further large
159: uncertainties.
160:
161: \begin{table}[ht]
162: \centering
163: \begin{tabular}[t]{l|c}
164: \hline
165: $\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\kappac$&ref.\\[1.0ex]
166: \hline \hline
167: $0.07475(7)$&\cite{LWsymm}\\[1.0ex]
168: $0.074834(15)$&\cite{GSM}\\[1.0ex]
169: $0.074848(2)$&\cite{StaufAd}\\[1.0ex]
170: $0.074851(8)$&\cite{KL}\\[1.0ex]
171: $0.07487(5)$&\cite{VW}\\[1.0ex]
172: \hline
173: \end{tabular}
174: \caption{\footnotesize Estimates of $\kappac$ in the 4$d$ Ising model.}
175: \label{kappac}
176: \end{table}
177:
178: Secondly it is probable that the systematic errors in T3
179: have been underestimated.
180: This stems from a probable underestimate on the size of the
181: systematic errors on the cited values of the integration constants $C'_i$;
182: e.g. the estimated values of the constants obtained by using
183: 2-loop or 3-loop expressions in the RG equations differ considerably.
184: This question was briefly addressed in the 3rd paragraph sect.~5.2
185: of \cite{LWbroken} and later stressed by Peter Hasenfratz \cite{PH}
186: \footnote{This critique was discussed in more detail for the
187: physically relevant case of O(4) \cite{LWO4}, where fortunately the
188: various loop estimates are closer.}.
189:
190: The simple outcome of the discussion above is that to compute $\Zr$ and
191: $\mr$ independently one needs accurate {\it measurements of both}
192: $\chi,\mu$. In the next sections we describe such measurements and
193: find that the computed values of $\Zr$ are consistent with the RG
194: expectation in the $\phi^4$ theory. For the Ising limit the
195: measured values of $\mr$ are considerably lower than the corresponding
196: estimates $m_{\rm input}$ in \cite{CCC}.
197:
198: The second presented ``evidence" against CW in \cite{CCC}
199: concerns the quantity $v^2\chi$. Defining
200: \be
201: \cl\equiv -\ln(\kappa-\kappac)\,,
202: \end{equation}
203: in the RG framework $v^2\chi$
204: behaves as $\propto\cl$ as one approaches $\kappac$,
205: whereas in their scenario they expect a more singular behavior
206: $\propto\cl^2$. Figure~2 in \cite{CCC}
207: gives the impression that the data strongly supports their prediction.
208: However, this impression is completely false! The figure is obtained
209: by 2-parameter fits of $v^2\chi$ with functions $A\ln^p(\kappa-\kappac)$
210: with $p=1,2$ and $\kappac$ a fit parameter.
211: But such fits are of course meaningless without including a scale
212: of the logarithm. Once this is done (as described in subsect.~4.4),
213: one gets a beautiful fit to the data also for the function
214: expected from the RG group.
215:
216: \section{Ising MC simulation and results}
217:
218:
219: In this section we present our simulations of the 4$d$ Ising model
220: on a hypercubic lattice with periodic boundary conditions in all
221: directions. We consider only geometries with volumes $V=L^3T$.
222:
223: \subsection{Simulation algorithm}
224:
225: For updating the configurations we used the Swendsen-Wang
226: cluster method \cite{SW}.
227: Beyond practically eliminating the problem of critical
228: slowing down, the method allows to use improved
229: estimators which reduce significantly the errors of the measured
230: quantities.
231: Since the application of the cluster improved estimators
232: have some specific features for the broken phase, we discuss
233: briefly here the applied procedure.
234:
235: The first step in the SW cluster algorithm is to put
236: bonds between neighboring spins of equal signs with probability
237: $p=1-\exp(-4\kappa)$, while no bonds are put between
238: spins with opposite signs. In the second step one identifies
239: the clusters, the set of spins connected by bonds.
240: Obviously, spins within a cluster have the same sign.
241: Denote the number of clusters by $\nu$, and the number of
242: sites in the $i$-th cluster by $n_i$, $i=1,\ldots,\nu$.
243: Assume for convenience that the numbering is chosen so that
244: $n_1 \ge n_2 \ge \ldots \ge n_\nu$.
245: In the updating step one flips all spins in the $i$-th cluster
246: with probability 1/2. All resulting $2^\nu$ configurations
247: appear in the equilibrium distribution with equal probability.
248: The cluster improved estimator replaces a quantity by its
249: average over these $2^\nu$ configurations.
250: In particular the product $\phi(x)\phi(y)$ is replaced by $+1$
251: if $x$ and $y$ belong to the same cluster, and by $0$
252: if the two sites belong to different clusters.
253:
254: \subsection{Determination of $v$ and $\chi$}
255:
256: The difference between the symmetric and broken phase shows
257: up in the distribution of the cluster size.
258: In the symmetric phase (at finite correlation length $\xi$)
259: the typical size of clusters is determined by $\xi$ and
260: remains finite and independent of $L$ for $L\gg \xi$.
261: This is obvious from considering the spin-spin correlator
262: $G(x)$ at large distances $|x|$
263: since this number is equal to the probability that the two
264: sites are within the same cluster.
265: As a consequence, this probability
266: goes down exponentially with the distance.
267: It is easy to show that in the symmetric phase the susceptibility is
268: given by
269: $\chi=\left\langle \frac{1}{V} \sum_i n_i^2 \right\rangle\,.$
270:
271: In the broken phase (in infinite volume)
272: $\langle\phi(x)\phi(y)\rangle\to v^2$
273: for $|x-y|\to\infty$. This involves that the size of the largest cluster
274: grows proportionally to the volume,
275: $\langle n_1 \rangle \propto V$ while the distribution of
276: $n_i$, $i=2,3,\ldots$ is not affected by the volume for $L,T\gg\xi$
277: (and is characterized by the correlation length).
278: In this case (for $V\to\infty$) the vacuum expectation value
279: is given by
280: \be
281: v=\frac{1}{V}\langle n_1 \rangle\,,
282: \label{vevdef}
283: \end{equation}
284: and the susceptibility by
285: \be
286: \chi=\left\langle \frac{1}{V} \sum_{i>1} n_i^2 \right\rangle +
287: \frac{1}{V}\left(\langle n_1^2\rangle -\langle n_1\rangle^2\right)\,.
288: \label{chiv}
289: \end{equation}
290: In sufficiently large volumes the definition Eq.~\eqref{vevdef}
291: of the vev coincides with the conventional definition Eq.~\eqref{vevh}.
292: For sufficiently large $V$ in the broken phase
293: one can choose an external field $h$ such that
294: $h \langle n_1 \rangle = h v V \gg 1$ and at the same time
295: $h n_2 \ll 1$. Therefore in the presence of the magnetic field
296: the spins in the largest cluster are frozen to value $+1$ while
297: $h$ has practically no influence on the orientation
298: of the other clusters.
299: Eq.~\eqref{vevdef} provides a convenient definition of $v$ in
300: a finite volume.
301: For large enough volumes this definition also coincides practically
302: with the Binder's definition \cite{Binder}
303: using the absolute value of the total magnetization:
304: \be
305: v_{\rm Binder}=\left\langle\frac{1}{V}|\sum_x\phi(x)|\right\rangle\,,
306: \end{equation}
307: which is the definition employed in ref.~\cite{CCC}.
308: For a thorough discussion of various finite volume definitions of the vev
309: (and more general finite volume effects in this model) we refer the
310: reader to ref.~\cite{JMMTW}.
311: Assigning random signs to the clusters $i=2,\ldots,\nu$ the sum of spins
312: in these clusters has a variance
313: $\sum_{i=2}^{\nu} n_i^2 \lesssim V\chi$ (cf. Eq.~\eqref{chiv}), while the
314: value of the spin
315: in the largest cluster is $n_1 \sim v V$. The probability that the
316: random component has the same magnitude as the constant component $n_1$
317: is suppressed at least by the factor $\exp(- V v/\chi^2)\,.$
318:
319: Note that for the case of $V=L^3 T$, $L=\mathrm{fixed}$, $T\to\infty$
320: the situation is somewhat different.
321: In this quasi-one-dimensional case the large clusters
322: have finite length in the $t$-direction, although much larger than $L$.
323: Their typical length is given by the inverse of the energy gap between the
324: lowest even and odd eigenstates of the transfer matrix \cite{JMMTW}.
325: Here we shall not discuss this geometry, note only the obvious fact that
326: any quantity defined through spin correlators can be expressed
327: in terms of expectation values of the cluster sizes $n_i$.
328:
329: Apart from $v$ and $\chi$ we also measured the time-slice correlation
330: functions
331: \be
332: S(t)=\sum_{\bfx}G((t,\bfx))\,,
333: \label{timeslice}
334: \end{equation}
335: to compute the exponential mass
336: and the Fourier transform $\tilde{G}(k)$ at momenta $k$ along the $t$-axis.
337:
338: Typically we performed more than $400$K sweeps at each $\kappa$ point.
339: The autocorrelation times for the vev and the two point function
340: $S(t=T/4)$ were monitored and found reasonably small
341: e.g. for the lattice with the
342: largest correlation length which we measured ($\kappa=0.0751$)
343: they were $\sim 8,\sim 3$ respectively.
344:
345: \subsection{Raw data and analysis}
346:
347: To illustrate the quality of the raw data, and for later reference,
348: in Table~\ref{rawdata0} the time-slice correlation
349: function $S(t)$ is given for $V=48^4$ at $\kappa=0.0751$.
350:
351: \begin{table}[ht]
352: \centering
353: \begin{tabular}[t]{r|l||r|l||r|l||r|l}
354: \hline
355: $t$ & \quad $S(t)$ & $t$ & \quad $S(t)$ & $t$ & \quad $S(t)$ & $t$ & \quad $S(t)$ \\
356: \hline
357: 0 & 17.788(31) & 7 & 5.320(27) & 14 & 1.666(25) & 21 & 0.646(29) \\
358: 1 & 14.913(31) & 8 & 4.492(26) & 15 & 1.421(25) & 22 & 0.600(29) \\
359: 2 & 12.529(30) & 9 & 3.796(26) & 16 & 1.217(26) & 23 & 0.573(30) \\
360: 3 & 10.540(30) & 10 & 3.211(25) & 17 & 1.048(26) & 24 & 0.563(30) \\
361: 4 & $\phantom{1}$8.875(29) & 11 & 2.720(25) & 18 & 0.909(27) & & \\
362: 5 & $\phantom{1}$7.478(28) & 12 & 2.306(25) & 19 & 0.798(27) & & \\
363: 6 & $\phantom{1}$6.306(28) & 13 & 1.958(25) & 20 & 0.711(28) & & \\
364: \hline
365: \end{tabular}
366: \caption{{}\footnotesize The (subtracted) time-slice correlation function
367: $S(t)$ for the Ising case at $\kappa=0.0751$ on a $48^4$ lattice.
368: Note that the quoted errors for this quantity are much smaller than
369: that for the subtracted term $v^2L^3=2711.1(1.2)$.
370: %The subtraction for this quantity was $v^2 L^3=2711.099$.
371: %The quoted errors are for the subtracted quantity -- the error of
372: %the constant part is much larger.
373: }
374: \label{rawdata0}
375: \end{table}
376:
377:
378: In Table~\ref{rawdata1} we collect data of the values of $v,\chi$
379: for various values of $\kappa,L$ from two papers \cite{JMMTW,CCC}
380: together with our own. The simulation at the largest value
381: of $\kappa=\kappa_0$ was performed to test our programs and analyses
382: by comparison at a point where the low temperature expansion
383: is considered quantitatively reliable \cite{VW}.
384: The agreement between the data and analytic computations is indeed
385: satisfactory. As for the values of $\kappa$ closer to $\kappac$,
386: firstly one observes excellent agreement
387: of the raw data on those lattices measured by different groups.
388: Thus we are confident that the raw data (albeit sometimes obtained by
389: different methods) can be trusted. Secondly at values of $\kappa$
390: where different volumes were measured there are no signs of significant
391: finite volume effects.
392:
393:
394:
395: \begin{table}[ht]
396: \centering
397: \begin{tabular}[t]{l|c|c|l|l|c}
398: \hline
399: $\,\,\,\,\,\kappa$&$L$&$\chi$&$\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,v$
400: &$\,\,\,v^2\chi$&ref.\\[1.0ex]
401: \hline \hline
402: $\kappa_0$&$10$&$5.130(2)$&$0.571267(8)$&$1.674(1)$&\\[1.0ex]
403: \hline
404: $0.077$&$16$&$18.18(2)$&$0.38947(2)$&$2.758(4)$&\cite{JMMTW}\\[1.0ex]
405: \hline
406: $0.076$&$20$&$37.85(6)$&$0.30158(2)$&$3.442(6)$&\cite{JMMTW}\\[1.0ex]
407: $0.076$&$20$&$37.80(6)$&$0.30151(3)$&$3.437(6)$&\\[1.0ex]
408: $0.076*$&$20$&$37.84(6)$&$0.30158(2)$&$3.442(6)$&\\[1.0ex]
409: \hline
410: $0.0759$&$32$&$41.71(13)$&$0.29030(2)$&$3.515(12)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
411: $0.0759$&$48$&$41.95(93)$&$0.29028(5)$&$3.535(79)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
412: \hline
413: $0.075628$&$48$&$58.70(42)$&$0.25580(2)$&$3.841(28)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
414: \hline
415: $0.0754$&$32$&$87.45(76)$&$0.22054(8)$&$4.253(40)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
416: $0.0754$&$32$&$86.95(55)$&$0.22055(6)$&$4.229(29)$&\\[1.0ex]
417: $0.0754$&$48$&$87.82(56)$&$0.22048(2)$&$4.269(28)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
418: \hline
419: $0.075313$&$48$&$104.2(1.3)$&$0.20477(4)$&$4.367(56)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
420: \hline
421: $0.075231$&$60$&$130.8(1.4)$&$0.18812(3)$&$4.629(50)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
422: \hline
423: $0.0752$&$36$&$142.1(8)$&$0.18138(5)$&$4.674(29)$&\\[1.0ex]
424: $0.0752$&$48$&$142.6(9)$&$0.18132(4)$&$4.689(32)$&\\[1.0ex]
425: \hline
426: $0.0751$&$48$&$203.8(3.1)$&$0.15665(10)$&$5.002(82)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
427: $0.0751$&$48$&$206.4(1.2)$&$0.15657(4)$&$5.060(32)$&\\[1.0ex]
428: $0.0751$&$52$&$201.2(6.2)$&$0.15654(7)$&$4.93(15)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
429: $0.0751$&$60$&$202.4(8.6)$&$0.15648(2)$&$4.96(21)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
430: \hline
431: $0.074968$&$68$&$460.2(4.9)$&$0.11261(5)$&$5.836(67)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
432: \hline
433: $0.0749$&$68$&$1125(36)$&$0.07736(12)$&$6.73(24)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
434: $0.0749$&$72$&$1141(39)$&$0.07752(21)$&$6.86(27)$&\cite{CCC}\\[1.0ex]
435: \hline
436: \end{tabular}
437: \caption{\footnotesize Measured values of $\chi,v$ from various Ising
438: simulations; data from this investigation have no entry in the last
439: column. $\kappa_0=0.080795$.
440: In all cases $T=L$ except for the lattice where $\kappa=0.076^*$ denotes
441: $L=20, T=32$.}
442: \label{rawdata1}
443: \end{table}
444:
445: The second moment mass can be determined directly from
446: the Fourier transform of $S(t)$ (i.e. $\tilde{G}(k)$ with momenta along
447: the $t$-axis) using Eq.~\eqref{eq:tGk} which involves
448: a determination of the slope from the available discrete values of $k$.
449: To avoid possible discretization errors due to the finiteness of
450: the lattice size $T$ we also used the following procedure
451: to determine $\mr$ and $\Zr$. We first computed the
452: exponential mass $m$ characterizing the exponential fall-off
453: of the time-slice correlation functions at large separations,
454: using one-mass and constrained two-mass fits (where the second mass
455: was required to satisfy $m_2\gtrsim 2m$). For the one-mass fit we
456: included only distances $t$ with $mt\gtrsim1$. The results of the two
457: fits were completely consistent, the central value of the 2-mass
458: fit being slightly lower but the estimated errors larger than
459: those of the 1-mass fit. In Table~\ref{rawdata2} we quote only
460: the outcome of the 1-mass fit.
461: Note that the value of $mL$ is in each case large $\gtrsim8$,
462: and hence finite volume effects are expected to be
463: smaller than our statistical errors.
464: An estimate of the infinite volume second moment mass was then
465: computed from the sums $\sum_t S(t)$ and $\sum_t t^2 S(t)$, where for
466: $|t|<T_0$ (some large $T_0\le T/2$) we took the measured correlations and
467: for $T_0\le |t|<\infty$ we estimated $S(t)$ by assuming it has the
468: form of a free lattice correlator
469: with the previously determined mass $m$ and amplitude.
470: The resulting estimates of $\mr$ from the two fits hardly differed;
471: in Table~\ref{rawdata2} we quote the results from the 1-mass fit.
472: The measurements of $\mr$ from $\tilde{G}(k)^{-1}$ were also consistent
473: with the values in the table (although statistical errors were
474: typically a factor $\sim2$ larger), again indicating small finite
475: volume effects.
476: We also remark that the relations between the quoted $\mr$ and $m$ are
477: consistent with estimates from renormalized perturbation theory
478: \cite{LWbroken,JMMTW}.
479:
480: At this stage we reach the goal of determining $\Zr$ through
481: Eq.~\eqref{chi}. The corresponding values of $\Zrhat$ are
482: tabulated in Table~\ref{rawdata2}. For all values of $\kappa$ we find
483: $\Zrhat<1$ and consistent with the CW of tending to a non-zero
484: constant as $\kappa\to\kappac$. There is no signal of a logarithmic
485: increase as favored by the authors of ref.~\cite{CCC}
486:
487: What does not agree so well in our measurements with T3
488: is the value of $\gr$ for a given $\mr$. As mentioned before,
489: the estimate of $\gr$ in \cite{LWbroken} is
490: sensitive to the integration constant $\ln C'_1 =\ln C_1+1/6$;
491: the estimates in T3 are obtained with
492: 3--loop RG equations and an input value of $\ln C_1=1.5(2)$.
493: The present measurements of $\gr$ are better reproduced with
494: a central value of $\sim1.2$ for $\ln C_1$.
495:
496: \subsection{The quantity $v^2\chi$}
497:
498: In Fig.~1 we plot fits of the data for $v^2\chi$ with functions
499: \footnote{just adding a constant in the case $p=2$ is of course
500: completely ad hoc, but the authors of this paper are actually only
501: interested in the case $p=1$}
502: \be
503: A_1\ln^p(\kappa-\kappac)+A_2\,,\,\,\,\,\,p=1,2\,.
504: \end{equation}
505: To make our point, for the fits we just used the data of ref.~\cite{CCC}.
506: Our data (the triangles) fall nicely on the fits and illustrate
507: again the consistency of the data. Both fits are of good quality
508: with ${\rm chi}^2/{\rm dof}\sim 1$.
509: The immediate conclusion is that
510: the data cannot distinguish between the critical behaviors; to accomplish
511: this one would have to get much closer to the critical point and treat
512: much larger correlation lengths.
513:
514: Apart from the rather solid theoretical foundation, an additional
515: strength of the CW
516: is that the coefficient of the log ($A_1$) is related to $C'_2$,
517: which has been estimated from data in the symmetric phase.
518: In fact conventional wisdom predicts a form:
519: \begin{equation}
520: v^2\chi=a_1\left[\cl-\frac{25}{27}\ln \cl\right]
521: +a_2+\rmO\left(\frac{1}{\cl}\right)\,,
522: \end{equation}
523: with
524: \ba
525: a_1&=&\frac{9C_2^{\prime2}}{32\pi^2}\,,
526: \\
527: a_2&=&a_1\left[\ln C'_3+2\ln C'_1+K\right]\,,
528: \\
529: K&=&\frac13\ln\left(\frac{3}{16\pi^2}\right)
530: -\frac{1}{27}\left(7+2\ln2\right)=-1.6317...
531: \ea
532: Using the values of the $C'_i$ in \cite{LWbroken} one gets
533: $a_1=1.20(3)\,,a_2=-1.6(6)$.
534: Fitting the entire data set with $\kappa\le0.0759$ to the function
535: (of the RG expected form)
536: \be
537: A_1\left[\cl-\frac{25}{27}\ln\cl\right]+A_2\,,
538: \end{equation}
539: we obtain a good fit with ${\rm chi}^2/{\rm dof}=0.9$ and
540: $A_1=1.267(14)\,,A_2=- 2.89(8)\,,\kappac=0.074833(17)$.
541: The fitted value of $\kappac$ is consistent with the best values
542: given in Table~\ref{kappac}. Further the $A_i$ are in reasonable
543: agreement with the predicted values $a_i$ above.
544:
545:
546: \begin{table}[ht]
547: \centering
548: \begin{tabular}[t]{l|l|l|l|l|l|l}
549: \hline
550: $\,\,\,\,\,\kappa$&$L$&$\,\,\,\,\,\,m$&$mL$&$\,\,\,\,\,\mr$
551: &$\,\,\,\,\,\,\Zrhat$&$\,\,\,\,\,\gr$\\[1.0ex]
552: \hline \hline
553: $\kappa_0$&$10$&$0.9642(5)$&$9.6$&$1.0041(5)$ &$0.836(1)$ &$47.94(10)$\\[1.0ex]
554: $0.077$ &$16$&$0.554(1)$ &$8.9$&$0.563(1)$ &$0.886(3)$ &$36.0(2)$\\[1.0ex]
555: $0.076$ &$20$&$0.392(1)$ &$7.8$&$0.3950(9)$ &$0.896(4)$ &$30.37(28)$\\[1.0ex]
556: $0.076^*$ &$20$&$0.390(2)$ &$7.8$&$0.3940(15)$&$0.893(7)$ &$30.08(46)$\\[1.0ex]
557: $0.0754$ &$32$&$0.266(3)$ &$8.5$&$0.2666(25)$&$0.932(18)$&$27.1(1.0)$\\[1.0ex]
558: $0.0752$ &$36$&$0.205(2)$ &$7.4$&$0.2054(16)$&$0.901(15)$&$23.06(73)$\\[1.0ex]
559: $0.0752$ &$48$&$0.205(2)$ &$9.8$&$0.2055(18)$&$0.905(17)$&$23.21(83)$\\[1.0ex]
560: $0.0751$ &$48$&$0.168(2)$ &$8.1$&$0.1688(15)$&$0.883(17)$&$20.51(74)$\\[1.0ex]
561: \hline
562: \end{tabular}
563: \caption{\footnotesize Measured values of $m,\mr,\Zrhat,\gr$
564: for the Ising model.
565: In all cases $T=L$ except for the lattice where $\kappa=0.076^*$ denotes
566: $L=20, T=32$.}
567: \label{rawdata2}
568: \end{table}
569:
570: \begin{figure}
571: \psfig{figure=v2chi.eps,width=14cm}
572: \caption{\footnotesize Fits of the data (circles) of Cea et al for
573: $v^2\chi$. The triangles are the data of this investigation.}
574: \label{fig1}
575: \end{figure}
576:
577: \section{Field theory simulations at constant physics}
578:
579: We have also studied the cutoff dependence of the renormalization
580: constant $\Zr$ along a line of constant IR physics,
581: keeping the renormalized coupling
582: $\gr$ (defined in Eq.~\eqref{gr})
583: fixed as the renormalized mass $\mr$ in lattice units is varied.
584: This is of course the behavior of interest in deciding how limits on
585: the appearance of new UV physics follows from the triviality of the
586: lattice model in the continuum limit. This has been done at three points
587: $\bar{\lambda}=0.3, 0.6$ and 1.0 (the Ising limit)
588: \footnote{for the definition of $\bar{\lambda}$ see \cite{LWsymm}.}
589: along the RG curve corresponding to $\gr\simeq20$
590: (cf Fig.~2 of \cite{LWbroken}).
591: The simulations in the field theory cases ($\bar{\lambda}=0.3,0.6$)
592: were done with conventional Metropolis update code on lattices of size
593: $64^4$, while the Ising point results were obtained using
594: a cluster code on lattices of size $48^4$.
595:
596: The renormalization constant $\Zr$ and the zero momentum renormalized
597: mass $\mr$ were extracted from a fit of the inverse lattice
598: propagator in momentum space for small lattice momenta:
599: \be
600: \tilde{G}(k)^{-1} = \Zr^{-1}(\mr^{2}+\hat{k}^{2}+\rmO(k^{4}))\,.
601: \label{eq:propfit}
602: \end{equation}
603: In the cases ($\bar{\lambda}=0.3$, $0.6$), we have computed
604: $G(k)=\langle|\phi(k)|^{2}\rangle$ from the FFT (fast-Fourier-transform)
605: $\phi(k)$ of the coordinate space field $\phi(x)$. The FFT
606: is performed every 40 Monte-Carlo sweeps: we find that
607: the nonzero momentum modes of $\tilde{G}(k)$, for which the vev is
608: irrelevant, have an autocorrelation time ranging from 50 to a few
609: hundred sweeps.
610: For $\bar{\lambda}$=0.3 we have collected propagators for a
611: total of 50K sweeps (1250 propagators), while for
612: $\bar{\lambda}=$0.6 we have 100K sweeps (2500 propagators).
613:
614: Only the lowest $4^4$-1=255 modes are included in the fit:
615: the mode corresponding to zero momentum is omitted.
616: We then perform an uncorrelated (diagonal chi-square) fit of the
617: 34 data points (corresponding to different
618: values of $\hat{k}^2$) to Eq.~\eqref{eq:propfit}.
619: The chi-squared/degree of freedom for the $\bar{\lambda}=$0.3 (resp. 0.6)
620: point was 40/32 (resp. 54/32).
621: The results for $\Zr,\mr$ obtained by this procedure are indicated
622: in Table~\ref{phi4res}. Also shown is the field vacuum expectation
623: value (unrenormalized) $\langle\phi\rangle$, from which a renormalized
624: coupling $\gr$, also shown in the Table, can be obtained.
625: Finally, we give the susceptibility $\chi$ and the value
626: $2\kappa\mr^2\chi$ which is the value of $\Zr$ calculated
627: from the zero momentum propagator, Eq.~\eqref{eq:susc}.
628:
629: It is apparent from the results in Table~\ref{phi4res}
630: that the cutoff dependence of $\Zr$ is extremely mild over
631: the entire range covering a factor of 3 in cutoff holding the physical
632: mass fixed, perfectly in accord with conventional renormalization wisdom.
633: Note that the values of $2\kappa\mr^2\chi$
634: agree with the latter determination of $\Zr$ within the errors,
635: as it should be since the Fourier transform of the (subtracted)
636: correlator, $\tilde{G}(k)$ is a continuous function.
637: This again shows that the determination of the bare vev is correct.
638:
639:
640: \begin{table}[htb]
641: \centering
642: \vspace{.1in}
643: \begin{tabular}{c|c|l|l|l} \hline
644: $\bar{\lambda}$ & $\,\,\,\,\,\,\lambda$ & $\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\kappa$
645: & $\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,v$ & $\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\mr$ \\[1ex]
646: \hline
647: 0.3 & 0.275376 & 0.144499 & 0.36895(2) & 0.5216(48) \\[1ex]
648: 0.6 & 1.177242 & 0.130307 & 0.13957(13) & 0.1873(15) \\[1ex]
649: 1.0 & $\infty$ & 0.0751 & 0.15657(4) & 0.1691(15) \\[1ex]
650: \hline
651: \hline
652: $\bar{\lambda}$ & $\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\Zrhat$ &$\,\,\,\,\,\gr$
653: &$\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\chi$&$\,\,\,\,\,2\kappa\mr^2\chi$ \\[1ex]
654: \hline
655: 0.3 & 0.962(12) & 20.2(4) & \phantom{1}12.40(5) & 0.975(20) \\[1ex]
656: 0.6 & 0.951(4) & 19.7(4) & 102.5(3.5) & 0.937(48) \\[1ex]
657: 1.0 & 0.896(8) & 20.6(7) & 206.4(1.2) & 0.886(17) \\[1ex]
658: \hline
659: \end{tabular}
660: \caption{\footnotesize Results for simulations on the RG curve,
661: $\gr\simeq20$}
662: \label{phi4res}
663: \end{table}
664:
665: As there may be some question of the extent to which the inverse
666: momentum space propagator is adequately
667: fit by Eq.~\eqref{eq:propfit} with two parameters, we have displayed
668: the quality of the fits for $\bar{\lambda}$=0.3, 0.6
669: in Figures~2, 3. There is certainly no evidence
670: for any curvature up to the maximum momenta included in the fit,
671: and indeed the chi-square/degree of
672: freedom for the two-parameter fit is perfectly fine.
673: In Table~\ref{phi4res} for the Ising case we quote numbers
674: for $\mr$ and $\Zr$,
675: obtained by fitting the first three $k \ne 0$ values (with $k$ along the
676: time-axis) of the inverse propagator. These numbers differ only slightly
677: from those given (for the same $\kappa$) in Table~\ref{rawdata2}
678: using the alternative method of extraction described in the previous
679: section. We remark that in this case (as one can check using
680: Table~\ref{rawdata0}) the inverse propagator is remarkably linear in
681: $\hat{k}^2$ up to the maximal (on-axis) momentum $\hat{k}^2=4$.
682:
683:
684: \begin{figure}
685: \psfig{figure=fig2.eps,width=14cm,height=0.6\hsize}
686: \caption{\footnotesize $[2\kappa\tilde{G}(k)]^{-1}$ at
687: $\bar{\lambda}$=0.3, $\gr\simeq20$.
688: The triangles are the data from 50K sweeps 1250 propagators.
689: The fit is with $\Zrhat,\mr$ given in Table~\ref{phi4res}.}
690: \label{fig2}
691: \end{figure}
692:
693: \begin{figure}
694: \psfig{figure=fig3.eps,width=14cm,height=0.6\hsize}
695: \caption{\footnotesize $[2\kappa\tilde{G}(k)]^{-1}$ at
696: $\bar{\lambda}$=0.6, $\gr\simeq20$.
697: The triangles are the data from 100K sweeps 2500 propagators.
698: The fit is with $\Zrhat,\mr$ given in Table~\ref{phi4res}.}
699: \label{fig3}
700: \end{figure}
701:
702: \section{Conclusions}
703:
704: In this paper we have shown that simulation data is in perfect
705: agreement with the conventional renormalization group scenario
706: in the lattice 1-component $\phi^4_4$ model.
707: This is contrary to the claim of ref.~\cite{CCC}.
708: We have explained the deficiencies in their analysis.
709: The quantitative agreement with analytically obtained results
710: is completely satisfactory taking into account that some systematic
711: errors are probably underestimated in ref.~\cite{LWbroken}.
712:
713: Conventional wisdom is not firmly established
714: merely by a majority vote, but on solid theoretical and
715: numerical studies. The same applies of course to deeper questions
716: e.g. whether QCD is the correct theory of hadronic physics.
717: The work reported here again reinforces the CW regarding triviality.
718: Had the critique of the authors \cite{CCC} been correct, they would
719: have indicated serious non-standard implications concerning the Higgs'
720: sector of the Standard Model.
721:
722: \subsection{Acknowledgments}
723:
724: We thank the Leibniz-Rechenzentrum where part of the computations
725: were carried out.
726: This investigation was supported in part by the Hungarian
727: National Science Fund OTKA (under T034299 and T043159)
728: and by the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds.
729: The work of A.~Duncan was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-0244599.
730:
731:
732: \vfill
733: \eject
734:
735: