Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Phase transitions in low-dimensional long-range random field Ising models

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The long-range random field Ising model is proved to have a phase transition in d=1 for 1<α<3/2 and in d=2 for 2<α≤3, including the critical α=3.

desk verdict A strong 1D Peierls argument plus a plausible 2D theorem that leans on an unproven transfer of contour entropy machinery from d≥3; deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19281 v2 pith:XFLEZJAL submitted 2024-12-26 math.PR math-phmath.MP

Jian Ding , Fenglin Huang , João Maia This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PRmath-phmath.MP MSC 82B2082B2682B4460K35
keywords randomfieldIsingmodellong-rangeinteractionsphasetransitionPeierlsargumentcontourmethodscoarse-grainingGaussiandisorderlow-dimensionalstatisticalmechanics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that the long-range random field Ising model, where spins interact with strength $|x-y|^{-\alpha}$ and are subject to a weak i.i.d. Gaussian field, orders at low temperature in dimensions one and two. In one dimension the phase transition holds for every $1<\alpha<3/2$, removing the earlier requirement that the nearest-neighbor coupling be large. In two dimensions it holds for every $2<\alpha\le 3$, including the borderline exponent $\alpha=3$ where the usual energy estimates do not suffice. The results are stated as bounds on the magnetization at the origin under $+$ boundary conditions: for small disorder $\varepsilon$ and large inverse temperature $\beta$, $\mu^+_{\beta,\varepsilon h}(\sigma_0=-1)$ is arbitrarily small with high probability, so the $+$ and $-$ states are distinct. This fills the low-dimensional picture, complementing known uniqueness regimes where the random field destroys order.

What carries the argument

In one dimension the argument rests on a multiscale Peierls map: a balancing procedure that repeatedly erases isolated intervals (intervals densely populated by one sign and surrounded by the other) until the configuration is balanced, then flips the remaining minus spins in the smallest isolated interval containing the origin. The two load-bearing estimates are the energy gain $J(A_\sigma,A_\sigma^c)\ge c_2|I_\sigma|^\theta$ with $\theta>1/2$ (Proposition 2.13) and an entropy bound that controls the number of possible Peierls images at each scale (Proposition 2.20). In two dimensions the machinery is the long-range contour system of [3], where contours are elements of the finest $(M,a)$-partition of the set of incorrect points, together with a scale-by-scale coarse-graining. For $\alpha<3$ a uniform boundary-count bound suffices; for $\alpha=3$ the proof introduces a finer energy decomposition $Q_\ell(A)$ along cube boundaries that sums to the full interaction $J(A)$, and a new lemma (Lemma 3.13) giving $J(C^+,C^-)\ge b_8\sqrt{m+1}\ln(m+1)$ for any cube with $m$ minority spins.

What would settle it

A direct check of the two-dimensional critical case: for a large square of side $N$ in $d=2$ with kernel $|x-y|^{-3}$, compute the minimum over subsets $A$ with $|A|=|A^c|=N^2/2$ of $J(A,A^c)$. If any sequence of configurations gives $J(A,A^c)\ll N\log N$, the logarithmic energy lemma (Lemma 3.13) underlying the $\alpha=3$ proof is false. An easier check is to verify whether the energy bound of the adapted $d\ge 3$ contour proof, [3, Prop. 2.10], holds numerically for random configurations in $d=2$ at $\alpha=3$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that low-temperature, weak-disorder phase transition occurs in the long-range random field Ising model in $d=1$ for $1<\alpha<3/2$ (Theorem 1.1) and in $d=2$ for $2<\alpha\le 3$ (Theorem 1.2). Concretely, for any $c_1>0$ there are $\varepsilon_1(\alpha,c_1)>0$ and $\beta_1(\alpha,c_1)>0$ such that for $\varepsilon<\varepsilon_1$ and $\beta>\beta_1$, with probability at least $1-c_1$, the $+$ boundary-condition limit satisfies $\mu^+_{\beta,\varepsilon h}(\sigma_0=-1)<c_1$; the analogue in $d=2$ holds with $c_2>0$ in place of $c_1$. Since the same argument applies to the $-$ boundary condition by symmetry, the two extremal Gibbs measures are distinct almost surely, which is the standard meaning of phase transition. The borderline exponent $\alpha=3$ in two dimensions is the nontrivial case: the interaction energy of a flipped region of side $N$ is only of order $N\log N$, just above the random-field fluctuation $\sqrt{|A|}\approx N$, and the proof supplies a matching energy gain via a logarithmic isoperimetric bound.

Load-bearing premise

The 2D proof assumes without proof that the long-range contour energy and entropy bounds from the d≥3 construction carry over directly to d=2 for all 2<α≤3, including the critical α=3.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In $d=1$, phase transition is established for every $1<\alpha<3/2$ without any lower bound on the nearest-neighbor coupling, removing the restriction of the earlier 1D result.
  • In $d=2$, phase transition is established for all $2<\alpha\le 3$; in particular the critical exponent $\alpha=3$ is ordered, settling the question raised in the literature.
  • For the purely deterministic long-range Ising model in one dimension, the same Peierls map gives long-range order for $1<\alpha<2$, an alternative proof of the recent contour-based result (Remark 2.22).
  • The balancing argument is formulated for $\pm1$ spins and extends to $q$-state Potts models for $q\ge 3$, giving low-temperature long-range order (Remark 2.23).
  • Together with the known uniqueness thresholds for the short-range random-field model, these theorems delimit the low-dimensional phase diagram: order for $1<\alpha<3/2$ in $d=1$ and $2<\alpha\le 3$ in $d=2$, with uniqueness outside, except that $\alpha=3/2$ in $d=1$ remains unique.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The one-dimensional balancing procedure appears robust enough to handle power-law decaying external fields and $q$-state Potts spins, which would likely yield deterministic analogues of Theorem 1.1 in those settings.
  • The refined coarse-graining based on $Q_\ell(A)$ may apply to other marginal long-range systems, such as the two-dimensional model with $\alpha=3$ and a decaying deterministic field, where a similar $N\log N$ energy window appears.
  • If the transfer of the $d\ge 3$ energy and entropy bounds to $d=2$ at $\alpha=3$ fails, a counterexample would likely be a contour whose interior has a large boundary-to-interaction ratio; testing that ratio for large contours directly would settle it.
  • The theorem does not quantify correlation lengths or critical exponents; a natural next step is to determine whether the $\alpha=3$ case in $d=2$ exhibits logarithmic corrections to the correlation length.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proves two phase-transition theorems for the long-range random field Ising model with interaction J_{xy}=|x-y|^{-\alpha}: Theorem 1.1 covers d=1 with 1<\alpha<3/2, and Theorem 1.2 covers d=2 with 2<\alpha\le3. Both theorems assert that for sufficiently small disorder strength \varepsilon and sufficiently low temperature \beta, the plus boundary-condition state has, with high probability, very small probability of seeing a minus spin at the origin, implying coexistence of the plus and minus limiting states. The one-dimensional proof is based on a new multiscale Peierls map with a balancing/erasing procedure, and it does not require a large nearest-neighbor interaction. The two-dimensional proof adapts the long-range contour framework of Affonso, Bissacot, and Maia [3], introducing interaction-dependent coarse-graining estimates (Propositions 3.6 and 3.9) and a new logarithmic energy gain in the critical case \alpha=3 (Lemma 3.13).

Significance. If the proofs are correct, these results are natural and valuable completions of the low-dimensional picture: the one-dimensional theorem removes the large-J(1) restriction of Cassandro, Orlandi, and Picco, and the two-dimensional theorem settles the critical exponent \alpha=3 as still ordered, in contrast to the one-dimensional critical value \alpha=3/2 where uniqueness holds. The one-dimensional part is essentially self-contained and contains genuinely novel ingredients, especially the balancing procedure and the energy bound in Lemma 2.29 together with the coarse-grained entropy bound in Proposition 2.20. The two-dimensional part also contains a new and interesting idea for \alpha=3, namely the level-wise interaction accounting through Q_\ell in Lemmas 3.7-3.9 and Lemma 3.13. The main weakness is that the two-dimensional contour entropy and contour enumeration are imported from [3] by assertion rather than proved in d=2; since Theorem 1.2 depends on these estimates, the central claim carries a correctness risk that the authors need to address.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, before Prop. 3.2 and Prop. 3.5] Theorem 1.2 depends on the assertion that the long-range contour machinery of [3] transfers to d=2 "directly" and that [3, Proposition 3.30] can be "adapted verbatim" to give Proposition 3.5. This is a load-bearing step, and dimension d enters in several places: the geometry of Lemma 3.12, the cube areas in (3.16) and (3.20), and the exponential factor 2^{2r\ell} in the entropy bound (3.6). In particular, the first term \ell^{\kappa+1} n / 2^{2r\ell} in (3.6) is a counting estimate for coarse-grained interiors; if the correct d=2 count were of order n^2/2^{2r\ell}, the entropy contribution would not be controlled by the energy in (3.32). Please provide a full proof of Propositions 3.3 and 3.5 for d=2, or give a precise citation to a statement that covers d=2. The current "directly" and "verbatim" statements are not sufficient for the paper's main two-dimensional claim.
  2. [Section 3.2, around (3.30)-(3.31)] In the \alpha=3 proof, Proposition 3.5 is applied with M_{n,Q,\ell}=2^{k+1} to control both |B_\ell(Int_{\ell,k})| and |B_{\ell+1}(Int_{\ell,k})|. The hypothesis (3.5) for level \ell is immediate from (3.19) and the definition of Int_{\ell,k}, but for level \ell+1 it is not immediate: the manuscript does not show that Q_{\ell+1}(Int) is bounded in terms of Q_\ell(Int), and Lemma 3.8 only gives a bound on the sum over all levels. Please supply the missing argument, for instance via (3.20) together with a comparison of |\partial C_{\ell+1}| with |\partial C_\ell| plus the symmetric difference, or revise the counting in (3.31).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, final paragraph] The sentence "the desired result follows by taking \varepsilon large enough" is inconsistent with the displayed bound: the sum \sum_{Q\ge2} C_8 C_{10} Q^{1-C_8/\varepsilon^2}(\ln Q)^2 converges only for \varepsilon^2 < C_8/2, and the preceding inequalities in (3.32) also require \varepsilon small. This should read "taking \varepsilon small enough."
  2. [Proposition 3.5 statement] The notation \hat{Int}(n,Q) in Proposition 3.5 does not display the dependence on \ell and M_{n,Q,\ell}, even though the bound (3.6) involves both quantities. Please make the dependence explicit in the statement and in the application in Section 3.2.
  3. [Section 2, beginning] The constant c_1 is introduced as an arbitrary constant at least 10, but later the same symbol c_1 is used with different fixed values, for example in Proposition 2.18 and Corollary 2.21. This reuse of notation is likely to confuse readers and should be cleaned up.
  4. [Remark 2.23] The claim that the argument extends to the q-Potts model is stated without proof. If it remains in the paper, it should be phrased as a remark indicating a plausible extension rather than a proved statement, or a proof sketch should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 1D proof is self-contained, and the 2D proof imports independent contour results from [3] rather than restating the target theorem.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. In one dimension, Theorem 1.1 is proved from energy bounds (Propositions 2.13, 2.14), entropy bounds (Proposition 2.20), and a Gaussian concentration estimate (Proposition 2.18). These are derived inside the paper; the only imported ingredient is Lemma 2.15, cited from Ding and Zhuang [18], which is a separate published concentration result and is not a restatement of the phase-transition claim. The one-dimensional balancing procedure and Peierls map are defined without reference to the conclusion, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. In two dimensions, Theorem 1.2 relies on the long-range contour machinery of Affonso, Bissacot, and Maia [3], specifically Propositions 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5, cited as [3, Proposition 2.10], [3, Corollary 3.28], and [3, Proposition 3.30]. Although one author of the present paper is also an author of [3], that prior work proves phase transition for d >= 3 and does not assume the d = 2 result of Theorem 1.2. The statement that the proofs in [3] 'apply to d = 2 directly' is an unproven transfer and therefore a verification or robustness concern, but it is not circularity: no equation in the present paper is defined in terms of the theorem being proved, and the α = 3 energy improvement (Lemma 3.13) is new content derived here. Since the central claims are not forced by definition, by fitting, or by a self-referential citation chain, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Gibbs formalism plus imported results: subgaussian concentration of the error function (from [18]) and the long-range contour system of [3] for d≥3, asserted to apply to d=2. The new arguments provide energy and entropy bounds. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • δ (1D) = min{0.001, (1.5-α)/20}
    Chosen by hand to make θ > 1/2 and to separate energy scales in the Peierls argument (Section 2). It appears in M_l = M0 2^{δl} and in the definition of θ.
  • M0 (1D) = large enough, depends on α and c1
    Chosen large enough to satisfy inequalities in Lemma 2.9, Lemma 2.29, and Proposition 2.14; not part of the theorem statement.
  • r (2D) = >4, fixed
    Coarse-graining scale ratio in cube partitions; chosen large enough (r>4) for Lemma 3.7 and related estimates.
  • M (2D contour constant) = large constant chosen as in [3]
    Appears in the (M,a)-partition condition (3.1) for contours; selected large enough exactly as in [3].
  • a (2D contour parameter) = 6/(α-2)
    Taken from [3]; enters the separation condition (3.1) for contour components.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Existence of weak*-limits µ±_{β,εh} for ± boundary conditions (Bovier [10, Theorem 7.2.2]).
    Used to define phase transition as µ+ ≠ µ-; stated in Section 1 without proof.
  • domain assumption Subgaussian concentration of the error function ∆_A(h) (Ding-Zhuang [18, Lemma 3.1]).
    Imported as Lemma 2.15; central to controlling the random field in both 1D and 2D proofs.
  • domain assumption The long-range contour system of [3] applies directly to d=2, in particular [3, Prop 2.10] (energy gain on erasing an external contour) and [3, Prop 3.30] (entropy of coarse-grained interiors).
    Section 3 states 'their proofs on the energy and entropy bounds apply to d=2 directly'; the 2D proof builds on these without re-derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase transitions in low-dimensional long-range random field Ising models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XFLEZJAL

@misc{pith2026241219281,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase transitions in low-dimensional long-range random field Ising models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XFLEZJAL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19281}
}
abstract

We consider the long-range random field Ising model in dimension $d = 1, 2$, whereas the long-range interaction is of the form $J_{xy} = |x-y|^{-\alpha}$ with $1< \alpha < 3/2$ for $d=1$ and with $2 < \alpha \leq 3$ for $d = 2$. Our main results establish phase transitions in these regimes. In one dimension, we employ a Peierls argument with some novel modification, suitable for dealing with the randomness coming from the external field; in two dimensions, our proof follows that of Affonso, Bissacot, and Maia (2023) with some adaptations, but new ideas are required in the critical case of $\alpha=3$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19281 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The figure depicts a configuration σ where the red cubes denote plus spins and blue cubes denote minus spins. Taking M0 = 1 and δ = 1 3 , the interval I3(x) is plus favored, since its 23−1 = 4 closest neighbors in both directions are positive, and the number of minuses in each interval of the form I3(x ± 16) and I3(x ± 32) is smaller than 2 3 2 3· 1 3 = 4. Moreover, as there are minuses in I3(x) and it is plus favor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of the balancing procedure. As in F [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The red region denotes the interval Bi ; the black line denotes the interval Ci , and is divided into 16 parts. The black box delimits the interval I′ that covers more than a 15 16 fraction of Ci , and the gray box represents ρ 3 2 (I′ ). The dotted line splits I′ in half. where the last inequality holds since M0 > 0 is big enough and δ < 1 20 . To count the number of Ci ’s, we first show that they are disjoint by p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Considering a configuration σ in an interval I, and taking A = I−(σ), the picture depicts, from bottom to top, Ψ0(A), Ψ1(A), Ψ2(A) and Ψ3(A). For every ℓ = 0, 1, 2, 3, intervals Iℓ are painted red if Ψℓ(A,Iℓ) = 1, painted blue if Ψℓ(A,Iℓ) = −1 and painted white otherwi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The gray region delimits the interval I. We take [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The gray regions on the left, both light and dark gra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: In this picture, we take r = 3. The dashed lines delimit two (ℓ+ 1)-cubes, Cℓ+1 and C′ ℓ+1, while the dark gray areas are Cbℓ+1 and Cb′ ℓ+1. The black cube represents one of the ℓ-cubes inside Cℓ+1, and the light gray cubes are two neighboring ℓ-cubes Cℓ ⊂ Cℓ+1 and C′ …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Existence of a Phase Transition in the One-Dimensional Ising Spin Glass Model with Long-Range Interactions on the Nishimori Line

    math-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Rigorous proof of phase transition in 1D long-range Ising spin glass on Nishimori line for 1 < alpha < 3/2.

  2. A Cluster Expansion and the Decay of Correlations of the 1D Long-Range Ising Model at Low Temperatures

    math-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    For the 1D long-range ferromagnetic Ising model with J(r)=r^{-α} (1<α≤2), a convergent low-temperature cluster expansion is established and the two-point truncated correlation is shown to decay with the exact algebrai...

  3. Pinning models with contact number constraint: the effect of disorder

    math.PR 2025-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    For disordered pinning models with non-degenerate disorder, conditioning the contact density between 0 and 1 yields largest gaps of order log n, so the pure-model big jump phenomenon disappears.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Affonso, R

    L. Affonso, R. Bissacot, and J. Maia. Phase Transitions in Multidimensional Long-Range Random Field Ising Models, 2024, ArXiv:2307.14150

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Phase Transitions on 1d Long-Range Ising Models with Decaying Fields: A Direct Proof via Contours

    L. Affonso, R. Bissacot, H. Corsini, and K. Welsch. Phase T ransitions on 1d Long-Range Ising Models with Decaying Fields: A Direct Proof via Contours, 20 24, ArXiv:2412.07098

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [2]

    Affonso, R

    L. Affonso, R. Bissacot, E. O. Endo, and S. Handa. Long-ran ge Ising models: Contours, phase transitions and decaying fields. Journal of the European Mathematical Society , 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Aizenman, R

    M. Aizenman, R. L. Greenblatt, and J. L. Lebowitz. Proof o f rounding by quenched disorder of first order transitions in low-dimensional quantum systems . Journal of Mathematical Physics , 53(2), 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Aizenman, M

    M. Aizenman, M. Harel, and R. Peled. Exponential Decay of Correlations in the 2D Random Field Ising Model. Journal of Statistical Physics , 180(1-6):304–331, 2020. 40

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Aizenman and R

    M. Aizenman and R. Peled. A power-law upper bound on the co rrelations in the 2 D random field Ising model. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 372(3):865–892, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Aizenman and J

    M. Aizenman and J. Wehr. Rounding effects of quenched rand omness on first-order phase transitions. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 130:489–528, 1990

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    Biskup, L

    M. Biskup, L. Chayes, and S. A. Kivelson. On the absence of ferromagnetism in typical 2D ferromagnets. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 274:217–231, 2007

    work page 2007

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Bissacot, E

    R. Bissacot, E. O. Endo, A. C. van Enter, B. Kimura, and W. M . Ruszel. Contour methods for long-range Ising models: weakening nearest-neighbor inte ractions and adding decaying fields. Annales Henri Poincaré , 19:2557–2574, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    A. Bovier. Statistical Mechanics of Disordered Systems: A Mathematic al Perspective . Cam- bridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematic s. Cambridge University Press, 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    Bricmont and A

    J. Bricmont and A. Kupiainen. Phase transition in the 3d random field Ising model. Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics , 116:539–572, 1988

    1988

  4. [12]

    Cassandro, E

    M. Cassandro, E. Orlandi, and P. Picco. Phase Transitio n in the 1d Random Field Ising Model with long range interaction. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 288:731–744, 2009

    2009

  5. [13]

    Chatterjee

    S. Chatterjee. On the decay of correlations in the rando m field Ising model. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 362(1):253–267, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    J. Ding, F. Huang, and A. Xia. A phase transition and crit ical phenomenon for the two- dimensional random field Ising model, 2024, ArXiv:2310.121 41

    2024

  7. [15]

    J. Ding, Y. Liu, and A. Xia. Long range order for three-di mensional random field Ising model throughout the entire low temperature regime. Inventiones mathematicae, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Ding and M

    J. Ding and M. Wirth. Correlation length of the two-dime nsional random field Ising model via greedy lattice animal. Duke Mathematical Journal , 172(9):1781–1811, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Ding and J

    J. Ding and J. Xia. Exponential decay of correlations in the two-dimensional random field Ising model. Inventiones mathematicae, 224:1–47, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Ding and Z

    J. Ding and Z. Zhuang. Long range order for random field Is ing and Potts models. Commu- nications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 77(1):37–51, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    R. L. Dobrushin. Gibbsian random fields. General case. Funkcional. Anal. i Priložen. , 3(1):27– 35, 1969

    1969

  12. [20]

    R. M. Dudley. The sizes of compact subsets of Hilbert spa ce and continuity of Gaussian processes. Journal of Functional Analysis , 1:290–330, 1967

    1967

  13. [21]

    F. J. Dyson. Existence of a phase-transition in a one-di mensional Ising ferromagnet. Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics , 12:91–107, 1969

    1969

  14. [22]

    D. S. Fisher, J. Fröhlich, and T. Spencer. The Ising mode l in a random magnetic field. Journal of Statistical Physics , 34(5-6):863–870, 1984. 41

    1984

  15. [23]

    Fröhlich and T

    J. Fröhlich and T. Spencer. The Phase Transition in the o ne-dimensional Ising model with 1/r2 interaction energy. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 84:87–101, 1982

    1982

  16. [24]

    Imry and S

    Y. Imry and S. Ma. Random-Field Instability of the Order ed State of Continuous Symmetry. Physical Review Letters , 35:1399–1401, 1975

    1975

  17. [25]

    Kac and C

    M. Kac and C. J. Thompson. Critical Behaviour of Several Lattice Models with Long-Range Interaction. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 10:1373–1386, 1969

    1969

  18. [26]

    D. Ruelle. Statistical mechanics of a one-dimensional lattice gas. Communications in Mathe- matical Physics, 9:267–278, 1968. 42

    1968

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.