Is there Kibble-Zurek scaling of topological defects in first-order phase transitions?

Fan Zhong

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 108 references

Is there Kibble-Zurek scaling of topological defects in first-order phase transitions?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cooling through a first-order phase transition cannot produce universal Kibble-Zurek scaling of topological defects, because the scaling that does exist needs a symmetry-breaking field.

desk verdict The order-parameter scaling is competently demonstrated, but the headline claim about Kibble-Zurek defect scaling is an overreach: no defect density is computed and the argument applies to field-polarized scaling, not to the zero-field cooling that actually produces defects. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01064 v1 pith:E54WBNMJ submitted 2025-01-02 cond-mat.stat-mech

Fan Zhong This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.stat-mech

keywords Kibble-Zurekmechanismfirst-orderphasetransitiontopologicaldefectsfinite-timescalingeffectivecubictheoryspinodaluniversal

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 asks whether topological defects created by cooling through a first-order phase transition obey the same universal Kibble-Zurek scaling as defects made at continuous transitions. The author's answer is no: any apparent scaling of defect density is at best a rough approximation with a non-universal effective exponent. The reason is that complete universal scaling of the order parameter, which the paper demonstrates, requires applying a symmetry-breaking field to cancel singular terms; that same field selects one ordered phase and removes the degenerate phases whose domain walls would form defects. The order parameter itself, and other non-defect properties, do collapse onto universal curves governed by an effective cubic theory. This matters because first-order transitions are common in materials and cosmology, and the result says defect densities there cannot be predicted by a simple universal power law.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the effective cubic theory obtained by expanding the sixth-order free energy about the spinodal value $M_s$, giving $\tau \phi^2 + a_3 \phi^3 - h\phi$ with $a_3 = 3a_4 M_s + 5a_6 M_s^3$. Renormalization-group analysis assigns nontrivial scaling dimensions to $a_4$, $a_6$, $M_s$, and $H$; inserting these into the finite-time scaling form produces the two scaling functions, Eqs. (7) and (8). The key step is that complete collapse of the order-parameter curves forces a rate-dependent symmetry-breaking field $H$ (Eq. 10) that compensates the singular contributions of $M_s$. This field does the conceptual work of the paper: it is necessary for universal scaling, but it removes the phase degeneracy that Kibble-Zurek defect formation requires.

What would settle it

Run a zero-field quench through a first-order transition at fixed microscopic parameters, vary the cooling rate $R$ over several orders of magnitude, and record defect density; if it follows a clean power law with one universal exponent that does not shift when $a_4$ and $a_6$ are changed, the paper's central claim is wrong, whereas the paper predicts a parameter-dependent effective exponent and a strict power law only when a symmetry-breaking field is applied.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that when the cooling rate $R$ drives a first-order transition, the order parameter obeys a finite-time scaling form (Eq. 8) controlled by an effective cubic theory expanded around a nonzero spinodal value $M_s$. Because the terms involving $M_s$ have scaling dimensions different from the simple reduced temperature and field, full curve collapse requires a specially tuned symmetry-breaking field $H(R)$ (Eq. 10). That field polarizes the disordered phase and favors one ordered phase, so the two degenerate ordered phases that would give Kibble-Zurek defects no longer coexist. Consequently no KZ topological defects are generated in a cooling first-order transition, and any measured defect-density scaling is only an approximate, non-universal effective power law. The paper verifies complete universal scaling of the order parameter numerically in zero-dimensional and two-dimensional systems over more than two orders of magnitude in cooling rate.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hangs on the effective cubic theory's spinodal value $M_s$ being nonzero and carrying its own scaling dimension; at the symmetric zero-field spinodal where defects would actually form, $M_s = 0$, the cubic term vanishes, and the 'intrinsic field' needed for scaling is absent, so the conclusion may not apply to exactly the defect-forming quench.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In a first-order transition, the density of topological defects cannot be assigned a universal Kibble-Zurek exponent; only a rough, non-universal effective power law can be expected.
Complete universal scaling is instead restored for the order parameter and other non-defect observables, with curves collapsing according to the effective cubic theory when parameters are scaled with the cooling rate.
Achieving that collapse requires a symmetry-breaking field; in a genuinely symmetric quench the correlation length is not simply proportional to $R^{-1/r}$, so defect-density scaling is uncontrolled.
The spread of effective exponents reported in earlier numerical studies of defect formation at first-order transitions is expected rather than accidental.

Reading between the lines

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

If the scaling logic carries over, the Kibble-Zurek prediction would be confined to continuous transitions; first-order transitions would produce symmetry selection rather than universal defect formation, which could alter predicted defect densities from first-order cosmological phase transitions.
A direct testable extension would be to compare defect densities in simulations with and without the tuned field: the field should suppress defects sharply even as order-parameter scaling improves, cleanly separating the two effects.
The paper's 'field-like thermal class' suggests that some first-order transitions might mimic field-driven exponents, so experimental reports should give the full cooling-and-field protocol rather than only the cooling rate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know about this paper. First, the order-parameter scaling part is a legitimate piece of work: the author adapts his finite-time scaling framework to cooling first-order transitions and gets clean collapses over two to three decades in 0D and 2D, using Cardy's exact 2D exponents, which are independent of the author's own prior results. Second, the headline claim about Kibble-Zurek scaling of topological defects is not supported by the evidence in the paper. No defect density is ever computed. The argument is indirect and has a hole in exactly the case that matters.

What is new here is the negative claim that KZ defect scaling in FOPTs is at best a rough nonuniversal approximation, plus the demonstration that complete scaling of the order parameter requires a symmetry-breaking field. The numerical work is a reasonable confirmation of the author's own earlier complete-scaling theory, though the collapse is tuned with three adjustable parameters (Ms0, δa, δH), so it reads as a consistency check rather than a parameter-free prediction.

The soft spot is the central inference. The paper shows that to achieve complete universal scaling of M you have to apply a field H that selects one ordered phase. That protocol indeed produces no KZ defects. But it does not follow that the zero-field cooling that actually forms domain walls has no universal defect scaling. The paper gives no relation between order-parameter scaling and defect density. Moreover, in the symmetric zero-field case the spinodal value Ms is zero at mean-field level, which kills the cubic term that the entire scaling theory relies on. The author never treats this case directly; he sidesteps it by always applying H. So the abstract's claim that any possible KZ scaling 'can only be a very rough approximation' goes beyond what the calculation shows.

Who is this for? Someone working on FOPT scaling or on the Suzuki-Zurek question should read it, but as a proposal, not a resolution. The paper deserves a serious referee because it engages a current controversy and lays out a concrete framework, but a responsible referee should ask for a direct computation or argument about defect density in the symmetric case before the KZ claim can stand. My recommendation: send it to peer review with that specific demand.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses whether topological defects produced by cooling through a first-order phase transition obey Kibble-Zurek (KZ) scaling. The author uses a Devonshire Ginzburg-Landau free energy with Langevin dynamics, derives finite-time scaling forms for the order parameter from an effective cubic theory near the spinodal, and reports numerical curve collapses in zero and two dimensions. The central conclusion is that complete universal scaling exists for the order parameter, but KZ scaling for topological defects can only be a rough approximation because complete scaling requires a symmetry-breaking field, Eq. (10), which eliminates the degenerate ordered phases needed for defects.

Significance. If established, the negative result on KZ scaling of topological defects in first-order transitions would be a valuable contribution, since most KZ studies focus on continuous transitions and the recent Ref. [46] does not address defect scaling. The order-parameter scaling theory, based on an effective cubic theory with nontrivial exponents, is interesting and the reported collapses over two decades of cooling rates are suggestive. However, the central claim about topological defects is not directly tested: no defect density or correlation length is computed, and the argument relies on a field-polarized scaling setup. The paper therefore currently supports a narrower statement about order-parameter scaling under a specially designed field, not the general absence of KZ defect scaling in zero-field symmetric cooling.

major comments (3)

[Theory, after Eq. (10); Results, 2D] The central negative claim about KZ scaling of topological defects is not directly tested by the numerical evidence. In the Results section, only the order parameter M is computed; no defect density n_d, no correlation length xi, and no topological-defect count is reported. The zero-dimensional case cannot host spatial defects, and the two-dimensional simulations apply the symmetry-breaking field H from Eq. (10), which by construction selects one ordered phase. The paragraph after Eq. (10) argues that this field eliminates KZ defects, but that only demonstrates scaling in the field-polarized setup. To support the title claim, the manuscript needs a direct computation of defect density in zero-field cooling across the first-order transition, together with a test of whether the defect density follows a KZ power law in R.
[Eq. (5) and following text] The 'intrinsic field' mechanism may not apply to exactly the situation in which KZ defects are produced. For H=0 in cooling, the mean-field spinodal value is M_s=0, which makes a_3=0 in Eq. (5) and removes the cubic term from the effective free energy f_3. The nonzero M_s and the singular \hat H_s that justify the field H in Eq. (10) are properties of the field-polarized scaling analysis. In the zero-field symmetric case relevant to defect formation, the effective cubic theory takes a different form, so the inference that complete scaling requires H and therefore that topological defects are absent is not established. The manuscript should analyze the zero-field limit explicitly, either by direct simulation or by a separate scaling argument.
[Eqs. (8)-(10) and Fig. 2(d)] The claimed 'complete universal scaling' is achieved by tuning M_{s0}, delta a, and delta \hat H (with the text noting that only one is independent). While fixing exponents from the RG theory is a strength, the free adjustment of these parameters means the collapse in Fig. 2 is a fitting exercise rather than a parameter-free prediction. The manuscript should state more precisely how many parameters are adjusted per collapse and provide a robustness check, for example showing that the fitted delta a and delta \hat H are consistent with the loop-expansion expectations or that the same master curve is obtained with an independent reference curve.

minor comments (5)

[Title and full text] The full text contains the typo 'fi rs t-order' in the title; it should read 'first-order'.
[Abstract] The abstract states that 'complete universal scaling for other properties does exist,' but the paper only demonstrates scaling of the order parameter. Please temper the wording to refer specifically to the order parameter unless other observables are also shown to collapse.
[After Eq. (6)] The sentence 'Above d_c, epsilon < 0 and a Gaussian fixed point takes over' is terse; the definition of the effective dimension d_c and the statement that 'd is confined in the effective dimension d_c' should be expanded for clarity.
[Fig. 1(b)] No error bars or statistical uncertainties are shown for the numerical collapses. Adding error bars (or at least stating their magnitude) would make the quality of the collapse more transparent.
[Notation] The symbols H_s, \hat H_s, \hat H, and H_0 are overloaded throughout the paper; a table of symbols or a short glossary would help the reader follow Eqs. (5), (8), and (10).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

No-KZ conclusion is built on a field fitted for scaling collapse; zero-field defect case is never tested.

fitted input called prediction [Theory, paragraph after Eq. (10); Conclusion]
"However, one sees from Eq. (8) that due to ˆHs, one must apply the field H, Eq. (10), to achieve complete universal scaling. This field eliminates the KZ topological defects and their related scaling in cooling FOPTs as mentioned."

Eq. (10) defines H in terms of Ms0 and δĤ that are 'adjusted' so that the new order-parameter curve overlaps the reference one. The conclusion then uses this imposed H to argue that degenerate ordered phases—and hence KZ defects—are absent. The zero-field case that actually produces KZ defects is never simulated; the claim that ξ cannot then scale as R^{-1/r} is an extrapolation from the field-applied scaling form, not a defect-density or correlation-length prediction. The 'intrinsic field for the scaling' is thus a fitted control parameter, and the no-defect conclusion is forced by its construction rather than by an independent test of defect production.

full rationale

The positive result—complete universal scaling of the order parameter—is supported by numerical solutions of Eq. (3) and by scaling collapses that use independent 2D exponents from Cardy for ν and δ, so that part is not circular. However, the negative claim about Kibble–Zurek defect scaling is not derived from any simulation of defects. H in Eq. (10) is constructed from adjustable Ms0 and δĤ to force order-parameter collapse; the paper then argues that because such a field is required for complete scaling, it removes degenerate phases and hence KZ defects. This is a fitted control parameter renamed as an 'intrinsic field': the absence of defects is a consequence of imposing the field, not a measured property of zero-field cooling. Moreover, the paper itself states that for H=0 the spinodal value Ms=0, which makes Ĥs=0 and a3=0, so the effective-cubic-theory mechanism generating the 'intrinsic field' is absent in exactly the symmetric case where KZ defects would form. The nonuniversal-exponent claim for the zero-field case is asserted, not demonstrated by defect-density or correlation-length scaling data. These issues make the headline no-KZ conclusion partially circular, even though the order-parameter scaling content retains independent value.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a scaling theory with several adjustable parameters (Ms0, δa, δĤ) and on a field introduced to enforce scaling. The underlying effective cubic theory and its imaginary fixed point are taken from the author's own prior work, while the 2D exponents are from Cardy.

free parameters (3)

Ms0 = 0.45 and 0.16 in 2D
Order parameter value at the spinodal used in the scaling analysis for 2D. It is not derived from first principles; different choices are tested and both give collapse.
δa = R-dependent, shown in Fig. 2(d)
Fluctuation contribution to the effective reduced temperature. Adjusted per cooling rate to achieve curve collapse.
δĤ = R-dependent, shown in Fig. 2(d)
Fluctuation contribution to the effective field. Adjusted along with δa to force collapse.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The universal behavior near the spinodal of a first-order phase transition is controlled by an effective cubic theory expanded about the spinodal order parameter value.
The paper relies on this from the author's prior work (Refs. 47, 66) to derive the scaling form Eq. (8).
ad hoc to paper The renormalization-group fixed point of the cubic theory is imaginary, and the system converges to it.
This is a peculiar feature of the cubic theory, justified by previous work (Refs. 66, 71), and is needed to justify the exponents.
domain assumption The scaling dimensions of a2, H, T, a4, and a6 are those computed in Ref. 47 for field-driven FOPTs.
These dimensions are used to construct Eqs. (7)-(10) without re-derivation.
standard math In two dimensions, the cubic theory exponents are ν=-5/2, δ=-6, β=1, z=1.85.
The 2D exponents come from Cardy (1985) for the Yang-Lee edge singularity, but their applicability to this FOPT model is an assumption.
domain assumption The order parameter M and correlation length ξ obey the same scaling form, and defect density is proportional to ξ^{-d}.
This is the standard KZ assumption, used to connect the scaling form to defects.

invented entities (1)

Intrinsic symmetry-broken field (H in Eq. (10))
purpose: Required to achieve complete universal scaling of the order parameter; it polarizes the system and eliminates degenerate phases, thereby removing topological defects.
The field is a mathematical device introduced by the scaling theory to compensate singular contributions. There is no independent physical evidence for such a field in a zero-field cooling experiment; it is not measured or predicted outside the scaling analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is there Kibble-Zurek scaling of topological defects in first-order phase transitions?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E54WBNMJ

@misc{pith2026250101064,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is there Kibble-Zurek scaling of topological defects in first-order phase transitions?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E54WBNMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01064}
}

read the original abstract

Kibble-Zurek scaling is the scaling of the density of the topological defects formed via the Kibble-Zurek mechanism with respect to the rate at which a system is cooled across a continuous phase transition. Recently, the density of the topological defects formed via the Kibble-Zurek mechanism was computed for a system cooled through a first-order phase transition instead of the usual continuous transitions. Here we address the problem of whether such defects generated across a first-order phase transition exhibit Kibble-Zurek scaling similar to the case in continuous phase transitions. We show that any possible Kibble-Zurek scaling for the topological defects can only be a very rough approximation due to an intrinsic field for the scaling. However, complete universal scaling for other properties does exist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01064 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (d). After being rescaled according to Eq. (8) with the displacement δa also depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[46]

Keesling, A

A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S. Sachdev, P. Zoller, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature (London), 568, 207 (2019)

work page 2019
[1]

T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 9, 1387 (1976)

1976
[2]

T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Today 60 (9), 47 (2007)

2007
[3]

Another set of parameters comprises a2 and H which relate to τ and h through Eq

[47]. Another set of parameters comprises a2 and H which relate to τ and h through Eq. ( 5). Note that [a4M 2 s ] = [ a6M 4 s ] = ǫ/2+β/ν , [a2Ms] = 2+ β/ν , and [a4M 3 s ] = [ a6M 5 s ] = ǫ/2 + 2β/ν . Two diﬀerent situations appear. In MF, valid above d > d c, d is conﬁned in the eﬀective dimension dc [72] and ǫ = 0. The MF exponents then ensure that all...
[4]

W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rep. 276, 177 (1996)

1996
[5]

The average is over 50000 samples

in the absence of the gradient], the time step is 0 .001 having been checked to bring sta- ble results. The average is over 50000 samples. The same discretization is also applied to a two-dimensional system. The space step is ﬁxed to 1, while the time step varies from 0 .01 for the small rates to 0 .00005 for the largest rate, again checked to be suﬃcient...
[6]

It involves four objects, t, x, H, and φ

are generic. It involves four objects, t, x, H, and φ. They can then be properly scaled to ﬁx four parameters, having been chosen to be a40, a60, H itself, and the coeﬃcient of the gradient. As a2 decreases with cooling, only T is adjustable. If T is too small, ﬂuctua- tions are negligible and the MF results recover [ 47]; while if it is too large, a new ...
[7]

Note also that bz = R−z/r is a control- lable ﬁnite timescale that serves as the temporal analogy of a ﬁnite system size in ﬁnite-size scaling [ 70]

and ( 8) since they just contribute an overall displacement of the rescaled curve. Note also that bz = R−z/r is a control- lable ﬁnite timescale that serves as the temporal analogy of a ﬁnite system size in ﬁnite-size scaling [ 70]. In con- trast to the KZ scaling that arises from adiabatic approx- imation, FTS can describe both adiabatic and diabatic reg...

Show all 108 references

[8]

( 10), to achieve complete universal scaling

that due to ˆHs, one must apply the ﬁeld H, Eq. ( 10), to achieve complete universal scaling. This ﬁeld eliminates the KZ topologi- cal defects and their related scaling in cooling FOPTs as mentioned. One might keep all the parameters constant except for the cooling a2 in zero...
[9]

W. H. Zurek, Nature 317, 505 (1985)

1985
[10]

Similarly, since [ a4M 2 s ] = 2 = 1 /ν and δa = 0 in MF, the additional terms to a2 are a constant and τ R−1/rν is equivalent to the direct MF result of a2R−1/rν in Eq

correctly reduces to H = H0(R0/R)−βδ/rν because ρ1 = ρ2 = 0 and δH = 0. Similarly, since [ a4M 2 s ] = 2 = 1 /ν and δa = 0 in MF, the additional terms to a2 are a constant and τ R−1/rν is equivalent to the direct MF result of a2R−1/rν in Eq. ( 7). Note that all the ﬂuctuation ...
[11]

Dziarmaga, Adv

J. Dziarmaga, Adv. Phys. 59, 1063 (2010)

2010
[12]

Polkovnikov, K

A. Polkovnikov, K. Sengupta, A. Silva, and M. Ven- galattore, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 863 (2011)

2011
[13]

del Campo and W

A. del Campo and W. H. Zurek, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29, 1430018 (2014)

2014
[14]

Laguna and W

P. Laguna and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2519 (1997)

1997
[15]

Yates and W

A. Yates and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5477 (1998)

1998
[16]

N. D. Antunes, L. M. A. Bettencourt, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2824 (1999)

1999
[17]

Hindmarsh and A

M. Hindmarsh and A. Rajantie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4660 (2000)

2000
[18]

I. L. Chuang, R. Durrer, N. Turok, and B. Yurke, Sci- ence 251, 1336 (1991)

1991
[19]

M. J. Bowick, L. Chandar, E. A. Schiﬀ, and A. M. Sri- vastava, Science 263, 943 (1994)

1994
[20]

V. M. H. Ruutu, V. B. Eltsov, A. J. Gill, T. W. B. Kibble, M. Krusius, Yu G. Makhlin, B. Placais, G. E. Volovik, and W. Xu, Nature 382, 334 (1996)

1996
[21]

B¨ auerle, Yu M

C. B¨ auerle, Yu M. Bunkov, S. N. Fisher, H. Godfrin, and G. R. Pickett, Nature 382, 332 (1996)

1996
[22]

Monaco, J

R. Monaco, J. Mygind, and R. J. Rivers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 080603 (2002)

2002
[23]

Carmi, E

R. Carmi, E. Polturak, and G. Koren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4966 (2000)

2000
[24]

Maniv, E

A. Maniv, E. Polturak, and G. Koren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 197001 (2003)

2003
[25]

Dziarmaga, Phys

J. Dziarmaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5485 (1998)

1998
[26]

G. J. Stephens, L. M. A. Bettencourt, and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 137004 (2002)

2002
[27]

Golubchik, E

D. Golubchik, E. Polturak, and G. Koren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 247002 (2010)

2010
[28]

Navon, A

N. Navon, A. L. Gaunt, R. P. Smith, Z. Hadzibabic, Science 347, 167 (2015)

2015
[29]

Casado, W

S. Casado, W. Gonz´ alez-Vi˜ nas, S. Boccaletti, P. L. Ra- mazza, and H. Mancini, Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top. 146, 87 (2007)

2007
[30]

Casado, W

S. Casado, W. Gonz´ alez-Vi˜ nas, and H. Mancini, Phys. Rev. E 74, 047101 (2006)

2006
[31]

M. A. Miranda, D. Laroze, and W. Gonz´ alez-Vi˜ nas, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25, 404208 (2013)

2013
[32]

M. A. Miranda, J. Burguete, H. Mancini, and W. Gonz´ alez-Vi˜ nas, Phys. Rev. E87, 032902 (2013)

2013
[33]

M. A. Miranda, J. Burguete, W. Gonz´ alez-Vi˜ nas, and H. Mancini, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos Appl. Sci. Eng. 22, 1250165 (2012)

2012
[34]

Gonz´ alez-Vi˜ nas, S

W. Gonz´ alez-Vi˜ nas, S. Casado, J. Burguete, H. Mancini, andS. Boccaletti, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos Appl. Sci. Eng. 11, 2887 (2001)

2001
[35]

W. H. Zurek, U. Dorner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 105701 (2005)

2005
[36]

Dziarmaga, Phys

J. Dziarmaga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 245701 (2005)

2005
[37]

Polkovnikov, Phys

A. Polkovnikov, Phys. Rev. B 72, 161201(R) (2005)

2005
[38]

Damski and W

B. Damski and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 130402 (2007)

2007
[39]

D. Sen, K. Sengupta, and S. Mondal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 016806 (2008)

2008
[40]

S. Deng, G. Ortiz, and L. Viola, Europhys. Lett. 84, 67008 (2008)

2008
[41]

De Grandi, A

C. De Grandi, A. Polkovnikov, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B 84, 224303 (2011)

2011
[42]

Kolodrubetz, B

M. Kolodrubetz, B. K. Clark, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 015701 (2012)

2012
[43]

Kolodrubetz, D

M. Kolodrubetz, D. Pekker, B. K. Clark, and K. Sen- gupta, Phys. Rev. B 85, 100505(R) (2012)

2012
[44]

L. W. Clark, L. Feng, and C. Chin, Science 354, 606 (2016)

2016
[45]

Weiss, M

W. Weiss, M. Gerster, D. Jaschke, P. Silvi, and S. Mon- tangero, Phys. Rev. A 98, 063601 (2018)

2018
[47]

Weinberg, M

P. Weinberg, M. Tylutki, J. M. R¨ onkk¨ o, J. Westerholm, J. A. ˚ Astr¨ om, P. Manninen, P. T¨ orm¨ a, and A. W. Sand- vik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 090502 (2020)

2020
[48]

Puebla, A

R. Puebla, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 230602 (2020)

2020
[49]

Schmitt, M

M. Schmitt, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, M. Heyl, and W. H. Zurek, Sci. Adv. 8, eabl6850 (2022)

2022
[50]

A. D. King, J. Raymond, T. Lanting, R. Harris, A. Zucca, F. Altomare, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, C. Enderud, E. Hoskinson, S. Huang, E. Ladizinsky, A. J. R. MacDonald, G. Marsden, R. Molavi, T. Oh, G. Poulin-Lamarre, M. Reis, C. Rich, Y. Sato, N. Tsai, M. Volkmann...

2023
[51]

V. G. Sadhasivam, F. Suzuki, B. Yan, and N. A. Sinit- syn, Nat. Commun. 15, 10246 (2024)

2024
[52]

Suzuki and W

F. Suzuki and W. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 241601 (2024)

2024
[53]

Zhong, Chin

F. Zhong, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41, 100502 (2024)

2024
[54]

Zhong, arXiv:2405.11231 (2024)

F. Zhong, arXiv:2405.11231 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[55]

Liang and F

N. Liang and F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. E 95, 032124 (2017)

2017
[56]

Liang and F

N. Liang and F. Zhong, Front. Phys. 12, 126403 (2017)

2017
[57]

A. F. Devonshire, Phil. Mag. 40, 1040 (1949)

1949
[58]

A. F. Devonshire, Phil. Mag. 42, 1065 (1951)

1951
[59]

P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

1977
[60]

J. D. Gunton, M. San Miguel, and P. S. Sahni, in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena , eds. C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz Vol. 8, 267 (Academic, London, 1983)

1983
[61]

Binder, Rep

K. Binder, Rep. Prog. Phys. 50, 783 (1987)

1987
[62]

Binder and P

K. Binder and P. Fratzl, in Phase Transformations in Materials, ed. Kostorz, G. 409-480 (Wiley, Weinheim, 2001)

2001
[63]

Rao and R

M. Rao and R. Pandit, Phys. Rev. B 43, 3373 (1991)

1991
[64]

Zhong and J

F. Zhong and J. X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. E 51, 2898 (1995)

1995
[65]

J. X. Zhang, F. Zhong, and G. G. Siu. Solid State Com- mun. 97, 847 (1996)

1996
[66]

Yildiz, ¨O.Pekcan, A

S. Yildiz, ¨O.Pekcan, A. N. Berker, and H. ¨Ozbek, Phys. Rev. E 69, 031705 (2004)

2004
[67]

Fan and F

S. Fan and F. Zhong, J. Stat. Phys. 143, 1136 (2011)

2011
[68]

W. Lee, J. H. Kim, J. G. Hwang, H. R. Noh, and W. Jhe, Phys. Rev. E 94, 032141 (2016)

2016
[69]

Pelissetto and E

A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 030602 (2017)

2017
[70]

Kundu, R

S. Kundu, R. K. Patel, S. Middey, and B. Bansal, Phys. Rev. E 108, 024101 (2023)

2023
[71]

Zhong and Q

F. Zhong and Q. Z. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 175701 (2005)

2005
[72]

Zhong, Front

F. Zhong, Front. Phys. 12, 126402 (2017)

2017
[73]

Ma, Modern Theory of Critical Phenomena (W

S.-k. Ma, Modern Theory of Critical Phenomena (W. A. Benjamin Inc., Canada, 1976)

1976
[74]

Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statisti- cal Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996)

J. Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statisti- cal Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996)

1996
[75]

Zinn-Justin, Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phe- nomena, 5th edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021)

J. Zinn-Justin, Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phe- nomena, 5th edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021)

2021
[76]

D. J. Amit and V. Martin-Mayer, Field Theory, the Renormalization Group, and Critical Phenomena , 3rd edition (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 2005)

2005
[77]

Zhong, Phys

F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. E 86, 022104 (2012)

2012
[78]

S. Zeng, S. P. Szeto, and F. Zhong, Phys. Scr. 97, 125002 (2022)

2022
[79]

Zhong and Z

F. Zhong and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 71, 132402 (2005)

2005
[80]

S. Gong, F. Zhong, X. Huang, and S. Fan, New J. Phys. 12, 043036 (2010)

2010
[81]

Zhong, in Applications of Monte Carlo Method in Science and Engineering

F. Zhong, in Applications of Monte Carlo Method in Science and Engineering. ed. S. Mordechai, 469-493 (In- tech, Rijeka, 2011)

2011
[82]

Huang, S

Y. Huang, S. Yin, B. Feng, and F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B 90, 134108 (2014)

2014
[83]

S. Yin, X. Qin, C. Lee, and F. Zhong, arXiv: 1207.1602 (2012)

2012 arXiv
[84]

C.-W. Liu, A. Polkovnikov, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B 89, 054307 (2014)

2014
[85]

S. Yin, P. Mai, and F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B 89, 094108 (2014)

2014
[86]

C. W. Liu, A. Polkovnikov, A. W. Sandvik, and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. E 92, 022128 (2015)

2015
[87]

C. W. Liu, A. Polkovnikov, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 147203 (2015)

2015
[88]

B. Feng, S. Yin, and F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B 94, 144103 (2016)

2016
[89]

Pelissetto and E

A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. E 93, 032141 (2016)

2016
[90]

Yin, G.-Y

S. Yin, G.-Y. Huang, Ch.-Y. Lo, and P. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 065701 (2017)

2017
[91]

N. Xu, C. Castelnovo, R. G. Melko, C. Chamon, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B 97, 024432 (2018)

2018
[92]

M. Xue, S. Yin, and L. You, Phys. Rev. A 98, 013619 (2018)

2018
[93]

X. Cao, Q. Hu, and F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B 98, 245124 (2018)

2018
[94]

Zhai, H.-Y

L.-J. Zhai, H.-Y. Wang, and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. B 97, 134108 (2018)

2018
[95]

Gerster, B

M. Gerster, B. Haggenmiller, F. Tschirsich, P. Silvi, a nd S. Montangero, Phys. Rev. B 100, 024311 (2019)

2019
[96]

Y. Li, Z. Zeng, and F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. E 100, 020105(R) (2019)

2019
[97]

Mathey and S

S. Mathey and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. Res. 2 013150 (2020)

2020
[98]

Kang, Ch.-Y

Y.-T. Kang, Ch.-Y. Lo, S. Yin, and P. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 101, 023610 (2020)

2020
[99]

Rossini and E

D. Rossini and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023211 (2020)

2020
[100]

Oshiyama, N

H. Oshiyama, N. Shibata, and S. Suzuki, J. Phys. Soc. Japan, 89, 104002 (2020)

2020
[101]

W. Yuan, S. Yin, and F. Zhong, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38, 026401 (2021)

2021
[102]

W.-T. Kuo, D. Arovas, S. Vishveshwara, and Y.-Z. You, SciPost Phys. 11, 084 (2021)

2021
[103]

Tarantelli and E

F. Tarantelli and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. B 105, 235124 (2022)

2022
[104]

B´ acsi and B

´A. B´ acsi and B. D´ ora, Sci Rep13, 4034 (2023)

2023
[105]

Soto Garcia and N

J. Soto Garcia and N. Chepiga, Phys. Rev. B 110, 125113 (2024)

2024
[106]

F. W. Wegner, Phys. Rev. B 5, 4529-4536 (1972)

1972
[107]

J. L. Cardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1354 (1985)

1985
[108]

Zhong, J

F. Zhong, J. X. Zhang, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. E 52, 1399 (1995)

1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [46]

Keesling, A

A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Levine, H. Bernien, H. Pich- ler, S. Choi, R. Samajdar, S. Schwartz, P. Silvi, S. Sachdev, P. Zoller, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature (London), 568, 207 (2019)

work page 2019

[2] [1]

T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 9, 1387 (1976)

1976

[3] [2]

T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Today 60 (9), 47 (2007)

2007

[4] [3]

Another set of parameters comprises a2 and H which relate to τ and h through Eq

[47]. Another set of parameters comprises a2 and H which relate to τ and h through Eq. ( 5). Note that [a4M 2 s ] = [ a6M 4 s ] = ǫ/2+β/ν , [a2Ms] = 2+ β/ν , and [a4M 3 s ] = [ a6M 5 s ] = ǫ/2 + 2β/ν . Two diﬀerent situations appear. In MF, valid above d > d c, d is conﬁned in the eﬀective dimension dc [72] and ǫ = 0. The MF exponents then ensure that all...

[5] [4]

W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rep. 276, 177 (1996)

1996

[6] [5]

The average is over 50000 samples

in the absence of the gradient], the time step is 0 .001 having been checked to bring sta- ble results. The average is over 50000 samples. The same discretization is also applied to a two-dimensional system. The space step is ﬁxed to 1, while the time step varies from 0 .01 for the small rates to 0 .00005 for the largest rate, again checked to be suﬃcient...

[7] [6]

It involves four objects, t, x, H, and φ

are generic. It involves four objects, t, x, H, and φ. They can then be properly scaled to ﬁx four parameters, having been chosen to be a40, a60, H itself, and the coeﬃcient of the gradient. As a2 decreases with cooling, only T is adjustable. If T is too small, ﬂuctua- tions are negligible and the MF results recover [ 47]; while if it is too large, a new ...

[8] [7]

Note also that bz = R−z/r is a control- lable ﬁnite timescale that serves as the temporal analogy of a ﬁnite system size in ﬁnite-size scaling [ 70]

and ( 8) since they just contribute an overall displacement of the rescaled curve. Note also that bz = R−z/r is a control- lable ﬁnite timescale that serves as the temporal analogy of a ﬁnite system size in ﬁnite-size scaling [ 70]. In con- trast to the KZ scaling that arises from adiabatic approx- imation, FTS can describe both adiabatic and diabatic reg...