Complete universal scaling of first-order phase transitions in the two-dimensional Ising model

Fan Zhong; Yuxiang Zhang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Complete universal scaling of first-order phase transitions in the two-dimensional Ising model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First-order phase transitions in the two-dimensional Ising model obey complete universal finite-time scaling: rescaled magnetization curves for arbitrary field-ramp rates collapse onto one master curve.

desk verdict A genuinely new application of the authors' FOPT scaling theory to the 2D Ising model, with an honest but under-powered collapse test that needs an out-of-sample check. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00515 v1 pith:SQI5S3FI submitted 2025-05-31 cond-mat.stat-mech

Yuxiang Zhang , Fan Zhong This is my paper

classification cond-mat.stat-mech MSC 82B2082B2782B80 PACS 64.60.-i64.60.Fr75.10.Hk

keywords first-orderphasetransitionsfinite-timescalinguniversalityIsingmodelLandau-GinzburgtheoryrenormalizationgroupMonteCarlosimulationcriticalphenomena

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

The paper sets out to show that the first-order phase transitions (FOPTs) of the microscopic two-dimensional Ising model, driven by a linearly ramped magnetic field below the critical temperature, are governed by the same complete universal scaling theory previously developed for mesoscopic Landau-Ginzburg models. It claims that when magnetization curves for different ramp rates R are rescaled using effective cubic-theory exponents, they collapse onto a single master curve over an unbounded range of R, provided a post-fluctuation shift is included. This matters because scaling and universality, hallmarks of continuous transitions, are shown to hold for FOPTs in a realistic lattice model, bridging a gap between coarse-grained theory and microscopic systems. The authors further provide a systematic procedure for mapping the coarse-grained scaling variables onto the Ising parameters and validate it with Monte Carlo simulations in two different parameter schemes.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the finite-time scaling form Eq. (11), M = $R^{{β/rν}}$ g2(τ $R^{{-1/rν}}$, h $R^{{-βδ/rν}}$, T $R^{{-[T]/r}}$), together with the mapping Eq. (10) that translates the coarse-grained Landau-Ginzburg scaling variables into Ising parameters: τ = Jc - J + A + δJ, Hs = Ms(Jc - J + A/3). The mapping is drawn by analogy with the effective cubic theory and is the bridge that lets a microscopic lattice model be described by the mesoscopic scaling theory. Its practical operation relies on four adjustable parameters (A0, δJ, δH, Ms0) that are fixed by matching rescaled curves, with δH—the post-fluctuation shift—being the ingredient that removes the previous restriction on the ramp-rate range.

What would settle it

Extract the dynamic exponent z from the decay of the equal-time correlation function during a ramped-field simulation at the spinodal, then repeat the collapse using that independently measured z; if the collapse fails, the claimed universal scaling is an artifact of fitting z. Alternatively, measure the effective quartic coupling a4 from the equilibrium magnetisation curve at the same temperature and check whether the fitted A0 and Ms0 obey A0 = 3 a4 $M_s0^{2}$; a violation would show the mapping in Eq. (10) is not exact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Below its critical temperature, the two-dimensional Ising model driven by a linearly ramped field belongs to the same complete-universal-scaling regime as the coarse-grained Landau-Ginzburg theory for first-order phase transitions. The paper claims that when magnetization curves for different ramp rates R are rescaled with the effective cubic exponents (β=1, ν=-5/2, δ=-6, and z≈1.85 or 1.75), they collapse onto a single master curve, and that the collapse holds over an unbounded range of R once a post-fluctuation shift δH is included. The demonstration is performed by Monte Carlo simulation of the square-lattice Ising model in two schemes, one treating (J,H) as the only parameters and one including temperature as an additional scaled variable. The authors conclude that the universal scaling previously established only in mesoscopic models is also realized in a microscopic lattice model, opening a route to systematic exploration of scaling in other first-order-transition systems.

Load-bearing premise

The scaling variables of the Ising model are identified by analogy with the Landau-Ginzburg theory rather than derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian; if that identification is inexact, the claimed universal collapse would not be governed by the theory's exponents.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Rescaled magnetization curves for the 2D Ising model below its critical temperature collapse onto a single master curve for any ramp rate R, not just in an intermediate window.
The same scaling theory can be carried over to other microscopic models with field-driven first-order transitions, since the bridge between coarse-grained and microscopic parameters is now demonstrated.
The post-fluctuation shift δH is what makes the collapse range unbounded; omitting it restores the earlier bounded collapse.
The dynamic exponent z is not uniquely pinned down by optimal collapse: both z≈1.85 and z≈1.75 give comparable collapses.
In the two-parameter scheme the usable R range is limited because large R drives J beyond the physical interaction strength; the three-parameter scheme avoids this by letting T scale.

Reading between the lines

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

If the mapping in Eq. (10) is exactly correct, the same universal master curve should be observed for any microscopic model in the 2D Ising universality class with a field-driven first-order transition, such as a lattice gas; this is a testable prediction not made explicitly in the paper.
The fact that two different dynamic exponents produce equally good collapses suggests the collapse is not a sensitive probe of z; a sharper test might come from measuring the decay of correlations during the ramp directly at the spinodal.
For experimental systems with fixed couplings, the three-parameter scheme indicates that the temperature can play the role of the scaling variable, so the collapse might be produced by ramping the temperature rather than the field, which could be tried in cold-atom experiments.
The arbitrariness in Ms0 noted by the authors implies that the fitted A0 is not a direct measurement of the quartic coupling; an independent equilibrium measurement of the free-energy barrier would be needed to verify the theory's microscopic interpretation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look if you care about whether first-order transitions have scaling universality. The genuinely new piece: they take their mesoscopic cubic-field scaling theory, previously tested in zero-dimensional and mesoscopic models, and try it on the 2D Ising model. They show magnetization curves for field ramps spanning two decades collapse onto a master curve in two schemes, and they are unusually candid about how the collapse is obtained.

What is good: the parameter mapping in Eq. (10) is new for the Ising model, and they lay out a systematic procedure to set A0, deltaJhat, Ms0, deltaH. They also openly state that Ms0 is arbitrary, deltaJhat is only a relative quantity, and that z=1.85 and z=1.75 both give comparable collapse. That honesty is real credit; most papers would have buried it.

The soft spots are the flip side of that honesty. The mapping from J and H to tau and Hs is drawn by analogy, not derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian. If that identification is off, the scaling form is not the right one. More importantly, with four adjustable parameters plus an adjustable dynamic exponent, visual collapse of smooth curves is a weak test. The paper provides no error bars and no quantitative measure of collapse quality, so the 'unambiguous confirmation' in Fig. 1 rests on eye-balling. The fact that two different z values work equally well underscores that the test is not discriminating. And the claim that the range of R is unbounded goes beyond the two decades actually shown. These are real limitations, but not fatal: the paper doesn't hide them, it just doesn't solve them.

The fix is straightforward: an out-of-sample test. Fix all parameters from one reference curve and one other rate, then predict a third rate without any further adjustment; or use an independently measured z. Also report a collapse statistic (e.g., variance of the rescaled curves) with error bars. That would turn a suggestive demonstration into a quantitative one.

Who is it for: people working on dynamic scaling of first-order transitions, and anyone who wants a cautionary example of curve collapse versus overfitting. It deserves a serious referee; it is not a desk reject. I would send it to review and ask for the out-of-sample test and error bars.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper applies a mesoscopic effective-cubic Landau-Ginzburg theory of field-driven first-order phase transitions (FOPTs) to the two-dimensional Ising model below its critical temperature. The field is ramped linearly at rate R, and magnetization curves M(H) are rescaled according to the finite-time-scaling form Eq. (11), which is derived from the cubic theory. Because the relationship between the Ising Hamiltonian parameters and the scaling variables tau and Hs is not known microscopically, the authors propose the mapping Eq. (10) 'by analogy' and introduce four adjustable parameters (A0, deltaJhat, Ms0, deltaH) to align curves onto a master curve; two dynamic exponents (z=1.85 and z=1.75) are tested. For rates spanning roughly two orders of magnitude, the rescaled transition regions collapse visually, in both a two-parameter (J,H) scheme and a three-parameter (J,H,T) scheme. The paper concludes that complete universal scaling in FOPTs is unambiguously confirmed in a microscopic model, that the R range is unbounded, and that the framework extends to other FOPT systems.

Significance. A convincing demonstration would be a significant step: it would connect the group's coarse-grained FOPT scaling theory to a microscopic paradigmatic model and suggest experimental tests in cold-atom and artificial systems. The paper is honest about its gauge freedoms (deltaJhat relative, Ms0 arbitrary), and the introduction of deltaH as a post-fluctuation shift is a plausible extension that broadens the collapse range. However, the current evidence is not quantitatively discriminating: the collapse is judged visually, the effective number of free parameters is large, no code or raw data are provided, and the manuscript's own definition of 'complete' scaling ('without the need for any additional variables') is not met by the four-parameter fitting procedure. The significance is therefore conditional on a strengthened, quantitative collapse test.

major comments (4)

[Collapse procedure, Eqs. (11)-(13) and Fig. 1] The central claim rests on a visual collapse obtained by adjusting four parameters (A0, deltaJhat, Ms0, deltaH), with the text admitting that Ms0 is 'arbitrary,' deltaJhat is 'only a relative' quantity, and deltaH0=0 is a gauge choice, while the dynamic exponent is said to 'not be uniquely determined' (z=1.85 and z=1.75 give 'comparative quality'). No quantitative collapse residual, chi-squared statistic, or error bar is reported despite 20,000 samples per curve. With this number of effective free parameters, collapsibility of a sigmoidal transition region is a weak goodness-of-fit test, so the statement in the final results paragraph that the collapse constitutes 'unambiguous confirmation' of underlying scale invariance is not supportable. I request a quantitative collapse metric with uncertainties, a statement of the effective number of free parameters, and an out-of-sample test in which parameters are fixed on a subset of R values and the remaining curves are predicted.
[Eq. (10) and the three remarks following it] The scaling-variable identification tau = Jc - J + A + deltaJ and Hs = Ms(Jc - J + A/3) is introduced 'by analogy' rather than derived from the Ising Hamiltonian. Because A0 and Ms0 are subsequently treated as free fitting parameters (Ms0 is even stated to be arbitrary), a successful collapse under Eqs. (11)-(13) validates the joint hypothesis of the scaling form and the mapping, and cannot independently confirm Eq. (10). The authors should derive the mapping from the microscopic model (for example, by expanding the coarse-grained Ising free energy around the spinodal) or, failing that, perform a discriminating comparison between Eq. (10) and alternative assignments of the scaling variables using the same fitting budget.
[Simulation paragraph and the paragraph on the unbounded R range] The claim that 'the range of R is unbounded' is not supported by the presented data, which span about two orders of magnitude in R, and no limiting-behavior analysis (quasi-equilibration at small R, breakdown of the spinodal picture at large R) is given. Moreover, the simulation section specifies the lattice, boundary conditions, and 20,000 samples, but never states the lattice size L, and no finite-size analysis of the collapse is provided. Without L and a size-dependence study, the robustness of the collapse and of the crossover regions cannot be assessed. Please report L for every data set and add a finite-size check before drawing conclusions about unboundedness.
[Introduction, para. 1, and the Conclusion] The Introduction defines complete universal scaling as collapse 'without the need for any additional variables,' yet the present method introduces A0, deltaJhat, Ms0, and deltaH as adjustable parameters, with the text explicitly noting that different choices yield different parameter values. Either the definition of 'complete' is being relaxed in this microscopic application, or these parameters must be fixed by theory; the manuscript should state which, since the title's 'complete' claim depends on it. Relatedly, the text notes that the fitted a40 values (0.065 and 0.12) do not match the ratio of the corresponding J values, a discrepancy attributed to the arbitrariness of Ms0; this further weakens the claim that the parameters connect to the microscopic couplings.

minor comments (5)

[Fourth paragraph of Sec. on simulation details] The values nu = -5/2 and delta = -6, stated as 'all are exact' and attributed to Ref. [25], use an unusual sign convention for a correlation-length exponent; please spell out the convention or comment on the negative values, since a casual reader will suspect a typo.
[References] Ref. [10] has an unclosed parenthesis: '145, 211701 (2016.'
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption is difficult to parse and the R values in panels (b), (d), and (f) are unclear; a table of R, J0, A0, Ms0, deltaJhat, deltaH, and z for each panel would substantially improve reproducibility.
[Fig. 1 paragraphs] The phrase 'comparative quality' used for the z=1.75 collapse should be replaced by a quantitative comparison; the same applies to 'robust collapse' and 'remarkably.'
[Paragraph after Eq. (6)] The sentence 'we can neglect Ms, which behaves in the same way as M' is confusing given that Ms0 later becomes a free parameter; please clarify the different roles of Ms in the scaling function and in the parameter fit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The universal-collapse claim is produced by per-curve fitting of δĴ and δH, with a non-unique dynamic exponent, so the demonstration substantially reduces to a fit.

fitted input called prediction [Section 'To achieve curve collapse' / Eqs. (12)-(13), Fig. 1]
"To collapse the two curves onto each other, we set δH0 = 0 and select a Ms0 to find Hs = Ms0 { Jc − J + A0(R0/R)−[A]/r/3 } (R0/R)−β/rν, from Eq. (10), where J is given by Eq. (12). A unique δH then collapses the rescaled curves according to Eq. (11). After determining A0, subsequent curves for other new R values require only adjustments to δ ˆJ and δH to overlap with prior results."

The collapse is not a parameter-free prediction: A0 is varied until the new curve aligns with the reference, and for every further ramp rate both δĴ and δH are freely adjusted to force overlap with previously collapsed curves. The paper itself credits the extra fitted parameter δH for the claimed unbounded range: 'The reason lies in the additional parameter δH in shifting the curves.' Thus the curves are collapsed by construction using per-curve fitted shifts, and the same collapse is then offered as 'unambiguous confirmation' of scale invariance. With no quantitative collapse metric and two per-curve adjustable parameters, the test is severely underdetermined.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: the mesoscopic cubic Landau-Ginzburg scaling theory from the authors' prior work (Refs. 11–15), an 'analogy' mapping to Ising variables in Eq. (10), the finite-time-scaling form Eq. (11), and then a Monte Carlo demonstration of collapse. The nontrivial external inputs are the exact 2D Ising critical parameters (Jc, ν, δ, β). However, the central demonstration of 'complete universal scaling' is obtained by fitting the unknown parameters A0, Ms0, δĴ, and δH, with δĴ and δH adjusted separately for each new ramp rate to make the curves overlap. This is explicitly stated in the text: 'subsequent curves for other new R values require only adjustments to δ ˆJ and δH to overlap with prior results.' Consequently, the collapse is constructed rather than predicted, and its evidential value is further weakened by the admitted non-uniqueness of the dynamic exponent: z = 1.85 and z = 1.75 both give 'comparative quality' collapse, so the data do not select the theory's exponent. The mapping Eq. (10) is also drawn 'by analogy' rather than derived, adding to the fragility of the scaling-variable identification. For these reasons the claim that the Ising FOPT data 'unambiguously confirm' the underlying scale invariance is overstated; the demonstration is partially circular because the fitted parameters are chosen to produce the very collapse that is then cited as confirmation. This is not a case of full definitional equivalence — the R-dependent rescaling with fixed exponents imposes some structure — but the core result is substantially a fit.

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

The central claim rests on the authors' mesoscopic cubic-theory scaling framework, which contributes the scaling form and exponents; additionally, four parameters (A0, deltaJhat, Ms0, deltaH) are fitted to the data to force collapse. The Ising-to-Landau-Ginzburg mapping is assumed by analogy, not derived.

free parameters (5)

A0 = 0.35, 0.10, 0.81 (per scheme)
Amplitude of the a4 Ms^2 term in tau; chosen to align the reference curve's slope, not fixed by theory.
deltaJhat = R-dependent, relative values
Fluctuation contribution to tau; adjusted per ramp rate to collapse curves, acknowledged as a relative quantity in the text.
Ms0 = -0.8, -0.715, -1.5 (per scheme)
Spinodal value; explicitly arbitrary, with its choice reallocating A0 and deltaJhat.
deltaH = R-dependent, values shown in Fig. 1(i)
Post-fluctuation shift in field; fitted to complete the collapse, with values depending on the arbitrary parameter choices.
dynamic exponent z = 1.85 or 1.75
Two distinct values yield comparable collapse, so z is not uniquely determined by the data; this is a free input for the scaling form.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The effective cubic Landau-Ginzburg theory controls FOPTs near the spinodal, with a3 analytically continued to imaginary values.
Adopted from Refs. 14 and 15; this is the foundation of the scaling form and is assumed to hold for the Ising model.
domain assumption The 2D Ising model belongs to the same universality class as the Landau-Ginzburg functional in Eq. (1).
Invoked when transferring the scaling form to the Ising model; text states 'they belong to the same universality class'.
ad hoc to paper The mapping tau = Jc - J + A + deltaJ and Hs = Ms(Jc - J + A/3) is valid.
Introduced by analogy (section 'Now we turn to the Ising model'), not derived from the Hamiltonian; load-bearing for all subsequent scaling variables.
standard math Corrections to scaling and higher-order terms in the spinodal expansion are negligible.
Stated after Eq. (6) and in Eqs. (4)-(5); standard RG assumption but unverified here.
standard math The exact 2D cubic-theory exponents nu = -5/2, delta = -6, beta = 1 apply.
Taken from Cardy (Ref. 25); accepted theoretical results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complete universal scaling of first-order phase transitions in the two-dimensional Ising model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQI5S3FI

@misc{pith2026250600515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complete universal scaling of first-order phase transitions in the two-dimensional Ising model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQI5S3FI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00515}
}

read the original abstract

Phase transitions, as one of the most intriguing phenomena in nature, are divided into first-order phase transitions (FOPTs) and continuous ones in current classification. While the latter shows striking phenomena of scaling and universality, the former has recently also been demonstrated to exhibit scaling and universal behavior within a mesoscopic, coarse-grained Landau-Ginzburg theory. Here we apply this theory to a microscopic model -- the paradigmatic Ising model, which undergoes FOPTs between two ordered phases below its critical temperature -- and unambiguously demonstrate universal scaling behavior in such FOPTs. These results open the door for extending the theory to other microscopic FOPT systems and experimentally testing them to systematically uncover their scaling and universal behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00515 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[1]

M. E. Fisher, Physics 3, 255 (1967)

work page 1967
[2]

H. E. Stanley, Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, (Oxford University, Oxford, 1971)

work page 1971
[3]

Ma, Modern Theory of Critical Phenomena (W

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

work page 1976
[4]

Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996)

J. Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996)

1996
[5]

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)

work page 2021
[6]

This MF theory has been conclusively established to fully catch the complete universal scaling behavior in the zero-dimensional mod- els both with and without noise [ 11–13]

remains valid, and MF behavior emerges with z = 2, ν = 1 /2, β = 1, and δ = 2 [ 14, 15], as the system is conﬁned to the eﬀective dimension dc [18]. This MF theory has been conclusively established to fully catch the complete universal scaling behavior in the zero-dimensional mod- els both with and without noise [ 11–13]. In Eq. ( 6), we have neglected co...

work page
[7]

J. D. Gunton, M. San Miguel, and P. S. Sahni, The dy- namics of ﬁrst-order phase transitions, in Phase Tran- sitions and Critical Phenomena , eds. C. Domb, J. L. Lebowitz Vol. 8, 267 (Academic, London, 1983)

work page 1983
[8]

Binder, Rep

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

work page 1987

Show all 45 references

[9]

In this way, J is just the conventional inverse temperature

as the energy scale. In this way, J is just the conventional inverse temperature. The second is a three-parameter ( J, H, T ) scheme where T serves as a scaled variable as in Eq. ( 7) in the mesoscopic model [ 11]. This additional parameter changes H by a 3 global scale-depend...
[10]

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

2005
[11]

Zhong, Chin

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

2024
[12]

We ﬁx δ ˆJ = 0 and vary A0 until the new curve aligns parallel to the reference one

have to be estimated. We ﬁx δ ˆJ = 0 and vary A0 until the new curve aligns parallel to the reference one. This is laborious but straightforward because the curve’s slope changes regularly with J. To collapse the two curves onto each other, we set δH0 = 0 and select a Ms0 to ﬁ...
[13]

Therefore, diﬀerent values of A0, δ ˆJ, and δH for a diﬀerent Ms0 are uniquely related

can be absorbed by a new δH . Therefore, diﬀerent values of A0, δ ˆJ, and δH for a diﬀerent Ms0 are uniquely related. In addition, as Ms0 is arbitrary, a4 is not necessarily directly related to J. We simulate the Ising model on a two-dimensional square lattice with periodic bo...
[14]

Binder and P

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

2001
[15]

Binder and P

K. Binder and P. Virnau, J. Chem. Phys. 145, 211701 (2016

2016
[16]

Zhang and F

Y. Zhang and F. Zhong, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 94, 043001 (2025)

2025
[17]

Zhong, Chin

F. Zhong, Chin. Phys. Lett. 42, 030203 (2025)

2025
[18]

Zhong and Q

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

2005
[19]

Zhong, Front

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

2017
[20]

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

1977
[21]

Zhong, Phys

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

2012
[22]

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

2022
[23]

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

1972
[24]

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

2010
[25]

Zhong, in Applications of Monte Carlo Method in Sci- ence and Engineering

F. Zhong, in Applications of Monte Carlo Method in Sci- ence and Engineering . ed. S. Mordechai, 469-493 (Intech, Rijeka, 2011)

2011
[26]

Huang, S

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

2014
[27]

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

2021
[28]

D. P. Landau and K. Binder, A Guide to Monte Carlo Simulations in Statistical Physics , 2nd edition (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009)

2009
[29]

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

1985
[30]

Kompaniets, private communication, (2024)

M. Kompaniets, private communication, (2024)

2024
[31]

M. Rao, H. R. Krishnamurthy, and R. Pandit, Phys. Rev. B 42, 856 (1990)

1990
[32]

W. S. Lo and R. A. Pelcovits, Phys. Rev. A 42, 7471 (1990)

1990
[33]

Sengupta, Y

S. Sengupta, Y. Marathe, and S. Puri, Phys. Rev. B 45, 7828 (1992)

1992
[34]

Y. L. He and G. C. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2336 (1993)

1993
[35]

Acharyya and B

M. Acharyya and B. K. Chakrabarti, Physica A 192, 471 (1993)

1993
[36]

C. N. Luse and A. E. Zangwill, Phys. Rev. E 50, 224 (1994)

1994
[37]

Zhong, J

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

1995
[38]

Y. H. Kim and J. J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 55, R11933 (1997)

1997
[39]

J. S. Suen and J. L. Erskine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3567 (1997)

1997
[40]

Chakrabarti and M

K. Chakrabarti and M. Ackaryya, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 847 (1998)

1998
[41]

W. Y. Lee, B. Ch. Choi, J. Lee, C. C. Yao, Y. B. Xu, D. G. Hasko, and J. A. C. Bland, Appl. Phys. Lett. 74, 1609 (1999)

1999
[42]

Zhong, Phys

F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B 66, 060401(R) (2002)

2002
[43]

B. Pan, H. Yu, D. Wu, X. H. Zhou, and J. M. Liu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 1406 (2003)

2003
[44]

H. Zhu, S. Dong, and J. M. Liu, Phys. Rev. B 70, 132403 (2004)

2004
[45]

Zhong, J

F. Zhong, J. Phys. Condens. Matters 30, 445401 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M. E. Fisher, Physics 3, 255 (1967)

work page 1967

[2] [2]

H. E. Stanley, Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, (Oxford University, Oxford, 1971)

work page 1971

[3] [3]

Ma, Modern Theory of Critical Phenomena (W

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

work page 1976

[4] [4]

Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996)

J. Cardy, Scaling and Renormalization in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996)

1996

[5] [5]

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)

work page 2021

[6] [6]

This MF theory has been conclusively established to fully catch the complete universal scaling behavior in the zero-dimensional mod- els both with and without noise [ 11–13]

remains valid, and MF behavior emerges with z = 2, ν = 1 /2, β = 1, and δ = 2 [ 14, 15], as the system is conﬁned to the eﬀective dimension dc [18]. This MF theory has been conclusively established to fully catch the complete universal scaling behavior in the zero-dimensional mod- els both with and without noise [ 11–13]. In Eq. ( 6), we have neglected co...

work page

[7] [7]

J. D. Gunton, M. San Miguel, and P. S. Sahni, The dy- namics of ﬁrst-order phase transitions, in Phase Tran- sitions and Critical Phenomena , eds. C. Domb, J. L. Lebowitz Vol. 8, 267 (Academic, London, 1983)

work page 1983

[8] [8]

Binder, Rep

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

work page 1987