On the completeness of the $\delta_{KLS}$-generalized statistical field theory

P. R. S. Carvalho

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 75 references

On the completeness of the $\delta_{KLS}$-generalized statistical field theory

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 A δ_KLS-generalized statistical field theory is proposed and then shown to be incomplete because it cannot reproduce the measured critical exponents of three doped manganites.

desk verdict A list of asserted δ_KLS exponent formulas with a completeness test that rests on an unproven premise; the incompleteness claim may be true, but the paper as written doesn't establish it. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05537 v1 pith:LMZUSGP7 submitted 2025-06-05 hep-th cond-mat.stat-mechmath-phmath.MP

P. R. S. Carvalho This is my paper

classification hep-thcond-mat.stat-mechmath-phmath.MP MSC 82B2782B2881T17

keywords δ_KLS-generalizedstatisticalfieldtheorycriticalexponentsepsilonexpansionuniversalityclassesBoltzmann-Gibbsstatisticsnonextensivemanganitesrenormalizationgroup

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 introduces δ_KLS-generalized statistical field theory (δ_KLS-SFT), a deformation of the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs formalism regulated by a parameter δ_KLS, and shows that although this theory yields new generalized universality classes, it is not complete. The critical-exponent formulas derived for a broad set of models—Ising-like, percolation, Gross-Neveu, long-range, dipolar, Lifshitz, and multicritical—reproduce many but not all measured exponents of doped manganites. Three Fe- and Cr-substituted manganites fall outside the predicted ranges for β and γ, which the author takes as grounds to discard δ_KLS-SFT under the criterion that a generalized statistics must describe all real materials. The paper thereby singles out nonextensive statistical field theory as the only generalized formulation known so far to pass that test.

What carries the argument

The key object is the δ_KLS-exponential function, a deformed exponential that interpolates from the ordinary exponential at δ_KLS=0 to a wider one-parameter family, with the allowed range −1/3 < δ_KLS < 1/3 fixed by consistency axioms. The theory's generating functional keeps the free (Gaussian) part extensive and deforms only the interaction exponential, a structural choice borrowed from nonextensive statistical field theory. From this functional the paper writes ε-expansion corrections for each model's critical exponents, always proportional to a δ_KLS-dependent prefactor such as 2δ_KLS/(1−2δ_KLS) or δ_KLS(5δ_KLS−4)/[(δ_KLS−1)(5δ_KLS−1)], attached to the known nongeneralized results. The completeness verdict is reached by evaluating these formulas numerically at ǫ=1 (three dimensions) and comparing the resulting β–γ windows with experimental data for doped manganites.

What would settle it

Derive or compute the renormalization-group beta functions directly from the generating functional in Eq. (1) and show whether the resulting critical-exponent corrections match Eqs. (7)–(47); if such a derivation produces β–γ ranges that include the measured values for the three failing materials (β ≈ 0.55–0.68, γ ≈ 1.02–1.17) within the allowed δ_KLS interval, then the paper's completeness conclusion would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that δ_KLS-SFT, despite producing a genuine family of generalized universality classes labelled by δ_KLS, fails the completeness test for a statistical generalization: it cannot account for the experimental critical exponents of La0.67Ca0.33Mn0.95Fe0.05O3, La0.67Ca0.33Mn0.90Cr0.10O3, and La0.67Ca0.33Mn0.75Cr0.25O3. From the epsilon-expansion formulas, the author obtains the ranges 0.339(3) < βδ_KLS < 0.505(4) and 1.253(6) < γδ_KLS < 1.739(8) for Heisenberg-like systems, while the three failing materials show β values between 0.55 and 0.68 and γ values near 1.0–1.17. This leads to the explicit conclusion: 'δ_KLS-SFT is not complete and must be discarded.' The paper also interprets higher positive δ_KLS as indicating weaker effective interaction among constituents, so that higher δ_KLS corresponds to larger critical indices.

Load-bearing premise

The entire list of critical-exponent formulas rests on the unshown step that the generating functional in Eq. (1), with its δ_KLS-generalized interaction exponential and ordinary Gaussian measure, can be evaluated by standard perturbative renormalization-group methods to produce the ε-expansion results quoted in the paper, since no beta function, Feynman-diagram, or RG-flow calculation is provided.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The δ_KLS parameter acquires a physical meaning: larger δ_KLS corresponds to weaker effective interactions among constituents and hence larger critical exponents such as γ.
The paper's completeness test gives a concrete rule: a generalized statistical field theory that fails for even one real material must be discarded, and under this rule δ_KLS-SFT is rejected.
New δ_KLS-generalized universality classes exist for a wide range of models, but the range of βδ_KLS and γδ_KLS they can cover is limited; in three dimensions it is 0.339–0.505 for β and 1.253–1.739 for γ in Heisenberg-like systems.
If the claim is correct, nonextensive statistical field theory is currently the only generalized field-theoretic formalism known to describe all the non-ideal materials surveyed.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's completeness criterion amounts to a universal quantifier over all real materials, so no finite set of comparisons can prove that a generalized statistics is complete; the conclusion that only nonextensive statistical field theory is complete is logically bounded by the materials surveyed so far.
The derivation of Eqs. (7)–(47) is not shown; if the missing beta-function calculation turned out to have corrections that also shift the windows for βδ_KLS and γδ_KLS, the three 'failing' materials might re-enter the allowed region.
One could test the same completeness program on a q-generalized free theory rather than only a q-generalized interaction, which is the structural difference the paper credits for the success of the nonextensive formulation; the present work leaves that route implicit.
The physical interpretation of δ_KLS as a measure of interaction strength suggests that the parameter might be measurable independently, for example through susceptibility amplitudes or specific-heat coefficients, rather than fitted to exponents.

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

This paper is a long list of critical-exponent formulas for δ_KLS-generalized statistical field theory, displayed without derivation. Its central claim is that the theory is incomplete because it cannot describe three doped manganites. That conclusion is plausible, but it is only as good as Eqs. (7)–(8), and the paper never shows that those equations follow from the generating functional Eq. (1). There is no β-function, no fixed-point analysis, no diagrammatic expansion. 'Now we display the results' is not an argument. As a result, the completeness test is a free-parameter scan over δ_KLS, so the theoretical interval is a range cover rather than a parameter-free prediction. The author also does not report per-material δ_KLS values, which would be needed to see whether the theory actually nails each material individually.

The paper does have some value. The δ_KLS-dependent exponent formulas in Eqs. (7)–(47) are new in a narrow sense—I don't see them in the cited literature. The physical interpretation of δ_KLS as shifting the effective energy to E + δ_KLS E² is a plausible heuristic, and the author deserves credit for honestly declaring his own theory inadequate. The compilation of manganite data is also extensive.

The soft spots are serious. Several formulas have poles inside the stated valid range −1/3 < δ_KLS < 1/3: Eq. (10) for percolation has a pole near δ≈0.1805, and Eq. (29) diverges at δ=0.2. The paper never mentions these singularities, which suggests the expressions were not checked. Without an explicit derivation, the reader cannot distinguish a real generalization from an ad hoc ansatz.

Who is this for? Only specialists in generalized statistical field theory, and even they will be frustrated. The paper deserves a referee only if the author supplies the missing RG calculation and per-material δ_KLS values. As it stands, I would not send it to peer review; it is an extended abstract with a phenomenological scan. My recommendation: ask the author to provide the derivation before any referee spends time on it.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a δ_KLS-generalized statistical field theory by replacing the interaction exponential in a standard generating functional with a δ_KLS-exponential (Eq. (1)). Section III lists generalized critical exponents for many models, each expressed as the standard exponent plus δ_KLS-dependent corrections. Section IV interprets δ_KLS as a measure of effective interaction strength, uses the Heisenberg formulas to produce intervals 0.339(3)<βδ<0.505(4) and 1.253(6)<γδ<1.739(8), and compares them with experimental values for doped manganites. Three materials are claimed to fall outside these intervals, leading the author to conclude that δ_KLS-SFT is incomplete and must be discarded, leaving NSFT as the only complete generalized SFT. The central premise is that ordinary perturbative renormalization can be applied to Eq. (1), but no derivation of any of the displayed exponent formulas is given.

Significance. If the exponent formulas were actually derived from Eq. (1), the paper would provide a broad survey of generalized universality classes and a sharp, falsifiable incompleteness claim about real materials. The explicit comparison in Table II is a useful feature, and the conclusion that three specific manganites cannot be described is crisp. However, the manuscript does not establish the formulas on which the test rests, and several displayed formulas are singular inside the allowed δ_KLS range. As it stands, the paper does not make a supported scientific claim; its value depends entirely on a calculation that is not shown.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eqs. (7)-(47)] No calculation connects the generating functional in Eq. (1) to the displayed exponents. After presenting Eq. (6), the text states 'Now we display the results,' but it provides no expansion of the δ_KLS-exponential, no Feynman rules, no beta functions, and no fixed-point analysis. Given that Section IV's rejection of the theory rests on the generalized Heisenberg values obtained from Eqs. (7)-(8), the absence of derivation leaves the central claim unsupported. A list of formulas, however plausible, is not a derivation.
[Section III B and Section III I] Equations (10) and (29) are singular inside the claimed domain −1/3 < δ_KLS < 1/3. For percolation (α=−1, β=−2), the denominator in Eq. (10) contains α−4β(1−δ)(1−5δ)/(1−2δ), which vanishes at δ≈0.1805; Eq. (29) contains the factor (δ−1)(5δ−1), which vanishes at δ=0.2. The stated exponents are therefore not defined on the full interval of δ_KLS, which is a sign that the displayed formulas have not been internally checked.
[Section IV, after Eq. (8)] The numerical intervals for βδ and γδ are not derivable from the equations that are cited. The text says the results are evaluated from Eqs. (7)-(8), but those equations give ηδ and νδ, not βδ or γδ. No scaling relation or additional formula for βδ and γδ is shown before Figs. 6-7. The comparison with Table II is thus not reproducible from the displayed equations.
[Section IV, Tables I-II] δ_KLS is treated as a free parameter scanned over its entire allowed range, and no per-material value of δ_KLS is reported. As a result, the agreement with most entries in Tables I and II is a range cover rather than a parameter-free prediction, and the only genuinely falsifying content is that three materials fall outside the full range. The paper should state this clearly and, if possible, determine δ_KLS from material properties or report fitted values.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] 'enable us' should be 'enables us'; the sentence beginning 'This task is fulfilled...' is grammatically awkward.
[Section III, first paragraph] 'Critical exponents without subscript are nongeneralized ones [28,31–65] and valid for all loop orders' is ambiguous, because it is not clear whether the δ_KLS correction terms are also claimed to be exact to all loop orders.
[Table I] Table I contains blank entries (for example, γ for La0.8Sr0.2MnO3) and some values without uncertainties; the table should be formatted consistently.
[Section V] La0.67Ca0.33Mn0.90Cr0.10O3 is cited as [68], but Table II attributes it to [69]; this citation should be corrected.
[Figures 6-7] Figures 6-7 plot only the theoretical interval and do not include the experimental points from Table II; adding the data would make the comparison easier to assess.
[Section IV, Ref. [70]] The sentence about Ref. [70] is only a passing remark and does not add to the argument; either develop it or remove it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the incompleteness verdict is an external falsification; underived exponent formulas are a support gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that δ_KLS-SFT is incomplete because three manganites fall outside the predicted β/γ intervals. That verdict is a falsifiable external benchmark test, not a circular reduction: the intervals are generated by varying δ_KLS over its stated range -1/3 < δ_KLS < 1/3, with the nongeneralized exponents taken from independent experimental data, and the three listed materials lie outside the full allowed range. The main weakness is that Section III simply says 'Now we display the results' and gives no derivation of Eqs. (7)-(47) from the generating functional Eq. (1); this is a severe support gap, and the positive 'explanations' are range-cover statements because δ_KLS is free, but neither is circularity under the standard used here. The paper also cites the author's own NSFT work [7] for the claim that NSFT is the only complete generalized formulation; that is a self-citation-backed uniqueness assertion, but it is not load-bearing for the δ_KLS incompleteness finding, which stands or falls on the experimental comparison. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The central incompleteness claim therefore has independent content, and the paper should be scored as non-circular despite its substantial derivation gaps.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only new input is the free parameter δ_KLS from Kaniadakis et al. statistics; the paper does not introduce new particles or forces. The listed exponents are asserted rather than derived.

free parameters (1)

δ_KLS = not reported per material; scanned over (-1/3, 1/3)
The generalized-statistics parameter controls all exponent corrections. The paper compares theoretical ranges to data without giving an independent determination for each material, so agreement can always be sought anywhere in the interval.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The δ_KLS-exponential function defined in Eq. (2) is a valid generalized exponential satisfying the consistency constraints of Ref. [29] for -1/3 < δ_KLS < 1/3.
Invoked in Sect. II from Refs. [29,30] without proof or independent check.
ad hoc to paper The δ_KLS-generalized functional integral in Eq. (1) can be expanded by standard perturbation theory with the ordinary Gaussian measure to yield the ε-expansion exponents in Eqs. (7)-(47).
No derivation is shown between Eq. (1) and the displayed results; this assumption is the load-bearing bridge of the paper.
standard math The nongeneralized critical exponents cited from Refs. [28,31-65] are valid at all loop orders and can serve as the δ_KLS to 0 base for the generalized formulas.
Stated in Sect. III preamble; standard RG results are external, but the combination with generalized corrections is unproven.
ad hoc to paper The expansion e_{δ_KLS}(-E) ≈ e^{-E}(1 - δ_KLS E^2) and the identification of the effective energy with interaction strength in Sect. IV provide a physical interpretation of δ_KLS.
Used to interpret higher δ_KLS as weaker constituent interactions; no quantitative link to critical exponents is derived.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the completeness of the $\delta_{KLS}$-generalized statistical field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LMZUSGP7

@misc{pith2026250605537,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the completeness of the $\delta_KLS$-generalized statistical field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LMZUSGP7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05537}
}

abstract

In this work we introduce a field-theoretic tool that enable us to evaluate the critical exponents of $\delta_{KLS}$-generalized systems undergoing continuous phase transitions, namely $\delta_{KLS}$-generalized statistical field theory. It generalizes the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs through the introduction of the $\delta_{KLS}$ parameter from which Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics is recovered in the limit $\delta_{KLS}\rightarrow 0$. From the results for the critical exponents we provide the referred physical interpretation for the $\delta_{KLS}$ parameter. Although new generalized universality classes emerge, we show that they are incomplete for describing the behavior of some real materials. This task is fulfilled only for nonextensive statistical field theory, which is related to fractal derivative and multifractal geometries, up to the moment, for our knowledge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05537 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Percolation phenomenon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Disordered (left), uniformly ordered (center) and m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Directed percolation phenomenon. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Isotropic percolation phenomenon. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plot of the values for the critical exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Plot of the values for the critical exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

[1]

Tsallis, Introduction to Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics: Appr oaching a Complex World (Springer, 2nd Edition, 2023)

C. Tsallis, Introduction to Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics: Appr oaching a Complex World (Springer, 2nd Edition, 2023)

work page 2023
[2]

Deppman, E

A. Deppman, E. Megías, and R. Pasechnik, Entropy 25, 1008 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

Tsallis, Braz

C. Tsallis, Braz. J. Phys. 29, 1 (1999)

work page 1999
[4]

Tsallis, R

C. Tsallis, R. Mendes, and A. Plastino, Physica A 261, 534 (1998)

work page 1998
[5]

T. F. A. Alves, J. F. S. Neto, F. W. S. Lima, G. A. Alves, and P . R. S. Carvalho, Phys. Lett. B 843, 138005 (2023)

2023
[6]

P. R. S. Carvalho, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138187 (2023)

2023
[7]

P. R. S. Carvalho, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137683 (2023)

2023
[8]

Turki, Z

D. Turki, Z. K. Ghouri, S. Al-Meer, K. Elsaid, M. I. Ahmad, A. Easa, G. Remenyi, S. Mahmood, E. K. Hlil, M. Ellouze, and F. Elhalouani, Magnetochemistry 3, 28 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 75 references

[9]

Kheliﬁ, A

J. Kheliﬁ, A. Tozri, E. Dhahri, and E. Hlil, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 349, 149 (2014)

2014
[10]

Padmanabhan, H

B. Padmanabhan, H. L. Bhat, S. Elizabeth, S. Rößler, U. K . Rößler, K. Dörr, and K. H. Müller, Phys. Rev. B 75, 024419 (2007)

2007
[11]

A. Omri, A. Tozri, M. Bejar, E. Dhahri, and E. Hlil, J. Mag n. Magn. Mater. 324, 3122 (2012)

2012
[12]

Ghosh, S

N. Ghosh, S. Rößler, U. K. Rößler, K. Nenkov, S. Elizabet h, H. L. Bhat, K. Dörr, and K.-H. Müller, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 18, 557 (2005). 12

2005
[13]

Yang and Y

J. Yang and Y. P. Lee, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 142512 (2007)

2007
[14]

Ghodhbane, A

S. Ghodhbane, A. Dhahri, N. Dhahri, E. Hlil, J. Dhahri, M . Alhabradi, and M. Zaidi, J. Alloys Compd. 580, 558 (2013)

2013
[15]

Berger, G

A. Berger, G. Campillo, P. Vivas, J. E. Pearson, and S. D. Bader, J. Appl. Phys. 91, 8393 (2002)

2002
[16]

Sahana, U

M. Sahana, U. K. Rössler, N. Ghosh, S. Elizabeth, H. L. Bh at, K. Dörr, D. Eckert, M. Wolf, and K.-H. Müller, Phys. Rev. B 68, 144408 (2003)

2003
[17]

Ben Jemaa, S

F. Ben Jemaa, S. H. Mahmood, M. Ellouze, E. K. Hlil, and F. Halouani, J. Mater. Sci. 49, 6883 (2014)

2014
[18]

Rößler, U

S. Rößler, U. K. Rößler, K. Nenkov, D. Eckert, S. M. Yusuf , K. Dörr, and K.-H. Müller, Phys. Rev. B 70, 104417 (2004)

2004
[19]

A. K. Pramanik and A. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. B 79, 214426 (2009)

2009
[20]

Vasiliu-Doloca, J

L. Vasiliu-Doloca, J. W. Lynn, Y. M. Mukovskii, A. A. Ars enov, and D. A. Shulyatev, J. Appl. Phys. 11, 7342 (2007)

2007
[21]

B. Yu, W. Sun, J. Fan, X. Lan, W. Zhang, Y. Zhu, H. Han, L. Zh ang, L. Ling, and H. Yang, Mater. Res. Bull. 99, 393 (2018)

2018
[22]

Oleaga, A

A. Oleaga, A. Salazar, M. Ciomaga Hatnean, and G. Balakr ishnan, Phys. Rev. B 92, 024409 (2015)

2015
[23]

Zhang, P

P. Zhang, P. Lampen, T. Phan, S. Yu, T. Thanh, N. Dan, V. La m, H. Srikanth, and M. Phan, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 348, 146 (2013)

2013
[24]

T.-L. Phan, Q. Tran, P. Thanh, P. Yen, T. Thanh, and S. Yu, Solid State Commun. 184, 40 (2014)

2014
[25]

Jeddi, J

M. Jeddi, J. Massoudi, H. Gharsallah, S. I. Ahmed, E. Dha hri, and E. K. Hlil, RSC Adv. 11, 7238 (2021)

2021
[26]

Hcini, M

S. Hcini, M. Boudard, S. Zemni, and M. Oumezzine, Ceram. Int. 41, 2042 (2015)

2015
[27]

Baazaoui, M

M. Baazaoui, M. Oumezzine, and W. Cheikhrouhou-Koubaa , Phys. Solid State 62, 278 (2014)

2014
[28]

K. G. Wilson and M. E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 240 (1972)

1972
[29]

Kaniadakis, M

G. Kaniadakis, M. Lissia, and A. M. Scarfone, Phys. Rev. E 71, 046128 (2005)

2005
[30]

Kaniadakis, Eur

G. Kaniadakis, Eur. Phys. J. B 70, 3 (2009)

2009
[31]

K. G. Wilson and J. Kogut, Phys. Rep. 12, 75 (1974)

1974
[32]

O. F. de Alcantara Bonﬁm, J. E. Kirkham, and A. J. McKane, J. Phys. A 14, 2391 (1981)

1981
[33]

Zambelli and O

L. Zambelli and O. Zanusso, Phys. Rev. D 95, 085001 (2017)

2017
[34]

Borinsky, J

M. Borinsky, J. A. Gracey, M. V. Kompaniets, and O. Schne tz, Phys. Rev. D 103, 116024 (2021)

2021
[35]

Stephen and J

M. Stephen and J. McCauley, Phys. Lett. A 44, 89 (1973)

1973
[36]

Hager and L

J. Hager and L. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. E 60, 2071 (1999)

1999
[37]

J. S. Hager, J. Phys. A 35, 2703 (2002)

2002
[38]

Brezin, G

E. Brezin, G. Parisi, and F. Ricci-Tersenghi, J. Stat. P hys. 157, 855 (2014)

2014
[39]

Lohmann, G

M. Lohmann, G. Slade, and B. C. Lallace, J. Stat. Phys. 169, 1132 (2017)

2017
[40]

Slade, Commun

G. Slade, Commun. Math. Phys. 358, 343 (2018)

2018
[41]

M. E. Fisher, S.-k. Ma, and B. G. Nickel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 917 (1972)

1972
[42]

D. J. Gross and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3235 (1974)

1974
[43]

J. A. Gracey, T. Luthe, and Y. Schröder, Phys. Rev. D 94, 125028 (2016)

2016
[44]

Brézin and J

E. Brézin and J. Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. B 13, 251 (1976)

1976
[45]

T. H. Berlin and M. Kac, Phys. Rev. 86, 821 (1952)

1952
[46]

R. M. Hornreich, M. Luban, and S. Shtrikman, Phys. Rev. L ett. 35, 1678 (1975)

1975
[47]

M. M. Leite, Phys. Rev. B 67, 104415 (2003)

2003
[48]

M. M. Leite, Phys. Rev. B 72, 224432 (2005)

2005
[49]

L. C. de Albuquerque and M. M. Leite, J. Phys. A 34, L327 (2001)

2001
[50]

M. M. Leite, Phys. Lett. A 326, 281 (2004)

2004
[51]

M. M. Leite, Phys. Rev. B 61, 14691 (2000)

2000
[52]

M. M. Leite, Phys. Rev. B 68, 052408 (2003)

2003
[53]

C. F. Farias and M. M. Leite, J. Stat. Phys. 148, 972 (2012)

2012
[54]

J. B. da Silva Jr. and M. M. Leite, J. Math. Phys. 53, 043303 (2012)

2012
[55]

M. V. S. Santos and M. M. Leite, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 490, 012232 (2014)

2014
[56]

M. I. de Sena and M. M. Leite, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 574, 012170 (2015)

2015
[57]

M. V. S. Santos, J. B. da Silva Jr, and M. M. Leite, Eur. Phy s. J. Plus 134, 372 (2019)

2019
[58]

M. V. S. Santos, J. B. da Silva Jr, and M. M. Leite, Eur. Phy s. J. Plus 134, 4 (2019)

2019
[59]

M. M. Leite, EPL 137, 34001 (2022)

2022
[60]

W. K. Theumann and M. A. Gusmão, Phys. Rev. B 31, 379 (1985)

1985
[61]

Itzykson and J

C. Itzykson and J. M. Drouﬀe, Statistical Field Theory: Vol. 1 (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, 1989)

1989
[62]

Zinn-Justin, Nucl

J. Zinn-Justin, Nucl. Phys. B 367, 105 (1991)

1991
[63]

N. Zerf, L. N. Mihaila, P. Marquard, I. F. Herbut, and M. M . Scherer, Phys. Rev. D 96, 096010 (2017)

2017
[64]

Hans-Karl Janssen and U. C. Täuber, Ann. Phys. 315, 147 (2005)

2005
[65]

U. C. Täuber, M. Howard, and B. P. Vollmayr-Lee, J. Phys. A Math. Theor. 38, R79 (2005)

2005
[66]

H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. 176, 718 (1968)

1968
[67]

M. Phan, V. Franco, N. Bingham, H. Srikanth, N. Hur, and S . Yu, J. Alloys Compd. 508, 238 (2010)

2010
[68]

Nisha, S

P. Nisha, S. Savitha Pillai, A. Darbandi, M. R. Varma, K. Suresh, and H. Hahn, Mater. Chem. Phys. 136, 66 (2012)

2012
[69]

Nisha, S

P. Nisha, S. Savitha Pillai, M. R. Varma, and K. Suresh, S olid State Sci. 14, 40 (2012)

2012
[70]

Bary, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 164, 112572 (2022)

G. Bary, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 164, 112572 (2022)

2022
[71]

Arrott and J

A. Arrott and J. E. Noakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 786 (1967)

1967
[72]

J. S. Kouvel and M. E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. 136, A1626 (1964)

1964
[73]

Mnefgui, N

S. Mnefgui, N. Zaidi, A. Dhahri, E. Hlil, and J. Dhahri, J . Solid State Chem. 215, 193 (2014). 13

2014
[74]

Ginting, D

D. Ginting, D. Nanto, Y. Zhang, S. Yu, and T. Phan, Phys. B : Condens. Matter 412, 17 (2013)

2013
[75]

T.-L. Phan, T. Thanh, and S. Yu, J. Alloys Compd. 615, S247 (2014)

2014

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Tsallis, Introduction to Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics: Appr oaching a Complex World (Springer, 2nd Edition, 2023)

C. Tsallis, Introduction to Nonextensive Statistical Mechanics: Appr oaching a Complex World (Springer, 2nd Edition, 2023)

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Deppman, E

A. Deppman, E. Megías, and R. Pasechnik, Entropy 25, 1008 (2023)

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Tsallis, Braz

C. Tsallis, Braz. J. Phys. 29, 1 (1999)

work page 1999

[4] [4]

Tsallis, R

C. Tsallis, R. Mendes, and A. Plastino, Physica A 261, 534 (1998)

work page 1998

[5] [5]

T. F. A. Alves, J. F. S. Neto, F. W. S. Lima, G. A. Alves, and P . R. S. Carvalho, Phys. Lett. B 843, 138005 (2023)

2023

[6] [6]

P. R. S. Carvalho, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138187 (2023)

2023

[7] [7]

P. R. S. Carvalho, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137683 (2023)

2023

[8] [8]

Turki, Z

D. Turki, Z. K. Ghouri, S. Al-Meer, K. Elsaid, M. I. Ahmad, A. Easa, G. Remenyi, S. Mahmood, E. K. Hlil, M. Ellouze, and F. Elhalouani, Magnetochemistry 3, 28 (2017)

work page 2017