Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Finite-time Scaling of the surface special transition in a 3D classical Heisenberg model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that driving a 3D Heisenberg magnet from the extraordinary-log boundary critical state into the surface special transition makes the surface order parameter follow M_s^2 ∝ R^{(1+η_s)/r_s} [log(LR^{1/r_s})]^{-q}, a logarithm

desk verdict A log-corrected FTS form for extraordinary-log initial states, supported by a decent collapse but with the key step asserted rather than derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.11066 v2 pith:37JT4NA2 submitted 2026-07-13 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-el

Dong-Xu Liu , Zhe Wang , Shuai Yin , Zheng Yan This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-el MSC 82B2782B2082C80
keywords finite-timescalingboundarycriticalityspecialsurfacetransitionextraordinary-logphase3DHeisenbergmodelKibble-ZurekmechanismMonteCarlosimulationslogarithmiccorrections
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 studies what happens when a 3D classical Heisenberg magnet with open boundaries is driven quickly to its special surface transition point. For temperature quenches and for ramps starting from the ordinary boundary critical state, the surface order parameter follows the usual boundary finite-time scaling. The central claim concerns ramps that start from the extraordinary-log boundary critical state, where correlations decay logarithmically: in that case the fast-driving scaling acquires a logarithmic factor and becomes M_s^2 ∝ R^{(1+η_s)/r_s} [log(LR^{1/r_s})]^{-q}. The authors derive this form from a generalized finite-time scaling ansatz that keeps a memory of the logarithmic initial state, and they verify it by data collapse over system sizes L = 40 to 128. A sympathetic reader would care because it shows that the Kibble–Zurek-style scaling of boundary critical dynamics is not universal in initial-condition class: a non-power-law initial state leaves a detectable trace in the driven regime.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the generalized finite-time scaling relation M_s^2(R,L,m_0^2) = b^{-(1+η_s)} M_s^2(R b^{r_s}, L b^{-1}, U(m_0^2,b)), with b the rescaling factor and U the scale transformation of the initial-state squared magnetization. Choosing b = R^{-1/r_s} puts the order parameter in the form R^{(1+η_s)/r_s} M_1(LR^{1/r_s}, U(m_0^2,R^{-1/r_s})). The paper then lets the logarithmic boundary initial state enter through the memory term U, deducing that the dimensionless function M_1(x) behaves as [log x]^{-q} at large x. This single hypothesis—logarithmic initial-state memory—converts the standard power-law finite-time scaling into Eq. (5).

What would settle it

Measure M_s^2 at a fixed large R for several system sizes L, and plot y = M_s^2 R^{-(1+η_s)/r_s} [log(LR^{1/r_s})]^q against x = R^{1/r_s} L. If y is not flat at large x, or if the best-fit q changes appreciably when the R window is varied, the assumed logarithmic argument and exponent are wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a new fast-ramp scaling law for the surface order parameter: when the 3D Heisenberg model is driven from the extraordinary-log boundary critical state to the special surface transition, M_s^2 ∝ R^{(1+η_s)/r_s}[log(LR^{1/r_s})]^{-q}, with η_s≈−0.473, r_s≈2.393, and q≈2.1. The paper derives this from generalized finite-time scaling by assuming the dimensionless scaling function inherits the logarithmic form [log x]^{-q} of the initial state. Monte Carlo data collapse onto one curve for L=40–128 when plotted as [M_s^2 R^{-(1+η_s)/r_s}]^{-1/q} against log(R^{1/r_s}L), showing non-power-law initial-state memory persists into the driven regime.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the paper's assertion that in the large-rate limit the dimensionless scaling function takes exactly the same logarithmic form as the equilibrium initial state, [log(LR^{1/r_s})]^{-q} with q ≈ 2.1; this step is stated (the paper says 'we deduce') rather than derived, and if the log argument or exponent is not precisely the initial-state one, Eq. (5) is incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Temperature heating and cooling across the special transition, and surface-coupling ramps from the ordinary critical state, remain described by the standard boundary finite-time scaling; the new log term appears only for extraordinary-log initial states.
  • For fast ramps from the extraordinary-log state, the naive power-law prediction M_s^2 ∝ R^{(1+η_s)/r_s} ≈ R^{0.221} fails; the measured exponent 0.149(3) is explained only after including the log factor.
  • The log-corrected scaling holds over L = 40–128 and a wide range of driving rates, indicating it is a genuine scaling feature rather than a finite-size artifact.
  • The derivation generalizes the boundary finite-time scaling framework beyond power-law initial conditions, showing that initial-state universality classes matter for the Kibble–Zurek scaling at boundaries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Eq. (5) implies the effective frozen scale in the large-rate limit still depends on the system size through log(LR^{1/r_s}); a direct prediction is that at fixed large R, M_s^2 continues to drift with L in a logarithmic way, which could be checked by varying L alone.
  • Inference: If the exponent q is truly unchanged between equilibrium and driven settings, the same q must collapse data at multiple R windows; a drift in the best-fit q would signal a dynamic renormalization of the log exponent, a possibility the paper does not address.
  • Inference: The same log-memory mechanism should apply to other continuous-symmetry O(N) models and to the extraordinary-log phase in other geometries, although the paper only demonstrates it for the 3D Heisenberg special transition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies finite-time scaling (FTS) of the special surface transition in a three-dimensional classical Heisenberg model on an L×L×L lattice with open boundaries. It performs Monte Carlo simulations for four driving protocols: temperature heating and cooling through the special transition, and surface-coupling ramps from the ordinary and extraordinary-log boundary critical states into the special point. The temperature protocols are shown to obey the boundary FTS form in Eq. (2). For ramps from the ordinary state, the surface order parameter M_s^2 is dominated by a non-singular L^-2 term, so the two-point correlation C(L/2) is used to extract the singular contribution. The central claim is Eq. (5): for ramps from the extraordinary-log state, in the large-rate limit M_s^2 ∝ R^{(1+η_s)/r_s} [log(L R^{1/r_s})]^{-q} with q≈2.1, supported by data collapse for L=40–128. The paper argues that non-power-law initial-state memory changes the standard large-rate scaling.

Significance. If Eq. (5) is correct, the paper provides a genuinely new extension of FTS/KZM: logarithmic initial-state correlations are remembered in the driven large-rate limit and produce a logarithmic correction to the usual power-law scaling. This goes beyond existing boundary FTS for Ising systems and is relevant to the recently discovered extraordinary-log boundary universality class. The numerical study is broad, covering four protocols, a wide range of system sizes and driving rates, and it uses independently determined equilibrium exponents. However, the key theoretical step is an assertion rather than a derivation, and the central collapse is a consistency test of the assumed scaling form rather than an independent quantitative confirmation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theoretical analysis, Eqs. (3)–(5)] The step from Eq. (4) to Eq. (5) is not derived. The sentence 'Since M1(x) is a dimensionless scaling function, we deduce...' assumes that the initial-state memory enters M1(x) exactly as [log x]^{-q}, with the same q as the equilibrium extraordinary-log decay and with no additive constant or renormalization. The RG transformation U(m0^2,b) in Eq. (3) could in principle produce a more general function of x=LR^{1/r_s}. This is the load-bearing step. Please provide a derivation of the scale transformation for a logarithmically correlated initial state, or at least an independent test: fit the large-R data with q as a free parameter (and, if useful, with log(x+c)) and report the best-fit q and the collapse residual. The reported effective exponent R^{0.149(3)} cannot by itself validate Eq. (5).
  2. [Fig. 2(d) and data-collapse quality] The central numerical evidence is visual. No collapse metric, error bar, or fit range is given for the rescaling in Fig. 2(d), and it is not stated whether q≈2.1 is fixed to the equilibrium value from Ref. [61] or fitted to the driven data. Since the rescaling uses Eq. (5) as the ansatz, the collapse is a self-consistency check, not a falsifiable test. Please add a quantitative collapse measure (e.g., scatter of the collapsed curves) and a sensitivity analysis with respect to η_s, r_s, and q. Also define the crossover between the low-rate regime (inset, Eq. (2)) and the large-rate regime (main panel, Eq. (5)).
  3. [Models and method; definition of r_s] The scaling dimension r_s = z + 1/ν_s is computed using the bulk dynamic exponent z≈2.033. The paper does not justify or test that the surface special transition is governed by the same z; if a distinct surface dynamic exponent exists, the prefactor exponent in Eq. (5) changes. Please either cite evidence that z is the correct dynamic exponent for Model-A dynamics at the special transition, or fit the collapse exponent independently and compare with z + 1/ν_s.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Eq. (5)] The abstract (and the line near the end of the full text) writes [log(LR^{1/η_s})]^{-q}; this should be [log(LR^{1/r_s})]^{-q}. The exponent 1/η_s is dimensionally inconsistent and appears to be a typo.
  2. [Ordinary-state analysis and Fig. 2] For C(L/2), the fit gives R^{-0.83(3)} while the predicted exponent is R^{-0.772}; the text says the theory 'can well describe' the results without discussing the discrepancy. Also, near the end of the ordinary-state paragraph, 'Fig. 1(f)' should be 'Fig. 2(f)', and the panel references in the Fig. 2 caption are inconsistent.
  3. [Throughout] Several typos: 'extraordianry-log', 'the the', 'KibbleZurek' (missing hyphen), and duplicated words in the Fig. 2 caption. Please copy-edit carefully.
  4. [Hamiltonian, Eq. (1)] The constraint term \sum_i [S_i^2 + λ(S_i^2 - 1)^2] is unusual for a unit-length Heisenberg model; a one-sentence explanation of the soft-spin representation and why λ=5.2 suppresses finite-size effects would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Eq. (5)'s log correction is inserted by hand: M1(x) is set to [log(LR^{1/r_s})]^{-q} because the initial state decays as [log L]^{-q}, so the central novelty reduces to an ansatz; the R-power prefactor and data collapse are independent checks.

  1. self definitional [Theoretical analysis, Eqs. (4)-(5)]
    "Since M1(x) is a dimensionless scaling function, we deduce that M1(x) ∝ [log(LR^{1/rs })]−q. Consequently, for dynamics initiated from the extraordinary-log critical state in the large-rate limit, we obtain the following novel scaling relation: M 2 s ∝ R(1+ηs)/rs [log(LR1/rs )]−q (5)"

    Eq. (4) gives M_s^2 = R^{(1+η_s)/r_s} M1(LR^{1/r_s}). The only route to Eq. (5) is to assert M1(x) ∝ [log x]^{-q}. The paper justifies this solely from the initial-state scaling M_s^2 ∝ [log L]^{-q} and the observation that M1 is dimensionless; replacing L by LR^{1/r_s} is an ansatz, not a consequence of the RG equation (3). Thus the logarithmic factor and exponent q in Eq. (5) are the initial-state inputs re-expressed in the scaling variable, and the subsequent collapse using exactly Eq. (5) is a consistency check of that ansatz rather than an independent test. The power-law prefactor R^{(1+η_s)/r_s} is independent, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is Eq. (3) -> Eq. (4) -> Eq. (5). The passage from Eq. (4) to Eq. (5) is the load-bearing step: the paper 'deduces' M1(x) ∝ [log(LR^{1/r_s})]^{-q} from the initial-state decay M_s^2 ∝ [log L]^{-q} and dimensional analysis. This is not derived from the RG flow encoded in U(m0^2,b); it is a functional-form ansatz. Consequently, the advertised novelty—the logarithmic correction in Eq. (5)—is essentially built from the input initial-state memory, and the excellent collapse in Fig. 2(d) uses that very form and the same q≈2.1, so it cannot independently falsify the assumed log structure. However, the result is not fully circular: the power-law prefactor R^{(1+η_s)/r_s} follows from the standard FTS framework with independent external exponents (η_s from [61], r_s from z and ν_s), and the collapse across L=40–128 and many rates is a nontrivial consistency test of the combined scaling form. The self-citations [60,69,70] are used for the standard BFTS framework, which is also supported by independent FTS literature [16], so they are not load-bearing in a way that forces the result. The temperature-driven and ordinary-initial-state analyses are separately checked against conventional BFTS and published exponents. On balance, the central 'derivation' is partly an ansatz dressed as a deduction, but it retains independent predictive content; score 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling law rests on (i) the FTS scaling form Eq (3), (ii) the assumption that initial-state log memory transfers to the scaling function, and (iii) a set of equilibrium exponents (η_s, ν_s, z, q) taken from prior Monte Carlo/RG work. No new entities are introduced; the paper's contribution is a new combination of existing ingredients plus a numerical collapse. The derivation gap is concentrated in the M1(x) assignment.

free parameters (6)
  • q (extraordinary-log exponent) = ≈2.1
    Equilibrium exponent for M_s^2 ∝ [log L]^{-q} at the extraordinary-log boundary state, taken from Ref [61] and used in Eq (5) and the collapse axes.
  • η_s (surface anomalous dimension at special transition) = -0.473(2)
    Taken from Ref [61]; sets the exponent (1+η_s)/r_s ≈ 0.221 in Eq (5).
  • ν_s (surface correlation-length exponent) = ≈2.78
    From Ref [61]; enters r_s = z + 1/ν_s ≈ 2.3927 used in Eq (5) and the collapse.
  • z (dynamic exponent) = ≈2.033(3)
    Bulk Model A dynamic exponent from Refs [73,74]; assumed to govern the surface special transition when computing r_s.
  • λ (Hamiltonian constraint strength) = 5.2
    Chosen by hand to suppress finite-size effects, following Refs [61–64]; affects the numerical critical couplings and exponents.
  • J_sc and J_c (critical couplings) = J_sc=1.16821, J_c=0.687985221
    Locations of the special and bulk critical points from Refs [61,64]; used to set protocol endpoints and the operating temperature.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption FTS renormalization-group scaling form Eq (3): M_s^2(R,L,m0^2)=b^{-(1+η_s)}M_s^2[R b^{r_s}, L b^{-1}, U(m0^2,b)]
    Imported from Refs [16,60,69,70]; all subsequent scaling relations assume this two-scale (R,L) form with a single r_s.
  • ad hoc to paper In the large-R KZ limit, 'the universal information of the initial state can be remembered' so the scaling function M1(x) carries the initial-state log decay [log x]^{-q}
    This is the load-bearing, asserted step between Eqs (4) and (5); no derivation or independent argument is given for the exact argument LR^{1/r_s} or the unrenormalized q.
  • domain assumption The bulk dynamic exponent z≈2.033(3) governs surface special dynamics, so r_s = z + 1/ν_s ≈ 2.3927
    z is taken from bulk Model A literature [73,74]; no boundary-specific dynamic exponent is estimated.
  • domain assumption Equilibrium surface exponents η_s≈-0.473, ν_s≈2.78, and log exponent q≈2.1 from Ref [61] are accurate inputs
    These external MC/RG values set the prefactor exponent and q in Eq (5) and in the collapse axes.
  • domain assumption Metropolis single-spin updates realize Model A dynamics
    Needed so z=2.033 applies; cited to Ref [67].
  • domain assumption The special transition is at J_sc=1.16821 and the bulk critical point at J_c=0.687985221 with λ=5.2
    Protocol endpoints and Hamiltonian term from Refs [61,64]; if these are off, the quenches do not actually end at the special point.
  • domain assumption The extraordinary-log boundary state has M_s^2 ∝ [log L]^{-q} with q≈2.1
    Taken from Ref [61]; this is the initial-state form whose memory produces Eq (5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-time Scaling of the surface special transition in a 3D classical Heisenberg model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/37JT4NA2

@misc{pith2026260711066,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-time Scaling of the surface special transition in a 3D classical Heisenberg model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/37JT4NA2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.11066}
}
abstract

We investigate nonequilibrium driven dynamics across the special surface phase transition in the three-dimensional classical Heisenberg model with open boundaries, where tuning the surface coupling gives access to an extraordinary-log boundary critical state characterized by logarithmic, rather than power-law, decay of correlations. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we realize four driving protocols: temperature heating and cooling across the special transition, and surface-coupling ramps from the ordinary and extraordinary-log critical states into the special point. For temperature-driven protocols, the surface order parameter obeys a generalization of the finite-time scaling (FTS) and the Kibble-Zurek mechanism. The central finding emerges when the system is driven from the extraordinary-log critical state: the large-rate scaling relation acquires a logarithmic correction and takes the novel form $M^{2}_{s}\propto R^{(1+\eta_{s})/r_{s}}[\log(LR^{1/\eta_{s}})]^{-q}$ , where $R$ is the driving rate, $L$ the system size, $\eta_{s}$ the surface anomalous dimension, $r_{s}$ the scaling dimension of $R$, and $q$ the exponent governing the logarithmic boundary criticality. We demonstrate that this form follows from the general FTS framework by incorporating the logarithmic initial-state memory, and we achieve excellent data collapse over a wide range of system sizes and driving rates. Our results establish that extraordinary-log initial states alter nonequilibrium critical scaling, extending boundary FTS beyond conventional power-law initial conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11066 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Finite-time scaling analysis of the surface order pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. This figure presents a finite-time scaling analysis of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [61]

    S. Z. Lin and B. Zheng, Phys. Rev. E 78, 011127 (2008)

    2008

  2. [1]

    Then, for large R, R dominates and one can obtain the scaling form of M 2 s as M 2 s (R, L, m2

    = b−(1+ηs)M 2 s [ Rbrs , Lb −1, U (m2 0, b) ] , (3) in which U (m2 0, b) is the scale transformation of initial m2 0, and b is the rescaling factor. Then, for large R, R dominates and one can obtain the scaling form of M 2 s as M 2 s (R, L, m2

  3. [2]

    = R(1+ηs)/rs M1 [ LR1/rs , U (m2 0, R−1/rs ) ] , (4) by choosing b = R−1/rs in Eq. ( 3). The dimensionless scaling function M1(x), with x = LR1/rs , describes the crossover between two limiting regimes: the equilibrium scaling limit with small R and the KZ scaling limit with large R. For the dynamics of driving the system across the criti- cal point at a ...

  4. [3]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  5. [4]

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

    1985

  6. [5]

    Dziarmaga, Phys

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

    2005

  7. [6]

    Polkovnikov, Phys

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

    2005

  8. [7]

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

    2005

Show all 78 references
  1. [8]

    Yates and W

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

    1998

  2. [9]

    Uhlmann, R

    M. Uhlmann, R. Schützhold, and U. R. Fischer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120407 (2007)

    2007

  3. [10]

    Uhlmann, R

    M. Uhlmann, R. Schützhold, and U. R. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D 81, 025017 (2010)

    2010

  4. [11]

    Uhlmann, R

    M. Uhlmann, R. Schützhold, and U. R Fischer, New Journal of Physics 12, 095020 (2010)

    2010

  5. [12]

    del Campo and W

    A. del Campo and W. H. Zurek, International Journal of Modern Physics A 29, 1430018 (2014) , https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X1430018X

    2014 doi

  6. [13]

    B. Ko, J. W. Park, and Y. Shin, Nature Physics 15, 1227 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    Li, Y.-K

    B.-W. Li, Y.-K. Wu, Q.-X. Mei, R. Yao, W.-Q. Lian, M.- L. Cai, Y. Wang, B.-X. Qi, L. Yao, L. He, Z.-C. Zhou, and L.-M. Duan, PRX Quantum 4, 010302 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    Maegochi, K

    S. Maegochi, K. Ienaga, and S. Okuma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 227001 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    K. Du, X. Fang, C. Won, C. De, F.-T. Huang, W. Xu, H. You, F. J. Gómez-Ruiz, A. del Campo, and S.-W. Cheong, Nature Physics 19, 1495 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Weinberg, N

    P. Weinberg, N. Xu, and A. W. Sandvik, (2025), arXiv:2507.09273 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Zhong and Z

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

    2005

  12. [19]

    Zhong, Phys

    F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. E 73, 047102 (2006)

    2006

  13. [20]

    S. Gong, F. Zhong, X. Huang, and S. Fan, New Journal of Physics 12, 043036 (2010)

    2010

  14. [21]

    Huang, S

    X. Huang, S. Gong, F. Zhong, and S. Fan, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics 81, 041139 (2010)

    2010

  15. [22]

    Kolodrubetz, B

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

    2012

  16. [23]

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

    2014

  17. [24]

    Huang, S

    Y. Huang, S. Yin, Q. Hu, and F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. B 93, 024103 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    Yin, C.-Y

    S. Yin, C.-Y. Lo, and P. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 94, 064302 (2016)

    2016

  19. [26]

    Huang and S

    R.-Z. Huang and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023175 (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    Shu, S.-K

    Y.-R. Shu, S.-K. Jian, A. W. Sandvik, and S. Yin, Nature Communications 16, 3402 (2025)

    2025

  21. [28]

    Zeng, Y.-K

    Z. Zeng, Y.-K. Yu, Z.-X. Li, Z.-X. Li, and S. Yin, Nature Communications 16, 6181 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Zeng, Y.-K

    Z. Zeng, Y.-K. Yu, Z.-X. Li, and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. B 112, L060301 (2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    Y.-R. Shu, T. Liao, and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. B 110, 134306 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Shu, L.-Y

    Y.-R. Shu, L.-Y. Yang, and S. Yin, Phys. Rev. B 113, 134303 (2026)

    2026

  25. [32]

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

    2019

  26. [33]

    C. Xie, G. Zheng-Cheng, L. Zheng-Xin, and X.-G. Wen, Science 338, 1604 (2012)

    2012

  27. [34]

    Zhang and F

    L. Zhang and F. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 087201 (2017)

    2017

  28. [35]

    Weber and S

    L. Weber and S. Wessel, Phys. Rev. B 100, 054437 6 (2019)

    2019

  29. [36]

    W. Zhu, C. Ding, L. Zhang, and W. Guo, Phys. Rev. B 103, 024412 (2021)

    2021

  30. [37]

    Z. Wang, F. Zhang, and W. Guo, Phys. Rev. B 106, 134407 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    Z. Wang, F. Zhang, and W. Guo, Phys. Rev. B 108, 014409 (2023)

    2023

  32. [39]

    Binder and P

    K. Binder and P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. B 9, 2194 (1974)

    1974

  33. [40]

    T. C. Lubensky and M. H. Rubin, Phys. Rev. B 11, 4533 (1975)

    1975

  34. [41]

    T. C. Lubensky and M. H. Rubin, Phys. Rev. B 12, 3885 (1975)

    1975

  35. [42]

    A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General 10, 1927 (1977)

    1927

  36. [43]

    Diehl and S

    H. Diehl and S. Dietrich, Physics Letters A 80, 408 (1980)

    1980

  37. [44]

    Binder and D

    K. Binder and D. Landau, Physica A: Statistical Mechan- ics and its Applications 163, 17 (1990)

    1990

  38. [45]

    Gliozzi, P

    F. Gliozzi, P. Liendo, M. Meineri, and A. Rago, Journal of High Energy Physics 2015 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00489-1

    2015 doi

  39. [46]

    C. Ding, L. Zhang, and W. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 235701 (2018)

    2018

  40. [47]

    M. A. Metlitski, SciPost Phys. 12, 131 (2022)

    2022

  41. [48]

    H. W. Diehl and F. M. Schmidt, New Journal of Physics 13, 123025 (2011)

    2011

  42. [49]

    Jensen and A

    K. Jensen and A. O’Bannon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 091601 (2016)

    2016

  43. [50]

    D. V. Fursaev and S. N. Solodukhin, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084021 (2016)

    2016

  44. [51]

    C. P. Herzog and K.-W. Huang, Journal of High Energy Physics 2017, 189 (2017)

    2017

  45. [52]

    M. Hu, Y. Deng, and J.-P. Lv, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 120603 (2021)

    2021

  46. [53]

    Parisen Toldin and M

    F. Parisen Toldin and M. A. Metlitski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 215701 (2022)

    2022

  47. [54]

    Uni- versal finite-size scaling in the extraordinary-log bound- ary phase of three-dimensional o(n) model,

    F. P. Toldin, A. Krishnan, and M. A. Metlitski, “Uni- versal finite-size scaling in the extraordinary-log bound- ary phase of three-dimensional o(n) model,” (2025), arXiv:2411.05089 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Dietrich and H

    S. Dietrich and H. W. Diehl, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter 52, 171 (1983)

    1983

  49. [56]

    Kikuchi and Y

    M. Kikuchi and Y. Okabe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1220 (1985)

    1985

  50. [57]

    H. W. Diehl, Phys. Rev. B 49, 2846 (1994)

    1994

  51. [58]

    Ritschel and P

    U. Ritschel and P. Czerner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3882 (1995)

    1995

  52. [59]

    Pleimling and F

    M. Pleimling and F. Iglói, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 145701 (2004)

    2004

  53. [60]

    Pleimling and F

    M. Pleimling and F. Iglói, Phys. Rev. B 71, 094424 (2005)

    2005

  54. [62]

    Universal driven critical dynam- ics near the boundary,

    Y.-R. Shu and S. Yin, “Universal driven critical dynam- ics near the boundary,” (2025), arXiv:2509.10049 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Parisen Toldin, Phys

    F. Parisen Toldin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 135701 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Pelissetto and E

    A. Pelissetto and E. Vicari, Physics Reports 368, 549 (2002)

    2002

  57. [65]

    Campostrini, M

    M. Campostrini, M. Hasenbusch, A. Pelissetto, P. Rossi, and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. B 65, 144520 (2002)

    2002

  58. [66]

    Hasenbusch, Phys

    M. Hasenbusch, Phys. Rev. B 102, 024406 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

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

    2014

  60. [68]

    Wolff, Phys

    U. Wolff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 361 (1989)

    1989

  61. [69]

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

    1977

  62. [70]

    De Grandi, A

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

    2011

  63. [71]

    Huang, S

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

    2014

  64. [72]

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

    2016

  65. [73]

    Guillou and J

    J. Guillou and J. Zinn-Justin, Journal De Physique 50, 1365 (1989)

    1989

  66. [74]

    X. Cui, J. Cao, and Y. Wang, Physics Letters A 372, 4151 (2008)

    2008

  67. [75]

    Astillero and J

    A. Astillero and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, Phys. Rev. E 100, 062117 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    Astillero and J

    A. Astillero and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, Phys. Rev. E 111, 064126 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    H. W. Diehl and A. Nüsser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2834 (1986)

    1986

  70. [78]

    Non-commutative dynamic approaches to the kibble- zurek scaling limit with an initial gapless order,

    Z. Wang, C. Ding, D. Liu, F. Li, Z. Yan, and S. Yin, “Non-commutative dynamic approaches to the kibble- zurek scaling limit with an initial gapless order,” (2026), arXiv:2602.14599 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.