Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 50 references

Absence of Spin-Glass Order on Migdal--Kadanoff Hierarchical Lattices near Three Dimensions

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One exact renormalization step suffices to kill spin-glass order in a family of hierarchical lattices whose fractal dimension approaches three from below.

desk verdict A genuinely new, mostly rigorous dilution-to-percolation argument for excluding spin-glass order on MK lattices, with a fixable soft spot in the asymptotic 'near 3D' construction. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15676 v1 pith:5L3BAPKN submitted 2026-07-17 cond-mat.dis-nn math-phmath.MP

Manaka Okuyama , Masayuki Ohzeki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nnmath-phmath.MP MSC 82B4482B2082B28 PACS 75.10.Nr64.60.ah05.50.+q
keywords spinglassMigdal-Kadanofflatticehierarchicalbondpercolationrenormalizationgroupspin-glassorderlowercriticaldimensionstiffness
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 proves that Ising spin glasses with symmetric binary couplings on Migdal–Kadanoff (MK) hierarchical lattices have no spin-glass order and no stiffness at any temperature, provided a simple inequality holds for the branching number s and scale factor b. The mechanism is that a single exact renormalization-group step creates zero-strength bonds with positive probability; these act as holes, and when the induced hole density is above the percolation threshold, the endpoints decouple exponentially fast with distance. The same argument rigorously rules out a spin-glass phase in the MK approximation to the square lattice, and, by choosing s and b large, it constructs lattices whose fractal dimension is arbitrarily close to 3 from below yet still satisfy the no-order criterion. This sharply contrasts with numerical estimates of a lower critical dimension near 2.52 for small s and b.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the one-step exact renormalization dilution: with symmetric binary couplings and even s, each branch contribution has equal magnitude and random sign, so the renormalized interaction is exactly zero whenever the signs balance, an event of probability p_{s,b}. This converts the spin-glass problem into a hierarchical bond-percolation recursion y_n >= [1 - (1 - y_{n-1})^b]^s, whose function f(x) = 1 - (1 - x^b)^s has a unique nontrivial fixed point. Condition (7) places the initial vacancy probability above that fixed point, forcing exponential decay of endpoint connectivity; the fixed-point analysis of f supplies the exponential bound.

What would settle it

Check the displayed formula for b: if it is read as b = sqrt(s pi/2) / (log s - log log s + C), the resulting fractal dimension approaches 3 from above for large s, falsifying the 'from below' claim. More directly, compute p_{s,b} = binom(s, s/2)/2^s and the right-hand side of condition (7) for the proposed b with C > log 2 for large even s (e.g., s = 10^4); failure of the inequality at any s collapses the construction. Running the hierarchical percolation recursion numerically for these parameters and observing a nonzero endpoint connectivity would also contradict the theorem's conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, for an even branching number s, the exact renormalization of a single generating unit of the MK lattice yields an effective interaction that vanishes with probability p_{s,b} = binom(s, s/2)/2^s, independent of temperature and scale factor. Treating these zero bonds as vacancies reduces the problem to bond percolation on the hierarchical lattice. If p_{s,b} satisfies p_{s,b} < [1 - (1-p_{s,b})^b]^s, then the endpoint connectivity probability decays as C exp(-c r_n), so the spin-glass correlation tends to zero in the thermodynamic limit. The paper proves this for finite temperature, zero temperature, and for the boundary-condition stiffness, and extends the same

Load-bearing premise

The claimed construction of lattices with fractal dimension arbitrarily close to three from below rests on an asymptotic choice of the scale factor b that is asserted without proof and is displayed in a form that does not obviously satisfy the required inequality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The MK approximation to the Ising spin glass on the square lattice has no spin-glass phase or stiffness, rigorously for symmetric binary couplings.
  • The no-order criterion applies at all temperatures including T = 0, and the absence of stiffness follows with probability approaching one exponentially fast, effectively corresponding to a stiffness exponent of -infinity rather than power-law scaling.
  • For large s and a suitable choice of b, there exist MK lattices with fractal dimension arbitrarily close to 3 from below that still have no spin-glass order, supporting the scaling picture that d = 3 is marginal in the large-s, large-b regime.
  • The same dilution mechanism proves the absence of order and stiffness on the self-dual hierarchical lattice with d = log 5 / log 2 ~ 2.32, after two RG steps push the vacancy probability past the percolation threshold.
  • The sufficient condition extends to asymmetric binary distributions and to any discrete coupling distribution with a positive atom at zero effective coupling after one RG step, and in the asymmetric case it also rules out ferromagnetic order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the asymptotic construction holds, it suggests that the lower critical dimension is not a universal attribute of hierarchical lattices but depends on the detailed generating rule; numerical lower-critical estimates from small s and b should not be extrapolated to large s and b.
  • The percolation-reduction method could be pushed further: applying two or more exact RG steps before comparing to percolation may prove absence of order on lattices where the one-step criterion fails, as already demonstrated for the self-dual lattice; a systematic multi-step version might settle cases such as (s,b) = (6,4) and (8,5).
  • Because the criterion requires an atom at zero effective coupling, extending it to continuous distributions would need a different mechanism; a possible route is to approximate continuous couplings by discrete ones with a controlled error, though the paper does not pursue this.
  • A direct numerical check of condition (7) for the proposed large-s choice of b would either validate the near-three-dimensional construction or reveal that the asymptotic assertion needs correction; the displayed formula's direction of approach to 3 is currently ambiguous.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript considers the Ising spin glass with symmetric binary couplings on Migdal–Kadanoff (MK) hierarchical lattices with even branching number. Its central observation is that one exact RG step produces a zero effective bond with probability p_{s,b} = binom(s,s/2)/2^s. Discarding the nonzero coupling values reduces the endpoint spin-glass correlation to a bond-percolation connectivity probability on the same hierarchical lattice. If p_{s,b} satisfies condition (7), p_{s,b} < [1-(1-p_{s,b})^b]^s, then the percolation recursion pushes the vacancy probability above threshold, giving an exponential decay of the endpoint correlation and hence, under the paper's definitions, no spin-glass order and no stiffness at any temperature. Theorems 1–3 formalize this for finite and zero temperature. The paper also applies the criterion to the square-lattice MK approximation (s=b) and to a self-dual hierarchical lattice with d=log 5/log 2, using two RG steps to exceed the percolation threshold. In addition, it claims that for large even s one can choose b so that the fractal dimension approaches 3 from below while condition (7) still holds, contrasting with earlier numerical estimates of a lower critical dimension near 2.52.

Significance. The core mechanism is elegant and self-contained: an exact RG step produces an atom at zero interaction, and the spin-glass correlation is bounded by a percolation probability. For any fixed pair (s,b) satisfying (7), the proof of Theorem 1 is valid: the percolation recursion, the fixed-point analysis, and the exponential bound in the End Matter are correct, and no fitted or numerical input is used. This already yields rigorous statements about absence of endpoint order and stiffness for a nontrivial family of hierarchical lattices, including the s=b case. If the asymptotic construction with d approaching 3 from below were properly proved, it would be a significant result, since it would show that the lower-critical behavior of MK spin glasses depends on the detailed lattice construction and not only on fractal dimension. The self-dual lattice result is also potentially interesting, but its proof currently rests on unshown enumerations. Overall, the paper's core conditional theorem is sound, but the advertised 'near three dimensions' claim is not yet established in the present text.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, paragraph containing Eq. (9)] The construction of MK lattices with fractal dimension arbitrarily close to three from below is asserted, not proved. The displayed formula for b is ambiguous as written: it can be read as b ≈ sqrt(sπ/2)/(log s − log log s + C), in which case condition (7) fails and the dimension approaches 3 from above. The intended expression is presumably b ≈ sqrt(sπ/2) (log s − log log s + C). Even with that correction, no lemma is provided showing that for all sufficiently large even s there exists an integer b satisfying (7) with this scaling; the End Matter proof of Theorem 1 starts from a pair (s,b) that already satisfies (7). Because the 'near three dimensions from below' statement is a central advertised result, this gap must be fixed before publication.
  2. [End Matter, proof of Theorem 4] The values q2 = 261/512 and q2 = 2255/4096 are asserted to follow by direct enumeration, but the enumeration is not displayed. Since a single RG step gives q1 = 1/2, exactly at the percolation threshold, the proof of Theorem 4 depends entirely on these unshown counts. Please provide a reproducible enumeration (table of multiplicities, generating function, or a short verification script), or restate the theorem as conditional on the enumeration.
  3. [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (2)] The statement that vanishing of the endpoint spin-glass correlation in Eq. (2) implies vanishing of the conventional spin-glass order parameter in Eq. (3) is not demonstrated. On a hierarchical lattice there is no translation invariance, so correlation of the two root spins is not automatically representative of the spatial average over all pairs. Please either prove the required bound on the sum over pairs using the scale-by-scale connectivity estimate, or explicitly restrict the no-order claim to endpoint correlations.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Acknowledgments] The text contains a duplicated word: 'This work was was supported'.
  2. [End Matter, Eq. (14)] The recursion is written as an inequality y_n ≥ [1-(1-y_{n-1})^b]^s. Since the effective bonds after a single exact RG step are generated from disjoint sets of original couplings and are therefore independent, equality appears to hold; if the inequality is intentional, a one-sentence explanation would be helpful.
  3. [Main text, after Eq. (7)] The wording 'the no-order criterion becomes easier to satisfy at lower fractal dimensions' is a statement about fixed s and increasing b; it may be misread as a general characterization. Consider rephrasing to make the fixed-s dependence explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central proof is self-contained; the unproven/ambiguous large-s asymptotic construction is a rigor concern, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. Theorems 1-3 follow from the exact RG equations (4) and (10), the combinatorial probability p_s,b in Eq. (5), and the percolation recursion proven in the End Matter; no parameter is fitted to data and no external result is used as the load-bearing input. The bound E[<sigma_A sigma_B>_n^2] <= x_n is justified by the disconnection event, and the fixed-point analysis of f(x) is proved directly. Theorem 4's q1 and q2 values are obtained by direct enumeration from the displayed exact RG equations, so the earlier self-dual-lattice paper [49] is cited only as context and is not load-bearing. The one weak spot is the asymptotic construction after Eq. (9): the statement that b ~ sqrt(s*pi/2)(log s - log log s + C) with C > log 2 satisfies condition (7) for all large even s is asserted without proof, and as typeset in the supplied text it can be misread as a division giving b -> 0 relative to sqrt(s), which would violate (7). That is an omitted proof/rigor issue, not circularity: the claim is an existence assertion about an explicit inequality, and Theorem 1 remains a conditional statement that nowhere assumes its conclusion. Thus no circular step is identified.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central derivation rests on exact RG equations from prior work, a combinatorial zero-bond probability, and a percolation comparison. The only unproved input of consequence is the asymptotic construction for d→3^- and the unshown enumeration in the self-dual case; both are mathematical, not physical, and are flagged as ad hoc to this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • C = any constant > log 2
    In the asymptotic construction, C is a free constant in b ≃ √(sπ/2)(log s − log log s + C). The result is claimed for any fixed C > log 2; it is not fitted to data but is a tunable construction parameter. The displayed formula in the text has b divided by the log factor, which is inconsistent with the derivation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Exact RG equation for a single MK unit, Eq. (4) for finite temperature and Eq. (10) for T=0, as taken from prior literature.
    The paper relies on these standard RG transformations without re-deriving them. They are quoted from [40] and [48]. For the central theorem, the key property is only that each branch contribution to the effective coupling is ± the same magnitude, which follows from the binary coupling distribution and the equations.
  • ad hoc to paper The assertion that for b ≃ √(sπ/2)(log s − log log s + C) with C > log 2, condition (7) holds for all sufficiently large even s and gives d = 3 − (4 log log s + O(1))/log s.
    This asymptotic claim is stated in the main text ('Any fixed C>log 2 ensures...') but is not proved in the End Matter. As written, the displayed b formula uses division and violates condition (7), so the claim is unverified and partly misstated. It is load-bearing for the 'near three dimensions' result.
  • ad hoc to paper The direct enumeration for the self-dual lattice yields q₂ = 261/512 at finite temperature and q₂ = 2255/4096 at T=0.
    The End Matter states that 'A direct enumeration... gives' these values, but the enumeration is not shown. The theorem depends on these exact numbers exceeding 1/2. A reader cannot verify them without repeating the finite computation.
  • standard math Standard percolation fixed-point analysis: the function f(x)=1−(1−x^b)^s has a unique nontrivial fixed point on (0,1) for s>1, and R_b(x)=log(1−x)/log(1−x^b) is strictly decreasing.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1 to show that f(x₁)<x₁ implies x_n→0. The proof given is a standard calculus argument and appears correct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Absence of Spin-Glass Order on Migdal--Kadanoff Hierarchical Lattices near Three Dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5L3BAPKN

@misc{pith2026260715676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Absence of Spin-Glass Order on Migdal--Kadanoff Hierarchical Lattices near Three Dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5L3BAPKN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15676}
}
abstract

We derive a rigorous sufficient condition for the absence of spin-glass order in the Ising spin glass with symmetric binary couplings on Migdal--Kadanoff (MK) hierarchical lattices with even branching number. The key observation is that a single exact renormalization-group step creates zero effective bonds with positive probability, thereby reducing the problem to bond percolation on the corresponding hierarchical lattice. When the induced dilution exceeds the percolation threshold, both spin-glass order and stiffness are absent at all temperatures, including zero temperature. As a consequence, our criterion gives a rigorous proof that the Ising spin glass on the square lattice does not exhibit a spin-glass phase within the MK approximation. More unexpectedly, by choosing sufficiently large scale factors and branching numbers, we construct MK hierarchical lattices whose fractal dimensions are arbitrarily close to three from below but still exhibit no spin-glass order. This sharply contrasts with numerical estimates obtained for MK hierarchical lattices with relatively small scale factors and branching numbers, which placed the lower critical dimension near \(2.52\).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. First two generations of the MK hierarchical lattice for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [49]

    Ohzeki and H

    M. Ohzeki and H. Nishimori, Analytical evidence for the ab- sence of spin glass transition on self-dual lattices, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.42,332001 (2009)

    2009

  2. [1]

    Parisi, A sequence of approximated solutions to the S-K model for spin glasses, J

    G. Parisi, A sequence of approximated solutions to the S-K model for spin glasses, J. Phys. A13,L115 (1980)

    1980

  3. [2]

    Guerra, Broken replica symmetry bounds in the mean field spin glass model, Comm

    F. Guerra, Broken replica symmetry bounds in the mean field spin glass model, Comm. Math. Phys.233,1 (2003)

    2003

  4. [3]

    Talagrand, The Parisi formula, Ann

    M. Talagrand, The Parisi formula, Ann. Math.163,221 (2006)

    2006

  5. [4]

    C. M. Newman and D. L. Stein, Non-Mean-Field Behavior of Realistic Spin Glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett.76,515 (1996)

    1996

  6. [5]

    C. M. Newman and D. L. Stein, Nature of Ground State Incon- gruence in Two-Dimensional Spin Glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 3966 (2000)

    2000

  7. [6]

    C. M. Newman, N. Read, and D. L. Stein, Proof of single- replica equivalence in short-range spin glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130,077102 (2023)

    2023

  8. [7]

    C. M. Newman, N. Read, and D. L. Stein, inSpin Glass Theory and Far Beyond - Replica Symmetry Breaking after 40 Years, edited by P. Charbonneau, E. Marinari, G. Parisi, F. Ricci- Tersenghi, G. Sicuro, F. Zamponi, and M. Mezard (World Sci- entific, Singapore, 2023)

    2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Chatterjee, Spin glass phase at zero temperature in the Edwards-Anderson model, arXiv:2301.04112

    S. Chatterjee, Spin glass phase at zero temperature in the Edwards-Anderson model, arXiv:2301.04112

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Nishimori, M

    H. Nishimori, M. Ohzeki, and M. Okuyama, Temperature chaos as a logical consequence of the reentrant transition in spin glasses, Phys. Rev. E112,044140 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    C. M. Newman and D. L. Stein, Ground State Excitations and Energy Fluctuations in Short-Range Spin Glasses, J. Stat. Phys. 193,70 (2026)

    2026

  4. [11]

    W. L. McMillan, Domain-wall renormalization-group study of the two-dimensional random Ising model, Phys. Rev. B29, 4026 (1983)

    1983

  5. [12]

    A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, Lower critical dimension of Ising spin glasses: a numerical study, J. Phys. C17,L463 (1984)

    1984

  6. [13]

    W. L. McMillan, Domain-wall renormalization-group study of the three-dimensional random Ising model, Phys. Rev. B30, 476 (1984)

    1984

  7. [14]

    R. N. Bhatt and A. P. Young, Numerical studies of Ising spin glasses in two, three, and four dimensions, Phys. Rev. B37, 5606 (1988)

    1988

  8. [15]

    A. K. Hartmann and A. P. Young, Lower Critical Dimension of Ising Spin Glasses, Phys. Rev. B64,180404 (2001)

    2001

  9. [16]

    Houdayer and A

    J. Houdayer and A. K. Hartmann, Low-temperature behavior of two-dimensional Gaussian Ising spin glasses, Phys. Rev. B70, 014418 (2004)

    2004

  10. [17]

    R. R. P. Singh and S. Chakravarty, Critical Behavior of an Ising Spin-Glass, Phys. Rev. Lett.57,245 (1986)

    1986

  11. [18]

    Kawashima and H

    N. Kawashima and H. Rieger, Finite-size scaling analysis of exact ground states for±Jspin glass models in two dimensions, Europhys. Lett.39,85 (1997)

    1997

  12. [19]

    Sungthong and J

    R. Sungthong and J. Poulter, The critical temperature of the two-dimensional±JIsing spin glass, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 36,6675 (2003)

    2003

  13. [20]

    Franz, G

    S. Franz, G. Parisi, and M. A. Virasoro, Interfaces and lower critical dimension in a spin glass model, J. Phys. I (France) 4, 1657 (1994)

    1994

  14. [21]

    Boettcher, Stiffness of the Edwards-Anderson Model in all Dimensions, Phys

    S. Boettcher, Stiffness of the Edwards-Anderson Model in all Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.95,197205 (2005)

    2005

  15. [22]

    Maiorano and G

    A. Maiorano and G. Parisi, Support for the value 5/2 for the spin glass lower critical dimension at zero magnetic field, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA115, 5129 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    A. A. Migdal, Phase transitions in gauge and spin-lattice sys- tems, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.69,1457 (1975)

    1975

  17. [24]

    L. P. Kadanoff, Notes on Migdal’s recursion formulas, Ann. Phys.100,359 (1976)

    1976

  18. [25]

    A. P. Young and R. B. Stinchcombe, Real-space renormaliza- tion group calculations for spin glasses and dilute magnets, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.9,4419 (1976)

    1976

  19. [26]

    B. W. Southern and A. P. Young, Real space rescaling study of spin glass behaviour in three dimensions, J. Phys. C: Solid State 6 Phys.10,2179 (1977)

    1977

  20. [27]

    Jayaprakash, J

    C. Jayaprakash, J. Chalupa, and M. Wortis, Spin-glass behav- ior from Migdal’s recursion relations, Phys. Rev. B15,1495 (1977)

    1977

  21. [28]

    S. R. McKay, A. N. Berker, and S. Kirkpatrick, Spin- Glass Behavior in Frustrated Ising Models with Chaotic Renormalization-Group Trajectories, Phys. Rev. Lett.48,767 (1982)

    1982

  22. [29]

    A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, Chaotic Nature of the Spin-Glass Phase, Phys. Rev. Lett.58,57 (1987)

    1987

  23. [30]

    E. M. F. Curado and J.-L. Meunier, Spin-glass in low dimen- sions and the Migdal-Kadanoffapproximation, Physica (Ams- terdam)149A,164 (1988)

    1988

  24. [31]

    M. J. P. Gingras, Degenerate and nondegenerate ground states in bimodal vector spin glasses, Phys. Rev. B46,14900 (1992)

    1992

  25. [32]

    Nifle and H

    M. Nifle and H. J. Hilhorst, New critical-point exponent and new scaling laws for short-range Ising spin glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett.68,2992 (1992)

    1992

  26. [33]

    M. A. Moore, H. Bokil, and B. Drossel, Evidence for the Droplet Picture of Spin Glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett.81,4252 (1998)

    1998

  27. [34]

    E. M. F. Curado, F. D. Nobre, and S. Coutinho, Ground-state degeneracies of Ising spin glasses on diamond hierarchical lat- tices, Phys. Rev. E60,3761 (1999)

    1999

  28. [35]

    Drossel, H

    B. Drossel, H. Bokil, M. A. Moore, and A. J. Bray, The link overlap and finite size effects for the 3D Ising spin glass, Eur. Phys. J. B13,369 (2000)

    2000

  29. [36]

    R. F. S. Andrade, E. Nogueira, Jr., and S. Coutinho, Ising spin glass by the transfer matrix approach, Phys. Rev. B68,104523 (2003)

    2003

  30. [37]

    Amoruso, E

    C. Amoruso, E. Marinari, O. C. Martin, and A. Pagnani, Scal- ings of Domain Wall Energies in Two Dimensional Ising Spin Glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett.91,087201 (2003)

    2003

  31. [38]

    Sasaki and O

    M. Sasaki and O. C. Martin, Temperature Chaos, Rejuvenation and Memory in Migdal-KadanoffSpin Glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91,097201 (2003)

    2003

  32. [39]

    Bouchaud, F

    J.-P. Bouchaud, F. Krzakala, and O. C. Martin, Energy expo- nents and corrections to scaling in Ising spin glasses, Phys. Rev. B68,224404 (2003)

    2003

  33. [40]

    J ¨org and F

    T. J ¨org and F. Krzakala, The nature of the different zero- temperature phases in discrete two-dimensional spin glasses: Entropy, universality, chaos and cascades in the renormaliza- tion group flow, J. Stat. Mech. L01001 (2012)

    2012

  34. [41]

    M. C. Angelini and G. Biroli, Spin Glass in a Field: A New Zero-Temperature Fixed Point in Finite Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett.114,095701 (2015)

    2015

  35. [42]

    Demirtas ¸, A

    M. Demirtas ¸, A. Tuncer, and A. N. Berker, Lower-critical spin- glass dimension from 23 sequenced hierarchical models, Phys. Rev. E92,022136 (2015)

    2015

  36. [43]

    Gardner, A spin glass model on a hierarchical lattice, J

    E. Gardner, A spin glass model on a hierarchical lattice, J. Phys. (Paris)45,1755 (1984)

    1984

  37. [44]

    Collet and J

    P. Collet and J. P. Eckmann, A spin-glass model with random couplings, Commun. Math. Phys.93,379 (1984)

    1984

  38. [45]

    S. O. Kamphorst, A mixed phase transition for a hierarchical spin glass, J. Stat. Phys.45,369 (1986)

    1986

  39. [46]

    R. B. Griffiths and M. Kaufman, Spin systems on hierarchical lattices. Introduction and thermodynamic limit, Phys. Rev. B 26,5022 (1982)

    1982

  40. [47]

    Kaufman and R

    M. Kaufman and R. B. Griffiths, Spin systems on hierarchical lattices. II. Some examples of soluble models, Phys. Rev. B30, 244 (1984)

    1984

  41. [48]

    F. D. Nobre, Real-space renormalization-group approaches for two-dimensional Gaussian Ising spin glass, Phys. Lett. A250, 163 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    Kaufman and R

    M. Kaufman and R. B. Griffiths, Exactly soluble Ising models on hierarchical lattices, Phys. Rev. B24,496 (1981). END MA TTER Proof of Theorem 1—We prove Theorem 1. After one exact RG step, each effective bond in the reduced hierarchical lattice is absent with probabilityp s,b...

    1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.