Corrections to finite-size scaling in the 3D Ising model based on nonperturbative approaches and Monte Carlo simulations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrections to scaling in the 3D Ising model are studied based on nonperturbative analytical arguments and Monte Carlo (MC) simulation data for different lattice sizes [Formula: see text]. Analytical arguments show the existence of corrections with the exponent [Formula: see text], the leading correction-to-scaling exponent being [Formula: see text]. A numerical estimation of [Formula: see text] from the susceptibility data within [Formula: see text] yields [Formula: see text], in agreement with this statement. We reconsider the MC estimation of [Formula: see text] from smaller lattice sizes, [Formula: see text], using different finite-size scaling methods, and show that these sizes are still too small, since no convergence to the same result is observed. In particular, estimates ranging from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] are obtained, using MC data for thermodynamic average quantities, as well as for partition function zeros. However, a trend toward smaller [Formula: see text] values is observed in one of these cases in a refined estimation from extended data up to [Formula: see text]. We discuss the influence of [Formula: see text] on the estimation of critical exponents [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it