Critical Exponents, Hyperscaling and Universal Amplitude Ratios for Two- and Three-Dimensional Self-Avoiding Walks

TL;DR

This study uses high-precision Monte Carlo simulations to determine critical exponents and universal ratios for 2D and 3D self-avoiding walks, confirming some theoretical predictions and revealing discrepancies in others.

Contribution

It provides the most accurate estimates to date of critical exponents and universal ratios for SAWs, and critically reexamines the validity of the hyperscaling relation and renormalization-group theory.

Findings

Confirmed the 2D exponent $ u=3/4$ and hyperscaling relation.

Estimated $ u=0.5877$ in 3D, aligning with field theory.

Revealed discrepancies in the correction-to-scaling exponent $ riangle_1$.

Abstract

We make a high-precision Monte Carlo study of two- and three-dimensional self-avoiding walks (SAWs) of length up to 80000 steps, using the pivot algorithm and the Karp-Luby algorithm. We study the critical exponents $\nu$ and $2\Delta_4 -\gamma$ as well as several universal amplitude ratios; in particular, we make an extremely sensitive test of the hyperscaling relation $d\nu = 2\Delta_4 -\gamma$. In two dimensions, we confirm the predicted exponent $\nu = 3/4$ and the hyperscaling relation; we estimate the universal ratios $\<R_g^2\> / \<R_e^2\> = 0.14026 \pm 0.00007$, $\<R_m^2\> / \<R_e^2\> = 0.43961 \pm 0.00034$ and $\Psi^* = 0.66296 \pm 0.00043$ (68\% confidence limits). In three dimensions, we estimate $\nu = 0.5877 \pm 0.0006$ with a correction-to-scaling exponent $\Delta_1 = 0.56 \pm 0.03$ (subjective 68\% confidence limits). This value for $\nu$ agrees excellently with the field-theoretic renormalization-group prediction, but there is some discrepancy for $\Delta_1$. Earlier Monte Carlo estimates of $\nu$, which were $\approx\! 0.592$, are now seen to be biased by corrections to scaling. We estimate the universal ratios $\<R_g^2\> / \<R_e^2\> = 0.1599 \pm 0.0002$ and $\Psi^* = 0.2471 \pm 0.0003$; since $\Psi^* > 0$, hyperscaling holds. The approach to $\Psi^*$ is from above, contrary to the prediction of the two-parameter renormalization-group theory. We critically reexamine this theory, and explain where the error lies.