4.8 Article

Explosive Percolation Obeys Standard Finite-Size Scaling in an Event-Based Ensemble

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 130, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.147101

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Explosive percolation in the Achlioptas process exhibits a variety of anomalous critical phenomena, which are different from continuous phase transitions. In an event-based ensemble, we find that the critical behaviors in explosive percolation are clean and follow standard finite-size scaling theory, except for fluctuations in pseudo-critical points. Multiple fractal structures emerge in the fluctuation window and their values can be derived from a crossover scaling theory. The mixing effects of these structures explain the previously observed anomalous phenomena. The clean scaling in the event-based ensemble allows us to determine the critical points and exponents for various bond-insertion rules with high precision, resolving ambiguities about their universality. The findings hold true for any spatial dimensions.
Explosive percolation in the Achlioptas process, which has attracted much research attention, is known to exhibit a rich variety of critical phenomena that are anomalous from the perspective of continuous phase transitions. Hereby, we show that, in an event-based ensemble, the critical behaviors in explosive percolation are rather clean and obey the standard finite-size scaling theory, except for the large fluctuation of pseudo-critical points. In the fluctuation window, multiple fractal structures emerge and the values can be derived from a crossover scaling theory. Further, their mixing effects account well for the previously observed anomalous phenomena. Making use of the clean scaling in the event-based ensemble, we determine with a high precision the critical points and exponents for a number of bond-insertion rules and clarify ambiguities about their universalities. Our findings hold true for any spatial dimensions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据