text:
# Shape dependence of the finite-size scaling limit in a strongly anisotropic 𝑂(∞) model

## 1 Introduction

Finite-size scaling (FSS)  is a very powerful tool that allows to extract information on the critical behavior of a system—which in principle can only be observed in the infinite-volume limit—from finite-volume results. In particular, the most recent Monte Carlo studies heavily rely on FSS for the determination of critical properties (see, e.g., Refs.  for recent applications to the $`N`$-vector model in two and three dimensions; the list is of course far from being exhaustive). For isotropic systems the recipe is well known. For instance, in two dimensions one considers a domain $`L\times M`$ and the finite-size scaling limit $`\xi _{L,M}\mathrm{}`$, $`L,M\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`\xi _{L,M}/L`$ and aspect ratio $`L/M`$. Here $`\xi _{L,M}`$ is a suitably defined finite-volume correlation length. In this limit, long-distance quantities, e.g. the susceptibility, show a scaling behavior. For instance, if $`𝒪`$ diverges in the thermodynamic limit as $`|t|^{x_𝒪}`$ for $`tTT_c0`$ ($`T`$ is the temperature and $`T_c`$ its critical value), then in the FSS limit one finds

$$𝒪(t,L,M)L^{x_𝒪/\nu }f_𝒪(\xi _{L,M}(t)/L,L/M),$$
(1)
where $`f_𝒪(x,y)`$ is a universal function.

One may also ask what happens if one considers a different limit: $`\xi _{L,M}\mathrm{}`$, $`L,M\mathrm{}`$ keeping fixed the ratios $`\xi _{L,M}/L`$ and $`L/M^{1+\delta }`$ with $`\delta 0`$. If $`\delta <0`$, $`M`$ increases faster than $`L`$ and it is easy to guess that we will obtain an effective strip geometry so that

$$𝒪(t,L,M)L^{x_𝒪/\nu }f_𝒪(\xi _{L,M}(t)/L,0).$$
(2)
On the other hand, if $`\delta >0`$, $`M`$ increases slowly, and, if we are able to keep $`\xi _{L,M}/L`$ fixed, i.e. to use $`L`$ as reference box size (it is not obvious that this is possible), the domain effectively shrinks and becomes one-dimensional. Then, the question is whether a scaling behavior is still observed. One may imagine that the scaling function to be used is that of a one-dimensional system, but in this case it is unclear which exponent should be used in the prefactor.

This problem may appear academic at first but it is motivated by systems that are strongly anisotropic. For these systems one introduces an anisotropy exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the canonical FSS limit is obtained by taking $`\xi _{L,M}\mathrm{}`$, $`L,M\mathrm{}`$ keeping fixed $`\xi _{L,M}/L`$ and the aspect ratio $`L/M^{1+\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. Examples of such systems are provided by driven systems that admit nonequilibrium stationary states with strong anisotropy , surface-growth processes , Lifshitz points , uniaxial magnets with dipolar interactions , just to mention a few of them. A general approach to scale invariance in infinite volume for these anisotropic systems has been developed by Henkel . However, FSS is still poorly understood. An exact computation on a dimer model which undergoes an anisotropic phase transition was performed by Bhattacharjee and Nagle , while, in the context of the FSS for driven diffusive systems, a phenomenological FSS theory was proposed by Binder and Wang  and by Leung  who also gave some heuristic arguments on the consequences of taking the FSS limit with an incorrect aspect ratio.

Often in experimental or Monte Carlo applications the exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not known a priori, and thus two questions naturally arise. First, if we consider the FSS limit with fixed $`L/M^{1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta }`$, $`\delta 0`$, do we still observe scaling? and if yes, with which exponents? Second, how do we determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$? An answer to these two questions is of utmost practical importance.

In this work we analyze the finite-size scaling behavior of the $`N`$-vector model in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit, since in this case it is exactly solvable, see, e.g., Ref. . This model has been a classical example in FSS investigations, starting from the work of Brézin , recently extended to several generalizations , including long-range interactions and boundary effects. Here, we consider a general class of $`O(\mathrm{})`$ models which includes the classical isotropic short-range and long-range cases but also models in which the spin-spin coupling decays with different power-laws in different lattice directions, giving rise to a strongly anisotropic phase transition. For these models we analyze the FSS limit using finite boxes with arbitrary shape.

We show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is uniquely determined if one properly measures the correlation length. On the other hand, if only zero-momentum quantities are available, for instance the susceptibility $`\chi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ cannot be easily determined. Indeed, even if the aspect ratio is incorrect, i.e. $`\delta 0`$, one still observes scaling. In some cases, it is even possible to observe two different FSS limits with the same data, one corresponding to the layer/strip geometry, the second one corresponding to a lower-dimensional system.

Our analysis will be limited to systems below the upper critical dimension and above the lower critical one. Also, we will not address the question of the FSS limit at fixed vanishing magnetization, which is of relevance for lattice-gas studies and has already been discussed for isotropic systems in Ref. .

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we define the model, the basic observables, and discuss the large-$`N`$ limit. In Sec. 3 we derive the anisotropy exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that defines the aspect ratio and report the FSS functions for the susceptibility and the correlation lengths. In Sec. 4 we discuss the noncanonical FSS limit in which the ratio $`M/L^{1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta }`$, $`\delta 0`$, is kept fixed as the size of the lattice is increased. The results of these two sections are derived in the Appendices. In Sec. 5 we present a simple numerical example: we consider the standard isotropic model with short-range interactions on a cubic lattice $`M\times L^2`$ and show that two different scaling behaviors can be observed by keeping fixed the ratio $`M/L^{3/2}`$, in agreement with the theoretical results of Sec. 4. Finally, in Sec. 6 we present our conclusions and discuss the implications for numerical studies. In particular, we discuss how one can determine numerically the anisotropy exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

## 2 The model

We consider a $`d`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice $`^d`$, unit $`N`$-vector spins $`𝝈`$ defined at the sites of the lattice, and the Hamiltonian

$$=N\underset{𝒙,𝒚}{}J(𝒙𝒚)𝝈𝒙𝝈𝒚\mathrm{𝑵𝒉}\underset{𝒙}{}\sigma 𝒙^\mathit{1}.$$
(3)
The partition function is simply

$$Z=x[d𝝈x\delta (𝝈x^21)]e^\beta ,$$
(4)
with $`\beta 1/T`$. We will be interested in studying the finite-size behavior of the theory. For this purpose, we consider a finite box $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_V`$ of finite extent $`M`$ in the first $`q`$ directions (called the “parallel” directions and denoted by the subscript $``$) and $`L`$ in the remaining $`p`$ directions (called “transverse” and denoted by $``$), with $`d=q+p`$, and therefore of volume $`V=M^qL^p`$. In order to be able to consider long-range interactions, we define a finite-size coupling $`J_{M,L}(𝒙)`$ as

$$J_{M,L}(𝒙)=\underset{𝒏_{}^𝒑}{}\underset{𝒏_{}^𝒒}{}𝑱(𝒙+𝒏_{}𝑴+𝒏_{}𝑳),$$
(5)
and the finite-size Hamiltonian

$$=N\underset{𝒙,𝒚𝜦_𝑽}{}J_{M,L}(𝒙𝒚)𝝈𝒙𝝈𝒚\mathrm{𝑵𝒉}\underset{𝒙𝜦_𝑽}{}\sigma 𝒙^\mathit{1},$$
(6)
with periodic boundary conditions. Note that definition (5) implies for the Fourier transforms (with $`𝒑𝜦_𝑽^{}`$, see Eq. (10) below)

$$\widehat{J}_{M,L}(𝒑)=\underset{𝒙𝜦_𝑽}{}𝒆^{\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}𝒙}𝑱_{𝑴,𝑳}(𝒙)=\underset{𝒙^𝒅}{}𝒆^{\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}𝒙}𝑱(𝒙)=\widehat{𝑱}(𝒑).$$
(7)
We consider anisotropic long-range interactions and thus we assume that asymptotically $`\widehat{J}(𝒒)`$ has the form

$$\widehat{J}(𝒒)\widehat{𝑱}(\mathit{0})+𝒂_{}|𝒒_{}|^{\mathit{2}\rho }+𝒂_{}|𝒒_{}|^{\mathit{2}\sigma },\text{for }|𝒒|\mathit{0},$$
(8)
with $`0<\rho ,\sigma 1`$ and $`a_{}<0`$, $`a_{}<0`$ in order to have a ferromagnetic system. For simplicity, we will assume the two metric factors to be equal, and, by redefining the inverse temperature $`\beta `$, we can set $`a_{}=a_{}=1/2`$.

In the large-$`N`$ limit, assuming periodic boundary conditions and $`h=0`$, the theory is solved in terms of the gap equations

$`\lambda _V\sigma _V=0,\beta =\beta \sigma _V^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^pM^q}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒒𝜦_𝑽^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K(𝒒)+\lambda _𝑽}},`$ (9)
where $`K(𝒒)=\mathit{2}(\widehat{𝑱}(𝒒)\widehat{𝑱}(\mathit{0}))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_V^{}`$ is the lattice

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_V^{}=(2\pi M^1_M^q,2\pi L^1_L^p,).$$
(10)
In infinite volume, the same equations holds, with the simple substitution of the summation with the normalized integral over the first Brillouin zone $`[\pi ,\pi ]^d`$.

The meaning of the parameters $`\lambda _V`$ and $`\sigma _V`$ is clarified by considering the magnetization and the two-point function. If $`_V`$ is the mean value for a system of volume $`V`$, we define

$$M_V=\sigma ^1_V,G_V(𝒙)=𝝈\mathit{0}𝝈𝒙_𝑽.$$
(11)
Then

$$M_V=\sigma _V,\widehat{G}_V(𝒒)=\frac{\beta ^\mathit{1}}{𝑲(𝒒)+\lambda _𝑽},$$
(12)
where $`\widehat{G}(𝒒)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`G(𝒙)`$. As we show in App. B in the limit $`V\mathrm{}`$ and in the scaling limit $`\lambda _V0`$, the correlation function has the form

$$G_{\mathrm{}}(𝒙)=\xi _{}^{\rho (\mathit{2}𝑫)}\stackrel{~}{𝑮}_{\mathrm{}}(𝒙_{}/\xi _,\mathrm{},𝒙_{}/\xi _,\mathrm{}),$$
(13)
where

$$\xi _,\mathrm{}=\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^{1/2\rho },\xi _,\mathrm{}=\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^{1/2\sigma }.$$
(14)
Therefore, even if the model has long-range correlations in the high-$`T`$ phase, it is sensible to look at $`\xi _,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\xi _,\mathrm{}`$ as appropriate typical length scales of the system. We will refer to them respectively as transverse and longitudinal correlation lengths. They are related by

$$\xi _,\mathrm{}=\xi _,\mathrm{}^{\rho /\sigma }.$$
(15)
The critical point is characterized by a vanishing mass gap, i.e. $`\xi _,\mathrm{}^1=\xi _,\mathrm{}^1=0`$, and by a vanishing magnetization, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=0`$, so that the critical temperature is given by (see Eq. (9))

$$\beta _c=_{[\pi ,\pi ]^d}\frac{d^d𝒑}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{K(𝒑)},$$
(16)
which is finite whenever the effective dimensionality $`Dp/\rho +q/\sigma `$ is greater than $`2`$ and infinite for $`D2`$ (the system undergoes a zero-temperature phase transition). Moreover, given that we will be interested in finite-volume properties, we have $`M_V=0`$ for all values of $`\beta `$, so that we can set $`\sigma _V=0`$ in the gap equation.

## 3 Canonical finite-size scaling

We do not address here the problem of the definition of a finite-volume correlation length and we simply use

$$\xi _{,V}=\lambda _V^{1/2\rho },\xi _{,V}=\lambda _V^{1/2\sigma },$$
(17)
which are the finite-volume analogues of the infinite-volume correlation lengths defined above.

In order to perform the FSS limit we must identify the correct aspect ratio. From Eq. (8) we see that $`q_{}^\rho q_{}^\sigma `$, i.e. $`L^\rho M^\sigma `$. Therefore, the FSS limit should be taken keeping $`SM/L^{1+\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\sigma 1`$, fixed. In App. A we show that, in the limit $`L,M,\xi \mathrm{}`$ with $`S`$ and $`\xi _{,V}/L`$ (or, equivalently, $`\xi _{,V}/M`$) fixed, below the upper critical dimension, i.e. for $`D<4`$, the gap equation takes a scaling form. Above the lower critical dimension, i.e. for $`D>2`$, we obtain

$$(4\pi )^{\rho (2D)/2}(\beta \beta _c)L^{\rho (D2)}z^{2D}=A_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }+I_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }(z,S),$$
(18)
where $`z(4\pi )^{\rho /2}(L/\xi _{,V})^\rho `$, $`\beta _c`$ is given in Eq. (16),

$$A_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{(p+q)/2}}\frac{1}{\rho \sigma }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p/2\rho )\mathrm{\Gamma }(q/2\sigma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(q/2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{p}{2\rho }\frac{q}{2\sigma }\right),$$
(19)
and $`I_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }(z,S)`$ is defined in App. A, cf. Eq. (56).

For $`D<2`$ there is no finite-temperature phase transition and the gap equation assumes the form

$$(4\pi )^{\rho (2D)/2}\beta L^{\rho (D2)}z^{2D}=A_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }+I_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }(z,S).$$
(20)
Considering the case $`D>2`$, Eq. (18) shows that

$$\frac{\xi _{,V}}{L}=f_{\xi ,1}[(\beta \beta _c)L^{\rho (D2)},S]=f_{\xi ,2}[(\beta \beta _c)M^{\sigma (D2)},S],$$
(21)
that allows us to define a “parallel” exponent $`\nu _{}`$ and a “perpendicular” exponent $`\nu _{}`$ as

$$\nu _{}=\frac{1}{\rho (D2)},\nu _{}=\frac{1}{\sigma (D2)},\frac{\nu _{}}{\nu _{}}=1+\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{\rho }{\sigma }.$$
(22)
Analogously, for the finite-volume susceptibility $`\chi _V=\beta \widehat{G}_V(0)`$ we obtain

$$\chi _V=\lambda _V^1=L^{2\rho }f_{\chi ,1}[(\beta \beta _c)L^{\rho (D2)},S]=M^{2\sigma }f_{\chi ,2}[(\beta \beta _c)M^{\sigma (D2)},S].$$
(23)
The corresponding critical exponent $`\gamma `$ associated with the behavior in infinite volume, $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}(\beta _c\beta )^\gamma `$, is correctly identified as $`\gamma =2\rho \nu _{}=2\sigma \nu _{}=2(D2)^1`$.

## 4 Noncanonical finite-size scaling

### 4.1 General considerations

In Sec. 3 we discussed the canonical FSS, obtained by keeping $`S`$ constant. However, in many anisotropic systems the correct exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not known and thus an important question is what happens if we consider the FSS limit keeping fixed the ratio

$$S_\delta \frac{M}{L^{1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta }}$$
(24)
with $`\delta 0`$. If one has separately defined parallel and transverse correlation lengths, one can immediately identify the correct anisotropy exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It corresponds to the value for which $`\xi _{,V}/L`$ and $`\xi _{,V}/M`$ both remain finite in the FSS limit. This uniquely defines the correct exponent. This is not surprising, since the correlation lengths satisfy Eq. (15) that essentially defines the correct aspect ratio. On the other hand, one may not have access to the correlation lengths but only to some zero-momentum correlation function, for instance to the susceptibility. Thus, one may ask what kind of scaling behavior, if any, is observed if $`S_\delta `$ is kept fixed. In other words, we may ask if we can find exponents $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ so that asymptotically, for $`L`$ and $`M`$ going to infinity and $`\beta \beta _c`$, we observe a scaling behavior analogous to that defined in Eq. (23), i.e.

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`L^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }/\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}}f_{\chi ,1}[(\beta \beta _c)L^{1/\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}},S_\delta ]`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`M^{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }/\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}}f_{\chi ,2}[(\beta \beta _c)M^{1/\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}},S_\delta ].`$ (26)
Of course, the second important question is the relation of these exponents with the correct ones defined above. Again, we will restrict our attention to the case $`2<D<4`$, i.e. below the upper critical dimension and above the lower critical one.

In the following, we only consider the case $`\delta >0`$, given that the case $`1\mathrm{\Delta }<\delta <0`$ is obtained by performing the substitutions

$$pq,LM,\rho \sigma ,\delta \delta \sigma ^2/\rho (\rho +\sigma \delta ),S_\delta S_\delta ^{1/(\rho /\sigma +\delta )}.$$
(27)
If $`\delta `$ is positive, $`S`$ goes to infinity as $`L,M\mathrm{}`$. We must then study the gap equation in that limit, requiring at the same time $`\lambda _V0`$ in an arbitrary way. The detailed calculation is presented in App. C, where we show that there are two nontrivial cases:

* One can take the limit $`S\mathrm{}`$ at $`z^2\lambda _VL^{2\rho }`$ fixed. In terms of the correlation lengths this corresponds to the FSS limit at $`\xi _{,V}/L`$ fixed. At the same time $`\xi _{,V}/M(\xi _{,V}/L)^{\rho /\sigma }L^\delta `$ goes to zero, i.e. $`M`$ increases faster than parallel correlations. Therefore, the final “effective” geometry is $`\mathrm{}^q\times L^p`$, so that we obtain the FSS behavior of a “layer.”
* Alternatively, one can take the limit $`S\mathrm{}`$, with $`z0`$, keeping $`z^2S^{2\sigma }\lambda _VM^{2\sigma }`$ fixed. This corresponds to keeping fixed the ratio $`\xi _{,V}/M`$ while at the same time $`\xi _{,V}/L`$ diverges. The expected “effective” geometry should be that of a $`q`$-dimensional hypercube with linear size $`M`$ ($`M^q\times 0^p`$).

The first limit always exists and it is easy to predict the result. It correspond to the standard FSS limit for a system $`\mathrm{}^q\times L^p`$ and thus the scaling in terms of $`L`$ is canonical. Therefore, it corresponds to taking $`\beta \beta _c`$ and $`L\mathrm{}`$ keeping fixed $`(\beta \beta _c)L^{\rho (D2)}`$, which is indeed the correct combination. Then, we obtain

$$\chi =L^{2\rho }f_{\chi ,1}[(\beta \beta _c)L^{\rho (D2)},\mathrm{}]$$
(28)
and, using Eq. (24),

$$\chi =\left(\frac{M}{S_\delta }\right)^{\frac{2\rho }{1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta }}f_{\chi ,1}[(\beta \beta _c)\left(\frac{M}{S_\delta }\right)^{\frac{\rho (D2)}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta }},\mathrm{}].$$
(29)
Thus $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}=\nu _{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\gamma `$ (note that both equations give the same result for $`\gamma `$). On the other hand, the parallel exponent $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}=\frac{1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta }{1+\mathrm{\Delta }}\nu _{},$$
(30)
a result which is a trivial consequence of the fact that if $`S_\delta `$ is fixed, then $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}/\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}=1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta `$. Therefore, even if $`\delta 0`$, one still observes scaling. Transverse exponents are correct, while longitudinal ones are only effective. Let us finally note that Eqs. (28) and (29) give both the correct infinite-volume behavior for $`\chi `$. Indeed, the existence of a finite infinite-volume limit for $`\beta <\beta _c`$ implies $`f_{\chi ,1}(x)(x)^{2/(D2)}(x)^\gamma `$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$ and therefore Eqs. (28) and (29) are consistent with $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}(\beta )(\beta _c\beta )^\gamma `$. In other words, one must have $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\gamma `$ in order to have the correct infinite-volume limit.

Limit (b) is much less conventional and we will show that such a limit exists (in the sense that $`\chi `$ has a scaling behavior) only if $`q/\sigma <2`$, i.e. if the $`q`$-dimensional theory is below the lower critical dimension: in this case however, the exponents obtained from the data collapse do not have anything to do with the correct ones, while the scaling functions depend only on the $`q`$-dimensional theory, i.e. theories with different $`p`$ and/or $`\rho `$—they are thus physically inequivalent—have the same scaling functions. Thus, in this case from the observation of a good scaling behavior one can draw the incorrect conclusion that physically inequivalent theories have the same critical behavior.

At this point the reader may be puzzled by the fact that for the same $`S_\delta `$ we observe two different types of scaling. Mathematically this is related to the fact that in the FSS limit we must follow a path in the $`\beta `$, $`L`$ plane with $`\beta \beta _c`$ and $`L\mathrm{}`$. The two limits correspond to two different families of paths. Unexpectedly scaling is observed on both of them.

### 4.2 Limit (b)

We wish now to consider the limit $`S\mathrm{}`$, $`z0`$ at fixed $`zS^\sigma `$. Such a limit has been considered in App. C where it is shown that the leading contribution to the gap equation has the form

$`(4\pi )^{\rho (2D)/2+d/2}(\beta \beta _c)L^{\rho (D2)}=(4\pi )^{q/2}r^{\sigma q/2}\omega ^{2+q/\sigma }[I_{q,\sigma }^{\mathrm{iso}}(\omega )A_{q,\sigma }]+K,`$ (31)
where $`r(4\pi )^{\rho /\sigma 1}S^2`$, $`\omega zr^{\sigma /2}=(4\pi )^{\sigma /2}\lambda _V^{1/2}M^\sigma `$, $`A_{q,\sigma }A_{0,q,\rho ,\sigma }`$ (it is easy to see that it is $`\rho `$-independent), and $`I_{q,\sigma }^{\mathrm{iso}}(\omega )`$ is the analogue of $`I_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }(z,S)`$ appearing in Eqs. (18) and (20) for an isotropic $`q`$-dimensional system with long-range exponent $`\sigma `$. The constant $`K`$, cf. Eq. (83), gives a subleading correction for $`q/\sigma <2`$. We will now distinguish two cases, depending on the value of $`q/\sigma `$.

#### 4.2.1 Case $`0<q/\sigma <2`$

In this case we can neglect $`K`$ and set $`r=r_\delta L^{2\delta }`$, where $`r_\delta (4\pi )^{\rho /\sigma 1}S_\delta ^2`$ (by definition $`r_0=r`$) is kept fixed in the limit. Then, for $`\beta >\beta _c`$, we can rewrite

$`(4\pi )^{\rho (2D)/2+p/2}r_\delta ^{q/2\sigma }(\beta \beta _c)L^{\rho (D2)2\delta (\sigma q/2)}\omega ^{2q/\sigma }=I_{q,\sigma }^{\mathrm{iso}}(\omega )A_{q,\sigma }.`$ (32)
This equation has the same functional form as the gap equation of an isotropic $`q`$-dimensional system with effective dimension $`d_{\mathrm{eff}}=q/\sigma <2`$, cf. Eq. (20). Therefore, if for a $`q`$-dimensional isotropic system of extent $`M`$ and long-range exponent $`\sigma `$ we have,

$`\chi ^{\mathrm{iso}}=M^{2\sigma }f_\chi ^{\mathrm{iso}}[M^{\sigma (d_{\mathrm{eff}}2)}\beta ],`$ (33)
then in the limit we are considering we obtain

$`\chi =M^{2\sigma }f_\chi ^{\mathrm{iso}}[S_\delta ^{p/(1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta )}M^{1/\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}}(\beta \beta _c)],`$ (34)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}^1=\frac{(1+\mathrm{\Delta })\nu _{}^1+\delta \sigma (d_{\mathrm{eff}}2)}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta }.$$
(35)
We note that the second term in the numerator of Eq. (35) is equal to $`\delta \nu _{,\mathrm{iso}}^1`$, where $`\nu _{,\mathrm{iso}}=[\sigma (d_{\mathrm{eff}}2)]^1`$ is the correct exponent for the $`d_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-dimensional isotropic system, so that Eq. (35) interpolates between $`\nu _{}^1`$ and $`\nu _{,\mathrm{iso}}^1`$.

There are two limitations to the validity of Eq. (34). First, Eq. (34) holds only in the limit in which the argument is constant as $`M\mathrm{}`$. Since we are considering $`\beta \beta _c`$, this requires $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}>0`$ and in turn

$$\delta <\delta _{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{(D2)(1+\mathrm{\Delta })}{(2d_{\mathrm{eff}})}.$$
(36)
If $`\delta `$ is larger than $`\delta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ no scaling is observed by taking $`\beta \beta _c`$. One observes a truly $`q`$-dimensional FSS behavior: a scaling behavior is obtained only by taking $`\beta \mathrm{}`$.

Additionally, it should be observed that $`f_\chi ^{\mathrm{iso}}(x)`$ is defined only for $`x>0`$, and indeed a solution to Eq. (32) is found only when the left-hand side is positive. In Appendix C we show that the correct extension for $`x<0`$ is $`f_\chi ^{\mathrm{iso}}(x)=0`$ in the sense that, for $`\beta <\beta _c`$, we have $`\chi /M^{2\sigma }0`$.

We also obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`2\sigma \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}}{1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta }}.`$ (37)
The effective exponents are thus unrelated to the correct ones and vary continuously with $`\delta `$, interpolating between the correct ones ($`\delta =0`$) and those of a $`d_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-dimensional system ($`\delta =\delta _{\mathrm{max}}`$).

At this point the reader may be puzzled by the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\gamma `$, since we already claimed in Sec. 4.1 that this is a necessary condition to ensure the correct infinite-volume limit. We now show that there is no contradiction. The effective exponent $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ differs from $`\gamma `$ because in limit (b) the scaling function $`f_\chi (x)`$ vanishes identically in the whole high-temperature phase $`x<0`$, i.e. in the only phase in which $`\chi `$ is finite ($`\chi _{\mathrm{}}(\beta )=\mathrm{}`$ in the whole low-temperature phase). In other words, scaling (b) does not give any information on the infinite-volume behavior, and thus there is no surprise for $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\gamma `$.

#### 4.2.2 Case $`q/\sigma >2`$

In this case $`K`$ in Eq. (31) cannot be neglected, and therefore no scaling solution can be found. Scaling can only be observed along a very specific trajectory in the $`\beta ,L`$ plane. Indeed, if we consider the line

$$\beta _c(L)=\beta _c+aL^{1/\nu _{}},$$
(38)
where

$$a=(4\pi )^{\rho (2D)/2d/2}K,$$
(39)
we still observe scaling in the sense that asymptotically

$$\chi =S_\delta ^{2\sigma }L^{2\sigma (1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta )}f_\chi ^{\mathrm{iso}}[S_\delta ^{2\sigma +q}L^{1/\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}}(\beta \beta _c(L))],$$
(40)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}^1=\nu _{}^1+\delta \sigma (d_{\mathrm{eff}}2)=\nu _{}^1+\delta \nu _{,\mathrm{iso}}^1`$ and $`f_\chi ^{\mathrm{iso}}`$ is the scaling function of a $`d_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-dimensional isotropic system (with $`d_{\mathrm{eff}}=q/\sigma >2`$). However, this is not standard scaling since $`a`$ must be tuned to a proper value: it is not enough to take $`\beta \beta _c`$, but it is also necessary to take this limit along the line (38).

## 5 A numerical example

We wish now to present a numerical example, in order to clarify the issues discussed in the previous sections. We consider the standard short-range model with nearest-neighbor couplings, so that $`\rho =\sigma =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. We consider a three-dimensional cubic lattice of dimensions $`M\times L^2`$, i.e. $`p=2`$ and $`q=1`$. For this system

$$\beta _c=\frac{\sqrt{3}1}{192\pi ^3}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/24)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(11/24)^20.25273100985866300303.$$
(41)
According to the results of Sec. 4.2 we should be able to observe a noncanonical scaling for $`0<\delta <1`$. We thus fix $`\delta =1/2`$ and compute $`\chi `$ for several values of $`\beta `$, $`L`$, and $`M`$ corresponding to $`S_{1/2}=1`$ and $`S_{1/2}=10`$. We use $`5L245`$ and $`0.235\beta 0.279`$. The previous results predict two possible scalings. Scaling (a) corresponds to consider $`\chi /M^{4/3}`$ vs $`(\beta \beta _c)M^{2/3}`$, while scaling (b) corresponds to consider $`\chi /M^2`$ vs. $`(\beta \beta _c)M^{1/3}`$.

In Fig. 1 we report the results for limit (a). For $`S_{1/2}=1`$ there are somewhat large corrections to scaling and the convergence is slow in the low-temperature region. For $`S_{1/2}=10`$ the agreement is very good: no corrections can be seen on this scale. This different behavior is due to the different lattice sizes that are used: the data have the same values of $`L`$ and therefore lattices with $`S_{1/2}=10`$ are ten times larger than those with $`S_{1/2}=1`$. In Fig. 2 we show the same data in a log-log plot. Here we see better the results corresponding to the high-temperature phase, although corrections in the low-temperature phase are somewhat less visible.

In Fig. 3 we report the results for limit (b). The data show a reasonably good scaling behavior, although the convergence to the limiting curve, corresponding to a one-dimensional system, is quite slow. For limit (b) we have also investigated the behavior of the leading correction term. In App. C.3 we compute the first scaling correction to Eq. (34). It can be effectively taken into account by a size-dependent shift of the critical temperature, i.e. by writing

$$\chi M^2=f_\chi ^{\text{iso}}[S_\delta ^{4/3}(\beta \beta _c)M^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{K}M^{1/3}],$$
(42)
where $`\stackrel{~}{K}K(4\pi )^1S_\delta ^{2/3}`$, $`K`$ is defined in Eq. (83). Numerically, in this particular case, $`K3.9002649200019558828`$. In Fig. 4 we plot the difference between the left-hand and the right-hand side of Eq. (42) versus the argument of the function $`f_\chi ^{\text{iso}}`$. It is clear that data points in Fig. 4 are converging towards zero, confirming that asymptotically $`f_\chi ^{\text{iso}}(x)`$ is indeed the correct scaling function. A numerical analysis shows that corrections to Eq. (42) vanish as $`M^1`$.

From a practical point of view it is important to be able to distinguish scaling (a) from scaling (b). This is not very difficult since in scaling (b) $`f_\chi (x)=0`$ in the region $`x<0`$. This observation provides a simple criterion: if the high-temperature data scale onto a nontrivial curve we are clearly observing limit (a): for instance the scaling curve appearing in Fig. 2 can only correspond to scaling (a).

## 6 Conclusions

In this paper we have considered an anisotropic $`O(\mathrm{})`$ model, focusing on the shape dependence of the FSS limit and in particular on the role of the aspect ratio. Considering for instance the susceptibility, we have shown that, even if the FSS limit is taken by keeping constant an incorrect aspect ratio $`M/L^{1+\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta }`$, one still observes scaling, i.e. the data satisfy the scaling forms (25) and (26), although the effective exponents differ from the correct ones. Therefore, the numerical observation of data collapse does not give direct information on the correct values of the anisotropy exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and of the critical exponents. In the case of limit (a), if we consider the scaling at fixed $`M/L^\alpha `$, we obtain for $`\alpha 1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \nu _{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma ,`$ (43)
while for $`\alpha 1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{}/\alpha `$
$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma .`$ (44)
These expressions have been explicitly verified in the specific model we consider, but we expect them to be valid for generic anisotropic systems. In the case of limit (b) we are not much interested in the specific form of the effective exponents. The only important feature that we must notice is that all exponents vary continuously with $`\alpha `$ and, if $`\alpha `$ is sufficiently different from $`1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, scaling is observed only for $`\beta \mathrm{}`$.

From a practical point of view, it is very important to establish a strategy that can be used to correctly identify the exponents in anisotropic systems. One possibility consists in performing a numerical study keeping fixed $`M/L^\alpha `$ for different values of $`\alpha `$. If one observes that the data obtained with two different values of $`\alpha `$ collapse onto a single curve by using the same exponents and the same value of $`\beta _c`$, then the exponents which are determined in this way are correct. Indeed, this implies that one is observing limit (a)—in limit (b) all exponents vary continuously—and therefore Eqs. (43) (44) apply. Note that as an additional check one can see whether $`f_\chi (x)`$ is nontrivial for $`x<0`$: if this the case, one is observing limit (a). To be more specific, suppose that the scaling behavior (25) is observed for $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ being the same in both cases; then $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ can be identified with $`\gamma `$ and $`\nu _{}`$ and $`1+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{min}(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$. From the data at $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ one cannot determine $`\nu _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For this purpose, one must perform simulations at a value $`\alpha _3`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}\nu _{}`$, i.e. one must find a value such that $`\alpha _3<1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then, one should use Eq. (26) setting $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\gamma `$ (this is meant to avoid limit (b)) and using $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ as a free parameter. Then $`\nu _{}=\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ and $`1+\mathrm{\Delta }=\nu _{}/\nu _{}`$. As a check, one can analyze the data at $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ and look for the scaling behavior (26), fixing $`\gamma `$ to avoid limit (b). The effective exponents $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}`$ should satisfy $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{}=\alpha \nu _{}/(1+\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Thus, in principle, by studying the behavior for three different values of $`\alpha `$ one can determine all exponents. However, in practice this may be difficult, because it requires the ability to distinguish corrections which vanish as $`M,L\mathrm{}`$ from corrections that persist in the limit $`M,L\mathrm{}`$ and that require therefore the use of different values of the effective exponents.

From a practical point of view it is important to note that all the above-discussed ambiguities are not present if the correlation lengths are measured, since their scaling behavior is fixed, $`\xi _{}L`$, $`\xi _{}M`$. Deviations from these laws give immediately the exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Therefore, finite-size numerical studies of anisotropic systems should always determine finite-volume correlation lengths, as done for instance in Ref.  for a driven lattice gas.

A somewhat unexpected result of our analysis is that in some cases it is possible to observe two different types of effective scaling: one corresponding to the layer/strip geometry $`\mathrm{}^q\times L^p`$, which is the scaling one would naturally expect, and the other one corresponding to a lower-dimensional system $`M^q\times 0^p`$. The possibility of this type of scaling is not obvious since it requires that one correlation length increases much faster than the shortest of the two lattice sizes. Even less clear is why this limit exists only if $`q`$ is below the lower critical dimension of the model (for larger values of $`q`$ such a scaling can still be observed by performing an additional tuning). We expect that scaling (b) is strictly related to the fact that $`\chi `$ and $`\xi `$ as defined here diverge in the whole low-temperature region, but it is difficult to transform this conjecture into a quantitative argument. In Ising systems it is simple to avoid this feature. For instance, one could define a finite-volume susceptibility as

$$\chi =\beta (\widehat{G}(0)VM^2),$$
(45)
where

$$M=\frac{1}{V}\left|\underset{i\mathrm{\Lambda }_V}{}\sigma _i\right|.$$
(46)
An open question is whether such a quantity may show a noncanonical scaling (b). Our guess is that only scaling (a) is possible in this case.

## Appendix A Gap equation: Finite-size scaling limit

In this Appendix we wish to determine the asymptotic form of the gap equation for $`\lambda _V0`$, $`M,L\mathrm{}`$, without making any hypothesis on the way in which the limit is taken. We will assume to be below the upper critical dimension, i.e. $`D<4`$ where $`Dp/\rho +q/\sigma `$. We will consider separately the cases $`D<2`$ and $`D>2`$.

### A.1 Gap equation above the lower critical dimension: $`2<D<4`$

We start by rewriting (see Ref. ) the gap equation as

$$\beta \beta _c=\lambda _V_{[\pi ,\pi ]^d}\frac{d^d𝒑}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{K(𝒑)(𝑲(𝒑)+\lambda _𝑽)}+\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(47)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{1}{V}\underset{𝒑𝜦_𝑽^{}}{}\frac{1}{K(𝒑)+\lambda _𝑽}_{[\pi ,\pi ]^d}\frac{d^d𝒑}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{K(𝒑)+\lambda _𝑽}.$$
(48)
Now, for $`D<4`$ and $`\lambda _V0`$ we can expand $`K(𝒑)`$ in the integral appearing in Eq. (47) and extend the integration over all $`^d`$, obtaining

$$\beta \beta _c\lambda _V^{D/21}B_1+\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(49)
where

$$B_1_^d\frac{d^d𝒑}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{K_c(𝒑)(𝑲_𝒄(𝒑)+\mathit{1})}=A_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma },$$
(50)
with $`K_c(𝒑)=|𝒑_{}|^{\mathit{2}\rho }+|𝒑_{}|^{\mathit{2}\sigma }`$ and $`A_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }`$ defined in Eq. (19). Using the Poisson summation formula for a periodic function $`f(x)=f(x+l)`$,

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{l1}{}}f(n)=2\pi \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^l𝑑xf(x)e^{2\pi ikx},$$
(51)
we can rewrite

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\underset{𝒏\mathit{0}}{}_{[\pi ,\pi ]^d}\frac{d^d𝒑}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{e^{i𝒑_{}𝒏_{}𝑴+\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}_{}𝒏_{}𝑳}}{K(𝒑)+\lambda _𝑽}\underset{𝒏\mathit{0}}{}_^d\frac{d^d𝒑}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{e^{i𝒑_{}𝒏_{}𝑴+\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}_{}𝒏_{}𝑳}}{K_c(𝒑)+\lambda _𝑽},$$
(52)
where in the last step we have assumed $`L,M\mathrm{}`$. Convergence is guaranteed by the oscillating phase factor.

In order to compute the asymptotic behavior of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for $`\lambda _V0`$, $`M,L\mathrm{}`$, we introduce the Laplace transform $`f_\alpha (p)`$ of $`\mathrm{exp}(u^\alpha )`$, i.e. we define

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pe^{up}f_\alpha (p)=e^{u^\alpha },$$
(53)
for $`0<\alpha 1`$. Of course, for $`\alpha =1`$, $`f_1(p)=\delta (p1)`$. It is easy to show that for $`0<\alpha <1`$

$$f_\alpha (p)p^{(1+\alpha )},\text{for }p+\mathrm{},$$
(54)
and

$$f_\alpha (p)p^{(2\alpha )/[2(1\alpha )]}\mathrm{exp}\left[(1\alpha )(p/\alpha )^{\alpha /(1\alpha )}\right],\text{for }p0+.$$
(55)
Then, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒏\mathit{0}}{}}{\displaystyle _^d}{\displaystyle \frac{d^d𝒑}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{\lambda _Vtt|𝒑_{}|^{\mathit{2}\rho }𝒕|𝒑_{}|^{\mathit{2}\sigma }+\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}_{}𝒏_{}𝑳+\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}_{}𝒏_{}𝑴}`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒏\mathit{0}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\eta 𝑑\tau f_\rho (\eta )f_\sigma (\tau ){\displaystyle _^d}{\displaystyle \frac{d^d𝒑}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{\lambda _Vt\eta _t|𝒑_{}|^\mathit{2}\tau _𝒕|𝒑_{}|^\mathit{2}+\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}_{}𝒏_{}𝑳+\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}_{}𝒏_{}𝑴}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^{(2D)\rho }}{(4\pi )^{\rho +(d\rho D)/2}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\eta 𝑑\tau f_\rho (\eta )f_\sigma (\tau )H_{p,q}(\eta ,\tau ,z,r)\lambda _V^{D/21}I_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }(z,S),`$
where $`SM/L^{\rho /\sigma }`$, $`r(4\pi )^{\rho /\sigma 1}S^2`$, $`z^2(4\pi )^\rho L^{2\rho }\lambda _V`$, $`\eta _tt^{1/\rho }\eta `$, $`\tau _tt^{1/\sigma }\tau `$,

$$H_{p,q}(\eta ,\tau ,z,r)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\eta _t^{p/2}\tau _t^{q/2}e^{z^2t}\left[B^p\left(\eta _t^1\right)B^q\left(r\tau _t^1\right)1\right],$$
(57)
and

$$B(s)\underset{n}{}e^{\pi n^2s}.$$
(58)
Note the well-known property

$$B(s)=s^{1/2}B(1/s),$$
(59)
that implies $`B(s)s^{1/2}`$ for $`s0`$.

Using Eqs. (49) and (56) we obtain Eq. (18). Note that for an isotropic geometry with $`q=0`$, $`I_{p,0,\rho ,0}(z,S)`$ does not depend on $`S`$ and thus we will simply write $`I_{p,\rho }^{\mathrm{iso}}(z)I_{p,0,\rho ,0}(z,S)`$. For a geometry with $`M=\mathrm{}`$—we call it layer geometry—Eq. (18) still holds with $`S=\mathrm{}`$. In Eq. (57) it corresponds to setting $`r=\mathrm{}`$, i.e. replacing $`B^q(r\tau _t^1)`$ with 1.

In the low-temperature phase ($`\beta >\beta _c`$ fixed) we have $`\lambda _V0`$ for all $`\beta `$ when $`V\mathrm{}`$. Thus, we can use the above-reported expressions to determine the infinite-volume behavior of $`\xi _{,V}`$. From Eq. (49) we obtain $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\beta \beta _c>0`$ in the infinite-volume limit. Because of the prefactor $`L^{(2D)\rho }`$ appearing in the last term of Eq. (56), since $`D>2`$, this is possible only if the integral, i.e. $`H_{p,q}(\eta ,\tau ,z,r)`$ diverges (the $`\eta `$ and $`\tau `$ integrations are completely harmless), which only happens for $`z0`$. In order to compute the asymptotic behavior of $`H_{p,q}(\eta ,\tau ,z,r)`$ for $`z0`$, we use the duality property (59) to rewrite

$`H_{p,q}(\eta ,\tau ,z,r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t\eta _t^{p/2}\tau _t^{q/2}e^{z^2t}\left[B^p\left(\eta _t^1\right)B^q\left(r\tau _t^1\right)1\right]`$ (60)
$`+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tr^{q/2}e^{z^2t}\left[B^p\left(\eta _t\right)B^q\left(\tau _t/r\right)1\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2t}\left(r^{q/2}\eta _t^{p/2}\tau _t^{q/2}\right).`$
The first two integrals are always finite while the third one gives $`H_{p,q}(\eta ,\tau ,z,r)r^{q/2}/z^2`$. This implies that in the infinite-volume limit

$$\xi _{,V}S^{q/2\rho }L^{\rho D/2}.$$
(61)
### A.2 The case $`D<2`$

For $`D<2`$ little changes. Now criticality is observed only for $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. We rewrite the gap equation as

$$\beta =_{[\pi ,\pi ]^d}\frac{d^d𝒑}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{K(𝒑)+\lambda _𝑽}+\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(62)
For $`D<2`$ and $`\lambda _V0`$, we can expand $`K(𝒑)`$ in the first term and extend the integration over all $`^d`$, while $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be treated as before. We obtain

$$\beta =\lambda _V^{D/21}B_2+\lambda _V^{D/21}I_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }(z,S),$$
(63)
where

$$B_2_^d\frac{d^d𝒑}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{K_c(𝒑)+\mathit{1}}=A_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma },$$
(64)
and $`A_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }`$ is defined in Eq. (19). Eq. (20) follows immediately.

## Appendix B FSS of the correlation function

Now we consider the (real-space) correlation function $`G_V(𝒙)`$:

$$G_V(𝒙)=\frac{\mathit{1}}{𝑽}\underset{𝒑𝜦_𝑽^{}}{}\frac{𝒆^{\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}𝒙}}{𝑲(𝒑)+\lambda _𝑽},$$
(65)
and compute its asymptotic behavior for $`L,M,|x|\mathrm{}`$ and $`\lambda _V0`$. Using the Poisson summation formula (51) we obtain

$$G_V(𝒙)=_\mathit{0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{𝒅𝒕}𝒆^{\lambda _𝑽𝒕}\underset{𝒏}{}_{[\pi ,\pi ]^𝒅}\frac{𝒅^𝒅𝒑}{(\mathit{2}\pi )^𝒅}𝒆^{\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}_{}(𝒏_{}𝑴+𝒙_{})+\mathrm{𝒊𝒑}_{}(𝒏_{}𝑳+𝒙_{})\mathrm{𝒕𝑲}(𝒑)}.$$
(66)
Since we are interested in the limit $`|x|,L,M\mathrm{}`$ we can replace $`K(𝒑)`$ with its small-$`𝒑`$ expansion and extend the integration to the whole space, obtaining

$`G_V(𝒙)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\eta 𝑑\tau f_\rho (\eta )f_\sigma (\tau )`$ (67)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dte^{\lambda _Vt}\tau _t^{q/2}\eta _t^{p/2}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒏^𝒅}{}}e^{|𝒙_{}+\mathrm{𝑳𝒏}_{}|^\mathit{2}/(\mathit{4}\eta _𝒕)|𝒙_{}+\mathrm{𝑴𝒏}_{}|^\mathit{2}/(\mathit{4}\tau _𝒕)}.`$
By rescaling $`t`$, we obtain finally

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G_V(𝒙)& \frac{L^{\rho (2D)}}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta 𝑑\tau f_\rho (\eta )f_\sigma (\tau )_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{(\lambda _VL^{2\rho })t}\tau _t^{q/2}\eta _t^{p/2}\hfill \\ & \underset{𝒏^𝒅}{}e^{|(𝒙_{}/𝑳)+𝒏_{}|^\mathit{2}/(\mathit{4}\eta _𝒕)𝑺^\mathit{2}|(𝒙_{}/𝑴)+𝒏_{}|^\mathit{2}/(\mathit{4}\tau _𝒕)}\hfill \\ & =L^{\rho (2D)}F(𝒙_{}/𝑳,𝒙_{}/𝑴,𝑺,\lambda _𝑳𝑳^{\mathit{2}\rho })\hfill \\ & =\xi _{}^{\rho (2D)}\stackrel{~}{G}(𝒙_{}/\xi _{},𝒙_{}/\xi _{},𝑺,\xi _{}/𝑳,𝑺).\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
## Appendix C Gap equation for $`S\mathrm{}`$

### C.1 General results

Now we will determine the limiting form of the gap equation (47) for $`L\mathrm{}`$, $`M\mathrm{}`$, $`S\mathrm{}`$ and arbitrary values of $`z(4\pi )^{\rho /2}(L/\xi _{,V})^\rho `$, including $`z=0`$. Indeed, we shall mainly be interested in the limit $`z0`$ together with $`S\mathrm{}`$.

For this purpose we need to compute the asymptotic behavior of $`H_{p,q}(\eta ,\tau ,z,r)`$ (see Eq. (57)) for $`r\mathrm{}`$. We start from Eq. (60). For what concerns the first term in this equation, we can take the limit naively, i.e. we can replace $`B(r\tau _t^1)`$ with 1. The second term can be rewritten in the form

$`r^{q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2t}[B^p(\eta _t)B^q(\tau _t/r)1]=r^{q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2t}[B^p(\eta _t)1]B^q(\tau _t/r)`$
$`+r^{q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2t}B^q(\tau _t/r)r^{q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2t}.`$ (69)
In the first term we can simply replace $`B(\tau _t/r)`$ with its asymptotic behavior for $`\tau _t/r`$ small, i.e. $`(\tau _t/r)^{1/2}`$, while some additional manipulations are need for the second one. Rescaling $`t=sr^\sigma `$, we rewrite it as

$`r^{q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2t}B^q(\tau _t/r)=r^{\sigma q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{z^2r^\sigma s}[B^q(\tau _s)1]`$
$`+r^{\sigma q/2}{\displaystyle _{r^\sigma }^1}𝑑se^{z^2r^\sigma s}\tau _s^{q/2}[B^q(\tau _s^1)1]+r^{\sigma q/2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{z^2r^\sigma }}{z^2r^\sigma }}`$
$`+r^{\sigma q/2}\tau ^{q/2}{\displaystyle _{r^\sigma }^1}𝑑se^{z^2r^\sigma s}s^{q/2\sigma }.`$ (70)
In the second term, one can easily convince himself that it is safe to replace the lower integration limit $`r^\sigma `$ with 0. Collecting everything together, we obtain

$`H_{p,q}(\eta ,\tau ,z,r)`$ $`=`$ $`\tau ^{q/2}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑te^{z^2t}t^{q/2\sigma }\eta _t^{p/2}\left[B^p(\eta _t^1)1\right]`$ (71)
$`+\tau ^{q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2t}t^{q/2\sigma }\left[B^p(\eta _t)1\right]`$
$`+r^{\sigma q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2r^\sigma t}\left[B^q(\tau _t)1\right]`$
$`+r^{\sigma q/2}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑te^{z^2r^\sigma t}\tau _t^{q/2}\left[B^q\left(\tau _t^1\right)1\right]`$
$`+r^{\sigma q/2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{z^2r^\sigma }}{z^2r^\sigma }}+\tau ^{q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{r^\sigma }}𝑑te^{z^2t}t^{q/2\sigma }`$
$`\tau ^{q/2}\eta ^{p/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{D/2}e^{z^2t}.`$
Then, for $`D>2`$, we can write the gap equation as

$`(4\pi )^{\rho (2D)/2+d/2}(\beta \beta _c)L^{\rho (D2)}=(4\pi )^{d/2}A_{p,q,\rho ,\sigma }z^{D2}`$
$`+r^{\sigma q/2}𝒥_1(z^2r^\sigma )+𝒥_2(z^2)+C_{\sigma ,q}{\displaystyle _1^{r^\sigma }}𝑑te^{z^2t}t^{q/2\sigma },`$ (72)
where

$`𝒥_1(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^x}{x}}+𝒢_{\sigma ,q}^{(1)}(x),`$ (73)
$`𝒥_2(x)`$ $``$ $`C_{\sigma ,q}C_{\rho ,p}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{D/2}e^{xt}+𝒢_{\rho ,p,\sigma ,q}^{(2)}(x),`$ (74)
and

$`C_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑pp^{\beta /2}f_\alpha (p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta /2\alpha )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta /2)}},`$
$`𝒢_{\sigma ,q}^{(1)}(x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau f_\sigma (\tau )G_{\sigma ,q}^{(1)}(\tau ,x),`$
$`G_{\sigma ,q}^{(1)}(\tau ,x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{xt}\left[B^q\left(\tau _t\right)1\right]+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑te^{xt}\tau _t^{q/2}\left[B^q\left(\tau _t^1\right)1\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{xt}\tau _t^{q/2}\left[B^q\left(\tau _t^1\right)1\right]+\tau ^{q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{xt}t^{q/2\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{e^x}{x}},`$
$`𝒢_{\rho ,p,\sigma ,q}^{(2)}(x)`$ $``$ $`C_{\sigma ,q}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\eta f_\rho (\eta )G_{\rho ,p,\sigma ,q}^{(2)}(\eta ,x),`$ (75)
$`G_{\rho ,p,\sigma ,q}^{(2)}(\eta ,x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{xt}t^{q/2\sigma }\left[B^p\left(\eta _t\right)1\right]+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑te^{xt}t^{q/2\sigma }\eta _t^{p/2}\left[B^p\left(\eta _t^1\right)1\right].`$
Note that $`𝒢_{\sigma ,q}^{(1)}(x)`$, $`𝒢_{\rho ,p,\sigma ,q}^{(2)}(x)`$, and $`𝒥_2(x)`$ are finite for $`x0`$ and the relation

$`\tau ^{q/2}G_{\rho ,p,\sigma ,q}^{(2)}(\eta ,z^2)`$ $`=`$ $`H_{p,q}(\eta ,\tau ,z,\mathrm{})+\tau ^{q/2}\eta ^{p/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2t}t^{D/2}`$ (76)
$`\tau ^{q/2}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2t}t^{q/2\sigma }.`$
We will be interested in computing the behavior of $`𝒥_1(x)`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$. If $`0<\sigma 1`$, we rewrite

$$𝒥_1(x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau f_\sigma (\tau )_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{xt}\tau _t^{q/2}\left[B^q\left(\tau _t^1\right)1\right]+C_{\sigma ,q}_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{xt}t^{q/2\sigma }.$$
(77)
By performing an integration by parts it is easy to see that the last term vanishes as $`e^x/x`$. The asymptotic behavior of the first term depends on $`\sigma `$. For $`\sigma =1`$ we can rewrite it

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{xt}t^{q/2}\left[B^q\left(t^1\right)1\right]`$ $``$ $`2q{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{q/2}e^{xt\pi t^1}`$ (78)
$`=`$ $`2qx^{q/41/2}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{q/2}e^{\sqrt{x}(t+\pi /t)}`$
$``$ $`2q\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{x}}\right)^{3/4q/4}e^{2\sqrt{\pi x}}.`$
For $`0<\sigma <1`$, more work is needed. First, we replace $`\tau `$ with $`s=\tau t^{1/\sigma }\tau _t`$ obtaining

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{1/\sigma }e^{xt}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ss^{q/2}f_\sigma (st^{1/\sigma })\left[B^q\left(s^1\right)1\right].$$
(79)
In the limit of large $`x`$, only the small-$`t`$ region contributes to the integral (because of the exponential factor $`e^{xt}`$) and the function $`f_\sigma (st^{1/\sigma })`$ can be replaced with its small-$`t`$ behavior (this is safe because the integral over $`s`$ is convergent near $`s=0`$), i.e. we can replace $`f_\sigma (x)`$ with $`x^{1\sigma }`$. Thus, the integral (79) becomes

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tte^{xt}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ss^{1\sigma q/2}\left[B^q\left(s^1\right)1\right]`$ (80)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ss^{1\sigma q/2}\left[B^q\left(s^1\right)1\right],`$
and it is easy to check that for $`\sigma >0`$, $`q>0`$ the second integral is convergent. Therefore, as $`x\mathrm{}`$, we have that $`𝒥_1(x)x^2`$ for any $`0<\sigma <1`$ and $`𝒥_1(x)x^p\mathrm{exp}(C\sqrt{x})`$ for $`\sigma =1`$.

From Eq. (72) we see that there are two interesting scaling limits: (a) $`r\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`z`$; (b) $`r\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`z^2r^\sigma `$. As we will show below these two limits correspond to the two different cases we discussed in Sec. 4. They are descussed in detailed below.

### C.2 Limit (a)

In this case we should consider the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$ at fixed $`z`$ and we should therefore reobtain Eq. (18) with $`S=\mathrm{}`$. This follows immediately from the fact that $`r^{\sigma q/2}𝒥_1(z^2r^\sigma )0`$, cf. Sec. C.1, and from

$`𝒥_2(z^2)+C_{\sigma ,q}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{z^2t}t^{q/2\sigma }={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\eta 𝑑\tau f_\rho (\eta )f_\sigma (\tau )H_{p,q}(\eta ,\tau ,z,\mathrm{}),`$ (81)
which is a direct consequence of Eq. (76).

### C.3 Limit (b)

Now we discuss the limit $`z^20`$ and $`r\mathrm{}`$ at constant $`z^2r^\sigma `$. Note that the last term in Eq. (72) behaves differently, depending on whether $`q/2\sigma `$ is larger or smaller than $`1`$. For $`q/\sigma >2`$, integrating by parts, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _1^{r^\sigma }}𝑑te^{z^2t}t^{q/2\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{q2\sigma }}e^{z^2}`$ (82)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{q2\sigma }}r^{\sigma q/2}\left[e^{z^2r^\sigma }+z^2r^\sigma {\displaystyle _{r^\sigma }^1}𝑑te^{z^2t}t^{1q/2\sigma }\right].`$
Then, note that for $`D<4`$ we can extend the remaining integration down to zero. Moreover, we can approximate $`e^{z^2}`$ with $`1`$ since $`z^2`$ is subleading with respect to $`r^{\sigma q/2}`$: indeed $`z^2r^\sigma r^{\sigma q/2}\times r^{q/22\sigma }`$ and $`q<4\sigma `$ for $`D<4`$. Therefore, if we define

$`K`$ $``$ $`𝒥_2(0)+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{q2\sigma }}C_{\sigma ,q},`$ (83)
$`\widehat{𝒥}_1(x)`$ $``$ $`𝒥_1(x){\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma }{q2\sigma }}C_{\sigma ,q}\left[e^x+x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑te^{xt}t^{1q/2\sigma }\right]`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau 𝑑tf_\sigma (\tau )e^{xt}\tau _t^{q/2}[B^q(\tau _t^1)1]+C_{\sigma ,q}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1q/2\sigma )x^{(q2\sigma )/2\sigma },`$
we obtain

$$(4\pi )^{\rho +(d\rho D)/2}(\beta \beta _c)L^{\rho (D2)}=r^{\sigma q/2}\widehat{𝒥}_1(z^2r^\sigma )+K,$$
(85)
where we have also discarded the term proportional to $`z^{D2}(zr^{\sigma /2})^{D2}r^{\sigma q/2}r^{\sigma p/2\rho }`$, which is subleading with respect to $`r^{\sigma q/2}`$.

For $`q/\sigma <2`$, we write

$`{\displaystyle _1^{r^\sigma }}e^{z^2t}t^{q/2\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`r^{\sigma q/2}{\displaystyle _{r^\sigma }^1}e^{z^2r^\sigma t}t^{q/2\sigma }𝑑t`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`r^{\sigma q/2}{\displaystyle _0^1}e^{z^2r^\sigma t}t^{q/2\sigma }𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^1}e^{z^2t}t^{q/2\sigma }𝑑t.`$
It is then easy to see that we reobtain Eq. (85). In this case $`K`$ is subleading and can be neglected in the scaling limit.

In this derivation we have implicitly assumed that it is possible to take the limit $`z0`$, $`r\mathrm{}`$, with $`z^2r^\sigma `$ fixed. However, we now show that this is not the case for $`\beta <\beta _c`$. Indeed, the function $`\widehat{𝒥}_1(z)`$ is positive and thus Eq. (85) can only be valid if $`\beta >\beta _c`$. If this condition is not satisfied, the only possibility is that $`(\beta \beta _c)L^{\rho (D2)}`$ vanishes in the scaling limit as well as the right-hand side, which in turn implies $`z^2r^\sigma \mathrm{}`$. This means $`\lambda _VM^{2\sigma }\mathrm{}`$, or $`\chi /M^{2\sigma }0`$.

Finally, we rewrite the gap equation in terms of the constant $`A_{q,\sigma }A_{0,q,\rho ,\sigma }`$ (it is easy to check that it is $`\rho `$-independent) and of the integral $`I_{q,\sigma }^{\mathrm{iso}}(z)`$ that appear in the gap equation of an isotropic $`q`$-dimensional system. It is indeed easy to show that

$$\widehat{𝒥}_1(z^2)=(4\pi )^{q/2}z^{2+q/\sigma }\left[I_{q,\sigma }^{\mathrm{iso}}(z)A_{q,\sigma }\right].$$
(87)