Figure 1

Comparison of the finite-size scaling function of the Binder cumulant for different models. (a) Gaussian (open or black symbols) and irrational (closed or red symbols) disorder for the hierarchical lattice. (b) Hierarchical lattice with bimodal disorder. The data converge slowly to the Gaussian limiting case (solid curve). (c) 3D EA model with Gaussian (open or black symbols) and irrational (full or red symbols) disorder. (d) 4D EA model with both link-diluted (closed or red symbols) and Gaussian (open or black symbols) disorder. The dashed lines in all panels represent a droplet scaling behavior with $\theta =0.27$ for the hierarchical, $\theta =0.2$ for the 3D and $\theta =0.75$ for the 4D models, respectively.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 2

Comparison of the finite-size scaling function of the susceptibility $\chi$ for the hierarchical lattice (top) with the 3D EA model (bottom). In both models the results for the Gaussian (open or black symbols) and the irrational (full or red symbols) coupling distribution are shown.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 3

Comparison of the finite-size scaling function of the link-overlap variance ${\sigma }_{ql}^2$ for the hierarchical model (top) and the 3D EA model (bottom). For both MK an EA models the results for the Gaussian (open or black symbols) and the irrational disorder (full or red symbols) are shown. The broken line (the range between the broken lines, respectively) correspond(s) to the expected value of the scaling function for $g\to 1$ in the thermodynamic limit within the droplet model.Reuse & Permissions