Figure 1

(a) The time evolution of the magnetization is plotted for different $x$, and $L=64$, 128, and 256 (from below) on a double-logarithmic scale. An antiperiodic boundary condition (APBC) is adopted in the $x$ direction. For comparison, results of $x=0.5$ and $L=128$ with periodic and free boundary conditions (PBC and FBC) are also included. The dashed line shows a power-law fit. (b) The magnetization obtained with $L=256$ is plotted versus $x$ for different $t$ on a double-logarithmic scale. Errors of the data points are less or about 1%. The dashed line shows a power-law fit.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 2

(a) The scaling function $M\left(t,x,L\right)t^{\beta /\nu z}=\tilde{M}\left(s,u\right)$ with $s=t^{1/z}/x$ and $u=t^{1/z}/L$ is plotted versus $1/s$ for fixed $u=0.53$ and 0.621. Data collapse is observed for different $L$. Solid lines represent the error function $f\left(y\right)\sim {\int }^y\text{exp}\left(-x^2\right)dx$ and the dashed line shows a power-law fit. In the inset, a power-law behavior $\tilde{M}\left(s,u\right)\sim F\left(s\right)u^{-\sigma }$ is assumed in the short-time regime, and data of different $u$ and $L$ inside the domain interface collapse onto a single curve $M{t}^{\beta /\nu z}{u}^{\sigma }\sim F\left(s\right)$. (b) A power-law behavior $\tilde{M}\left(s,u\right)\sim G\left(u\right)s^{-1}$ is assumed inside the domain interface, and data of different $L$ collapse onto the master curve $M{t}^{\beta /\nu z}s\sim G\left(u\right)$. The solid line indicates the power-law behavior in the short-time regime. Departure of the data from the master curve in the time regime $t<t_S\sim 4L^2$ is also displayed. The dashed line schematically shows the scaling function of model A. In the inset, the scaling function $\tilde{M}\left(s,u\right)$ outside the domain interface is plotted versus $u$.Reuse & Permissions