CGLMS00].

[8.2cm]{}[@c@c@c@c@c@c@]{} $~\sigma$ & $\theta'$ &  $\theta'_{RG}$ &  $z$ &  $z_{RG}$ &  $\lambda/z$\
0.9 &  $0.212\pm.005$ &  0.3346 &  $1.18\pm.04$ &  0.9532 &  $0.635\pm.004$\
0.8 &  $0.188\pm.004$ &  0.2587 &  $0.96\pm.04$ &  0.8340 &  $0.85~\pm.01~$\
0.7 &  $0.137\pm.006$ &  0.1733 &  $0.81\pm.01$ &  0.7174 &  $1.136\pm.02~$\
0.6 &  $0.07~\pm.01~$ &  0.0821 &  $0.70\pm.01$ &  0.6052 &  $1.47~\pm.02~$\

Since the accuracy of our results improves with increasing $\sigma$, one may conclude that the RG results are overestimated due to the insufficiency of the two-loop expansion in that regime. Similar overestimation of $\theta'$ was observed in the SR case, where the same RG $\epsilon$-expansion in the SR limit [@CGLMS00] gives e.g. $\theta'= 0.131$ and $\theta'= 0.356$ for $d=3$ and $d=2$ respectively, while the MC simulations give respectively $\theta'=0.104$ [@Grassberger] and $\theta'=0.191$ [@Grassberger; @OSchYZ97].

A more standard way to calculate the exponent $\theta'$ is from the initial slip of the magnetization given by equation (\[deftheta1\]). In the present problem we find it less advantageous both for precision and for the numerical effort needed. For this reason we do not proceed with the systematic analysis using this approach. Just for illustration, we present the $\sigma = 0.9$ data in Table \[tb:Table3\], limiting ourselves to a very rough estimation.

[8.2cm]{}[@
CGLMS00 ]. 

 [ 8.2cm]{}[@c@c@c@c@c@c@ ] { } $ ~\sigma$ & $ \theta'$ &   $ \theta'_{RG}$ &   $ z$ &   $ z_{RG}$ &   $ \lambda / z$\ 
 0.9 &    $ 0.212\pm.005 $ &    0.3346 &    $ 1.18\pm.04 $ &    0.9532 &    $ 0.635\pm.004$\ 
 0.8 &    $ 0.188\pm.004 $ &    0.2587 &    $ 0.96\pm.04 $ &    0.8340 &    $ 0.85~\pm.01~$\ 
 0.7 &    $ 0.137\pm.006 $ &    0.1733 &    $ 0.81\pm.01 $ &    0.7174 &    $ 1.136\pm.02~$\ 
 0.6 &    $ 0.07~\pm.01~$ &    0.0821 &    $ 0.70\pm.01 $ &    0.6052 &    $ 1.47~\pm.02~$\ 

 Since the accuracy of our results improves with increasing $ \sigma$, one may conclude that the RG result are overestimate due to the insufficiency of the two - loop expansion in that regime. Similar overestimate of $ \theta'$ was observed in the SR case, where the like RG $ \epsilon$-expansion in the SR limit [ @CGLMS00 ] gives e.g. $ \theta'= 0.131 $ and $ \theta'= 0.356 $ for $ d=3 $ and $ d=2 $ respectively, while the MC simulation give respectively $ \theta'=0.104 $ [ @Grassberger ] and $ \theta'=0.191 $ [ @Grassberger; @OSchYZ97 ]. 

 A more standard way to count the exponent $ \theta'$ is from the initial slip of the magnetization give by equation (\[deftheta1\ ]). In the present problem we find it less advantageous both for preciseness and for the numerical effort needed. For this cause we do not proceed with the systematic psychoanalysis using this approach path. Just for example, we present the $ \sigma = 0.9 $ data in Table \[tb: Table3\ ], limiting ourselves to a very rocky estimation. 

 [ 8.2cm]{}[@
CGLLS00].

[8.2cm]{}[@c@c@c@c@c@c@]{} $~\sigma$ & $\theta'$ &  $\theta'_{RG}$ &  $z$ &  $z_{RY}$ &  $\lambva/z$\
0.9 &  $0.212\pm.005$ &  0.3346 &  $1.18\pm.04$ &  0.9532 &  $0.635\pm.004$\
0.8 &  $0.188\pm.004$ &  0.2587 &  $0.96\pm.04$ &  0.8340 &  $0.85~\pm.01~$\
0.7 &  $0.137\pm.006$ &  0.1733 &  $0.81\'m.01$ &  0.7174 &  $1.136\pm.02~$\
0.6 &  $0.07~\pm.01~$ &  0.0821 &  $0.70\pm.01$ &  0.6052 &  $1.47~\pm.02~$\

Since tfe accuraby of our resnlts improves wivg increasing $\algma$, mie may conclude that the SG results are oxexestimated due to the insufficiency jf the ywl-loop expansiog in ehat genime. Similar overestimation of $\tgeta'$ wav observed in the SR case, where the samf RG $\epsilon$-expansion ln the SR lumit [@XGLMS00] gives d.g. $\theta'= 0.131$ and $\theta'= 0.356$ fkr $d=3$ and $d=2$ respectively, while tfe MC simulatiobs gigg respectiveoy $\thvta'=0.104$ [@Grassbergcg] and $\tveta'=0.191$ [@Grsssberger; @OSchNZ97].

A mmre standard way to calcnlate the exponent $\treta'$ is fsoj the initial slip if thg magtetixqtiun fiten by eqkatmon (\[defthetz1\]). In the prwsent problem we fimd py less advanfageouf foth for precision and for the numerican erfort needed. For this rwason we do not procegd with thq systematic analysis using this approach. Just fos illnsgrauiin, we prfsent the $\sigma = 0.9$ data in Table \[tb:Table3\], limityhg olrselves to a vern rough estimation.

[8.2vm]{}[@
CGLMS00]. [8.2cm]{}[@c@c@c@c@c@c@]{} $~\sigma$ & $\theta'$ & $\theta'_{RG}$ & & $\lambda/z$\ & $0.212\pm.005$ & & 0.8 & $0.188\pm.004$ 0.2587 & $0.96\pm.04$ 0.8340 & $0.85~\pm.01~$\ 0.7 & $0.137\pm.006$ 0.1733 & $0.81\pm.01$ & 0.7174 & $1.136\pm.02~$\ 0.6 & $0.07~\pm.01~$ & 0.0821 & & 0.6052 & $1.47~\pm.02~$\ Since the accuracy of our results improves with increasing one conclude the results are overestimated due to the insufficiency of the two-loop expansion in that regime. Similar overestimation $\theta'$ was observed in the SR case, where same RG $\epsilon$-expansion in SR limit [@CGLMS00] gives e.g. 0.131$ $\theta'= 0.356$ $d=3$ $d=2$ while the MC give respectively $\theta'=0.104$ [@Grassberger] and $\theta'=0.191$ [@Grassberger; @OSchYZ97]. A more standard way to calculate the exponent $\theta'$ from the of the given equation In the present find it less advantageous both for the numerical effort needed. For this reason we not proceed the systematic analysis using this approach. for illustration, we present the $\sigma = 0.9$ in Table \[tb:Table3\], limiting ourselves to a very rough estimation. [8.2cm]{}[@
CGLMS00].

[8.2cm]{}[@c@c@c@c@c@c@]{} $~\sigma$ & $\theta'$ &  $\thEta'_{RG}$ &  $z$ &  $z_{RG}$ &  $\lAmbda/Z$\
0.9 &  $0.212\pm.005$ &  0.3346 &  $1.18\Pm.04$ &  0.9532 &  $0.635\pM.004$\
0.8 &  $0.188\pM.004$ &  0.2587 &  $0.96\pm.04$ &  0.8340 &  $0.85~\pM.01~$\
0.7 &  $0.137\pm.006$ &  0.1733 &  $0.81\pM.01$ &  0.7174 &  $1.136\pm.02~$\
0.6 &  $0.07~\pm.01~$ &  0.0821 &  $0.70\pm.01$ &  0.6052 &  $1.47~\pm.02~$\

Since THe acCuracy of our results imprOves wItH IncrEAsIng $\siGma$, one mAY cONCluDe ThAt tHe rg rEsultS arE overesTimated due To tHe InsufficiencY Of The two-loop ExpAnsion in that RegIme. SimIlAr oVErestImaTion oF $\theta'$ WAs obseRved in the sR CAse, wheRE the samE rg $\ePsilOn$-expansion in the Sr LiMIt [@CGLMS00] gives e.g. $\Theta'= 0.131$ aNd $\THeTA'= 0.356$ For $D=3$ anD $d=2$ respectiVeLy, whiLE the MC sIMuLATIonS Give respectivEly $\theta'=0.104$ [@GraSSbeRger] anD $\tHetA'=0.191$ [@grassbErger; @oSCHYZ97].

a more standaRd waY to calculAte the EXponent $\THeta'$ is fRom the IniTiaL sliP Of ThE maGnETizATiOn gIVen By equatiOn (\[DeFthetA1\]). In tHE PREsenT prObleM we fiNd it less advanTagEous BOth For prEcisiOn anD fOr the NumeriCal efFoRt needed. For this ReasOn we do not ProCeEd wItH the sYStematIc aNalYsis usiNg this aPProAcH. jUSt For illustration, we pReSENt The $\sigma = 0.9$ Data in tAbLe \[TB:Table3\], liMiTinG ourSELves tO a veRY rOugh estiMation.

[8.2CM]{}[@
CGLMS00].

[8.2cm]{}[@c@c@ c@c@c@c@]{ } $~\ sig ma$  &  $\t heta '$ &  $\theta' _ {RG} $ &  $z$ &  $z_{RG}$ &   $\l am b da/z $ \0.9 &   $0.21 2 \p m . 005 $& 0. 33 4 6&  $1 .18 \pm.04$  &  0.9532  & $ 0.635\pm.004 $ \0.8 &  $0. 188 \pm.004$ & 0.2 587 & $ 0.9 6 \pm.0 4$&  0. 8340 &  $0.85 ~\pm.01~$ \0 .7 & $ 0.137\p m . 00 6$ &   0.1733 &  $0.81 \ pm . 01$ &  0.7174&  $1. 13 6 \p m . 02~ $\0.6 &  $0. 07 ~\pm. 0 1~$ & 0 .0 8 2 1  &$0.70\pm.01$&  0.6052 &  $1 .47~\p m. 02~ $ \

Sin ce th ea ccu racy of our  res ults impr oves w i th incr e asing $ \sigma $,one  may co nc lud et hat th e R G  re sults ar eov erest imat e d d ue t o t he i nsuff iciency of th e t wo-l o opexpan sionin t ha t reg ime. S imila roverestimationof $ \theta'$was  o bse rv ed in the SR  ca se,  wherethe sam e  RG  $ \ e p si lon$-expansion inth e SR  limit [ @CGLMS 0 0]  g i ves e.g.  $ \th eta' = 0.131 $ an d  $ \theta'=  0.356 $  f or  $d=3$an d $d=2 $res pec tivel y , wh ile th e MC sim ulati o ns give respec t ively $\theta ' =0 . 1 04 $  [@G ras sberger] an d $\ t heta '=0. 1 91 $ [ @ Grass berge r; @O S chYZ97].

A more st an dard w ay to  calculate th e exponent $ \ theta'$is f r om the initial sl ip of  the magne t izationgiven  by equa tion (\[d e f theta1\] ).Inthe  pr e s en t problem wef i nd i tless ad van tageous  bo thfor  pr ec ision and  for the  n um er ic aleffor t  needed.  F orth isreaso n  we do  notproc ee dw ith  the sy s te m a tican al ysis  us in g thi s ap p roa ch. Jus t for ill ust r atio n,  w e prese nt the $\sigm a= 0.9$ dat ainTable\ [ tb:Table 3\], limiting ourselves to a ve ryrough  est imation.
[8 .2cm]{ }[@ 
CGLMS00].

[8.2cm]{}[@c@c@c@c@c@c@]{} $~\sigma$_& $\theta'$_&  $\theta'_{RG}$ &  $z$_&  $z_{RG}$_&_ $\lambda/z$\
0.9 & _$0.212\pm.005$_&  0.3346 & _$1.18\pm.04$ &  0.9532_&  $0.635\pm.004$\
0.8 &  $0.188\pm.004$_&  0.2587 & _$0.96\pm.04$_&  0.8340 &  $0.85~\pm.01~$\
0.7 &  $0.137\pm.006$ &  0.1733 &  $0.81\pm.01$ &  0.7174 &  $1.136\pm.02~$\
0.6_& _$0.07~\pm.01~$ & _0.0821_& _$0.70\pm.01$ &  0.6052 &  $1.47~\pm.02~$\

Since_the accuracy of our results_improves with_increasing $\sigma$, one may conclude that the RG_results_are overestimated due_to the insufficiency of the two-loop expansion in that_regime. Similar overestimation of $\theta'$ was_observed in the_SR_case,_where the same RG_$\epsilon$-expansion in the SR limit [@CGLMS00]_gives e.g. $\theta'= 0.131$ and $\theta'=_0.356$ for $d=3$ and $d=2$ respectively, while_the MC simulations give respectively $\theta'=0.104$_[@Grassberger] and $\theta'=0.191$ [@Grassberger; @OSchYZ97].

A_more standard_way to calculate the exponent_$\theta'$ is from_the initial_slip of the_magnetization given by equation (\[deftheta1\]). In_the present problem_we find it less advantageous both_for_precision and for_the_numerical_effort needed._For this reason_we_do not_proceed_with the systematic analysis using this_approach._Just for illustration, we present the $\sigma_= 0.9$ data in_Table_\[tb:Table3\], limiting ourselves to_a very rough estimation.

[8.2cm]{}[@