 for both temperatures we simulate and is thus universal for at least the model in two dimensions too.

From the scaling form (\[ftsf\]), at $X=0$, one recovers naturally $H_s$ that obeys Eq. (\[hs\]). Yet, the magnetization now satisfies $$M(H_s,T,R)=M_s(T,R)+ R^{\beta/r\nu}f(0)\label{ftsm}$$ similar to the one obtained from (\[ftsu\]) though $M_s$ defined in Eq. (\[ms\]) is rate dependent. However, at $M=M_s$ or $Y=0$, one can only find $X|_{Y=0}=aR^{\beta\delta/r\nu}(-\ln R)^{3/2}$ for $f(a)=0$, different from the usual form $H|_{M=M_s}=H_s+aR^{\beta\delta/r\nu}$ obtained from Eq. (\[ftsu\]).

We employ the 2D Ising model to verify the scaling form (\[ftsf\]). It contains only two unknown parameters, $\zeta_0$ and $\zeta_R$ or $b$. Although $v$ and $B$ that define $\zeta_0$ were estimated in the model at $T=0.8T_c$ [@Sides99], $B$ was found by adjusting it to match the data without considering scaling. We therefore regard $\zeta_0$ as an adjustable parameter. The other parameters, $\Xi$ and $K$, which crucially affect the nucleation and growth, are known for the same model. $M_{\rm eq}$, along with $\Xi$, $\Omega_d$, and $\sigma_0$, is even exactly known. For the universal exponents, $\delta$ is exactly known to be six [@Cardy85]. This gives $\nu=-5/2$ using the exact result $\beta=1$ for the $\phi^3$ theory [@zhong16]. The former two differ their three loop results by five percents or so. In contrast, $z$ is only estimated to two loop orders [@zhong16]. Yet, it determines almost everything as seen from Eqs. (\[hs\]) and (\[ftsf\]). So, we have to adjust it to find the best results.

The procedure is as follows. Given a $z$,
for both temperatures we simulate and is thus universal for at least the exemplar in two dimension too. 

 From the scaling form   (\[ftsf\ ]), at $ X=0 $, one recovers naturally $ H_s$ that obey Eq.   (\[hs\ ]). Yet, the magnetization now satisfies $ $ M(H_s, T, R)=M_s(T, R)+ R^{\beta / r\nu}f(0)\label{ftsm}$$ alike to the one obtained from   (\[ftsu\ ]) though $ M_s$ defined in Eq.   (\[ms\ ]) is pace pendent. However, at $ M = M_s$ or $ Y=0 $, one can only witness $ X|_{Y=0}=aR^{\beta\delta / r\nu}(-\ln R)^{3/2}$ for $ f(a)=0 $, different from the usual form $ H|_{M = M_s}=H_s+aR^{\beta\delta / r\nu}$ obtained from Eq.   (\[ftsu\ ]). 

 We employ the 2D Ising model to control the scaling form   (\[ftsf\ ]). It contains only two strange parameters, $ \zeta_0 $ and $ \zeta_R$ or $ b$. Although $ v$ and $ B$ that define $ \zeta_0 $ were estimated in the exemplar at $ T=0.8T_c$   [ @Sides99 ], $ B$ was found by adjusting it to match the data without considering scale. We therefore regard $ \zeta_0 $ as an adjustable parameter. The other parameters, $ \Xi$ and $ K$, which crucially affect the nucleation and growth, are known for the same model. $ M_{\rm eq}$, along with $ \Xi$, $ \Omega_d$, and $ \sigma_0 $, is even exactly known. For the universal exponents, $ \delta$ is exactly known to be six   [ @Cardy85 ]. This gives $ \nu=-5/2 $ using the accurate consequence $ \beta=1 $ for the $ \phi^3 $ theory   [ @zhong16 ]. The early two disagree their three closed circuit results by five percents or therefore. In contrast, $ z$ is only estimated to two loop order   [ @zhong16 ]. Yet, it determines almost everything as seen from Eqs.   (\[hs\ ]) and (\[ftsf\ ]). So, we have to align it to find the best results. 

 The procedure is as follows. Given a $ z$,
 fog both temperatures we slmulate and is tkys unitersal ror at ldast the model in two dimensmons too.

Feom the scaling form (\[ftrf\]), at $X=0$, oje recovwrs iaturally $H_s$ thav obeys Cz. (\[hs\]). Gct, thz nagnetization kow satisfias $$M(H_s,T,R)=M_s(T,R)+ R^{\tega/x\nu}f(0)\label{ftsm}$$ similar to the one obtwined ftol (\[ftsu\]) though $M_f$ degyned pn Eq. (\[ms\]) is rate dependent. Howevsr, at $M=K_s$ or $Y=0$, one csn only find $X|_{Y=0}=aR^{\beta\delta/g\nu}(-\lj R)^{3/2}$ for $f(a)=0$, differejt from the usuwo form $H|_{M=M_s}=H_r+aR^{\beta\delua/x\nu}$ obtaines from Eq. (\[ftsu\]).

We employ the 2D Iskng mpdel to vetndy hve scaling horm (\[ftff\]). It contaikx only two unlnown parametevs, $\zeva_0$ abd $\zeta_R$ or $b$. Althougi $v$ and $B$ that defing $\zeta_0$ wera zstimated in the modeo qt $T=0.8T_w$ [@Sidas99], $B$ qas fohnv bg adjudtiig it to mafch the datq without considerimg wcaling. We thsreforq wegard $\zeta_0$ as an adjustable parameter. Uhe ofher parameters, $\Xi$ and $J$, which crucially affgct the nusleation and growth, are known for the same model. $K_{\rm es}$, alinn wigy $\Di$, $\Omega_d$, and $\sigma_0$, is even exactly known. For fht ukiversal exponenbs, $\delta$ is exactlu nnprn to be six [@Cxrdy85]. Tkjs gives $\nu=-5/2$ using thf exact resuot $\beta=1$ fjr tne $\phi^3$ theory [@zhong16]. The formwr two diffeg thwir three loop resblts by five pervents or so. In contrast, $z$ is onlg estimated to two lkup orders [@zhong16]. Ydt, pt datermines almost everythind as seen frok Eqs. (\[hs\]) and (\[ftsf\]). Fo, we have to adjust it to find thf besj resunts.

The profedure is as follows. Given a $z$,
for both temperatures we simulate and is for least the in two dimensions (\[ftsf\]), $X=0$, one recovers $H_s$ that obeys (\[hs\]). Yet, the magnetization now satisfies R^{\beta/r\nu}f(0)\label{ftsm}$$ similar to the one obtained from (\[ftsu\]) though $M_s$ defined in Eq. is rate dependent. However, at $M=M_s$ or $Y=0$, one can only find $X|_{Y=0}=aR^{\beta\delta/r\nu}(-\ln for different the form $H|_{M=M_s}=H_s+aR^{\beta\delta/r\nu}$ obtained from Eq. (\[ftsu\]). We employ the 2D Ising model to verify the scaling (\[ftsf\]). It contains only two unknown parameters, $\zeta_0$ $\zeta_R$ or $b$. Although and $B$ that define $\zeta_0$ estimated the model $T=0.8T_c$ $B$ found by adjusting to match the data without considering scaling. We therefore regard $\zeta_0$ as an adjustable parameter. The other $\Xi$ and crucially affect nucleation growth, known for the $M_{\rm eq}$, along with $\Xi$, $\Omega_d$, even exactly known. For the universal exponents, $\delta$ exactly known be six [@Cardy85]. This gives $\nu=-5/2$ the exact result $\beta=1$ for the $\phi^3$ theory The former two differ their three loop results by five percents or so. In contrast, only estimated to two orders [@zhong16]. Yet, determines everything seen Eqs. (\[hs\]) (\[ftsf\]). So, we have to adjust it to find the best The procedure is as follows. Given a $z$,
 for both temperatures we simuLate and is tHus unIveRsaL fOr at LeasT the model in two DImenSions too.

From the scaling Form (\[fTsF\]), At $X=0$, oNE rEcoveRs naturALlY $h_S$ thAt ObEys eq. (\[HS\]). YEt, the MagNetizatIon now satiSfiEs $$m(H_s,T,R)=M_s(T,R)+ R^{\beTA/r\Nu}f(0)\label{ftSm}$$ sImilar to the oNe oBtaineD fRom (\[FTsu\]) thOugH $M_s$ deFined iN eq. (\[ms\]) is Rate depenDeNT. HowevER, at $M=M_s$ oR $y=0$, OnE can Only find $X|_{Y=0}=aR^{\beta\dELtA/R\nu}(-\ln R)^{3/2}$ for $f(a)=0$, difFerent FrOM tHE UsuAl fOrm $H|_{M=M_s}=H_s+ar^{\bEta\deLTa/r\nu}$ obTAiNED FroM eq. (\[ftsu\]).

We emploY the 2D Ising mODel To veriFy The SCaling Form (\[fTsF\]). it cOntains only Two uNknown parAmeterS, $\Zeta_0$ and $\ZEta_R$ or $b$. althouGh $v$ And $b$ thaT DeFiNe $\zEtA_0$ WerE EsTimATed In the modEl At $t=0.8T_c$ [@SiDes99], $B$ WAS FOund By aDjusTing iT to match the daTa wIthoUT coNsideRing sCaliNg. we theRefore RegarD $\zEta_0$ as an adjustabLe paRameter. ThE otHeR paRaMeterS, $\xi$ and $K$, WhiCh cRuciallY affect THe nUcLEATiOn and growth, are knowN fOR ThE same modEl. $M_{\rm eQ}$, AlOnG With $\Xi$, $\OmEgA_d$, aNd $\siGMA_0$, is evEn exACtLy known. FOr the uNIvErSal expoNeNts, $\delTa$ Is eXacTly knOWn to Be six [@CArdy85]. This Gives $\NU=-5/2$ using the exact REsult $\beta=1$ for tHE $\pHI^3$ ThEOry [@zHonG16]. The former tWo diFFer tHeir THrEe lOOp resUlts bY fIVe PErcents or so. In contraSt, $Z$ is onlY estiMated to two looP orders [@zhoNG16]. yEt, it deteRminES aLMost everything As seeN from Eqs. (\[hs\]) ANd (\[ftsf\]). So, We havE to adjusT it to find THE best resUltS.

ThE prOceDURe Is as follows. GiVEN a $z$,
 for both temperatures wesimulate a nd is  th usun iver salfor at least t h e mo del in two dimensionstoo.
F r om t h escali ng form (\ [ f tsf \] ),  at  $ X =0 $, on e r ecovers  naturally  $H _s $ that obeys Eq . (\[hs\]) . Y et, the magn eti zation  n ows atisf ies  $$M( H_s,T, R )=M_s( T,R)+ R^{ \b e ta/r\n u }f(0)\l a b el {fts m}$$ similar to t h eo ne obtained fr om (\[ ft s u\ ] )  th oug h $M_s$ de fi ned i n  Eq. (\ [ ms \ ] )  is rate dependen t. However, at$M=M_s $or$ Y=0$,one c an onl y find $X|_ {Y=0 }=aR^{\be ta\del t a/r\nu} ( -\ln R) ^{3/2} $ f or$f(a ) =0 $,  di ff e ren t  f rom the  usual f or m$H|_{ M=M_ s } = H _s+a R^{ \bet a\del ta/r\nu}$ obt ain ed f r omEq. ( \[fts u\]) .
We e mploythe 2 DIsing model toveri fy the sc ali ng  fo rm  (\[f t sf\]).  It  co ntainsonly tw o  un kn o w n  p arameters, $\zeta_ 0$ a nd  $\zeta_ R$ or$ b$ .A lthough$v $ a nd $ B $  that  def i ne  $\zeta_ 0$ wer e  e st imatedin  the m od elat$T=0. 8 T_c$  [@Sid es99], $ B$ wa s  found by adju s ting it to ma t ch t he data  wi thout consi deri n g sc alin g .Wet heref ore r eg a rd $\zeta_0$ as an adj us tableparam eter. The oth er paramet e r s , $\Xi$and$ K$ ,  which crucial ly af fect the n u cleation  andgrowth,are known f or the s ame  mo del . $ M _ {\ rm eq}$, alon g with  $ \Xi$, $ \Om ega_d$,  an d $ \si gma _0 $, is eve n exactl ykn ow n.  Fo r the universa lexp on ent s, $\ d elta$is ex actl ykn o wnto be s i x[ @ Card y8 5] . Th isgi ves $ \nu= - 5/2 $ using  the exac t r e sult  $ \b eta=1$for the $\phi ^3 $ theory [ @z hon g16].T h e former  two differ their three loop re sul ts by  fiv e percent s o r so.Inc ontras t, $z$  is o nl y e s t imate d to  tw oloop order s [@z hong1 6] . Ye t, it d etermines almost e v ery thing as seen  fr om E q s .(\[ h s\ ] ) a nd (\[ f t sf\]). So, we h ave to adj us t  i t to findt hebe st resu lts.

T he pr o cedureis as fol lows. Giv en  a $ z $ ,
 for_both temperatures_we simulate and is_thus universal_for_at least_the_model in two_dimensions too.

From the_scaling form (\[ftsf\]), at $X=0$,_one recovers naturally_$H_s$_that obeys Eq. (\[hs\]). Yet, the magnetization now satisfies $$M(H_s,T,R)=M_s(T,R)+ R^{\beta/r\nu}f(0)\label{ftsm}$$ similar to the one_obtained_from (\[ftsu\]) though_$M_s$_defined_in Eq. (\[ms\]) is rate dependent._However, at $M=M_s$ or $Y=0$,_one can_only find $X|_{Y=0}=aR^{\beta\delta/r\nu}(-\ln R)^{3/2}$ for $f(a)=0$, different from_the_usual form $H|_{M=M_s}=H_s+aR^{\beta\delta/r\nu}$_obtained from Eq. (\[ftsu\]).

We employ the 2D Ising model to_verify the scaling form (\[ftsf\]). It contains_only two unknown_parameters,_$\zeta_0$_and $\zeta_R$ or $b$._Although $v$ and $B$ that define_$\zeta_0$ were estimated in the model_at $T=0.8T_c$ [@Sides99], $B$ was found by adjusting_it to match the data without_considering scaling. We therefore regard_$\zeta_0$ as_an adjustable parameter. The other_parameters, $\Xi$ and_$K$, which_crucially affect the_nucleation and growth, are known for_the same model._$M_{\rm eq}$, along with $\Xi$, $\Omega_d$,_and_$\sigma_0$, is even_exactly_known._For the_universal exponents, $\delta$_is_exactly known_to_be six [@Cardy85]. This gives $\nu=-5/2$ using_the_exact result $\beta=1$ for the $\phi^3$ theory [@zhong16]._The former two differ_their_three loop results by_five percents or so. In_contrast, $z$ is only estimated to_two loop_orders [@zhong16]. Yet,_it determines almost everything as seen from Eqs. (\[hs\]) and (\[ftsf\]). So,_we have to adjust it to_find the best results.

The_procedure is_as_follows. Given a_$z$,