4 T ABLE III: Summary of the results in this work and of the Is ing model. FIG. 4: a) Evaluation of the critical point x c and b) the θ exponent. FIG. 6: (color online) Order parameter relaxation ( m 0 = 1), here the dashed line shows the power law behavior with β/ν = 0 . 0526. FIG. 5: (color online) a) Evaluation of λ , the continuous line shows the autocorrelation time evolution and the dashed line shows the power law behavior with λ = 0 . 758. b) Evaluation of y , the continuous line shows the second moment order parameter and the dashed line shows the power law behavior with y = 0 . 799. Majority vote model Ising θ 0.175(3) 0.191(1) λ 0.758(2) 0.737(1) z 2.143(9) 2.155(3) y 0.799(17) 0.817(7) β/ν 0.143(18) 1/4 0.848 0.850 x c 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 m$_{0}$ 0.175 0.18 a) b) 1 10 100 1000 t 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 m(t) 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 A(t) 1 10 100 1000 t 1 1 1 m $_{(2)}$(t) a) b) (Fig. 6), the result was β/ν = 0 . 0526(5), that is lower compared to the Ising one, 0 . 0580(5). Again the first time steps were discarded for the evaluation of the expo- nent (Fig. 6). Theoretically it is possible to obtain the z exponent using the known value of β/ν , or knowing the z value one can obtain the β/ν value, but in both cases the results depend on values obtained with a growing process ( z ) or the static simulations ( β/nu ). The approach taken in this work is that the growing and the decay process are different and it could be possible that the dynamic exponent z is different in each case, so for the decay case the reporting value is z = 2 . 37(2). Both starting from m$_{0}$ = 0 and using 1000 MCTS. Again there is a t$_{mic}$ in each case (around 20 for the autocor- relation and 75 for the second moment, see Fig. 5). The results obtained are y = 0 . 799(17) and λ = 0 . 758(2). Combining both results it can be obtained the values z = 2 . 143(9) and β/ν = 0 . 143(18). A summary of the results are showed in table III, where it can be observed discrepancies between most of the values for the major- ity model and the Ising ones. It must be remark that all these results were obtained using just the growing pro- cess. The fact that we have two pseudo-critical points (that not corresponds to a weak phase transition) and that the decay and growing process are slower that in the Ising model must be related to the absence of detailed balance condition. One of the consequences of this absence is that we do not have a unique thermodynamic temper- ature, in this case we have two, so looking at the snap- shots for different initial conditions at the pseudo-critical points we can speculate about the competition between the two ”temperatures” that governs the dynamic in non- equilibrium Ising systems. Figure 7 shows the time evo- lution with m$_{0}$ = 0 at the two pseudo-critical points, a) for x d c and b) for x o $_{c}$. Initially the number of sites with spin-flip probability depending on β$_{2}$ are very similar to the ones depending on β$_{4}$ , the time increases from left to right and it can be observed that at x o c the coarsening Finally the decay exponent β/νz was evaluated start- ing from an ordered phase (at x o $_{c}$), using 1000 MCTS