$\eta=-0.5\pm 0.1$. These are also consistent with the values $\nu= 1.3\pm 0.2$ and $\eta= -0.4\pm  0.1$ found by Lidmar[@Lidmar] using an elastic model of interacting vortex lines that includes dislocations. These values for the critical exponents lie in reasonable agreement with the values $\nu_{\rm GG}=1.39\pm0.20$ and $\eta_{\rm GG}=-0.47\pm 0.07$ found for the simpler 3D [*gauge glass*]{} model.[@Katzgraber] The gauge glass has the same Hamiltonian as Eq. (\[eH\]), except that the bond couplings $J_{i\mu}$ are taken as uniform, and the randomness is put in the vector potential, with $A_{i\mu}$ chosen randomly from a uniform distribution on $(-\pi,\pi]$. In the gauge glass, the average magnetic field thus vanishes in all directions and so the model is intrinsically isotropic. This comparison of critical exponents suggests that the vortex glass and the gauge glass may be in the same universality class. If so, Kawamura notes[@Kawamura] that the addition of magnetic field fluctuations associated with a finite magnetic penetration length $\lambda$ (“magnetic screening") in a real superconductor may serve to destabilize the vortex glass transition and replace it with a smooth crossover behavior, as has been numerically observed to happen in the gauge glass[@Bokil] (such an effect was observed in early simulation by Kawamura[@Kawamura0] of 