1: %
2: \renewcommand{\timestamp}{Time-stamp: "2004-05-05 09:48:51 daboul"}
3: %
4: \section{Analysis of the Series}\label{sec:analysis}
5:
6: \sts Our analysis uses the \dlog\ method~\cite{gamm73} and the methods
7: M1 and M2~\cite{AdlerMP82,adle93}. Each of these is combined with
8: Euler-transformations for improved results. For each series, our main
9: goal is to obtain the critical value $x_c$ and the critical exponent
10: $\gamma$ which describe the power law divergence, as in
11: \begin{equation}
12: \typeout{repeated eq:scaling-form}
13: \EA\approx A(\pq - x)^{-\gamma}(1+B(\pq - x)^{\Delta_1}).
14: \end{equation}
15:
16: The series analysis is done for a fixed dimension at a time. We
17: present our results for dimensions 7 and 8 above the upper critical
18: dimension and for 5 and 4 below it. We also attempted an analysis in
19: the physical dimension 3 but the results are not conclusive.
20:
21: At the upper critical dimension $d_{\mathrm{c}}=6$ the corrections to
22: scaling become logarithmic and there one expects the general form
23: \begin{equation}
24: \label{eq:log-scaling}
25: \EA(x)\approx A(x_\mathrm{c}-x)^{-\gamma} |\ln(x_\mathrm{c}-x)|^\theta\,.
26: \end{equation}
27: Instead of M1 and M2, one can apply a modified method to take such
28: corrections into account. This was pursued in \cite{KleinAAHM91}, for
29: the Bimodal distribution, but the authors reported poor convergence
30: already for that case. Given that our series for the other
31: distributions are more problematic, we did not attempt a detailed
32: analysis in $d=6$.
33:
34: It is generally observed in series analysis, that for a given order of
35: expansion, a series behaves better, the higher the dimension. That is
36: also the case in the study at hand. Qualitatively it is understood by
37: the fast increase of the embedding constants with increasing
38: dimension. Thus a much larger number of lattice configurations
39: contributes to the higher dimensional series, allowing it to capture
40: more of the underlying Physics.
41:
42: \subsection{\dlog\ Analysis}
43:
44: The \dlog\ method is one of the most common methods for the asymptotic
45: analysis of power series. One calculates Pad\'e approximants to the
46: logarithmic derivative of the series and obtains estimates for the
47: critical value $x_c$ of the expansion variable $x$ (the threshold) and
48: for the critical exponent $\gamma$ from their real first order
49: poles and the corresponding residues. We also refer to the
50: pole-residue pairs as data-points since we often plot them in diagrams
51: of residues versus poles.
52:
53: Many series point to singularities other than those representing the
54: physical critical point. They are observed in the \dlog\ analysis of the
55: original series and, depending on their strength and location in the
56: complex plane, hamper convergence of the data points. This effect
57: appears to be strongest when an extra singularity is on the negative
58: real axis closer to the origin than the physical one. Application of
59: an Euler-transformation into the new variable $z= x_n\ x/(x_n-x)$,
60: with $x_n$ at or close to the disturbing singularity, usually improves
61: the behavior of the transformed series.
62:
63: For some series, in particular those in higher dimension, we obtain
64: satisfactory results in this manner. Data points in the pole-residue
65: plots are high in number and well concentrated along a distinct line
66: for each series, examples of which follow below. But for other
67: series, the \dlog\ method, even in combination with an
68: Euler-transformation, is insufficient for a quantitative
69: analysis. So our strategy is in general to use the \dlog\ method only
70: to get rough estimates for the critical parameters, as a starting point
71: for a detailed analysis with M1 and M2, and to assess the general
72: behavior of the series from the number of pole-residue pairs which are
73: obtained.
74:
75: \subsection[Estimation of $\pq$ and the Critical Exponents Using M1
76: and M2]{Estimation of $\pq$ and the Critical Exponents Using M1 and M2}
77:
78: The analysis algorithms M1 and M2 allow the accurate simultaneous
79: determination of the threshold $\pq$, the leading critical exponent
80: $\gamma$, and the confluent correction to scaling
81: exponent $\Delta_1$, assuming the asymptotic form
82: \begin{equation}
83: \label{eq:scaling-form-gen}
84: \chi(x)\sim A(\pq - x)^{-\gamma}(1+B(\pq - x)^{\Delta_1}).
85: \end{equation}
86: In M1, one studies the logarithmic derivative of
87: \begin{equation}
88: F(x)=\gamma \chi(x)-(x_\mathrm{c}-x)\frac{d\chi(x)}{dx}
89: \end{equation}
90: which has a pole at $x_\mathrm{c}$ with residue $-\gamma+\Delta_1$.
91: For a given trial value of $x_\mathrm{c}$ one obtains graphs of
92: $\Delta_1$ versus $\gamma$ for all Pad\'e approximants of $F$, and
93: chooses the triplet $x_\mathrm{c},\gamma,\Delta_1$ for which best
94: convergence of the different approximants results~\cite{adle93}.
95:
96: In the M2 method one first transforms the series in $x$ into series in
97: the variable $y=1-(1-x/x_\mathrm{c})^{\Delta_1}$ and then takes Pad\'e
98: approximants to
99: \begin{equation}
100: G(y)=\Delta_1 (y-1)\frac{d\ln \chi}{dy}
101: \end{equation}
102: which should converge to $-\gamma$. Here one plots graphs of $\gamma$
103: versus the input $\Delta_1$ for different trial values of
104: $x_\mathrm{c}$ and again chooses the triplet $x_\mathrm{c}, \gamma,
105: \Delta_1$ with the best convergence of all Pad\'e approximants. For
106: both methods it is advisable to perform first the usual \dlog\
107: analysis, to get rough estimates of $x_\mathrm{c}$ and $\gamma$ which
108: one uses as starting points for the detailed analysis with M1 and M2.
109: The effectiveness and preciseness of
110: these series analysis methods has been demonstrated in several
111: papers~\cite{adle90,AdlerMP82,AdlerS92,GofmanAAHS93}.
112:
113: In M1 we vary the trial-$\pq$ until the curves from the high order
114: Pad\'e approximants enter fairly symmetrically from both sides and the
115: best convergence is obtained. This $\pq$ and the corresponding
116: $\gamma$ are taken as the temporary best estimates for that series,
117: with temporary error estimates from the nearest trial-$\pq$'s, whose
118: plots show poorer convergence. In many cases M1 proves to be quite
119: sensitive to small changes in the trial-$\pq$, and the degree of
120: convergence usually looks very convincing. Away from the best $\pq$,
121: convergence degrades quickly, the picture becomes non-symmetric and at
122: the same time the area of convergence shifts to lower or higher values
123: of $\gamma$. We show examples of such plots in
124: Sec.~\ref{sec:explresults}. In M2 we vary $\pq$ and look for best
125: convergence of the Pad\'e approximant curves while they cross each
126: other with a small negative slope. Compared to M1, the M2-plots are
127: often much less decisive. A good convergence region sustains over a
128: wider range, where again the change in $\pq$ is accompanied by a shift
129: in the corresponding $\gamma$.
130:
131: %
132: %
133: %
134: %
135:
136: In the end we determine an overall estimate for $\pq$, which is
137: consistent with the estimates from both M1 and M2. These numerical
138: results are presented in the tables of Sec.~\ref{sec:explresults}. In
139: the tables we also include rough estimates for $\Delta_1$. We comment
140: that the Euler transformation is known to produce analytic correction
141: terms even if not present originally. When the leading correction
142: exponent is larger than $1$, as seems to be the case for some of our
143: series, these `artificial' corrections will show up in M1 and M2
144: %
145: %
146: \cite{adle84}, and hence our $\Delta_1$ estimates are mainly included
147: for reference and should not be trusted as the real physical values.
148:
149: \subsection{Sensitivity to the Parameter of the Euler Transformation}
150:
151: Our analysis relies in a large part on the use of Euler
152: transformations to increase the number of useful Pad\'e approximants
153: and to improve their convergence. The technique is well established
154: and has been used with success \cite{pear78}, but nevertheless we find
155: it worthwhile to check, to what degree our results are sensitive to
156: the precise choice of the parameter $\pn$, the value of $x$ that is
157: mapped to infinity by the transformation. We first choose $\pn$ very
158: close to the negative singularity, as indicated by the \dlog\ analysis
159: of the original series. We then vary this $\pn$ over a considerable
160: range of typically 20\%, and compare the results. We observe that a
161: variation of $\pn$ {\em does} move the data points or curves obtained
162: from individual Pad\'e approximants, but that the average (in \dlog\
163: plots) and the convergence region (in M1 plots) stay fixed to a very
164: good accuracy, when compared to the error bounds given by the analysis
165: technique itself. We thus exclude that our results are artifacts of
166: the applied Euler transformations.
167: