One of the important quantities one can calculate using the
mean-field method for the polynomial models is the position of the
critical curve within the parameter plane of each model. This is done in
section 3 of chapter 2 of the book [1], for the
case of the
model. The result can be extended to the
models, and in this general case the
mean-field result for the
critical curve
of the
polynomial
model is:
which determines
implicitly. Since it is not possible
to solve this equation analytically in order to obtain
in explicit form, we will be concerned here with the numerical solution
of this equation, so that we may plot the graph of this function. The
integrals can be written in terms of the parabolic cylinder functions
[3],
However, this does not help us to solve the equation numerically because
these functions are not readily available in a computer implementation.
Note that for even
the integrals can be written as integrals on a
variable
,
Hence it is not surprising that for even they can be written in
terms of the error function, which can in fact be done through the
functions, with integer
. The
functions can be
written in terms of the error function
, which is given
by [4]
For the first few functions we
have [5]
From the first two one can get all the functions in this sequence by repeated use of the recurrence relation [6]
which can also be written in the form
Using all this one can solve the equation numerically for the case of
even , one case at a time, using the error functions erf or
derf, which are readily available for use with the g77
Fortran compiler. For example, for
, which is the simplest case,
the equation is
Given a value of , one can solve this equation numerically for
, and vice-versa. However, this solves only the even-
cases,
not the odd-
cases, including
.
For all values of one can make a change of variables in order to
simplify the original integrals in a way that is convenient for numerical
purposes. Since the solution for
is obviously
, we
can assume that
and consider the variable
given by
in terms of which the equation becomes
Defining now a new parameter given by
we may write the equation in the form
or, multiplying above and below by
,
Given a value of , this allows one to calculate
using a single pair of numerical integrations, and afterward to calculate
the corresponding
from
,
and
. The
parameter
is a new parameter for the critical curve. In order to
determine its range of variation as we travel along the curve from end to
end, consider first the asymptotic line of the critical curve, for large
values of
and
, which can be obtained through the
representation of the equation in terms of the parabolic cylinder
functions [7], and is given by
where is the critical point of the sigma model over the arc
at infinity. In this case we have for
the expression
Therefore
corresponds to
and hence to the sigma-model critical point
over the arc at infinity, and when
If we now consider the tangent to the critical curve at the Gaussian
point, which can be obtained by differentiating
equation (1) implicitly with respect to
and
, then expressing the resulting integrals in terms of the
function [8], and which is
given by
we see that in this case we get for the expression
Therefore
corresponds to
and hence to the Gaussian point, and when
In short, we have the following limiting behaviors:
We have therefore the following general algorithm for the numerical solution of the equation:
The resulting pair
is a point of the critical curve of
the
model, in
dimensions. Probably the best way to choose
values of
so that the resulting points
are
distributed fairly homogeneously along the critical curve is to use the
equation of the tangent line at the Gaussian point, choosing some
, integer values of
, and using
Since the functions being integrated are centered around a single maximum
that moves to large values of the variable when is large, in order
to integrate them efficiently we must know the location of the points of
maximum of the functions. The basic idea for the integration of one of
these functions is to start at the point of maximum of the function, and
then to integrate to both sides, down towards zero and up towards
infinity. Let us consider then the functions
where is an integer. Except for the case
this is zero for
, and in all cases for
. Taking the
derivative we get
Besides vanishing at (for
) and at
, which are clearly
points of minimum, this can be zero for
and since
only the
sign can be kept, and we get
This is correct in all cases including . For
we have that, if
, then
, and if
, then
. Note that the only case in which the maximum is at
zero is
with
, in all other cases the maximum is at a
positive and non-vanishing value of
.
The functions examined above have the form of a pulse around their points
of maximum, but this pulse has a variable width, which decreases as the
parameter increases to positive values. This makes is harder to
find an appropriate numerical integration interval for them. For the
cases
we can perform one more transformation of the integrals, in
order to improve this situation. We make a transformation of integration
variables to the variable
and hence write
where the integrand has now a fairly constant width around its maximum.
In this case the location of the point of maximum is a bit different,
that is,
is not exactly
. The
integrand is now
and its derivative is given by
Note that, due to the possibly negative powers of , the cases
and
should be examined separately. For
we have
which is zero at the point of minimum at infinity and at ,
which is therefore the point of maximum. Since
this is
valid only for
, for
the function is monotonically
decreasing with its maximum at
. For
we have
Note that in this case the function has an infinite derivative at the
point , which makes it unsuitable for numerical integration.
Its point of maximum can be obtained as one of the roots of a quadratic
polynomial and is in fact included in the general case, which we proceed
to analyze. If we multiply it by
, the derivative of the
general case becomes
Except for the cases and
this vanishes at the points of
minimum at
and at
, and for all cases
it vanishes at the point of maximum given by
where since only the
sign can be kept, and we get
This is in fact correct in all cases including and
. For
we see that this gives the correct answer: if
, then
, and if
, then
. Note that the
only case in which the maximum is at zero is
with
, in
all other cases the maximum is at a positive and non-vanishing value of
.