text:
# Novel features in exclusive vector–meson production

## Introduction

Exclusive vector meson production is an important process which can provide information on hadronic structure at large and small distances and nature of soft and hard interaction dynamics. As it follows from the HERA data  the integral cross section of the elastic vector meson production $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^V(W^2,Q^2)`$ increases with energy in a way similar to the $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^{tot}(W^2,Q^2)`$ dependence on $`W^2`$ . It appeared also that the growth of the vector–meson electroproduction cross–section with energy is steeper for heavier vector mesons. Similar effect takes also place when the virtuality $`Q^2`$ increases.

The preliminary data of ZEUS Collaboration  provide an indication for an energy independence of the ratio of the cross section of exclusive $`\rho `$ electroproduction to the total cross section. Such behavior of this ratio is at variance with perturbative QCD results , Regge and dipole approaches . Recent review of the related problems and successes of the various theoretical approaches can be found in .

Of course, the energy range of the available data is limited and the above mentioned contradiction could probably be avoided due to fine tuning of the appropriate models. Meanwhile, similar energy independence was obtained in the approach based on the off-shell extension of the $`s`$–channel unitarity . In this note we provide an additional discussion pointing out to the origin of the above energy independence. We perform a quantitative comparison of the HERA data on vector–meson production with the results obtained in .

## Vector–meson electroproduction

There is no universal, generally accepted method to obey unitarity of the scattering matrix. However, long time ago the arguments based on analytical properties of the scattering amplitude were put forward  in favor of the rational form of unitarization. Unitarity can be written for both real and virtual external particles scattering amplitudes. However, implications of unitarity are different for the scattering of real and virtual particles. The extension of the $`U`$–matrix unitarization scheme (rational form of unitarization) for the off-shell scattering was considered in . It was supposed as usual that the virtual photon fluctuates into a quark–antiquark and this pair can be treated as an effective virtual vector meson state. There were considered limitations the unitarity provides for the $`\gamma ^{}p`$–total cross-sections and geometrical effects in the energy dependence of $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^{tot}`$. It was shown that the solution of the extended unitarity augmented by an assumption of the $`Q^2`$–dependent constituent quark111The concept of constituent quark has been used extensively since the very beginning of the quark era but has obtained just recently a possible direct experimental evidence at Jefferson Lab . interaction radius results in the following dependence at high energies:

$$\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^{tot}(W^2)^{\lambda (Q^2)},$$
(1)
where $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ is saturated at large values of $`Q^2`$ and reaches unity. However, off–shell unitarity does not require transformation of this power-like dependence into a logarithmic one at asymptotical energies. Thus, power–like behavior of the cross–sections with the exponent dependent on virtuality could be of an asymptotical nature and have a physical ground. It should not be regarded merely as a transitory behavior or a convenient way to represent the data.

The extended unitarity for the off–mass–shell amplitudes $`F^{}`$ and $`F^{}`$ has a structure similar to the equation for the on–shell amplitude $`F`$ but in the former case it relates the different amplitudes. We denoted in that way the amplitudes when both initial and final mesons are off mass shell, only initial meson is off mass shell and both mesons are on mass shell, respectively. Note that $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^{tot}`$ is determined by the imaginary part of the amplitude $`F^{}`$, whereas $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^V`$ is determined by the square of another amplitude $`F^{}`$. The important point in the solution of the extended unitarity is the factorization in the impact parameter representation at the level of the input dynamical quantity — $`U`$–matrix:

$$U^{}(s,b,Q^2)U(s,b)[U^{}(s,b,Q^2)]^2=0.$$
(2)
Eq. (2) reflects universality of the initial and final state interactions when transition between on– and off–mass shell states occurs. Despite that such factorization does not survive at the level of the amplitudes $`F^{}(s,t,Q^2)`$, $`F^{}(s,t,Q^2)`$ and $`F(s,t)`$ (i.e. after unitarity equations are solved and Fourier-Bessel transform is performed), it is essential for the energy independence of the ratio of the exclusive $`\rho `$ electroproduction cross section to the total cross section.

The above result (1) is valid when the interaction radius of the constituent quark $`Q`$ from the virtual meson $`V^{}`$ increases with virtuality $`Q^2`$. We use the same notation $`Q`$ for the constituent quarks and virtuality, but it should not lead to misunderstanding. The dependence of the interaction radius

$$R_Q(Q^2)=\xi (Q^2)/m_Q.$$
(3)
on $`Q^2`$ comes through the dependence of the universal $`Q^2`$-dependent factor $`\xi (Q^2)`$ (in the on-shell limit $`\xi (Q^2)\xi `$). The origin of the rising interaction radius of the constituent quark $`Q`$ with virtuality $`Q^2`$ might be of a dynamical nature and it would steam from the emission of the additional $`q\overline{q}`$–pairs in the nonperturbative structure of a constituent quark. Available experimental data are consistent with the $`\mathrm{ln}Q^2`$–dependence of the radius :

$$R_Q(Q^2)=R_Q^0+\frac{a}{m_Q}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+Q^2/Q_0^2\right),$$

where $`R_Q^0=\xi /m_Q`$ and parameters $`\xi `$, $`a`$ and $`Q_0^2`$ are universal for all constituent quarks.

The introduction of the $`Q^2`$ dependent interaction radius of a constituent quark, which in this approach consists of a current quark surrounded by the cloud of quark–antiquark pairs of different flavors , is the main issue of the off–shell extension of the model, which provides at large values of $`W^2`$

$$\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^{tot}(W^2,Q^2)G(Q^2)\left(\frac{W^2}{m_Q^2}\right)^{\lambda (Q^2)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{W^2}{m_Q^2},$$
(4)
where

$$\lambda (Q^2)=1\xi /\xi (Q^2),\xi (Q^2)=\xi +a\mathrm{ln}\left(1+Q^2/Q_0^2\right).$$
(5)
The value of parameter $`\xi `$ in the model is determined by the slope of the differential cross–section of elastic scattering at large $`t`$ region  and it follows from the $`pp`$-experimental data that $`\xi =2`$.

Inclusion of heavy vector meson production into this scheme is straightforward: the virtual photon fluctuates before the interaction with proton into the heavy quark–antiquark pair which constitutes the virtual heavy vector meson state. After interaction with a proton this state turns out into a real heavy vector meson.

Integral exclusive (elastic) cross–section of vector meson production in the process $`\gamma ^{}pVp`$ when the vector meson in the final state contains not necessarily light quarks can be calculated directly:

$$\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^V(W^2,Q^2)G_V(Q^2)\left(\frac{W^2}{m_{Q}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right)^{\lambda _V(Q^2)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{W^2}{m_{Q}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}},$$
(6)
where

$$\lambda _V(Q^2)=\lambda (Q^2)\stackrel{~}{m}_Q/m_Q.$$
(7)
In Eq. (7) $`\stackrel{~}{m}_Q`$ denotes the mass of the constituent quarks from the vector meson and $`m_Q=(2\stackrel{~}{m}_Q+3m_Q)/5`$ is the mean constituent quark mass of the vector meson and proton system. Of course, for the on–shell scattering ($`Q^2=0`$) we have a standard Froissart–like asymptotic energy dependence.

It is evident from Eqs. (4) and (6) that $`\lambda _V(Q^2)=\lambda (Q^2)`$ for the light vector mesons, i.e. the ratio

$$r_V(W^2,Q^2)=\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^V(W^2,Q^2)/\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^{tot}(W^2,Q^2)$$
(8)
does not depend on energy for $`V=\rho ,\omega `$. Eq. (6) and consequently (8) are in a good agreement (Fig. 1) with the experimental data of H1 and ZEUS Collaborations . It should be noted, however, that the experimental definition of the ratio $`r_V`$ adopted by the ZEUS Collaboration  considers cross–sections at the different virtualities222We are indebted to I. Ivanov for pointing out to this fact. and does not directly correspond to (8).

For the case of the heavy vector meson production $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ the respective cross–section rises about two times faster than the total cross–section; Eq. (7) results in

$$\lambda _{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(Q^2)2\lambda (Q^2),\lambda _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(Q^2)2.2\lambda (Q^2),$$

i.e.

$$r_{J/\mathrm{\Psi }}(W^2,Q^2)(W^2)^{\lambda (Q^2)},r_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(W^2,Q^2)(W^2)^{1.2\lambda (Q^2)}.$$

Corresponding relations for the $`\phi `$–meson production are the following

$$\lambda _\phi (Q^2)1.3\lambda (Q^2),r_\phi (W^2,Q^2)(W^2)^{0.3\lambda (Q^2)}.$$

In the limiting case when the vector meson is very heavy, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{m}_Qm_Q`$ the relation between exponents is

$$\lambda _V(Q^2)=2.5\lambda (Q^2).$$

The quantitative agreement of Eq. (6) with experimental data for the case of $`\phi `$ and $`J/\psi `$ production can be seen in Fig. 2

This agreement is in favor of relation (7) which provides explicit mass dependence of the exponent in the power–like energy dependence of cross–sections. Thus, the power-like parameterization of the ratio $`r_V`$

$$r_V(W^2,Q^2)(W^2)^{\lambda (Q^2)(\stackrel{~}{m}_Qm_Q)/m_Q}$$

with $`m_Q`$ and $`Q^2`$–dependent exponent could also have a physical ground. It would be interested therefore to check experimentally the predicted energy dependence of the ratio $`r_V`$.

The dependence of the constituent quark interaction radius (3) on its mass and virtuality gets an experimental support and the non–universal energy asymptotical dependence (6) and (7) and predicted in  does not contradict to the high–energy experimental data on elastic vector–meson electroproduction. Of course, as it was already mentioned in the Introduction, the limited energy range of the available experimental data allows other parameterizations, e. g. universal asymptotical Regge–type behavior with $`Q^2`$–independent trajectories (cf. ), to treat the experimental regularities as transitory ones.

It seems, however, that the scattering of virtual particles reaches the asymptotics much faster than the scattering of the real particles and the $`Q^2`$–dependent exponent $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ reflects the asymptotical dependence and not the ”effective” preasymptotical one. Despite that the relation between $`\xi (Q^2)`$ and $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ implies a saturation of the $`Q^2`$-dependence of $`\lambda (Q^2)`$ at large values of $`Q^2`$, the power–like energy dependence itself will survive at asymptotical energy values. The early asymptotics of virtual particle scattering is correlated with the peripheral impact parameter behavior of the scattering amplitude for the virtual particles. The respective profiles of the amplitudes $`F^{}`$ and $`F^{}`$ are peripheral when $`\xi (Q^2)`$ increases with $`Q^2`$ .

The energy independence of the ratio $`r_\rho (W^2,Q^2)`$ reflects universality of the initial and final state interactions responsible for the transition between the on– and off–mass shell states. This universality is a quite natural assumption leading to factorization (2) at the level of the $`U`$–matrix . Under this the off–shell unitarity is the principal origin of the energy independence of the ratio $`r_\rho (W^2,Q^2)`$.

There are also other interesting manifestations of the off–shell unitarity effects, e.g. the behavior of the differential cross–sections at large $`t`$ is to a large extent determined by the off-shell unitarity effects. Indeed, a smooth power–like dependence on $`t`$ has been predicted :

$$\frac{d\sigma _V}{dt}\stackrel{~}{G}(Q^2)\left[1\overline{\xi }^2(Q^2)t/\stackrel{~}{m}_Q^2\right]^3,$$
(9)
where

$$\overline{\xi }(Q^2)=\xi \xi (Q^2)/[\xi \xi (Q^2)].$$
(10)
As it is seen from Fig. 3, Eq. (9) corresponds to experimental data for $`J/\psi `$ vector meson even at the very moderate $`t`$-values. This fact is due to the effect of large mass of charmed quark which enhances in the model contribution of the region of small impact parameters.

It appears that differential cross section does not depend on energy and depends on $`t`$ in a simple power-like way $`(t)^3`$. This dependence differs from the corresponding dependence in the case of on-shell exclusive scattering  which approximates the quark counting rule . The ratio of differential cross-sections for the exclusive production of the different vector mesons

$$\frac{d\sigma _{V_1}}{dt}/\frac{d\sigma _{V_2}}{dt}$$

does not depend on the variables $`W^2`$ and $`t`$ at large enough values of $`t`$.

Meanwhile the Orear type behavior of the differential cross-section of the vector meson photoproduction obtained in

$$\frac{d\sigma _V}{dt}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi \xi }{M}\sqrt{t}\right].$$
(11)
is in a good agreement with the HERA experimental data at moderate values of $`t`$ (cf. Fig.4). Note, that the parameters $`\xi `$ and $`M=2\stackrel{~}{m}_Q+3m_Q`$ are fixed.

Thus, we have shown that the model  which leads to the energy independence of the ratio of exclusive $`\rho `$–meson electroproduction cross–section to the total cross–section as the result of the adopted universality of the initial and final state interactions responsible for the transition between the on– and off–mass shell states, is in a quantitative agreement with experimental data for the vector–meson production.

## Acknowledgement

We are grateful to I. Ivanov and V. Petrov for the interesting discussions of the results and experimental situation.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is the standard situation for practically all realistic problems in physics and applied mathematics that their solutions are obtained by some kind of perturbation theory or iterative procedure resulting in asymptotic series in powers of a parameter or a variable. Such series are usually only asymptotic and diverge for finite values of the expansion variable, while what is of physical interest are exactly the finite values of the latter. That is why the problem of defining an effective sum of divergent asymptotic series is of paramount importance. The most often employed summation techniques are Padé and Borel summations . These techniques have a number of limitations, because of which in many cases they are either of bad accuracy or often are not applicable at all.

An alternative approach to the problem of defining effective sums of asymptotic series or effective limits of iterative sequences has been developed, being based on the ideas of optimal control theory, renormalization group theory, and general dynamical theory. The principal concepts of this approach are as follows.

The first pivotal step is the introduction of control functions whose role is to govern an optimal convergence of approximation sequences . This results in the optimized perturbation theory which has been widely employed for a variety of applications (see surveys in ).

The second idea is to consider the passage from one successive approximation to another as the motion on the manifold of approximants, where the approximant order plays the role of discrete time. The recurrent relations, representing this motion, are formalized by means of group self-similarity \[6–11\].

A dynamical system in discrete time, whose trajectory is bijective to an approximation sequence, is called the approximation cascade. Embedding the latter into an approximation flow makes it possible to derive differential and integral equations of motion, whose fixed points represent self-similar approximants to the sought function \[6–11\]. The stability of the calculational procedure is characterized by local multipliers \[8–11\].

Another key point of the approach is the introduction of control functions with the help of fractal transforms \[12–14\]. This allows one to analyse asymptotic series by transforming them into their fractal counterparts and then invoking all the machinery of the self-similar approximation theory for the transformed series. In this way, the approximants, possessing a nice self-similar structure, were obtained, such as the self-similar exponential approximants \[13–15\] and self-similar root approximants \[16–18\].

In the present paper, we suggest and give a detailed analysis of one more type of approximants possessing a nice self-similar structure, which, because of their form, we name the self-similar factor approximants. In Section 2, we explain the origin of these approximants and discuss some variants of their usage. Then, in Section 3, we illustrate the method on several functions containing exponentials. Section 4 contains examples of more complicated and more realistic physical problems. Quartic anharmonic models are treated in section 5. Calculations of critical points and critical indices for some critical phenomena are presented in Section 6. The results are summarized in Section 7, where further possible developments of the method are discussed.

## 2 Method of self-similar factor approximants

Suppose we are looking for a physical quantity described by a real function $`f(x):RR`$. It is the common case for realistic physical problems that the sought function is defined through so complicated equations that the problem can be solved only approximately, by invoking a kind of perturbation theory. Assume that the latter yields perturbative approximants

$$f(x)f_k(x)(x0),$$
(1)
of order $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, in the asymptotic vicinity of $`x=0`$. For a while, the concrete meaning of the function $`f(x)`$ and of the variable $`x`$ is not important. In particular applications, $`x`$ may be a spatial variable, a coupling parameter, or any other physical parameter. This may also be a time variable in expansions having to do with differential evolution equations \[19–21\].

We may assume, without loss of generality, that the sought function $`f(x)`$ has the property $`f(0)=1`$, so that $`f_k(0)=1`$. As is evident, this can be achieved for any function by the appropriate scaling and normalization. Then an asymptotic series in powers of $`x`$ takes the form

$$f_k(x)=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_nx^n.$$
(2)
If we apply the technique of the self-similar approximation theory to the fractal transform of series (2), we would come, depending on the choice of control functions, to the self-similar exponential or root approximants \[13–18\]. But here, we follow another route.

We may notice  that each series (2) can always be equivalently presented as a product

$$f_k(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1+b_ix),$$
(3)
with the coefficients $`b_i`$ defined by the accuracy-through-order relations with respect to series (2). Now, we apply the procedure of self-similar renormalization not to the whole series (2) but separately to each factor of the product (3). This results in the transformation

$$1+b_ix(1+A_ix)^{n_i},$$
(4)
in which $`A_i`$ and $`n_i`$ are control parameters (see details in \[12–18\]). In this way, starting with product (3), we come to the self-similar factor approximants

$$f_k^{}(x)\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1+A_ix)^{n_i}.$$
(5)
Control parameters $`A_i`$ and $`n_i`$ can be found by means of the re-expansion procedure , expanding expression (5) in powers of $`x`$ and equating the like terms from series (2). It is also possible to define some of the controllers by matching the behaviour of the factor approximant (5) with the large-$`x`$ asymptotic behaviour of $`f(x)`$, provided this is available. For instance, if the asymptotic form

$$f(x)f_{\mathrm{}}x^\beta (x\mathrm{})$$
(6)
is known, then we may require the validity of the crossover condition

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}A_i^{n_i}=f_{\mathrm{}},\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}n_i=\beta .$$
(7)
The resulting crossover formula (5) would sew together two asymptotic expressions, at small $`x0`$ and large $`x\mathrm{}`$.

As a zero-order approximant, we may set

$$f_0^{}(x)1+a_1x.$$
(8)
The first-order approximant (5) is

$$f_1^{}(x)=(1+A_1x)^{n_1},$$
(9)
and for the second-order, we have

$$f_2^{}(x)=(1+A_1)^{n_1}(1+A_2x)^{n_2}.$$
(10)
Thus, we construct approximants of any order. For each approximant $`f_k^{}(x)`$, the accuracy-through-order relation defines its own controllers $`A_i=A_{ik}`$ and $`n_i=n_{ik}`$. However, to avoid cumbersome notation, we shall not employ the double indexation, keeping in mind that the controllers $`A_i`$ and $`n_i`$ are a sort of variables that are different for different approximation orders $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$.

Each self-similar factor approximant (5) of order $`k`$ contains $`2k`$ controllers $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_k`$ and $`n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_k`$. To define these through the re-expansion procedure, one needs to have $`2k`$ nontrivial terms of series (2). Thus, an even-order perturbative series (2) uniquely defines the corresponding factor approximant (5). The possibility of using odd-order series will be discussed in Section 7.

It may happen that, calculating the controllers $`A_i`$ and $`n_i`$, we shall obtain for some of them complex values. If the sought function is real, then the complex-valued controllers should come in complex conjugate pairs, so that approximant (5) be real. This means that the latter may contain the factors of the type $`|z^\alpha |^2`$, with both $`z`$ and $`\alpha `$ being complex valued. Since

$$|z^\alpha |=|z|^{\mathrm{Re}\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\left\{(\mathrm{Im}\alpha )\mathrm{arg}z\right\}$$

is a nonalgebraic function of $`z`$, hence expression (5) may, in general, be a nonalgebraic function. According to definition , an analytical function that is not algebraic is termed transcendental.

In this way, formula (5) can represent the following functions. When all powers $`n_i`$ are real integers, positive or negative, then $`f_k^{}(x)`$ is a rational function. In the case when all powers are equal to $`\pm 1`$, expression (5) coincides with the form of Padé approximants, which are, therefore, just a narrow particular case of the self-similar factor approximants. When some of $`n_i`$ are real but not integer, then $`f_k^{}(x)`$ is an irrational function. And if some of $`A_i`$ and $`n_i`$ are complex valued, then $`f_k^{}(x)`$ represents a transcendental function. As far as any sought function, having the same form (5), is exactly reproducible by $`f_k^{}(x)`$, whose controllers are defined by the re-expansion procedure , this means that the class of functions, that can be exactly reconstructed by the self-similar factor approximants, is rather wide, including rational, irrational, and some transcendental functions. This class is essentially wider than that related to Padé approximants and consisting solely of rational functions. Consequently, the factor approximants (5) can provide much better accuracy than Padé approximants for the majority of functions and also can be employed when the latter are not applicable at all.

Approximants (5) can well approximate such entire transcendental functions as exponentials. This can be easily understood noticing that if a factor $`(1+Ax)^n`$ is such that $`A=a/n`$, where $`a`$ is a constant and $`n\mathrm{}`$, then such a factor gives

$$\left(1+\frac{a}{n}x\right)^ne^{ax}(n\mathrm{}),$$

that is, it is equivalent to an exponential. Therefore, if in some particular calculations we find a very small $`A`$ but a very large $`n`$, this hints that the corresponding factor $`(1+Ax)^n`$ is close to the exponential $`\mathrm{exp}(nAx)`$. This is why the factor approximants can provide a reasonable approximation for exponential functions.

## 3 Reconstruction of functions including exponentials

Exponential functions are ubiquitous is natural sciences representing various physical laws. At the same time, this is a simple example of an entire transcendental function. The best way of approximating these functions would be by means of the self-similar exponentials \[13–15\], which often reconstruct exponential-type functions exactly . But the factor approximants, as is explained in the previous section, should also mimic well exponential behaviour. This is illustrated in the following examples.

### 3.1 Nonmonotonic exponential function with maximum

We choose a nonmonotonic function in order to stress that such a nonmonotonic behaviour presents no problem for the method. Let us consider the function

$$f(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{x}{(1+x)^{5/2}}\right\}.$$
(11)
Its asymptotic expansion at $`x0`$ yields the finite sums (2) with the coefficients

$$a_1=1,a_2=2,a_3=2.042,a_4=0.271,$$

$$a_5=3.572,a_6=8.636,a_7=12.661,a_8=12.183,$$

and so on. To approximate function (11), we construct the self-similar factor approximants (5). The first-order approximant (9) is yet too simple to catch well the peculiarities of the function variation. So, here and in what follows, we shall start the analysis with the second-order approximant (10).

Here for $`f_2^{}(x)`$, we have

$$A_1=1.658+0.840i,A_2=A_1^{};$$

$$n_1=0.2441.077i,n_2=n_1^{}.$$

But, as $`x\mathrm{}`$, the function $`f_2^{}(x)`$ decreases to zero, since $`n_1+n_2=0.488`$, while function (11) tends to unity.

For $`f_3^{}(x)`$, we get

$$A_1=1.3540,A_2=1.0015+0.4034i,A_3^{}=A_2^{};$$

$$n_1=11.0051,n_2=5.4336+3.7402i,n_3=n_2^{}.$$

Note that the enumeration of the controllers $`A_i`$ and $`n_i`$ can be arbitrary, as far as the order of factors in Eq. (5) is interchangeable. As a rule, we shall enumerate them according to the descending order of the values $`|\mathrm{Re}A_i|`$. Now, $`n_1+n_2+n_3=0.138`$, and the approximation is not bad till $`x150`$.

For $`f_4^{}(x)`$, we find

$$A_1=1.1455,A_2=1.0076+0.1703i,A_3=A_2^{},A_4=0.5156;$$

$$n_1=84.0147,n_2=40.1038+36.6118i,n_3=n_2^{},n_4=3.7834.$$

The sum of the powers decreases, $`n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=0.024`$. And the accuracy is very good up to $`x`$ of order of hundred, with the error being less than $`5\%`$.

### 3.2 Nonmonotonic exponential function with minimum

Let us now turn to the function

$$f(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{x}{(1+x)^{5/2}}\right\}$$
(12)
having a minimum. The corresponding coefficients in series (2) are

$$a_1=1,a_2=3,a_3=7.042,a_4=15.354,$$

$$a_5=32.261,a_6=65.951,a_7=131.714,a_8=257.734.$$

This function also tends to $`1`$ at $`x\mathrm{}`$.

For $`f_2^{}(x)`$, we have

$$A_1=1.65790+0.83984i,A_2=A_1^{};$$

$$n_1=0.24381+1.07665i,n_2=n_1^{}.$$

This approximant works well till $`x10`$, but at $`x\mathrm{}`$ its behaviour is not correct since $`n_1+n_2=0.488`$.

The controllers of $`f_3^{}(x)`$ are

$$A_1=1.35398,A_2=1.00149+0.40337i,A_3=A_2^{};$$

$$n_1=11.00514,n_2=5.433553.74022i,n_3=n_2^{}.$$

This function decreases at $`x\mathrm{}`$, since $`n_1+n_2+n_3=0.133`$. Reasonable accuracy is provided till $`x10`$.

The next approximant $`f_4^{}(x)`$ has the parameters

$$A_1=1.14550,A_2=1.00759+0.17032i,A_3=A_2^{},A_4=0.51563;$$

$$n_1=84.01466,n_2=40.1037936.61184i,n_3=n_2^{},n_4=3.78340.$$

The function decreases much slower than the previous approximations, since $`n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=0.024`$. The accuracy is good up to $`x100`$. For instance, the percentage error at $`x=40`$ equals $`2\%`$.

### 3.3 Spectral density of black-body radiation

This is given by the Planck formula $`\rho (x)=Cx^3/(e^x1)`$. This is also a nonmonotonic function with a maximum. To get the presentation (2), we define $`f(x)\rho (x)/Cx^2`$, which results in

$$f(x)=\frac{x}{e^x1},$$
(13)
where $`x\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT`$. The coefficients of series (2) are

$$a_1=\frac{1}{2},a_2=\frac{1}{12},a_3=0,a_4=\frac{1}{720},$$

$$a_5=0,a_6=\frac{1}{30240},a_7=0,a_8=\frac{1}{1209600},$$

$$a_9=0,a_{10}=\frac{1}{47900160},a_{11}=0,a_{12}=\frac{691}{1307674368000}.$$

For $`f_2^{}(x)`$, we get

$$A_1=0.05+0.119024i,A_2=A_1^{};$$

$$n_1=1+2.520504i,n_2=n_1^{}.$$

The function decreases at $`x\mathrm{}`$, since $`n_1+n_2=2`$, but not so fast as Eq. (13).

For $`f_3^{}(x)`$, one has

$$A_1=0.052201,A_2=9.613987\times 10^3+0.150710i,A_3=A_2^{};$$

$$n_1=7.654768,n_2=1.327382+0.417823i,n_3=n_2^{}.$$

The function increases at $`x\mathrm{}`$ because $`n_1+n_2+n_3=5`$, which is not correct.

The controllers of $`f_4^{}(x)`$ are

$$A_1=0.026326+0.044214i,A_2=A_1^{},A_3=1.452250\times 10^3+0.158034i,A_4=A_3^{};$$

$$n_1=0.939416+5.998214i,n_2=n_1^{},n_3=1.060584+0.070005i,n_4=n_3^{}.$$

The sum $`n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=4`$ shows that the function decreases as $`x\mathrm{}`$, in agreement with the behaviour of Eq. (13).

To analyse the behaviour of higher-order approximants, we have also calculated $`f_5^{}(x)`$, for which $`_{k=1}^5n_k=0.367295`$; because of this $`f_5^{}(x)`$ increases at infinity, though not as fast as $`f_3^{}(x)`$. And for $`f_6^{}(x)`$, we find $`_{k=1}^6n_k=3.300722`$; hence this approximant decreases as $`x\mathrm{}`$. With increasing order $`k`$, the interval of $`x`$, where $`f_k^{}(x)`$ provides a very good approximation to $`f(x)`$, becomes larger. Figure 1 presents the difference $`f_4^{}(x)f(x)`$.

### 3.4 Specific heat of diatomic gas

The oscillational part of the specific heat for a diatomic gas has the form

$$C(x)=\frac{x^2e^x}{(e^x1)^2},$$
(14)
with $`x\mathrm{}\omega /k_BT`$. The expansion coefficients of series (2) are

$$a_1=\frac{1}{12},a_2=\frac{1}{240},a_3=\frac{1}{6048},a_4=\frac{1}{172800},$$

$$a_5=\frac{1}{5322240},a_6=\frac{691}{118879488000},$$

and so on. Expression (14) tends to zero as $`x\mathrm{}`$.

For the second approximant $`C_2^{}(x)`$, we find

$$A_1=0.0251,A_2=0.0026;$$

$$n_1=2.0656,n_2=11.9344.$$

The approach to zero, as $`x\mathrm{}`$, is sufficiently fast, since $`n_1+n_2=14`$.

For $`C_3^{}(x)`$, one gets

$$A_1=0.025148,A_2=198.278139,A_3=2.629939\times 10^3;$$

$$n_1=2.065650,n_2=0,n_3=11.934396.$$

Here, $`n_1+n_2+n_3=14`$. Both $`C_k^{}(x)`$ are of good accuracy, with the difference $`C_k^{}(x)C(x)`$ less than $`10^4`$. Note that small $`A_3`$ with large $`n_3`$ hint at the exponential dependence. The comparison of $`C_3^{}(x)`$ with $`C(x)`$, given in Eq. (14), shows that this factor approximant is essentially more accurate than the best Padé approximants $`P_{[4/2]}(x)`$ and $`P_{[5/1]}(x)`$, as is illustrated in Fig. 2.

### 3.5 Regular solution from Debye-Huckel theory

Consider the function

$$f(x)=\frac{2}{x}\frac{2}{x^2}\left(1e^x\right)$$
(15)
appearing in the Debye-Huckel theory . This function contains an exponential, but the large-$`x`$ asymptotic behaviour is of power law,

$$f(x)2\left(\frac{1}{x}\frac{1}{x^2}\right)(x\mathrm{}).$$

The coefficients of series (2) are

$$a_1=\frac{1}{3},a_2=\frac{1}{12},a_3=\frac{1}{60},a_4=\frac{1}{360},$$

$$a_5=\frac{1}{2520},a_6=\frac{1}{20160},a_7=\frac{1}{181440},a_8=\frac{1}{1814400}.$$

Constructing the factor approximants (5), we shall invoke the crossover condition (7).

For $`f_2^{}(x)`$, we have

$$A_1=0.177337+0.176694i,A_2=A_1^{};$$

$$n_1=0.5+0.441432i,n_2=n_1^{}.$$

The maximal error of this approximant is about $`2.5\%`$ at $`x15`$.

The controllers of $`f_3^{}(x)`$ are

$$A_1=0.153026,A_2=0.076787+0.156796i,A_3=A_2^{};$$

$$n_1=1.146332,n_2=0.073166+0.539398i,n_3=n_2^{}.$$

The maximal error now is around $`1\%`$ at $`x20`$. Percentage errors of $`f_3^{}(x)`$ and the two-point Padé approximant $`P_{[3/2]}(x)`$ are shown in Fig. 3.

For $`f_4^{}(x)`$, we get

$$A_1=0.095338+0.056647i,A_2=A_1^{},A_3=0.043027+0.139489i,A_4=A_3^{};$$

$$n_1=0.966783+0.967772i,n_2=n_1^{},n_3=0.466783+0.285025i,n_4=n_3^{}.$$

Here the maximal, with respect to all $`x[0,\mathrm{})`$, error is about $`0.5\%`$ at $`x30`$. The best two-point Padé approximant  involving the same number of terms has the maximal error $`6\%`$ at $`x20`$, which is an order larger than the maximal error of $`f_4^{}(x)`$. The accuracy of the latter may be improved even more, if to take into account two terms from the large-$`x`$ expansion. Then the maximal error can be reduced to $`0.15\%`$.

## 4 Structure factors and radiation intensity

The quantities such as structure factors and radiation intensity are directly observable in experiments. That is why much attention is paid to their theoretical description. Below we show how one can derive rather simple and quite accurate expressions for such quantities, by means of the self-similar factor approximants.

### 4.1 Structure factor of branched polymers

The structure factor $`S(x)`$ is usually expressed in scaled units as a function of $`xk^2R^2/d`$, where $`k`$ is a wave vector, $`R`$ is gyration radius, and $`d`$ is spatial dimensionality . For $`d=3`$, the structure factor of branched polymers is given  by a confluent hypergeometric function $`S(x)=F_1(1;3/2;3x/2)`$. The behaviour at large $`x`$ is

$$S(x)\frac{1}{3}x^1(x\mathrm{}).$$

At small $`x`$, the coefficients of series (2) are

$$a_1=1,a_2=0.6,a_3=0.257.$$

We shall use the crossover condition (7). Then for $`S_2^{}(x)`$, we find

$$A_1=0.247387+0.483295i,A_2=A_1^{};$$

$$n_1=0.50.778627i,n_2=n_1^{}.$$

The approximant $`S_2^{}(x)`$ agrees well with the exact $`S(x)`$, as is shown in Fig. 4.

### 4.2 Structure factor of ring polymers

The structure factor of three-dimensional dilute ring polymers $`S(x)`$ can be considered as a function of $`x(kR)^2`$, where $`k`$ is wave vector and $`R`$ is gyration radius . In series (2), we have

$$a_1=\frac{1}{3},a_2=0.0610,a_3=0.0073.$$

Knowing the large-$`x`$ asymptote

$$S(x)0.63x^{1/2\nu }(\nu =0.588),$$

we shall employ the crossover condition (7). Then we get for $`S_2^{}(x)`$

$$A_1=0.065483+0.185055i,A_2=A_1^{};$$

$$n_1=0.425170+0.750184i,n_2=n_1^{}.$$

This gives a rather good accuracy, as compared to numerical results .

### 4.3 Luminescent intensity of donor-acceptor recombination

The expression for the temporal dependence of the luminescence intensity, arising from radiative recombination of donor-acceptor pairs, has the form

$$I(z)=\mathrm{exp}\{aK(z)\}\frac{d}{dz}K(z),$$

in which $`zwt`$, $`w`$ is a transition probability per unit time, $`t`$ is time, $`a`$ is a constant, and

$$K(z)_0^{\mathrm{}}x^2\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(ze^x\right)1\right]𝑑x.$$

We shall consider the reduced quantity

$$f(z)\frac{I(z)}{I(0)},I(0)=2,$$

with the typical parameter $`a=6.514\times 10^7`$. Then the coefficients of short-time series (2) are

$$a_1=0.125,a_2=0.019,a_3=2.604\times 10^3,$$

$$a_4=3.334\times 10^4,a_5=3.858\times 10^5,a_6=4.050\times 10^6.$$

In the long-time limit, one has

$$f(z)\frac{(\mathrm{ln}z)^2}{4z}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{a}{3}(\mathrm{ln}z)^3\right\}(z\mathrm{}),$$

which tends to zero.

For $`f_2^{}(z)`$ we find

$$A_1=0.132653+0.072661i,A_2=A_1^{};$$

$$n_1=0.256845+0.391265i,n_2=n_1^{}.$$

This approximant tends to zero, as $`z\mathrm{}`$, since $`n_1+n_2=0.514`$.

For $`f_3^{}(z)`$, we obtain

$$A_1=0.098681,A_2=0.087209+0.090440i,A_3=A_2^{};$$

$$n_1=1.292027,n_2=0.293510+0.269217i,n_3=n_2^{}.$$

This also tends to zero, as $`z\mathrm{}`$, with the power law $`n_1+n_2+n_3=0.705`$. In the range $`0z10^3`$, the maximal error is about $`2\%`$ at $`z200`$. The best Padé approximant $`P_{[3/3]}(z)`$ is much less accurate, as is seen in Fig. 5.

## 5 Models of quartic anharmonic oscillators

Anharmonic oscillator models, especially low-dimensional ones, are usually considered as touchstones for checking the validity of any approximation technique. This is because these models mimic the main mathematical features of more realistic, but much more complicated, problems in many-body theory and field theory. Below, we illustrate the applicability of the method of self-similar factor approximants to two low-dimensional anharmonic models.

### 5.1 Partition function of zero-dimensional model

The partition function is modelled by the integral

$$Z(g)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\phi ^2g\phi ^4\right)𝑑\phi ,$$
(16)
in which $`g`$ imitates a coupling parameter. Coefficients of series (2) are given by the formula

$$a_n=\frac{(1)^n}{\sqrt{\pi }n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2n+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$

In the strong-coupling limit, one has

$$Z(g)1.022765g^{1/4}(g\mathrm{}).$$
(17)
Following the technique of Section 2, we find for $`Z_2^{}(g)`$ the controllers

$$A_1=19.141,A_2=4.859;$$

$$n_1=0.00862,n_2=0.120.$$

At large $`g`$, this yields

$$Z_2^{}(g)0.806g^{0.129}(g\mathrm{}).$$

The approximant gives a reasonable accuracy at finite $`g`$ and is qualitatively correct at large $`g`$, though the decrease of the partition function (16) is not as fast as in Eq. (17). The amplitude of the decay is predicted with an error $`21\%`$ and the power, with an error $`48\%`$.

For $`Z_3^{}(g)`$, we get

$$A_1=31.220,A_2=13.317,A_3=3.464;$$

$$n_1=0.000526,n_2=0.022,n_3=0.125.$$

In the strong-coupling limit,

$$Z_4^{}(g)0.807g^{0.148}(g\mathrm{}).$$

Here the prediction errors are $`21\%`$ for the amplitude and $`41\%`$ for the power.

The approximant $`Z_4^{}(g)`$ contains

$$A_1=43.965,A_2=23.064,A_3=10.294,A_4=2.677;$$

$$n_1=0.000025,n_2=0.00259,n_3=0.035,n_4=0.124.$$

The strong-coupling limit gives

$$Z_4^{}(g)0.810g^{0.161}(g\mathrm{}).$$

The errors are $`21\%`$ for the amplitude and $`36\%`$ for the power index.

For $`Z_5^{}(g)`$, we find

$$A_1=57.165211,A_2=33.720143,A_3=18.543443,$$

$$A_4=8.396565,A_5=2.174639;$$

$$n_1=1.025651\times 10^6,n_2=2.150967\times 10^4,n_3=6.028095\times 10^3,$$

$$n_4=0.044164,n_5=0.119596.$$

The strong-coupling limit is

$$Z_5^{}(g)0.81445g^{0.170}(g\mathrm{}).$$

Here, the errors of the amplitude is $`20\%`$ and that of the power index is $`32\%`$.

And for $`Z_6^{}(g)`$, we obtain

$$A_1=66.087061,A_2=41.445220,A_3=25.096672,$$

$$A_4=13.752049,A_5=6.067701,A_6=1.511098;$$

$$n_1=1.153412\times 10^7,n_2=3.352991\times 10^5,n_3=1.330855\times 10^3,$$

$$n_4=0.014434,n_5=0.057625,n_6=0.110557.$$

In the strong-coupling limit, this leads to

$$Z_6^{}(g)0.82548g^{0.184}(g\mathrm{}).$$

The errors are $`19\%`$ for the amplitude and $`26\%`$ for the index. These results demonstrate monotonic numerical convergence.

The accuracy of approximants can be essentially improved by invoking the crossover condition (7). Then for $`Z_2^{}(g)`$, we have

$$A_1=8.57593,A_2=0.30987;n_1=0.08136,n_2=0.16864;$$

$$A_1^{n_1}A_2^{n_2}=1.023,n_1+n_2=0.25.$$

This approximant provides a good accuracy in the whole region of $`g[0,\mathrm{})`$, with the maximal error of $`6\%`$ at $`g5`$.

For $`Z_3^{}(g)`$, we find

$$A_1=19.47265,A_2=5.21916,A_3=0.18018;$$

$$n_1=7.94804\times 10^3,n_2=0.10947,n_3=0.13258;$$

$$A_1^{n_1}A_2^{n_2}A_3^{n_3}=1.023,n_1+n_2+n_3=0.25.$$

The maximal error is about $`4\%`$ at $`g10`$.

The next approximant $`Z_4^{}(g)`$ contains

$$A_1=31.45590,A_2=13.55695,A_3=3.72340,A_4=0.12535;$$

$$n_1=4.96209\times 10^4,n_2=0.02119,n_3=0.11631,n_4=0.11200;$$

$$A_1^{n_1}A_2^{n_2}A_3^{n_3}A_4^{n_4}=1.023,n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=0.25.$$

The maximal error is around $`3.5\%`$ at $`g10`$.

And for $`Z_5^{}(g)`$, we obtain

$$A_1=44.148724,A_2=23.247563,A_3=10.482932,$$

$$A_4=2.878801,A_5=0.095481;$$

$$n_1=2.395229\times 10^5,n_2=2.477078\times 10^3,n_3=0.033250,$$

$$n_4=0.115813,n_5=0.098436.$$

Now the maximal error is close to $`3\%`$ at $`g20`$.

Finally, for $`Z_6^{}(g)`$, we have

$$A_1=57.315168,A_2=33.870044,A_3=18.694023,$$

$$A_4=8.552264,A_5=2.338677,A_6=0.076825;$$

$$n_1=9.879942\times 10^7,n_2=2.072431\times 10^4,n_3=5.811092\times 10^3,$$

$$n_4=0.042533,n_5=0.112765,n_6=0.088682.$$

For this approximant, the maximal error is about $`2.5\%`$ at $`g30`$.

### 5.2 Ground-state energy of the anharmonic oscillator

We consider the one-dimensional anharmonic quartic oscillator with the Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\frac{1}{2}x^2+gx^4,$$
(18)
where $`x(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$. Perturbation theory gives  the ground-state energy $`E(g)`$ as the series

$$E(g)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_ng^n,$$
(19)
where the first eleven coefficients are

$$a_0=0.5,a_1=0.75,a_2=2.625,a_3=20.8125,a_4=241.2890625,$$

$$a_5=3580.98046875,a_6=63982.8134766,a_7=1329733.72705,$$

$$a_8=31448214.6928,a_9=833541603.263,a_{10}=24478940702.8.$$

Since here $`a_0=1/2`$, the reduced function $`f(g)`$, for which $`f(0)=1`$, has to be defined as

$$f(g)\frac{E(g)}{E(0)}=2E(g),$$

with the corresponding change of the expansion coefficients in series (2). The strong-coupling limit of the ground state energy is

$$E(g)0.667986g^{1/3}(g\mathrm{}).$$
(20)
For the self-similar factor approximant $`E_2^{}(g)`$, we have

$$A_1=17.5973,A_2=5.3122;$$

$$n_1=0.0221,n_2=0.2091.$$

The large-$`g`$ limit is

$$E_2^{}(g)0.7554g^{0.2312}(g\mathrm{}),$$

Comparing the latter with the asymptotic form (20), we see that the error of the amplitude here is $`13\%`$ and that of predicting the power is $`31\%`$.

In the case of $`E_3^{}(g)`$, we get

$$A_1=26.7402,A_2=12.4688,A_3=3.8380;$$

$$n_1=1.8017\times 10^3,n_2=0.0547,n_3=0.2005.$$

The strong-coupling limit gives

$$E_3^{}(g)0.7562g^{0.2570}(g\mathrm{}).$$

Here the error of the amplitude is again $`13\%`$, while that of the power is $`23\%`$. If we compare $`E_3^{}(g)`$ with the Padé approximant $`P_{[3/3]}(g)`$, providing the best accuracy at finite $`g`$, then we see that the latter is wrong at large $`g`$, tending to a constant, as $`g\mathrm{}`$, instead of increasing.

For $`E_4^{}(g)`$, we find

$$A_1=36.27784,A_2=20.11620,A_3=9.69400,A_4=2.98137;$$

$$n_1=1.05387\times 10^4,n_2=8.41555\times 10^3,n_3=0.08068,n_4=0.18273.$$

In the strong-coupling limit, we have

$$E_4^{}(g)0.75229g^{0.27193}(g\mathrm{}).$$

The errors are around $`13\%`$ for the amplitude and $`18\%`$ for the power.

The approximant $`E_5^{}(g)`$ contains

$$A_1=46.160836,A_2=28.182719,A_3=16.332980,$$

$$A_4=7.924575,A_5=2.422310;$$

$$n_1=4.992768\times 10^6,n_2=8.787692\times 10^4,n_3=0.018549,$$

$$n_4=0.097564,n_5=0.164673.$$

The strong-coupling limit yields

$$E_5^{}(g)0.747711g^{0.28167}(g\mathrm{}).$$

Now the error of the amplitude is $`12\%`$ and that of the power is $`15\%`$. There is a monotonic numerical convergence to exact results.

The accuracy of the approximants $`E_k^{}(g)`$ can be essentially improved with the help of the crossover condition (7). Invoking the latter, we get for $`E_2^{}(g)`$

$$A_1=9.457715,A_2=0.869296;$$

$$n_1=0.140915,n_2=0.192419;$$

$$\frac{1}{2}A_1^{n_1}A_2^{n_2}=0.667986,n_1+n_2=\frac{1}{3}.$$

For $`E_3^{}(g)`$, we find

$$A_1=18.112324,A_2=5.896948;A_3=0.483681;$$

$$n_1=0.019178,n_2=0.184859,n_3=0.129296;$$

$$\frac{1}{2}A_1^{n_1}A_2^{n_2}A_3^{n_3}=0.667986,n_1+n_2+n_3=\frac{1}{3}.$$

In the approximant $`E_4^{}(g)`$, the controllers are

$$A_1=27.098877,A_2=12.848678;A_3=4.253915,A_4=0.322173;$$

$$n_1=1.616412\times 10^3,n_2=0.049729,n_3=0.184752,n_4=0.097236,$$

with condition (7) being valid.

And for $`E_5^{}(g)`$, we obtain

$$A_1=36.555891,A_2=20.393831,A_3=9.992627,$$

$$A_4=3.302859,A_5=0.236809;$$

$$n_1=9.656933\times 10^5,n_2=7.776204\times 10^3,n_3=0.075166,$$

$$n_4=0.172047,n_5=0.078248,$$

again with condition (7) exactly satisfied.

## 6 Critical points and critical indices

The self-similar factor approximants (5) look very appropriate for describing critical phenomena, where various thermodynamic functions usually possess power-law behaviour. The direct application of Padé approximants  or their variants \[33–35\] does not allow for a correct description of critical indices. But the factor forms, analogous to approximants (5), should provide an accurate account of typical thermodynamic characteristics in the vicinity of critical points . Note that critical phenomena exist not only in the models of statistical mechanics and condensed matter physics but also in the models of rupture and materials failure \[37–40\], earthquakes , and stock market crashes \[43–45\]; all such critical phenomena having many common features . Below we show that the self-similar factor approximants present, probably, the best possibility for characterizing different critical phenomena.

### 6.1 Logarithmic divergence in elliptic integral

This example illustrates that even when the divergence in a critical point is not of power law but logarithmic, it can, anyway, be reasonably well described by approximants (5). For this purpose, we consider the elliptic integral

$$f(t)\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\pi /2}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{1t\mathrm{sin}^2x}},$$
(21)
which diverges logarithmically at $`t_c=1`$. The logarithmic divergence implies that if one defines the critical index as

$$\alpha \underset{tt_c0}{lim}(tt_c)\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{ln}f(t),$$
(22)
then it has to be close to zero. Expanding integral (21) in powers of $`t`$, one gets the asymptotic series of type (2), with the coefficients

$$a_1=\frac{1}{4},a_2=\frac{9}{64},a_3=\frac{25}{256},a_4=\frac{1225}{16384},$$

$$a_5=\frac{3969}{65536},a_6=\frac{53361}{1048576},a_7=\frac{184041}{4194304},$$

$$a_8=\frac{41409225}{1073741824},a_9=\frac{147744025}{4294967296},a_{10}=\frac{21334223721}{68719476736}.$$

For the approximant $`f_2^{}(t)`$, we have

$$A_1=0.9640,A_2=0.3485;$$

$$n_1=0.2218,n_2=0.1038.$$

Divergence happens at a critical point $`t_c`$, with a critical index, defined in Eq. (22), which are

$$t_c=\frac{1}{|A_1|}=1.0373,\alpha =|n_1|=0.222.$$

The critical point is defined with an error $`3.7\%`$.

For $`f_3^{}(t)`$, we find

$$A_1=0.9839,A_2=0.6311;A_3=0.1767;$$

$$n_1=0.1938,n_2=0.0721,n_3=0.0783;$$

Divergence is characterized by

$$t_c=\frac{1}{|A_1|}=1.0163,\alpha =|n_1|=0.194.$$

Here, the error of $`t_c`$ is $`1.6\%`$.

The controllers of the approximants $`f_4^{}(t)`$ are

$$A_1=0.99112,A_2=0.77048,A_3=0.41456,A_4=0.10519;$$

$$n_1=0.17705,n_2=0.05864,n_3=0.05405,n_4=0.06587.$$

The critical point and index are

$$t_c=\frac{1}{|A_1|}=1.0090,\alpha =|n_1|=0.177.$$

The error of $`t_c`$ is $`0.9\%`$.

For $`f_5^{}(t)`$, we obtain

$$A_1=0.9944,A_2=0.8449,A_3=0.5782,$$

$$A_4=0.2867,A_5=0.0692;$$

$$n_1=0.1657,n_2=0.0508,n_3=0.0438,$$

$$n_4=0.0452,n_5=0.0582.$$

The critical characteristics are

$$t_c=\frac{1}{|A_1|}=1.0056,\alpha =|n_1|=0.166.$$

Now, the error of $`t_c`$ is just $`0.6\%`$. Both the critical point and index show good numerical convergence to exact results. The best Padé approximant, based on the same number of perturbative terms, is much less accurate giving $`t_c=1.117`$ and $`\alpha =1`$; the error of $`t_c`$ being $`12\%`$.

### 6.2 Critical indices from Wilson expansion

The scalar quantum field theory with $`\phi ^4`$-interaction is an ideal ground for testing new methods in perturbation theory . Much efforts has been invested into studying critical phenomena by means of the $`O(n)`$-symmetric $`\phi ^4`$-theory. A very popular problem consists in calculating critical exponents by field theoretic renormalization group techniques in $`d=4\epsilon `$ dimensions, resulting in the Wilson $`\epsilon `$-expansions \[2,49–51\]. To illustrate a good accuracy of self-similar factor approximants in summing such $`\epsilon `$-expansions, we consider here the critical index $`\nu `$ for the correlation length $`\xi (T)`$, defined as

$$\nu \underset{TT_c+0}{lim}(TT_c)\frac{d}{dT}\mathrm{ln}\xi (T),$$
(23)
where $`T`$ is temperature. At the critical temperature $`T_c`$, the correlation length diverges as $`\xi (TT_c)^\nu `$. We shall use the expansion  for the function

$$f(\epsilon )\frac{1}{2\nu (\epsilon )}(\epsilon 4d).$$
(24)
From here, one can get the critical index in three dimensions

$$\nu =\frac{1}{2f(1)}(d=3)$$
(25)
or in two dimensions

$$\nu =\frac{1}{2f(2)}(d=2).$$
(26)
Function (24), presented as expansion (2) in powers of $`\epsilon `$, in the single-component case possesses the coefficients

$$a_1=0.1665,a_2=0.05865,a_3=0.06225,a_4=0.1535,a_5=0.4755.$$

The straightforward usage of such expansions does not give reliable results, since the $`\epsilon `$-series are asymptotic and divergent. For instance, the critical index

$$\nu _k\frac{1}{2f_k(\epsilon )}(\epsilon 4d),$$
(27)
defined through a $`k`$-order perturbative polynomial $`f_k(\epsilon )`$, as in Eq. (2), for $`d=3`$ becomes

$$\nu _1=0.6,\nu _2=0.645,\nu _3=0.597,\nu _4=0.731,\nu _5=0.431(d=3).$$

The sequence $`\{\nu _k\}`$, evidently, does not converge.

For the factor approximant $`f_2^{}(\epsilon )`$, we obtain

$$A_1=3.018517,A_2=0.439949;$$

$$n_1=6.874957\times 10^3,n_2=0.425622.$$

The corresponding index

$$\nu _k^{}\frac{1}{2f_k^{}(\epsilon )}(\epsilon 4d)$$
(28)
in $`\nu _2^{}=0.634`$ for $`d=3`$ and $`\nu _2^{}=1.216`$ for $`d=2`$.

We know that for the two-dimensional Ising model, when $`\epsilon =2`$, the index $`\nu =1`$. Imposing this restriction, we find for $`d=3`$ the index $`\nu _2^{}=0.629`$. This is to be compared with the Borel-transform based calculations for the $`\epsilon `$-expansion, yielding $`\nu =0.628\pm 0.001`$  and $`\nu =0.629\pm 0.003`$  and also with the lattice numerical results $`\nu =0.631\pm 0.002`$ .

### 6.3 Critical characteristics from high-temperature expansions

High-temperature series expansions are often used in studying critical phenomena. Here, we shall consider the so-called $`(2+1)`$-dimensional Ising model, whose Hamiltonian reads

$$H=\underset{i}{}\left(1\sigma _i^z\right)g\underset{<ij>}{}\sigma _i^x\sigma _j^xh\underset{i}{}\sigma _i^x,$$
(29)
in which $`\sigma _i^\alpha `$ are Pauli matrices; $`g`$, coupling parameter; $`h`$, magnetic field; summation is over a $`2`$-dimensional spatial lattice; $`<ij>`$ denotes nearest-neighbour pairs of sites. This model is in the same universality class as the three-dimensional Ising model. High-temperature expansions for this model are equivalent to the weak-coupling expansions in powers of $`g`$.

Consider, first, the mass gap

$$F(g)E_1(g)E_0(g),$$
(30)
being the energy difference between the first excited and ground state levels, at zero magnetic field. For the reduced quantity

$$f(g)\frac{F(g)}{F(0)},F(0)=2,$$
(31)
the series expansions in powers of $`g`$ are of type (2).

The coefficients in series (2) for a square lattice are

$$a_1=2,a_2=1,a_3=\frac{3}{2},a_4=\frac{9}{4},a_5=\frac{11}{2},$$

$$a_6=10.253906,a_7=28.849609,a_8=57.418152,$$

$$a_9=175.053360,a_{10}=365.267989.$$

When $`g`$ approaches the critical value $`g_c`$, the mass gap tends to zero, as $`F(g_cg)^\nu `$, with the critical index

$$\nu \underset{gg_c0}{lim}(g_cg)\frac{d}{dg}\mathrm{ln}f(g).$$
(32)
Note that the coefficients $`a_i`$ in series (2), for the present case, are of the same sign, which is known to be a difficult situation for summation. The absolute values of these coefficients are quickly increasing, which manifests the series divergence.

For the self-similar factor approximant $`f_2^{}(g)`$, we find

$$A_1=4.03553,A_2=3.03553;$$

$$n_1=2.4905\times 10^3,n_2=0.65555.$$

The critical coupling and critical index are

$$g_c=\frac{1}{|A_2|}=0.32943,\nu =n_2=0.656.$$

For the factor approximant $`f_3^{}(g)`$, we have

$$A_1=3.03055,A_2=2.34432+1.17108i;A_3=A_2^{};$$

$$n_1=0.65826,n_2=(1.57037+5.33043i)\times 10^3,n_3=n_2^{},$$

which gives the critical characteristics

$$g_c=\frac{1}{|A_1|}=0.32997,\nu =n_1=0.658.$$

Approximant $`f_4^{}(g)`$ possesses

$$A_1=3.03764,A_2=2.80311,A_3=0.85714+1.50878i,A_4=A_3^{};$$

$$n_1=0.6514,n_2=7.37667\times 10^3,n_3=(7.68487+4.56213i)\times 10^3,n_4=n_3^{}.$$

This results in

$$g_c=\frac{1}{|A_1|}=0.32920,\nu =n_1=0.651.$$

Finally, for $`f_5^{}(g)`$, we obtain

$$A_1=3.04301,A_2=2.85769,A_3=2.08221,$$

$$A_4=0.05019+1.48535i,A_5=A_4^{};$$

$$n_1=0.64147,n_2=6.64215\times 10^3,n_3=0.02454,$$

$$n_4=(1.27747+7.47775i)\times 10^3,n_5=n_4^{}.$$

The corresponding critical characteristics are

$$g_c=\frac{1}{|A_1|}=0.32862,\nu =n_1=0.641.$$

The found results can be compared with other calculations, summarized in Ref. , where the critical coupling is in the interval $`0.328g_c0.329`$, while the critical index lies in the range $`0.629\nu 0.646`$. This is in good agreement with our estimates.

Let us also consider the susceptibility

$$\chi (g)\frac{1}{N}\frac{^2E_0}{h^2}|_{h=0},$$
(33)
which behaves as $`\chi (g)(g_cg)^\gamma `$ in the vicinity of the critical coupling $`g_c`$, with the critical index

$$\gamma \underset{gg_c0}{lim}(g_cg)\frac{d}{dg}\mathrm{ln}\chi (g).$$
(34)
Expanding the susceptibility (33) in powers of $`g`$, one gets the series of type (2). For the triangular lattice the coefficients are

$$a_1=6,a_2=32.95,a_3=166.5,a_4=843.046875,a_5=4218.416666,$$

$$a_6=20941.023004,a_7=103361.512587,a_8=507986.371687,$$

$$a_9=2488222.50870,a_{10}=12155136.2137.$$

Again, all coefficients are of the same sign and fastly increasing in their values. Such a series is divergent for any finite $`g`$.

For the factor approximant $`\chi _2^{}(g)`$, we have

$$A_1=6.22771,A_2=4.58786;$$

$$n_1=0.03523,n_2=1.35562.$$

The critical coupling and index are

$$g_c=\frac{1}{|A_2|}=0.21797,\gamma =|n_2|=1.356.$$

In the next order, we get $`\chi _3^{}(g)`$, with the controllers

$$A_1=4.81702,A_2=1.6542+2.20379i;A_3=A_2^{};$$

$$n_1=1.18552,n_2=0.22051+0.09988i,n_3=n_2^{}.$$

From here,

$$g_c=\frac{1}{|A_1|}=0.20760,\gamma =|n_1|=1.185.$$

For $`\chi _4^{}(g)`$, we find

$$A_1=4.76379,A_2=0.89137,A_3=0.79806+1.56616i,A_4=A_3^{};$$

$$n_1=1.25533,n_2=2.32460,n_3=1.067690.12380i,n_4=n_3^{},$$

which yields

$$g_c=\frac{1}{|A_1|}=0.20992,\gamma =|n_1|=1.255.$$

And the approximant $`\chi _5^{}(g)`$ contains

$$A_1=4.76723,A_2=2.66216,A_3=1.30481,$$

$$A_4=0.84329+1.55612i,A_5=A_4^{};$$

$$n_1=1.24715,n_2=0.10924,n_3=1.54693,$$

$$n_4=1.024990.01717i,n_5=n_4^{}.$$

The corresponding critical characteristics are

$$g_c=\frac{1}{|A_1|}=0.20977,\gamma =|n_1|=1.247.$$
(35)
These results are in good agreement with numerical calculations, summarized in Ref. , according to which the critical coupling for the triangular lattice is in the interval $`0.20972g_c0.20980`$ and the critical index is in the range $`1.236\gamma 1.250`$.

## 7 General discussion and possible variants

The self-similar factor approximants, as is illustrated above by a variety of examples, provide a powerful tool for defining effective sums of divergent power series. The latter in the majority of applications are asymptotic. However, the presented method is not limited to only asymptotic series. The sole thing that is required is that the perturbative form (2) be a finite power series. If all coefficients $`a_n`$ in Eq. (2) do not depend on the approximation order $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, then the difference

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f_k(x)f_k(x)f_{k1}(x)$$

composes as asymptotic sequence $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }f_k(x)\}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_k(x)=a_kx^k`$. But we also may consider the case , when an iterative procedure results in the approximations

$$f_k(x)=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_{nk}x^n,$$

with different coefficients $`a_{nk}a_{nk1}`$. In such a situation, the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_k(x)`$ does not constitute an asymptotic sequence $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }f_k(x)\}`$. Nevertheless, the method of self-similar factor approximants is applicable to this case as well.

The mathematical structure of formula (5) resembles, in some sense, such geometric structures as fractals . With regard to functions, one usually says that a function possesses fractal properties if it manifests a kind of scaling. In particular, it can be an asymptotic scaling , arising in a limit of the function variable. In that sense, formula (5) displays the property of asymptotic scaling

$$\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{f_k^{}(\lambda x)}{f_k^{}(x)}=\lambda ^{\nu _k},\nu _k=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}n_i,$$
(36)
where $`\lambda `$ is a scaling parameter. We also may notice another scaling property of the factor form (5). To this end, introducing functions

$$\phi _i(x)(1+A_ix)^{n_i},$$
(37)
we can present Eq. (5) as

$$f_k^{}(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\phi _i(x).$$
(38)
Then, the property of functional scaling

$$f_k^{}(x)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\lambda _i\right)f_k^{}(x),\phi _i(x)\lambda _i\phi _i(x),$$
(39)
is valid.

It is worth emphasizing that the factor approximant (5) is principally different from the continued-function representation mentioned by Bender and Orszag . According to their scheme, approximants $`\beta _k(x)`$ for a function $`f(x)`$ could be constructed in the following way. Let us take an arbitrary function $`\beta (c,x)`$, where $`c`$ is a parameter. Then a $`k`$-order approximation to the sought function $`f(x)`$ is given by

$$\beta _k(x)\beta (c_1,x\beta (c_2,\mathrm{},x\beta (c_k,x))\mathrm{}).$$

However, such a manner of acting has several essential drawbacks. First of all, this scheme is too much ambiguous, since there exists an infinity of functions that could be accepted as $`\beta (c,x)`$. Contrary to this, the form of the factor approximants (5) is not arbitrary postulated but is derived from the given perturbative series by means of the self-similar approximation theory. Second, Eq. (5) does not have the form of a continued function $`\beta _k(x)`$. Really, even if we suppose that $`\beta (c,x)=(1+cx)^n`$, then

$$\beta _k(x)=\left(1+c_1x\left(1+c_2x(1+\mathrm{}+c_kx)^n\right)^n\mathrm{}\right)^n,$$

which has nothing to do with formula (5). The latter is not a function of the same function but a product (38) of different functions (37). This product is not only different from the above $`\beta _k(x)`$ but also is more general. Last but not least, the sequence $`\{\beta _k(x)\}`$ of the continued-function representation is, generally, speaking, divergent. This can be easily demonstrated for the above mentioned case of $`\beta (c,x)`$ resulting in the power-law representation $`\beta _k(x)`$. The latter, at large $`x`$, are of the type

$$\beta _k(x)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}c_i\right)^nx^{nk}(x\mathrm{}),$$

which shows that the subsequent approximations $`\beta _k(x)`$ differ significantly from each other. Thus, $`\beta _1(x)x^n`$, $`\beta _2(x)x^{2n}`$, and so on, each $`\beta _k(x)x^{nk}`$ having principally different dependence on $`x`$. It is evident that such a sequence cannot converge.

The self-similar factor approximant (5) of order $`k`$ requires the knowledge of $`2k`$ nontrivial (except the first term equal to one) perturbative terms of series (2). Thus, for constructing $`f_k^{}(x)`$, we need an even number of terms. A natural question would be: how could we use an odd number of such terms? There are two straightforward ways of doing this, which can be called additive and multiplicative.

The additive way is as follows. The perturbative form (2) can always be rewritten as

$$f_k(x)=1+a_1x\underset{i=1}{\overset{k1}{}}(1+c_ix).$$
(40)
By applying the self-similar renormalization (4) to the factors in the product of Eq. (40), we come to the approximant

$$f_{k+}^{}(x)1+a_1x\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1+B_ix)^{m_i},$$
(41)
containing the additive unitary term. The approximant (41) requires the availability of an odd number of terms in series (2). If the large-$`x`$ behaviour (6) is known, it can be employed for approximant (41) as the crossover condition

$$a_1\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}B_i^{m_i}=f_{\mathrm{}},\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}m_i+1=\beta .$$
(42)
We have analysed the usage of approximants (41) to the examples considered above. Sometimes these approximants $`f_{k+}^{}(x)`$ are not bad, being of comparable accuracy with $`f_k^{}(x)`$ or even better. This, e.g., is the case for defining the critical index (23) from the Wilson $`\epsilon `$-expansion, for which we find $`\nu _{2+}^{}=0.628`$ for $`d=3`$ and $`\nu _{2+}^{}=0.914`$ for $`d=2`$. However, for the majority of cases, the accuracy of $`f_{k+}^{}(x)`$ is essentially worse than that of $`f_k^{}(x)`$. On occasion, this accuracy can be improved by considering the inverse function $`f^1(x)`$, instead of $`f(x)`$. This, for instance, gives good results for the structure factors of Section 4. The crossover condition (42), if available, also may certainly cure the behaviour of $`f_{k+}^{}(x)`$. For example, this yields good approximations for the ground-state energy of the anharmonic oscillator of Section 5.2. But, in general, the approximants $`f_{k+}^{}(x)`$ are inferior to $`f_k^{}(x)`$.

As an alternative, we could try the multiplicative way of extracting information from odd numbers of perturbative terms. For this purpose, we may present Eq. (2) as

$$f_k(x)=(1+Ax)\underset{i=1}{\overset{k1}{}}(1+b_ix).$$
(43)
Accomplishing the self-similar renormalization of the right-hand-side factors in Eq. (43), except the first factor $`(1+Ax)`$, we define the self-similar approximant

$$f_{k+1/2}^{}(x)(1+Ax)\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1+A_ix)^{n_i}$$
(44)
In the starting trivial case,

$$f_{1/2}^{}(x)f_0^{}(x)=1+a_1x.$$
(45)
The following nontrivial approximants are

$$f_{3/2}^{}(x)=(1+Ax)(1+A_1x)^{n_1},$$

$$f_{5/2}^{}(x)=(1+Ax)(1+A_1x)^{n_1}(1+A_2x)^{n_2},$$
(46)
and so on. Each $`f_{k+1/2}^{}(x)`$ requires for its definition $`2k+1`$ terms of series (2).

The main difference in employing approximants $`f_{k+1/2}^{}(x)`$, as compared to $`f_k^{}(x)`$, is in the following. When determining the related control parameters by means of the order-through-accuracy matching, for the former approximants we may get nonunique solutions, while for the latter the solutions are unique. Different solutions for the control parameters yield several possible variants of $`f_{k+1/2}^{}(x)`$. As we have checked, all of these several variants, generally, have reasonable accuracy, being close to each other, However, dealing with several approximants of the same order complicates the calculational procedure. In this way, the self-similar factor approximants $`f_k^{}(x)`$ look to be more preferable, compared to both $`f_{k+}^{}(x)`$ and $`f_{k+1/2}^{}(x)`$.

In all cases, we have considered, the accuracy of $`f_k^{}(x)`$ improves with the increasing order $`k`$. This implies the existence of the so-called numerical convergence for the sequence $`\{f_k^{}(x)\}`$. It is, of course, impossible to guarantee that the latter sequence always converges to the exact function $`f(x)`$. This kind of uncertainty, is actually, common for practically any sequence of numerical approximants. To render the procedure uniquely defined requires imposing on the calculational algorithm additional conditions making the latter single-valued .

More information of the self-similar factor approximants $`f_k^{}(x)`$ can be extracted by invoking the probabilistic analysis . To this end, we introduce the multiplier

$$M_k(x)\frac{\delta f_k^{}(x)}{\delta f_0^{}(x)}.$$
(47)
Taking account Eq. (8), we get

$$M_k(x)=\frac{1}{a_1}\frac{d}{dx}f_k^{}(x).$$
(48)
The probability of $`f_k^{}(x)`$ is defined as

$$p_k(x)=\frac{|M_k^1(x)|}{_{i=1}^N|M_i^1(x)|},$$
(49)
where $`N`$ is the total number of available approximants $`f_k^{}(x)`$, with $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. Having defined these quantities, we now may find the most probable approximants, corresponding to the maximal probability (49). Also, we can calculate a weighted approximant

$$\overline{f}_k(x)\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}p_j(x)f_j^{}(x).$$
(50)
This averaging is especially useful when the subsequent approximants $`f_j^{}(x)`$ and $`f_{j+1}^{}(x)`$ display large variations. The latter become smoothed by the averaging procedure (50). For example, for the critical index of the correlation length, discussed in section 6.2, defined by this averaging procedure, we find $`\overline{\nu }=0.630`$.

Additional possibilities arise, when, for the same problem, there exist expansions for several different functions. Say, for simplicity, there are two functions $`f(x)`$ and $`g(x)`$, for which the expansions $`f_k(x)`$ and $`g_k(x)`$ are available at $`x0`$. Then, in addition to the factor approximants $`f_k^{}(x)`$ and $`g_k^{}(x)`$, we may, considering some combinations $`F_k(f_k(x),g_k(x))`$ of the series $`f_k(x)`$ and $`g_k(x)`$, construct the approximants $`F_k^{}(x)`$. For instance, we can consider the sums $`f_k(x)+g_k(x)`$, products $`f_k(x)g_k(x)`$, or the ratios $`f_k(x)/g_k(x)`$, or other combinations of the given series. A more detailed consideration of such possibilities will be done in future.

Finally, we would like to emphasize that the accuracy of the self-similar factor approximants (5), for the examples considered in the present paper, is always essentially better than that of the best Padé approximants, constructed with the same number of perturbative terms of series (2). This fact is easy to understand, since the factor approximants (5) have a much more general form as compared to Padé approximants, including the latter just as a narrow particular class. As is explained in Section 2, the self-similar factor approximants can represent rational, irrational, and transcendental functions.

Acknowledgement

One of us (V.I.Y.) is grateful to E.P. Yukalova for useful discussions and advice.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1. Difference of the self-similar factor approximant $`f_4^{}(x)`$ and function (13).

Fig. 2. Specific heat (14) (solid line), the approximant $`C_3^{}(x)`$ (dashed line), and the best Padé approximants $`P_{[4/2]}(x)`$ (dashed-dotted line) and $`P_{[5/1]}(x)`$ (dotted line) versus $`1/x`$.

Fig. 3. Percentage errors of the approximant $`f_3^{}(x)`$ (solid line) and the two-point Padé approximant $`P_{[3/2]}(x)`$ (dashed line), as compared to the exact function (15).

Fig. 4. Structure factor of branched polymer $`S(x)`$ (solid line) and its factor approximant $`S_2^{}(x)`$ (dashed line).

Fig. 5. Luminiscent intensity $`f(z)`$ (solid line), approximant $`f_3^{}(z)`$ (dashed line) and the best Padé approximant $`P_{[3/3]}(x)`$ (dashed-dotted line).


text:
# WMAP Constraints on varying 𝛼 and the Promise of Reionization

## I Introduction

Now that WMAP has validated beyond reasonable doubt the so-called concordance (or is it conspiracy?) model of cosmology Bennett et al. (2003); Hinshaw et al. (2003); Kogut et al. (2003); Verde et al. (2003), it is time to proceed to the next level of questioning and start asking what are the ‘dark components’ that make up about $`96\%`$ of the energy budget of the universe. Most of this is in some non-baryonic form, for which there is at present no direct evidence or solid theoretical explanation. Understanding its nature will clearly require further progress in fundamental physics.

Cosmology and astrophysics provide a laboratory with extreme conditions in which to test fundamental physics and search for new paradigms. Currently preferred unification theories Polchinski (1998); Damour (2003) predict the existence of additional space-time dimensions, which have a number of possibly observable consequences, including modifications in the gravitational laws on very large (or very small) scales Will (2001) and space-time variations of the fundamental constants of nature Uzan (2002); Martins (2002). Recent evidence of a time variation of fundamental constants Webb et al. (2001, 2003); Ivanchik et al. (2003) offers an important opportunity to test such fundamental physics models. It should be noted that the issue is not if such theories predict such variations, but at what level they do so, and hence if there is any hope of detecting them in the near future.

The most promising case is that of the fine-structure constant $`\alpha `$, for which some evidence of time variation at redshifts $`z23`$ already exists Webb et al. (2001, 2003). Since one expects $`\alpha `$ to be a non-decreasing function of time Damour and Nordtvedt (1993); Santiago et al. (1998); Barrow et al. (2002), it is particularly important to try to constrain it at earlier epochs, where any variations relative to the present-day value should be larger. (On the other hand, local laboratory tests can also provide useful constraints Marion et al. (2003).) The cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies provide such a probe, being mostly sensitive to the epoch of decoupling, $`z1100`$. Here we extend our previous work in this area Avelino et al. (2000, 2001); Martins et al. (2002) by analyzing the recently released WMAP first-year data and providing updated constraints on the value of $`\alpha `$ at decoupling. We emphasize that in previous work, constraints on $`\alpha `$ were obtained with the help of additional cosmological datasets. Here, by contrast, we will analyse the WMAP dataset alone. We also discuss how these constraints can be improved in the future, when more precise CMB polarization data will be available. In particular, we show that the existence of an early reionization epoch is of significant help in further constraining $`\alpha `$. A more detailed analysis of this issue can be found in a companion paper Rocha et al. (2003).

## II WMAP constraints on $`\alpha `$

We compare the recent WMAP temperature and cross-polarization data with a set of flat cosmological models adopting the likelihood estimator method described in Verde et al. (2003). The models are computed through a modified version of the CMBFAST code with parameters sampled as follows: physical density in cold dark matter $`0.05<\mathrm{\Omega }_ch^2<0.20`$ (step $`0.01`$), physical density in baryons $`0.010<\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2<0.028`$ (step $`0.001`$), cosmological constant $`0.0<\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<0.95`$ step $`0.05`$, $`0.80<\alpha _{\text{dec}}/\alpha _0<1.18`$ (step $`0.02`$). Here $`h`$ is the Hubble parameter today, $`H_0100h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 which is related to the above quantities by the flatness condition, while $`\alpha _{\text{dec}}`$ ($`\alpha _0`$) is the value of the fine structure constant at decoupling (today). We verified that the marginalized likelihood distribution from WMAP for each of the above parameters has negligible values when computed at the extrema of the range allowed in the database. We also vary the optical depth $`\tau `$ in the range $`00.30`$ (step $`0.04`$) and the scalar spectral index of primordial fluctuations $`0.88<n_s<1.08`$ (step $`0.005`$). The upper limit for the optical depth is well motivated by numerical simulations (see e.g. Ciardi et al. (2003)).

We don’t consider gravity waves, running of the spectral index or iso-curvature modes since these further modifications are not required by the WMAP data.

The likelihood distribution function for $`\alpha _{\text{dec}}/\alpha _0`$, obtained after marginalization over the remaining parameters, is plotted in Figure 1. We found, at $`95\%`$ C.L. that $`0.94<\alpha _{\text{dec}}/\alpha _0<1.01`$, improving previous bounds (see Martins et al. (2002) for the previous tighter bound, and Avelino et al. (2000, 2001); Battye et al. (2001) for earlier work) based on CMB and complementary datasets. Thus when it comes to constraining $`\alpha `$ in the primordial universe, the WMAP dataset alone is at least as good as everything else before it put together.

## III The future: Polarization and reionization

In our previous work Martins et al. (2002), only the CMB temperature was taken into account. The precision with which cosmological parameters can be reconstructed using both CMB temperature and E-polarization measurements is now re-examined by means of the Fisher Matrix Analysis (FMA) technique. This technique was first applied in this context by Hannestad (1999) (see also Kaplinghat et al. (1999)). We consider the planned Planck satellite and an ideal experiment which would measure both temperature and polarization to the cosmic variance limit (in the following, ’CVL experiment‘).

Cosmological models are characterized by the 8 dimensional parameter set

$$𝚯=(\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }h^2,,n_s,Q,\tau ,\alpha ),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_c+\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ is the energy density in matter and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the energy density due to a cosmological constant, and the Hubble parameter $`h`$ is a dependent variable. The quantity $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ref}}/\mathrm{}`$ is the ‘shift’ parameter and $`Q=<\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)C_{\mathrm{}}>^{1/2}`$ denotes the overall normalization, where the mean is taken over the multipole range $`2\mathrm{}2000`$. We assume purely adiabatic initial conditions and we do not allow for a tensor contribution. The Fisher matrix expansion is done around a fiducial model with parameters $`\omega _b=0.0200`$, $`\omega _m=0.1310`$, $`\omega _\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.2957`$ (and $`h=0.65`$), $`=0.9815`$, $`n_s=1.00`$,$`Q=1.00`$, $`\tau =0.20`$ and $`\alpha /\alpha _0=1.00`$. In our previous work Martins et al. (2002) the numerical accuracy of the FMA was limited by the fact that differentiating around a flat model requires computing open and closed models, which are calculated using different numerical techniques. Here we instead differentiate around a slightly closed model (as preferred by WMAP) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1.01`$ to avoid extra sources of numerical inaccuracies. We refer to Martins et al. (2002); Rocha et al. (2003) for a detailed description of the numerical technique used. The experimental parameters used for the Planck analysis are in Table 1, and we use the first 3 channels of the Planck High Frequency Instrument (HFI) only. Note that we account for possible issues arising from point sources, foreground removal and galactic plane contamination by assuming that once these have been taken into account we are left with a ‘clean’ fraction of the sky given by $`f_{\mathrm{sky}}`$. For the cosmic variance limited (CVL) experiment, we set the experimental noise to zero, and we use a total sky coverage $`f_{\mathrm{sky}}=1.00`$. Although this is never to be achieved in practice, the CVL experiment illustrates the precision which can be obtained in principle from CMB temperature and E-polarization measurements.

Fig. 2 illustrates the effect of $`\alpha `$ and $`\tau `$ on the CMB temperature and polarization power spectra—see Rocha et al. (2003) for a more detailed discussion. The CMB power spectrum is, to a good approximation, insensitive to how $`\alpha `$ varies from last scattering to today. Given the existing observational constraints, one can therefore calculate the effect of a varying $`\alpha `$ in both the temperature and polarization power spectra by simply assuming two values for $`\alpha `$, one at low redshift (effectively today’s value, since any variation of the magnitude of Webb et al. (2001) would have no noticeable effect) and one around the epoch of decoupling, which may be different from today’s value. For the CMB temperature, reionization simply changes the amplitude of the acoustic peaks, without affecting their position and spacing (top left panel); a different value of $`\alpha `$ at the last scattering, on the other hand, changes both the amplitude and the position of the peaks (top right panel). The outstanding effect of reionization is to introduce a bump in the polarization spectrum at large angular scales (lower left panel). This bump is produced well after decoupling at much lower redshifts, when $`\alpha `$, if varying, is much closer to the present day’s value. We emphasize that, for the reason pointed out above, we do not need specify a redshift dependence for the variation, although we could if we so choose. If the value of $`\alpha `$ at low redshift is different from that at decoupling, the peaks in the polarization power spectrum at small angular scales will be shifted sideways, while the reionization bump on large angular scales won’t (lower right panel). It follows that by measuring the separation between the normal peaks and the bump, one can measure both $`\alpha `$ and $`\tau `$, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Thus we expect that the existence of an early reionization epoch will, when more accurate cosmic microwave background polarization data is available, lead to considerably tighter constraints on $`\alpha `$.

Table 2 and Fig. 4 summarize the forecasts for the precision in determining $`\tau `$ and $`\alpha `$ (relative to the present day value) with Planck and the CVL experiment. We consider the use of temperature information alone (TT), E-polarization alone (EE) and both channels (EE+TT) jointly. Note that one could use the temperature-polarization cross correlation (ET) instead of the E-polarization, with the same results. As it is apparent from Fig. 4, TT and EE suffer from degeneracies in different directions, because of the reasons explained above. Thus combination of high-precision temperature and polarization measurements can constrain in the most effective ways both variations of $`\alpha `$ and $`\tau `$. Planck will be essentially cosmic variance limited for temperature but there will still be considerable room for improvement in polarization (Table 2). This therefore argues for a post-Planck polarization experiment, not least because polarization is, in itself, better at determining cosmological parameters than temperature. We conclude that Planck alone will be able to constrain variations of $`\alpha `$ at the epoch of decoupling within $`0.34\%`$ ($`1\sigma `$, all other parameters marginalized), which corresponds to approximately a factor 5 improvement on the current upper bound. On the other hand, the CMB alone can only constrain variations of $`\alpha `$ up to $`𝒪(10^3)`$ at $`z1100`$. Going beyond this limit will require additional (non-CMB) priors on some of the other cosmological parameters. This result is to be contrasted with the variation measured in quasar absorption systems by Ref.Webb et al. (2001), $`\delta \alpha /\alpha _0=𝒪(10^5)`$ at $`z2`$. Nevertheless, there are models where deviations from the present value could be detected using the CMB.

## IV Conclusions

We have tightened the CMB constraints on the value of the fine-structure constant at the epoch of decoupling, using the WMAP satellite data. We emphasize that this is the first constraint coming from the analysis of a single CMB measurement. Previous constraints on $`\alpha `$ used a combination of various CMB and other cosmological observables, such as supernovae, nucleosynthesis or the Hubble constant, in order to impose stronger priors on other key cosmological parameters. In this sense, the current WMAP data alone is at least as good as everything else before it put together. As in previous work Avelino et al. (2000, 2001); Martins et al. (2002), the current data is consistent with no variation, though the likelihood is skewed towards smaller values at the epoch of decoupling.

We have shown that CMB data alone will be able to constrain $`\alpha `$ up to the $`0.1\%`$ level. Tighter constraints than this will require invoking further (non-CMB) priors. Nevertheless, the existence of an early reionization epoch as suggested by WMAP turns out to be a blessing for these measurements, once more accurate cosmic microwave background polarization data is available, and in particular we have proposed a novel way of exploiting it. These points are discussed in more detail in Rocha et al. (2003).

## V acknowledgments

C.M. is funded by FCT (Portugal), under grant FMRH/BPD/1600/2000. G.R. is funded by the Leverhulme trust. This work was done in the context of the European network CMBnet, and was performed on COSMOS, the Origin3800 owned by the UK Computational Cosmology Consortium, supported by Silicon Graphics/Cray Research, HEFCE and PPARC.