1: \chapter{Solution Methodology}
2: \label{ch:solnmethod}
3:
4: Once the integral equations have been derived, an approach for solving them must be decided upon. The approach used here is a combination of analytical and numerical methods. By analyzing the equations, we discover certain properties that help make the numerical calculations more efficient. This results in higher accuracy and lower computational costs.
5:
6: This chapter begins with a brief discussion of the steps needed to solve the integral equations. We point out quantities that one might compute and what information is necessary to carry out that computation. We also attempt to illustrate the relationships between the parameters in the integral equations.
7:
8: After this discussion, details of the numerical solution technique are given. The method involves discretizing the integral equations with an exponential spacing of points to significantly improve convergence. Ways of reducing the number of necessary points by decreasing the range of integration are also discussed. The final discretized equations are exhibited.
9:
10: Our analysis will be limited to the set of leading order integral equations. These are the equations relevant to the $\Lambda \rightarrow \infty$ limit. The equations for the first order corrections must be solved if one is interested in the cutoff-dependent behavior. Although we do not attempt to numerically solve for these corrections, the equations have been derived and all that remains is implementing a program to solve them. Many, if not all, of the issues discussed in this chapter are relevant to their solution.
11:
12:
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: %% GENERAL APPROACH %%
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16: \section{General Approach}
17:
18: One of the leading order equations has already been solved, namely the one for $f_{d0}(p)$. The solution has been determined to be of the form $A \, \cos(s_0 \ln(p/\Lambda) + \theta)$. Because any solution to the integral equations can be rescaled to give another equally valid solution, we choose to always scale our solutions so that $A = 1$.
19:
20: The solutions for $f_{l0}(p)$ and $f_{h0}(p)$ are inherently linked by the solution for $f_{d0}(p)$. For $p \gg (\eta_2,\eta_3)$, the function $f_{l0}$ must approach $f_{d0}$, and for $p \ll \Lambda$, $f_{h0}$ must approach $f_{d0}$. In essence, these requirements act as boundary conditions for our solutions.
21:
22: Consider the case where the values of $B_2$ and $B_3$ are known for a given cutoff $\Lambda$. With just the energy values, we have enough information to solve the equation for $f_{l0}(p)$. Once a solution is found, we can examine its behavior at large momentum. It must have a cosine behavior, and we can use this fact to fit the function $\cos(s_0 \ln(p/\Lambda) + \theta)$ to the solution in this region. This allows the determination of the phase, which we will call $\theta_{l0}$.
23:
24: For the function $f_{h0}(p)$, we see from the integral equation that the solution depends upon two parameters, $\Lambda$ and $\delta$. Since $\Lambda$ is known, we can choose a value for $\delta$ and then solve the equation. The result is a solution for $f_{h0}$ that, for very small values of $p$, has a cosine behavior like $f_{d0}$. Call the phase of this solution $\theta_{h0}$.
25:
26: Our boundary condition can then be stated more precisely as
27: %
28: \begin{equation}
29: \theta_{l0} = \theta_{h0} \pm n \pi \label{eqn:thetaBC},
30: \end{equation}
31: %
32: \noindent for some positive integer $n$.\footnote{The reason why this is $\pi$ and not $2 \pi$ has to do with the equation for $f_{l0}$. For any low-momentum solution with a phase of $\theta$, we can multiply the function by -1 to obtain a solution with phase $\theta + \pi$. The phases are only unique up to a difference of $\pi$.} This shows that the value chosen for $\delta$ cannot be arbitrary as it must be a value that allows (\ref{eqn:thetaBC}) to be satisfied. We see that choosing the bound-state energies determines a unique value of $\theta$, which in turn determines a unique value for $\delta$. The value of $G_3$ can then be computed from $\delta$.
33:
34: Now suppose that we would like to compute the other three-body bound-state energies in the spectrum. The three-body coupling has been fixed by our initial data, which is equivalent to saying that the phase has been fixed. The problem then becomes one of finding other values for $B_3$ that will yield a solution for $f_{l0}$ with the same asymptotic phase $\theta_{l0}$. Thus we find that we can calculate a bound-state spectrum by solving the equation for $f_{l0}$ and matching phases, never once needing to calculate $f_{h0}$.
35:
36: All other calculations are simply a matter of relating $G_3$ and $B_3$ via the intermediate phase $\theta$.
37:
38:
39: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
40: %% NUMERICAL METHODS %%
41: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
42: \section{Numerical Methods}
43:
44: Because a closed-form solution for either $f_{l0}$ or $f_{h0}$ is unknown, we must resort to numerical calculations of these functions as well as any energies or couplings. A common method for solving an integral equation involves changing the integration into a sum over discrete points. The integral equation then becomes a matrix equation easily solved by standard methods.
45:
46: While this may appear straightforward, there are several practical issues to consider. For example, new limits on the integral equation must be determined. It is impossible to numerically integrate to infinity, so a suitable upper bound must be chosen. In our case, we will use a logarithmic integration range so a new lower bound to replace $0$ must also be determined. How the discrete points are chosen must be carefully considered. Should we use the basic Simpson's Rule for numerical integration, or perhaps a more complicated quadrature method?
47:
48: Each choice is a compromise between accuracy and size. For example, we could choose an upper limit that is extremely large (ensuring that we are ``close'' to infinity) and discrete points that are closely spaced (minimizing errors in the sum). The trade-off is that using more points requires using a larger matrix. Using $N$ discrete points will result in an $N \times N$ matrix with $N^2$ elements. If all numbers are double precision decimals, even 8000 points would be enough to overwhelm a computer with 512 MB of memory. This does not even take into account the time needed to process such a matrix. Obviously, the goal is to obtain the desired accuracy with a minimal number of points. We will discuss a few methods that drastically reduce the number of points we need.
49:
50: In the following sections, we will assume that our goal is about 12 digits of accuracy. This high accuracy may not be necessary for most leading order calculations, but it is essential when including the first order corrections. Besides directly obtaining the equations for the $\Lambda \rightarrow \infty$ limit, one principle reason for expanding the three-body equation in powers of $\eta/\Lambda$ is to analyze the cutoff dependence. If we are attempting to study this behavior, we must be certain that our numerical errors are not larger than the corrections being studied, otherwise there is no way to distinguish the small corrections from the numerical ``noise.'' By laying the groundwork for high accuracy in the leading order calculation, higher order calculations should be easier to implement.
51:
52:
53: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
54: %% TRANSITION TO fd0 %%
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
56: \subsection{Transition to Mid-Momentum Function}
57:
58: One way to limit the size of the matrix is to limit the range over which the function must be integrated. We know that $f_{l0}$ and $f_{h0}$ approach $f_{d0}$ for $p \gg \eta$ and $p \ll \Lambda$ respectively. This allows us to replace either function with $\cos\left(s_0 \ln(p/\Lambda) + \theta\right)$ in the appropriate range. The point at which we can make the switch is determined by the accuracy we desire. These limits are derived for the case of 12 digits of accuracy.
59:
60: For $p \gg \eta$, the equation for $f_{l0}$ can be written as
61: %
62: \begin{eqnarray}
63: && \hspace{-0.25in} f_{l0}(\eta_2, \eta_3, p) = \frac{4 (1 + \eta_3^2/p^2 - \eta_2^2/p^2)}{\sqrt{3} \pi \left( \sqrt{1 + (2 \eta_3^2)/(3 p^2)} - (\sqrt{2} \eta_2)/(\sqrt{3} p) \right)} \int_0^{\infty} dq \: \frac{q}{q^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2} \nonumber
64: \\
65: && \hspace{-0.25in} \times \left[ \ln\left(\frac{p^2 + q^2 + pq}{p^2 + q^2 - pq}\right) + \frac{\eta_3^2}{2 p^2 + 2 q^2 + 2 p q} - \frac{\eta_3^2}{2 p^2 + 2 q^2 - 2 p q} \right] f_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,q) .
66: \end{eqnarray}
67: %
68: \noindent Here we have treated $\eta/p$ as a small quantity and perturbatively expanded all factors. As long as both $\eta_2/p$ and $\eta_3/p$ are less than $10^{-12}$, this equation will match the one for $f_{d0}$ to 12 digits. Of course, $\eta_3$ must be greater than $\eta_2$ since we are considering only stable bound states. This means that $p \simeq 10^{12} \, \eta_3$ sets the limit above which $f_{l0}$ can be replaced by $f_{d0}$. In practice, we must have enough data points above this limit to ensure that our cosine fit is accurate to 12 digits also. Therefore, we will use an actual limit of $p = 10^{15} \, \eta_3$.
69:
70: Similarly, we can expand the equation for $f_{h0}$ in the region $p \ll \Lambda$. Notice that in this region $D_{1h0}(p,\Lambda)$ approaches $D_{1d0}(\Lambda)$ which is proportional to $\Lambda$, and the function $D_{h0}(p,\Lambda)$ becomes equal to $D_{d0}(p) = \sqrt{3} \, p/16 \pi$. In the $f_{h0}$ integral equation, the momentum-dependent part of the three-body interaction becomes
71: %
72: \begin{equation}
73: \left( \frac{p^2}{\Lambda^2} \right) \left( \frac{D_{1h0}(p,\Lambda)}{D_{h0}(p,\Lambda)} \right) \stackrel{p \ll \Lambda}{\longrightarrow} \left( \frac{p^2}{\Lambda^2} \right) \left( \frac{D_{1d0}(\Lambda)}{D_{d0}(p)} \right) \propto \frac{p}{\Lambda} .
74: \end{equation}
75: %
76: \noindent Since the leading order mid-momentum equation has no three-body interaction term, the above term will equal zero to 12 digits if we choose $p \sim 10^{-12} \, \Lambda$.
77:
78: The integral part for $f_{h0}$ looks like
79: %
80: \begin{equation}
81: \frac{p^2}{2 \pi^2 D_{h0}(p,\Lambda)} \int_0^{\infty} dq \, \int_{-1}^{1} dz \, \frac{U_2\left(\vec{q} + \frac{1}{2}\vec{p}\right) U_2\left(\vec{p} + \frac{1}{2}\vec{q}\right)}{2p^2 + 2q^2 + 2pqz} f_{h0}(q, \Lambda) .
82: \end{equation}
83: %
84: \noindent We have already stated that $D_{h0}(p,\Lambda)$ approaches $D_{d0}(p)$, but more importantly, it approaches like
85: %
86: \begin{equation}
87: D_{h0}(p,\Lambda) \stackrel{p \ll \Lambda}{\longrightarrow} D_{d0}(p) \left[ 1 + \left( \frac{\sqrt{3} \, (h_2^2 + 8 h_2 - 16)}{8 \sqrt{2 \pi}} \right) \frac{p}{\Lambda} \right] .
88: \end{equation}
89: %
90: \noindent It will therefore equal $D_{d0}$ to 12 digits if $p \sim 10^{-12} \, \Lambda$. This limit also applies to the integrand itself, so we may replace $f_{h0}$ with $f_{d0}$ for values of $p$ less than $\mathcal{O}(10^{-12} \, \Lambda)$. In practice however, we use a limit of $p = 10^{-17} \, \Lambda$ to ensure that we have enough points below this region to fit the cosine behavior.
91:
92:
93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
94: %% NEW LIMITS %%
95: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
96: \subsection{New Integration Limits}
97:
98: For the case of $f_{h0}$, we have limited the range of integration to be $10^{-17} \, \Lambda$ to $\infty$. (Below this range, we use $f_{d0}$.) Naturally, we cannot integrate to infinity and instead must find a new limit to replace it. Let us call this limit $\lambda$. We choose $\lambda$ such that
99: %
100: \begin{equation}
101: \frac{p^2}{2 \pi^2 D_{h0}(p,\Lambda)} \int_{\lambda}^{\infty} dq \, \int_{-1}^{1} dz \, \frac{U_2\left(\vec{q} + \frac{1}{2}\vec{p}\right) U_2\left(\vec{p} + \frac{1}{2}\vec{q}\right)}{2p^2 + 2q^2 + 2pqz} f_{h0}(q, \Lambda) < \mathcal{O}(10^{-12}).
102: \end{equation}
103:
104: The exponentials in $U_2$ suggest that the integrand should die off quickly, allowing us to make an initial guess for $\lambda$ using
105: %
106: \begin{equation}
107: \me^{- \lambda^2/\Lambda^2} = 10^{-12} .
108: \end{equation}
109: %
110: \noindent This gives an initial value of $\lambda \simeq 5.25 \, \Lambda$. However, the double integral makes the analysis harder since we cannot determine the exact behavior. We must resort to numerical computation, and some sample calculations reveal that a limit of $\lambda = 10 \, \Lambda$ is sufficient for our purposes.
111:
112: From $10^{-17} \, \Lambda$ down to 0, $f_{h0}$ is replaced by $f_{d0}$. We would like to replace the $0$ limit with a larger value that still maintains our desired accuracy. Even though we know the analytic solution for $f_{d0}$, narrowing the range of integration will reduce our computational effort. Call this new lower limit $\epsilon$, which is chosen so that
113: %
114: \begin{equation}
115: \frac{p^2}{2 \pi^2 D_{h0}(p,\Lambda)} \int_{0}^{\epsilon} dq \, \int_{-1}^{1} dz \, \frac{U_2\left(\vec{q} + \frac{1}{2}\vec{p}\right) U_2\left(\vec{p} + \frac{1}{2}\vec{q}\right)}{2p^2 + 2q^2 + 2pqz} f_{d0}(q, \Lambda) < \mathcal{O}(10^{-12}) .
116: \end{equation}
117: %
118: \noindent We assume that $\epsilon \ll 10^{-17} \, \Lambda < p$. To within 12 digits of accuracy, the $z$ integration can be written as
119: %
120: \begin{eqnarray}
121: \int_{-1}^{1} dz \, \frac{U_2\left(\vec{q} + \frac{1}{2}\vec{p}\right) U_2\left(\vec{p} + \frac{1}{2}\vec{q}\right)}{2p^2 + 2q^2 + 2pqz} & = & \int_{-1}^{1} dz \, \frac{U_2\left(\vec{p}/2\right) U_2\left(\vec{p}\right)}{2p^2 + 2pqz} \nonumber
122: \\
123: & = & \frac{1}{2pq} \, U_2\left(\vec{p}/2\right) U_2\left(\vec{p}\right) \, \ln\left(\frac{p^2 + pq}{p^2 - pq}\right) .
124: \end{eqnarray}
125: %
126: \noindent Since $q \ll p$, the logarithm can be approximated as $2q/p$. Our constraint for $\epsilon$ now becomes
127: %
128: \begin{equation}
129: \frac{1}{2 \pi^2 D_{h0}(p,\Lambda)} \, U_2\left(\vec{p}/2\right) U_2\left(\vec{p}\right) \, \int_0^{\epsilon} dq \, f_{d0}(q) < \mathcal{O}(10^{-12}).
130: \end{equation}
131: %
132: \noindent The values of $p$ are of the same order as $\Lambda$, so we expect the value of $U_2$ to be $\mathcal{O}(1)$. The function $f_{d0}$ is also $\mathcal{O}(1)$, so it is simply replaced by $1$ in this approximation. This leaves an integral with a value of $\epsilon$. When combined with $D_{h0}(p,\Lambda) \sim \mathcal{O}(p)$, we find that $\epsilon/p < \mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$. The smallest value for $p$ is $10^{-17} \, \Lambda$, implying that $\epsilon \simeq 10^{-29} \, \Lambda$. In practice, this value is sufficient for 12 digits of accuracy.
133:
134: Having replaced the limits for $f_{h0}$, we move on to $f_{l0}$. Again, we must find a finite upper limit to substitute for infinity. For $p > 10^{15} \, \eta_3$, $f_{l0}$ is replaced by $f_{d0}$. This new limit, $\lambda$, is determined by the condition
135: %
136: \begin{eqnarray}
137: && \hspace{-1.5in} \frac{(p^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)}{4 \pi^2 p \, D_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,p)} \int_{\lambda}^{\infty} dq \: \left[ \frac{1}{q} \ln\left(\frac{p^2 + q^2 + pq}{p^2 + q^2 - pq}\right) f_{d0}(q) \right] \nonumber
138: \\
139: && \simeq \frac{(p^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)}{4 \pi^2 p \, D_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,p)} \int_{\lambda}^{\infty} \frac{dq}{q} \: \left(\frac{2p}{q}\right) f_{d0}(q) \nonumber
140: \\
141: && = \frac{(p^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)}{2 \pi^2 \, D_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,p)} \int_{\lambda}^{\infty} \frac{dq}{q^2} \: f_{d0}(q) \nonumber
142: \\
143: && \sim \frac{(p^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)}{2 \pi^2 \, D_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,p)} \int_{\lambda}^{\infty} \frac{dq}{q^2} \nonumber
144: \\
145: && = \frac{(p^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)}{2 \pi^2 \, D_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,p)} \, \left(\frac{1}{\lambda}\right) \le \mathcal{O}(10^{-12}) \label{eqn:fl0UL},
146: \end{eqnarray}
147: %
148: \noindent where we have used the fact that $q \gg p \sim \eta_3$. For values of $p$ much larger than $\eta_3$, the term in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:fl0UL}) is proportional to $p/\lambda$. The largest value $p$ can obtain is $10^{15} \, \eta_3$, implying $\lambda = 10^{27} \, \eta_3$. Numerical calculations verify that this limit is sufficient to assure the desired accuracy.
149:
150: Finally, we must replace the lower limit for $f_{l0}$ with a non-zero value $\epsilon$ that we assume to be much smaller than $\eta_3$. Our requirement is that
151: %
152: \begin{equation}
153: \frac{(p^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)}{4 \pi^2 p (\eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2) D_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,p)} \int_0^{\epsilon} dq \, q \ln\left(\frac{\eta_3^2 + 2p^2 + 2pq}{\eta_3^2 + 2p^2 - 2pq}\right) f_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,q) < \mathcal{O}(10^{-12}) .
154: \end{equation}
155: %
156: \noindent Expanding the logarithm yields
157: %
158: \begin{equation}
159: \frac{(p^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)}{\pi^2 (\eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2) (\eta_3^2 + 2 p^2) D_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,p)} \int_0^{\epsilon} dq \, q^2 \, f_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,q) < \mathcal{O}(10^{-12}) \label{eqn:fl0LL}.
160: \end{equation}
161: %
162: \noindent For small values of $q$, we will find that $f_{l0}$ is approximately constant and of $\mathcal{O}(1)$. Therefore, the integral is roughly equal to $\epsilon^3$. If $p \ll \eta_3$ or $p \sim \eta_3$, then Eq.~(\ref{eqn:fl0LL}) is $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^3/\eta^3)$. If $p \gg \eta_3$, then it is $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^3/p\eta_3^3) < \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^3/\eta^3)$. This seems to imply that a value of $\epsilon \simeq 10^{-4} \, \eta_3$ is adequate.
163:
164: Unfortunately, using this value of $\epsilon$ will result in poor accuracy when $\eta_2 \simeq \eta_3$. This is a result of the $(\eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)$ term in the denominator of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:fl0LL}). Originally, this was our approximation to the term $(q^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)$ in the integral equation. When the energies are nearly equal, our approximation needs to be $q^2$. The condition on $\epsilon$ should now become
165: %
166: \begin{equation}
167: \frac{(p^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)}{\pi^2 (\eta_3^2 + 2 p^2) D_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,p)} \int_0^{\epsilon} dq \, f_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,q) < \mathcal{O}(10^{-12}) \label{eqn:newfl0LL}.
168: \end{equation}
169: %
170: \noindent The integral is roughly equal to $\epsilon$, and the entire term is $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon/\eta)$. This means we must use the lower limit $\epsilon = 10^{-12} \, \eta_3$.
171:
172: These derivations are general enough to determine the appropriate limits for other cases of desired accuracy. Keep in mind however that the limits must always be tested numerically to ensure that they are indeed sufficient.
173:
174:
175: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
176: %% DISCRETE SPACING %%
177: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
178: \subsection{Discrete Point Spacing}
179:
180: Now that we have stricter limits in place, we must choose the discrete values of $q$ within these limits at which to evaluate our functions. We employ discrete points that are equally spaced on a logarithmic scale. There are two main reasons for making this choice.
181:
182: First, we have already seen that $f_{d0} = \cos\left(s_0 \ln(p/\Lambda) + \theta \right)$ is periodic on a logarithmic scale. In fact, other functions have similar behavior, including $G_3$. It makes sense that a logarithmic spacing is better suited to capturing the behavior of the system.
183:
184: Second, by choosing points in this manner, an integration of $q$ from $0$ to $\infty$ becomes an integration of $\ln(q)$ from $-\infty$ to $\infty$. By equally spacing points on this log scale, we can achieve convergence that improves exponentially\footnote{For a basic mathematical proof of this claim, see Appendix \ref{app:kenproof}. Appendix \ref{app:erroranalysis} has a short error analysis that numerically shows the exponential convergence.} with the spacing, as opposed to the more typical power law convergence. This drastically reduces the number of points needed to achieve our desired accuracy. For instance, to cover the range of $f_{l0}$ from $10^{-12} \, \eta_3$ to $10^{15} \, \eta_3$, and maintain 12 digits of accuracy, we can space our points by $p_{n+1} = p_n \me^{0.2}$. This requires only about 300 points.
185:
186:
187: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
188: %% DISCRETIZED EQUATIONS %%
189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
190: \section{Discretized Equations}
191:
192: The discretized integral equations are shown below. Here, $\Delta$ represents the momentum spacing, and the momentum values are related by the equation $p_{n+1} = p_{n} \, \me^{\Delta}$. The identity matrix is represented by $I_{nm}$, and the ceiling function represented by $\lceil x \rceil$ returns an integer value $n$ such that $(n-1) < x \le n$.
193:
194: {\bf Low-Momentum:} The value of $n$ for $p_n$ ranges from 0 to $N_{mid}$, while the value of $m$ for $q_m$ ranges from 0 to $N_{max}$. These are defined as: $p_0 = 10^{-12} \, \eta_3$, $N_{mid} = \lceil \ln(10^{27})/\Delta \rceil$, and $N_{max} = \lceil \ln(10^{39})/\Delta \rceil$ .
195:
196: \begin{equation}
197: \sum_{m = 0}^{N_{mid}} \left( M_{nm} - I_{nm} \right) \, f_{l0}(p_m) = b_n
198: \end{equation}
199: \begin{equation}
200: M_{nm} = \frac{\Delta}{4 \pi^2 D_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,p_n)} \frac{q_m^2 (p_n^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)}{p_n (q_m^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)} \ln\left(\frac{\eta_3^2 + 2 p_n^2 + 2 q_m^2 + 2 p_n q_m}{\eta_3^2 + 2 p_n^2 + 2 q_m^2 + 2 p_n q_m}\right)
201: \end{equation}
202: \begin{eqnarray}
203: && \hspace{-0.5in} b_n = - \frac{\Delta (p_n^2 + \eta_3^2 - \eta_2^2)}{4 \pi^2 p_n D_{l0}(\eta_2,\eta_3,p_n)} \sum_{m = N_{mid}+1}^{N_{max}} \left[ \ln\left(\frac{\eta_3^2 + 2 p_n^2 + 2 q_m^2 + 2 p_n q_m}{\eta_3^2 + 2 p_n^2 + 2 q_m^2 + 2 p_n q_m}\right) \right. \nonumber
204: \\
205: && \hspace{2in} \left. \times \cos\left( s_0 \ln\left(\frac{q_m}{\Lambda}\right) + \theta \right) \right]
206: \end{eqnarray}
207:
208: {\bf High-Momentum:} The value of $n$ for $p_n$ ranges from 0 to $N_{max}$, while the value of $m$ for $q_m$ ranges from $-N_{min}$ to $N_{max}$. These are defined as: $p_0 = 10^{-17} \, \Lambda$, $N_{max} = \lceil \ln(10^{18})/\Delta \rceil$, and $N_{min} = \lceil \ln(10^{12})/\Delta \rceil$ .
209:
210: \begin{equation}
211: \sum_{m = 0}^{N_{max}} \left( M_{nm} - I_{nm} \right) \, f_{h0}(p_m) = a_n + \delta_0 \, b_n
212: \end{equation}
213: \begin{equation}
214: M_{nm} = \frac{q_m p_n^2 \Delta}{2 \pi^2 D_{h0}(p_n,\Lambda)} K(p_n, q_m)
215: \end{equation}
216: \begin{equation}
217: a_n = - \frac{p_n^2 \Delta}{2 \pi^2 D_{h0}(p_n,\Lambda)} \sum_{m = -N_{min}}^{-1} q_m \, K(p_n,q_m) \cos\left( s_0 \ln\left(\frac{q_m}{\Lambda}\right) + \theta \right)
218: \end{equation}
219: \begin{equation}
220: b_n = \frac{p_n^2 D_{1h0}(p_n,\Lambda)}{\Lambda^2 G_{2,0} D_{h0}(p_n,\Lambda)}
221: \end{equation}
222: \begin{eqnarray}
223: K(p_n, q_m) & = & \frac{\Delta}{2 \Lambda^2} \sum_{k = -200}^{200} \left[ (1 - z_k^2) \left( 1 + h_2 \left( \frac{q_m^2}{\Lambda^2} + \frac{q_m p_n z_k}{\Lambda^2} + \frac{p_n^2}{4 \Lambda^2} \right)\right) \right. \nonumber
224: \\
225: && \times \left( 1 + h_2 \left( \frac{p_n^2}{\Lambda^2} + \frac{q_m p_n z_k}{\Lambda^2} + \frac{q_m^2}{4 \Lambda^2} \right)\right) \nonumber
226: \\
227: && \left. \times \frac{\exp\left( -(5 p_n^2 + 8 p_n q_m z_k + 5 q_m^2)/(4 \Lambda^2) \right)}{2\left( p_n^2/\Lambda^2 + q_m^2/\Lambda^2 + p_n q_m z_k/\Lambda^2 \right)} \right]
228: \end{eqnarray}
229: \begin{equation}
230: z_k = \frac{\me^{0.2 \, k} - 1}{\me^{0.2 \, k} + 1}
231: \end{equation}