Free energy from forward scattering in 1+1d

A reconsideration of the DMB approach [1, 4, 5, 6], as well as related approaches to calculating the self-energy and higher correlation functions [7, 8, 9, 10], may ultimately be useful for extracting information on multi-particle scattering amplitudes from lattice simulations. Note that in 1+1d the free energy may alternatively be understood as a calculation of the ground state energy as a function of finite volume $L$. A better understanding of how to relate non-integrable scattering data to the energy levels as a function of $L$ is relevant for the effective theory of Yang-Mills flux tubes [11, 12, 13]. There has been great success in using the TBA to relate the two-body S-matrix on the worldsheet of the flux tube to lattice calculations of the energy levels of the flux tube as a function of $L$ [14, 15]. Even so, it is understood that the worldsheet theory for both 3D and 4D Yang-Mills is not actually integrable [16, 17].

There is an alternate approach due to Lüscher [18, 19] which is well-known in this context, and which can be applied to the two-body energy levels in non-integrable systems. As will be explained below, the present investigation is an extension of the infinite volume limit of the Lüscher formula to multi-particle scattering states (see also [20]). This is not yet directly applicable to the effective string theory program since we are dealing with massive particles, but it is clearly of value to better understand how multi-particle scattering affects the finite size dependence of the energy levels in a simple case.

The Lüscher formula in two dimensions is essentially the same thing as the two-particle asymptotic Bethe ansatz (ABA)

$\displaystyle 2\pi in=ik_{n}L+2\log S(k_{n}),$

(1.2)

where $n$ is an integer specifying the energy level¹¹1Since the equation is written only in terms of the relative momentum, $n$ varies in steps of $2$ for fixed center of mass momentum., $k_{n}$ is the relative momenta between the particles, and $S(k_{n})$ is the two-body S-matrix. Strictly speaking this formula is valid for massive particles in the limit of large $mL$, and any additional terms which vanish in this limit are suppressed in this section. Since the energy levels are closely spaced in this limit, it makes sense to instead consider the density of two-particle states $\rho_{(2)}$,

$\displaystyle\rho_{(2)}(E)=\left(\frac{dE}{dk}\right)^{-1}\frac{1}{k_{n+2}-k_{n}}=\frac{L}{4\pi}\left(\frac{dE}{dk}\right)^{-1}+\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dE}\log S(E).$

Here we are taking fixed center of mass momentum, so that the total energy $E$ is a single-variable function of the relative momentum $k$, and the two body S-matrix is rewritten in terms of $E$. The first term is just the density of two-particle states in the non-interacting theory, and the remaining term $\delta\rho_{(2)}$ is

$\displaystyle\delta\rho_{(2)}(E)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dE}\log S(E).$

(1.3)

This formula was originally derived in ordinary quantum mechanics by Beth and Uhlenbeck [3].

Of course, the density of states also has contributions from states with more than two particles. For integrable systems we may continue to use the ABA in order to calculate the density of states [21]. But such an approach is not directly applicable to non-integrable systems.

Instead we can extend the Beth-Uhlenbeck formula following DMB [1]. The DMB formula (1.1) is superficially identical to the Beth-Uhlenbeck formula, but as will be discussed further in Sec 2 the operator $\hat{S}(E)$ is an S-matrix operator that may be applied to arbitrary multiparticle states, and the $E$ argument need not be equal to the energy of the states involved in the trace.

To see roughly how (1.1) is to be interpreted, write the non-trivial part of the S-matrix operator as usual in terms of a T-matrix operator with an energy delta function factored out,

$\displaystyle\hat{S}(E)=1-2\pi i\delta(E-H_{0})\hat{T}(E).$

(1.4)

The factor $\log\hat{S}(E)$ may be expanded to first order in powers of $\hat{T}$, and after integrating by parts in $E$ the partition function may be written as

$\displaystyle\delta Z$

$\displaystyle=-\beta\int d\alpha\,e^{-\beta E_{\alpha}}T_{\alpha\alpha}+\mathcal{O}\!\left(T^{2}\right).$

Here the trace was taken over eigenstates $\alpha$ of $H_{0}$ with energy $E_{\alpha}$, and $d\alpha$ schematically represents the appropriate measure for the trace. $T_{\alpha\alpha}$ is the forward scattering amplitude with both an incoming and outgoing state of $\alpha$. As usual, we may consider instead the connected part of the T-matrix, $T^{c}$, and the free energy density²²2We use $L$ for spatial volume, although the following formulas apply to arbitrary dimension. $f=-(\beta L)^{-1}\log Z$,

$\displaystyle\delta f=L^{-1}\int d\alpha\,e^{-\beta E_{\alpha}}T^{c}_{\alpha\alpha}+\mathcal{O}\!\left(T^{2}\right).$

(1.5)

Here already we see a potential issue. A connected T-matrix amplitude $T^{c}_{\beta\alpha}$ may involve various delta functions, and in the forward scattering limit $\beta=\alpha$ the argument of these delta functions may go to zero. One delta function will just be due to momentum conservation and it will lead to an overall factor of $L$ to cancel the $L^{-1}$ in (1.5). But additional delta functions may arise from internal propagators in scattering amplitudes which can go on-shell.

For instance the lowest-order three-particle scattering amplitude in a relativistic scalar field theory in Fig 1 is just proportional to the internal propagator

$$\frac{1}{(E_{1}+E_{2}-E_{1}^{\prime})^{2}-(k_{1}+k_{2}-k_{1}^{\prime})^{2}-m^{2}+i\epsilon},$$

where the $E$ are on-shell energies $E=\sqrt{k^{2}+m^{2}}$ associated to the spatial momentum $k$ of a given external leg. This propagator goes on-shell when $k_{1}^{\prime}$ equals $k_{1}$ or $k_{2}$. The propagator can be broken into a real principal part, and an imaginary delta function. These delta functions can not be ignored and in fact for integrable models they are necessary to ensure that the set of final momenta are equal to the initial ones (see the discussion in [22]). So the forward scattering amplitude $T^{c}_{\alpha\alpha}$ will certainly involve delta functions with a vanishing argument, and these forward scattering singularities need to be interpreted for the DMB formula to make sense.

As we will show perturbatively in Sec 2.4, this issue is resolved by including the higher order powers of $T$ in the expansion in (1.5). The delta function parts of the internal propagators in diagrams like Fig 1 are canceled, and only the principal part remains. This introduces some new questions since for three-particle scattering in integrable theories the principal part is taken to vanish. Nevertheless we will show that there are two subtle types of contributions to the free energy due to the principal part: on-shell contributions and collinear contributions.

On-shell contributions are due to forward scattering diagrams that would have had an on-shell divergence, such as Fig 1 with $k_{1}^{\prime}$ taken to be $k_{1}$ or $k_{2}$. The principal part of the internal propagator vanishes exactly on-shell, but it is large slightly off-shell, and the slightly off-shell region will contribute since the energy delta function involved in the S-matrix operator (1.4) actually has a width that depends on $i\epsilon$.

The calculation of the on-shell contributions has previously been discussed to a certain extent for the scattering of three or four particles [4, 5], as well as more generally using a different approach [6]. In section 4 we give an arguably simpler calculation of the on-shell contributions for an arbitrary number of particles in relativistic theories from both the thermal field theory and DMB perspectives.

Besides the on-shell contributions, there are also collinear contributions which appear at lowest order due to forward scattering diagrams such as Fig 1 with $k_{1}^{\prime}=k_{3}$, so that the internal propagator need not be on-shell. If $k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}$ are all distinct then the principal part vanishes as per the usual argument. But since we are integrating over all momentum in the DMB formula, we need to consider the cases where the particle momenta become collinear. It turns out that the principal part doesn’t vanish in a small $i\epsilon$ dependent region around the collinear point $k_{1}=k_{2}=k_{3}$, and this is actually a significant contribution to the free energy.

In the $\phi^{4}$ theory there are two free energy diagrams at second order in the thermal field theory approach, which may be called the bubble and melon diagrams (see Fig 4). We will show that the melon diagram in 1+1d is entirely the result of collinear contributions. Note that the massive [23, 24] and massless [25] $\phi^{4}$ theory have been investigated before in 3+1d via the DMB approach and the related approach of Barton [26], but the essential features of the 1+1d case were not seen. The 1+1d melon diagram is calculated in Sec 3.3 and compared to a perturbative expansion of the TBA in Sec 5.1. In Sec 5.2 it is shown how these collinear contributions are necessary in perturbation theory since there are bound state contributions to the free energy upon flipping the sign of the coupling constant.

A brief outline of this paper is as follows. In Sec 2 we will review the general derivation of the DMB formula and apply it to integrable models involving a single massive scalar such as sinh-Gordon. In Sec 3 we consider sinh-Gordon and the non-integrable $\phi^{4}$ theory at second order in perturbation theory, and show how free energy diagrams in the thermal field theory approach are connected to two- or three-body forward scattering diagrams in the DMB approach.

In Sec 4 diagrams involving only on-shell contributions are calculated at arbitrary order in perturbation theory, and it is shown how these give the leading contribution to the free energy for the large $N$ extension of the $\phi^{4}$ model. In Sec 5 we investigate the treatment of bound states in the DMB approach by considering the non-relativistic Lieb-Liniger model with attractive coupling. We show how the collinear contributions at repulsive coupling are related to the contributions due to bound states for attractive coupling. In Sec 6 we discuss future investigations into the DMB approach.

First let us review some material from scattering theory. The Lippmann-Schwinger equation expresses the in and out eigenstates $\Psi^{\pm}$ of the Hamiltonian $H=H_{0}+V$ in terms of the eigenstates $\Phi$ of $H_{0}$ with the same eigenvalue $E$,

$\displaystyle\Psi^{\pm}=\Phi+\frac{1}{E-H_{0}\pm i\epsilon}V\Psi^{\pm}.$

(2.1)

This can be written in terms of a quantity $G_{0}$ that is usually referred to as the propagator in this context,

$\displaystyle G_{0}(E)\equiv\frac{1}{E-H_{0}+i\epsilon}.$

(2.2)

An interacting propagator $G$ may also be defined,

$\displaystyle G(E)\equiv\frac{1}{E-H+i\epsilon}=\frac{1}{1-G_{0}(E)V}G_{0}(E).$

(2.3)

Now we can define a $T$-matrix operator so that the Lippmann-Schwinger equation can be written as $V\Psi^{+}=\hat{T}(E)\Phi$,

$\displaystyle\hat{T}(E)\equiv V\frac{1}{1-G_{0}(E)V}.$

(2.4)

An $S$-matrix operator may also be defined in terms of $T$,

	$\displaystyle\hat{S}(E)$	$\displaystyle\equiv 1+\left(G_{0}(E)-G_{0}(E)^{\dagger}\right)\hat{T}(E)$		(2.5)
		$\displaystyle=\left(1-G_{0}(E)^{\dagger}V\right)\left(1-G_{0}(E)V\right)^{-1}$		(2.6)

The first line is just the usual relation between $S$ and $T$ since $G_{0}-G_{0}^{\dagger}\rightarrow-2\pi i\delta(E-H_{0})$ in the $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ limit.

The $\hat{S}(E)$ operator is defined even outside the usual limits in which scattering theory applies, but in order to interpret it as the usual $S$-matrix it must be acting on an $H_{0}$ eigenstate $\Phi$ with the same eigenvalue $E$ as its argument, and the infinite volume and $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ limits must be taken. Keeping these caveats in mind, we will suppress the $E$ argument except when necessary.

Now the DMB formula follows from some simple manipulations using the formulas above and the fact that $\frac{\partial}{\partial E}G_{0}(E)=-G_{0}(E)^{2}$.

	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dE}\text{Tr}\log\hat{S}$	$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dE}\text{Tr}\left[\log\left(1-G_{0}^{\dagger}V\right)-\log\left(1-G_{0}V\right)\right]$
		$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\text{Tr}\left[\frac{\left(G_{0}^{\dagger}\right)^{2}V}{1-G_{0}^{\dagger}V}-\frac{G_{0}^{2}V}{1-G_{0}V}\right]$
		$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\text{Tr}\left[\left(\frac{1}{1-G_{0}^{\dagger}V}-1\right)G_{0}^{\dagger}-\left(\frac{1}{1-G_{0}V}-1\right)G_{0}\right]$
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\text{Tr}\left[\left(G-G^{\dagger}\right)-\left(G_{0}-G_{0}^{\dagger}\right)\right]$
		$\displaystyle=\text{Tr}\left[\delta(E-H)-\delta(E-H_{0})\right],$		(2.7)

where the last line holds in the $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ limit. This is now in the form of the difference between the density of states $\rho(E)-\rho^{(0)}(E)$ as required in the DMB formula (1.1).

In situations where there is a conserved particle number $N$ in both the free and interacting theories it further makes sense to introduce a chemical potential $\mu$ and corresponding fugacity $y\equiv e^{\beta\mu}$, in terms of which the grand canonical partition function is

$\displaystyle\delta Z=\sum_{N=2}^{\infty}y^{N}\int dEe^{-\beta E}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dE}\text{Tr}_{(N)}\log\hat{S}.$

(2.8)

In what follows fugacity dependence will be used as a counting device to single out the trace over $N$-particle states $\text{Tr}_{(N)}$, and we will set $y=1$ at the end. In the theories of massive particles considered here the term in the partition function proportional to $y^{N}$ will have an asymptotic temperature dependence on the order of $\sim e^{-N\beta m}$. So the fugacity expansion may equivalently be understood as a low temperature expansion in powers of $e^{-\beta m}$.

We will use a notation where a subscript in parenthesis denotes the order in the fugacity expansion. On the other hand, a superscript in parentheses denotes the order in a coupling constant ($c$ or $g^{2}$) expansion, and a $\delta$ prefix denotes the difference of a quantity from the free theory. Later on we will introduce an $n$-body expansion that takes into account particle statistics, and this will be indexed by a subscript without parentheses.

It should be clear that the DMB formula above is quite general since it simply follows from the definitions of the operators $\hat{T}$ and $\hat{S}$, but to illustrate it in practice we consider the sinh-Gordon model (SG) [28], with Lagrangian

$\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{SG}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial\phi\right)^{2}+\frac{\left(m^{2}+\delta m^{2}\right)}{g^{2}}\left(\cosh\left(g\phi\right)-1\right).$

(2.9)

Here $\delta m^{2}$ is a counterterm set to ensure that $m$ is the physical mass.

In many respects the non-relativistic limit of SG may be understood to be the Lieb-Liniger model (LL) [27], which involves bosons in ordinary quantum mechanics interacting through a repulsive two-body delta function potential

$$V_{LL}(x)=\frac{c}{m}\delta(x).$$

The parameter $g$ in the SG Lagrangian is related to the parameter $c$ by

$\displaystyle c=m\sin\frac{\pi g^{2}}{8\pi+g^{2}}=\frac{mg^{2}}{8}-\frac{mg^{4}}{64\pi}+\mathcal{O}\!\left(g^{6}\right).$

(2.10)

Both SG and LL are integrable and the exact two-body S-matrix is given by

$\displaystyle S(p)=\frac{p-ic}{p+ic}.$

(2.11)

In LL, $p$ is taken to be the momentum difference between the particles, whereas in SG, $p=m\sinh\theta$ with $\theta$ being the rapidity difference.

Since both models involve a single particle type with no internal indices and no bound states, the TBA takes the simplest possible form (see [32] for a review). The free energy density $f$ is calculated as

$\displaystyle f=-T\int\frac{dp}{2\pi}\log\left(1+e^{-\epsilon(p)/T}\right)$

(2.12)

where the pseudo-energy $\epsilon$ is determined by solving the TBA equation

$\displaystyle\epsilon=E-\mu-T\log\left(1+e^{-\epsilon/T}\right)\star K.$

(2.13)

Here $E$ is the single particle dispersion relation, and the $\star$ denotes convolution³³3The convolution is taken over the rapidity variable and the momentum variable in SG and LL, respectively.

$$f\star g(\theta)\equiv\int d\theta^{\prime}f(\theta^{\prime})g(\theta-\theta^{\prime}).$$

$K$ is a kernel that is derived from the exact S-matrix. The kernels for LL and SG are respectively,

	$$\displaystyle K_{LL}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dp}\log S(p)=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{c}{p^{2}+c^{2}},$$		(2.14)
	$$\displaystyle K_{SG}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{d\theta}\log S\left(m\sinh\theta\right)=m\cosh\theta K_{LL}.$$		(2.15)

The formal similarity of the kernels to the DMB formula for the density of states is not an accident, since both approaches will reduce to the Beth-Uhlenbeck formula (1.3) in the two-particle limit, as shown in the section below.

Since SG and LL are integrable and only involve one species of particle, this implies that arbitrary multiparticle states $\alpha$ in the momentum basis are eigenstates of the S-matrix operator

$$\hat{S}(E_{\alpha})|\alpha\rangle=S(\alpha)|\alpha\rangle.$$

Here $\hat{S}$ refers to the operator appearing in the DMB formula, and $S(\alpha)$ is a complex eigenvalue which ends up being factorizable into two-body S-matrices.

The normalization of the eigenstates is fixed to be compatible with the measure in the sense that $\langle\alpha|\beta\rangle$ acts like a delta function,

$$\int d\alpha\langle\alpha|\beta\rangle f(\alpha)=f(\beta).$$

Now let us use these eigenstates as the basis for the trace in the DMB formula,

	$\displaystyle\delta Z$	$\displaystyle=\frac{\beta}{2\pi i}\int dEe^{-\beta E}\text{Tr}\log\hat{S}(E)$
		$\displaystyle=-\frac{\beta}{2\pi i}\sum_{k=1}\frac{1}{k}\int dEe^{-\beta E}\int d\alpha\langle\alpha|\left(2\pi i\delta(E-H_{0})\hat{T}(E)\right)^{k}|\alpha\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=-{\beta}\sum_{k=1}\frac{1}{k}\int d\alpha\,e^{-\beta E_{\alpha}}\langle\alpha|\hat{T}(E_{\alpha})\left(2\pi i\delta(E_{\alpha}-H_{0})\hat{T}(E_{\alpha})\right)^{k-1}|\alpha\rangle.$		(2.16)

Here the last step of using one delta function to evaluate the $E$ integral is somewhat questionable since the delta function is really $G_{0}-G_{0}^{\dagger}$ for finite $i\epsilon$, and there may be problems with the vanishing $i\epsilon$ limit in the T-matrix amplitudes. But for now let us proceed. This may be evaluated further by inserting an integration over a complete set of states between each $\delta(E-H_{0})T$, and using the idea that

$\displaystyle\langle\beta|2\pi i\delta(E_{\alpha}-E_{\beta})\hat{T}(E_{\alpha})|\alpha\rangle=\left(1-S(\alpha)\right)\langle\beta|\alpha\rangle.$

(2.17)

The result is

	$\displaystyle\delta Z$	$\displaystyle=-\beta\sum_{k=1}\frac{1}{k}\int d\alpha d\beta_{1}\dots d\beta_{k-1}\,e^{-\beta E_{\alpha}}\langle\alpha|\hat{T}(E_{\alpha})|\beta_{1}\rangle\dots\langle\beta_{k-1}|2\pi i\delta(E_{\alpha}-E_{k-1})\hat{T}(E_{\alpha})|\alpha\rangle$
		$\displaystyle=\beta\int d{\alpha}\,e^{-\beta E_{\alpha}}\left(\frac{T(\alpha)}{1-S(\alpha)}\right)\log S(\alpha),$		(2.18)

where $T(\alpha)\equiv\langle\alpha|\hat{T}(E_{\alpha})|\alpha\rangle$ is the on-shell forward scattering T-matrix. Note that considering (2.17), $T(\alpha)$ appears to be proportional to $1-S(\alpha)$ and the factor in parenthesis in (2.18) appears to just be a kinematic factor.

This formula is able to reproduce the correct free energy for two-particle states. A quick way to see this is to use a normalization of two-particle states such that $d\alpha=dEdP$ with $E$ and $P$ being the total energy and momentum. If it is valid to cancel the energy delta function from both sides of (2.17) then we can calculate $T$,

$\displaystyle 2\pi iT(\alpha)=\left(1-S(\alpha)\right)\frac{L}{2\pi}.$

Then after integrating by parts, and rewriting in terms of the two-particle free energy density $f_{(2)}$, (2.18) becomes

$\displaystyle\delta f_{(2)}=-\frac{T}{2\pi}\int dPdEe^{-\beta E}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{\partial}{\partial E}\left.\log S(\alpha)\right|_{P}.$

(2.19)

This is just the Beth-Uhlenbeck formula (1.3) with the center of mass motion taken into account.

To write it more explicitly in SG, transform the integration measure to rapidity variables and use the kinematic relation $E^{2}=P^{2}+4m^{2}\cosh^{2}\theta$ to rewrite the $E$ derivative as a $\theta$ derivative,

$\displaystyle\delta f_{(2)}=-\frac{T}{2\pi}\frac{1}{2!}\int d\theta_{1}d\theta_{2}Ee^{-\beta E}\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}\log S(\theta)=-T\int\frac{dp_{1}}{2\pi}e^{-\beta E_{1}}\int d\theta_{2}e^{-\beta E_{2}}K_{SG}(\theta).$

(2.20)

In the last equality this has been written in terms of a convolution integral over the SG kernel (2.15), and it is a short step to see agreement with the TBA.

According to the formula for the grand canonical partition function (2.8), the above expression should match the $\mathcal{O}\!\left(y^{2}\right)$ term in a fugacity expansion of free energy density (2.13). This expansion may be carried out by expanding the pseudo-energy $\epsilon$ in powers of $y$ and solving the TBA equation (2.13) at each order. The result is

$\displaystyle\delta f_{(2)}=\left(f-f^{(0)}\right)_{(2)}$

$\displaystyle=-T\int\frac{dp}{2\pi}e^{-\beta E}\left(e^{-\beta E}\star\delta K\right).$

(2.21)

Here we have subtracted off the the free energy density of a free boson gas,

$\displaystyle f^{(0)}=+T\int\frac{dp}{2\pi}\log\left(1-e^{-\beta E}\right),$

(2.22)

and $\delta K$ is the interacting part of the kernel,

$\displaystyle\delta K_{LL}(p)\equiv K_{LL}(p)-\delta(p),\qquad\delta K_{SG}=m\cosh\theta\,\delta K_{LL}.$

(2.23)

Clearly the TBA result (2.21) matches the corresponding DMB result for SG (2.20), and a similar agreement may be seen for the LL model. Agreement of the DMB formula with the TBA at $\mathcal{O}\!\left(y^{2}\right)$ has also been noted for the $O(N)$ model [29].

Now we would like to apply the seemingly general formula (2.18) to the scattering of three or more particles, but it is difficult to see how this could succeed. If $T/(1-S)$ is still just a kinematic factor, then since $S$ is factorizable into two-body S-matrices the $\log S$ factor just breaks up into a disconnected sum. In fact we were too cavalier in the treatment of the $i\epsilon$ terms in the derivation of (2.18), and the contribution due to multi-particle scattering depends sensitively on this.

The contribution to the free energy due to three-particle scattering may be investigated by expanding the TBA to the third order in fugacity,

	$\displaystyle\delta f_{(3)}$	$\displaystyle=-T\int\frac{dp}{2\pi}e^{-\beta E}\left[e^{-\beta E}\left(e^{-\beta E}\star\delta K\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{-2\beta E}\star\delta K\right)\right]$
		$\displaystyle\qquad-T\int\frac{dp}{2\pi}e^{-\beta E}\left[\left(e^{-\beta E}\left(e^{-\beta E}\star\delta K\right)\right)\star\delta K+\frac{1}{2}\left(e^{-\beta E}\star\delta K\right)^{2}\right].$		(2.24)

This expression has also been derived by Kato and Wadati using an approach based on the asymptotic Bethe ansatz (ABA) [21].

As will be discussed more at the end of Sec 3.1, the first line of (2.24) involving a single appearance of $\delta K$ is better understood as a correction to the two-body contribution (2.21) due to particle exchange. The two-body contribution $\delta f_{2}$ to all orders in fugacity is

$\displaystyle\delta f_{2}=+T\int\frac{dp}{2\pi}\frac{1}{e^{\beta E}-1}\left[\log\left(1-e^{-\beta E}\right)\star\delta K\right].$

(2.25)