# Integral manipulation and Lagrangian simplification

+ 1 like - 0 dislike
54 views

I'm trying to work out some expressions from [this paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02770), namely expression (4) from (11) and (10).

Consider the Lagrangian

\mathcal{L}(M,W,\lambda) = g^2\left(1+\pi W(m^2)\right)+\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}ds\, \Im{\left[W(s)M(s)\right]}\tag{1}

Using the fact that

W(s) = \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}dz \,\frac{\omega(z)}{s-z+i0}-\frac{\omega(z)}{4m^2-s-z+i0}\tag{2}

and the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem,

\frac{1}{s-z\pm i0}= \mp i\pi \delta(s-z)+\mathcal{P}\frac{1}{(s-z)}\tag{3}

I am trying to prove that (1) is equivalent to

\mathcal{L}(M,\omega,\lambda) = g^2+\int_{m^2}^{\infty}ds\,\omega(s)\mathcal{A}(s)\tag{4}

where

\mathcal{A}(s) = M(s)-\left(M_{\infty}-\frac{g^2}{s-m^2}+\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}\frac{dz}{\pi}\, \frac{\Im{[M(z)]}}{s-z+i0}+\frac{\Im{[M(z)]}}{4-s-z+i0}\right)\tag{5}

**My attempt**

First, using the second to last equation in the Appendix B.1 of the paper,

W(z) = \frac{1}{\pi}\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}ds\, \Im{ [W(s)]}\left(\frac{1}{s-z}-\frac{1}{s-t(z)}\right)\tag{6}

where $t(z) = 4-z$ and $\Im{[W(s)]} = \omega(s)$ for $s > 4m^2$:

\begin{split}
g^2\pi W(m^2) &= g^2\pi \times\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}ds\,\omega(s)\left(\frac{1}{s-m^2}+\frac{1}{4-s-m^2}\right)\\
&= -\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}ds\,\omega(s)\left(-\frac{g^2}{s-m^2}-\frac{g^2}{4-s-m^2}\right)
\end{split}

For the integral, using $\Im{[M(s)\times W(s)]} = \Im{[M(s)]}\Re{[W(s)]}+\Re{[M(s)]}\Im{[W(s)]}$

\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}ds\, \Im{\left[W(s)M(s)\right]} = \int_{4m^2}^{\infty}ds\,\Im{[M(s)]}\left(W(s)-2i\Im{[W(s)]}\right)+\,\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}ds \Im{[W(s)]}M(s)

The second integral can be identified with

\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}ds \Im{[W(s)]}M(s) = \int_{4m^2}^{\infty}ds \, \omega(s)M(s)

On the other hand,

\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}ds\,\Im{[M(s)]}W(s) = \int_{4m^2}^{\infty}\omega(s)\int_{4m^2}^{\infty}\frac{dz}{\pi}\, \frac{\Im{[M(z)]}}{s-z+i0}-\frac{\Im{[M(z)]}}{4-s-z+i0}

where eq. (2) and a Dirac-delta were used.

**Questions**

- I tried using the aforementioned theorem to simplify the remaining of the expression, but to no avail. A Cauchy principal value appears which I am not being able to deal with;
- How is it that eqs. (2) and (6) match? I tried to simplify one of them, but I could not show that they were the same expression.

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysi$\varnothing$sOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.