This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Asymptotic property of current for a conduction model of
Fermi particles on finite lattice

Yamaga Kazuki
Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a conduction model of Fermi particles on a finite sample, and investigate the asymptotic behavior of stationary current for large sample size. In our model a sample is described by a one-dimensional finite lattice on which Fermi particles injected at both ends move under various potentials and noise from the environment. We obtain a simple current formula. The formula has broad applicability and is used to study various potentials. When the noise is absent, it provides the asymptotic behavior of the current in terms of a transfer matrix. In particular, for dynamically defined potential cases, a relation between exponential decay of the current and the Lyapunov exponent of a relevant transfer matrix is obtained. For example, it is shown that the current decays exponentially for the Anderson model. On the other hand, when the noise exists but the potential does not, an explicit form of the current is obtained, which scales as 1/N1/N for large sample size NN. Moreover, we provide an extension to higher dimensional systems. For a three-dimensional case, it is shown that the current increases in proportion to cross section and decreases in inverse proportion to the length of the sample.

1 Introduction

A unified theory for nonequilibrium systems is still lacking, while statistical mechanics for equilibrium systems well-connects the microscopic and macroscopic world. This occurs mainly owing to the existence of various states in nonequilibrium systems. Therefore, it is important to consider a specific, physically interesting subclass of nonequilibrium states. Nonequilibrium stationary state induced by multiple thermal and particle reservoirs should be an important class, which has been studied for a long time [1, 2, 3]. For example, [4] considers electric conduction in mesoscopic systems as a problem of nonequilibrium stationary states of many body Fermi particle systems and derives the Landauer formula. In [5], the problem of how the structure of a sample between reservoirs determines the property of current is studied, and the equivalence of a ballistic transport and the existence of absolutely continuous spectrum is confirmed. Thus, if the absolutely continuous spectrum is empty, current goes to 0 in the limit taking the sample size infinite. There are many physically important models that do not have absolutely continuous spectrum such as the Anderson model and the Fibonacci Hamiltonian, which is considered as the one-dimensional model of a quasi-crystal. While the result is important, because the real sample size is finite, it is interesting to investigate the scaling of convergence. The scaling behavior depends on the sample structure. This problem has not been solved yet by the authors of [5, 6]. In their model, a sample is connected to infinitely extended reservoirs at its ends; thus mathematical tools such as operator algebra and scattering theory are used.

This study clarifies the problem of ’the scaling of the current’ by introducing a simple finite dimensional conduction model. We focus on a sample described by a finite lattice on which many-body noninteracting Fermi particles are moving under various potentials and certain noise called dephasing noise from the environment. The exchange of particles between a sample and reservoirs is performed at the ends of the sample. See figure 1. This effect is described by a Lindblad-type generator. Because our model does not have an infinite part, the entire analysis is performed within linear algebra. The same model has already been studied in [7, 8]. The difference is that we solve the time evolution using the approach of [9]. The following simple current formula is obtained,

𝒥β(N)=4(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)0e1,Ts(pN)e1𝑑s\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N)=4(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha^{r}_{out}-\alpha^{l}_{out}\alpha_{in}^{r})\int^{\infty}_{0}\langle e_{1},T_{s}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle ds

where (αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha^{r}_{out}-\alpha^{l}_{out}\alpha_{in}^{r}) is a term determined by the strength of interaction at the both ends, and the integral is related with a two-point function which can be evaluated rigorously in various models. This formula can be applied to a wide class, which allows various types of potentials. Based on this formula, we consider how the scaling of the current is determined by potentials and noise.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: conduction model of Fermi particles on finite lattice

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we introduce a conduction model of Fermi particles on a one-dimensional lattice. By solving the time evolution of the two-point function, we show that it converges to a constant in the long time limit. In particular, as the current is described by a two-point function, we obtain a simple current formula described above. In section 3, we consider the asymptotic behavior of the current for large sample size, using the above formula. We first consider the noiseless case in subsection 3.1 and show that the current formula can be evaluated in terms of transfer matrix. This result shows that both our model and the model in [5] give the same prediction for the asymptotic property of the current. In addition, in case of dynamically defined potential, such as the Anderson model and the Fibonacci Hamiltonian, the scaling of the asymptotic behavior is shown to be related with the Lyapunov exponent. In subsection 3.2, we introduce the noise called dephasing noise. We obtain an explicit form of the current if the potential is absent. The current decays scales as 1/N1/N. This result coincides with that of [8], which takes a different approach from ours. The scaling of the current for general potentials is not obtained yet. But, it is shown that for strong noise the main term of current decays as 1/N1/N, and the current may increase by adding strong noise to random systems. Section 4 is devoted to the generalization to higher dimensional systems. The same formula as the one-dimensional system is obtained. If the noise exists and potential is absent, it is shown that the current increases in proportion to cross section and decreases in inverse proportion to the length of the sample. In the last section, we provide conclusions and discuss the related studies.

2 Conduction model of Fermi particles on a one-dimensional finite lattice

In this section, we introduce a conduction model of noninteracting Fermi particles on a one-dimensional finite lattice. First we consider the dynamics of a two-point function and its long time limit (2.1). Then in 2.2, we focus on current and obtain a simple current formula (Theorem 2.2).

2.1 dynamics

Let us consider a many body system of Fermi particles moving under various potentials and noise on a one-dimensional finite lattice [1,N][1,N]\cap\mathbb{Z} (NN\in\mathbb{N}). The one-particle Hilbert space is N\mathbb{C}^{N}. Denote its standard basis by {en}n=1N\{e_{n}\}_{n=1}^{N}. The many body system is described by the creation and annihilation operators a(f),a(f)a^{*}(f),a(f), where fNf\in\mathbb{C}^{N}. Let us write an#a^{\#}_{n} for a#(en)a^{\#}(e_{n}) as usual (a#a^{\#} is aa^{*} or aa). These operators satisfy the following canonical anti-commutation relations:

{ai,aj}=δijI,{ai,aj}=0,\{a^{*}_{i},a_{j}\}=\delta_{ij}I,\hskip 10.0pt\{a_{i},a_{j}\}=0,

where {A,B}=AB+BA\{A,B\}=AB+BA, δij\delta_{ij} is the Kronecker delta and II is the identity operator on N\mathbb{C}^{N}. In the sequel, we write shortly c×Ic\times I as cc (cc\in\mathbb{C}). Suppose that the total Hamiltonian is

H=n=1N1[(anan+1+an+1an)+v(n)anan],H=\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\left[-(a_{n}^{*}a_{n+1}+a_{n+1}^{*}a_{n})+v(n)a^{*}_{n}a_{n}\right],

where v()v(\cdot) is a real-valued function called potential. Since we will consider the limit NN\to\infty, potential vv is given as a bounded function on \mathbb{N}. Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be the algebra generated by the creation and annihilation operators, and θ:𝒜𝒜\theta\colon\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{A} be a *-automorphism determined by θ(an#)=an#\theta(a_{n}^{\#})=-a_{n}^{\#}.

For real numbers αinl,αoutl,αinr,αoutr,β\alpha_{in}^{l},\alpha_{out}^{l},\alpha_{in}^{r},\alpha_{out}^{r},\beta greater than or equal to 0 (at least one of αinl,αoutl,αinr,αoutr\alpha_{in}^{l},\alpha_{out}^{l},\alpha_{in}^{r},\alpha_{out}^{r} is not 0), define a linear map L:𝒜𝒜L\colon\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{A} as

L(A)\displaystyle L(A) =\displaystyle= i[H,A]+\displaystyle i[H,A]+
αinl(2a1θ(A)a1{a1a1,A})+αoutl(2a1θ(A)a1{a1a1,A})\displaystyle\alpha_{in}^{l}(2a_{1}\theta(A)a_{1}^{*}-\{a_{1}a_{1}^{*},A\})+\alpha_{out}^{l}(2a_{1}^{*}\theta(A)a_{1}-\{a_{1}^{*}a_{1},A\})
+αinr(2aNθ(A)aN{aNaN,A})+αoutr(2aNθ(A)aN{aNaN,A})\displaystyle+\alpha_{in}^{r}(2a_{N}\theta(A)a_{N}^{*}-\{a_{N}a_{N}^{*},A\})+\alpha_{out}^{r}(2a_{N}^{*}\theta(A)a_{N}-\{a_{N}^{*}a_{N},A\})
+βn=1N(ananAanan12{anan,A}).\displaystyle+\beta\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left(a^{*}_{n}a_{n}Aa^{*}_{n}a_{n}-\frac{1}{2}\{a^{*}_{n}a_{n},A\}\right).

Here, [H,A]=HAAH[H,A]=HA-AH.

It is obvious from the form of each term that LL generates a Quantum Dynamical Semigroup {etL}t0\{e^{tL}\}_{t\geq 0} on 𝒜\mathcal{A} [10]. That is, etLe^{tL} is a CP (completely positive) map preserving identity (state transformation) for every t0t\geq 0. The physical meaning of each term is as follows:

i[H,A]i[H,A]
This term represents the Hamiltonian dynamics of many particles moving independently by a one-particle Hamiltonian

(hψ)(n)=ψ(n+1)ψ(n1)+v(n)ψ(n)(h\psi)(n)=-\psi(n+1)-\psi(n-1)+v(n)\psi(n)

(ψ(0)=ψ(N+1)=0\psi(0)=\psi(N+1)=0). It operates as

i[H,a(f)a(g)]=ia(hf)a(g)ia(f)a(hg).i[H,a^{*}(f)a(g)]=ia^{*}(hf)a(g)-ia^{*}(f)a(hg).

The terms with coefficients αinl,αoutl,αinr,αoutr\alpha_{in}^{l},\alpha_{out}^{l},\alpha_{in}^{r},\alpha_{out}^{r}
These terms represent the effects of adding a particle to site 1, removing from site 1, adding to site NN and removing from site NN, respectively. Put pn=|enen|(n=1,2,,N)p_{n}=|e_{n}\rangle\langle e_{n}|\ (n=1,2,\cdots,N), 1-rank projections corresponding to the basis {en}n=1N\{e_{n}\}_{n=1}^{N}, then these terms operate as

2a1θ(a(f)a(g))a1{a1a1,a(f)a(g)}=a(p1f)a(g)a(f)a(p1g),2a_{1}\theta(a(f)a^{*}(g))a_{1}^{*}-\{a_{1}a_{1}^{*},a(f)a^{*}(g)\}=-a(p_{1}f)a^{*}(g)-a(f)a^{*}(p_{1}g),
2a1θ(a(f)a(g))a1{a1a1,a(f)a(g)}=a(p1f)a(g)a(f)a(p1g)2a_{1}^{*}\theta(a^{*}(f)a(g))a_{1}-\{a_{1}^{*}a_{1},a^{*}(f)a(g)\}=-a^{*}(p_{1}f)a(g)-a^{*}(f)a(p_{1}g)

(replace p1p_{1} by pNp_{N} in the case of NN). The dynamics generated by these terms and i[H,A]i[H,A] is a special case of those in [7, 9].

The term with coefficient β\beta (dephasing noise)
This term represents noise from the environment called dephasing noise. Dephasing noise preserves the number of particles and destroys the coherence. Let us check this property. Denote

Dn(A)=2ananAanan{anan,A}D_{n}(A)=2a^{*}_{n}a_{n}Aa^{*}_{n}a_{n}-\{a^{*}_{n}a_{n},A\}

(n=1,2,,Nn=1,2,\cdots,N), then since DnD_{n} commutes with each other, we have

etn=1NDn=n=1NetDn.e^{t\sum_{n=1}^{N}D_{n}}=\prod_{n=1}^{N}e^{tD_{n}}.

Easy calculation shows that

Dn(aiaj)={0(i=j=n,i,jn)aiaj(otherwise),D_{n}(a^{*}_{i}a_{j})=\begin{cases}0&(i=j=n,\ i,j\neq n)\\ -a^{*}_{i}a_{j}&(\mathrm{otherwise}),\end{cases}
etDn(aiaj)={aiaj(i=j=n,i,jn)etaiaj(otherwise).e^{tD_{n}}(a^{*}_{i}a_{j})=\begin{cases}a^{*}_{i}a_{j}&(i=j=n,\ i,j\neq n)\\ e^{-t}a^{*}_{i}a_{j}&(\mathrm{otherwise}).\end{cases}

Recall that for every state ω\omega on 𝒜\mathcal{A}, its two-point function is described by a positive operator on N\mathbb{C}^{N}: there is an operator R:NNR\colon\mathbb{C}^{N}\to\mathbb{C}^{N} such that 0RI0\leq R\leq I and

ω(aiaj)=ej,Rei.\omega(a^{*}_{i}a_{j})=\langle e_{j},Re_{i}\rangle.

In the one-particle system, define a linear map dn:MN()MN()d_{n}\colon M_{N}(\mathbb{C})\to M_{N}(\mathbb{C}) as

dn(a)=2pnapn{pn,a},aMN()d_{n}(a)=2p_{n}ap_{n}-\{p_{n},a\},\ a\in M_{N}(\mathbb{C})

(MN()M_{N}(\mathbb{C}) is the set of N×NN\times N complex matrices), then

etdn(a)=a+(1et)dn(a).e^{td_{n}}(a)=a+(1-e^{-t})d_{n}(a).

If i=j=ni=j=n or i,jni,j\neq n,

ej,etdn(R)ei=ej,Rei=ω(etDn(aiaj)),\langle e_{j},e^{td_{n}}(R)e_{i}\rangle=\langle e_{j},Re_{i}\rangle=\omega(e^{tD_{n}}(a^{*}_{i}a_{j})),

and if one of i,ji,j is nn,

ej,etdn(R)ei=ej,Rei+(1et)ej,(R)ei=ω(etDn(aiaj)).\langle e_{j},e^{td_{n}}(R)e_{i}\rangle=\langle e_{j},Re_{i}\rangle+(1-e^{-t})\langle e_{j},(-R)e_{i}\rangle=\omega(e^{tD_{n}}(a^{*}_{i}a_{j})).

Therefore, the dynamics of the two-point function is described by n=1Netdn(R)\displaystyle\prod^{N}_{n=1}e^{td_{n}}(R):

ω(etn=1NDn(aiaj))=ω(n=1NetDn(aiaj))=ej,n=1Netdn(R)ei=ej,etn=1Ndn(R)ei.\omega\left(e^{t\sum_{n=1}^{N}D_{n}}(a^{*}_{i}a_{j})\right)=\omega\left(\prod_{n=1}^{N}e^{tD_{n}}(a^{*}_{i}a_{j})\right)=\left\langle e_{j},\prod_{n=1}^{N}e^{td_{n}}(R)e_{i}\right\rangle=\left\langle e_{j},e^{t\sum_{n=1}^{N}d_{n}}(R)e_{i}\right\rangle.

Set d(a)=12n=1Ndn(a)=n=1pnapnad(a)=\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{N}d_{n}(a)=\sum_{n=1}p_{n}ap_{n}-a, then d2=dd^{2}=-d and

etd(a)=a+(1et)d(a)=eta+(1et)n=1Npnapn.e^{td}(a)=a+(1-e^{-t})d(a)=e^{-t}a+(1-e^{-t})\sum_{n=1}^{N}p_{n}ap_{n}.

The pure state |ψψ||\psi\rangle\langle\psi| is transformed to

et|ψψ|+(1et)n=1N|ψ(n)|2pn.e^{-t}|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|+(1-e^{-t})\sum_{n=1}^{N}|\psi(n)|^{2}p_{n}.

Thus, this dynamics destroys the coherence and transform a state to a convex combination of localized states pnp_{n}.

LL consists of the above three types of terms. Stationary current induced by the dynamics etLe^{tL} is the main topic in this paper. From the above discussions it turns out that the dynamics of the two-point function is described by that of the one-particle system. Suppose that the two-point function of the state ωetL\omega\circ e^{tL} is expressed as

ωetL(aiaj)=ej,R(t)ei,\omega\circ e^{tL}(a^{*}_{i}a_{j})=\langle e_{j},R(t)e_{i}\rangle,

then by calculating

ddtωetL(aiaj)=ωetL(L(aiaj)),\frac{d}{dt}\omega\circ e^{tL}(a^{*}_{i}a_{j})=\omega\circ e^{tL}(L(a^{*}_{i}a_{j})),

we obtain the following differential equation for R(t)R(t):

ddtR(t)\displaystyle\frac{d}{dt}R(t) =\displaystyle= i[h,R(t)]{(αinl+αoutl)p1+(αinr+αoutr)pN,R(t)}\displaystyle-i[h,R(t)]-\{(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})p_{1}+(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})p_{N},R(t)\}
+β(n=1NpnR(t)pnR(t))+2αinlp1+2αinrpN,\displaystyle+\beta\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}p_{n}R(t)p_{n}-R(t)\right)+2\alpha_{in}^{l}p_{1}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}p_{N},
R(0)=R.R(0)=R.

It is easy to check that

R(t)=Tt(R)+0tTs(2αinlp1+2αinrpN)𝑑sR(t)=T_{t}(R)+\int^{t}_{0}T_{s}(2\alpha_{in}^{l}p_{1}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}p_{N})ds

is a solution of this equation, where TtT_{t} is an operator semigroup on MN()M_{N}(\mathbb{C}) generated by

l:ai[h,a]{(αinl+αoutl)p1+(αinr+αoutr)pN,a}+β(n=1Npnapna).l\colon a\mapsto-i[h,a]-\{(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})p_{1}+(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})p_{N},a\}+\beta\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N}p_{n}ap_{n}-a\right).

Tt=etlT_{t}=e^{tl} is a CP map which does not preserve identity.

Let us consider the long time limit tt\to\infty. In the case where β=0\beta=0,

Tt(a)=eithDaeithDT_{t}(a)=e^{-ith_{D}}ae^{ith_{D}^{*}}

for

hD=hi(αinl+αoutl)p1i(αinr+αoutr)pN.h_{D}=h-i(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})p_{1}-i(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})p_{N}.

Since the imaginary part of every eigenvalue of hDh_{D} is less than 0, limteithD=0\displaystyle\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{-ith_{D}}=0. Thus, we get

limtR(t)=0Ts(2αinlp1+2αinrpN)𝑑sR.\lim_{t\to\infty}R(t)=\int^{\infty}_{0}T_{s}(2\alpha_{in}^{l}p_{1}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}p_{N})ds\equiv R_{\infty}.

The integral of the right hand side converges, because

0t2t1Ts(2αinlp1+2αinrpN)𝑑s\displaystyle 0\leq\int^{t_{1}}_{t_{2}}T_{s}(2\alpha_{in}^{l}p_{1}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}p_{N})ds \displaystyle\leq t2t1Ts(2(αinl+αoutl)p1+2(αinr+αoutr)pN)𝑑s\displaystyle\int^{t_{1}}_{t_{2}}T_{s}(2(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})p_{1}+2(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})p_{N})ds
=\displaystyle= [Ts(I)]t2t10(t1,t2).\displaystyle\left[T_{s}(I)\right]^{t_{1}}_{t_{2}}\to 0\ (t_{1},t_{2}\to\infty).

Note that RR_{\infty} does not depend on RR. This means that whatever the initial state is, the two-point function converges to the same value ej,Rei\langle e_{j},R_{\infty}e_{i}\rangle. Moreover, it can be shown that every state converges to the quasi free state determined by this two-point function [9].

In the case where β>0\beta>0, we have the same result for the two-point function.

Theorem 2.1.

limtTt=limtetl=0\displaystyle\lim_{t\to\infty}T_{t}=\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{tl}=0.

Proof.

Recall that MN()M_{N}(\mathbb{C}) is a Hilbert space for the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product, a,bHS=Trab\langle a,b\rangle_{HS}=\mathrm{Tr}a^{*}b. Let us decompose the generator of l:MN()MN()l\colon M_{N}(\mathbb{C})\to M_{N}(\mathbb{C}) as l=iXYβZl=-iX-Y-\beta Z for X,Y,Z:MN()MN()X,Y,Z\colon M_{N}(\mathbb{C})\to M_{N}(\mathbb{C}) defined as

Xa=[h,a]Xa=[h,a]
Ya={(αinl+αoutl)p1+(αinr+αoutr)pN,a}Ya=\{(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})p_{1}+(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})p_{N},a\}
Za=an=1Npnapn.Za=a-\sum_{n=1}^{N}p_{n}ap_{n}.

X,Y,ZX,Y,Z are self-adjoint and especially Y,ZY,Z are positive. Let us check that ZZ is positive:

a,ZaHS=Tr(aaan=1Npnapn)=n=1NTrpna(Ipn)apn0,aMN().\langle a,Za\rangle_{HS}=\mathrm{Tr}\left(a^{*}a-a^{*}\sum_{n=1}^{N}p_{n}ap_{n}\right)=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\mathrm{Tr}p_{n}a^{*}(I-p_{n})ap_{n}\geq 0,\ ^{\forall}a\in M_{N}(\mathbb{C}).

Let xx\in\mathbb{C} be an eigenvalue of ll and aMN()a\in M_{N}(\mathbb{C}) be a corresponding unit eigenvector, that is, x,ax,a satisfy

la=xa,a,aHS=1.la=xa,\hskip 10.0pt\langle a,a\rangle_{HS}=1.

By l=iXYβZl=-iX-Y-\beta Z, Rex\mathrm{Re}x, the real part of xx, satisfies that

Rex=a,(Y+βZ)a0.\mathrm{Re}x=-\langle a,(Y+\beta Z)a\rangle\leq 0.

If Rex=0\mathrm{Re}x=0, we have

a,Ya=0,\langle a,Ya\rangle=0, (1)
a,Za=0,\langle a,Za\rangle=0, (2)

since YY and ZZ are positive. By equation(2),

Trpna(Ipn)apn=0,n=1,2,,N,\mathrm{Tr}p_{n}a^{*}(I-p_{n})ap_{n}=0,\ n=1,2,\cdots,N,
(Ipn)apn=0.\to(I-p_{n})ap_{n}=0.

Thus, aa is diagonalized for the basis {en}n=1N\{e_{n}\}_{n=1}^{N} (we write its entry as aija_{ij}). Assume that αinl+αoutl>0\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}>0 (otherwise αinr+αoutr>0\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r}>0 must hold and repeat the following processes from NN instead of 11), then by equation(1)

a11=Trp1ap1=0.a_{11}=\mathrm{Tr}p_{1}ap_{1}=0.

Since aa is diagonalized,

0=xa12=(la)12=ia11+ia13ia22(αinl+αoutl+β)a12=ia22,0=xa_{12}=(la)_{12}=ia_{11}+ia_{13}-ia_{22}-(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}+\beta)a_{12}=-ia_{22},
0=xa23=(la)23=ia22+ia24ia33ia13(αinl+αoutl)a23=ia33.0=xa_{23}=(la)_{23}=ia_{22}+ia_{24}-ia_{33}-ia_{13}-(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})a_{23}=-ia_{33}.

Repeat these processes until 0=(la)N1N0=(la)_{N-1\ N}, then we finally get a11=a22==aNN=0a_{11}=a_{22}=\cdots=a_{NN}=0. This implies that a=0a=0. However a=0a=0 contradicts to the assumption that a,aHS=1\langle a,a\rangle_{HS}=1. Thus, Rex<0\mathrm{Re}x<0 must hold for every eigenvalue of ll and

limtetl=0.\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{tl}=0.

By this theorem, in the case where β>0\beta>0 we also have

limtR(t)=0Ts(2αinlp1+2αinrpN)𝑑sR.\lim_{t\to\infty}R(t)=\int^{\infty}_{0}T_{s}(2\alpha_{in}^{l}p_{1}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}p_{N})ds\equiv R_{\infty}.

2.2 current formula

In this subsection we will focus on current. Since current is expressed by two-point function, it converges to a constant in the limit tt\to\infty. We will consider how the sign of the current is determined by the relation of constants αinl,αoutl,αinr,αoutr\alpha_{in}^{l},\alpha_{out}^{l},\alpha_{in}^{r},\alpha_{out}^{r}. The current is shown to be expressed by a simple formula (Theorem 2.2).

At first, recall that the observable of current from site nn to n+1n+1 is

jn=i(anan+1an+1an).j_{n}=-i(a_{n}^{*}a_{n+1}-a^{*}_{n+1}a_{n}).

As shown in the previous subsection, for any state ω\omega the limit limtωetL(jn)\displaystyle\lim_{t\to\infty}\omega\circ e^{tL}(j_{n}) exists and is independent of ω\omega. In fact it does not depend on nn. Let us check it. By the definition of generator, for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0 there is h>0h>0 such that

ehL(anan)ananhL(anan)<ϵ.\left\|\frac{e^{hL}(a_{n}^{*}a_{n})-a^{*}_{n}a_{n}}{h}-L(a^{*}_{n}a_{n})\right\|<\epsilon.

Thus we have

|ωetL(L(anan))|<ϵ+|ωetL(ehL(anan)ananh)|,t0|\omega\circ e^{tL}(L(a^{*}_{n}a_{n}))|<\epsilon+\left|\omega\circ e^{tL}\left(\frac{e^{hL}(a_{n}^{*}a_{n})-a^{*}_{n}a_{n}}{h}\right)\right|,\ ^{\forall}t\geq 0

and lim supt|ωetL(L(anan))|ϵ\displaystyle\limsup_{t\to\infty}|\omega\circ e^{tL}(L(a^{*}_{n}a_{n}))|\leq\epsilon. Since ϵ\epsilon is arbitrary, limtωetL(L(anan))=0\displaystyle\lim_{t\to\infty}\omega\circ e^{tL}(L(a^{*}_{n}a_{n}))=0. This equation and

L(anan)=i(an1ananan1)+i(anan+1an+1an)=jn1jn,n=2,,N1L(a^{*}_{n}a_{n})=-i(a_{n-1}^{*}a_{n}-a^{*}_{n}a_{n-1})+i(a^{*}_{n}a_{n+1}-a^{*}_{n+1}a_{n})=j_{n-1}-j_{n},\ n=2,\cdots,N-1

show that the limit of the current does not depend on nn. We denote the limit of current by 𝒥β(N)=limtωetL(j1)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N)=\displaystyle\lim_{t\to\infty}\omega\circ e^{tL}(j_{1}) (it depends on the sample size NN). Then it is expressed as

𝒥β(N)\displaystyle\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) =\displaystyle= ie2,Re1+ie1,Re2\displaystyle-i\langle e_{2},R_{\infty}e_{1}\rangle+i\langle e_{1},R_{\infty}e_{2}\rangle
=\displaystyle= 2Ime2,Re1.\displaystyle 2\mathrm{Im}\langle e_{2},R_{\infty}e_{1}\rangle.

𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) has the following simple expression. This is one of our main results in this paper.

Theorem 2.2.
𝒥β(N)=4(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)0e1,Tt(pN)e1𝑑t=4(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)e1,l1(pN)e1.\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N)=4(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})\int^{\infty}_{0}\langle e_{1},T_{t}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle dt=-4(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})\langle e_{1},l^{-1}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle.
Proof.

By 2Im|e1e2|=i[h,p1]2\mathrm{Im}|e_{1}\rangle\langle e_{2}|=-i[h,p_{1}] and the definition of RR_{\infty},

𝒥β(N)\displaystyle\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) =\displaystyle= 0Tri[h,p1]etl(2αinlp1+2αinrpN)𝑑t\displaystyle-\int^{\infty}_{0}\mathrm{Tr}i[h,p_{1}]e^{tl}(2\alpha_{in}^{l}p_{1}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}p_{N})dt
=\displaystyle= 0Trp1letl(2αinlp1+2αinrpN)𝑑t2(αinl+αoutl)0Trp1etl(2αinlp1+2αinrpN)𝑑t\displaystyle-\int^{\infty}_{0}\mathrm{Tr}p_{1}le^{tl}(2\alpha_{in}^{l}p_{1}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}p_{N})dt-2(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})\int^{\infty}_{0}\mathrm{Tr}p_{1}e^{tl}(2\alpha_{in}^{l}p_{1}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}p_{N})dt
=\displaystyle= 2αinlTrp14αinl(αinl+αoutl)0Trp1etl(p1)𝑑t4αinr(αinl+αoutl)0Trp1etl(pN)𝑑t.\displaystyle 2\alpha_{in}^{l}\mathrm{Tr}p_{1}-4\alpha_{in}^{l}(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})\int^{\infty}_{0}\mathrm{Tr}p_{1}e^{tl}(p_{1})dt-4\alpha_{in}^{r}(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})\int^{\infty}_{0}\mathrm{Tr}p_{1}e^{tl}(p_{N})dt.

By the equation

I=[etl(I)]0=0etl(2(αinl+αoutl)p1+2(αinr+αoutr)pN)𝑑t,I=-\left[e^{tl}(I)\right]^{\infty}_{0}=\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{tl}(2(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})p_{1}+2(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})p_{N})dt,

we have

αinlTrp12αinl(αinl+αoutl)0Trp1etl(p1)𝑑t=2αinl(αinr+αoutr)0Trp1etl(pN)𝑑t.\alpha_{in}^{l}\mathrm{Tr}p_{1}-2\alpha_{in}^{l}(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})\int^{\infty}_{0}\mathrm{Tr}p_{1}e^{tl}(p_{1})dt=2\alpha_{in}^{l}(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})\int^{\infty}_{0}\mathrm{Tr}p_{1}e^{tl}(p_{N})dt.

Combining these equations, we get

𝒥β(N)=4(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)0Trp1etl(pN)𝑑t.\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N)=4(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})\int^{\infty}_{0}\mathrm{Tr}p_{1}e^{tl}(p_{N})dt.

In order to obtain the latter equation of the theorem, we use the well-known formula for operator semigroups: for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0

0eϵtetl𝑑t=(ϵl)1\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{-\epsilon t}e^{tl}dt=(\epsilon-l)^{-1}

holds. As discussed before, the real part of every eigenvalue of ll is less than 0. This implies that kerl={0}\mathrm{ker}l=\{0\} and ll is invertible. Thus, we get

0e1,Tt(pN)e1𝑑t\displaystyle\int^{\infty}_{0}\langle e_{1},T_{t}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle dt =\displaystyle= limϵ00eϵte1,Tt(pN)e1𝑑t\displaystyle\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow 0}\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{-\epsilon t}\langle e_{1},T_{t}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle dt
=\displaystyle= limϵ0e1,(ϵl)1(pN)e1\displaystyle\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow 0}\langle e_{1},(\epsilon-l)^{-1}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle
=\displaystyle= e1,l1(pN)e1.\displaystyle-\langle e_{1},l^{-1}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle.

Since 0e1,Tt(pN)e1𝑑t>0\int^{\infty}_{0}\langle e_{1},T_{t}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle dt>0, the sign of 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) is completely determined by the coefficient αinlαoutrαoutlαinr\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r}. Let us check that 0e1,Tt(pN)e1𝑑t>0\int^{\infty}_{0}\langle e_{1},T_{t}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle dt>0.

e1,Tt(pN)e1\displaystyle\langle e_{1},T_{t}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle =\displaystyle= n=0e1,(tl)nn!(pN)e1\displaystyle\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left\langle e_{1},\frac{(tl)^{n}}{n!}(p_{N})e_{1}\right\rangle
=\displaystyle= e1,(tl)2N(2N)!(pN)e1+n=2N+1e1,(tl)nn!(pN)e1\displaystyle\left\langle e_{1},\frac{(tl)^{2N}}{(2N)!}(p_{N})e_{1}\right\rangle+\sum_{n=2N+1}^{\infty}\left\langle e_{1},\frac{(tl)^{n}}{n!}(p_{N})e_{1}\right\rangle
=\displaystyle= t2N(2N)!CN2Ne1,hNpNhNe1+n=2N+1e1,(tl)nn!(pN)e1\displaystyle\frac{t^{2N}}{(2N)!}{}_{2N}\mathrm{C}_{N}\langle e_{1},h^{N}p_{N}h^{N}e_{1}\rangle+\sum_{n=2N+1}^{\infty}\left\langle e_{1},\frac{(tl)^{n}}{n!}(p_{N})e_{1}\right\rangle
=\displaystyle= t2N(N!)2+n=2N+1e1,(tl)nn!(pN)e1.\displaystyle\frac{t^{2N}}{(N!)^{2}}+\sum_{n=2N+1}^{\infty}\left\langle e_{1},\frac{(tl)^{n}}{n!}(p_{N})e_{1}\right\rangle.

Since

|n=2N+1e1,(tl)nn!(pN)e1|t2N+1n=2N+1e1,lnn!(pN)e1\left|\sum_{n=2N+1}^{\infty}\left\langle e_{1},\frac{(tl)^{n}}{n!}(p_{N})e_{1}\right\rangle\right|\leq t^{2N+1}\sum_{n=2N+1}^{\infty}\left\langle e_{1},\frac{l^{n}}{n!}(p_{N})e_{1}\right\rangle

holds for 0t<10\leq t<1, for sufficiently small t>0t>0 we have

e1,Tt(pN)e1>0.\langle e_{1},T_{t}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle>0.

3 Asymptotic behavior of current

In the previous section, we obtained a current formula applicable in general settings (Theorem 2.2). In this section, using this formula, we investigate how potentials and noise determine the asymptotic behavior of the current 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) for large sample size NN. Since we would like to consider the situation that the current 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) is not 0, let αinl+αoutl,αinr+αoutr>0\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l},\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r}>0. At first, we deal with the noiseless case (β=0\beta=0). And next, the case where β>0\beta>0, mainly v=0v=0, is considered.

3.1 β=0\beta=0 : noiseless case

In this subsection, we first prove the following proposition, which is applicable to arbitrary potentials.

Proposition 3.1.
e1,l1(pN)e1=12π|e1,(hDE)1eN|2𝑑E.-\langle e_{1},l^{-1}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left|\langle e_{1},(h_{D}-E)^{-1}e_{N}\rangle\right|^{2}dE.

Using this formula, we relate the current 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) to transfer matrix. In addition, in case of dynamically defined potential, such as the Anderson model, the scaling of the asymptotic behavior is shown to be related with the Lyapunov exponent.

Recall that in noiseless case

la=i(hDaahD).la=-i(h_{D}a-ah^{*}_{D}).

As mentioned before, the imaginary part of every eigenvalue of hDh_{D} is less than 0, and hDh_{D} is invertible. Let us prepare a lemma.

Lemma 3.2.

For VMN()V\in M_{N}(\mathbb{C}), define a linear map gV:MN()MN()g_{V}\colon M_{N}(\mathbb{C})\to M_{N}(\mathbb{C}) as

gV(x)=VxxV,xMN.g_{V}(x)=Vx-xV^{*},\ x\in M_{N}.

Suppose that VV is invertible and the imaginary part of every eigenvalue is less than 0. Then, gVg_{V} is invertible and

gV1(x)=i2π(EV)1x(EV)1𝑑E.g_{V}^{-1}(x)=\frac{i}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(E-V)^{-1}x(E-V^{*})^{-1}dE.
Proof.

Since the integrand (operator) in the right hand side is continuous for EE and

(VE)11|E|V\|(V-E)^{-1}\|\leq\frac{1}{|E|-\|V\|}

for EE with large absolute value, the integral converges and defines a linear map on MN()M_{N}(\mathbb{C}). Let us denote it by h(x)h(x). Since

gV(x)=(VE)xx(VE)g_{V}(x)=(V-E)x-x(V^{*}-E)

for EE\in\mathbb{R}, we have

hgV(x)=i2πx(EV)1𝑑E+i2π(EV)1x𝑑E.h\circ g_{V}(x)=-\frac{i}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}x(E-V^{*})^{-1}dE+\frac{i}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(E-V)^{-1}xdE.

Let us consider the entry of the matrix

(EV)1𝑑E.\int_{\mathbb{R}}(E-V)^{-1}dE.

In general, (i,j)(i,j)-entry of the inverse matrix of an N×NN\times N matrix A=(aij)i,j=1NA=(a_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{N} is expressed as

det(A)1(1)i+jdet(Aji).\mathrm{det}(A)^{-1}(-1)^{i+j}\mathrm{det}(A_{ji}).

AijA_{ij} is an (N1)×(N1)(N-1)\times(N-1) matrix called factor matrix, which is made by removing the i-th row and the j-th column from AA. det(EV)\mathrm{det}(E-V) is a polynomial that has degree of NN and the coefficient of ENE^{N} is 1. Let us write det(EV)=EN+aN(E)\mathrm{det}(E-V)=E^{N}+a_{N}(E). Set A=EVA=E-V, then det(Aii)\mathrm{det}(A_{ii}) is a polynomial with degree of N1N-1 and the coefficient of EN1E^{N-1} is 1. Let us write det(Aii)=EN1+bNi(E)\mathrm{det}(A_{ii})=E^{N-1}+b_{N}^{i}(E). If iji\neq j, then det(Aij)\mathrm{det}(A_{ij}) is a polynomial with degree of N2N-2 and denoted by cNij(E)c_{N}^{ij}(E). Define +={zImz0}\mathbb{C}_{+}=\{z\in\mathbb{C}\mid\mathrm{Im}z\geq 0\}. Since det(EV)\mathrm{det}(E-V) has no zeros in +\mathbb{C}_{+}, (EV)ij1(E-V)^{-1}_{ij} is regular in a region containing +\mathbb{C}_{+} (note that (EV)ij1(E-V)^{-1}_{ij} is the (i,j)(i,j)-entry of (EV)1(E-V)^{-1}, not factor matrix). For R>0R>0, define a cycle ΓR\Gamma_{R} as {zImz=0,Rez[R,R]}{Reiθθ[0,π]}\{z\in\mathbb{C}\mid\mathrm{Im}z=0,\mathrm{Re}z\in[-R,R]\}\cup\{Re^{i\theta}\mid\theta\in[0,\pi]\}, then

ΓR(EV)ij1𝑑E=0.\oint_{\Gamma_{R}}(E-V)^{-1}_{ij}dE=0.

Set CR={Reiθθ[0,π]}C_{R}=\{Re^{i\theta}\mid\theta\in[0,\pi]\}.
(i)i=ji=j

CR(zV)ii1𝑑z\displaystyle\int_{C_{R}}(z-V)^{-1}_{ii}dz =\displaystyle= CRzN1+bNi(z)zN+aN(z)𝑑z\displaystyle\int_{C_{R}}\frac{z^{N-1}+b^{i}_{N}(z)}{z^{N}+a_{N}(z)}dz
=\displaystyle= 0πRN1ei(N1)θ+bNi(Reiθ)RNeiNθ+aN(Reiθ)iReiθ𝑑θ\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\pi}\frac{R^{N-1}e^{i(N-1)\theta}+b_{N}^{i}(Re^{-i\theta})}{R^{N}e^{iN\theta}+a_{N}(Re^{i\theta})}iRe^{i\theta}d\theta
=\displaystyle= i0πRN+ei(N1)θbNi(Reiθ)RN+eiNθaN(Reiθ)𝑑θ.\displaystyle i\int_{0}^{\pi}\frac{R^{N}+e^{-i(N-1)\theta}b_{N}^{i}(Re^{-i\theta})}{R^{N}+e^{-iN\theta}a_{N}(Re^{i\theta})}d\theta.

This converges to iπi\pi as RR\to\infty. By

RR(EV)ii1𝑑E+CR(zV)ii1𝑑z=ΓR(EV)ij1𝑑E=0,\int^{R}_{-R}(E-V)^{-1}_{ii}dE+\int_{C_{R}}(z-V)^{-1}_{ii}dz=\oint_{\Gamma_{R}}(E-V)^{-1}_{ij}dE=0,

we have

(EV)ii1𝑑E=limRRR(EV)ii1𝑑E=iπ.\int_{\mathbb{R}}(E-V)^{-1}_{ii}dE=\lim_{R\to\infty}\int^{R}_{-R}(E-V)^{-1}_{ii}dE=-i\pi.

(ii)iji\neq j

CR(zV)ij1𝑑z\displaystyle\int_{C_{R}}(z-V)^{-1}_{ij}dz =\displaystyle= CRcNij(z)zN+aN(z)𝑑z\displaystyle\int_{C_{R}}\frac{c_{N}^{ij}(z)}{z^{N}+a_{N}(z)}dz
=\displaystyle= i0πRei(N1)θcNij(Reiθ)RN+eiNθaN(Reiθ)𝑑θ.\displaystyle i\int_{0}^{\pi}\frac{Re^{-i(N-1)\theta}c_{N}^{ij}(Re^{i\theta})}{R^{N}+e^{-iN\theta}a_{N}(Re^{i\theta})}d\theta.

This converges to 0 as RR\to\infty. Thus,

(EV)ij1𝑑E=0.\int_{\mathbb{R}}(E-V)^{-1}_{ij}dE=0.

Summarizing the above calculations, we get

(EV)1𝑑E=iπI\int_{\mathbb{R}}(E-V)^{-1}dE=-i\pi I

and

hgV(x)=i2πiπx+i2π(iπ)x=x.h\circ g_{V}(x)=-\frac{i}{2\pi}i\pi x+\frac{i}{2\pi}(-i\pi)x=x.

This implies that gVg_{V} is an injection. Since the space that gVg_{V} operate is finite dimensional, gVg_{V} is also surjective. Therefore, gVg_{V} is invertible and

gV1(x)=h(x)=i2π(EV)1x(EV)1𝑑E.g_{V}^{-1}(x)=h(x)=\frac{i}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(E-V)^{-1}x(E-V^{*})^{-1}dE.

Applying this lemma for V=hDV=h_{D}, then we obtain Proposition 3.1:

e1,l1(pN)e1\displaystyle-\langle e_{1},l^{-1}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle =\displaystyle= 12πe1,(hDE)1pN(hDE)1e1𝑑E\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\langle e_{1},(h_{D}-E)^{-1}p_{N}(h_{D}^{*}-E)^{-1}e_{1}\rangle dE
=\displaystyle= 12π|e1,(hDE)1eN|2𝑑E.\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left|\langle e_{1},(h_{D}-E)^{-1}e_{N}\rangle\right|^{2}dE.

By this equation, in order to know the asymptotic behavior of the current 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N), we have to investigate that of |e1,(hDE)1eN|2\left|\langle e_{1},(h_{D}-E)^{-1}e_{N}\rangle\right|^{2}. As we will see in the following, |e1,(hDE)1eN|\left|\langle e_{1},(h_{D}-E)^{-1}e_{N}\rangle\right| is related to transfer matrix.

Let us recall transfer matrix. Although we are considering a system on finite lattice [1,N][1,N]\cap\mathbb{N}, potential is given as a function v:v\colon\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R} in order to take limit NN\to\infty. For EE\in\mathbb{C}, if ψN\psi\in\mathbb{C}^{N} satisfies

hψ=Eψ,h\psi=E\psi,

then the relation

(ψ(n+1)ψ(n))=(v(n)E110)(ψ(n)ψ(n1)),n=1,,N\left(\begin{array}[]{c}\psi(n+1)\\ \psi(n)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}v(n)-E&-1\\ 1&0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{c}\psi(n)\\ \psi(n-1)\end{array}\right),\ n=1,\cdots,N

holds (here, ψ(0)=ψ(N+1)=0\psi(0)=\psi(N+1)=0). A 2×22\times 2 matrix

TN(E)(v(N)E110)(v(1)E110)T_{N}(E)\equiv\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}v(N)-E&-1\\ 1&0\end{array}\right)\cdots\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}v(1)-E&-1\\ 1&0\end{array}\right)

is called a transfer matrix. It is in SL(2,)SL(2,\mathbb{C}) and thus TN(E)1\|T_{N}(E)\|\geq 1.

For EE\in\mathbb{R}, define

gij(E)=ei,(hDE)1ej.g_{ij}(E)=\langle e_{i},(h_{D}-E)^{-1}e_{j}\rangle.

These values are related to transfer matrix as follows.

Lemma 3.3.
T~N(E)(g11(E)g1N(E)10)=(01gN1(E)gNN(E)),\tilde{T}_{N}(E)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}g_{11}(E)&g_{1N}(E)\\ 1&0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}0&1\\ g_{N1}(E)&g_{NN}(E)\end{array}\right),

where T~N(E)\tilde{T}_{N}(E) is a transfer matrix corresponding to a complex-valued potential v~\tilde{v} defined as v~(1)=v(1)i(αinl+αoutl)\tilde{v}(1)=v(1)-i(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}), v~(N)=v(N)i(αinr+αoutr)\tilde{v}(N)=v(N)-i(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r}) and v~(n)=v(n)\tilde{v}(n)=v(n) for n=2,,N1n=2,\cdots,N-1.

We do not give the proof here, since it is in [11] (Lemma 2.2). By this lemma, we can evaluate |e1,(hDE)1eN|\left|\langle e_{1},(h_{D}-E)^{-1}e_{N}\rangle\right| using transfer matrix.

Lemma 3.4.

There is a constant M>0M>0 independent of E,NE\in\mathbb{R},\ N\in\mathbb{N} such that

|gij(E)|M|g_{ij}(E)|\leq M

(i,j=1,Ni,j=1,N). There is a constant KK such that

1T~N(E)|e1,(hDE)1eN|KT~N(E).\frac{1}{\|\tilde{T}_{N}(E)\|}\leq\left|\langle e_{1},(h_{D}-E)^{-1}e_{N}\rangle\right|\leq\frac{K}{\|\tilde{T}_{N}(E)\|}.
Proof.

By resolvent formula,

(αinl+αoutl)|g11(E)|2+(αinr+αoutr)|gN1(E)|2\displaystyle(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})|g_{11}(E)|^{2}+(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})|g_{N1}(E)|^{2}
=\displaystyle= e1,(hDE)1{(αinl+αoutl)p1+(αinr+αoutr)pN}(hDE)1e1\displaystyle\left\langle e_{1},(h_{D}^{*}-E)^{-1}\{(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})p_{1}+(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})p_{N}\}(h_{D}-E)^{-1}e_{1}\right\rangle
=\displaystyle= 12i(g11(E)g11(E)¯)\displaystyle\frac{1}{2i}(g_{11}(E)-\overline{g_{11}(E)})
\displaystyle\leq |g11(E)|.\displaystyle|g_{11}(E)|.

From this inequality, we have

|g11(E)|21αinl+αoutl|g11(E)|0,\displaystyle|g_{11}(E)|^{2}-\frac{1}{\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}}|g_{11}(E)|\leq 0, (3)
(αinr+αoutr)|gN1(E)|2(αinl+αoutl)|g11(E)|2+|g11(E)|.\displaystyle(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})|g_{N1}(E)|^{2}\leq-(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})|g_{11}(E)|^{2}+|g_{11}(E)|. (4)

By inequality(3),

|g11(E)|1αinl+αoutl|g_{11}(E)|\leq\frac{1}{\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}}

and by inequality(4),

|gN1(E)|214(αinl+αoutl)(αinr+αoutr).|g_{N1}(E)|^{2}\leq\frac{1}{4(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})}.

Similarly, we get

|g1N(E)|214(αinl+αoutl)(αinr+αoutr),|gNN(E)|1αinr+αoutr.|g_{1N}(E)|^{2}\leq\frac{1}{4(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})},\ |g_{NN}(E)|\leq\frac{1}{\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r}}.

The former inequality of the lemma is obtained.

Operating both hand sides of the equation of Lemma 3.3 to a vector (01)\left(\begin{array}[]{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right), we obtain

1(1gNN(E))T~N(E)|g1N(E)|.1\leq\left\|\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\ g_{NN}(E)\end{array}\right)\right\|\leq\|\tilde{T}_{N}(E)\||g_{1N}(E)|.

Since g1N(E)g_{1N}(E) is not 0,

(g11(E)g1N(E)10)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}g_{11}(E)&g_{1N}(E)\\ 1&0\end{array}\right)

is invertible and by Lemma 3.3 we have

g1N(E)T~N(E)\displaystyle g_{1N}(E)\tilde{T}_{N}(E) =\displaystyle= g1N(E)(01gN1(E)gNN(E))(g11(E)g1N(E)10)1\displaystyle g_{1N}(E)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}0&1\\ g_{N1}(E)&g_{NN}(E)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}g_{11}(E)&g_{1N}(E)\\ 1&0\end{array}\right)^{-1}
=\displaystyle= (01gN1(E)gNN(E))(0g1N(E)1g11(E)).\displaystyle\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}0&1\\ g_{N1}(E)&g_{NN}(E)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}0&-g_{1N}(E)\\ -1&g_{11}(E)\end{array}\right).

Since all the entries of the right hand side are bounded, the norm is also bounded by an E,NE,N-independent constant KK:

T~N(E)K|g1N(E)|.\|\tilde{T}_{N}(E)\|\leq\frac{K}{|g_{1N}(E)|}.

Easy calculation shows that there are E,NE,N-independent constants a,b>0a,b>0 such that

aTN(E)T~N(E)bTN(E).a\|T_{N}(E)\|\leq\|\tilde{T}_{N}(E)\|\leq b\|T_{N}(E)\|.

Therefore, the asymptotic behavior of the current is determined by that of

1TN(E)2𝑑E.\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{1}{\|T_{N}(E)\|^{2}}dE. (7)

Denote C=2+supn|v(n)|C=2+\displaystyle\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}|v(n)|, then the spectrum of hh, σ(h)\sigma(h), is contained in the interval [C,C][-C,C]. Set R>C+1R>C+1. The following facts show that the integral over large energy decays so rapidly that we do not have to care when considering the asymptotic behavior. This is used when we consider concrete models later.

Theorem 3.5.
lim infN(1NlogRdETN(E)2)2log(RC)>0.\liminf_{N\to\infty}\left(-\frac{1}{N}\log\int^{\infty}_{R}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N}(E)\|^{2}}\right)\geq 2\log(R-C)>0.

It is same for

RdETN(E)2.\int^{-R}_{-\infty}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N}(E)\|^{2}}.

By this theorem, we immediately obtain the following corollary.

Corollary 3.6.

There is R0>0R_{0}>0 such that for all RR0R\geq R_{0},

lim infN(1NlogdETN(E)2)=lim infN(1NlogRRdETN(E)2)\liminf_{N\to\infty}\left(-\frac{1}{N}\log\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N}(E)\|^{2}}\right)=\liminf_{N\to\infty}\left(-\frac{1}{N}\log\int^{R}_{-R}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N}(E)\|^{2}}\right)

holds.

Let us give the proof of Theorem 3.5 step by step.

Here, let us consider a Schrödinger operator hh_{\mathbb{Z}} on a doubly infinite lattice \mathbb{Z}. Now, potential is given only on \mathbb{N}. For n=0,1,n=0,-1,\cdots, we extend it by v(n)=0v(n)=0. Then, hh_{\mathbb{Z}} is a bounded self-adjoint operator on l2()l^{2}(\mathbb{Z}) and σ(h)[C,C]\sigma(h_{\mathbb{Z}})\subset[-C,C] (C=2+supn|v(n)|C=2+\displaystyle\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}|v(n)|). Thus, if |E|R|E|\geq R, hEh_{\mathbb{Z}}-E is invertible. Note that there is a solution ψ\psi of the eigenvalue equation hψ=Eψh_{\mathbb{Z}}\psi=E\psi such that ψ(n)=e0,(hE)1en\psi(n)=\langle e_{0},(h-E)^{-1}e_{n}\rangle for n=0,1,2,n=0,1,2,\cdots. Such ψ\psi can be constructed as follows: If nn\in\mathbb{N}

e0,(hE)1en+1e0,(hE)1en1+v(n)e0,(hE)1en\displaystyle-\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{n+1}\rangle-\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{n-1}\rangle+v(n)\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{n}\rangle =\displaystyle= e0,(hE)1hen\displaystyle\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}h_{\mathbb{Z}}e_{n}\rangle
=\displaystyle= Ee0,(hE)1en\displaystyle E\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{n}\rangle

holds. For n=1,2,n=-1,-2,\cdots, determine ψ(n)\psi(n) by

ψ(n1)=ψ(n+1)+v(n)ψ(n)Eψ(n)\psi(n-1)=-\psi(n+1)+v(n)\psi(n)-E\psi(n)

inductively.

Let us consider the asymptotic behavior of e0,(hE)1en\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{n}\rangle. Set qn=|enen1||en1en|q_{n}=-|e_{n}\rangle\langle e_{n-1}|-|e_{n-1}\rangle\langle e_{n}| and hn=hqnh_{n}=h_{\mathbb{Z}}-q_{n}. By resolvent formula

(hE)1=(hnE)1(hE)1qn(hnE)1,(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}=(h_{n}-E)^{-1}-(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}q_{n}(h_{n}-E)^{-1},
e0,(hE)1en=en,(hnE)1ene0,(hE)1en1.\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{n}\rangle=\langle e_{n},(h_{n}-E)^{-1}e_{n}\rangle\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{n-1}\rangle.

Use this equation for e0,(hE)1en1\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{n-1}\rangle again and repeat this process, then finally we get

e0,(hE)1en=e0,(hE)1e0k=1nek,(hkE)1ek.\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{n}\rangle=\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{0}\rangle\prod^{n}_{k=1}\langle e_{k},(h_{k}-E)^{-1}e_{k}\rangle.

By spectral decomposition and the condition on EE, the absolute value of each factor is bounded by 1|E|C\frac{1}{|E|-C}. Thus, we have

|e0,(hE)1en|(1|E|C)n+1.|\langle e_{0},(h_{\mathbb{Z}}-E)^{-1}e_{n}\rangle|\leq\left(\frac{1}{|E|-C}\right)^{n+1}.

Define α(n)=ψ(n)/ψ(0)2+ψ(1)2\alpha(n)=\psi(n)/\sqrt{\psi(0)^{2}+\psi(1)^{2}}. Let β(n)\beta(n) be the solution of the eigenvalue equation with the condition β(0)=α(1)¯,β(1)=α(0)¯\beta(0)=-\overline{\alpha(1)},\ \beta(1)=\overline{\alpha(0)} (|β(0)|2+|β(1)|2=1|\beta(0)|^{2}+|\beta(1)|^{2}=1). By the property of transfer matrix,

(α(n+1)β(n+1)α(n)β(n))=Tn(E)(α(1)β(1)α(0)β(0)).\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}\alpha(n+1)&\beta(n+1)\\ \alpha(n)&\beta(n)\end{array}\right)=T_{n}(E)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}\alpha(1)&\beta(1)\\ \alpha(0)&\beta(0)\end{array}\right).

Since Tn(E)SL(2,)T_{n}(E)\in SL(2,\mathbb{C}) and α(1)β(0)α(0)β(1)=1\alpha(1)\beta(0)-\alpha(0)\beta(1)=1, α(n+1)β(n)α(n)β(n+1)=1\alpha(n+1)\beta(n)-\alpha(n)\beta(n+1)=1 holds. Thus we have

1\displaystyle 1 \displaystyle\leq |α(n+1)β(n)|+|α(n)β(n+1)|\displaystyle|\alpha(n+1)\beta(n)|+|\alpha(n)\beta(n+1)|
\displaystyle\leq 1|ψ(0)|2+|ψ(1)|2[(1|E|C)n+1|β(n)|+(1|E|C)n|β(n+1)|]\displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\psi(0)|^{2}+|\psi(1)|^{2}}}\left[\left(\frac{1}{|E|-C}\right)^{n+1}|\beta(n)|+\left(\frac{1}{|E|-C}\right)^{n}|\beta(n+1)|\right]
\displaystyle\leq 1|ψ(0)|2+|ψ(1)|2(1|E|C)n(|β(n)|+|β(n+1)|).\displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\psi(0)|^{2}+|\psi(1)|^{2}}}\left(\frac{1}{|E|-C}\right)^{n}(|\beta(n)|+|\beta(n+1)|).

By

|ψ(0)|=|e0,(hE)1e0|1|E|+C|\psi(0)|=|\langle e_{0},(h-E)^{-1}e_{0}\rangle|\geq\frac{1}{|E|+C}

we get

|β(n)|+|β(n+1)|(|E|C)n|E|+C.|\beta(n)|+|\beta(n+1)|\geq\frac{(|E|-C)^{n}}{|E|+C}.

By

|β(n)|2+|β(n+1)|2(|β(n)|+|β(n+1)|)2212(|E|C)2n(|E|+C)2|\beta(n)|^{2}+|\beta(n+1)|^{2}\geq\frac{(|\beta(n)|+|\beta(n+1)|)^{2}}{2}\geq\frac{1}{2}\frac{(|E|-C)^{2n}}{(|E|+C)^{2}}

and |β(0)|2+|β(1)|2=1|\beta(0)|^{2}+|\beta(1)|^{2}=1, we get

Tn(E)12(|E|C)n|E|+C.\|T_{n}(E)\|\geq\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{(|E|-C)^{n}}{|E|+C}.
RdETn(E)22R(|E|+C)2(|E|C)2n𝑑E=22n11(RC)2n1+8C2n1(RC)2n+8C22n+11(RC)2n+1.\int^{\infty}_{R}\frac{dE}{\|T_{n}(E)\|^{2}}\leq 2\int^{\infty}_{R}\frac{(|E|+C)^{2}}{(|E|-C)^{2n}}dE=\frac{2}{2n-1}\frac{1}{(R-C)^{2n-1}}+\frac{8C}{2n}\frac{1}{(R-C)^{2n}}+\frac{8C^{2}}{2n+1}\frac{1}{(R-C)^{2n+1}}.

Thus, Theorem 3.5 follows (the case of R\int^{-R}_{-\infty} is similarly proven). \Box

By this theorem, it turns out that Theorem 1.1 in [5] is also true in our setting. We state as a theorem here.

Theorem 3.7 ([5]).

Let hh_{\mathbb{N}} be a discrete Schrödinger operator on l2()l^{2}(\mathbb{N}) with a bounded potential v:v\colon\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{R}. The following statements are equivalent.

  • hh_{\mathbb{N}} does not have absolutely continuous spectrum (σac(h)=\sigma_{ac}(h_{\mathbb{N}})=\emptyset)

  • limNdETN(E)2=0\displaystyle\lim_{N\to\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N}(E)\|^{2}}=0.

3.1.1 Dynamically defined potentials

The above results can be applied to arbitrary (bounded) potentials. Next we investigate the detail for a class of potentials called dynamically defined potentials. This class contains various physically important models such as the Anderson model, which is an example of random systems, and the Fibonacci Hamiltonian, which is considered as the one-dimensional model of a quasi-crystal. There are a huge number of studies for the spectrum of Schödinger operators with dynamically defined potentials [12, 13]. Here, the scaling of the asymptotic behavior is shown to be related with the Lyapunov exponent.

Let us start with the definition of dynamically defined potentials. We deal with the system on \mathbb{Z}, although we are interested in the half of it, \mathbb{N}.

Let (Ω,,P,ϕ)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P,\phi) be an ergodic invertible discrete dynamical system. That is, (Ω,,P)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P) is a probability space (in the sequel, we do not write the σ\sigma-field \mathcal{F}), ϕ:ΩΩ\phi\colon\Omega\to\Omega is a measurable bijection preserving probability PP such that the probability of invariant set is 0 or 11 (ergodicity). Let ff be a bounded real measurable function on Ω\Omega. Then, for ωΩ\omega\in\Omega we have a Schrödinger operator hωh_{\omega} with a potential

vω(n)=f(ϕnω),n.v_{\omega}(n)=f(\phi^{n}\omega),\ n\in\mathbb{Z}.

This vω()v_{\omega}(\cdot) is called a dynamically defined potential and a family of operators {hω}ωΩ\{h_{\omega}\}_{\omega\in\Omega} is called an ergodic Schrödinger operator.

Let us denote TN,ω(E)T_{N,\omega}(E) the transfer matrix determined by the potential vωv_{\omega}. Then TN,ω(E)T_{N,\omega}(E) satisfies

TN+M,ω(E)=TN,ϕMω(E)TM,ω(E)T_{N+M,\omega}(E)=T_{N,\phi^{M}\omega}(E)T_{M,\omega}(E)

and

logTN+M,ω(E)logTN,ϕMω(E)+logTM,ω(E).\log\|T_{N+M,\omega}(E)\|\leq\log\|T_{N,\phi^{M}\omega}(E)\|+\log\|T_{M,\omega}(E)\|.

By subadditive ergodic theorem, for a.e. ω\omega

limN1NlogTN,ω=L(E)\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\log\|T_{N,\omega}\|=L(E)

holds, where

L(E)infN11NΩlogTN,ω(E)dP(ω)=limN1NΩlogTN,ω(E)dP(ω).L(E)\equiv\inf_{N\geq 1}\frac{1}{N}\int_{\Omega}\log\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|dP(\omega)=\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\int_{\Omega}\log\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|dP(\omega).

L(E)L(E) is called Lyapunov exponent. Since TN,ω(E)1\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|\geq 1, L(E)0L(E)\geq 0. The Lyapunov exponent L(E)L(E) provides a rate of exponential growth of the norm of the transfer matrix TN,ω(E)\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\| for each EE\in\mathbb{R}. What we would like to estimate is the integral

(N,ω)dETN,ω(E)2.\mathcal{I}(N,\omega)\equiv\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|^{2}}.
Theorem 3.8.

Assume that the Lyapunov exponent L(E)L(E) is continuous. Then,

0\displaystyle 0 \displaystyle\leq lim infN(1Nlog(N,ω))\displaystyle\liminf_{N\to\infty}\left(-\frac{1}{N}\log\mathcal{I}(N,\omega)\right)
\displaystyle\leq lim supN(1Nlog(N,ω))\displaystyle\limsup_{N\to\infty}\left(-\frac{1}{N}\log\mathcal{I}(N,\omega)\right)
\displaystyle\leq 2minEL(E)\displaystyle 2\min_{E\in\mathbb{R}}L(E)

holds for a.e. ωΩ\omega\in\Omega.

Proof.

Only the last inequality is not trivial. Suppose that ωΩ\omega\in\Omega satisfies

limN1NlogTN,ω(E)=L(E)\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{N}\log\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|=L(E)

for a.e. EE\in\mathbb{R}. By Fubini theorem, the probability of the set of such ω\omega is 1. By the discussion of Theorem 3.5 it turns out that infEL(E)=minEL(E)\displaystyle\inf_{E\in\mathbb{R}}L(E)=\min_{E\in\mathbb{R}}L(E). Put γ=minEL(E)\gamma=\displaystyle\min_{E\in\mathbb{R}}L(E) and let EminE_{min} be the energy that achieves the minimum (such EminE_{min} may not be uniquely determined, but the choice of EminE_{min} is not important in the following discussion). Since L(E)L(E) is continuous, for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0 there is δ>0\delta>0 such that E(Eminδ,Emin+δ)RδL(E)γ<ϵ2.E\in(E_{min}-\delta,E_{min}+\delta)\equiv R_{\delta}\Rightarrow L(E)-\gamma<\frac{\epsilon}{2}. As log-\log is a monotonically decreasing convex function, we have

1Nlog(N,ω)\displaystyle-\frac{1}{N}\log\mathcal{I}(N,\omega) \displaystyle\leq 1Nlog(Rδ1TN,ω(E)2𝑑E)\displaystyle-\frac{1}{N}\log\left(\int_{R_{\delta}}\frac{1}{\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|^{2}}dE\right)
=\displaystyle= 1Nlog(12δRδ1TN,ω(E)2𝑑E)1Nlog2δ\displaystyle-\frac{1}{N}\log\left(\frac{1}{2\delta}\int_{R_{\delta}}\frac{1}{\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|^{2}}dE\right)-\frac{1}{N}\log 2\delta
\displaystyle\leq 22δRδ1NlogTN,ω(E)dE1Nlog2δ.\displaystyle\frac{2}{2\delta}\int_{R_{\delta}}\frac{1}{N}\log\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|dE-\frac{1}{N}\log 2\delta.

By dominated convergence theorem,

lim supN(1Nlog(N,ω))22δRδL(E)𝑑E2γ+ϵ.\limsup_{N\to\infty}\left(-\frac{1}{N}\log\mathcal{I}(N,\omega)\right)\leq\frac{2}{2\delta}\int_{R_{\delta}}L(E)dE\leq 2\gamma+\epsilon.

Since ϵ>0\epsilon>0 is arbitrary, we get

lim supN(1Nlog(N,ω))2minEL(E).\limsup_{N\to\infty}\left(-\frac{1}{N}\log\mathcal{I}(N,\omega)\right)\leq 2\min_{E\in\mathbb{R}}L(E).

By this theorem, if the Lyapunov exponent L(E)L(E) is continuous and minEL(E)=0\displaystyle\min_{E\in\mathbb{R}}L(E)=0, the current does not decay exponentially. Examples are given in the last of this section. Although this theorem tells when the decay of the current is slow, it does not tell when the current decays exponentially. We do not know whether the equality holds or not in Theorem 3.8. If the following large deviation type estimate and infEL(E)>0\displaystyle\inf_{E\in\mathbb{R}}L(E)>0 are given, we can conclude the exponential decay of the current.

Definition 1 (Large Deviation type estimate).

We say that the property LD (Large Deviation type estimate) holds, if the following condition is satisfied: For any ϵ>0\epsilon>0 and any finite closed interval [a,b][a,b], there are constants C,η>0C,\eta>0 such that

P({ωΩ|1NlogTN,ω(E)L(E)|ϵ})CeηN,N,E[a,b].P\left(\left\{\omega\in\Omega\mid\left|\frac{1}{N}\log\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|-L(E)\right|\geq\epsilon\right\}\right)\leq Ce^{-\eta N},\ ^{\forall}N\in\mathbb{N},^{\forall}E\in[a,b].
Theorem 3.9.

Suppose that the property LD holds and infEL(E)>0\displaystyle\inf_{E\in\mathbb{R}}L(E)>0, then

lim infN(1Nlog(N,ω))>0,a.e.ωΩ.\liminf_{N\to\infty}\left(-\frac{1}{N}\log\mathcal{I}(N,\omega)\right)>0,\ a.e.\ \omega\in\Omega.

Although the proof is obvious from the discussion in the proof of Lemma 3.2 in [14], we repeat it here.

Proof.

Set γ=infEL(E)>0\gamma=\displaystyle\inf_{E\in\mathbb{R}}L(E)>0 and fix ϵ,R\epsilon,R that satisfy 0<ϵ<γ0<\epsilon<\gamma and R>3+fR>3+\|f\| (f\|f\| is the norm in L(Ω,P)L^{\infty}(\Omega,P)). By the property LD, there are η,C>0\eta,C>0 such that

P({ωΩ|1NlogTN,ω(E)L(E)|ϵ})CeηN,N,E[R,R].P\left(\left\{\omega\in\Omega\mid\left|\frac{1}{N}\log\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|-L(E)\right|\geq\epsilon\right\}\right)\leq Ce^{-\eta N},\ ^{\forall}N\in\mathbb{N},^{\forall}E\in[-R,R].

Let us denote mm Lebesgue measure on \mathbb{R}. Denote

ΩϵN={(E,ω)[R,R]×Ω|1NlogTN,ω(E)L(E)|ϵ},\Omega_{\epsilon}^{N}=\left\{(E,\omega)\in[-R,R]\times\Omega\mid\left|\frac{1}{N}\log\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|-L(E)\right|\geq\epsilon\right\},
ΩϵN(ω)={E[R,R](E,ω)ΩϵN},\Omega_{\epsilon}^{N}(\omega)=\{E\in[-R,R]\mid(E,\omega)\in\Omega_{\epsilon}^{N}\},

then we have

m×P(ΩϵN)2RCeηN.m\times P(\Omega_{\epsilon}^{N})\leq 2RCe^{-\eta N}.

Fix δ\delta such that 0<δ<η0<\delta<\eta and set

XδN={ωΩm(ΩϵN(ω))eδN},X_{\delta}^{N}=\{\omega\in\Omega\mid m(\Omega_{\epsilon}^{N}(\omega))\leq e^{-\delta N}\},

then we get

P(XδN,C)\displaystyle P(X_{\delta}^{N,C}) \displaystyle\leq eδNXδN,Cm(ΩϵN(ω))P(dω)\displaystyle e^{\delta N}\int_{X_{\delta}^{N,C}}m(\Omega_{\epsilon}^{N}(\omega))P(d\omega)
\displaystyle\leq eδNm×P(ΩϵN)\displaystyle e^{\delta N}m\times P(\Omega_{\epsilon}^{N})
\displaystyle\leq 2RCe(ηδ)N.\displaystyle 2RCe^{-(\eta-\delta)N}.
N=1P(XδN,C)<\sum_{N=1}^{\infty}P(X_{\delta}^{N,C})<\infty

holds and by Borel-Cantelli lemma,

P(lim infNXδN)=1.P\left(\liminf_{N\to\infty}X_{\delta}^{N}\right)=1.

This means that for a.e. ω\omega there is N(ω)N(\omega)\in\mathbb{N} such that if NN(ω)N\geq N(\omega) then m(ΩϵN(ω))eδNm(\Omega_{\epsilon}^{N}(\omega))\leq e^{-\delta N} holds. Obviously such ω\omega satisfies

RRdETN,ω(E)2\displaystyle\int^{R}_{-R}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|^{2}} \displaystyle\leq ΩϵN(ω)dETN,ω(E)2+ΩϵN(ω)CdETN,ω(E)2\displaystyle\int_{\Omega_{\epsilon}^{N}(\omega)}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|^{2}}+\int_{\Omega_{\epsilon}^{N}(\omega)^{C}}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|^{2}}
\displaystyle\leq eδN+RRdEe2(L(E)ϵ)N\displaystyle e^{-\delta N}+\int^{R}_{-R}\frac{dE}{e^{2(L(E)-\epsilon)N}}
\displaystyle\leq eδN+2Re2(γϵ)N\displaystyle e^{-\delta N}+2Re^{-2(\gamma-\epsilon)N}

for NN(ω)N\geq N(\omega). By this estimate and Theorem 3.5, we obtain

lim infN(1Nlog(dETN,ω(E)2))min{δ,2(γϵ),2log(RC)}>0.\liminf_{N\to\infty}\left(-\frac{1}{N}\log\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N,\omega}(E)\|^{2}}\right)\right)\geq\min\{\delta,2(\gamma-\epsilon),2\log(R-C)\}>0.

3.1.2 Examples

The continuity and the Large deviation type estimate of the Lyapunov exponent are already well investigated in the context of ergodic Schrödinger operators [15]. Here we show some physically important examples. See [16] for well-organized results for the continuity and the large deviation type estimate of the Lyapunov exponent. Here we would like to show some examples.

The Anderson model
Let KK\subset\mathbb{R} be a compact subset, ρ\rho be a probability measure on KK such that #suppρ2\#\mathrm{supp}\rho\geq 2 (#\# is the number of elements of the set). Define Ω=K\Omega=K^{\mathbb{Z}} and P=ρP=\rho^{\mathbb{Z}}. Let ϕ\phi be a shift on Ω\Omega, that is, (ϕω)n=ωn+1(\phi\omega)_{n}=\omega_{n+1}. f(ω)=ω0f(\omega)=\omega_{0}. This is a model such that the value of the potential at each site is the i.i.d. random variable. As is well known, this model exhibits Anderson localization. The following theorem is a statement called spectral localization [17].

Theorem 3.10.

For a.e. ωΩ\omega\in\Omega, the following statements hold:

  • hωh_{\omega} has pure point spectrum.

  • Every eigenvector decays exponentially.

By Theorem 3.7, the current converges to 0 as NN\to\infty for a.e. ω\omega (we can apply Theorem 3.7 for the system on \mathbb{Z}, since absolutely continuous spectrum is stable under trace class perturbations). Moreover, since the Lyapunov exponent satisfies the large deviation type estimate and infEL(E)>0\displaystyle\inf_{E\in\mathbb{R}}L(E)>0 [18], the current decays exponentially by Theorem 3.9.

The Fibonacci Hamiltonian
This model was introduced in [19, 20] and has been studied as a model of a one-dimensional quasi-crystal. See [21] for detail. The Fibonacci Hamiltonian is defined as follows: Ω=𝕋\Omega=\mathbb{T}, PP : Lebesgue measure. ϕω=ω+α\phi\omega=\omega+\alpha, where α=512\alpha=\frac{\sqrt{5}-1}{2}. f(ω)=λχ[1α,1)(ω)f(\omega)=-\lambda\chi_{[1-\alpha,1)}(\omega).

The spectrum is independent of ω𝕋\omega\in\mathbb{T} (we denote it by Σλ\Sigma_{\lambda}) and singular continuous. It is known that the Lyapunov exponent L(E)L(E) is continuous and is 0 on Σλ\Sigma_{\lambda}. Thus by Theorem 3.7, 3.8, although the current converges to 0 as NN\to\infty, it does not decay exponentially. The more can be said for this model. In the case where ω=0\omega=0, it is shown that the norm of the transfer matrix is bounded by the power of the sample size NN on the spectrum [22] : There is an EE-independent constant θ>0\theta>0 such that if EΣλE\in\Sigma_{\lambda} then TN(E)Nθ\|T_{N}(E)\|\leq N^{\theta}. Note that this fact does not imply the power law decay of the current immediately, because the Lebesgue measure of the spectrum Σλ\Sigma_{\lambda} is 0. However, by combining the results in [23, 24], we can conclude the power law decay of the current.

Theorem 3.11.

Let dimHΣλ\mathrm{dim}_{H}\Sigma_{\lambda} be the Hausdorff dimension of Σλ\Sigma_{\lambda} ( dimHΣλ(0,1)\mathrm{dim}_{H}\Sigma_{\lambda}\in(0,1) by [21]). For any ξ(0,dimHΣλ)\xi\in(0,\mathrm{dim}_{H}\Sigma_{\lambda}), there is a constant Cξ>0C_{\xi}>0 such that

(N)CξN(1ξ1)+2θ.\mathcal{I}(N)\geq\frac{C_{\xi}}{N^{(\frac{1}{\xi}-1)+2\theta}}.

Almost Mathieu operator
This model is the representative example of quasi-periodic potential. Ω=𝕋\Omega=\mathbb{T}, PP : Lebesugue measure. ϕω=ω+α\phi\omega=\omega+\alpha for fixed α𝕋\alpha\in\mathbb{T}. f(ω)=2λcos(2πω)f(\omega)=-2\lambda\cos(2\pi\omega). This model has two parameters α𝕋,λ>0\alpha\in\mathbb{T},\lambda>0, and the properties vary according to them. Since if α\alpha is rational, the porential is periodic, we assume that α\alpha is irrational. If λ<1\lambda<1, then for every ω𝕋\omega\in\mathbb{T} the spectrum of hωh_{\omega} is purely absolutely continuous. If λ1\lambda\geq 1, then for every ω𝕋\omega\in\mathbb{T}, absolutely continuous spectrum is empty, σac(hω)=\sigma_{ac}(h_{\omega})=\emptyset. So our interest is in the case where λ1\lambda\geq 1. The Lyapunov exponent L(E)L(E) is continuous and its minimum is max{logλ,0}\max\{\log\lambda,0\}, which is the value on the spectrum [15]. Thus, the current does not show the exponential decay for λ=1\lambda=1. If λ>1\lambda>1, it is shown that the property LD holds for appropriate α\alpha, and the current decays exponentially [25].

3.2 β>0\beta>0 : with noise

In this subsection we consider the current under dephasing noise. We obtain an explicit form of the current, which scales as 1/N1/N for large NN, in the case where the potential is absent (3.2.1). 3.2.2 deals with the general potential case. Unfortunately, the scaling of the current for general potentials is not obtained yet. But we can say a little about the current for strong noise regime.

3.2.1 v=0v=0

Let us start with the case where v=0v=0. In this case we can obtain an explicit form of the current 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N), using the equation

𝒥β(N)=4(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)e1,l1(pN)e1.\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N)=-4(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})\langle e_{1},l^{-1}(p_{N})e_{1}\rangle.

Set X=l1(pN)X=l^{-1}(p_{N}). XX is a self-adjoint operator on N\mathbb{C}^{N}. Let us denote Xij=ei,XejX_{ij}=\langle e_{i},Xe_{j}\rangle. Since XX is self-adjoint, Xji=Xij¯X_{ji}=\overline{X_{ij}}. Denote αinl+αoutl=ζl>0,αinr+αoutr=ζr>0\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}=\zeta_{l}>0,\ \alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r}=\zeta_{r}>0. By l(X)=pNl(X)=p_{N}, we have

0=e1,pNe1=e1,l(X)e1=2ζlX11+iX21iX120=\langle e_{1},p_{N}e_{1}\rangle=\langle e_{1},l(X)e_{1}\rangle=-2\zeta_{l}X_{11}+iX_{21}-iX_{12}
ImX12=ζlX11.\to\ \mathrm{Im}X_{12}=\zeta_{l}X_{11}.

And for n=2,,N1n=2,\cdots,N-1,

0=en,pNen=iXn1niXnn1+iXn+1niXnn+10=\langle e_{n},p_{N}e_{n}\rangle=iX_{n-1n}-iX_{nn-1}+iX_{n+1n}-iX_{nn+1}
ImXn1n=ImXnn+1=ζlX11.\to\ \mathrm{Im}X_{n-1n}=\mathrm{Im}X_{nn+1}=\zeta_{l}X_{11}.

By

0Tt(2ζlp1+2ζrpN)𝑑t=I,\int^{\infty}_{0}T_{t}^{*}(2\zeta_{l}p_{1}+2\zeta_{r}p_{N})dt=I,

where TtT_{t}^{*} is the dual action of TtT_{t} (TraTt(b)=TrTt(a)b\mathrm{Tr}aT_{t}(b)=\mathrm{Tr}T_{t}^{*}(a)b), we get

2ζlX11+2ζrXNN=12\zeta_{l}X_{11}+2\zeta_{r}X_{NN}=-1
XNN=(12ζrζlζrX11).\to X_{NN}=\left(-\frac{1}{2\zeta_{r}}-\frac{\zeta_{l}}{\zeta_{r}}X_{11}\right).

We have

0=e1,pNe2=ζlX12βX12+iX22iX11iX13,0=\langle e_{1},p_{N}e_{2}\rangle=-\zeta_{l}X_{12}-\beta X_{12}+iX_{22}-iX_{11}-iX_{13},
0=eN1,pNeN=ζrXN1NβXN1N+iXNN+iXN2NiXN1N1,0=\langle e_{N-1},p_{N}e_{N}\rangle=-\zeta_{r}X_{N-1N}-\beta X_{N-1N}+iX_{NN}+iX_{N-2N}-iX_{N-1N-1},

and for n=2,,N2n=2,\cdots,N-2

0=en,pNen+1=βXnn+1+iXn+1n+1+iXn1n+1iXnniXnn+2.0=\langle e_{n},p_{N}e_{n+1}\rangle=-\beta X_{nn+1}+iX_{n+1n+1}+iX_{n-1n+1}-iX_{nn}-iX_{nn+2}.

Adding the imaginary part of the above three equations, we finally obtain

0\displaystyle 0 =\displaystyle= XNNX11ζlζlX11ζrζlX11β(N1)ζlX11\displaystyle X_{NN}-X_{11}-\zeta_{l}\cdot\zeta_{l}X_{11}-\zeta_{r}\cdot\zeta_{l}X_{11}-\beta(N-1)\cdot\zeta_{l}X_{11}
=\displaystyle= (12ζrζlζrX11)X112ζl2X112ζlζrX11βζl(N1)X11.\displaystyle\left(-\frac{1}{2\zeta_{r}}-\frac{\zeta_{l}}{\zeta_{r}}X_{11}\right)-X_{11}-2\zeta_{l}^{2}X_{11}-2\zeta_{l}\zeta_{r}X_{11}-\beta\zeta_{l}(N-1)X_{11}.
X11=121ζl+ζr+ζlζr(ζl+ζr+β(N1)).\to X_{11}=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\zeta_{l}+\zeta_{r}+\zeta_{l}\zeta_{r}(\zeta_{l}+\zeta_{r}+\beta(N-1))}.

Thus the current 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) is expressed as follows:

Theorem 3.12.

When v=0v=0, then

𝒥β(N)=2(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)αinl+αoutl+αinr+αoutr+(αinl+αoutl)(αinr+αoutr)(αinl+αoutl+αinr+αoutr+β(N1)).\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N)=\frac{2(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})}{\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}+\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r}+(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}+\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r}+\beta(N-1))}.

The current 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) decays as 1/N1/N for large NN and its coefficient is

2(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)β(αinl+αoutl)(αinr+αoutr).\frac{2(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})}{\beta(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})}.

For αinl=Γ1μ2,αoutl=Γ1+μ2,αinr=Γ1+μ2,αoutr=Γ1μ2,β=2γ\alpha_{in}^{l}=\Gamma\frac{1-\mu}{2},\ \alpha_{out}^{l}=\Gamma\frac{1+\mu}{2},\ \alpha_{in}^{r}=\Gamma\frac{1+\mu}{2},\ \alpha_{out}^{r}=\Gamma\frac{1-\mu}{2},\ \beta=2\gamma, we have

𝒥2γ(N)=μΓ+1/Γ+γ(N1).\mathcal{J}_{2\gamma}(N)=-\frac{\mu}{\Gamma+1/\Gamma+\gamma(N-1)}.

This corresponds to the result of [8] (note that the Hamiltonian in [8] corresponds to 2H2H in our setting).

3.2.2 vv : general potentials

In the case of general potentials, the scaling of 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) is not obtained. But for large β\beta, we can know a little about the current. First, we consider the strong noise limit β\beta\to\infty. And then, large but finite noise β=ϵN\beta=\epsilon N is discussed and it is shown that the current may be increased by adding large noise in the case of random potentials.

The same calculation as the case where v=0v=0 shows that

[ζl+ζr+ζlζr(ζl+ζr+β(N1))]X11=12+ζrn=1N1(v(n+1)v(n))ReXnn+1.[\zeta_{l}+\zeta_{r}+\zeta_{l}\zeta_{r}(\zeta_{l}+\zeta_{r}+\beta(N-1))]X_{11}=-\frac{1}{2}+\zeta_{r}\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}(v(n+1)-v(n))\mathrm{Re}X_{nn+1}.

Since XX is bounded:

0X=l1(pN)=0etl(pN)𝑑t1ζrI,0\leq-X=-l^{-1}(p_{N})=\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{tl}(p_{N})dt\leq\frac{1}{\zeta_{r}}I,

we have

|Xnn+1|1ζrβ(3+max{ζl,ζr,1})0(β).|X_{nn+1}|\leq\frac{1}{\zeta_{r}\beta}(3+\max\{\zeta_{l},\zeta_{r},1\})\to 0\ (\beta\to\infty).

Thus we obtain

limββ𝒥β(N)=2(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)(αinl+αoutl)(αinr+αoutr)(N1).\lim_{\beta\to\infty}\beta\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N)=\frac{2(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})}{(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})(N-1)}.

This means that when one expands 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) in terms of 1/β1/\beta for large β\beta, the dominant term is

2(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)(αinl+αoutl)(αinr+αoutr)(N1)1β,\frac{2(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})}{(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})(N-1)}\frac{1}{\beta},

which is independent of potentials and scales 1/N1/N for large NN. But there is a gap between this fact and the claim that 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) scales as 1/N1/N.

Next, we consider large β\beta not taking limit β\beta\to\infty. Denote C=3+max{ζl,ζr,1}C=3+\max\{\zeta_{l},\zeta_{r},1\}. Fix ϵ>4vC\epsilon>4\|v\|C and put β=ϵN\beta=\epsilon N, then we have

[ζl+ζr+ζlζr(ζl+ζr+β(N1))]X11\displaystyle[\zeta_{l}+\zeta_{r}+\zeta_{l}\zeta_{r}(\zeta_{l}+\zeta_{r}+\beta(N-1))]X_{11} =\displaystyle= 12+ζrn=1N1(v(n+1)v(n))ReXnn+1\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}+\zeta_{r}\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}(v(n+1)-v(n))\mathrm{Re}X_{nn+1}
\displaystyle\leq (122vCϵ).\displaystyle-\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2\|v\|C}{\epsilon}\right).

Therefore, the current 𝒥β(N)\mathcal{J}_{\beta}(N) is bounded below as

𝒥ϵN(N)4(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)ζl+ζr+ζlζr(ζl+ζr+ϵN(N1))(122vCϵ)>0.\mathcal{J}_{\epsilon N}(N)\geq\frac{4(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})}{\zeta_{l}+\zeta_{r}+\zeta_{l}\zeta_{r}(\zeta_{l}+\zeta_{r}+\epsilon N(N-1))}\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2\|v\|C}{\epsilon}\right)>0.

Let us consider the Anderson model as an example. Recall that if β=0\beta=0, the current shows the exponential decay for a.e. ω\omega. It turns out that by the above inequality, for such ω\omega,

𝒥ϵN(N,ω)𝒥0(N,ω)\mathcal{J}_{\epsilon N}(N,\omega)\geq\mathcal{J}_{0}(N,\omega)

holds for sufficiently large NN. Thus, strong noise increases the current in this example. It is remarkable that although the noise is symmetric and does not have the effect to flow the particles to a specific direction, it could increase the current. Note that the noise does not always increase the current (consider the case where v=0v=0).

4 dd-dimensional systems

In the previous sections we focused on one-dimensional systems. In this section we consider an extension to general dd-dimensional systems. As in the one-dimensional case, we assume that particles go in and out in a specific direction. Although the case where d=2,3d=2,3 is physically important, we discuss general dd-dimensional systems here. Since the analysis is almost the same as one-dimensional systems, we do not discuss the detail here.

For N1,N2,,NdN_{1},N_{2},\cdots,N_{d}\in\mathbb{N}, let us consider a finite dd-dimensional lattice

𝔏={1,2,,N1}×{1,2,,N2}×{1,2,,Nd}.\mathfrak{L}=\{1,2,\cdots,N_{1}\}\times\{1,2,\cdots,N_{2}\}\times\{1,2,\cdots,N_{d}\}.

An element of this lattice is written as

ν=(ν1,ν2,,νd)𝔏.\nu=(\nu_{1},\nu_{2},\cdots,\nu_{d})\in\mathfrak{L}.

We assume that particles go in and out in the direction’1’. For i=1,2,,N1i=1,2,\cdots,N_{1}, define

Mi={ν𝔏ν1=i}.M_{i}=\{\nu\in\mathfrak{L}\mid\nu_{1}=i\}.

This is a plane vertical to the direction’1’. Suppose that particles go in and out at the surfaces M1,MN1M_{1},M_{N_{1}}. For ν𝔏MN1\nu\in\mathfrak{L}\setminus M_{N_{1}}, define

ν+=(ν1+1,ν2,,νd)𝔏.\nu_{+}=(\nu_{1}+1,\nu_{2},\cdots,\nu_{d})\in\mathfrak{L}.

And let NN(ν)NN(\nu) be the set of nearest-neighbors of ν\nu in 𝔏\mathfrak{L}.

one-particle Hilbert space that describes Fermi particles moving on this lattice is |𝔏|\mathbb{C}^{|\mathfrak{L}|}, where |𝔏|=n=1dNn|\mathfrak{L}|=\displaystyle\prod_{n=1}^{d}N_{n}. We denote its standard basis by {eν}ν𝔏\{e_{\nu}\}_{\nu\in\mathfrak{L}}. one-particle Hamiltonian hh is given as

(hψ)(ν)=μNN(ν)ψ(μ)+v(ν)ψ(v),ψ|𝔏|.(h\psi)(\nu)=-\sum_{\mu\in NN(\nu)}\psi(\mu)+v(\nu)\psi(v),\ \psi\in\mathbb{C}^{|\mathfrak{L}|}.

Let HH be the total Hamiltonian constructed by this one-particle Hamiltonian hh. Let us consider the following generator LL in many body system:

L(A)\displaystyle L(A) =\displaystyle= i[H,A]\displaystyle i[H,A]
+αinlνM1(2aνθ(A)aν{aνaν,A})+αoutlνM1(2aνθ(A)aν{aνaν,A})\displaystyle+\alpha_{in}^{l}\sum_{\nu\in M_{1}}(2a_{\nu}\theta(A)a^{*}_{\nu}-\{a_{\nu}a^{*}_{\nu},A\})+\alpha_{out}^{l}\sum_{\nu\in M_{1}}(2a^{*}_{\nu}\theta(A)a_{\nu}-\{a^{*}_{\nu}a_{\nu},A\})
+αinrνMN1(2aνθ(A)aν{aνaν,A})+αoutrνMN1(2aνθ(A)aν{aνaν,A})\displaystyle+\alpha_{in}^{r}\sum_{\nu\in M_{N_{1}}}(2a_{\nu}\theta(A)a^{*}_{\nu}-\{a_{\nu}a^{*}_{\nu},A\})+\alpha_{out}^{r}\sum_{\nu\in M_{N_{1}}}(2a^{*}_{\nu}\theta(A)a_{\nu}-\{a^{*}_{\nu}a_{\nu},A\})
+βν𝔏(aνaνAaνaν12{aνaν,A}).\displaystyle+\beta\sum_{\nu\in\mathfrak{L}}\left(a^{*}_{\nu}a_{\nu}Aa^{*}_{\nu}a_{\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\{a^{*}_{\nu}a_{\nu},A\}\right).

Here, we denote a#(eν)=aν#a^{\#}(e_{\nu})=a^{\#}_{\nu} as usual. αinl,αoutl,αinr,αoutr,β\alpha_{in}^{l},\alpha_{out}^{l},\alpha_{in}^{r},\alpha_{out}^{r},\beta are real numbers that are greater than or equal to 0, and we assume that αinl+αoutl>0,αinr+αoutr>0\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}>0,\ \alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r}>0. By the same calculation as one-dimensional case, it turns out that the dynamics of the two point function is described in terms of that of one-particle system. For eν|𝔏|e_{\nu}\in\mathbb{C}^{|\mathfrak{L}|}, denote a 1-rank projection by pν=|eνeν|p_{\nu}=|e_{\nu}\rangle\langle e_{\nu}|. If

ω(a(f)a(g))=g,Rf,\omega(a^{*}(f)a(g))=\langle g,Rf\rangle,

then R(t)R(t) defined by the relation

ωetL(a(f)a(g))=g,R(t)f,\omega\circ e^{tL}(a^{*}(f)a(g))=\langle g,R(t)f\rangle,

is expressed as

R(t)=etl(R)+0tesl(2αinlνM1pν+2αinrνMN1pν)𝑑s,R(t)=e^{tl}(R)+\int^{t}_{0}e^{sl}\left(2\alpha_{in}^{l}\sum_{\nu\in M_{1}}p_{\nu}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}\sum_{\nu\in M_{N_{1}}}p_{\nu}\right)ds,

where ll is a linear map on M|𝔏|()M_{|\mathfrak{L}|}(\mathbb{C}) defined as

l(a)=i[h,a](αinl+αoutl){νM1pν,a}(αinr+αoutr){νMN1pν,a}+β(ν𝔏pνapνa).l(a)=-i[h,a]-(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})\left\{\sum_{\nu\in M_{1}}p_{\nu},a\right\}-(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})\left\{\sum_{\nu\in M_{N_{1}}}p_{\nu},a\right\}+\beta\left(\sum_{\nu\in\mathfrak{L}}p_{\nu}ap_{\nu}-a\right).

It generates a semigroup of CP maps etle^{tl}. By the same discussion as the one-dimensional system, we obtain limtetl=0\displaystyle\lim_{t\to\infty}e^{tl}=0. Thus R(t)R(t) converges to

0etl(2αinlP1+2αinrPN1)𝑑t\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{tl}(2\alpha_{in}^{l}P_{1}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}P_{N_{1}})dt

as tt\to\infty, where P1=νM1pνP_{1}=\displaystyle\sum_{\nu\in M_{1}}p_{\nu} and PN1=νMN1pνP_{N_{1}}=\displaystyle\sum_{\nu\in M_{N_{1}}}p_{\nu}. In the long time limit, the number of particles which move from MnM_{n} to Mn+1M_{n+1} per time (current) becomes

νMnIm0eν+,etl(2αinlP1+2αinrPN1)eν𝑑t.\sum_{\nu\in M_{n}}\mathrm{Im}\int^{\infty}_{0}\left\langle e_{\nu_{+}},e^{tl}(2\alpha_{in}^{l}P_{1}+2\alpha_{in}^{r}P_{N_{1}})e_{\nu}\right\rangle dt.

It is independent of nn (we denote it by 𝒥(N1,,Nd)\mathcal{J}(N_{1},\cdots,N_{d})). The same calculation as one-dimensional system shows that

𝒥(N1,,Nd)=4(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)0TrP1etl(PN1)𝑑t=4(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)TrP1l1(PN1).\mathcal{J}(N_{1},\cdots,N_{d})=4(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})\int^{\infty}_{0}\mathrm{Tr}P_{1}e^{tl}(P_{N_{1}})dt=-4(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})\mathrm{Tr}P_{1}l^{-1}(P_{N_{1}}).

In the case where v=0v=0, we obtain the explicit form of the current:

Theorem 4.1.
𝒥(N1,,Nd)=\displaystyle\mathcal{J}(N_{1},\cdots,N_{d})=
2(αinlαoutrαoutlαinr)n=2dNn(β(N11)+αinl+αoutl+αinr+αoutr)(αinl+αoutl)(αinr+αoutr)+αinl+αoutl+αinr+αoutr.\displaystyle\frac{2(\alpha_{in}^{l}\alpha_{out}^{r}-\alpha_{out}^{l}\alpha_{in}^{r})\prod_{n=2}^{d}N_{n}}{(\beta(N_{1}-1)+\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}+\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})(\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l})(\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r})+\alpha_{in}^{l}+\alpha_{out}^{l}+\alpha_{in}^{r}+\alpha_{out}^{r}}.

Especially in the case where d=3d=3, the current decreases in inverse proportion to the length of the sample N1N_{1} and increases in proportion to the cross section N2×N3N_{2}\times N_{3}.

5 Discussion and conclusions

In this paper, we investigated the current for a conduction model of Fermi particles on a finite lattice. When the dephasing noise is absent (β=0\beta=0), this model is a special case of those in [7, 9]. First, we obtained the dynamics of two point function and proved that it converges to a constant independent of initial state. Next, we investigated the current, which is an important quantity in nonequilibrium systems and described by two point function and obtained a simple current formula (Theorem 2.2). Based on this formula, we considered the asymptotic behavior of the current. The results are as follows:

noiseless (β=0\beta=0)

One can evaluate the current using transfer matrix. For dynamically defined potentials, the asymptotic behavior is related to the property of the Lyapunov exponent. For example, the Anderson model shows the exponential decay of current.

with noise (β>0\beta>0)

For the case where v=0v=0, the current is explicitly obtained and decays as 1/N1/N. The same analysis can be applied to higher dimensional systems. In three-dimensional case, the current increases in proportion to cross section and decreases in inverse proportion to the length of the sample for large sample size.

Apart from the case where v=0v=0, we gave only inequalities for the asymptotic property in this paper. To obtain the exact scaling of the current for various models is our future work.

Finally we would like to discuss some related studies. As previously mentioned, the noiseless case is also studied in more general settings in [7, 9]. But we believe that it is our original work to obtain the current formula (Theorem 2.2) and investigate the asymptotic property based on it. In [7], Prosen discussed the conduction model as an example and said that the current would decay exponentially for random potentials. But he did not give an exact proof for it. The model that noise exists and potential v=0v=0 is studied in [8], and the same current formula as ours (subsection 3.2.1) is obtained for special values of αinl,αoutl,αinr,αoutr\alpha_{in}^{l},\alpha_{out}^{l},\alpha_{in}^{r},\alpha_{out}^{r}. However, the approach is different from ours. We solved the time evolution of the current and showed that the current converges to a stable value independent of initial states. On the other hand, in [8] Žnidarič tried to obtain a nonequilibrium stationary state directly as a state ρ\rho which satisfies L(ρ)=0L(\rho)=0. Since he obtained a stationary state based on an ansatz, it is not obvious if this state is the unique stationary state and the system converges to it (and if ’the stationary state’ he obtained satisfies the condition of state, ρ0\rho\geq 0). And general potential case and higher dimensional case are not discussed in [8].

The model discussed in this paper is described by a finite dimensional open system. As mentioned in 1 Introduction, there is a different approach that considers the Hamiltonian dynamics of the total system including infinitely extended reservoirs [5]. In their model, the current in nonequilibrium stationary state is evaluated by

μRμLdETN(E)2\int^{\mu_{L}}_{\mu_{R}}\frac{dE}{\|T_{N}(E)\|^{2}}

[5, 6], where μL,μR(μL>μR)\mu_{L},\mu_{R}\ (\mu_{L}>\mu_{R}) are chemical potentials of the reservoirs. The difference between our model and this model is only the region of integral, one is \mathbb{R} and the other is [μR,μL][\mu_{R},\mu_{L}]. But by Theorem 3.4, if [μR,μL][\mu_{R},\mu_{L}] is sufficiently large, this difference does not matter and both model give the same prediction for the asymptotic behavior.

References

  • [1] Herbert Spohn and Joel L Lebowitz. Irreversible thermodynamics for Quantum Systems Weakly Coupled to Thermal Reservoirs. Advances in Chemical Physics: For Ilya Prigogine, pages 109–142, 1978.
  • [2] David Ruelle. Natural nonequilibrium states in quantum statistical mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 98(1-2):57–75, 2000.
  • [3] Vojkan Jakšić and C-A Pillet. Mathematical theory of non-equilibrium quantum statistical mechanics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 108(5-6):787–829, 2002.
  • [4] Walter H Aschbacher, Vojkan Jakšić, Yan Pautrat, and C-A Pillet. Transport properties of quasi-free fermions. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 48(3):032101, 2007.
  • [5] Laurent Bruneau, Vojkan Jakšić, Yoram Last, and C-A Pillet. Conductance and absolutely continuous spectrum of 1d samples. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 344(3):959–981, 2016.
  • [6] Laurent Bruneau, Vojkan Jaksic, Yoram Last, and C-A Pillet. What is absolutely continuous spectrum? arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.01893, 2016.
  • [7] Tomaž Prosen. Third quantization: a general method to solve master equations for quadratic open fermi systems. New Journal of Physics, 10(4):043026, 2008.
  • [8] Marko Žnidarič. Exact solution for a diffusive nonequilibrium steady state of an open quantum chain. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2010(05):L05002, 2010.
  • [9] Edward Brian Davies. Irreversible dynamics of infinite fermion systems. Comm. Math. Phys., 55(3):231–258, 1977.
  • [10] Goran Lindblad. On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 48(2):119–130, 1976.
  • [11] Laurent Bruneau, Vojkan Jakšić, and C-A Pillet. Landauer-büttiker formula and schrödinger conjecture. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 319(2):501–513, 2013.
  • [12] David Damanik, Mark Embree, and Anton Gorodetski. Spectral properties of schrödinger operators arising in the study of quasicrystals. In Mathematics of aperiodic order, pages 307–370. Springer, 2015.
  • [13] David Damanik. Schrödinger operators with dynamically defined potentials. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 37(6):1681–1764, 2017.
  • [14] Svetlana Jitomirskaya and Xiaowen Zhu. Large deviations of the lyapunov exponent and localization for the 1d anderson model. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 370(1):311–324, 2019.
  • [15] Jean Bourgain and Svetlana Jitomirskaya. Continuity of the lyapunov exponent for quasiperiodic operators with analytic potential. Journal of statistical physics, 108(5-6):1203–1218, 2002.
  • [16] Pedro Duarte and Silvius Klein. Lyapunov Exponents of Linear Cocycles: Continuity via Large Deviations, volume 3. Springer, 2016.
  • [17] R. Carmona, A. Klein, and F. Martinelli. Anderson localization for bernoulli and other singular potentials. Comm. Math. Phys., 108(1):41–66, 1987.
  • [18] Valmir Bucaj, David Damanik, Jake Fillman, Vitaly Gerbuz, Tom VandenBoom, Fengpeng Wang, and Zhenghe Zhang. Localization for the one-dimensional anderson model via positivity and large deviations for the lyapunov exponent. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 372(5):3619–3667, 2019.
  • [19] Mahito Kohmoto, Leo P Kadanoff, and Chao Tang. Localization problem in one dimension: Mapping and escape. Physical Review Letters, 50(23):1870, 1983.
  • [20] Stellan Ostlund, Rahul Pandit, David Rand, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, and Eric D Siggia. One-dimensional schrödinger equation with an almost periodic potential. Physical review letters, 50(23):1873, 1983.
  • [21] David Damanik, Anton Gorodetski, and William Yessen. The fibonacci hamiltonian. Inventiones mathematicae, 206(3):629–692, 2016.
  • [22] Bruno Iochum and Daniel Testard. Power law growth for the resistance in the fibonacci model. Journal of statistical physics, 65(3-4):715–723, 1991.
  • [23] David Damanik, Mark Embree, Anton Gorodetski, and Serguei Tcheremchantsev. The fractal dimension of the spectrum of the fibonacci hamiltonian. Communications in mathematical physics, 280(2):499–516, 2008.
  • [24] András Sütő. The spectrum of a quasiperiodic schrödinger operator. Communications in mathematical physics, 111(3):409–415, 1987.
  • [25] Michael Goldstein and Wilhelm Schlag. Hölder continuity of the integrated density of states for quasi-periodic schrödinger equations and averages of shifts of subharmonic functions. Annals of Mathematics, pages 155–203, 2001.