Asymptotic property of current for a conduction model of
Fermi particles on finite lattice
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 for large sample size . 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 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,
where 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.

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 . 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 , 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 (). The one-particle Hilbert space is . Denote its standard basis by . The many body system is described by the creation and annihilation operators , where . Let us write for as usual ( is or ). These operators satisfy the following canonical anti-commutation relations:
where , is the Kronecker delta and is the identity operator on . In the sequel, we write shortly as (). Suppose that the total Hamiltonian is
where is a real-valued function called potential. Since we will consider the limit , potential is given as a bounded function on . Let be the algebra generated by the creation and annihilation operators, and be a *-automorphism determined by .
For real numbers greater than or equal to (at least one of is not ), define a linear map as
Here, .
It is obvious from the form of each term that generates a Quantum Dynamical Semigroup on [10]. That is, is a CP (completely positive) map preserving identity (state transformation) for every . The physical meaning of each term is as follows:
This term represents the Hamiltonian dynamics of many particles moving independently by a one-particle Hamiltonian
(). It operates as
The terms with coefficients
These terms represent the effects of adding a particle to site 1, removing from site 1, adding to site and removing from site , respectively. Put , 1-rank projections corresponding to the basis , then these terms operate as
(replace by in the case of ). The dynamics generated by these terms and is a special case of those in [7, 9].
The term with coefficient (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
(), then since commutes with each other, we have
Easy calculation shows that
Recall that for every state on , its two-point function is described by a positive operator on : there is an operator such that and
In the one-particle system, define a linear map as
( is the set of complex matrices), then
If or ,
and if one of is ,
Therefore, the dynamics of the two-point function is described by :
Set , then and
The pure state is transformed to
Thus, this dynamics destroys the coherence and transform a state to a convex combination of localized states .
consists of the above three types of terms. Stationary current induced by the dynamics 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 is expressed as
then by calculating
we obtain the following differential equation for :
It is easy to check that
is a solution of this equation, where is an operator semigroup on generated by
is a CP map which does not preserve identity.
Let us consider the long time limit . In the case where ,
for
Since the imaginary part of every eigenvalue of is less than , . Thus, we get
The integral of the right hand side converges, because
Note that does not depend on . This means that whatever the initial state is, the two-point function converges to the same value . 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 , we have the same result for the two-point function.
Theorem 2.1.
.
Proof.
Recall that is a Hilbert space for the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product, . Let us decompose the generator of as for defined as
are self-adjoint and especially are positive. Let us check that is positive:
Let be an eigenvalue of and be a corresponding unit eigenvector, that is, satisfy
By , , the real part of , satisfies that
If , we have
(1) |
(2) |
since and are positive. By equation(2),
Thus, is diagonalized for the basis (we write its entry as ). Assume that (otherwise must hold and repeat the following processes from instead of ), then by equation(1)
Since is diagonalized,
Repeat these processes until , then we finally get . This implies that . However contradicts to the assumption that . Thus, must hold for every eigenvalue of and
∎
By this theorem, in the case where we also have
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 . We will consider how the sign of the current is determined by the relation of constants . The current is shown to be expressed by a simple formula (Theorem 2.2).
At first, recall that the observable of current from site to is
As shown in the previous subsection, for any state the limit exists and is independent of . In fact it does not depend on . Let us check it. By the definition of generator, for any there is such that
Thus we have
and . Since is arbitrary, . This equation and
show that the limit of the current does not depend on . We denote the limit of current by (it depends on the sample size ). Then it is expressed as
has the following simple expression. This is one of our main results in this paper.
Theorem 2.2.
Proof.
By and the definition of ,
By the equation
we have
Combining these equations, we get
In order to obtain the latter equation of the theorem, we use the well-known formula for operator semigroups: for any
holds. As discussed before, the real part of every eigenvalue of is less than . This implies that and is invertible. Thus, we get
∎
Since , the sign of is completely determined by the coefficient . Let us check that .
Since
holds for , for sufficiently small we have
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 for large sample size . Since we would like to consider the situation that the current is not , let . At first, we deal with the noiseless case (). And next, the case where , mainly , is considered.
3.1 : noiseless case
In this subsection, we first prove the following proposition, which is applicable to arbitrary potentials.
Proposition 3.1.
Using this formula, we relate the current 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
As mentioned before, the imaginary part of every eigenvalue of is less than 0, and is invertible. Let us prepare a lemma.
Lemma 3.2.
For , define a linear map as
Suppose that is invertible and the imaginary part of every eigenvalue is less than 0. Then, is invertible and
Proof.
Since the integrand (operator) in the right hand side is continuous for and
for with large absolute value, the integral converges and defines a linear map on . Let us denote it by . Since
for , we have
Let us consider the entry of the matrix
In general, -entry of the inverse matrix of an matrix is expressed as
is an matrix called factor matrix, which is made by removing the i-th row and the j-th column from . is a polynomial that has degree of and the coefficient of is 1. Let us write . Set , then is a polynomial with degree of and the coefficient of is 1. Let us write . If , then is a polynomial with degree of and denoted by . Define . Since has no zeros in , is regular in a region containing (note that is the -entry of , not factor matrix). For , define a cycle as , then
Set .
(i)
This converges to as . By
we have
(ii)
This converges to 0 as . Thus,
Summarizing the above calculations, we get
and
This implies that is an injection. Since the space that operate is finite dimensional, is also surjective. Therefore, is invertible and
∎
Applying this lemma for , then we obtain Proposition 3.1:
By this equation, in order to know the asymptotic behavior of the current , we have to investigate that of . As we will see in the following, is related to transfer matrix.
Let us recall transfer matrix. Although we are considering a system on finite lattice , potential is given as a function in order to take limit . For , if satisfies
then the relation
holds (here, ). A matrix
is called a transfer matrix. It is in and thus .
For , define
These values are related to transfer matrix as follows.
Lemma 3.3.
where is a transfer matrix corresponding to a complex-valued potential defined as , and for .
We do not give the proof here, since it is in [11] (Lemma 2.2). By this lemma, we can evaluate using transfer matrix.
Lemma 3.4.
There is a constant independent of such that
(). There is a constant such that
Proof.
By resolvent formula,
From this inequality, we have
(3) | |||
(4) |
By inequality(3),
and by inequality(4),
Similarly, we get
The former inequality of the lemma is obtained.
Operating both hand sides of the equation of Lemma 3.3 to a vector , we obtain
Since is not ,
is invertible and by Lemma 3.3 we have
Since all the entries of the right hand side are bounded, the norm is also bounded by an -independent constant :
∎
Easy calculation shows that there are -independent constants such that
Therefore, the asymptotic behavior of the current is determined by that of
(7) |
Denote , then the spectrum of , , is contained in the interval . Set . 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.
It is same for
By this theorem, we immediately obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 3.6.
There is such that for all ,
holds.
Let us give the proof of Theorem 3.5 step by step.
Here, let us consider a Schrödinger operator on a doubly infinite lattice . Now, potential is given only on . For , we extend it by . Then, is a bounded self-adjoint operator on and (). Thus, if , is invertible. Note that there is a solution of the eigenvalue equation such that for . Such can be constructed as follows: If
holds. For , determine by
inductively.
Let us consider the asymptotic behavior of . Set and . By resolvent formula
Use this equation for again and repeat this process, then finally we get
By spectral decomposition and the condition on , the absolute value of each factor is bounded by . Thus, we have
Define . Let be the solution of the eigenvalue equation with the condition (). By the property of transfer matrix,
Since and , holds. Thus we have
By
we get
By
and , we get
Thus, Theorem 3.5 follows (the case of is similarly proven).
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 be a discrete Schrödinger operator on with a bounded potential . The following statements are equivalent.
-
•
does not have absolutely continuous spectrum ()
-
•
.
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 , although we are interested in the half of it, .
Let be an ergodic invertible discrete dynamical system. That is, is a probability space (in the sequel, we do not write the -field ), is a measurable bijection preserving probability such that the probability of invariant set is or (ergodicity). Let be a bounded real measurable function on . Then, for we have a Schrödinger operator with a potential
This is called a dynamically defined potential and a family of operators is called an ergodic Schrödinger operator.
Let us denote the transfer matrix determined by the potential . Then satisfies
and
By subadditive ergodic theorem, for a.e.
holds, where
is called Lyapunov exponent. Since , . The Lyapunov exponent provides a rate of exponential growth of the norm of the transfer matrix for each . What we would like to estimate is the integral
Theorem 3.8.
Assume that the Lyapunov exponent is continuous. Then,
holds for a.e. .
Proof.
Only the last inequality is not trivial. Suppose that satisfies
for a.e. . By Fubini theorem, the probability of the set of such is 1. By the discussion of Theorem 3.5 it turns out that . Put and let be the energy that achieves the minimum (such may not be uniquely determined, but the choice of is not important in the following discussion). Since is continuous, for any there is such that As is a monotonically decreasing convex function, we have
By dominated convergence theorem,
Since is arbitrary, we get
∎
By this theorem, if the Lyapunov exponent is continuous and , 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 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 and any finite closed interval , there are constants such that
Theorem 3.9.
Suppose that the property LD holds and , then
Although the proof is obvious from the discussion in the proof of Lemma 3.2 in [14], we repeat it here.
Proof.
Set and fix that satisfy and ( is the norm in ). By the property LD, there are such that
Let us denote Lebesgue measure on . Denote
then we have
Fix such that and set
then we get
holds and by Borel-Cantelli lemma,
This means that for a.e. there is such that if then holds. Obviously such satisfies
for . By this estimate and Theorem 3.5, we obtain
∎
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 be a compact subset, be a probability measure on such that ( is the number of elements of the set). Define and . Let be a shift on , that is, . . 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. , the following statements hold:
-
•
has pure point spectrum.
-
•
Every eigenvector decays exponentially.
By Theorem 3.7, the current converges to as for a.e. (we can apply Theorem 3.7 for the system on , since absolutely continuous spectrum is stable under trace class perturbations). Moreover, since the Lyapunov exponent satisfies the large deviation type estimate and [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:
, : Lebesgue measure. , where . .
The spectrum is independent of (we denote it by ) and singular continuous. It is known that the Lyapunov exponent is continuous and is on . Thus by Theorem 3.7, 3.8, although the current converges to as , it does not decay exponentially. The more can be said for this model. In the case where , it is shown that the norm of the transfer matrix is bounded by the power of the sample size on the spectrum [22] : There is an -independent constant such that if then . Note that this fact does not imply the power law decay of the current immediately, because the Lebesgue measure of the spectrum is . However, by combining the results in [23, 24], we can conclude the power law decay of the current.
Theorem 3.11.
Let be the Hausdorff dimension of ( by [21]). For any , there is a constant such that
Almost Mathieu operator
This model is the representative example of quasi-periodic potential.
, : Lebesugue measure. for fixed . . This model has two parameters , and the properties vary according to them. Since if is rational, the porential is periodic, we assume that is irrational. If , then for every the spectrum of is purely absolutely continuous. If , then for every , absolutely continuous spectrum is empty, . So our interest is in the case where . The Lyapunov exponent is continuous and its minimum is , which is the value on the spectrum [15]. Thus, the current does not show the exponential decay for . If , it is shown that the property LD holds for appropriate , and the current decays exponentially
[25].
3.2 : with noise
In this subsection we consider the current under dephasing noise. We obtain an explicit form of the current, which scales as for large , 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
Let us start with the case where . In this case we can obtain an explicit form of the current , using the equation
Set . is a self-adjoint operator on . Let us denote . Since is self-adjoint, . Denote . By , we have
And for ,
By
where is the dual action of (), we get
We have
and for
Adding the imaginary part of the above three equations, we finally obtain
Thus the current is expressed as follows:
Theorem 3.12.
When , then
3.2.2 : general potentials
In the case of general potentials, the scaling of is not obtained. But for large , we can know a little about the current. First, we consider the strong noise limit . And then, large but finite noise 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 shows that
Since is bounded:
we have
Thus we obtain
This means that when one expands in terms of for large , the dominant term is
which is independent of potentials and scales for large . But there is a gap between this fact and the claim that scales as .
Next, we consider large not taking limit . Denote . Fix and put , then we have
Therefore, the current is bounded below as
Let us consider the Anderson model as an example. Recall that if , the current shows the exponential decay for a.e. . It turns out that by the above inequality, for such ,
holds for sufficiently large . 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 ).
4 -dimensional systems
In the previous sections we focused on one-dimensional systems. In this section we consider an extension to general -dimensional systems. As in the one-dimensional case, we assume that particles go in and out in a specific direction. Although the case where is physically important, we discuss general -dimensional systems here. Since the analysis is almost the same as one-dimensional systems, we do not discuss the detail here.
For , let us consider a finite -dimensional lattice
An element of this lattice is written as
We assume that particles go in and out in the direction’1’. For , define
This is a plane vertical to the direction’1’. Suppose that particles go in and out at the surfaces . For , define
And let be the set of nearest-neighbors of in .
one-particle Hilbert space that describes Fermi particles moving on this lattice is , where . We denote its standard basis by . one-particle Hamiltonian is given as
Let be the total Hamiltonian constructed by this one-particle Hamiltonian . Let us consider the following generator in many body system:
Here, we denote as usual. are real numbers that are greater than or equal to , and we assume that . 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 , denote a 1-rank projection by . If
then defined by the relation
is expressed as
where is a linear map on defined as
It generates a semigroup of CP maps . By the same discussion as the one-dimensional system, we obtain . Thus converges to
as , where and . In the long time limit, the number of particles which move from to per time (current) becomes
It is independent of (we denote it by ). The same calculation as one-dimensional system shows that
In the case where , we obtain the explicit form of the current:
Theorem 4.1.
Especially in the case where , the current decreases in inverse proportion to the length of the sample and increases in proportion to the cross section .
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 (), 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 ()
-
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 ()
-
For the case where , the current is explicitly obtained and decays as . 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 , 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 is studied in [8], and the same current formula as ours (subsection 3.2.1) is obtained for special values of . 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 which satisfies . 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, ). 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
[5, 6], where are chemical potentials of the reservoirs. The difference between our model and this model is only the region of integral, one is and the other is . But by Theorem 3.4, if 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.