1: \documentstyle[aps,eqsecnum,prb,multicol,epsf]{revtex}  

2: %

3: %

4: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

5: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

6: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

7: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

8: \newcommand{\w}{\omega}

9: \newcommand{\W}{\Omega}

10: \newcommand{\nn}{{\bf n}}

11: \renewcommand{\r}{{\bf r}}

12: \newcommand{\q}{{\bf q}}

13: \newcommand{\p}{{\bf p}}

14: \newcommand{\Q}{{\bf Q}}

15: \newcommand{\sgn}{\mbox{sgn}}

16: \renewcommand{\>}{\rangle}

17: \newcommand{\<}{\langle}

18: \newcommand{\St}{\mbox{St}}

19: \renewcommand{\Re}{\mbox{Re} }

20: \renewcommand{\Im}{\mbox{Im} }

21: %

22: \begin{document}          

23: %

24: %

25: 

26: \title{Interaction corrections at intermediate temperatures: 

27: Longitudinal conductivity and kinetic equation}

28: \author{G\'abor Zala, B.N. Narozhny, and I.L. Aleiner} 

29: \address{Department of Physics and Astronomy, SUNY at Stony Brook, 

30: Stony Brook, NY, 11794} 

31: \date{\today}

32: %

33: \maketitle

34: \begin{abstract}                

35: It is well known that electron-electron interaction in two dimensional

36: disordered systems leads to logarithmically divergent Altshuler-Aronov

37: corrections to conductivity at low temperatures ($T\tau\ll 1$; $\tau$

38: is the elastic mean-free time). This paper is devoted to the fate of

39: such corrections at intermediate temperatures $T\tau \gtrsim 1$. We

40: show that in this (ballistic) regime the temperature dependence of

41: conductivity is still governed by the same physical processes as the

42: Altshuler-Aronov corrections - electron scattering by Friedel

43: oscillations. However, in this regime the correction is linear in

44: temperature; the value and even the {\em sign} of the slope depends on

45: the strength of electron-electron interaction. (This sign change may

46: be relevant for the ``metal-insulator'' transition observed recently.)

47: We show that the slope is directly related to the renormalization of

48: the spin susceptibility and grows as the system approaches the

49: ferromagnetic Stoner instability.  Also, we obtain the temperature

50: dependence of the conductivity in the cross-over region between the

51: diffusive and ballistic regimes. Finally, we derive the quantum

52: kinetic equation, which describes electron transport for arbitrary

53: value of $T\tau$.

54: \end{abstract}

55: \draft

56: \pacs{PACS numbers: 72.10.-d,  71.30.+h, 71.10.Ay }

57: 

58: 

59: \begin{multicols}{2} 

60: 

61: \section{Introduction}

62: 

63: Temperature dependent corrections to conductivity due to

64: electron-electron interactions has been a subject of theoretical

65: \cite{aar,fin,Lee,stern,dstern,gdl,das} 

66: and experimental \cite{aae,Bergman,cwh} studies for

67: more than two decades. Recently the interest in the matter was renewed

68: with appearance of new data \cite{new,nfl} showing a sign change in the

69: temperature dependence of conductivity in two dimensions

70: (2D). Theoretical discussions \cite{nfl} that followed emphasized the

71: question of whether that data indicated a non-Fermi liquid behavior.

72: However, the experiments were performed in a regime where the

73: temperature $T$ was of the same order of magnitude as the inverse

74: scattering time $\tau^{-1}$ (obtained from the Drude conductivity),

75: while pre-existing calculations were focused on the two limiting

76: cases: the diffusive regime \cite{aar,fin,Lee} $T\tau\ll 1$, and the

77: ballistic regime \cite{gdl,das} $T\tau\gg 1$.

78: 

79: In the diffusive limit one finds\cite{aar,fin,Lee} for the logarithmically

80: divergent correction to the diagonal conductivity $\delta \sigma$:

81: \beq

82: \delta\sigma=-

83: \frac{e^2}{2\pi^2\hbar}\ln\left(\frac{\hbar}{T\tau}\right)

84: \Big[1 +  3\left(1-\frac{\ln(1+F_0^\sigma)}{F_0^\sigma}

85: \right) \Big],

86: \label{introdiff}

87: \eeq

88: where $F_0^\sigma$ is the interaction constant in the triplet

89: channel which depends on the interaction strength. It is clear,

90: that the sign of this logarithmically divergent correction may

91: be positive (metallic) or negative (insulating), depending on

92: the value of $F_0^\sigma$\cite{footnote1}.

93: 

94: The result\cite{gdl,das}

95:  for the ballistic region frequently cited in literature

96: reads

97: \beq

98: \delta\sigma= -  \frac{e^2}{\pi\hbar}\left(\frac{T\tau}{\hbar}\right)

99: f(r_s),

100: \label{introbal}

101: \eeq where $f(r_s)$ is a positive function of the gas parameter of the

102: system, $r_s$. In a sharp contrast to Eq.~(\ref{introdiff}), equation

103: (\ref{introbal}) predicts always metallic sign of the interaction

104: correction.

105: 

106: The absence of a rigorous calculation at intermediate temperatures,

107: $T\tau/\hbar \simeq 1$, may have contributed to the notion that those

108: two limits are governed by different physical processes. In this paper

109: we prove that notion erroneous: the results (\ref{introdiff}) and

110: (\ref{introbal}) are due to the same physical process, namely elastic

111: scattering of electrons by the self-consistent potential created by

112: all the other electrons. Therefore, these two different expressions

113: are in fact the two limits of a single interaction correction. We

114: calculate the correction within assumptions of the Fermi liquid theory

115: (other limitations of our approach we discuss below) and present the

116: cross-over function between the diffusive and ballistic limits.

117: 

118: Moreover, we show that the existing theory for the ballistic limit

119: (\ref{introbal}) is incomplete. First, the results of

120: Ref.~\onlinecite{stern,dstern,gdl,das} account only for Hartree-like

121: interaction terms missing the exchange or Fock terms.  Second, this

122: theory essentially employs a perturbative expansion in terms of the

123: interaction strength, which breaks down for stronger coupling. Both

124: issues lead to the change in the theoretical prediction even on a

125: qualitative level.

126: 

127: The consequence of the first point is that the correction to

128: conductivity (\ref{introbal}) is always negative unlike the correction

129: in the diffusive limit that changes sign depending on the value of

130: $F_0^\sigma$.  This sign change is due to competition between the

131: universal (and positive) Fock correction and the coupling-specific

132: (and negative) Hartree contribution. If the Fock potential (or, to be

133: more precise, singlet channel) is properly taken into account, then

134: the sign of the correction in the ballistic limit is also not

135: universal (being positive for weak interaction in contrast to

136: Refs.~\onlinecite{stern,dstern,gdl,das}).

137: 

138: As follows from the second point, for the stronger interaction the

139: Hartree correction should be modified to include higher order

140: processes. For this case we show (see Section~\ref{diagrams}) that in

141: fact it should be replaced by the triplet channel correction, which is

142: characterized by the Fermi liquid constant $F_0^\sigma$. This constant

143: measures the strength of the spin-exchange interaction. If $F_0^\sigma

144: < 0$, the spin-exchange interaction tends to align electron spins and

145: (if it is strong enough) leads to the ferromagnetic Stoner

146: instability\cite{footnote1}.  Even though this constant is unknown, it

147: can be found experimentally by means of independent measurement of the

148: spin susceptibility of the system. As a function of temperature the

149: interaction correction to conductivity is almost always monotonous,

150: except for a narrow region of parameters (where it is so small that it

151: can hardly be observed).

152: 

153: The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: the following

154: section is devoted to qualitative discussion of the physics

155: involved. In the same section we summarize our results. Then we

156: present two alternative approaches to the microscopic calculation. In

157: Section~\ref{diagrams} we use the traditional perturbation

158: theory~\cite{aar} to derive the results presented in

159: Section~\ref{qualitative}, while in Section~\ref{eilenberger} the same

160: results are obtained using the quantum kinetic equation that we

161: derive.  The advantage of the kinetic equation approach is that it can

162: be readily used to discuss the temperature behavior of quantities

163: other than conductivity. These results are advertised in Conclusions

164: and will be published elsewhere \cite{pre}.

165: 

166: 

167: 

168: 

169: \section{Qualitative discussion and results}

170: \label{qualitative}

171: 

172: 

173: 

174: In this section we describe the scattering processes contributing to

175: the temperature dependence of conductivity.  We show that unlike the

176: standard Fermi liquid $T^2$ corrections, the leading correction to

177: conductivity is accumulated at large distances, of the order

178: $v_F/min(T,\sqrt{T/\tau})$.  In the ballistic limit such correction is

179: linear in temperature and we derive this result here using a text-book

180: quantum mechanical approach.  The diffusive limit is discussed in

181: detail in Ref.~\onlinecite{aar}. The resulting correction

182: $\delta\sigma\sim\ln T$ seems to be rather different from the linear

183: one, but we show that both corrections arise due to the same physics -

184: coherent scattering by Friedel oscillations. Throughout the paper we

185: keep the units such that $\hbar = 1$, except for the final answers.

186: 

187: 

188: 

189: \subsection{Scattering by Friedel oscillations}

190: \label{friedel}

191: 

192: 

193: 

194: We start with the simplest case of a weak short-range interaction

195: $V_0(\vec r_1 - \vec r_2)$ and show how one can obtain the correction

196: to conductivity in the ballistic limit, i.e. due to a single

197: scatterer. This discussion is similar to that of

198: Ref.~\onlinecite{rag}, where the correction to the one-particle

199: density of states (DoS) was discussed, and also of

200: Ref.~\onlinecite{aag}, which describes the correction to the

201: conductivity in the diffusive limit.

202: 

203: Consider a single impurity localized at some point, taken as the

204: origin. The impurity potential $U(\vec r)$ induces a modulation of

205: electron density close to the impurity. The oscillating part of the

206: modulation is known as the Friedel oscillation, which in 2D can be

207: written as

208: 

209: \begin{equation}

210: \delta\rho(\vec r) = - \frac{\nu\lambda}{2\pi r^2} \sin(2k_F r).

211: \label{frie}

212: \end{equation}

213: 

214: \noindent

215: Here $r$ denotes the distance to the impurity and its potential is

216: treated in the Born approximation $\lambda=\int U(\vec r)d\vec r$. In

217: 2D the free electron DoS is given by $\nu=m/\pi\hbar^2$ and $m$ is the

218: electron mass, $k_F$ is the Fermi momentum.

219: 

220: Taking into account electron-electron interaction $V_0(\vec r_1 - \vec

221: r_2)$ one finds additional scattering potential due to the Friedel

222: oscillation Eq.~(\ref{frie}). This potential can be presented as a sum

223: of the direct (Hartree) and exchange (Fock) terms \cite{kit}

224: 

225: \begin{mathletters}

226: \begin{equation}

227: \delta V(\vec r_1, \vec r_2) = V_H(\vec r_1)

228: \delta(\vec r_1 - \vec r_2)-V_F(\vec r_1, \vec r_2);

229: \end{equation}

230: \begin{equation}

231: V_H(\vec r_1) = \int d\vec r_3 

232: V_0(\vec r_1 - \vec r_3)\delta\rho(\vec r_3);

233: \label{hp}

234: \end{equation}

235: \begin{equation}

236: V_F(\vec r_1, \vec r_2) = \frac{1}{2}V_0(\vec r_1 - \vec r_2)

237: \delta n(\vec r_1, \vec r_2),

238: \label{fp}

239: \end{equation}

240: \label{hf}

241: \end{mathletters}

242: 

243: \noindent

244: where by $\rho(\vec r)$ we denote diagonal elements of the one

245: electron density matrix $n$,

246: 

247: \begin{equation}

248: n(\vec r_1, \vec r_2) = \sum\limits_k \Psi^*_k(\vec r_1)

249: \Psi_k(\vec r_2).

250: \label{dm}

251: \end{equation}

252: 

253: \noindent

254: The factor $1/2$ indicates that only electrons with the same spin

255: participate in exchange interaction. As a function of distance from

256: the impurity the Hartree-Fock energy $\delta V$ oscillates similarly

257: to Eq.~(\ref{frie}).

258: 

259: {

260: \narrowtext

261: \begin{figure}[ht]

262: \vspace{0.5 cm}

263: \epsfxsize=6 cm

264: \centerline{\epsfbox{fock1.eps}}

265: \vspace{0.5cm}

266: \caption{Scattering by the Friedel oscillation. Interference between

267: the two paths A and B contributes mostly to backscattering. The Friedel 

268: oscillation is created due to backscattering on the impurity, path C.}

269: \label{2}

270: \end{figure}

271: }

272: 

273: The leading correction to conductivity is a result of interference

274: between two semi-classical paths depicted on Fig.~\ref{2}. If an

275: electron follows path ``A'', it scatters off the Friedel oscillation

276: created by the impurity and path ``B'' corresponds to scattering by

277: the impurity itself. Interference is most important for scattering

278: angles close to $\pi$ (or for backscattering), since the extra phase

279: factor accumulated by the electron on path ``A'' ($e^{i2kR}$ with $R$

280: being the length of the extra path interval relative to ``B'' and $2k$

281: being the difference between initial and final momenta for that extra

282: path interval) is canceled by the phase of the Friedel oscillation

283: $e^{-i2k_FR}$ so that the amplitudes corresponding to the two paths

284: are coherent.  As a result, the probability of backscattering is

285: greater than the classical expectation (taken into account in the

286: Drude conductivity).  Therefore, taking into account interference

287: effects leads to a correction to conductivity.  We note that the

288: interference persists to large distances, limited only by temperature

289: $R\approx 1/|k-k_F|\le v_F/T$. Thus there is a possibility for the

290: correction to have a non-trivial temperature dependence.  The sign of

291: the correction depends on the sign of the coupling constant that

292: describes electron-electron interaction.

293: 

294: To put the above argument onto more rigorous footing and to find the

295: temperature dependence of the correction consider now a scattering

296: problem in the potential Eq.~(\ref{hf}). Following the textbook

297: approach \cite{llq}, we write a particle's wave function as a sum of

298: the incoming plane wave and the out-coming spherical wave (in 2D it is

299: given by a Bessel function, which we replace by its asymptotic form)

300: 

301: \begin{eqnarray}

302: \Psi = e^{i\vec k\cdot\vec r} 

303: + if(\theta)\sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{kr}}e^{ikr}.

304: \label{wv}

305: \end{eqnarray}    

306:  

307: \noindent

308: Here $f(\theta)$ is the scattering amplitude, which we will discuss in

309: the Born approximation. For the impurity potential itself the

310: amplitude $f(\theta)$ weakly depends on the angle. At zero temperature

311: it determines the Drude conductivity $\sigma_D$, while the leading

312: temperature correction is proportional to $T^2$, as is usual for Fermi

313: systems. We now show that this is not the case for the potential

314: Eq.~(\ref{hf}). In fact, taking into account Eq.~(\ref{hf}) leads to

315: enhanced backscattering and thus to the conductivity correction that

316: is linear in temperature.

317: 

318: First, we discuss the Hartree potential Eq.~(\ref{hp}).  Far from the

319: scatterer the wave function of a particle can be found in the first

320: order of the perturbation theory as $\Psi = e^{i\vec k\cdot\vec r} +

321: \delta\Psi (\vec r)$, where the correction is given by \cite{llq}

322: 

323: \begin{equation}

324: \delta\Psi (\vec r) = i\int d\vec r_1 V_H(\vec r_1) 

325: e^{i\vec k\cdot\vec r_1}

326: \sqrt{\frac{2\pi}{k|\vec r -\vec r_1|}}e^{ik|\vec r -\vec r_1|}.

327: \label{dpsi}

328: \end{equation}

329: 

330: \noindent

331: Here $|\vec r -\vec r_1|\approx r - \vec r \cdot\vec r_1/r$, since we

332: are looking at large distances. Substituting the form of the potential

333: Eq.~(\ref{hp}) and introducing the Fourier transfer of the

334: electron-electron interaction $V_0$ we can rewrite Eq.~(\ref{dpsi}) as

335: 

336: \begin{equation}

337: \delta\Psi (\vec r) = -i\frac{\nu\lambda}{\sqrt{2\pi}}V_0(q)

338: \frac{e^{ikr}}{\sqrt{kr}}\int \frac{d\vec r_1}{r_1^2} \sin (2k_Fr_1)

339: e^{i\vec q\cdot\vec r_1},

340: \label{dp1}

341: \end{equation}

342: 

343: \noindent

344: where 

345: 

346: \[

347: \vec q = \vec k - k\vec r/r, \quad |q| =

348: 2k\sin(\theta /2),

349: \]

350: 

351: \noindent

352: with $\theta$ being the angle of scattering. Comparing to

353: Eq.~(\ref{wv}) we find the scattering amplitude as a function of

354: $\theta$ (it also depends on the electron's energy $\epsilon =

355: k^2/2m$)

356: 

357: \begin{equation}

358: f(\theta) = -  \frac{\nu\lambda}{2\pi}V_0(q)

359: \int \frac{d\vec r}{r^2} \sin(2k_Fr)

360: e^{i\vec q\cdot\vec r}.

361: \label{ft1}

362: \end{equation}

363: 

364: \noindent

365: The integral can be evaluated exactly\cite{gri} and the result is

366: given by

367: 

368: \begin{equation}

369: f(\theta) = -  \frac{\nu\lambda}{2\pi}V_0(q)

370: \left\{

371: \matrix{

372: \frac{\pi}{2},  & |q|<2k_F  ;\cr

373: \arcsin\left(\frac{2k_F}{q}\right),  & |q|>2k_F .\cr

374: }

375: \right. 

376: \label{ft}

377: \end{equation}

378: 

379: \noindent

380: Let us examine this expression more closely. Since ${|q|\le 2k}$, the

381: scattering amplitude Eq.~(\ref{ft}) for small $k$ weakly depends on

382: the angle through the Fourier component of the interaction $V_0(q)$,

383: see background value of $f(\theta)$ on Fig.~\ref{1}.  However, we are

384: dealing with electronic excitations close to the Fermi surface, so in

385: fact $k$ is close to $k_F$, $|k-k_F|/k_F \ll 1$.  If $k>k_F$, then the

386: scattering amplitude Eq.~(\ref{ft}) has a non-trivial angular

387: dependence around $\theta = \pi$ shown on Fig.~\ref{1}.

388: 

389: According to Eq.~(\ref{ft}) such dependence is only possible in the

390: region $|q| > 2k_F$. This translates into the condition $|\theta -

391: \pi| < [2(k-k_F)/k_F]^{1/2}$, which determines the singular dependence

392: of the width of the feature in the scattering amplitude on the energy

393: of the scattered electron.  Finally, using the fact that $\arcsin(1-x)

394: = \pi/2 - \sqrt{2x}$, we find that the dependence of the height of the

395: feature in the scattering amplitude is also singular: $\delta

396: f(\theta) \simeq [(k-k_F)/k_F]^{1/2}$.

397: 

398: {

399: \narrowtext

400: \begin{figure}[ht]

401: \vspace{0.5 cm}

402: \epsfxsize=8 cm

403: \centerline{\epsfbox{fock2.eps}}

404: \vspace{0.5cm}

405: \caption{Scattering amplitude. The singularity for backscattering 

406: is due to interference of paths ``A'' and ``B'' on Fig. 1.} 

407: \label{1}

408: \end{figure}

409: }

410: 

411: The transport scattering rate $\tau^{-1}$ is determined by the

412: scattering cross-section and can be found with the help of the

413: amplitude Eq.~(\ref{ft}), as well as the constant amplitude $f_0$ of

414: the scattering by the impurity itself

415: 

416: \begin{equation}

417: \tau^{-1}(\epsilon) = \int \frac{d\theta}{2\pi} 

418: (1-\cos\theta) |f_0 + f(\theta)|^2.

419: \label{t1}

420: \end{equation}

421: 

422: \noindent

423: The leading energy dependence of $\tau^{-1}$ comes from the

424: interference term, which is proportional to $f(\theta)$. Then

425: integration around $\theta=\pi$ is dominated by the feature of

426: $f(\theta)$ resulting in a term of order $(\epsilon -

427: \epsilon_F)/\epsilon_F$. It is this term that gives rise to the linear

428: temperature dependence we are after. Since we are interested in this

429: leading correction only, in all other terms we can set $k\approx k_F$

430: and write the scattering rate as

431: 

432: \begin{equation}

433: \tau^{-1}(\epsilon) = \tau^{-1}_0 + \frac{\nu\lambda}{2}V_0(2k_F) 

434: \frac{\epsilon - \epsilon_F}{\epsilon_F} 

435: \eta(\epsilon - \epsilon_F)f_0.

436: \label{te}

437: \end{equation}

438: 

439: \noindent

440: Here $\eta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function and $\tau^{-1}_0$ is the

441: zero-temperature rate that determines the Drude conductivity (indeed,

442: the $\theta = \pi$ feature in $f(\theta)$ only exists for $k>k_F$ and

443: at $T=0$ there are no electrons with $k>k_F$).

444: 

445: To obtain the scattering time we have to integrate the

446: energy-dependent rate Eq.~(\ref{te}) with the derivative of the Fermi

447: distribution function $n_F(\epsilon)$

448: 

449: \begin{eqnarray*}

450: \tau = \int d\epsilon \tau(\epsilon)

451: \frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon} n_F(\epsilon).

452: \end{eqnarray*}

453: 

454: \noindent

455: Then the second term in Eq.~(\ref{te}) leads to a linear correction to

456: the Drude conductivity, small as $T/\epsilon_F$.  However this is not

457: the only contribution to the temperature dependence. At finite

458: temperatures we also have to modify the Friedel oscillation

459: Eq.~(\ref{frie}) as follows:

460: 

461: \begin{eqnarray*}

462: \delta\rho(\vec r) = - 

463: \frac{\nu\lambda T^2}{2\pi v_F^2 \sinh^2\left(\frac{rT}{v_F}\right)} 

464: \sin(2k_F r).

465: \end{eqnarray*}

466: 

467: \noindent

468: Consequently, the scattering amplitude Eq.~(\ref{ft1}) becomes

469: temperature dependent

470: 

471: \begin{eqnarray}

472: &&f(\theta) = -  \frac{\nu\lambda}{2\pi}V_0(q)

473: \int \frac{d\vec r_2}{r_2^2} e^{-2r_2\frac{T}{v_F}}\sin(2k_Fr_2)

474: e^{i\vec q\cdot\vec r_2}

475: \nonumber\\

476: &&

477: \nonumber\\

478: &&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad

479: = -  \frac{\nu\lambda}{2\pi}V_0(q)

480: \arcsin\left(\frac{4k_F}{p}\right);

481: \label{ftt}

482: \\

483: &&

484: \nonumber\\

485: &&

486: p=\sqrt{\left(\frac{2T}{v_F}\right)^2 + (q+2k_F)^2}+

487: \sqrt{\left(\frac{2T}{v_F}\right)^2 + (q-2k_F)^2}.

488: \nonumber

489: \end{eqnarray}

490: 

491: \noindent

492: Neglecting the small temperature dependent term in the denominator in

493: Eq.~(\ref{ftt}) brings us back to Eq.~(\ref{ft}). Keeping this term

494: leads to the same feature in $f(\theta)$ as the one on Fig.~\ref{1},

495: only now its width and magnitude are proportional to $\sqrt{T}$. The

496: resulting correction to the conductivity is therefore similar to the

497: one discussed above. Up to a numerical coefficient,

498: 

499: \begin{equation}

500: \frac{\delta\sigma}{\sigma_D} = - 2 \nu V_0(2k_F)\frac{T}{\epsilon_F}.

501: \label{ds1}

502: \end{equation}

503: 

504: The conductivity Eq.~(\ref{ds1}) is the same correction as the one

505: calculated in Ref.~\onlinecite{gdl}, see also Eq.~(\ref{introbal}), up

506: to a numerical factor.  It is also clear that Eq.~(\ref{ds1}) is not

507: the full story. We have forgotten about the Fock part of the potential

508: Eq.~(\ref{hf})! Substituting Eq.~(\ref{wv}) into Eq.~(\ref{dm}), we

509: find the perturbation of the density matrix [which appears in the Fock

510: potential Eq.~(\ref{fp})] $\delta n(\vec r_1, \vec r_2) \approx

511: \delta\rho[(\vec r_1+\vec r_2)/2]$. Then the argument can be repeated.

512: The only difference is that the leading temperature correction comes

513: from the Fourier component at $q=0$, rather than $q=2k_F$. What is

514: most important, the Fock potential enters with the opposite

515: sign. Therefore the expression for the conductivity Eq.~(\ref{ds1})

516: has to be corrected

517: 

518: \begin{equation}

519: \sigma = \sigma_D \left[1 - \nu \Big(2V_0(2k_F)-V_0(0)\Big)

520: \frac{T}{\epsilon_F}\right].

521: \label{ds}

522: \end{equation}

523: 

524: \noindent

525: The sign of the correction is thus not universal and depends on the

526: details of electron-electron scattering. If the weak interaction is

527: reasonably long-ranged, then $V_0(0)\gg V_0(2k_F)$, so that 

528: the correction in Eq.~(\ref{ds}) has the sign opposite to that in

529: Ref.~\onlinecite{gdl}.

530:     

531: {

532: \narrowtext

533: \begin{figure}[ht]

534: \vspace{0.5 cm}

535: \epsfxsize=7 cm

536: \centerline{\epsfbox{fock3.eps}}

537: \vspace{0.5cm}

538: \caption{Scattering process with two impurities and the Friedel 

539: oscillation. Scattering to all angles is affected by interference.

540: The relevant Friedel oscillation is created by the self-intersecting 

541: path C.} 

542: \label{3}

543: \end{figure}

544: }

545: 

546: So far we have considered the effect of a single impurity. The

547: extension of the above arguments to the case of many impurities is

548: straightforward. In particular, one can consider a scattering process,

549: which involves two impurities and the Friedel oscillation shown on

550: Fig.~\ref{3}. It is clear that this process contributes to the

551: scattering amplitude at any angle, and not just for backscattering as

552: the single impurity process on Fig.~\ref{2} (which is typical for the

553: diffusive motion of electrons). Such processes were discussed in

554: detail (although using a slightly different language) in

555: Ref.~\onlinecite{aag}. Scattering by Friedel oscillations created by

556: multiple impurities results in a conductivity correction

557: (\ref{introdiff}) that is logarithmic in temperature and is typical

558: for 2D diffusive systems \cite{aar}.

559: 

560: Comparing the scattering processes on Figs.~\ref{2} and \ref{3}, one

561: can clearly see that conductivity corrections, which arise from these

562: processes are governed by the same physics: coherent scattering by the

563: Friedel oscillation, which means that the ballistic and diffusive

564: regions should be analyzed on the same footing.  In the next

565: subsection we present the results of such anlysis, postponing 

566: the actual calculations until Secs.~\ref{diagrams} and

567: \ref{eilenberger}.

568: 

569: 

570: 

571: \subsection{Results}

572: \label{results}

573: 

574: 

575: 

576: Let us first consider the case of a weak, short range interaction

577: potential. Then the interaction can be treated in the lowest order of

578: perturbation theory, so that the resulting correction is proportional

579: to the interaction constant:

580: 

581: \begin{eqnarray}

582: \delta\sigma_w =  \frac{e^2}{\pi\hbar}

583: \left[

584: %\sigma_D\frac{T}{E_F} 

585:  \gamma_1 \frac{T\tau}{\hbar} 

586: \left[ 1 -\frac{3}{8} w(T\tau)\right]

587: -\frac{\gamma_2}{4\pi}\ln\frac{E_F}{T}\right].

588: \label{sw}

589: \end{eqnarray}

590: 

591: \noindent

592: Similarly to Eq.~(\ref{ds}), it can be written as a sum of Hartree and

593: Fock contributions (similar expression for $\gamma_1$ in one-dimensional

594: systems was obtained in Ref.~\onlinecite{gla}):

595: 

596: \begin{eqnarray}

597: &&\gamma_1 = \nu \Big[V_0(0)-2V_0(2k_F)\Big], 

598: \nonumber\\

599: &&

600: \nonumber\\

601: &&

602: \gamma_2 = \nu \Big[V_0(0)-2\langle V_0(k)\rangle_{FS}\Big],

603: \label{u}

604: \end{eqnarray}

605: 

606: \noindent

607: where $\langle\dots\rangle_{FS}$ stands for the average over the Fermi

608: surface.  Here we kept the notation for the electron-electron

609: interaction adopted in the previous Section. Then the Hartree

610: correction is proportional to the Fourier component of $V_0(q)$ at

611: $q=2k_F$, while for the Fock correction $q=0$. The two corrections

612: have different sign as we discussed above.  The extra factor of $2$ in

613: the Hartree correction is due to electron spin degeneracy.

614: 

615: Note, that Eq.(\ref{sw}) is defined only up to a

616: temperature-independent constant which is determined by the

617: ultraviolet contribution.  We have chosen the argument of the

618: logarithm to be $E_F/T$ instead of the usual $1/T\tau$ to emphasize

619: that contrary to the naive expectations the logarithmic term persists

620: up to temperatures much larger than $1/\tau$, see also

621: Ref.~\onlinecite{rag}.

622:  

623: The different expressions for the Hartree terms in $\gamma_1$ and

624: $\gamma_2$ are related to the fact that the single impurity

625: scattering, see Fig.~\ref{2}, and multiple impurity case, see

626: Fig.~\ref{3}, allow for different possible scattering angles.

627: 

628: The dimensionless function $w(T\tau)$ describes the crossover between

629: ballistic and diffusive regimes.  In the ballistic limit $T\tau\gg 1$

630: it vanishes as

631: 

632: \begin{eqnarray*}

633: w(x\gg 1) \approx \frac{8}{3\pi x}\left[\ln(2x)-\frac{1}{4}

634: (\ln x -1)(6\ln 2 -1)\right].

635: %\label{wb}

636: \end{eqnarray*}

637: 

638: \noindent

639: In the opposite limit $T\tau\ll 1$ it approaches a constant value

640: (${\cal C}\approx 0.577\dots$ is the Euler's constant and

641: $\zeta^\prime(x)$ is a derivative of the Riemann zeta function),

642: 

643: \begin{eqnarray*}

644: w(x\ll 1) \approx && 1 + 

645: \frac{2\pi x}{9}

646: \left(\ln x - \ln 2 - {\cal C} + \frac{3}{4} 

647: + 6\zeta^\prime(2)\right),

648: %\label{wd}

649: \end{eqnarray*}

650: 

651: \noindent

652: so that the linear correction does not completely vanish in the

653: diffusive limit, but competes with the logarithmic term and in

654: semiconductor structures with low Fermi energy it might be important

655: except for the lowest temperatures. The full function $w(x)$ is

656: plotted on Fig~\ref{plot:w}.

657:    

658: {

659: \narrowtext

660: \begin{figure}[ht]

661: \vspace{0.5 cm}

662: \epsfxsize=7 cm

663: \centerline{\epsfbox{f4.eps}}

664: \vspace{0.5cm}

665: \caption{Dimensionless function $w(x)$, which is defined so that

666: $w(0)=1$.}

667: \label{plot:w}

668: \end{figure}

669: }

670: 

671: 

672: If the Coulomb interaction is considered, then the lowest order in

673: interaction is not sufficient since for the long range interaction

674: $\nu V_0(q \approx 0) \gg 1$.  Although the interaction itself is

675: still independent of the electron spin, summation of the perturbation

676: theory depends on the spin state of the two electrons involved. In the

677: first order correction Eq.~(\ref{sw}) all spin channels gave identical

678: contributions.  The total number of channels is $4$ and they can be

679: classified by the total spin of the two electrons: one state with the

680: total spin zero (``singlet'') and three states with the total spin $1$

681: (``triplet''; the three states differ by the value of the

682: $z$-component of the total spin). For long range interaction the

683: perturbation theory for the Hartree correction singlet and triplet

684: channels is different. It is known \cite{aar,fin} (see also

685: Section~\ref{diagrams}), that the singlet channel contribution should

686: be combined with the Fock correction as a renormalization of the

687: coupling constant. However, the final result is universal due to

688: dynamical screening: the singlet channel modification of the coupling

689: does not affect the result. What remains of the Hartree term is the

690: triplet channel contribution, which now depends on the corresponding

691: Fermi liquid constant $F_0^\sigma$. Thus, the total correction to the

692: conductivity can be written as a sum of the ``charge'' (which combines

693: Fock and singlet part of Hartree) and triplet contributions

694: 

695: \begin{mathletters}

696: \label{all}

697: \begin{equation}

698: \sigma = \sigma_D + \delta\sigma_T + \delta\sigma_C,

699: \end{equation}

700: 

701: \noindent

702: where the charge channel correction is given by

703: 

704: \begin{equation}

705: \delta\sigma_C =

706: \frac{e^2}{\pi\hbar} \frac{T\tau}{\hbar} 

707: \left[ 1 -\frac{3}{8}f(T\tau)\right]

708:  -\frac{e^2}{2\pi^2\hbar}\ln\frac{E_F}{T}

709: ,

710: \label{fc}

711: \end{equation}

712: 

713: \noindent

714: and the triplet channel correction is

715: 

716: \begin{eqnarray}

717: \delta\sigma_T = &&

718: \frac{3F_0^\sigma}{(1+F_0^\sigma)}

719: \frac{e^2}{\pi\hbar}\frac{T\tau}{\hbar} 

720: \left[ 1 -\frac{3}{8}t(T\tau; F_0^\sigma)\right]

721: \nonumber\\

722: &&

723: \nonumber\\

724: &&

725: -3\left(1-\frac{1}{F_0^\sigma}

726: \ln(1+F_0^\sigma)\right)

727: \frac{e^2}{2\pi^2\hbar}\ln\frac{E_F}{T}.

728: \label{tc}

729: \end{eqnarray}

730: \label{s}

731: \end{mathletters}

732: 

733: \noindent

734: here the factor of three in the triplet channel correction

735: Eq.~(\ref{tc}) is due to the fact that all three components of the

736: triplet state contribute equally. We reiterate that the corrections

737: Eqs.(\ref{s}) are defined only up to a temperature independent 

738: (however not necessarily Fermi-liquid constant independent) term,

739: see also discussion after Eq.~(\ref{sw}).

740: 

741: {

742: \narrowtext

743: \begin{figure}[ht]

744: %\vspace{0.5 cm}

745: \epsfxsize=9 cm

746: \centerline{\epsfbox{f5.eps}}

747: \vspace{0.2cm}

748: \caption{Dimensionless function $f(x)$, defined so that $f(0)=1$} 

749: \label{plot:f}

750: \end{figure}

751: }

752:   

753: We should warn the reader here, that we describe the interaction in

754: the triplet channel by one coupling constant $F_0^\sigma$.  For the

755: weak coupling limit, it corresponds to the approximation $V_0(2k_F)

756: \simeq \langle V_0(k) \rangle_{FS}$. This approximation overestimates

757: the triplet channel contribution to the ballistic case for $r_s =

758: \sqrt{2}e^2/(\kappa\hbar v_F) \ll 1$. However, in this limit

759: contribution itself is much smaller than the singlet one. For better

760: estimates in this regime one should use

761: 

762: \[

763: F_0^\sigma \to - \frac{1}{2}\frac{r_s}{r_s + \sqrt{2}}

764: \]

765: 

766: \noindent

767: in the first line of Eq.~(\ref{tc}) and

768: 

769: \begin{eqnarray*}

770: F_0^\sigma \to - \frac{1}{2\pi}

771: \frac{r_s}{ \sqrt{2-r_s^2} }

772: \ln \left(

773: \frac{\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{2-r_s^2} }{\sqrt{2} - \sqrt{2-r_s^2} }

774: \right), 

775: \ \ 

776: && r_s^2 < 2; 

777: \\

778: F_0^\sigma \to - \frac{1}{\pi}\frac{r_s}{\sqrt{r_s^2-2}}

779: \arctan\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}r_s^2-1},

780: \ \ 

781: && r_s^2 > 2

782: \end{eqnarray*}

783: 

784: \noindent

785: in the second line. For $r_s \gtrsim 1$ our replacament is well

786: justified even within weak coupling scheme.

787: 

788: Similar to Eq.~(\ref{sw}) the dimensionless functions $f(x)$ and

789: $t(x;F_0^\sigma)$ describe the cross-over between ballistic and

790: diffusive limits. They are plotted on Figs.~\ref{plot:f} and

791: \ref{plot:t} and full expressions are given by Eqs.~(\ref{f2}). The

792: universal function $f(x)$ has the following limits

793: 

794: \begin{mathletters}

795: \begin{equation}

796: f(x\gg 1) \approx -\frac{1}{3\pi x}\Big(2(\ln x - 1)\ln 2 -

797: \frac{7}{2}\ln (2x)\Big);

798: \end{equation}

799: \begin{eqnarray}

800: &&f(x\ll 1) \approx 1 - \gamma_1 x 

801: + \frac{\pi}{6} x \ln x;

802: \\

803: &&

804: \nonumber\\

805: &&

806: \gamma_1 = -\frac{\zeta^\prime(2)}{\pi}+\frac{\pi}{6}

807: \left({\cal C} +\frac{1}{3}\ln 2 \right)

808: \approx 0.7216;

809: \nonumber

810: \end{eqnarray}

811: \label{fl}

812: \end{mathletters}

813: 

814:   

815: {

816: \narrowtext

817: \begin{figure}[ht]

818: %\vspace{0.2 cm}

819: \epsfxsize=9 cm

820: \centerline{\epsfbox{f6.eps}}

821: \vspace{0.2cm}

822: \caption{Dimensionless function $t(x,F_0^\sigma)$ defined so that

823: $t(0,F_0^\sigma)=1$.}

824: \label{plot:t}

825: \end{figure}

826: }

827: 

828: The function $t(x;F_0^\sigma)$ depends on the coupling constant and

829: therefore its asymptotic form also depends on $F_0^\sigma$. For very

830: small $x\ll 1+F_0^\sigma$ the asymptotic form is

831: 

832: \begin{eqnarray}

833: &&t(x\ll 1+F_0^\sigma) \approx 1 -\gamma_2 x 

834: +\frac{\pi}{18} x \ln x \left(3+\frac{1}{1+F_0^\sigma}\right);

835: \nonumber\\

836: &&

837: \nonumber\\

838: && \quad

839: \gamma_2 = -\frac{\zeta^\prime(2)}{3\pi}

840: \left(3+\frac{1}{1+F_0^\sigma}\right)

841: -\frac{\pi\gamma_3}{9(1+F_0^\sigma)}

842: \label{tsx}\\

843: &&

844: \nonumber\\

845: && \quad\quad\quad

846: +\frac{\pi}{18}

847: \left[{\cal C}\left(3+\frac{1}{1+F_0^\sigma}\right )

848: +\ln 2 \left(1+\frac{3}{1+F_0^\sigma}\right)\right];

849: \nonumber\\

850: &&

851: \nonumber\\

852: && \quad

853: \gamma_3=1-\frac{5F_0^\sigma -3}{1+F_0^\sigma} 

854: - \left(\frac{5}{2} - 2F_0^\sigma 

855: \right)\frac{\ln (1+F_0^\sigma)}{F_0^\sigma}.

856: \nonumber

857: \end{eqnarray}

858: Notice that at $T\tau \to 0$, Eqs. (\ref{all}) reproduce the known

859: result (\ref{introdiff}).

860: Let us point out that for numerical reasons contributions

861: of scaling functions $w,\ f,\ t$  change the result only by few

862: percents and they can be neglected for all the practical purposes.

863: 

864: 

865: Notice that while the charge channel correction Eq.~(\ref{fc}) is

866: universal, the triplet channel correction Eq.~(\ref{tc}) is

867: proportional to $F_0^\sigma$, which might be negative. That leads to

868: the conclusion, that the overall sign of the total correction

869: Eqs.~(\ref{s}) depends on value of

870: $F_0^\sigma$: it can be either positive or negative, see 

871: Fig.~\ref{sigma}.

872: 

873: 

874: {

875: \narrowtext

876: \begin{figure}[ht]

877: %\vspace{0.1 cm}

878: \epsfxsize=5 cm

879: %\centerline{\epsfbox{f7.eps}}

880: %The figure was changed!!! Do not change it back!!!

881: {\epsfbox{Fig7.eps}}

882: \vspace{0.2cm}

883: \caption{Total interaction correction to conductivity. The divergence 

884: at $T\tau/\hbar\protect\rightarrow 0$ is due to the usual logarithmic 

885: correction

886: \protect\cite{aar}. 

887: Curve $F_0^\sigma=0$ corresponds to the universal behavior of

888: completely spin polarized electron gas.

889: The correction is defined up to a temperature

890: independent part, see 

891: Eq.~(\protect\ref{ultra}) and discussion after Eq.~(\protect\ref{sw}).} 

892: \label{sigma}

893: \end{figure}

894: }

895: 

896: 

897: Combining together all of the above results we plot the total

898: correction to the conductivity on Fig.~\ref{sigma} for different

899: values of $F_0^\sigma$. The divergence at low temperature is due to

900: the usual logarithmic correction \cite{aar}. Although the exact value

901: of $F_0^\sigma$ can not be calculated theoretically (in particular,

902: its relation to the conventional measure of the interaction strength,

903: $r_s$, is unknown for $r_s>1$), in principle it can be found from a 

904: measurement of the Pauli spin susceptibility

905: 

906: \begin{equation}

907: \chi = \frac{\nu}{1+F_0^\sigma},

908: \label{pauli}

909: \end{equation}

910: 

911: \noindent

912: where the density of states $\nu$ should be obtained from a

913: measurement of the specific heat (at $\tau^{-1}\ll T \ll E_F$).  The

914: constant $F_0^\sigma$ is the only parameter in our theory which

915: describes all the data, including the Hall coefficient and the

916: magneto-resistance in the parallel field.  The theory for interaction

917: corrections in the magnetic field will be addressed in the forthcoming

918: paper \cite{pre}.

919: 

920: The correction in Fig.~\ref{sigma} is almost always monotonous, except

921: for a narrow region $-0.45 < F_0^\sigma < -0.25$. A typical curve in

922: this region is shown in Fig.~\ref{nonmon}. Note, however, that the

923: overall magnitude of the correction in the range of $T\tau$ in

924: Fig.~\ref{sigma} is so small that it can hardly be observed.

925:  

926: {

927: \narrowtext

928: \begin{figure}[ht]

929: %\vspace{0.1 cm}

930: \epsfxsize=5 cm

931: %\centerline{\epsfbox{f8.eps}}

932: %The figure was changed!!! Do not change it back!!!

933: {\epsfbox{Fig8.eps}}

934: \vspace{0.2cm}

935: \caption{The non-monotonous correction to conductivity. Note the difference

936: in the overall scale relative to the previous figure.} 

937: \label{nonmon}

938: \end{figure}

939: }

940: 

941: 

942: When the interaction becomes so strong that the system approaches the

943: Stoner instability, $F_0^\sigma$ ceases to be a constant and becomes

944: momentum-dependent. Thus the result Eq.~(\ref{s}) is no longer

945: valid. Although the simple condition $\delta\sigma_T < \sigma_D$

946: suggests that this happens at $T\approx (1+F_0^\sigma)E_F$, the more

947: detailed analysis (see Section~\ref{triplet}) shows that it happens

948: much earlier. In fact, the approximation of the constant $F_0^\sigma$

949: is valid in the parameter region defined by the inequality

950: 

951: \begin{equation}

952: \frac{T}{E_F} < (1+F_0^\sigma)^2,

953: \label{lim}

954: \end{equation}

955: 

956: \noindent

957: see Section~\ref{triplet} for the origin of this inequality. We 

958: were not able to make a reliable calculation of 

959: $\delta \sigma(T)$ at higher temperatures.

960: 

961: \section{Perturbation theory}

962: \label{diagrams}

963: 

964: In this section we show how the announced results Eq.~(\ref{s}) can be

965: obtained with the help of the traditional perturbation theory.  We try

966: to explain the most important points of the calculation in detail.

967: The comprehensive review of the diagrammatic technique for disordered

968: systems can be found in Ref.~\onlinecite{aar}. We start by a brief

969: discussion of the case of a weak, short-range interaction

970: potential. Although this case is artificial and is unrelated to any

971: experiment, it is governed by the same physics as the general problem,

972: and it is simple enough to allow a transparent presentation.  To

973: generalize to stronger coupling, we need to recall the basic ideas of

974: the Landau Fermi liquid theory and to identify the soft modes in the

975: system. Then we present the calculation leading to Eq.~(\ref{s}).

976: Finally, to establish the relation of our results to existing

977: literature, we briefly discuss scattering on a single impurity (this

978: discussion is completely analogous to the one in

979: Section~\ref{qualitative} but uses the language of diagrams).

980: 

981: 

982: \subsection{Hartree-Fock considerations.}

983: \label{h-f}

984: 

985: %\subsubsection{Short-range potential}

986: 

987: The static conductivity of a system of electrons is given by the Kubo

988: formula

989: 

990: \begin{eqnarray}

991: &&\sigma_{\alpha\beta} = 

992: \label{kubo}\\

993: &&

994: \nonumber\\

995: &&

996: -

997: \lim_{\omega \to 0} 

998: {\rm Re}

999: \left[

1000: \frac{1}{\Omega_n} 

1001: \int\limits_{0}^{1/T} d\tau \langle {\bf T_\tau} \hat j_\alpha(\tau)

1002: \hat j_\beta(0) \rangle e^{i\Omega_n\tau}

1003: \right]_{i\Omega_n \to \omega},

1004: \nonumber

1005: \end{eqnarray}

1006: 

1007: \noindent

1008: where $\hat j_\alpha(\tau)$ is the operator of the electric current at

1009: imaginary time $\tau$ and the analytic continuation of the function

1010: defined at Matzubara frequencies $\Omega_n = 2\pi Tn$ to function

1011: analytic at ${\rm Im} \omega >0$ is performed.

1012: 

1013: {

1014: \narrowtext

1015: \begin{figure}[ht]

1016: \vspace{0.5 cm}

1017: \epsfxsize=8 cm

1018: \centerline{\epsfbox{f9.eps}}

1019: \vspace{0.5cm}

1020: \caption{Interaction correction to conductivity in the lowest order of

1021: perturbation theory. Here solid lines correspond to Matsubara Green's

1022: functions $-G(i\epsilon_n; \vec r_1, \vec r_2)$ and the wavy line

1023: represents the interaction potential, $-V(\vec r_1- \vec r_2)$.}

1024: \label{sr}

1025: \end{figure}

1026: }   

1027: 

1028: Assuming that electrons interact by means of a weak, short-range

1029: interaction (range shorter than $v_F min(\tau, 1/T )$, $V(r)$ it is

1030: sufficient to consider the lowest order of the perturbation theory.

1031: The perturbation theory can be conveniently expressed in terms of

1032: Feinman diagrams. The lowest order diagrams for the interaction

1033: correction to the conductivity are shown on Fig.~\ref{sr}. The Hartree

1034: term corresponds to the diagrams ``a'', while the Fock contribution

1035: corresponds to diagrams ``b''. Evaluation of the correction consists

1036: of two main steps: (i) analytic continuation to real time, and (ii)

1037: disorder averaging. While these two steps can be performed in any

1038: order without affecting the result, it is more convenient (for

1039: technical reasons) to start with step (i).

1040: 

1041: Although analytic continuation in Eq.~(\ref{kubo}) is now a textbook

1042: task, we include a brief discussion of the standard procedure in the

1043: Appendix to make the paper self-contained. After the continuation any

1044: physical quantity is expressed in terms of exact (i.e. not averaged

1045: over disorder) retarded and advanced Green's functions of the

1046: electronic system, which are defined as

1047: 

1048: \begin{eqnarray}

1049: G^{R(A)}_{12}(\epsilon)=\sum\limits_j

1050: {{\Psi^*_j(\vec{r}_1)\Psi_j(\vec{r}_2)}

1051: \over{\epsilon-\epsilon_j\pm\imath 0}},

1052: \label{gra}

1053: \end{eqnarray}

1054: 

1055: \noindent

1056: where $j$ labels the exact eigenstates of the system and $\epsilon_j$

1057: are the exact eigenvalues, counted from the Fermi energy:

1058: 

1059: \[

1060: \left(\frac{-\nabla^2}{2m} + U(\vec r) \right) \Psi_j(\vec{r}) =

1061: (\epsilon_j + \epsilon_F) \Psi_j(\vec{r}).

1062: \]

1063: 

1064: \noindent

1065: Here $U(\vec r)$ is the disorder potential.

1066: 

1067: The resulting expression for the correction to the symmetric part of

1068: the conductivity (the Hall conductivity will be discussed in a

1069: separate publication \cite{pre}) can be written as \cite{aag}

1070: 

1071: 

1072: \begin{eqnarray}

1073: \delta&&\sigma_{\alpha\beta} = \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} 

1074: \frac{d\Omega}{8\pi^2}

1075: \left[\frac{\partial}{\partial\Omega}

1076: \left(\Omega\coth\frac{\Omega}{2T}\right)\right] 

1077: \int d^2 r_3 d^2 r_4

1078: \label{cc}

1079: \\

1080: &&

1081: \nonumber\\

1082: &&

1083: \times

1084: {\rm Im} \Bigg\{ V(\vec r_3- \vec r_4)

1085: \Big ( B^{\alpha\beta}_F (\Omega; \vec r_3, \vec r_4) 

1086: -2 B^{\alpha\beta}_H (\Omega; \vec r_3, \vec r_4) 

1087: \nonumber\\

1088: &&

1089: \nonumber\\

1090: && \hspace{5 cm}

1091: + \{\alpha\leftrightarrow\beta\}

1092: \Big)\Bigg\},

1093: \nonumber

1094: \end{eqnarray}

1095: 

1096: \noindent

1097: where the extra factor of $2$ in the Hartree term is due to the

1098: summation over electron spin. Here we denoted products of four 

1099: Green's functions as $B_{F(H)}$. For the Fock term we have

1100: 

1101: \begin{mathletters}

1102: \begin{eqnarray}

1103: B&&^{\alpha\beta}_F(\Omega; \vec r_3, \vec r_4) = 

1104: \int \frac{d^2 r_1 d^2 r_5}{{\cal V}} 

1105: \nonumber\\

1106: &&

1107: \nonumber\\

1108: &&

1109: \times\Big\{

1110: \hat{J}_1^\alpha G^R_{15}(\epsilon) 

1111: \hat{J}_5^\beta G^A_{53}(\epsilon)

1112: G^R_{34}(\epsilon-\Omega) G^A_{41}(\epsilon)

1113: \label{f11}

1114: \\

1115: &&

1116: \nonumber\\

1117: &&\quad

1118: + \hat{J}_1^\alpha G^A_{15}(\epsilon) 

1119: \hat{J}_5^\beta G^R_{53}(\epsilon)

1120: G^R_{34}(\epsilon-\Omega) G^R_{41}(\epsilon)

1121: \label{f12}

1122: \\

1123: &&

1124: \nonumber\\

1125: &&\quad

1126: + 2 \hat{J}_1^\alpha G^R_{13}(\epsilon) 

1127: G^R_{35}(\epsilon-\Omega) \hat{J}_5^\beta 

1128: G^R_{54}(\epsilon-\Omega) G^A_{41}(\epsilon)

1129: \label{f32}

1130: \\

1131: &&

1132: \nonumber\\

1133: &&\quad

1134: - \hat{J}_1^\alpha G^A_{15}(\epsilon) \hat{J}_5^\beta 

1135: G^A_{53}(\epsilon)

1136: G^R_{34}(\epsilon-\Omega) G^A_{41}(\epsilon)

1137: \label{f13}

1138: \\

1139: &&

1140: \nonumber\\

1141: &&\quad

1142: - \hat{J}_1^\alpha G^A_{13}(\epsilon) G^R_{35}(\epsilon-\Omega)

1143: \hat{J}_5^\beta G^R_{54}(\epsilon-\Omega) 

1144: G^A_{41}(\epsilon)

1145: \Big\},

1146: \label{f31}

1147: \end{eqnarray}

1148: \label{fck}

1149: \end{mathletters}

1150:  

1151: \noindent

1152: where ${\cal V}$ is the area of the system.  Equations~(\ref{f32}) and

1153: (\ref{f31}) come from the diagram ``b3'' on Fig.~\ref{sr} and the rest

1154: of Eq.~(\ref{fck}) correspond to diagrams ``b1'' and ``b2''. For the

1155: Hartree term the expression is similar,

1156: 

1157: \begin{mathletters}

1158: \begin{eqnarray}

1159: B&&^{\alpha\beta}_H (\Omega; \vec r_3, \vec r_4) = 

1160: \int \frac{d^2 r_1 d^2 r_5}{{\cal V}} 

1161: \nonumber\\

1162: &&

1163: \nonumber\\

1164: &&

1165: \times\Big\{

1166: \hat{J}_1^\alpha G^R_{15}(\epsilon) \hat{J}_5^\beta 

1167: G^A_{53}(\epsilon)

1168: G^R_{44}(\epsilon-\Omega) G^A_{31}(\epsilon)

1169: \label{h11}

1170: \\

1171: &&

1172: \nonumber\\

1173: &&\quad

1174: + \hat{J}_1^\alpha G^A_{15}(\epsilon) \hat{J}_5^\beta 

1175: G^R_{53}(\epsilon)

1176: G^R_{44}(\epsilon-\Omega) G^R_{31}(\epsilon)

1177: \label{h12}

1178: \\

1179: &&

1180: \nonumber\\

1181: &&\quad

1182: + 2 \hat{J}_1^\alpha G^R_{13}(\epsilon) G^R_{45}(\epsilon-\Omega)

1183: \hat{J}_5^\beta G^R_{54}(\epsilon-\Omega) G^A_{31}(\epsilon)

1184: \label{h32}\\

1185: &&

1186: \nonumber\\

1187: &&\quad

1188: - \hat{J}_1^\alpha G^A_{15}(\epsilon) \hat{J}_5^\beta 

1189: G^A_{53}(\epsilon)

1190: G^R_{44}(\epsilon-\Omega) G^A_{31}(\epsilon)

1191: \label{h13}

1192: \\

1193: &&

1194: \nonumber\\

1195: &&\quad

1196: - \hat{J}_1^\alpha G^A_{13}(\epsilon) G^R_{45}(\epsilon-\Omega)

1197: \hat{J}_5^\beta G^R_{54}(\epsilon-\Omega) G^A_{31}(\epsilon)

1198: \Big\}.

1199: \label{h31}

1200: \end{eqnarray}

1201: \label{hrt}

1202: \end{mathletters}

1203:  

1204: \noindent

1205: Again, Eqs.~(\ref{h32}) and (\ref{h31}) correspond to the diagram

1206: ``a3'' in Fig.~\ref{sr}. The current operator is defined as

1207: 

1208: \begin{eqnarray}

1209: f_1(\vec r) \hat{\vec J} f_2(\vec r) && = \frac{ie}{2m}

1210: \left[ \left( \vec\nabla f_1 \right) f_2 - 

1211: \left( f_1\vec\nabla f_2 \right) \right] 

1212: \nonumber\\

1213: &&

1214: \nonumber\\

1215: &&

1216: - \frac{e\vec A(\vec r)}{m} f_1(\vec r) f_2(\vec r).

1217: \label{jop-def}

1218: \end{eqnarray}

1219: 

1220: \noindent

1221: In the above expressions terms corresponding to diagrams ``b3'' and

1222: ``a3'' on Fig.~\ref{sr} allow for at least one of the spatial

1223: integrations to be performed with the help of the identity

1224: 

1225: \begin{equation}

1226: \int d\vec r_5 G^R_{35}(\epsilon)\hat{J}_5^\beta G^R_{54}(\epsilon)

1227: =-ie(\vec r_3 - \vec r_4)^\beta G^R_{34}(\epsilon).

1228: \label{id}

1229: \end{equation}

1230: 

1231: \noindent

1232: Now it is clear that Hartree terms Eqs.~(\ref{h32}) and (\ref{h31})

1233: vanish identically, since there the identity (\ref{id}) should be

1234: applied with coordinates $\vec r_3$ and $\vec r_4$ being equal to each

1235: other. In the Fock terms Eqs.~(\ref{f31}) and (\ref{f32}) one needs to

1236: further multiply the result of Eq.~(\ref{id}) by the interaction

1237: potential $V(\vec r_3 - \vec r_4)$. In the case of the short range

1238: interaction potential this also gives vanishing contribution.  Thus we

1239: conclude, that the diagram ``a3'' on Fig.~\ref{sr} does not contribute

1240: for any form of the interaction, while the diagram ``b3'' vanishes for

1241: the short-range interaction.

1242: 

1243: The same identity can also be applied to terms Eqs.~(\ref{f13}) and

1244: (\ref{h13}), which also vanish by the same reason. Thus the task of

1245: averaging over disorder is now simplified because we only need to

1246: average two Fock terms Eqs.~(\ref{f11}) and (\ref{f12}) and two

1247: Hartree terms Eqs.~(\ref{h11}) and (\ref{h12}). These expressions

1248: contain only Green's functions of non-interacting electrons and can be

1249: averaged using the standard diagrammatic technique of the theory of

1250: disordered systems (see Ref.~\onlinecite{aar} for review). The

1251: diagrams for averaged quantities can be constructed using the four

1252: ``building blocks'' (we use the momentum representation since

1253: translational invariance is restored after averaging):

1254: 

1255: \noindent

1256: (1) the average electronic Green's function (denoted as a solid line;

1257: there should be no confusion with the previous use of the solid line

1258: for exact Green's functions before averaging), which in momentum space

1259: can be written as

1260: 

1261: \begin{eqnarray}

1262: \langle G^{R(A)}\rangle (k,\epsilon) = 

1263: \frac{1}{\epsilon - \xi_k \pm \frac{i}{2\tau}};

1264: \label{green}

1265: \end{eqnarray}

1266: 

1267: \noindent

1268: (2) the disorder potential, which is assumed to be Gaussian with the

1269: correlator 

1270: 

1271: \begin{eqnarray*}

1272: \langle U(\vec r_1)U(\vec r_2)\rangle = 

1273: \frac{1}{2\pi\nu\tau} \delta(\vec r_1 - \vec r_2).

1274: \end{eqnarray*}

1275: 

1276: \noindent

1277: In the diagrams this correlator is represented by the dotted line;

1278: 

1279: {

1280: \narrowtext

1281: \begin{figure}[ht]

1282: \vspace{0.2 cm}

1283: \epsfxsize=8.5 cm

1284: \centerline{\epsfbox{f10.eps}}

1285: \vspace{0.2cm}

1286: \caption{Dressed interaction vertex.} 

1287: \label{8}

1288: \end{figure}

1289: }

1290: 

1291: \noindent

1292: (3) the dressed interaction vertex $\Gamma$ ($q$ and $\Omega$ are

1293: momentum and frequency of the interaction propagator), which

1294: represents a geometric series in disorder potential shown on

1295: Fig.~\ref{8};

1296: 

1297: \begin{mathletters}

1298: \begin{equation}

1299: \Gamma ( \vec q; \Omega)= 1+ \frac{1/\tau}{S- \frac{1}{\tau}}

1300: \label{gamma}

1301: \end{equation}

1302: 

1303: \noindent

1304: where we denote

1305: 

1306: \begin{eqnarray}

1307: S=\sqrt{\left(i\Omega + \frac{1}{\tau}\right)^2 + v_F^2 q^2},

1308: \label{sqrt}

1309: \end{eqnarray}

1310: \label{gsd}

1311: \end{mathletters}

1312: 

1313: \noindent

1314: (4) the averaged product of a retarded and an advanced Green's

1315: functions (sometimes referred to as the diffuson), where we have

1316: summed up a geometric series shown on Fig.~\ref{9}

1317:  

1318: {

1319: \narrowtext

1320: \begin{figure}[ht]

1321: \vspace{0.2 cm}

1322: \epsfxsize=8 cm

1323: \centerline{\epsfbox{f11.eps}}

1324: \vspace{0.2cm}

1325: \caption{Diffuson - geometric series of impurity lines} 

1326: \label{9}

1327: \end{figure}

1328: }

1329: 

1330: Using these building blocks we can average the products of Green's

1331: functions as shown on Fig.~\ref{hfav}. It is convenient to write the

1332: averaged $B_{F(H)}$ in the momentum representation. The product $B_F$,

1333: which appears in the Fock term, can be viewed as a function of

1334: coordinates of the two interaction vertices and can be transformed to

1335: the momentum space as

1336: 

1337: \begin{equation}

1338: \langle B_F (\Omega; \vec r_1,\vec r_2) \rangle 

1339:  = \int \frac{d^2 q}{(2\pi)^2}

1340: e^{i\vec q (\vec r_3 - \vec r_4)} 

1341: \langle B_F (q, \Omega) \rangle.

1342: \label{noname1}

1343: \end{equation}

1344: 

1345: \noindent

1346: Using the explicit expressions Eqs.~(\ref{green}) and (\ref{gsd}) we

1347: can write the analytic form of the averaged $B_F$

1348: 

1349: \begin{eqnarray}

1350: \frac{1}{\sigma_D}B_F (q, \Omega) = 

1351: \frac{(\Gamma^2-1)\tau}{S}

1352: \label{bf}

1353: +\frac{\Gamma(\Gamma+1)}{v_F^2 q^2}

1354: \left(\frac{i\Omega + \frac{1}{\tau}}{S} - 1 \right)^2.

1355: \nonumber

1356: %\label{bf}

1357: \end{eqnarray}

1358: 

1359: In the absence of magnetic field,

1360: $B^{\alpha\beta}_{F(H)}=\delta^{\alpha\beta} B_{F(H)}$, which is why

1361: we did not include the Greek indices in Eq.~(\ref{bf}).

1362: 

1363: {

1364: \narrowtext

1365: \begin{figure}[ht]

1366: \vspace{0.2 cm}

1367: \epsfxsize=8.5 cm

1368: \centerline{\epsfbox{f12.eps}}

1369: \vspace{0.2cm}

1370: \caption{Averaged product of four Green's functions. 

1371: The wavy lines indicate $\delta(\vec p_{in}- \vec p_{out}+ \vec q)$

1372: for the Fock contribution $B_F(q)$

1373: and $2\pi\delta(\vec p_{in}- \vec p_{out}+ \vec q)

1374: \delta[\widehat{\vec{n}\vec p_{in}}]$

1375: for the Hartree contribution $B_H(q, n_1,n_2)$.} 

1376: \label{hfav}

1377: \end{figure}

1378: }

1379: 

1380: The Hartree contribution is considered analogously.

1381: One can write

1382: 

1383: \beqa

1384: \langle B_H(\Omega; \vec r_1, \vec r_2) \rangle =

1385: \int \frac{d \theta_1}{(2\pi)}&&

1386: \frac{d \theta_2}{(2\pi)}

1387: \frac{d^2 q}{(2\pi)^2} 

1388: e^{ik_F(\vec n_1-\vec n_2)(\vec r_1-\vec r_2)}

1389: \nonumber\\

1390: &&

1391: \nonumber\\

1392: &&

1393: \times

1394: B_H(\Omega; \vec n_1, \vec n_2, \vec q),

1395: \label{Ht1}

1396: \eeqa

1397: 

1398: \noindent

1399: where $\vec n_i = (\cos \theta_i, \sin \theta_i)$ indictates

1400: the direction of the momentum.

1401: Then, disorder averaging of $B_H(\Omega; \vec n_1, \vec n_2, \vec q)$

1402: is performed with the help of the same diagrams (see Fig.~\ref{hfav})

1403: but the expression for the vertices changed as indicated in the figure

1404: caption.

1405: 

1406: Accordingly, the expression for the dressed vertex 

1407: (\ref{gamma}), see also Fig.~\ref{8}, is changed to

1408: 

1409: \beqa

1410: \Gamma_H&&(\vec n,\vec n_k; \vec q; \Omega) = 

1411: 2\pi \delta(\widehat{\vec n \vec n_k})

1412: +  \frac{1}{S_H}

1413: \frac{S}{ S{\tau}-1},

1414: \label{gammah}

1415: \\

1416: &&

1417: \nonumber\\

1418: &&

1419: S_H(\vec n, \vec q; \Omega)={i\Omega -iv_F \vec q \vec n + 1/\tau},

1420: \nonumber

1421: \eeqa

1422: 

1423: \noindent

1424: where $\vec n_k$ corresponds to the direction of the momentum $k$ on

1425: Fig.~\ref{8}. The final expression for $B_H$ is similar to

1426: Eq.~(\ref{bf})

1427: 

1428: \begin{eqnarray}

1429: && \frac{1}{\sigma_D} B_H ( \Omega; 

1430: {\vec n}_1, {\vec n}_2,

1431: {\vec q}) = -

1432: \frac{-

1433: 2\pi\delta\left(\widehat{\vec n_1\vec n_2}\right)\tau}{S}

1434: \nonumber\\

1435: &&

1436: \nonumber\\

1437: &&

1438: \quad\quad  +

1439: \frac{\tau}{S}

1440: \int \frac{d \theta_3}{2\pi}

1441: \Gamma_H(\vec n_1, \vec n_3)\Gamma_H(\vec n_2, n_3)

1442: \label{bh}

1443: \\

1444: &&

1445: \nonumber\\

1446: &&\quad\quad  +

1447: \int \frac{d \theta_3}{2\pi}

1448: \int \frac{d \theta_4}{2\pi}

1449: \left(\vec n_3\vec n_4\right)

1450: \frac{\Gamma_H(\vec n_1,n_3)\Gamma_H(\vec n_2,n_4)}

1451: {S_H(\vec n_3)S_H(\vec n_4)}

1452: \nonumber\\

1453: &&

1454: \nonumber\\

1455: &&\quad\quad 

1456: +\left(\vec n_1\vec n_2\right) 

1457: \frac{\Gamma}{S_H(\vec n_1)S_H(\vec n_2)},

1458: \nonumber

1459: %\label{bf}

1460: \end{eqnarray}

1461: 

1462: \noindent

1463: and we suppressed the arguments $q,\Omega$ in the right-hand-side

1464: of the equation.

1465: 

1466: We note in passing, that by construction of Eqs.~(\ref{f11}),

1467: (\ref{f12}), (\ref{h11}) and (\ref{h12}) that

1468: 

1469: \[

1470: B_F(\Omega; \vec r, \vec r)=B_H(\Omega; \vec r, \vec r),

1471: \]

1472: 

1473: \noindent

1474: and,  therefore, according to Eqs.~(\ref{noname1}) and (\ref{Ht1})

1475: the relation

1476: 

1477: \[

1478: B_F(\Omega;  \vec q) =

1479: \int \frac{d \theta_1}{2\pi}\frac{d \theta_2}{2\pi}

1480: B_H(\Omega; \vec n_1, \vec n_2, \vec q)

1481: \]

1482: 

1483: \noindent

1484: must hold [this can be easily verified using explicit expresions

1485: (\ref{bf}) and (\ref{bh})].

1486: 

1487: We are now prepared to calculate the temperature dependence

1488: of the conductivity from Eq.~(\ref{cc}). We substitute Eqs.~(\ref{bf})

1489: and (\ref{bh}) into Eq.~(\ref{cc}). As we will see, the

1490: main contribution to the temperature dependence is provided by

1491: wave-vectors $q_{T} \simeq max(T,(T/\tau)^{1/2})/v_F$. On the other hand the

1492: potential $V(\vec r)$ has a range much shorter than $1/q_T$.

1493: This enables us to use the following approximations

1494: 

1495: \begin{eqnarray*}

1496: \int \frac{d^2 r_3 d^2 r_4}{\cal V} 

1497: V(\vec r_3-\vec r_4)e^{i\vec q(\vec r_3-\vec r_4)}

1498: \approx V(0);

1499: \end{eqnarray*}

1500: \begin{eqnarray*}

1501: &&

1502: \int \frac{d^2 r_3 d^2 r_4}{\cal V} 

1503: V(\vec r_3-\vec r_4)e^{i k_F (\vec n_1 - \vec n_2) (\vec r_3-\vec r_4)}

1504: \\

1505: &&

1506: \\

1507: &&

1508: \hspace*{4cm}\approx 

1509: V\left(2k_F\sin \frac{\widehat{\vec n_1\vec n_2}}{2}

1510: \right),

1511: \end{eqnarray*}

1512: where $V(k)$ in the right-hand-side of the above equations denotes

1513: the Fourier transform of the interaction potential.

1514: 

1515: Altogether, we now write the conductivity correction as

1516: 

1517: \begin{eqnarray}

1518: &&\delta\sigma = \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} 

1519: \frac{d\Omega}{8\pi^2} 

1520: \frac{\partial}{\partial\Omega}

1521: \left(\Omega\coth\frac{\Omega}{2T}\right)

1522: \int\frac{d^2 q}{(2\pi)^2}

1523: \label{cc5}\\

1524: &&

1525: \nonumber\\

1526: &&

1527: \times {\rm Im} \Bigg\{

1528: V_0(0)  B_F (q,\Omega) 

1529: \nonumber\\

1530: &&

1531: \nonumber\\

1532: &&

1533: - 2 \int\frac{d\theta_1}{2\pi} \int\frac{d\theta_2}{2\pi}

1534: V_0\left(2k_F\sin\frac{\widehat{\vec n_1 \vec n_2}}{2}\right) 

1535: B_H (\Omega; \vec n_1, \vec n_2, \vec q)\Bigg\}.

1536: \nonumber

1537: \end{eqnarray}

1538: 

1539: \noindent

1540: Evaluating this integral (where we only keep the temperature 

1541: dependent part, see Section~\ref{single} for details) 

1542: one arrives to the same result

1543: Eq.~(\ref{sw}), but with the coefficient in the form Eq.~(\ref{u}), in

1544: agreement with the discussion of Section~\ref{qualitative}.

1545: 

1546: Let us now turn to the case of the Coulomb potential, where the scheme

1547: of the calculation (as described so far) breaks down. In the Fock term

1548: we have $V(0)$, which diverges for the Coulomb interaction ($V(q)\sim

1549: 1/q$). To obtain meaningful results one needs to take into account the

1550: effect of dynamical screening. The Hartree term seems to work better

1551: since using just the static screening makes the result

1552: finite. However, this is wrong also, since in this case diagrams with

1553: extra interaction lines do not contain any smallness (see e.g.

1554: Fig.~\ref{cor}; there the correction is $\sim V(2k_F) V(0)$). Thus one

1555: can not justify the perturbation theory in the interaction

1556: potential. The way out of this problem is the standard theory of 

1557: Landau Fermi liquid, which we briefly discuss in the following subsection.

1558: 

1559: {

1560: \narrowtext

1561: \begin{figure}[ht]

1562: \vspace{0.5 cm}

1563: \epsfxsize=7 cm

1564: \centerline{\epsfbox{f13.eps}}

1565: \vspace{0.5cm}

1566: \caption{(a) Single impurity contribution to the Hartree term, see

1567: Section~\ref{single} for a detailed discussion 

1568: (b) Second order correction to the Hartree term (a).} 

1569: \label{cor}

1570: \end{figure}

1571: }

1572: 

1573: 

1574: 

1575: \subsection{Soft modes}

1576: \label{soft}

1577: 

1578: 

1579: 

1580: As we already discussed, the main contribution to the temperature

1581: dependence of physical quantities comes from the processes

1582: characterized by spatial scales much larger than the Fermi wave-length

1583: $\lambda_F$.  Therefore, there is a scale separation in the problem;

1584: all the Fermi liquid parameters\cite{Fermiliquid} $F_i$ are established

1585: at small distances of the order of $\lambda_F$, and are not affected

1586: by  disorder if the relation

1587:  $\epsilon_F\tau \gtrsim 1$ holds. On the other hand, all the

1588: temperature and disorder dependence is determined by infrared behavior

1589: of the system where $F_i$ can be considered as fixed.

1590: 

1591: Therefore, our first step is to identify the terms in the interaction

1592: Hamiltonian, which may produce the biggest contributions at

1593: temperatures much smaller than the Fermi energy. This procedure

1594: contains nothing new in comparison with the standard identification of

1595: singlet, triplet and Cooper channels, see Ref.~\onlinecite{AGD}, and

1596: we present here the main steps to make the paper self-contained.

1597: 

1598: The original interaction Hamiltonian has the form

1599: 

1600: \begin{eqnarray*}

1601: %&&

1602: \hat{H}_{int} = 

1603: %\label{100}\\

1604: %&&\quad

1605: \sum_{\vec q, \vec p_i}

1606: \frac{V(q)}{2}\psi^\dagger_{\sigma_1}(\vec p_1)

1607: \psi^\dagger_{\sigma_2}(\vec p_2)

1608: \psi_{\sigma_2}(\vec p_2+\vec q)\psi_{\sigma_1}(\vec p_1-\vec q),

1609: %\nonumber

1610: \end{eqnarray*}

1611: 

1612: \noindent

1613: and we imply summation over repeated spin indices.  Soft modes of the

1614: system correspond to the situation when two of the fermionic operators

1615: have momenta close to each other.  The difference of the momenta $q*$

1616: defines the scale $1/q* \gg \lambda_F$, which is the smallest length

1617: scale allowed in the theory. Therefore, we explicitly separate the

1618: Hamiltonian 

1619: into a part that contains all the soft modes (first three terms) and a

1620: correction $\delta\hat{H}$, which does not contain such pairs of

1621: fermionic operators:

1622: 

1623: \beq

1624: \label{101}

1625: \hat{H}_{int} = 

1626: \hat{H}_\rho + \hat{H}_\sigma + \hat{H}_{pp} + \delta\hat{H}. 

1627: \label{hamiltonian}

1628: \eeq

1629: 

1630: \noindent

1631: 

1632: 

1633: The explicit expressions for the entries of the Hamiltonian 

1634: (\ref{hamiltonian}) are the

1635: following. The interaction in the singlet channel (charge dynamics) is

1636: described by

1637: 

1638: \beqa

1639: &&\hat{H}_\rho =

1640: \frac{1}{2}\sum_{|\vec q| < q*, \vec p_i}

1641: \left[V(q)

1642: +\frac{ F^\rho\left(\widehat{\vec n_1 \vec n_2}\right)}{ \nu }

1643: \right] \label{Hrho}\label{102} 

1644: \\

1645: &&

1646: \nonumber\\

1647: &&

1648: \times 

1649: \left[\psi^\dagger_{\sigma_1}\left(\vec p_1\right)

1650: \psi_{\sigma_1}\left(\vec p_1-{\vec q}\right)

1651: \right]

1652: \left[\psi^\dagger_{\sigma_2}\left(\vec p_2\right)

1653: \psi_{\sigma_2}\left(\vec p_2+{\vec q}\right)

1654: \right],

1655: \nonumber

1656: \eeqa

1657: 

1658: \noindent

1659: where $\vec n_i = \vec p_i/|p_i|$, the dimensionless parameter

1660: $F^\rho\left(\widehat{\vec n_1 \vec n_2}\right)$ is related to the

1661: original interaction potential $V(q)$ by

1662: 

1663: \beq

1664: \label{103}

1665: F^\rho\left(\theta\right) = - \frac{\nu}{2}

1666: V\left(2k_F\sin\frac{\theta}{2} \right),

1667: \eeq

1668: 

1669: \noindent

1670: and $\nu$ is the thermodynamic density of states of non-interacting

1671: electrons (introduced here to make $F^\rho$ dimensionless).

1672: 

1673: Interaction in the triplet channel (spin density dynamics) is governed

1674: by

1675: 

1676: \beqa

1677: \label{104}

1678: &&\hat{H}_\sigma =

1679: \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\matrix{ { }_{\vec p_i} \cr { }_{|\vec q| < q*} }}

1680: %_{|\vec q| < q*, \vec p_i}

1681: \sum_{ j=x,y,z}

1682: \frac{F^\sigma\left(\widehat{\vec n_1 \vec n_2}\right)}{\nu}

1683: \times

1684: \label{hsigma}

1685: \\

1686: &&

1687: \nonumber\\

1688: &&

1689: \left[\psi^\dagger_{\sigma_1}\left(\vec p_1\right)

1690: \hat\sigma^j_{\sigma_1\sigma_2}

1691: \psi_{\sigma_2}\left(\vec p_1-{\vec q}\right)

1692: \right]

1693: \left[\psi^\dagger_{\sigma_3}\left(\vec p_2\right)

1694: \hat\sigma^j_{\sigma_3\sigma_4}

1695: \psi_{\sigma_4}\left(\vec p_2+{\vec q}\right)

1696: \right]

1697: \nonumber

1698: \eeqa

1699: 

1700: \noindent

1701: where parameters 

1702: $F^\sigma\left(\widehat{\vec n_1 \vec n_2}\right)$ are

1703: 

1704: \beq

1705: \label{105}

1706: F^\sigma\left(\theta\right) = - \frac{\nu}{2}

1707: V\left(2k_F\sin\frac{\theta}{2} \right).

1708: \eeq

1709: 

1710: Finally, the Hamiltonian

1711: 

1712: \beqa

1713: \label{106}

1714: &&\hat{H}_{pp} = 

1715: \sum_{|\vec q| < q*, \vec p_i} \Bigg\{

1716: \frac{F^e\left(\widehat{\vec n_1 \vec n_2}\right)}{\nu}

1717: \left[\psi^\dagger_{\sigma_1}\left(\vec p_1\right)

1718: \hat\sigma^y_{\sigma_1\sigma_2}

1719: \psi^\dagger_{\sigma_2}\left({\vec q}-\vec p_1\right)

1720: \right]

1721: \nonumber\\

1722: &&

1723: \nonumber\\

1724: &&

1725: \quad\quad\quad\quad

1726: \times\left[\psi_{\sigma_3}\left(\vec p_2\right)

1727: \hat\sigma^y_{\sigma_3\sigma_4}

1728: \psi_{\sigma_4}\left({\vec q}-\vec p_2\right)

1729: \right]  

1730: \\

1731: && 

1732: \nonumber\\

1733: &&

1734: +

1735: \sum_{ j=x,y,z}

1736: \frac{F^o\left(\widehat{\vec n_1 \vec n_2}\right)}{\nu}

1737: \left[\psi^\dagger_{\sigma_1}\left(\vec p_1\right)

1738: \tilde\sigma^j_{\sigma_1\sigma_2}

1739: \psi^\dagger_{\sigma_2}\left({\vec q}-\vec p_1\right)

1740: \right]

1741: \nonumber\\

1742: &&

1743: \nonumber\\

1744: &&

1745: \quad\quad\quad\quad

1746: \times

1747: \left[\psi_{\sigma_3}\left(\vec p_2\right)

1748: \left(\tilde\sigma^j\right)_{\sigma_4\sigma_3}^\dagger

1749: \psi_{\sigma_4}\left({\vec q}-\vec p_2\right)

1750: \right]\Bigg\}

1751: \nonumber

1752: \eeqa

1753: 

1754: \noindent

1755: describes singlet, $F^e$, and triplet, $F^o$, pairing

1756: fluctuations. The parameters in this Hamiltonian are

1757: 

1758: \beq

1759: \label{107}

1760: F^{e,o}\left(\theta\right) = \frac{\nu}{4}

1761: \left[

1762: V\left(2k_F\sin\frac{\theta}{2} \right) \pm

1763: V\left(2k_F\cos\frac{\theta}{2} \right)

1764: \right],

1765: \label{fefo}

1766: \eeq

1767: 

1768: \noindent

1769: where plus and minus signs correspond to even ($e$) and odd ($o$)

1770: pairing respectively. Here $\hat\sigma_{\sigma_1\sigma_2}^j$ are the

1771: elements of the Pauli matrices in spin space

1772: 

1773: \[

1774: \hat\sigma^x =\pmatrix{0 & 1\cr 1&0}, \quad

1775: \hat\sigma^y =\pmatrix{0 & -i\cr i&0}, \quad

1776: \hat\sigma^z =\pmatrix{1 & 0\cr 0&-1},

1777: \]

1778: 

1779: \noindent

1780: and $\tilde\sigma^j= \hat{\sigma}^y\hat\sigma^j$. 

1781: 

1782: Deriving Eqs.~(\ref{Hrho}) -- (\ref{fefo}), we used the condition, $q*

1783: \ll k_F$. This condition allowed us to make the following

1784: approximation

1785: 

1786: \begin{eqnarray*}

1787: (\vec p_1 - \vec p_2)^2 \approx 4 k_F^2 

1788: \sin^2\left(\frac{\widehat{\vec n_1 \vec n_1}}{2}\right).

1789: \end{eqnarray*}

1790: 

1791: \noindent

1792: We also used the identity

1793: 

1794: \begin{eqnarray*}

1795: %\label{108}

1796: 2\delta_{\sigma_1\sigma_2}\delta_{\sigma_3\sigma_4}

1797: &=&\delta_{\sigma_1\sigma_3}\delta_{\sigma_2\sigma_4} 

1798: + \hat\sigma_{\sigma_1\sigma_3}^j\hat\sigma_{\sigma_4\sigma_2}^j

1799: \\

1800: &&

1801: \\

1802: &=&\hat\sigma_{\sigma_1\sigma_3}^y\hat\sigma_{\sigma_2\sigma_4}^y

1803: + \tilde{\sigma}_{\sigma_1\sigma_3}^j

1804: \left(\tilde{\sigma}^j\right)^\dagger_{\sigma_4\sigma_2}.

1805: \end{eqnarray*}

1806:    

1807: So far, the representation (\ref{hamiltonian}) of original interaction

1808: is exact. The only advantage of this representation is that it

1809: explicitly separates the term $\delta H$ which does not contain

1810: coupling to the low energy excitations of the fermionic

1811: system. Therefore, the contribution of $\delta H$ to physical

1812: quantities is regular and not infrared divergent [like

1813: $(T/v_Fq*)^2$]. Therefore, for the electron system with weak short

1814: range interaction, $\delta H$ can be disregarded at all.

1815: 

1816: Moreover, even if the interaction is not weak or long range, $\delta

1817: H$ can be treated in all the orders of perturbation theory without

1818: generating a soft mode. If this term does not break the translational

1819: symmetry at short distances, its only effect is to renormalize the

1820: interaction parameters $F$'s in Eqs.~(\ref{102}), (\ref{104}) and

1821: (\ref{106}) and the Fermi velocity in the non-interacting part of the

1822: Hamiltonian. For instance, one obtains for the two-dimensional

1823: electron gas with the Coulomb interaction $V(q)= 2\pi e^2/(\kappa

1824: |q|)$

1825: 

1826: \beqa

1827: F^\rho\left(\theta\right) =F^\sigma\left(\theta\right)

1828: = -\frac{1}{2}

1829: \frac{r_s}{\sqrt{2}|\sin \frac{\theta}{2}| + r_s},

1830: \label{108}

1831: \eeqa

1832: 

1833: \noindent

1834: where 

1835: 

1836: \beq

1837: \label{109}

1838: r_s \equiv\frac{\sqrt{2}e^2}{\kappa\hbar v_F}

1839: \eeq

1840: 

1841: \noindent

1842: is the conventional parameter characterizing interaction strength and

1843: $\kappa$ is the low frequency dielectric constant of the host

1844: material. Expression (\ref{108}) is applicable only for $r_s \ll 1$,

1845: however, keeping it in denominator is legitimate for small angle

1846: scattering.

1847: 

1848: For stronger interaction $r_s \gtrsim 1$, but still far from the

1849: Wigner crystal instability\cite{Wignercrystal}, $r_s \lesssim 37$,

1850: exact calculation of the parameters $F$ from the first principles (as

1851: well as their explicit expressions in terms of $r_s$) is not possible.

1852: Nevertheless, to study the behavior of the system at distances much

1853: larger than $\lambda_F$, one can still disregard the term $\delta H$

1854: in Eq.~(\ref{101}). Then parameters $F$ are no longer bound by

1855: Eqs.~(\ref{103}), (\ref{105}), and (\ref{107}) [or by Eq.~(\ref{108})

1856: for the Coulomb interaction] but rather should be treated as starting

1857: parameters for the low energy theory.  The form of Eqs.~(\ref{102}),

1858: (\ref{104}) and (\ref{106}) is guarded by symmetries of the system:

1859: Eq.~(\ref{102}) is guarded by translational symmetry and charge

1860: conservation; Eq.~(\ref{104}) is guarded by translational symmetry and

1861: symmetry with respect to spin rotations; and Eq.~(\ref{106}) is

1862: guarded by all above symmetries and the 

1863: electron-hole symmetry, which holds approximately at low energies.

1864: 

1865: All the consideration above essentially repeats the basics of the

1866: Landau Fermi-liquid theory\cite{Fermiliquid}. We reiterate, that this

1867: theory does not imply that the interaction is weak; the only

1868: assumption here is that no symmetry is broken at small distances.

1869: 

1870: 

1871: 

1872: \subsection{Disorder averaging}

1873: \label{prelim}

1874: \label{averaging}

1875: 

1876: 

1877: 

1878: To study the interaction correction to conductivity due to charge and

1879: triplet channel interactions introduced in the previous subsection, we

1880: follow the same route as in the case of the short-range

1881: interaction. In particular, the charge channel correction is a direct

1882: generalization of the Fock term. We start however with the discussion

1883: of disorder averaging.

1884: 

1885: The correction to conductivity Eq.~(\ref{cc}) represents the first

1886: order perturbation theory in the original potential $V(q)$, valid when

1887: the potential is weak.  For stronger coupling we make use of the

1888: effective Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{101}). Although the diagrams for

1889: conductivity look similar to the Fock term ``b'' on Fig.~\ref{sr},

1890: their content is now quite different. First, the wavy line now

1891: represents the propagator for one of the soft modes in

1892: Eq.~(\ref{101}). Therefore the expression for the conductivity

1893: Eq.~(\ref{cc}) should be rewritten as

1894: 

1895: \begin{eqnarray}

1896: &&\delta\sigma_{\alpha\beta} = - \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} 

1897: \frac{d\Omega}{8\pi^2}

1898: \left[\frac{\partial}{\partial\Omega}

1899: \left(\Omega\coth\frac{\Omega}{2T}\right)\right] 

1900: \label{cci}

1901: \\

1902: &&

1903: \nonumber\\

1904: &&

1905: \times

1906: {\rm Im} 

1907: \int \frac{d^2r_3d^2r_4}{\cal V}

1908: \left\{ \Bigg [{\cal D}^A(\Omega, \vec r_3, \vec r_4) +

1909: {\bf Tr}\widehat{\cal D}_T^A(\Omega, \vec r_3, \vec r_4) 

1910: \Bigg ]\right.

1911: \nonumber\\

1912: &&

1913: \nonumber\\

1914: &&

1915: \quad\quad\quad\times

1916: \Big ( B^{\alpha\beta}_F (\Omega, \vec r_3, \vec r_4 ) 

1917: + \{\alpha\leftrightarrow\beta\}\Big)\Bigg\},

1918: \nonumber

1919: \end{eqnarray}

1920: 

1921: \noindent

1922: where ${\cal D}^A$ and $\widehat{\cal D}_T^A$ are advanced propagators

1923: for charge and triplet channels [$\widehat{\cal D}_T$ is a $3\times3$

1924: matrix as follows from Eq.~(\ref{hsigma}), see also

1925: Sec.~\ref{triplet}] and $B_F$ is the product of electronic Green's

1926: functions given by Eq.~(\ref{fck}), the same as in the Fock term.

1927: Deriving Eq.~(\ref{cci}) we assumed that the spin rotational symmetry

1928: is preserved, i.e. no Zeeman splitting or the spin-orbit interaction

1929: is present. We also neglected the dependence of the interaction

1930: propagators on the direction of the electron momenta.

1931: Lifting of those two assumptions is straightforward but it will not

1932: be done in the present paper.

1933: To the leading order in $1/k_Fl$ we can average the propagators

1934: independently of $B_F$ (see e.g. Ref.~\onlinecite{aar}). Here we

1935: proceed with averaging $B_F$ and the discussion of the propagators

1936: follows.

1937: 

1938: We have already averaged the product $B_F$ of four Green's functions

1939: for the case of the short-range potential. There the three terms

1940: Eqs.~(\ref{f31}), (\ref{f32}), and (\ref{f13}) vanished due to the

1941: particular form of the potential. Now we have to take these terms into

1942: account and consider the full set of diagrams shown on Figs.~\ref{10}

1943: and \ref{11}. These diagrams can be evaluated in exactly the same way

1944: as those in Section~\ref{h-f} (where we considered a subset of these

1945: diagrams).

1946: 

1947: 

1948: As a result, the averaged $B_F$ has a form similar to Eq.~(\ref{bf})

1949: and can again be expressed in terms of the dressed vertex $\Gamma$

1950: [see Eq.~(\ref{gsd})].  We are still interested in the longitudinal

1951: conductivity and thus disregard the Hall contribution. Thus, after

1952: averaging the correction Eq.~(\ref{cci}) takes the form

1953: 

1954: \begin{eqnarray}

1955: &&\delta\sigma = -e^2 v_F^2 \pi\nu\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} 

1956: \frac{d\Omega}{4\pi^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial\Omega}

1957: \left(\Omega\coth\frac{\Omega}{2T}\right) \int \frac{d^2 q}{(2\pi)^2}

1958: \nonumber\\

1959: &&

1960: \nonumber\\

1961: &&\quad\quad\quad

1962: \times{\rm Im} \Bigg\{ 

1963: \Big[{\cal D}^A(\Omega, q)+{\bf Tr}\widehat{\cal D}_T^A(\Omega, q)\Big]

1964: \tilde B_F(\Omega,q)

1965: \Bigg\};

1966: \nonumber\\

1967: &&

1968: \nonumber\\

1969: &&\tilde B_F(\Omega,q)=-

1970: \frac{2\tau (i\Omega + \frac{1}{\tau})\Gamma}

1971: {S^3}

1972: +\frac{(\Gamma^2-1)\tau^2}{S}

1973: \nonumber\\

1974: &&

1975: \nonumber\\

1976: &&

1977: +\frac{v_F^2 q^2-2\left(i\Omega + \frac{1}{\tau}\right)^2  }

1978: {S^5}\frac{\Gamma^2}{2}

1979: +\frac{\tau\Gamma(\Gamma+1)}{v_F^2 q^2}

1980: \left(\frac{i\Omega + \frac{1}{\tau}}

1981: {S}

1982: - 1 \right)^2

1983: \nonumber\\

1984: &&

1985: \nonumber\\

1986: &&

1987: -\frac{2\Gamma^2}

1988: { S^3}

1989: \left(\frac{i\Omega + \frac{1}{\tau}}

1990: {S}

1991: - 1 \right)

1992: +\frac{\Gamma^3v_F^2 q^2}{

1993: \tau S^6}.

1994: \label{fock-int}

1995: \end{eqnarray}

1996: 

1997: \noindent

1998: where quantities  $\Gamma$ and $S$

1999: are defined in Eq.~(\ref{gsd}).

2000: 

2001: 

2002: 

2003: 

2004: {

2005: \narrowtext

2006: \begin{figure}[ht]

2007: \vspace{0.2 cm}

2008: \epsfxsize=7 cm

2009: \centerline{\epsfbox{f14.eps}}

2010: \vspace{0.2cm}

2011: \caption{Conductivity diagrams, group I. Diagrams (a), (b), and (d)

2012: were evaluated for the short range interaction in Sec.~\protect\ref{h-f}.

2013: In the diffusive regime\protect\cite{aar} 

2014: only diagrams (a), (d), (e), were considered at $\omega, qv_F \ll 1/\tau$.

2015: } 

2016: \label{10}

2017: \end{figure}

2018: }

2019: 

2020: {

2021: \narrowtext

2022: \begin{figure}[ht]

2023: \vspace{0.2 cm}

2024: \epsfxsize=9 cm

2025: \centerline{\epsfbox{f15.eps}}

2026: \vspace{0.2cm}

2027: \caption{Conductivity diagrams, group II.

2028: Diagrams (a) and (b)

2029: were evaluated for the short range interaction in Sec.~\protect\ref{h-f}.

2030: In the diffusive regime\protect\cite{aar} 

2031: only diagrams (a), (d), (e), were considered at $\omega, qv_F \ll 1/\tau$.

2032: }

2033: \label{11}

2034: \end{figure}

2035: }

2036: 

2037: It is important to emphasize that 

2038: 

2039: \beq

2040: \tilde B_F(\Omega,q=0) =0,

2041: \label{ginvariance}

2042: \eeq  

2043: 

2044: \noindent

2045: [to see this one should use explicit

2046: expressions (\ref{gsd}) in Eq.~(\ref{fock-int})].

2047: This property is not accidental -- it is guarded by the gauge invariance

2048: of the system: no interaction with zero momentum transfer can affect

2049: the value of the closed loop.

2050: 

2051: To proceed further with the actual

2052: calculation of the correction (\ref{fock-int})

2053: we need to specify the interaction propagator. It will be done

2054: in the following two subsections.

2055: 

2056: 

2057: 

2058: 

2059: \subsection{Charge channel}

2060: \label{charge}

2061: 

2062: 

2063: 

2064: 

2065: In this section we discuss the charge channel correction,

2066: described by the Hamiltonian (\ref{102}). Because the effective

2067: interaction is characterized by the momentum transfer much smaller

2068: than the Fermi wave vector, the Random Phase Approximation (RPA), see 

2069: Fig.~\ref{15}, is applicable.

2070: 

2071: To simplify further considerations, we approximate the

2072: Fermi liquid parameter $F^\rho$ by its zero angular harmonic

2073: 

2074: \beq

2075: F^\rho(\theta) \approx F^\rho_0,

2076: \label{rhoapprox}

2077: \eeq 

2078: 

2079: \noindent

2080: this approximation does not affect the final result because of

2081: the long range nature of the Coulomb potential $V(q \to 0) \to

2082: \infty$.

2083: 

2084: Consequently, we write the charge channel propagator in the form

2085:  

2086: \begin{mathletters}

2087: \label{int-full}

2088: \begin{equation}

2089: {\cal D}^A(\Omega, q) = 

2090: - \frac{\nu V(q)+F_0^\rho}{\nu+ (\nu V(q)+F_0^\rho) \Pi^A},

2091: \label{int-dyson}

2092: \end{equation}

2093: 

2094: \noindent

2095: where the polarization operator is given by

2096: 

2097: \begin{equation}

2098: \Pi^A(\Omega, q) = 

2099: \nu \left[ 1 - \frac{i\Omega}{

2100: S-\frac{1}{\tau}}\right],

2101: \label{pol}

2102: \end{equation}

2103: 

2104: \noindent

2105: using the notation (\ref{sqrt}).

2106: 

2107: The polarization operator (\ref{pol}) differs from the more standard one

2108: (used for instance in Ref.~\onlinecite{aag}) since the diffusion

2109: approximation has not been made yet. Indeed, expanding the

2110: polarization operator in small $\Omega$ and $q$ we can recover the

2111: usual diffusive form. In terms of the scattering time it corresponds

2112: to the limit $T\tau \ll 1$.  We do not do that here since we want

2113: to calculate the conductivity for all values of $T\tau$.

2114: \end{mathletters}

2115: 

2116: The form of the propagator~(\ref{int-full})

2117: and expression for the conductivity correction (\ref{fock-int})

2118: suggests that there could be two contributions.

2119: First, the propagator Eq.~(\ref{int-full}) has a

2120: pole which corresponds to the 2D plasmon. 

2121: However, the plasmon

2122: dispersion relation is

2123:  

2124: \[

2125: (v_Fq_{pl})^2 \nu V(q_{pl}) 

2126: =2\Omega \left(\Omega + \frac{i}{\tau}\right),

2127: \]

2128: 

2129: \noindent

2130: i.e. $(v_Fq_{pl})^2  \ll |\Omega \left(\Omega +

2131: \frac{i}{\tau}\right)|$ at all distances larger than the screening

2132: radius. According to the gauge invariance condition

2133: (\ref{ginvariance}) this contribution is strongly suppressed 

2134: (by a factor of the order of $max[T,(T/\tau)^{1/2}]d_{sc}/v_F$,

2135: with $d_{sc}$ being the screening radius, $\nu V(1/d_{sc})=1$)

2136: and we will not take it into account.

2137:  

2138: Second, at frequencies smaller than the

2139: plasmon frequency we can neglect the unity in the denominator in

2140: Eq.~(\ref{int-full}), which corresponds to the unitary limit, i.e.

2141: 

2142: \begin{eqnarray}

2143: {\cal D}^A = -  

2144: \frac{1}{\Pi^A} = - \frac{1}{\nu}

2145: \frac{S - \frac{1}{\tau}}{S- \frac{1}{\tau}-i\Omega}.

2146: \label{f-prop}

2147: \end{eqnarray}

2148: 

2149: \noindent

2150: Thus the original coupling $V(q)$ as well as the renormalization of the

2151: coupling by the Fermi liquid parameter Eq.~(\ref{102}) does not affect

2152: the resulting propagator. In other words the propagator becomes

2153: universal.

2154: 

2155: It is important to emphasize that Eq.~(\ref{f-prop}) gives the upper

2156: bound for the strength of the repulsive interaction. This is

2157: guaranteed by stability of the electron system with respect to

2158: the Wigner crystallization, i.e. by the condition $\nu V(q)+F_0^\rho >

2159: 0$ at $q<q*$. Therefore, we always have

2160: 

2161: \begin{eqnarray*}

2162: \frac{\nu V+F_0^\rho}{\nu+ (\nu V+F_0^\rho) \Pi} < \frac{1}{\Pi},

2163: \end{eqnarray*}

2164: 

2165: \noindent

2166: so that Eq.~(\ref{f-prop}) is indeed the upper bound for the

2167: propagator Eq.~(\ref{int-dyson}). Note, that the above condition is

2168: satisfied regardless of the sign of $F_0^\rho$. 

2169: In particular, it is possible to have

2170: $F_0^\rho<-1$ so that the so-called compressibility of the system 

2171: $\nu/(1+F_0^\rho)$ is negative. This fact, however,

2172: has nothing to do with stability of the Fermi liquid and does not

2173: affect transport phenomena \cite{vsi}.

2174:  

2175: Using the propagator Eq.~(\ref{f-prop}) in the expression for the

2176: correction Eq.~(\ref{fock-int}) we obtain after momentum integration

2177: 

2178: \begin{eqnarray}

2179: \delta\sigma_C =&& -e^2\tau\int\limits_{0}^{\infty} 

2180: \frac{d\Omega}{2\pi} \frac{\partial}{\partial\Omega}

2181: \left(\Omega\coth\frac{\Omega}{2T}\right) 

2182: \nonumber\\

2183: &&

2184: \nonumber\\

2185: &&

2186: \left\{ \frac{2}{\pi}\arctan\Omega\tau + \frac{1}{\pi\Omega\tau}

2187: + \frac{\Omega\tau}{2\pi} H(\Omega\tau) \ln 2

2188: \right.

2189: \nonumber\\

2190: &&

2191: \nonumber\\

2192: &&

2193: +\frac{1}{\pi}\Big[1+H(\Omega\tau)\Big]\arctan\frac{1}{\Omega\tau} 

2194: \nonumber\\

2195: &&

2196: \nonumber\\

2197: &&\left.

2198: +\frac{\Omega\tau}{4\pi}\left[ \frac{1}{2} +H(\Omega\tau)\right]

2199: \ln\left(1+\frac{1}{\Omega^2\tau^2}\right)\right\},

2200: \label{fock-int-3}

2201: \end{eqnarray}

2202: 

2203: \noindent

2204: where the dimensionless function $H(x)$ is defined as

2205: 

2206: \begin{eqnarray*}

2207: H(x) = \frac{1}{4+x^2}.

2208: \end{eqnarray*}

2209: 

2210: In the frequency integral Eq.~(\ref{fock-int-3}) we single out the

2211: first two terms as being dominant in the ballistic and diffusive

2212: limits respectively with the rest being the crossover function. The

2213: diffusive limit is given by

2214: 

2215: \begin{eqnarray}

2216: \delta\sigma_C(T\tau\ll 1) =&& -e^2\tau\int\limits_{0}^{\infty} 

2217: \frac{d\Omega}{2\pi} \frac{\partial}{\partial\Omega}

2218: \left(\Omega\coth\frac{\Omega}{2T}\right) \frac{1}{\pi\Omega\tau}

2219: =

2220: \nonumber\\

2221: &&

2222: \nonumber\\

2223: &&

2224: = -\frac{e^2}{2\pi^2}\ln\left(\frac{E_F}{T}\right).

2225: \label{cd}

2226: \end{eqnarray}

2227: 

2228: \noindent

2229: In the opposite limit we can replace $\arctan\Omega\tau$ by $\pi/2$.

2230: Then the integral is divergent in the ultra-violet, but that large

2231: constant can be incorporated in the definition of $\tau$. This is done

2232: as follows:

2233: 

2234: \begin{eqnarray}

2235: \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} d\Omega \frac{\partial}{\partial\Omega}

2236: \left(\Omega\coth\frac{\Omega}{2T}\right)

2237: \rightarrow -2T + E_F\coth\frac{E_F}{2T},

2238: \label{ultra}

2239: \end{eqnarray}

2240: 

2241: \noindent

2242: where $E_F$ is put for the upper limit of the integral. This is

2243: consistent with the approximations in momentum integration, where one

2244: typically relies on fast convergence in order to set the integration

2245: limit (otherwise determined by the Fermi energy) to infinity and to

2246: set all momenta in the numerator to the Fermi momentum in magnitude.

2247: Since we are interested in temperatures $T\ll E_F$, the second term is

2248: essentially a temperature independent (although infinite)

2249: constant. The temperature dependent correction to the conductivity is

2250: determined by the first term. As a result

2251: 

2252: \begin{eqnarray}

2253: \delta\sigma_C(T\tau\gg 1) =&& -e^2\tau\int\limits_{0}^{\infty} 

2254: \frac{d\Omega}{2\pi} \frac{\partial}{\partial\Omega}

2255: \left(\Omega\coth\frac{\Omega}{2T}\right) 

2256: =

2257: \nonumber\\

2258: &&

2259: \nonumber\\

2260: &&

2261: = e^2\frac{T\tau}{\pi}.

2262: \label{cb}

2263: \end{eqnarray}

2264: 

2265: Integrating the full expression Eq.~(\ref{fock-int-3}) we find the

2266: correction valid at all values of $T\tau$, 

2267: 

2268: \begin{equation}

2269: \delta\sigma_C = -\frac{e^2}{2\pi^2}\ln\left(\frac{E_F}{T}\right)

2270: + e^2\frac{T\tau}{\pi}

2271: \left[ 1 -\frac{3}{8} f(T\tau)\right],

2272: \label{fc1}

2273: \end{equation}

2274: 

2275: \noindent

2276: where the dimensionless function $f(x)$ is defined as a dimensionless

2277: integral:

2278: 

2279: \begin{eqnarray}

2280: f(x) = \frac{8}{3}

2281: \int\limits_{0}^{\infty}&& dz \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial z}

2282: \left(z\coth z\right) - 1\right]

2283: \left\{\frac{xz}{\pi} H(2xz) \ln 2 \right.

2284: \nonumber\\

2285: &&

2286: \nonumber\\

2287: &&

2288: +\frac{1}{\pi}\Big[1+H(2xz)\Big]\arctan\frac{1}{2xz}

2289: \nonumber\\

2290: &&

2291: \nonumber\\

2292: &&

2293: +\frac{xz}{2\pi}\left[\frac{1}{2}+H(2xz)\right]

2294: \ln\left(1+\frac{1}{(2xz)^2}\right)

2295: \nonumber\\

2296: &&

2297: \nonumber\\

2298: &&\left.

2299: +

2300: \frac{2}{\pi}\arctan 2xz - 1\right\}.

2301: \label{f2}

2302: \end{eqnarray}

2303: 

2304: \noindent

2305: The factor $3/8$ is introduced for convenience, so that $f(0)=1$. The

2306: integral can be evaluated analytical in the two limiting cases and the

2307: result is given by Eq.~(\ref{fl}). In the intermediate regime the

2308: integral can be evaluated numerically and the result is plotted on

2309: Fig.~\ref{plot:f}.

2310: 

2311: 

2312: 

2313: 

2314: \subsection{Triplet channel}

2315: \label{triplet}

2316: 

2317: 

2318: 

2319: %\subsubsection{Triplet channel interaction}

2320: 

2321: 

2322: In this section we discuss the correction in the triplet channel.

2323: Similar to the case of the charge channel, we need to derive the

2324: interaction propagator in the triplet channel and then use

2325: Eq.~(\ref{fock-int}). As follows from the Hamiltonian

2326: Eq.~(\ref{hsigma}), the triplet channel propagator is now a $3 \times

2327: 3$ matrix. Apart from this minor complication, the propagator can be

2328: found using the same RPA approximation as the one used in

2329: Section~\ref{charge}, see Fig.~\ref{15}.

2330: 

2331: {

2332: \narrowtext

2333: \begin{figure}[ht]

2334: \vspace{0.1 cm}

2335: \epsfxsize=8.5 cm

2336: \centerline{\epsfbox{f16.eps}}

2337: \vspace{0.5cm}

2338: \caption{Interaction propagator in the (a) singlet and (b)

2339: triplet channel} 

2340: \label{15}

2341: \end{figure}

2342: }

2343: 

2344: Similarly to the charge channel, we take the Fermi liquid coupling

2345: $\hat F^\sigma$ to be independent of electron momenta

2346: 

2347: \begin{eqnarray}

2348: F^\sigma\left(\theta\right) \approx F^\sigma_0.

2349: \label{appr}

2350: \end{eqnarray}

2351: 

2352: \noindent

2353: Unlike the case of the charge channel, this approximation slightly

2354: affects final results (see discussion after Eqs.~(\ref{s}) for the

2355: drawbacks of this approximation as well as for its remedies).  Then

2356: the matrix equation for the triplet propagator has the form

2357: 

2358: \begin{equation}

2359: \left[{\cal D}_T\right]_{ij} = 

2360: -\delta_{ij}\frac{F^\sigma_0}{\nu}

2361: - \frac{F^\sigma_0}{\nu}\sum_{k=x,y,z}\hat 

2362: \Pi_{ik}

2363: \left[{\cal D}_T\right]_{kj}

2364: \label{prop-eq}

2365: \end{equation}

2366: 

2367: \noindent

2368: where $i,j=x,y,z$.

2369: 

2370: In the absence of the magnetic field and spin-orbit scattering each

2371: electronic Green's function is a diagonal matrix in the spin space,

2372: and therefore

2373: 

2374: \beq

2375: \Pi_{ik}^A(q,\Omega)=\delta_{ik}\Pi^A(q,\Omega),

2376: \label{psigma}

2377: \eeq 

2378: 

2379: \noindent

2380: where $\Pi^A(q,\Omega)$ is the polarization operator given by

2381: Eq.~(\ref{pol}).

2382: 

2383: Altogether, using Eq.~(\ref{psigma}) in the equation (\ref{prop-eq}),

2384: we find the triplet channel propagator as

2385: 

2386: \begin{eqnarray}

2387: \left[{\cal D}_T^A(\Omega, q)\right]_{ij} = - \delta_{ij}

2388: \frac{F^\sigma_0}{\nu + F^\sigma_0 \Pi^A(\Omega, q)}.

2389: \label{trip-prop}

2390: \end{eqnarray}

2391: 

2392: Before we continue, let us discuss the validity of the approximation

2393: Eq.~(\ref{appr}). Consider the situation close to the Stoner

2394: instability $F^\sigma_0 \rightarrow -1$. In this case the pole of the

2395: propagator Eq.~(\ref{trip-prop}) describes a magnetic excitation in

2396: the system.  In the ballistic case ($q>1/l$) it is a slow, over-damped

2397: spin wave

2398: 

2399: \begin{eqnarray*}

2400: -i\omega \approx (1+F^\sigma_0)v_F|q|.

2401: \end{eqnarray*}

2402:  

2403: \noindent

2404: The main contribution to the temperature dependent conductivity

2405: correction comes from this pole at $\omega\sim T$. The corresponding

2406: typical momenta are $k^*\sim T / [(1+F^\sigma_0)v_F]$.  Although we

2407: are using the momentum independent $F^\sigma_0$, it is known

2408: \cite{bkm} that fluctuations in the triplet channel produce a

2409: non-analytic correction to the spin susceptibility, so up to a

2410: numerical coefficient $F^\sigma\approx F^\sigma_0 (1 - |q|/k_F)$. Such

2411: momentum dependence can only be neglected if $k^*\le

2412: k_F(1+F^\sigma_0)$. This translates into a limitation for the

2413: temperature range where the results listed in Section~\ref{results}

2414: are valid\cite{lar}:

2415: 

2416: \begin{eqnarray}

2417: T\ll T^* \approx (1+F^\sigma_0)^2 E_F.

2418: \end{eqnarray}

2419: 

2420: \noindent

2421: At higher temperatures $T>T^*$ our theory is not applicable.

2422: 

2423: Having discussed the validity of the approach, we proceed with the

2424: straightforward calculation: one has to substitute the propagator

2425: Eq.~(\ref{trip-prop}) into the expression for the correction

2426: Eq.~(\ref{fock-int}) and evaluate the integral. The result of the

2427: momentum integration is given by

2428: 

2429: \begin{mathletters}

2430: \begin{eqnarray}

2431: &&\delta\sigma_T = -3e^2\tau

2432: \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} 

2433: \frac{d\Omega}{4\pi} \frac{\partial}{\partial\Omega}

2434: \left(\Omega\coth\frac{\Omega}{2T}\right) 

2435: \nonumber\\

2436: &&

2437: \nonumber\\

2438: && 

2439: \left\{ \left(1-\frac{1}{F_0^\sigma}\ln(1+F_0^\sigma)\right)

2440: \frac{1}{\pi\Omega\tau}

2441:  + \frac{F_0^\sigma}{(1+F_0^\sigma)}\left[

2442: \frac{2}{\pi}\arctan\Omega\tau

2443: \right.\right.

2444: \nonumber\\

2445: &&

2446: \nonumber\\

2447: && 

2448: + \frac{\Omega\tau}{2\pi} \left(\Big[H(\Omega\tau)+h_1(\Omega\tau)\Big] \ln 2

2449: + h_4(\Omega\tau)\right)

2450: \label{fock-int-t}

2451: \\

2452: &&

2453: \nonumber\\

2454: &&

2455: +\frac{1}{\pi}\Big[1+H(\Omega\tau)

2456: + (\Omega\tau)^2h_3(\Omega\tau)\Big]\arctan\frac{1}{\Omega\tau} 

2457: \nonumber\\

2458: &&

2459: \nonumber\\

2460: &&\left.\left.

2461: +\frac{\Omega\tau}{4\pi}\left[ \frac{1}{2} +H(\Omega\tau)

2462: + h_2(\Omega\tau)\right]

2463: \ln\left(1+\frac{1}{\Omega^2\tau^2}\right)\right]\right\},

2464: \nonumber

2465: %\label{fock-int-t}

2466: \end{eqnarray}

2467: 

2468: \noindent

2469: where we introduce notations: 

2470: 

2471: \begin{eqnarray}

2472: h_1(x)=\tilde H&&(x; 1+2F_0^\sigma)

2473: \nonumber\\

2474: &&

2475: \nonumber\\

2476: &&\times

2477: \Big[5+6F_0^\sigma-4(2+3F_0^\sigma)H(x)\Big],

2478: \end{eqnarray}

2479: \begin{eqnarray}

2480: h_2(x)=&&h_1(x)+\tilde H(x; F_0^\sigma)

2481: \left[-\frac{1}{2}(1+F_0^\sigma)\right.

2482: \nonumber\\

2483: &&

2484: \nonumber\\

2485: &&\left.

2486: +F_0^\sigma x^2

2487: \left(\frac{1}{2}-(1+F_0^\sigma)\tilde H(x; F_0^\sigma)\right)\right],

2488: \end{eqnarray}

2489: \begin{eqnarray}

2490: h_3(x)=&&\tilde H(x; 1+2F_0^\sigma)

2491: \Big[-1-2F_0^\sigma+(2+3F_0^\sigma)H(x)\Big]

2492: \nonumber\\

2493: &&

2494: \nonumber\\

2495: &&

2496: +\frac{F_0^\sigma}{2}\tilde H(x; F_0^\sigma)

2497: \Big[1+F_0^\sigma x^2\tilde H(x; F_0^\sigma)\Big],

2498: \end{eqnarray}

2499: \begin{eqnarray}

2500: h_4(x)=\tilde H(x; F_0^\sigma)&&\left[\frac{5F_0^\sigma-3}{2}+

2501: \frac{1-(F_0^\sigma)^2}{F_0^\sigma}\ln(1+F_0^\sigma)\right]

2502: \nonumber\\

2503: &&

2504: \nonumber\\

2505: &&

2506: +h_5(x)\frac{1+F_0^\sigma}{F_0^\sigma}\ln(1+F_0^\sigma),

2507: \end{eqnarray}

2508: \begin{eqnarray}

2509: &&h_5(x)=(2F_0^\sigma-1)\tilde H(x; 1+2F_0^\sigma) + 

2510: \tilde H^2(x; F_0^\sigma)

2511: \\

2512: &&

2513: \nonumber\\

2514: &&\quad\quad

2515: \times

2516: \left[\left(\frac{1}{2}-2F_0^\sigma\right)(1+F_0^\sigma)^2 - 

2517: (F_0^\sigma)^2x^2 \left(\frac{1}{2}+2F_0^\sigma\right)\right].

2518: \nonumber

2519: \end{eqnarray}

2520: \end{mathletters}

2521: 

2522: \noindent

2523: Here we introduce a dimensionless function $\tilde H(x; y)$

2524: 

2525: \begin{eqnarray*}

2526: \tilde H(x; y) = \frac{1}{(1+y)^2+(xy)^2},

2527: \end{eqnarray*}

2528: 

2529: \noindent

2530: which is related to the function $H(x)$ introduced in Section~\ref{charge}

2531: simply by $H(x)=\tilde H(x; 1)$.

2532: 

2533: The expression in brackets turns into its counterpart in the charge

2534: channel in the unitary limit ($F^\sigma_0\rightarrow\infty$). Its

2535: first term describes the diffusive limit described in

2536: Ref.~\onlinecite{aar} (the formal difference in the coefficient stems

2537: from the difference in the definition of the coupling constant).  The

2538: frequency integral is evaluated in the same way as in Eq.~(\ref{cd}).

2539: Similar to our discussion of the charge channel correction [see e.g.

2540: Eq.~(\ref{cb})], we identify the second term in Eq.~(\ref{fock-int-t})

2541: with the ballistic limit (which we discuss in more detail in the next

2542: Section). The intermediate temperature regime is described by the

2543: expression [which appeared previously in Section~\ref{results},

2544: Eq.~(\ref{tc})]:

2545: 

2546: \begin{eqnarray}

2547: \delta\sigma_T = &&-3\left(1-\frac{1}{F_0^\sigma}

2548: \ln(1+F_0^\sigma)\right)

2549: \frac{e^2}{2\pi^2}\ln\left(\frac{E_F}{T}\right)

2550: \nonumber\\

2551: &&

2552: \nonumber\\

2553: &&

2554: +\frac{3F_0^\sigma}{(1+F_0^\sigma)}e^2\frac{T\tau}{\pi} 

2555: \left[ 1 -\frac{3}{8}t(T\tau; F_0^\sigma)\right].

2556: \label{tc2}

2557: \end{eqnarray}

2558: 

2559: \noindent

2560: where the dimensionless function $t(x; F_0^\sigma)$ is defined as

2561: 

2562: \begin{eqnarray}

2563: t(x; &&F_0^\sigma) = \frac{8}{3}

2564: \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} dz \left[ \frac{\partial}{\partial z}

2565: \left(z\coth z\right) - 1\right]

2566: \nonumber\\

2567: &&

2568: \nonumber\\

2569: &&\times

2570: \Bigg\{\frac{xz}{\pi} 

2571: \left(\Big[H(2xz)+h_1(2xz)\Big] \ln 2 + h_4(2xz)\right)

2572: \nonumber\\

2573: &&

2574: \nonumber\\

2575: &&\quad

2576: +\frac{1}{\pi}\Big[1+H(2xz)+4x^2z^2h_3(2xz)\Big]\arctan\frac{1}{2xz}

2577: \nonumber\\

2578: &&

2579: \nonumber\\

2580: &&\quad

2581: +\frac{xz}{2\pi}\left[\frac{1}{2}+H(2xz)+h_2(2xz)\right]

2582: \ln\left(1+\frac{1}{(2xz)^2}\right)

2583: \nonumber\\

2584: &&

2585: \nonumber\\

2586: &&\quad

2587: +

2588: \left[\frac{2}{\pi}\arctan(2xz) - 1\right]\Bigg\}.

2589: \label{t2}

2590: \end{eqnarray}

2591: 

2592: \noindent

2593: Except for the limiting cases [see Eq.~(\ref{tsx})] the integral in

2594: Eq.~(\ref{t2}) has to be evaluated numerically. We plot the result

2595: for several values of $F_0^\sigma$ in Fig.~\ref{plot:t}.

2596: 

2597: 

2598: 

2599: 

2600: \subsection{Single impurity limit}

2601: \label{single}

2602: 

2603: 

2604: 

2605: In the previous Sections we obtained the expression for the correction

2606: to conductivity averaged over disorder. To complete the calculation we

2607: needed to separately average the interaction propagator and use the

2608: result to evaluate the integral in Eq.~(\ref{fock-int}). In doing this

2609: we assumed that the dimensionless conductance of the system is large

2610: or in terms of the scattering time $\tau E_F\gg 1$. We have not,

2611: however, assumed anything about the relative value of the scattering

2612: rate and temperature. In other words, the correction

2613: Eq.~(\ref{fock-int}) is valid in both the diffusive $T\tau\ll 1$ and

2614: ballistic $T\tau\gg 1$ limits. It also describes the cross-over

2615: behavior at intermediate temperatures.

2616: 

2617: The temperature behavior of the interaction correction in the limiting

2618: cases can of course be obtained from the general result

2619: Eq.~(\ref{s}). As we pointed out in Section~\ref{results}, in the

2620: diffusive limit our results coincide with the standard theory,

2621: Ref.~\onlinecite{aar}. On the other hand the correction in the

2622: ballistic limit is subject to conflicting claims in literature

2623: \cite{gdl,rei}.  Unfortunately, neither result is completely

2624: correct. Therefore we discuss the ballistic limit in some detail,

2625: starting with diagrams before averaging (i.e. diagrams on

2626: Figs.~\ref{sr}). This way we are able to point out exactly which

2627: diagram produces the dominant result and which diagrams were missed in

2628: existing theories.

2629: 

2630: We begin by discussing the Hartree term. This contribution was

2631: considered in Ref.~\onlinecite{gdl} in the framework of the

2632: temperature dependent dielectric function. The physical idea was that

2633: electrons tend to screen the charged impurities and thus modify the

2634: scattering rate. In what follows we show which diagrams describe this

2635: process and how to calculate the resulting correction, which appears

2636: to be the same (up to a numerical factor miscalculated in

2637: Ref.~\onlinecite{gdl}; see below for detailed explanation).  The

2638: important difference between the two approaches is that the impurity

2639: screening picture described only the direct (Hartree) interaction,

2640: while missing on the exchange part. The latter was later considered in

2641: Ref.~\onlinecite{rei}. We think that this consideration is erroneous,

2642: and we discuss the Fock term in Section~\ref{sif}.

2643: 

2644: 

2645: 

2646: \subsubsection{Single impurity limit for Hartree term}

2647: \label{sih} 

2648: 

2649: 

2650: 

2651: 

2652: The goal of this discussion is to show which diagrams correspond to

2653: the ballistic limit of the Hartree term (as discussed in

2654: Section~\ref{qualitative}) and how it relates to other interaction

2655: corrections we discuss in this paper.

2656: 

2657: The Hartree term corresponds to averaging the two diagrams on

2658: Fig.~\ref{sr}, where the wavy line represents a weak interaction

2659: potential. In this case the diagram ``a3'' of Fig.~\ref{sr} is equal

2660: to zero even before the averaging (as a total derivative) and we only

2661: need to average the diagrams ``a1'' and ``a2''. The rigorous procedure

2662: would involve dressing the interaction vertices according to

2663: Fig.~\ref{8} and adding diffusons Fig.~\ref{9} as it was done in

2664: Section~\ref{h-f} (see Fig.~\ref{hfav}), evaluating the resulting

2665: expression, and finally taking the limit $T\tau\rightarrow\infty$.

2666: However, the same result can be obtained by making the expansion by

2667: noticing that impurity line brings smallness $1/T\tau$.  Therefore,

2668: high temperature limit may be studied by considering diagrams on

2669: Fig.~\ref{13} directly. Such approach is completely equivalent to that

2670: of Ref.~\onlinecite{gdl}.  The result [which can also be obtained from

2671: the general expression Eq.~(\ref{tc})] is similar to the one obtained

2672: in Ref.~\onlinecite{gdl} (the difference is the extra factor of $\ln

2673: 2$ found in Ref.~\onlinecite{gdl} due to an error in this reference,

2674: which consists in putting the energy of the scattered electron on the

2675: Fermi shell rather than integrating over it):

2676: 

2677: \begin{eqnarray}

2678: \delta\sigma_H = - 4\sigma_D\left(\frac{T}{E_F}\right)

2679: \left[-\nu{\cal D}(2k_F)\right]

2680: \label{hart-si}

2681: \end{eqnarray}

2682: 

2683: \noindent

2684: (for weak coupling ${\cal D}(2k_F) \equiv - V(2k_F)$ The factor of $4$

2685: in Eq.~(\ref{hart-si}) can be interpreted as a result of a summation

2686: over four spin configurations. Although correct for weak coupling,

2687: this factor should be modified when stronger interaction is

2688: considered, see discussion above.

2689: 

2690: 

2691: {

2692: \narrowtext

2693: \begin{figure}[ht]

2694: \vspace{0.5 cm}

2695: \epsfxsize=7 cm

2696: \centerline{\epsfbox{f17.eps}}

2697: \vspace{0.5cm}

2698: \caption{Single impurity diagrams for Hartree channel.} 

2699: \label{13}

2700: \end{figure}

2701: }

2702: 

2703: 

2704: \subsubsection{Fock contribution}

2705: \label{sif}

2706: 

2707: 

2708: 

2709: In the similar manner one can discuss the single impurity contribution

2710: to the Fock term. Again, for weak interaction we could simply expand

2711: the result of disorder averaging for the Fock term Eq.~(\ref{bf})

2712: to the leading order in $1/T\tau$. For Coulomb interaction we would

2713: expand Eq.~(\ref{fock-int}), since in Eq.~(\ref{bf}) the special form

2714: of the delta-function potential was utilized to eliminate the diagram

2715: ``b3'' on Fig.~\ref{sr}. Diagrammatically, such expansions equivalent

2716: to direct evaluation of diagrams without impurity lines (but with

2717: averaged electron Green's functions) shown in Fig.~\ref{3} and

2718: diagrams with only one impurity line shown on Figs.~\ref{4}, \ref{5},

2719: and \ref{6}.

2720: 

2721: The evaluation of the single impurity diagrams for the Fock term is 

2722: straight-forward and is completely analogous to the Hartree term

2723: discussed in the previous subsection. The result can be written as

2724: 

2725: \begin{equation}

2726: \sigma_F = \frac{e^2\tau T}{\pi}.

2727: \label{fock-si}

2728: \end{equation}

2729: 

2730: \noindent

2731: This result contradicts (even in sign) that of

2732: Ref.~\onlinecite{rei}. Here we briefly discuss the reason for this

2733: contradiction. We notice that one has to be careful to keep track of

2734: gauge invariance while evaluating diagrams for the Fock term. Gauge

2735: invariance manifests itself in the fact that any interaction at zero

2736: momentum gives no contribution to physical quantities, which are

2737: expressed diagrammatically as closed loops, see

2738: Eq.~(\ref{ginvariance}).  This is indeed the case for

2739: Eq.~(\ref{fock-int}), where we summed up all the diagrams. On the

2740: other hand, any individual diagram is not gauge invariant. In

2741: particular, each subset of diagrams in Figs.~\ref{33}-\ref{6} is not

2742: gauge invariant.  Therefore to obtain the result Eq.~(\ref{fock-si})

2743: from these diagrams one has to disregard terms which contain higher

2744: than second powers of the scattering rate $1/\tau$.

2745: 

2746: {

2747: \narrowtext

2748: \begin{figure}[ht]

2749: \vspace{0.2 cm}

2750: \epsfxsize=7.2 cm

2751: \centerline{\epsfbox{f18.eps}}

2752: \vspace{0.2cm}

2753: \caption{Fock channel diagrams without impurity lines.} 

2754: \label{33}

2755: \end{figure}

2756: }

2757: 

2758: As we already mentioned, the contribution from the plasmon pole is

2759: small due to the condition (\ref{ginvariance}).  However, in

2760: Ref.~\onlinecite{rei} it was claimed otherwise.  Namely, diagrams in

2761: Fig.~\ref{33} were claimed to be important for the plasmon correction

2762: and to give a large result, while diagrams in Figs.~\ref{4}-\ref{6}

2763: were alleged to be not important for the plasmon correction. This

2764: claim explicitly violates gauge invariance and leads to incorrect

2765: conclusions. In particular, the plasmon contribution to the

2766: conductivity was overestimated by a factor of order of $(v_F/d_s T)

2767: \simeq (E_F/ T)$.

2768: 

2769: 

2770: {

2771: \narrowtext

2772: \begin{figure}[ht]

2773: \vspace{0.1 cm}

2774: \epsfxsize=6.5 cm

2775: \centerline{\epsfbox{f19.eps}}

2776: \vspace{0.2cm}

2777: \caption{Single impurity diagrams for Fock channel with the impurity

2778: line dressing one interaction vertex.}

2779: \label{4}

2780: \end{figure}

2781: }

2782: {

2783: \narrowtext

2784: \begin{figure}[ht]

2785: \vspace{0.1 cm}

2786: \epsfxsize=6.5 cm

2787: \centerline{\epsfbox{f20.eps}}

2788: \vspace{0.2cm}

2789: \caption{Single impurity diagrams for Fock channel with the impurity

2790: line connecting a retarded and an advanced Green's functions across the 

2791: diagram.} 

2792: \label{5}

2793: \end{figure}

2794: }

2795: {

2796: \narrowtext

2797: \begin{figure}[ht]

2798: \vspace{0.2 cm}

2799: \epsfxsize=2.7 cm

2800: \centerline{\epsfbox{f21.eps}}

2801: \vspace{0.1cm}

2802: \caption{The single impurity diagram for Fock channel with the

2803: impurity line connecting two advanced Green's functions.}

2804: \label{6}

2805: \end{figure}

2806: }

2807: 

2808: 

2809: 

2810: 

2811: \section{Kinetic equation approach}

2812: %\section{Semi-classical kinetic theory}

2813: \label{eilenberger}

2814: 

2815: 

2816: 

2817: 

2818: Our purpose in this Section is to put the treatment of the interaction

2819: effects in disordered systems into the framework of the kinetic

2820: equation.  Even though at this point this will not produce any further

2821: physical results, this proves to be more convenient for practical

2822: calculations of more sophisticated quantities, such as the Hall

2823: coefficient, the thermal conductivity, energy relaxation, etc. The

2824: kinetic equation approach is also applicable for the description of

2825: non-linear effects. The main technical advantage of the kinetic

2826: equation is that it operates with gauge invariant quantities from the

2827: very beginning, unlike the perturbation theory, where each diagram

2828: taken separately is not gauge invariant (and may produce non-physical

2829: divergences).

2830: 

2831: We will present the final form of the kinetic equation in subsection

2832: \ref{kinetic}, and show how to operate with this equation for the

2833: conductivity calculation in subsection \ref{cond}. The derivation of

2834: this equation based on the Keldysh technique for non-equilibrium

2835: systems \cite{Keldysh} is presented in subsection \ref{derivation}.

2836: 

2837: 

2838: 

2839: 

2840: \subsection{Final form of the kinetic equation}

2841: \label{kinetic}

2842: 

2843: 

2844: 

2845: 

2846: As usual in the kinetic equation approach, averages of observable

2847: quantities are expressed as certain integrals of the distribution

2848: function $f(t; \epsilon,\vec r,\vec n)$.  For instance the averaged

2849: density is

2850: 

2851: \begin{mathletters}

2852: \label{eq:4.1}

2853: \beq

2854: \rho (t,\vec r) = \nu\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\epsilon 

2855: \langle f(t; \epsilon , \vec r, \vec n)\rangle_n

2856: \eeq

2857: 

2858: \noindent

2859: and the average current is

2860: 

2861: \beq

2862: {\vec J}(t,\vec r) =e\nu v_F \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\epsilon

2863: \langle \vec n f(t; \epsilon , \vec r ,\vec n)\rangle_n

2864: \label{current}

2865: \eeq 

2866: 

2867: \noindent

2868: and so on. Here $\nu$ is the density of states (entering into linear

2869: specific heat of the clean system) at the Fermi surface and $v_F$ is

2870: the Fermi velocity, $\vec n = (\cos\theta, \sin\theta)$ is the unit

2871: vector in the direction of the electron momentum and angular averaging

2872: is introduced as

2873: 

2874: \[

2875: \langle \dots \rangle_n =

2876: \int 

2877: \frac{d\theta}{2\pi} \dots

2878: \]

2879: 

2880: \end{mathletters}

2881: 

2882: The Boltzmann-like equation for the distribution function has the form

2883: 

2884: \beq

2885: \label{eq:4.2}

2886: \left[ \partial_t + v_F \vec n \vec\nabla + 

2887: e v_F (\vec n {\vec E})\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon}

2888: +\vec\omega_c  

2889: %\mbox{ \boldmath $\w$}_c 

2890: \left(\vec n \times \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec n} \right) 

2891: \right] f =

2892: \St\left\{f\right\},

2893: \label{Boltzmann}

2894: \eeq

2895: 

2896: \noindent

2897: where ${\vec E}$ denotes the external electric field and 

2898: %$\mbox{\boldmath $\w$}_c$ 

2899: $\vec\omega_c$ is a vector with the magnitude equal to the cyclotron

2900: frequency corresponding to an external magnetic field perpendicular to

2901: the plane and the direction along the field.

2902: 

2903: 

2904: Equations (\ref{eq:4.1}) and (\ref{Boltzmann}) neglect energy

2905: dependence of the velocity of electrons, which makes it inapplicable

2906: for quantities associated with electron-hole asymmetry, such as the

2907: thermopower. On the other hand, any component of the thermal and

2908: electrical conductivities is still within our description.

2909: 

2910: All of the interaction effects are taken into account in the collision

2911: integral

2912: 

2913: \beq

2914: \St\left\{f\right\} = \St_{el}\left\{f\right\} 

2915: + \St_{in}\left\{f\right\}.

2916: \label{eq:4.3}

2917: \eeq

2918: 

2919: The elastic part of the collision integral describes scattering of

2920: electrons by static impurities (we assume point-like scattering;

2921: generalization to the finite range is straightforward) as well as by

2922: the self-consistent field generated by all the other electrons:

2923: 

2924: \beqa 

2925: \St_{el}\left\{f\right\}=&& -\frac{f(t; \epsilon,\vec r,\vec n)

2926: -\langle f(t; \epsilon, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n}{\tau} 

2927: \nonumber\\

2928: &&

2929: \nonumber\\

2930: &&

2931: + \frac{8}{\tau}I_0(t; \epsilon,\vec n, \vec r) 

2932: \langle f(t; \epsilon, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n

2933: \label{eq:4.4}

2934: \\

2935: &&

2936: \nonumber\\

2937: &&

2938: + \frac{8}{\tau}

2939: n_\alpha I_1^{\alpha\beta} (t; \epsilon, \vec r) \langle n_\beta 

2940: f(t;\epsilon, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n.  

2941: \nonumber 

2942: \eeqa 

2943: 

2944: \noindent

2945: The effect of the self-consistent field is described by the last two

2946: terms, where we introduce notations:

2947: 

2948: \begin{mathletters}

2949: \label{eq:4.5}

2950: \beqa

2951: &&I_0(t; \epsilon,\vec n, \vec r)= -   

2952: \int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} 

2953: \Big\{n_\alpha K_0^{\alpha\beta}(\omega)  

2954: \langle n_\beta f(t; \epsilon-\omega, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n

2955: \nonumber \\

2956: &&

2957: \nonumber \\

2958: &&

2959: +\frac{n_\alpha L_0^{\alpha\beta}(\w)}{2} 

2960: \left[\nabla_\beta + e E_\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon} \right] 

2961: \langle f(t; \epsilon-\omega, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n

2962: \Big\} 

2963: \label{eq:4.5a}

2964: \eeqa

2965: \beqa

2966: I_1^{\alpha\beta}(t; \epsilon, \vec r)= - 

2967: \int \frac{d\w}{2\pi} K_1^{\alpha\beta}(\omega) 

2968: \langle f(t; \epsilon-\omega, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n. 

2969: %\nonumber \\ 

2970: %&&{}

2971: \label{eq:4.5b}

2972: \eeqa

2973: \end{mathletters}

2974: 

2975: \noindent

2976: The collision integral Eq.~(\ref{eq:4.4}) preserves the number of

2977: particles on a given energy shell: integrating $\St_{el}\{f(t;

2978: \epsilon,\vec r,\vec n)\}$ over directions of $\vec n$ gives zero for

2979: any value of $\epsilon$ [see also Eq.(\ref{elastic2})].

2980: 

2981: The term $I_1$ expresses enhanced momentum relaxation due to static

2982: disorder. The physics of this term was discussed in detail in Section

2983: ~\ref{qualitative}. The term $I_0$ describes electron scattering by

2984: non-equilibrium non-local Fock like potential created by all other

2985: electrons. This process is responsible for generation of the finite

2986: drift velocity of electrons. One can easily see that $I_0$

2987: vanishes in the equilibrium situation $f(\epsilon, \vec n, \vec r)=

2988: f[\epsilon + e\varphi(\vec r)],\ \nabla_\alpha \varphi = - E_\alpha$.

2989: 

2990: The kernels $K_0$, $K_1$, and $L_0$ entering into Eqs.~(\ref{eq:4.5})

2991: can be expressed in terms of interaction propagators and the

2992: propagators describing 

2993: semi-classical dynamics of non-interacting electrons. Explicitly:

2994: 

2995: \begin{mathletters}

2996: \label{eqs4.6}

2997: \beqa

2998: &&K_1^{\alpha\beta}(\omega) =

2999: \Im \int \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2}  {\cal{D}}^R(\omega,\vec q) 

3000: \label{K1}

3001: \\

3002: &&

3003: \nonumber\\

3004: &&\quad \times\left\{ \< n_\alpha D \> \< D n_\beta \> -  

3005: \frac{\delta_{\alpha \beta}}{2} \left( \< D \> \< D \> + 

3006: i \frac{\partial}{\partial \omega} \< D \> \right) \right\}

3007: \nonumber

3008: \eeqa

3009: \beqa

3010: &&

3011: K_0^{\alpha\beta}(\omega)  = 

3012: \Im \int \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2} {\cal{D}}^R(\omega,\vec q)

3013: \label{K0}\\

3014: &&

3015: \nonumber\\

3016: &&

3017: \quad \times 

3018: \left\{ \< n_\alpha D n_\beta \>\<  D \>

3019:  -\frac{i}{v_F}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_\alpha}  \< D n_\beta \>

3020: - \< D n_\alpha \>\< D n_\beta \>

3021: \right\} 

3022: \nonumber

3023: \eeqa

3024: \beqa

3025: &&

3026: L_0^{\alpha\beta}(\omega) =

3027: - \Re \int \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2} {\cal{D}}^R(\omega,\vec q) 

3028: \label{L0} 

3029: \label{eq:4.6c}\\

3030: &&

3031: \nonumber\\

3032: &&

3033: \quad\times 

3034: \left\{\<  D \>  \frac{\partial}{\partial q_\beta} \< n_\alpha D \>

3035: -\< D n_\alpha \>\frac{\partial}{\partial q_\beta}\<  D \>

3036: - \< D n_\alpha \frac{\partial}{\partial q_\beta} D \>\right\}

3037: \nonumber

3038: \eeqa

3039: \label{kernels}

3040: \end{mathletters}

3041: 

3042: Here, ${\cal D}^R(\omega)={\cal D}^A(-\omega)$ 

3043: denotes the retarded interaction propagator [see

3044: i.e. Eq.~(\ref{f-prop})] and we introduce the

3045: short hand notation for the angular averaging

3046: 

3047: \begin{eqnarray*}

3048: \<a  D b\> &\equiv& \int\frac{d \theta d\theta'}{(2\pi)^2}

3049: a(\vec n)

3050: D(\vec n, \vec n'; \omega, q)b(\vec n'), 

3051: \\ 

3052: &&

3053: \nonumber\\

3054: \<a  D b D c\> &\equiv& \int\frac{d \theta d\theta'd\theta''}{(2\pi)^3}

3055: a(\vec n)

3056: D(\vec n, \vec n')b(\vec n')D(\vec n', \vec n'')c(\vec n'')

3057: \end{eqnarray*}

3058: 

3059: \noindent

3060: for arbitrary functions $a,b$.  The function $D(\vec n, \vec n';

3061: \omega, \vec q)$ describes the classical motion of a particle on the

3062: energy shell $\epsilon_F$ in a magnetic field:

3063: 

3064: \beqa

3065: &&\Big[-i\omega + i v_F \vec n \vec q + 

3066: %\mbox{ \boldmath $\w$}_c 

3067: \vec \omega_c

3068: \left(\vec n \times 

3069: \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec n} \right)\Big] 

3070: D(\vec n, \vec n'; \omega, \vec q)

3071: \label{Diffuson}

3072: \\ 

3073: &&

3074: \nonumber\\

3075: &&

3076: +\frac{1}{\tau} \Big( D(\vec n, \vec n'; \omega, \vec q)

3077:  - \langle  D(\vec n, \vec n'; \omega, \vec q) \rangle_n \Big) = 

3078: 2\pi \delta(\widehat{\vec n \vec n'}).

3079: \nonumber

3080: \eeqa

3081: 

3082: As we have already mentioned, the elastic part of the collision

3083: integral is nulled by a distribution function of the form 

3084: $f[\epsilon +e\varphi(\vec r)]$ for an arbitrary $f$. 

3085: It is the inelastic term

3086: that is responsible for establishing the local thermal equilibrium

3087: and it has the standard form

3088: 

3089: \begin{mathletters}

3090: \label{eq:4.8}

3091: \beqa

3092: \St_{in}&&\left\{f\right\} =

3093: \int d\omega \int d \epsilon_1 A(\omega) 

3094: f( \epsilon_1) 

3095: \left[1 -  f(\epsilon_1 - \omega)\right]

3096: \label{inelastic}

3097: \\

3098: &&

3099: \nonumber\\

3100: &&

3101: \times 

3102: \Big\{ - f(\epsilon) 

3103: \left[1 -  f( \epsilon + \omega)\right]

3104: + \left[1 - f( \epsilon)\right]f( \epsilon - \omega)

3105: \Big\} 

3106: \nonumber

3107: \eeqa

3108: \begin{eqnarray*}

3109: f(\epsilon) = \langle f(t; \epsilon, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n.

3110: \end{eqnarray*}

3111: 

3112: \noindent

3113: The kernel $A(\omega)$ describes matrix elements for inelastic

3114: processes in both ballistic and diffusive limits. The explicit

3115: expression for this kernel is

3116: 

3117: \beq A(\omega) = \frac{2\nu}{\pi} \int\frac{d^2q}{(2\pi)^2} 

3118: \left[ \Re \langle D \rangle \right]^2 

3119: \left|{\cal{D}}^R(\omega, \vec q) \right|^2,

3120: \label{eq:A}

3121: \eeq

3122: \end{mathletters}

3123: 

3124: \noindent

3125: where $ \langle D \rangle$ is given by the solution to 

3126: Eq.~(\ref{Diffuson}) averaged over  angles.

3127: 

3128: The above equations are written for the interaction in the singlet

3129: channel only. In a situation where both triplet and singlet channels

3130: are present, but the distribution function does not have a spin

3131: structure (no Zeeman splitting or non-equilibrium spin occupation

3132: present), one has to replace

3133: 

3134: \beq

3135: {\cal D}^R \to {\cal D}^R +  {\bf Tr} \widehat{\cal D}^R_T

3136: \label{r1}

3137: \eeq

3138: 

3139: \noindent

3140: in Eqs.~(\ref{eqs4.6}) and

3141: 

3142: \beq

3143: |{\cal D}^R|^2 \to |{\cal D}^R|^2 + {\bf Tr}

3144: \left\{ \widehat{\cal D}^R_T 

3145: \left[\widehat{\cal D}^R_T\right]^\dagger\right\}

3146: \label{r2}

3147: \eeq

3148: 

3149: \noindent

3150: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:A}).

3151: 

3152: Equations (\ref{eq:4.2}) - (\ref{eq:4.8}) constitute the complete

3153: system of transport equations with the leading interaction corrections

3154: taken into account. They may be used to study both linear and

3155: non-linear response. We reiterate that they do not include effects of

3156: electron-hole asymmetry and in this form can not produce finite

3157: thermopower. The Hall effect, the thermal conductivity, and energy

3158: relaxation, however, are  included and will be studied in a

3159: subsequent publication \cite{pre}. In the following Subsection we

3160: apply the kinetic equation approach to study the interaction

3161: correction to the conductivity at intermediate and low temperatures

3162: and reproduce the results obtained in Section~\ref{diagrams} by means

3163: of diagrammatic technique. The reason for doing so is to show how the

3164: kinetic equation works and to demonstrate explicitly that both

3165: approaches are equivalent.

3166: 

3167: Closing our description of the structure of the kinetic equation, we

3168: discuss the range of its applicability.  Any kinetic equation implies

3169: that the distribution function changes slowly

3170: on the spatial scale of the

3171: Fermi wave length $\lambda_F$ and on the time scale $1/\epsilon_F$. In

3172: our case, the conditions are more restrictive.  First, in the

3173: interaction correction to the elastic collision integral we take

3174: into account only the effect of the interaction on the zeroth and

3175: first angular harmonics of the distribution function.  This implies

3176: that the equation gives the correct description for the interaction

3177: effects on the conductivity and diffusion, whereas it is not correct

3178: for description of the quantities involving higher angular

3179: harmonics. Second, we made a gradient expansion in Eq.~(\ref{eq:4.5a})

3180: and only took into account terms linear in the electric field. This

3181: implies that the distribution function changes slowly on the spatial

3182: scale $L_T = {\rm min}(\hbar v_F/T,\ v_F (\hbar\tau/T)^{1/2}),$ and

3183: on the time scale of the order of $\hbar/T$. The electric field

3184: expansion is justified by the condition $eE L_T \ll T$.  One can check

3185: that both these conditions are satisfied, if the energy relaxation

3186: time is much longer than the time for the elastic collisions.

3187: We also did not include quantum effects of the magnetic field.

3188: This is justified at $\omega_c \ll max(T/\hbar, \tau^{-1})$. 

3189: 

3190: Finally, the interaction part of Eq.~(\ref{eq:4.4}) is calculated in

3191: the first loop approximation. It means, that it has to be considered

3192: as the first order correction to $1/\tau$. If one is interested in the

3193: next order interaction correction to the elastic part, one should

3194: take into account the second loop correction, which is not considered

3195: in the present paper. On the contrary, the inelastic part (\ref{eq:4.8})

3196: can be considered in all orders to find the zero angular momentum

3197: part of the distribution function; the only assumption here is the

3198: validity of the Fermi liquid description at energies smaller than

3199: $\epsilon_F$.

3200: 

3201: 

3202: 

3203: 

3204: \subsection{Conductivity calculation}

3205: \label{cond}

3206: 

3207: 

3208: 

3209: 

3210: In order to calculate the conductivity at zero magnetic field $\omega_c

3211: =0$ we look for the solution of

3212: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:4.2}) - (\ref{eq:4.4})  in a form

3213: 

3214: \beq

3215: f(\vec n,\epsilon) = f_F(\epsilon) + \vec n 

3216: %\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}

3217: \vec \Gamma

3218: (\epsilon),

3219: \label{eq:4.9}

3220: \eeq 

3221: 

3222: \noindent

3223: where $f_F(\epsilon)=1/(e^{\epsilon/T}+1)$ is the Fermi distribution

3224: function (all the energies are counted from the Fermi level), and 

3225: $\Gamma$ is the quantity to be found 

3226: and it is proportional to the electric field.

3227: 

3228: We substitute Eq.~(\ref{eq:4.9}) into Eqs.~(\ref{eq:4.2}),

3229: (\ref{eq:4.4}), (\ref{eq:4.5}) and (\ref{eq:4.8}). The inelastic part

3230: of the collision integral [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:4.8})] obviously vanishes,

3231: as effects of the heating are proportional to at least the second

3232: power of the electric field. As a result, we obtain an equation for

3233: $\Gamma$:

3234: 

3235: \beqa

3236: e v_F E_\alpha \frac{\partial f_F(\epsilon) }{\partial \epsilon}

3237: &&= - \frac{ \Gamma_\alpha (\epsilon)}{\tau} 

3238: %- \frac{4}{\tau}\int\frac{d\w}{2\pi}

3239: \label{eq:4.10}\\

3240: &&

3241: \nonumber\\

3242: &&

3243: %&\times&

3244: - \frac{4}{\tau}\int\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

3245: \Big[ K_1^{\alpha\beta}(\omega) 

3246: f_F(\epsilon-\omega)\Gamma_\beta (\epsilon) 

3247: \nonumber\\

3248: &&

3249: \nonumber\\

3250: &&

3251: \quad\quad\quad\quad+

3252: K_0^{\alpha\beta}(\omega) f_F(\epsilon)\Gamma_\beta (\epsilon-\omega)

3253: \Big] 

3254: \nonumber\\

3255: &&

3256: \nonumber\\

3257: &&

3258: -\frac{4f_F(\epsilon)}{\tau}\int\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

3259: L_0^{\alpha\beta}(\omega)

3260: e E_\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon} 

3261: f_F(\epsilon-\omega)

3262: \nonumber

3263: \eeqa

3264: 

3265: \noindent

3266: We solve Eq.~(\ref{eq:4.10}) by iterations. As usual for kinetic

3267: equations, the solution is expressed in terms of the unperturbed

3268: distribution function $f_F(\epsilon)$ and the kernels, which in this

3269: case are given by Eq.~(\ref{kernels}):

3270: 

3271: \beqa

3272: \Gamma_\alpha (\epsilon)

3273: &&

3274: = -  e v_F\tau E_\alpha \frac{\partial f_F(\epsilon) }{\partial \epsilon}

3275: \label{eq:4.11}

3276: \\

3277: &&

3278: \nonumber\\

3279: &&

3280: + {4 e v_F\tau}\int\frac{d\w}{2\pi}

3281: \left[ K_1^{\alpha\beta}(\w) 

3282: f_F(\epsilon-\w)\frac{\partial f_F(\epsilon) }{\partial \epsilon} 

3283: \right. 

3284: \nonumber\\

3285: &&

3286: \nonumber\\

3287: &&

3288: \left.

3289: \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+

3290: K_0^{\alpha\beta}(\w) 

3291: f_F(\epsilon)\frac{\partial f_F(\epsilon-\w) }{\partial \epsilon}

3292: \right] E_\beta 

3293: \nonumber\\

3294: &&

3295: \nonumber\\

3296: &&

3297: - {4f_F(\epsilon)}\int\frac{d\w}{2\pi}

3298: L_0^{\alpha\beta}(\w)

3299: e E_\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon} 

3300: f_F(\epsilon-\w)

3301: \nonumber

3302: \eeqa

3303: 

3304: \noindent

3305: Substituting Eqs.~(\ref{eq:4.11}) into Eq.~(\ref{eq:4.9}) and

3306: the result into Eq.~(\ref{current}), we 

3307: integrate over $\epsilon$ and find  

3308: the conductivity 

3309: 

3310: \begin{mathletters}

3311: \beqa

3312: \sigma = \sigma_D + \delta \sigma,

3313: \label{eq:4.12}

3314: \eeqa

3315: \begin{eqnarray}

3316: \frac{\delta\sigma}{\sigma_D}=

3317: \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{d\omega}{\pi}

3318: \frac{\partial}{\partial\omega} &&

3319: \left(\omega\coth \frac{\omega}{2T}\right)

3320: \nonumber\\

3321: &&

3322: \nonumber\\

3323: &&\times

3324: \left[K_0(\omega) - K_1(\omega) -\frac{L_0(\omega)}{v_F\tau}\right],

3325: \label{ccke}

3326: \end{eqnarray}

3327: \end{mathletters}

3328: 

3329: \noindent

3330: where the Drude conductivity is $\sigma_D = e^2\nu v_F^2\tau/2$. 

3331: Here we used the fact that in the absence of the magnetic field

3332: all the kernels are diagonal, $K^{\alpha\beta}_{i} = 

3333: \delta_{\alpha\beta}K_i$, 

3334: $L^{\alpha\beta}_{0} = \delta_{\alpha\beta}L_0$.

3335: We also used the identities

3336: 

3337: \begin{eqnarray*}

3338: 2\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty d \epsilon f_F(\epsilon)

3339: \frac{\partial f_F(\epsilon-\omega) }{\partial \epsilon}

3340: =-1+\frac{\partial}{\partial\omega} 

3341: \left(\omega\coth \frac{\omega}{2T}\right),

3342: \end{eqnarray*}

3343: \begin{eqnarray*}

3344: \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty 

3345: d\omega K_{i}(\omega)= \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty 

3346:  d\omega L_{0}(\omega) = 0.

3347: \end{eqnarray*}

3348: 

3349: In order to derive explicit expressions for the kernels $K_i$ and $L_0$ 

3350: we have to solve Eq.~(\ref{Diffuson}) for the function $D$ in the absence 

3351: of the magnetic field. 

3352: The result can be written as

3353:  

3354: \beqa \label{eq:4.13}

3355: D(\vec n,\vec n';\omega,\vec q) && = 

3356: 2\pi\delta(\widehat{\vec n  \vec n'})

3357: D_0(\vec n,\omega,\vec q)

3358: \\

3359: &&

3360: \nonumber\\

3361: && 

3362: +D_0(\vec n,\omega,\vec q)D_0(\vec n',\omega,\vec q)

3363: \frac{C}{C\tau-1}, 

3364: \nonumber

3365: \eeqa

3366: 

3367: \noindent

3368: where $D_0$ denotes the solution of Eq.~(\ref{Diffuson}) without the 

3369: angular averaged term (and in the absence of the magnetic field)

3370: 

3371: \beqa

3372: D_0(\vec n,\omega,\vec q)=

3373: \frac{1}{ -i\omega + i v_F \vec n \vec q+1/\tau}.

3374: \nonumber

3375: \eeqa

3376: 

3377: \noindent

3378: Here we used the short-hand notation

3379: 

3380: \[

3381: C=\sqrt{\left(-i\omega + 1/\tau\right)^2 + v_F^2 q^2},

3382: \]

3383: 

3384: \noindent

3385: which is similar to the notation $S$ used in Section~\ref{diagrams}

3386: [in fact, $C=S^*$, see Eq.~(\ref{sqrt})].

3387: Substituting Eq.~(\ref{eq:4.13}) into Eqs.~(\ref{K1}) -- (\ref{L0})

3388: and performing the angular integration we arrive to

3389: 

3390: \begin{mathletters}

3391: \beqa

3392: &&K_1(\omega)=  -{\Im} \int \frac{q dq}{4\pi} {\cal D}^R(\omega, q) 

3393: \\ 

3394: && 

3395: \nonumber\\

3396: && \; \; 

3397: \times\left\{ \frac{1}{v_F^2 q^2} 

3398: \left( \frac{C - (-i\omega + 1/\tau)}{C-1/\tau} \right)^2 

3399: + \frac{C- (-i\omega +1/\tau)}{C (C-1/\tau)^2} \right\}, 

3400: \nonumber\\ 

3401: && 

3402: \nonumber\\

3403: &&K_0(\omega)= {\Im} \int \frac{q dq}{4\pi}\ {\cal D}^R(\w, q)  

3404: \\ 

3405: && 

3406: \nonumber\\

3407: && \quad

3408: \times\left\{ \frac{C-(-i\w + 1/\tau)}{C (C-1/\tau)^2} + 

3409: \frac{(C-(-i\w + 1/\tau))^2}{C(C-1/\tau)} \frac{1}{v_F^2 q^2} \right\}, 

3410: \nonumber\\ 

3411: && 

3412: \nonumber\\

3413: &&\frac{L_0(\omega)}{v_F\tau} = - {\Im} \int \frac{q dq}{4\pi} 

3414: {\cal D}^R(\w, q) 

3415: \\ 

3416: &&

3417: \nonumber\\

3418: && \quad\quad\quad\quad

3419: \times\left\{ \frac{3}{2 \tau} \frac{v_F^2 q^2}{C^3 (C-1/\tau)^2} + 

3420: \frac{v_F^2 q^2}{C^3} \frac{1/\tau^2}{(C-1/\tau)^3}

3421: \right\}. 

3422: \nonumber

3423: \eeqa

3424: \label{fullkern}

3425: \end{mathletters}

3426: 

3427: \noindent

3428: Together with the conductivity correction Eq.~(\ref{ccke}) the above 

3429: expressions Eq.~(\ref{fullkern}) are identical to Eq.~(\ref{fock-int})

3430: obtained in Section~\ref{diagrams} by means of the standard perturbation

3431: theory. Thus the kinetic equation approach is completely equivalent to

3432: such diagrammatic calculation. 

3433: 

3434: Integration over the wave vector $q$ requires the knowledge of the

3435: interaction propagator. Substituting Eq.~(\ref{f-prop}) for the singlet 

3436: channel and Eq.~(\ref{trip-prop}) for the triplet channel and performing 

3437: the straightforward integration we arrive to the results in 

3438: Section~\ref{results}.

3439: 

3440: 

3441: 

3442: 

3443: \subsection{Derivation of the kinetic equation}

3444: \label{derivation}

3445: 

3446: 

3447: 

3448: 

3449: In this section we derive the kinetic equation discussed in 

3450: Section~\ref{kinetic}. For simplicity we show the derivation for the

3451: case of the singlet channel interaction Eq.~(\ref{Hrho}). The case

3452: of the triplet channel can be treated in the same manner with minor

3453: differences (introduction of extra spin indices) described in the end 

3454: of this Section. To keep the discussion at the same level as in 

3455: Section~\ref{diagrams}, we treat the Fermi liquid parameter $F^\rho$

3456: in Eq.~(\ref{Hrho}) as a constant, similar to our treatment of the

3457: triplet channel in Section ~\ref{triplet}.

3458: 

3459: 

3460: 

3461: \subsubsection{Keldysh formalism}

3462: 

3463: 

3464: 

3465: Here we summarize the results originally obtained by Keldysh

3466: \cite{Keldysh} that enable us to calculate correlation functions for

3467: any non-equilibrium distribution.

3468: 

3469: Let us first consider a Green's function of

3470: electrons before disorder averaging.

3471: The electron-electron interaction

3472: is described by the Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{Hrho}). In the path-integral

3473: formulation it can be decoupled from fermion operators using an 

3474: auxiliary bosonic field $\phi$. Then the Green's function can be written

3475: as

3476: 

3477: \beq 

3478: \label{fullgreen}

3479: \widehat G(x_1, x_2) = \int \left[ {\cal D} \phi \right] 

3480: \widehat G(x_1, x_2 | \phi) e^{-i S_B[\phi]},

3481: \eeq

3482: 

3483: \noindent 

3484: with the action defined as 

3485: 

3486: \beq

3487: S_B[\phi] = \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt d^2r 

3488: \left\{\frac{1}{2} \phi^T V_0^{-1} \sigma_3 \phi \right\}

3489: + i \log Z[\phi] ,

3490: \label{sb}

3491: \eeq

3492: 

3493: \noindent

3494: where $-V_0$ is the (bare; following Eq.~(\ref{Hrho})

3495: $V_0=V(q) +F_0^\rho/\nu$) electron-electron interaction propagator 

3496: and $Z$ is the partition function, 

3497: 

3498: \beqa

3499: Z[\phi] = \< {\bf T_C } e^{-i S_F[ \phi, \psi]} \> 

3500: \label{z}

3501: \eeqa

3502: \beqa

3503: S_{F}[ \phi, \psi] = 

3504: \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt d^2r \left\{  

3505:  \psi^\dagger \phi_{\alpha} \hat\gamma^{\alpha} \psi

3506: \right\},

3507: \label{sfu}

3508: \eeqa

3509: 

3510: \noindent

3511: where $\hat\sigma_z={\rm diag}(-1,1)$ is the Pauli matrix in the Keldysh

3512: space.

3513: 

3514: \begin{figure}

3515: \vglue 0cm

3516: \hspace{0.01\hsize}

3517: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize

3518: \epsffile{f22.eps}

3519: \refstepcounter{figure} \label{contour}

3520: {\center{\small Fig.\ \ref{contour}.

3521: The Keldysh contour 

3522:   \par}}

3523: \end{figure}

3524: 

3525: \noindent

3526: In the above expressions all the fields are defined on the Keldysh time

3527: contour shown in Fig.~\ref{contour}. In particular, the fermionic fields

3528: $\psi^\dagger$ and $\psi$ (as well as the bosonic field $\phi$) can be 

3529: treated as doublets 

3530: 

3531: \beqa

3532: \psi = \left( \matrix{\psi_+ \cr \psi_-} \right),

3533: \eeqa

3534: 

3535: \noindent 

3536: where we adopt the notation that fields

3537: with a $-$ ($+$) subscript (also referred to by Greek letters in this 

3538: Section) reside on the lower (upper) part of the

3539: contour on Fig.~(\ref{contour}). 

3540: The time dependent fermionic operators $\psi$ are taken in the

3541: interaction represntation

3542: \[

3543: -i\partial_t \psi(t) = \left[\hat{H}_1(t); \psi (t)  \right],

3544: \]

3545: where $\hat{H}_1$ is the one-electron Hamiltonian which includes

3546: the static disorder potential as well as external fields.

3547: 

3548: Consequently, the Green's function in

3549: Eq.~(\ref{fullgreen}) is a $2\times2$ matrix. Time ordering along the 

3550: contour is denoted in Eq.~(\ref{z}) by ${\bf T_C }$. 

3551: Matrices $\hat\gamma^{\alpha}$ in Eq.~(\ref{sfu}) are defined as

3552: 

3553: \[

3554: \hat\gamma^+ = \left(

3555: \matrix{

3556: -1 & 0 \cr

3557: 0 & 0

3558: } 

3559: \right)

3560: \quad ;

3561: \quad\quad

3562: \hat\gamma^- = \left(

3563: \matrix{

3564: 0 & 0 \cr

3565: 0 & 1

3566: } 

3567: \right)

3568: \]

3569: 

3570: The Green's function $\widehat G(x_1, x_2 | \phi)$ in Eq.~(\ref{fullgreen})

3571: is given by

3572: 

3573: \beq

3574: \widehat G(x_1, x_2 | \phi) = \frac{1}{Z[\phi]} 

3575: \< T_C \psi^\dagger_{\alpha}(x_1) \psi_{\beta}(x_2) 

3576: e^{-i S_F[ \phi, \psi]} \>.

3577: \label{fg2}

3578: \eeq

3579: 

3580: \noindent

3581: Here, as well as in Eq.~(\ref{z}) the angular brackets 

3582: $\langle \dots \rangle$ denote quantum-mechanical averaging.  

3583: In this section we will use the short hand notation

3584: 

3585: \[

3586: x_i \equiv (t_i, \vec r_i).

3587: \]

3588: 

3589: The bosonic action Eq.~(\ref{sb}) can be treated in the 

3590: saddle point approximation:

3591: 

3592: \begin{mathletters}

3593: \beqa

3594: \< e^{-i S_B[\phi]}\> = e^{-i F[\phi]},

3595: \eeqa

3596: \beqa

3597: F[\phi] = F[\phi = 0] + 

3598: \frac{1}{2}\phi^T \widehat\Pi \phi + {\cal O}(\phi^3),

3599: \label{fb}

3600: \eeqa

3601: \label{ba}

3602: \end{mathletters}

3603: 

3604: \noindent

3605: where $\Pi$ is the electronic polarization operator, defined as

3606: 

3607: \beq

3608: \Pi_{\alpha \beta}(x_1, x_2) = \left.  

3609: \frac{\delta^2 F}{\delta\phi_{\alpha}(x_1)\delta\phi_{\beta}(x_2)}

3610: \right|_{\phi=0}.

3611: \label{pder}

3612: \eeq

3613: 

3614: \noindent

3615: The quadratic expansion in Eq.~(\ref{fb}) is justified, provided that

3616: the fields $\phi$ are slowly changing  on the scale much larger

3617: than $\lambda_F$.

3618: 

3619: Let us now average the Green's function Eq.~(\ref{fullgreen}) over 

3620: disorder: 

3621: 

3622: \beq 

3623: \label{disorderedgreen}

3624: \< \widehat G(x_1, x_2) \>_{dis} = 

3625: \int \left[ {\cal D} \phi \right] 

3626: \< \widehat G(x_1, x_2 | \phi) \>_{dis} e^{-i \< S_B[\phi]\>_{dis}},

3627: %_{dis}

3628: \eeq

3629: where $\<\dots  \>_{dis}$ hereafter denotes averaging over disorder.

3630: 

3631: Here we average the electronic Green's function Eq.~(\ref{fg2}) 

3632: separately from the bosonic action Eq.~(\ref{ba}). This approximation

3633: means that we neglect correlations between mesoscopic

3634: fluctuations of the polarizability

3635:  in Eq.~(\ref{fb})  and 

3636: the fermionic operators in Eq.~(\ref{fg2}) (which describe the motion of 

3637: conduction electrons).

3638: This is the same approximation we used in Section~\ref{diagrams}.

3639: It is justified by the well known fact that mesoscopic

3640: fluctuations are smaller than average quantities by a factor of the 

3641: order $1/(E_F\tau)^2$. 

3642: 

3643: It is convenient \cite{LO77} to rotate the Keldysh basis as follows 

3644: 

3645: \beqa

3646: \widehat G \rightarrow \frac{1}{2}\hat\sigma_x 

3647: \left(

3648: \matrix{

3649: 1 & -1 \cr

3650: 1 & 1

3651: } 

3652: \right)

3653: \widehat G 

3654: \left(

3655: \matrix{

3656: 1 & 1 \cr

3657: -1 & 1

3658: } 

3659: \right).

3660: \eeqa

3661: 

3662: \noindent

3663: In the new basis the Green's function Eq.~(\ref{fg2}) has the form

3664: 

3665: \beq

3666: \widehat G(x_1, x_2 | \phi) = 

3667: \left(

3668: \matrix{

3669: G^R(x_1, x_2 | \phi) & G^K(x_1, x_2 | \phi) \cr

3670: G^Z(x_1, x_2 | \phi) & G^A(x_1, x_2 | \phi)

3671: } 

3672: \right).

3673: \label{nosense}

3674: \eeq

3675: 

3676: \noindent

3677: After the averaging over the bosonic field and over the disorder

3678: according to Eq.~(\ref{disorderedgreen}) the entries in

3679: Eq.~(\ref{nosense}) acquires the following meaning/ where after

3680: integrating over the bosonic field $\phi$ the diagonal elements

3681: $G^{R(A)}$ become the retarded (advanced) Green's functions of the

3682: electron system

3683: 

3684: \begin{eqnarray*} 

3685: \< G^R(t_1, t_2) \> = -i\eta(t_1-t_2)\langle \psi (t_1) \psi^\dagger(t_2)+

3686: \psi^\dagger(t_2) \psi (t_1) \rangle,\\

3687: \< G^A(t_1, t_2) \> = 

3688: i\eta(t_2-t_1)\langle \psi (t_1) \psi^\dagger(t_2)+

3689: \psi^\dagger(t_2) \psi (t_1) \rangle,

3690: \end{eqnarray*} 

3691: 

3692: \noindent

3693: where $\eta(t)$ is the Heaviside step function.  The lower diagonal

3694: element vanishes due to the causality,

3695: 

3696: \[

3697: \< G^Z(t_1, t_2) \>=0,

3698: \]

3699: 

3700: \noindent 

3701: even before the disorder averaging.  Finally, the upper off-diagonal

3702: element (the so-called Keldysh Green's function) is related to the one

3703: particle density matrix

3704: 

3705: \begin{eqnarray}

3706: \< G^K(t_1, t_2) \> = -i \langle \psi (t_1) \psi^\dagger(t_2)-

3707: \psi^\dagger(t_2) \psi (t_1) \rangle,

3708: \label{GK}

3709: \end{eqnarray}

3710: 

3711: \noindent

3712: the quantum mechanical averaging is performed with an arbitrary

3713: distribution function to be found from the solution of the kinetic

3714: equation.

3715: 

3716: The bosonic field in the rotated basis has the two components

3717: 

3718: \beqa

3719: \phi_{1(2)} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \phi_+ \pm \phi_- \right)

3720: \eeqa

3721: 

3722: \noindent

3723: which are described by the propagators

3724:  

3725: \begin{mathletters}

3726: \label{Ds}

3727: \beqa

3728: && 

3729: \< \phi_1(t_1, \vec r_1) \phi_1(t_2, \vec r_2) \> = 

3730: \frac{i}{2} {\cal D}^K(t_1,t_2; \vec r_1,\vec r_2), 

3731: \\

3732: && 

3733: \nonumber\\

3734: &&

3735: \< \phi_1(t_1, \vec r_1) \phi_2(t_2, \vec r_2) \> = 

3736: \frac{i}{2} {\cal D}^R(t_1,t_2; \vec r_1,\vec r_2), 

3737: \\

3738: && 

3739: \nonumber\\

3740: &&

3741: \< \phi_2 (t_1, \vec r_1)\phi_1(t_2, \vec r_2) \> =

3742: \frac{i}{2} {\cal D}^A(t_1,t_2; \vec r_1,\vec r_2), 

3743: \\

3744: && 

3745: \nonumber\\

3746: &&

3747: \< \phi_2 (t_1, \vec r_1)\phi_2(t_2, \vec r_2) \> = 0.

3748: \label{do}

3749: \eeqa

3750: \label{prp}

3751: \end{mathletters}

3752: 

3753: \noindent

3754: The coupling Eq.~(\ref{sfu}) between the fermionic and bosonic fields 

3755: in the rotated basis has the form:

3756: 

3757: \beq

3758: \psi^\dagger \phi_{\alpha} \hat\gamma^{\alpha} \psi \rightarrow

3759: \psi^\dagger

3760: \left(

3761: \matrix{

3762: \phi_1 & \phi_2  \cr

3763: \phi_2 & \phi_1

3764: } 

3765: \right) \psi.

3766: \eeq

3767: 

3768: \noindent

3769: The propagators Eq.~(\ref{prp}) are solutions of the Dyson equations

3770: 

3771: \beqa

3772: \hat{\cal D}(1,2) = \hat{\cal D}_0(1,2) + \int d 3 d4 

3773: \hat{\cal D}_0(1,3)\hat{\Pi}(3,4)\hat{\cal D}(4,2) 

3774: \nonumber

3775: \eeqa

3776: \beqa

3777: \hat{\cal D} =

3778: \left(

3779: \matrix{{\cal D}^R & {\cal D}^K \cr 0 & {\cal D}^A}

3780: \right),

3781: \quad

3782: \hat{\Pi} =

3783: \left(

3784: \matrix{\Pi^R & \Pi^K \cr 0 & \Pi^A}

3785: \right)

3786: \label{Dysonb}

3787: \eeqa

3788: 

3789: \noindent

3790: and we introduced the short hand notation $(i) \equiv (t_i,\vec r_i)$.

3791: The bare interaction propagators are

3792: 

3793: \beqa

3794: {\cal D}_0^R = {\cal D}_0^A && = - \left[V(\r_1-\r_2) + 

3795: F_0^\rho \delta(\r_1-\r_2)

3796: \right] \delta(t_1-t_2), 

3797: \nonumber \\

3798: &&

3799: \nonumber \\

3800: {\cal D}_0^K && = 0.

3801: \label{D00}

3802: \eeqa

3803: 

3804: Any classical external field takes identical values on the two

3805: branches of the contour and, hence, in the rotated basis has only a

3806: diagonal component.

3807: 

3808: The matrix Green's function (\ref{nosense}) satisfies the equation

3809: 

3810: \beqa

3811: &&\Bigg\{

3812: i\partial_{t_1} + E_F

3813: - \frac{\left[-i\vec\nabla_{r_1} + \vec A_{ext}(x_1)\right]^2}{2m}

3814: - \hat{\phi}(x_1)

3815: \label{eq1}

3816: \\

3817: &&

3818: \nonumber\\

3819: &&

3820: \quad 

3821: - U(\vec r_1) - \varphi_{ext}(x_1)

3822: \Bigg\} \;

3823: \widehat G(x_1, x_2 | \phi) = \hat{I}\delta(x_1-x_2)

3824: \nonumber

3825: \eeqa

3826: 

3827: \noindent

3828: where  $U(\vec r)$ is the potential due to the static disorder,

3829: $\vec A_{ext}(x_1)$ and $\varphi_{ext}(x_1)$ are the vector and

3830: scalar potential due to the external electric and magnetic fields.

3831: 

3832: \beq

3833: e{\vec E}= \partial_t {\vec A}_{ext} -

3834: %\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}

3835: \vec\nabla

3836: \varphi_{ext}, \quad

3837: e{\vec B}=-\frac{1}{c}\vec\nabla \times {\vec A}_{ext} 

3838: \label{EH}

3839: \eeq

3840: 

3841: \noindent

3842: The equation (\ref{eq1}) is the basis for the further consideration.

3843: One can perform the disorder average in Eq.~(\ref{eq1}) in the leading

3844: in $1/(E_F\tau)$ approximation, which amounts to summation over all

3845: the non-intersecting impurity lines one obtains

3846: 

3847: \beqa

3848: &&

3849: \Bigg\{

3850: i\partial_{t_1} + E_F 

3851: - \frac{\left[-i\vec\nabla_{r_1} + \vec A_{ext}(x_1)\right]^2}{2m}

3852: - \hat{\phi}(x_1)

3853: \nonumber\\

3854: &&

3855: \nonumber\\

3856: &&\quad\quad

3857: - \varphi_{ext}(x_1)

3858: \Bigg\} \;

3859: \widehat G(x_1, x_2 | \phi) = 

3860: \label{eq2}

3861: \\

3862: &&

3863: \nonumber\\

3864: &&\quad\quad\quad\quad

3865: \hat{I}\delta(x_1-x_2) +

3866: \int d x_3 \widehat\Sigma (x_1, x_3 | \phi) \widehat G(x_3, x_2 | \phi);

3867: \nonumber

3868: \eeqa

3869: \beqa

3870: \widehat\Sigma (x_1, x_2 | \phi) = \frac{\delta(r_1-r_2)}{2\pi\nu \tau}

3871: \widehat G(x_1, x_2 | \phi).

3872: \nonumber

3873: \eeqa

3874: 

3875: \noindent

3876: The equation (\ref{eq2}) allows for semi-classical treatment 

3877: introduced  in Refs.~\onlinecite{Eilenberger,68}, and described in

3878: great details in Ref.~\onlinecite{LO77}. 

3879: Since we have already averaged

3880: the equation of motion over disorder, the semi-classical approximation 

3881: now amounts to averaging the Green's function $\widehat G(x_1, x_2 | \phi)$

3882: over the distance from the 

3883: Fermi surface. This is done in two steps:

3884: 

3885: \beqa

3886: \widehat G(t_1, t_2;\vec p; \vec R)=

3887: \int d^2r e^{i\vec P \cdot \vec r} \widehat G(x_1, x_2 | \phi),

3888: \eeqa

3889: \[

3890: \vec r = \vec r_1 - \vec r_2 ; \quad 

3891: \vec R = \frac{1}{2}(\vec r_1 + \vec r_2);

3892: \]

3893: \[

3894: \vec P = \vec p - \frac{1}{2}

3895: \left[\vec A_{ext}\left(t_1, \vec R\right)+

3896: \vec A_{ext}\left(t_2, \vec R\right)\right];

3897: \]

3898: \beqa

3899: \label{intg}

3900: \hat g(t_1, t_2; \vec n, &&\vec r) = 

3901: \\

3902: &&

3903: \nonumber\\

3904: &&

3905: \frac{i}{\pi} 

3906: \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\xi \widehat G\left(t_1,

3907: t_2; \vec n \left[p_F + \frac{\xi}{v_F}\right]; \vec r\right),

3908: \nonumber

3909: \eeqa

3910: 

3911: \noindent

3912: Since we follow the avenue of Ref.~\onlinecite{LO77}, we will skip

3913: further intermediate steps, and use the semiclassical equation written

3914: in the next subsection.

3915: 

3916: 

3917: 

3918: \subsubsection{Eilenberger equation}

3919: 

3920: 

3921: 

3922: The dynamics of the electron matrix Green's function is then described

3923: by the Eilenberger equation\cite{Eilenberger}:

3924: 

3925: \beq 

3926: \left[

3927: {\tilde\partial_{t}} + v_F \vec n \tilde{\vec\nabla}  

3928: + \vec \omega_c

3929: \left(\vec n \times 

3930: \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec n} \right)

3931: \right] \hat{g} = 

3932: \frac{\hat{g}\< \hat{g} \>_n - \< \hat{g} \>_n\hat{g}}{2\tau},

3933: \label{eil1} 

3934: \eeq

3935: 

3936: \noindent

3937: where angular averaging is defined as before 

3938: 

3939: \[

3940: \langle \dots \rangle_n =

3941: \int 

3942: \frac{d\theta}{2\pi} \dots,

3943: \quad \vec n = (\cos\theta, \sin\theta) ,

3944: \]

3945: 

3946: \noindent

3947: and the covariant derivatives in Eq.~(\ref{eil1}) are defined as

3948: 

3949: \begin{mathletters}

3950: \beqa

3951: \tilde{\partial_t} \hat{g} = 

3952: \partial_{t_1} \hat{g}  + \partial_{t_2} \hat{g} + 

3953: i\hat{\varphi}(t_1,r)\hat{g} - 

3954: i\hat{g}\hat{\varphi}(t_2,r),

3955: \eeqa

3956: \beq

3957: \tilde{\vec\nabla}

3958: \hat{g} = 

3959: \vec\nabla

3960: \hat{g} + 

3961: i\hat{\vec  A}(t_1, \vec r)\hat{g} -

3962: i\hat{g} \hat{\vec A}(t_2,\vec r).

3963: \eeq

3964: \label{covariant}

3965: \end{mathletters}

3966: 

3967: \noindent

3968: Here $\hat{g}$ is a matrix in Keldysh space, 

3969: 

3970: \beq \hat{g}(t_1, t_2; \vec n, \vec r) = 

3971: \left(

3972: \matrix{

3973: g^R & g^K \cr

3974: g^Z & g^A

3975: } 

3976: \right),

3977: \eeq

3978: 

3979: \noindent

3980: and we will suppress the coordinate and the time arguments unless

3981: otherwise is stated. A product of such matrices should be understood

3982: as a matrix product in Keldysh space and a convolution in time:

3983: 

3984: \beqa

3985: \label{convolution}

3986: &&\big[\hat{g}(\vec n, \vec r)\hat{g}(\vec n_1, \vec r)\big]_{ij} 

3987: \equiv 

3988: \\

3989: &&

3990: \nonumber\\

3991: &&

3992: \quad 

3993: \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty 

3994: d t_3 \sum_k\big[\hat{g}(t_1, t_3;\vec n, \vec r)\big]_{ik}

3995: \big[\hat{g}(t_3, t_2; \vec n_1, \vec r)\big]_{kj},

3996: \nonumber

3997: \eeqa

3998: 

3999: \noindent

4000: and solutions of the homogeneous equation ~(\ref{eil1}) are subject 

4001: to the constraints

4002: 

4003: \beq

4004: \label{constraint}

4005: \hat{g}(\vec n, \vec r)\hat{g}(\vec n, \vec r)= 

4006: {\hat I}^K, \quad

4007: \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty dt \; 

4008: {\bf Tr} \; \hat{g}(t,t;\vec n, \vec r)=0,

4009: \eeq 

4010: 

4011: \noindent

4012: where

4013: 

4014: \[

4015: [ I^K ]_{ij} = \delta_{ij} \delta(t_1-t_2).

4016: \]

4017: 

4018: \noindent

4019: The scalar and vector potentials in Eq.~(\ref{covariant}) have the

4020: following structure in the Keldysh space

4021: 

4022: \beqa

4023: &&\hat{\vec  A}(t,\vec r) =

4024: \left(

4025: \matrix{

4026: {\vec  A}_{ext}(t,\vec r)  & 0 \cr

4027: 0  & {\vec  A}_{ext}(t,\vec r) 

4028: } 

4029: \right), 

4030: \label{fields}

4031: \\

4032: &&

4033: \nonumber\\

4034: &&

4035: \hat{\varphi}(t,\vec r) =

4036: \left(

4037: \matrix{

4038: {\varphi}_{ext}(t,\vec r) +\phi_{1}(t,\vec r)  &  \phi_{2}(t,\vec r)\cr

4039: \phi_{2}(t,\vec r)  &  {\varphi}_{ext}(t,\vec r) + \phi_{1}(t,\vec r) 

4040: } 

4041: \right),

4042: \nonumber

4043: \eeqa

4044: 

4045: \noindent

4046: where $\varphi_{ext}$ and ${\vec A}_{ext}$ are the external (classical)

4047: potentials due to the electric field ${\vec E}$,

4048: 

4049: \beq

4050: e{\vec E}= \partial_t {\vec A}_{ext} 

4051: -\vec\nabla

4052: \varphi_{ext}

4053: \label{E}

4054: \eeq

4055: 

4056: \noindent

4057: acting on the electron system, and $\phi_{1,2}(t,\vec r)$ are the

4058: auxiliary fluctuating fields decoupling the interaction in the singlet

4059: channel. Because the singlet channel describes processes with small

4060: momentum transfers (smaller than $q*$, see Section~\ref{soft}), the

4061: fields $\phi_{1,2}(t,\vec r)$ vary slowly on the scale of the $1/q*$.

4062: 

4063: The condition (\ref{do}) enforces causality of the physical response

4064: functions. It is worth noticing that the decoupling of interaction can

4065: be performed also using a fluctuating vector potential; our choice is

4066: strictly a matter of taste.

4067: 

4068: In this formalism any observable quantity described by one electron

4069: operator ${\cal O}(\hat{p},\hat{r})$ is given by [see Eqs.~(\ref{GK})

4070: and (\ref{intg})]

4071: 

4072: \beqa

4073: {\cal O}(t,{\vec r}) = -

4074: &&

4075: \nu \int \frac{d\theta}{2\pi}{\cal O}(p_F{\vec n},{\vec r}) 

4076: \label{O}

4077: \\

4078: &&

4079: \nonumber\\

4080: &&

4081: \times\lim_{t_1\to t} \left[ 

4082: \frac{\pi }{2}

4083: \langle g^K(t_1, t;  \vec n, \vec r)\rangle_{\phi} +

4084: {\varphi}_{ext}(t,{\vec r})

4085: \right],

4086: \nonumber

4087: \eeqa

4088: 

4089: \noindent

4090: where $\langle\dots \rangle_{\phi}$ stands for averaging over both

4091: auxiliary fields $\phi_{1,2}$ fluctuating according to

4092: Eqs.~(\ref{Ds}).  The last term in brackets is a consequence of the

4093: ultraviolet anomaly, and its form is enforced by the requirement of

4094: the gauge invariance.

4095: 

4096: Finally, the electronic polarization operators are determined [see

4097: Eqs.~(\ref{pder}) and (\ref{intg})] as variational derivatives of the

4098: solutions to the Eilenberger equation (\ref{eil1}):

4099: 

4100: \beqa 

4101: &&{\Pi}^R(1,2)= {\Pi}^A(2,1) 

4102: \label{Pi}

4103: \\

4104: &&

4105: \nonumber\\

4106: &&

4107: \quad\quad\quad\quad

4108: =\nu \int \frac{d\theta}{2\pi}

4109: \left(\delta_{12} + 

4110: \frac{\pi \langle \delta g^K(t_1, t_1; \vec n, \vec r_1)\rangle_{\phi}}

4111: {2\delta \phi_1(t_2,\r_2)}\right); 

4112: \nonumber\\

4113: &&

4114: \nonumber\\

4115: &&

4116: {\Pi}^K(1,2)=\nu\pi 

4117: \nonumber\\

4118: &&

4119: \nonumber\\

4120: &&\quad\times

4121: \int  \frac{d\theta}{2\pi}

4122: \frac{ \langle \delta g^K(t_1, t_1; \vec n, \vec r_1)

4123: +\delta g^Z(t_1, t_1;  \vec n, \vec r_1)

4124: \rangle_{\phi}}

4125: {2\delta \phi_2(t_2,\vec r_2)}.

4126: \nonumber

4127: \eeqa

4128: 

4129: 

4130: 

4131: 

4132: \subsubsection{Derivation of the kinetic equation}

4133: 

4134: 

4135: 

4136: 

4137: Our goal now is to obtain an equation for the Keldysh function

4138: averaged over the fluctuating fields, $\langle g^K(t_1, t_1; \vec n,

4139: \vec r_1)\rangle_{\phi}$. It is this quantity that determines physical

4140: observables, see Eq.~(\ref{O}).  We will do this using the

4141: non-crossing approximation for bosonic propagators (i.e. the first

4142: loop approximation for the collision integral), see

4143: Fig.~\ref{15}. This approximation is justified provided that the

4144: resulting dynamics for the electrons (characterized by time

4145: $\tau_\epsilon$) is slow in comparison with motion of relevant bosonic

4146: mode, $T\tau_\epsilon \gg 1$.

4147: 

4148: To do so, we notice that only two components of the matrix $\hat{g}$

4149: are independent, and the other two are fixed by the constraint

4150: (\ref{constraint}). For our purposes, we choose to fix the diagonal

4151: components

4152: 

4153: \beq

4154: \label{normsolution}

4155: g^R=\sqrt{1-g^K g^Z};

4156: \quad g^A= -\sqrt{1-g^Z g^K},

4157: \eeq

4158: 

4159: \noindent

4160: where the square root should be understood in operator sense: as a sum

4161: of its Taylor series, with all arising products hereafter being time

4162: convolutions, similar to Eq.~(\ref{convolution}). The two remaining

4163: independent components of the Eilenberger equation have the explicit

4164: form

4165: 

4166: \begin{mathletters}

4167: \label{exact}

4168: \beqa 

4169: &&\left[

4170: \tilde\partial_t + v_F \vec n  

4171: \tilde{\vec\nabla}

4172: %\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

4173: +\vec\omega_c

4174: %\mbox{ \boldmath $\w$}_c 

4175: \left(\vec n \times 

4176: \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec n} \right)

4177: \right] g^Z = 

4178: \label{exactZ}

4179: \\

4180: &&

4181: \nonumber\\

4182: &&\;

4183: - i\big[\phi_1(t_1,\vec r)-\phi_1(t_2,\vec r) \big] g^Z

4184: - i\phi_2(t_1,\vec r) g^R + i g^A \phi_2(t_2,\vec r)

4185: \nonumber \\ 

4186: &&

4187: \nonumber \\ 

4188: &&\quad\quad

4189: +  

4190: \frac{1}{2 \tau} 

4191: \big[

4192: g^Z \< g^R \>_n - \<g^Z\>_n g^R 

4193: + g^A \< g^Z \>_n - \< g^A \>_n g^Z 

4194: \big], 

4195: \nonumber

4196: \eeqa

4197: \beqa 

4198: &&\left[

4199: {\tilde\partial_{t}} + v_F \vec n 

4200: \tilde{\vec\nabla}

4201: %\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

4202: +\vec\omega_c

4203: %\mbox{ \boldmath $\w$}_c 

4204: \left(\vec n \times 

4205: \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec n} \right)

4206: \right]g^K

4207: =

4208: \label{exactK}

4209: \\

4210: &&

4211: \nonumber \\ 

4212: &&\;

4213: - i\big[\phi_1(t_1,\vec r)-\phi_1(t_2,\vec r) \big] g^K

4214: - i\phi_2(t_1,\vec r) g^A + i g^R \phi_2(t_2,\vec r)  

4215: \nonumber\\

4216: && 

4217: \nonumber \\ 

4218: &&\quad\quad

4219: +  

4220: \frac{1}{2 \tau} 

4221: \big[

4222: g^K \< g^A \>_n - \<g^K\>_n g^A 

4223: + g^R \< g^K \>_n - \< g^R \>_n g^K 

4224: \big],

4225: \nonumber

4226: \eeqa

4227: \end{mathletters}

4228: 

4229: \noindent

4230: and we redefine the covariant derivatives

4231: Eq.~(\ref{covariant}) to include only the external scalar and vector

4232: potentials:

4233: 

4234: \beqa 

4235: &&\tilde{\partial_t} {g} = \partial_{t_1} {g} +

4236: \partial_{t_2} {g} + i\left[{\varphi}_{ext}(t_1,r)

4237: -{\varphi}_{ext}(t_2,r) \right]{g},

4238: \label{covariant2}

4239: \\

4240: &&

4241: \nonumber\\

4242: &&

4243: \tilde{\vec\nabla}

4244: %\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}} 

4245: {g} = 

4246: \vec\nabla

4247: %\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$} 

4248: {g}

4249: + i\left[{\vec A}_{ext}(t_1,r) -{\vec A}_{ext}(t_2,r) \right] {g}.

4250: \nonumber 

4251: \eeqa 

4252: 

4253: Now we are prepared to derive the collision integral. We notice that

4254: due to causality $\langle g_Z \rangle_{\phi} =0$ in all orders of the

4255: perturbation theory. We separate slow and fast degrees of freedom as

4256: follows

4257: 

4258: \beqa 

4259: \label{approx}

4260: g_K= \langle g_K

4261: \rangle_{\phi} +\delta g_K; \quad g_Z = \delta g_Z, 

4262: \eeqa

4263: 

4264: \noindent

4265: where $\delta g$ is the contribution fluctuating with the auxiliary

4266: fields and we calculate it to first order in $\phi$.  In the same

4267: approximation Eq.~(\ref{normsolution}) becomes

4268: 

4269: \beqa

4270: \label{anormsolution}

4271: &&g^R= \delta(t_1-t_2)- \frac{1}{2} g^K \delta g^Z;

4272: \nonumber\\

4273: &&

4274: \nonumber\\

4275: &&

4276: g^A= -\delta(t_1-t_2)+ \frac{1}{2} \delta g^Z g^K,

4277: \eeqa

4278: 

4279: \noindent

4280: [expansion up to the second order in $\delta g^Z$ is unnecessary

4281: because terms of such kind vanish due to Eq.~(\ref{do})].

4282: 

4283: We now substitute Eqs.~(\ref{approx}) and (\ref{anormsolution}) into

4284: Eqs.~(\ref{exact}) and obtain equations governing the behavior of the

4285: fluctuating parts

4286: 

4287: \begin{mathletters}

4288: \label{first}

4289: \beqa 

4290: \Bigg[

4291: {\tilde\partial_{t}} + v_F \vec n  

4292: \tilde{\vec\nabla}

4293: %\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

4294: + &&

4295: \vec\omega_c

4296: %\mbox{ \boldmath $\w$}_c 

4297: \left(\vec n \times 

4298: \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec n} \right)\Bigg] 

4299: \delta g^Z - \frac{1}{ \tau} 

4300: \left[ \delta g^Z - \<\delta g^Z\>_n \right]

4301: \nonumber\\

4302: &&

4303: \nonumber\\

4304: && 

4305: =- 2 i\phi_2(t_1,\r)\delta(t_1-t_2),

4306: \label{firstZ}

4307: \eeqa

4308: \beqa 

4309: &&\left[

4310: {\tilde\partial_{t}} + v_F \vec n  

4311: \tilde{\vec\nabla}

4312: %\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

4313: +

4314: \vec\omega_c

4315: %\mbox{ \boldmath $\w$}_c 

4316: \left(\vec n \times 

4317: \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec n} \right) \right]\delta g^K  +  

4318: \frac{1}{\tau} \left[\delta g^K - \<\delta g^K\>_n \right]

4319: \nonumber\\

4320: &&

4321: \nonumber\\

4322: &&

4323: =

4324: 2 i\phi_2(t_1,\r)\delta(t_1-t_2)

4325: - i\left[\phi_1(t_1,\r)-\phi_1(t_2,\r) \right] 

4326: \langle g^K\rangle_{\phi}

4327: \nonumber\\

4328: && 

4329: \nonumber\\

4330: &&

4331: + \frac{1}{4 \tau} 

4332: \left[

4333: \langle g^K \rangle_{\phi} 

4334: \< \delta g^Z  \langle g^K \rangle_{\phi} \>_n 

4335: - \langle \<g^K\>_n \rangle_{\phi} 

4336: \delta g^Z \langle g^K \rangle_{\phi} 

4337: \right]

4338: \label{firstK}

4339: \\

4340: && 

4341: \nonumber\\

4342: &&

4343: -  \frac{1}{4 \tau} 

4344: \left[

4345:  \langle g^K \rangle_{\phi} \delta g^Z

4346: \langle \< g^K \>_n \rangle_{\phi} 

4347: - \< \langle g^K \rangle_{\phi}

4348: \delta g^Z\>_n\langle g^K \rangle_{\phi}

4349: \right],

4350: \nonumber

4351: \eeqa

4352: \end{mathletters}

4353: 

4354: Solutions to the equations (\ref{first}) should be substituted into

4355: the equation (\ref{exactK}) for the smooth part. Than the equation for

4356: the smooth part should be averaged over the fluctuating fields

4357: $\phi_{1,2}$ with the help of Eq.~(\ref{Ds}). As a result

4358: 

4359: \beqa 

4360: &&\left[

4361: {\tilde\partial_{t}} + v_F \vec n  

4362: \tilde{\vec\nabla}

4363: %\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

4364: +

4365: \vec\omega_c

4366: %\mbox{ \boldmath $\w$}_c 

4367: \left(\vec n \times 

4368: \frac{\partial}{\partial \vec n} \right)\right] 

4369: \langle g^K \rangle_{\phi} 

4370: \label{almostthere}

4371: \\

4372: &&

4373: \nonumber\\

4374: &&

4375: \quad

4376: = \St_{in}\left\{\langle g^K \rangle_{\phi}  \right\}

4377: +  \St_{el}\left\{\langle g^K \rangle_{\phi}  \right\}.

4378: \nonumber

4379: \eeqa

4380: 

4381: \noindent

4382: Here we separate the collision integrals into two contributions. The

4383: physical meaning of such separation will be discussed shortly. The

4384: first, inelastic part has the structure

4385: 

4386: \beqa

4387: &&\St_{in}\left\{\langle g^K \rangle_{\phi}  \right\}

4388: (t_1,t_2; {\vec n}, \vec r)

4389: \label{inelastic1}

4390: \\

4391: &&

4392: \nonumber\\

4393: &&

4394: \quad=- i\langle 

4395: \left[\phi_1(t_1,\vec r)-\phi_1(t_2,\vec r) \right] 

4396: \delta g^K(t_1,t_2; {\vec n}, \vec r)

4397:  \rangle_{\phi}. 

4398: \nonumber

4399: \eeqa

4400: 

4401: \noindent

4402: The second, elastic contribution has the form

4403: 

4404: 

4405: \end{multicols}

4406: \widetext

4407: 

4408: 

4409: \beqa

4410: &&\St_{el}\left\{\langle g^K \rangle_{\phi}\right\}

4411: (t_1,t_2; \vec n; \vec r)

4412: = \frac{1}{\tau}\Big[

4413: \<\langle  g^K (t_1,t_2; \vec n; \vec r)\rangle_{\phi} \>_n

4414: -\langle g^K(t_1,t_2; \vec n; \vec r) \rangle_{\phi} \Big]

4415: \label{elastic1}

4416: \\

4417: &&

4418: \nonumber\\

4419: &&

4420: \quad

4421: + 

4422: \int d t_3 \int\frac{d\theta_1}{2\pi}

4423: \left[

4424:  \<\langle  g^K (t_1,t_3; \vec n_1, \vec r)\rangle_{\phi}

4425: F^A(t_3,t_2; \vec n_1,  \vec n; \vec r) 

4426: -  \<\langle  g^K (t_1,t_3; \vec n, \vec r)\rangle_{\phi}

4427: F^A(t_3,t_2; \vec n,  \vec n_1; \vec r) 

4428: \right]

4429: \nonumber\\

4430: &&

4431: \nonumber\\

4432: &&\quad+  

4433: \int d t_3 \int\frac{d\theta_1}{2\pi}

4434: \left[

4435: F^R(t_1,t_3; \vec n,  \vec n_1;  \vec r) 

4436:  \<\langle  g^K (t_3,t_2; \vec n_1, \vec r)\rangle_{\phi}

4437: - F^R(t_1,t_3; \vec n_1,  \vec n; \vec r) 

4438:  \<\langle  g^K (t_3,t_2; \vec n, \vec r)\rangle_{\phi}

4439: \right],

4440: \nonumber

4441: \eeqa

4442: 

4443: \noindent

4444: where the first term is just the ordinary impurity scattering and the

4445: remaining terms characterize interaction effects. The kernels 

4446: in Eq.~(\ref{elastic1}) are defined as

4447: 

4448: \beqa

4449: F^R(t_1,t_2; \vec n, \vec n_1; \vec r)

4450: = \frac{1}{4\tau}\int d t_3 

4451: \langle \delta g^K (t_1,t_3; \vec n, \vec r) 

4452: \left[\delta  g^Z (t_3,t_2; \vec n_1, \vec r)

4453: -\delta  g^Z (t_3,t_2; \vec n, \vec r) \right]

4454: \rangle_{\phi}

4455: \nonumber\\

4456: \nonumber\\

4457: F^A(t_1,t_2; \vec n, \vec n_1; \vec r)

4458: =\frac{1}{4\tau} \int d t_3 

4459: \langle\left[\delta  g^Z (t_1,t_3; \vec n_1, \vec r)

4460: -\delta  g^Z (t_1,t_3; \vec n, \vec r) \right]

4461: \delta g^K (t_3,t_2; \vec n, \vec r) 

4462: \rangle_{\phi}

4463: \label{Fs}

4464: \eeqa

4465: 

4466: 

4467: \begin{multicols}{2}

4468: 

4469: 

4470: The equations (\ref{almostthere}), (\ref{inelastic1}), (\ref{elastic1}),

4471: (\ref{first}), (\ref{Ds}), and (\ref{Dysonb}) constitute a closed

4472: system of kinetic equations. 

4473: Although sufficient for description of interaction effects in 

4474: disorder systems, these equations are inconvenient for analytical

4475: calculations because the

4476: expressions for the collision integral are nonlocal in space and time.

4477: To simplify further calculations we will use the assumption that 

4478: $\langle g^K (t_1,t_2;

4479: \nn, \r)\rangle_{\phi}$ is a smooth function so that a gradient

4480: expansion will be possible.

4481: 

4482: Before embarking on such calculation we pause to discuss the

4483: physical distinction between the elastic (\ref{elastic1}) and

4484: inelastic (\ref{inelastic1}) collision terms. One immediately notices

4485: from Eq.~(\ref{elastic1}) that

4486: 

4487: \beq

4488: \int d\theta\ \St_{el}(t_1,t_2; \vec n;  \vec r)=0,

4489: \label{elastic2}

4490: \eeq 

4491: 

4492: \noindent

4493: for any $t_1$ and $t_2$.  This indicates that this part of the

4494: collision integral preserves the number of particles on a given energy

4495: shell [see below for explicit connections between time representation

4496: and energy representation Eq.~(\ref{energy})].

4497: 

4498: The inelastic term (\ref{inelastic1}) does not vanish after angular

4499: averaging. Therefore this part does promote electrons

4500: between energy shells. However, we notice that

4501: 

4502: \beq

4503: \St_{in}\left\{\langle g^K \rangle_{\phi}  \right\}

4504: (t_1,t_1; {\vec n}, \r)=0,

4505: \label{inelastic2}

4506: \eeq

4507: 

4508: \noindent

4509: for any direction ${\vec n}$.  Taking coinciding time arguments is

4510: equivalent to integrating over the whole energy spectrum [see

4511: Eq.~(\ref{energy})], so that not only the total number of particles is

4512: conserved, but the total number of particles moving along a given

4513: direction ${\vec n}$ is conserved (i.e. inelastic forward scattering).

4514: 

4515: Let us now perform the actual calculation of the collision integrals. We

4516: solve Eq.~(\ref{firstZ}) and obtain

4517: 

4518: \beqa

4519: &&\delta g^Z(t_1,t_2; \vec n,\vec r)=

4520: 2i\delta(t_1-t_2)

4521: \label{gzsol}

4522: \\

4523: &&

4524: \nonumber\\

4525: &&

4526: \quad\times 

4527: \int d\r_1dt_3

4528: \phi_2(\r_1,t_3)\int \frac{d\theta'}{2\pi}

4529: D(t_3-t_1, \vec n', \vec n; \vec r_1, \vec r)

4530: \nonumber\\

4531: &&

4532: \nonumber\\ 

4533: &&

4534: D(t; \vec n, \vec n'; \vec r_1, \vec r_2)=

4535: \int \frac{d\omega d^2\q}{(2\pi)^3}

4536: e^{i{\vec q}(\vec r_1-\vec r_2)-i\omega t}

4537: D(\vec n, \vec n';  \omega, \vec q),

4538: \nonumber

4539: \eeqa

4540: 

4541: \noindent

4542: where the diffuson propagator $D$ is defined in Eq.~(\ref{Diffuson}).

4543: 

4544: To simplify the analytic solution of Eq.~(\ref{firstK}), we assume

4545: without loss of generality that $\langle g^K\rangle_{\phi}$

4546: varies slowly on the spatial scale $L_T = v_F {

4547: min}(1/T,\sqrt{\tau /T})$, and also a slow function of $t_1+t_2$ on the time

4548: scale $\simeq 1/T$. These assumptions are consistent with the first

4549: loop approximation we already invoked. 

4550: 

4551: In what follows we will keep only the zeroth and

4552: first angular harmonics (which is consistent with assumption about

4553: the spatial smoothness) in the direction dependence of the Keldysh

4554: function:

4555: 

4556: \beqa

4557: \langle g\left(t_1, t_2; \vec n, \vec r\right) \rangle_\phi \approx &&

4558: \langle g\left(t_1, t_2; \vec n, \vec r\right) \rangle_n

4559: \nonumber\\

4560: &&

4561: \nonumber\\

4562: &&

4563: +2 \vec n 

4564: \langle \vec n' g\left(t_1, t_2; \vec n', \vec r\right) \rangle_{n'}

4565: \label{angular}

4566: \eeqa 

4567: 

4568: \noindent

4569: This approximation does not affect results for any relevant

4570: quantities. From now on we will suppress the explicit sign of averaging

4571: over the fluctuating fields because we will not be dealing with

4572: non-averaged quantities anymore.

4573: 

4574: We now substitute Eq.~(\ref{angular}) into the right-hand side of

4575: Eq.~(\ref{firstK}) and obtain

4576: 

4577: \beqa

4578: \delta g^K (t_1, t_2; \vec n, \vec r) = &&

4579:  \delta g^K_1 (t_1, t_2; \vec n, \vec r) 

4580: \nonumber\\

4581: &&

4582: \nonumber\\

4583: &&

4584: +

4585: \delta g^K_2 (t_1, t_2; \vec n, \vec r) 

4586: \label{gk12}

4587: \eeqa

4588: 

4589: \noindent

4590: The first term in Eq.~(\ref{gk12}) is proportional to the field

4591: $\phi_1$ and gives contributions to both the elastic and the

4592: inelastic parts of the collision integral. To obtain non-vanishing

4593: contribution to the latter we have to do each one of the following:

4594: (i) take into account the first angular harmonic; (ii) perform the 

4595: first order gradient expansion; (iii) expand up to the first order 

4596: in external fields, ${\vec A}_{ext}$. The result is

4597: 

4598: 

4599: \end{multicols}

4600: \widetext

4601: 

4602: 

4603: \begin{mathletters}

4604: \label{gk1}

4605: \beqa

4606: \delta g^K_1 (t_1, t_2; \vec n, \vec r) &=& 

4607: -i\int dt

4608: \left[\phi_1(\vec r_1,t_1-t) -\phi_1(\vec r_1,t_2-t)\right] 

4609: \int \frac{d\vec n'}{2\pi} 

4610: D(t, \vec n, \vec n'; \vec r, \vec r_1) 

4611: \nonumber\\

4612: &&

4613: \nonumber\\

4614: &&

4615: \times \left.\Big\{

4616: \<g^K (t_1-t, t_2-t; \vec n_1, \vec r)\>_{\vec n_1}

4617: \right.

4618: \label{gk1a}

4619: \\

4620: &&

4621: \nonumber\\

4622: &&\quad\quad+

4623: 2 \vec n' \<\vec n_1g^K (t_1-t, t_2-t; \vec n_1, \vec r)\>_{\vec n_1}

4624: \label{gk1b}

4625: \\

4626: &&

4627: \nonumber\\

4628: &&\quad\quad+ \left(\vec r_1-\vec r\right)

4629: \tilde{\vec\nabla}

4630: %\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}} 

4631: \<g^K (t_1-t, t_2-t; \vec n_1, \vec r)\>_{\vec n_1}

4632: \Big\}

4633: \label{gk1c}

4634: \eeqa

4635: \end{mathletters}

4636: 

4637: \noindent

4638: where the covariant derivative is defined in Eq.~(\ref{covariant2})

4639: and we neglected higher order derivatives of the external fields.

4640: Expansion in the time coordinate $t_1+t_2$ (using the covariant

4641: derivative $\tilde{\partial}_t$) is not necessary because it produces a

4642: negligible correction to the inelastic collision integral and does not

4643: affect the elastic one.

4644: 

4645: The second term in the RHS of Eq.~(\ref{gk12}) is proportional to the

4646: field $\phi_2$, and according to Eqs.~(\ref{Fs}) and (\ref{do}) it

4647: does not contribute to the elastic collision integral. Therefore, it

4648: is sufficient to keep only the zeroth angular component and neglect

4649: gradient terms at all. This yields

4650: 

4651: \beqa

4652: &&\delta g^K_2(t_1, t_2; \vec n, \vec r)

4653: =\int \frac{d\theta'}{2\pi}\frac{d\theta''}{2\pi}

4654: \int d\vec r_1 dt

4655: D(t, \vec n, \vec n'; \vec r, \vec r_1)

4656: \left. \Big\{

4657: 2 i\phi_2(\vec r_1,t_1-t) \delta(t_1-t_2)

4658: \right. 

4659: \label{gk2}

4660: \\

4661: &&

4662: \nonumber\\

4663: &&

4664: \left.

4665: + \frac{i}{\tau} 

4666: \langle g\left(t_1 - t, t_3; \vec n_1, \vec r\right) \rangle_{\vec n_1} 

4667:  \langle g\left(t_3, t_2 - t; \vec n_1, \vec r\right) \rangle_{\vec n_1}

4668: \left[

4669: \<D(t_4-t_3, \vec n'', \vec n_1; \vec r_2, \vec r_1)\>_{\vec n_1}-

4670: D(t_4-t_3, \vec n'', \vec n'; \vec r_2, \vec r_1)

4671: \right].

4672: \phi_2(\vec r_2,t_4)

4673: \right\}

4674: \nonumber

4675: \eeqa 

4676: 

4677: 

4678: \begin{multicols}{2}

4679: 

4680: 

4681: As we already mentioned, $g(t_1,t_2)$ has a much faster dependence on

4682: the difference $t_1-t_2$ then on the sum $t_1+t_2$. Therefore it is more 

4683: convenient to

4684: use a temporal transformation of the Green's function

4685: 

4686: \beq

4687: g^K(t_1, t_2; \vec n, \vec r) = \int \frac{d\epsilon}{2\pi} 

4688: g\left(\frac{t_1+t_2}{2}, \epsilon; \vec n, \vec r\right) 

4689: e^{i\epsilon(t_2-t_1)}, 

4690: \label{energy}

4691: \eeq  

4692: 

4693: \noindent

4694: which defines the precise notion of energy $\epsilon$ in this

4695: context.  We introduce the same transformation for the propagators of

4696: auxiliary fields (\ref{Ds})

4697: 

4698: \begin{equation}

4699: {\cal D}(t_1,t_2) = \int \frac{d\w}{2\pi} 

4700: {\cal D}\left( \frac{t_1+t_2}{2},\omega\right)e^{i\omega (t_2-t_1)}

4701: \label{dw}

4702: \end{equation}

4703: 

4704: \noindent

4705: The transformed functions have the symmetry property (hereafter we

4706: omit the $K$ superscript for brevity since we are only dealing with

4707: the Keldysh function) 

4708: 

4709: \beqa

4710: g(t,\epsilon) &=& - g(t,-\epsilon); 

4711: \label{symmetry}

4712: \\

4713: &&

4714: \nonumber\\

4715: {\cal D}^K\left(t,\omega;\vec r_1,\vec r_2\right)&=&

4716: {\cal D}^K\left(t,-\omega;\vec r_2,\vec r_1\right);

4717: \nonumber\\

4718: &&

4719: \nonumber\\

4720: {\cal D}^R\left(t,\omega;\vec r_1,\vec r_2\right)&=&

4721: {\cal D}^A\left(t,-\omega;\vec r_2,\vec r_1\right).

4722: \nonumber

4723: \eeqa

4724: 

4725: Now, we are ready to obtain the explicit form of the collision

4726: integral. We start with the inelastic contribution and perform the

4727: following three steps: (1) substitute Eq.~(\ref{gk1a}) and (\ref{gk2})

4728: into Eq.~(\ref{inelastic}); (2) average over the fields $\phi_{1,2}$

4729: with the help of Eq.~(\ref{Ds}); (3) perform the temporal

4730: transformation (\ref{energy}) of the result. As a result we obtain

4731: with the help of Eqs.~(\ref{dw}) and (\ref{symmetry}) the following

4732: form of the collision integral:

4733: 

4734: 

4735: \end{multicols}

4736: \widetext

4737: 

4738: 

4739: \beqa

4740: &&\St_{in}\left\{g^K \right\}

4741: (t,\epsilon; \vec r)=

4742: - \frac{i}{2}

4743: \int d^2 r_1 \int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

4744: {\cal D}^K\left(t,\omega; \vec r, \vec r_1\right)

4745: \left[\langle D(\omega;\vec r,\vec r_1)\rangle +

4746: \langle D(-\omega;\vec r_1,\vec r)\rangle\right] 

4747: \nonumber\\

4748: &&

4749: \nonumber\\

4750: &&

4751: \hspace*{5cm}

4752: \times

4753: \left[\langle g\left(t, \epsilon; \vec n, \vec r\right) \rangle_{\vec n}

4754: -

4755: \langle g\left(t, \epsilon -\omega ; \vec n, \vec r\right) \rangle_{\vec n}

4756: \right]

4757: \nonumber\\

4758: &&

4759: \nonumber\\

4760: &&

4761: \quad

4762: +\frac{i}{2\tau}

4763: \int d\vec r_1d\vec r_2 \int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

4764: \left[{\cal D}^R\left(t,\omega; \vec r_1, \vec r_2\right)-

4765: {\cal D}^A\left(t,\omega; \vec r_2, \vec r_1\right)\right]

4766: \left[\langle D(\omega;\vec r,\vec r_1)\rangle

4767: \langle D(-\omega;\vec r,\vec r_2)\rangle

4768: - \langle D(\omega;\vec r,\vec r_1) D(-\omega;\vec r,\vec r_2)\rangle

4769: \right]

4770: \nonumber\\

4771: &&

4772: \nonumber\\

4773: &&

4774: \hspace*{5cm}

4775: \times

4776: \langle g\left(t, \epsilon +\omega ; \vec n, \vec r\right) \rangle_{\vec n}

4777: \langle g\left(t, \epsilon; \vec n, \vec r\right) \rangle_{\vec n}

4778: \label{inelastic3}

4779: \eeqa

4780: 

4781: \noindent

4782: where the angular averaging of the diffusons is defined after

4783: Eqs.~(\ref{eqs4.6}). 

4784: 

4785: Now, we have to express the bosonic propagator in terms of the

4786: fermionic polarization operators. The polarization operators are 

4787: given by Eqs.~(\ref{Pi}), where we now substitute Eqs.~(\ref{gzsol}),

4788: (\ref{gk1a}), and (\ref{gk2}). After the temporal 

4789: transformation (\ref{energy}) we find

4790: 

4791: \begin{mathletters}

4792: \beqa

4793: \Pi^R(\omega;t, \vec r_1,\vec r_2)&=&\Pi^A(-\omega;t, \vec r_2,\vec r_1)

4794: \nonumber\\

4795: &&

4796: \nonumber\\

4797: &=&\nu 

4798: \left[\delta(\vec r_1-\vec r_2) + \frac{i}{4}

4799: \langle D(\omega; \vec r_1, \vec r_2 )\rangle

4800: \int d \epsilon 

4801: \left[\langle g\left(t, \epsilon; \vec n, \vec r\right) \rangle_{\vec n}

4802: -

4803: \langle g\left(t, \epsilon -\omega ; \vec n, \vec r\right) \rangle_{\vec n}

4804: \right] \right]  \label{Pra}

4805: \\

4806: &&

4807: \nonumber\\

4808: &=&

4809: \nu \left[\delta(\vec r_1-\vec r_2) 

4810: +i\omega  \langle D(\omega; \vec r_1, \vec r_2 )\rangle\right] 

4811: \label{Prb}

4812: \eeqa

4813: \end{mathletters}

4814: \beqa

4815: \Pi^K(t, \omega; \vec r_1,\vec r_2)&=&

4816: \frac{i\nu}{4\tau} 

4817: \int d \vec r

4818: \Big[\langle D(\omega;\vec r,\vec r_1)\rangle

4819: \langle D(-\omega;\vec r,\vec r_2)\rangle

4820: - \langle D(\omega;\vec r,\vec r_1) D(-\omega;\vec r,\vec r_2)\rangle

4821: \Big] 

4822: \label{Pk}

4823: \\

4824: &&

4825: \nonumber\\

4826: &\times&\int {d\epsilon}  \left[

4827: \langle g\left(t, \epsilon +\omega ; \vec n, \vec r\right) \rangle_{\vec n}

4828: \langle g\left(t, \epsilon; \vec n, \vec r\right) \rangle_{\vec n}

4829: -4 \right] 

4830: \nonumber

4831: \eeqa

4832: 

4833: \noindent

4834: The last step in the calculation of the interaction propagators is to

4835: solve Eq.~(\ref{Dysonb}) with the polarization operators

4836: Eq.~(\ref{Pra}).  This gives ${\cal D}^{R,A}$ in the form given by

4837: Eq.~(\ref{int-dyson}) and for the Keldysh component we obtain

4838: 

4839: \begin{mathletters}

4840: \beq

4841: {\cal D}^K={\cal D}^{R}\Pi^K{\cal D}^{A}.

4842: \eeq

4843: 

4844: \noindent

4845: Also we can relate the difference of the retarded and advanced 

4846: propagators which enters the collision integral Eq.~(\ref{inelastic3})

4847: to the polarization operators:

4848:   

4849: \beq

4850: {\cal D}^{R}-{\cal D}^{A}= {\cal D}^{R}

4851: \left[{\Pi}^{R}-{\Pi}^{A}\right]

4852: {\cal D}^{A}.

4853: \eeq

4854: \label{dsolution}

4855: \end{mathletters}

4856: 

4857: To obtain the final form of the inelastic part of the collision 

4858: integral Eqs.~(\ref{eq:4.8}) we need to

4859: substitute Eq.~(\ref{dsolution}) into Eq.~(\ref{inelastic3}), while

4860: using Eq.~(\ref{Pra}) for $\Pi^R-\Pi^A$. In addition, we note that

4861: 

4862: \[

4863: \frac{2}{\tau}

4864: \Big[

4865: \langle D(\omega; q) D(-\omega;-q)\rangle

4866: - \langle D(\omega; q)\rangle\langle D(-\omega;-q)\rangle

4867: \Big] = \langle D(\omega; q)\rangle + \langle D(-\omega;-q)\rangle.

4868: \]

4869: 

4870: \noindent

4871: Finally, we introduce the gauge invariant distribution function $f$ as

4872: 

4873: \begin{equation}

4874: f(\epsilon,t; \vec n, \vec r)

4875: = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{4} 

4876: g(\epsilon + \varphi_{ext}(\vec r),t; \vec n, \vec r)  

4877: \label{fg}

4878: \end{equation}

4879: 

4880: \noindent

4881: and obtain Eqs.~(\ref{eq:4.8}).

4882: 

4883: The calculation of the elastic part of the collision integral is

4884: completely analogous. We substitute Eqs.~(\ref{gk1a})--(\ref{gk1c})

4885: and Eq.~(\ref{gzsol}) into Eqs.~(\ref{Fs}) and average over

4886: fluctuating fields with the help of Eq.~(\ref{Ds}).  After the temporal

4887: transformation (\ref{energy}) we find

4888: 

4889: \begin{mathletters}

4890: \label{el4}

4891: \label{elastic4}

4892: \beqa

4893: F^R(\epsilon,t; \vec n_1,\vec n_2,\vec r)&=&

4894: F^A(\epsilon,t; \vec n_1,\vec n_2,\vec r)^*

4895: = \frac{i}{4\tau}

4896: \int \frac{d \omega}{2\pi}

4897: \int d\vec r_1 d\vec r_2

4898: {\cal D}^R(\omega, \vec r_1, \vec r_2) 

4899: \nonumber\\

4900: &&

4901: \nonumber\\

4902: &\times&

4903: \int \frac{d\vec n_3}{2\pi}\frac{d\vec n_4}{2\pi}

4904: \left[D(\omega;  \vec n_3, \vec n_2, \vec r_2, \vec r) - 

4905: D(\omega;  \vec n_3, \vec n_1, \vec r_2, \vec r)\right]

4906: D(\omega;  \vec n_1, \vec n_4, \vec r, \vec r_1)

4907: \nonumber\\

4908: &&

4909: \nonumber\\

4910: &&

4911: \quad \times \Big\{

4912: \<g (t, \epsilon-\w; \vec n', \vec r)\>_{\vec n'} 

4913: \label{el4a}

4914: \\

4915: &&

4916: \nonumber\\

4917: &&

4918: \quad +2 \vec n_4 \<\vec n' g (t, \epsilon-\w ; \vec n_1, \vec r)\>_{\vec n'}

4919: \label{el4b}

4920: \\

4921: &&

4922: \nonumber\\

4923: &&

4924: +\left(\vec r_1-\vec r\right)

4925: \left(

4926: \vec\nabla

4927: %\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}

4928: +\frac{\partial {\vec A}_{ext}}{\partial t} 

4929: \frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon} 

4930: \right) 

4931: \<g (t, \epsilon -\w; \vec n', \vec r)\>_{\vec n'}

4932: \Big\}

4933: \label{el4c}

4934: \eeqa

4935: \end{mathletters}

4936: 

4937: \noindent

4938: Deriving Eq.~(\ref{elastic4}) we use the fact that $\int d\omega {\cal

4939: D}^R(\omega)D(\omega) = 0$.

4940: 

4941: We substitute Eqs.~(\ref{el4}) and (\ref{angular}) into

4942: Eq.~(\ref{elastic2}). We expand the result into angular harmonics.

4943: The zeroth angular harmonic vanishes because of the conservation law

4944: (\ref{elastic2}), and the first harmonic gives (we write only

4945: interaction correction to the collision integral)

4946: 

4947: \begin{mathletters}

4948: \label{el5}

4949: \beqa

4950: \St_{el}(t; \epsilon;  \vec r)

4951: =\frac{2}{\tau}\int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi}

4952: &\Big[&

4953: n_\alpha K_1^{\alpha\beta}(\w) 

4954: \langle n_\beta g(t; \epsilon, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n

4955: \langle g(t; \epsilon-\omega, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n

4956: \label{el5a}

4957: \\

4958: &&

4959: \nonumber\\

4960: &+&n_\alpha K_0^{\alpha\beta}(\w) 

4961: \langle n_\beta g(t; \epsilon-\omega, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n

4962: \langle g(t; \epsilon, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n

4963: \label{el5b}

4964: \\

4965: &&

4966: \nonumber\\

4967: &+&

4968: \frac{n_\alpha L_0^{\alpha\beta}(\w)}{2}

4969: \langle g(t; \epsilon, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n

4970: \left(\nabla_\beta

4971: + \frac{\partial [A_{ext}]_\beta}{\partial t} 

4972: \frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon} 

4973: \right) 

4974: \langle g(t; \epsilon-\omega, \vec r,\vec n)\rangle_n

4975: \Big].

4976: \label{el5c}

4977: \eeqa

4978: \end{mathletters}

4979: 

4980: \noindent

4981: Here the kernels $K$ and $L$ are given by Eq.~(\ref{eqs4.6}).  Each

4982: labeled separately term in Eqs.~(\ref{el5}) corresponds to ones in

4983: Eqs.~(\ref{elastic4}) and in Eqs.~(\ref{gk1}) so the origin of terms

4984: can be easily traced.

4985: 

4986: 

4987: 

4988: \begin{multicols}{2}

4989: 

4990: 

4991: 

4992: Finally, we use the gauge invariant distribution function (\ref{fg})

4993: instead of $g$ and we arrive to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:4.5}).

4994: 

4995: Closing this section, we remark that the above treatment can be easily

4996: generalized to include other channels as well as the higher angular

4997: harmonics of the Fermi liquid constant. For the latter task one has to

4998: introduce angle dependent auxiliary fields $\phi_{1,2}(\vec r,\vec n,t)$ and

4999: use $F_0^\rho \to F^\rho(\widehat{\vec n_1\vec n_2})$.

5000: 

5001: The triplet channel requires introduction of the coupling of the form

5002: ${\vec h}_{1,2}(\vec r,t) 

5003: \hat{\vec\sigma}$,

5004: %\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}$, 

5005: where

5006: $\hat{\sigma}^j,\ j=x,y,z$ are the Pauli matrices in the spin space,

5007: and ${\vec h}_{1,2}(\vec r,t)$ are the auxiliary fields.  Accordingly, each

5008: bosonic propagator from Eq.~(\ref{Ds}) becomes a $3 \times 3$ matrix. The

5009: equation~(\ref{Dysonb}) retains the same form with the matrix multiplication

5010: in Keldysh and spin spaces implied. The equation (\ref{D00}) becomes

5011: 

5012: \beq

5013: [{\cal D}_0^R]_{ij} = [{\cal D}_0^A]_{ij} 

5014: =- F_0^\sigma \delta_{ij}\delta(\vec r_1-\vec r_2)\delta(t_1-t_2), 

5015: \eeq   

5016: 

5017: \noindent

5018: and Eq.~(\ref{Pi}) is modified to

5019: 

5020: \beqa 

5021: &&{\Pi}_{ij}^R(1,2)= {\Pi}_{ji}^A(2,1) 

5022: \label{Pi2}

5023: \\

5024: &&

5025: \nonumber\\

5026: &&

5027: \quad =\nu \int \frac{d\theta}{2\pi}

5028: \left(\delta_{12}\delta_{ji} + 

5029: \frac{\pi \langle  {\bf Tr}\sigma_i

5030: \delta g^K(t_1, t_1;  \vec n, \vec r_1)\rangle_{\phi}}

5031: {4\delta h_1^j(t_2,\vec r_2)}\right); 

5032: \nonumber\\

5033: &&

5034: \nonumber\\

5035: &&

5036: {\Pi}^K(1,2)= \pi\nu

5037: \nonumber\\

5038: &&

5039: \nonumber\\

5040: &&

5041: \int \frac{d\theta}{2\pi} 

5042: \frac{ \langle  {\bf Tr}\sigma_i

5043:  \delta g^K(t_1, t_1;  \vec n, \vec r_1)

5044: + {\bf Tr}\sigma_i\delta  g^Z(t_1, t_1;  \vec n, \vec r_1)

5045: \rangle_{\phi}}

5046: {4\delta h^j_2(t_2,\vec r_2)}

5047: \nonumber

5048: \eeqa

5049: 

5050: \noindent

5051: where trace is performed in spin space.

5052: 

5053: Further derivation consists of a repetition of the steps described

5054: in this section, and in the absence of the spin structure of the

5055: distribution function, $f_{ij}= \delta_{ij}f$, results in

5056: Eqs.~(\ref{r1}) and (\ref{r2}). The spin-orbit interaction or Zeeman

5057: splitting by external magnetic field slightly changes the results, 

5058: but we will

5059: postpone the corresponding analysis until the future publication \cite{pre}.

5060: 

5061: Finally, the Cooper channel interaction

5062: (\ref{106}) can be treated in the same manner by

5063: introducing auxiliary fields in the Gorkov-Nambu space. We will not

5064: discuss this question further in the present paper.

5065: 

5066: 

5067: 

5068:  

5069: \section{Conclusions}

5070: \label{projects}

5071: 

5072: 

5073: This paper is an attempt to consistently describe the effect of 

5074: electron-electron interaction on longitudinal conductivity of disordered

5075: 2D electron gas at $T\ll E_F$. Our results are valid for an arbitrary

5076: relation between $T$ and $\hbar/\tau$ and are summarized in 

5077: Section~\ref{results}. At low temperatures $T\tau\ll \hbar$ we reproduce the

5078: logarithmically divergent Altshuler-Aronov correction. At higher

5079: temperatures $T\tau > \hbar$, i.e. in the ballistic region, we found the

5080: linear temperature dependence in accord with Refs.~\onlinecite{gdl,rei}.

5081: However, even the sign of the slope of this dependence depends

5082: on the strength of electron-electron interaction in contradiction to

5083: the results of Refs.~\onlinecite{gdl,rei} (see Sections~\ref{qualitative}

5084: and \ref{single} for discussions of this discrepancy).

5085: 

5086: We deliberately did not compare the theory with experimental data,

5087: postponing this comparison until the publication of theoretical

5088: results for Hall conductivity and magneto-resistance in the parallel 

5089: field. For comparison with data obtained for Si-MOSFET samples the

5090: valley degeneracy should be taken into account (the degenaracy may 

5091: increase the numerical factor in Eq.~(\ref{tc}) by as much as a factor

5092: of $5$ in the case of low intervalley scattering). 

5093: We also relegate the

5094: corresponding discussion to a separate publication.

5095: 

5096: Finally, we derived a kinetic equation to describe the effect of 

5097: electron-electron interaction at arbitrary $T\tau$. The advantage of 

5098: this approach is that it turns out to be more convenient for

5099: practical calculations of transport properties in magnetic field

5100: as well as thermal transport properties.

5101: 

5102: 

5103: 

5104: \acknowledgements

5105: 

5106: 

5107: We are grateful to B.L. Altshuler, 

5108: M.E. Gershenson, L.I. Glazman, A.I. Larkin, and M.Yu. Reizer

5109: for numerous discussions. I.A. acknowledges support of

5110: the Packard Foundation.  

5111:  

5112: 

5113: 

5114: 

5115: 

5116: \appendix

5117: 

5118: \section*{}

5119: 

5120: 

5121: 

5122: {

5123: \narrowtext

5124: \begin{figure}[ht]

5125: \vspace{0.5 cm}

5126: \epsfxsize=6 cm

5127: \centerline{\epsfbox{f23.eps}}

5128: \vspace{0.5cm}

5129: \caption{Integration contours for analytic continuation of

5130:  Eqs.~(\protect\ref{aa1}).}

5131: \label{figA1}

5132: \end{figure}

5133: }

5134: 

5135: In this Appendix we show in some detail the procedure of analytical 

5136: continuation that leads to the expression for the interaction

5137: correction Eq.~(\ref{cc}) to the conductivity in terms of exact Green's 

5138: function of noninteracting disordered system.

5139: The structure of the current correlator is  

5140: 

5141: \begin{mathletters}

5142: \label{aa1}

5143: \beqa

5144: &&\int\limits_{0}^{1/T} d\tau \langle {\bf T_\tau} \hat j_\alpha(\tau)

5145: \hat j_\beta(0) \rangle e^{i\Omega_n\tau} =

5146:  \nonumber\\

5147:  &&

5148: \

5149: - T\sum_{\epsilon_n}J_\alpha

5150: G(i\epsilon_n+ i\Omega_n)

5151: J_\beta G(i\epsilon_n)

5152: \label{aa1a} \\

5153: &&

5154: \

5155: - T\sum_{\epsilon_n}J_\alpha

5156: G(i\epsilon_n+ i\Omega_n)

5157: \Gamma_\beta (i\epsilon_n+ i\Omega_n, i\epsilon_n)

5158: G(i\epsilon_n),

5159: \label{aa1b}

5160: \eeqa

5161: \end{mathletters}

5162: 

5163: \noindent

5164: where

5165: $\epsilon_n= \pi T(2n+1)$ is the fermionic Matsubara frequency,

5166: $G(i\epsilon_n)$ is the exact Green's function 

5167: of the interacting system (diagrams $1$ and $2$ on Fig.~\ref{sr}

5168: are the first order correction to the Green's function),

5169: $\Gamma_\beta (i\epsilon_n+ i\Omega_n, i\epsilon_n)$ is the

5170: vertex function (not to be confused with disorder averaged 

5171: interaction vertex $\Gamma$ from Sec.~\ref{diagrams}).

5172: Diagrams $3$ on Fig.~\ref{sr}

5173: are the first order correction to the vertex function.

5174: The current operator is defined in Eq.~(\ref{jop-def}).

5175: Note, that 

5176: we omit the spatial coordinates and the integration 

5177: whenever it should cause no confusion.

5178: 

5179: 

5180: We perform the analytic continuation in each term 

5181: (\ref{aa1a}) and (\ref{aa1b}) separately. In Eq.~(\ref{aa1a})

5182: we use the standard procedure

5183: \beq

5184: T\sum\limits_{\epsilon_n} (\dots ) = \frac{1}{4 \pi i}

5185: \int\limits_{{\cal C}} d\epsilon \tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}(\dots ),

5186: \label{trick}

5187: \eeq

5188: where integration contour is shown on Fig.~\ref{figA1}. We deform

5189: this contour to form $C_1$, use the facts that

5190: $\tanh (\epsilon + i\Omega_n)/2T=\tanh \epsilon/2T$,

5191: and $G(\epsilon \pm i0)=G^{R(A)}(\epsilon)$ and we obtain

5192: \beqa

5193: &&M_1(i\Omega_n)=T\sum_{\epsilon_n}J_\alpha

5194: G(i\epsilon_n+ i\Omega_n) J_\beta G(i\epsilon_n)

5195: \nonumber\\

5196: &&=\int\frac{d\epsilon}{4 \pi i}

5197: \tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}

5198: \Big\{

5199: J_\alpha G(\epsilon + i\Omega_n) J_\beta

5200: \left[G^R(\epsilon ) - G^A(\epsilon ) \right]

5201: \nonumber\\

5202: &&+ J_\alpha \left[G^R(\epsilon ) - G^A(\epsilon ) \right]

5203: J_\beta G(\epsilon - i\Omega_n)

5204: \Big\}

5205: \label{aa2}

5206: \eeqa

5207: In the form (\ref{aa2}) frequency $\Omega$ is present only in

5208: functions which may have singularities only on the real axis, so that

5209: the required analytic continuation can be easily performed:

5210: 

5211: \beqa

5212: &&M_1(\omega)=

5213: M_1(i\Omega_n \to \omega + i0)

5214: \nonumber\\

5215: &&=\int\frac{d\epsilon}{4 \pi i}

5216: \tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}

5217: \Big\{

5218: J_\alpha G^R(\epsilon + \omega) J_\beta

5219: \left[G^R(\epsilon ) - G^A(\epsilon ) \right]

5220: \nonumber\\

5221: &&\quad + J_\alpha \left[G^R(\epsilon ) - G^A(\epsilon ) \right]

5222: J_\beta G^A(\epsilon - \omega)

5223: \Big\}

5224: \label{aa3}

5225: \eeqa

5226: Thus one obtains for the quantity entering into conductivity

5227: (\ref{kubo})

5228: \beqa

5229: &&N_1=- \lim_{\omega \to 0}

5230: {\rm Im}

5231: \left(

5232: \frac{M_1(\omega)}{\omega}

5233: \right) \nonumber\\

5234: &&=

5235: {\rm Re}

5236: \int\frac{d\epsilon}{2 \pi}

5237: \tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}

5238:  J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) 

5239: J_\beta \partial_\epsilon G^A(\epsilon)

5240: \nonumber\\

5241: &&

5242: + \int\frac{d\epsilon}{4 \pi}

5243: \left(\frac{d}{d \epsilon}\tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}

5244: \right)

5245: J_\alpha  G^R(\epsilon ) J_\beta

5246: G^A(\epsilon )

5247: \label{aa4}

5248: \eeqa

5249: Equation (\ref{aa4}) can be further simplified for the calculation of

5250: the symmetric part of the conductivity 

5251: \beqa

5252: &&N_1^{sym}=

5253: {\rm Re}

5254:  \int\frac{d\epsilon}{8\pi}

5255: \left(\frac{d}{d \epsilon}\tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}

5256: \right)\label{aa5}\\

5257: &&\times

5258: \Big[

5259: - J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) 

5260: J_\beta G^A(\epsilon)

5261: + J_\alpha  G^R(\epsilon ) J_\beta

5262: G^A(\epsilon )

5263: +(\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta)

5264: \Big]

5265: \nonumber

5266: \eeqa

5267: 

5268: \end{multicols}

5269: \widetext

5270: Term (\ref{aa1b}) is considered analogously. 

5271: We find similarly to Eq.~(\ref{aa2}) 

5272: \beqa

5273: &&M_2(i\Omega_n)=T\sum_{\epsilon_n}J_\alpha

5274: G(i\epsilon_n+ i\Omega_n) 

5275: \Gamma_\beta (i\epsilon_n+ i\Omega_n, i\epsilon_n) G(i\epsilon_n)

5276: \nonumber\\

5277: &&=\int\frac{d\epsilon}{4 \pi i}

5278: \tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}

5279: \Big\{

5280: J_\alpha G(\epsilon + i\Omega_n)

5281: \left[\Gamma_\beta (\epsilon + i\Omega_n, \epsilon + i0)

5282: G^R(\epsilon ) - 

5283: \Gamma_\beta (\epsilon + i\Omega_n, \epsilon - i0)

5284: G^A(\epsilon ) \right]

5285: \nonumber\\

5286: &&+ J_\alpha \left[G^R(\epsilon ) 

5287: \Gamma_\beta (\epsilon + i0, \epsilon - i\Omega_n)

5288: - G^A(\epsilon ) 

5289: \Gamma_\beta (\epsilon - i0, \epsilon - i\Omega_n)

5290: \right]

5291: G(\epsilon - i\Omega_n )

5292: \Big\}

5293: \label{aa6}

5294: \eeqa

5295: Using analytic properties of the Green's function and the vertex

5296: function, we perform the analytic continuation and obtain

5297: \beqa

5298: &&M_2(\omega)= M_2(i\Omega_n \to \omega+i0)

5299: \nonumber\\

5300: &&

5301: =

5302: \lim_{\delta_1 \to 0^+}\lim_{\delta_2 \to 0^+}

5303: \int\frac{d\epsilon}{4 \pi i}

5304: \tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}

5305: \Big\{

5306: J_\alpha G^R(\epsilon + \omega)

5307: \left[\Gamma_\beta (\epsilon + \omega + i\delta_1, \epsilon + i\delta_2)

5308: G^R(\epsilon ) - 

5309: \Gamma_\beta (\epsilon + \omega + i0, \epsilon - i0)

5310: G^A(\epsilon ) \right]

5311: \nonumber\\

5312: &&+ J_\alpha \left[G^R(\epsilon ) 

5313: \Gamma_\beta (\epsilon + i0, \epsilon - \omega - i0)

5314: - G^A(\epsilon ) 

5315: \Gamma_\beta (\epsilon - i\delta_2, \epsilon - \omega - i\delta_1)

5316: \right]

5317:  G^A(\epsilon - \omega )

5318: \Big\}.

5319: \label{aa7}

5320: \eeqa

5321: In the appropriate frequency limit, we find

5322: \beqa

5323: &&N_2= 

5324: - \lim_{\omega \to 0}

5325: {\rm Im}

5326: \left(

5327: \frac{M_2(\omega)}{\omega}

5328: \right)

5329: =

5330: {\rm Re}

5331: \int\frac{d\epsilon}{2\pi }

5332: \tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}

5333: J_\alpha 

5334: G^A(\epsilon)

5335: \left.

5336: \frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon_1}

5337: \right|_{\epsilon_1=\epsilon }

5338: \Big[

5339: \lim_{\delta_1 \to 0^+}\lim_{\delta_2 \to 0^+}

5340: \Gamma_\beta (\epsilon - i\delta_2, \epsilon_1 - i\delta_1)

5341: G^A(\epsilon_1 )

5342: \Big]

5343: \nonumber\\

5344: &&+

5345: \int\frac{d\epsilon}{4 \pi}

5346: \left(\frac{d}{d \epsilon}\tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}

5347: \right)

5348: J_\alpha  G^R(\epsilon ) 

5349: \Gamma_\beta (\epsilon + i0, \epsilon - i0)

5350: G^A(\epsilon )

5351: \label{aa8}

5352: \eeqa

5353: 

5354: \begin{multicols}{2}

5355: Further calculation requires specification of the form of

5356: the self-energy and the vertex function. We have to find both

5357: in the first order in interaction propagator, and expand 

5358: Eq.~(\ref{aa5}) up to the first order:

5359: \beqa

5360: &&\delta N_1^{sym}=

5361: {\rm Re}

5362:  \int\frac{d\epsilon}{4\pi}

5363: \left(\frac{d}{d \epsilon}\tanh\frac{\epsilon}{2T}

5364: \right)\label{aa50}\\

5365: &&\times

5366: \Big[-

5367:  J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) \Sigma^A(\epsilon )  G^A(\epsilon ) 

5368: J_\beta G^A(\epsilon)

5369: \nonumber\\

5370: &&

5371: + J_\alpha  G^R(\epsilon ) J_\beta

5372: G^A(\epsilon ) 

5373: \Sigma^A(\epsilon )  G^A(\epsilon ) 

5374: +(\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta)

5375: \Big].

5376: \nonumber

5377: \eeqa

5378: For brevity we consider only the ``Fock'' contribution of

5379: Fig.~\ref{sr} b:

5380: \beq

5381: \Sigma(i\epsilon_n )_{12} = T\sum_{\Omega_m}

5382: {\cal D}_{12}(i\Omega_m)

5383: G_{12}(i\epsilon_n-i\Omega_m ) 

5384: \label{aa9}

5385: \eeq

5386: where ${\cal D}$ is the bosonic propagator, and we restored the

5387: notation for spatial coordinates.

5388: In the same order

5389: \beqa

5390: &&\left[\Gamma(i\epsilon_n, i\epsilon_m )_{\beta}\right]_{12} 

5391: \label{aa10}\\

5392: =

5393: &&\quad 

5394: T\sum_{\Omega_m}{\cal D}_{12}(\Omega_m)

5395: \left[G(i\epsilon_n- i\Omega_m ) J_\beta 

5396: G(i\epsilon_m- i\Omega_m ) \right]_{12}.

5397: \nonumber

5398: \eeqa

5399: 

5400: 

5401: After analytic continuation similar to that in the derivation of

5402: Eq.~(\ref{aa3}) we find

5403: \beqa

5404: &&\Sigma^A_{12}(\epsilon) =

5405: - \int \frac{d \Omega}{2\pi} \coth \frac{\Omega}{2T}

5406: \Big[{\rm Im} {\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega)

5407: \Big]G^A_{12}(\epsilon-\Omega)

5408: \label{aa11}\\

5409: &&+

5410: i\int \frac{d \Omega}{4\pi} 

5411: \tanh \frac{\epsilon-\Omega}{2T}

5412: {\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega)

5413: \Big[G^A_{12}(\epsilon-\Omega)

5414: - G^R_{12}(\epsilon-\Omega)

5415: \Big]

5416: \nonumber

5417: \eeqa

5418: and for the vertex function we have two cases:

5419: 

5420: \end{multicols}

5421: \widetext

5422: \begin{mathletters}

5423: \label{aa12}

5424: \beqa

5425: \lim_{\delta_1 \to 0^+}\lim_{\delta_2 \to 0^+}

5426: \Gamma_\beta (\epsilon - i\delta_2, \epsilon_1 - i\delta_1)&&

5427: =

5428: - \int \frac{d \Omega}{2\pi} \coth \frac{\Omega}{2T}

5429: \Big[{\rm Im} {\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega)

5430: \Big]\Big[G^A(\epsilon-\Omega)J_\beta G^A(\epsilon_1-\Omega)\Big]_{12}

5431: \nonumber\\

5432: &&

5433: +i\int \frac{d \Omega}{4\pi} \tanh \frac{\epsilon - \Omega}{2T}

5434: {\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega)

5435: \Big[\Big(G^A(\epsilon -\Omega)

5436: - G^R(\epsilon -\Omega)\Big)J_\beta G^A(\epsilon_1-\Omega)\Big]_{12}

5437: \nonumber\\

5438: &&

5439: +i\int \frac{d \Omega}{4\pi} \tanh \frac{\epsilon_1 - \Omega}{2T}

5440: {\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega)

5441: \Big[G^R(\epsilon -\Omega)J_\beta\Big(G^A(\epsilon_1-\Omega)

5442: - G^R(\epsilon_1-\Omega)\Big) \Big]_{12}

5443: \eeqa

5444: \beqa

5445: \Gamma_\beta (\epsilon + i0, \epsilon - i0) &&

5446: =

5447: - \int \frac{d \Omega}{2\pi} \coth \frac{\Omega}{2T}

5448: \Big[{\rm Im} {\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega)

5449: \Big]\Big[G^R(\epsilon-\Omega)J_\beta G^A(\epsilon-\Omega)\Big]_{12}

5450: \nonumber\\

5451: &&

5452: +i\int \frac{d \Omega}{4\pi} \tanh \frac{\epsilon - \Omega}{2T}

5453: {\cal D}_{12}^R(\Omega)

5454: \Big[\Big(G^A(\epsilon -\Omega)

5455: - G^R(\epsilon -\Omega)\Big)J_\beta G^A(\epsilon-\Omega)\Big]_{12}

5456: \nonumber\\

5457: &&

5458: +i\int \frac{d \Omega}{4\pi} \tanh \frac{\epsilon - \Omega}{2T}

5459: {\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega)

5460: \Big[G^R(\epsilon -\Omega)J_\beta\Big(G^A(\epsilon -\Omega)

5461: - G^R(\epsilon -\Omega)\Big) \Big]_{12}

5462: \eeqa

5463: \end{mathletters}

5464: 

5465: 

5466: 

5467: We now substitute Eq.~(\ref{aa11}) into Eq.~(\ref{aa50}).  We use the

5468: fact that the combination containing only retarded or only advanced

5469: Green's functions vanish upon the disorder averaging.  Moreover, the

5470: average of the combinations like $G(\epsilon)G(\epsilon-\Omega_1)\dots

5471: G(\epsilon-\Omega_N)$ does not depend on the energy $\epsilon$, which

5472: enable us to perform the integration over $\epsilon$ using

5473: 

5474: \[

5475: \int d\epsilon \tanh \frac{\epsilon-\Omega}{2T}

5476: \frac{d}{d\epsilon}\tanh \frac{\epsilon}{2T}=

5477: - 2 \frac{d}{d\Omega}\left(\Omega \coth \frac{\Omega}{2T}\right).

5478: \] 

5479: We find using $D^A(\Omega) = [D^A(-\Omega)]^*$

5480: \begin{mathletters}

5481: \label{aa500}

5482: \beqa

5483: &&\delta N_1^{sym}= {\rm Im}

5484:  \int\frac{d\Omega}{8\pi^2}

5485:  \left[\frac{d}{d\Omega}\left(\Omega \coth \frac{\Omega}{2T}\right)

5486: \right]{\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega)

5487: \label{aa500a}\\

5488: &&

5489: \times

5490: \Big[

5491:  J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) 

5492: G^R_{12} (\epsilon -\Omega) G^A(\epsilon ) 

5493: J_\beta G^A(\epsilon) -

5494: J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) 

5495: G^R_{12} (\epsilon -\Omega) G^A(\epsilon ) 

5496: J_\beta G^R(\epsilon)

5497: - J_\alpha G^R(\epsilon ) 

5498: G^R_{12} (\epsilon -\Omega) G^R(\epsilon ) 

5499: J_\beta G^A(\epsilon)

5500: \Big]

5501: \nonumber\\

5502: &&

5503: -

5504: \int\frac{d\Omega}{4\pi^2}

5505: \Big[

5506: \frac{\Omega}{2T\sinh^2\frac{\Omega}{2T}}

5507: {\rm Im} {\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega) 

5508: \Big] {\rm Re}

5509: \Big[ J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) 

5510: G^A_{12} (\epsilon -\Omega) G^A(\epsilon ) 

5511: J_\beta G^R(\epsilon)\Big] + (\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta).

5512: \label{aa500b}

5513: \eeqa

5514: \end{mathletters}

5515: 

5516: The same manipulations are performed with substituition of

5517: Eqs.~(\ref{aa12}) into Eq.~(\ref{aa8}). One finds for the symmetrized

5518: part

5519: 

5520: \begin{mathletters}

5521: \label{aa800}

5522: \beqa

5523: &&\delta N_2^{sym}= {\rm Im}

5524:  \int\frac{d\Omega}{8\pi^2}

5525:  \left[\frac{d}{d\Omega}\left(\Omega \coth \frac{\Omega}{2T}\right)

5526: \right]{\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega)

5527: \label{aa800a}\\

5528: &&

5529: \times

5530: \Bigg\{

5531: \Big[ G^A(\epsilon )  J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) \Big]_{12}

5532:  \Big[ G^R (\epsilon -\Omega)

5533: J_\beta G^R(\epsilon- \Omega ) \Big]_{21}

5534: - 2 \Big[ G^R(\epsilon )  J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) \Big]_{12}

5535:  \Big[ G^R (\epsilon -\Omega)

5536: J_\beta G^R(\epsilon- \Omega ) \Big]_{21}

5537: \Bigg\}

5538: \nonumber\\

5539: &&

5540: -

5541: \int\frac{d\Omega}{8\pi^2}

5542: \Big[

5543: \frac{\Omega}{2T\sinh^2\frac{\Omega}{2T}}

5544: {\rm Im} {\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega) 

5545: \Big] 

5546: \Big\{ \Big[ G^R(\epsilon )  J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) \Big]_{12}

5547:  \Big[ G^A (\epsilon -\Omega)

5548: J_\beta G^R(\epsilon- \Omega ) \Big]_{21}\Big\} 

5549: + (\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta).

5550: \label{aa800b}

5551: \eeqa

5552: \end{mathletters}

5553: 

5554: 

5555: Total correction to the conductivity is just $N_1+N_2$.

5556: In the Hartree-Fock approximation $D^A=-V(q)$ and we obtain

5557: Eq.~(\ref{cc}). In the case for the stronger interaction

5558: terms (\ref{aa500a}) and (\ref{aa800a}) are added to produce 

5559: Eq.~(\ref{cci}) and terms (\ref{aa500b}), (\ref{aa800b})

5560: give rise to the inelastic or so-called dephasing term:

5561: \beqa

5562: \delta\sigma^{deph}_{\alpha\beta}

5563: &=& -

5564: \int\frac{d\Omega}{8\pi^2}

5565: \Big[

5566: \frac{\Omega}{2T\sinh^2\frac{\Omega}{2T}}

5567: {\rm Im} {\cal D}_{12}^A(\Omega) 

5568: \Big] {\rm Re}

5569: \Bigg\{

5570: \Big[ 2 J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) 

5571: G^A_{12} (\epsilon -\Omega) G^A(\epsilon ) 

5572: J_\beta G^R(\epsilon)\Big] 

5573: \nonumber\\

5574: &+& 

5575: \Big[ G^R(\epsilon )  J_\alpha G^A(\epsilon ) \Big]_{12}

5576:  \Big[ G^A (\epsilon -\Omega)

5577: J_\beta G^R(\epsilon- \Omega ) \Big]_{21}

5578: \Bigg\}

5579: +

5580: (\alpha \leftrightarrow \beta).

5581: \label{adeph}

5582: \eeqa

5583: 

5584: \begin{multicols}{2}

5585: 

5586: 

5587: In our leading approximation in $1/E_F\tau$ this term vanishes,

5588: see Fig.~\ref{vanishing}. The role of this term in the temperature

5589: dependence of weak localization correction is discussed in detail in 

5590: Ref.~\onlinecite{aag}.   

5591: {

5592: \narrowtext

5593: \begin{figure}[ht]

5594: \vspace{0.2 cm}

5595: \epsfxsize=7 cm

5596: \centerline{\epsfbox{f24.eps}}

5597: \vspace{0.2cm}

5598: \caption{Cancellation of inelastic term (\protect\ref{adeph}) in

5599: the leading ladder approximation.} 

5600: \label{vanishing}

5601: \end{figure}

5602: }

5603: 

5604: 

5605: \begin{references}

5606:  

5607: \bibitem{aar} B.L. Altshuler and A.G. Aronov in

5608: {\em Electron-Electron Interactions in Disordered Systems}, 

5609: eds. A.L. Efros, M. Pollak (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985).

5610: \bibitem{fin} A.M. Finkelstein, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 84}, 168 (1983)

5611: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 57}, 97 (1983)]; Z. Phys. B {\bf 56}, 189 (1984).

5612: \bibitem{Lee} C. Castellani, C. Di Castro, P. A. Lee, and M. Ma,

5613: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 30}, 527 (1984); {\it ibid} {\bf 30}, 1596 (1984);

5614: C. Castellani, C. Di Castro, P.A. Lee, {\it ibid} {\bf 57}, R9381 (1998).

5615: \bibitem{stern}F. Stern, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 1469 (1980).

5616: \bibitem{dstern} F. Stern and S. Das Sarma, Solid State Electron.,

5617: {\bf 28}, 158 (1985).

5618: \bibitem{gdl} A. Gold and 

5619: V.T. Dolgopolov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 33}, 1076 (1986).

5620: \bibitem{das} S. Das Sarma and E.H. Hwang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 

5621: {\bf 83}, 164 (1999).

5622: \bibitem{aae} B.L. Altshuler, A.G. Aronov, 

5623: M.E. Gershenson, and Yu.V. Sharvin,

5624: Sov. Sci. A. Phys. {\bf 9}, 223 (1987).

5625: \bibitem{Bergman}G. Bergman, Physics Reports, {\bf 107}, 1 (1984).

5626: \bibitem{cwh} K.M. Cham and R.G. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 

5627: {\bf 44}, 1472 (1980).

5628: \bibitem{new} For a review see B.L. Altshuler, D.L. Maslov, and

5629: V.M. Pudalov, Physica E, {\bf 9} (2), 209 (2001).

5630: \bibitem{nfl} For a recent review and references see

5631: E. Abrahams, S. V. Kravchenko, and M. P. Sarachik,

5632: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 73}, 251 (2001).

5633: \bibitem{footnote1} Logarithmic renormalization of $F_0^\sigma$,

5634: see Ref. \onlinecite{fin,Lee} will not be relevant for the further discussion.

5635: \bibitem{pre} G. Zala, B.N. Narozhny, and I.L. Aleiner (in

5636: preparation).

5637: \bibitem{rag} A.M. Rudin, I.L. Aleiner, and L.I. Glazman,

5638: Phys. Rev. B, {\bf 55}, 9322 (1997). 

5639: \bibitem{aag} I.L. Aleiner, B.L. Altshuler, and M.E. Gershenson,

5640: Waves Random Media {\bf 9}, 201 (1999).

5641: \bibitem{kit} C. Kittel, {\it ``Quantum Theory of Solids''}

5642: (Wiley, New York, 1963).

5643: \bibitem{llq} L.D. Landau, I.M. Lifshits, {\it ``Quantum Mechanics''}

5644: (Pergamon, New York, 1977). 

5645: \bibitem{gri} I.S. Gradstein I.M.  Ryzhik, {\it Table of Integrals,

5646: Series, and Products} (Academic Press, San Diego, 1994).

5647: \bibitem{gla} K.A. Matveev, D. Yue, and L. I. Glazman,

5648: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 3351 (1993); D. Yue, L.I. Glazman, and 

5649: K.A. Matveev, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 49}, 1966 (1994); 

5650: \bibitem{Fermiliquid} L.D. Landau, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 30}, 1058 (1956);

5651: {\it ibid} {\bf 32}, 59 (1957).

5652: \bibitem{AGD} A.A. Abrikosov, L.P. Gorkov, and I.E. Dzyaloshinski,

5653: {\it ``Methods of quantum field theory in statistical physics''}

5654: (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963).

5655: \bibitem{Wignercrystal} B. Tanatar and D. M. Ceperley, 

5656: Phys. Rev. {\bf B} 39, 5005 (1989)

5657: \bibitem{vsi} This statement contradicts conclusions of

5658: Q. Si, C.M. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 4951 (1998).

5659: We believe that this paper mishandles the Fermi liquid renormalizations, 

5660: which amounts to omission of $F_0^\rho$ in the numerator of 

5661: Eq.~(\ref{f-prop}), see also comment by 

5662: P. Schwab and C. Castellani, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 4779 (2000). 

5663: \bibitem{bkm} D. Belitz, T.R. Kirkpatrick, and T. Vojta, 

5664: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 9452 (1997); D. Belitz, T.R. Kirkpatrick, 

5665: A.J. Millis, and T. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 58}, 14155 (1998).

5666: \bibitem{lar} We are grateful to A.I. Larkin for

5667: calling our attention to the momentum dependence of $F^\sigma_0$.

5668: \bibitem{rei} M.Yu. Reizer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 57}, 12338 (1998).

5669: \bibitem{Keldysh} L.V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 47}, 1945 (1964)

5670: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 20}, 1018 (1964)].

5671: \bibitem{Eilenberger}G. Eilenberger, Z. Phys. Bd. {\bf 214}, 195

5672: (1968).

5673: \bibitem{68} A.I. Larkin and Y.N. Ovchinnikov, 

5674: Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 55}, 2262 (1968)

5675: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 28}, 1200 (1969)].

5676: \bibitem{LO77} A.I. Larkin and Y.N. Ovchinnikov, 

5677: Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 73}, 299 (1977)

5678: [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 46}, 155 (1977)].

5679: \end{references}

5680: 

5681: 

5682: \end{multicols}

5683: 

5684: \end{document}

5685: