1: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{The Anderson Transition in Two-Dimensional Systems with Spin-Orbit Coupling}
9:
10: \author{Yoichi Asada and Keith Slevin}
11: \email[]{slevin@phys.sci.osaka-u.ac.jp}
12: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science,
13: Osaka University, 1-1 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan}
14:
15: \author{Tomi Ohtsuki}
16: \affiliation{Department of Physics,
17: Sophia University, Kioi-cho 7-1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 102-8554, Japan}
18:
19: \date{\today}
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: We report a numerical investigation of the Anderson transition in
23: two-dimensional systems with spin-orbit coupling.
24: An accurate estimate of the critical exponent $\nu$ for the divergence
25: of the localization length in this universality
26: class has to our knowledge not been reported in the literature.
27: Here we analyse the SU(2) model. We find that for this
28: model corrections to scaling due to irrelevant scaling variables may
29: be neglected permitting an accurate estimate of the
30: exponent $\nu=2.73 \pm 0.02$.
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \pacs{}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: According to the scaling theory of localisation \cite{abrahams:79},
38: if interactions are neglected, all states are localised in two
39: dimensions (2D).
40: Two exceptions predicted by the scaling theory to this oft recited
41: mantra are the extended states which occur at the center of a
42: Landau level in the quantum Hall effect (QHE) \cite{huckestein:95},
43: and the Anderson transition which occurs in zero magnetic field if
44: there is a significant spin-orbit interaction \cite{hikami:80,ando:89}.
45:
46: A surprising aspect of the QHE is that the estimate
47: $\nu=2.35\pm.03$ \cite{huckestein:90,huckestein:95} for
48: non-interacting electrons of the
49: critical exponent $\nu$, which describes the divergence
50: of the localisation length $\xi$ at the transition,
51: is in close agreement with the measured value.
52: This is despite the fact that interactions are clearly relevant
53: since the dynamical exponent $z$ is predicted to be two for
54: non-interacting electrons while the experimental value is unity.
55:
56: Critical phenomena are determined by the symmetry of the Hamiltonian
57: and the dimensionality of the system.
58: The important symmetries for the Anderson transition exhibited
59: by non-interacting electrons are time reversal symmetry and spin
60: rotation symmetry.
61: There are three universality classes: orthogonal, unitary and symplectic.
62: Systems with time reversal symmetry but where spin rotation
63: symmetry is broken by the spin-orbit interaction
64: belong to the symplectic class.
65:
66: In this paper we estimate using numerical simulation and
67: finite size scaling the exponent $\nu$ for the Anderson transition
68: in the symplectic universality class in 2D.
69: In contrast to the QHE, where extended states occur only in
70: vanishingly small energy region, the metallic phase extends
71: over a finite energy interval.
72: This system is, therefore, a good candidate for the study of 2D
73: quantum phase transitions.
74: Early work suggested that metallic phase in this model is
75: destroyed when interactions between electrons are taken into
76: account \cite{altshuler:83,castellani:84b},
77: while more recent work suggests that this is not so \cite{castellani:98}.
78:
79: Recently, there have been numerous reports of the observation of
80: a zero magnetic field metal-insulator transition in 2D together with
81: measurements of the critical exponents which characterize this transition
82: \cite{abrahams:01}.
83: Whether or not those experiments indicate the existence of a
84: true metallic phase at zero temperature remains in dispute.
85: If there is indeed a transition, the physics driving it and whether
86: there is a relation with the transition we study here is not
87: yet clear. However, just as was the case for the QHE, we believe that an
88: accurate estimate for the metal-insulator transition in zero field
89: in non-interacting 2D systems may prove useful.
90:
91: \begin{table}
92: \caption{\label{table:nu}
93: Published estimates of the critical exponent for the
94: 2D symplectic universality class. Q1DLL means finite
95: size scaling for the quasi-one dimensional localization length, ELS energy level statistics
96: and MFSS multifractal finite size scaling. The errors quoted are one
97: standard deviation.}
98: \begin{ruledtabular}
99: \begin{tabular}{llll}
100: Ref. & model & method & $\nu$ \\ \hline
101: \onlinecite{ando:89} & Ando model & Q1DLL & $2.05 \pm 0.08$ \\
102: \onlinecite{fastenrath:91} & Ando model & Q1DLL & $2.75 \pm 0.1$ \\
103: \onlinecite{evangelou:95} & Evangelou model & Q1DLL & $2.5 \pm 0.3$ \\
104: \onlinecite{schweitzer:97} & Ando model & ELS & $2.32 \pm 0.14$ \\
105: \onlinecite{merkt:98} & network model & Q1DLL & $2.51 \pm 0.18$ \\
106: \onlinecite{minakuchi:98} & network model & Q1DLL & $2.88 \pm 0.15$ \\
107: \onlinecite{yakubo:98} & Ando model & MFSS & $2.41 \pm 0.24$ \\
108: \end{tabular}
109: \end{ruledtabular}
110: \end{table}
111:
112: There has been only very limited success in estimating the
113: critical exponent with field theoretic methods \cite{hikami:92,brezin:97}.
114: In Table \ref{table:nu} we tabulate the estimates of the
115: exponent reported in previous numerical studies
116: \cite{ando:89,fastenrath:91,evangelou:95,schweitzer:97,merkt:98,
117: minakuchi:98,yakubo:98}.
118: There is considerable variation between these estimates. The
119: estimates reported in \cite{fastenrath:91,evangelou:95,merkt:98,
120: minakuchi:98,yakubo:98} seem to be consistent with a true value of
121: the exponent in the range $\left[ 2.6,2.9 \right]$.
122: However, the estimate of \cite{schweitzer:97} is somewhat below
123: this and that of \cite{ando:89} is in contradiction with the estimates
124: of \cite{fastenrath:91,minakuchi:98}.
125:
126: We use the transfer matrix method
127: \cite{pichard:81,mackinnon:83} to estimate the localization length $\lambda$
128: of electrons on an $L \times L_z$ quasi-1D strip and
129: then extract the critical exponent from a finite size scaling
130: analysis of the dependence of $\lambda$ on $L$ and disorder.
131: Two important factors limiting the accuracy of the estimate of the exponent
132: obtained in this way are the accuracy of the data for $\lambda$
133: and the maximum width $L$ for which data are available.
134: The standard error in the estimate of $\lambda$ decreases as
135: $\sqrt{\lambda/L_z}$, while for a fixed $L_z$ the CPU time needed
136: increases as $L^3$.
137: At the critical point $\lambda$ increases linearly with $L$ so that
138: the CPU time needed to estimate $\lambda$ to a given accuracy
139: increases as $L^4$.
140: This means that it is somewhat easier to improve the accuracy of the
141: numerical data than to increase the size of the systems simulated.
142: However, as the accuracy of the raw data improves, corrections to scaling
143: due to irrelevant scaling variables become more important.
144: While such corrections can be taken into account \cite{slevin:99}, the number of
145: fitting parameters is increased and correspondingly the uncertainty
146: in the estimate of the exponent is increased.
147: It is therefore advantageous to choose a model for which such corrections are
148: negligible even when the raw data are of high accuracy.
149: In this paper we report results for an SU(2) model for which
150: this condition is satisfied.
151:
152:
153: The Hamiltonian for the SU(2) model describes non-interacting electrons
154: on a 2D square lattice with nearest neighbour hopping
155: \begin{equation}
156: H=\sum_{i,\sigma} \epsilon_i c_{i,\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{i,\sigma}
157: - V \sum_{<i,j>,\sigma,\sigma'} R(i,j)_{\sigma \sigma'}
158: c_{i,\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{j,\sigma'}
159: \label{hamiltonian}
160: \end{equation}
161: Here $c^{\dagger}_{i,\sigma}$ ($c_{i,\sigma}$)
162: denotes the creation (annihilation)
163: operator of an electron at the site $i$ with spin $\sigma$ and
164: $\epsilon_i$ denotes the random potential at site $i$.
165: We assume a box distribution
166: with each $\epsilon_i$ uniformly and independently distributed on the interval
167: $[-W/2,W/2]$.
168: The width $W$ of the distribution measures the strength of the randomness.
169: The constant $V$ is taken to be the unit of energy, $V=1$.
170:
171: The spin-orbit coupling appears in the hopping matrix $R(i,j)$ between
172: each pair of nearest neighbours on the lattice.
173: These matrices belong to the group SU(2) of 2 $\times$ 2 unitary
174: matrices with determinant one.
175: The hopping matrices are parameterised as follows
176: \begin{eqnarray}
177: R(i,j)
178: \!
179: =
180: \! \!
181: \left(
182: \! \!
183: \begin{array}{cc}
184: e^{i\alpha_{i,j}} \cos \beta_{i,j}
185: & e^{i\gamma_{i,j}} \sin \beta_{i,j} \\
186: -e^{-i\gamma_{i,j}} \sin \beta_{i,j}
187: & e^{-i\alpha_{i,j} }\cos \beta_{i,j}
188: \end{array}
189: \! \!
190: \right) \label{hoppingmatrix}
191: \! \!
192: \end{eqnarray}
193: This matrix describes a rotation of the electron spin
194: in three dimensional space. (The Euler angles of this
195: rotation are related to, but not equal to, the angles $\alpha$,
196: $\beta$ and $\gamma$.)
197: In the SU(2) model the distribution of these angles
198: is chosen so that the $R(i,j)$ are uniformly
199: distributed with respect to the group invariant
200: measure (Haar measure) on SU(2).
201: This corresponds to $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ uniformly
202: distributed in the range $[0,2\pi)$,
203: and $\beta$ distributed according to the probability density,
204: \begin{equation}
205: P(\beta) \rm d \beta =
206: \left\{
207: \begin{array}{ll}
208: \sin (2\beta) \rm d \beta & 0 \le \beta \le \frac{\pi}{2} \\
209: 0 & \rm otherwise.
210: \end{array}
211: \right.
212: \end{equation}
213: Hopping matrices on different bonds of the lattice are statistically
214: independent.
215: Periodic boundary conditions are imposed in the transverse direction.
216: The necessary calculations are carried out using quaternion
217: arithmetic \cite{ando:89} which halves the
218: required number of multiplications compared with an
219: implementation using complex arithmetic.
220:
221: Some of the physics of the SU(2) model can be understood by
222: comparing it with the Ando model which has been adopted
223: in \cite{ando:89,fastenrath:91,schweitzer:97,yakubo:98}.
224: In the Ando model as the electron propagates through the material
225: its spin precesses at a rate and about an axis which depend on the
226: electrons wave number. When scattered by the random
227: potential, the rate and the axis about which the electron's spin
228: rotates changes.
229: This leads to a diffusive motion of the spin
230: with an associated spin relaxation length. Quantum interference
231: between time reversed electron trajectories longer than this
232: length produces the weak anti-localization effect \cite{bergmann:82}.
233: Motivated by the conjecture that the spin relaxation length might be
234: an important irrelevant length scale, we adopted the SU(2) model
235: where the uniform distribution
236: of the hopping matrices on SU(2) ensures that the spin relaxation
237: length is the shortest possible.
238: Doing so we do indeed find that corrections due to irrelevant scaling
239: variables can be neglected.
240:
241: To determine the critical exponent $\nu$, critical disorder $W_c$ and
242: other critical properties
243: of the transition we fit dependence of $\Lambda=\lambda/L$ on
244: the system size $L$ and the disorder $W$, or when $W=0$ on the Fermi energy $E_F$,
245: to a one parameter scaling law of the form
246: \begin{equation}
247: \ln \Lambda = F \left(\psi \right).
248: \label{a1}
249: \end{equation}
250: Here $\psi$ is the relevant scaling variable.
251: We expand the scaling function as a power series
252: \begin{equation}
253: F\left(x \right) = \ln \Lambda_c + x + a_2 x^2 + \ldots
254: + a_{n_0}x^{n_0}
255: \label{a2}
256: \end{equation}
257: terminating the expansions at order $n_0$.
258: To allow for non-linearity of the scaling variable, the
259: scaling variable is approximated by an expansion in terms of the
260: dimensionless disorder
261: $w=(W_c-W)/W_c$, where $W_c$ is the critical
262: disorder separating the insulating and metallic phases.
263: (If $W=0$ we set $w=(E_F-E_c)/E_c$.)
264: The growth of the relevant scaling variable with system size is described
265: by the critical exponent $\nu$
266: \begin{equation}
267: \psi = L^{1/\nu} \left(\psi_1 w + \psi_2 w^2 + \ldots + \psi_{n_{\psi}} w^{n_{\psi}} \right) ,
268: \label{a3}
269: \end{equation}
270: where we terminate the expansion at order $n_{\psi}$.
271: This same exponent describes the divergence of the localization (correlation) length
272: \begin{equation}
273: \xi = \xi_{\pm} \left|\psi_1 w + \psi_2 w^2 + \ldots + \psi_{n_{\psi}} w^{n_{\psi}} \right|^{-\nu}.
274: \end{equation}
275: where we terminate the expansion at order $n_{\psi}$.
276: The absolute scales $\xi_{\pm}$ of the localization length on either side
277: of the transition
278: are not determined in this analysis, so we set them both to unity for
279: simplicity.
280: The linear coefficient in the expansions of $F$ is set to unity,
281: as shown, to eliminate some redundancy in the definition of the fitting
282: parameters.
283: The total number of parameters is $N_p = n_0 + n_{\psi} +2$.
284:
285:
286: The best fit is determined by minimizing the ${\chi}^2$ statistic.
287: The quality of the fit is assessed with the goodness of fit
288: probability $Q$.
289: Confidence intervals for the fitted parameters are estimated
290: using a Monte Carlo method \cite{numrep}. This involves using the model and the best
291: estimates of the fitting parameters to generate an ideal data set.
292: From this data set a large ensemble of synthetic data sets is
293: generated by adding random errors, with a variance equal to
294: that of the error of the corresponding data point, to the ideal data set.
295: Fitting of the ensemble of synthetic data sets produces a
296: distribution for the critical parameters from which confidence intervals
297: and the goodness of fit are estimated. This procedure
298: is standard and systematic but does not take into account
299: any unknown systematic effects that might only be discernible for
300: very much larger systems.
301: Of course, this caveat applies to almost any numerical estimate of
302: a critical exponent.
303:
304: \begin{figure}
305: \includegraphics{PhaseDiagram.EPS}
306: \caption{\label{fig:pd}
307: The phase diagram for the SU(2) model.}
308: \end{figure}
309:
310: Before turning to the estimate of the critical exponent
311: we sketch the phase diagram in Figure \ref{fig:pd}.
312: The figure is based on data for systems with sizes ranging from $L=8$ to
313: $L=32$ for a number of Fermi energies between
314: $E_F=0$ and $E_F=3$ for which the critical disorder $W_c$ was estimated,
315: and on data for $W=0$ for which the critical energy $E_c$ was estimated.
316: In the absence of a random potential i.e. when $W=0$, the Hamiltonian may
317: have chiral symmetry and, in addition to the transition at finite $E_c$,
318: a critical state may also be present at the band center \cite{brouwer:00}.
319: Whether this possibility is realised depends on the boundary conditions
320: and whether the number of sites is even or odd.
321: Since chiral symmetry is broken by a random potential it does not
322: affect our estimation of $\nu$ below.
323:
324: \begin{figure}
325: \includegraphics{su2a.eps}
326: \caption{\label{fig:su2a}
327: The numerical data for the SU(2) model and the best fit.
328: Data for $L=8,16,32,64$ and $96$ are shown.}
329: \end{figure}
330:
331: \begin{table}
332: \caption{\label{table:su2a}
333: The details of various fits to the numerical data for the SU(2) model.
334: The fit is to $N_d=230$ data points in the range $5.2 \le W \le 6.7$
335: and $0.2 \le \ln \Lambda \le 0.9$.}
336: \begin{ruledtabular}
337: \begin{tabular}{llllllll}
338: $n_0$ & $n_{\psi}$ & $N_p$ & $Q$ & $W_c$ & $\ln \Lambda_c$ & $\nu$
339: \\ \hline
340: 2 & 2 & 6 & 0.2 & 5.952$\pm$ .002 & 0.612$\pm$ .001 & 2.74$\pm$ .01 \\
341: 3 & 2 & 7 & 0.4 & 5.952$\pm$ .002 & 0.612$\pm$ .001 & 2.73$\pm$ .02 \\
342: 4 & 2 & 8 & 0.3 & 5.952$\pm$ .002 & 0.612$\pm$ .001 & 2.73$\pm$ .02 \\
343: 3 & 3 & 8 & 0.3 & 5.952$\pm$ .002 & 0.612$\pm$ .001 & 2.74$\pm$ .03 \\
344: 4 & 3 & 9 & 0.3 & 5.952$\pm$ .002 & 0.612$\pm$ .001 & 2.73$\pm$ .03 \\
345: \end{tabular}
346: \end{ruledtabular}
347: \end{table}
348:
349: \begin{table}
350: \caption{\label{table:su2b}
351: The variation of the estimates of the critical parameters for the SU(2) model as data
352: for smaller systems sizes are progressively excluded from consideration.
353: Here $n_0=3$ and $n_{\psi}=2$. }
354: \begin{ruledtabular}
355: \begin{tabular}{llllllll}
356: & $N_d$ & $Q$ & $W_c$ & $\ln \Lambda_c$ & $\nu$
357: \\ \hline
358: $8 \le L \le 96$ & 230 & 0.4 & 5.952$\pm$ .002 & 0.612$\pm$ .001 & 2.73$\pm$ .02 \\
359: $16\le L \le 96$ & 169 & 0.6 & 5.953$\pm$ .003 & 0.611$\pm$ .002 & 2.75$\pm$ .02 \\
360: $32\le L \le 96$ & 113 & 0.5 & 5.954$\pm$ .005 & 0.611$\pm$ .003 & 2.71$\pm$ .04 \\
361: $64\le L \le 96$ & 64 & 0.8 & 5.96$\pm$ .02 & 0.60$\pm$ .02 & 2.8$\pm$ .2 \\
362: \end{tabular}
363: \end{ruledtabular}
364: \end{table}
365:
366: \begin{table}
367: \caption{\label{table:su2c}
368: The variation of the estimates of the critical parameters for the SU(2) model
369: as the range of disorder under consideration is progressively narrowed.}
370: \begin{ruledtabular}
371: \begin{tabular}{llllllll}
372: W & $N_d$ & $n_0$ & $n_{\psi}$ & $Q$ & $W_c$ & $\ln \Lambda_c$ & $\nu$ \\ \hline
373: $\left[ 5.2, 6.7 \right]$ & 230 & 3 & 2 & 0.4 & 5.952$\pm$ .002 & 0.612$\pm$ .001 & 2.73$\pm$ .02 \\
374: $\left[ 5.5 ,6.4 \right]$ & 175 & 2 & 2 & 0.7 & 5.953$\pm$ .003 & 0.612$\pm$ .001 & 2.75$\pm$ .02 \\
375: $\left[ 5.8 , 6.1 \right]$ & 65 & 1 & 1 & 0.5 & 5.950$\pm$ .002 & 0.613$\pm$ .002 & 2.72$\pm$ .07 \\
376: \end{tabular}
377: \end{ruledtabular}
378: \end{table}
379:
380: To estimate the critical exponent accurately more
381: extensive simulations were carried out for a single energy
382: $E_F=1$.
383: The numerical data are presented in Figures \ref{fig:su2a} and \ref{fig:su2b}.
384: Data with an accuracy of $0.1\%$ are available for system sizes $L=8,16$
385: and $32$, with accuracy $0.2\%$ for $L=64$, and $0.4\%$ for $L=96$.
386: This required $L_z$ of the order of $10^7$ to $10^8$ depending on
387: the size, the disorder and the accuracy.
388: When fitting the data the intervals of $W$ and $\ln \Lambda$
389: to consider must be decided. The exact choice is not particularly
390: important provided all data are in the critical regime.
391: A larger interval of $\ln \Lambda$ requires a higher order of
392: expansion in Eq. \ref{a2}, while a larger interval of $W$
393: requires a higher order expansion in Eq. \ref{a3}.
394: The results of the finite size analysis are presented in Tables \ref{table:su2a},
395: \ref{table:su2b} and \ref{table:su2c}.
396: A number of fits of the numerical data are possible but, as
397: can be seen by referring to Table \ref{table:su2a}, all yield
398: consistent results.
399: The estimates of the critical parameters are also stable against
400: restriction of the system sizes under consideration, see Table \ref{table:su2b},
401: and against a narrowing of the range of disorder, see Table \ref{table:su2c}.
402: The lines shown in Figure \ref{fig:su2a} and \ref{fig:su2b} correspond to
403: a fit with $n_0=3$ and $n_{\psi}=2$.
404: To demonstrate single parameter scaling graphically we
405: re-plot the data as a function of $L/\xi$ in Figure \ref{fig:su2b};
406: metallic and insulating branches are clearly visible.
407: These are described by related
408: scaling functions $F_+$ and $F_-$ where
409: \begin{equation}
410: F_{\pm}\left(x \right)= \ln \Lambda_c \pm x^{1/\nu} + a_2 x^{2/\nu} + \ldots
411: + \left(\pm1 \right)^{n_0}a_{n_0}x^{n_0/\nu}
412: \end{equation}
413:
414: \begin{figure}
415: \includegraphics{su2b.eps}
416: \caption{\label{fig:su2b}
417: When plotted versus $L/\xi$ the data divide naturally into an upper
418: metallic branch $F_+\left(L/\xi \right)$ and a lower insulating branch
419: $F_-\left(L/\xi \right)$.}
420: \end{figure}
421:
422: In summary, we have studied the Anderson transition in the 2D symplectic
423: universality class and estimated the critical exponent $\nu$.
424: We find $\nu=2.73\pm .02$,
425: where the error is a $95\%$ confidence interval. Our result is consistent
426: with the estimates reported in \cite{fastenrath:91,evangelou:95,merkt:98,
427: minakuchi:98,yakubo:98} but not with those of
428: \cite{ando:89,schweitzer:97}. Analyses based on energy level statistics,
429: such as \cite{schweitzer:97},
430: also seem to have a tendency to produce estimates which are lower
431: than those of the transfer matrix method for the 3D orthogonal
432: universality class \cite{romer:02}.
433: On the other hand, in our opinion, the error bar for the exponent claimed in
434: \cite{ando:89} is too optimistic.
435:
436:
437:
438: \bibliography{su2}
439:
440: \end{document}
441:
442: