1: \documentclass[aps,prb,twocolumn,draft,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amssymb}

4: \usepackage{amsfonts}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: \usepackage{epsf}

7: 

8: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

9: 

10: \begin{document}

11: 

12: \title{Weak localization and conductance fluctuations in a quantum dot with

13: parallel magnetic field and spin-orbit scattering}

14: \author{Jan-Hein Cremers}

15: \affiliation{Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, 

16: Cambridge MA 02138}

17: 

18: \author{Piet W.\ Brouwer}

19: \affiliation{Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell 

20: University, Ithaca, NY 14853-2501}

21: 

22: \author{Vladimir I.\ Fal'ko}

23: \affiliation{Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster L41

24:   4YB, United Kingdom}

25: 

26: \date{\today}

27: 

28: \begin{abstract}

29: In the presence of both spin-orbit scattering and a magnetic field the

30: conductance of a chaotic GaAs quantum dot displays quite a rich behavior.

31: Using a Hamiltonian derived by Aleiner and Fal'ko [Phys. Rev. Lett. 

32: \textbf{87}, 256801 (2001)] we calculate the weak localization

33: correction and the covariance of the conductance, as a function of

34: parallel and perpendicular magnetic field and spin-orbit coupling

35: strength. We also show how the combination of an in-plane 

36: magnetic field and spin-orbit scattering gives rise to a component

37: to the magnetoconductance that is anti-symmetric with respect to 

38: reversal of the perpendicular component of the magnetic field and

39: how spin-orbit scattering leads to a ``magnetic-field echo'' in the

40: conductance autocorrelation function. Our results can be used for

41: a measurement of the Dresselhaus and Bychkov-Rashba spin-orbit 

42: scattering lengths in a GaAs/GaAlAs heterostructure.

43: 

44: 

45: \end{abstract}

46: 

47: \pacs{73.23.-b, 05.45.Mt, 72.20.My, 73.63.Kv}

48: \maketitle

49: 

50: \section{Introduction}

51: 

52: A two-dimensional (2D) electron gas

53: offers ample opportunity for manipulation of the electron's spin and orbital

54: state. In the absence of spin-orbit coupling, such manipulation can

55: be performed separately on the electron spin and orbital degree of freedom,

56: by means of magnetic fields of various orientations and electrostatic gates.

57: On one hand, a magnetic field parallel to the plane of the 2D gas lifts the

58: spin degeneracy and allows for a measurement that distinguishes between the

59: transport properties of \textquotedblleft up\textquotedblright\ and

60: \textquotedblleft down\textquotedblright\ spins: As long as the confining

61: potential that determines the 2D electron gas is sharp, it does not

62: significantly affect the electron's orbital degrees of freedom. On the other

63: hand, gate voltages and a weak magnetic field perpendicular to the quantum

64: well act on the orbital degrees of freedom and do not couple significantly

65: to the electron's spin.\cite{mesoreview1}

66: 

67: Spin-orbit scattering couples the spin and orbital degrees of freedom.

68: Conventionally, the main signature of spin-orbit coupling in the 2D

69: electron gas in GaAs heterostructures is the observation of weak

70: anti-localization, a small positive quantum correction to the conductivity

71: that is suppressed by a magnetic field.\cite{Hikami} Weak anti-localization

72: is the counterpart of weak localization, a negative correction to

73: the conductivity at zero magnetic field caused by the constructive

74: interference of back-scattered electron waves in a phase-coherent disordered

75: conductor in the absence of spin-orbit scattering.\cite{Bergmann} Only

76: recently, spin-dependent phase coherent transport was considered for a

77: quantum dot, a small island of the electron gas confined by gates 

78: \cite{Khaetskii}. Motivated by an experiment by Folk 

79: \emph{et al.},\cite{Folk}

80: theoretical works by Halperin \emph{et al.}\cite{Halperin} and by two of the

81: authors,\cite{AF} have shown that the combination of spin-orbit scattering

82: and a spin degeneracy lifting parallel magnetic field leads to a remarkably

83: rich structure of quantum interference phenomena in III-V semiconductor 

84: quantum dots, that far surpasses a simple

85: interpolation between weak localization and weak antilocalization physics.

86: 

87: Not only does the crossover regime between weak localization and

88: anti-localization represent an interesting issue of its own,

89: understanding features imposed upon quantum transport by spin-orbit

90: coupling is needed for a correct extraction of the decoherence time

91: from experimental data. For electrons in a small dot with weak but

92: finite spin-orbit coupling, the the crossover of weak localization to

93: anti-localization manifests itself as a suppression of the

94: zero-temperature value of localization correction to the dot

95: conductance. This suppression of the weak localization correction may

96: be misinterpreted as a saturation of the decoherence time

97: $\tau_{\phi}$ at low temperatures. Without a priori knowledge of the

98: spin-orbit coupling constants for a given semiconductor dot, one must

99: use the features of spin-orbit coupling induced interference effects

100: in order to identify the origin of what can be mistaken for a suppression

101: of the interference part of conductance, when the observed weak

102: localization correction is less than the

103: prediction of the quantum transport theory for to the crossover

104: between orthogonal and unitary symmetry classes.

105: 

106: In this publication, we present a detailed quantitative analysis of

107: the influence of the coupling between electron spin and orbital motion

108: in a two-dimensional semiconductor on the interference corrections to

109: the conductance of a quantum dot. We consider the effects of

110: enhanced/suppressed back-scattering and the variance and correlation

111: properties of universal conductance fluctuations. The calculations,

112: which are performed in the framework of the random scattering matrix

113: approach of random matrix theory, are described in Sections

114: \ref{sec:2} and

115: \ref{sec:3}. In Section \ref{sec:2}, 

116: we present the analysis of the average conductance

117: of a chaotic dot, Section \ref{sec:3} is devoted to conductance

118: fluctuations. For technical reasons, we limit our attention to the

119: case of a large number of channels, $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ in the point

120: contact connecting the dot to the bulk, though all qualitative

121: features we discover for $N\gg 1$ would persist in the case of $N\sim

122: 1$. These two technical sections are preceded by a qualitative

123: discussion (Sec.\ \ref{sec:1}) and followed by an analysis of the 

124: effect of a

125: spatially non-uniform spin-orbit coupling strength (Sec.\ 

126: \ref{sec:nonuniform}).

127: 

128: \section{Interplay between SO coupling and Zeeman splitting in quantum

129:   dots} \label{sec:1}

130: 

131: In GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures, spin-orbit coupling owes its

132: existence to the asymmetry of the potential confining the 2DEG and the lack

133: of inversion symmetry in the crystal structure, leading to the

134: Bychkov-Rashba and Dresselhaus terms in the Hamiltonian. In the theory

135: we present below, we consider electrons in a heterostructure or quantum well

136: lying in the (001) crystallographic plane of a zinc-blend type semiconductor

137: and choose coordinates $x_{1},x_{2}$ along crystallographic directions 

138: $\mathbf{\hat{e}}_{1}=[110]$ and $\mathbf{\hat{e}}_{2}=[1\bar{1}0]$

139: (coordinate $x_{3}$ is perpendicular to the plane of the two-dimensional

140: electron gas). The effective two-dimensional Hamiltonian of

141: electrons in a quantum dot takes the form 

142: \begin{eqnarray}

143:   \mathcal{H} &=&\frac{1}{2m}\left[ \left(

144:   p_{1}-eA_{1}-\frac{\sigma_{2}}{2\lambda_{1}}\right)^{2}+

145:   \left( p_{2}-eA_{2}+\frac{\sigma_{1}}{2\lambda_{2}}\right)^{2}

146:   \right]  \notag \\

147:   && \mbox{}+V(\mathbf{r})+\frac{1}{2}\mu_{B}g \mathbf{B} 

148:   \cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}. \label{eq:FullHam}

149: \end{eqnarray}%

150: where $\mathbf{B}$ is the magnetic field, 

151: $\mathbf{A}=B_{3}(\mathbf{\hat{e}}_{3}\times \mathbf{r})/2c$ 

152: is the vector potential corresponding to the

153: component of the magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the

154: two-dimensional electron gas, and $\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}=(\sigma_{1},\sigma

155: _{2},\sigma_{3})$ the vector of Pauli matrices. The potential $V$ both

156: confines the electrons to the quantum dot and describes elastic scattering

157: from non-magnetic impurities in the dot. The two length scales, 

158: $\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$ are associated with

159: spin-orbit coupling for an electron moving along the principal

160: crystallographic directions $\mathbf{\hat{e}}_{1}$ and 

161: $\mathbf{\hat{e}}_{2}$,\cite{RashbaDresselhaus} and characterize

162: the length at which spin of an initially polarized electron would

163: precess with an angle $2\pi $.

164: 

165: For a dot with homogeneous electron density and, therefore, parameters of

166: confining potential, spin-orbit coupling parameters $\lambda_{1}$ and 

167: $\lambda_{2}$ are independent of the position. In that case, the spin-orbit

168: coupling takes the form of a spin-dependent \textquotedblright vector

169: potential\textquotedblright , which is non-abelian since the Pauli matrices

170: do not commute with each 

171: other.\cite{Meir,MathurStone,Oreg} If $\lambda_{1}$ and 

172: $\lambda_{2}$ are large compared to the dot size $L$, the non-commutativity

173: of this spin-dependent vector potential involves higher powers of $L/\lambda

174: _{1,2}$, so that the spin-orbit coupling can be \textquotedblleft gauged

175: out\textquotedblright\ to leading order in $L/\lambda_{1,2}$. This

176: may be achieved through the unitary transformation $\psi (\mathbf{r})=

177: U(\mathbf{r})\tilde{\psi}(\mathbf{r})$, 

178: \begin{eqnarray}

179:   U &=&\exp \left( \frac{ix_{1}\sigma_{2}}{2\lambda_{1}}-\frac{ix_{2}\sigma

180: _{1}}{2\lambda_{2}}\right) 

181:   \nonumber \\ &=& \cos R+\left( \frac{ix_{1}\sigma_{2}}{2\lambda

182: _{1}}-\frac{ix_{2}\sigma_{1}}{2\lambda_{2}}\right) \dfrac{\sin R}{R},

183: \label{eq:U} 

184: \\

185:   R &=&\sqrt{\left( \frac{x_{1}}{2\lambda_{1}}\right) ^{2}+

186:   \left( \frac{x_{2}}{2\lambda_{2}}\right) ^{2}},

187: \end{eqnarray}%

188: which performs a position-dependent rotation of the spin out of the plane of

189: the two-dimensional electron gas to the locally adjusted

190: frame.\cite{AF} 

191: Below, we assume that $R\ll 1$, and use $R$ as a small

192: parameter to derive the form of the Hamiltonian $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}

193: =U^{\dagger }\mathcal{H}U$ in the locally rotated spin-frame, 

194: \begin{eqnarray}

195: \tilde{\mathcal{H}}&=&\frac{1}{2m}\left( -i\hbar \nabla \mathbf{-}e\mathbf{A}-

196: \mathbf{a}_{\bot }-\mathbf{a}_{\Vert }\right) ^{2}+h^{\mathrm{Z}}+h_{\bot }^{

197: \mathrm{Z}}+V(\mathbf{r}).

198:   \nonumber \\

199:   \label{eq:Hamtilde} \label{eq:hamiltonian}

200: \end{eqnarray}%

201: Here we introduced the spin-dependent vector potential

202: $$

203: \mathbf{a}_{\bot }=\frac{\sigma_{3}}{4\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}[\mathbf{

204: \hat{e}}_{3}\times \mathbf{r}]

205: $$

206: that has the same form as a magnetic field $\pm e c \mathbf{\hat{e}_3}

207: /2 \lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}$ with opposite directions for electrons with

208: spins ``up'' and ``down'' in the new

209: spin-frame, and we also abbreviated

210: \begin{eqnarray}

211:   \mathbf{a}_{\Vert } &=&\frac{1}{6\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}

212:   \left( \frac{x_{1}\sigma_{1}}{\lambda_{1}}

213:   + \frac{x_{2}\sigma_{2}}{\lambda_{2}}\right)

214:   [\mathbf{\hat{e}}_{3}\times \mathbf{r}]  \notag \\

215:   h^{\mathrm{Z}} &=&\frac{1}{2}\mu_{B}g\mathbf{B}\cdot 

216:   \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}, 

217:   \notag \\

218:   h_{\bot }^{\mathrm{Z}} &=&-\mu_{B}g

219:   \left( \frac{B_{1}x_{1}}{2\lambda_{1}}

220:   + \frac{B_{2}x_{2}}{2\lambda_{2}}\right) \sigma_{3}.

221: \end{eqnarray}%

222: 

223: The Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Hamtilde})

224: describes electrons in a rotated spin frame. It

225: contains all relevant terms that lift the high degree of symmetry of a

226: system with uncoupled orbital and spin degrees of freedom, to leading

227: order in the small parameter $L/\lambda_{1,2}$. In these equations,

228: we omitted sub-leading terms of higher order in $L/\lambda_{1,2}$

229: that do not affect the symmetry of the Hamiltonian.

230: 

231: As long as the rate at which electrons escape from the quantum dot into the

232: leads is much smaller than the Thouless energy $E_{\mathrm{Th}}$, transport

233: properties of the quantum dot can be calculated using random matrix 

234: theory.\cite{Beenakker97}

235:  The use of random matrix theory requires an

236: analysis of the symmetries of the scattering matrix, which are set by the

237: relative magnitudes of characteristic energy scales for each of the terms in

238: the Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:hamiltonian}) and the escape rate. These energy

239: scales are 

240: \begin{eqnarray}

241: \varepsilon_{B} &=&\kappa E_{\mathrm{Th}}\left( {eB_{3}L^{2}}/2{\hbar }

242: \right) ^{2},  \notag \\

243: \varepsilon_{\bot }^{\mathrm{so}} &=&\kappa E_{\mathrm{Th}}\left(

244: 	    {L^{2}}/{4\lambda ^{2}}\right) ^{2},  \notag \\

245: \varepsilon_{\Vert }^{\mathrm{so}} &=&\kappa ^{\prime }\left( 

246: {L^{2}/4\lambda ^{2}}\right) \varepsilon_{\bot }^{\mathrm{so}},

247:   \label{eq:E_so} \label{eq:kappa}  \\

248: \varepsilon ^{\mathrm{Z}} &=&\mu_{B}gB,  \notag \\

249: \varepsilon_{\bot }^{\mathrm{Z}} &=&\frac{\kappa^{\prime \prime}

250: (\varepsilon^{\mathrm{Z}})^{2}}{E_{\mathrm{Th}}}\left( L^{2}/4\lambda

251: ^{2}\right) ,  \notag

252: \end{eqnarray}%

253: for the orbital contribution of the magnetic field, the spin-orbit

254: terms $a_{\Vert }$ and $a_{\bot }$, and the Zeeman coupling terms 

255: $h^{\mathrm{Z}}$ and $h_{\bot }^{\mathrm{Z}}$, respectively. 

256: For weak uniform spin-orbit coupling in a small dot such that 

257: $L/\lambda_{1,2}\ll 1$, one has the strong inequalities 

258: \begin{equation}

259: \varepsilon_{\Vert }^{\mathrm{so}}\ll \varepsilon_{\bot }^{\mathrm{so}},\

260: \ \varepsilon_{\bot }^{\mathrm{Z}}\ll \varepsilon ^{\mathrm{Z}}.

261: \label{eq:ineq}

262: \end{equation}

263: Here $E_{\rm Th}$ is the Thouless energy, which is the largest

264: energy scale in the problem, $\lambda ^{2}=\lambda

265: _{1}\lambda_{2}$, and $\kappa $, $\kappa ^{\prime }$, and $\kappa ^{\prime

266: \prime }$ are coefficients of order unity. The coefficients $\kappa ^{\prime

267: }$ and $\kappa ^{\prime \prime }$ depend on the sample geometry and on the

268: ratio $\lambda_{1}/\lambda_{2}$ of the spin-orbit lengths. The coefficient 

269: $\kappa ^{\prime \prime }$ also depends on the direction of the magnetic

270: field. The coefficient $\kappa $ depends on the sample geometry only; it

271: appears both for the orbital contribution of the magnetic field and for the

272: spin-orbit term $a_{\bot }$ because both terms have the same spatial

273: dependence. For a circular quantum dot with radius $L$, mean free path 

274: $l\ll L$, Fermi velocity $v_{F}$, and $\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}=\lambda $,

275: one has $E_{\mathrm{Th}}=\hbar v_{F}l/2L^{2}$, $\kappa =2$, $\kappa ^{\prime

276: }=1/3$ and $\kappa ^{\prime \prime }\approx 0.292$, see App.\ \ref{app:1}.

277: 

278: If the spin-orbit coupling is non-uniform, i.e., when the spin-orbit lengths 

279: $\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$ depend on position, the \textquotedblleft

280: spin-dependent vector potential\textquotedblright\ in Eq.\

281: (\ref{eq:FullHam}) can no longer be gauged away to leading order 

282: in $L/\lambda_{1,2}$. A

283: spatially non-uniform spin-orbit coupling can be created intentionally, with

284: the help of a metal gate parallel to the two-dimensional electron gas that

285: changes the asymmetry of the quantum well.\cite{Shayegan,Marcus,Zumbuehl},

286: or arise as a by-product of the confining gates. Generically, the

287: non-uniformity gives rise to a term in the Hamiltonian of the same symmetry

288: as $\mathbf{a}_{\Vert }$ in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:hamiltonian}).\cite{BCH} Hence,

289: the main effect of non-uniformities is to increase the corresponding energy

290: scale $\varepsilon_{\Vert }^{\mathrm{so}}$ by an amount of order 

291: $E_{\mathrm{Th}}(L/\lambda_{\mathrm{fl}})^{2}$, where 

292: $1/\lambda_{\mathrm{f}}$

293: is a measure of the fluctuations of the spin-orbit coupling $\lambda

294: _{1,2}^{-1}$.\cite{BCH} For very small quantum dots, this increase of 

295: $\varepsilon_{\Vert }^{\mathrm{so}}$ may eventually reverse the first

296: inequality in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:ineq}). 

297: 

298: It is the existence of two energy scales each to describe the strength of

299: the spin-orbit and Zeeman terms in the Hamiltonian that leads to the rich

300: parameter dependence of the conductance distribution of a chaotic quantum

301: dot. When all relevant energy scales are either much larger or much smaller

302: than the escape rate, the scattering matrix has a well defined symmetry, and

303: the conductance distribution can be found using symmetry considerations

304: alone.\cite{AF} 

305: It is the goal of this paper to address the general parameter regime, where

306: an interpolation between the various symmetry classes is called for. Our

307: results are important for a quantitative analysis of recent experiments by

308: Zumb\"{u}hl \emph{et al.},\cite{Zumbuehl} and for the development of

309: techniques for experimental determination of spin-orbit coupling 

310: parameters. Looking

311: into various regimes, we show how to extract such information from (a) weak

312: localization measurements in the presence of an in-plane magnetic field; (b)

313: an analysis of how the in-plane magnetic field gives rise to a

314: component of the magnetoconductance that is anti-symmetric

315: in the perpendicular magnetic field; and (c) from the possible 

316: observation of a \textquotedblleft

317: magnetic field echo\textquotedblright\ in the auto-correlation function of

318: conductance fluctuations.

319: 

320: The latter prediction is made on the basis of the following

321: theoretical observation. After the unitary transformation (\ref{eq:U}), the

322: leading spin-orbit term $\mathbf{a}_{\bot }^{\mathrm{so}}$ has precisely the

323: same spatial dependence as the vector potential due to the orbital

324: magnetic field (in a symmetric gauge). Hence, 

325: $\mathbf{a}_{\bot }^{\mathrm{so}}$ can be regarded as an effective 

326: magnetic field perpendicular

327: to the plane of the quantum well and of opposite sign for the two spin

328: directions. A suitably chosen orbital magnetic field can balance this

329: effective field, or change its sign for one spin direction, leading to a

330: partial re-appearance of weak localization and to a \textquotedblleft

331: magnetic field echo\textquotedblright in the auto-correlation

332: function of conductance fluctuations. The magnetic field echo

333: appears in the magnetoconductance autocorrelation function for

334: a magnetic field difference

335: \begin{equation}

336:   \Delta B_3 = \frac{\hbar}{e \lambda_1 \lambda_2};

337: \end{equation}

338: The shift of weak localization peaks is by half this field

339: strength.

340: 

341: According to the Onsager's relations, the two-terminal conductance of a

342: non-magnetic system is symmetric with respect to reversal of the

343: magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$. In the absence of spin-orbit coupling, 

344: the symmetry with respect to the reversal of the perpendicular

345: magnetic field component $B_{3}$ would persist even in the presence 

346: of Zeeman splitting caused in a 2D

347: electron gas by the in-plane magnetic field $\mathbf{B}_{\Vert}$

348: (excluding effects arising from the finite width of the quantum

349: well.\cite{FJ}) However,

350: in the presence of even a weak SO coupling, the exact symmetry exists

351: only if both $B_{3}$ and $B_{\Vert }$ are reversed simultaneously, 

352: whereas the reversal of the perpendicular component only generates an

353: antisymmetric contribution to the magnetoconductance with variance   

354: \begin{equation}

355: \mathrm{var}\left[ G(B_{3},B_{\Vert })-G(-B_{3},B_{\Vert })\right] \sim 

356: \dfrac{\left( \varepsilon ^{\mathrm{Z}}\right) ^{2}

357: \varepsilon_{\Vert }^{\mathrm{SO}}}{\left( N\Delta /2\pi \right)^{3}} 

358: \left( \dfrac{e^{2}}{h}\right) ^{2},  

359:   \label{eq:AsymmetricPart}

360: \end{equation}%

361: where $N$ is the number of channels in the leads, $\Delta $ is the

362: mean level spacing in the dot, and $\langle G \rangle$ is the

363: ensemble-averaged conductance of the quantum dot. Since the

364: fluctuating antisymmetric contribution the conductance,

365: $G(B_{3},B_{\Vert })- G(-B_{z},B_{\Vert })$ is linear in the in-plane

366: magnetic field, $\varepsilon ^{\mathrm{Z}}\approx g\mu_{B}B_{\Vert

367: }$, it dominates over the conductance asymmetry caused by

368: inter-subband mixing due to the in-plane magnetic field for

369: intermediate magnetic fields strengths,\cite{FJ} which is proportional

370: to $B_{\Vert }^{3}$.

371: 

372: \section{Average conductance}

373: 

374: \label{sec:2} 

375: 

376: The starting point of our calculation is the Landauer formula for the

377: two-terminal conductance $G$ of the quantum dot at zero temperature, 

378: \begin{equation}

379: G = {\frac{2e^{2}}{h}}{\frac{N_{1}N_{2}}{N}} - {\frac{e^{2}}{h}}

380: \mbox{tr}\,S\Lambda S^{\dagger }\Lambda,  \label{eq:Landauer}

381: \end{equation}

382: where the diagonal matrix $\Lambda $ has elements 

383: \begin{equation}

384: \Lambda_{jj}=\left\{ 

385: \begin{array}{ll}

386: N_{2}/N, & j=1,\ldots ,N_{1}, \\ 

387: -N_{1}/N, & j=N_{1}+1,\ldots ,N.

388: \end{array}

389: \right.

390: \end{equation}

391: As a matrix of complex numbers, the scattering matrix $S$ has dimension $2N

392: = 2(N_1 + N_2)$; it may also be seen as an $N \times N$ matrix of

393: quaternions, which are $2 \times 2$ matrices with special rules for complex

394: conjugation and transposition.\cite{Mehta}

395: 

396: \begin{figure}[t]

397: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize 

398: \epsffile{fig1.eps} 

399: \caption{Illustration of the quantum dot with stub. Energy dependent

400: scattering from the quantum dot in the presence of spin-orbit coupling and a

401: magnetic field is modeled as scattering from a chaotic quantum dot with a

402: parameter independent scattering matrix $U$, with a stub described by a

403: reflection matrix $R$ which depends on energy, spin-orbit coupling and the

404: magnetic field. }

405: \label{fig:1a}

406: \end{figure}

407: 

408: In order to calculate the average of the conductance at Fermi energy 

409: $\varepsilon $ and magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$, or the covariance at energies 

410: $\varepsilon $ and $\varepsilon ^{\prime }$ and magnetic fields $\mathbf{B}$

411: and $\mathbf{B}^{\prime }$, it is sufficient to compute the average 

412: \begin{equation}

413: \langle S_{kl;\mu \nu }(\varepsilon ,\mathbf{B})S_{k^{\prime }l^{\prime

414: };\mu ^{\prime }\nu ^{\prime }}(\varepsilon ^{\prime },\mathbf{B}^{\prime

415: })^{\ast }\rangle ,  \label{eq:corr}

416: \end{equation}%

417: where roman indices refer to the propagating channels in the leads, and

418: Greek indices refer to spin. Hereto, we need a statistical description of

419: the scattering matrix $S$ in the presence of spin-orbit scattering and for

420: arbitrary values of the magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$ and Fermi energy 

421: $\varepsilon $. Within the \textquotedblleft random scattering matrix

422: approach\textquotedblright\ of random-matrix theory, this is provided by the

423: \textquotedblleft stub model\textquotedblright .\cite{WavesRM} In this

424: model, a fictitious \textquotedblleft stub\textquotedblright\ is attached to

425: the quantum dot, see Fig.\ \ref{fig:1a}. If the number of channels in the

426: stub is $M-N$, the scattering matrix $S$ can be written 

427: \begin{equation}

428: S=PU(1-Q^{\dagger }RQU)^{-1}P^{\dagger },  \label{eq:SU}

429: \end{equation}%

430: where $U$ is the $M\times M$ scattering matrix of the quantum dot (without

431: stub), $R$ is the $(M-N)$-dimensional reflection matrix of the stub, and $P$

432: and $Q$ are $N\times M$ and $(M-N)\times M$ projection matrices,

433: respectively, with $P_{ij}=\delta_{i,j}\openone$, and $Q_{ij}=\delta

434: _{i+N,j}\openone$. (Here $\openone$ is the $2\times 2$ unit matrix in spin

435: space.) The area and width of the stub are chosen such that (i) the dwell

436: time in the stub is much larger than the dwell time in the quantum dot and

437: (ii) the time for ergodic exploration of the dot plus stub system is much

438: shorter than the time for escape into one of the two leads. The first

439: condition ensures that all dependence on Fermi energy, magnetic field, or

440: spin-orbit scattering rate will be through the reflection matrix $R$, so

441: that the matrix $U$ can be taken at a fixed reference energy $\varepsilon =0$

442: and at zero magnetic field and spin-orbit scattering rate. Since scattering

443: from the quantum dot is chaotic, this implies that elements of $U$ are

444: proportional to the $2\times 2$ unit matrix in spin space $\openone$ and

445: that $U$ can be chosen from Dyson's circular orthogonal ensemble of random

446: matrix theory.\cite{Beenakker97} The second condition, which requires $M\gg

447: N $, ensures that electrons explore the phase space of the combined dot plus

448: stub system ergodically before they exit to the leads, so that the

449: distribution of the scattering matrix $S$ remains universal and is

450: unaffected by the addition of the stub. Indeed, the parametric dependence of

451: the scattering matrix described by the stub model has been shown to be the

452: same as that described by the Hamiltonian approach of random-matrix 

453: theory.\cite{WavesRM}

454: 

455: We take the reflection matrix $R$ of the form 

456: \begin{equation}

457: R=\mbox{exp}\left[ \frac{2\pi i}{M\Delta }(\varepsilon -

458: \mathcal{{H^{\prime }})}\right] ,  \label{eq:R}

459: \end{equation}%

460: where $\Delta $ is the mean level spacing of the closed dot and 

461: $\mathcal{{H^{\prime }}}$ is an $(M-N)$ dimensional matrix which 

462: describes the effect

463: of the magnetic field and spin-orbit scattering, 

464: \begin{eqnarray}

465: {\mathcal{H}^{\prime }} &=&\frac{\Delta }{2\pi }

466:   \left[i \mathcal{X}(x\openone+a_{\bot }\sigma_{3})+

467:   ia\left( \mathcal{A}_{1}\sigma_{1}+\mathcal{A}_{2}\sigma_{2}\right) 

468:   \right.  \notag \\

469: &&\left. \mbox{}-\mathbf{b}\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}+b_{\bot }

470:   \mathcal{B}_{h}\sigma_{3})\right] .

471: \end{eqnarray}%

472: Here $\mathcal{X}$, $\mathcal{A}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{2}$ are real

473: antisymmetric matrices, with $\left\langle \mbox{tr}\,

474: \mathcal{XX}^{T}\right\rangle =M^{2}$ and $\left\langle \mbox{tr}\,

475: \mathcal{A}_{i}

476: \mathcal{A}_{j}^{T}\right\rangle =\delta_{ij}M^{2}$, while $\mathcal{B}_{h}$

477: is a real symmetric matrix with $\left\langle \mbox{tr}\,\mathcal{B}

478: _{h}^{2}\right\rangle =M^{2}$. The dimensionless parameters $x$, $a_{\bot }$

479: , $a$, $b$, and $b_{\bot }$ correspond to the energy scales defined in

480: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:E_so}) as 

481: \begin{eqnarray}

482: x^{2} &=&\pi \varepsilon_{B}/\Delta ,  \notag \\

483: a_{\bot }^{2} &=&\pi \varepsilon_{\bot }^{\mbox{so}}/\Delta ,  \notag \\

484: a^{2} &=&\pi \varepsilon_{\Vert }^{\mbox{so}}/\Delta ,  \label{eq:defs} \\

485: b &=&\pi \varepsilon ^{\mathrm{Z}}/\Delta ,  \notag \\

486: b_{\bot }^{2} &=&\pi \varepsilon_{\bot }^{\mathrm{Z}}/\Delta .  \notag

487: \end{eqnarray}

488: We define the corresponding quantities $x^{\prime }$, $b^{\prime }$,

489: and $b_{\bot }^{\prime }$ when calculating a correlator between 

490: scattering matrix

491: elements at different values $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{B}^{\prime }$ of the

492: magnetic field. For weak uniform spin-orbit scattering, one has the

493: strong inequalities $a \ll a_{\bot}$, $b_{\bot} \ll b$.

494: 

495: To calculate the correlator (\ref{eq:corr}), we expand $S$ in powers of $U$

496: using Eq.~(\ref{eq:SU}) and integrate $U$ over the space of unitary

497: symmetric matrices using the diagrammatic technique of Ref.\

498: \onlinecite{diagrams}. To leading order in $1/M$ and $1/N$ we can take the

499: elements of $U$ to be Gaussian random variables with mean zero and with

500: variance $\left\langle U_{ij}U_{kl}^{\ast }\right\rangle =M^{-1}\left(

501: \delta_{ik}\delta_{jl}+\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}\right) $. Then only ladder

502: diagrams and maximally crossed diagrams contribute to the correlator

503: Eq.\ 

504: (\ref{eq:corr}). Summing the contributions from these two classes of

505: diagrams yields 

506: \begin{eqnarray}

507: \langle S_{kl;\mu \nu }^{\vphantom{*}}(\varepsilon ,\mathbf{B})S_{k^{\prime

508: }l^{\prime };\mu ^{\prime }\nu ^{\prime }}^{\ast }(\varepsilon ^{\prime },

509: \mathbf{B}^{\prime })\rangle \! &=&\delta_{kk^{\prime }}\delta_{ll^{\prime

510: }}D_{\mu \nu ;\nu ^{\prime }\mu ^{\prime }} \\

511: &&\!\mbox{}+\delta_{kl^{\prime }}\delta_{lk^{\prime }}(\mathcal{T}

512: C \mathcal{T})_{\mu \nu ;\mu ^{\prime }\nu ^{\prime }},  \notag

513: \end{eqnarray}%

514: where 

515: \begin{eqnarray}

516: D &=&\left( M\openone\otimes \openone-\mbox{tr}\,R\otimes R^{\prime

517: }{}^{\dagger }\right) ^{-1},  \notag \\

518: C &=&\left( M\openone\otimes \openone-\mbox{tr}\,R\otimes R^{\prime

519: }{}^{\ast }\right) ^{-1}.  \label{eq:CD_defs}

520: \end{eqnarray}%

521: Here $R^{\prime }$ is given by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:R}), with $x$, $b$, $b_{\bot }$

522: and $\varepsilon $ replaced by $x^{\prime }$, $b^{\prime }$, $b_{\bot

523: }^{\prime }$ and $\varepsilon ^{\prime }$, respectively. The superscript $

524: \ast $ denotes the quaternion complex conjugate of $R^{\prime }$, 

525: $\mathcal{T}=\openone\otimes \sigma_{2}$, and the trace is taken 

526: over the channel

527: indices only. The tensor multiplication in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:CD_defs}) has a

528: reverse-order multiplication for the Pauli matrices in second place, 

529: \begin{equation}

530: (\sigma_{i}\otimes \sigma_{j})(\sigma_{i^{\prime }}\otimes \sigma

531: _{j^{\prime }})=(\sigma_{i}\sigma_{i^{\prime }})\otimes (\sigma

532: _{j^{\prime }}\sigma_{j}).  \label{eq:mult}

533: \end{equation}%

534: The two contributions $C$ and $D$ are the equivalents of cooperon and

535: diffuson in the conventional diagrammatic perturbation 

536: theory.\cite{SimonsAltshuler} Taking the limit $M\rightarrow \infty $ 

537: and using Eq.\ (\ref{eq:R}) we find 

538: \begin{eqnarray}

539: D^{-1} &=&N\openone\otimes \openone+\frac{2\pi i(\varepsilon -\varepsilon

540: ^{\prime })}{\Delta }\openone\otimes \openone  \notag  \label{eq:D} \\

541: &&\mbox{}+\frac{1}{2}[(x-x^{\prime })\openone\otimes \openone+a_{\bot

542: }(\sigma_{3}\otimes \openone-\openone\otimes \sigma_{3})]^{2}  \notag \\

543: &&\mbox{}+\frac{1}{2}a^{2}(\sigma_{1}\otimes \openone-\openone\otimes

544: \sigma_{1})^{2}  \notag \\

545: &&\mbox{}+\frac{1}{2}a^{2}(\sigma_{2}\otimes \openone-\openone\otimes

546: \sigma_{2})^{2}  \notag \\

547: &&\mbox{}+i\mathbf{b}\cdot (\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\otimes \openone-

548: \openone\otimes \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$})  \notag \\

549: &&\mbox{}+\frac{1}{2}(h\sigma_{3}\otimes \openone-h^{\prime }\openone

550: \otimes \sigma_{3})^{2}.

551: \end{eqnarray}%

552: \begin{eqnarray}

553: C^{-1} &=&N\openone\otimes \openone+\frac{2\pi i(\varepsilon -\varepsilon

554: ^{\prime })}{\Delta }\openone\otimes \openone  \notag  \label{eq:C} \\

555: &&\mbox{}+\frac{1}{2}[(x+x^{\prime })\openone\otimes \openone+a_{\bot

556: }(\sigma_{3}\otimes \openone-\openone\otimes \sigma_{3})]^{2}  \notag \\

557: &&\mbox{}+\frac{1}{2}a^{2}(\sigma_{1}\otimes \openone-\openone\otimes

558: \sigma_{1})^{2}  \notag \\

559: &&\mbox{}+\frac{1}{2}a^{2}(\sigma_{2}\otimes \openone-\openone\otimes

560: \sigma_{2})^{2}  \notag \\

561: &&\mbox{}+i\mathbf{b}\cdot (\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}\otimes \openone+

562: \openone\otimes \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$})  \notag \\

563: &&\mbox{}+\frac{1}{2}(h\sigma_{3}\otimes \openone+h^{\prime }\openone

564: \otimes \sigma_{3})^{2}.

565: \end{eqnarray}

566: 

567: \begin{figure}[t]

568: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize 

569: \epsffile{fig2.eps} 

570: \caption{Dependence of the quantum-interference correction to the

571: conductance, $\protect\delta G$, on the perpendicular magnetic field $x$.

572: The conductance is measured in units of $(2e^2/h)N_{1}N_{2}/(N_1+N_2)^2$.

573: Panel (a) shows $\protect\delta G$ for $a_{\bot}=3$, $a=0$, $b_{\bot}=0$ and

574: two values of the parallel magnetic field, $b=0$ and $b=3$, and for the

575: limit $b \to \infty$. Panel (b) shows $\protect\delta G$ for

576: $a_{\bot}=3$, 

577: $b=b_{\bot}=0$, and three values of the spin-orbit parameter $a$:

578: $a=0$, 

579: $a=0.5$ and $a\to \infty$. Panel (c) shows $\protect\delta G$ in the

580: crossover regime, with $a_{\bot}=3.0$, $a=0.5$, and for the same values of

581: the parallel magnetic field as in (a). In all three plots, we have set 

582: $b_{\bot} = 0$. Choosing $b_{\bot} \ll b^2$ is appropriate for small quantum

583: dots with $L \ll \protect\lambda_{1,2}$. A small nonzero value of $b_{\bot}$

584: has only a slight effect on the shape of the curves, its general effect

585: being to further reduce weak antilocalization. }

586: \label{fig:1}

587: \end{figure}

588: 

589: Setting $x^{\prime}=x$, $\mathbf{b}=\mathbf{b}^{\prime}=b \hat {e_1}$

590: and 

591: $b_{\bot}^{\prime}=b_{\bot}$, we find the average conductance, 

592: \begin{eqnarray}

593: \left\langle G\right\rangle &=&\frac{2e^{2}}{h}\frac{N_{1}N_{2}}{N_1+N_2} +

594: \delta G, \\

595: \delta G &=& -\frac{e^2}{h} \frac{N_1 N_2}{N_1+N_2} \sum_{\mu ,\nu }\left( 

596: \mathcal{T}C\mathcal{T}\right)_{\mu \nu ;\mu \nu}  \notag \\

597: &=& -\frac{e^2}{h} \frac{N_1 N_2}{N_1+N_2} \left( \frac{1}{4 a^2 + F_C}

598: \right.  \notag \\

599: && \left. \mbox{} + \frac{4b^{2}+G_C^2+2G_{C}F_{C}-16 a_{\bot}^2 x^2}{

600: 4G_{C}b^{2}+G_{C}^{2}F_{C}-16a_{\bot}^{2}F_{C}x^{2}} \right),

601: \label{eq:weak}

602: \end{eqnarray}

603: where we abbreviated 

604: \begin{eqnarray}

605: F_{C} &=&N+2\left(x^{2}+b_{\bot}^{2}\right)  \label{eq:fc} \\

606: G_{C} &=&N+2\left(x^{2}+ a^{2}+a_{\bot}^{2}\right).  \notag

607: \end{eqnarray}

608: The expression for the average conductance simplifies considerably when

609: either the perpendicular magnetic field or the parallel magnetic field is

610: zero. In the first case, $b=b_{\bot}=0$, one finds 

611: \begin{eqnarray}

612: \delta G &=& \frac{e^2}{h} \frac{N_1 N_2}{N_1+N_2} \left[\frac{1}{N + 2x^2}

613: - \frac{1}{4a^2 + N + 2x^2}\right.  \notag \\

614: && \left.\mbox{} - \sum_{\pm} \frac{1}{2a^2 + N + 2(a_{\bot} \pm x)^2}

615: \right].

616: \end{eqnarray}

617: This simple result can be understood recalling that the spin-orbit coupling

618: term $a_{\bot}$ acts as an effective perpendicular field with opposite sign

619: for up and down spins. When the applied perpendicular field $x$ exactly

620: cancels this effective field, i.e., when $x=\pm a_{\bot}$, time-reversal

621: symmetry is ``restored'' for one spin direction, leading to a weak

622: localization-like correction to the conductance centered at $x = \pm

623: a_{\bot} $. A non-zero value of the spin-orbit coupling term $a$ leads to a

624: weak antilocalization peak at $x=0$, while a finite parallel magnetic fields

625: causes a weak-localization peak at zero perpendicular field, as is

626: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}b and a, respectively. Both a parallel

627: magnetic field and the spin-orbit coupling term $a$ suppress the features at 

628: $x = \pm a_{\bot}$. (The case $a\gg a_{\bot}$ is applicable when the

629: spin-orbit coupling is not uniform, as discussed in the introduction.)

630: Figure \ref{fig:1}c shows an example for the dependence of the

631: conductance $G $ on the perpendicular field in the crossover regime

632: when all parameters 

633: ($a_{\bot}$, $a$, and $b$) are important.

634: 

635: In the special case when the perpendicular magnetic field, $x$, is zero, we

636: find 

637: \begin{eqnarray}

638: \delta G &=& -\frac{e^2}{h} \frac{N_1 N_2}{N_1+N_2} \left[ \frac{1}{N + 2

639: a^2 + 2a_{\bot}^2} \right.  \notag \\

640: && \left. \mbox{} - \frac{2 a^2 + 2a_{\bot}^2 - b_{\bot}^2} {4 b^2 + (N + 2

641: b_{\bot}^2)(N + 2 a^2 + 2a_{\bot}^2)} \right.  \notag \\

642: && \left. \mbox{} + \frac{1}{N + 4 a^2 + 2 b_{\bot}^2} \right].

643: \end{eqnarray}

644: In the case of uniform spin-orbit scattering, this may be further simplified

645: using $a^{2}\ll a_{\bot}^2$ and $b_{\bot}^2\ll b$,\cite{AF} 

646: \begin{eqnarray}

647: \delta G &=& -\frac{e^2}{h} \frac{N_1 N_2}{N_1+N_2} \left[ \frac{1}{2

648: a_{\bot}^2 + N}\right.  \label{eq:G_x0} \\

649: &&\left. \mbox{} - \frac{1}{4 a^2 + 2 b_{\bot}^2 + N} +\frac{a_{\bot}^2}{4

650: b^2 + N^2 + 2 N a_{\bot}^2}\right].  \notag

651: \end{eqnarray}

652: 

653: At finite temperatures, dephasing will lead to a further suppression of weak

654: localization. Dephasing can be included in the theory presented here by the

655: introduction of a fictitious voltage probe.\cite{BuettikerVoltage,BM,BB}

656: This amounts to the replacement $N\rightarrow N+\hbar /\tau_{\phi }\Delta $

657: in the final results (\ref{eq:weak})--(\ref{eq:G_x0}), where $\tau_{\phi }$

658: is the dephasing time and $\Delta $ is the mean level spacing in the closed

659: quantum dot.\cite{BCH}

660: 

661: \section{Conductance fluctuations}

662: 

663: \label{sec:3}

664: 

665: Conductance fluctuations are described by the covariance of the conductance

666: at two different values $\varepsilon $ and $\varepsilon ^{\prime }$ of the

667: Fermi energy and at two different magnetic fields $\mathbf{B}$ and 

668: $\mathbf{B}^{\prime }$, 

669: \begin{eqnarray}

670:   \mbox{cov}\,[G(\varepsilon ,\mathbf{B}),

671:   G(\varepsilon ^{\prime },\mathbf{B}^{\prime })] &=&

672:   \langle G(\varepsilon ,\mathbf{B}),G(\varepsilon ^{\prime },

673:   \mathbf{B}^{\prime })\rangle  \notag  \label{eq:cov_def} \\

674:   &&\mbox{}-\langle G(\varepsilon ,\mathbf{B})\rangle \langle 

675:   G(\varepsilon^{\prime },\mathbf{B}^{\prime })\rangle .  \notag \\

676: &&

677: \end{eqnarray}%

678: For this calculation, we need to know the average of a product of four

679: scattering matrix elements. However, if the conductance is expressed in

680: terms of the scattering matrix $S$ using Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Landauer}), to

681: leading order in $1/N$, the scattering matrix elements may be considered

682: Gaussian random numbers, and the average of four scattering matrix elements

683: can be factorized into products of pair averages of the form of Eq.\ 

684: (\ref{eq:corr}).\cite{Argaman} One thus obtains 

685: \begin{eqnarray}

686: \mbox{cov}\,\left[ G\left( \varepsilon ,\mathbf{B}\right) ,G\left(

687: \varepsilon ^{\prime },\mathbf{B}^{\prime }\right) \right] &=&\left( 

688: \frac{e^{2}}{h}\right) ^{2}\left( \frac{N_{1}N_{2}}{N_{1}+N_{2}}\right)^{2} 

689: \notag \\

690: &&\mbox{}\times \left( V_{D}+V_{C}\right) ,  \label{eq:covresult}

691: \end{eqnarray}

692: where 

693: \begin{widetext}

694: \begin{eqnarray} 

695:   \label{eq:D_def}

696:   V_D &=& \sum_{\mu,\nu,\mu',\nu' =\pm}

697:   D_{\mu \nu ;\mu' \nu'}D_{\nu' \mu';\nu \mu }

698:   \\

699:   &=& 

700:   \frac{\Xi_{D}}{\left| (b^{2}-b^{\prime

701: }{}^{2})^{2}+2K_{D}(-4a^{2}bb^{\prime }+(b^{2}+b^{\prime

702: }{}^{2})L_{D})+(L_{D}^{2}-4a^{4})(K_{D}^{2}-4a_{\bot}^{2}(x-x^{\prime

703: })^{2})\right| ^{2}}, \nonumber \\

704:   \label{eq:C_def}

705:   V_C &=& \sum_{\mu,\nu,\mu',\nu' =\pm}

706:   \left( {\cal T}C{\cal T}\right)_{\mu \nu ;\mu' \nu'}

707:   \left( {\cal T}C{\cal T}\right)_{\mu' \nu' ;\mu \nu}

708:   \\ &=& \nonumber

709:   \frac{\Xi_{C}}{\left| (b^{2}-b^{\prime

710: }{}^{2})^{2}+2K_{C}(4a^{2}bb^{\prime }+(b^{2}+b^{\prime

711: }{}^{2})L_{C})+(L_{C}^{2}-4a^{4})(K_{C}^{2}-4a_{\bot}^{2}(x+x^{\prime

712: })^{2})\right| ^{2}},

713: \end{eqnarray}

714: Here we abbreviated 

715: \begin{eqnarray*}

716: \Xi_{D} &=& 

717:   2\left| K_{D}(4a^{4}-L_{D}^{2})+

718:   4a^{2}bb^{\prime }-L_{D}(b^{2}+b^{\prime}{}^{2})\right| ^{2}

719: %  \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}

720:   + 2\left| K_{D}(b^{2}+b^{\prime}{}^{2})+K_{D}^{2}L_{D}-

721:   4a_{\bot}^{2}L_{D}(x-x^{\prime })^{2}\right|^{2}\\

722:   && \mbox{} + 

723:   8a_{\bot}^{2}(x-x^{\prime })^{2}\left(\left(b+b^{\prime }\right)^2+

724:   \left|L_{D}+2a^2\right|^2\right)\left(\left(b-b^{\prime }\right)^2+

725:   \left|L_{D}-2a^2\right|^2\right)

726: %  \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}

727:   +8\left| K_{D}bb^{\prime }+a^{2}(K_{D}^{2}-

728:   4a_{\bot}^{2}(x-x^{\prime})^{2})\right| ^{2}

729:   \\ && \mbox{} 

730:   + 4\left| b(b^{2}-b^{\prime }{}^{2})-K_{D}(2a^{2}b^{\prime}- 

731:   bL_{D})\right|^{2}+4\left| b^{\prime }(b^{\prime }{}^{2}-b^{2})-

732:   K_{D}(2a^{2}b-b^{\prime}L_{D})\right| ^{2} 

733: %  \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}

734:   + 8\left| a^{2}(b^{2}+b^{\prime }{}^{2})-

735:   bb^{\prime }L_{D}\right|^{2} \\

736:   \Xi_{C} &=& 2\left| K_{C}(4a^{4}-L_{C}^{2})-

737:   4a^{2}bb^{\prime }-L_{C}(b^{2}+b^{\prime}{}^{2})\right| ^{2}

738: %  \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}

739:   + 2\left| K_{C}(b^{2}+b^{\prime}{}^{2})+K_{C}^{2}L_{C}-

740:   4a_{\bot}^{2}L_{C}(x+x^{\prime })^{2}\right|^{2}\\

741:   && \mbox{} 

742:   + 8a_{\bot}^{2}(x+x^{\prime })^{2}\left(\left(b-b^{\prime }\right)^2+

743:   \left|L_{C}+2a^2\right|^2\right)\left(\left(b+b^{\prime }\right)^2+

744:   \left|L_{C}-2a^2\right|^2\right)

745: %  \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}

746:   + 8\left| K_{C}bb^{\prime }+a^{2}(-K_{C}^{2}+

747:   4a_{\bot}^{2}(x+x^{\prime})^{2})\right| ^{2}

748:   \\ && \mbox{} 

749:   + 4\left| b(b^{2}-b^{\prime }{}^{2})+

750:   K_{C}(2a^{2}b^{\prime} + bL_{C})\right|^{2}

751:   +4\left| b^{\prime }(b^{\prime }{}^{2}-b^{2})+

752:   K_{C}(2a^{2}b+b^{\prime}L_{C})\right| ^{2}

753: %  \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}

754:   + 8\left| a^{2}(b^{2}+b^{\prime }{}^{2})+

755: bb^{\prime }L_{C}\right|^{2}

756: \end{eqnarray*}

757: and 

758: \begin{eqnarray*}

759:   K_{D} &=& N + \frac{2\pi i ( \varepsilon -\varepsilon')}{\Delta} 

760:   + \frac{1}{2}\left(x-x^{\prime}\right)^2+

761: 2\left( a^{2}+a_{\bot}^{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(b_{\bot}+

762: b_{\bot}^{\prime}\right)^2, \\

763:   L_{D} &=& N + \frac{2\pi i ( \varepsilon -\varepsilon')}{\Delta} 

764:   +\frac{1}{2}\left(x-x^{\prime}\right)^2+

765: 2a^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(b_{\bot}-b_{\bot}^{\prime}\right)^2, \\

766:   K_{C} &=& N + \frac{2\pi i ( \varepsilon -\varepsilon')}{\Delta} 

767:   +\frac{1}{2}\left(x+x^{\prime}\right)^2+

768:   2\left( a^{2}+a_{\bot}^{2}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\left(b_{\bot}-

769:   b_{\bot}^{\prime}\right)^2, \\

770:   L_{C} &=& N + \frac{2\pi i ( \varepsilon -\varepsilon')}{\Delta} 

771:   +\frac{1}{2}\left(x+x^{\prime}\right)^2+

772:   2a^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(b_{\bot}+b_{\bot}^{\prime}\right)^2.

773: \end{eqnarray*}

774: 

775: 

776: \subsection{Variance}

777: 

778: The variance of the conductance at zero temperature is obtained from

779: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:covresult}) by setting $\varepsilon' = \varepsilon$ and

780: $\mathbf{B'} = \mathbf{B}$,

781: \begin{eqnarray}

782:   \mbox{var}\, G &=&

783:   \frac{e^{4}}{h^{2}} \frac{N_{1}^{2}N_{2}^{2}}{(N_1+N_2)^2}

784:   \left[\frac{1}{N^2} + \frac{1}{G_D^2} +

785:   \frac{8 b^2 + G_D^2 + (4 a^2 + N)^2}{(4 a^2 G_D + 4 b^2 + G_D N)^2}

786:   + \frac{1}{(4 a^2 + F_C)^2}

787:   \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. \mbox{}

788:   + \frac{2 F_C}{G_C (4 b^2 + G_C F_C) - 16 a_{\bot}^2 F_C x^2}

789: %  \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. \mbox{}

790:   + \frac{(4 b^2 + G_C^2 + 16 a_{\bot}^2 x^2)^2

791:     + 64 a_{\bot}^2 x^2 (F_C^2 - G_C^2)}

792:   {(G_C (4 b^2 + G_C F_C) - 16 a_{\bot}^2 F_C x^2)^2} \right].

793:   \label{eq:genvar}

794: \end{eqnarray}

795: where $F_{C}$ and $G_{C}$ are given by Eq.\ (\ref{eq:fc}), and

796: \begin{equation}  

797:   G_{D} =N+2\left( a^{2}+a_{\bot}^{2}+b_{\bot}^{2}\right).

798: \end{equation}

799: Simplifications occur in the limits of zero parallel or

800: perpendicular field, and for large perpendicular field. In the

801: absence of a parallel field, $b=b_{\bot}=0$, one finds the 

802: variance

803: \begin{eqnarray}

804: \mbox{var}\,  G &=& \frac{e^{4}}{h^{2}} \frac{N_{1}^{2}N_{2}^{2}}

805:   {(N_1 + N_2)^{2}}

806: \left[\frac{1}{(2 a^2 + N + 2 (a_{\bot} - x)^2)^2} + 

807: \frac{1}{(N + 2 x^2)^2} + \frac{1}{(4 a^2 + N + 2 x^2)^2}

808: \right.\nonumber \\ && \left. \mbox{}

809:   + \frac{1}{(2 a^2 + N + 2 (a_{\bot} + x)^2)^2}

810:   + \frac{1}{N^2} + \frac{1}{(4 a^2 + N)^2} + \frac{2}{(2 (a^2 +

811: a_{\bot}^2) + N)^2}\right],\label{eq:var_b0}

812: \end{eqnarray}

813: while in the absence of a perpendicular magnetic field, $x=0$, one has

814: \begin{eqnarray}

815: \mbox{var}\, G &=&\frac{e^{4}}{h^{2}} \frac{N_{1}^{2}N_{2}^{2}}

816:   {(N_1 + N_2)^{2}}\left[

817:   \frac{1}{N^2} + \frac{1}{(4 a^2 + 2 b_{\bot}^2 + N)^2} + \frac{2}{[2

818:   (a^2 + a_{\bot}^2 + b_{\bot}^2) + N]^2} 

819: %  \nonumber \right. \\ && \left. \mbox{}

820:   + \frac{2}{4 b^2 + (4 a^2 + N) [2 (a^2 + a_{\bot}^2) + N]}

821:   \nonumber \right. \\ && \left. \mbox{}

822:    + \frac{2}{4 b^2 + N (2 (a^2 + a_{\bot}^2) + N)} + 

823:   \frac{4 (a^2 + a_{\bot}^2)^2}

824:   {\left(4 b^2 + N [2 (a^2 + a_{\bot}^2) + N]\right)^2} 

825: %  \nonumber \right. \\ && \left. \mbox{}

826:   + \frac{4 (a^2 - a_{\bot}^2)^2}

827:   {\left(4 b^2

828: + (4 a^2 + N) [2 (a^2 + a_{\bot}^2) + N]\right)^2}\right].

829: \label{eq:var_x0}

830: \end{eqnarray}

831: In the last equality we also used $b_{\bot} \ll b^2$. 

832: In the limit of large perpendicular field, $x \gg 1$, one has

833: \begin{eqnarray}

834:   \mbox{var}\, G &=&\frac{e^{4}}{h^{2}} \frac{N_{1}^{2}N_{2}^{2}}

835:   {(N_1 + N_2)^{2}}\left[\frac{1}{N^2}+ 

836:   \frac{2}{4b^2 + (4a^2 + N)\left[2(a^2 + a_{\bot}^2 + b_{\bot}^2) + N\right]}

837:   \nonumber \right.\\

838:   && \left. \mbox{} +

839:   \frac{1}{\left[2(a^2 + a_{\bot}^2 + b_{\bot}^2) + N\right]^{2}}

840:   + \frac{4(-a^2 + a_{\bot}^2 + b_{\bot}^2)^2}

841:   {\left(4b^2 + (4a^2 + N)\left[2(a^2 + a_{\bot}^2 + b_{\bot}^2) +

842:   N\right]\right)^2}

843:   \right].

844: \end{eqnarray}

845: When

846: both the perpendicular and the parallel field are large, i.e. 

847: $x^{2},b\gg a_{\bot}^{2},a^{2},b_{\bot}^{2},N$ a particularly simple 

848: expression for the variance results 

849: \begin{eqnarray}

850: \nonumber

851: \mbox{var}\, G &=& \frac{e^{4}}{h^{2}}

852: \frac{N_{1}^{2}N_{2}^{2}}{(N_1+N_2)^{2}}\left[

853: \frac{1}{N^2} 

854:   + \frac{1}{\left(N + 2a^2 + 2a_{\bot}^2 

855:   + 2b_{\bot}^2\right)^{2}}\right].\label{eq:var_large}

856: \end{eqnarray}

857: \end{widetext}

858: 

859: \begin{figure}[t]

860: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize 

861: \epsffile{fig3.eps} 

862: \caption{Conductance fluctuations $\mbox{var}\, G$, measured in units

863:   of 

864: $[(e^2/h)(N_1 N_2)/(N_1 + N_2)^2]^2$ as a function of the perpendicular

865: magnetic field $x$, for $a_{\bot}=3$, $a=0$, $b_{\bot}=0$. From bottom to

866: top, the curves are for $b=0$, $b=3$, and for the limit $b \to \infty$.}

867: \label{fig:2}

868: \end{figure}

869: 

870: The variance of the conductance in the presence of spin-orbit coupling is

871: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, for three different parallel field strengths. An

872: increase of the conductance fluctuations is observed around $x= \pm 

873: a_{\bot}$. This feature is explained noting that at $x=\pm a_{\bot}$ the

874: perpendicular magnetic field exactly cancels the effective magnetic field

875: due to the spin-orbit coupling term $a_{\bot}$ for one spin direction, so

876: that the effective Hamiltonian for that spin direction is real, not complex.

877: A parallel field and the spin-orbit coupling term $a$ suppress this feature

878: (data for $a$ not shown). Both effects also reduce the variance at zero

879: perpendicular field by a factor of two.

880: 

881: At finite temperatures, both the effects of thermal smearing and dephasing

882: need to be taken into account for a calculation of the variance of the

883: conductance. Dephasing (with dephasing time $\tau_{\phi }$) is incorporated

884: in the results (\ref{eq:covresult})--(\ref{eq:var_large}) by the

885: substitution $N\rightarrow N+\hbar /\tau_{\phi }\Delta $. The effect of

886: thermal smearing requires an integration over the energies $\varepsilon $

887: and $\varepsilon ^{\prime }$, 

888: \begin{equation}

889: \mbox{var}\,G\left( T\right) =

890:   \int d\varepsilon d\varepsilon ^{\prime }

891:   \frac{df}{d\varepsilon }\frac{df}{d\varepsilon ^{\prime }}

892:   \mbox{cov}\left[G(\varepsilon ),G(\varepsilon ^{\prime })\right] ,

893:   \label{eq:T}

894: \end{equation}%

895: where $f$ is the Fermi distribution function. The integrations over energy

896: needs to be done by numerical methods in all but a few special cases. We

897: refer to Ref.\ \onlinecite{thesis} for details. Equation (\ref{eq:T}) was

898: used for a quantitative comparison of theory and experiment by Zumb\"{u}hl 

899: \emph{et al}.\cite{Zumbuehl}

900: 

901: \subsection{Symmetry with respect to perpendicular magnetic field inversion}

902: 

903: \label{sec:4}

904: 

905: The presence of spin-orbit coupling has interesting consequences for the

906: symmetry of the conductance under reversal of the perpendicular field.

907: Although, in general, the conductance does not change when the total

908: magnetic field is reversed, $b\rightarrow -b$, $b_{\bot }\rightarrow

909: -b_{\bot }$, and $x\rightarrow -x$, the conductance need not be symmetric

910: under reversal of the perpendicular component $x$ only. In order to study

911: the symmetry of the conductance under reversal of the perpendicular

912: component $x$ of the magnetic field, we consider the correlator 

913: \begin{equation}

914: Q(x)=\frac{\left\langle G(x)G(-x)\right\rangle -\langle G(x)\rangle

915:   ^{2}}

916: {\mbox{var}\,G(x)}

917: \end{equation}%

918: for $x^{2}\gg N$. Perfect symmetry under reversal of the perpendicular

919: component of the magnetic field only implies $Q(x)=1$, while the absence

920: of any correlations between $G(x)$ and $G(-x)$ implies $Q(x)=0$. 

921: 

922: Note that the invariance of the two-terminal conductance conductance 

923: under a complete reversal of the magnetic field implies that

924: $$

925:   \left\langle G(x,b)G(-x,b)\right\rangle =

926:   \left\langle G(x,b)G(x,-b)\right\rangle,

927: $$

928: so that $Q$ can also be defined as a correlator for conductances

929: at opposite values of the parallel magnetic field, keeping the

930: perpendicular field constant.

931: 

932: In the absence of an in-plane magnetic field, reversal of the

933: perpendicular magnetic field component is the same as reversal of the total

934: magnetic field, so that $G$ is trivially symmetric in $x$. In the absence

935: of spin-orbit scattering, the sole effect of the parallel magnetic field is

936: to lift spin degeneracy, and symmetry of $G$ follows from the fact that the

937: conductance for each spin species is symmetric in $x$. In the presence of

938: both spin-orbit scattering and an in-plane field, there is no general

939: symmetry that requires that $G$ is symmetric under reversal 

940: $B_{3}\rightarrow -B_{3}$, however the measure of observable

941: asymmetry depends upon to what cross-over symmetry class the generated

942: random matrix theory ensemble belongs.

943: 

944: Indeed, calculation of the correlator $Q(x)$ using our general result 

945: (\ref{eq:covresult}) for the covariance of the conductance shows that the

946: symmetry of the conductance with respect to reversal of the perpendicular

947: component of the magnetic field is destroyed when either $b\neq 0$ and 

948: $a\neq 0$, $b_{\bot }\neq 0$ and $a_{\bot }\neq 0$, or $b_{\bot }\neq

949: 0$ and 

950: $a\neq 0$. In the case $a=0$ and $b_{\bot }=0$, the conductance remains

951: symmetric in $x$, even if $a_{\bot }\neq 0$ and $b\neq 0$. In that case, the

952: effective Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:hamiltonian}) still has the extra

953: symmetry 

954: $\sigma_{1}\tilde{\mathcal{H}}\sigma_{1}=\tilde{\mathcal{H}}$, which

955: ensures the symmetry with respect to the perpendicular magnetic

956: field reversal.\cite{AF} Symmetry in the perpendicular component of the

957: magnetic field is also preserved if the parallel magnetic field is so large

958: that both $b$, $b_{\bot }\neq 0$, but $a_{\bot }^{2}\ll N$ and $a^{2}\ll N$,

959: see Ref.\ \onlinecite{AF} for a symmetry argument. Figure \ref{fig:3} shows

960: plots of $Q(x)$ for the two minimal cases $a=0$ or $b_{\bot }=0$. 

961: 

962: \begin{figure}[tbp]

963: \epsfxsize=0.9\hsize 

964: \epsffile{fig4.eps} 

965: \caption{The correlator $Q(x)=(\left\langle G(x)G(-x)\right\rangle -\langle

966: G(x)\rangle ^{2})/\mbox{var}\,G(x)$ for $x^{2}\gg N$. In panel (a), $Q$ is

967: shown as a function of parallel field $b$, with $a_{\bot }=b_{\bot }=0$. In

968: panel (b), $Q$ is shown as a function of spin-orbit coupling $a_{\bot }$,

969: with $b=5$ and $a=0$.}

970: \label{fig:3}

971: \end{figure}

972: 

973: The general parameter dependence of $Q(x)$ for $x^{2}\gg N$ can be obtained

974: from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:covresult}). Simple expressions are found in the

975: cases 

976: $b\gg N$ and $a_{\bot }^{2}\gg N$, for which we have 

977: \begin{equation}

978: Q=\frac{N^{2}}{\left( 4a^{2}+2b_{\bot }^{2}+N\right) ^{2}},

979: \label{eq:theta_large}

980: \end{equation}%

981: and for $b\gg N$, while still $b_{\bot }=0$, 

982: \begin{eqnarray}

983: Q &=&1-\left[ 1-\frac{N^{2}}{(4a^{2}+N)^{2}}\right]  \\

984: &&\mbox{}\times \left[ 1-\frac{N^{2}}{2\left[ (a^{2}+a_{\bot

985: }^{2})^{2}+(a^{2}+a_{\bot }^{2}+N)^{2}\right] }\right] .  \notag

986: \end{eqnarray}%

987: On the other hand, if $b\gg N$ and $b_{\perp }\gg N$, the correlation

988: function $Q$ is given by 

989: \begin{equation}

990: Q=\frac{N^{2}}{\left( 2a^{2}+2a_{\bot }^{2}+N\right) ^{2}},

991: \label{eq:theta_bblarge}

992: \end{equation}%

993: confirming that $G$ remains a symmetric function of $x$ if $b$ and $b_{\perp

994: }$ are large but $a$ and $a_{\perp }$ are not.

995: 

996: Experimentally, the component of the conductance fluctuations 

997: that is antisymmetric with respect to the reversal

998: $B_{3}\rightarrow -B_{3}$ in the presence of in-plane magnetic 

999: field can be used as a test to the strength of spin-orbit coupling, 

1000: even if $b\ll N$. This is

1001: because an alternative mechanism of time-reversal symmetry breaking by an

1002: in-plane magnetic field via the inter-subband mixing\cite{FJ} 

1003: generates anti-symmetric conductance fluctuations in the third order

1004: in the field only, thus 

1005: $1-Q(x\gg N)\sim B_{\Vert }^{6}$. In contrast, the spin-orbit-coupling 

1006: induced asymmetry, which can be analyzed by expanding $Q(x)$

1007: with respect to $b^{2}$ and $b_{\bot }^{2}$, has

1008: \begin{widetext}

1009: \begin{eqnarray}

1010:   Q &=& 1 - 4 [4 a^2 b^2 (32 a^4 a_{\perp}^4 + 24 a^2 a_{\perp}^4 N

1011:   + 6 a_{\perp}^4 N^2 + 4 a_{\perp}^2 N^3 + N^4) 

1012:   \nonumber \\ && \mbox{}

1013:   + a_{\perp}^2 b_{\perp}^2 (128 a^6 a_{\perp}^4 + 96 a^4 a_{\perp}^4 N

1014:   + 24 a^2 a_{\perp}^4 N^2 + 4 a_{\perp}^4 N^3 + 6 a_{\perp}^2 N^4 +

1015:   3 N^5)]  \nonumber \\ && \mbox{} \times

1016:   [N ( 4 a^2 + N ) (2 a_{\perp}^2 + N)

1017:   (16 a^4 a_{\perp}^4 + 8 a^2 a_{\perp}^4 N + 2 a_{\perp}^4 N^2 + 

1018:   2 a_{\perp}^2 N^3 + N^4)]^{-1},

1019: \end{eqnarray}

1020: \end{widetext}

1021: for the case of uniform spin-orbit coupling. In the limit of a dot

1022: with a large number of channels $N \gg a_{\perp}^2$ but still

1023: in the universal regime $N \ll E_{\rm Th}/\Delta$, this simplifies

1024: to

1025: \begin{equation}

1026:   Q = 1 - 16 a^2 b^2 N^{-3}.

1027: \end{equation}

1028: Replacing the dimensionless spin-orbit coupling and magnetic

1029: field $a_{\perp}$ and $b_{\perp}$ by their dimensionful

1030: counterparts, one arrives at the result (\ref{eq:AsymmetricPart}) 

1031: advertised in the introduction.

1032: 

1033: \subsection{Autocorrelation function and the ``correlation echo''}

1034: 

1035: Correlations between the conductance $G$ at different values of the

1036: perpendicular magnetic field $x$ are studied through the conductance

1037: autocorrelation function 

1038: \begin{equation}

1039: \chi(x,x^{\prime}) = \left<G(x)G(x^{\prime})\right> - \langle G(x) \rangle

1040: \langle G(x^{\prime}) \rangle.

1041: \end{equation}

1042: For large perpendicular fields, $x^2, x^{\prime}{}^2 \gg N$, the

1043: autocorrelator $\chi(x,x^{\prime})$ depends on the difference 

1044: $(x-x^{\prime}) $ only. Since time-reversal symmetry is fully broken for such

1045: large magnetic fields, any features in the autocorrelator are signatures of

1046: the spin-orbit coupling.

1047: 

1048: For zero parallel field, $b=b_{\bot}=0$, one finds from Eq.\ 

1049: (\ref{eq:covresult}), 

1050: \begin{eqnarray}

1051: \chi(\xi) &=& \left(\frac{2 e^2}{h} \frac{N_1 N_2}{N_1 + N_2} \right)^2 

1052: \left[\frac{1}{(2N + 8a^2 + \xi^2)^{2}}\right.  \notag \\

1053: && \mbox{} + \frac{1}{(2N + \xi^2)^{2}} + \frac{1}{(2N + 4a^2 + (-2a_{\bot}

1054: + \xi)^2)^{2}}  \notag \\

1055: && \left. \mbox{} + \frac{1}{(2N + 4a^2 + (2a_{\bot} + \xi)^2)^{2}}\right],

1056: \label{eq:chi_b0}

1057: \end{eqnarray}

1058: where $\xi=x-x^{\prime}$.

1059: 

1060: \begin{figure}[tbp]

1061: \epsfxsize=0.8\hsize 

1062: \hspace{0.1\hsize} 

1063: \epsffile{fig5.eps} 

1064: \caption{The correlator $\protect\chi(x-x^{\prime})$ as a function of the

1065: dimensionless perpendicular magnetic field difference $(x-x^{\prime})$, for

1066: three values of the spin-orbit term $a_{\bot}$: $a_{\bot}=0$, $a_{\bot}=1$,

1067: and $a_{\bot}=3$. Curves in panel (a) are for $a=0$ and $b=b_{\bot}=0$.

1068: Curves in panel (b) are for $a=0.5$ and $b=b_{\bot}=0$. Panel (c) shows the

1069: effect of the parallel field, $b=2$, with $a=b_{\bot}=0$. In all three

1070: panels, $\protect\chi(x-x^{\prime})$ is measured in units of $[(e^2/h)

1071: N_{1}^{2}N_{2}^{2}/(N_1+N_2)^{2}]^2$. }

1072: \label{fig:4}

1073: \end{figure}

1074: 

1075: A plot of $\chi (x-x^{\prime })$ for different values of $a_{\bot }$ is

1076: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:4}. Remarkably, the conductance autocorrelator shows

1077: an \textquotedblleft echo\textquotedblright\ at $|x-x^{\prime }|=

1078: 2a_{\bot }$. This echo appears even for large values of $a_{\bot }$, 

1079: for which the

1080: conductance correlations have decayed for intermediate values of the

1081: magnetic-field difference, see Fig.\ \ref{fig:4}a. The magnetic-field echo

1082: has the same origin as the reappearance of the weak localization and

1083: conductance fluctuations at finite values of the perpendicular magnetic

1084: field $x$: The spin-orbit term $a_{\bot }$ acts as a homogeneous

1085: perpendicular field with a different direction for the up and down spins

1086: (defined with respect to the axis $\mathbf{\hat{e}}_{3}$ perpendicular to

1087: the plane of the quantum well). In the presence of an external perpendicular

1088: magnetic field $x$, Up spins and down spins experience effective

1089: perpendicular magnetic fields $x+a_{\bot }$ and $x-a_{\bot }$, respectively.

1090: If the magnetic field difference $x-x^{\prime }$ equals $\pm 2a_{\bot }$,

1091: one spin species at field $x$ moves in the same effective perpendicular

1092: field as the other spin species at field $x^{\prime }$. Hence, in the

1093: absence of a parallel field and a spin-orbit term $a$, the conductance has

1094: identical fluctuating contributions at $x$ and $x^{\prime }$. However, only

1095: one spin species is involved in the \textquotedblleft

1096: echo\textquotedblright\ --- the autocorrelation function reaches only one

1097: half of the total variance of the conductance; the other spin species have

1098: uncorrelated contributions to the conductance at the external fields $x$ and 

1099: $x^{\prime }$. A magnetic field in the plane of the quantum well and the

1100: spin-orbit coupling term $a$ suppress the echo, since they cause scattering

1101: between the $\pm \mathbf{\hat{e}}_{3}$ spin directions, see Figs.\ 

1102: \ref{fig:4}b and c.

1103: 

1104: \section{Effect of a non-uniform SO coupling.}

1105: \label{sec:nonuniform}

1106: 

1107: The expressions of the previous two sections are valid for arbitrary

1108: magnitudes of the dimensionless spin-orbit rates $a_{\perp}$ and 

1109: $a$. In the case of uniform spin-orbit coupling, one has the

1110: strong inequality $a \ll a_{\perp}$. In general, the spin-orbit 

1111: coupling may be non-uniform throughout the quantum dot, {\em e.g.}, 

1112: as a result of a spatial modulation of the asymmetry of the quantum 

1113: well or as a result of a modulation of the electron density 

1114: (and therefore confining potential width) across the dot. 

1115: The main effect of a non-uniformity of the spin-orbit coupling 

1116: is an increase of $a$,\cite{BCH} thus promoting the crossover into 

1117: the standard symplectic ensemble. In this section, we'll give a

1118: quantitative estimate of this effect for a special choice of the

1119: non-uniformity. Another effect of a non-uniform spin-orbit coupling 

1120: is a rescaling of $a_{\perp }$, and will not be considered here.

1121: 

1122: Assuming that the non-uniformity of spin-orbit coupling affects only

1123: its strength without changing the generic form of the Hamiltonian, we

1124: describe its effect via coordinate dependent spin-orbit coupling

1125: lengths $\lambda_{1,2}^{-1}(\mathbf{r})$,

1126: \begin{eqnarray}

1127: \mathcal{H}\! &=&\!\frac{1}{2m}\left( \mathbf{p}-e\mathbf{A}-

1128:   \mathbf{a}

1129:   \right) ^{2}, \nonumber \\

1130:   \mathbf{a} &=& \frac{\sigma_{2}}{2\lambda_{1}(\mathbf{r})}

1131:   \mathbf{\hat{e_1}} -

1132:   \frac{\sigma_{1}}{2\lambda_{2}(\mathbf{r})}

1133:   \mathbf{\hat{e_2}}.

1134: \end{eqnarray}%

1135: In the case that 

1136: $$

1137:   \beta =\nabla \times \mathbf{a} =

1138:   \frac{\sigma_{2}}{2}\partial_{x_{2}}\lambda_{1}^{-1}(\mathbf{r})

1139:   + \frac{\sigma_{1}}{2}\partial_{x_{1}}\lambda_{2}^{-1}(\mathbf{r})

1140:   \neq 0,

1141: $$

1142: it is not possible to eliminate the spin-orbit coupling from the

1143: Hamiltonian in the first order in spin-orbit coupling constant by a unitary

1144: transformation. Qualitatively, this explains why the spatial variation

1145: of the spin-orbit coupling length gives rise of a term with the

1146: symmetry of $\mathbf{a_{\parallel}}$. For a quantitative estimate of

1147: how much the spatial variations of $\lambda_{1,2}$ contribute to the

1148: energy scale $\varepsilon_{\parallel}$,

1149: we note that it is still possible to find a transformation

1150: $U$ such that the resulting non-Abelian vector potential in a locally

1151: rotated spin frame,

1152: \begin{equation}

1153: \mathbf{\tilde{a}=}-iU^{\dagger }\nabla U-U^{\dagger }\mathbf{a}U,

1154: \end{equation}%

1155: would satisfy the conditions

1156: \begin{equation}

1157:   \nabla \cdot \mathbf{\tilde{a}} = 0

1158: \end{equation}

1159: in the interior of the quantum dot and $ \mathbf{\hat{n}}\cdot

1160: \mathbf{\tilde{a}}=0$, on the dot boundary, where $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$

1161: is the unit vector normal to the dot's boundary, at least, in the

1162: lowest order in SO coupling. Such conditions would enable one to

1163: satisfy boundary conditions for Cooperon and diffuson propagators from

1164: diagrammatic perturbation theory, which is needed in order to make the

1165: zero-dimensional approximation necessary for the use of random matrix

1166: theory. This program is carried out in the appendix for a circular

1167: quantum dot with a special choice of the coordinate dependence of the

1168: spin-orbit coupling lengths $\lambda_{1,2}$.

1169: 

1170: Here, as an example, we consider here the case where the spin-orbit

1171: coupling is stronger in the center of a quantum dot (where 

1172: density is higher and the well is narrower) than

1173: at the edges (where density is lower and the well is broader),

1174: \begin{equation}

1175: \frac{1}{\lambda_{1,2}}=\dfrac{1}{\lambda ^{\mathrm{c}}}-\frac{\left(

1176: r/L\right) ^{2}}{\lambda ^{\mathrm{f}}},  \label{eq:nonunif}

1177: \end{equation}%

1178: where $L$ is the typical size of the dot, without making a 

1179: restriction of the size of the dot. We perform a unitary

1180: transformation

1181: \begin{equation}

1182: U = \exp \left( i\frac{x_{1}\sigma_{2}-x_{2}\sigma_{1}}

1183:   {2\lambda^{\mathrm{c}}}\left[ 1-

1184:   \dfrac{\lambda^{\mathrm{c}}}{3\lambda ^{\mathrm{f}}}

1185: \left( \dfrac{r}{L}\right) ^{2}\right] \right),

1186: \end{equation}

1187: which rotates to a local spin reference axis.

1188: With this transformation, the matrix vector $\mathbf{\tilde{a}}$

1189: becomes, to lowest order in the inverse spin-orbit coupling length,

1190: \begin{eqnarray}

1191: \mathbf{\tilde{a}} &=& -i U^{\dagger} \nabla U - 

1192:   \mathbf{a} + {\cal O}(\lambda^{-2}) \nonumber \\

1193: &=&-\dfrac{x_{1}\sigma_{1}+x_{2}\sigma_{2}}{3\lambda ^{\mathrm{f}}L^2}\left[ 

1194: \mathbf{\hat{e}}_{3}\times \mathbf{r}\right].

1195: \end{eqnarray}%

1196: We conclude that (a) the spin relaxation and the crossover into 

1197: symplectic ensemble start, indeed, in the lowest order in the

1198: non-uniform part of the spin-orbit coupling and (b) for the

1199: non-uniform coupling (\ref{eq:nonunif}), the functional form of

1200: the perturbation after transformation

1201: is equal to that of the term $\mathbf{a_{\parallel}}$

1202: in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:hamiltonian}). The latter observation allows us to

1203: express the contribution of the non-uniformity to the energy scale

1204: $\varepsilon_{\parallel}$ as

1205: \begin{equation}

1206:   \varepsilon_{\parallel} =

1207:   \frac{1}{4} \kappa' \kappa E_{\rm Th}

1208:   \left( \frac{L^2}{4 \lambda^{{\rm f}2}} \right),

1209:   \label{eq:kappageneral}

1210: \end{equation}

1211: where the geometry-dependent coefficients $\kappa$ and $\kappa'$ are

1212: the same as those defined for the spatially homogeneous spin-orbit

1213: coupling in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:kappa}).

1214: 

1215: \section{Conclusions}

1216: 

1217: \label{sec:5}

1218: 

1219: In this paper we calculated the average and the fluctuations of the

1220: conductance of a chaotic quantum dot in the presence of Bychkov-Rashba

1221: and (linear) Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling and a magnetic field and

1222: studied the symmetry of the conductance under reversal of the 

1223: perpendicular component of the magnetic

1224: field. The calculations were done to leading order in $1/N$, where

1225: $N=N_1+N_2$ is the total number of open channels in the leads

1226: connecting the quantum dot to the reservoirs.  After a unitary

1227: transformation, the spin-orbit term in the Hamiltonian and the Zeeman

1228: coupling to the external magnetic field are transformed into four

1229: terms that all have different symmetries.\cite{AF}

1230: The corresponding energy scales

1231: are the conventional Zeeman energy $\varepsilon^{\rm Z} = \mu_B g B$ and

1232: three energy scales that depend on the spin-orbit coupling: two

1233: spin-orbit scales $\varepsilon^{\rm so}_{\perp}$ and $\varepsilon^{\rm

1234: so}_{\parallel}$, and the second Zeeman energy scale $\varepsilon^{\rm

1235: Z}_{\perp}$. With the help of the theory presented here, the energy

1236: scales $\varepsilon^{\rm so}_{\perp}$, $\varepsilon^{\rm

1237: so}_{\parallel}$, and $\varepsilon^{\rm Z}_{\perp}$ can be obtained

1238: from a measurement of the conductance autocorrelation function of the

1239: quantum dot.

1240: 

1241: Our results provide several routes to a direct measurement of the

1242: product of the spin-orbit coupling lengths $\lambda_1$ and 

1243: $\lambda_2$. The product $\lambda_1 \lambda_2$ can be found from

1244: a ``magnetic-field echo'' in the conductance fluctuations as a 

1245: function of the perpendicular magnetic field. The magnetic-field

1246: echo appears at the magnetic-field difference

1247: \begin{equation}

1248:   \Delta B = \frac{\hbar}{e \lambda_1 \lambda_1}.

1249: \end{equation}

1250: The same magnetic-field scale splits the weak-localization peak in the

1251: absence of a parallel magnetic field. The ratio $\lambda_1/\lambda_2$

1252: can be found from a measurement of the energy scale $\varepsilon^{\rm

1253: Z}_{\perp}$ in a roughly circular quantum dot. In this case,

1254: $(\lambda_2/\lambda_1)^2$ is equal to the ratio of the energy scales

1255: $\varepsilon^{\rm Z}_{\perp}$ for the in-plane magnetic field in the

1256: crystallographic directions $\hat e_1 = [110]$ and $\hat e_2 = [1\bar

1257: 1 0]$.  Measurement of $\varepsilon^{\rm so}_{\parallel}$ is less

1258: suitable to determine $\lambda_1/\lambda_2$, as it may be

1259: affected by non-uniformities in the spin-orbit scattering rate.

1260: 

1261: The theory presented here has been used for the interpretation of

1262: measurements of the conductance of quantum dots in GaAs/GaAlAs 

1263: heterostructures with spin-orbit coupling as a function of 

1264: parallel and perpendicular components of the magnetic field

1265: by Zumb\"{u}hl {\em et al.}\cite{Zumbuehl} 

1266: The quantum dots used in the experiments of Ref.\

1267: \onlinecite{Zumbuehl}

1268: were built of the same material, but they varied in size, ranging 

1269: from $L/\lambda=0.27$ to $0.64$.

1270: Here $\lambda=(\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2})^{1/2}$ is the

1271: geometric average of the spin-orbit lengths $\lambda_1$ and

1272: $\lambda_2$. Whereas the conductance of smaller dots had a

1273: minimum at zero perpendicular magnetic field, the conductance

1274: of larger dots had a (local) maximum at zero magnetic field. 

1275: {}From a fit to our expression for the average

1276: conductance at zero parallel field, Eq. (\ref{eq:weak}), values for the

1277: experimentally unknown parameters $\lambda =

1278: 4.4\mu \mathrm{m}$, the decoherence

1279: time $\tau_{\phi }$ and a geometrical factor, see Eqs. (\ref{eq:E_so}), were

1280: extracted. 

1281: Measurement of the average conductance in

1282: the presence of a magnetic field parallel to the plane of the

1283: two-dimensional electron gas was in good agreement with our Eq.\

1284: (\ref{eq:weak}), without additional fit parameters and

1285: up to a parallel field of about 0.3 T.\cite{Zumbuehl} 

1286: Upon inclusion of the effects of time-reversal symmetry breaking by a strong parallel field

1287: due to the finite extent of the electron wavefunction across the

1288: heterostructure,\cite{FJ} the authors of Ref.\ \onlinecite{Zumbuehl}

1289: could extend the agreement between theory and experiment is 

1290: extended to even higher magnetic fields.

1291: 

1292: \begin{acknowledgments}

1293: We thank Igor Aleiner, Boris Altshuler,

1294: Bertrand Halperin, Charles Marcus, Jeffrey Miller,

1295: Yuli Nazarov, and Dominik Zumb\"uhl

1296: for important discussions.

1297: This work was supported by NSF under grant no.\ PHY 0117795

1298: (JC), by the NSF under grant no.\ DMR

1299: 0086509 and by the Packard foundation (PWB), and

1300: by EPSRC and NATO CLG (VF).

1301: \end{acknowledgments}

1302: 

1303: \appendix

1304: 

1305: \section{Geometry-dependent coefficients for a circular quantum dot}

1306: 

1307: \label{app:1}

1308: 

1309: In this appendix, we calculate 

1310: \begin{eqnarray}

1311: \mathcal{D}_{\mu_{1}\nu_{1};\mu_{2}\nu_{2}}

1312:   (\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}) &=&

1313:   \langle G_{\mu_{1}\nu_{1}}^{\mathrm{R}}

1314:   (\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2})(E,B)  \notag \\

1315:   &&\mbox{}\times G_{\mu_{2}\nu_{2}}^{\mathrm{A}}

1316:   (\mathbf{r}_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2})(E^{\prime },B^{\prime })\rangle

1317: \end{eqnarray}%

1318: for a disordered circular quantum dot with spin-orbit scattering. Here 

1319: $G^{\mathrm{R}}$ and $G^{\mathrm{A}}$ are the retarded and advanced Green

1320: functions (inverses of $\varepsilon -\mathcal{H}$ for $\varepsilon $ just

1321: above and just below the real axis, respectively), respectively, and the

1322: indices $\mu_{1}$, $\mu_{2}$, $\nu_{1}$, and $\nu_{2}$ refer to the

1323: electron spin. Comparison of our result with the random matrix theory of

1324: Sec.\ \ref{sec:2} allows us to find the geometry-dependent

1325: coefficients 

1326: $\kappa $, $\kappa ^{\prime }$, and $\kappa ^{\prime \prime }$ of

1327: Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:E_so}).

1328: 

1329: In a closed dot of volume $V$ and with diffusive dynamics, the

1330: diffuson 

1331: $\mathcal{D}(\mathbf{r}{_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}})$ obeys the equation 

1332: \begin{equation}

1333: (i\hbar \omega +\Pi )\mathcal{D}(\mathbf{r}{_{1},\mathbf{r}_{2}})=\frac{2\pi 

1334: }{V\Delta }\delta (\mathbf{r}_{1}-\mathbf{r}_{2})\openone\otimes

1335:   \openone,

1336:   \label{eq:diff}

1337: \end{equation}%

1338: where $\hbar \omega =\varepsilon ^{\prime }-\varepsilon $ and the

1339: differential operator $\Pi $ is given by 

1340: \begin{eqnarray}

1341: \Pi &=&(D/\hbar )(-i\hbar \nabla_{\mathbf{r}_{1}}+\mathbf{a}\otimes

1342: \openone

1343: -\openone\otimes \mathbf{a}^{\prime })^{2}  \notag \\

1344: &&\mbox{}+ih_{\mathrm{Z}}\otimes \openone-i\openone\otimes 

1345: h_{\mathrm{Z}}^{\prime }.  \label{eq:Pidef}

1346: \end{eqnarray}%

1347: Here $D=v_{F}l/2$ is the diffusion coefficient in the quantum dot, the

1348: matrix vector potentials $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{a}^{\prime }$ are the sum of a

1349: spin-independent contribution from the perpendicular magnetic field and a

1350: spin-dependent contribution from the Bychkov-Rashba and Dresselhaus 

1351: spin-orbit

1352: coupling, 

1353: \begin{eqnarray}

1354: \mathbf{a} &=&\left( \frac{eB_{3}y}{2c}-\frac{\hbar }{2\lambda_{1}}\sigma

1355: _{2}\right) \mathbf{\hat{e}}_{1}-\left(

1356: \frac{eB_{3}x}{2c}-\frac{\hbar}

1357: {2\lambda_{2}}\sigma_{1}\right) \mathbf{\hat{e}}_{2},  \notag \\

1358: \mathbf{a}^{\prime } &=&\left( \frac{eB_{3}^{\prime }y}{2c}-

1359: \frac{\hbar }{2\lambda_{1}}\sigma_{2}\right) \mathbf{\hat{e}}_{1}-

1360: \left( \frac{eB_{3}^{\prime }x}{2c}-\frac{\hbar }{2\lambda_{2}}

1361: \sigma_{1}\right) 

1362: \mathbf{\hat{e}}_{2},

1363:   \nonumber \\

1364: \end{eqnarray}%

1365: while $h_{\mathrm{Z}}$ and $h_{\mathrm{Z}}^{\prime }$ represent the Zeeman

1366: coupling to the magnetic field, 

1367: $$

1368: h_{\mathrm{Z}}=\frac{1}{2}\mu_{B}g\mathbf{B}\cdot \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$},

1369: \ \ 

1370: h_{\mathrm{Z}}^{\prime }=\frac{1}{2}\mu_{B}g\mathbf{B}^{\prime }\cdot 

1371: \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}.

1372: $$

1373: Equation (\ref{eq:diff}) is supplemented with the boundary condition 

1374: \begin{equation}

1375: \hat{n}\cdot (-i\hbar \nabla_{\mathbf{r}_{1}}+\mathbf{a}\otimes \openone-

1376: \openone\otimes \mathbf{a}^{\prime })\mathcal{D}(\mathbf{r}{_{1},

1377: \mathbf{r}_{2}})=0  \label{eq:boundary}

1378: \end{equation}%

1379: at the sample boundary, where $\hat{n}$ is the unit vector normal to the

1380: boundary.

1381: 

1382: To find $\mathcal{D}$, we shift to the basis of eigenfunctions of the

1383: diffusion equation (i.e., eigenfunctions of $\Pi $ in the absence of

1384: spin-orbit scattering and a magnetic field) and calculate the matrix

1385: elements of $\Pi $ in that basis. For this procedure to work, it is

1386: important that the matrix vector potentials $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{a}^{\prime }$

1387: do not change the Von Neumann boundary conditions (\ref{eq:boundary}), i.e.,

1388: that 

1389: \begin{equation}

1390: \mathbf{\hat{n}}\cdot \mathbf{a}=\mathbf{\hat{n}}\cdot \mathbf{a}^{\prime }=0

1391: \label{eq:r1}

1392: \end{equation}%

1393: at the boundary of the quantum dot. This requirement ensures that the

1394: eigenfunctions of the diffusion equation with Von Neumann boundary

1395: conditions can be used to construct the diffuson $\mathcal{D}$. In order to

1396: fix the gauge, we also require that 

1397: \begin{equation}

1398: \nabla \cdot \mathbf{a}=\nabla \cdot \mathbf{a}^{\prime }=0  \label{eq:r2}

1399: \end{equation}%

1400: in the interior of the dot (London gauge).

1401: 

1402: As discussed in Ref.\ \onlinecite{AF} and in the introduction of this paper,

1403: the requirements (\ref{eq:r1}) and (\ref{eq:r2}) are realized by performing

1404: a suitable unitary transformation $U$ to the Hamiltonian, $\mathcal{H} \to

1405: U^{\dagger} \mathcal{H} U$. For Eq.\ (\ref{eq:diff}), such a unitary

1406: transformation implies 

1407: \begin{eqnarray}

1408: \mathcal{D} &\to& (U^{\dagger} \otimes U) \mathcal{D} (U \otimes

1409: U^{\dagger}), \\

1410: \Pi &\to& (U^{\dagger} \otimes U) \Pi (U \otimes U^{\dagger}).

1411: \end{eqnarray}

1412: 

1413: We'll now perform an explicit calculation for the case of a circular quantum

1414: dot of radius $L$, the origin of our coordinate system being chosen at the

1415: center of the dot. In polar coordinates $x_{1}=r\cos \phi $, $x_{2}=r\sin

1416: \phi $, the tensor eigenfunctions of the diffusion equation are of the form 

1417: \begin{eqnarray}

1418: f_{n0}^{ij}(r,\phi ) &=&c_{n0}J_{0}(rx_{n0}/L)\,\sigma_{i}\otimes \sigma

1419: _{j},  \notag \\

1420: f_{nm}^{ij}(r,\phi ) &=&c_{nm}J_{m}(rx_{nm}/L)\cos (m\phi )\,\sigma

1421: _{i}\otimes \sigma_{j},  \notag \\

1422: g_{nm}^{ij}(r,\phi ) &=&c_{nm}J_{m}(rx_{nm}/L)\sin (m\phi )\,\sigma

1423: _{i}\otimes \sigma_{j},

1424: \end{eqnarray}%

1425: where $i,j=0,1,2,3$, $m=1,2,\ldots $, $x_{nm}$, $n=1,2,\ldots $, is

1426: the 

1427: $n$th positive root of $J_{m}^{\prime }(x)=0$, and we used the 

1428: notation $\sigma

1429: _{0}=\openone$. The corresponding eigenvalues are 

1430: \begin{equation}

1431: \lambda_{nm}=D\hbar (x_{nm}/L)^{2}

1432: \end{equation}%

1433: and the normalization constants are 

1434: \begin{equation}

1435: c_{nm}^{-2}=\frac{1}{2}\pi

1436: L^{2}(J_{m}(x_{nm})^{2}-J_{m+1}(x_{nm})^{2})(1+\delta_{m0}).

1437: \end{equation}%

1438: The smallest eigenvalue is found for $n=m=0$, $\lambda_{00}=0$; all other

1439: eigenvalues are larger than the Thouless energy $E_{\mathrm{Th}}=D\hbar

1440: /L^{2}$.

1441: 

1442: For a circular quantum dot, the magnetic-field contribution to the matrix

1443: vector potential of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Pidef}) already satisfies the requirements

1444: (\ref{eq:r1}) and (\ref{eq:r2}). For the spin-orbit contribution we use the

1445: transformation 

1446: \begin{eqnarray}

1447: U &=& \exp \left[i \frac{x_1 \sigma_2}{2 \lambda_1} - i \frac{x_2

1448:     \sigma_1}{2 \lambda_2} \right. \\

1449: && \left. \mbox{} - i \frac{(x_1^2 + x_2^2 - 3 L^2)}{48 \lambda_1 \lambda_2}

1450: \left( \frac{x_2 \sigma_1}{\lambda_1} - \frac{x_1 \sigma_2}{\lambda_2}

1451: \right) \right] ,  \notag

1452: \end{eqnarray}

1453: which fulfills the requirements (\ref{eq:r1}) and (\ref{eq:r2}) to leading

1454: order in $L/\lambda$. [Note: although the transformation of 

1455: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:U}) is sufficient to satisfy the requirements to order 

1456: $L/\lambda$, the

1457: remaining term $a_{\Vert}$ of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:hamiltonian}) does not obey Eq.\

1458: (\ref{eq:r2}).]

1459: 

1460: With this transformation, the matrix vector potential $\mathbf{a}$ and the

1461: Zeeman term $h_{\rm Z}$ change to 

1462: \begin{eqnarray}

1463: \mathbf{a} &\rightarrow &\mathbf{\hat{e}}_{1}\left[ \frac{eB_{3}x_{2}}{2c}+

1464: \frac{\hbar x_{2}\sigma_{3}}{4\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}\right.  \notag \\

1465: &&\left. \mbox{}+\frac{\hbar }{16\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}\left( 

1466: \frac{2x_{1}x_{2}\sigma_{1}}{\lambda

1467:  _{1}}+\frac{(3x_{2}^{2}+x_{1}^{2}-L^{2})

1468: \sigma_{2}}{\lambda_{2}}\right) \right]  \notag \\

1469: &&\mbox{}-\hat{e}_{2}\left[ \frac{eB_{3}x_{1}}{2c}+\frac{\hbar x_{1}\sigma

1470: _{3}}{4\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}\right.  \notag \\

1471: &&\left. \mbox{}+\frac{\hbar }{16\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}\left( 

1472: \frac{2x_{1}x_{2}\sigma_{2}}{\lambda_{2}}+\frac{(3x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}-L^{2})

1473: \sigma_{1}}{\lambda_{1}}\right) \right] ,  \notag \\

1474: h_{\mathrm{Z}} &\rightarrow &\frac{1}{2}\mu_{B}g\mathbf{B}\cdot 

1475: \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}-\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{3}\mu_{B}g\left(

1476: \frac{B_{1}x_{1}}

1477: {\lambda_{1}

1478: }+\frac{B_{2}x_{2}}{\lambda_{2}}\right) ,  \label{eq:anew}

1479: \end{eqnarray}%

1480: with similar changes for $\mathbf{a}^{\prime }$ and $h^{\prime}_{\rm Z}$.

1481: 

1482: As long as all relevant energy scales are much smaller than 

1483: $E_{\mathrm{Th}}$, it is sufficient to know the action of $\Pi $ on

1484: the 16 eigenfunctions at $f_{00}^{ij}$ at $n=m=0$. In tensor notation, 

1485: this action is 

1486: \begin{widetext}

1487: \begin{eqnarray}

1488:   \Pi &=&

1489:   \left. \frac{D \hbar}{2 L^2}

1490:   \left(\frac{e}{c h} (\Phi - \Phi') \openone \otimes \openone

1491:     + \frac{L^2}{4 \lambda^2} (\sigma_3 \otimes \openone -

1492:       \openone \otimes \sigma_3) \right)^2 

1493:   \right. \ \ \nonumber \\ && \left. \mbox{} +

1494:   \frac{D \hbar L^6}{96 \lambda^4}

1495:   \left( \frac{\sigma_1 \otimes \openone -

1496:   \openone \otimes \sigma_1}{2 \lambda_1} \right)^2

1497:   + \frac{D \hbar L^6}{96 \lambda^4}

1498:   \left( \frac{\sigma_2 \otimes \openone -

1499:   \openone \otimes \sigma_2}{2 \lambda_2} \right)^2

1500:   \right. \ \ \nonumber \\ && \left. \mbox{} +

1501:   i \frac{\mu_B g \mathbf{B}}{2} (\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$} \otimes \openone

1502:   - \openone \otimes \mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}) 

1503:   + \frac{\mu_B^2 g^2 L^4}{D \hbar } \kappa_h

1504:     \left(\frac{B_1^2}{\lambda_1^2} + \frac{B_2^2}{\lambda_2^2}

1505:     \right)

1506:     (\openone \otimes \sigma_3 - \sigma_3 \otimes \openone)^2

1507:     \right..

1508: \end{eqnarray}

1509: \end{widetext}where $\Phi =B_{3}\pi L^{2}$ is the magnetic flux through the

1510: quantum dot and 

1511: $$

1512: \kappa_{h}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}

1513: \frac{1}{x_{1n}^{4}(x_{1n}^{2}-1)}

1514: \approx 0.0182

1515: $$

1516: is a numerical constant. 

1517: Confining ourselves to the case $\lambda =\lambda_{1}=\lambda_{2}$ and

1518: comparing this result to Eq.\ (\ref{eq:D}), we can make the identifications 

1519: \begin{eqnarray}

1520:   x^{2} &=&\left( \frac{e\Phi }{ch}\right) ^{2}\frac{\hbar v_{F}l\pi }

1521:   {L^{2}\Delta }, \\

1522:   a_{\bot }^{2} &=&

1523:   \left( \frac{L^{2}}{4\lambda^{2}}\right)^{2}\frac{\hbar

1524:   v_{F}l\pi }{L^{2}\Delta }, \\

1525:   a^{2} &=&\left( \frac{L^{2}}{4\lambda ^{2}}\right)^{3} \frac{v_{F}l\pi}

1526:   {3L^{2}\Delta }, \\

1527:   b &=&\frac{\mu_{B}g\pi B}{\Delta }, \\

1528:   b_{\bot } &\approx &

1529:   1.83\frac{L^{2}}{\hbar v_{F}l\Delta }(\mu_{B}Bg)^{2}

1530:   \left( \frac{L^{2}}{4\lambda ^{2}}\right) .

1531: \end{eqnarray}%

1532: For the geometry-dependent constants $\kappa $, $\kappa ^{\prime }$, 

1533: and $\kappa ^{\prime \prime }$ in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:E_so}), this implies 

1534: $\kappa =2$, $\kappa ^{\prime }=1/3$ and $\kappa ^{\prime \prime }

1535: \approx 0.292$.

1536: 

1537: If the spin-orbit coupling is not uniform throughout the quantum

1538: dot, see Sec.\ \ref{sec:nonuniform}, the above estimates 

1539: for $a_{\perp}$ and $a$ and the corresponding

1540: energy scales $\varepsilon_{\bot}^{\rm so}$ and

1541: $\varepsilon_{\Vert}^{\rm so}$ need to be revisited. Here we 

1542: consider the example of Eq.\ (\ref{eq:nonunif}),

1543: $\lambda^{-1}_{1,2}(\mathbf{r}) =

1544: \lambda_{\rm c}^{-1} + (r^2/L^2 \lambda^{\rm f})$, and

1545: construct the unitary transformation $U$ that ensures that the

1546: conditions (\ref{eq:r1}) and (\ref{eq:r2}) are satisfied to 

1547: lowest order in $1/\lambda_{f}$,

1548: \begin{eqnarray}

1549:   U &=& \exp \left[i \frac{x_1 \sigma_2}{2 \lambda_1^{\rm c}}

1550:   - i \frac{x_2 \sigma_1}{2 \lambda_2^{\rm c}}

1551:   \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. \mbox{}

1552:   + i x_1 \sigma_2 \frac{(x_1^2 + x_2^2 + L^2)}

1553:   {8 L^2 \lambda^{\rm f}_{ 1}}

1554:   \right. \\ && \left. \mbox{}

1555:   - i x_2 \sigma_1 \frac{(x_1^2 + x_2^2 + L^2)}

1556:   {8 L^2 \lambda^{\rm f}_{ 2}}

1557:   \right] \nonumber .

1558: \end{eqnarray}

1559: With this transformation, the matrix vector $\mathbf a$ is mapped

1560: to

1561: \begin{eqnarray}

1562:   \mathbf a &\to&  \mathbf{\hat e_1} \left[

1563:   \frac{e B_3 x_2}{2 c} 

1564:   + \frac{\hbar x_2 \sigma_3}{4 \lambda_1^{\rm c} \lambda_2^{\rm c}} 

1565:   \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. \mbox{} 

1566:   - \frac{\hbar}{8 L^2}

1567:   \left(\frac{2 x_1 x_2 \sigma_1}{\lambda^{\rm f}_{ 2}} +

1568:   \frac{(3 x_2^2 + x_1^2 - L^2) \sigma_2}{\lambda^{\rm f}_{ 1}}

1569:   \right)

1570:   \right]

1571:   \nonumber \\

1572:   && \mbox{} -  \mathbf{\hat e_2} \left[\frac{e B_3 x_1}{2 c} 

1573:   + \frac{\hbar x_1 \sigma_3}{4 \lambda_1^{\rm c} \lambda_2^{\rm c}}  

1574:   \right. \nonumber \\ && \left. \mbox{}

1575:   - \frac{\hbar}{8 L^2}

1576:   \left(\frac{2 x_1 x_2 \sigma_2}{\lambda^{\rm f}_{ 1}} +

1577:   \frac{(3 x_1^2 + x_2^2 - L^2) \sigma_1}{\lambda^{\rm f}_{ 2}} \right)

1578:   \right].

1579:   \nonumber \\

1580:   \label{eq:anonunif}

1581: \end{eqnarray}

1582: Comparing Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:anonunif}) and (\ref{eq:anew}), 

1583: we immediately conclude that with a non-uniform 

1584: spin-orbit scattering strength of the form (\ref{eq:nonunif})

1585: with $\lambda^{\rm f} =

1586: \lambda^{\rm f}_{ 1} = \lambda^{\rm f}_{ 2}$

1587: one should make the identification

1588: \begin{equation}

1589:   a^2 =  

1590:   \left( \frac{L^2}{4 (\lambda^{\rm f})^2} \right)

1591:   \frac{v_F l \pi}{12 L^2 \Delta}.

1592: \end{equation}

1593: In terms of the energy scale $\varepsilon_{\Vert}^{\rm so}$, this

1594: implies

1595: \begin{equation}

1596:   \varepsilon_{\Vert}^{\rm so}

1597:   = \frac{1}{6} E_{\rm Th} \left( \frac{L^2}{4(\lambda^{\rm f})^2} 

1598: \right),

1599: \end{equation}

1600: in agreement with the general relation (\ref{eq:kappageneral}).

1601: 

1602: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1603: \bibitem{mesoreview1} C. W. J. Beenakker and H. van Houten, Solid State

1604: Phys. \textbf{44}, 1 (1991).

1605: 

1606: \bibitem{Hikami} S. Hikami, A. I. Larkin, and Y. Nagaoka, Prog. Theor. Phys. 

1607: \textbf{63}, 707 (1980).

1608: 

1609: \bibitem{Bergmann} G. Bergmann, Phys. Rep. \textbf{107}, 1 (1984).

1610: 

1611: \bibitem{Khaetskii} A. V. Khaetskii and Yu. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B 

1612: \textbf{61}, 012639 (2000).

1613: 

1614: \bibitem{Folk} J. A. Folk, S. R. Patel, K. M. Birnbaum, C. M. Marcus, C. I.

1615: Duru\"oz, and J. S. Harris, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{86}, 2102 (2001).

1616: 

1617: \bibitem{Halperin} B. I. Halperin, A. Stern, Y. Oreg, J. N. H. J. Cremers,

1618: J. A. Folk, and C. M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{86}, 2106 (2001).

1619: 

1620: \bibitem{AF} I. L. Aleiner and V. I. Fal'ko, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{87},

1621: 256801 (2001); {\bf 89}, 079902(E) (2002).

1622: 

1623: \bibitem{RashbaDresselhaus} In conventional notation, the Hamiltonian is

1624: specified in coordinates with respect to the $\hat x = [100]$ and $\hat y =

1625: [010]$ directions. Then, the spin-orbit part of the Hamiltonian takes the

1626: form 

1627: $$

1628:   H_{\mathrm{so}} = \frac{\gamma}{m}(p_x \sigma_y - p_y \sigma_x) + 

1629:   \frac{\eta}{m} (p_x \sigma_x - p_y \sigma_y).

1630: $$

1631: Here $\gamma$ and $\eta$ are coupling constants for the Rashba and

1632: Dresselhaus terms, respectively. In terms of the rates $\gamma$ and $\eta$,

1633: one has $\hbar/2\lambda_1 = -\eta + \gamma$, $\hbar/2\lambda_2 = -\eta -

1634: \gamma$.

1635: 

1636: 

1637: \bibitem{Meir} Y. Meir, Y. Gefen, and O. Entin-Wohlman, 

1638: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 798 (1989).

1639: 

1640: \bibitem{MathurStone} H. Mathur and A. D. Stone,

1641:   Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{68}, 

1642: 2964 (1992).

1643: 

1644: \bibitem{Oreg} Y. Oreg and O. Entin-Wohlman Phys. Rev. B \textbf{46}, 2393

1645: (1992).

1646: 

1647: \bibitem{Beenakker97} For reviews, see: C. W. J. Beenakker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 

1648: \textbf{69}, 731 (1997) and Y. Alhassid, Rev. Mod. Phys. \textbf{72}, 895

1649: (2000).

1650: 

1651: \bibitem{Shayegan} J. P. Lu, J. B. Yau, S. P. Shukla, M. Shayegan, L.

1652: Wissinger, U. R\"ossler, and R. Winkler, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{81}, 1282

1653: (1998).

1654: 

1655: \bibitem{Marcus} J. B. Miller, D. M. Zumb\"uhl, C. M. Marcus, Y. B.

1656: Lyanda-Geller, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, K. Campman, A. C. Gossard,

1657: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 076807 (2003).

1658: 

1659: \bibitem{Zumbuehl} D. M. Zumb\"uhl, J. B. Miller, C. M. Marcus, K. Campman,

1660: and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 276803 (2002).

1661: 

1662: \bibitem{BCH} P. W. Brouwer, J. N. H. J. Cremers, and B. I. Halperin, Phys.

1663: Rev. B \textbf{65}, 081302 (2002).

1664: 

1665: \bibitem{FJ} V. I. Fal'ko and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{65}, 81306

1666: (2002).

1667: 

1668: \bibitem{Mehta} M.L. Mehta, \emph{Random Matrices}, (Academic, New York,

1669: 1991).

1670: 

1671: \bibitem{WavesRM} P. W. Brouwer, K. M. Frahm, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Waves

1672: in Random Media 9, 91 (1999) [cond-mat/9809022].

1673: 

1674: \bibitem{diagrams} P. W. Brouwer and C. W. J. Beenakker, J. Math. Phys. 

1675: \textbf{37}, 4904 (1996).

1676: 

1677: \bibitem{SimonsAltshuler} B. L. Altshuler and B. D. Simons in 

1678: \emph{Mesoscopic Quantum Physics}, E. Akkermans, G. Montambaux,

1679: J.-L. Pichard, and

1680: J. Zinn-Justin, eds, (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1995).

1681: 

1682: \bibitem{BuettikerVoltage} M. B\"uttiker, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{33}, 3020

1683: (1986); IBM J. Res. Dev. \textbf{32}, 63 (1988).

1684: 

1685: \bibitem{BM} H. U. Baranger and P. A. Mello, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{51}, 4703

1686: (1995).

1687: 

1688: \bibitem{BB} P. W. Brouwer and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{55},

1689: 4695 (1997).

1690: 

1691: \bibitem{Argaman} N. Argaman, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{75}, 2750 (1995).

1692: 

1693: \bibitem{thesis} J. N. H. J. Cremers, Ph. D. thesis (Harvard, 2002).

1694: 

1695: \end{thebibliography}

1696: 

1697: \end{document}

1698: