1: \documentclass[aps,showpacs,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3:
4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
6: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
7: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
8: \newcommand{\bmat}{\left(\begin{array}}
9: \newcommand{\emat}{\end{array}\right)}
10: \newcommand{\bw}{\begin{widetext}}
11: \newcommand{\ew}{\end{widetext}}
12: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}
13: \newcommand{\e}{\epsilon}
14: \newcommand{\tr}{\mbox{tr}\,}
15: \newcommand{\str}{\mbox{str}\,}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \title{Chaotic scattering through coupled cavities}
19: \author{Kazutaka Takahashi}
20: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology,
21: Tokyo 152--8551, Japan}
22: \author{Tomosuke Aono}
23: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Ben--Gurion University of the Negev,
24: Beer--Sheva 84105, Israel}
25: \date{\today}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: We study the chaotic scattering
29: through an Aharonov-Bohm ring containing two cavities.
30: One of the cavities has well-separated resonant levels while
31: the other is chaotic, and is treated by random matrix theory.
32: The conductance through the ring is calculated analytically
33: using the supersymmetry method and
34: the quantum fluctuation effects are numerically investigated in detail.
35: We find that the conductance is determined by the competition between
36: the mean and fluctuation parts.
37: The dephasing effect acts on the fluctuation part only.
38: The Breit-Wigner resonant peak is changed to
39: an antiresonance by increasing the ratio of the level broadening
40: to the mean level spacing of the random cavity,
41: and the asymmetric Fano form turns into a symmetric one.
42: For the orthogonal and symplectic ensembles, the period of
43: the Aharonov-Bohm oscillations is half of that for regular systems.
44: The conductance distribution function becomes independent of
45: the ensembles at the resonant point, which can be understood by
46: the mode-locking mechanism.
47: We also discuss the relation of our results
48: to the random walk problem.
49: \end{abstract}
50: \pacs{
51: 05.45.Gg, % Control of chaos, applications of chaos
52: 73.21.La, % Quantum dots
53: 73.23.-b, % Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems
54: 05.60.Gg % Quantum transport
55: }
56: \maketitle
57:
58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
59: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: % chaotic scattering in general
63: Starting from the study of atomic nuclei,
64: chaotic scattering has been a topic of intensive research
65: in a large variety of systems such as
66: atoms, molecules, quantum devices, and microwave cavities
67: \cite{CS}.
68: A fundamental question to be asked
69: is how much information is reflected
70: in the scattering through random media such as
71: disordered and classically chaotic systems.
72: One of the most remarkable and promising ideas
73: is to introduce the statistical concept into the analysis.
74: The ensemble average over different realizations of the sample
75: is considered to calculate several statistical quantities.
76: A large number of systems exhibit universal behavior
77: determined by the symmetry of the systems.
78: For this situation, random matrix theory (RMT) \cite{WD,Mehta,GMW}
79: has been used to understand the result and
80: has played an important role as a standard analytical tool.
81:
82: % mesoscopic (hybrid) systems
83: Recently, the experimental stage of the chaotic scattering
84: has been shifted from natural to artificial systems.
85: Typical examples are mesoscopic systems
86: \cite{MRWHG,Beenakker,Alhassid,Hacken,ABG}
87: such as quantum dots (QDs) and disordered wires.
88: Recent development of nanotechnology makes it possible to
89: fabricate mesoscopic quantum hybrid systems that could not be realized
90: before and a lot of interesting interference phenomena have been
91: observed under controllable external parameters.
92: Due to the interference of wave functions,
93: a system made from parts such as the QD, lead, and quantum point contact
94: cannot be treated separately.
95: Such systems show new interesting phenomena
96: which are absent in single isolated systems.
97: Typical experimentally fabricated systems are
98: the QD on the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) ring \cite{YHMS},
99: the side-coupled QD \cite{KASKI}, and so on.
100:
101: % coupled dot
102: The model treated in this paper is
103: two QDs put on the two arms of the AB ring.
104: In this so-called ``mesoscopic double slit system,''
105: a lot of interesting phenomena such as the AB oscillations
106: and the Fano effects can be observed by the interference of
107: wave functions transmitting through the two arms
108: \cite{GIA,KK,KAKI,NTA}.
109: In the context of chaotic scattering,
110: it is interesting to apply the known analysis based on RMT
111: \cite{VWZ,pker,PEI,ISS,randomS,BB94,Brouwer,FS}
112: to the AB ring system.
113: We study how the interference effects appear and
114: the conductance behaves as the function of the controllable
115: parameter such as the magnetic flux through the ring.
116:
117: % microwave cavities
118: Our formulation is rather general and
119: the application of our result is not limited to the QD systems.
120: It is known that microwaves in an irregular shaped cavity
121: behave chaotically and the statistical properties can be
122: described by RMT \cite{Stockmann,HZOAA}.
123: Based on the formal analogy between the Helmholtz and
124: Schr\"odinger equations, the classical waves are simulated
125: as quantum mechanical wave functions.
126: Compared with the mesoscopic systems in nanoscale,
127: the cavity system is easier to fabricate
128: and is ideal for an experimental study.
129: We can also observe the Fano effect in this system \cite{RLBKS}.
130:
131: % our model
132: How can we define the statistical model for the hybrid system?
133: For the system of two QDs attached to each arm of the AB ring,
134: Gefen {\it et al.} \cite{GIA} considered the case when
135: each dot has a single regular level.
136: As a simple but nontrivial extension,
137: we treat the case when one of the dots
138: has regular levels and the other has random levels.
139: RMT is applied to the random dot.
140:
141: This model can be viewed as a mixed system of
142: chaotic and integrable levels.
143: In single dot systems, such structure
144: is employed as an idea to explain anomalous phenomena
145: such as critical statistics \cite{KLAA} and
146: fractal conductance \cite{micolich}.
147: It is known in the open QD system that
148: the several specific levels couple with the lead strongly while
149: the other levels couple weakly via strong coupled levels \cite{SI}.
150: Thus it is too simple to treat the dot as a single random matrix
151: and we need to consider the internal structure more seriously.
152: Although our model is not directly related to such phenomena,
153: it is instructive and useful to consider
154: the present ring system as the situation
155: where the strong and weak couplings coexist.
156: In this system, the regular transmission in the one arm is
157: affected by the random ones in the other arm, and vice versa.
158:
159: From a point view of RMT,
160: special attention is paid to the universality of
161: the statistical quantities.
162: A natural question to be asked in the present model
163: is how the universal level correlations described by RMT
164: are modified by the regular contribution.
165: Naive expectation is that the effect of the regular levels
166: can be safely removed by the proper scaling (unfolding) \cite{BHZ}.
167: It is known that the effective theory is written in terms
168: not of the microscopic parameters but of
169: the transmission coefficients \cite{VWZ}.
170: However, in the present system,
171: the effect is amplified by multiple scatterings
172: through the ring and gives highly nontrivial results.
173:
174: % related work (CWB)
175: Now that our model has been described,
176: we must refer to the work by Clerk {\it et al.}\cite{CWB}.
177: They considered many resonant levels in a single dot and
178: RMT was employed for their distribution.
179: The regular component to the S matrix
180: expressing the direct nonresonant path through the dot
181: was used to find the Fano resonances.
182: For each resonance, the Fano parameter $q$ was calculated and
183: the statistical distribution of $q$ was defined over the resonances.
184: On the other hand, in our case,
185: only the single resonant level is present regularly
186: and it is affected by random levels.
187: Thus our attention is fixed on the single regular resonance.
188: To discuss the statistical properties of the transport
189: we must prepare different realizations of the random dot.
190: The ensemble average is defined in terms of such realizations.
191:
192: % outline
193: The outline of this paper is the following.
194: The AB ring model is defined in Sec.\ref{model}.
195: We define the random Hamiltonian model in Sec.\ref{randomH}.
196: A model based on the random S matrix is also defined in
197: Sec.\ref{randomS}
198: and the relation to the random Hamiltonian model is discussed.
199: In Sec.\ref{avS}, we calculate the average of the S matrix
200: based on the random Hamiltonian model.
201: As a result the mean part of the conductance is calculated.
202: It is not enough to calculate the conductance including
203: the quantum fluctuation effect and
204: we develop the supersymmetry method \cite{Efetov} in Sec.\ref{susy}
205: to calculate the full conductance.
206: The results of the conductance are shown in Sec.\ref{conductance}.
207: We also study the AB oscillations in Sec.\ref{ABO}
208: and the Fano effect in Sec.\ref{fanoeff}.
209: The fluctuation effects can be best seen
210: in the conductance distribution functions,
211: which are studied in Sec.\ref{cdf}.
212: Since realistic situations are not ideal
213: and phase breaking effect is present \cite{HZOAA,HPMBDH},
214: it is important to consider the dephasing effect theoretically.
215: We consider it in Sec.\ref{dephasing}
216: using a simple imaginary-potential model.
217: Section \ref{conc} is devoted to discussions and conclusions.
218: Part of the results were published in a preliminary report \cite{TA}.
219:
220: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
221: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
222: \section{Model}
223: \label{model}
224:
225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
226: \subsection{Random Hamiltonian approach}
227: \label{randomH}
228:
229: We consider the AB ring system depicted in Fig.\ref{abring}.
230: The upper dot (dot 1) has a single resonant level, and
231: the lower dot (dot 2) has random levels and is
232: treated by RMT.
233: \begin{figure}[tb]
234: \begin{center}
235: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{abring.eps}
236: \caption{Schematic drawing of our model.
237: Dot 1 with a resonant level $E_1$ and
238: dot 2 with a random Hamiltonian $H_2$
239: are connected by leads.
240: $w$ denotes a dot-lead coupling matrix.}
241: \label{abring}
242: \end{center}
243: \end{figure}
244: It is known from scattering theory that the S matrix
245: of the system is written as \cite{Beenakker,Alhassid,VWZ,FS}
246: \be
247: S &=& 1-2\pi i w^\dag\frac{1}{E-H+i\pi ww^\dag}w \no \\
248: &=& \frac{1-i\pi w^\dag\frac{1}{E^+-H}w}{1+i\pi w^\dag\frac{1}{E^+-H}w},
249: \label{S}
250: \ee
251: where $H$ denotes the Hamiltonian matrix for dots
252: and $w$ the dot-lead coupling matrix.
253: $H$ can be written as
254: \be
255: H = \bmat{cc} E_1 & 0 \\ 0 & H_2 \emat,
256: \ee
257: where $E_1$ is the fixed energy level for the dot 1
258: and $H_2$ is the random Hamiltonian for the dot 2.
259: The size of $H_2$, $N$, is taken to be infinity
260: to find the universal result.
261: We note that the total size of $H$ is $1+N$.
262: It is a straightforward task to extend the size of
263: the upper dot Hamiltonian to arbitrary values
264: and here we consider the minimal size 1.
265: As another simplification,
266: we consider the $2\times 2$ (unitary) matrix $S$, which means
267: that the left and right leads have a single channel, respectively.
268: It is believed that the quantum interference effect becomes
269: maximal in this case \cite{BB97}.
270: Then the dot-lead coupling matrix $w$
271: is the $(1+N)\times 2$ matrix and can be written as
272: \be
273: w &=& \bmat{cc} w^{(1)} \\ w^{(2)} \emat
274: = \bmat{cc} w^{(1L)} & w^{(1R)} \\ w^{(2L)} & w^{(2R)} \emat \no\\
275: &=& \bmat{cc} w^{(1L)} & w^{(1R)} \\ w^{(2L)}_1 & w^{(2R)}_1 \\
276: w^{(2L)}_2 & w^{(2R)}_2 \\
277: \vdots & \vdots \\
278: w^{(2L)}_N & w^{(2R)}_N
279: \emat,
280: \ee
281: where $(1L)$ refers to the coupling between
282: the dot $1$ and lead $L$, and so on.
283:
284: The conductance measures the transmission from the left to right lead
285: and is defined by \cite{Beenakker, Alhassid, VWZ}
286: \be
287: g = \langle |S_{12}|^2\rangle, \label{cond}
288: \ee
289: where $\langle\ \rangle$ denotes the ensemble averaging of
290: the random Hamiltonian $H_2$.
291: We employ the Gaussian ensemble \cite{Mehta} and
292: the probability density is given by
293: \be
294: P(H) = C\exp\left(-\frac{\pi^2}{2N\Delta^2}\tr H^{2}\right),
295: \ee
296: where $\Delta$ is the mean level spacing, and
297: $C$ is the normalization constant.
298: In the following calculations,
299: we mainly consider unitary symmetry, which means that
300: $H_2$ is Hermitian and no additional condition is imposed.
301:
302: The result of the conductance depends on the choice of
303: the dot-lead coupling $w$.
304: Although this matrix $w$ has $4N$ degrees of freedom,
305: there is no need to specify them completely.
306: After the averaging, the effective degrees of freedom becomes finite.
307: Generally, it is 6 and
308: we restrict our discussion to the special case of 4 (see below).
309:
310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
311: \subsection{Random S matrix approach}
312: \label{randomS}
313:
314: Equation (\ref{S}) is a useful formula to relate
315: the Hamiltonian to the S matrix
316: and can be used for the present coupled system.
317: It is convenient to express the S matrix in terms of the K matrix
318: defined by
319: \be
320: S = \frac{1-iK}{1+iK}.
321: \ee
322: $K$ is expressed as the sum of contributions from dot 1 and 2:
323: \be
324: & & K = K_1+K_2, \no \\
325: & & K = \pi w^\dag\frac{1}{E^+-H}w, \no\\
326: & & K_1=\frac{\pi w^{(1)\dag}w^{(1)}}{E^+-E_1}, \;
327: K_2=\pi w^{(2)\dag}\frac{1}{E^+-H_2}w^{(2)}. \label{K}
328: \ee
329: This simple relation implies the sum rule of the S matrix
330: \be
331: \frac{1-S}{1+S} = \frac{1-S_1}{1+S_1}+\frac{1-S_2}{1+S_2},
332: \label{sr}
333: \ee
334: where $S_1$ ($S_2$) is the S matrix for dot 1 (2).
335: It is instructive and useful
336: in the following numerical calculations
337: to derive the explicit representation using the matrix elements.
338: Defining each S matrix elements as
339: \be
340: S = \bmat{cc} r & t' \\ t & r' \emat, \;
341: S_i = \bmat{cc} r_i & t_i' \\ t_i & r_i' \emat \; (i=1,2),
342: \label{SS1S2}
343: \ee
344: we obtain, for example,
345: \be
346: t &=& 4\Bigl[t_1(1+s_2+r_2+r_2')
347: +t_2(1+s_1+r_1+r_1')\Bigr] \no\\
348: & & \times \Bigl[
349: 9+3(r_1+r'_1+r_2+r'_2)+s_1+s_2 \no\\
350: & & -3(r_1r_2+r'_1r'_2)+(r_1r'_2+r_2r'_1)
351: -4(t_1t'_2+t_2t'_1) \no\\
352: & &
353: -(r_1+r'_1)s_2-(r_2+r'_2)s_1+s_1s_2
354: \Bigr]^{-1}, \label{t}
355: \ee
356: where $s_i=\det S_i=r_ir'_i-t_it'_i$ ($i=1,2$).
357: Thus the total transmission $t$ is not equal to
358: $t_1+t_2$, rather including nonlinear effects
359: due to multiple scattering through the ring.
360: Such multiple scattering effects are put together with
361: interference due to random scattering
362: and give highly nontrivial results for the conductance
363: $g=\langle|t|^2\rangle$.
364:
365: Another way of representing the total S matrix is
366: to separate the S matrix of the system into
367: the upper and lower dot parts and the left and right fork parts
368: \cite{GIA, KK}.
369: Choosing the fork matrices in a proper way,
370: we can find the same expression of $t$ as in Eq.(\ref{t}).
371:
372: The conductance can be calculated by taking the ensemble average
373: over $S_2$ determined by the random Hamiltonian $H_2$.
374: Instead of doing that,
375: we may disregard the detailed structure of $S_2$
376: and impose randomness directly on $S_2$,
377: simulated by the circular ensembles \cite{Mehta}.
378: It is well known that the random S matrix approach is equivalent to
379: the random Hamiltonian approach if we use
380: the Poisson kernel \cite{pker}
381: \be
382: P_\beta(S)d\mu_\beta(S) \propto
383: \frac{1}
384: {\left|\det\left(1-S\langle S\rangle^\dag
385: \right)\right|^{2\beta+2-\beta}}
386: d\mu_\beta(S), \label{PK}
387: \ee
388: where $d\mu_\beta(S)$ denotes the invariant measure for the S matrix
389: and is used as the measure for the circular ensemble.
390: $\beta$ is the index for the universality class.
391: $\beta=1,2,$ and 4 for the unitary, orthogonal, and symplectic case,
392: respectively.
393: $\langle S\rangle$ is the averaged value of S which is
394: treated as an input parameter and
395: is determined by the random Hamiltonian model.
396: The total S matrix is constructed by the sum rule (\ref{sr})
397: and the conductance is expressed by $|t|^2$ where
398: $t$ is given by Eq.(\ref{t}).
399: By taking the circular ensemble average with
400: the weight $P_\beta(S_2)$,
401: we obtain the conductance $g$ which is the same as
402: that obtained by the random Hamiltonian approach.
403: The equivalence of both approaches was shown in Ref.\cite{Brouwer}.
404: The random S matrix approach has a great advantage
405: for numerical calculations
406: because there is no need to take the thermodynamic limit $N\to\infty$
407: and one may consider $2\times 2$ random matrices $S_2$.
408:
409: Alternatively, we can parametrize the S matrix
410: in terms of the K matrix (\ref{K}).
411: Then the expression of the conductance becomes
412: much simpler than Eq.(\ref{t}) as we show in Sec.\ref{cdf}.
413: The disadvantage of this parametrization
414: is that the K matrix is Hermitian and the matrix elements are not compact,
415: which is inconvenient for the numerical calculation.
416: Thus we employ the S matrix parametrization (\ref{t}) with
417: compact variables for most of the numerical calculations.
418:
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
421: \section{Averaged S matrix}
422: \label{avS}
423:
424: As we have shown in Eq.(\ref{K}),
425: the K matrix is written as the sum of the regular (dot 1) and
426: random (dot 2) parts.
427: Thus, to get the averaged K matrix,
428: we may consider the ensemble averaging of the random part.
429: We know from RMT that the averaged Green function
430: for the Gaussian unitary ensemble is given by \cite{Mehta}
431: \be
432: \left<\frac{1}{E^+-H_2}\right> = \frac{\pi}{N\Delta}e^{-iz},
433: \ee
434: where
435: \be
436: \cos z = \frac{\pi E}{2N\Delta}.
437: \ee
438: $N$ is taken to be infinity while $E/\Delta$ is kept finite.
439: Then we have $e^{-iz}\to -i$ and
440: the averaged K matrix is given by
441: \be
442: \langle K\rangle = \frac{1}{E^+-E_1}\gamma_1
443: -\frac{i\pi}{N\Delta}\gamma_2,
444: \ee
445: where $\gamma_i=\pi w^{(i)\dag}w^{(i)}$ ($i=1,2$).
446: It is important to note that the result depends
447: on the dot-lead couplings $w^{(1,2)}$ through $\gamma_{1,2}$.
448:
449: For the regular dot, the most general form of $\gamma_1$ is
450: \be
451: \gamma_1 &=& \bmat{cc} \pi w^{(1L)*}w^{(1L)} & \pi w^{(1L)*}w^{(1R)} \\
452: \pi w^{(1R)*}w^{(1L)} & \pi w^{(1R)*}w^{(1R)} \emat \no\\
453: &=& \frac{1}{2}\bmat{cc} \Gamma_{1L} & \sqrt{\Gamma_{1L}\Gamma_{1R}}e^{-i\phi} \\
454: \sqrt{\Gamma_{1R}\Gamma_{1L}}e^{i\phi} & \Gamma_{1R} \emat,
455: \ee
456: where $\Gamma_{1L}$ ($\Gamma_{1R}$) turns out to be the level width for
457: the left (right) coupling of the dot to the lead and
458: $\phi$ is a phase.
459: We assume the symmetric coupling $\Gamma_{1L}=\Gamma_{1R}$
460: for simplicity and use
461: \be
462: \gamma_1 = \Gamma_1\Phi,
463: \label{gamma1}
464: \ee
465: where
466: \be
467: \Phi= \frac{1}{2}\bmat{cc} 1 & e^{-i\phi} \\ e^{i\phi} & 1 \emat.
468: \ee
469: This matrix satisfies $\Phi^2=\Phi$ and
470: is diagonalized as $\Phi\to{\rm diag} (0,1)$.
471:
472: On the other hand, for the random dot,
473: the form of $\gamma_2$ is slightly complicated.
474: It is written as
475: \be
476: \gamma_2 = \bmat{cc} \pi w^{(2L)\dag}w^{(2L)} & \pi w^{(2L)\dag}w^{(2R)} \\
477: \pi w^{(2R)\dag}w^{(2L)} & \pi w^{(2R)\dag}w^{(2R)} \emat.
478: \ee
479: Since $w^{(2L)}$ and $w^{(2R)}$ are $N\times 1$ matrices,
480: we see that the relation
481: $|w^{(2L)\dag}w^{(2L)}||w^{(2R)\dag}w^{(2R)}|\ge
482: |w^{(2L)\dag}w^{(2R)}||w^{(2R)\dag}w^{(2L)}|$
483: holds.
484: The equal sign holds when $w^{(2L)}=w^{(2R)}$ or
485: $N=1$,
486: the latter is the case for $w^{(1)}$.
487: Thus we need the additional parameter
488: for the parametrization of $\gamma_2$.
489: Assuming the symmetry of the left and right coupling again,
490: we obtain the form
491: with the level width $\Gamma_2$ as
492: \be
493: \gamma_2 =
494: \frac{N\Gamma_2}{2}\bmat{cc} 1 & ae^{i\phi} \\ ae^{-i\phi} & 1 \emat.
495: \label{gamma2}
496: \ee
497: The parameter $a$ reflects the above mentioned inequality and
498: $0\le a\le 1$.
499: We note that the same phase $\phi$ appears in $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$,
500: but the sign is opposite to each other.
501: This phase affects the transmission part of the S matrix and
502: can be identified with the AB flux through the ring \cite{GIA,KK}.
503:
504: Using this parametrization, we can write
505: \be
506: \langle K\rangle = \frac{1}{\e}\Phi
507: -\frac{iX}{2}\bmat{cc} 1 & ae^{i\phi} \\ ae^{-i\phi} & 1 \emat,
508: \label{avK}
509: \ee
510: where
511: \be
512: \e = \frac{E-E_1}{\Gamma_1}, \;
513: X=\frac{\pi\Gamma_2}{\Delta}.
514: \ee
515: The energy $\e$ represents the distance
516: from the resonance point and
517: $X$ is the ratio of the level width to the mean level spacing of the dot 2.
518: Thus this model is described by four parameters
519: $\e$, $X$, $a$, and $\phi$.
520:
521: For the random dot,
522: the elements of the dot-lead coupling $w^{(2)}$
523: distribute randomly
524: and the summation $\sum_{i=1}^Nw^{(2L)*}_iw^{(2R)}_i$ can be small
525: when the random phases of $w^{(2L)}$ and $w^{(2R)}$ almost cancel out.
526: This means $a$ is vanishingly small.
527: On the other hand, the summation can be finite
528: when the left and right dot-lead couplings are correlated mutually.
529: This results in direct nonresonant reaction \cite{VWZ}.
530: We first discuss the case of $a=0$ for simplicity.
531: The averaged K matrix takes the form
532: \be
533: \langle K\rangle = \frac{1}{\e}\Phi-\frac{iX}{2}.
534: \ee
535: The finite-$a$ effect is discussed afterwards.
536:
537: Now we go back to the S matrix.
538: The averaged S matrix is simply obtained
539: by using the averaged K matrix,
540: \be
541: \langle S\rangle
542: &=& \frac{1-\langle K\rangle}{1+\langle K\rangle} \no\\
543: &=& \frac{1-\frac{X}{2}}{1+\frac{X}{2}}
544: -\frac{2i}{\left(1+\frac{X}{2}\right)
545: \left[\left(1+\frac{X}{2}\right)\e+i\right]}\Phi. \label{Scl}
546: \ee
547: This is justified by the saddle-point analysis of
548: the nonlinear sigma model described below.
549: We define $g_0 =|\langle S_{12}\rangle|^2$,
550: which is the conductance if we can disregard the quantum fluctuations.
551: It is given by
552: \be
553: g_0
554: = \frac{1}{\left(1+\frac{X}{2}\right)^2}
555: \frac{\left(\frac{\Gamma_1}{1+\frac{X}{2}}\right)^2}
556: {(E-E_1)^2+\left(\frac{\Gamma_1}{1+\frac{X}{2}}\right)^2}. \label{gcl}
557: \ee
558: The result shows that
559: the level width $\Gamma_1$ for the dot 1
560: and the conductance are renormalized by the factor $1/(1+X/2)$.
561:
562: For later use, we define the transmission coefficients as
563: \be
564: T &=& 1-\langle S\rangle\langle S\rangle^\dag \no\\
565: &=& \frac{2X}{\left(1+\frac{X}{2}\right)^2}
566: -\frac{2X}{\left(1+\frac{X}{2}\right)^2}
567: \frac{\left(\frac{\Gamma_2}{1+\frac{X}{2}}\right)^2}
568: {(E-E_1)^2
569: +\left(\frac{\Gamma_2}{1+\frac{X}{2}}\right)^2}\Phi. \no\\
570: \label{T}
571: \ee
572: This matrix can be diagonalized to find the eigenvalues
573: \be
574: T_1 = \frac{2X}{\left(1+\frac{X}{2}\right)^2}, \;
575: T_2 = \frac{2X}{\left(1+\frac{X}{2}\right)^2+\frac{1}{\e^2}}.
576: \label{T12}
577: \ee
578: Note that $ 0 \leq T_2 \leq T_1$,
579: $T_2=T_1$ at $|E-E_1|\to\infty$, and
580: $T_2=0$ at $E=E_1$.
581: At $X=2$, $T_1$ takes the maximum value, $T_1=1$, and
582: the transmission through the random dot becomes ideal.
583:
584: In conclusion of this section,
585: we found the averaged S matrix (\ref{Scl})
586: and the conductance (\ref{gcl}).
587: Of course, this is not the final result of the averaged conductance.
588: We just calculated the mean part $g_0=|\langle S_{12}\rangle|^2$
589: which is different from the original definition (\ref{cond}).
590: We must examine the fluctuation part
591: $\delta g= g-g_0=\langle |S_{12}|^2\rangle-|\langle S_{12}\rangle|^2$.
592:
593:
594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
596: \section{Conductance}
597:
598: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
599: \subsection{Supersymmetry method}
600: \label{susy}
601:
602: We derive the nonlinear sigma model for the coupled system
603: to calculate the fluctuation part of the conductance.
604: According to the supersymmetry method \cite{Efetov, VWZ},
605: the generating function for the product of Green functions
606: $G(E)=1/(E-H+i\pi ww^\dag)$ and $G^\dag(E)$ is defined by
607: \be
608: Z = \int {\cal D}(\bar{\psi},\psi)
609: \exp\Bigl[i\bar{\psi}
610: \Bigl(E+i\Lambda\pi ww^\dag-H\Bigr)\psi\Bigr],
611: \ee
612: where $\psi$ has $4(1+N)$ components coming from supersymmetry
613: (bosons and fermions),
614: retarded-advanced structure, and Hamiltonian space.
615: $\Lambda={\rm diag} (1,-1)$ in retarded-advanced space.
616: Following the standard procedure,
617: we introduce the Hubbard-Stratonovitch field $Q$
618: to write the averaged generating function as
619: \be
620: \left<Z\right>
621: &=& \int {\cal D}Q
622: \exp\biggl\{
623: -\str_{4(1+N)}\ln\biggl[E+i\Lambda\pi ww^\dag \no\\
624: & & -\bmat{cc}
625: E_1 & 0 \\
626: 0 & \frac{N\Delta}{\pi} Q \emat\biggr]
627: -\frac{1}{2}\str_4 Q^2\biggr\},
628: \ee
629: where $Q$ is a 4$\times$4 supermatrix.
630: ``$\str$'' denotes supertrace and
631: the subscript indicates the size of superspace.
632: When $w=0$, the saddle-point equation is written down as
633: \be
634: Q=\frac{N\Delta}{\pi}\frac{1}{E^+-\frac{N\Delta}{\pi}Q}.
635: \ee
636: This is easily solved with the proper boundary condition as
637: \be
638: Q = e^{-iz\Lambda}
639: = \frac{\pi E}{2N\Delta}
640: -i\Lambda\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{\pi E}{2N\Delta}\right)^2}
641: \to -i\Lambda,
642: \ee
643: where we took the limit $N\to\infty$ keeping $E/\Delta$ finite.
644: As a general solution including the saddle-point manifold,
645: we can write
646: \be
647: Q = -i\sigma, \;
648: \sigma = V\Lambda \bar{V},
649: \ee
650: where $V$ is the $4\times 4$ supermatrix and satisfies $V\bar{V}=1$.
651: The symmetry of $V$ is determined
652: in the standard way \cite{Efetov}.
653:
654: Now the generating function reads
655: \be
656: \left<Z\right>
657: &=& \int {\cal D}\sigma e^{-F}, \no\\
658: F &=& \str_{4(1+N)}\ln\left[
659: 1+\bmat{cc} \frac{1}{E-E_1} & 0 \\
660: 0 & \frac{\pi}{N\Delta}Q \emat i\Lambda \pi ww^\dag \right] \no\\
661: &=& \str_8\ln\left[
662: 1+i\Lambda\left(
663: \frac{1}{E-E_1}\gamma_1
664: -\frac{i\pi}{N\Delta}\gamma_2\sigma\right)
665: \right],
666: \ee
667: where we assumed $\gamma_1=\Gamma_1\Phi$ and $\gamma_2=N\Gamma_2/2$.
668: Since the matrix sizes of $\sigma$ and
669: $\gamma$ are 4 and 2, respectively,
670: the total size of the superspace in the last expression is 8.
671: We finally obtain
672: \be
673: F &=& \str_8\ln\left[
674: 1+i\left(
675: \frac{1}{\e}\Phi
676: -\frac{iX}{2}\Lambda\right)\sigma
677: \right]
678: \no\\
679: &=& \frac{1}{2}\str_8\ln\left[
680: 1+\frac{\frac{T}{2}}{1-\frac{T}{2}}
681: \frac{\Lambda\sigma+\sigma\Lambda}{2}
682: \right]. \label{nls}
683: \ee
684: The nonlinear sigma model (\ref{nls})
685: can be written in terms of the transmission matrix $T$ (\ref{T})
686: and the microscopic fundamental parameter $X$
687: does not appear in the expression explicitly.
688: This is a manifestation of the universality \cite{Mehta,GMW,VWZ}.
689:
690: Equation (\ref{nls}) is for systems with unitary symmetry.
691: In the same way we can derive the nonlinear sigma models
692: for the orthogonal and symplectic symmetry classes.
693: Then $\sigma$ becomes an $8\times 8$ supermatrix and
694: the additional symmetry due to time-reversal invariance is
695: imposed \cite{Efetov}.
696:
697: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
698: \subsection{Conductance}
699: \label{conductance}
700:
701: In the nonlinear sigma model approach,
702: the averaged conductance is calculated by
703: performing the integration of the $\sigma$ matrix.
704: The mean part of the conductance $g_0$ in Eq.(\ref{gcl})
705: is easily obtained by neglecting the fluctuation of
706: the $\sigma$ matrix as $\sigma=\Lambda$.
707: To find the fluctuation part of the conductance
708: $\delta g=\langle |S_{12}|^2\rangle-|\langle S_{12}\rangle|^2$,
709: we must take into account the contribution from
710: the saddle-point manifold parametrized by the $V$ matrix.
711: This calculation is highly complicated and
712: we refer to the Appendix \ref{calcond} for details.
713: We finally obtain
714: \be
715: \delta g &=& \frac{T_1+T_2}{4}
716: -\left(\frac{1-\frac{X^2}{4}}{2X}\right)
717: \left(\frac{1-\frac{X^2}{4}-\frac{1}{\e^2}}{2X}\right) \no\\
718: & & \times\left(\frac{T_1T_2}{T_1-T_2}\right)^2
719: \left[\frac{T_1+T_2}{2}
720: -\left(\frac{T_1T_2}{T_1-T_2}\right)\ln \frac{T_1}{T_2}
721: \right], \no\\
722: \label{g1}
723: \ee
724: where $T_{1,2}$ are the eigenvalues of the transmission matrix $T$
725: given by Eq.(\ref{T12}).
726:
727: \begin{figure}[tb]
728: \begin{center}
729: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{xg2.eps}
730: \caption{Conductance vs $X=\pi\Gamma_2/\Delta$.
731: The thick (thin) lines are
732: analytical results of the total conductance $g$
733: (mean part $g_0$).
734: Inset : Comparison of the analytical (denoted by lines)
735: and numerical (dots)
736: results for the fluctuation part $\delta g=g-g_0$.
737: }
738: \label{gx}
739: \end{center}
740: \end{figure}
741:
742: We first examine the two limiting cases, $|\e|\to\infty$ and $\e=0$.
743: The limit $|\e|\to\infty$ means that dot 1 is detached
744: from the system and the S matrix is given by $S_1=1$.
745: In this case, $T_1=T_2=2X/(1+X/2)^2$ and
746: we recover the known result \cite{Efetov2}
747: \be
748: \delta g = \frac{T_1}{3}+\frac{T_1^2}{6}. \label{g1single}
749: \ee
750: In the other limit $\e=0$ ($E=E_1$)
751: the energy coincides with the level in dot 1 and
752: the perfect transmission through dot 1 is achieved.
753: Then $T_2=0$ and we obtain
754: \be
755: \delta g = \frac{T_1}{4}. \label{g1res}
756: \ee
757: We see that Eq.(\ref{g1single}) is larger than Eq.(\ref{g1res}),
758: which means that the fluctuation effects are reduced
759: as we approach the resonant point.
760: For intermediate values of $\e$,
761: Eq.(\ref{g1}) cannot be written in terms of $T_{1,2}$ only
762: in contrast to Eqs.(\ref{g1single}) and (\ref{g1res}).
763: This is because the source term to calculate the conductance
764: depends on $\e$ and $X$ explicitly,
765: although the nonlinear sigma model itself can be written in terms of $T$,
766: as shown in the Appendix \ref{calcond}.
767:
768: These results are checked by numerical calculations.
769: We use the formula (\ref{t}) for the transmission matrix.
770: $S_1$ is given by $S_1=(1-iK_1)/(1+iK_1)$ with $K_1=\Phi/\e$,
771: and the random S matrix $S_2$ is treated statistically
772: by using the Poisson kernel (\ref{PK}).
773: We take the ensemble average over more than
774: $10^6$ samples of the S matrix.
775:
776: In Fig.~\ref{gx}, $X$ dependence of the conductance
777: is shown for several values of $\e$.
778: $g_0$ shows a peak at $X=0$
779: while $\delta g$ takes a maximum at $X=2$ as shown by
780: the thin lines and the inset in Fig.~\ref{gx}, respectively.
781: As $\e\to\infty$
782: $g_0$ ($\delta g$) is monotonically decreasing (increasing)
783: and the result rapidly approaches Eq.(\ref{g1single}).
784: The numerical result agrees with Eq.(\ref{g1})
785: in a highly accurate way,
786: which shows the equivalence of the random Hamiltonian and
787: random S matrix approach.
788:
789: \begin{figure}[tb]
790: \begin{center}
791: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{eg2.eps}
792: \caption{Conductance vs $\e=(E-E_1)/\Gamma_1$.
793: The thick (thin) lines are the total conductance $g$
794: (the mean part $g_0$).
795: Inset : Fluctuation part $\delta g=g-g_0$.
796: }
797: \label{ge}
798: \end{center}
799: \end{figure}
800:
801: \begin{figure}[tb]
802: \begin{center}
803: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{oseg.eps}
804: \caption{Numerical results of the conductance $g(\e)$
805: for orthogonal and symplectic ensembles.
806: The result for the symplectic case is normalized to unity.
807: }
808: \label{oseg}
809: \end{center}
810: \end{figure}
811:
812: $\e$ dependence of the conductance is shown in Fig.~\ref{ge}.
813: A resonance peak appears at $\e=0$,
814: reflecting transport through the regular dot 1.
815: This peak structure, however, changes qualitatively as a function of $X$.
816: For small $X$ the peak is convex and
817: the peak height decreases on increasing $X$.
818: When $X=2$, $g$ is independent of $\e$.
819: Increasing $X$ further, we find that the peak turns into
820: an antiresonance and $g$ decreases monotonically.
821: The result for $X=2$ corresponds to that of
822: the circular unitary ensemble because $\langle S_2\rangle=0$, and
823: the Poisson kernel $P_\beta(S_2)$ becomes unity.
824: As we see in the inset of Fig.\ref{ge},
825: $\delta g$ at the resonant point is relatively small and
826: the quantum fluctuation effect smooths the resonance.
827:
828: For comparison we calculate $g$ as a function of $\e$ for
829: the orthogonal and symplectic ensembles numerically.
830: For the orthogonal case,
831: the Hamiltonian has time-reversal invariance and
832: the matrix elements are real.
833: For symplectic,
834: the Hamiltonian becomes a quaternion real matrix \cite{Mehta}.
835: The results are shown in Fig.\ref{oseg}.
836: When $0<X<2$, the resonance is enhanced (reduced) for
837: the orthogonal (symplectic) ensembles.
838: At $X=2$, the orthogonal ensemble gives a resonance while
839: the symplectic ensemble gives an antiresonance.
840: When $X=10$, we see that antiresonance is reduced (enhanced)
841: for the orthogonal (symplectic) ensemble in contrast to the case of $X<2$.
842:
843: Away from the resonance, the quantum fluctuation effect
844: becomes larger
845: as the number of degrees of freedom of random variables increases.
846: We note that the number of degrees becomes maximum when $\beta=4$
847: and minimum when $\beta=1$.
848: We can also see that the conductance at the resonant point
849: is independent of the choice of the ensemble.
850: This result is discussed in detail in Sec.\ref{cdf}.
851:
852: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
853: \subsection{Aharonov--Bohm oscillations}
854: \label{ABO}
855:
856: For regular ring systems,
857: it is well known that
858: the AB oscillations are observed by
859: applying the magnetic flux through the ring.
860: Since the flux is a tunable parameter
861: it is an important method to control the system.
862: Our interest is how the effect of the AB flux
863: can be observed in the present random system.
864: Can the AB oscillations survive after the random averaging?
865:
866: \begin{figure}[tb]
867: \begin{center}
868: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{ab.eps}
869: \caption{Conductance vs $\phi$ for $X=2$.
870: The lower figure is for the orthogonal ensemble and
871: upper for symplectic.
872: No oscillations are observed for the unitary case.
873: }
874: \label{ab}
875: \end{center}
876: \end{figure}
877:
878: In systems with unitary symmetry,
879: since the scattering in the random dot randomizes
880: the phase of the amplitude,
881: the result becomes independent of the AB phase $\phi$.
882: This is not the case for the orthogonal and symplectic systems
883: and the oscillations can be observed.
884: However, the period of the oscillation
885: is different from that for regular systems.
886: This can be understood from the expression of
887: the transmission $t$ in Eq.(\ref{t}).
888: The phase is included in that expression as
889: \be
890: t = \frac{At_1e^{i\phi}+Bt_2e^{-i\phi}}
891: {C-D(t_1t'_2e^{2i\phi}+t_2t'_1e^{-2i\phi})},
892: \ee
893: where $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ are phase independent contributions.
894: If we neglect the multiple scattering effect
895: the total transmission is approximated by
896: $t\sim t_1e^{i\phi}+t_2e^{-i\phi}$.
897: Then the conductance is given by
898: \be
899: g &\sim& |t_1e^{i\phi}+t_2e^{-i\phi}|^2 \no\\
900: &=& |t_1|^2+|t_2|^2+t_1t_2^*e^{2i\phi}+t_1^*t_2e^{-2i\phi}.
901: \ee
902: We see that the third and fourth terms of the right hand side
903: give oscillations with the period $\pi$.
904: However, these terms vanish after the random averaging.
905: The contributions going around the ring twice
906: give oscillations with the period $\pi/2$ and
907: survive after the averaging.
908: Such contributions come from expanding the denominator.
909: Thus, in the orthogonal and symplectic systems,
910: $g$ depends on the AB phase due to
911: the multiple scattering inside the ring.
912: The period of the AB oscillations becomes half of that
913: for the regular systems.
914: This effect can be interpreted as
915: a kind of the Altshuler-Aronov-Spivak effect \cite{AAS}
916: for cylinder systems.
917: In a ring system, it was discussed in Ref.\cite{AAS2} that
918: the period of the oscillation becomes half a flux quantum
919: by the self-averaging effect.
920:
921: We show the numerical results in Fig.\ref{ab} for
922: the orthogonal and symplectic ensembles.
923: The period of the oscillations is $\pi/2$ as we discussed above
924: and the difference between these two results is that
925: the conductance becomes minimum (maximum) for orthogonal
926: (symplectic) at $\phi=0$.
927: This can be understood by the standard mechanism of
928: weak localization \cite{weakl}.
929:
930: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
931: \subsection{Fano effect}
932: \label{fanoeff}
933:
934: The Fano effect is induced by the correlation of
935: the resonant and direct path \cite{CWB,Fano}.
936: The direct path can be described by
937: the parameter $a$ in Eq.(\ref{gamma2}).
938: If we keep this parameter in Eq.(\ref{avK}),
939: the averaged S matrix is given by
940: \bw
941: \be
942: \langle S\rangle &=& \frac{1}
943: {\left(1+\frac{1+a}{2}X\right)\left(1+\frac{1-a}{2}X\right)
944: +\left(1+\frac{1-a\cos 2\phi}{2}X\right)\frac{i}{\e}} \no\\
945: & & \times\bmat{cc}
946: 1-\frac{1-a^2}{4}X^2-\frac{1-a\cos 2\phi}{2}X\frac{i}{\e} &
947: -\frac{i}{\e} e^{-i\phi}-a X e^{i\phi} \\
948: -\frac{i}{\e} e^{i\phi}-a X e^{-i\phi} &
949: 1-\frac{1-a^2}{4}X^2-\frac{1-a \cos 2\phi}{2}X\frac{i}{\e} \emat,
950: \ee
951: \ew
952: The mean part of the conductance is derived from this expression as
953: \be
954: g_0 &=& \frac{a^2 X^2}{\left(1+\frac{1+a}{2}X\right)^2
955: \left(1+\frac{1-a}{2}X\right)^2} \no\\
956: & & \times \frac{\left|\e-\e_1+q\Gamma_1\right|^2}
957: {(E-E_1)^2
958: +\frac{\left(1+\frac{1-a\cos 2\phi}{2}X\right)^2}
959: {\left(1+\frac{1+a}{2}X\right)^2
960: \left(1+\frac{1-a}{2}X\right)^2}\Gamma_1^2}, \label{g0fano}
961: \ee
962: where $q$ is the Fano parameter
963: \be
964: q = \frac{i e^{2i\phi}}{a X}. \label{fanoq}
965: \ee
966: Thus the Fano effect appears when $a\ne 0$.
967: The additional condition $\phi\ne 0$ is required
968: to obtain a finite real part of $q$.
969: Then the asymmetric conductance form is obtained.
970: At the limit $|E-E_1|\to\infty$, $g_0$ has a finite contribution
971: in contrast with Eq.(\ref{gcl}).
972: This means that there is a direct regular coupling between
973: the left and right leads through the random dot.
974:
975: \begin{figure}[tb]
976: \begin{center}
977: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{fanog.eps}
978: \caption{Conductance vs $\e=(E-E_1)/\Gamma_1$
979: at $a=0.7$ and $\phi=-\pi/8$.
980: The thick (thin) lines are the total conductance $g$
981: (the mean part $g_0$).
982: Inset : Fluctuation part $\delta g=g-g_0$.
983: The total conductance $g$ is obtained numerically and
984: the mean part $g_0$ is plotted by using Eq.(\ref{g0fano})
985: }
986: \label{fanog}
987: \end{center}
988: \end{figure}
989:
990: This Fano effect also appears on $\delta g$.
991: The numerical result in Fig.\ref{fanog}
992: shows that the Fano parameter for $\delta g$ is
993: the same as Eq.(\ref{fanoq}).
994: Since the antiresonance appears in $\delta g$
995: as shown in the inset of Fig.\ref{ge},
996: the asymmetry is opposite to that of $g_0$.
997: As a result, the total conductance becomes symmetric.
998: This result means that the Fano effect appears
999: not on $g$ but on the mean part $g_0$ and
1000: the fluctuation part $\delta g$, respectively.
1001: We note that the asymmetric form is obtained when ${\rm Re}\,q\ne 0$.
1002: The effect of the imaginary part of $q$ keeps the conductance symmetric.
1003: We can conclude that the real part of the Fano parameter does not
1004: affect the total conductance.
1005: We confirmed that the symmetric conductance is obtained
1006: for the orthogonal and symplectic classes as well.
1007:
1008: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1009: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1010: \section{Conductance distribution functions --- mode-locking effect}
1011: \label{cdf}
1012:
1013: In the previous section we focused on the averaged conductance.
1014: It is well known that disordered systems show
1015: strong fluctuation effects,
1016: which mean that the square of the conductance
1017: and even the higher moments
1018: become relevant to characterize the system.
1019: To discuss the effects of the fluctuations,
1020: here we calculate the conductance distribution
1021: function $P(g)=\langle\delta(g-|S_{12}|^2)\rangle$.
1022: We show the analytical results when $\e=0$
1023: which show universality among the ensembles.
1024: We also report the numerical results.
1025:
1026: The expression of the conductance distribution becomes simpler
1027: if we use the K matrix representation
1028: as we mentioned in Sec.\ref{randomS}.
1029: $K$ is a Hermite matrix and $K = K_1 + K_2$ with
1030: \be
1031: K_1 = \frac{1}{2\e}\bmat{cc}1 & e^{-i\phi} \\ e^{i\phi} & 1 \emat, \;
1032: K_2 = \bmat{cc} a_1 & be^{i\phi} \\ b^\dag e^{-i\phi} & a_2 \emat.
1033: \label{Kpara}
1034: \ee
1035: $a_{1,2}$ are real, and
1036: $b$ depends on the universality class
1037: and is expressed as
1038: \be
1039: b = \left\{\ba{cc}
1040: b_0 & \mbox{for}\ \beta=1, \\
1041: b_0+ib_1 & \mbox{for}\ \beta=2, \\
1042: b_0+b_1e_1+b_2e_2+b_3e_3 & \mbox{for}\ \beta=4,
1043: \ea\right.
1044: \ee
1045: where $b_{0,1,2,3}$ are real and
1046: $e_{1,2,3}$ quaternion matrices defined by
1047: $e_j=i\sigma_j$ with the Pauli matrix $\sigma_j$ ($j=1,2,3$).
1048: The conductance is expressed in this parametrization as
1049: \bw
1050: \be
1051: g = \left\{\ba{cc}
1052: \frac{1+4b_0\e\cos 2\phi+4|b|^2\e^2}
1053: {\left[b_0\cos 2\phi-\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}+(1-a_1a_2+|b|^2)\e\right]^2
1054: +\left[1+(a_1+a_2)\e\right]^2}
1055: & \mbox{for}\ \beta=1, \\
1056: \frac{1+4(b_0\e\cos 2\phi-b_1\sin 2\phi)+4|b|^2\e^2}
1057: {\left[b_0\cos 2\phi-b_1\sin 2\phi
1058: -\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}+(1-a_1a_2+|b|^2)\e\right]^2
1059: +\left[1+(a_1+a_2)\e\right]^2}
1060: & \mbox{for}\ \beta=2, \\
1061: \frac{1}{2}\tr\frac{1+4b_0\e\cos 2\phi+4|b|^2\e^2}
1062: {\left[(b_0\cos 2\phi-r\sigma_3\sin 2\phi
1063: )-\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}+(1-a_1a_2+|b|^2)\e\right]^2
1064: +\left[1+(a_1+a_2)\e\right]^2}
1065: & \mbox{for}\ \beta=4,
1066: \ea\right.
1067: \ee
1068: where $|b|^2=\sum_{i=0}^{\beta-1} b_i^2$
1069: and $r^2= b_1^2+b_2^2+b_3^2$.
1070: We note that the conductance for $\beta=4$ is normalized to unity.
1071: This expression is averaged by
1072: the generalized circular ensemble
1073: (Poisson kernel)
1074: \be
1075: P_\beta (S_2)d\mu_\beta(S_2) \propto
1076: \left\{\frac{1}{\left[\frac{X}{2}+\frac{2}{X}(-a_1a_2+|b|^2)\right]^2
1077: +(a_1+a_2)^2}\right\}^{(\beta+2)/2}
1078: da_1da_2\prod_{i=0}^{\beta-1}db_i,
1079: \ee
1080: \ew
1081: where we used $\langle S_2\rangle=(1-X/2)/(1+X/2)$.
1082: The numerical results using the Metropolis algorithm \cite{Heermann}
1083: are shown in Fig.\ref{pg} at $\phi=0$.
1084:
1085: \begin{figure}[tb]
1086: \begin{center}
1087: \includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{pg.eps}
1088: \includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{opg.eps}
1089: \includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{spg.eps}
1090: \caption{Ensemble dependence of the conductance distribution
1091: functions at $\phi=0$.
1092: The curves at $\e=0$ are well fitted by the analytical result (\ref{pg0})}
1093: \label{pg}
1094: \end{center}
1095: \end{figure}
1096:
1097: The results at large $\e$ are interpreted as the single random dot case.
1098: This case was discussed in Ref.\cite{PEI}
1099: using the random Hamiltonian approach
1100: and the analytical result for the unitary system was obtained.
1101: In the random S matrix approach,
1102: the case of the perfect transmission $X=2$ was
1103: obtained in Ref.\cite{randomS} as
1104: \be
1105: P(g)=\frac{\beta}{2}g^{-1+\beta/2},
1106: \ee
1107: and other cases were discussed in Ref.\cite{BB94}.
1108: The case of $\e=10$ is enough to find a large-$\e$ result
1109: and we find a good agreement with their results.
1110:
1111: In the case of $\e=1$,
1112: we can clearly see how the random dot significantly
1113: affects the distribution function.
1114: If we increase $X$,
1115: a single peak at small $X$ turns into a broad one
1116: and a different peak around $g=0$ is formed at large $X$.
1117:
1118: It is interesting to see the results at $\e=0$
1119: which are independent of the choice of the ensemble.
1120: In this case,
1121: the conductance distribution can be calculated analytically.
1122: The conductance is written as
1123: \be
1124: g = \frac{1}{1+\left(b_0-\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}\right)^2}. \label{gb0}
1125: \ee
1126: and the distribution function is obtained from the expression
1127: \be
1128: & & P(g)
1129: = C\int da_1 da_2\prod_{i=0}^{\beta-1}db_i \no\\
1130: & & \times
1131: \delta\left(g-\frac{1}{1+\left(b_0-\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}\right)^2}\right)\no\\
1132: & & \times
1133: \left\{\frac{1}{\left[\frac{X}{2}+\frac{2}{X}(-a_1a_2+|b|^2)\right]^2
1134: +(a_1+a_2)^2}\right\}^{(\beta+2)/2}, \no\\
1135: \ee
1136: where $C$ is the normalization constant.
1137: We perform the integrals and obtain
1138: \be
1139: P(g) = \frac{1}{\pi\sqrt{g(1-g)}}
1140: \frac{1}{\frac{2}{X}(1-g)+\frac{X}{2}g}. \label{pg0}
1141: \ee
1142: This result agrees with the numerical ones
1143: in Fig.\ref{pg}.
1144: The reason why this result becomes independent of $\beta$
1145: can be considered as follows.
1146: In Eq.(\ref{Kpara}),
1147: all the matrix elements of $K_1$ are divergent at $a=0$.
1148: When $\phi=0$, this diverging term belongs to the member of
1149: the orthogonal ensemble and
1150: affects the variables $a_{1,2}$ and $b_0$ in the second term $K_2$
1151: which are common to all the ensembles.
1152: Then the effective modes are locked on those for the orthogonal class
1153: and the conductance (\ref{gb0}) becomes independent of
1154: the rest of the parameters $b_{1,2,3}$.
1155:
1156: Equation (\ref{pg0}) with $X=2$ appears in the problem of
1157: the classical random walk \cite{feller}
1158: and is known as the arcsine law.
1159: Consider the one-dimensional classical random walk starting at the origin.
1160: The walker can move to either one of its two nearest neighbor sites
1161: with the equal probability $p=0.5$.
1162: After the $N$-step walk,
1163: we count the number of the events which
1164: the walker was in the positive axis $M$.
1165: Then the distribution function of $g=M/N$ approaches
1166: Eq.(\ref{pg0}) with $X=2$ as $N\to\infty$.
1167: It can be considered that
1168: the walker at the positive (negative) direction
1169: corresponds to the transmission (reflection)
1170: to the left (right) lead in our model.
1171: Due to the presence of the resonant path through the dot 1,
1172: a particle transmitted through the dot 2
1173: can go to either left or right lead with equal probability.
1174: The particle reflected by the dot 2 can go either way as well.
1175: Thus the particle entered from a lead forgets where it came from.
1176: Such a process can be interpreted as a
1177: random-walk-like one and gives the same distribution function.
1178: It is interesting that the asymmetric random walk
1179: with the probability $p\ne 0.5$ can be described by our model
1180: with $X\ne 2$.
1181: Since the analytic form is not known in the asymmetric random walk,
1182: our result may be useful for understanding the result.
1183: It is also known that
1184: the same distribution function appears in the problem of
1185: the continuous-time quantum walk \cite{konno}.
1186:
1187:
1188: \begin{figure}[tb]
1189: \begin{center}
1190: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{spgp.eps}
1191: \caption{Conductance distribution function of the symplectic system
1192: for several values of $\phi$.
1193: We set $X=2$ and $\e=0$.
1194: }
1195: \label{spgp}
1196: \end{center}
1197: \end{figure}
1198:
1199: When the phase $\phi$ is finite,
1200: $K_1$ does not belong to the member of the orthogonal ensemble
1201: and the results can depend on the choice of the ensembles.
1202: We numerically found that the orthogonal and unitary cases
1203: are independent of $\phi$ and the result (\ref{pg0}) is kept unchanged.
1204: For the symplectic case, we found that the result depends on $\phi$
1205: and Eq.(\ref{pg0}) does not maintain anymore.
1206: The numerical result for $X=2$ and $\e=0$
1207: is shown in Fig.\ref{spgp}.
1208: Remarkably,
1209: all plotted curves give the averaged conductance $g=0.5$
1210: and the phase dependence appears only for the conductance fluctuations.
1211: We also see that plotted curves
1212: has a nonanalytic point at around $g=0.5$, which implies
1213: a nontrivial mechanism due to the phase coherent effect.
1214: It is not clear how this happens
1215: and further study is needed to clarify the underlying mechanism.
1216:
1217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1218: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1219: \section{Dephasing}
1220: \label{dephasing}
1221:
1222: In the Hamiltonian approach,
1223: the dephasing effect can be modeled by
1224: introducing the imaginary part to the energy
1225: \be
1226: \e\to\e+\frac{i}{2\tau}.
1227: \ee
1228: This method is equivalent with that of Ref.\cite{PEI}
1229: where the imaginary part of the Hamiltonian was introduced.
1230: In the supersymmetry method, this effect can be described
1231: by the additional term of the sigma model \cite{PEI}
1232: \be
1233: F_\tau = \frac{1}{\Delta\tau}\str \sigma\Lambda.
1234: \label{Ftau}
1235: \ee
1236: This term makes the massless ``diffusion'' modes on
1237: the saddle-point manifold massive and reduces the quantum fluctuations.
1238: See the Appendix \ref{calcond} for details.
1239:
1240: It is well known in the S matrix approach that
1241: the dephasing effect can be described by
1242: the B\"uttiker's voltage probe model \cite{Buttiker}.
1243: A fictitious voltage probe eliminating the phase coherence
1244: is attached to the dot and is described by an enlarged S matrix.
1245:
1246: Brouwer and Beenakker showed
1247: that the voltage-probe model at a certain limit
1248: becomes equivalent to the imaginary-potential model and
1249: found the modified Poisson kernel
1250: in the random S matrix approach \cite{BB97}.
1251: Here we investigate this limit using the imaginary-potential model.
1252: Since the dephasing effect to the regular dot is trivial,
1253: we include the effect in the random dot only.
1254:
1255: \begin{figure}[tb]
1256: \begin{center}
1257: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{dpg.eps}
1258: \caption{Conductance distribution function for unitary system
1259: for several values of $p=1/\Delta\tau$.
1260: }
1261: \label{dpg}
1262: \end{center}
1263: \end{figure}
1264:
1265: In Fig.\ref{dpg}, the numerical results of the conductance
1266: distribution function using the random Hamiltonian model are shown.
1267: We add the dephasing term, $p=1/\Delta\tau$ with
1268: the phenomenological dephasing rate $\tau$, to the Hamiltonian.
1269: The matrix elements of the dot-lead coupling $w^{(2)}$ are
1270: chosen randomly so that
1271: there is no direct nonresonant reaction $a=0$.
1272: The size of the random Hamiltonian is taken $10^2$
1273: and the averaging over $10^5$ samples is carried out.
1274:
1275: As $p$ increases, the curve transforms into a single peak structure.
1276: The peak point corresponds to the mean part of the conductance $g_0$,
1277: which is close to zero for the upper graph and 0.25 for the lower one.
1278: We can conclude that the dephasing effect only affects
1279: the fluctuation part.
1280: We also confirmed that our numerical result based on
1281: the random Hamiltonian
1282: agrees with that of the random S matrix model in Ref.\cite{BB97}.
1283:
1284: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1285: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1286: \section{Conclusions}
1287: \label{conc}
1288:
1289: We have discussed an AB ring system with
1290: regular and random cavities.
1291: We found that the quantum fluctuation effect plays
1292: an important and crucial role
1293: and significantly affects the conductance.
1294: The main results are summarized as follows:
1295: (i) The averaged conductance is divided into two parts.
1296: The mean part has the Breit-Wigner resonant form renormalized
1297: by random effects.
1298: The quantum fluctuation part has an antiresonance form
1299: where the quantum effects become minimal at the resonant point.
1300: (ii) For the orthogonal and symplectic ensembles,
1301: the AB oscillations are found and the period of the oscillations
1302: is half a flux quantum.
1303: The positive (negative) magnetoconductance are obtained
1304: for the orthogonal (symplectic) ensemble
1305: because of the multiple reflections inside of the ring.
1306: (iii) Depending on the parameter choice,
1307: the Fano effect can be observed.
1308: This effect appears in the mean and fluctuation parts, respectively,
1309: and a symmetric form is obtained for the total conductance.
1310: (iv) The conductance distribution functions clearly show
1311: the influence of strong fluctuations.
1312: The distribution function at the resonant point, Eq.(\ref{pg0}),
1313: does not depend on the choice of the ensemble,
1314: which can be understood by the mode-locking mechanism.
1315: The form of the distribution function implies a relation to
1316: the random walk problem.
1317: (v) The dephasing effect simulated by the imaginary-potential model
1318: reduces the fluctuation part only.
1319:
1320: The result of the averaged conductance in Fig.\ref{ge}
1321: shows that the total conductance as a function of the energy
1322: takes a broad distribution.
1323: The form of the total conductance is determined by
1324: the competition between the mean (\ref{gcl}) and
1325: fluctuation (\ref{g1}) parts.
1326: At large $X$ we can observe the antiresonance.
1327:
1328: Separating the mean and fluctuation parts
1329: is crucial to understand the obtained result.
1330: For example the Fano effect is found in both parts,
1331: while the total conductance, the sum of them, becomes symmetric.
1332: We also found that the dephasing effect suppresses the fluctuation part,
1333: which means that the cancellation is incomplete and
1334: the asymmetric form can be obtained in a system with dephasing.
1335:
1336: The most striking result can be seen in
1337: the calculation of the conductance distribution function.
1338: At the resonant point, the effective modes of the K matrix
1339: in Eq.(\ref{Kpara}) are locked
1340: to those for the orthogonal ensemble.
1341: Only the orthogonal modes are amplified by
1342: the multiple scattering through the ring and
1343: we can find the ensemble-insensitive result.
1344: This result suggests a possibility of controlling
1345: the ensemble dependence of random systems
1346: by the resonant singularity embedded in the systems.
1347:
1348: Our results for a coupled system show that
1349: the nontrivial phenomena which are absent
1350: in the single system can be observed in the hybrid system,
1351: which opens a new direction for theoretical and experimental studies
1352: of chaotic scattering.
1353: In this paper we only considered the regular-random coupled system.
1354: It is interesting to see more complicated systems such as
1355: a random-random system and triple coupled cavities, and so on.
1356: A study of the series coupled random dot can be seen, e.g.,
1357: in Ref.\cite{IWZ}.
1358: To the best of our knowledge, there is no systematic study
1359: on the parallel coupled system.
1360: It will be discussed in detail in a future publication \cite{AT}.
1361:
1362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1363: \section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
1364:
1365: We are grateful to D. Cohen and S. Iida for useful discussions.
1366:
1367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1369: \appendix*
1370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1371: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1372: \section{Calculation of the conductance}
1373: \label{calcond}
1374:
1375: We calculate the conductance using
1376: the nonlinear sigma model with unitary symmetry, Eq.(\ref{nls}).
1377: The first step to do is to represent the conductance
1378: as an integral of the $\sigma$ matrix.
1379: This is the standard prescription discussed in detail in Ref.\cite{VWZ}
1380: and we have
1381: \be
1382: \langle |S_{12}|^2\rangle
1383: &=& \biggl<\str \left(k\frac{1+\Lambda}{2}\tilde{K}
1384: \frac{1}{1+i\Lambda\tilde{K}}\right)_{12} \no\\
1385: &&\times
1386: \str \left(k\frac{1-\Lambda}{2}\tilde{K}
1387: \frac{1}{1+i\Lambda \tilde{K}}\right)_{21}\biggr>_F \no\\
1388: & & +\biggl<\str \left(k\frac{1+\Lambda}{2}\tilde{K}
1389: \frac{1}{1+i\Lambda\tilde{K}}\right)_{11} \no\\
1390: &&\times
1391: \left(k\frac{1-\Lambda}{2}\tilde{K}
1392: \frac{1}{1+i\Lambda\tilde{K}}\right)_{22}\biggr>_F, \label{s12}
1393: \ee
1394: where
1395: $k={\rm diag}(1,-1)$ in superspace,
1396: $\langle\ \rangle_F$ denotes the integration over $\sigma$
1397: with the weight $e^{-F}$, and
1398: \be
1399: \tilde{K} &=& \frac{1}{E-E_1}\gamma_1-\frac{i\pi}{N\Delta}\gamma_2\sigma \no\\
1400: &=& \frac{1}{\e}\Phi-\frac{iX}{2}\sigma.
1401: \ee
1402: In the second line we used $a=0$.
1403:
1404: The second step is to parametrize the supermatrix $\sigma$.
1405: We use \cite{Efetov}
1406: \be
1407: & & \sigma = U\sigma_0\bar{U}, \no\\
1408: & & \sigma_0=\bmat{cc} \cos\hat{\theta} & i\sin\hat{\theta} \\
1409: -i\sin\hat{\theta} & -\cos\hat{\theta} \emat_{\rm RA}, \no\\
1410: & & U = \bmat{cc} u & 0 \\ 0 & v \emat_{\rm RA},
1411: \ee
1412: where
1413: \be
1414: & & \hat{\theta} = \bmat{cc} i\theta_B & 0 \\
1415: 0 & \theta_F \emat_{\rm BF},
1416: \ee
1417: and the integration range is given by
1418: $0<\theta_B<\infty$ and $0<\theta_F<\pi$.
1419: $U$ includes the anticommuting Grassmann variables
1420: and can be written as
1421: \be
1422: & & u=u_1u_2, \no\\
1423: & & u_1 = \exp\bmat{cc} 0 & i\eta \\ -i\eta^* & 0 \emat_{\rm BF}, \no\\
1424: & & u_2 = \bmat{cc} \mbox{e}^{i\varphi_1} & 0 \\
1425: 0 & \mbox{e}^{i\varphi_2} \emat_{\rm BF}, \no\\
1426: & & v = \exp\bmat{cc} 0 & \kappa \\ -\kappa^* & 0 \emat_{\rm BF},
1427: \ee
1428: where $\eta$ and $\chi$ are Grassmann variables and
1429: the range of the real variables $\varphi_{1,2}$
1430: is given by $0<\varphi_{1,2}<2\pi$.
1431: The invariant measure of this parametrization is
1432: \be
1433: {\cal D}\sigma &=& Cd\theta_B d\theta_F
1434: d\varphi_1 d\varphi_2
1435: d\eta d\eta^* d\kappa d\kappa^* \no\\
1436: & & \times
1437: \frac{\sinh\theta_B\sin\theta_F}{(\cosh\theta_B-\cos\theta_F)^2},
1438: \ee
1439: where $C$ is the normalization constant.
1440: In this parametrization, we can write
1441: \be
1442: e^{-F} = \frac{\left[1-\frac{T_1}{2}(1-\cos\theta_F)\right]
1443: \left[1-\frac{T_2}{2}(1-\cos\theta_F)\right]}
1444: {\left[1+\frac{T_1}{2}(\cosh\theta_B-1)\right]
1445: \left[1+\frac{T_2}{2}(\cosh\theta_B-1)\right]}. \no\\
1446: \ee
1447:
1448: The last step is to carry out the integrations.
1449: This calculation is cumbersome although it is a straightforward task.
1450: The first term in Eq.(\ref{s12}) includes the mean part $g_0$.
1451: It is easily obtained by substituting $\sigma=\Lambda$.
1452: The fluctuation correction is obtained from the integral
1453: \be
1454: & & \frac{1}{16}\int_1^\infty ds_1\int_{-1}^1ds
1455: e^{-F} \no\\
1456: & & \times
1457: \biggl|
1458: T_1\frac{1-\frac{T_1}{2}\left(1+\frac{X}{2}\right)}
1459: {\left[1+\frac{T_1}{2}(s_1-1)\right]
1460: \left[1-\frac{T_1}{2}(1-s)\right]} \no\\
1461: & & -T_2\frac{1-\frac{T_2}{2}\left[1+\frac{X}{2}
1462: +\frac{2}{X}\left(\frac{1}{\e^2}+\frac{i}{\e}\right)\right]}
1463: {\left[1+\frac{T_2}{2}(s_1-1)\right]
1464: \left[1-\frac{T_2}{2}(1-s)\right]}
1465: \biggr|^2.
1466: \label{int1}
1467: \ee
1468: In the same way, the second term in Eq.(\ref{s12})
1469: is reduced to
1470: \be
1471: & & \frac{1}{16}\int_1^\infty ds_1\int_{-1}^1ds
1472: \frac{1}{(s_1-s)^2}e^{-F} \no\\
1473: & & \times
1474: \Biggl\{
1475: \left[\frac{T_1}{1+\frac{T_1}{2}(s_1-1)}
1476: +\frac{T_2}{1+\frac{T_2}{2}(s_1-1)}\right]^2(s_1^2-1) \no\\
1477: & &
1478: +\left[\frac{T_1}{1-\frac{T_1}{2}(1-s)}
1479: +\frac{T_2}{1+\frac{T_2}{2}(1-s)}\right]^2(1-s^2)
1480: \Biggr\}. \no\\
1481: \label{int2}
1482: \ee
1483: We note that these expressions are obtained after integrating the
1484: Grassmann variables and changing the variables as
1485: $s_1=\cosh\theta_B$ and $s=\cos\theta_F$.
1486: A careful manipulation is required
1487: to carry out the remaining integrals.
1488: After lengthy calculations we can obtain Eq.(\ref{g1}).
1489:
1490: It is a straightforward task to include the dephasing effect
1491: described by the dephasing term (\ref{Ftau}).
1492: In the present parametrization, it can be written as
1493: \be
1494: F_{\tau} = \frac{2}{\Delta\tau}(s_1-s),
1495: \ee
1496: and is incorporated in the integrals
1497: in Eqs.(\ref{int1}) and (\ref{int2})
1498: as $e^{-F_{\tau}}$.
1499: Although we do not show the analytical result explicitly,
1500: it is not difficult to carry out the integrals.
1501: At the limit $|E-E_1|\to\infty$,
1502: we can find the result of Ref.\cite{PEI}.
1503:
1504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1505: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1506: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1507: \bibitem{CS}
1508: For a recent review, see
1509: Y.V. Fyodorov, T. Kottos, and H.-J. St\"ockmann,
1510: J. Phys. A {\bf 38}, 10433 (2005).
1511:
1512: \bibitem{WD}
1513: E.P. Wigner, Ann. Math. {\bf 53}, 36 (1951);
1514: F.J. Dyson, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 3}, 140 (1962);
1515: {\bf 3}, 157 (1962); {\bf 3}, 166 (1962).
1516:
1517: \bibitem{Mehta}
1518: M.L. Mehta, {\it Random Matrices}, 3rd ed. (Academic, New York, 2004).
1519:
1520: \bibitem{GMW}
1521: T. Guhr, A. M\"uller-Groeling, and H.A. Weidenm\"uller,
1522: Phys. Rep. {\bf 299}, 189 (1998).
1523:
1524: \bibitem{MRWHG}
1525: C.M. Marcus, A.J. Rimberg, R.M. Westervelt, P.F. Hopkins, and A.C. Gossard,
1526: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 506 (1992).
1527:
1528: \bibitem{Beenakker}
1529: C.W.J. Beenakker, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 69}, 731 (1997).
1530:
1531: \bibitem{Alhassid}
1532: Y. Alhassid, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 72}, 895 (2000).
1533:
1534: \bibitem{Hacken}
1535: G. Hackenbroich, Phys. Rep. {\bf 343}, 463 (2001).
1536:
1537: \bibitem{ABG}
1538: I.L. Aleiner, P.W. Brouwer, and L.I. Grazman,
1539: Phys. Rep. {\bf 358}, 309 (2002).
1540:
1541: \bibitem{YHMS}
1542: A. Yacoby, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and H. Shtrikman,
1543: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 4047 (1995).
1544:
1545: \bibitem{KASKI}
1546: K. Kobayashi, H. Aikawa, A. Sano, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye,
1547: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 70}, 035319 (2004).
1548:
1549: \bibitem{GIA}
1550: Y. Gefen, Y. Imry, and M.Ya. Azbel,
1551: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}, 129 (1984).
1552:
1553: \bibitem{KK}
1554: B. Kubala and J. K\"onig,
1555: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 245301 (2002);
1556: {\bf 67}, 205303 (2003).
1557:
1558: \bibitem{KAKI}
1559: K. Kobayashi, H. Aikawa, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye,
1560: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 256806 (2002);
1561: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 235304 (2003).
1562:
1563: \bibitem{NTA}
1564: T. Nakanishi, K. Terakura, and T. Ando,
1565: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69}, 115307 (2004).
1566:
1567: \bibitem{VWZ}
1568: J.J.M. Verbaarschot, H.A. Weidenm\"uller, and M.R. Zirnbauer,
1569: Phys. Rep. {\bf 129}, 367 (1985).
1570:
1571: \bibitem{pker}
1572: L.K. Hua, {\it Harmonic Analysis of Functions of Several Complex
1573: Variables in the Classical Domains}
1574: (American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1963);
1575: P.A. Mello, P. Pereyra, and T.H. Seligman,
1576: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 161}, 254 (1985);
1577: P.A. Mello and N. Kumar,
1578: {\it Quantum Transport in Mesoscopic Systems}
1579: (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004).
1580:
1581: \bibitem{PEI}
1582: V.N. Prigodin, K.B. Efetov, and S. Iida,
1583: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 1230 (1993);
1584: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51}, 17223 (1995).
1585:
1586: \bibitem{ISS}
1587: F.M. Izrailev, D. Saher, and V.V. Sokolov,
1588: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 49}, 130 (1994).
1589:
1590: \bibitem{randomS}
1591: H.U. Baranger and P.A. Mello,
1592: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 142 (1994);
1593: R.A. Jalabert, J.-L. Pichard, and C.W.J. Beenakker,
1594: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 27}, 255 (1994).
1595:
1596: \bibitem{BB94}
1597: P.W. Brouwer and C.W.J. Beenakker,
1598: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 50}, R11263 (1994).
1599:
1600: \bibitem{Brouwer}
1601: P.W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51}, 16878 (1995).
1602:
1603: \bibitem{FS}
1604: Y.V. Fyodorov and H.-J. Sommers, J. Math. Phys.
1605: {\bf 38}, 1918 (1997);
1606: J. Phys. A {\bf 36}, 3303 (2003).
1607:
1608: \bibitem{Stockmann}
1609: H.-J. St\"ockmann, {\it Quantum Chaos: An Introduction}
1610: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1999).
1611:
1612: \bibitem{HZOAA}
1613: S. Hemmady, X. Zheng, E. Ott, T.M. Antonsen, and S.M. Anlage,
1614: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 014102 (2005);
1615: S. Hemmady, X. Zheng, J. Hart, T.M. Antonsen, Jr., E. Ott,
1616: and S.M. Anlage, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 74}, 036213 (2006).
1617:
1618: \bibitem{RLBKS}
1619: S. Rotter, F. Libisch, J. Burgd\"orfer, U. Kuhl, and H.-J. St\"ockmann,
1620: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 69}, 046208 (2004).
1621:
1622: \bibitem{KLAA}
1623: V.E. Kravtsov, I.V. Lerner, B.L. Altshuler, and A.G. Aronov,
1624: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 888 (1994).
1625:
1626: \bibitem{micolich}
1627: A.P. Micolich {\it et al.},
1628: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 036802 (2001).
1629:
1630: \bibitem{SI}
1631: P.G. Silvestrov and Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 2565 (2000).
1632:
1633: \bibitem{BHZ}
1634: E. Br\'ezin, S. Hikami, and A. Zee,
1635: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 51}, 5442 (1995).
1636:
1637: \bibitem{CWB}
1638: A.A. Clerk, X. Waintal, and P.W. Brouwer,
1639: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 4636 (2001).
1640:
1641: \bibitem{Efetov} K.B. Efetov, Adv. Phys. {\bf 32}, 53 (1983);
1642: {\it Supersymmetry in Disorder and Chaos}
1643: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1997).
1644:
1645: \bibitem{HPMBDH}
1646: A.G. Huibers, S.R. Patel, C.M. Marcus, P.W. Brouwer,
1647: C.I. Duru\"oz, and J.S. Harris, Jr.,
1648: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1917 (1998).
1649:
1650: \bibitem{TA}
1651: K. Takahashi and T. Aono, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 74}, 041311(R) (2006).
1652:
1653: \bibitem{BB97}
1654: P.W. Brouwer and C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, 4695 (1997).
1655:
1656: \bibitem{Efetov2}
1657: K.B. Efetov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 2299 (1995).
1658:
1659: \bibitem{AAS}
1660: B.L. Al'tshuler, A.G. Aronov, and B.Z. Spivak,
1661: Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 33}, 101 (1981)
1662: [JETP Lett. {\bf 33}, 94 (1981)];
1663: D.Yu. Sharvin and Yu.V. Sharvin,
1664: {\it ibid.} {\bf 34}, 285 (1981)
1665: [{\it ibid.} {\bf 34}, 272 (1981)];
1666: B.L. Al'tshuler, A.G. Aronov, B.Z. Spivak, D.Yu. Sharvin,
1667: and Yu.V. Sharvin, {\it ibid.} {\bf 35}, 476 (1982)
1668: [{\it ibid.} {\bf 35}, 588 (1982)].
1669:
1670: \bibitem{AAS2}
1671: J.P. Carini, K.A. Muttalib, and S.R. Nagel,
1672: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 53}, 102 (1984);
1673: M. Murat, Y. Gefen, and Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 34}, 659 (1986);
1674: see also Y. Imry, {\it Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics}
1675: (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997).
1676:
1677: \bibitem{weakl}
1678: For a review, see
1679: S. Chakravarty and A. Schmid, Phys. Rep. {\bf 140}, 193 (1986).
1680:
1681: \bibitem{Fano}
1682: U. Fano, Phys. Rev. {\bf 124}, 1866 (1961).
1683:
1684: \bibitem{Heermann}
1685: See for example,
1686: D.W. Heermann,
1687: {\it Computer Simulation Methods in Theoretical Physics}
1688: (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986)
1689:
1690: \bibitem{feller}
1691: W. Feller,
1692: {\it An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications},
1693: 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1968).
1694:
1695: \bibitem{konno}
1696: N. Konno, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 72}, 026113 (2005).
1697:
1698: \bibitem{Buttiker}
1699: M. B\"uttiker, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 33}, 3020 (1986);
1700: IBM J. Res. Dev. {\bf 32}, 63 (1988).
1701:
1702: \bibitem{IWZ}
1703: S. Iida, H.A. Weidenm\"uller, and J.A. Zuk,
1704: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 583 (1990);
1705: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 200}, 219 (1990).
1706:
1707: \bibitem{AT}
1708: T. Aono and K. Takahashi (unpublished).
1709:
1710: \end{thebibliography}
1711:
1712: \end{document}
1713: