format: text

text:
# Conductance of the Single Electron Transistor for Arbitrary Tunneling Strength

## Abstract

We study the temperature and gate voltage dependence of the conductance of the single electron transistor focusing on highly conducting devices. Electron tunneling is treated nonperturbatively by means of path integral Monte Carlo techniques and the conductance is determined from the Kubo formula. A regularized singular value decomposition scheme is employed to calculate the conductance from imaginary time simulation data. Our findings are shown to bridge between available analytical results in the semiclassical and perturbative limits and are found to explain recent experimental results in a regime not accessible by earlier methods.

The single electron transistor (SET) has become a primary device for applications of the Coulomb blockade effect . The modulation of the current in dependence on the gate voltage has been used to build highly sensitive electrometers and thermometers and can serve as switch or amplifier. Since the relative current modulation is most pronounced at small transport voltages where also heating effects become negligible, the quantity of chief interest is the linear conductance. There are two relevant dimensionless parameters : the dimensionless parallel conductance $`g`$ of the two tunnel junctions measured in units of the conductance quantum $`G_K=e^2/h`$, and the dimensionless inverse temperature $`\beta E_C`$ relating $`\beta =1/k_BT`$ with the charging energy $`E_C`$. While recent experiments  have explored a large regime of tunneling conductances and temperatures, available theoretical work is restricted to limiting cases where one of the parameters $`g`$ or $`\beta E_C`$ is small. Approaches for the weakly conducting regime $`g\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}1`$  start in the charge basis and treat tunneling as a weak perturbation, while the semiclassical approach  starts from the canonically conjugate phase representation and treats small fluctuations about the classical paths which is adequate for $`\beta E_C\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}1`$. So far no theoretical predictions are available for the regime of highly conducting systems at low temperatures which is within reach of state–of–the–art experiments.

In this work we study the linear conductance of the SET for arbitrary parameters. Electron tunneling is treated nonperturbatively by means of a path integral Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) approach employed to evaluate the current–current correlation function in imaginary time. We present an improved singular value decomposition (SVD) scheme utilized to determine the conductance via an inverse Laplace transformation. This allows us to obtain results for the entire range of parameters of experimental interest.

Specifically we consider a SET consisting of two tunnel junctions with conductance $`G_1`$, $`G_2`$ and capacitance $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, respectively. The junctions in series are biased by a voltage source $`V`$ and the island between the tunneling barriers is coupled to a gate voltage $`U_g`$ via a capacitance $`C_g`$. From the Kubo formula, we write the dc conductance in terms of the current–current correlation function $`F(\tau )=I(\tau )I(0)`$ in imaginary time $`\tau `$ as

$$G=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}\omega }\underset{i\nu _n\omega +i\delta }{lim}_0^\mathrm{}\beta 𝑑\tau e^{i\nu _n\tau }F(\tau ).$$
(1)
Once one has calculated the correlator $`F(\tau )`$ analytically, it is a rather easy task to continue its Fourier transform to get the frequency dependent response. However, when numerical techniques are used to evaluate $`F(\tau )`$, the continuation becomes a serious problem: The Fourier transform is known only for a discrete set of equidistant Matsubara frequencies $`\nu _n=2\pi n/\mathrm{}\beta `$. Inserting the spectral representation of the correlation function

$$F(\tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \stackrel{~}{F}(\omega )e^{\tau \omega }$$
(2)
with spectral density $`\stackrel{~}{F}(\omega )0`$ into $`(\text{1})`$, we find for the conductance

$$G=\frac{\beta }{2}\stackrel{~}{F}(0).$$
(3)
To relate this with the numerically determined current–current correlation function $`F(\tau )`$, one has to invert the two–sided Laplace transformation $`(\text{2})`$. This operation, however, is known as an ill–posed problem: small errors in $`F(\tau )`$ may cause large deviations in $`\stackrel{~}{F}(\omega )`$. One has to use a regularization scheme to get rid of highly oscillatory functions. Here, we employ SVD  regularized by constraints explained below. Before addressing this, we present the QMC algorithm.

Explicitly, the current correlator may be written

$$F(\tau )=4\pi G_{\mathrm{cl}}\alpha (\tau )\mathrm{cos}[\phi (\tau )\phi (0)]$$
(4)
where $`G_{\mathrm{cl}}=G_1G_2/(G_1+G_2)`$ is the classical high temperature conductance. $`\alpha (\tau )`$ describes electron–hole pair propagation for electrons and holes created in different electrodes, and may be represented in the form $`(\text{2})`$

$$\alpha (\tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\omega )e^{\tau \omega }$$
(5)
with the spectral function

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi }\frac{\omega }{1e^{\mathrm{}\beta \omega }}.$$
(6)
Finally, the average

$$A(\tau )=\mathrm{cos}[\phi (\tau )\phi (0)]$$
(7)
describes coupling between electron–hole pair excitations and the electromagnetic degrees of freedom, where the time derivative of the phase field $`\phi (\tau )`$ is related to the voltage across the SET. To calculate $`A(\tau )`$, we use a formally exact path integral representation

$$A(\tau )=\frac{1}{Z}D[\phi ]e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}S[\phi ]}\mathrm{cos}[\phi (\tau )\phi (0)],$$
(8)
where $`Z`$ is the partition function and $`S[\phi ]`$ the Euclidian action that splits into $`S[\phi ]=S_C[\phi ]+S_T[\phi ]`$. The first term

$$S_C[\phi ]=_0^\mathrm{}\beta 𝑑\tau \left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2\dot{\phi }^2(\tau )}{4E_C}+i\mathrm{}n_g\dot{\phi }(\tau )\right],$$
(9)
where $`E_C=e^2/2C`$ is the charging energy with the island capacitance $`C=C_1+C_2+C_g`$, describes Coulomb charging in presence of a gate voltage $`U_g=en_g/C_g`$. The second contribution

$$S_T[\phi ]=2g_0^\mathrm{}\beta 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau ^{}\alpha (\tau \tau ^{})\mathrm{sin}^2\left[\frac{\phi (\tau )\phi (\tau ^{})}{2}\right]$$
(10)
is due to electron tunneling where $`g=(G_1+G_2)/G_K`$ is the dimensionless parallel conductance of the SET.

To implement the topology of the configuration space, we introduce winding numbers $`k`$ labeling different classes of paths running from $`\phi (0)=0`$ to $`\phi (\mathrm{}\beta )=2\pi k`$. Changing the variables, $`\phi (\tau )=\nu _k\tau +\zeta (\tau )`$ with $`\zeta (0)=\zeta (\mathrm{}\beta )=0`$, one may integrate out the gate voltage dependent term in Eq. $`(\text{9})`$, and write

$$A(\tau )=\frac{e^{2\pi ikn_g}\mathrm{cos}[\nu _k\tau +\zeta (\tau )]}{e^{2\pi ikn_g}},$$
(11)
with the unnormalized average over a positive measure

$$X=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}D[\zeta ]e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}S_0[\nu _k\tau +\zeta ]}X.$$
(12)
Here, $`S_0[\zeta ]`$ is given by Eqs. $`(\text{9})`$ and $`(\text{10})`$ with the gate voltage set to zero. Since $`S_0[\zeta ]`$ is real, we may employ standard Metropolis sampling techniques to evaluate the path integral numerically. For the temperatures explored the data were found to be saturated at Trotter number $`N5\beta E_C`$. For higher temperatures we have chosen $`N100`$ to keep the resolution of the discretized correlation function high enough for the Laplace inversion. The QMC data show statistical errors of at most $`3\%`$ for all temperatures and gate voltages. The denominator $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ikn_g)`$ in Eq. $`(\text{11})`$ is an averaged sign factor that always exceeds $`0.04`$ for the results shown below.

To analyse the data we start by noting that $`A(\tau )`$ also has a representation of the form $`(\text{2})`$. In terms of the spectral functions we then find

$$\stackrel{~}{F}(\omega )=2G_{\mathrm{cl}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega ^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\omega \omega ^{})\stackrel{~}{A}(\omega ^{}).$$
(13)
In view of the symmetry $`A(\tau )=A(\mathrm{}\beta \tau )`$ equivalent to detailed balance $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\omega )=e^{\mathrm{}\beta \omega }\stackrel{~}{A}(\omega ),`$ we may introduce the positive and symmetric spectral function

$$\stackrel{~}{A}^{}(\omega )=\stackrel{~}{A}(\omega )\frac{1e^{\mathrm{}\beta \omega }}{\omega }$$
(14)
and write

$$A(\tau )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \stackrel{~}{A}^{}(\omega )K_\beta (\omega ,\tau )$$
(15)
with the integration kernel

$$K_\beta (\omega ,\tau )=\frac{\omega }{1e^{\mathrm{}\beta \omega }}\left[e^{\omega \tau }+e^{\omega (\mathrm{}\beta \tau )}\right].$$
(16)
Now, we may restrict the time domain to $`\tau [0,\mathrm{}\beta /2]`$. To invert the integral transform $`(\text{15})`$ consider the operator $`𝒦_\beta `$ with kernel $`K_\beta (\omega ,\tau )`$

$$g(\tau )=(𝒦_\beta \stackrel{~}{g})(\tau )=_0^{\omega _{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑\omega K_\beta (\omega ,\tau )\stackrel{~}{g}(\omega ),$$
(17)
and it’s adjoint $`𝒦_\beta ^{}`$

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(\omega )=(𝒦_\beta ^{}f)(\omega )=_0^{\mathrm{}\beta /2}𝑑\tau K_\beta (\omega ,\tau )f(\tau ).$$
(18)
Clearly, the operation $`𝒦_\beta 𝒦_\beta ^{}`$ is self–adjoint and positive. The eigenvalue equation

$$(𝒦_\beta 𝒦_\beta ^{}f_n)(\tau )=\mu _n^2f_n(\tau )$$
(19)
can be solved numerically by discretizing the corresponding integral equation. The resulting eigenfunctions form an orthonormal basis $`\{f_n(\tau )\}`$ in $`L^2[0,\mathrm{}\beta /2]`$. Now, the spectral function $`\stackrel{~}{A}^{}(\omega )`$ can be expanded as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}^{}(\omega )\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}\frac{c_n}{\mu _n^2}(𝒦_\beta ^{}f_n)(\omega ),$$
(20)
where the

$$c_n=_0^{\mathrm{}\beta /2}𝑑\tau A(\tau )f_n(\tau )$$
(21)
are expansion coefficients. Eq. $`(\text{20})`$ explicitly represents $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\omega )`$ in terms of $`A(\tau )`$ and serves as inverse of the integral transform $`(\text{15})`$. Since with increasing $`n`$ the eigenvalues $`\mu _n`$ vanish overexponentially, for large $`n`$ highly oscillatory parts become more pronounced when the expansion coefficients $`c_n`$ do not vanish fast enough. This exhibits the origin of the ill–posed problem: a small error becomes amplified by a large inverse singular value $`1/\mu _n^2`$ and thus a regularization of the procedure is required.

First, the integral in Eq. $`(\text{17})`$ is cut off at a frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ which is chosen so large that the singular functions do not alter appreciably with this cutoff. Second, the sum in Eq. $`(\text{20})`$ is truncated at $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$. To fix the value of $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$ we use the noise level

$$\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{1}{N+1}\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma (\tau _i)^2}$$
(22)
of the data where $`N`$ is the Trotter number and $`\sigma (\tau _i)`$ the standard deviation of the data $`A(\tau _i)`$. This has to be compared with the error stemming from the truncated expansion in orthonormal functions

$$ϵ_n=\sqrt{\frac{1}{N+1}\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_kf_k(\tau _i)A(\tau _i)\right)^2}.$$
(23)
To ensure that we do not include fine structure originating from the noise of the QMC data, we fix $`n_{\mathrm{max}}`$ by demanding $`ϵ_{n_{\mathrm{max}}}\sigma `$.

An essential step is to use additional information to regularize the SVD scheme. We know that $`\stackrel{~}{A}^{}`$ is positive, symmetric, vanishes for large frequencies, and must obey the sum–rule

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \stackrel{~}{A}^{}(\omega )\frac{\omega }{1e^{\mathrm{}\beta \omega }}=A(0)=1.$$
(24)
To incorporate this, we make the ansatz

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_M^{}(\omega )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{a_n}{\mu _n^2}(𝒦_\beta ^{}f_n)(\omega )$$
(25)
where $`M>n_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The coefficients $`a_n`$ are determined from minimizing a functional according to three constraints. The proximity of the solution to the QMC–correlation function is obtained by minimizing

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{prox}}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n_{\mathrm{max}}})=\underset{n=1}{\overset{n_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}\frac{(c_na_n)^2}{2\sigma _n^2},$$
(26)
where the $`c_n`$ are the expansion coefficients $`(\text{21})`$ and where the points are weighted according to errors in the QMC data. To achieve positivity we minimize the integral

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{pos}}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_M)=𝑑\omega \stackrel{~}{A}_M^{}(\omega )^2w(\omega ),$$
(27)
where the weight function vanishes in the region where the result $`(\text{20})`$ is positive. To account for the sum–rule we minimize the functional

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{sum}}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_M)=\left(1_{\omega _{\mathrm{max}}}^{\omega _{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑\omega \frac{\omega \stackrel{~}{A}_M^{}(\omega )}{1e^{\mathrm{}\beta \omega }}\right)^2.$$
(28)
Overall we have to consider the linear combination

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_M)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{prox}}+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{pos}}+\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{sum}}$$
(29)
with two regularization parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$. Differentiating $`(\text{29})`$ with respect to $`a_n`$ we get a system of linear equations that may be solved. We have tested the method with analytical functions corrupted by Gaussian noise to optimize the regularization parameters.

After extracting $`\stackrel{~}{A}^{}(\omega )`$ from the QMC data via SVD, we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{F}(\omega )`$ from the convolution $`(\text{13})`$ and the conductance from Eq. $`(\text{3})`$. Varying the gate voltage $`U_g`$ the conductance shows a periodic behavior and we may define a maximum $`G_{\mathrm{max}}=G|_{n_g=\frac{1}{2}}`$ and a minimum $`G_{\mathrm{min}}=G|_{n_g=0}`$ conductance in dependence on temperature.

To estimate error bars we add a further functional to $`(\text{29})`$: We try to minimize the distance of $`\stackrel{~}{F}(\omega )`$ to a fictive either too low or too high value $`\stackrel{~}{F}^\pm (\omega )`$. This fictive value of the conductance still has to be in accordance with the other three constraints and leads to an upper and lower bound of possible conductance . The error bars for the conductance found by this procedure lie all below $`3\%`$. Since they are of the order of the symbol sizes they will be omitted in the figures.

As a first test of the approach we compare our numerical data with second order perturbative results  and with semiclassical findings . The comparison in Fig. 1 shows that our results agree well with both limiting analytical theories in their ranges of applicability and therefore bridge between the regions of parameters covered by analytical work.

Recently, P. Joyez et al and D. Chouvaev et al have measured the conductance of SETs in the moderately–to–strong tunneling regime. The strong tunneling data by Chouvaev et al. cover only a restricted range of temperatures and were found to be in agreement with semiclassical theory. In contrast, some of the data obtained by Joyez et al. are not only outside of the range of the perturbative theory but also explore temperatures low enough to show strong deviations form semiclassical results.

However, the experimental data in Ref.  for strong tunneling “$`g=7.3`$” are found to deviate significantly from our predictions for $`g=7.3`$ (data not shown). Therefore, we have reexamined the parameters given in Ref. : The bare charging energy $`E_C`$ was determined independently from resonances in the superconducting state that should be reliable within errors of about $`10\%`$. The series conductance was measured at sufficiently high temperatures ($`\beta E_C=0.18`$) fixing $`G_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ up to a small error. Assuming identical tunnel junctions, the dimensionless parallel conductance was estimated as $`g=4G_{\mathrm{cl}}/G_K`$. This assumption was consistent with a fit (dashed line in inset of Fig. 2) of the high temperature data to the prediction $`G/G_{\mathrm{cl}}=1\beta E_C^{}/3`$ with

$$E_C^{}/E_C=1(9g\zeta (3)/2\pi ^4+c)\beta E_C$$
(30)
where $`c=0`$. Yet, the correct result reads $`c=1/5`$  leading to the dashed–dotted line in the inset which is inconsistent with the data. Even for the highest temperatures explored experimentally, the data should be compared with the full semiclassical prediction from Ref. . As can be seen from the inset in Fig. 2, the high temperature data are only consistent with a parallel conductance near $`g=10`$ implying an asymmetry of the transistor.

In Fig. 2 we show for $`g=10`$ QMC predictions for maximum and minimum linear conductance in dependence on the inverse temperature. They are compared with the experimental findings from Ref.  for “$`g=7.3`$” and are found to be in good agreement. The error bounds of the numerical data are again within the symbol size. The parameters for the QMC were not adjusted to improve the global fit but coincide with those extracted from the high temperature analysis. Remaining deviations between the experimental data and our predictions may result from the uncertainty of the parameters.

In summary we have presented a general approach to calculate the conductance of the SET for arbitrary parameters. We found good agreement with limiting analytical theories and could explain experimental findings for highly transmitting tunnel junctions. As one of the results of this study future experiments in the strong tunneling regime should explore the high temperature behavior of the SET more carefully to allow for a unique parameter identification within the range of validity of the semiclassical theory.

The authors would like to thank the authors of Ref.  for valuable discussions. One of us (GG) acknowledges hospitality of the CEA-Saclay during an extended stay. Financial support was provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD), and the MINERVA Foundation (Munich).


text:
# The legacy of HERA - the first decade

## 1 Preamble

This report is based on a talk, presented at DIS2000 in Liverpool, with the purpose to summarize shortly the legacy of HERA during the first decade of its operation. The talk was given to an audience working in the field. For the benefit of the reader who is less familiar with the subject, the proceedings version has been extended to include an appendix with definitions of the kinematical variables used in the text.

## 2 Introduction

The main motivation for building the HERA $`ep`$ collider was to continue and study the inner structure of matter and the nature of forces in a way similar to that of Rutherford, by probing the proton with higher and higher gauge-boson virtuality, $`Q^2`$, in order to resolve smaller and smaller distances. This way of probing the proton is known as deep inelastic scattering (DIS).

The plane showing the fraction of the proton’s momentum carried by the probed parton, $`x`$, and the virtuality $`Q^2`$ of the probing photon, is shown in figure 1 and is impressive. It shows how HERA has extended the kinematic reach in both direction in $`Q^2`$, low and high, and in the low $`x`$ region, by few orders of magnitude.

## 3 The rise of $`F_2`$ with decreasing $`x`$

Before this talk, I polled the view of several eminent people as to what they consider to be the highlights of HERA so far. All of them unanimously put as number one the surprising sharp rise of $`F_2`$ with decreasing $`x`$ , an example of which is shown in figure 2.

The DGLAP evolution equations predict the rise of the parton distributions with decreasing $`x`$. Why is then the observed rise so surprising? The physical quantity which is measured is $`F_2`$. To decompose $`F_2`$ into quarks, we need the ‘impulse approximation’ to be valid. This means that the configuration of the Fock states into which the proton fluctuates has to be ’frozen’ during the interaction time. This condition leads  to a relation between the $`Q^2`$ of the probing photon and some other scales like quark masses, $`m_q`$, quark transverse momentum $`k_T`$’s and $`x`$. The fluctuation time, $`\tau _f`$, is inversely proportional to the mass squared of the probed configuration, $`\tau _f1/M^2`$. The interaction time, $`\tau _{int}`$, is inversely proportional to the photon virtuality, $`\tau _{int}1/Q^2`$. The ’freezing’ condition for the use of impulse approximation requires $`\tau _f\tau _{int}`$ or,

$$Q^2\underset{i}{}\frac{(m_q^2+k_{iT}^2)}{x_i}.$$
(1)
It is therefore highly non trivial that at very low $`x`$ the expectations of the DGLAP evolution equations, which apply to partons, remain valid for $`F_2`$. However, HERA teaches us that at $`x10^3`$ the impulse approximation may be valid down to $`Q^2`$ 1.5 GeV2. As a summary of this point I would like to quote Peter Landshoff: The amazing discovery of HERA is the rapid rise of $`F_2`$ at small $`x`$. This remains a challenge for theory: there is no respectable theoretical understanding.

## 4 Diffraction in DIS

The second subject, unanimously acclaimed as highlight, is the observation of abundant diffraction in DIS . This came as a surprise because if $`F_2`$ is an incoherent sum of quarks, a DIS process on a quark can not be diffractive because of color. A diffractive DIS reaction could happen only if the Fock state of the proton at the origin includes colorless objects.

If this were indeed the case, one would expect that diffractive DIS processes would be soft in nature, contrary to the accumulated evidence. One of the most striking behaviour of these large rapidity gap events is that they have a similar energy behaviour as that of the total inclusive cross section , as shown in figure 3, not expected in soft processes. Does that mean that these diffractive DIS processes are all hard?

## 5 Soft-hard interplay at low $`x`$

When one thinks about a DIS process involving partons, the first intuition is to think of it as a hard process. This however turns out not to be the case. The best way to understand this is when the interaction is viewed in the proton rest frame. The photon fluctuates into a $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, which can either be a large spatial configuration, or a small one. The aligned jet model of Bjorken , leading to scaling properties of $`F_2`$, assumes that only large configurations contribute to DIS cross section. That would make DIS a predominantly soft process. The small configurations lead to scaling violation, as expected in QCD. To the extend to which scaling violation introduces only logarithmic corrections to scaling, one is led to conclude that, even within QCD, DIS is indeed predominantly soft. To me, it came as a cultural shocks to learn that DIS does not necessarily mean a hard process.

### 5.1 Large and small configurations

To confirm the validity of the picture above, we would like to isolate events in which we know that the photon predominantly fluctuates into a small configuration. This is achieved either by studying events initiated by longitudinal photons ($`\gamma _L^{}`$) and looking at the behaviour of $`\sigma _L`$, or by studying exclusive vector meson electroproduction and deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS).

Since, unfortunately, we did not measure the ratio $`R=\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$ of the longitudinal to transverse cross sections at HERA, I used as an exercise the parameterization of $`R`$ by Badelek, Kwiecinski and Stasto  together with that of ALLM97  as a good representation of $`\sigma _{tot}(\gamma ^{}p)`$, to calculate the effective $`\gamma ^{}p`$ energy dependence of the cross section of $`\sigma _L`$ and $`\sigma _T`$ separately, assuming a $`W^\lambda `$ dependence. The result is shown in figure 4. As one sees, $`\sigma _L`$ has a very steep rise with $`Q^2`$, as expected from a small configuration process, reaching the value of 0.5 at $`Q^2`$ 1000 GeV2.

The energy dependence of the cross section for photoproduction of vector mesons , shown in figure 5, indeed confirmed that when the photon is squeezed into a small size, there is a definite change in the $`W`$ behaviour, as expected from pQCD, which connects the $`W`$ behaviour with the rise of the gluons.

In the case of $`J/\psi `$ this happens already at $`Q^2`$=0, due to the presence of the charm quarks. For the lighter vector mesons, it happens around $`Q^2`$=10 GeV2, as seen from the $`\varphi /\rho ^0`$ ratio , shown in figure 6, and which reaches the expected value of 2/9 at that $`Q^2`$.

The other property of hard exclusive processes is the universal slope of the diffractive peak. In Regge language this means a decreasing slope $`\alpha ^{}`$ of the Regge trajectory. This is shown in figure 7 where the Pomeron trajectory is presented as obtained from elastic photoproduction of $`\rho ^0`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`J/\psi `$ .

One sees a clear flattening in case of the $`J/\psi `$.

### 5.2 The gluon and saturation?

The inclusive diffraction structure function , presented in figure 9 shows a very different behaviour from that of the proton structure function , shown in figure 9.

While the proton structure function shows positive scaling violation at low $`x`$ and negative one at high $`x`$, the diffractive structure function shows practically only positive scaling violation, and may reach scaling at a large values of $`\beta `$. QCD factorization was proven to hold also in the inclusive diffraction case and thus DGLAP evolution equations could be applied. However it turned out that for the evolution equations to be able to describe the $`Q^2`$ behaviour of the data, a large diffractive gluon component is required .

This brings me to talk about the gluon in the proton. What have we learned about the gluon? From the scaling violation, using the impressive measurements at HERA, shown in figure 9, the precision of the gluon determination has improved tremendously, as shown in figure 11 . The direct gluon determination from charm production is in very good agreement with the indirect ones from scaling violation. However, when trying to stretch the evolution equations down to low $`Q^2`$, as presented in figure 11 for $`Q^2`$ = 1 GeV2, one finds a strange behaviour of the gluon at low $`x`$ .

What is this strange behaviour of the gluons at low $`x`$ and low $`Q^2`$ tell us? If anything ’strange’ is happening, the gluons will feel it first because of the 9/4 color factor: $`\sigma _{ggp}=(9/4)\sigma _{q\overline{q}p}`$. One can calculate the probability $`P_g^D`$ that an interaction on the gluon is associated with diffraction. For a value of $`Q^2`$=4.5GeV2 and $`x<10^3`$ this comes out to be $`P_g^D`$0.4 , which is very close to the black disc limit of 0.5. Does this mean that we see some kind of saturation (unitarity effects)? Such saturation effects could lead to the suppression of ’large’ $`q\overline{q}`$ configuration and lead to the breakdown of DGLAP evolution in this region. This can in fact be nicely observed when $`F_2`$ is plotted as function of $`Q^2`$ for fixed $`y`$ , displayed in figure 13, where one sees the approximate scaling down to $`Q^2`$ 2 GeV2 and then the $`1/Q^2`$ decrease of $`F_2`$ towards the low $`Q^2`$ region. This behaviour, and also that of the Caldwell plot , shown in figure 13, are well described by the saturation model of Golec-Biernat and Wuesthoff .

This section can be summarized by a quotation from Al Mueller’s message: The turnover at small $`Q^2`$ (and small $`x`$) along with the success of the Golec-Biernat Wuesthoff model in describing that turnover (along with diffractive scattering) suggest that unitarity limits have been reached when $`Q^2`$ 1 - 2 GeV2 in the low $`x`$ region at HERA. In parton language this is saturation in the small $`x`$ wave function of the proton.

## 6 The photon - probing the vacuum

HERA, the machine designed to teach us about the proton, turned out to be a good tool for studying the structure of both the real and the virtual photon.

A clear two component structure of the real photon has been observed at HERA . The gluon distribution in the photon has been extracted and also shows a rise with decreasing $`x`$ . HERA thus provides an alternative way to that of the $`e^+e^{}`$ collider to measure the photon structure function and to extract parton distributions in the photon.

Studies of these type in the DIS regime showed that also a virtual photon can have a two component structure at low $`x`$ even at virtualities as high as $`Q^2`$ 50 GeV2 . This of course raises the question: is the virtual photon probing the structure of the proton or are the partons from the proton probing the structure of the photon? Who is probing whom? In fact, in the proton rest frame $`x`$ can be given a spatial meaning: the coherence length can be written as $`l_c=1/(2m_px)0.1\mathrm{fm}/x`$ which in the low $`x`$ region can be very large, much larger than the radius of the proton. Thus at low $`x`$ we are actually not studying the structure of the proton. To put it in Bjorken’s words: The important spacetime regions are neither in the valence region of the hadron nor in the “valence” region of the photon probed. At low $`x`$ we are probing the structure of the vacuum.

## 7 Very large $`Q^2`$ region

The subject of the very large $`Q^2`$ region  actually belongs to the future legacy of HERA, which the HERA upgrade will produce. So far it produced a ’text-book’ result showing that the cross section of NC and CC reactions meet at $`Q^2M_Z^2`$. Recently, the higher statistics data also showed clearly the effect of the electroweak interference and the first measurements of $`xF_3`$ were obtained. Searches for deviation from the SM caused excitement. Limits on exotic processes were obtained and await higher luminosity data.

Our discussion in the previous section clearly indicates that in order to study the interior of the proton, one needs not only to go to higher values of $`Q^2`$ but also to $`x`$ values in excess of 0.1. The HERA upgrade should provide the luminosity necessary for obtaining high enough statistics in the high $`Q^2`$ high $`x`$ region.

## 8 Discussion

The sharp rise of $`F_2`$ with decreasing $`x`$, the diffraction in DIS, should we have been surprised? Some say yes, some say - in retrospect- no. The fact, however, is that we were surprised and unprepared. The original design of the detectors was not really well suited for the low $`x`$, low $`Q^2`$ physics. None of the DIS MC generators had diffractive processes. We also took seriously parton distributions which predicted a flat $`F_2`$ at low $`x`$.

To summarize the lesson learned from the low $`x`$ physics at HERA, we have observed a tremendous progress in understanding of QCD dynamics for high energy interactions and we might be faced with the existence of a new QCD regime with high parton densities.

Another legacy of HERA was pointed out by James Stirling: Studying QCD at HERA has given us great confidence that we can very precisely predict LHC cross sections. Indeed, it is under active consideration to use Standard Model $`Z`$ cross sections to measure the LHC luminosity, and it is only because the proton structure is pinned down so well by HERA that we can trust the theoretical calculations.

HERA has actually elevated QCD almost to the status of QED, in the sense that QED processes are used to measure luminosities at HERA. Not that there were doubts in the correctness of QCD. However, QCD is a complicated theory, and thus we can say that HERA in the year 2000 is a glorious triumph of minds dealing with QCD.

Did we however get a better picture of the proton? Rutherford’s experiment allowed him to say that most of the atom is empty with a nucleus at its center. How do we see the proton? Some describe the proton as being a ’Thompson’ like proton: ’soup’ of gluons filled with pointlike quark ’raisins’. Other see it as a ’Rutherford’ like proton: 3 centers of pointlike parton clouds. Asking Lonya Frankfurt, his reply was that the outer 20% of the proton is a pion cloud, while nothing is known about the inner 80%. Maria Krawczyk brought to my attention the view of Altarelli, Cabbibo, Maiani and Petronzio , who view the proton as 3 constituent quarks, each of which is a complex object made out of pointlike partons. Where are all these partons located in the proton? It would be nice to be able to stand in front of a class and tell the students, just as Rutherford did about the atom, how the proton looks like. The HERA upgrade program will hopefully give us the answer.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organizers of this workshop, headed by John Dainton and Josephine Zilberkweit, who did a marvelous job. Thanks also for the Lord Mayor of Liverpool, Councillor Edwin Clein, who promised us that in Liverpool all our dreams come true, and to the Member of Parliament for the Liverpool Riverside Constituency, Mrs. Louise Ellman, for her understanding and support of basic research.

The discussion and input of the following people to this talk is highly appreciated: H. Abramowicz, G. Altarelli, J. Bjorken, A. Caldwell, J. Dainton, M. Derrick, R. Devenish, R. Eichler, F. Eisele, L. Frankfurt, D. Haidt, R. Klanner, M. Krawczyk, P. Landshoff, E. Levin, R. Nania, J. Stirling, M. Strikman, A. Wagner, G. Wolf, A. Wroblewski.

This work was partially supported by the German-Israel Foundation (GIF), by the US-Israel Binational Foundation (BSF), and by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF).

## Appendix

### DIS Kinematics

A diagram describing a DIS process on a proton is shown in figure 14. A lepton with mass $`m_l`$ and four-vector $`k(E_l,\stackrel{}{k})`$ interacts with a proton with mass $`m_p`$ and four-vector $`P(E_p,\stackrel{}{p})`$ through the exchange of a gauge vector boson, which can be $`\gamma `$, $`Z^0`$ or $`W^\pm `$, depending on the circumstances. The four-vector of the exchanged boson is $`q(q_0,\stackrel{}{q})`$.

With these notations one can define the following variables,

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`kk^{}`$ (2)
$`\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Pq}{m_p}}`$ (3)
$`y`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Pq}{Pk}}`$ (4)
$`W^2`$ $`=`$ $`(P+q)^2`$ (5)
$`s`$ $`=`$ $`(P+k)^2.`$ (6)
The meaning of the variables $`\nu `$ and $`y`$ is most easily realized in the rest frame of the proton. In that frame $`\nu `$ is the energy of the exchanged boson, and $`y`$ is the fraction of the incoming lepton energy carried by the exchanged boson. The variable $`W^2`$ is the squared center of mass energy of the gauge–boson proton system, and thus also the squared invariant mass of the hadronic final state. The variable $`s`$ is the squared center of mass energy of the lepton proton system.

The four momentum transfer squared at the lepton vertex can be approximated as follows (for $`m_l,m_l^{}E,E^{}`$),

$$q^2=(kk^{})^2=m_l^2+m_{l}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2kk^{}2EE^{}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )<0.$$
(7)
The scattering angle $`\theta `$ of the outgoing lepton is defined with respect to the incoming lepton direction. The variable which is mostly used in DIS is the negative value of the four momentum transfer squared at the lepton vertex,

$$Q^2q^2.$$
(8)
One is now ready to define the other variable most frequently used in DIS, namely the dimensionless scaling variable $`x`$,

$$x\frac{Q^2}{2Pq}.$$
(9)
To understand the physical meaning of this variable, one goes to a frame in which masses and transverse momenta can be neglected - the so-called infinite momentum frame. In this frame the variable $`x`$ is the fraction of the proton momentum carried by the massless parton which absorbs the exchanged boson in the DIS interaction. This variable, defined by Bjorken, is duly referred to as Bjorken-$`x`$.

The diagram in figure 14 describes both the processes in which the outgoing lepton is the same as the incoming one, which are called neutral current reactions (NC), as well as those in which the nature of the lepton changes (conserving however lepton number) and which are called charged current processes (CC). In the NC DIS reaction, the exchanged boson can be either a virtual photon $`\gamma ^{}`$, if $`Q^2`$ is not very large and then the reaction is dominantly electromagnetic, or can be a $`Z^0`$ which dominates the reaction at high enough $`Q^2`$ values and the process is dominated by weak forces. In case of the CC DIS reactions, only the weak forces are present and the exchange bosons are the $`W^\pm `$.

## Kinematics of diffractive scattering

The variables used to analyze diffractive scattering are introduced for $`ep`$ DIS.

A diagram for diffractive scattering in DIS, where the diffracted state is separated from the scattered proton by a large rapidity gap (LRG), is presented in figure 15 and all the relevant four vectors are defined therein. In addition to the usual DIS variables, defined above, the variables used to describe the diffractive final state are,

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`(PP^{})^2,`$ (10)
$`x_{IP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q(PP^{})}{qP}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_X^2+Q^2}{W^2+Q^2}},`$ (11)
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2q(PP^{})}}={\displaystyle \frac{x}{x_{IP}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{Q^2+M_X^2}}.`$ (12)
$`x_{IP}`$ is the fractional proton momentum which participates in the interaction with $`\gamma ^{}`$. It is sometimes denoted by $`\xi `$. $`\beta `$ is the equivalent of Bjorken $`x`$ but relative to the exchanged object. $`M_X`$ is the invariant mass of the hadronic final state recoiling against the leading proton, $`M_X^2=(q+PP^{})^2`$. The approximate relations hold for small values of the four-momentum transfer squared $`t`$ and large $`W`$, typical of high energy diffraction.

To describe diffractive DIS, it is customary to choose the variables $`x_{IP}`$ and $`t`$ in addition to the usual $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ in the cross section formula. The diffractive contribution to $`F_2`$ is denoted by $`F_2^D`$ and the corresponding differential contributions are

$$F_2^{D(3)}=\frac{dF_2^D}{dx_{IP}},F_2^{D(4)}=\frac{dF_2^D}{dx_{IP}dt}.$$
(13)
The contribution from the longitudinal structure function is omitted for simplicity.

The four-fold differential cross section for $`ep`$ scattering can be written as

$$\frac{d^4\sigma _{ep}^D}{dx_{IP}dtdxdQ^2}=\frac{2\pi \alpha ^2}{xQ^4}\left[1+(1y)^2\right]F_2^{D(4)}(x,Q^2,x_{IP},t).$$
(14)
The structure function $`F_2`$ is related to the absorption cross section of a virtual photon by the proton, $`\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}`$. For diffractive scattering, in the limit of high $`W`$ (low $`x`$),

$$F_2^{D(4)}(x,Q^2,x_{IP},t)=\frac{Q^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha }\frac{d^2\sigma _{\gamma ^{}p}^D}{dx_{IP}dt}.$$
(15)


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

The behaviour of $`2D`$ electrons in a spatially nonuniform magnetic field is of interest in various aspects. The simplest situation is one-dimensional inhomogeneity when the normal component of the magnetic field $`B_z`$ varies only in one direction, say $`B_z(y)`$. M$`\ddot{u}`$ller  has considered the ballistic regime of a $`2D`$ electronic system for a special case $`B_z(y)=B_0ky`$ and for the geometry when the current flows in the $`x`$-direction perpendicularly to the magnetic field gradient. Numerical solution of the Schr$`\ddot{o}`$dinger equation carried out in  gives the current distribution in the $`y`$-direction $`j_x(y)`$. Nonzero values of $`j_x(y)`$ (without electric field) arise because the Landau degeneracy is lifted in the inhomogeneous magnetic field and the eigenstates become current-carrying. Of course, the total current $`J=j_x(y)𝑑y`$ equals zero in the absence of the electric field (the case with electric field has not been considered in ).

In the present paper $`I`$ will consider the classical magnetotransport for which the local relation between the current density $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ and the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ is valid

$$j_\alpha =\sigma _{\alpha \beta }(y)E_\beta ,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$,$`\beta `$ label the Cartesian components of the magnetoconductivity tensor $`\widehat{\sigma }`$. The inhomogeneity is supposed to be one-dimensional (in $`y`$-direction) but both possible geometries of the experiments ($`\stackrel{}{j}Oy`$ and $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ Oy) will be considered. In the geometry of ref.  $`\stackrel{}{j}Oy`$ the exact analytical (and quite simple) solution is possible for an arbitrary dependence $`\widehat{\sigma }(y)`$, including the case of nonuniform magnetic field. In the other geometry $`\stackrel{}{j}Oy`$ the exact analytical (and rather unexpected) result is obtained for the M$`\ddot{u}`$ller model $`B_z=B_0ky`$: there exists specific static skin-effect when the current density exponentially depends on the transversal coordinate $`x`$.

In both cases $`I`$ will consider a specimen in the form of a strip of finite width and infinite length. The total current $`J`$ is fixed (measured by ampermeter) while the electric field components $`E_x`$ and $`E_y`$ are to be found from the equations (1) and

$$div\stackrel{}{j}=0,rot\stackrel{}{E}=0.$$
(2)
In such a positioning of the problem one does not need to solve the Poisson equation.

## Current perpendicular to the direction of inhomogeneity

The system of equations (1) and (2) written in the components reads:

$$j_x=\sigma _0E_x+\sigma _1E_y,j_y=\sigma _1E_x+\sigma _0E_y,\frac{j_x}{x}+\frac{j_y}{y}=0;\frac{E_x}{y}\frac{E_y}{x}=0,$$
(3)
where $`\sigma _0=\sigma _{xx}=\sigma _{yy}`$, $`\sigma _1=\sigma _{xy}`$.

Look for the solution with $`j_y0`$. Strictly speaking one needs the solution with $`j_y(y=0)=j_y(y=L)=0`$, where L is the width of the strip. However due to the evident unicity of the solution the assumption made does not violate the generality. Then we have:

$$E_y=\frac{\sigma _1}{\sigma _0}E_x=k(y)E_x,j_x=\left(\sigma _0+\frac{\sigma _1^2}{\sigma _0}\right)E_x=q(y)E_x,k\frac{\sigma _1}{\sigma _0},q\frac{\sigma _0^2+\sigma _1^2}{\sigma _0}=\frac{1}{\rho _0},$$
(4)
where $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }`$ is the magnetoresistance tensor, $`\rho _0=\rho _{xx}`$. Further:

$$div\overline{j}=\frac{j_x}{x}=q(y)\frac{E_x}{x}=q(y)\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{x^2}=0$$
(5)
with $`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$.

The general solution of eq. (5) has a form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=A(y)x+B(y).$$
(6)
It follows from eq. (4)

$$\frac{A}{y}x+\frac{B}{y}=k(y)A(y).$$
(7)
Hence,

$$A=const,B=A\underset{y_0}{\overset{y}{}}k(y^{})𝑑y^{}$$
(8)
The fixed total current determines the value A:

$$J=\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}j_x𝑑y=A\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}q(y^{})𝑑y^{},$$
(9)
and the problem is solved. The Hall voltage defined as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,0)\mathrm{\Phi }(x,L)`$ equals

$$V_H=A\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}k(y^{})𝑑y^{}=\frac{J\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}k(y^{})𝑑y^{}}{\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}q(y^{})𝑑y^{}}$$
(10)
and one gets the following expression for the effective Hall resistance

$$\rho _1^{eff}=\frac{\frac{\rho _1}{\rho _0}}{\frac{1}{\rho _0}},$$
(11)
where the brackets mean averaging over y:

$$u\frac{1}{L}\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}u(y)𝑑y.$$
(12)
The diagonal component of $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }^{eff}`$ is

$$\rho _0^{eff}=\frac{1}{\rho _0}^1,$$
(13)
that simply corresponds to the parallel connection of conducting filaments stretched along the current direction.

The eqs. (11) and (13) are valid for any kind of a one-dimensional inhomogeneity (e.g. carrier concentration, magnetic field, the density of scatterers). If the specimen is homogeneous and only magnetic field depends on $`y`$ the relations hold between $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _1`$:

$$\frac{\sigma _1}{\sigma _0}=\lambda B(y),\lambda =const,\frac{\sigma _0^2+\sigma _1^2}{\sigma _0}\sigma =const,$$
(14)
following from the classical Drude kinetic theory; $`\sigma `$ is the Drude conductivity for $`B=0`$. Then $`\rho _1^{eff}=\rho _1`$ that corresponds to the sequential connection of the Hall voltages created by the magnetic field in each conducting filament parallel to $`Ox`$. Thus, in the geometry considered in this section, for a homogeneous specimen and inhomogeneous magnetic field the results are quite trivial:

$$\rho _0^{eff}=\frac{1}{\rho _0}^1,\rho _1^{eff}=\rho _1.$$
(15)
Note that for an inhomogeneous specimen, instead of the second relation of eq. (15), a more complicate result (11) is valid.

## Current parallel to the magnetic field gradient.

Consider now a strip parallel to $`Oy`$ and look for the solution with $`j_x(y)0`$. The specimen is supposed to be homogeneous, the local values $`\sigma _0(y)`$ and $`\sigma _1(y)`$ are determined by the classical kinetic theory:

$$\sigma _0=\frac{\sigma }{1+(\lambda B)^2},\sigma _1=\frac{\sigma \lambda B}{1+(\lambda B)^2},B=B(y).$$
(16)
Then from eqs. (3) with $`j_x=0`$ one can easily obtain:

$$j_y=\sigma E_y,\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{y^2}=0,E_x=\lambda B(y)E_y,$$
(17)
where the last relation in eq. (17) follows again from $`j_x=0`$. Hence,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=C_1(x)y+C_2(x),\frac{C_1}{x}y+\frac{C_2}{x}=\lambda B(y)C_1(x),$$
(18)
and for the M$`\ddot{u}`$ller model $`B(y)=B_0ky`$ the solution has a form

$$C_1=Ce^{\lambda B_0kx},C_20,\mathrm{\Phi }=Cye^{\lambda kxB_0}.$$
(19)
From eq. (19) one obtains

$$E_x=C\lambda B_0kye^{\lambda B_0kx},E_y=Ce^{\lambda B_0kx},j_y=\sigma Ce^{\lambda B_0kx},$$
(20)
where the constant $`C`$ can be found via the total current:

$$J=\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}j_y𝑑x=\frac{\sigma C}{\lambda B_0k}(1e^{\lambda B_0kL}).$$
(21)
The Hall voltage:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x=0,y)\mathrm{\Phi }(x=L,y)=y\frac{J\lambda B_0k}{\sigma },$$
(22)
and the Hall resistance in the point $`y`$ is

$$\rho _H^{(y)}=\frac{\lambda B_0ky}{\sigma }=\rho \omega _c(y)\tau ,$$
(23)
where $`\rho =1/\sigma `$, $`\tau `$ is relaxation time and $`\omega _c(y)`$ is the local value of the cyclotron frequency: $`\omega _c(y)\tau =\lambda B(y)`$. The most remarkable feature of the obtained solution is the exponential distribution of the current density along the $`x`$-direction (see eq. (20)). This can be called the static skin-effect. Depending on the signs of $`J`$, $`B_0`$ and $`k`$ the current in $`y`$-direction is concentrated either at the left ($`x=0`$) or at the right (x=L) edge of the strip. The depth of the skin layer $`l_s`$ is defined by the magnetic field gradient: $`l_s=1/k\omega _{c0}\tau `$, where $`\omega _{c0}`$ is the cyclotron frequency for $`B=B_0`$. The electric field depends also exponentially on the transversal coordinate. Hence, when measuring the Hall voltage $`V_H`$ between the left edge of the strip $`x=0`$ and some variable point $`x`$ (for the same $`y`$!) inside the strip one will find the exponential dependence $`V_H(x)`$ that would be an experimental evidence of the skin-effect.

## Alternate electric field.

The above obtained results can be easily extended to the case of finite frequency $`\omega `$ of the electric field if $`\omega <<1/\tau _M`$, where $`\tau _M`$ is the Maxwell relaxation time. For the $`3D`$ situation $`1/\tau _M=4\pi \sigma _{3D}`$ and for $`2D`$ $`1/\tau _M=2\pi \sigma _{2D}/L`$. The parameter $`\omega \tau `$ can be of an arbitrary magnitude. By making use of the well known formulae for $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }(B)`$ allowing for the dispersion one can easily see that it is necessary just to substitute

$$\sigma \frac{\sigma }{1i\omega \tau }$$

in all the preceeding formulae. For example, the Hall voltage between the points (o, y) and (x, y) reads

$$V_H(o,x;y)=CyR_e\left\{\left[1exp\frac{(kx)\omega _{c0}\tau (1+i\omega \tau )}{1+\omega ^2\tau ^2}\right]e^{i\omega t}\right\}.$$
(24)
Thus the voltage and the current density decay with oscillations when the distance from the strip edge increases.

## How to realize the linearly nonuniform magnetic field.

Here I consider only the case of a $`2D`$ system. As $`2D`$ electrons ”feel” only the normal component of the magnetic field $`B_n`$ the inhomogeneity of $`B_n`$ can be achieved for a thin conducting film bent to a proper shape and placed in a uniform field $`\stackrel{}{B}(o,o,B)`$. The dependence $`B_n(y)=B_0ky`$ is realized for the cylindrical surface $`z=F(y)`$, where

$$F(y)=\pm \frac{1}{2k}\left[\sqrt{2ky(12ky)}+\mathrm{arcsin}\sqrt{2ky}\right],0ky\frac{1}{2}.$$
(25)
In conclusion, the exact analytical solutions are obtained for the classical Hall effect in inhomogeneous systems. If the current flows perpendicularly to the inhomogeneity the solution is possible in the quite general form. For the parallel orientation of the current and magnetic field gradient the analytical solution is found for the linearly inhomogeneous magnetic field. In the latter case the static skin-effect occurs for a specimen in the form of a long strip.

This work has been supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Researches (grant 99-02-17127) and by NWO.


text:
# X-Ray Scattering Evidence for Macroscopic Strong Pinning Centers in the Sliding CDW state of NbSe3.

## Abstract

Using high-resolution X-ray scattering techniques, we measure the variation, $`q(x)`$, of the position in reciprocal space of the CDW satellite, in the sliding state, along the length of NbSe3 whiskers. We show that structural defects and intentionally X-ray radiation-damaged regions increase locally the CDW pinning force, and induce CDW phase distortions which are consistent with those observed near contacts. Using the semi-microscopic model in Ref.  describing the normal $``$ condensed carrier conversion, with spatially varying parameters, we account for the experimental spatial dependence of the CDW phase gradient near both types of defects.

PACS numbers: 71.45.Lr, 72.15.Nj, 61.10$``$i

In strongly anisotropic charge density wave (CDW) systems a phase transition of mixed structural and electronic character occurs at the Peierls temperature. The CDW ground state is characterized by a periodic modulation of the crystal lattice, accompanied by a periodic modulation of the electron density of same wavevector $`Q_0=2k_F`$, where $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wave number .

In certain CDW materials, such as NbSe3, in which the wavelength of the CDW is incommensurate with the underlying lattice, sliding of the CDW as a collective motion is made possible by the application of an electrical current exceeding a threshold value $`I_T`$. This collective charge transport is associated with remarkable electrical properties such as non-ohmic conductivity and narrow band noise (NBN) .

Phase slippage is the process by which conversion between free electron and CDW condensate occurs near the electrical contacts to a CDW conductor . It proceeds via nucleation and growth of $`2\pi `$ phase dislocations loops (DL) across the sample cross section . Associated with the DL nucleation and growth process, the sliding-CDW phase is slightly distorted. The phase gradient is observable by means of X-ray diffraction as a longitudinal shift, $`q\varphi /x`$, of the CDW satellite peak position in reciprocal space, $`Q=Q_0+q`$ . The CDW phase gradient has also been monitored by means of laser probe , electromodulated transmission , and conductivity measurements on multicontacted samples . Even though all experimental data show qualitative agreement (the phase gradient exhibits maxima in the near contact regions and vanishes in the central part of the sample) there remains some controversies about the nature of the CDW-defect interaction . While the above experiments reported phase distortions due to conversion near the electrodes, phase slippage is potentially needed near all defects of the strong pinning type.

In this paper, we show that a localised defect may act as a pseudo-electrode. Using high resolution X-ray diffraction, we monitored the shift, $`q(x)`$, of the NbSe3 sliding-CDW satellite as a function of beam position, $`x`$, along two samples which exhibit, respectively, one and two localised structural defects between current electrodes. In addition to the near contact region, where the sliding-CDW phase is substantially distorted, we observe a similar phase distortion in the vicinity of the defects. A further experiment was performed by exposing part of sample ’2’ to the X-ray beam, over a long period of time, in order to damage it locally. In each case, the observed phase gradients are compared to numerical simulations based on the semi-microscopic model by Brazovskii et al. , describing the normal $``$ condensed carrier conversion. We give an estimate of the fraction of the CDW current which is converted, at the defect position.

NbSe3 has a chain-like structure, with chains parallel to the monoclinic $`b`$-direction. It undergoes two independent Peierls transitions at 145 K and 59 K with modulation wave vectors $`(0,Q_0,0)`$; $`Q_0`$=0.241 b and $`(0.5,Q_1,0.5)`$; $`Q_1`$=0.259 b, respectively. All measurements were carried out on the $`(0,1+Q_0,0)`$ CDW satellite on the diffractometer TROIKA I (ID 10A) at ESRF (Grenoble/France) using an incident wavelength of 1.127 Ȧ ($`E=11`$ keV). The sample orientation was such that the (a+c, b)-plane coincided with the horizontal scattering plane. In order to obtain a high spatial resolution, the beam width (from 10 to 30 $`\mu `$m) was controlled by a slit, placed before the sample. The samples, of typical cross-sections 10$``$2 $`\mu `$m2, were mounted on sapphire substrates of 100 $`\mu `$m thickness to provide homogeneous sample cooling together with suitable beam transmission (50 %). Several types of electrical contacts were used. Two 2 $`\mu `$m-thick gold electrodes, of 1 mm width, have been evaporated on Sample ’1’, leaving an uncovered section of 4.25 mm between electrodes. On sample ’2’, one 1 mm-wide electrode and one 15 $`\mu `$m-wide electrode have been evaporated, leaving an uncovered section of 3 mm between electrodes.

The samples are selected for their high crystallographic quality. We scanned the (020) Bragg peak along the b\* direction (($`\theta ,2\theta `$) scans) and along the a\*+c\* direction (rocking scans), for several beam positions ($`50`$ to $`100`$ $`\mu `$m intervals). We tested a large number of samples from different origins , and we found that localised ($`100`$ $`\mu `$m-wide) growth defects appear very frequently in this material .

Fig. 1 shows the shift, $`q(x)=Q_I(x)Q_0`$, for positive and negative current polarities; I=$`\pm 4.6`$ mA ($`I`$/$`I_T`$=2.13), as a function of beam position, $`x`$, along sample ’1’. This sample exhibits, between electrodes, one localised defect at the position $`x_d.15`$. The sliding-CDW satellite shift changes sign abruptly at this position, with maxima on either sides of the defect position, as well as at the electrical contacts. In contrast, for defect-free samples, the phase gradient is large near the electrodes, where the conversion between normal carriers and CDW condensate occurs, and vanishes in the central section .

Fig. 2 shows the shift, $`q(x)`$, for positive and negative current polarities, I=3.5 mA ($`I`$/$`I_T`$=3), along sample ’2’, which exhibits, two localised defects at $`x_1.5`$ and $`x_2.75`$. Again the shift changes value abruptly at these positions. Note incidentally that the CDW distortions extend over an appreciable distance ($`\lambda _1100`$ $`\mu `$m) beyond the contact boundary, regardless of the electrode width (15 $`\mu `$m or $`1`$ mm). This behaviour has been confirmed on defect-free samples .

A further experiment was performed, by exposing sample ’2’ to a 30 $`\mu `$m-wide X-ray beam, over a long period of time (4 hours), in order to locally create a damaged region. After the irradiation, the CDW satellite position changes value abruptly at the irradiated position ($`x_d=1.27`$; the arrow position in Fig. 3). The open symbols in Fig. 3 show the shifts, $`q(x)`$, for positive and negative current polarities, as a function of beam position, $`x`$, before the irradiation. The shift, $`q(x)`$, follows a typical monotonic decay in the near-contact region. The same measurements repeated after irradiation show a drastic change of the spatial dependence of the shift over a distance of approximately 200 $`\mu `$m on either side of the irradiated position. The damage is also observed as a local broadening of the (020) Bragg reflection; this broadening is detected over a sample length of $`20`$ $`\pm 5\mu `$m around $`x_d`$, which is consistent with the width of the irradiating beam. No significant longitudinal splitting of the CDW satellite was observed, near the defect, indicating that the cross section is homogeneously affected by the irradiation.

The semi-microscopic model by Brazovskii et al. , describing the normal $``$ condensed carrier conversion by nucleation and growth of dislocation loops in a highly rigid CDW electronic crystal gives a coherent fit of the spatial dependence of the CDW phase gradient, for homogeneous samples . This model is based on the assumption of a local equilibrium between the electrochemical potentials of the phase dislocations, $`U`$, and of the free carriers, $`\mu _n`$:

$$\frac{\eta }{x}=F_r(J_c)\frac{e(J_nJ_T)}{\sigma _n}$$
(1)
where $`J_n`$, $`J_c`$ and $`J_{tot}=J_n+J_c`$ are, respectively, the normal carrier, CDW and total current densities. $`J_T`$ is the current density at threshold, and $`\sigma _n`$, the normal carrier conductivity. For high current values ($`J_{tot}2J_T`$), the friction force, $`F_r(J_c)`$, can be approximated as $`F_r(J_c)eJ_c/\sigma _c`$, where $`\sigma _c`$ is the high-field CDW conductivity. $`\eta `$ measures the deviation of the normal carrier concentration from its $`I=0`$ value:

$$\eta K^{eff}q=\mu _nU$$
(2)
Eq. (1) is equivalent to the one-dimensional FLR equation , with an additional contribution ($`\beta _e`$) to the effective elastic constant per unit length, $`K^{eff}=gS/2\pi N_F^i`$, characterizing the screening of the CDW distortions by the carriers from uncondensed bands (in NbSe3, at these intermediate temperatures (90 K), $`\beta _e0.65`$); $`g^1=(\frac{\rho _s}{\rho _c}+\beta _e)`$, where $`S`$ is a chain cross-section, $`\rho _c`$ the CDW density, $`\rho _s=1\rho _c`$ and $`N_F^i`$ is the density of states at the Fermi level in the undistorded metallic state.

The gradient of the CDW current density is controlled by the conversion rate, $`R`$, between normal carriers and the CDW condensate:

$$J_c/x=2(eg)R(\eta ,J_c)+\nu _{\mathrm{inj}}$$
(3)
with $`\nu _{\mathrm{inj}}=J_{tot}(\delta _a(x)\delta _a(x))`$ the injection-extraction term (for contacts at $`x=\pm a`$), where $`\delta _a(x)`$ is a Dirac function centered at a. As noticed previously , the earlier function, $`Re^{V_a/|q|}`$, describing a stress-initiated nucleation of DL, proposed by Ramakrishna et al. , leads to an unsatisfactory relation between the CDW current, and the CDW phase gradient. This function does not, either, account for our experimental data. As discussed in detail in , eqs. (1) and (3), with the empirical function $`R(\eta )=r_0\eta `$, ($`r_0=g\tau _{\mathrm{cnv}}^1/2\pi N_F^iS`$ is treated as an adjustable parameter), gives a coherent fit for the homogeneous situation. Here $`\tau _{\mathrm{cnv}}`$ is the lifetime of an excess carrier with respect to its conversion to the condensate, that is the mean free carrier lifetime before absorption by a DL. The parameters relevant to the homogeneous case and its solution will be labeled by the subscript $`0`$:

$$\eta _0(x)\frac{\mathrm{sinh}x/\lambda _0}{\mathrm{cosh}a/\lambda _0}$$
(4)
where $`\lambda _0=\sqrt{\frac{SK^{eff}}{e^2}\sigma _0^{}\tau _{\mathrm{cnv}}}`$, typically a few hundred $`\mu `$m, is the characteristic length scale of the phase slip distribution, and $`\sigma _0^{}=(1/\sigma _c^0+1/\sigma _n^0)^1`$ is the high-field conductivity. Far from contacts ($`|xa|3\lambda _0`$), where the equilibrium condition $`\mu _n=U`$ is achieved (i.e. $`\eta q=0`$), $`\frac{\eta }{x}=0`$.

For inhomogeneous samples, $`\frac{\eta }{x}`$ can also locally vanish even though $`\eta 0`$. This case can be studied with the help of the same equations (1) and (3), but with spatially varying parameters; $`\sigma _c(x)=\sigma _c^0\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _cf(xx_d)`$ and $`r_0`$ become dependent on $`x`$. $`f(x)`$ is a fast decaying function, introduced in order to take account of the finite size of the defect. The friction force becomes

$$F_r=\frac{eJ_c}{\sigma _c^0\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _cf(xx_d)}\frac{eJ_c}{\sigma _c^0}+eJ_c^0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _cf(xx_d)}{(\sigma _c^0)^2}$$
(5)
and the phase slip rate becomes

$$R(\eta ,x)=r_0\eta +\mathrm{\Delta }r_0\eta f(xx_d)$$
(6)
The pinning increase under irradiation is a well known effect , but the effect of irradiation upon the conversion rate, $`R`$, is more subtle: on one hand, $`R`$ is likely to increase together with the number of nucleation centers but at the same time it may decrease because of the enhanced pinning force against the lateral motion of the dislocation lines. In what follows, we consider only $`F_r`$, i.e. $`\sigma _c`$ to be $`x`$ dependent ($`\mathrm{\Delta }r_0=0`$). According to the above hypotheses, and equating $`f(x)`$ to unity when $`\zeta /2<x<\zeta /2`$ and to zero elsewhere ($`\zeta `$ is the size of the defect), eqs. (1) and (3) reduce to:

$$\frac{^2\eta }{x^2}=\frac{2e}{\sigma _0^{}}r_0\eta +eJ_c^0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _c}{(\sigma _c^0)^2}[\delta _{x_d\frac{\zeta }{2}}\delta _{x_d+\frac{\zeta }{2}}]+e\frac{\nu _{\mathrm{inj}}}{\sigma _c^0}$$
(7)
with the boundary conditions $`J_{tot}=0`$ at $`|x|=a`$. Here the delta function provides a partial conversion of the CDW current at the defect position. This term has indeed the same mathematical form as $`\nu _{\mathrm{inj}}`$. In the sliding state, a fraction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _c/\sigma _c^0`$, of the CDW current, $`J_c^0(x)`$, is transformed into normal carriers (and recondensed immediately after the defect position). The defect can be considered as a pseudo contact, at the boundary of which, depending on the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _c`$, the conversion is total or partial. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _c/\sigma _c^01`$, all the CDW current is transformed, and the shift changes sign as seen in Fig. 1, whereas low values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _c/\sigma _c^0`$, lead to the behaviour shown in Figs. 2 and 3.

In practice, in the numerical simulation, a more realistic gaussian function, centered at the defect position (width=$`\zeta `$), has been used for $`f`$. Beneath the contacts we used the same general equations, setting the last term in eq. (1) equal to zero. Eq. (7) then becomes a diffusion equation for the excess of free carriers, $`\eta `$. Its solution matches the inner solution at $`x=\pm a`$ and decreases exponentially, beneath contacts, with a characteristic length $`\lambda _1=\sqrt{(\sigma _c^0/\sigma _0^{})}\lambda _0\lambda _0/2`$.

The best fit to the data in Fig. 1 is obtained with $`\lambda _0=330`$ $`\mu `$m, $`\lambda _1=100`$ $`\mu `$m, $`\zeta =72`$ $`\mu `$m and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _c/\sigma _c^0=0.47`$ . This last value implies that approximately half of the CDW current is converted into normal carriers at the defect position and recondensed just after. This significant phase slippage provides for the spectacular jump in $`q`$ in the central part of the sample. The slight discrepancies between our experimental data and the calculated CDW phase distortions may come from the fact that $`\sigma _c^0`$ is not perfectly constant along the sample or from our simplifying assumption $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_0=0`$ .

The best fit to the data in Fig. 3 is obtained with $`\lambda _0=245`$ $`\mu `$m, $`\lambda _1=100`$ $`\mu `$m, before irradiation, and $`\lambda _0=196`$ $`\mu `$m, $`\lambda _1=75`$ $`\mu `$m, $`\zeta =38`$ $`\mu `$m (which is consistent with the size of the irradiating beam) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _c/\sigma _c^0=0.45`$, after irradiation. Again, the defect provides for a strong conversion, but in contrast to Fig.1, the defect is located close to a contact boundary where the CDW current has not yet reached its maximum value $`|J_c^0|_{\mathrm{max}}`$, where, typically at 90 K, $`|J_c^0|_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{1}{3}J_{tot}`$, and hence the shift, $`q`$, does not change sign.

In conclusion, we have observed the influence of localised defects on the longitudinal variation, $`q_I(x)`$, of the CDW satellite position at fixed DC current, I, as a function of beam position, $`x`$, between electrical contacts, in NbSe3. We have shown, that the sliding-CDW phase distortion, due to conversion between normal carriers and CDW condensate, is not uniquely a near-contact effect but also occurs in the vicinity of structural defects or regions intentionally damaged by X-ray radiation. Using the semi-microscopic model by Brazovskii et al., with an enhanced pinning force at the defect position, we have given a coherent description of the spatial dependence of the CDW phase gradient near both types of defects. The phase gradient, which is very similar to what is observed at contacts (for several types of electrodes), reflects the fact that a fraction of the CDW current is transformed into normal current at the defect position.

The authors are indebted to L. Ortega and G. Patrat (Cristallographie/CNRS) for making possible extensive sample quality tests.


text:
# Quantum cryptography using balanced homodyne detection

## Abstract

We report an experimental quantum key distribution that utilizes balanced homodyne detection, instead of photon counting, to detect weak pulses of coherent light. Although our scheme inherently has a finite error rate, it allows high-efficiency detection and quantum state measurement of the transmitted light using only conventional devices at room temperature. When the average photon number was 0.1, an error rate of 0.08 and ”effective” quantum efficiency of 0.76 were obtained.

According to quantum mechanics, one cannot obtain information about a single quantum system without disturbing its state bennett92  nor can one clone an unknown state wootters82 . Quantum cryptography is a technique for realizing secure communications exploiting these principles. The most popular protocol is quantum key distribution (QKD) in which two non-orthogonal states (B92 protocol) B92  or four states (BB84 protocol) BB84  are sent via a quantum channel in order to generate random keys owned only by the legitimate sender (usually called Alice) and the receiver (Bob). These keys are then used to encode messages.

In practice, a faint laser pulse is usually used as the quantum system, and keys are encoded by its polarization or its phase. Ideally, a single photon is desirable, but it is very difficult to generate it experimentally. Most of the previous experimental and theoretical studies on QKD used or postulated photon counting as a means to detect weak light. However, the usage of photon counting gives rise to two limitations. One is a technical limitation that at present there exists no efficient photon counter for infrared light, especially for 1.55-$`\mu `$m where optical loss in an optical fiber is minimum. State-of-the-art experiments used a specially designed photon-counting system made up of cooled avalanche photo diode operated in a gated Geiger mode Marand1995 ; Hughes2000 ; Zbinden1998 . For example, a quantum efficiency of 7% for 1.55$`\mu `$m with a dark-count probability of 10-4 per 2.6-nsec time-window was reported Ridordy1998 . Another limitation is a more fundamental: the quantum state of the transmitted light cannot be directly measured; the state alternation is inferred only from the change of the error rate. For example, when the eavesdropper (usually called Eve) changes the photon number distribution of the transmitted light while keeping the polarization (or the phase) and the mean photon number, Bob cannot notice the presence of Eve. This feature allows Eve to perform many kinds of attacks and leads to security holes (one example is the photon number splitting attack Brassard ).

In this paper, we propose using balanced homodyne detection for implementing the BB84 protocol with phase coding pct . As we will explain, the above limitations associated with photon counting can be resolved by using balanced homodyne detection. In order to demonstrate the experimental feasibility of our scheme, we have performed QKD by sending light pulses at 1.55-$`\mu `$m wavelength through an optical fiber of 20-cm length. When the average photon number was 0.1, a bit-error-rate (BER) of 0.08 and ”effective” quantum efficiency of 0.76 were obtained (effective detection efficiency was 0.076).

Balanced homodyne detection (sometimes called quadrature phase homodyne measurement) is a well-established quantitative method for measuring the quadrature-amplitude operator of the radiation field Yuen1983 ; Leonhardt . It has been developed as a means of detecting reduced quadrature-amplitude fluctuations (squeezed states of light) squeezing . In this method, a weak signal field interferes with a strong local oscillator (LO) on a beam splitter, and the difference of the intensities of the two outputs of the beam splitter is measured. When the LO is much stronger than the signal, the output of the balanced homodyne detector is proportional to the quadrature-amplitude operator of the signal field Leonhardt . This is a very efficient method for measuring the quadrature amplitude of the signal, although no information on the conjugate quadrature is obtained.

In 1993, Smithey et al. demonstrated the determination of the Wigner distribution and the density matrix of a light field by measuring not only the variances but also the distributions of the quadrature amplitude of the field. They used the so-called optical homodyne tomography (OHT) method in which the inverse Radon transform of the distributions was calculated. A measurement of the density matrix provides all knowable information allowed by quantum mechanics. For example, photon number statistics can be calculated from the density matrix. Of course, it is impossible to measure the density matrix of a single quantum system; we need the ensembles of the same quantum state. Such ensembles can be prepared by randomly switching the QKD and OHT procedure at the cost of a lowered transmission rate. However, even without the OHT, distributions of the quadrature amplitude for some phases are obtained in the QKD procedure, thus limiting the range of allowable eavesdropping strategies.

Note that if a QKD protocol uses a phase coding relative to bright light as proposed in B92 ; Huttner1995 , Eve as well as Bob can perform balanced homodyne detection, although such possibilities have seldom been discussed so far. Also from this viewpoint, it is important to investigate QKD using balanced homodyne detection. Recently, several authors have presented quantum cryptography using homodyne detection Hillery ; Ralph ; Reid . These proposals use EPR-type correlation or squeezed states. Our scheme uses only coherent states so that experimental realization is much easier.

We will now explain our implementation of QKD in more detail. The protocol is basically an interferometric QKD using four nonorthogonal states B92 . Laser pulses are split by an unsymmetrical beam splitter into two arms of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Pulses in one arm, which we will call the local oscillator (LO), contain many photons (typically $`n_{LO}10^6`$ photon/pulse), and pulses in the other arm, which we will call the signal, contain photons at quantum level ($`n_{sig}1`$ photon/pulse). Alice applies a random $`\varphi _A`$=0-, 90-, 180-, and 270-phase shift to the signal; Bob, a random $`\varphi _B`$=0-, 90-phase shift to the LO. Bob, then, performs balance homodyne detection. To put it concretely, Bob combines the signal field with the LO field by a 50-50 beam splitter. Two photodiodes are used to monitor the intensities from two output ports. Finally, the two photodiode outputs are subtracted, and the difference of photoelectrons $`N_\varphi `$ is measured. We denote the total phase shift between the signal and the LO by $`\varphi =\varphi _A\varphi _B`$.

The normalized quadrature amplitude of the signal $`\widehat{X}=(\widehat{a}_{sig}+\widehat{a}_{sig}^{})/2`$ is obtained by $`X_\varphi =N_\varphi /2\sqrt{n_{LO}}`$, where $`a_{sig}`$ is the annihilation operator of the signal. For each pulse, $`X_\varphi `$ takes a random value due to quantum fluctuations. Theoretically, the probability distribution $`P(X_\varphi )`$ is given by integrating the Wigner distribution over the conjugate variable $`X_{\varphi +90^{}}`$ Vogel . When the signal is in a coherent state, $`P(X_\varphi )`$ is given by a Gaussian function with a standard deviation of 1/2. Figure 1 shows $`P(X_\varphi )`$ for $`\varphi `$=0, 90, 180, and 270 when the average signal photon number is 1. The probability distribution for $`\varphi `$=90, $`P(X_{90})`$, and that for $`\varphi `$=270 ,$`P(X_{270})`$, are the same, so it is impossible to differentiate them; in this case, Bob selected the wrong basis. It is, however, possible to differentiate $`\varphi `$=0 from $`\varphi `$=180. To do this, Bob sets up two threshold values $`X_+`$ and $`X_{}`$ where $`X_{}X_+`$. In the following, we set $`X_{}=X_+`$. If the measured quadrature amplitude $`X_\varphi `$ is larger than $`X_+`$ (in this case, we say that Bob’s result is positive), Bob judges that $`\varphi `$=0. If $`X_\varphi `$ is smaller than $`X_{}`$ (Bob’s result is negative), Bob judges that $`\varphi `$=180. Finally, if $`X_\varphi `$ is between $`X_{}`$ and $`X_+`$ (Bob gets an inconclusive result), Bob abandons the judgement. Note that because $`P(X_0)`$ overlaps $`P(X_{180})`$, Bob’s judgement is not always true. This intrinsic bit error rate $`e_{int}`$ is the probability that $`\varphi `$ is actually 180 even when Bob’s result is positive, or $`\varphi `$=0 for Bob’s negative result. The larger $`X_+`$ is the smaller $`e_{int}`$ becomes, but at the same time the probability, $`p_{inc}`$, that Bob gets inconclusive results becomes larger. We define ”effective” detection efficiency $`p_d`$ as the probability that Bob gets positive or negative results ($`p_d=1p_{inc}`$). A remarkable feature of our implementation of QKD is that both $`e_{int}`$ and $`p_d`$ are functions of the $`n_{sig}`$ and $`X_+`$. The values of $`e_{int}`$ and $`p_d`$ can be easily calculated by using the error function. For example, when $`n_{sig}`$=1 and $`X_+`$=$`X_{}`$=0, $`e_{int}`$=0.023 and $`p_d`$=1. If we choose $`X_+`$=$`X_{}`$=0.5, $`e_{int}`$ is greatly reduced to 0.0016 while $`p_d`$=0.84 changes a little. When $`n_{sig}`$=0.1 and $`X_+`$=$`X_{}`$=1, $`e_{int}`$=0.047 and $`p_d`$=0.090. In order to compare the performance of our scheme to that of the photon counting scheme, we define ”effective” quantum efficiency $`\eta _d`$=$`p_d/n_{sig}`$. In the last case, therefore, $`\eta _d`$=0.90. These values demonstrate the excellent performance of balanced homodyne detection. For a given value of $`n_{sig}`$ there exists an optimal $`X_+`$($`X_{}`$) that maximizes the product of the effective detection efficiency and the mutual information between Alice and Bob namiki .

After an appropriate number of pulses have been transferred, Bob tells Alice which phase shift he applied for each pulse. Alice, then, tells Bob which phase shifts were correct. The correctly measured data is interpreted as a binary sequence according to the coding scheme ($`\varphi _A`$=0 or 90)=1 and ($`\varphi _A`$=180 or 270)=0 for Alice, and (positive result)=1 and (negative result)=0 for Bob. Finally, Alice and Bob perform error correction and privacy amplification procedures.

Let us now consider the security of this system. Here we stress the advantage of the homodyne scheme that permits the measurement of quadrature amplitude distributions. A detailed analysis is presented in a separate paper namiki . In the intercept-resend eavesdropping strategy, Eve intercepts selected light pulses and measures them, and then sends an appropriate state to Bob. In the photon counting scheme, she can send a vacuum state (send nothing) for some pulses and send a higher intensity state for remaining pulses if the net rate of detection by Bob is unchanged BB84 . In the homodyne scheme, however, this is not the case because such intervention changes the probability distribution of the measured quadrature amplitudes. In order to detect such changes, Bob graphs two probability distributions: one is for pulses for which he selected the correct basis ($`\varphi `$=0 or 180), the other is for pulses for which he selected the wrong basis ($`\varphi =90^{}`$ or 270). If, for example, Eve sends vacuum pulses, Bob’s probability distribution for the correct basis becomes a superposition of Gaussians not only centered at $`\pm \sqrt{n}_{sig}`$ but also centered at 0 remark . The resolution of the quadrature-amplitude distribution becomes higher as the number of pulses increases. Therefore, allowable eavesdropping strategies will be limited. Note that since nonlinear optical processes, such as amplification or parametric processes, generally change the quantum state of light, sophisticated eavesdropping strategies would be detectable.

For Eve’s intercept-resend eavesdropping to succeed, Eve must determine Alice’s phase shift with high accuracy. It is clear, however, that, if $`n_{sig}`$ is sufficiently small, Eve cannot do that. She may take primarily two measurement schemes: she may measure the signal in the basis of her choosing as Bob does, or she may measure it in both bases by splitting it into two parts using a 50-50 beam splitter and measuring with 0-phase shift at one output and with 90-phase shift at the other. For the former case, she obtains no information for half of pulses. For the latter case, because the simultaneous measurement of two noncommuting observables introduces extra noise yamamoto-haus ; Leonhardt , her error rate is larger than the one for the single basis measurement. For example, when $`n_{sig}`$=1, the probability that she correctly differentiates between four phase shifts is only 0.708 (we assume that she must always choose one phase shift) namiki .

If there is an optical loss in the communication channel (this is always true for long distance transmission), Eve can, in principle, replace the original channel with a more transparent one, and then put a beam splitter on the channel. This beamsplitting attack does not change the state of the transmitted light so Bob cannot detect the presence of Eve. Moreover, because Eve can stay closer to Alice than Bob, the signal intensity at Eve’s port will be higher than the one at Bob’s port. However, even when Eve’s signal-to-noise ratio is better than Bob’s, Eve cannot get full information due to quantum fluctuations. In addition, Bob can improve his error rate by discarding pulses (by increasing $`X_+`$). Eve, on the other hand, cannot improve her error rate for Bob’s selected pulses because Eve’s measurement result is uncorrelated with Bob’s due to quantum fluctuations entering from the dark port of the beam splitter. Therefore, Eve’s Shannon information on the final key could be reduced to an arbitrarily small value by privacy amplification.

In order to demonstrate the feasibility of our scheme, we performed a prototype QKD experiment. The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 2. The light source is a 1.55-$`\mu `$m-wavelength semiconductor laser (Pico-Quanta model PDL-800) that generates $``$100-ps-duration pulses whose repetition rate can be controlled by a PC. The laser output is split by a half-wave plate ($`\lambda `$/2) and a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) into the signal and LO pulse. The signal pulse is attenuated to a single-photon level, and its phase can be varied by moving a mirror with a piezoelectric transducer (PZT). We use time and polarization division to separate the signal and the LO in a transmission fiber Marand1995 . A quarter-wave plate ($`\lambda `$/4) and a half-wave plate are used to control the polarization of the signal and the LO after they traverse the fiber. The signal and LO overlap each other in time on the second PBS. Their polarizations are then rotated by 45 so they interfere on the third PBS. The balanced detector consists of two InGaAs PDs (Hamamatsu photonics model G3476-03) and a charge-sensitive amplifier (Digitex model HIC-1576 taniguchi ). The quantum efficiency of the PD, $`\eta _{PD}`$, was measured to be 0.85$`\pm `$0.03. The detector output is recorded by an A/D board installed in a PC. The overall electronic detection noise was 1010 electrons rms. The phase drift of our interferometer was less than $`\lambda `$/10 in 10-seconds. The fringe visibility $`V`$ was 0.8 and was limited by imperfect spatial overlap between the signal and the LO.

Figure 3 shows the measured $`P(X_\varphi )`$ for $`\varphi `$=0, 90, 180, and 270. $`n_{sig}`$ was 0.1 photons/pulse, and $`n_{LO}`$ was 2x106 photons/pulse. There was a total of 103 pulses. It took about 1-min to send 103-pulses; the repetition rate of the laser was set very low because the response time for moving a mirror with PZT was slow. Use of electro-optical modulator will enable us to increase the repetition rate and decrease the phase error. The mean and the standard deviations of the distributions are shown in Table 1. The measured values of the mean are consistent with theoretical values of $`\pm \sqrt{n_{sig}\eta _{PD}}V`$=$`\pm `$ 0.23. The standard deviations are large than the ideal value of 0.5 mainly due to the amplifier noise.

QKD was performed using the same data as shown in Fig. 3. Bob selected the correct basis ($`\varphi =0^{}`$ or 180) for 490 pulses. For $`X_+`$=0, $`p_d`$=1 and BER was 0.34. For $`X_+`$=0.98, $`p_d`$=0.076 ($`\eta _d`$=0.76) and BER was 0.081. Although these values are worse than the ideal estimation shown above, they still demonstrate the superior performance of our scheme, and will be improved in the future by using a fiber-optics-based interferometer, a low-noise, high-speed, charge-sensitive amplifier, and so on. Note that because for Eve $`n_{sig}`$=1 is already too low to effectively perform eavesdropping and for Bob $`n_{sig}`$=0.1 is high enough to perform QKD, our scheme would be feasible in the presence of 10-dB optical loss.

In conclusion, we have presented a novel scheme for QKD that utilizes balanced homodyne detection in the phase-encoding BB84 protocol. The scheme has an inherently finite error rate, but previous schemes also have finite error rates in practice. The advantage of our scheme is that measuring the distributions of quadrature amplitudes limits the allowable eavesdropping strategies. In addition, if Alice randomly adds auxiliary phase-shift, the density matrix of the signal could be measured by optical homodyne tomography. We have performed a prototype QKD experiment at 1.55-$`\mu `$m wavelength. When the average photon number was 0.1, a BER of 0.08 and ”effective” quantum efficiency of 0.76 were obtained (effective detection efficiency was 0.076).

We thank M. Koashi, A. Shimizu, T. Kuga, and Y. Torii for helpful discussions, and K. Komori and M. Yanagihara for work during the early stage of the experiment. T. H. acknowledges the financial support from the Research Foundation for Opto-Science and Technology.


text:
# Entropy lower bounds of quantum decision tree complexity 11footnote 1This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant CCR-9820855.

## 1 Introduction

The decision tree model is probably the simplest model in the study of computational complexity. In this model, the input $`x`$ is known only to an oracle, and the only way that the computer can access the input is to ask the oracle questions of the type ‘$`x_i=\mathrm{?}`$’. The computational cost is simply the number of such queries, and the complexity of a problem is the minimal worst case cost. For example, to find out whether or not there is a $`1`$ in $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$, any deterministic decision tree algorithm needs to ask for all the $`x_i`$’s in the worst case. Therefore, its (deterministic) decision tree complexity is $`n`$.

Unlike *classical* decision trees, a *quantum* decision tree algorithm can make queries in a quantum *superposition*, and therefore may be intrinsically faster than any classical algorithm. For example, Grover’s quantum algorithm for finding the location of the only $`1`$ in an $`n`$ bit string makes only $`O(\sqrt{n})`$ queries, while any classical algorithm needs $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ queries. In recent years, the quantum decision tree model has been extensively studied by many authors from both upper bounds and lower bounds perspectives. Here we consider the latter aspect only.  is a recent survey of both classical and quantum decision tree complexity.

Throughout this paper, $`f`$ denotes a function:

$$f:\{0,1\}^nAB=f(A)\{0,1\}^m,$$

for some integers $`n,m>0`$. Let $`Q(f)`$ be the quantum decision tree complexity of $`f`$ with error probability bounded by $`1/3`$. Our goal is to derive a general lower bound for $`Q(f)`$ in terms of $`E(f)`$ defined as follows:

###### Definition 1.1

For any $`f`$, define the *entropy* of $`f`$, $`E(f)`$, to be the Shannon entropy of $`f(X)`$, where $`X`$ is taken uniformly random from $`A`$. More explicitly,

$$E(f)=\underset{yB}{}p_y\mathrm{log}_2\frac{1}{p_y},$$

where $`p_y=\mathrm{Pr}_{x_RA}[f(x)=y]`$.

We first note the following general lower bound:

###### Proposition 1.2

For any $`f`$, $`Q(f)=\mathrm{\Omega }(E(f)/\mathrm{log}n)`$.

This fact can be proved by a standard information theoretical argument, which we sketch here. The computation can be viewed as a process of communication: to make a query, the algorithm sends the oracle $`\mathrm{log}_2n+1`$ bits, which are then returned by the oracle. The first $`\mathrm{log}_2n`$ bits specify the location of the input bit being queried and the remaining one bit allows the oracle to write down the answer. Now we run the algorithm on $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{|A|}}_{xA}|x_X|\stackrel{}{0}_Y`$, where $`X`$ and $`Y`$ denote the qubits that hold the input and the intermediate results of the computer respectively. Now we consider $`S_B^{(t)}`$, the *von Neumann entropy* of qubits in $`Y`$ after the $`t`$th query. If the algorithm computes $`f`$ in $`T`$ queries, at the end of the computation, we expect to have a vector close to $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{|A|}}_{xA}|x_X|f(x)_Y.`$ Clearly $`S_B^{(0)}=0`$, $`S_B^{(T)}E(f)`$, and $`|S_B^{(t+1)}S_B^{(t)}|=O(\mathrm{log}n)`$ for any $`t`$, $`0tT1`$. The latter two assertions can be proved by standard applications of Holevo’s theorem. Therefore $`T=\mathrm{\Omega }(E(f)/\mathrm{log}n)`$. We will provide an example later to show that indeed this bound is tight. This means one quantum query can get $`\mathrm{log}n`$ bits of information, while any classical query can only get no more than $`1`$ bit of information.

Surprisingly, this power of getting $`\omega (1)`$ bits of information in a query is not useful in computing total functions, i.e., functions that are defined on every string in $`\{0,1\}^n`$, in the sense that each quantum query can only get $`O(1)`$ bits of information on average, as stated in our main theorem:

###### Theorem 1.3 (Main Theorem)

For any total function $`f`$, $`Q(f)=\mathrm{\Omega }(E(f))`$.

Now we sketch the proof idea. We take the polynomial approach initiated in . Any correct algorithm that computes $`f`$ will produce a set of polynomials

$$\{\stackrel{~}{f}_y:\{0,1\}^n:yB\}.$$

Each $`\stackrel{~}{f}_y`$ is an approximation to the characteristic polynomial for $`f^1(y)`$. If $`f`$ is a total function, on any Boolean inputs, $`\stackrel{~}{f_y}`$ is forced to be close to either $`0`$ or $`1`$, and this ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ nature makes it harder to approximate; in contrast, when $`f`$ is not a total function, on inputs where $`f`$ is not defined, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_y`$ has more freedom to take values that make the approximation easier.

There are several previous papers that prove general lower bounds on quantum decision tree complexity in terms of different complexity notions:  by Boolean (block) sensitivity and by degree of approximating polynomials,  by a combinatorial property, and  by average Boolean sensitivity.

In the next two sections we shall provide a rigorous definition of the quantum decision tree model and then prove the main theorem.

## 2 Quantum decision tree model

In the quantum decision tree model, the computer has three sets of qubits: $`P`$, $`Q`$, and $`R`$. $`P`$ has $`n`$ bits, which hold the input; $`Q`$ has $`\mathrm{log}_2n+1`$ bits, which contain a pointer to the input bits (i.e., an integer between $`1`$ and $`n`$), as well as one more bit; R has an unlimited number of bits which serve as the algorithm’s working space. A quantum decision tree computation with input $`x`$ is the application (from the right to the left) of a sequence of unitary operators

$$A:=U_TOU_{T1}O\mathrm{}U_1OU_0$$

on the initial state

$$|x_P|\stackrel{}{0}_{QR},$$

where $`O`$ is the *oracle gate*:

$$O|x_P|i,b_Q|c_R=|x_P|i,bx_i_Q|c_R,$$

and each $`U_t=I\stackrel{~}{U}_t`$, $`0tT`$, where $`I`$ is the identity operator on $`l_2(P)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}_t`$ a unitary operator on $`l_2(QR)`$. We say that the algorithm computes $`f`$ (with error bounded by $`1/3`$) if there exists a measurement M on $`l_2(QR)`$, such that for any $`xA`$, with probability no less than $`2/3`$ $`f(x)`$ will be observed by applying $`M`$ at the final state of the computation. The quantum decision tree complexity $`Q(f)`$ is defined to be the minimal $`T`$ such that there is a quantum decision tree algorithm that computes $`f`$ in $`T`$ queries.

The following example demonstrates that the lower bound in Proposition 1.2 is tight.

###### Example 1

Assume $`n`$ is a power of $`2`$. For any $`z\{0,1\}^{\mathrm{log}_2n}`$, $`e(z)\{0,1\}^n`$ is defined as follows: $`e(z)_i=iz`$ (parity of bitwise product). Consider $`f(x):=z`$ if $`x=e(z)`$, otherwise $`f`$ is undefined. Then $`E(f)=\mathrm{log}_2n`$, while $`Q(f)=1`$. Let $`H`$ be the Hadamard transformation on the $`\mathrm{log}_2n`$ index bits in $`Q`$, and $`M`$ acts on the last bit in $`Q`$ such that $`M|0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1)`$. It is easy to verify that for any $`x=e(z)`$,

$$M^1HOHM|x_P|\stackrel{}{0}_Q=|x_P|z,0_Q.$$

## 3 Proof of the main theorem

For $`0tT`$, let $`\varphi _t(x)l_2(QR)`$ be the state such that

$$U_tOU_{t1}\mathrm{}U_0|x_P|\stackrel{}{0}_{QR}=|x_P\varphi _t(x).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be any orthonormal basis for $`l_2(QR)`$. Our proof will finally make use of the following fact observed in :

###### Fact 1

$$\varphi _t(x)=\underset{\psi \mathrm{\Psi }}{}p_\psi (x)|\psi _{QR},$$

for some set of multi-linear polynomials $`p_\psi (x)`$, each of which is of degree no more than $`t`$.

Therefore, proving lower bounds in quantum complexity can be reduced to proving lower bounds on the degree of approximating polynomials. We shall first prove some lemmas on the latter.

For any $`g:\{0,1\}^n𝐑`$, define the average sensitivity of $`g`$,

$$\overline{s}_g=E_{x,i}\left[(g(x)g(x+e_i))^2\right]\mathrm{and},$$

$$p_g=E_x\left[g(x)\right].$$

All randomness is uniform. When $`g`$ is a Boolean function, $`\overline{s}_g`$ is just the probability that a random edge in the Boolean cube connects two vertices of different function values, and $`p_g`$ is the probability for a random input to have function value $`1`$.

Now let $`g`$ be a Boolean function, and $`\stackrel{~}{g}:\{0,1\}^n[0,1]`$ approximate $`g`$, i.e., $`|\stackrel{~}{g}(x)g(x)|1/3`$ for all $`x\{0,1\}^n`$. The following theorem says that a larger $`\overline{s}_g`$ or a smaller $`p_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ will force $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ to have high degree.

###### Lemma 3.1

$`deg(\stackrel{~}{g})n\overline{s}_{\stackrel{~}{g}}/(4p_{\stackrel{~}{g}})n\overline{s}_g/(36p_{\stackrel{~}{g}})`$.

Proof.  Let $`d=deg(\stackrel{~}{g})`$, then the Fourier representation of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(x)=\underset{r\{0,1\}^n,|r|d}{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{g}}_r(1)^{xr},$$

where $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{g}}_r=\mathrm{E}_x[\stackrel{~}{g}(x)(1)^{xr}]`$. By simple calculation,

$$\overline{s}_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=\underset{r,|r|d}{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{g}}_r^2\frac{4|s|}{n}(\underset{r,|r|d}{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{g}}_r^2)\frac{4d}{n}=\mathrm{E}_x\left[\stackrel{~}{g}^2(x)\right]4d/n4dp_{\stackrel{~}{g}}/n.$$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ approximates $`g`$, $`\overline{s}_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\frac{1}{9}\overline{s}_g`$.

The following lemma about Boolean functions will be needed immediately:

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`k`$ be the cardinality of $`X\{0,1\}^n`$, $`t_X`$ the number of edges in the Boolean cube that connect two vertices in $`X`$. Then $`t_Xk\mathrm{log}_2k/2`$.

Proof.  By induction. It is true for $`k=1,2`$. Assume the statement is true for all natural numbers smaller than $`k`$, and let’s examine the case $`k3`$. Pick a coordinate $`i`$ such that both the subcubes of $`x_i=1`$ and $`x_i=0`$ have nonempty subsets $`A`$ and $`B`$ of $`X`$. Then $`t_Xt_A+t_B+\mathrm{min}\{|A|,|B|\}`$. We can assume without loss of generality that $`1|A|=ak/2`$. Then by simple calculation,

$$t_X\frac{1}{2}a\mathrm{log}_2a+\frac{1}{2}(ka)\mathrm{log}_2(ka)+ak\mathrm{log}_2k/2.$$

Let $`H()`$ be the entropy function, i.e., for $`\eta [0,1]`$, $`H(\eta ):=\eta \mathrm{log}_2\frac{1}{\eta }+(1\eta )\mathrm{log}_2\frac{1}{1\eta }`$. The following lemma says that if the number of true assignments is close to the number of false assignments, then the Boolean function should have high average sensitivity:

###### Lemma 3.3

For any Boolean function $`g`$, $`\overline{s}_gH(p_g)/n`$.

Proof.  Let $`k=2^np_g`$ be the number of true assignments. By Lemma 3.2, in the Boolean cube, the number of edges that connect two true assignments is less than $`k\mathrm{log}_2k/2`$, and the number of edges that connect two false assignments is less than $`(2^nk)\mathrm{log}_2(2^nk)/2`$. Therefore,

$$\overline{s}_g=\underset{x,i}{\mathrm{Pr}}\left[g(x)g(x+e_i)\right]\left(n2^nk\mathrm{log}_2k(nk)\mathrm{log}_2(nk)\right)/n2^n=H(p_g)/n.$$

We are now ready to prove our main theorem:

Proof. \[Main Theorem\] For each $`yB`$, let $`f_y`$ be the characteristic function of $`f^1(y)`$, i.e.,

$$f_y(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }f(x)=y\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{f}_y(x)`$ be the probability that $`y`$ is observed as the output when the input is $`x`$. Then by Lemma 1, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_y`$ is a nonnegative polynomial of degree no more than $`2Q(f)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_y`$ approximates $`f_y`$. Furthermore, for any $`x`$, $`_y\stackrel{~}{f}_y(x)1`$.

For simplicity of notation, we shall use $`p_y`$ in place for $`p_{f_y}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_y`$ for $`p_{\stackrel{~}{f}_y}`$, and $`\overline{s}_y`$ for $`\overline{s}_{f_y}`$. Note that

$$E(f)=\underset{y}{}p_y\mathrm{log}_2\frac{1}{p_y},$$

and,

$$\underset{y}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_y1.$$

Let $`d=\mathrm{max}_ydeg(\stackrel{~}{f}_y)`$. We want to get a lower bound for $`d`$.

By Lemma 3.1

$$\frac{n}{36}\overline{s}_yd_y\stackrel{~}{p}_yd\stackrel{~}{p}_y.$$

Summing over all $`i`$, and by Lemma 3.3, we get

$$d\frac{n}{36}\underset{y}{}\overline{s}_y\frac{1}{36}\underset{y}{}H(p_y)\frac{1}{36}E(f).$$

## 4 Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Andy Yao for discussion, Jason Perry and Lane Hemaspaandra for going through the paper and giving useful comments.