text:
# Optical RKKY Interaction between Charged Semiconductor Quantum Dots

## Abstract

We show how a spin interaction between electrons localized in neighboring quantum dots can be induced and controlled optically. The coupling is generated via virtual excitation of delocalized excitons and provides an efficient coherent control of the spins. This quantum manipulation can be realized in the adiabatic limit and is robust against decoherence by spontaneous emission. Applications to the realization of quantum gates, scalable quantum computers, and to the control of magnetization in an array of charged dots are proposed.

Quantum control of an electron spin, either independent of other spins or condition on their states, in a semiconductor nanostructure is a central issue in the emerging fields of spintronics and quantum information processing. The spin of a single electron confined in a semiconductor quantum dot (QD) was proposed loss98  as a qubit for the realization of scalable quantum computers. Quantum gates are designed using electric gates to control via overlap the exchange interaction between two electrons in neighboring dots. Optical control was also proposed, in which a cavity mode couples different dots imamoglu99 , or a dipole-dipole interaction between charged excitons strongly polarized by an external dc field is exploited pazy01 . Optical control possesses several advantages compared with control by gate voltage. Ultrafast lasers can control quantum systems on the femtosecond time scale, and using shaping techniques the amplitude and phase of the pulses can be designed at will offering a great deal of flexibility and efficiency chen01 .

In this paper we report a theory of an exchange interaction between two electron spins in separate dots in a typical semiconductor QD system by virtual excitation of delocalized exciton states in the host material which interact with the electrons in both dots. This time-dependent effective interaction is driven by the external laser field, and is, thus, controllable. The virtual excitation by an off-resonant laser preserve the coherence of the spin dynamics. This indirect exchange mechanism is analogous to a RKKY interaction rudemann54  between two magnetic impurities mediated by conduction electron or excitonsmelo95 , except that the intermediate electron-hole pair is produced by the external light. The optical quantum control of a single exciton in a semiconductor QD has been recently reported in GaAs QDs generated by monolayer fluctuations stievater01  and InGaAs self-assembled QDs kamada01 ; htoon02 . The short radiative recombination lifetime of the exciton (of the order of 100 ps) gives a severe limitation for the application to quantum computation, even with the help of shaping techniques chen01 . This can be avoided by doping QDs each with a single conduction electron and by encoding the quantum information in the spin degrees of freedom. Optical control by virtual excitation avoids the fast optical decoherence. Thus, the advantages of a very long spin coherence time in QDs gupta99  and fast optical control can be combined.

Consider two electrons localized in two QDs at $`𝐑_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=1,2`$) with wavefunctions $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(𝐫𝐑_{\mathrm{}})`$ and a laser field used to generate exciton states in a continuum. This continuum is provided by states in the host material embedding the QDs with an energy gap $`ϵ_\text{G}`$. QDs can be embedded in bulk, quantum well, or quantum wire host structures. Fluctuation QDs embedded in a narrow quantum well stievater01  represent an example of a system with a two dimensional continuum. A promising system for the scheme which we propose is provided by pyramidal QDs hartmann00 , where localized states in growth-controlled QDs and delocalized states in the so-called vertical quantum wire are well separated and can be addressed selectively. In this case the continuum states are in the vertical quantum wire. The Coulomb interaction between the photoexcited pairs and the localized states contains direct and exchange contributions. The direct term gives state renormalization. The attraction of the exciton to the dot is determined in the long range by the dipole moment of the exciton induced by the localized electron in the dot and in the short range by the dot potential. The binding of the exciton to the dot is then sensitive to the design of the dot, ranging from a very weakly bound state to one localized in the dot chen03 . The former has a wave function overlap to the neighboring dot and contributes to the optical RKKY. The latter can be made far off resonance to the optical excitation. Here we focus on the spin structure of the Hamiltonian arising out of the exchange interaction between the localized and optically excited conduction electrons. The exchange interaction between the localized electron and the valence hole is negligible. For convenience, $`\mathrm{}=1`$ throughout. Hence, the Hamiltonian of the system contains, besides the electron and hole energies in the host and in the dots, (1) the exchange interaction between electrons,

$$H_\text{X}=\frac{1}{V}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{},\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}{𝐤,𝐤^{}}}{}J_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})𝐒^{\mathrm{}}𝐬_{\alpha ,\alpha ^{}}c_{𝐤,\alpha }^{}c_{𝐤^{},\alpha ^{}},$$
(1)
where $`𝐒^j`$ denotes the spin of the $`j`$-th localized electron, $`𝐬`$ the spin of the electron in the photogenerated pair and $`c_{𝐤,\alpha }^{}`$ and $`h_{𝐤,\beta }^{}`$ are the creation operators of free electron and hole spin states, respectively; and (2) the time-dependent control Hamiltonian describing the creation of electron-hole pairs

$`H_\text{C}(t)={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐤,\sigma }(t)}{2}}e^{i\omega _{P\sigma }t}c_{𝐤,\sigma }^{}h_{𝐤,\sigma }^{}+\text{h.c.}.`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐤,\sigma }(t)`$ is the time-dependent Rabi energy associated with the electric field of the optical pulse times the transition dipole matrix element of the electron-hole pair with momenta $`\pm 𝐤`$, resulting from taking the wave vector of the photon to be zero. $`\sigma =\pm `$ denotes the $`\sigma \pm `$ circular polarization of light, which fixes the spin configuration of the photoexcited electron spin state $`\sigma (1/2)`$ and hole state $`\sigma (3/2)`$. We consider only a single heavy hole band which is valid for GaAs confined heterostructure. For the exchange integral $`J_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})`$, the Coulomb interaction is screened by the static dielectric constant sham66 . We approximate the continuum electron by a plane wave orthogonalized (OPW) to the dot states and further simplify the exchange to the form

$`J_{\mathrm{}}(𝐤,𝐤^{})`$ $``$ $`j_{\mathrm{}}e^{i(𝐤𝐤^{})𝐑_{\mathrm{}}},`$ (3)
with a constant prefactor given by

$$j_{\mathrm{}}^\text{d}IRy^{}a_\text{B}^{}\xi ^{d1},$$
(4)
where $`\xi `$ is the localization length within a dot, $`Ry^{}`$ and $`a_\text{B}^{}`$ denote the effective exciton Rydberg energy and Bohr radius in the host semiconductor, $`I`$ is a dimensionless constant that depends only on the particular geometry of the dot, and $`d`$ is the dimensionality of the host. The dependence of $`I`$ on the wave vectors is removed by using a suitable average discussed below.

In the absence of the laser pulse, the system with two localized electrons is in a degenerate ground state with four spin states. In the presence of a laser field nearly resonant with the continuum, the ground state energy is shifted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_0=_𝐤(\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma (t)/2)(\delta +k^2/2\mu )^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma ^{}(t)/2)`$ where $`\delta =ϵ_\text{G}\omega _\text{P}`$ is the detuning of the laser with respect to the electron hole continuum and $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass of the electron hole pair. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_0`$ contributes to the well-known blue shift in the excitonic transition or dynamic Stark effect. This contribution, which is diagonal in the spin index of the localized states, is irrelevant for our spin control purposes. However, when Coulomb interaction is taken into account, the spin configuration of the localized electrons does affect this shift. To calculate this effect we break the pair propagator $`(\delta +k^2/2\mu )^1`$ into its electron and hole parts, and then consider the self-energy correction in the electron propagator due to the interaction with the localized states. These corrections give an effective Hamiltonian for the spins of the localized electrons. Fig. 1 shows the lowest order contribution in Coulomb interaction to the effective exchange interaction between the two localized electrons mediated by the free electron in the photoexcited pair. The incoming photon (wavy line) with energy $`\omega _\text{P}`$ and polarization $`\sigma +`$ creates a pair of electron (solid line) and hole (dashed line). The electron in the pair interacts with the two electrons localized in the two neighboring dots (dotted lines) via $`H_X`$ in Eq. (1), and then recombines with the hole. The indices $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ refers to the spin states of the localized electrons. The loop contains the integral in the exchanged energy $`\omega `$, and the sum in the momentum $`𝐤_e^{}`$ and spin $`\alpha `$ of the intermediate electron. If the free carriers’ motion is spin independent, the interaction between two local spins associated with this diagram contains the term $`(𝐒^1𝐬)(𝐒^2𝐬)`$ $`=(𝐒^1𝐒^2)/4+i𝐬(𝐒^1\times 𝐒^2)/2.`$ When it is summed with the diagram in which the order of the two local spins is reversed, the cross product terms cancel. Hence, the effective spin-spin Hamiltonian assumes the Heisenberg form

$$H_s=2J_{12}𝐒^1𝐒^2,$$
(5)
where the effective exchange constant $`J_{12}`$ is always positive, given by

$$J_{12}(R)=\frac{1}{16}\underset{\sigma }{}|\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma (t)|^2j_1^\text{d}j_2^\text{d}\frac{d^d𝐤}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^d𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^d}e^{i(𝐤𝐤^{})𝐑}\left(\delta +\frac{k^2}{2m_\text{h}}+\frac{k^2}{2m_\text{e}}\right)^2\left(\delta +\frac{k^2}{2m_\text{h}}+\frac{k^2}{2m_\text{e}}\right)^1,$$
(6)
where $`m_\text{e}`$ ($`m_\text{h}`$) denotes the electron (hole) mass, and $`𝐑=𝐑_1𝐑_2`$. The Rabi energy can reasonably be assumed independent of $`𝐤`$. From the Eq. (6) it can be seen that $`J_{21}=J_{12}`$. Parabolic dispersions for the electron and the hole energies are assumed. Unpolarized light is used to induce the ferromagnetic interaction between the local spins, so as to avoid the spin polarization effect of the first order process in $`H_X`$.

The most important correction to Fig. 1 is due to the Coulomb attraction between the electron and hole in the excited pair melo95 , giving rise to three exciton propagators. The electron-hole pair energies in Eq. (6) are replaced by the exciton energies. The exciton wave functions enhance the oscillator strength and, hence, the Rabi energies at the two optical vertices and the exchange constants at the spin vertices. To remain in the regime of virtual excitations the laser energy must be adjusted to below the lowest discrete exciton state. Keeping only the $`1s`$ exciton contribution we obtain

$$J_{12}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\delta }\right)^2\frac{j_1^\text{d}j_2^\text{d}|\varphi _{\text{1s}}^\text{d}(0)|^2}{\delta }I_\text{d}(R),$$
(7)
$$\text{where }I_\text{d}(R)=\frac{d^d𝐪}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{e^{i𝐪R}[\rho _{\text{1s}}^\text{d}(\alpha q)]^2}{1+(\kappa _\text{M}q)^2}.$$
(8)
The term $`\varphi _{\text{1s}}^\text{d}(0)`$ is the 1s excitonic wavefunction in $`d`$ dimensions, $`\kappa _\text{M}=1/\sqrt{2M\delta }`$ is a characteristic optical length related to the detuning, $`M`$ is the total mass of the pair, and $`\alpha =m_\text{h}/M`$. The integral in $`𝐪`$ represents the sum over the exciton center of mass wavevectors scattered by the localized electrons. The form factor is defined as $`\rho _{\text{1s}}^\text{d}(q)=d^d𝐫|\varphi _{\text{1s}}^\text{d}(𝐫)|^2e^{i𝐪𝐫}.`$ The dependence of the interaction on the interdot separation is contained in the integrals $`I^\text{d}(R)`$. Their explicit analytical expression and the contributions from higher excitonic levels will be given in a long publication chen03 . The spatial dependence in all three cases, $`d=1,2,3`$, is dominated by two exponential terms with two characteristic lengths: the optical length $`\kappa _\text{M}`$ and the Bohr radius.

In Fig. 2 we plot $`J_{12}`$ as a function of the separation between the dots in the two dimensional case, for three different values of the detuning. The results when excitonic effects are not included are also shown for comparison. The excitonic enhancement can be more than two order of magnitudes. An analogous excitonic enhancement effects was found in the case of spin-flip Raman scattering of electrons trapped in neutral donors thomas68 . In the calculation we used $`m_e=0.07m`$ and $`m_h=0.5m`$, a Rabi energy of 0.1 meV at the peak of the pulse, 5 meV for the exciton Rydberg, and the dot dimension $`\xi 2a_B^{}`$. A typical value for the Bohr radius is 150 Å. A simple estimate of $`I=5.76`$, the magnitude of the exchange in Eq. (4), is obtained for one OPW from the average of exchange $`j_{\mathrm{}}`$ squared over $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ for the wave vector cutoff equal to $`1.1/\xi `$. This value corresponds to the minimum value of the averages for all possible cutoffs. An orbital of Slater form is assumed for the localized electron. The exchange energy between two local spins is then of the order of 1 meV, which is comparable to the estimated values of the exchange coupling due to tunneling in coupled QDs burkard99 . The interaction can be considerably enhanced in systems where large QDs are vertically stacked with separations smaller that their lateral size.

The detuning $`\delta `$ has to be larger than the exciton line-width so that there is no absorption of energy in the exciton spectrum from the pump. The dynamics of the localized spin is thus fully coherent and the finite lifetime $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the photoexcited states is no longer a limitation for quantum information processing. The optical pulses has to be switched on and off in such a way that no real population is excited in the intermediate excitonic states. In the simple case of a two-level system $`G`$ and $`E`$ this adiabaticity condition can be written in the form$`|(\frac{d}{dt}G^{}|)|E^{}||ϵ_G^{}ϵ_E^{}|`$ where $`|G^{}`$ and $`|E^{}`$ are the time dependent dressed states in the rotating frame (or time-dependent Floquet states) of the ground and excited state bayfield99 . This leads to $`|\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}(t)|(\delta ^2+\mathrm{\Omega }(t)^2)^{3/2}.`$ Assuming Gaussian optical pulses of the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }_0e^{(t/\sigma )^2}`$, we find the condition for the length of the pulse to preserve the adiabaticity to be

$$\sigma \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{\delta ^2}.$$
(9)
If we fix the angle of rotation of the spin by, e.g., $`𝑑tJ(t)=\pi /2`$ (swap gate loss98 ), the condition above can be translated into an upper limit for $`J_{12}`$. This limit is indicated explicitly in Fig. 2 by the label “A” in the top curve. The other curves shown are all within the adiabatic limit. Our case differs from the ideal two-level case discussed above in two aspects: the presence of a continuum of excitonic states in addition to the discrete states and the interaction of the continuum with the localized states. Neither changes considerably the estimates which go into the adiabaticity condition and Eq. (9) remains valid. The exchange Coulomb interaction between the photoexcited electron and the localized electrons in Eq. (1) is time independent and does not affect the adiabaticity. For the continuum, we have used a Fano approach and defined $`|G^{}`$ and $`|E^{},𝐤`$ as the ground state and continuum states dressed by the external laser field. Because of the detuning and the neglect of higher-order many-body effects, the Fano problem can be solved exactly. The dressed states can be explicitly written as a function of the density of states of the continuum and the coupling. The adiabaticity condition can then be put in the form $`(\frac{d}{dt}G^{}|)|E^{},𝐤|\delta |;𝐤`$. It is possible to prove chen03  that, for a reasonable density of states and energy dependence of the optical coupling, it is sufficient to satisfy this condition for $`𝐤=0`$. This reduces to a two-level problem where Eq. (9) holds as a sufficient condition for adiabaticity.

A simple experimental setup with two dots of different sizes and a tunable laser could be used to check the spin entanglement from the interaction proposed here. The manipulation and measurements on a single dot can be realized selectively by exciting at the energy of the localized exciton. Single qubit operation on a selected dot can be carried out in a Raman configuration as proposed for instance in Ref. imamoglu99 . An external magnetic field has to be used to initialize the system. Quantum computation requires controllable spin-spin interaction between specific nearest neighbor pairs. Our proposed mechanism can induce spin-spin interaction. Near-field optical excitations can be used to ensure the interaction is between nearest neighbor. The dots in fact can be arranged in an array separated by distances of the order of the wavelength of light. Then, quasi-delocalized exciton states with sub-wavelength extension can be excited only between the two dots intended to be coupled. This possibility is well within the experimental state-of-the-art capabilities of near-field scanning optical microscopy guest01 . In such a system, universal quantum computation can in principle be realized by using only the optically controlled exchange interaction, without resorting to single qubit operation divincenzo00 . As a possible extension to spintronics, we suggest that a regular array of charged dots may be magnetized by light which initializes the magnetization by exciting conduction electrons.

In conclusion we have proposed an optical technique to generate and control the entanglement of the spin of two electrons localized in neighboring QDs. The control of the spin can be realized in the adiabatic regime and can lead to the realization of spin quantum gates useful for quantum information processing and to control of the magnetization of an ensemble of dots.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by ARO F0005010, NSF DMR-0099572, and DARPA/ONR N0014-99-1-109. We thank Dr. D. Gammon for stimulating discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 References and notes

## 1 References and notes

1. J. Kormendy and K. Gebhardt, in The 20th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, H. Martel and J.C. Wheeler, Eds, AIP, in press (astro-ph/0105230)

2. M. Schönberg, and S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J. 96, 161 (1942).

3. G. Hasinger, in ISO Surveys of a Dusty Universe, D. Lemke, M. Stickel, K. Wilke, Eds., Springer, in press (astro-ph/0001360)

4. M.R.S. Hawkins, Astron. and Astrophys. Suppl. 143, 465 (2000).

5. M.J. Page, J.P.D. Mittaz, F.J. Carrera, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 325, 575 (2001).

6. M.J. Page, K.O. Mason, I.M. McHardy, L.R. Jones, F.J. Carrera, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 291, 324 (1997).

7. A.C. Fabian and K. Iwasawa, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 303, L34 (1999).

8. R. Gilli, G. Risaliti, M. Salvati, Astron. and Astrophys. 347, 424 (1999).

9. P. Ciliegi, M. Elvis, B.J. Wilkes, B.J. Boyle, R.G. McMahon, T. Maccacaro, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 277, 1463 (1995).

10. Observations were carried out in photometry mode using a standard chop/nod/jiggle observing technique. The atmospheric transmission and ‘submillimeter seeing’ were at all times in the top quartile of values measured on Mauna Kea. STARLINK SURF software was used to correct for the nod, flatfield, extinction correct, despike and remove sky noise from the data. Flux calibration was made against the primary submillimeter calibrator, Mars.

11. W.S. Holland, et al. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 303, 659 (1999).

12. A.E. Hornschemeier, et al. Astrophys. J. 554, 742 (2001).

13. A.J. Barger, L.L. Cowie, R.F. Mushotzky, U.A. Richards, 2001, Astron. J. submitted, (astro-ph/0007175)

14. P. Severgnini, et al. Astron. and Astrophys. 360, 457 (2000).

15. A.C. Fabian, et al. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 315, L8 (2000).

16. N. Gehrels, Astrophys. J. 303, 336 (1986).

17. J.J. Condon, et al. Astron. J. 115, 1693 (1998).

18. R.B. Rengelink, et al. Astron. and Astrophys. Suppl. 124, 259 (1997).

19. R.D. Hildebrand, Quarterly J. R. Astron. Soc. 24, 267 (1983).

20. D. Rigopoulou, A. Lawrence, M. Rowan-Robinson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 278, 1049 (1996).

21. M. Rowan-Robinson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 316, 885 (2000).

22. R. Genzel, et al. , Astrophys. J. 498, 579 (1998).

23. D. Downes, P.M. Solomon, Astrophys. J. 507, 615 (1998).

24. M. Elvis, et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 95, 1 (1994).

25. If our objects are systematically underluminous in x–rays then we will be underestimating the bolometric luminosities of their active nuclei. However, this is unlikely because these sources were found in an x-ray survey, in which the natural selection bias is expected to favour sources with higher than average x-ray to bolometric luminosity ratios rather than the reverse.

26. E.N. Archibald, J.S. Dunlop, D.H. Hughes, S. Rawlings, S.A. Eales, R.J. Ivison, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 323, 417 (2001).

27. L.A. Nolan, J.S. Dunlop, M.J. Kukula, D.H. Hughes, T. Boroson, R. Jimenez, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 323, 308 (2001).

28. I. Smail, R.J. Ivison, A.W. Blain, Astrophys. J. 490, L5 (1997)

29. R.J. Ivison, et al. , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 315, 209 (2000).

30. A.W. Blain, J.-P. Kneib, R.J. Ivison, I. Smail, Astrophys. J. 512, L87 (1999).

31. T. Miyaji, G. Hasinger, M. Schmidt, Astron. and Astrophys. 369, 49 (2001).

32. J.S. Dunlop, in FIRSED2000, I.M. van Bemmel, B. Wilkes, P. Barthel, Eds conference proceedings, Elsevier New Astron. Rev., in press, (astro-ph/0101297).

33. B.T. Draine and H.M. Lee, Astrophys. J. 285, 89, (1984).

34. The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope is operated on behalf of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research and the National Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Ground-state energy and spin in disordered quantum dots

## Abstract

We investigate the ground-state energy and spin of disordered quantum dots using spin-density-functional theory. Fluctuations of addition energies (Coulomb-blockade peak spacings) do not scale with average addition energy but remain proportional to level spacing. With increasing interaction strength, the even-odd alternation of addition energies disappears, and the probability of non-minimal spin increases, but never exceeds $`50\%`$. Within a two-orbital model, we show that the off-diagonal Coulomb matrix elements help stabilize a ground state of minimal spin.

The control of spin in semiconductor nanostructures  is essential for a number of applications such as spintronics  and quantum bits , and for fundamental studies of the Kondo effect in quantum dots . In clean quantum dots with circular symmetry, Hund’s rule is observed – high-spin states (i.e. states of non-minimal spin) appear for partly filled shells of degenerate single-particle levels . In disordered or chaotic quantum dots , high-spin states are suppressed by the rarity of degenerate or nearly degenerate levels. However, the observed absence of even-odd alternation of addition energies in quantum dots  is consistent with ground states of non-minimal spin. Recently, evidence for such high-spin states has been obtained from studies of the magnetic dispersion of Coulomb-blockade peaks . A number of theoretical treatments have considered the conditions under which high-spin ground states might occur . Many of these works  address the regime of large dimensionless conductance $`g>>1`$ ; other works rely on the validity of the Hartree-Fock approximation . Simulations on small lattice models indicate a significant fraction of $`S=1`$ ground states , but we infer $`g0.10.3`$ in the simulations, compared to the experimental range $`g>1`$ .

Density-functional theory enables in silico experiments on the ground-state spin of small, disordered quantum dots for which $`g>1`$, over a wide range of interaction strengths. The results presented here challenge the view that high-spin states dominate in disordered dots for $`r_s>1`$ : even-odd alternation of addition energies disappears by $`r_s=1.25`$, but the probability of a high-spin ground state never exceeds $`50\%`$. Using a two-orbital model, we show that off-diagonal Coulomb matrix elements help stabilize a ground states of minimum spin, as argued by Jacquod and Stone . We also find that addition-energy fluctuations do not scale with the average addition energy, but remain proportional to the single-particle level spacing, consistent with our previous results for spin-polarized dots .

The ground-state energy and spin of disordered, two-dimensional quantum dots are obtained within spin-density-functional theory (SDFT). Specifically, we solve the following Kohn-Sham equations  numerically, and iterate until self-consistent solutions are obtained;

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}^2+\frac{e^2}{\kappa }\frac{\rho (𝐫^{})}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}𝑑𝐫^{}+\frac{\delta E_{\mathrm{xc}}[\rho ,\zeta ]}{\delta \rho ^\sigma (𝐫)}+\frac{1}{2}m^{}\omega _0^2r^2+V_{\mathrm{imp}}(𝐫)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_i^\sigma (𝐫)=ϵ_i^\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_i^\sigma (𝐫),$$
(1)
where the density is $`\rho (𝐫)=_\sigma \rho ^\sigma (𝐫)=_\sigma _i|\mathrm{\Psi }_i^\sigma (𝐫)|^2`$, and the sum is taken over the $`N`$ lowest-energy orbitals. Here $`\sigma `$ denotes the spin index, $`\zeta (𝐫)`$ is the local spin polarization, and $`E_{\mathrm{xc}}[\rho ,\zeta ]`$ is the exchange-correlation energy functional . We use the effective mass for GaAs, $`m^{}=0.067m`$, and a two-dimensional harmonic-oscillator confining potential with $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=3.0\mathrm{meV}`$. The dimensionless interaction strength is measured by $`(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ or $`r_s`$  and is controlled by changing the dielectric $`\kappa `$, where $`\kappa =12.9`$ for GaAs.

We use the same parameters for the total impurity potential $`V_{\mathrm{imp}}(𝐫)=_i(\gamma _i/2\pi \lambda ^2)\mathrm{exp}\left(|𝐫𝐫_i|^2/2\lambda ^2\right)`$ as for a previous study of spin-polarized dots . The density of individual impurities is $`n_{\mathrm{imp}}=1.03\times 10^3\mathrm{nm}^2`$; each has a Gaussian potential profile, with strength $`\gamma _i`$ distributed on $`[W/2,W/2]`$ with $`W=10\mathrm{}^2/m^{}`$, and width $`\lambda =\mathrm{}_0/(2\sqrt{2})`$, where $`\mathrm{}_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m^{}\omega _0}19.5\mathrm{nm}`$ is the quantum-confinement width of the parabolic potential. The resulting mean free path, $`l=v_F\tau 120\mathrm{n}\mathrm{m}`$, is comparable to the dot diameter $`L=120160\mathrm{n}\mathrm{m}`$, where $`L`$ increases with interaction strength. Thus the dots are marginally in the ballistic regime and have a dimensionless conductance $`g2`$ .

The density functional method is known to give accurate ground-state energies and spins for a clean dot . Comparison with quantum-Monte-Carlo calculations  confirms that SDFT is valid for interaction strengths up to $`(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _0=6(r_s8)`$ and up to 8 electrons. For disordered dots, we have confirmed the accuracy of the SDFT results by exact diagonalization studies of three electrons, over the range $`0<(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _0=2.86(0<r_s<2.92)`$.

At low temperatures, electron hopping into a dot is suppressed except when the ground-state free energies for $`N1`$ and $`N`$ electrons are degenerate. This condition determines the position of the $`N`$th conductance peak. The $`N`$th peak spacing or addition energy is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(N)=E(N+1)2E(N)+E(N1)`$, where the ground-state energy $`E(N)`$ is obtained from

$$E(N)=\underset{i,\sigma }{}ϵ_i^\sigma \frac{e^2}{2\kappa }\frac{\rho (𝐫)\rho (𝐫^{})}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\underset{\sigma }{}\rho ^\sigma (𝐫)\frac{\delta E_{\mathrm{xc}}[\rho ,\zeta ]}{\delta \rho ^\sigma (𝐫)}𝑑𝐫+E_{\mathrm{xc}}.$$
(2)
Figure 1 shows (a) the average addition energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and (b) its fluctuation $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta })^2^{1/2}`$, as functions of electron-electron interaction strength $`(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ for $`N=10`$ and $`N=11`$. Dashed curves are for total spin fixed at its minimum, $`S=0\mathrm{or}1/2`$. Solid curves are for unrestricted spin, i.e. the lowest energy $`E(N)`$ is found among all possible spin values. Also shown in (a) is the average noninteracting level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and in (b) its fluctuations $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, for dots of the same size as in the interacting case. In Fig. 1(a), there is an even-odd alternation in addition energies in the weak-interaction regime, $`(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _00.95`$ ($`r_s0.76`$), which reflects the energy cost of adding every odd electron to a new orbital level. No alternation is observed in the regime of strong interactions ($`r_s>1`$) where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases nearly linearly as a function of interaction.

In Fig. 1(b), the magnitudes of the addition-energy fluctuations for $`N=10`$ and $`N=11`$ merge around $`r_s1.25`$. The interacting fluctuations $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ are always smaller than the fluctuations $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ of the noninteracting level spacing, where the latter satisfy the random-matrix-theory relation for the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble  $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_0\sqrt{4/\pi 1}\mathrm{\Delta }_00.52\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. The interacting fluctuations are roughly $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }0.28\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, and clearly do not scale with the average addition energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In fact, the interacting fluctuations are slightly smaller than those for the same number of interacting spin-polarized electrons in the same potential . (In the spin-polarized case, the addition-energy fluctuations were shown to be dominated by the single-particle level-spacing fluctuations because of the effectiveness of screening in reducing the Coulomb fluctuations.)

Comparing Figs. 1 (a) and (b), one sees that in the range $`r_s=0.761.25`$, the average addition energy is the same for $`N=10`$ and $`N=11`$, but the $`N=10`$ distribution has a significantly larger width. For $`r_s=1.25`$ and below, the shapes of the $`N=10`$ and $`N=11`$ distributions are qualitatively different  consistent with recent experiment observations for a high-electron-density GaAs quantum dot with $`r_s=0.72`$ .

For the strong-interaction regime $`r_s>1`$, fluctuations in addition energy are reduced when the spin states are unrestricted. In the lower right inset, we show the distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(N)`$ for $`N=10`$ (upper) and for $`N=11`$ (lower) for interaction strength $`(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _0=1.91(r_s=1.77)`$, both for restricted and unrestricted spin. The distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are roughly Gaussian, which agrees with experiments at $`r_s>1`$ . (For comparison, the Wigner-Dyson distribution for the noninteracting case is shown in the upper left inset.) The distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ become narrower in the spin unrestricted case: the low-energy tail of the $`N=10`$ distribution is reduced, while the high-energy tail is reduced for $`N=11`$. We trace this behavior to the appearance of $`S=1`$ ground states for 10 electrons (see below). Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(N=10)=E(11)2E(10)+E(9)`$, the appearance of new, low values for $`E(10)`$ removes some of the lowest values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(N=10)`$. Similarly, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(N=11)=E(12)2E(11)+E(10)`$, new, low values of $`E(10)`$ remove some of the highest values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(N=11)`$.

Figure 2(a) shows the probabilities of the different ground-state spins $`S`$ versus electron-electron interaction strength. Solid curves are for $`N=10`$ electrons (integer spin) and dashed curves are for $`N=11`$ electrons (half-integer spin). With increasing interaction strength, the probabilities of ground states of $`S=`$ 1, 3/2, and 2 increase, while the probabilities of even higher spin states ($`S=5/2`$, etc.) remain negligible. The probability of $`S=1`$ for $`N=10`$ is always higher than that of $`S=3/2`$ for $`N=11`$. The probability of an $`S=1`$ ground state reaches a maximum around $`(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _01.91(r_s1.77)`$, and never exceeds 50%. In the inset, we show the increase with interaction strength of the probability of spin blockade, i.e. subsequent ground states with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|>1/2`$, which leads to a suppressed Coulomb-blockade peak .

Diagonalization studies on small lattices also find a significant fraction of $`S=1`$ ground states, with a smaller likelihood of $`S=3/2`$ . The onset of high-spin ground states occurs at smaller $`r_s0.2`$, and addition-energy fluctuations are larger, scaling as 10-20% of the average addition energy. We attribute these differences to weak screening in the lattic models due to the low dimensionless conductance of $`g=0.10.3`$, compared to $`g2`$ in our dots.

Berkovits  has argued that high-spin ground states are favored not only by exchange energy (which favors spin alignment) but also by the enhanced Coulomb repulsion between two electrons in the same spatial orbital. Opposing these effects is the single-particle energy cost of promoting an electron to a new orbital. He observes that it is much more likely to find two orbitals close in energy, producing an $`S=1`$ ground state, than to find three orbitals close in energy, as required for an $`S=3/2`$ ground state.

These arguments are consistent with our SDFT results up to $`r_s1`$, but do not account for the observed saturation of the probability of high-spin ground states at larger $`r_s`$. To understand this saturation, we consider the possible states of two electrons occupying two spin-degenerate orbitals near the Fermi energy. (The other electrons in the dot are assumed to pair up in lower-energy orbitals.) For this two-orbital model, there are three degenerate $`S=1`$ states consisting of one electron in each of the two orbitals, and three nondegenerate $`S=0`$ states.

To evaluate the energies of the competing $`S=0`$ and $`S=1`$ two-electron states, we use the basis of single-particle eigenstates $`\varphi _n^0(𝐫)`$ and $`\varphi _{n+1}^0(𝐫)`$ with energies $`ϵ_n`$ and $`ϵ_{n+1}`$ of non-interacting electrons. The various diagonal and off-diagonal Coulomb matrix elements are evaluated in the random-phase approximation (RPA) which accounts for the screening effect of the other electrons in the dot. The energy of the three degenerate $`S=1`$ states is $`\stackrel{~}{E}(S=1)=ϵ_n+ϵ_{n+1}+\stackrel{~}{U}_{n,n+1}\stackrel{~}{X}_{n,n+1}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{n,n^{}}=e\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{n,n}(𝐫)\rho _{n^{},n^{}}^0(𝐫)𝑑𝐫`$ is the screened Coulomb interaction between two electrons in orbitals $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{n,n^{}}=e\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{n,n^{}}(𝐫)\rho _{n^{},n}^0(𝐫)𝑑𝐫`$ is the screened exchange interaction. Here, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{n,n^{}}(𝐫)`$ is the screened potential due to an electron, which is evaluated in Fourier representation as $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{n,n^{}}(𝐪)=(2\pi e/\kappa |𝐪|)(\rho _{n,n^{}}^0(𝐪)/ϵ(𝐪))`$, where $`\rho _{n,n^{}}^0(𝐫)=\varphi _n^0(𝐫)\varphi _n^{}^0(𝐫)`$. The dielectric function $`ϵ(𝐪)`$ is approximated as $`ϵ^{RPA}(𝐪)=1v_q\chi (q)`$ where $`v_q=2\pi /q`$ and the susceptibility $`\chi (q)=(e^2/\kappa )(dn/d\mu )F(q/2k_F)`$. The Lindhard polarizability for 2D is $`F(x)=1`$ for $`x1`$ and $`F(x)=1\sqrt{1(1/x)^2}`$ for $`x1`$.

The energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}(S=0)`$ of the lowest $`S=0`$ state is obtained by diagonalizing the following $`3\times 3`$ matrix;

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{S=0}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}2ϵ_n+\stackrel{~}{U}_{n,n}& \sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{U}_{n,n,n,n+1}& \stackrel{~}{X}_{n,n+1}\\ \sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{U}_{n,n,n,n+1}& ϵ_n+ϵ_{n+1}+\stackrel{~}{U}_{n,n+1}+\stackrel{~}{X}_{n,n+1}& \sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{U}_{n+1,n+1,n+1,n}\\ \stackrel{~}{X}_{n,n+1}& \sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{U}_{n+1,n+1,n+1,n}& 2ϵ_{n+1}+\stackrel{~}{U}_{n+1,n+1}\end{array}\right]$$
(3)
where the off-diagonal Coulomb matrix elements are $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{n,n,n,n^{}}=e\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{n,n}(𝐫)\rho _{n,n^{}}^0(𝐫)𝑑𝐫`$. We find that the magnitudes of the $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{n,n,n,n^{}}`$ are comparable to the exchange energy $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{n,n+1}`$ . It is seen in Fig. 2(b) that for the two-orbital model the average of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{E}(S=0)\stackrel{~}{E}(S=1)`$ agrees reasonably well with our SDFT results for all strengths of interaction. In contrast, placing the two electrons in the lowest single-particle orbital $`\varphi _n^0(𝐫)`$, gives an energy $`2ϵ_n+\stackrel{~}{U}_{n,n}`$ which is significantly larger than $`\stackrel{~}{E}(S=0)`$ at large $`r_s`$. Even the Hartree-Fock (HF) approximation for (3), i.e. the best doubly-occupied single orbital, overestimates the energy of the lowest $`S=0`$ state and fails to account for the saturation of the $`S=1`$ probability at large $`r_s`$. It is evident that for the two-orbital model the off-diagonal Coulomb matrix elements help stabilize the $`S=0`$ ground state by creating a low-energy hybridization of the three $`S=0`$ basis states, as proposed by Jacquod and Stone .

We acknowledge fruitful discussions with B. Altshuler, R. Berkovits, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, B. Halperin, C. Marcus, M. Stopa, and F. Zhou.

Figure Captions

* (a) Average addition energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and (b) fluctuation $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }=(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta })^2^{1/2}`$, as functions of electron-electron interaction strength $`(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ for $`N=10`$ and $`N=11`$. Solid curves are for unrestricted spin; dashed curves are for total spin fixed at $`S=0\mathrm{or}1/2`$. For each data point, the disorder average is taken over more than 1000 different impurity configurations. The average noninteracting level spacing and its fluctuations are shown for the same size dots as in the interacting case. Lower right inset – Distribution of addition energies $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`N=10`$ (upper) and for $`N=11`$ (lower) for interaction strength $`(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _0=1.94`$. Upper left inset – Distribution of noninteracting addition energies (level spacings) for dots of the same size as in the lower inset.
* (a) Probability of a spin $`S`$ ground state as a function of electron-electron interaction strength $`(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _0`$. Solid curves are for $`N=10`$ electrons (integer spin) and dashed curves are for $`N=11`$ electrons (half-integer spin). The circles give the probability of a spin $`S=1`$ ground state for the full two-orbital model. Inset – Probability of spin blockade, i.e. subsequent ground states with $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S|>1/2`$. (b) Average total energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ between states with $`S=0`$ and $`S=1`$ as a function of electron-electron interaction strength $`(e^2/\kappa \mathrm{}_0)/\mathrm{}\omega _0`$. The solid curve shows the SDFT results. Also shown are results of the two-orbital model: exact (lowest dashed curve), Hartree-Fock (central dashed curve), doubly-occupied lowest orbital (highest dashed curve), with parameters evaluated for the 5$`th`$ and 6$`th`$ non-interacting orbitals. The apparent agreement between the HF result and SDFT at $`r_s1`$ is not meaningful – the HF result is only an approximation to the exact result (lowest dashed curve). Inset – Average level spacing and screened Coulomb interactions for two-orbital model.


text:
# Signatures of Prelocalized States in Classically Chaotic Systems

## Abstract

We investigate the statistics of eigenfunction intensities $`𝒫(|\psi |^2)`$ in dynamical systems with classical chaotic diffusion. Our results contradict some recent theoretical considerations which challenge the applicability of field theoretical predictions, derived in a different framework for diffusive disordered samples. For two-dimensional systems, the tails of $`𝒫(|\psi |^2)`$ contradict the results of the optimal fluctuation method, but agree very well with the predictions of the non-linear $`\sigma `$model.

PACS numbers:05.45.Mt, 05.45.-a, 05.60.Gg

The statistical properties of wavefunction intensities have sparked a great deal of research activity in recent years. These studies are not only relevant for mesoscopic physics , but also for understanding phenomena in areas of physics, ranging from nuclear  and atomic  to microwave physics  and optics . Experimentally, using microwave cavity technics it is possible to probe the microscopic structure of electromagnetic wave amplitudes in chaotic or disordered cavities . Recently, the interest in this problem was renewed when new effective field theoretic techniques were developed for the study of the distribution of eigenfunction intensities $`𝒫(|\psi |^2)`$ of random Hamiltonians. As the disorder increases, these results predict that, the eigenfunctions become increasingly non-uniform, leading to an enhanced probability of finding anomalously large eigenfunction intensities in comparison with the random matrix theory (RMT) prediction. Thus, the notion of prelocalized states has been introduced  to explain the appearance of long tails in the distributions of the conductance and other physical observables .

Up to now all theoretical predictions  and numerical calculations  apply to disordered systems and are based on an ensemble averaging over disorder realizations. Their validity, however, for a quantum dynamical system (with a well defined classical limit) that behaves diffusively is not evident. Furthermore, based on an argument put forward in  (see also ), the far tail of $`𝒫(|\psi |^2)`$ is due to rare realizations of the disorder potential, and therefore requires an exponentially large number of eigenfunctions, which can only be accounted by disorder averaging. Here instead we study the statistical properties of eigenfunctions in a dynamical model without introducing any ensemble averaging. Our main conclusion is that in a generic dynamical system with classical diffusion, $`𝒫(|\psi |^2)`$ is described quite well by the nonlinear $`\sigma `$model (NLSM). We point out here that between the various theoretical works there is a considerable disagreement about the parameters that control the shape of $`𝒫(|\psi |^2)`$ and their dependence on time-reversal symmetry (TRS). More specifically, the NLSM suggests that the tail of $`𝒫(|\psi |^2)`$ in two dimensions ($`2d`$) is sensitive to TRS , while a direct optimal fluctuation (DOF) method predicts a symmetry independent result . Recent numerical calculations  on the Anderson model seem to support the latter theory. This controversy, was an additional motivation for the present work.

In the present article, we numerically study the distribution of intensities of the Floquet- states of the kicked rotor (KR) on a torus  and its $`2d`$ generalization . Our system is defined by the time-dependent Hamiltonian

$`H=H_0+kV{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\delta (tmT),H_0(\{_i\})={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _i}{2}}(_i+\gamma _i)^2`$ (1)
$`V(\{\theta _i\})=\mathrm{cos}(\theta _1)\mathrm{cos}(\theta _2)\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _1)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _2)\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )`$ (2)
where $`_i`$ denotes the angular momentum and $`\theta _i`$ the conjugate angle of one rotor. The kick period is $`T`$, $`k`$ is the kicking strength, while $`\tau _i`$ is a constant inversely proportional to the moment of inertia of the rotor. The standard KR corresponds to $`d=1`$ (with $`\theta _2=0`$) whereas for $`d=2`$ we have a two-dimensional generalization. The parameter $`\alpha `$ breaks TRS , the parameters $`\gamma _i`$ are irrational numbers whose meaning will be explained below. The Hamiltonian (1) describes a system which is kicked periodically in time and is integrable in the absence of the kicking potential. The motion generated by (1) is classically chaotic and for a sufficiently strong kicking strength $`k`$ there is diffusion in momentum space with diffusion coefficient $`Dlim_t\mathrm{}<^2(t)>/tk^2/2T`$ (within the random phase approximation) .

If the $`_i`$ are taken mod$`(2\pi m_i/T\tau _i)`$ where $`m_i`$ are integers, Eq. (1) defines a dynamical system on a torus. The quantum mechanics of this system is described by a finite-dimensional time evolution operator for one period

$$U=\mathrm{exp}(iH_0(\{_i\})T)\mathrm{exp}(iV(\{\theta _i\}))$$
(3)
where we put $`\mathrm{}=1`$. Upon quantization, additional symmetries associated with the discreteness of the momentum show up, which can be destroyed by introducing irrational values for the parameters $`\gamma _i`$’s. The most striking consequence of quantization is the suppression of classical diffusion in momentum space due to quantum dynamical localization . We introduce the eigenstate components $`𝚿_k(n)`$ of the Floquet operator in the momentum representation by

$$\underset{m}{}U_{mn}𝚿_k(n)=e^{i\omega _kT}𝚿_k(n).$$
(4)
The quantities $`\omega _k`$ are known as quasi-energies, and their density is $`\rho =T/2\pi `$. The corresponding mean quasi-energy spacing is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1/(\rho L^d)`$, where $`L`$ is the linear size of the system. The Heisenberg time is $`t_H=2\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }`$ while $`t_D=L^2/D`$ is the diffusion time (Thouless time). Now one can formally define a dimensionless conductance as $`g=t_H/t_D=D_kL^{d2}`$ where $`D_k=TD`$ is the diffusion coefficient measured in the number of kicks. Four length scales are important here: the wavelength $`\lambda `$, the mean free path $`l_M`$, the linear extent of the system $`L`$, and the localization length $`\xi `$. According to Refs.  the field theoretical predictions are derived under the conditions

$$\lambda l_ML\xi .$$
(5)
The first condition ensures that transport between scattering events may be treated semiclassically. This limit can be achieved for our system (1) when $`k\mathrm{}`$, $`T0`$ while the classical parameter $`K=kT`$ remains constant. When $`l_ML`$ as long as the motion is not localized (i.e. $`L\xi `$) it is diffusive, since a particle scatters many times before it can traverse the system. The resulting mean free path for our system (1) is $`l_M\sqrt{D}_k`$ while the localization length for $`d=1`$ is $`\xi D_k/2`$  and for $`d=2`$ is $`\xi l_Me^{D_k/2}`$ .

Here we calculate the distribution function $`𝒫(t=L^d|𝚿_k(n)|^2)`$  by using a direct diagonalization of the Floquet operator (3). The TRS is broken entirely for $`\alpha =5.749`$. In order to test the issue of dynamical correlations, we randomize the phases of the kinetic term of the evolution operator (3) and calculate the resulting $`𝒫(t)`$. This model will be referred to as Random Phase KR (RPKR). Since all our eigenfunctions have the same statistical properties (in contrast to the Anderson cases where one should pick up only eigenfunctions having eigenenergies within a small energy interval ) we make use of all of them in our statistical analysis. The classical parameter $`K`$ is large enough in all cases to exclude the existence of any stability islands in phase space. The classical diffusion coefficient $`D_k`$ is calculated numerically by iterating the classical map obtained from (1). Below we present our numerical results and compare them to the predictions of Refs. .

1d Kicked Rotor. It was shown in , that the effective field theory describing the semiclassical physics of the system is precisely the NLSM for quasi-one dimensional ($`1d`$) metallic wires. Such a mapping however, requires an averaging over an ensemble of rotors having the same classical limit. We point out again that in the calculations below we do not adopt such an averaging procedure.

The NLSM for quasi-1d systems can be solved exactly for the distribution function $`𝒫_\beta (t)`$, using a transfer matrix approach . In the ballistic regime (where $`g\mathrm{}`$) RMT is applicable and one finds $`𝒫_{(\beta =1)}^{RMT}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(t/2)/\sqrt{2\pi t}`$ and $`𝒫_{(\beta =2)}^{RMT}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(t)`$ . Here $`\beta `$ denotes the corresponding Dyson ensemble ($`\beta =1(2)`$ for preserved (broken) TRS). As localization increases, the deviations from the RMT results of the body and the tails of the distribution $`𝒫_\beta (t)`$ become noticeable and can be parameterized by a single parameter which is the dimensionless conductance $`g=D_k/L`$.

For $`t<\sqrt{D_k/L}`$, according to all studies  $`𝒫(t)`$ is just the RMT result with polynomial corrections in powers of $`L/D_k`$, i.e. $`𝒫_\beta (t)=𝒫_\beta ^{RMT}(t)[1+\delta 𝒫_\beta (t)]`$. The leading term of this expansion is given by

$`\delta 𝒫_\beta (t)`$ $``$ $`\kappa \left\{\begin{array}{cc}3/43t/2+t^2/4\hfill & \text{for}\beta =1\hfill \\ 12t+t^2/2\hfill & \text{for}\beta =2\hfill \end{array}\right\},`$ (8)
where $`\kappa 1/g`$ is the $`1d`$ diffusion propagator, which is identical for $`\beta =1`$ and $`\beta =2`$ since it is a classical quantity.

In Fig. 1a,b we report our numerical results for $`\delta 𝒫_\beta (t)`$ for two representative values of $`D_k`$. One can clearly see that the agreement with the theoretical prediction (8) becomes better as $`D_k`$ increases. This is due to the fact that by increasing $`D_k`$ we are approaching the semiclassical region and therefore Eqs. (5) are better satisfied. At the same time higher order corrections in $`\delta 𝒫_\beta (t)`$ become negligible with respect to the leading term given by Eq. (8). The resulting $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ obtained by the best fit of our data to Eq. (8) are found to be equal and in excellent agreement with the theoretical value (see Fig. 1c). We therefore conclude, that in a generic dynamical system, the only parameter that controls the shape of the deviations $`\delta 𝒫_\beta (t)`$ is the classical diffusion propagator. Moreover, our results are in excellent agreement with the recent NLSM predictions derived in the framework of diffusive disordered systems. Finally in Fig. 1c we also report the outcome of the RPKR model. The results remain essentially the same indicating that $`𝒫_\beta (t)`$ for quasi-$`1d`$ systems are insensitive to dynamical correlations.

The tail of the distribution ($`t>D_k/L`$) deviates strongly from the RMT prediction and has a stretched exponential form

$$𝒫_\beta (t)A_\beta \mathrm{exp}(2C_\beta \sqrt{t}),C_\beta =\beta \sqrt{D_k/L}$$
(9)
where $`A_\beta `$ is a symmetry dependent constant. Our numerical results agree nicely with Eq. (9). In Fig. 2a we present an example of $`𝒫_\beta (t)`$. By fitting our data to Eq. (9) the coefficients $`C_1,C_2`$ can be extracted. In Fig. 2b we report the extracted stretched exponential coefficients $`C_\beta `$ from the best fit of (9) as a function of the square root of the dimensionless conductance $`g=D_k/L`$. A nice linear behavior is observed. The best linear fit $`C_\beta =A_\beta \sqrt{D_k/L}+B_\beta `$ yields, $`A_{\beta =1}=0.41\pm 0.05`$ and $`A_{\beta =2}=0.82\pm 0.05`$. The resulting ratio $`R=A_2/A_1=2`$ is in excellent agreement with the theoretical prediction (9). We have also calculated the stretched exponential coefficients $`C_\beta `$ for the RPKR model. The results for various $`D_k`$ values are summarized in Fig. 2b and show a nice agreement with the results obtained from the real Hamiltonian.

$`2d`$ Kicked Rotor. According to Ref. , corrections to the body of $`𝒫_\beta ^{RMT}`$ are still given by Eq. (8), but now $`\kappa `$ is the $`2d`$ diffusion propagator.

Figures 3a,b show corrections to $`𝒫_\beta ^{RMT}`$ for $`g=D_k1`$ for two representative values of $`D_k`$. We find again that the form of the deviations are very well described by Eq. (8) and the agreement becomes better for larger values of the diffusion constant. In Fig. 3c we summarize our results for various $`D_k`$ values. The extracted $`\kappa _\beta `$ values are obtained by the best fit of the data to Eq. (8). Again we find that $`\kappa _\beta `$ depends linearly on $`1/D_k`$. However, contrary to the $`1d`$-KR, here $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$, are different. Moreover the best fit with $`\kappa _\beta =A_\beta D_k^1+B_\beta `$ yields $`A_{\beta =1}=5.44\pm 0.03`$ and $`A_{\beta =2}=10.84\pm 0.04`$ indicating that the ratio $`R=A_2/A_1`$ is close to $`2`$, a value that could be explained on the basis of ballistic effects . Taking the latter into account leads to an additional term in the classical propagator $`\kappa _\beta =\kappa _{diff}+\frac{\beta }{2}\kappa _{ball}`$. The first term is the one discussed previously and is associated with long trajectories which are of diffusive nature while the latter one is associated with short ballistic trajectories which are self-tracing . Thus, when $`\kappa _{diff}\kappa _{ball}`$ we get $`R=2`$. The calculation with the RPKR model shows, however, that the corresponding ratio is $`R1`$ in agreement with the theoretical prediction for disordered systems with a pure diffusion. This indicates that dynamical correlations can be important in the $`2d`$ case.

For the tails of the distributions, the result of the NLSM within a saddle-point approximation  is

$$𝒫_\beta (t)\mathrm{exp}[C_\beta ^\sigma (\text{ln}t)^2],C_\beta ^\sigma =\frac{\beta \pi ^2\rho }{2}\frac{D}{\text{ln}(L/l)}.$$
(10)
Note that the decay in the tails of Eq. (10) depends on $`\beta `$, as in the $`1d`$-KR case (see Eq. (9)). Recently, a DOF method was used to calculate the tails of $`𝒫_\beta (t)`$ . It was found that the tails are still given by Eq. (10) but with a log-normal coefficient $`C`$ which is independent of the parameter $`\beta `$ :

$$C^{\mathrm{DOF}}=\pi ^2\rho \frac{D}{\text{ln}(L/\lambda )}.$$
(11)
Figure 4a shows a representative case of $`𝒫_{\beta =1}(t>D_k)`$. The tails show a log-normal behavior predicted by Eq. (10). In Fig. 4b we report the log-normal coefficients $`C_\beta `$ extracted from the best fit to our numerical data, versus the classical diffusion coefficient. A pronounced linear behavior is observed in agreement with both theories. However one clearly sees that $`C_1`$ differs from $`C_2`$ in contrast to the DOF prediction (11) and to recent numerical calculations done for the $`2d`$ Anderson model . We point out here that in  the authors were not able to go to large enough values of conductance $`g`$ (in comparison to our study) where the theory can really be tested. In contrast, the NLSM predicts a value of $`2`$ for the ratio $`R=C_2^\sigma /C_1^\sigma `$. We note that $`C_\beta ^\sigma `$ is only the leading term in $`D_k`$. In order to calculate this ratio, we performed a fit to our data with $`C_\beta =A_\beta D_k+B_\beta `$. The resulting ratio was found to be $`R=A_2/A_1=1.97\pm 0.03`$ in perfect agreement with the NLSM predictions. Finally in Fig. 4b we also present our results for the RPKR model (using the same data as the one in Fig. 3d). Again we found that the ratio $`R=1.96\pm 0.032`$. Thus $`𝒫(t>D_k)`$ depends on TRS and is described by the NLSM.

In summary, we have performed a detailed numerical analysis of the statistical properties of the wavefunction intensities $`𝒫(t)`$ of the standard KR on a torus and its $`2d`$ generalization. Based on these results, we concluded that the distribution $`𝒫(t)`$ of generic quantum dynamical systems with diffusive classical limit is affected by the existence of prelocalized states. The deviations from RMT are well described by field theoretical methods developed for disordered systems. In particular, in a clarifying way we have resolved the controversy between DOF and NLSM by demonstrating that the dependence of the tails of $`𝒫_\beta (t)`$ on TRS is described correctly by the latter theoretical approach.

We acknowledge useful discussions with L. Kaplan.


text:
# Potential renormalization by tunneling induced intrinsic transition

## I introduction

The rate of nuclear reactions at extremely low energies in laboratory experiments shows a marked enhancement over the extrapolation from high energy dataSUMRolfsSomorjai . This phenomenon has been attributed to the screening effect by the bound electrons in the target nucleus, and has been discussed in many papers for almost a decade. Yet, a clear understanding is missing. A standard approach is to analyze the data by assuming that the electrons lead to a constant potential shift in the tunneling region, which is called the screening energy. A surprise is that the phenomenological value of the screening energy thus obtained exceeds the so called adiabatic limit, which is conventionally given by the difference between the binding energies in the target and the united atoms and is thought to give the maximum screening energy, for all systems so far studied. One should, however, be aware of the fact that a spatially constant potential renormalization can be justified only for a static electronic cloud, namely, when the electronic state makes no transition in the tunneling region.

The screening problem can be understood as an example of the so called macroscopic quantum tunneling, where intrinsic degrees of freedom affect the tunneling probability of a macroscopic variable, by considering the electrons and the relative motion between the projectile and target nuclei as the intrinsic and macroscopic degrees of freedom, respectively. In this paper, we show that a strong intrinsic transition can happen to facilitate the tunneling probability leading to a novel, spatially dependent potential renormalization. In order to demonstrate this, we use a simple two-level coupled-channels problem and analyze the associated tunneling process based on a semi-classical mean field theory, which naturally describes the effects of intrinsic degrees of freedom on the quantum tunneling of a macroscopic variable in terms of a potential renormalization.

The paper is organized as follows. In sect.2, we briefly describe the essence of the semi-classical mean field theory for quantum tunneling and apply it to a two-level coupled-channels problem. In sect.3, we examine the accuracy of the semi-classical mean field theory through the comparison of the barrier transmission probability given by the semiclassical mean field theory with that obtained by a direct numerical solution of the coupled-channels equations. In sect.4, we discuss the properties of the transition of the intrinsic state and the associated potential renormalization. We summarize the paper in sect.5.

## II Semiclassical mean field theory for quantum tunneling

### II.1 Basic coupled-equations

Our interest is to study the time evolution of a system, which consists of a macroscopic variable $`X`$ which undergoes a quantum tunneling and intrinsic degrees of freedom $`\xi `$. In the screening problem, the former and the latter correspond to the coordinate of the relative motion between the projectile and target nuclei and electronic degrees of freedom, respectively, if one ignores the intrinsic structure of nuclei. We assume that the time dependent Schrödinger equation for the total system is given by,

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(X,\xi ,t)}{t}}=\left[H_N(X)+H_0(\xi )+V(X,\xi )\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(X,\xi ,t)`$ (1)
where we used the notation $`H_N(X)`$ for $`\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }\frac{^2}{X^2}+U(X)`$, $`U(X)`$ being the bare interaction between the projectile and target nuclei. The $`H_0(\xi )`$ and $`V(X,\xi )`$ represent the unperturbed Hamiltonian of the electrons and the interaction between the electrons and nuclei.

We now approximate $`\mathrm{\Psi }(X,\xi ,t)`$ by a product of the wave functions for the macroscopic and intrinsic motions

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(X,\xi ,t)=\varphi (\xi ,t)\eta (X,t)`$ (2)
and determine the wave function in each space based on the following variational principle,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi ^{}(\xi ,t)}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta ^{}(X,t)}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4)
where the Lagrangian is defined by

$`={\displaystyle _{t_0}^T}𝑑t\varphi \eta |(i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}H)|\varphi \eta `$ (5)
We call this approach a mean field theory or a Hartree approximation (see tkbs00 ; tkb01a  for details).

One can try to numerically solve the resultant time dependent coupled-equations for $`\varphi (\xi ,t)`$ and $`\eta (X,t)`$. However, as is well known gri80 , that approach is adequate to describe only the classically allowed region. It suffers from the so-called spurious correlation effect to handle the tunneling region. As a practical method to circumvent this problem, we treat the macroscopic motion classically and resort to the imaginary time approach to describe the tunneling process. Identifying the classical variables with the expectation values of the corresponding operators at each time, we have the following coupled equations for the classically allowed region

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (\xi ,t)}{t}}=\left[H_0(\xi )+V(X(t),\xi )\right]\varphi (\xi ,t),`$ (6)
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}X(t)={\displaystyle \frac{}{X}}\left[U(X)+{\displaystyle \frac{<\varphi (t)|\left[H_0+V(X(t),\xi )\right]|\varphi (t)>}{<\varphi (t)|\varphi (t)>}}\right].`$ (7)
They lead to the following energy conservation law

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}X(t))^2+U(X(t))+{\displaystyle \frac{<\varphi (t)|\left[H_0+V(X(t),\xi )\right]|\varphi (t)>}{<\varphi (t)|\varphi (t)>}}=E.`$ (8)
where the total energy E is given by the sum of the initial kinetic energy $`E_K`$ and the initial intrinsic energy $`ϵ_0`$.

As already mentioned, we describe the tunneling process using the imaginary time $`t=i\tau `$. We must, however, find also the proper way to describe the effects of intrinsic motion during the tunneling process. For example, it is not obvious whether the potential renormalization is given by the same expression as that in eq.(7) or one should replace $`<\varphi (t)|`$ by the adjoint state. We discuss in a separate paper tkb01a  the effective potential equivalent to the dynamical norm factor which takes non adiabatic effect into account tak95  and show that the proper generalization of eqs.(6) through (8) to the tunneling region are given by

$`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (\xi ,\tau )}{\tau }}=\left[H_0(\xi )+V(X(\tau ),\xi )\right]\varphi (\xi ,\tau ).`$ (9)
$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\tau ^2}}X(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{}{X}}\left[U(X)+{\displaystyle \frac{<\varphi (\tau )|\left[H_0(\xi )+V(X,\xi )\right]|\varphi (\tau )>}{<\varphi (\tau )|\varphi (\tau )>}}\right],`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ({\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}X(\tau ))^2+U(X(\tau ))+{\displaystyle \frac{<\varphi (\tau )|\left[H_0+V(X(\tau ),\xi )\right]|\varphi (\tau )>}{<\varphi (\tau )|\varphi (\tau )>}}=E,`$ (11)
We see in eqs.(7) and (10) the explicit expression of the potential renormalization in the classical and tunneling regions, respectively.

### II.2 Application to a two-level coupled-channels problem

We now apply the semi-classical mean field theory to a coupled-channels problem, which has proved to be very powerful to discuss, e.g., the effects of nuclear intrinsic degrees of freedom on the cross section of heavy-ion fusion reactions at energies below the Coulomb barrier bt98 . Here we consider a simple model, where the intrinsic motion has two levels

$$H_0|\varphi _m=ϵ_m|\varphi _m(m=1,2),$$
(12)
and the coupling Hamiltonian is separable

$$V(X,\xi )=f(X)\widehat{M}(\xi ).$$
(13)
Expanding the total wave function on the basis of intrinsic states

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{m}{}\eta _m(X)\varphi _m(\xi ),$$
(14)
one obtains the following coupled equations to describe the macroscopic motion

$`[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dX^2}}+U(X)E]\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta _1(X)\\ \eta _2(X)\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_1& 0\\ 0& ϵ_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta _1(X)\\ \eta _2(X)\end{array}\right)+f(X)\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{11}& M_{12}\\ M_{21}& M_{22}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta _1(X)\\ \eta _2(X)\end{array}\right)=0.`$ (25)
In the direct method, these coupled-equations are numerically solved with the following boundary conditions,

$`\eta _n(X)`$ $``$ $`t_n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{k_n}}}e^{ik_nX}(X<<0)`$ (26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{k_n}}}[I_ne^{ik_nX}+r_ne^{ik_nX}],(X>>0)`$ (27)
where $`k_n=\frac{\sqrt{2\mu (Eϵ_n)}}{\mathrm{}}`$. The amplitude of the incident wave $`I_n`$ is taken to be $`\delta _{nn_0}`$ if the intrinsic motion is initially in the state $`|\varphi _{n_0}>`$. Once the transmission amplitudes $`t_n`$ are determined, the barrier transmission probability is given by,

$`P={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|t_n|^2.`$ (28)
In order to compare the results with those of the semi-classical mean field theory, the same problem can be cast into the form of the corresponding time dependent approach, where the wave function for the internal motion is expressed as

$$\varphi (\xi ,t)=a_1(t)\varphi _1(\xi )+a_2(t)\varphi _2(\xi )=a_1(t)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)+a_2(t)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right).$$
(29)
Following eqs.(6) and (9), the expansion coefficients $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ obey

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{da_1(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1a_1(t)+f(X(t))\{M_{11}a_1(t)+M_{12}a_2(t)\}`$ (30)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{da_2(t)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_2a_2(t)+f(X(t))\{M_{21}a_1(t)+M_{22}a_2(t)\},`$ (31)
in the classically allowed region, and

$`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{da_1(\tau )}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_1a_1(\tau )+f(X(\tau ))\{M_{11}a_1(\tau )+M_{12}a_2(\tau )\}`$ (32)
$`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{da_2(\tau )}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_2a_2(\tau )+f(X(\tau ))\{M_{21}a_1(\tau )+M_{22}a_2(\tau )\},`$ (33)
in the tunneling region. Using thus obtained $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ the renormalization of the potential barrier for the macroscopic motion by internal degrees of freedom is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V(X(t))=\frac{ϵ_1|a_1(t)|^2+ϵ_2|a_2(t)|^2+_{mm^{}=1}^2M_{mm^{}}a_m^{}(t)a_m^{}(t)f(X)}{|a_1(t)|^2+|a_2(t)|^2}ϵ_0$$
(34)
in the classically allowed region. The same expression holds for the tunneling region by replacing $`a_i(t)`$ with $`a_i(\tau )`$, i being 1 and 2. Eqs.(30) and (31) or eqs.(32) and (33) should be solved together with eqs.(7) and (10), respectively, with the potential renormalization given by eq.(34) in the classically allowed region and the corresponding one in the tunneling region to determine the classical trajectory $`X(t)`$ and $`X(\tau )`$.

One then calculates the barrier transmission probability for each initial kinetic energy $`E_K`$ by the WKB formula as

$$P(E)=exp(\frac{4}{\mathrm{}}_{\tau _b}^{\tau _a}𝑑\tau [U(X(\tau ))+\mathrm{\Delta }V(X(\tau ))E_K])$$
(35)
where $`\tau _a`$ and $`\tau _b`$ correspond to the inner and outer classical turning points, respectively, and the time integral is performed over the tunneling region.

## III Accuracy of the semiclassical mean field theory

Before we discuss the characteristics of the intrinsic transition and the associated potential renormalization, we examine in this section the reliability of the semi-classical mean field theory for quantum tunneling. We consider the case where the coupling matrix is given by

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (38)
and assume that the bare potential and the coupling form factor have the Eckart form llqm

$$U(X)=\frac{U_0}{cosh^2(X/a)},f(X)=\frac{f_0}{cosh((XX_f)/a_f)},$$
(39)
where the height of the potential barrier is fixed to be $`U_0=10`$ $`MeV`$, and the position of the coupling form factor $`X_f`$ is taken to be either 50 $`fm`$ in front of the central region of the potential barrier or 0 $`fm`$. The large value of $`X_f`$ is taken, because we can then clearly separate the transition of the intrinsic state by the coupling form factor and by the tunneling effect. The latter transition and the associated potential renormalization, i.e. the potential renormalization induced by the tunneling assisted intrinsic transition are the major issues which we wish to advocate in this paper. The two kinds of intrinsic transition mix up when $`X_f=0`$. The mass parameter is fixed to be $`\mu c^2=2000MeV`$.

The effects of intrinsic degrees of freedom are sensitive to the degree of adiabaticity measured by the adiabaticity parameter $`\lambda =\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, $`\omega =ϵ_2ϵ_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being the excitation energy of the intrinsic motion and the curvature of the bare potential barrier $`U(X)`$ tak95 ; bt85 ; tak94 ; hag95 . We study a fast and slow tunneling represented by $`\lambda =0.5`$ and $`2.0`$, respectively. Since the whole tunneling process crucially depends on the initial condition of the intrinsic motion kt01 , we discuss both cases where the intrinsic motion is initially in the ground and in the excited states.

Fig.1 compares the barrier transmission probability as a function of the incident kinetic energy calculated in various ways for the case of $`X_f=50fm`$. The upper and the lower panels correspond to $`\lambda =0.5`$ and $`2.0`$, respectively. They have been calculated by assuming $`(a,a_f)=(5fm,5fm)`$ and $`(15fm,5fm)`$, respectively. In both of them, the thick dashed line is the barrier transmission probability in the absence of the intrinsic motion. As it should, it becomes about 0.5 when the incident energy coincides with the barrier height 10 MeV. The thick solid and the dot-dashed lines have been calculated by direct numerical integration of the coupled-channels equations, i.e. by eq.(28), for the cases where the intrinsic motion starts from the ground and the excited states, respectively. As expected, the barrier transmission probability is hindered over whole energy region by the intrinsic motion if it is initially in the ground state, while it is enhanced if the system starts from the excited state of the intrinsic motion. An interesting observation is that the fast intrinsic motion yields a step-function like structure in the excitation function of the barrier transmission probability, while the barrier transmission probability shows no structure when the macroscopic variable couples with a slow intrinsic degree of freedom.

In order to test the accuracy of the semiclassical mean field theory, the thin solid and the thick dotted lines have been calculated based on eq.(35) for the cases where the intrinsic motion starts from the ground and the excited states, respectively. We observe that the semi-classical mean field theory well reproduces the results of the direct numerical integration of the coupled-channels equations at low energies, though it fails at high energies as a natural consequence of the well known fact that the simple WKB approximation should be replaced by the uniform approximation.

We now consider the case when the coupling form factor is located in the same region as the bare potential barrier by setting $`X_f=0fm`$. The resultant barrier transmission probability is shown in Fig.2. Similarly to the case of Fig.1, the extension parameters have been chosen to be $`(a,a_f)=(5fm,5fm)`$ and $`(15fm,5fm)`$ for the cases of $`\lambda =0.5`$ and $`2.0`$, respectively. The notations are the same as those in Fig.1. As we discuss in kt01 , slow intrinsic motion corresponding to $`\lambda =0.5`$ enhances the barrier transmission probability at low energies and hinders it at high energies irrespective of whether the intrinsic motion is initially in the ground or in the excited states, though quantitative details are different. The fast intrinsic motion, on the other hand, enhances the barrier transmission probability when it starts from the ground state, and hinders when it starts from the excited state for a wide range of the incident energy. Similarly to the previous case when $`X_f=50.0fm`$, the semiclassical mean filed theory well reproduces the results of the direct numerical integration of the coupled-channels equations at low energies. The accuracy of the semiclassical mean field theory can be more clearly seen in Fig.3, where the barrier transmission probability in low energy region is shown in an expanded scale. This figure is useful also to see that the hindrance effect of a fast intrinsic motion to the barrier transmission probability in the case when it starts from the excited state turns into an enhancement effect at low energies (see the lower panel).

## IV Properties of the intrinsic transition and the potential renormalization

We now discuss the characteristics of the intrinsic transition and the associated potential renormalization. We first consider the case corresponding to Fig. 1, i.e. where the coupling form factor is located at far in front of the barrier region. Fig.4 shows the change of the occupation probability of the ground and the excited states, $`|a(1)|^2`$ (the thick solid line) and $`|a(2)|^2`$ (the thick dotted line), with the position X. The incident direction is toward the negative values of X. Similarly to Fig.1, the upper and lower panels correspond to the cases of coupling to slow or fast intrinsic motion. Each of them is divided into the left and right panels, where the results when the intrinsic state is initially the ground and the excited states, respectively, are shown. The bare potential $`U(X)`$ and the coupling form factor $`f(X)`$ are also shown in the figure in arbitrary scale. In the tunneling region, $`|a(1)|^2`$ and $`|a(2)|^2`$ have been normalized such that $`|a(1)|^2`$ \+ $`|a(2)|^2`$ = 1.0. The behaviour of $`|a(1)|^2`$ and $`|a(2)|^2`$ as functions of $`X`$ depends on the incident energy. By considering the accuracy of the semiclassical mean field theory discussed in the previous section, we chose $`E_K`$ to be 8.74, 7.64, 9.4 and 6.87 $`MeV`$ to obtain the upper left, upper right, the lower left and lower right panels, respectively. The semiclassical mean field theory well reproduces the barrier transmission probability obtained by the direct numerical solution of the coupled-channels equations at these energies. In the figure, the short horizontal line in the barrier region indicates the tunneling region.

The behaviour of the occupation probability can be easily understood in the present case. The intrinsic degree of freedom makes transition to the other state from the initial state when the macroscopic motion traverses the coupling region. The interesting result is that it then makes a strong transition to the ground state in the tunneling region even though the coupling form factor is already almost zero in that region. We name this the tunneling induced quantum transition of the intrinsic motion, because these transitions take place to increase the tunneling probability.

We now calculate the potential renormalization and the effective potential barrier based on eq.(34) for the classically allowed region and the corresponding expression for the tunneling region. The results are shown in Fig.5. The input parameters are the same as those for Fig.4. The figure contains the potential renormalization $`\mathrm{\Delta }V(X)`$ in the case when the intrinsic motion starts from the ground (the solid line) and the excited states (the thick dotts), the effective potential $`U_{eff}(X)=U(X)+\mathrm{\Delta }V(X)`$ for these cases (the dotts and the dott-dashed lines). The coupling form factor is also shown (the thin dashed line). We see two different kinds of potential renormalization in Fig.5. The first is the potential renormalization in the region of the coupling form factor, which one naturally expects to exist. The other is the novel type of potential renormalization that is caused by the tunneling induced intrinsic transition. The important consequence is that the effects of intrinsic motion cannot be represented by a constant potential shift in the tunneling region even though the coupling form factor is outside the tunneling region.

Let us now consider the case when $`X_f=0.0fm`$. The resultant position dependence of the occupation probabilities $`|a(1)|^2`$ and $`|a(2)|^2`$ and the associated potential renormalization and the net effective potentials are shown in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. The meaning of each line is the same as that in Figs. 4 and 5. The incident kinetic energy has been chosen to be 6.93, 5.0, 8.96 and 6.43 $`MeV`$ to obtain the upper left, upper right, the lower left and lower right panels, respectively, in Fig.6.

Since the two effects, i.e. the transition by the coupling form factor and that induced by the tunneling effect, overlap, the behaviour of $`|a(1)|^2`$ and $`|a(2)|^2`$ in the present case gets more complex than the previous case, where the coupling form factor is far outside the tunneling region. The important thing is that the potential renormalization is strongly spatially dependent also in this case. Another interesting observation is that the potential renormalization is larger in the case where the intrinsic motion starts from the excited state than the case when it starts from the ground state. This is related to the choice of the incident energy to draw Fig. 6 and is reflected in the larger enhancement of the barrier transmission probability in the former case as is shown in Fig.3.

## V Summary

The effect of environmental or intrinsic degrees of freedom on the tunneling probability of a macroscopic variable has been one of the very active subjects in many fields of physics and chemistry in the past decades cl ; ha95 ; weiss . One interesting question in this respect is to understand the way the intrinsic degrees of freedom modify the tunneling potential barrier. This question is especially important in connection with low energy nuclear reactions in laboratories, because the large deviation of the experimental reaction rate from the extrapolation from high energy data has been analyzed by assuming a constant potential shift in the tunneling region, which is supposed to well represent the screening effects by bound target electrons, with a puzzling consequence that the obtained screening energy exceeds the theoretically expected upper limit, i.e. the adiabatic limit, for all systems so far studied.

In this paper, we have set a simple two-level coupled-channels problem, and analyzed the properties of the intrinsic transition and the associated potential renormalization by using a semi-classical mean field theory for quantum tunneling, which naturally introduces the concept of the potential renormalization.

One of the main conclusions of our study is that there can occur strong intrinsic transitions in the tunneling region in order to facilitate the quantum tunneling even if there is no coupling any more in that region. We called this phenomenon the tunneling induced or assisted intrinsic transition. We have shown that it leads to a strongly spatially dependent potential renormalization in the tunneling region. This suggests that the screening effects in realistic low energy nuclear reactions should be handled not by simply assuming a constant potential shift as has been done in all previous studies, but by a proper dynamical treatment of the tunneling region. We publish our study in this direction in separate papers ktab01 ; kbt01 .

Acknowledgment The authors wish to thank Bertrand Giraud for useful discussions. This work has been partly accomplished while the authors stayed at the INFN at Catania. They thank M. Di Toro, A. Bonasera, C. Spitaleri and S. Terranova for useful discussions and warm hospitality. This work is supported by the Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology under Grant No. 12047203 and No. 13640253 and by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists under the contract No. 12006231.


text:
# Resonant Excitation of Nonradial Modes in RR Lyrae Stars

## 1. Introduction

One of the most intriguing questions concerning RR Lyrae stars is the nature of the long-term modulations that characterize about 20–30% of RRab and 2–3% of RRc stars (e.g., Moskalik & Poretti, these proceedings; Kovács, 2000). The modulations of the oscillation amplitudes and phases manifest themselves in the Fourier spectra as secondary peaks with frequencies close to the main pulsation frequency. There seems to exist two distinguishable cases: one secondary peak with frequency either higher or lower than the main frequency and a pair of side peaks which, together with the main peak, form an equidistant triplet.

There are two models proposed to explain the modulations: a magnetic oblique rotator (Shibahashi, 2000) and the 1:1 resonance model (Van Hoolst et al., 1998). In this paper we develop the resonant model.

## 2. Nonresonant properties of oscillation modes

As was shown by Van Hoolst et al. (1998) and Dziembowski & Cassisi (1999), there always exists a very dense spectrum of low-$`\mathrm{}`$ nonradial modes in the frequency range of the lowest radial overtones in models of RR Lyrae stars. The most unstable modes have frequencies very close to the fundamental as well as the first overtone frequencies. Among the low degree modes in the closest vicinity of the radial modes, the $`\mathrm{}=1`$ modes are the most unstable and thus the most important dynamically.

Small frequency differences between the radial and the closest nonradial mode suggest that 1:1 and similar resonances should be taken into account in the study of the oscillations. Moreover, this frequency difference, which is an important parameter in resonant dynamics, is such a sensitive function of the stellar parameters that it is justified to treat it as a random quantity.

In the simplest nonlinear theory of stellar pulsations without resonances, sufficiently high amplitude of one mode may stabilize all other linearly unstable modes so that they are not present in oscillations. This simple saturation mechanism leads to monomode pulsations which are typical for RR Lyrae stars.

## 3. Resonant coupling and instability of monomode pulsations

One of the conditions for the resonant coupling between different modes may be written as $`_im_i=0`$, where $`m_i`$ are azimuthal numbers of the interacting modes. For the most important case of $`\mathrm{}=1`$ it means two possibilities:

* coupling of the radial mode with an $`m=0`$ nonradial mode,
* coupling of the radial mode with an $`m=1,m=1`$ pair.

It turns out that the two cases are dynamically equivalent, i.e., the amplitude equations describing the mode amplitudes are in both cases the same with the same coefficients and in the latter case $`A_{1,1}=A_{1,1}`$.

Radial monomode pulsations become resonantly unstable when

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }\omega |<\sqrt{|R||A_{0,0}|^2\kappa _{l,N}^2}$$
(1)
(Van Hoolst et al., 1998), where $`\kappa _{l,N}`$ is a nonlinear growth rate of the nonradial mode, $`R`$ is a resonant coupling coefficient, $`A_{0,0}`$ is a radial mode amplitude, and the detuning parameter is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _{1,0}\omega _{0,0}\hfill & \mathrm{for}m=0\hfill \\ (\omega _{1,1}+\omega _{1,1})/2\omega _{0,0}\hfill & \mathrm{for}m=\pm 1\mathrm{pair}.\hfill \end{array}$$

## 4. Finite amplitude development of resonant instability

In order to simplify the problem we made some assumptions. The most important are the use of adiabatic resonant coupling coefficients and the neglect of nonresonant nonlinear frequency changes. The former assumption was used by Van Hoolst et al. (1998) and Dziembowski & Cassisi (1999). The latter assumption seems to be justified because the nonlinear frequency change has the same sign for both modes and it does not change the frequency difference significantly.

We first studied double-mode stationary solutions of amplitude equations together with their stability with respect to small perturbations. The parameters of the equations were calculated for the range of stellar models by Dziembowski & Cassisi (1999). A typical solution is presented in Fig. 1. All interesting pairs of modes in all models give qualitatively the same solutions.

The $`a`$-branch solution exists if the detuning parameter is smaller than the critical value given by Eq. (1) (about $`0.6`$ in the case presented in Fig. 1) and it is always stable. If the detuning parameter is higher than the previously mentioned critical value the monomode solution (not shown in Fig. 1) is stable, according to Eq. (1). This means that there always exists at least one stable fixed-point solution, either monomode (large $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$) or double-mode (small $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$).

Direct time integration of the amplitude equations shows that the time-dependent solutions always converge to one of the stable fixed-point solutions.

Multimode fixed-point solutions of resonant amplitude equations are characterized by the phase-lock phenomenon (for the general discussion see Buchler et al., 1997). In our cases it means:

* for interaction with an $`m=0`$ nonradial mode, the two frequencies are equal,
* for interaction with an $`m=\pm 1`$ pair, the three frequencies are equidistant.

## 5. Observational consequences

When resonant interaction leads to excitation of an $`m=0`$ nonradial mode, an observer would see only one frequency due to the phase-lock phenomenon. The only effect of the presence of the nonradial mode is the aspect-dependence and thus the randomness of the observed pulsation amplitude.

The excitation of the $`m=\pm 1`$ pair leads to the observed triplet-type modulation, where the side peaks in the spectrum are rotationally split $`m=\pm 1`$ modes. A simple estimate yields the splitting to be equal to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}/2`$, where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the mean rotation rate weighted with the Brunt-Väisälä frequency which is strongly peaked in the deepest part of the radiative envelope. Thus, in this model the Blazhko period is the measure of the rotation in this region.

## 6. Conclusions and future work

The resonant model presented in this paper predicts many observed features of RR Lyrae stars: random occurrence and ranges of the modulations as well as lower occurence rate of Blazhko stars among RRc than among RRab stars.

However, this model has some problems, too. The most important one is that it does not predict the strong asymmetry of the side-peak amplitudes (Kovács, these proceedings). Moreover, it does not explain features which have been recently observed: larger frequency splittings among RRc than among RRab stars (Moskalik & Poretti, these proceedings) and the change of the Blazhko-period (Smith et al., these proceedings).

To understand the nature of the long-term modulations of RR Lyrae stars more efforts should be made both theoretically and observationally. The most promising are attempts to find the nonradial mode characteristics in line-profile variations of RR Lyrae itself (Kolenberg et al., these proceedings). Precise spectroscopic observations of other Blazhko stars would also be of great importance.

Our model also needs some improvements. The most important one is to take into account previously neglected coupling coefficients and more interacting modes, in particular the whole $`\mathrm{}=1`$ triplet.

This paper summarizes the results given by Nowakowski & Dziembowski (2001)

### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank the organizers for the financial support. We are also greatful to Wojtek Dziembowski and Geza Kovács for their useful suggestions given during the preparation of our talk and this paper.

## References

Buchler, J.R., Goupil, M.-J., & Hansen, C.J. 1997, A&A, 321, 159

Dziembowski, W.A., Cassisi, S. 1999, Acta Astron., 49, 371

Kovács, G. 2000, in Nonlinear Studies of Stellar Pulsations, eds. M. Takeuti and D. Sasselov, (Kluwer Academic Publishers), 257, 61

Nowakowski, R.M. & Dziembowski, W.A. 2001, Acta Astron., 51, 5

Shibahashi, H. 2000, in ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 203, The Impact of Large Scale Surveys on Pulsating Star Research, eds. L. Szabados & D. Kurtz, (San Francisco ASP), 299

Van Hoolst, T., Dziembowski, W.A., & Kawaler, S.D. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 536.