text:
# An on-line Integrated Bookkeeping: electronic run log book and Meta-Data Repository for ATLAS

## I INTRODUCTION

Experiments in High Energy Physics (HEP) are becoming increasingly more complex. The construction of a new particle accelerator and associated detectors is a technological challenge that also encompasses the development of an associated software system.

The Large Hadron Colider (LHC) currently being built at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), will support four different detectors installed. The ATLAS atlas  (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS) at LHC will require a complex trigger system. This trigger will have to reduce the original 40MHz of p-p interaction rate to a manageable 100Hz for storage. The total mass storage, including raw, reconstructed, simulated and calibration data exceeds 1 PetaByte per year. The three major types of data to be stored by ATLAS are:

* raw event data, data collected by the detector resulting from the particle collisions (events)
* conditions and Meta-data, which includes calibration constants, run conditions, accelerator conditions, trigger settings, detector configuration, and Detector Control System (DCS) conditions that determine the conditions under which every physics event occurred. These conditions are stored with an interval of validity (typically time or run number) and retrieved using time (or run number) as a key paoli . Also the DAQ status and time evolution of the Configuration Database is included in this type of data.
* reconstructed data, corresponding to objects with physical meaning (e.g. electrons, tracks, etc.) that are the result of applying software algorithms to the raw data, taking into consideration the conditions under which the raw data was taken.

An important part of the conditions database data is associated with the Trigger and Data Aquisition System daq  (TDAQ). Through the TDAQ system flow very different types of data (e.g. calibration and alignment information, configuration databases information) cdi  that appear as conditions data for storage. Some types of this data, such as the accelerator’s beam parameters, detector configuration, test-beam table position, are recorded by a specific component of the TDAQ system, the Online Bookkeeper (OBK). The OBK is important as a source of data for the conditions database, as an entry point to analysis jobs on the raw data and as a debug resource for the DAQ system. For this reason, OBK can be qualified as one of the biggest collectors and managers of Meta-data produced online for the ATLAS experiment. The aim of the OBK is to store information describing the data acquired by the DAQ and to provide offline access to this information obk-highlevel . It is also a powerful tool for users in the control room who can use it as a Run log book to attach their comments, or other types of support information.

## II OBK AND THE ONLINE SOFTWARE

This section will provide an overview of how OBK works in the Online Softare framework. As OBK is a software package of the Online Software system for the ATLAS TDAQ, the architecture of both, Online Software and OBK, will be briefly described.

### II.1 The Online Software architecture

The role of the Online Software is to provide to other TDAQ systems, configuration, control and monotoring services. It does not include the processing and transportation of physics data. All packages of the Online Software create a framework generic enough to allow supervision of many distinct data taking configurations. From the architectural point of view there are three different group of components: group of components are the Configuration, Control and Monitoring. Table 1 shows these main packages and their components.

### II.2 The OBK architecture

The OBK is part of the Configuration group. A first prototype was developed 4 years ago and since it has evolved significantly. Figure 1 shows a simplified diagram of OBK in which are the other Online packages that OBK interacts with. Namely, the Information Service (IS), Message Reporting System (MRS) and Configuration Databases (Conf. DB).

Both IS and MRS use the IPC (Inter Process Comunication) package, a CORBA implementation, as messaging backbone corba . MRS provides the facility which allows all software components in the ATLAS DAQ system and related processes to report error messages to other components of the distributed TDAQ system. IS provides the possibility for inter-application information exchange in the distributed environment.

These three components of the Online SW are the providers of information to OBK databases. The data stored in OBK databases the information will be automatically available worldwide. This process begins with the data acquisition process in the distributed environment and ends up with the final users that will query the database for the most relevant informations about each data taking period.

Figure 1 also shows schematically a general architecture of OBK. The OBK acquisition software subscribes to relevant MRS and IS servers in order to receive MRS/IS massages exchanged between components via CORBA/IIOP callbacks. The information is then stored using an per-run basis philosophy. The information stored includes the date/time of each run, the basic physics parameters, the status of a run - if it was a successfully completed or not, etc.

The data is then made available for offline usage. The users dispose of a set of tools like the Web interface and the C++ API which can be used to interact with OBK databases. They can retrieve data for a particular Run, or a set of Runs, or append new relevant information if needed. The web browser can display all the information of a Run including all IS informations stored, and with the C++ API there is also the facility to search for instances of a particular IS class parameter or to cicle all the run headers (StartDate, EndDate, TriggerType, etc.) in a partition.

## III Prototyping with OBK

During the last 4 years, three different OBK prototypes were implemented. The aim was both to learn with the experience while trying to implement a package that meets the requirements obk-requirements , and to use different Data Base Management Systems (DBMS). This provided a better understanding of which DBMS most fulfills the OBK needs inside the Online Software framework. With this multi-technology approach we’re gaining technological expertise about different DBMS technologies and are then able to make a solid recommendation for a technological and design solution for a production bookkeeper tool. This prototyping approach seems to achieve very good results in a long term experience like this one because each of the new OBK prototypes provides more functionality and performance gains over its predecessor. All of the prototypes use C++ as programming language and the same basic architecture but different DBMS for the persistent storage.

### III.1 Objectivity/DB based

At the begining, LHC experiments selected Objectivity/DB for the official DBMS persistent storage. An OBK implementation using this DBMS was then the first natural choice.

This prototype was designed to take full advantage of the pure Object Oriented (OO) model of the DBMS. The model used with the Objecivity/DB is organized in federations, databases, containers and object, OBK was able to map the data coming from the TDAQ system in a repository structured in such a way.

The OBK Objectivity/DB based prototype was used in 2000 testbeams with success. For data retrieval a web browser was also developed. This allows users to get in ‘touch‘ with the data in a very natural fashion. Since 2001, this prototype was abandoned and is no longer maintained.

### III.2 OKS based

The second prototype implemented uses OKS as a persistency mechanism. OKS is a C++ based, in-memory persistent object manager developed as a package inside the Online Software oks . OKS is also OO but not so sophisticated as Objectivity/DB. The data files used for storage are created as XML files. They are stored in the file system which can be local, AFS or NFS. The access to the data is done by reading directly the files and not through a centralized server. The usage of XML files to store data is a very interesting feature because they are human readable and also highly portable.

The main reasons that led to this implementation were the fact that OKS is Open Source software (which makes it usable in any place without having any problems with licencing) and also that this DBMS is lighter and more oriented to systems with very high demands in terms of performance than the Objectivity/DB. There are of course some disadvantages of using OKS, mainly the lack of features that other DBMS provide like transactions.

The persistent object schema of this prototype is very similar to the first one beacause it is also OO featured and the intrinsic data storage philosophy can be very similar. A web browser with the same approach as the one from Objectivity is also provided.

This prototype provides extended features while compared to the first one, such as more programs to control the databases and a full featured C++ API. All it’s new improvements were used in 2001 test beams at CERN by the users. It behaved well and acquired several Megabytes of data to the local file system of a machine and later on AFS. Despite the good behavior from OBK the problem of data dispersion and consistency soon arrived because this prototype uses several XML files to store information about each Run.

### III.3 MySQL based

This is the only OBK prototype that uses a Relational DBMS. MySQL mysql  is a well known, fast and reliable Open Source DBMS. It started a new phase in the OBK development - The phase of the relational model. The decision to implement a package such as OBK using MySQL was driven from the power of its underlying SQL engine and also due to the desire of trying a relational approach to OBK databases. Technically a new database schema was implemented to allow mapping of data coming mainly from OO sources forcing us to completely redesign the internal structure of OBK. We have achieved a mapping between an OO and a Relational schema that is suitable for OBK needs and started to use it.

This prototype provides all the features of the previous ones, plus further enhancements regarding the users needs and also the very important aspect of performance. In this implementation the concept of log book was also introduced and successfully deployed (see section IV.2 for details) and successfully used.

The MySQL implementation was used successfully in the 2002 test beam. It recorded more than 1 GByte of data, including data coming from the DCS.

## IV OBK INTERFACES FOR DATA RETRIEVAL

OBK provides a set of interfaces that allow users to interact with the databases. There are also available some tools coded in C++ which make some tasks very easy to execute. In this section the focus will be on the C++ interfaces (the Query API) and on the Web interface used to store information directly related to the users.

### IV.1 C++ Query API

Both OKS and MySQL prototype are distributed with a C++ Query API. This API exposes methods that allow data retrieval in a very user oriented approach. The API encapsulates all the necessary mechanisms to get the correct values from the OBK databases. The users do not need any special skill (like how to perform SQL queries) regarding the database schema. This also allows to preserve the integrity of the database because it doesn’t allow users to manipulate it directly in what concerns for example the addiction of new information retated to a Run.

### IV.2 Web Browser

The latest version of the OBK browser includes several functionalities making it a powerful tool. It provides not only the functionalities of displaying the data coming from the OBK data acquisition process just after it was collected through the Online System but also the possibility of behaving like a Run Log Book. It was built with an excellent searching mechanism oriented to the final users which will be the Physicists.

Figure 2 shows all the options of this search mechanism. There are a set of options on which the users can base their criteria of selection such as:

* RunStatus Good/Bad
* MaxEnvents The maximum number of events of the Runs
* Start Date/End Date. For the Start and end of a Run. This allows to ‘map’ the obk run bases data type in a time interval
* BeamType Muons, Electrons, etc.
* TriggerType Cosmic, Calibration, Physics

Sorting options are also included. The OBK data display in this browser was driven by the need of a clear and very user friendly interface where the data would be easily accessible to the users. After the selection of all the criteria that the user wants to meet, the result will appear in another web page similar to the one in Figure 3.

The result presents to the users some relevant information about each Run: Partition to which each Run belongs; Run Number; Start and End Date of the Run; Run Status; Number of Events; Maximum Number of Events; Trigger Type, Detector Mask and Beam Type. It is also possible to display more specific information, like for example which messages from the MRS were transfered between the various components of the Online Software. This is accessible by following the link provided for each Run.

Figure 4 shows a typical page generated when selecting the option to display more detailed information on a particular Run. Through this new page it is possible to browse information including the messages from the MRS, from the IS and the users comments and attached files. There are two different approaches to storing comments in OBK databases:

* using binary programs provided for both online and offline comments
* Using the web browser

Adding comments through the web browser gives also the option of attaching any type of files to a comment. This allows users to add information that they think might be relevant to the Run. Afterwards every one can see the comments and their respectively attached files. Some types of files are supported and will immediately be displayed in a different window. File types that are not supported will have to be downloaded and the appropriate program must be used to open them.

The OBK browser itself also provides administrative tools, for example to create databases with the correct structure for OBK, and gives a set of options for user management: authentication, permissions, etc.

## V TESTING

For the evaluation of the various prototypes the focus was to analyse the different functionalites, how easy it was to map the data coming from the Online Sytem or on how complex the code of each one became. On all of these issues a set of scalablity and performance tests were addressed. One other objective of these tests was also to evaluate if OBK can handle all the information produced in the final system.

In Figure 6 it can be seen the time to store a typical IS message in function of the number of OBK data acquisition programs running simultaneously. This test was one of the tests performed in the scalability context regarding the final system.

A comparison between the three prototypes was also addressed. This test was performed with a typical Start of Run message coming from the MRS. The time for this test is not only the time spent to store the message itself but also all operations that this implies. This operation includes the creation of a new Run in the database with all associated operations like the creation of new files (in the OKS prorotype) or containers (in the case of the Objectivity/DB prototype). More details about this tests can be found in obk-chep01 .

The MySQL prototype proved to be the faster one while the Objectivity/DB is the slowest. It was clear from the test that there is a dependency on the Run number for the time spent to store a message of this kind in case of both Objectivity/DB and OKS prototypes. The slope of the OKS line is less than the Objectivity/DB but when a transaction becomes commited, the Objectivity/DB prototype gets better. We attribute these results not only to the evolution in the design from prototype to prototype but also because MySQL provides a faster engine that makes the time to store these messages negligible when compared with the other prototypes. Some other performance results are displayed in tables 2 and 3.

The results presented for the Start of Run, End of Run and Comment, represent the the minimum value and the maximum observed during the tests. Tests were performed to a maximum of 500 Runs. For the IS time it’s the mean time to store a IS message from OBK because it was observed that there was no significant growth.

More information about these tests can be found in OBK test report obk-perf . This document includes a detailed description of the test procedure and other results such as functionality tests.

## VI SUMARY AND FUTURE WORK

In this paper we presented a general overview of our experience of using different DBMSs in prototyping OBK in the ATLAS Online Software framework. Since the beginning of the project we tried to understand the problem of bookkeeping for the ATLAS experiment. For that reason, OBK evolved and it now provides some tools that can be qualified as Run log book tools. The last version of OBK which is the most performant and robust one is the result of this experience. But OBK work is still in progress. Included in the list of future improvements for OBK are:

* to make it DBMS independent in order to have a more general and dynamic architecture;
* create a set of new tools to extend the actual existing ones for the log book approach;

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank Mario Monteiro from Softcontrolsoft  who is the main developer of the OBK MySQL implementation web browser.


format: text

text:
# Dynamical mean field theory of small polaron transport

## Abstract

We present a unified view of the transport properties of small-polarons in the Holstein model at low carrier densities, based on the Dynamical Mean Field Theory. The nonperturbative nature of the approach allows us to study the crossover from classical activated motion at high temperatures to coherent motion at low temperatures. Large quantitative discrepancies from the standard polaronic formulae are found. The scaling properties of the resistivity are analysed, and a simple interpolation formula is proposed in the nonadiabatic regime.

In the common wisdom, polaronic transport in solids is synonymous of activated conductivity. When electrons are strongly coupled to bosonic degrees of freedom (phonons, excitons, etc.), self-trapped states are formed. If the size of the polaron is comparable with the lattice spacing, the motion is then dominated by hopping processes: the particle has to overcome a potential barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and loses its quantum coherence at each hop, giving rise to an activated law of the form:

$$\rho =\rho _0e^{\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT}$$
(1)
where the prefactor $`\rho _0`$ is weakly temperature dependent. Contrary to what happens in semiconductors, the activated behaviour here is not related to the number of thermally excited carriers, but rather to the mobility of the individual carriers.

The Holstein modelHolstein ; Tjablikov

$$H=t\underset{i,j}{}(c_i^{}c_j+c_j^{}c_i)+\mathrm{}\omega _0\underset{i}{}a_i^{}a_ig\underset{i}{}c_i^{}c_i(a_i^{}+a_i)$$

was introduced in the late fifties to study such a behaviour, as was being measured in some transition metal oxides. In this model, tight-binding electrons interact locally with molecular deformations, whose natural vibration frequency is $`\omega _0`$ ($`t`$ is the hopping parameter, $`g`$ the electron-phonon coupling constant). Although this is a rather crude idealization of a real solid, the Holstein model captures the essential physical phenomena involved in small-polaron transport. The situation is in fact more complex than indicated by the simple formula (1), and is summarized in several reviewsAppel . Three regimes of temperature can be identified.

At low temperatures, the polarons behave as heavy particles in a band of renormalized width $`W`$, and are weakly scattered by phonons. For small enough $`W`$, all the states in the band are equally populated, leading to a “metallic-like” resistivity FrohlichSewell ; LF ; Appel  $`\rho (T/W)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\omega _0/k_BT)`$. The exponential law comes from the thermal occupation of the optical phonons, which are assumed to be the main source of scattering. Upon increasing the temperature, the mean free path is rapidly reduced until the picture of coherent motion breaks down, typically around some fraction of $`\mathrm{}\omega _0/k_B`$. Hopping motion then becomes more favorable, leading to an activated behavior of the form (1). The crossover from coherent to hopping motion is thus characterised by a maximum in the resistivity. Eventually, at temperatures higher than the activation energy, the polaron states are thermally dissociated and the residual electrons are strongly scattered by thermal phonons. In this case, the equipartition principle leads to Adler  $`\rho T^{3/2}`$.

On the experimental side, the largest amount of work has been devoted to the activated regime, which is often observed around room temperature, and resistivities of the form (1) have been measured in a variety of narrow-band solids. However, strong deviations from pure Arrhenius behaviour are often reporteddeviations , possibly indicating the onset of the coherent transport regime. In some cases, the low temperature exponential law described above has also been identified unambiguously coherent .

The main purpose of this work is to shed some light on the crossover from activated to coherent transport, for which a reliable theoretical description is still lacking. To do this, we calculate the resistivity of Holstein small-polarons in the framework of the Dynamical Mean Field Theory (DMFT). This approximation is suitable whenever the physics is ruled by local phenomena, as is the case in the present problem, where it allows to take into account the quantum nature of the phonons ($`\omega _00`$) and the finite bandwidth effects ($`t0`$) on the same footing. Since the theory does not require any “small parameter”, it is able to go beyond the traditional approaches usually applied to the problem and gives reliable results in the regime $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ of interest here. Moreover, it yields a unified view of the different regimes of polaronic transport, acting as a testing ground of the validity of previous approaches

The DMFT solution of the Holstein model for a single polaron was presented in ref. depolaroni , where an analytical expression for the spectral function $`A_ϵ(\nu )`$ was given in terms of a continued fraction. The polaron formation at zero temperature can be described by introducing two independent dimensionless parameters. The first is the adiabaticity ratio $`\gamma =\omega _0/D`$ ($`D`$ is the unrenormalized half bandwidth) according to which an adiabatic ($`\gamma 1`$) and nonadiabatic regime ($`\gamma 1`$) can be defined. The mechanism of polaron formation is fundamentally different in the two regimes, leading to different definitions of the dimensionless electron-phonon coupling. Being $`E_P=g^2/\omega _0`$ the energy of a polaron on a single lattice site, a well defined polaronic state is formed for large $`\lambda =E_P/D`$ in the adiabatic case, and for large $`\alpha ^2=E_P/\omega _0`$ in the non adiabatic casedepolaroni ; xover .

The corresponding transport properties can be calculated through the appropriate Kubo formula, which relates them to the current-current correlation function of the system at equilibrium. In DMFT, due to the absence of vertex corrections,RMP  the latter is fully determined by the spectral function $`A_ϵ(\nu )`$, which is known exactly in the limit of vanishing density (single polaron problem)depolaroni . The resistivity at low (but finite) density can then be derived through an expansion in the fugacityBR , yielding

$$\rho (T)=\frac{k_BT}{x\zeta \pi }\frac{𝑑ϵN_ϵ𝑑\nu e^{\nu /T}A_ϵ(\nu )}{𝑑ϵN_ϵ\varphi _ϵ𝑑\nu e^{\nu /T}[A_ϵ(\nu )]^2}$$
(2)
In the above formula, the denominator is the current-current correlation function, and the numerator is proportional the carrier concentration $`x`$, which was explicitely taken out (the exponential weights in the integrals reflect the Boltzmann nature of the carriers). $`N_ϵ`$ and $`\varphi _ϵ`$ are respectively the density of states and the current vertex of the periodic lattice. 111We specialize here to a Bethe lattice with semicircular density of states, which is representative of three-dimensional systems, and use the prescription given in \[A. Chattopadhyay et al., Phys. Rev. B 61, 10738 (2000)\]. However, since the Kubo formula involves averages over the whole density of states, the results should not depend dramatically on the shape of $`N_ϵ`$. The constant $`\zeta =e^2a^2/\mathrm{}v`$ has the dimensions of resistivity, $`a`$ being the lattice spacing, $`v`$ the volume of the unit cell. In the following, we shall implicitely report the results for the dimensionless product $`\rho x\zeta `$, which is inversely proportional to the drift mobility, and assume $`\mathrm{}=k_B=1`$.

The results for the resistivity are illustrated in Fig. 1 for fixed $`\lambda =1.5`$ in the adiabatic case. The three regimes discussed in the introduction can be clearly identified — the resistivity first rises exponentially (coherent regime), then decreases exponentially (activated regime), and eventually increases again as a power law (residual scattering regime). This is true for all the data sets except at $`\gamma =0.4`$, where the polaron formation has shifted to higher values of $`\lambda `$, as expected when moving away from the adiabatic limit. depolaroni ; xover

Let us focus on the activated regime, $`\omega _0T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where the polaron transport is dominated by incoherent hopping processes. In the adiabatic limit $`\gamma 0`$, the problem is generally studied within a simplified “two-site” molecular modelHolstein ; LFJETP68 , where the (classical) lattice degrees of freedom are seen to move “adiabatically” in the double-well energy curve determined by the electronic (bonding) state. At each jump, the system has to overcome a barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E_P/2t`$, leading to an Arrhenius type behaviorAppel

$$\rho =2(T/\omega _0)\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Delta }/T]$$
(3)
This semi-classical description holds provided that the transitions to higher (antibonding) electronic states can be neglected, which corresponds to Holstein ; LF63

$$\eta _2\frac{D^2}{\omega _0\sqrt{2E_PT}}=\left[2\lambda \gamma ^3(T/\omega _0)\right]^{1/2}1$$
(4)
Note that this does not coincide with the usual adiabaticity condition $`\gamma 1`$ relevant for polaron formation.

To illustrate the accuracy of the semi-classical prediction, we show in Fig. 2 Arrhenius plots of the resistivity at fixed $`\gamma =0.2`$, varying the coupling strength $`\lambda `$. First of all, our results indicate that the correct generalization of the “two-site” result (3) to infinite lattices is obtained by letting $`\mathrm{\Delta }=[E_P(\lambda )D]/2`$, where $`E_P(\lambda )=D\lambda +D/(8\lambda )+\mathrm{}`$ is the adiabatic polaron energy, calculated e.g. in ref. depolaroni  \[see Fig. 2, full lines — the slight discrepancy at the highest values of $`\lambda `$ is related to the breakdown of the condition (4)\]. This suggests that the activated behavior arises from the thermal promotion from the ground state to the electron continuum, which differs from the Landau-Zener mechanism involved in the two-site model. In particular, the reduction of the activation gap by finite bandwidth effects is much stronger in the present case.

When the temperature is lowered below $`T\omega _0`$, the quantum nature of the phonons can no longer be neglected. The lattice zero point fluctuations are then expected to induce delocalization of the trapped carriers, resulting in an enhancement of the polaron mobility. This phenomenon is a precursor of the coherent regime, and has a sizeable influence on the transport properties in a wide range of temperatures between the resistivity maximum $`T_b`$ and the phonon frequency $`\omega _0`$, which is in principle experimentally accessible. The enhancement of the mobility is signaled by a marked downturn from the Arrhenius behavior (see the right hand side of Fig. 2), and takes place in the whole polaronic regime $`\lambda 1`$ (as we shall see below, this behavior is quite general and is not restricted to the adiabatic case).

In order to discuss the nonadiabatic case, where the polaron formation is ruled by the parameter $`\alpha ^2`$, the resistivity data are illustrated in Fig. 3 for different values of $`\gamma `$, and fixed $`\alpha ^2=10`$. We again recognize the three regimes of polaron transport (coherent, activated, residual scattering). The presence of such a “peak-dip” structure is therefore independent of the adiabaticity ratio $`\gamma `$ and exists whenever the carriers are of polaronic nature. At large $`\gamma `$, the resistivity obeys the following scaling property

$$\rho (T,\alpha ^2,\gamma )=\gamma f(T/\omega _0,\alpha ^2)$$
(5)
as shown in Fig. 3. Although the numerical integrals involved in eq. (2) do not lead to an analytical expression for $`\rho (T)`$, one can take advantage of the above scaling to derive a tractable interpolation formula valid in the nonadiabatic regime. To do so, we choose to separate arbitrarily the “coherent” part $`\rho _C`$ and the “activated” part $`\rho _H`$ by enforcing Matthiessen’s rule $`\rho ^1=\rho _C^1+\rho _H^1`$. Introducing $`y=T/\omega _0`$, the DMFT data are well described by

$`\rho _C(y)`$ $`=`$ $`A\gamma \alpha ^4ye^{\alpha ^21/y}`$ (6)
$`\rho _H(y)`$ $`=`$ $`B\gamma y^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }(y)/2y\right]`$ (7)
with a temperature dependent activation gap

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(y)=\alpha ^2(1\delta )\frac{\mathrm{tanh}c/y}{c/y}$$
(8)
and with $`A=3.82`$, $`B=4.77`$, $`c=0.37`$, $`\delta =0.26`$.17 Note that the form of the prefactors in eqs. (6)-(7) is constrained by the scaling relation (5). The resulting curve for $`\rho `$ is plotted in Fig. 3 for $`\alpha ^2=10`$ (full line). 222The location of the resistivity maximum (for any $`\alpha ^2`$ in the nonadiabatic regime) is in good agreement with the value given in ref. LF  $`T_b\omega _0/(2\mathrm{log}\alpha ^2)`$, while it fundamentally contradicts Holstein’s estimate of ref.Holstein . The latter is based on the assumption that the polaron bandwidth is reduced with increasing temperature, which is a drawback of the perturbative approach (any narrow feature in the excitation spectrum, such as the polaron band, should rather get broadened by thermal effects).

Let us focus on the activated regime, as was done previously in the adiabatic case. The problem of polaron transport in this case is generally addressed from the “atomic” limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$Holstein ; LF63 , treating the band parameter $`D`$ as a perturbation. This yields the nonadiabatic textbook formula Holstein ; Mahan

$$\rho (T)=B^{}\gamma ^2\alpha y^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}[\alpha ^2/2y]$$
(9)
valid at $`T\omega _0`$, with $`B^{}=(2^7/\pi )^{1/2}`$ \[a generalization to lower temperatures was given in ref. Holstein , eq. (97)\]. Since the effective expansion parameter which rules the perturbative treatment is $`\eta _2`$ itself, eq. (9) holds for $`\eta _21`$, a condition opposite to eq. (4). LF63 333Remarkably, at $`\alpha ^2=10`$, the scaling property (5) holds for $`\gamma 0.5`$ which, taking $`T\omega _0`$, corresponds to $`\eta _21`$. Note, however, that the low temperature coherent regime is not ruled by eq. (4), which relies on the analysis of incoherent hopping processes.

The inset of Fig. 3 shows an Arrhenius plot of the resistivity in the activated regime for $`\alpha ^2=10`$ and $`\gamma =2`$. As in the adiabatic case, a marked downturn appears below $`T\omega _0`$, indicating the onset of phonon quantum fluctuations. We infer that this ubiquitous phenomenon is deeply related to the occurrence of a resistivity maximum — i.e. of the very presence of small polarons — as it takes place both in the adiabatic and nonadiabatic regimes.

In the same inset, we have also drawn the resistivity given by eq. (9) (dashed line), and its low temperature generalization (dotted line). Compared to the DMFT results, we see that the perturbative formulae wildly overestimate both the absolute value of the resistivity and the activation energy — the slope of the curve — within the activated regime. Besides, a closer look at eq. (9) shows that it does not obey the scaling formula (5). The disagreement is surprising, in view of the fact that the chosen parameters ($`\eta _20.01`$) lie well inside the range of validity of the perturbative approach.

The large discrepancy comes from the narrow-band character of the polaronic excitation spectrum. In the limit $`D0`$, the electron states are essentially independent on different sites. This, together with the fact that the phonons are assumed to be local and dispersionless, prevents any transfer of energy between sites (the spectral function is a distribution of delta peaks), and makes the transition probabilities singular. Holstein healed the singularity by introducing ad hoc a sizeable phonon dispersion $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{ph}0`$, yielding eq. (9). However, especially in narrow band materials, the optical phonons often exhibit rather weak dispersions. Obtaining a finite result when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{ph}0`$ requires to treat the electron dispersion (i.e. the finite bandwidth, $`D0`$) nonperturbatively. This can be achieved by the DMFT, as is testified by the finiteness of our results. 444A simple calculation shows that, if $`A(\nu )`$ is a collection of peaks of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, the resistivity is reduced by a factor of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega /\omega _0`$ relative to Holstein’s result. The observed scaling behavior (5) is recovered by noting that, if the broadening of the peaks is of electronic origin, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{el}D`$. In practical cases, where both the electrons and the phonons disperse, it is likely that the transport properties are determined by the larger of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{el},\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{ph}`$.

In summary, we have applied the DMFT to study the transport properties of small polarons. The different behaviors expected by standard polaron theory — coherent, activated and residual scattering regime — are recovered within a unified treatment, although notable deviations from the commonly accepted formulae are found. First of all, a broad intermediate temperature regime emerges, regardless of the adiabaticity parameter $`\gamma `$, where the resistivity is still semiconducting-like, but is strongly influenced by phonon quantum fluctuations. This regime, comprised between the resistivity maximum $`T_b`$ and the phonon frequency $`\omega _0`$, should be easily detected experimentally as a downturn in the Arrhenius plots of the resistivity. Secondly, in the nonadiabatic regime, the DMFT results obey a simple scaling property, which is not compatible with the standard polaronic formulae of Holstein. Accordingly, large quantitative discrepancies arise in the predicted resistivity, which could result in wrong estimates when extracting microscopic parameters from the experiments.

Finally, we would like to point out that the adiabatic procedure which was successfully applied to study polaronic systems at finite density (half filling) within the DMFT scheme,Millis  is not suitable at low densities, where it is not able to reproduce the correct activated behavior (3). The reason is that the cooperative mechanism which leads to polaron localization at half filling — the presence of a bimodally distributed random field — ceases to be effective at low electron densities, where the phonons are not renormalized. In the latter case, polaron localization is a single-particle effect, the carriers being self-trapped in their own local deformation. The relative inportance of the two different mechanisms of polaron trapping can be modulated by the density. The existence of an experimentally observable density crossover in polaronic systems will be the subject of future investigation.

We acknowledge M. Capone for a critical reading of the manuscript.


text:
# The Model of the Theory of the Quantum Brain Dynamics can be cast on the Heisenberg Spin Hamiltonian

In this note, we show that the model of the quantum brain dynamics can be cast on a kind of the Heisenberg spin Hamiltonian. Therefore, we would like to emphasize that the quantum dynamics of brain should be understood by the physics of quantum spin systems.

Until now, various models were proposed for the theory of brain. All of these theories have to describe the mechanism of memory and retrieval. The quantum field theory of brain was first established by Umezawa et al. , and was developed by several groups . In the theory of Umezawa, he introduced a model Hamiltonian of brain. The model Hamiltonian ( so called Takahashi-Umezawa Hamiltonian ) has a symmetry, for instance, $`SU(2)`$ symmetry, and the symmetry is spontaneously broken. Umezawa speculated that the generation of the Nambu-Goldstone ( NG ) mode in brain corresponds to a memory-storage, while an excitation of the NG mode is a recalling of the memory. He constructed the model by two dynamical degrees of freedom: one is spin ( they called it corticon ), and other is photon ( they called it stuarton ).

Jibu et al. gave an interpretation of the spin variable in the Takahashi-Umezawa Hamltonian. They regarded the spin as the electric dipole field generated by water molecules in brain . Jibu et al. introduced a Hamiltonian of the electromagnetic field coupled with the electric dipole field, and showed that the Hamiltonian is equivalent to the Takahashi-Umezawa Hamiltonian. Here we want to show that the Heisenberg spin Hamiltonian will be derived from the theory of Jibu et al. We can write the essential part of the model of Jibu as follows:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }G𝐒𝐀,`$ (1)
where, $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ and $`G`$ is the coupling constant of the interaction of $`𝐒`$ and $`𝐀`$. In Eq. (1), we wrote the electric dipole field as a spin variable $`𝐒`$. Thus, after integrating out the electromagnetic field by using the photon propagator, we yield the Heisenberg Hamiltonian of the spin system:

$`H_{spin}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}J(𝐱_i,𝐱_j)𝐒(𝐱_i)𝐒(𝐱_j),`$ (2)
$`J(𝐱_i,𝐱_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{e^{i𝐤(𝐱_i𝐱_j)}}{𝐤^2+m_{ph}}}.`$ (3)
Here, $`i`$ and $`j`$ running the number of the electric dipoles in brain, and $`m_{ph}`$ is the photon mass generated by a possible charge shielding effect. $`J`$ is given by the photon propagator, and the photon propagator should include not only the charge shielding effect but also other possible environmental effects in brain. Here we negrect the energy dependence of the photon propagator, and $`J`$ depends only on the spatial coordinates $`𝐱_i`$ and $`𝐱_j`$.

Therefore, based on our discussion given above, we regard brain is a kind of spin system and the NG boson of brain is interpreted as a magnon. Here we would like to make an argument that, the dynamics in brain should be described by the theory of magnetism, especially by the theory of quantum spin system. After we obtain this viewpoint, we can employ various powerful methods in condensed matter physics to study brain. When the spin system is under a broken-symmetry phase, the system stores a memory, and the excitation of a magnon mode is the recalling of the memory. For example, the thermodynamics of brain can also be studied by the method of the spin system. The effect of the thermal noise can be incorpolated into the theory of brain. The Neel temperature or Curie temperature are interpreted as the temperatures of brain at which the disappearances of the memories might be happend. It is interesting for us to examine what character brain has; ferromagnetic, antiferromagnetic or other types of order. It is well-known fact that the dispersion relation of the magnon is different between in the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic cases. If it is possible for us to measure a thermodynamic quantity of the brain, we can determine such kind of character of brain. We can introduce the characteristic temperature of the brain $`T_B`$ ( brain temperature ) in our theory. We should also pay attention to the effect of the dimensionality of brain. The difference of the dimensionality of the system reflects the geometrical structure of the spin model, the dependence on spatial coordinates in the coupling $`J`$, and the physics of the NG mode. Various application of the methods of the spin system and the theory of statical/dynamical phase transition can be employed to study the physics of brain. Vitiello et al. argued that brain is an open system, and a consideration of the dissipation is very important for understanding the mechanism of memorization and recalling . The effect can also easily be included in our spin Hamiltonian.


text:
# Mesoscopic effects in adiabatic spin pumping

## Abstract

We show that temporal shape modulations (pumping) of a quantum dot in the presence of spin-orbital coupling lead to a finite dc spin current. Depending on the strength of the spin-orbit coupling, the spin current is polarized perpendicular to the plane of the two-dimensional electron gas, or has an arbitrary direction subject to mesoscopic fluctuations. We analyze the statistics of the spin and charge currents in the adiabatic limit for the full cross-over from weak to strong spin-orbit coupling.

There is a growing interest in the physics of spin transport through low-dimensional quantum structures Prinz (1998) with the aim of controlling and manipulating spin in microelectronic devices. A fascinating tool for spin manipulation is a “spin battery” or “spin pump”, a device that generates a spin current without an accompanying charge current Sharma and Chamon (2001). Following a proposal of Mucciolo et al. Mucciolo et al. (2002), a “spin battery” was realized recently Watson et al. (2003) using a quantum dot in a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG). In this geometry, the direction of spin polarization is set by an external magnetic field parallel to the plane of the 2DEG. Current is generated by periodic variation of gate voltages, an eventual charge current being suppressed by fine tuning the dot shape. Other proposals for spin pumps have used the idea of locally breaking spin-rotation symmetry to pump a spin-polarized current by a magnetic field Sharma and Chamon (2001), magnetic impurities Aono (2003); Junling et al. ; Zheng et al. , and by periodic modulation of the spin-orbit coupling in the 2DEG Governale et al. .

Spin current is different from charge current because of the vector nature of spin. In fact, it is the “vector” nature of spin — different directions of spin corresponding to different quantum-mechanical superpositions of “spin up” and “spin down” — that makes it a promising candidate for the practical realization of a quantum computer Loss and DiVincenzo (1999). Control of magnitude as well as direction of spin current is of paramount importance if the full benefits of a spintronic circuit are to be reaped, or if the electron spin is used as the building block in a scheme that makes essential use of quantum coherence. The “spin battery” of Refs. Mucciolo et al., 2002; Watson et al., 2003 satisfies this requirement in part, since magnitude and sign of the current can be controlled, but its direction is determined by the external magnetic field, allowing for spin-polarization in 2DEG plane only.

In this letter, we investigate a quantum-dot based spin pump for which Bychkov-Rashba L. Bychkov and Rashba (1984) and Dresselhaus Dresselhaus (1955) contributions to spin-orbit coupling are the sources for spin-rotation symmetry breaking. We show that, depending on the strength of the spin-orbit coupling, a quantum dot with a variable shape can pump either a spin current perpendicular to the 2DEG plane, with the sign and magnitude of the current subject to control via mesoscopic fluctuations, or a spin current with an arbitrary direction.

The possibility to generate a spin current perpendicular to the plane of the 2DEG allows for an interesting realization of a “spin Hall effect” Hirsch (1999) if the spin current is injected into a 2DEG which shows the anomalous Hall effect Chien and Westgate (1980). The 2DEG then has skew spin-orbit scattering with spin up and down (measured perpendicular to the 2DEG plane) being scattered preferentially in opposite directions, perpendicular to the flow of current. While a current of unpolarized electrons leads to a spin imbalance perpendicular to the current flow Hirsch (1999) and a spin current polarized in the plane of the 2DEG is not affected, a spin current polarized perpendicular to the 2DEG should lead to an anomalous Hall voltage across the sample.

The system under consideration consists of a ballistic quantum dot connected to two electron reservoirs through ballistic point contacts with $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ channels each, see Fig. 1, inset. Gate voltages $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ of two shape-distorting gates allow for a time-dependent variation of the dot shape. The same geometry was used in the “spin battery” of Ref. Watson et al., 2003, with a quantum dot without notable spin-orbit coupling. Electron motion in the dot is characterized by the transit time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}=L/v_F`$, where $`L`$ is the dot size and $`v_F`$ the Fermi velocity, and the time $`\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}=h/N\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for escape to the reservoirs, where $`N=N_1+N_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the mean spacing between single-electron levels in the quantum dot. The escape time, which is determined by the point contacts, is typically much larger than $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$. In the absence of spin-orbit coupling, periodic variation of the gate voltages $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ leads to a dc charge current through the dot Brouwer (1998); Zhou et al. (1999); Switkes et al. (1999). Below, we show that a spin current is generated in the presence of spin-orbit scattering.

The Dresselhaus and Bychkov-Rashba contributions to the spin-orbit coupling arise from the spin splitting of the conduction band in bulk GaAs Pikus and Pikus (1995) and the asymmetry of the potential well forming the 2DEG, respectively. The corresponding term in the Hamiltonian has the form

$$H_{\mathrm{SO}}=\varrho \left[p_x\sigma _xp_y\sigma _y\right]+\alpha \left[\stackrel{}{p}\times \stackrel{}{\sigma }\right]_z,$$
(1)
where $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$ is the in-plane electron momentum and $`\sigma _x`$, $`\sigma _y`$, and $`\sigma _z`$ are the Pauli matrices. The coefficients $`\varrho `$ and $`\alpha `$ define a length scale

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{}}{m|\varrho ^2\alpha ^2|^{1/2}},$$

where $`m`$ is the electron mass. For quantum wires, only the spin projection perpendicular to the wire and in the plane of the 2DEG is conserved. As a result, pumping through such a system yields a spin current with the polarization direction in the plane of the 2DEG Governale et al. . For quantum dots of size $`L\lambda `$, the role of spin-orbit scattering is qualitatively different from one-dimensional or bulk systems. The difference originates from the fact that, although spin-orbit scattering has a small effect in the transit time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$ if $`L\lambda `$, it still may have a large effect within the time scale $`\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}`$ Aleiner and Fal’ko (2001). As shown in Ref. Aleiner and Fal’ko, 2001, a unitary transformation casts $`H`$ into the form

$$H=\frac{1}{2m}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{a}_{}\stackrel{}{a}_{})^2,$$
(2)
where

$`\stackrel{}{a}_{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\sigma _z\left[\stackrel{}{r}\times \widehat{z}\right]}{2\lambda ^2}},\stackrel{}{a}_{}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{a}_{}}{\mathrm{}}}\left(\alpha \stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\sigma }+\varrho [\stackrel{}{r}\times \stackrel{}{\sigma }]_z\right)`$ (3)
are spin-dependent vector potentials representing the effects of spin-orbit scattering. They are characterized by scattering times $`\tau _{}`$ and $`\tau _{}`$,

$$\tau _{}=\kappa ^1\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(2\lambda /L)^4,\tau _{}=(\kappa ^{})^1\tau _{}(2\lambda /L)^2\tau _{},$$
(4)
where $`\kappa `$ and $`\kappa ^{}`$ are geometry-dependent coefficients of order unity Cremers et al. (2003). Whether or not the spin-orbit term $`a_{}`$ is important depends on the relative size of $`\tau _{}`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}`$. We now discuss the cases $`\tau _{}\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}`$ and $`\tau _{}\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}`$ separately.

For $`\tau _{}\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}`$ the only relevant spin-orbit term in the Hamiltonian is the spin-dependent vector potential $`a_{}`$. This term has the same form as the vector potential arising from a magnetic field of size $`B_{\mathrm{so}}=\mathrm{}/2e\lambda ^2`$ with opposite directions for spin up ($``$) and spin down ($``$), measured perpendicular to the plane of the 2DEG. Hence, the perpendicular spin projections are conserved, and separate dc currents $`I_{}`$ and $`I_{}`$ will be pumped through the quantum dot for spin up and spin down. Generically, one has a spin current $`I_{\mathrm{s},z}=I_{}I_{}0`$ because electron trajectories that enclose the same geometrical area (see inset of Fig. 1) gather an “Aharonov-Bohm” flux with opposite signs for electrons with opposite spin projections, thereby giving the scattering phase shift a spin dependence. In a chaotic cavity, both the sign and magnitude of the currents $`I_,`$ is essentially random, dependent on the detailed shape and electron density of the quantum dot. Following the protocol of Ref. Mucciolo et al., 2002, a spin battery with spin current perpendicular to the 2DEG plane results if the shape of the dot is fine tuned so that the charge current $`I_\mathrm{c}=I_{}+I_{}=0`$. In order to compare typical (rms) sizes of spin and charge currents, we note that the spin current is formally equal to the magnetic-field antisymmetric component of the charge current for a quantum pump with spinless electrons in a perpendicular magnetic field of size $`B_{\mathrm{so}}`$. The latter quantity was calculated in Ref. Shutenko et al. (2000) using random matrix theory, which is valid if the dot has an irregular shape and $`\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$,

$$\mathrm{rms}I_{\mathrm{s},z}=\left(1\frac{1}{(1+\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}/\tau _{})^3}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{rms}I_\mathrm{c}.$$
(5)
We now turn to the general case $`\tau _{}\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}`$. We consider a sinusoidal time dependence of the gate voltages, $`x_1(t)=\delta x_1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$ and $`x_2(t)=\delta x_2\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\varphi )`$ and consider the contribution to the charge and spin current that is bilinear in the gate voltage amplitudes $`\delta x_1`$ and $`\delta x_2`$. Starting point of our calculation is the relation between the charge and spin currents and the $`2N\times 2N`$ scattering matrix $`S`$ of the quantum dot Brouwer (1998),

$`I_\mathrm{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \delta x_1\delta x_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2\pi }}\mathrm{tr}\text{Im}\left[(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathbb{𝟙}){\displaystyle \frac{S}{x_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{S^{}}{x_1}}\right],`$
$`I_\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \delta x_1\delta x_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{2\pi }}\mathrm{tr}\text{Im}\left[(\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{}{\sigma }){\displaystyle \frac{S}{x_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{S^{}}{x_1}}\right],`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an $`N\times N`$ diagonal matrix with elements $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jj}=N_2/N`$ for $`jN_1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{jj}=N_1/N`$ for $`N_1<jN`$ and $`𝟙`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ unit matrix in spin space.

In order to calculate the average and root-mean-square (rms) of the charge and spin current for an ensemble of quantum dots, we need to know the average of a product of up to four scattering matrix elements taken at different values of the parameters $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. We calculate this correlator using random matrix theory (RMT) Beenakker (1997). In RMT, the spin-orbit part of the Hamiltonian (2) is replaced by a $`2M\times 2M`$ random hermitian matrix Cremers et al. (2003)

$`H_{\mathrm{so}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{4\pi }}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A_3\sigma _3}{\sqrt{\tau _{}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_1\sigma _1+A_2\sigma _2}{\sqrt{\tau _{}}}}\right],`$ (7)
whereas the dependence on the shape-distorting gate voltages $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ is represented through the random hermitian matrix

$`H_{\mathrm{shape}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}x_jX_j\mathbb{𝟙}.`$ (8)
Here, $`X_j`$, $`j=1,2`$ are real symmetric random $`M\times M`$ matrices and $`A_j`$, $`j=1,2,3`$ are real antisymmetric random $`M\times M`$ matrices with

$$\mathrm{tr}X_iX_j=\mathrm{tr}A_iA_j=M^2\delta _{ij}.$$
(9)
At the end of the calculation, the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$ needs to be taken. Performing the random matrix average using standard methods Polianski and Brouwer (2003); Cremers et al. (2003), we find that the relevant average of a product of four scattering matrices is

$`S(1)_{kl}S^{}(2^{})_{nk}S(1^{})_{mn}S^{}(2)_{lm}`$ (10)
$``$ $`W^{(1)}(12^{})W^{(1)}(1^{}2)\delta _{ln}+W^{(2)}(12^{}1^{}2),`$
where “1”, “2”, “$`1^{}`$”, and “$`2^{}`$” are shorthand notations for values of the gate voltages $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ and the Fermi energy $`\epsilon `$ and we have used tensor notation for the spin degrees of freedom. The first contribution on the r.h.s. of Eq. (10) is the product of pair averages Cremers et al. (2003),

$`W^{(1)}(12^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚}\text{tr}(\mathrm{𝟙})^{}(\mathrm{𝟚}^{})}}𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚},`$
with a similar definition of $`W^{(1)}(1^{}2)`$. Here $`𝟙_\mathrm{𝟚}𝟙𝟙`$, the auxiliary matrix $`R`$ is defined as

$$R(\epsilon ,x_1,x_2)=\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i(\epsilon H_{\mathrm{so}}H_{\mathrm{shape}}(x_1,x_2))\right],$$
(11)
and the trace “tr” is not taken over the spin degrees of freedom. In taking the inverse in Eq. (Mesoscopic effects in adiabatic spin pumping), the rule for multiplication of the tensor products is $`(\sigma _j\sigma _k^{})(\sigma _k\sigma _j^{})=(\sigma _j\sigma _k)(\sigma _j^{}\sigma _k^{})`$. The second contribution in Eq. (10) involves the random matrix equivalent of the Hikami box from diagrammatic perturbation theory and can be calculated using the method of Ref. Polianski and Brouwer, 2003. Using the tensor notation with the same product rules as before, the result can be written as

$`W^{(2)}(12^{}1^{}2)`$ $`=`$ $`W^{(1)}(12^{})W^{(1)}(1^{}2)𝒟(12^{}1^{}2)`$ (12)
$`\times W^{(1)}(12)W^{(1)}(1^{}2^{}),`$
where

$`𝒟(12^{}1^{}2)=M\mathbb{𝟙}_4\mathrm{tr}R(1)R^{}(2^{})R(1^{})R^{}(2),`$
The traces are calculated using Eq. (9) after expanding $`R`$ to second order in $`H_{\mathrm{so}}`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{shape}}`$ and taking $`M\mathrm{}`$.

Substituting these results into Eq. (6) one then finds the average and variances of the spin and charge currents. All ensemble averages are zero, as well as the covariances for different components of the spin current or of spin and charge currents. The full results for the average square spin and charge currents can be written by introducing $`I_0=(\omega /2\pi )4\delta x_1\delta x_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \sqrt{N_1N_2/N^4}`$, $`c_{}=\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}/\tau _{}`$, and $`c_{}=\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}/\tau _{}`$:

$`I_\mathrm{c}^2`$ $`=`$ $`I_0^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+2c_{})^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1+c_{}+c_{})^3}}\right),`$
$`I_{\mathrm{s},z}^2`$ $`=`$ $`I_0^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+2c_{})^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(1+c_{}+c_{})^3}}\right),`$
$`I_{\mathrm{s},x}^2`$ $`=`$ $`I_{\mathrm{s},y}^2=I_0^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+2c_{})^3}}\right)`$ (13)
These general results confirm that spin current is polarized perpendicular to the plane of the 2DEG if $`\tau _{}\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}`$, while its direction is arbitrary if $`\tau _{}\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}`$. In practice, the ratio $`\tau _{}/\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}`$ can be tuned rather straightforwardly by changing the conductances of the point contacts connecting the quantum dot to the outside world or the dot size. Recent experiments by Zumbühl et al. show that both limits can be obtained experimentally Zumbühl et al. (2002): Depending on the size of the quantum dots, Zumbühl et al. find $`c_{}N`$ ranging from $`0.94`$ to $`20`$ and $`c_{}N`$ ranging from $`0.25`$ to $`20`$. For $`N=2`$ and at a temperature $`T\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}^1`$, we obtain rms $`I_{\mathrm{s},z}`$/rms $`I_\mathrm{c}=0.72`$. At finite temperature, both the effect of thermal smearing and a finite dephasing time $`\tau _\varphi `$ need to be taken into account. Dephasing is accounted for by the substitution $`1/\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}1/\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}+1/\tau _\varphi `$, whereas thermal smearing requires integration over $`\epsilon `$. For large temperatures $`T\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}^1`$, and in the absence of any Zeeman coupling, we can borrow the results of Ref. Shutenko et al. (2000) and find the polarization ratio rms $`I_{\mathrm{s},z}/\mathrm{rms}I_\mathrm{c}=[(c_{}^2+2c_{})/(c_{}^2+2c_{}+2)]^{1/2}=0.61`$.

Before concluding, we discuss the dependence of the pumped current on an applied magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}`$. This question is relevant if a spin pump is used in conjunction with spin manipulation by means of in-plane or perpendicular fields. Within RMT, the effect of a magnetic field is modeled by a third random matrix Aleiner and Fal’ko (2001); Cremers et al. (2003)

$$H_B=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{4\pi }}\left(i\frac{A_0𝟙}{\sqrt{\tau _H}}+\frac{X\sigma _z}{\sqrt{\tau _{H,}}}\right)\frac{1}{2\tau _Z}\widehat{B}\stackrel{}{\sigma },$$
(14)
where $`1/\tau _Z=\mu _BgB`$, $`B`$ is the magnitude of the applied magnetic field, $`\widehat{B}`$ its direction, $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton, $`g`$ is the $`g`$ factor of GaAs, $`\tau _H=\kappa ^1\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(2/eB_zL^2)^2`$, $`\tau _{H,}=(4\lambda /\mu _BgLB)^2/\kappa ^{\prime \prime }\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$, $`\kappa `$ and $`\kappa ^{\prime \prime }`$ being geometry-dependent coefficients of order unity, $`A`$ is an $`M\times M`$ real antisymmetric matrix with trace $`\text{tr}AA^\mathrm{T}=M^2`$, and $`X`$ is a real symmetric matric with trace $`\text{tr}X^2=M^2`$. The time $`\tau _H`$ describes the orbital effect of the magnetic field component perpendicular to the 2DEG; it is the time needed for picking up a quantum of magnetic flux. The time $`\tau _{H,}`$ describes spin-flip processes arising from the interplay of the component of the magnetic field parallel to the 2DEG and the spin-orbit scattering Halperin et al. (2001).

Adding the random matrix $`H_B`$ to the exponent in Eq. (11) and repeating the previous calculations, we find (i) inclusion of $`\tau _H`$ has no effect on the current statistics and (ii) inclusion of $`\tau _{H,}`$ amounts to the subsitution $`1/\tau _{}1/\tau _{}+1/\tau _{H,}`$. In general the effect of Zeeman coupling to the parallel field (time scale $`\tau _Z`$) is to decrease correlations between $`I_{}`$ and $`I_{}`$, so that both rms $`I_{\mathrm{s},z}`$ and rms $`I_c`$ are reduced. On the other hand, the variance of the spin current polarized along the direction of the in-plane magnetic field is enhanced. Both these effects are shown in Fig. 1. The full results for the current variance in the presence of Zeeman coupling are rather lengthy and will be reported elsewhere. Here, we confine ourselves to the limiting cases of Ref. Aleiner and Fal’ko (2001) which are distinguished by a parameter $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1,2`$ characterizing the mixing of states with different spins for strong Zeeman splitting. Choosing the magnetic field along the $`x`$ direction, these are: (i) $`c_{}=\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}/\tau _{}1`$, and $`b\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}/\tau _Z`$ large or small in comparison to $`c_{}=\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}/\tau _{}`$, for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$; and (ii) $`c_{}1`$, $`b`$ large or small in comparison to $`c_{}`$, for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=2`$. For the case (i), when $`b^2/c_{}1c_{}`$, we obtain to the lowest order:

$`I_c^2`$ $`=`$ $`I_{\mathrm{s},z}^2=I_0^2\left(212b^2/c_{}+96b^4/c_{}^2\right),`$
$`I_{\mathrm{s},x}^2`$ $`=`$ $`I_{\mathrm{s},y}^2=I_0^2\left(12b^2/c_{}96b^4/c_{}^2\right),`$ (15)
and when $`c_{}1b`$ we find:

$`I_c^2`$ $`=`$ $`I_{\mathrm{s},x}^2=I_0^2\left(23c_{}+6c_{}^2\right)`$
$`I_{\mathrm{s},z}^2`$ $`=`$ $`I_{\mathrm{s},y}^2=I_0^2\left(3c_{}6c_{}^2\right),`$ (16)
which is “dual” to expression (Mesoscopic effects in adiabatic spin pumping) under the exchange $`I_{\mathrm{s},x}I_{\mathrm{s},z}`$ and $`c_{}4b^2/c_{}`$. For the case (ii), the lowest order expansion in $`b^2/c_{}1c_{},c_{}`$:

$`I_{c(\mathrm{s},x)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`I_0^2\left(1\pm 3/8c_{}^31/2(b^2/c_{})c_{}^4\right)`$
$`I_{\mathrm{s},z}^2`$ $`=`$ $`I_{\mathrm{s},y}^2=I_0^2\left(11/8c_{}^3\right),`$ (17)
is dual under the transformation $`4b^2/c_{}c_{}`$ to the variance in the other limit $`c_{}1c_{},b^2/c_{}`$. The non-vanishing current variances $`I^2`$ can be written in a unified way as $`I^2=4(s/\beta \mathrm{\Sigma })I_0^2`$, where $`\beta =2`$ defines the time reversal symmetry of orbital motion, and $`s=1`$ is the Kramers degeneracy parameter.

In conclusion, we have shown that a quantum pump consisting of a quantum dot with spin-orbit coupling allows for the generation of both a dc charge current and a dc spin current. Depending on the strength of the spin-orbit scattering or on the conductances of the point contacts between the dot and the reservoirs, the pumped spin current is perpendicular to the 2DEG or has an arbitrary direction. Measurement of the spin current is possible via the spin Hall effect or by connection of the spin pump to a (semiconducting) ferromagnet with known magnetization direction. Furthermore, the method of adiabatic spin pumping, as opposed to other mechanisms such as rectification Brouwer (2001); Watson et al. (2003), allows the direction of spin polarization to be continuously changed.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Charles Marcus, Claudio Chamon, Karsten Flensberg and Vladimir Fal’ko for discussions. This work was supported by the NSF under grant no. DMR 0086509, and by the Packard Foundation.