text:
# Which Kubo formula gives the exact conductance of a mesoscopic disordered system?

## Abstract

In both research and textbook literature one often finds two “different” Kubo formulas for the zero-temperature conductance of a non-interacting Fermi system. They contain a trace of the product of velocity operators and single-particle (retarded and advanced) Green operators: $`\text{Tr}(\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^r\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^a)`$ or $`\text{Tr}(\widehat{v}_x\text{Im}\widehat{G}\widehat{v}_x\text{Im}\widehat{G})`$. The study investigates the relationship between these expressions, as well as the requirements of current conservation, through exact evaluation of such quantum-mechanical traces for a nanoscale (containing 1000 atoms) mesoscopic disordered conductor. The traces are computed in the semiclassical regime (where disorder is weak) and, more importantly, in the nonperturbative transport regime (including the region around localization-delocalization transition) where concept of mean free path ceases to exist. Since quantum interference effects for such strong disorder are not amenable to diagrammatic or nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model techniques, the evolution of different Green function terms with disorder strength provides novel insight into the development of an Anderson localized phase.

At first sight, the title of this paper might sound perplexing. What else can be said about Kubo formula  after almost a half of a (last) century of explorations in practice, as well as through numerous re-derivations in both research  and textbook  literature? Kubo linear response theory (KLRT) represents the first full quantum-mechanical transport formalism. It connects irreversible processes in nonequilibrium to the thermal fluctuations in equilibrium \[fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT)\]. Therefore, the study of transport is limited to the nonequilibrium states close to equilibrium. Nevertheless, the computation of linear kinetic coefficients is greatly facilitated since final expressions deal with equilibrium expectation values of relevant physical quantities (which are much simpler than the corresponding nonequilibrium ones ). It originated  from the Einstein relation for the diffusion constant and mobility of a particle performing a random walk.

Until the scaling theory of localization,  and ensuing computation of the lowest order quantum correction, weak localization  (WL), to the Drude conductivity, it almost appeared that microscopic and complicated Kubo formulation of quantum transport merely served to justify the intuitive Bloch-Boltzmann semiclassical approach  to transport in weakly disordered ($`k_F\mathrm{}1`$, $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wave vector and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the mean free path) conductors. Furthermore, the advent of mesoscopic physics  has led to reexamination of major transport ideas—in particular, we learned how to apply properly KLRT to finite-size systems. Thus, the equivalence was established  between the rigorous Kubo formalism and heuristically founded Landauer-Büttiker  scattering approach to linear response transport of non-interacting quasiparticles.  This has emerged as an important tool in for studying mesoscopic transport phenomena, where system size and interfaces through which electron can enter or leave the conductor play an essential role in determining the conductance.

This study presents an exact evaluation of two different Kubo-type expressions for the linear conductance of a mesoscopic disordered conductor. Both expressions are frequently encountered in research as well as textbook literature, and are displayed below. They consist of a trace (or linear combination of such traces) over the product of velocity operators $`\widehat{v}_x`$ with retarded and advanced single-particle Green operators $`\widehat{G}^{r,a}=[E\widehat{H}\pm i0^+]^1`$, like $`\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^{r,a}\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^{r,a}\right]`$, where $`\widehat{H}`$ is an equilibrium Hamiltonian (in the spirit of FDT, it contains random and confining potentials, but not the external electric field), and velocity operator is defined by $`i\mathrm{}\widehat{𝐯}=[\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{H}]`$. These quantum-mechanical traces are computed here, Figs. 1 and 2, in the site representation (i.e., using real-space Green functions) defined by a lattice model, such as tight-binding Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{𝐦}{}\epsilon _𝐦|𝐦𝐦|+\underset{𝐦,𝐧}{}t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}|𝐦𝐧|.$$
(1)
on a hypercubic lattice $`N^d`$ of size $`L=Na`$ ($`a`$ being the lattice constant). Here $`t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}`$ is the nearest-neighbor hopping integral between $`s`$-orbitals $`𝐫|𝐦=\psi (𝐫𝐦)`$ on adjacent atoms located at sites $`𝐦`$ of the lattice ($`t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}=1`$ inside the sample defines the unit of energy). The disorder is simulated by taking random on-site potential such that $`\epsilon _𝐦`$ is uniformly distributed over the interval $`[W/2,W/2]`$, which is the so-called Anderson model of localization. I emphasize the requirements of current conservation throughout this analysis, which will allow us to understand the features of different trace expressions introduced above.

The mesoscopic methods (mesoscopic Kubo  or, equivalent, Landauer  formula) make it possible to get the exact zero-temperature (i.e., quantum) conductance of a finite-size sample attached to semi-infinite disorder-free leads. Although KLRT is a standard formalism for introducing the many-body physics into the computation

of transport coefficients,  here the focus is on the transport properties determined by scattering of non-interacting (quasi)electrons on impurities. The “old” Kubo formula  for the macroscopic volume-averaged longitudinal DC conductivity at zero temperature ($`EE_F`$ in all formulas below, $`E_F`$ being the Fermi energy) of a non-interacting Fermi gas described by a single-particle Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ is given by

$$\sigma _{xx}=\frac{2\pi e^2\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{v}_x\delta (E\widehat{H})\widehat{v}_x\delta (E\widehat{H})\right],$$
(2)
where factor of two accounts for the spin degeneracy. The Kubo conductivity relates the spatially averaged current

$`𝐣=𝑑𝐫𝐣(𝐫)/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the spatially-averaged electric field $`𝐣=\sigma 𝐄`$, where thermodynamic limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }=L^d\mathrm{}`$ (while keeping the impurity concentration finite) is implied to get the unambiguous intensive quantity  (and well-defined steady state). For electrons in a random potential further averaging should be performed over the disorder to get $`\sigma `$ as a material constant.  On the other hand, quantum corrections to the conductivity are non-local  on the scale of the dephasing length $`L_\varphi \mathrm{}`$. This invalidates the concept of local quantities, like conductivity, in mesoscopic samples, which are smaller than $`L_\varphi `$ and thereby effectively at $`T=0`$. Therefore, mesoscopic transport has to be described in terms of sample-specific quantities, like conductance, which describe a given sample measured in a given manner  (i.e., more generally, conductance coefficients $`I_p=_qg_{pq}V_q`$ in the Ohm’s law for a multi-probe geometry, where several leads are attached to the sample to feed the current $`I_p`$ or measure the voltages $`V_q`$), or alternatively, non-local conductivity tensor introduced below. Switching to conductance leads to a following Kubo expression

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_x\text{Im}\widehat{G}\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_x\text{Im}\widehat{G}\right],`$ (4)
$`\text{Im}\widehat{G}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}(\widehat{G}^r\widehat{G}^a)=\pi \delta (E\widehat{H}).`$ (5)
Here the definition of retarded ($`r`$) or advanced ($`a`$) single-particle Green operator $`\widehat{G}^{r,a}=[E\widehat{H}\pm i0^+]^1`$ requires a numerical trick to handle the small imaginary part $`i0^+`$, which then spoils the prospect of obtaining the exact zero-temperature conductance.  Once the semi-infinite clean leads are attached to the finite sample (at planes $`1`$ and $`N`$ along $`x`$-axis for a two-probe geometry, Fig. 3), the “self-energy” $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{r,a}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L^{r,a}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R^{r,a}`$, arising from the “interaction” with the leads ($`L`$-left, $`R`$-right), provides a well-defined imaginary part in the definition of the Green operators

$$\widehat{G}^{r,a}=[E\widehat{H}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{r,a}]^1.$$
(6)
The Green function $`\widehat{G}^{r,a}(𝐧,𝐦)=𝐧|\widehat{G}^{r,a}|𝐦`$ describes the propagation of electron between two sites inside an open conductor ($`L_\varphi =L`$ in the two-probe geometry). The self-energy terms are given  by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{L,R}^r(𝐧,𝐦)=(t_\mathrm{C}^2/2t_\mathrm{L}^2)\widehat{g}_{L,R}^r(𝐧_S,𝐦_S)`$ with $`\widehat{g}_{L,R}^r(𝐧_S,𝐦_S)`$ being the surface Green function of the bare semi-infinite lead between the sites $`𝐧_S`$ and $`𝐦_S`$ located on the end atomic layer of the lead (and adjacent to the corresponding sites $`𝐧`$ and $`𝐦`$ inside the conductor). It has an imaginary part only for $`|E|6t_\mathrm{L}`$, which means that $`G(E_F)`$ goes to zero at band edge of a clean lead $`|E_F|=6t_\mathrm{L}`$ because there are no states in the leads beyond this energy which can carry the current. Here the leads will be described by the TBH with $`\epsilon _𝐦=0`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}=t_\mathrm{L}`$; the hopping between the sites in the lead and the sample is $`t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}=t_\mathrm{C}`$, as illustrated in Fig. 3.

I use the term “mesoscopic Kubo formula” for Eq. (2) with the Green operators (6) plugged in. This formula is exactly equivalent  to a two-probe Landauer formula  for the conductance measured between two points deep inside macroscopic reservoirs to which the leads are attached at infinity.  Thus, it is conceptually different from the “plain” Kubo formula (2) which follows from combining the conductance of smaller parts $`G=\sigma L^{d1}/L`$, thereby implying local description of transport which becomes applicable only at sufficiently high temperatures. Such mesoscopic formulas provide means to compute the quantum conductance—a sample specific quantity which takes into account the finite system size, measuring geometry, arrangement of impurities, non-local features of quantum transport, and can describe ballistic transport (where local relation $`𝐣=\sigma 𝐄`$ does not hold). Attempts to use the original Kubo formulas on finite samples, throughout premesoscopic history  of the Anderson localization theory, were thwarted with ambiguities, which can be traced back to the general questions on the origin of dissipation.  This stems from the fact that stationary regime cannot be reached unless the system is infinite or coupled to a

thermostat. From the practical point of view, leads make the system infinite by opening the sample, and therefore eliminating the technical obstacles in handling of the discrete spectrum of finite samples.  Furthermore, the usage of semi-infinite leads allows us to bypass explicit modeling of reservoirs in the computation of conductance since “hot” electrons which escape into the leads (due to the broadening of energy levels) do not come back in a phase-coherent fashion. The concept of reservoirs was always essential part of Landauer’s subtle arguments.  They provide dissipation and therefore the steady state.  However, the computation of conductance, as a measure the dissipation, involves only a conservative Hamiltonian of noninteracting electrons scattered on impurities (i.e., when computing linear conductance of a mesoscopic system one usually does not deal explicitly with electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions ).

The conductance computed from the mesoscopic quantum expression is exact, but characterizes the whole sample+leads system in the spirit of quantum measurement theory since leads can also be considered as the “macroscopic measuring apparatus”.  However, for disordered enough sample (and not too narrow leads or too small $`t_\mathrm{C}`$) the conductance is determined mostly by the disordered region itself.  This exactness makes it possible to compute the transport properties in both semiclassical regime (where Boltzmann theory and perturbative quantum corrections are applicable since $`k_F\mathrm{}1`$), as well as in the nonperturbative transport regime  where semiclassical concepts, like $`\mathrm{}`$, loose their meaning. Although the distinction between $`k_F\mathrm{}1`$ (where semiclassical theory, including the perturbative quantum corrections, breaks down) and the criterion $`G2e^2/h`$ for the localization-delocalization (LD) critical point has been known since the scaling theory of localization,  it is not uncommon practice to find these two different boundaries of transport regimes confused. As the disorder is increased, a sample goes from the semiclassical transport regime, through a vast region between $`k_F\mathrm{}1`$ and LD transition (e.g., $`6W16.5`$ at $`E_F=0`$ in the Anderson model ), and finally enters into a localized phase. Since the nonperturbative transport regime lacks small parameter required by present analytical schemes, the numerical techniques employed here are the only way to gain insight into the quantum effects beyond the lowest order corrections, like WL, or resummation of all such perturbative quantum correction within the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model formalism.

Another expression is often encountered in the literature  for both conductance of finite-size systems and conductivity of infinite systems. It gives the conductance through an apparently different trace, $`G\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^r\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^a\right]`$. While some textbooks quote this only as a convenient approximation to the disorder-averaged full formula,  sometimes the claim goes further to say that such trace is equivalent to the Landauer formula, and moreover it can be evaluated at any cross section inside the disordered region, thus relaxing the requirement of perfect leads “as the weakest point of the Landauer formalism”.  Namely, $`\widehat{G}^r\widehat{G}^r`$ or $`\widehat{G}^a\widehat{G}^a`$ terms can be reduced to a single Green function via a Ward identity in weakly disordered conductors,  and are therefore related to the density of states. They are “abandoned” in the limit $`k_F\mathrm{}1`$ since they do not generate interesting contributions to WL or mesoscopic fluctuations.  In fact, both the diffusion modes of the Diffuson-Cooperon diagrammatic perturbation theory and different versions of the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model (NLSM) are derived  by considering only the term containing the product $`\widehat{G}^r\widehat{G}^a`$. The NLSM is a quantum field theory  of weakly disordered mesoscopic conductors where diffusion modes of the diagrammatic perturbation theory play the role of soft modes responsible for long-range spatial correlations of local density of states, mesoscopic fluctuations of global quantities, and nonlocal corrections to conductivity.  It makes it possible to handle the breakdown of perturbation theory due to the proliferation of such modes  by summarizing all WL-type corrections to conductivity.  This then justifies the phenomenological one-parameter scaling theory  (if not rigorously, then at least qualitatively), and explains the LD transition in $`2+ϵ`$ dimensions where Anderson localization occurs at weak disorder $`k_F\mathrm{}1`$.

To remove possible confusion,  it should be emphasized that conductance coefficients $`g_{pq}`$, obtained by integrating Kubo non-local conductivity tensor $`\text{\$̱sigma\$}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ over the cross sections in the leads $`p`$, $`q`$

$$g_{pq}=\underset{S_p}{}\underset{S_q}{}𝑑𝐒_p\text{\$̱sigma\$}(𝐫,𝐫^{})𝑑𝐒_q,$$
(7)
also contain $`\mathrm{Im}\widehat{G}`$ for $`p=q`$, while for $`pq`$ only the terms involving $`\widehat{G}^r\widehat{G}^a`$ are non-zero.  The cross sections $`S_p`$ and $`S_q`$ are to be chosen far enough from the sample, where all evanescent modes have died out. This not only provides the rigorous foundation for the Landauer formalism, but also clarifies some subtle points in the Kubo formalism (like disorder averaging  and independence of linear transport properties from the nonequilibrium charge redistribution ). By writing the full Kubo formula (2) as a sum $`G=G_{ra}+G_{rr}`$, I introduce the “Kubo conductance terms”

$`G_{ra}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^r\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^a\right],`$ (8)
$`G_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}\text{Tr}\left[\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^r\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_x\widehat{G}^r\right].`$ (9)
Obviously, if in some transport regime conductance can be obtained from the trace in $`G_{ra}`$, the other term $`G_{rr}`$ has to vanish, at least approximately.

Before embarking on the direct evaluation of these expressions for a conductor described by TBH (1), the crucial point is to understand the way (i.e., space of states $`|𝐦`$) in which the traces should be performed, $`\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{})=_𝐦𝐦|(\mathrm{})|𝐦`$. Naïvely, in the site representation it would appear that trace in formula (2) should include site states inside the whole sample. However, once the current conservation $`𝐣(𝐫)=0`$ is invoked this becomes extraneous. All Kubo conductivity or conductance formulas stem from the more fundamental quantity in KLRT, the non-local conductivity tensor relating local current density to the local electric field,

$$𝐣(𝐫)=\mathrm{𝐝𝐫}^{}\text{\$̱sigma\$}(𝐫,𝐫^{})𝐄(𝐫^{})$$
(10)
This tensor is obtained as a response to an external field only since corrections to the current due to the field of induced charges go beyond the linear transport regime  (i.e., one does not have to engage in a much more cumbersome task of finding the response to a full electric field inside the conductor ). In application of KLRT to mesoscopic systems, $`\text{\$̱sigma\$}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is a sample-specific quantity, i.e., defined for each impurity configuration and arrangement of the leads , and is in fact non-local even after disorder averaging.  Because it is not directly measurable, some volume averaging is needed to get the quantities that can be related to experiments

$$G=\frac{1}{V^2}\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}𝐄(𝐫)\text{\$̱sigma\$}(𝐫,𝐫^{})𝐄(𝐫^{}).$$
(11)
Here $`V`$ is the bias voltage ($`V0`$ in the linear transport regime), e.g., in the case of two-probe geometry $`eV=\mu _L\mu _R`$, where leads are in equilibrium with two

macroscopic reservoirs characterized by a constant chemical potentials $`\mu _L`$ and $`\mu _R`$ (Fig. 3). Although this expression contains the local electric field $`𝐄(𝐫)=\mu (𝐫)/e`$ inside the conductor, because of current conservation entailing $`\text{\$̱sigma\$}(𝐫,𝐫^{})=\text{\$̱sigma\$}(𝐫,𝐫^{})^{}=0`$ (which is a special case, in the absence of magnetic field, of a more general theorem ), the conductance will not depend on this field factors . In the case of TBH (1) with nearest-neighbor hopping the expectation value of the velocity operator in the site representation $`𝐦|\widehat{v}_x|𝐧=(i/\mathrm{})t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}\left(m_xn_x\right)`$ is non-zero only between the states residing on adjacent planes (technical details of a route from Eq. (11) to the trace involving velocity operator are meticulously covered in Ref. ). Thus, the minimal space choice here is defined by taking $`𝐄(𝐫)`$ to be non-zero on two adjacent planes, while the standard textbook assumption of a homogeneous field  $`|𝐄|=V/L`$ throughout the sample leads to Eqs. (2), (2). Blind tracing over the whole sample would give simply the conductance multiplied by the square of the number of pairs of adjacent planes, meaning that such trace should be divided by $`(N1)^2a^2`$ to get $`G`$ \[when trace is performed only over the arbitrary two adjacent planes, $`L^2`$ in Eq. (2) is replaced by $`a^2`$\]. The physical content of this statement is simple: current $`I=GV`$ is the same on each cross section. Therefore, the conductance depends only on the total voltage drop over the sample, and not on the local current density and electric-field distributions.

At this point, it is worth mentioning that another expression is frequently employed in the real-space computational practice. It stems from the linear response limit of a formula derived by the Keldysh technique (for non-interacting  or interacting systems )

$$G=\frac{4e^2}{\pi \mathrm{}}\text{Tr}\left(\text{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L\widehat{G}_{1N}^r\text{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R\widehat{G}_{N1}^a\right).$$
(12)
Here $`\widehat{G}_{1N}^r`$, $`\widehat{G}_{N1}^a`$ are the submatrices of the full Green function $`\widehat{G}^{r,a}(𝐦,𝐧)`$ whose elements connect the layer $`1`$ to layer $`N`$ of the sample. Therefore, only a block $`N^2\times N^2`$ of the whole $`N^3\times N^3`$ matrix $`\widehat{G}^r(𝐧,𝐦)`$ is needed to compute the conductance. Although such “partial” knowledge of the whole Green function and the trace over matrices of size $`N^2`$ in Eq. (12) are different from the corresponding counterparts required in application of the mesoscopic Kubo formula (where minimal trace goes over $`2N^2\times 2N^2`$ matrices), the final result for the conductance is the same. Positive definiteness of the operators $`2\text{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{L,R}`$ makes it possible to find their square root and recast the expression under the trace of Eq. (12) as a Hermitian operator. The expression (12) then looks like the two-probe Landauer formula involving a transmission matrix $`𝐭`$

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\pi \mathrm{}}}\text{Tr}(\mathrm{𝐭𝐭}^{})={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N^2}{}}}T_n,`$ (13)
$`𝐭`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{\text{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_L}\widehat{G}_{1N}^r\sqrt{\text{Im}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_R},`$ (14)
or transmission eigenvalues $`T_n`$ when the trace is evaluated in a basis which diagonalizes $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐭}^{}`$. Moreover, it is more efficient from a practical point of view since Green function techniques used to evaluate Eq. (12) do not require to know exact asymptotic eigenstates in the leads (as is the case with “original” Landauer formulation relying on the knowledge of the scattering basis of wave functions defined within the asymptotic regions of the leads). This becomes sine qua non when computing the conductance of systems with complicated “leads”, e.g., like in the case of atomic-size point contacts.

The trace expressions like (8) and (9) do not conserve the current. Therefore, the suggested strategy is to evaluate $`G_{ra}`$ and $`G_{rr}`$ by tracing over the states located on two planes inside the sample (or inside the leads), as well as over the whole sample (and see how close $`G_{ra}`$ can get to $`G`$). Different types of conductors are chosen for this evaluation: weakly disordered with $`W=2`$ (e.g., $`\mathrm{}9a`$ at $`E_F=0`$), and strongly disordered conductors with $`W=7`$ (for which unwarranted use of the Drude-Boltzmann formula would give  $`\mathrm{}<a`$). The exact computation of these traces is shown in the upper panels of Figs. 1 and 2 for a single impurity configuration of $`W=2`$ (here $`G_{ra}`$ is also computed by tracing over two planes deep inside the leads, which corresponds to integrating $`\text{\$̱sigma\$}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ over such cross section, as discussed above). The lower panels of Figs. 1, 2 plot disorder-averaged quantities over an ensemble of impurity configuration for disorder strength $`W=7`$. In both ways of tracing, the sum of two terms $`G_{ra}`$ and $`G_{rr}`$ gives the full expression for conductance $`G(E_F)`$, which have to cancel each other for $`|E_F|>6t`$ in order to ensure vanishing of $`G(E_F)`$ when $`t_\mathrm{L}=t`$ is chosen.

The result for $`W=7`$ disorder belongs to the nonperturbative transport regime. It is interesting, therefore, to follow the behavior of $`G_{ra}`$ and $`G_{rr}`$ terms further throughout this regime, eventually reaching $`W_c16.5`$ where the whole band becomes localized.  The generic LD transition point in three-dimensions (3D) is beyond NLSM treatment inasmuch as it corresponds to a strong coupling limit in the field theoretical language. Furthermore, recent description  of Anderson localization in terms of an order parameter, obtained from a theory based on local approximation, suggest that probing the instability of the delocalized phase through WL-type corrections might be a daunting road to reach the LD transition in 3D. Figure 4 shows that around $`W_c`$ the conductance $`G2e^2/h`$ is mostly defined by the $`G_{rr}`$ term—a situation completely opposite to the weak disorder finding ($`W=2`$ in Figs. 1 and 2). Therefore, at some intermediate disorder $`7<W<10`$, within the nonperturbative transport regime, a transition occurs from $`G_{ra}>G_{rr}`$ to $`G_{rr}>G_{ra}`$, ending up eventually with a case $`G_{ra}<0<G_{rr}`$ around the LD critical point.

An inquisitive reader might have come up by now with the question as to what happens in the clean case. A mesoscopic ballistic sample attached to two leads has non-zero point contact conductance  of a purely geometrical origin since leads are widening into macroscopic reservoirs at infinity, where reflection occurs when the large number of conducting channels in the macroscopic reservoir matches the small number of channels in the lead.  Such point contact conductance is quantized,  as a function of sample width  or Fermi energy,  which becomes conspicuous when the number of quantized transverse propagating modes (i.e., the sample cross section) is small enough. A clean ($`\epsilon _𝐦=0`$) toy sample $`3\times 3\times 3`$ illustrates conductance quantization in Fig. 5, as obtained from the two-probe Kubo formula for $`G`$. In this case, both terms $`G_{ra}`$ and $`G_{rr}`$ are contributing in a non-trivial fashion to a stepwise conductance.

What can be learned from these numbers is that $`G_{ra}`$ (8) can serve as a decent approximation to the exact Kubo formula for the quantum conductance $`G`$ only in very weakly disordered conductors. However, because of not conserving the current, the trace in $`G_{ra}`$ has to be performed over the whole disordered region (which is an enormous computational effort, and is therefore useless in the real-space computational practice). The essential outcome of this exercise is the explicit quantification of the difference between $`G`$ and $`G_{ra}`$. This, together with current conservation, are important points to bear in mind when using simplified expression $`G_{ra}`$ in analytical derivations and arguments of the quantum transport theory.  Finally, the strong disorder (nonperturbative) behavior of two different Green function terms, comprising the Kubo formula for quantum conductance, might provide a clue for the inadequacy of attempts to analyze genuine Anderson transition in 3D by probing instability of metallic phase to weak localization (perturbative) corrections.

I am grateful to P. B. Allen for initiating my interest into intricacies of the Kubo formalism, and to I. L. Aleiner, S. Datta, J. K. Freericks, A. Maassen van den Brink, and J. A. Vergés for valuable discussions. Special thanks goes to three unknown Physical Review referees for their interest into improving the manuscript. Financial support from ONR grant N00014-99-1-0328 is acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The main goal of this note is the presentation of the role of the addition property (AP), its relation to the famous bilinear operator formalism and its universality, since using AP, the quasi-periodic processes and soliton ones can be considered in an identical manner. An important step is however the generalization of the leading to the bilinear operator standard version of the AP to the version which can be linked with multilinear operators. It seems that this generalized version can be useful in a case of multidimensional soliton type problems.

There is opinion that a huge success of the bilinear formalism in the soliton theory can be related to the AP for $`\tau `$ functions which appear in the majority of soliton equations

$$\tau \left(𝐳+𝐰\right)\tau \left(𝐳𝐰\right)=\underset{\epsilon }{}W_\epsilon \left(𝐰\right)Z_\epsilon \left(𝐳\right),$$
(1)
where $`𝐳=\kappa x+\omega tC^g,`$ $`\epsilon Z_2^g;\tau :C^gC`$ and $`W_\epsilon \left(𝐰\right),`$ $`Z_\epsilon \left(𝐳\right):C^g\times Z^gC.`$

The essential point here is the factorization of the right hand side of (1), in which functions $`W_\epsilon `$ and $`Z_\epsilon `$ depend on $`𝐰`$ and on $`𝐳,`$ respectively and exclusively. There are a few version of AP, according to (1) scheme, , , , and the factorization appears in each one. In applications to the soliton type equations, the argument $`𝐳`$ usually depends on space and time, while $`𝐰`$ plays a role of a fixed constant parameter. In a few papers  it was shown that (1) allows in a straightforward manner to determine derivatives of logarithms of $`\tau `$ function, which are useful in differential version of soliton type equations. For the discrete soliton type equations the form (1) has a direct and immediate application.

As it was shown in the cited references, a class containing exponential functions as well as the Riemann theta functions has just the AP according to (1).

In order to illustrate an application of AP, we present below two examples: the discrete Hirota equation and doubly discrete sine-Gordon equation (dd-sGe). In the limit, when step tends to zero, the first - Hirota equation has a trivial limit, while the second one (dd-sGe) becomes a standard sGe.

## 2 The Hirota equation

As an elementary example of the addition property we present the system of dispersion equations for the functional (discrete) equations

$`a\tau (x+h,y,t)\tau (xh,y,t)+b\tau (x,y+h,t)\tau (x,yh,t)+c\tau (x,y,t+h)\tau (x,y,th)\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}C\tau ^2(x,y,t),`$ (5)
where $`h`$ is the step and $`a,b,c,C`$are constant. When $`C=0`$ this equation is known as the Hirota equation and then its soliton solutions one can be found in . Quasiperiodic solutions are reported in  and another class of solutions in . In the language of bilinear operator (5) can be written as

$$\left[a\mathrm{exp}\left(hD_x\right)+b\mathrm{exp}\left(hD_y\right)+c\mathrm{exp}\left(hD_t\right)\right]\left(\tau \tau \right)=C\tau ^2,$$
(6)
where bilinear operator $`D_x`$ (in scalar version) is defined as

$$\left(D_x\right)^n\left(\tau \tau \right):=\left(_x_{x_1}\right)^n\tau (x,y,t)\tau (x_1,y,t)|_{x_1=x}=\left(_s\right)^n\left[\tau (x+s,y,t)\tau (xs,y,t)\right]|_{s=0}.$$
(7)
Assuming that $`\tau `$function argument is $`𝐳=𝐤x+𝐥y+𝐰t`$ $`C^g,`$ equation (5) can be rewritten as

$$a\tau \left(𝐳+𝐤h\right)\tau \left(𝐳𝐤h\right)+b\tau \left(𝐳+𝐥h\right)\tau \left(𝐳𝐥h\right)+c\tau \left(𝐳+𝐰h\right)\tau \left(𝐳𝐰h\right)=C\tau ^2\left(𝐳\right),$$
(8)
which is just suitable for the application of the addition property. We obtain functional equation

$$\underset{\epsilon Z_2^g}{}\left[aW_\epsilon \left(𝐤h\right)+bW_\epsilon \left(𝐥h\right)+cW_\epsilon \left(𝐰h\right)CW_\epsilon \left(0\right)\right]Z_\epsilon \left(𝐳\right)=0,$$
(9)
which in case of independent functions $`Z_\epsilon \left(z\right)`$, $`\epsilon Z_2^g`$ leads to the system of algebraic equations

$$aW_\epsilon \left(𝐤h\right)+bW_\epsilon \left(𝐥h\right)+cW_\epsilon \left(𝐰h\right)CW_\epsilon \left(0\right)=0;\text{for each}\epsilon Z_2^g.$$
(10)
For the fixed type of solution (which determines the class of functions $`W_\epsilon `$ ) and for a fixed step $`h,`$ equations (10) determine the relations between $`a,b,c,C`$ and $`𝐤,𝐥,𝐰`$. Thus the dispersion equations (10) are valid both for soliton and for quasiperiodic processes, and even for processes in the form of solitons on the periodic background.

## 3 Discrete sine - Gordon equation.

We consider the functional (discrete-discrete) version of sine - Gordon equation (dd-sGe) in the form:

$$\frac{1}{h^2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{u^{++}+u^{}u^+u^+}{4}\right)=\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{u^{++}+u^{}+u^++u^+}{4}\right),$$
(11)
where $`u^{\pm \pm }:=u(\xi \pm h,\tau \pm h).`$ It is obvious that in the limit $`h0`$ equation (11) becomes the traditional sGe in light cone coordinates

$$u_{,\xi \tau }=\mathrm{sin}u.$$
(12)
We look for the quasi-periodic solutions (11) in the form, which is identical (up to constant parameters) with solutions of (12)

$$u(\xi ,\tau )=2i\mathrm{ln}\frac{\theta \left(𝐳+\frac{𝐞}{2}|B\right)}{\theta \left(𝐳|B\right)},$$
(13)
where $`\theta \left(𝐳|B\right)`$ denotes the Riemann theta function of argument $`𝐳=𝐤\xi +𝐮\tau 𝐂^g`$ and parametrized by the Riemannian matrix $`B𝐂^{g\times g};𝐞=[1,\mathrm{},1]Z^g,`$ see e.g. , . Moreover, in order to obtain the real solutions we require $`\theta \left(𝐳+\frac{𝐞}{2}|B\right)=\left[\theta \left(𝐳|B\right)\right]^{}.`$

Since

$$u(\xi +h,\tau \pm h)=2i\mathrm{ln}\frac{\theta \left(𝐳+\left(𝐤\pm 𝐮\right)h+\frac{𝐞}{2}|B\right)}{\theta \left(𝐳+\left(𝐤\pm 𝐮\right)h|B\right)}=2i\mathrm{ln}\frac{\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_\pm +\frac{𝐞}{2}|B\right)}{\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_\pm |B\right)},$$
(14)
and similar relations hold for $`u(\xi h,\tau \pm h),`$ after simple manipulations we can rewrite (11) in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_{}\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰_{}\right)h^2\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_{}+𝐞/2\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰_{}+𝐞/2\right)}{\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_+\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰_+\right)}}\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_{}+𝐞/2\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰_{}+𝐞/2\right)h^2\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_{}\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰_{}\right)}{\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_++𝐞/2\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰_++𝐞/2\right)}},`$
where  $`𝐰_+=\left(𝐤+𝐮\right)h,𝐰_{}=\left(𝐤𝐮\right)h.`$ Let us assume that they are constant (with respect to $`\xi `$ and $`\tau `$). Both lead to the same result

$$\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_{}\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰_{}\right)h^2\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_{}+𝐞/2\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰_{}+𝐞/2\right)=\left(C+1\right)\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰_+\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰_+\right).$$
(17)
Now the addition property can be applied. The Riemann theta functions do have the addition property :

$$\theta \left(𝐳+𝐰|B\right)\theta \left(𝐳𝐰|B\right)=\underset{\epsilon Z_2^g}{}W_\epsilon \left(𝐰\right)\theta ^2\left(𝐳+\frac{\epsilon }{2}|B\right),$$
(18)
for $`𝐳,`$ $`𝐰`$ $``$ $`C^g`$. $`W_\epsilon `$ coefficients can be expressed by theta-constants , but - and it is important - do not depend on $`\xi `$ and $`\tau .`$Then equation (17) can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon Z_2^g}{}}W_\epsilon \left(𝐰_{}\right)\theta ^2\left(𝐳+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}|B\right)h^2{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon Z_2^g}{}}W_\epsilon \left(𝐰_{}\right)\theta ^2\left(𝐳+\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐞+\epsilon }{2}}\right)|B\right)\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (20)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}\left(C+1\right){\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon Z_2^g}{}}W_\epsilon \left(𝐰_+\right)\theta ^2\left(𝐳+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}|B\right),`$ (22)
or as a simple functional equation

$$\underset{\epsilon Z_2^g}{}\left[W_\epsilon \left(𝐰_{}\right)h^2W_{e\epsilon }\left(𝐰_{}\right)\left(C+1\right)W_\epsilon \left(𝐰_+\right)\right]\theta ^2\left(𝐳+\frac{\epsilon }{2}|B\right)=0.$$
(23)
Since $`\theta ^2\left(𝐳+\frac{\epsilon }{2}|B\right)`$ labeled by $`\epsilon Z_2^g`$ form a set of linearly independent functions, finally we arrive at the requirement that for any $`\epsilon Z_2^g`$

$$W_\epsilon \left(𝐰_{}\right)h^2W_{e\epsilon }\left(𝐰_{}\right)\left(C+1\right)W_\epsilon \left(𝐰_+\right)=0.$$
(24)
Equations (24) determine of $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐮`$, (and $`C`$) and these are linearly related to the propagation vectors $`\kappa `$ and angular frequencies $`\omega `$ in laboratory coordinate system ($`𝐳=\kappa x+\omega t).`$ Therefore these equations represent a system of dispersion equations for the discussed dd-sGe. Nontrivial solutions of (24) determines the solutions of starting equation (11), but for the higher $`g,`$ since then the system is overdetermined, also some and even all elements of the matrix $`B.`$

As (dd-sGe)$``$(sGe), with $`h0,`$ (24) also tends to the dispersion equation for standard sGe

$$\underset{i,j}{}k_iu_jW_{\epsilon ,ij}+\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta _{e,\epsilon }c\delta _{\epsilon ,0}\right)=0.$$
(25)
where $`W_{\epsilon ,ij}:=`$ $`\frac{^2}{w_iw_j}W_\epsilon \left(𝐰\right)|_{w=0}.`$ In order to prove this statement one can substitute a new constant $`c=C/h^2.`$and use the relations $`W_\epsilon \left(𝐳\right)=W_\epsilon \left(𝐳\right)`$, $`W_\epsilon \left(0\right)=\delta _{\epsilon ,0}`$ , where $`\delta `$ represents the Kronecker symbol.

## 4 Tri-linear operator

In order to extend direct methods in the spirit of bilinear operator formalism on the a broader class of equations, the trilinear operators $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$were introduced by R. Hirota, (c.f. , )

$`\left(T\right)^n\left(\tau \tau \tau \right)`$ $`:=\left(_z+j_{w_1}+j^2_{w_2}\right)\tau \left(z\right)\tau \left(w_1\right)\tau \left(w_2\right)|_{w_2=w_1=z},`$ (26)
$`\left(T^{}\right)^n\left(\tau \tau \tau \right)`$ $`:=\left(_z+j^2_{w_1}+j_{w_2}\right)\tau \left(z\right)\tau \left(w_1\right)\tau \left(w_2\right)|_{w_2=w_1=z},`$ (27)
where $`j=\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /3\right).`$

In this language e.g. the 5-th order equation of the Lax hierarchy

$$u_{5x}+10uu_{3x}+20u_xu_{xx}+30u^2u_x+u_t=0,$$
(28)
although lacking a bilinear representation, can be written in trilinear form

$$\left(7T_x^6+20T_x^3T_x^3+27T_xT_t\right)FFF=0,$$
(29)
where $`u=2\left(\mathrm{ln}F\right)_{xx}.`$ We will return to this equation in the last paragraph of this note. However, first let us try to generalize the concept of bi- and tri-linear operators.

## 5 Multiple addition property

One can introduce multilinear (J-linear) operator by the relation

$$\left(T\right)^n\underset{Jelements}{\underset{}{(\tau \mathrm{}.\tau )}}:=\left[\left(_{z_0}+j_{z_1}+\mathrm{}+j^{J1}_{z_{J1}}\right)\underset{i=0}{\overset{J1}{}}\tau \left(z_i\right)\right]_{z_{J1}=\mathrm{}=z_1=z_0=z},$$
(30)
where $`j=\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /J\right).`$

We are convinced that the effectivity of the bi- and tri- linear operators formalism depends on the relevant addition property of the functions to which this formalism is applied. Therefore, the fundamental question is which class of functions has the multiple AP. Instead of the class of exponential functions appearing in the solutions of soliton type equations we focus our attention on the Riemann theta functions constituting a more general class of functions and expressing the quasi-periodic solutions. Obviously, exponential functions can be considered as the limiting case of the theta functions.

Following , , , , we adopt the definition of the Riemann theta function as

$$\theta \left(𝐳|B\right)=\underset{n^g}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(2𝐳,𝐧+𝐧,B𝐧\right)\right],$$
(31)
where $`𝐳C^g,BC^{g\times g}`$is the Riemann matrix, (i.e. symmetric with positively defined imaginary part) and $`𝐳,𝐧:=_{j=1}^gz_jn_j.`$

If $`𝐳,𝐮^{\left(k\right)}C^g`$,$`k=0,..,J1,`$ and

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{J1}{}}𝐮^{\left(k\right)}=0,$$
(32)
one can prove  that

$`\theta \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(0\right)}|B\right)\theta \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(1\right)}|B\right)\theta \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(2\right)}|B\right)\mathrm{}\theta \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}|B\right)\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (34)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon _J^g}{}}W_\epsilon (𝐮^{\left(0\right)},\mathrm{},𝐮^{\left(J1\right)})Z_\epsilon \left(𝐳\right),`$ (36)
where

$`Z_\epsilon \left(𝐳\right)\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(2𝐳,\epsilon +\epsilon ,B\epsilon \right)\right]\theta \left(J𝐳+B\epsilon |JB\right)`$ (38)
$`W_\epsilon (𝐮^{\left(0\right)},\mathrm{},𝐮^{\left(J1\right)})\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (40)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi <𝐮^{\left(0\right)},\epsilon >)\theta \left(\begin{array}{c}𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(1\right)}+B\epsilon \\ 𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(2\right)}+B\epsilon \\ \mathrm{}\\ 𝐮^{\left(0\right)}𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}+B\epsilon \end{array}\right|\left[\begin{array}{cccc}2B\hfill & B\hfill & ..\hfill & B\hfill \\ B\hfill & 2B\hfill & ..\hfill & B\hfill \\ ..\hfill & ..\hfill & 2B\hfill & ..\hfill \\ B\hfill & B\hfill & ..\hfill & 2B\hfill \end{array}\right]).`$ (50)
All $`\theta `$ functions are of order $`g,`$ except the appearing in (40), which is of order $`\left(J1\right)g.`$ The sum in (36) is over $`\epsilon _J^gi.e.`$ over $`g`$dimensional vectors whose components are $`0,1,\mathrm{},J1,`$ and therefore the sum contains $`J^g`$ elements. Equation (36), written here for theta functions, is a natural generalization of AP (1). The same form has the generalized AP for exponential functions defined by

$$E\left(𝐳|\stackrel{~}{B}\right)=\underset{n_2^g}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \left(2𝐳,𝐧+𝐧,\stackrel{~}{B}𝐧\right)\right],$$
(51)
which appear in the solutions of standard soliton equations.(Observe that the difference between (31) and (51) is only in the number of elements in the sum). It is convenient to assume that diagonal elements of matrix $`\stackrel{~}{B}C^{g\times g}`$ are real. The constraint (32) can be eliminated easily by introducing new parameters $`𝐰^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐰^{\left(J1\right)}`$ instead of $`𝐮^{\left(0\right)},𝐮^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{},𝐮^{\left(J1\right)}`$ according to the relation

$$𝐰^{\left(k\right)}=\frac{1}{j1}\left(𝐮^{\left(k\right)}j𝐮^{\left(k+1\right)}\left(1\delta _{k,J1}\right)j𝐮^{\left(1\right)}\delta _{k,J1}\right),k=1,\mathrm{},J1,$$
(52)
where $`\delta _{k,J1}`$ is the standard Kronecker symbol. Inversely

$`𝐮^{\left(k\right)}`$ $`=j^{1k}\left(j^{J1}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}j^m𝐰^{\left(m\right)}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{J1}{}}}j^m𝐰^{\left(m\right)}\right)k=1,\mathrm{},J1,`$ (53)
$`𝐮^{\left(0\right)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{J1}{}}}𝐰^{\left(m\right)}.`$ (54)
In the Table 1 below we present relations between $`𝐮^{\left(p\right)}`$ and $`𝐰^{\left(q\right)}`$ for $`J=25.`$

| $`J=`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}3}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}4}`$ | $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}5}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`j=`$ | $`1`$ | $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /3\right)`$ | $`i`$ | $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /5\right)`$ |
| $`𝐮^{\left(0\right)}=`$ | $`𝐰^{\left(1\right)}`$ | $`𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+𝐰^{\left(2\right)}`$ | $`𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+𝐰^{\left(3\right)}`$ | $`𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+𝐰^{\left(3\right)}+𝐰^{\left(4\right)}`$ |
| $`𝐮^{\left(1\right)}=`$ | $`j𝐰^{\left(1\right)}`$ | $`j𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(2\right)}`$ | $`j𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j^3𝐰^{\left(3\right)}`$ | $`j𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j^3𝐰^{\left(3\right)}+j^4𝐰^{\left(4\right)}`$ |
| $`𝐮^{\left(2\right)}=`$ | $``$ | $`j^2𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(2\right)}`$ | $`j^3𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(3\right)}`$ | $`j^4𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(3\right)}+j^3𝐰^{\left(4\right)}`$ |
| $`𝐮^{\left(3\right)}=`$ | $``$ | $``$ | $`j^2𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^3𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(3\right)}`$ | $`j^3𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^4𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(3\right)}+j^2𝐰^{\left(4\right)}`$ |
| $`𝐮^{\left(4\right)}=`$ | $``$ | $``$ | $``$ | $`j^2𝐰^{\left(1\right)}+j^3𝐰^{\left(2\right)}+j^4𝐰^{\left(3\right)}+j𝐰^{\left(4\right)}`$ |

Table 1.

Note that the choice of $`𝐰`$ parameters is not unique. The set adopted here, gives a full correspondence with trilinear operators introduced earlier in soliton theory . Since for arbitrary integer, $`J`$ the sum $`_{k=0}^{J1}j^k=0,`$ it is seen that the requirement (32) is fulfilled for any set $`𝐰^{\left(q\right)}`$.

As it was already mentioned, there exist several versions of the addition theorem for theta functions. To our knowledge only one form ,  leads deals to the product of an arbitrary number of shifted theta functions as in (36), but the r.h.s. is essentially different and unusable for our purposes.

For the fixed $`J`$ (36) can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{exp}\underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{}}\left[\mathrm{ln}\theta \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(j\right)}\right)\mathrm{ln}\theta \left(𝐳\right)\right]=\left[\theta \left(𝐳\right)\right]^J\underset{\epsilon }{}W_\epsilon (𝐮^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐮^{\left(J1\right)})Z_\epsilon \left(𝐳\right).$$
(55)
Differentiating (55) with respect to different components of vectors $`𝐮^{\left(k\right)},`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},J1)`$ we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^{p+\mathrm{}+q}}{\left(u_\alpha ^{\left(1\right)}\right)^p\mathrm{}\left(u_\beta ^{\left(l\right)}\right)^q}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}\mathrm{ln}\theta \left(𝐳+𝐮^{\left(k\right)}\right)J\mathrm{ln}\theta \left(𝐳\right)\right]\begin{array}{c}\text{=}\hfill \end{array}`$ (57)
$`=\left[\theta \left(𝐳\right)\right]^J{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon }{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{^{p+\mathrm{}+q}}{\left(u_\alpha ^{\left(1\right)}\right)^p\mathrm{}\left(u_\beta ^{\left(l\right)}\right)^q}}W_\epsilon (𝐮^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐮^{\left(J1\right)})\right]Z_\epsilon \left(𝐳\right),`$
where $`j=\mathrm{exp}\left(i2\pi /J\right)`$and $`𝐮^{\left(0\right)}=_{k=1}^{J1}𝐮^{\left(k\right)}`$ Changing now the derivatives with respect $`𝐮^{\left(k\right)}`$on l.h.s. into derivatives with respect to $`𝐳,`$ we can find easily the relationship between the derivatives of logarithms of theta functions ( with respect to $`𝐳)`$ and the derivatives of $`W_\epsilon `$ functions (with respect to $`𝐮^{\left(k\right)}).`$ All relations become simpler if $`𝐮^{\left(k\right)}`$ parameters are chosen to be zero.

As an example, the lowest nontrivial derivatives of $`W_\epsilon \left(𝐮^{\left(1\right)}\right)`$ and $`W_\epsilon (𝐮^{\left(1\right)},𝐮^{\left(2\right)}),`$respectively, (at zero) up to fifth order are reported for $`J=2,`$and $`3`$ below in Table 2 and Table 3. In the Appendix we report the lowest nontrivial derivatives (up to 6-th order) also for $`J=6.`$

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ |  |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`4\left(3\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}+2L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\right)`$ |  |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(i\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`8\left(15\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}\right)+4\left(15\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}\right)+2L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }`$ |  |

Table 2.

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`2L_{\alpha \beta }`$ | $`ij`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$ |  |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`L_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ | $`ij`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`4\left(3\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}+2L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\right)`$ |  |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`2\left(3\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}+2L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\right)`$ | $`ij`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(j\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`4L_{\alpha \beta }L_{\gamma \delta }+2\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\gamma }}L_{\beta \underset{¯}{\delta }}+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ | $`ij`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`2\left(6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }\zeta }\right)L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta }`$ | $`ij`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(i\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`8\left(15\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}\right)+4\left(15\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}\right)`$  $`+2L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }`$ | $`ij`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`4\left(15\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta }\mu }\right)`$  $`+2\left(5\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta }\mu }+10\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mu }L_{\underset{¯}{\delta \zeta }}\right)+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }`$ | $`ij`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`\begin{array}{c}8\left(3\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}L_{\zeta \mu }\right)+12\left(2\times L_{\alpha \beta }L_{\gamma \underset{¯}{\zeta }}L_{\delta \underset{¯}{\mu }}\right)+\hfill \\ 4\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma }\zeta }L_{\underset{¯}{\delta }\mu }+4\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mu }L_{\underset{¯}{\delta }\zeta }+4L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }L_{\zeta \mu }+\hfill \\ 2\left(6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }\zeta \mu }\right)+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`ij`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $``$ | $`\begin{array}{c}4\left(9\times L_{\alpha \beta }L_{\gamma \delta }L_{\zeta \mu }\right)+6\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\xi }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}+\hfill \\ 9\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta \gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}}+2\left(6\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta \zeta \mu }}}\right)+9\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}}\hfill \\ +L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }\hfill \end{array}`$ | $`ij`$ |

Table 3.

The remaining derivatives of the order less than 6 - vanish. $`L_{\alpha \beta }:=`$ $`_{z_\alpha z_\beta }\mathrm{ln}\theta \left(𝐳|B\right)|_{𝐳=0}`$ etc., and we adopted here the shorthand notation which includes all possible permutations with respect identically underlined indices: e.g. $`3\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}:=L_{\alpha \beta }L_{\gamma \delta }+L_{\alpha \gamma }L_{\beta \delta }+L_{\alpha \delta }L_{\beta \gamma }.`$

Some introductional applications of the above results can be found in Ref. .

## 6 Addition property versus multilinear operators

The correspondence between the reported here system of dispersion equations and bilinear operators is quite obvious. This affinity can be extended even further. For fixed $`J,`$ let us introduce a hierarchy of operators $`T^{\left(n\right)}`$ labeled by $`n=0,1,\mathrm{},J1`$

$$\left(T^{\left(n\right)}\right)^m(\tau )^{\left(J1\right)}:=\left(T^{\left(n\right)}\right)^m\underset{J1}{\underset{}{\tau \tau \mathrm{}\tau }}=\left(T^{\left(n\right)}\right)^m\left[\tau (𝐳+𝐮_0)\mathrm{}\tau (𝐳+𝐮_{J1})\right]|_{𝐮_0=\mathrm{}𝐮_{J1}=0},$$
(58)
where

$`T^{\left(0\right)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}_{𝐮^{\left(m\right)}},`$ (59)
$`T^{\left(n\right)}`$ $`=_{𝐮^{\left(0\right)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=Jn+1}{\overset{J1}{}}}j^m_{𝐮^{\left(m+nJ\right)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{Jn}{}}}j^m_{𝐮^{\left(m+n1\right)}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}n<J,`$ (60)
and differentiation relates of course to the indicated components of $`𝐮^{\left(m\right)}`$ vectors i.e. $`𝐮_\alpha ^{\left(m\right)}.`$For $`J=2,3,4`$ we have

|  | $`J=2`$ | $`J=3`$ | $`J=4`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`T^{\left(0\right)}=`$ | $`_{𝐮^{\left(0\right)}}+_{𝐮^{\left(1\right)}}`$ | $`_{𝐮^{\left(0\right)}}+_{𝐮^{\left(1\right)}}+_{𝐮^{\left(2\right)}}`$ | $`_{𝐮^{\left(0\right)}}+_{𝐮^{\left(1\right)}}+_{𝐮^{\left(2\right)}}+_{𝐮^{\left(3\right)}}`$ |
| $`T^{\left(1\right)}=`$ | $`_{𝐮^{\left(0\right)}}+j_{𝐮^{\left(1\right)}}`$ | $`_{𝐮^{\left(0\right)}}+j_{𝐮^{\left(1\right)}}+j^2_{𝐮^{\left(2\right)}}`$ | $`_{𝐮^{\left(0\right)}}+j_{𝐮^{\left(1\right)}}+j^2_{𝐮^{\left(2\right)}}+j^3_{𝐮^{\left(3\right)}}`$ |
| $`T^{\left(2\right)}=`$ | $``$ | $`_{𝐮^{\left(0\right)}}+j^2_{𝐮^{\left(1\right)}}+j_{𝐮^{\left(2\right)}}`$ | $`_{𝐮^{\left(0\right)}}+j^3_{𝐮^{\left(1\right)}}+j_{𝐮^{\left(2\right)}}+j^2_{𝐮^{\left(3\right)}}`$ |
| $`T^{\left(3\right)}=`$ | $``$ | $``$ | $`_{𝐮^{\left(0\right)}}+j^2_{𝐮^{\left(1\right)}}+j^3_{𝐮^{\left(2\right)}}+j_{𝐮^{\left(3\right)}}.`$ |

It is seen that for $`J=2`$ and $`J=3`$we have the standard two- and tri-linear operators, respectively. However, for $`J>3,`$ the operator $`T^{\left(2\right)}\left(T^{\left(1\right)}\right)^{}`$ i.e. $`T^{\left(2\right)}`$ is not a complex conjugate to $`T^{\left(1\right)}.`$ For this reason the operators $`T^{\left(n\right)}`$ $`(n=1,\mathrm{},J1)`$ for fixed $`J`$, will called associated operators. Operator $`T^{\left(0\right)}`$ is introduced here only for completeness.

Now, if $`\tau `$ function from (58) has AP, the question arises how it reflects on the $`W_\epsilon (𝐰^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐰^{\left(J1\right)})`$ functions?

Using (53) and (54) we have $`_{𝐮_\alpha ^{\left(s\right)}}/_{𝐰_\alpha ^{\left(p\right)}}=j^{1s+p}\left(1+\left(j^{J1}1\right)\delta _{0<p<s}\right)`$and therefore

$`_{𝐰_\alpha ^{\left(p\right)}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{_{𝐮_\alpha ^{\left(s\right)}}}{_{𝐰_\alpha ^{\left(p\right)}}}}_{𝐮_\alpha ^{\left(s\right)}}=_{𝐮_\alpha ^{\left(0\right)}}+j^{1+p}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{J1}{}}}\left[j^s\left(1+\left(j^{J1}1\right)\delta _{0<p<s}\right)\right]_{𝐮_\alpha ^{\left(s\right)}}`$
$`=_{𝐮_\alpha ^{\left(0\right)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=Jn+1}{\overset{J1}{}}}j^m_{𝐮_\alpha ^{\left(m+pJ\right)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{Jp}{}}}j^m_{𝐮_\alpha ^{\left(m+p1\right)}}=T_\alpha ^{\left(p\right)}.`$ (61)
This means that if $`\tau `$function has the AP, multilinear operators according to (58)-(60) reduce to the simple differentiation of the $`W_\epsilon (𝐰^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐰^{\left(J1\right)})`$ functions with respect to their arguments. In the simplest cases of bi- and tri-linear operators this assertion allows immediately to write the system of dispersion equation on the basis of bi- or tri-linear approximation.

As an example, let us note the bi-linear form of Korteweg de Vries equation and tri-linear form of the reduction of self-dual Yang Mills equation

$`\left(D_xD_t+D_x^4\right)\tau \tau `$ $`=0,`$ (62)
$`\left(T_x^4T_z^{}+8T_x^3T_zT_x^{}+9T_x^2T_t\right)\tau \tau \tau `$ $`=0,`$ (63)
coincide with the relevant dispersion equation systems

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\kappa _i\omega _jW_{\epsilon ,w_iw_j}+{\displaystyle \underset{ijkl}{}}\kappa _i\kappa _j\kappa _k\kappa _lW_{\epsilon ,w_iw_jw_kw_l}`$ $`=CW_\epsilon ,`$ (64)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ijklm}{}}\left(\kappa _i\kappa _j\kappa _k\kappa _l\lambda _m8\kappa _i\kappa _j\kappa _k\lambda _l\kappa _m\right)W_{\epsilon ,w_iw_jw_kw_lv_m}+9{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\kappa _i\kappa _j\omega _kW_{\epsilon ,w_iw_jw_k}`$ $`=CW_\epsilon ,`$ (65)
where we assumed that the arguments of $`\tau `$functions depend linearly on space and time: $`z_i=\kappa _ix+\omega _it`$and $`z_i=\kappa _ix+\lambda _iy+\omega _it,`$ respectively. Moreover, in the second equation $`W_\epsilon =W_\epsilon (𝐰^{\left(1\right)},𝐰^{\left(2\right)})|_{w^{\left(1\right)}=w^{\left(2\right)}=0},`$ depends on two vectors, designed for typographic reasons as $`w`$ and $`v.`$ In both cases, $`C`$ appears as the integration constant and for soliton solutions it vanishes, while for quasi-periodic solution it has to be determined as an additional parameter. Finally equations (64) and (65) should hold for any $`\epsilon _J^g,`$ i.e. the first one for $`\epsilon _2^g,`$ and the second - for $`\epsilon _3^g.`$

In conclusion, we expect that the reported here generalized addition property can be useful for the analysis of multidimensional soliton equations.

The Authors acknowledge helpful discussions with Dr. M. Jaworski, Dr. R. Pawlikowski and especially are grateful for remarks of Prof. S. Lewandowski.

## 7 Appendix

The lowest nontrivial derivatives (up to 6-th order) of of $`W_\epsilon (𝐰^{\left(1\right)},\mathrm{},𝐰^{\left(5\right)})`$ for $`J=6.`$

| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(i\right)}}`$ | $`8\left(15\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}\right)+4\left(15\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}\right)+2L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }`$ |
| --- | --- |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $`4\left(15\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta }\mu }\right)+2\left(5\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta }\mu }+10\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mu }L_{\underset{¯}{\delta \zeta }}\right)`$  $`+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}8\left(3\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}L_{\zeta \mu }\right)+12\left(2\times L_{\alpha \beta }L_{\gamma \underset{¯}{\zeta }}L_{\delta \underset{¯}{\mu }}\right)+4\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma }\zeta }L_{\underset{¯}{\delta }\mu }\hfill \\ +4\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mu }L_{\underset{¯}{\delta }\zeta }+4L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }L_{\zeta \mu }+2\left(6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }\zeta \mu }\right)+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(j\right)}}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}4\left(9\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}}\right)+6\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\xi }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}+9\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta \gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}}\hfill \\ +2\left(3\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\delta \zeta \mu }+3\times L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \underset{¯}{\delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}\right)+9\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}}+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(k\right)}}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}4\left(3\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}L_{\zeta \mu }\right)+2\left(12\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\delta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}\right)+8\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta \gamma \delta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}+\hfill \\ 2\left(6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }\zeta \mu }\right)+2L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }L_{\zeta \mu }+6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\zeta }L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }\mu }+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(k\right)}}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}6\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\mu }+4\left(3\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\delta \zeta }L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\mu }\right)+2\left(6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}\mu }\right)\hfill \\ +3\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\delta \zeta }L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\mu }+6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\mu }L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}+2L_{\gamma \delta }L_{\alpha \beta \zeta \mu }+2\times L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \underset{¯}{\delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta }\mu }\hfill \\ +2\left(3\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\delta \zeta \mu }\right)+6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}\mu }+3\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\beta }\mu }L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\delta \zeta }+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(i\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(k\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(l\right)}}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}+2\left(9\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}}\right)+3\times L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \underset{¯}{\delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}\hfill \\ +9\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta \zeta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}+2\left(3\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\delta \zeta \mu }\right)+8\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}}+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(j\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(k\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(k\right)}}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}8L_{\alpha \beta }L_{\gamma \delta }L_{\zeta \mu }+2\times \left(L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\gamma }L_{\underset{¯}{\beta }\delta }L_{\zeta \mu }+L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta }\alpha }L_{\underset{¯}{\mu }\beta }L_{\gamma \delta }+L_{\underset{¯}{\gamma }\zeta }L_{\underset{¯}{\delta }\mu }L_{\alpha \beta }\right)\hfill \\ 8\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}}+6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}}}+2\left(3\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta \mu }}}}\right)+\hfill \\ 12\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}}+4\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma }}\zeta }L_{\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\mu }+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(j\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(j\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(k\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(l\right)}}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}4L_{\alpha \beta }L_{\gamma \delta }L_{\zeta \mu }+2\left(4\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma }}\zeta }L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\mu }\right)+10\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}}\hfill \\ +2\left(2\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma \delta }}\zeta \mu }\right)+13\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}}+6\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha \beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}}+\hfill \\ 4\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}}L_{\beta \underset{¯}{\delta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| $`\left(W_\epsilon \right)_{u_\alpha ^{\left(i\right)}u_\beta ^{\left(i\right)}u_\gamma ^{\left(j\right)}u_\delta ^{\left(k\right)}u_\zeta ^{\left(l\right)}u_\mu ^{\left(m\right)}}`$ | $`\begin{array}{c}2\left(3\times L_{\alpha \beta }L_{\gamma \underset{¯}{\delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta }\underset{¯}{\mu }}\right)+12\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}+6\times L_{\alpha \beta \underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\delta }}L_{\underset{¯}{\zeta }\underset{¯}{\mu }}\hfill \\ +2L_{\alpha \beta }L_{\gamma \delta \zeta \mu }+8\times L_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\gamma }}}L_{\underset{¯}{\beta }\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\delta }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\zeta }}\underset{¯}{\underset{¯}{\mu }}}+\hfill \\ 4\times L_{\alpha \beta \underset{¯}{\gamma }}L_{\underset{¯}{\delta }\underset{¯}{\zeta }\underset{¯}{\mu }}+4\times L_{\alpha \underset{¯}{\gamma }\underset{¯}{\delta }}L_{\beta \underset{¯}{\zeta }\underset{¯}{\mu }}+L_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta \zeta \mu }\hfill \end{array}`$ |