text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

The Feshbach-type reduction of the Hilbert space to the physically most relevant “model” subspace is suggested as a means of a formal unification of the standard quantum mechanics with its recently proposed $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric modification. The resulting “effective” Hamiltonians $`H_{eff}(E)`$ are always Hermitian, and the two alternative forms of their energy-dependence are interpreted as a certain dynamical nonlinearity, responsible for the repulsion and/or attraction of the levels in the Hermitian and/or $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric cases, respectively. The spontaneous $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry breaking is then reflected by the loss of the Hermiticity of $`H_{eff}`$ while the pseudo-unitary evolution law persists in the unreduced Hilbert space.

PACS 03.65.Bz, 03.65.Ca 03.65.Fd

## 1  Introduction

Bender and Boettcher  tentatively attributed the reality of spectra in non-Hermitian models to the commutativity of the Hamiltonians with the product of the complex conjugation $`𝒯`$ (which mimics the time reversal) and the parity $`𝒫`$,

$$H=𝒫𝒯H𝒫𝒯H^{}.$$
(1)
An acceptability of this conjecture is supported by the growing empirical experience with the similar models  and by the analysis of many examples (1) which are partially  or completely  exactly solvable. In the physics community, a steady growth of acceptance of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric models can be attributed to their phenomenological relevance in solid state physics , statistical physics , population dynamics , in the many-body  and supersymmetric  context and, last but not least, within the general quantum field theory . A reason why the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric models could eventually prove useful in these applications has been sought in the reality of their spectrum.

The latter argument is slightly misleading and has been criticized recently  but the debate proves inspiring, involves many separate issues and, apparently, may be expected to continue. In what follows, we intend to join it, emphasizing that the concept of extended, non-Hermitian quantum mechanics with real spectra and $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric Hamiltonians exhibits multiple parallels with the standard textbook quantum mechanics.

The material is organized as follows. Firstly, section 2 reviews several features of the symmetry breaking within the standard quantum mechanics. It emphasizes that the commutativity of the Hamiltonian with the parity $`𝒫`$ enables us to split the Hilbert space into two subspaces. The loss of this commutativity interrelates these two subspaces but one can still stay within one of them at a cost of the replacement of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ by its Feshbach’s  energy-dependent (so called effective) equivalent form $`H_{eff}(E)`$.

In section 3 we return to the non-Hermitian models and stress some of their most important specific properties. In particular, the reasons for the introduction of an indeterminate inner product are recollected. We show that in spite of the non-Hermiticity of $`H`$, the related pseudo-unitary character of the time evolution represents a good reason for introduction of a certain pseudo-norm.

In section 4 we formulate the core of our present message and show that the Feshbach’s reduction of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric operators $`H=H^{}`$ is Hermitian. As an immediate consequence, at least a part of the spectrum may be real, and its full reality may be expected to occur at least in the case of a certain sufficiently weak non-Hermiticity. Such an idea is also shown to inspire an immediate generalization of the concept of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry. An analogy between Hermiticity and $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is established, in spite of the fact that the effective Schrödinger equation must be understood as slightly nonlinear. This nonlinearity is “weak”, mediated merely by the energy-dependence of the reduced Hamiltonians $`H_{eff}(E)`$.

Section 5 contains the discussion of several related questions. We pay some attention to the so called spontaneous $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry breaking and to the loss of the reality of the energies, not accompanied by any loss of the pseudo-unitarity of the time evolution.

Finally, section 6 summarizes all our results and emphasizes that the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric quantum mechanics with real spectra might admit the standard probabilistic physical interpretation of the wave function on a suitably reduced Hilbert space.

## 2 A short detour to the standard quantum mechanics

### 2.1 A parity-preserving oscillator example

The quadratic plus quartic one-dimensional Hamiltonian

$$H(g)=p^2+x^2+gx^4$$
(2)
is extremely popular in perturbation theory where its mathematical study admits the complex couplings $`g`$ and, therefore, an explicit breakdown of Hermiticity. This qualifies this model as a guide which appears in the standard quantum mechanics  as well as in its $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric alternative .

In the former, purely Hermitian case, all the coupling constants in eq. (2) are real and the spectral representation of our anharmonic oscillator Hamiltonian (which commutes with the parity $`𝒫`$) may be split in the even- and odd-parity eigenstates $`|n^{(\pm )}(g)`$,

$$H(g)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|n^{(+)}(g)\epsilon _n^{(+)}(g)n^{(+)}(g)|+\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|m^{()}(g)\epsilon _m^{()}(g)m^{()}(g)|,g0.$$

The parity conservation annihilates some matrix elements between the $`g=0`$ basis states denoted by the symbols $`|s_n=|n^{(+)}(0)`$ and $`|t_n=|n^{()}(0)`$,

$$s_m|H(g)|t_n=t_m|H(g)|s_n=0,m,n=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$
(3)
This induces the so called super-selection $`s_m|\psi ^{()}=t_m|\psi ^{(+)}=0`$ and splits the variational Schrödinger equation in the two separate infinite-dimensional matrix sub-problems with a definite parity,

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{mk}s_k|\psi ^{(+}=Es_m|\psi ^{(+)},m=0,1,\mathrm{},_{mk}=s_m|H(g)|s_k,$$

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒢_{mk}t_k|\psi ^(=Et_m|\psi ^{()},m=0,1,\mathrm{},𝒢_{mk}=t_m|H(g)|t_k.$$

This means that the matrix form of $`H(g)`$ is the direct sum of the two different matrices $``$ and $`𝒢`$, precisely in the spirit of the Schur’s lemma .

### 2.2 Parity-breaking terms and the effective Hamiltonians

For a more general anharmonic oscillator

$$H(f,g)=p^2+x^2+fx^3+gx^{2N}$$

the parity $`𝒫`$ ceases to be a useful symmetry due to the presence of the spatially asymmetric cubic term whose non-vanishing elements form a matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{mj}=t_m|fx^3|s_j`$. Each wave function in $`L_2(IR)`$ must be expanded in the full basis,

$$|\psi =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|s_nh_n^{(+)}+\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|t_mh_m^{()}.$$
(4)
Schrödinger equation acquires the partitioned matrix form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}EI& \mathrm{\Omega }^T\\ \mathrm{\Omega }& 𝒢EI\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{h}^{(+)}\\ \stackrel{}{h}^{()}\end{array}\right)=0$$

where we may eliminate the Feshbach’s  “out-of-the-model-space” components

$$\stackrel{}{h}^{()}=\frac{1}{𝒢EI}\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{}{h}^{(+)}$$

and get the reduced Schrödinger equation containing the effective Hamiltonian which is (presumably, not too manifestly) energy dependent,

$$H_{eff}(E)\stackrel{}{h}^{(+)}=E\stackrel{}{h}^{(+)},H_{eff}(E)=\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^T\frac{1}{𝒢EI}\mathrm{\Omega }\right).$$
(5)
The energy-dependence of $`H_{eff}(E)`$ causes rarely a problem. In numerical context one fixes a trial energy $`\varrho `$ in $`H_{eff}(\varrho )`$ and solves the linearized Schrödinger equation giving a one-parametric family of auxiliary spectra $`\{\widehat{E}_n(\varrho )\}`$. A return to the exact and nonlinear eigenvalue problem (5) is then mediated by the selfconsistent determination of the best parameter,

$$\varrho =\widehat{E}_n(\varrho ).$$
(6)
Sufficient precision is mostly achieved via the linear approximation

$$H_{eff}(\varrho )\stackrel{}{h}^{(+)}=E\stackrel{}{h}^{(+)},$$
(7)
with a single value of $`\varrho `$ adapted to the practical evaluation of a set of several neighboring energy levels $`E`$.

## 3  $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric formalism

An interest in the commutativity (1) of $`H`$ with $`𝒫𝒯`$ (let us repeat that $`𝒫`$ means parity and $`𝒯`$ denotes time reversal) grew from several sources. The oldest root of its appeal is the Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory. Within its framework, Caliceti et al  have discovered that a low-lying part of the spectrum in the cubic anharmonic potential $`V=x^2+gx^3`$ for some purely imaginary couplings $`g`$ is real. This establishes an analogy between the Hermitian and some non-Hermitian oscillators, extending the family of the eligible phenomenological potentials.

A non-perturbative direction of analysis has been initiated by Buslaev and Grecchi  who were motivated by the physical relevance of non-Hermitian models in field theory. They employed parallels between Hermiticity and $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry during their solution of an old puzzle of spectral equivalence between apparently non-equivalent quartic interaction models. Bender and Milton  underlined in similar context that an ambiguity in boundary conditions exists and is essential for the clarification and consequent explanation of the famous Dyson’s paradox in QED. These studies opened new mathematical as well as interpretation problems. Some of them will be discussed here.

### 3.1  Modified inner product

In $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric quantum mechanics the Hamiltonians are non-Hermitian and one often discovers (or, at worst, assumes) that their spectrum is real, discrete and non-degenerate. Even under this assumption, their left eigenvectors (let us denote them by the symbol $`\psi |`$) need not necessarily coincide with the Hermitian conjugates $`\psi |`$ of their right eigenvector partners. The Hermitian conjugation must be replaced by its modification,

$$\psi |\psi |=\psi |𝒫.$$

Originally, such a replacement has been made and used in the non-degenerate perturbation theory  where the Rayleigh-Schrödinger formalism leads to the recursive definition of the products $`E^{(k)}\psi ^{(0)}|𝒫|\psi ^{(0)}`$. They contain the energy correction $`E^{(k)}`$ multiplied by the unperturbed pseudo-norm which vanishes precisely at the boundary of the applicability of the non-degenerate perturbation formalism. At this boundary a real Bender-Wu singularity is crossed  so that $`\psi ^{(0)}|𝒫|\psi ^{(0)}0`$ and a pair of the energy levels merges .

At the two different real energies $`E_1E_2`$ the comparison of the left and right $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric equations $`H|\psi _1=E_1|\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2|H=\psi _2|E_2`$ leads to the orthogonality $`\psi _2|\psi _1=0`$ so that the inner product with metric $`𝒫`$ and with the so called quasi-parity $`Q_n=\pm 1`$  is the natural option. Formally, the disappearance of the self-overlap $`\psi |𝒫|\psi =0`$ does not imply that the vector $`|\psi `$ itself must vanish so that the requirement

$$\psi _n|𝒫|\psi _m=Q_n\delta _{mn},m,n=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$
(8)
merely “pseudo-normalizes” the solutions (cf. also ref. ). A further development of the theory requires the notion of the completeness of the bound states,

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\psi _nQ_n\psi _n|𝒫=I$$

as well as an innovated spectral representation of a given non-Hermitian $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric Hamiltonian with real spectrum,

$$H=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\psi _nE_nQ_n\psi _n|𝒫.$$

It admits various pseudo-Hermitian alternatives and generalizations .

### 3.2  The pseudo-unitarity of the evolution in time

Evolution of bound states in quantum mechanics is mediated (generated) by their Hamiltonian, $`|\psi [t]=\mathrm{exp}(iHt)|\psi [0]`$. In the models with Hermitian $`H=H^{}`$ the availability of solutions of the time-independent Schrödinger equation simplifies this rule since all the eigenvalues $`E_n`$ remain real and the time-dependence of the separate eigenstates becomes elementary,

$$|\psi _n[t]=e^{iE_nt}|\psi _n[0].$$

Although a fully consistent and complete physical interpretation of the general pseudo-Hermitian Hamiltonians is not at our disposal yet, many of their formal features are not entirely new, mimicking the models with indefinite metric in relativistic physics etc. Another significant source of insight are particular examples. In many of them, whenever the real energies $`E_n`$ are attributed to a non-Hermitian, $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric Hamiltonian with the property (1), we may infer that

$$|\psi [t]=e^{iHt}|\psi [0]=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\psi _ne^{iE_nQ_nt}\psi _n|𝒫|\psi [0].$$

This formula means that the conservation law concerns the innovated scalar product,

$$\psi [t]|𝒫|\psi [t]=\psi [0]|𝒫|\psi [0]$$

so that the time evolution of the system is pseudo-unitary.

## 4  An explanation of the reality of spectra

Any eigenstate of $`H=H^{}=𝒫H𝒫`$ (e.g., of $`H(g)`$ in paragraph 2.1) satisfies the same Schrödinger equation even when it is pre-multiplied by the parity $`𝒫`$. Both the old and new eigenstates belong to the same real eigenvalue $`E`$ which cannot be degenerate due to the Sturm-Liouville oscillation theorems. One of the superpositions $`|\psi \pm 𝒫|\psi `$ must vanish while the other one acquires a definite parity. This is the essence of the mathematical proof of the above-mentioned Schur’s lemma. The wave functions are even or odd and the $`𝒫`$ symmetry of wave functions cannot be spontaneously broken, $`𝒫|n^{(\pm )}(g)=\pm |n^{(\pm )}(g)`$.

The rigidity of the latter rule is lost during the transition to the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric models where any quantity $`\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )`$ is an admissible eigenvalue of the operator $`𝒫𝒯`$ since its component $`𝒯`$ is defined as anti-linear, $`𝒯i=i`$. In more detail, every rule $`𝒫𝒯|\psi =\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )|\psi `$ implies that we have

$$𝒫𝒯𝒫𝒯|\psi =\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )𝒫𝒯|\psi =|\psi $$

as required. The Schur’s lemma ceases to be applicable. In the basis with the properties $`𝒫𝒯|S=|S`$ and $`𝒫𝒯|L=|L`$, the general expansion formula

$$H=\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(|S_m_{m,n}S_n|+|L_m𝒢_{m,n}L_n|+i|S_m𝒞_{m,n}L_n|+i|L_m𝒟_{m,n}S_n|\right)$$

contains four separate complex matrices of coefficients. Once it is subdued to the requirement $`H=𝒫𝒯H𝒫𝒯`$, we get the necessary and sufficient condition demanding that all the above matrix elements of $`H=H^{}`$ must be real,

$$_{m,n}=_{m,n}^{},𝒢_{m,n}=𝒢_{m,n}^{},𝒞_{m,n}=𝒞_{m,n}^{},𝒟_{m,n}=𝒟_{m,n}^{}.$$
(9)
As long as the similar trick has led to the superselection rules for the spatially symmetric Hamiltonians, we may conclude that the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric analogue of the direct-sum decompositions and superselection rules (3) is just the much weaker constraint (9).

### 4.1  Re-emergence of Hermiticity via effective Hamiltonians

Whenever we have a state with the $`𝒫𝒯`$parity equal to $`\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )`$, we may try to shift the phase and introduce the new state $`|\chi =\mathrm{exp}(i\beta )|\phi `$. The action $`𝒫𝒯|\phi =e^{i\phi }|\phi `$ is modified,

$$𝒫𝒯|\chi =𝒫𝒯e^{i\beta }|\phi =e^{i\beta }𝒫𝒯|\phi =e^{i(\phi 2\beta )}|\chi $$

and the $`𝒫𝒯`$ parity has changed by $`2\beta `$. Via the renormalization $`\beta `$ we may achieve that the new $`𝒫𝒯`$ phase is zero. Such a normalization convention means that

$$|\psi =\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|s_np_n^{(+)}+i\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|t_mp_m^{()}$$

where all the coefficients are real. This revitalizes the analogy with formula (4). Our next illustration,

$$H(if,g)=p^2+x^2+ifx^3+gx^4$$

may use the same matrix elements $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{mj}=t_m|fx^3|s_j`$ as above and becomes tractable by the mere replacements $`\mathrm{\Omega }i\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`h_n^{(+)}p_n^{(+)}`$ and $`h_n^{()}ip_n^{()}`$. This gives very similar, real Schrödinger matrix equation

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}EI& \mathrm{\Omega }^T\\ \mathrm{\Omega }& 𝒢EI\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{p}^{(+)}\\ \stackrel{}{p}^{()}\end{array}\right)=0$$

and the very similar partial solution

$$\stackrel{}{p}^{()}=+\frac{1}{𝒢EI}\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{}{p}^{(+)}.$$

We have to emphasize that the final, effective Schrödinger equation is Hermitian,

$$H_{eff}(\varrho )\stackrel{}{p}^{(+)}=E(\varrho )\stackrel{}{p}^{(+)},H_{eff}(\varrho )=\left(+\mathrm{\Omega }^T\frac{1}{𝒢\varrho I}\mathrm{\Omega }\right)$$
(10)
In comparison with the recipe of paragraph 3.2 the only difference is in the sign of the correction term. This makes the connection between the Hermiticity and $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry particularly tight. Both the Schrödinger equations (5) and (10) are Hermitian and give the (different) real spectra $`E(\varrho )`$ at any $`\varrho `$. Both these reduced Schrödinger equations prove insensitive to the change of the sign of the coupling matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ but a return to the original Schrödinger equations reveals that the replacement $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is not an equivalence transformation as it changes the wave functions.

### 4.2 The generalized metric operators $`𝒫`$

One has to impose the selfconsistency condition (6) but it is clear that this cannot give any complex roots $`E(E)`$ in the Hermitian case. In contrast, they may freely emerge in the non-Hermitian setting so that the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is less robust than Hermiticity.

All the other parallels between the Hermitian an $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric models are more straightforward. Once we work just with the effective Hamiltonian (which is always Hermitian), many phenomenologically oriented conclusions concerning the Hermiticity or pseudo-Hermiticity of the full, original Hamiltonian will only depend on the subtle details of an overall energy or rather $`\varrho `$dependence of our model-space Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}(\varrho )`$. In this sense, the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry may be considered to be just a very special case of the pseudo-Hermiticity.

Let us now return to our original problem once more. Why do the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric Hamiltonians have real energies? The above explanation relies on the Hermiticity of $`H_{eff}(\varrho )`$, guaranteeing that all the auxiliary $`E_n(\varrho )`$ are real. The discussion is reduced to the selfconsistency (6) and to the reality/complexity of its roots. In this sense the whole parallel between the Hermitian and non-Hermitian coupling of the individual sub-Hamiltonians $`F`$ and $`G`$ is based on the mere matrix structure of the Schrödinger equation. Its partitioned form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}FEI& \alpha A\\ A^{}& GEI\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{u}\\ \stackrel{}{w}\end{array}\right)=0$$
(11)
represents simply the Hermitian case at $`\alpha =1`$ and the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric case at $`\alpha =1`$. Thus, the operator $`𝒫`$ need not be parity. As long as our previous analysis did not depend on this interpretation, the real energies may be expected to emerge, following the same idea of the effective Hermitization, from the other matrix structures of $`H`$.

We may admit, for example, that the block $`A`$ is not a real matrix at all. One can imagine that the complex (and Hermitian or even merely $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric) sub-Hamiltonians $`F`$ and $`G`$ would also lead to the real spectra, at least in the limit of the sufficiently small complex coupling matrices $`A`$.

Another type of generalization was present in the original Feshbach’s proposal  where the upper partition $`F`$ is the most relevant part of the Hilbert space (called “model” space) spanned just by a few most important elements of the basis. The other partition is usually expected to contribute to the observable quantities as a correction. Thus, one might work with the two partitions of different size, $`\mathrm{dim}F\mathrm{dim}G`$.

Last but not least, one could consider a triple or multiple partitioning which would generalize eq. (11). An explicit construction of this type may be found, e.g., in our recent remark .

## 5 Discussion

### 5.1 What happens after a spontaneous breakdown of $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry

A puzzle emerges when the non-Hermiticity grows and certain doublets of real energies merge and form, subsequently, complex conjugate pairs. Explicit examples of such a possibility range from the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric square well on a finite interval  up to many quasi-exactly solvable models  and virtually all the shape invariant potentials on the whole real line .

Let us recollect the harmonic oscillator example $`H=p^2+r^2+G/r^2`$ of ref.  and the two possible forms of its energy spectrum. At $`G>1/4`$ one encounters the purely real and discrete levels $`E_N=4n+22Q\gamma `$ with $`\gamma =\sqrt{G1/4}>0`$ and $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. These levels (distinguished by their quasi-parity $`Q=\pm 1`$) are to be compared with the complex conjugate pairs $`E_N=4n+22iQ\delta `$ which replace the above set at the strongly negative coupling $`G<1/4`$ in $`\delta =\sqrt{G1/4}>0`$. We see that once we remove the constraint $`G>1/4`$, the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry of the wave functions breaks down for all the levels at once, at $`G=1/4`$ .

In such a context let us now assume that the solution of a given non-Hermitian Schrödinger equation gives at least two energies which are mutual complex conjugates,

$$H|\psi _+=E|\psi _+,H|\psi _{}=E^{}|\psi _{}.$$
(12)
We may re-write these two Schrödinger equations in their respective Hermitian conjugate form with $`H^{}=𝒫H𝒫`$ acting to the left,

$$\psi _+|𝒫H=E^{}\psi _+|𝒫,\psi _{}|𝒫H=E\psi _{}|𝒫.$$

Out of all the possible resulting overlaps, let us now recollect the following four,

$$\psi _+|𝒫H|\psi _+=E^{}\psi _+|𝒫|\psi _+,\psi _+|𝒫H|\psi _+=E\psi _+|𝒫|\psi _+,$$

$$\psi _{}|𝒫H|\psi _{}=E^{}\psi _{}|𝒫|\psi _{},\psi _{}|𝒫H|\psi _{}=E\psi _{}|𝒫|\psi _{}.$$

Their comparison suggests that for $`EE^{}`$ the self-overlaps must vanish,

$$\psi _+|𝒫|\psi _+=0,\psi _{}|𝒫|\psi _{}=0.$$

We must extend the above rule (8) and complement it by an off-diagonal pseudo-normalization

$$\psi _+|𝒫|\psi _{}=\left[\psi _{}|𝒫|\psi _{}\right]^{}=c$$
(13)
with any suitable $`clC`$.

### 5.2 The pseudo-norm and its conservation

For the sake of simplicity let us assume that the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is broken just at the two lowest states (cf. the examples ). Besides the above-mentioned modification of the orthogonality relations, one has to change the first two terms in the decomposition of unit,

$$I=|\psi _+\frac{1}{c^{}}\psi _{}|𝒫+|\psi _{}\frac{1}{c}\psi _+|𝒫+\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\psi _nQ_n\psi _n|𝒫.$$

This is a new form of the completeness relations. The parallel spectral decomposition of the Hamiltonian in question contains the similar two new terms,

$$H=|\psi _+\frac{E}{c^{}}\psi _{}|𝒫+|\psi _{}\frac{E^{}}{c}\psi _+|𝒫+\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\psi _nE_nQ_n\psi _n|𝒫.$$

Finally, the pseudo-unitary time dependence of wave functions acquires the following new compact form,

$$|\psi [t]=e^{iHt}|\psi [0]=\left(|\psi _+\frac{1}{c^{}}e^{iEt}\psi _{}|𝒫\right)+\left(|\psi _{}\frac{1}{c}e^{iE^{}t}\psi _+|𝒫\right)+$$

$$+\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\psi _ne^{iE_nQ_nt}\psi _n|𝒫|\psi [0].$$

The value of the scalar product is conserved in time,

$$\psi [t]|𝒫|\psi [t]=\psi [0]|𝒫|\psi [0].$$

A weakened form of the Stone’s theorem could be re-established for the pseudo-unitary evolution allowing non-Hermitian Hamiltonians $`H=H^{}`$. We see that this may be done not only in the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric systems characterized by the real spectra but also in the domain of couplings where this symmetry is spontaneously broken. A parallel to the unbroken case is established. As long as the vanishing self-overlaps $`\psi |\psi =0`$ cease to carry any information about the phase and scaling of $`|\psi `$, the complexified pseudo-norm may be re-introduced via the off-diagonal rule (13) if needed. In the light of eqs. (12) which indicate that we may choose $`|\psi _{}=𝒫𝒯|\psi _+`$, we may drop the unit operators $`𝒫^2=1`$ from all the overlaps and conclude that our definition of the inner product should be rewritten in the form

$$\psi |\psi ^{}=\psi |\stackrel{}{𝒯}|\psi ^{}$$
(14)
where the superscripted arrow indicates that the antilinear operator $`𝒯`$ should be understood as acting, conventionally, to the right. This makes this more universal definition a bit clumsy. Fortunately, whenever the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry is not broken, this new prescription is equivalent to the old one and can replace it in the orthogonality relations (8) etc.

## 6  Summary

In the current literature we are witnessing an increase of interest in the non-Hermitian Hamiltonians exhibiting $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry and combining promising features (e.g., a “non-robust” existence of real spectra) with several unanswered questions. We motivated our present considerations, mainly, by the apparent lack of any clear probabilistic interpretation of wave functions.

Mathematically, it is reflected by the non-unitarity of the time evolution and by the concept of quasi-parity $`Q=\pm 1`$ introduced via a few examples and specified as a certain “analytic continuation” of the ordinary quantum number of parity. On the spiked harmonic oscillator we illustrated its role of a physical criterion which distinguishes between the quasi-odd and quasi-even solutions. In a parallel to the Hermitian picture we eliminated the latter states from the “relevant” Hilbert space using the standard Feshbach projection method.

A formal support for the latter conjectured transition $`HH_{eff}`$ may be seen in a necessity of suppression of the indeterminate character of the pseudo-norm within physical space. This has been amply rewarded. A deep connection between the Hermitian and $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric $`H`$ has been found in the shared Hermiticity of their projected forms $`H_{eff}`$. The $`H_{eff}`$ of the respective Hermitian and $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric origin differs just by the sign $`\alpha =\pm 1`$ of the correction term.

We hope that we have answered our original question: The non-Hermitian $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric quantum mechanics seems to find, in its specific and Hermitian projected form, a fairly natural interpretation. We have reached a new level of understanding of what happens in the non-Hermitian systems. There seems to exist a certain natural boundary of the domain $`𝒟`$ of parameters in $`H`$. In its interior the energies stay real. In the other words, the “non-obligatory” $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry of the wave functions themselves becomes (people usually say spontaneously) broken on the boundary of $`𝒟`$. The algebraic manifestation of the crossing of this boundary (the pseudo-norm vanishes) is reflected by the disappearing roots in the selfconsistency or graphical rule (6).

## Acknowledgement

Supported by GA AS (Czech Republic), grant Nr. A 104 8004.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The Hall effect in the vortex state of type-II superconductors remains a matter of controversy after decades of intensive investigations. The early phenomenological theories of Bardeen and Stephen and Nozières and Vinen fail to account for the sign change of the Hall conductivity found in the vortex state of a wide variety of materials. Also, a debate still continues about the forces acting on a single moving vortex. This state of affairs may be attributed partly to a lack of the established tractable microscopic equations with which one could test the validity of various phenomenological models numerically. Especially, the standard quasiclassical equations of superconductivity, i.e. one of the most powerful methods for nonequilibrium superfluids and superconductors, have been known to be unable to describe the phenomenon.

Efforts have been made recently to include terms responsible for the Hall effect in the quasiclassical equations. Larkin and Ovchinnikov incorporated higher-order effects arising from the particle-hole asymmetry near the Fermi level, but the main terms corresponding the normal-state Hall effect are still missing in their equations. Kopnin obtained kinetic equations with the desired Hall terms and used them to discuss the flux-flow Hall effect. However, their applicability is limited to clean superconductors with slow time variations, due to his transformation to Green’s functions \[see Eq. (20) below\] which may not be suitable for deriving the equations for high-frequency disturbances. More recently, Houghton and Vekhter also reported an extension, but there seem to be a couple of unsatisfactory points. First, the obtained equations do not carry a manifest gauge invariance with respect to the space-time arguments of the quasiclassical Green’s function $`\widehat{g}`$. The second point lies in their derivation process: They first define the local one-particle energy $`\xi \xi (𝐩\frac{e}{c}𝐀)`$ which depends on the position $`𝐑`$ as well as the momentum $`𝐩`$ through the spatial dependence of the vector potential $`𝐀=𝐀(𝐑)`$. Whereas they expand this $`\xi `$ with respect to $`𝐀`$ to get the linear field dependence of the equation, the solution $`\widehat{g}`$ to the equation is formally defined by the integral of the full Green’s function $`\widehat{G}`$ over the unexpanded $`\xi =\xi (𝐩\frac{e}{c}𝐀)`$. The validity of this procedure is not entirely clear.

With these observations, we here present a careful and more straightforward derivation of the quasiclassical equations which can fully describe the Hall effect of the vortex states and form a firm basis for any detailed numerical studies. A key ingredient lies in the introduction of a new transformed Green’s function \[see Eq. (17) below\] whose gauge change can solely be expressed with respect to the slowly varying space-time coordinate; they are different from those used by Kopnin and enable us to obtain completely gauge-invariant quasiclassical equations. The idea goes back to the original work of Gor’kov and was extensively used by Eilenberger prior to his derivation of the quasiclassical equations. On the other hand, Larkin and Ovchinnikov presented a more compact derivation of the quasiclassical equations with the left-right subtraction trick without recourse to the transformed Green’s function. Those two approaches certainly provide the same equations at the lowest order of the approximation. It turns out, however, that the advantages of the two approaches have to be combined to proceed further with the gauge-invariance at every order of the approximation for a systematic derivation of the Hall terms. Indeed, the quasiclassical equations will be obtained here by applying the left-right subtraction trick to the Dyson-Gor’kov equation for the new transformed Green’s function.

This paper is organized as follows. Section II writes down the Dyson-Gor’kov equation for the conventional retarded Nambu Green’s function, followed by an introduction of a new Green’s function whose gauge change can be expressed only with respect to the center-of-mass coordinate. Section III transforms the space-time derivatives of the Dyson-Gor’kov equation into an expression of using the new Green’s function. Section IV performs a similar transformation to the self-energy part of the Dyson-Gor’kov equation. Section V collects the results of Secs. III and IV to write down the Dyson-Gor’kov equation for the transformed Green’s function, and subsequently derives the retarded quasiclassical equations by the left-right subtraction trick. Section VI presents the extension to the advanced and the Keldysh parts. Section VII concludes the paper with several remarks.

We put $`\mathrm{}=1`$ throughout, and denote the light velocity, the electron charge, and the electron bare mass by $`c`$, $`e(<0)`$, and $`m`$, respectively.

## II Green’s functions

We will consider the elements of the Nambu-Keldysh matrix separately as it turns out to be more convenient than handling the matrix itself. We first focus on the retarded part to describe the derivation, and then carry out the extension to the advanced and the Keldysh parts. We hence drop the conventional superscript R signifying “retarded” while the distinctions are unnecessary.

Let us define a couple of retarded Green’s functions by

$$G_{\alpha \beta }(1,2)i\theta (t_1t_2)\{\psi _\alpha (1),\psi _\beta ^{}(2)\},$$
(1)
$$F_{\alpha \beta }(1,2)i\theta (t_1t_2)\{\psi _\alpha (1),\psi _\beta (2)\},$$
(2)
where $`1𝐫_1t_1`$ specifies the space-time coordinate, $`\alpha \beta `$ are the spin indices, and $`\{A,B\}AB+BA`$. To suppress the spin indices we introduce $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`\underset{¯}{G}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{F}`$ by $`(\underset{¯}{G})_{\alpha \beta }=G_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`(\underset{¯}{F})_{\alpha \beta }=F_{\alpha \beta }`$. Using $`\underset{¯}{G}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{F}`$, we next define a $`4\times 4`$ Nambu matrix by

$`\widehat{G}(1,2)[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{G}(1,2)& \underset{¯}{F}(1,2)\\ \underset{¯}{F}^{}(1,2)& \underset{¯}{G}^{}(1,2)\end{array}],`$ (5)
and the corresponding self-energy matrix by

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(1,2)[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(1,2)& \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(1,2)\\ \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(1,2)& \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}(1,2)\end{array}].`$ (8)
They are changed for $`\psi _\alpha (1)\psi _\alpha (1)\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}\chi (1)]`$ as $`\widehat{G}(1,2)`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}\chi (1)\widehat{\tau }_3]\widehat{G}(1,2)\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}\chi (2)\widehat{\tau }_3]`$, where $`\widehat{\tau }_3`$ is defined by

$`\widehat{\tau }_3\left[\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{¯}{1}& \hfill \underset{¯}{0}\\ \hfill \underset{¯}{0}& \hfill \underset{¯}{1}\end{array}\right],`$ (11)
with $`\underset{¯}{1}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{0}`$ denoting the $`2\times 2`$ unit and zero matrices, respectively. They satisfy the Dyson-Gor’kov equation:

$`\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_1}}e\mathrm{\Phi }_1\widehat{\tau }_3\right)\widehat{G}(1,2)\left[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{}_1& \underset{¯}{0}\\ \underset{¯}{0}& \underset{¯}{}_1^{}\end{array}\right]\widehat{G}(1,2)`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(1,3)\widehat{G}(3,2)d3}=\delta (12)\widehat{1}.`$ (15)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the scalar potential, $`\widehat{1}`$ is the $`4\times 4`$ unit matrix, and $`\underset{¯}{}_1`$ is defined by

$`\underset{¯}{}_1\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐫_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝐀_1\right)^2\mu \right]\underset{¯}{1},`$ (16)
with $`\mu `$ the chemical potential and $`𝐀`$ the vector potential.

We now introduce the key quantities, i.e. a couple of new Nambu matrices, by using a nonlocal gauge transformation as

$`\widehat{\overline{G}}(1,2)\mathrm{exp}[iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_1)\widehat{\tau }_3]\widehat{G}(1,2)\mathrm{exp}[iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_2)\widehat{\tau }_3],`$ (17)
$`\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}(1,2)\mathrm{exp}[iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_1)\widehat{\tau }_3]\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(1,2)\mathrm{exp}[iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_2)\widehat{\tau }_3].`$ (18)
Here $`\stackrel{}{r}_1(ct_1,𝐫_1)`$ is the four vector, $`\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{R}_{12}\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{r}_1+\stackrel{}{r}_2)`$, and $`I`$ is defined by

$`I(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_1){\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{}{r}_1}^\stackrel{}{R}}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{s})𝑑\stackrel{}{s},`$ (19)
where $`\stackrel{}{A}(\mathrm{\Phi },𝐀)`$ denotes the covariant electromagnetic potential and $`d\stackrel{}{s}`$ is taken along the straight line.

The quantities $`\widehat{\overline{G}}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}`$ defined above have a desired property that only the center-of-mass coordinate $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ is relevant in the gauge transformation $`\psi _\alpha (1)\psi _\alpha (1)\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}\chi (1)]`$. Indeed, $`\widehat{\overline{G}}`$ is changed as $`\widehat{\overline{G}}(1,2)\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}\chi (\stackrel{}{R})\widehat{\tau }_3]\widehat{\overline{G}}(1,2)\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}\chi (\stackrel{}{R})\widehat{\tau }_3]`$. Proceeding with $`\widehat{\overline{G}}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}`$, we are led to the equations with a manifest gauge invariance with respect to $`\stackrel{}{R}`$, as seen below. Indeed, Levanda and Fleurov has successfully derived normal-state kinetic equations with a manifest gauge invariance by using the component $`\overline{\underset{¯}{G}}`$ of Eq. (17).

It is worth pointing out the difference of the above $`\widehat{\overline{G}}`$ from that used by Kopnin. As mentioned in Introduction, Kopnin has derived kinetic equations based on a couple of transformed Green’s functions similar to Eq. (17). However, his phase factor is different from Eq. (19) as

$`I_\mathrm{K}(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_1)e{\displaystyle _{t_1}^T}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1t^{})𝑑t^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}{\displaystyle _{𝐫_1}^𝐑}𝐀(𝐫^{}t_1)𝑑𝐫^{},`$ (20)
where $`d𝐫^{}`$ is along the straight line; see Eq. (18) of Ref. . The present $`\widehat{\overline{G}}`$ may be more advantageous, since its gauge transformation property is expressible only with respect to $`\stackrel{}{R}`$. Indeed, it will enable us a more systematic and comprehensive derivation of the Hall terms.

It is convenient for later purposes to introduce the two functions:

$$_1(u)_0^1𝑑\eta \mathrm{e}^{\eta u}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^u1}{u},$$
(21)
$$_2(u)_0^1𝑑\eta _0^\eta 𝑑\zeta \mathrm{e}^{\zeta u}=\frac{\mathrm{e}^u1u}{u^2}.$$
(22)
Then Eq. (19) can also be written as

$`I(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_1)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{r}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\stackrel{}{R}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{r}}{2}}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{R}),`$ (23)
with $`\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_{12}\stackrel{}{r}_1\stackrel{}{r}_2`$.

## III Space-time derivatives

Let us rewrite the first two terms on the left-hand side of Eq. (15) with respect to $`\widehat{\overline{G}}`$ of Eq. (17). The following identities are useful for this purpose ($`j=0,1,2,3`$):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{1j}}}I(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_1)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}A_j(\stackrel{}{r}_1){\displaystyle \frac{e}{2c}}A_j(\stackrel{}{R})`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4c}}[2_1(\widehat{u})_2(\widehat{u})]r_k\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{A}_j(\stackrel{}{R})}{R_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{A}_k(\stackrel{}{R})}{R_j}}\right],`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_{1j}}}I(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_2)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2c}}A_j(\stackrel{}{R})`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4c}}_2(\widehat{u})r_k\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{A}_j(\stackrel{}{R})}{R_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{A}_k(\stackrel{}{R})}{R_j}}\right],`$ (27)
where $`\widehat{u}\frac{\stackrel{}{r}}{2}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{R}}`$, and summations over the repeated index $`k`$ $`(=0,1,2,3)`$ are implied. Using the results, the gauge-invariant time and space derivatives of $`\underset{¯}{G}`$ are transformed as

$`\mathrm{e}^{iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_1)iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_2)}[i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_1}}e\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r}_1)]\underset{¯}{G}(1,2)`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`\{i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{T}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)_2\left(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)`$ (30)
$`+_2(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T})]𝐄(\stackrel{}{R})𝐫\}\overline{\underset{¯}{G}}(1,2),`$
and

$`\mathrm{e}^{iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_1)iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_2)}[i{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐫_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝐀(\stackrel{}{r}_1)]\underset{¯}{G}(1,2)`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`\{i{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐫}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐑}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)_2\left(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)`$ (33)
$`+_2(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T})][{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡(\stackrel{}{R})\times 𝐫𝐄(\stackrel{}{R})t]\}\overline{\underset{¯}{G}}(1,2),`$
where we have neglected spatial derivatives of both the electric field $`𝐄`$ and the magnetic field $`𝐡`$. Similarly, we have

$`\mathrm{e}^{iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_1)+iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_2)}[i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_1}}e\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r}_1)]\underset{¯}{F}(1,2)`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`\{i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{T}}e\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{R})+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)_2\left(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)`$ (36)
$`_2(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T})]𝐄(\stackrel{}{R})𝐫\}\overline{\underset{¯}{F}}(1,2),`$
and

$`\mathrm{e}^{iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_1)+iI(\stackrel{}{R},\stackrel{}{r}_2)}[i{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐫_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝐀(\stackrel{}{r}_1)]\underset{¯}{F}(1,2)`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`\{i{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐫}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐑}}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝐀(\stackrel{}{R}){\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)_2\left(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)`$ (39)
$`_2(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T})][{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡(\stackrel{}{R})\times 𝐫𝐄(\stackrel{}{R})t]\}\overline{\underset{¯}{F}}(1,2).`$
Notice the differences of $`\pm _2(\frac{t}{2}\frac{}{T})`$ between Eqs. (30) and (36), and also between Eqs. (33) and (39).

We now introduce the Fourier transform of $`\widehat{\overline{G}}`$ by

$`\widehat{G}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \widehat{\overline{G}}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫\epsilon t)}𝑑𝐫𝑑t}`$ (40)
$`[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{G}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{F}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\\ \underset{¯}{F}^{}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{G}^{}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\end{array}],`$ (43)
where the arguments $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon `$ both have an infinitesimal positive imaginary part. We also define the gauge-invariant derivatives $`_T`$ and $`\mathbf{}_𝐑`$ by

$`_T\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{}{T}\hfill & :\text{on }\underset{¯}{G}\text{}\underset{¯}{G}^{}\text{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\text{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\text{}𝐄\text{}𝐡\hfill \\ \frac{}{T}+2ie\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{R})\hfill & :\text{on }\underset{¯}{F}\text{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\hfill \\ \frac{}{T}2ie\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{R})\hfill & :\text{on }\underset{¯}{F}^{}\text{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}\hfill \end{array},`$ (47)
$`\mathbf{}_𝐑\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{}{𝐑}\hfill & :\text{on }\underset{¯}{G}\text{}\underset{¯}{G}^{}\text{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\text{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}\text{}𝐄\text{}𝐡\hfill \\ \frac{}{𝐑}i\frac{2e}{c}𝐀(\stackrel{}{R})\hfill & :\text{on }\underset{¯}{F}\text{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\hfill \\ \frac{}{𝐑}+i\frac{2e}{c}𝐀(\stackrel{}{R})\hfill & :\text{on }\underset{¯}{F}^{}\text{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}\hfill \end{array}.`$ (51)
Then using Eqs. (30)-(39), we can write the first two terms on the left-hand side of Eq. (15) with respect to Eqs. (43)-(51). We finally neglect terms second-order in $`\mathbf{}_𝐑`$, $`𝐄`$, $`𝐡`$, and $`(𝐩𝐩_\mathrm{F})^2`$ with $`𝐩_\mathrm{F}`$ the Fermi momentum, since they are smaller than the first-order ones by an order of magnitude in “small”, i.e. $`(p_\mathrm{F}\xi _0)^1`$ etc, with $`\xi _0`$ the coherence length. With these procedures, the first two terms on the left-hand side of Eq. (15) are Fourier-transformed into

$`\left(\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_T\right)\widehat{G}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mathrm{F}^2}{2m}}\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}(𝐩𝐩_\mathrm{F})\right]\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}`$ (52)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\mathbf{}_𝐑\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}`$ (53)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)\right]𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}`$ (54)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3`$ (55)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)\right]`$ (56)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\widehat{G}`$ (57)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right){\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3,`$ (58)
where $`\mathbf{}_𝐩\frac{}{𝐩}`$, $`_\epsilon \frac{}{\epsilon }`$, and $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are defined by Eqs. (21) and (22), respectively. Here one should keep in mind that $`_T`$ in $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ operates only on $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐡`$.

With no time dependence in $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐡`$, $`_11`$ and $`_2\frac{1}{2}`$ so that the last four terms in Eq. (58) reduce to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}e𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩(3\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}+\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3)`$ (59)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}e{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)(3\widehat{G}+\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3).`$ (60)
These terms are absent in the conventional derivations, which are certainly responsible for the Hall effect of both the normal and the vortex states.

Before closing the section, we compare the above result with the corresponding one derived by Kopnin. Due to the difference between Eqs. (19) and (20), he obtained instead of Eq. (60) the expression:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}e\left[𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\right]\widehat{G}.`$ (61)
See Eq. (23) of Ref. . In addition, whereas Eq. (58) are given in terms of the gauge-invariant derivatives of Eqs. (47) and (51), terms such as $`\mathbf{}\stackrel{~}{F}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}/t`$ appear in Kopnin’s Eq. (21). It should also be noted that Eq. (58) is free from the assumption of the slow time variations and is applicable to the cases of arbitrary external frequencies, as long as they are much smaller than the Fermi energy.

## IV Self-energy terms

We next consider the following self-energy terms appearing on the left-hand side of Eq. (15):

$$\overline{\underset{¯}{J}}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{iI(\stackrel{}{R}_{12},\stackrel{}{r}_1)iI(\stackrel{}{R}_{12},\stackrel{}{r}_2)}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(1,3)\underset{¯}{G}(3,2)d3,$$
(62)
$$\overline{\underset{¯}{K}}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{iI(\stackrel{}{R}_{12},\stackrel{}{r}_1)iI(\stackrel{}{R}_{12},\stackrel{}{r}_2)}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(1,3)\underset{¯}{F}^{}(3,2)d3,$$
(63)
$$\overline{\underset{¯}{L}}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{iI(\stackrel{}{R}_{12},\stackrel{}{r}_1)+iI(\stackrel{}{R}_{12},\stackrel{}{r}_2)}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(1,3)\underset{¯}{F}(3,2)d3,$$
(64)
$$\overline{\underset{¯}{M}}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{iI(\stackrel{}{R}_{12},\stackrel{}{r}_1)+iI(\stackrel{}{R}_{12},\stackrel{}{r}_2)}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(1,3)\underset{¯}{G}^{}(3,2)d3.$$
(65)
Some of the main issues may be: (i) whether these terms can also be expressed with respect to the gauge-invariant derivatives of Eqs. (47) and (51); (ii) how the bare mass $`m`$ in Eq. (58) is changed by the interactions; (iii) whether new terms arise or not besides the last four terms in Eq. (58).

We first focus on Eq. (62). Writing it with respect to $`\overline{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}`$ and $`\overline{\underset{¯}{G}}`$, it is transformed into an expression where $`\overline{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\overline{\underset{¯}{G}}`$ is multiplied by a phase factor $`\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi _{123}}`$ with

$`\varphi _{123}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}{\displaystyle _{C_{123}}}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{s})𝑑\stackrel{}{s}`$ (67)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2c}}{\displaystyle 𝑑f^{jk}\left(\frac{A_k}{x^j}\frac{A_j}{x^k}\right)}.`$
Here the contour $`C_{123}`$ is given in Fig. 1(a), and we have used the Stokes theorem to obtain the second line, with the infinitesimal surface element $`df^{jk}`$ ($`j,k=0,1,2,3`$) defined by

$`df^{jk}`$ $`(\stackrel{}{r}_{32}du)^j(\stackrel{}{r}_{13}dv)^k(\stackrel{}{r}_{32}du)^k(\stackrel{}{r}_{13}dv)^j.`$ (69)
$`(0u1;0vu)`$
To evaluate Eq. (67), we expand $`B_{jk}\frac{A_k}{x^j}\frac{A_j}{x^k}`$ from $`\stackrel{}{R}\stackrel{}{R}_{12}`$ as

$`B_{jk}\left(\stackrel{}{R}+(u\frac{1}{2})\stackrel{}{r}_{32}+(v\frac{1}{2})\stackrel{}{r}_{13}\right)`$ (70)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(u\frac{1}{2})^n}{n!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(v\frac{1}{2})^n^{}}{n^{}!}}(\stackrel{}{r}_{32}\stackrel{}{}_\stackrel{}{R})^n(\stackrel{}{r}_{13}\stackrel{}{}_\stackrel{}{R})^n^{}`$ (72)
$`\times B_{jk}(\stackrel{}{R}).`$
We then find that, with the approximation for $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ adopted below in Eq. (85), the terms $`(\stackrel{}{r}_{13}\stackrel{}{}_\stackrel{}{R})^n^{}`$ with $`n^{}1`$ can be neglected. This fact may be realized more clearly by noting that $`\stackrel{}{r}_{13}(ct_{13},𝐫_{13})`$ is transformed in Fourier space into $`\epsilon `$ and $`𝐩`$ derivatives on $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$, and there already exists one $`\stackrel{}{r}_{13}`$ in the surface element as Eq. (69). Using the approximation, the integrations over $`u`$ and $`v`$ in Eq. (67) are easily performed to yield

$`\varphi _{123}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{t_{32}}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)_2\left(\frac{t_{32}}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)+_2\left(\frac{t_{32}}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)\right]`$ (74)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡(\stackrel{}{R})(𝐫_{13}\times 𝐫_{32})+𝐄(\stackrel{}{R})(𝐫_{13}t_{32}t_{13}𝐫_{32})\right],`$
where $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are defined by Eqs. (21) and (22), respectively, and we have neglected spatial derivatives of $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐡`$ once again.

We now introduce the Fourier transform of $`\overline{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}`$ through

$`\overline{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}(1,3)={\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩d\epsilon }{(2\pi )^4}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑_{13}T_{13})\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫_{13}\epsilon t_{13})}}`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\frac{𝐫_{32}}{2}\frac{}{𝐑}+\frac{t_{32}}{2}\frac{}{T}){\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩d\epsilon }{(2\pi )^4}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫_{13}\epsilon t_{13})}}.`$ (77)
Then using Eq. (LABEL:phi123-approx), we can transform Eq. (62) into

$`\overline{\underset{¯}{J}}={\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩d\epsilon }{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d𝐩^{}d\epsilon ^{}}{(2\pi )^4}𝑑𝐫_3𝑑t_3\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫_{13}\epsilon t_{13})+i(𝐩^{}𝐫_{32}\epsilon ^{}t_{32})}}`$ (79)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\{\frac{i}{4}e[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon ^{})_2(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon ^{})+_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon ^{}\right)]`$ (80)
$`\times [\frac{1}{c}𝐡(\stackrel{}{R})(\mathbf{}_𝐩\times \mathbf{}_𝐩^{})𝐄(\stackrel{}{R})(\mathbf{}_𝐩_\epsilon ^{}_\epsilon \mathbf{}_𝐩^{})]\}`$ (81)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}(\mathbf{}_𝐑\mathbf{}_𝐩^{}\mathbf{}_𝐩\mathbf{}_𝐑^{}_T_\epsilon ^{}+_\epsilon _T^{})\right]`$ (82)
$`\times \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\underset{¯}{G}(𝐩^{}\epsilon ^{},𝐑^{}T^{})|_{𝐑^{}=𝐑,T^{}=T},`$ (83)
where $`_T`$ in $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ operates only on $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐡`$. The latter two exponentials are to be expanded to first order in $`\mathbf{}_𝐑`$, $`𝐄`$, and $`𝐡`$, in accordance with Eq. (58). To this end, we use the following approximation for the self-energy:

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$ $`\mathrm{Re}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\right)\epsilon \underset{¯}{1}`$ (85)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_\mathrm{F}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\right)(𝐩𝐩_\mathrm{F})\underset{¯}{1}+i\mathrm{Im}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}\epsilon ,𝐑T),`$
with $`a`$ the renormalization factor and $`𝐯_\mathrm{F}`$ the Fermi velocity. We then neglect terms including $`𝐑`$ derivatives of $`\mathrm{Re}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)`$ as well as $`\epsilon `$ and $`𝐑`$ derivatives of $`\mathrm{Im}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$, since they are smaller at least by an order of magnitude in $`(p_\mathrm{F}\xi _0)^1`$. We thereby obtain the Fourier transform of Eq. (83) as

$`\underset{¯}{J}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \overline{\underset{¯}{J}}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫\epsilon t)}𝑑𝐫𝑑t}`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\underset{¯}{G}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_\mathrm{F}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\right)\mathbf{}_𝐑\underset{¯}{G}`$ (91)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}})[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon )_2(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon )`$
$`+_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)]𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩\underset{¯}{G}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)+_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)\right]`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_\mathrm{F}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\underset{¯}{G},`$
where $`AB`$ is defined by

$`AB`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}(_\epsilon _T^{}_T_\epsilon ^{})\right]A(\epsilon T)B(\epsilon ^{}T^{})|_{\epsilon ^{}=\epsilon ,T^{}=T}.`$ (92)
We next consider Eq. (63). Writing it with respect to $`\overline{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ and $`\overline{\underset{¯}{F}}^{}`$, it is expressed as $`\overline{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\overline{\underset{¯}{F}}^{}`$ multiplied by the phase factor:

$`\mathrm{e}^{i[I(\stackrel{}{R}_{12},\stackrel{}{r}_1)I(\stackrel{}{R}_{12},\stackrel{}{r}_2)I(\stackrel{}{R}_{13},\stackrel{}{r}_1)I(\stackrel{}{R}_{13},\stackrel{}{r}_3)+I(\stackrel{}{R}_{32},\stackrel{}{r}_3)+I(\stackrel{}{R}_{32},\stackrel{}{r}_2)]}.`$
We add the four extra paths as the broken lines in Fig. 1(b) and then subtract them. This factor is thereby written as

$`\mathrm{e}^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3)+2i[I(\stackrel{}{R}_{23},\stackrel{}{R}_{12})I(\stackrel{}{R}_{13},\stackrel{}{R}_{12})]},`$
where $`\varphi _j`$ ($`j=1,2,3`$) is defined as Eq. (67) with the contour $`C_j`$ given in Fig. 1(b). Those $`\varphi _j`$’s may be transformed into expressions corresponding to Eq. (LABEL:phi123-approx), but their explicit forms will not be required below; we should only keep in mind that they all include $`t_{13}`$ or $`𝐫_{13}`$, as in the case of Eq. (LABEL:phi123-approx).

We now introduce the Fourier transform of $`\overline{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ in the same way as Eq. (LABEL:S-Fourier). We also use the following identity:

$`\mathrm{exp}[2iI(\stackrel{}{R}_{13},\stackrel{}{R}_{12})]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{𝐫_{32}}{2}\frac{}{𝐑}+\frac{t_{32}}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{𝐫_{32}}{2}\left(\frac{}{𝐑}i\frac{2e}{c}𝐀(\stackrel{}{R})\right)+\frac{t_{32}}{2}\left(\frac{}{T}+2ie\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{R})\right)\right].`$ (95)
With these prescriptions, Eq. (63) is transformed into

$`\overline{\underset{¯}{K}}={\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩d\epsilon }{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d𝐩^{}d\epsilon ^{}}{(2\pi )^4}𝑑𝐫_3𝑑t_3\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫_{13}\epsilon t_{13})+i(𝐩^{}𝐫_{32}\epsilon ^{}t_{32})}}`$ (96)
$`\times \mathrm{e}^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3)}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}(\mathbf{}_𝐑\mathbf{}_𝐩^{}\mathbf{}_𝐩\mathbf{}_𝐑^{}_T_\epsilon ^{}+_\epsilon _T^{})\right]`$ (97)
$`\times \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\underset{¯}{F}^{}(𝐩^{}\epsilon ^{},𝐑^{}T^{})|_{𝐑^{}=𝐑,T^{}=T},`$ (98)
where $`_T`$ and $`\mathbf{}_𝐑`$ are defined by Eqs. (47) and (51), respectively. The latter two exponentials should be expanded to first order in $`\mathbf{}_𝐑`$, $`𝐄`$, and $`𝐡`$. To this end, we use the approximation:

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$ $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T).`$ (99)
Compared with Eq. (85), the $`\epsilon `$ and $`𝐩𝐩_\mathrm{F}`$ expansions are stopped here at the lowest level; this difference originates from the smallness of $`(p_\mathrm{F}\xi _0)^1`$. With Eq. (99), all the $`𝐩`$ and $`\epsilon `$ derivatives on $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ vanish in Eq. (98), so that we may put $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3=0`$. Also, terms including $`𝐑`$ derivatives of $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)`$ should be neglected as they are smaller by an order of magnitude in $`(p_\mathrm{F}\xi _0)^1`$. We thereby obtain:

$`\underset{¯}{K}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \overline{\underset{¯}{K}}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫\epsilon t)}𝑑𝐫𝑑t}`$ (100)
$`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)\underset{¯}{F}^{}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T).`$ (101)
Equations (64) and (65) are transformed similarly by using the contours of the phase integrals given in Figs. 1(c) and 1(d), respectively. Especially for Eq. (64), we use the approximation:

$`\varphi _{13}+\varphi _2{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}{\displaystyle _{C_{13}}}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{s})𝑑\stackrel{}{s}{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}{\displaystyle _{C_2}}\stackrel{}{A}(\stackrel{}{s})𝑑\stackrel{}{s}`$ (102)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{t_{32}}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)_2\left(\frac{t_{32}}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)_2\left(\frac{t_{32}}{2}\frac{}{T}\right)\right]`$ (103)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡(\stackrel{}{R})(𝐫_{13}\times 𝐫_{32})+𝐄(\stackrel{}{R})(𝐫_{13}t_{32}t_{13}𝐫_{32})\right],`$ (104)
(105)
with $`C_{13}`$ and $`C_2`$ given in Fig. 1(c), which can be derived in the same way as Eq. (LABEL:phi123-approx). Notice the difference $`\pm _2(\frac{t_{32}}{2}\frac{}{T})`$ between Eqs. (LABEL:phi123-approx) and (105). Finally, the Fourier transforms of Eqs. (64) and (65) can be written in terms of the gauge-invariant derivatives of Eqs. (47) and (51) as

$`\underset{¯}{L}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \overline{\underset{¯}{L}}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫\epsilon t)}𝑑𝐫𝑑t}`$ (106)
$`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\underset{¯}{F}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_\mathrm{F}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\right)\mathbf{}_𝐑\underset{¯}{F}`$ (111)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}})[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon )_2(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon )`$
$`_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)]𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩\underset{¯}{F}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)\right]`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_\mathrm{F}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\underset{¯}{F},`$
and

$`\underset{¯}{M}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \overline{\underset{¯}{M}}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫\epsilon t)}𝑑𝐫𝑑t}`$ (112)
$`=`$ $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)\underset{¯}{G}^{}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T),`$ (113)
respectively.

We now collect Eqs. (91), (101), (111), and (113) into a Nambu-matrix form with respect to $`\widehat{G}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$ and

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \widehat{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫\epsilon t)}𝑑𝐫𝑑t}`$ (114)
$`=[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\\ \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\end{array}].`$ (117)
With the abbreviations $`\underset{¯}{J}\underset{¯}{J}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{J}^{}\underset{¯}{J}^{}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$, etc, the third term on the left-hand side of Eq. (15) can now be written as

$`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{J}+\underset{¯}{K}\hfill & \underset{¯}{L}+\underset{¯}{M}\hfill \\ \underset{¯}{L}^{}+\underset{¯}{M}^{}\hfill & \underset{¯}{J}^{}+\underset{¯}{K}^{}\hfill \end{array}\right]`$ (120)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{G}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_\mathrm{F}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\right)\mathbf{}_𝐑\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}`$ (126)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}})\left[2_1\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)\right]𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}})_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)\right]`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_\mathrm{F}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\widehat{G}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e_2(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon )\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_\mathrm{F}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3,`$
with

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\right)\epsilon \widehat{1}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐯_\mathrm{F}}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩_\mathrm{F}}{m}}\right)(𝐩𝐩_\mathrm{F})\widehat{\tau }_3`$ (128)
$`+\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Re}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)\\ \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)& \mathrm{Re}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)\end{array}\right]`$ (131)
$`+i\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Im}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{0}\\ \underset{¯}{0}& \mathrm{Im}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\end{array}\right].`$ (134)
One should keep in mind that $`_T`$ in $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ of Eq. (LABEL:HatSG) operates only on $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐡`$.

Several comments are in order before closing the section. First, Eq. (LABEL:HatSG) is expressed entirely in terms of the gauge-invariant derivatives of Eqs. (47) and (51). Second, it exactly contains those terms which turn the bare mass of Eq. (58) into the effective mass $`m^{}(v_\mathrm{F}/p_\mathrm{F})^1`$. Finally, aside from this change of the bare mass into the effective mass, no new terms arise in Eq. (LABEL:HatSG) besides the last four terms of Eq. (58).

## V Quasiclassical equations

Adding Eqs. (58) and (LABEL:HatSG) yields the Fourier transform of the left-hand side of Eq. (15). The corresponding right-hand side is just the unit matrix $`\widehat{1}`$. Noting $`(\epsilon +\frac{i}{2}_T)\widehat{G}=\epsilon \widehat{G}`$ with $``$ defined by Eq. (LABEL:circ), we obtain the left-hand Dyson-Gor’kov equation as

$`(\epsilon \widehat{1}\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\tau }_3)\widehat{G}\xi \widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}𝐯_\mathrm{F}\mathbf{}_𝐑\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}`$ (135)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\left[2_1\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)\right]𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}`$ (136)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3`$ (137)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)\right]`$ (138)
$`\times 𝐯_\mathrm{F}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\widehat{G}`$ (139)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e_2(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon )𝐯_\mathrm{F}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3`$ (140)
$`=a\widehat{1},`$ (141)
where $`\xi 𝐯_\mathrm{F}(𝐩𝐩_\mathrm{F})`$, and $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ is defined by

$`\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)a\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_\mathrm{F}^2}{2m}}\mu \right)\widehat{1}`$ (142)
$`+a\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Re}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)\\ \underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)& \mathrm{Re}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}0,𝐑T)\end{array}\right]\widehat{\tau }_3`$ (145)
$`+ia\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Im}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{0}\\ \underset{¯}{0}& \mathrm{Im}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\end{array}\right]\widehat{\tau }_3.`$ (148)
The corresponding right-hand equation may be derived similarly. It can also be obtained from Eq. (141) by: (i) taking its Hermitian conjugate with noting the relations $`\widehat{G}^\mathrm{R}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)=\widehat{G}^\mathrm{A}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\mathrm{R}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\mathrm{A}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$, where A denotes “advanced”; (ii) formally changing A to R. The result is:

$`\widehat{G}(\epsilon \widehat{1}\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\tau }_3)\xi \widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}𝐯_\mathrm{F}\mathbf{}_𝐑\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3`$ (149)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\left[2_1\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)\right]𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3`$ (150)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}`$ (151)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_1\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)_2\left(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon \right)\right]`$ (152)
$`\times 𝐯_\mathrm{F}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\widehat{G}`$ (153)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}e_2(\frac{i}{2}_T_\epsilon )𝐯_\mathrm{F}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}𝐡\times \mathbf{}_𝐩+𝐄_\epsilon \right)\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}\widehat{\tau }_3`$ (154)
$`=a\widehat{1}.`$ (155)
Let us rewrite the above two equations with respect to $`\widehat{G}^{}\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}`$. We next operate $`\widehat{\tau }_3`$ from the left and the right sides of Eq. (155), and subtract the resulting equation from Eq. (141). We then perform the integration over $`\xi `$, neglecting all the $`\xi `$ dependences except that of $`\widehat{G}^{}`$. To this end, let us define the quasiclassical Green’s function by

$`\widehat{g}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \frac{i}{a\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\mathrm{cos}(\xi 0_+)𝑑\xi `$ (156)
$`=[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{g}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{f}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\\ \underset{¯}{f}^{}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{g}^{}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\end{array}],`$ (159)
with $`0_+`$ an infinitesimal positive constant. We also take the following procedures to get the final equations: (i) Rewrite $`\mathbf{}_𝐩=\mathbf{}_𝐩_{}+𝐯_\mathrm{F}\frac{}{\xi }`$ with $`𝐩_{}`$ the component on the energy surface $`\xi `$. (ii) Notice $`𝐯_\mathrm{F}\times \mathbf{}_𝐩_{}=𝐯_\mathrm{F}\times \mathbf{}_𝐩`$ and

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi {\displaystyle \frac{^n}{\xi ^n}}\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\mathrm{cos}(\xi 0_+)=0.`$
(iii) Neglect terms with $`𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩_{}`$, since they are smaller than those with $`𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐄_\epsilon `$ by an order of magnitude in $`(p_\mathrm{F}\xi _0)^1`$. (iv) Make use of the integral expressions of Eqs. (21) and (22).

Thus, the quasiclassical equations are obtained as

$`[\epsilon \widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{\sigma },\widehat{g}]_{}+i𝐯_\mathrm{F}\mathbf{}_𝐑\widehat{g}`$ (160)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}𝒪_g\{\widehat{\tau }_3,\widehat{g}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}𝒪_f[\widehat{\tau }_3,\widehat{g}]=\widehat{0},`$ (161)
where $`[A,B]ABBA`$, $`[A,B]_{}ABBA`$, and $`𝒪_g`$ and $`𝒪_f`$ are defined by

$`𝒪_g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\eta \{`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝐯_\mathrm{F}\times 𝐡(𝐑,T\frac{i}{2}\eta _\epsilon )\right]{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐩}}`$ (163)
$`+e𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐄(𝐑,T\frac{i}{2}\eta _\epsilon ){\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon }}\},`$
$`𝒪_f`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _1^0})d\eta \{[{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝐯_\mathrm{F}\times 𝐡(𝐑,T\frac{i}{2}\eta _\epsilon )]{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐩}}`$ (165)
$`+e𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐄(𝐑,T\frac{i}{2}\eta _\epsilon ){\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon }}\},`$
which operate on $`\underset{¯}{g}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{f}`$ of Eq. (159), respectively. If $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐡`$ are time independent, these operators acquire the simple expressions:

$`𝒪_g={\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}(𝐯_\mathrm{F}\times 𝐡){\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐩}}+e𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐄{\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon }},`$ (166)
$$𝒪_f=0.$$
(167)
Without the terms with $`𝒪_g`$ and $`𝒪_f`$, Eq. (161) reduces to the standard quasiclassical equations. By applying Eq. (161) to the normal state, one can show easily that Eq. (166) indeed describes the normal-state Hall effect. Thus, Eq. (161) is expected to bring a consistent understanding of the Hall effect through the superconducting transition. Notice that the same Fermi velocity $`𝐯_\mathrm{F}`$ is relevant in both the acceleration term $`e𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐄\frac{}{\epsilon }`$ and the Lorentz-force term $`\frac{e}{c}(𝐯_\mathrm{F}\times 𝐡)\frac{}{𝐩}`$ of Eq. (166), even after the correlation effects have been incorporated.

A key point in the above derivation is that the terms with $`𝐄\mathbf{}_𝐩_{}`$ turn out to be smaller than those with $`𝐯_\mathrm{F}𝐄_\epsilon `$ by an order of magnitude in $`(p_\mathrm{F}\xi _0)^1`$. Hence those terms in Eqs. (58), (83), and (98) could be neglected from the beginning. Tracing back the derivation, it then follows that the $`\epsilon `$ expansion in Eqs. (85) and (99) are unnecessary, so that $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ in Eq. (161) may have a more general $`\epsilon `$ dependence than Eq. (148) as

$`\widehat{\sigma }(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)a\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_\mathrm{F}^2}{2m}}\mu \right)\widehat{1}+a\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩_\mathrm{F}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_3.`$ (168)
Hence Eq. (161) can also be used, for example, for a system with a strong electron-phonon interaction where there may be a strong $`\epsilon `$ dependence in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$.

Equation (161) carries manifest gauge invariance, i.e., it remains unchanged in the gauge transformation $`\widehat{g}\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}\chi (\stackrel{}{R})\widehat{\tau _3}]\widehat{g}\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}\chi (\stackrel{}{R})\widehat{\tau _3}]`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{c}\frac{\chi }{T}`$, and $`𝐀𝐀+\frac{\chi }{𝐑}`$. This is certainly a desired property to provide a support for the validity of the present equations. Compared with the result of Kopnin, Eq. (161) are more advantageous in its wide applicability, i.e. it can be used for clean as well as dirty superconductors in arbitrary external frequencies much smaller than the Fermi energy. In addition, the terms with $`𝒪_g`$ and $`𝒪_f`$ are also present in the retarded and the advanced parts of the equations; those terms were neglected by Kopnin who considered only the static case of $`\omega =0`$, but may have an important role in the vortex dynamics of finite external frequencies. One can also show that Eq. (161) agrees in the static limit to the equations obtained by Houghton and Vekhter, if a due care is taken in the gauge choice and terms next order in $`(p_\mathrm{F}\xi _0)^1`$ (i.e. terms with $`𝐑`$ and $`𝐩`$ derivatives of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$) are neglected in their Eq. (53). Thus, Eq. (161) clarifies the applicability of their Eq. (53) that it is valid only in the static limit; for example, the first term in the square bracket of Eq. (165) is absent in their equation.

It follows from Eq. (161) that $`\widehat{\nu }\widehat{g}\widehat{g}`$ satisfies

$`[\epsilon \widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{\sigma },\widehat{\nu }]_{}+i𝐯_\mathrm{F}\mathbf{}_𝐑\widehat{\nu }`$ (169)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\{\widehat{g},𝒪_g\{\widehat{\tau }_3,\widehat{g}\}+𝒪_f[\tau _3,\widehat{g}]\}_{},`$ (170)
with $`\{A,B\}_{}AB+BA`$. In the absence of the right-hand terms, this equation tells us that if $`\widehat{\nu }=\widehat{1}`$ at some space point, as in the uniform cases, then $`𝐯_\mathrm{F}\mathbf{}_𝐑\widehat{\nu }`$ vanishes so that $`\widehat{\nu }`$ does not change along the straight-line path parallel to $`𝐯_\mathrm{F}`$; we may thereby conclude $`\widehat{\nu }=\widehat{1}`$ everywhere. However, this normalization condition no longer holds generally in the presence of the right-hand terms. This does not cause any trouble, however, and we only have to solve Eq. (161) with imposing the condition that $`\widehat{\nu }\widehat{1}`$ as $`\epsilon \mathrm{}`$ or $`𝐄0`$.

## VI Equations in Nambu-Keldysh space

The above result for the retarded Green’s function can easily be extended to the advanced and the Keldysh parts.

Let us define the advanced Green’s functions by

$`G_{\alpha \beta }^\mathrm{A}(1,2)`$ $`i\theta (t_2t_1)\{\psi _\alpha (1),\psi _\beta ^{}(2)\}`$ (172)
$`=G_{\beta \alpha }^\mathrm{R}(2,1),`$
$`F_{\alpha \beta }^\mathrm{A}(1,2)`$ $`i\theta (t_2t_1)\{\psi _\alpha (1),\psi _\beta (2)\}`$ (174)
$`=F_{\beta \alpha }^\mathrm{R}(2,1).`$
We also define the Fourier transform and the quasiclassical Green’s function as

$`\widehat{G}^\mathrm{A}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \widehat{\overline{G}}^\mathrm{A}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫\epsilon t)}𝑑𝐫𝑑t}`$ (175)
$`[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{G}^\mathrm{A}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{F}^\mathrm{A}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\\ \underset{¯}{F}^\mathrm{A}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{G}^\mathrm{A}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\end{array}],`$ (178)
and

$`\widehat{g}^\mathrm{A}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \frac{i}{a\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}^\mathrm{A}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\mathrm{cos}(\xi 0_+)𝑑\xi `$ (179)
$`=[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{g}^\mathrm{A}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{f}^\mathrm{A}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\\ \underset{¯}{f}^\mathrm{A}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{g}^\mathrm{A}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\end{array}],`$ (182)
respectively, where the arguments $`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon `$ carry an infinitesimal negative imaginary part.

As for the Keldysh part, we start from the basic definitions:

$$G_{\alpha \beta }^\mathrm{K}(1,2)i[\psi _\alpha (1),\psi _\beta ^{}(2)]=G_{\beta \alpha }^\mathrm{K}(2,1),$$
(183)
$$F_{\alpha \beta }^\mathrm{K}(1,2)i[\psi _\alpha (1),\psi _\beta (2)]=F_{\beta \alpha }^\mathrm{K}(2,1).$$
(184)
We then introduce the Nambu matrix by

$`\widehat{G}^\mathrm{K}(1,2)[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{G}^\mathrm{K}(1,2)& \underset{¯}{F}^\mathrm{K}(1,2)\\ \underset{¯}{F}^\mathrm{K}(1,2)& \underset{¯}{G}^\mathrm{K}(1,2)\end{array}].`$ (187)
Its Fourier transform is defined by

$`\widehat{G}^\mathrm{K}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \widehat{\overline{G}}^\mathrm{K}(1,2)\mathrm{e}^{i(𝐩𝐫\epsilon t)}𝑑𝐫𝑑t}`$ (188)
$`[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{G}^\mathrm{K}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{F}^\mathrm{K}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\\ \underset{¯}{F}^\mathrm{K}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{G}^\mathrm{K}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\end{array}],`$ (191)
and the quasiclassical Green’s function by

$`\widehat{g}^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T){\displaystyle \frac{i}{a\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}^\mathrm{K}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\mathrm{cos}(\xi 0_+)𝑑\xi `$ (192)
$`=[\begin{array}{cc}\underset{¯}{g}^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{f}^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\\ \underset{¯}{f}^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)& \underset{¯}{g}^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\end{array}].`$ (195)
The Keldysh self-energy matrices $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\mathrm{K}`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{K}`$ are defined similarly as Eqs. (191) and (195), respectively.

We now introduce as usual three Keldysh matrices by

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{g}[\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{g}^\mathrm{R}& \widehat{g}^\mathrm{K}\\ \widehat{0}& \widehat{g}^\mathrm{A}\end{array}],\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }[\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{R}& \widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{K}\\ \widehat{0}& \widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{A}\end{array}],\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_3[\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\tau }_3& \widehat{0}\\ \widehat{0}& \widehat{\tau }_3\end{array}].`$ (202)
Then the equations for $`\widehat{g}^\mathrm{R}`$, $`\widehat{g}^\mathrm{K}`$, and $`\widehat{g}^\mathrm{A}`$ can be put into a compact form as

$`[\epsilon \stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_3\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma },\stackrel{ˇ}{g}]_{}+i𝐯_\mathrm{F}\mathbf{}_𝐑\stackrel{ˇ}{g}`$ (203)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}𝒪_g\{\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_3,\stackrel{ˇ}{g}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}𝒪_f[\stackrel{ˇ}{\tau }_3,\stackrel{ˇ}{g}]=\stackrel{ˇ}{0},`$ (204)
where $`𝒪_g`$ and $`𝒪_f`$ are defined as Eqs. (163) and (165), respectively.

Those quasiclassical Green’s functions satisfy

$$[\widehat{g}^\mathrm{R}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^{}=\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{g}^\mathrm{A}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_3,$$
(205)
$$[\widehat{g}^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^{}=\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{g}^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_3,$$
(206)
$$[\widehat{g}^\mathrm{R}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^\mathrm{T}=\widehat{\tau }_2\widehat{g}^\mathrm{A}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_2,$$
(207)
$$[\widehat{g}^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^\mathrm{T}=\widehat{\tau }_2\widehat{g}^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_2,$$
(208)
with T denoting the transpose. These relations originate from $`[\widehat{G}^\mathrm{R}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^{}=\widehat{G}^\mathrm{A}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$, $`[\widehat{G}^\mathrm{K}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^{}=\widehat{G}^\mathrm{K}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$, $`[\widehat{G}^\mathrm{R}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^\mathrm{T}=\widehat{\tau }_1\widehat{G}^\mathrm{A}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_1`$, and $`[\widehat{G}^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^\mathrm{T}=\widehat{\tau }_1\widehat{G}^\mathrm{K}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_1`$, respectively. Similarly, the self-energy matrices are shown to have the symmetry:

$$[\widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{R}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^{}=\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{A}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_3,$$
(209)
$$[\widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^{}=\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_3,$$
(210)
$$[\widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{R}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^\mathrm{T}=\widehat{\tau }_2\widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{A}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_2,$$
(211)
$$[\widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)]^\mathrm{T}=\widehat{\tau }_2\widehat{\sigma }^\mathrm{K}(\widehat{𝐩}\epsilon ,𝐑T)\widehat{\tau }_2.$$
(212)
## VII Concluding Remarks

We have presented a systematic derivation of the quasiclassical equations based a nonlocal-gauge-transformed Green’s function (17). This enabled us to retain the gauge invariance in terms of the center-of-mass coordinate $`\stackrel{}{R}(𝐑T)`$ at every stage throughout the derivation. Equation (161) with Eqs. (47), (51), (LABEL:circ), (168), (163), and (165) is the main result of this paper. It naturally carries a manifest gauge invariance, i.e., it remains unchanged in the gauge transformation $`\widehat{g}\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}\chi (\stackrel{}{R})\widehat{\tau _3}]\widehat{g}\mathrm{exp}[i\frac{e}{c}\chi (\stackrel{}{R})\widehat{\tau _3}]`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{c}\frac{\chi }{T}`$, and $`𝐀𝐀+\frac{\chi }{𝐑}`$. This is certainly a desired property to provide a strong support for the validity of the present equations. Also, the terms responsible for the Hall effect are automatically present in the operators $`𝒪_g`$ and $`𝒪_f`$. Indeed, by applying Eq. (161) to the normal state, one recovers the normal-state Hall effect. It should also be noted that Eq. (161) is applicable to band electrons; this may be shown by using in the derivation the anisotropic self-energy $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(𝐩\epsilon ,𝐑T)`$ where the effect of the periodic lattice potential is incorporated.

Compared with the results of Kopnin and Houghton and Vekhter which are valid only in the static limit, as discussed in the paragraph below Eq. (168), Eq. (161) is more advantageous in its wide applicability that it can be used for clean as well as dirty superconductors up to the external frequencies comparable with the energy gap. In addition, terms with $`𝒪_g`$ and $`𝒪_f`$ are also present in the retarded and the advanced parts of the equations; those terms were neglected by Kopnin who considered only the static limit of $`\omega =0`$, but may have an important role in the cases of finite external frequencies.

Thus, we have derived an equation which forms a firm basis for detailed studies of the Hall effect in the vortex states. Solving Eq. (161) is expected to bring a comprehensive understanding of the Hall effect in type-II superconductors.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a great pleasure to acknowledge extensive and stimulating discussions on the quasiclassical theory with Dierk Rainer which led to this work. I am also grateful to A. -P. Jauho for an informative communication, and to the members of Physikalisches Institut at Universität Bayreuth for their hospitality. The financial support from Yamada Science Foundation is greatly acknowledged.