text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Nonhermitian Random Matrix Models were first introduced by Ginibre in 1965 . His motivation was to describe the statistical properties of nuclear resonances with a finite width in complete analogy with the description of the position of resonances by means Hermitian Random Matrix Ensembles as introduced by Wigner and Dyson . Since then, eigenvalues of nonhermitian operators occurring in many different fields have been analyzed in terms of nonhermitian random matrix models, usually with additional ingredients. We mention several examples. The statistical properties of the poles of $`S`$-matrices have been analyzed in great detail in . In QCD, the Euclidean Dirac operator in QCD at nonzero chemical potential (which can be interpreted as an imaginary vector potential), is nonhermitian resulting in the failure of the quenched approximation . Both this failure and the generic properties of the complex Dirac spectrum have been explained fully in terms of a nonhermitian Random Matrix Model with the global symmetries of QCD . Recently, a delocalization transition was found in a one-dimensional lattice model with an imaginary vector potential . Statistical correlations predicted by the Ginibre ensemble have been found dissipative quantum maps . Eigenvalue spacings of the Floquet matrix of a Fokker Planck equation have been described in terms of Ginibre statistics . In  an ensemble of asymmetric real matrices, closely related to the Ginibre ensemble, was utilized to model the dynamics of a neural network.

Among more mathematically oriented works we mention the exact calculation of the correlation functions of an ensemble of normal random matrices with an arbitrary polynomial probability potential . Nonhermitian ensembles have been analyzed in terms of associated hermitian ensembles . Correlations of eigenfunctions have been studied in the Ginibre ensemble . Another intriguing application is the description of an analytic curve by the boundary of the support of the complex spectrum of a nonhermitian Random Matrix Theory . Finally, we point out that there are interesting relations between the eigenvalues of complex matrices and the positions of particles in certain two dimensional physical systems . For example, the Ginibre model is equivalent to a Coulomb problem in two dimensions .

Based on the magnitude of the imaginary part of the eigenvalues we distinguish two types of nonhermiticity: weak nonhermiticity and strong nonhermiticity. Weak nonhermiticity is the limit of large matrices when the imaginary part of the eigenvalues remains comparable with the mean separation of eigenvalues along the real axis. This limit was identified in , but was used earlier in the statistical theory of $`S`$-matrices . Strong nonhermiticity refers to cases for which the real and imaginary parts of the eigenvalues remain of the same order of magnitude in the thermodynamic limit. In this article we consider both types of nonhermiticity.

An important concept in the understanding of disordered systems is the Thouless energy. We will define this energy scale as the energy difference below which the eigenvalues are correlated according to Random Matrix Theory. In diffusive disordered systems, in the thermodynamic limit, both the eigenvalue spacing and the Thouless energy approach zero whereas the number of eigenvalues in between them approaches infinity. In this article we will consider critical statistics  which refers to the case that the ratio of the Thouless energy and the eigenvalue spacing remains finite in the thermodynamic limit. A Hermitian Random Matrix model for critical statistics was proposed in . In that model the correlations of the eigenvalues decay exponentially beyond a Thouless energy resulting in an asymptotically linear behavior of the number variance with slope (level compressibility) less than one. In this article we generalize this model to complex eigenvalues and analyze its properties. In the Ginibre model the two-point correlation function of eigenvalues in the bulk of the spectrum drops off exponentially on the scale of the distance between the eigenvalues. It is therefore no surprise that we will find the same bulk correlations in such generalized Ginibre model. However, we find nontrivial long range surface correlations, characteristic of a two-dimensional Coulomb liquid. In the case of weak nonhermiticity we expect to find critical statistics similar to the Hermitian model. The analysis of this case is the main objective of this article.

Critical statistics is associated with the multifractal behavior of the eigenfunctions . The critical Hermitian model introduced in  has the unitary invariance of the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble with eigenvectors that are distributed according to the measure of the unitary group. This is no contradiction: multifractality of wave functions occurs in a specific basis in which disorder competes with a hopping term. Indeed, in  it was found that the fractal dimension of the wave function determines the asymptotic slope of the number variance.

Among others, critical statistics have been utilized to describe the spectral correlations of disordered system at the Anderson transition in three dimensions , two dimensional Dirac fermions in a random potential , quantum Hall transition  and QCD Dirac operator in a liquid of instantons . The scope of universality of critical statistics is still under debate.

Our Random Matrix Model is introduced in section 2. The case or strong nonhermiticity and weak nonhermiticity are analyzed in sections 3 and 4, respectively. Among others we derive a closed expression for the two-point correlation function in both limits. Results for the number variance are discussed in section 5 and concluding remarks are macritical statistics is still under debate.de in section 6.

## 2 Introduction of the model

Recently, a Hermitian random matrix model for critical statistics was introduced by Moshe, Neuberger and Shapiro . This model, which interpolates between Wigner-Dyson statistics and Poisson statistics, is defined by the joint eigenvalue probability distribution

$`P\left(H\right)dH=dH{\displaystyle 𝑑U\mathrm{e}^{\left(1+b\right)\mathrm{Tr}H^2+b\mathrm{Tr}UHU^{}H^{}}},`$ (1)
where $`H`$ is a Hermitian $`n\times n`$ matrix. The integral is over the unitary group with invariant measure denoted by $`dU`$. Critical statistics  is obtained in the thermodynamic limit with $`b`$ scaling as $`b=h^2n^2`$ at fixed $`h`$ . In that case, the two-point correlation function decays exponentially at large distances and the number variance has an asymptotic linear behavior with slope less than one. In the thermodynamic limit, Wigner-Dyson statistics is obtained for a weaker $`n`$-dependence of $`b`$, and Poisson statistics is found for a stronger $`n`$-dependence of $`b`$.

In this article we are interested in ensembles of nonhermitian random matrices. The study of random matrices with no restrictions imposed was initiated by the classical work of Ginibre . He found closed expressions for the two-point correlation function of the eigenvalues of a Gaussian ensemble of random matrices with complex entries.

An ensemble that interpolates between the Ginibre ensemble and the Wigner-Dyson ensemble of Hermitian matrices was introduced in

$`P\left(C\right)dCdC\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{1\tau ^2}\mathrm{Tr}C^{}C+\frac{\tau }{2\left(1\tau ^2\right)}\mathrm{Tr}\left(C^2+\left(C^{}\right)^2\right)}.`$ (2)
Here, $`C`$ is an arbitrary $`n\times n`$ complex matrix with integration measure given by the product of the real and imaginary parts of the differentials of the matrix elements of $`C`$. For $`\tau =0`$ this model reduces to the Ginibre ensemble whereas for $`\tau =1`$ ($`1`$) it reduces to a Gaussian ensemble of (anti-)Hermitian matrices. The eigenvalues of this ensemble are scattered inside an ellipse with eccentricity given by $`2\sqrt{\tau }/\left(1+\tau \right)`$.

The joint eigenvalue distribution can be obtained by using two alternative decompositions

$`C=UTU^{}\mathrm{and}C=V\mathrm{\Lambda }V^1,`$ (3)
where $`U`$ is a unitary matrix, $`V`$ is a similarity transformation, $`T`$ a upper triangular matrix and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a diagonal matrix. The diagonal matrix elements of $`T`$ coincide with the complex eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kk}=z_k`$. The invariant measure factorizes as

$`dCdUdT\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\left\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kk}\right\}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\left\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{kk}^{}\right\}\right)`$ (4)
with the Vandermonde determinant defined by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\left\{z_k\right\}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{k<l}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(z_kz_l\right).`$ (5)
Since the Gaussian integral over the off-diagonal matrix elements of $`T`$ factorizes it can be performed trivially. The integral over $`U`$ is equal to the group volume. The joint probability distribution of the eigenvalues is thus given by

$`P\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)d\mathrm{\Lambda }d\mathrm{\Lambda }\left|\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\right|^2\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{1\tau ^2}_{i=0}^n\left[\left|z_i\right|^2\frac{\tau }{2}\left(z_i^2+\left(z_i^{}\right)^2\right)\right]}.`$ (6)
This model has been analyzed in two domains: weak nonhermiticity and strong nonhermiticity. In the first case the thermodynamic limit is taken at fixed $`n\left(1\tau \right)`$, whereas in the case of strong nonhermiticity $`1<\tau <1`$ remains fixed for $`n\mathrm{}`$. The two-point correlation function of this model was derived in .

In this article, we analyze a model that interpolates in between the models defined in eqs. (1) and (6). Our random matrix model is defined by

$`P\left(C\right)dCdC\mathrm{e}^{a_1\mathrm{Tr}C^{}C\frac{a_2}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(C^2+\left(C^{}\right)^2\right)}{\displaystyle 𝑑U\mathrm{e}^{a_3\mathrm{Tr}UCU^{}C^{}}}.`$ (7)
where is $`C`$ an arbitrary complex $`n\times n`$ matrix, and $`dU`$ is the Haar measure of the unitary group $`\mathrm{U}\left(n\right)`$. In the special case of $`C`$ being a normal matrix ($`[C,C^{}]=0`$), a unitary transformation brings $`C`$ to a diagonal form and the integral over $`U`$ is the standard Itzykson-Zuber integral  given by

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑U\mathrm{e}^{a_3\mathrm{Tr}UCU^{}C^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{det\mathrm{e}^{a_3z_iz_j^{}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\left\{z_k\right\}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\left\{z_k^{}\right\}\right)}},`$ (8)
where the $`z_i`$ are the eigenvalues of $`C`$. One thus finds the joint eigenvalue distribution

$`P\left(\left\{z_k\right\}\right)\mathrm{e}^{_{i=n}^n\left[a_1\left|z_i\right|^2+\frac{a_2}{2}\left(z_i^2+z_i^2\right)\right]}\mathrm{det}\left[\mathrm{e}^{a_3z_iz_j^{}}\right].`$ (9)
In the next paragraph we will show that this result is valid even if $`C`$ is an arbitrary complex matrix that can be decomposed according to (3).

We start from the triangular decomposition $`C=UTU^{}`$. Since $`T`$ is an upper-triangular matrix, the exponent in the integral over $`U`$ in (7) is then given by

$`\mathrm{Tr}UCU^{}C^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{jk}{il}}{}}U_{ij}T_{jk}U_{lk}^{}T_{il}^{}.`$ (10)
After performing a trivial $`\mathrm{U}\left(1\right)`$ integration, the integral over $`U`$ in (8) is over $`\mathrm{SU}\left(n\right)`$. The generating function for such integrals is given by

$`{\displaystyle _{U\mathrm{SU}\left(n\right)}}𝑑U\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{Tr}\left(JU^{}+J^{}U\right)}=F(detJ,detJ^{},\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left(J^{}J\right)^k\right\}),`$ (11)
where $`J`$ is a complex $`n\times n`$ matrix and the functional form of the r.h.s., with $`k`$ running over all positive integers, follows from the invariance of the group integral. In the expansion of the exponent (10) all terms have the same number of factors $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$. By differentiating (11) with respect to $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ at $`J=0`$, we find that such terms can be only non vanishing if the sum of the indices of $`U`$ is equal to the sum of the indices of $`U^{}`$ (for the terms that enter in the expansion of the determinant the sum of the first indices is equal to to sum of the second indices). We thus find that in the expansion of (10) all terms with off-diagonal elements of $`T`$ or $`T^{}`$ vanish after integration. We conclude that the result (8) for the Itzykson-Zuber integral is also valid for an arbitrary complex matrix $`C`$ with eigenvalues $`z_k`$.

For convenience, the constants in the joint eigenvalue distribution of (7) will be parameterized as

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{1\tau ^2}},`$
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \tau }{1\tau ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \alpha ^2}{\tau \left(1\alpha ^2\right)}},`$
$`a_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \alpha }{\tau \left(1\alpha ^2\right)}}.`$ (12)
After a rescaling of the matrix elements of $`C`$ by a factor $`1/\sqrt{\lambda }`$ the joint eigenvalue distribution of the model (7) reduces to

$`P\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)d\mathrm{\Lambda }d\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{e}^{_{i=1}^n\left[\frac{1}{1\tau ^2}\left|z_i\right|^2\frac{\tau }{2\left(1\tau ^2\right)}\left(z_i^2+z_i^2\right)+\frac{\alpha ^2}{2\tau \left(1\alpha ^2\right)}\left(z_i^2+z_i^2\right)\right]}\mathrm{det}\left[\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\alpha }{\tau \left(1\alpha ^2\right)}z_iz_j^{}}\right].`$ (13)
We will analyze this model in two limits. The case when $`1\tau `$ remains finite in the thermodynamic limit will be referred to as strong nonhermiticity. In this class of models we will consider the limiting case of zero eccentricity

$`\alpha 0,\tau 0\mathrm{with}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\tau }}=b\text{fixed},`$ (14)
which reduces to the Ginibre model in the limit in which the parameter $`b`$ is taken to zero. On the other hand, the case of weak nonhermiticity  is defined by the limit

$`\tau 1,n\mathrm{},\left(1\tau \right)n=a^2\text{fixed}.`$ (15)
Finally, let us mention that the wave functions of our model are distributed according to the invariant Haar measure of $`\mathrm{U}\left(n\right)`$. It could be that for diagonal $`U`$ in (7) the wave functions show a multifractal behavior, but that this property is obscured by averaging over all $`U`$ whereas eigenvalue correlations remain unaffected.

## 3 Strong nonhermiticity

In this section we consider the case of strong nonhermiticity (14). In order to rewrite the Itzykson-Zuber determinant in Eq.(13) in terms of an expectation value of two Slater determinants, we expand the exponential as

$`\mathrm{e}^{bz_iz_j^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^m}{m!}}z_i^m\left(z_j^{}\right)^m.`$ (16)
By a series of elementary manipulations we find

$`det\mathrm{e}^{bz_iz_j^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{m_n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{m_1+\mathrm{}+m_n}}{m_1!\mathrm{}m_n!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi \mathrm{S}_n}{}}\left(1\right)^{\sigma \left(\pi \right)}z_1^{m_1}\left(z_{\pi \left(1\right)}^{}\right)^{m_1}\mathrm{}z_n^{m_n}\left(z_{\pi \left(n\right)}^{}\right)^{m_n}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1<m_2<\mathrm{}<m_n}{}}b^{m_1+\mathrm{}+m_n}det{\displaystyle \frac{z_i^{m_j}}{\sqrt{m_j!}}}det{\displaystyle \frac{z_k^{m_l}}{\sqrt{m_l!}}}.`$
Including the other factors of the joint probability distribution we thus find

$`P\left(z\right)dz{\displaystyle \underset{m_1<m_2<\mathrm{}<m_n}{}}b^{m_1+\mathrm{}+m_n}det\varphi _{m_j}\left(z_i\right)det\varphi _{m_l}\left(z_k^{}\right),`$ (18)
where the normalized wave functions are given by

$`\varphi _k\left(z\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi k!}}}z^k\mathrm{e}^{\left|z\right|^2/2}`$ (19)
satisfy the orthogonality relation

$`{\displaystyle d^2z\varphi _k^{}\left(z\right)\varphi _l\left(z\right)}=\delta _{kl}.`$ (20)
They are the single particle wave functions of the lowest Landau level of a particle with unit mass in a constant magnetic field perpendicular to the plane. The Hamiltonian of this system is given by $`\left(z=x+iy\right)`$

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(i_xy\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(i_y+x\right)^2.`$ (21)
and the corresponding Schrödinger equation reads

$`H\varphi _k\left(z\right)=\varphi _k\left(z\right).`$ (22)
If we write

$`b=\mathrm{e}^\beta `$ (23)
the joint probability distribution is equal to the diagonal element of the $`n`$-body density matrix of the lowest Landau level fermions at temperature $`1/\beta `$, with an additional degeneracy-breaking Hamiltonian given by the absolute value of the angular momentum

$`L=iy_xix_y,`$ (24)
or equivalently of

$`\stackrel{~}{H}=H+2L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(i_x+y\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(i_yx\right)^2.`$ (25)
The average spectral density $`\rho _n\left(z\right)`$, which can be interpreted as the one-particle density, is obtained by integrating the joint eigenvalue density over all coordinates except one. By using the orthogonality relations (19) one easily finds

$`\rho _n\left(z\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1<m_2<\mathrm{}<m_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta \left(m_1+\mathrm{}+m_n\right)}\varphi _{m_i}\left(z\right)\varphi _{m_i}\left(z^{}\right),`$ (26)
or in an occupation number representation

$`\rho _n\left(z\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}=n}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta _ppn_p}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n_k\varphi _k\left(z\right)\varphi _k\left(z^{}\right),`$ (27)
where the occupation number $`n_k`$ runs over $`\{0,1\}`$. The partition function $`Z_n`$ is defined in the usual way

$`Z_n={\displaystyle \underset{n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}=n}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta _ppn_p}.`$ (28)
Such sums can be easily evaluated in the grand canonical ensemble

$`\rho \left(z\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\zeta ^nZ_n\rho _n\left(z\right)`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _k\left(z\right)\varphi _k\left(z^{}\right)}{1+\zeta ^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}k(z,z),`$
where we have introduced the prekernel

$`k(z_1,z_2)=\mathrm{e}^{z_1z_2^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(z_1z_2^{}\right)^k}{k!\left(1+\zeta ^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta k}\right)}}.`$ (30)
The fugacity $`\zeta `$ is determined by the normalization of the one-particle density

$`n={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\zeta ^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta k}}}.`$ (31)
For $`\beta 1`$ the sum can be converted into an integral resulting in

$`\zeta =\mathrm{e}^{n\beta }1.`$ (32)
Similarly, the two-point correlation function is obtained by integrating over all eigenvalues except two. Again by going to the grand canonical ensemble one easily derives that the connected two-point correlation can be factorized in the result for the Ginibre ensemble and the prekernel (30)

$`R_2(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{e}^{\left|z_1z_2\right|^2}\left|k(z_1,z_2)\right|^2.`$ (33)
For $`\beta 1`$ but $`n\beta 1`$ a partial resummation of the prekernel (30) results in

$`k(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+1,z_1z_2^{})}{k!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\beta \left(kn\right)/2\right)}},`$ (34)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(k,x)=_x^{\mathrm{}}t^{k1}\mathrm{e}^t𝑑t`$ is the incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function. For $`\beta 0`$ it is justified to make the approximation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta \left(kn\right)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{e}^{\beta \left(k+1n\right)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\beta \left(kn\right)/2\right)}}.`$ (35)
In the remainder of this subsection we will evaluate the prekernel in several limiting situations.

If the distance of $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ (both inside the disk of eigenvalues) to the surface of the disk is much larger than $`\beta `$, the numerator attains its maximum value when the Fermi-Dirac factor is close to unity. In that case the Fermi-Dirac distribution can be replaced by a sharp cutoff and the two-point correlation function is given by

$`R_2(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}\mathrm{e}^{\left|z_1z_2\right|^2}.`$ (36)
Inside the disk the average spectral density is $`1/\pi `$. The unfolded two-point spectral correlation function thus coincides with the Ginibre result.

A more interesting situation arises in case both $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ are close to the surface of the disk of eigenvalues. A nontrivial thermodynamic limit of the surface correlations is obtained for

$`\beta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}},`$
$`\left|z_1z_2^{}\right|`$ $``$ $`n,`$
$`\mathrm{arg}\left(z_1z_2^{}\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}.`$ (37)
Using the asymptotic expansion for the incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function we find

$`k(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Erfc}\left(\left(z_1z_2^{}k\right)/\sqrt{2k}\right)}{4\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\beta \left(kn\right)/2\right)}}`$ (38)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Erfc}\left(\left(z_1z_2^{}nt\right)/\sqrt{2\left(n+t\right)}\right)}{4\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\beta t/2\right)}},`$
where $`\mathrm{Erfc}\left(x\right)=_x^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^{t^2}𝑑t`$. We parameterize the vicinity of the surface of the domain of eigenvalues as

$`z_k=\sqrt{n}+s_k,k=1,2,\mathrm{and}s={\displaystyle \frac{s_1+s_2^{}}{2}},`$ (39)
where $`n1`$ and $`\left|s_k\right|\sqrt{n}`$. Introducing the scaled temperature $`h`$ by

$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{h\sqrt{n}}},`$ (40)
the prekernel simplifies for $`n\mathrm{}`$ to

$`k(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Erfc}\left(\sqrt{2}\left(sht\right)\right)}{4\mathrm{cosh}^2t}}.`$ (41)
To the leading order in $`h`$, this expression can be simplified further,

$`k(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{s\sqrt{2}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\mathrm{e}^{y^2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2\sqrt{2}yht}}{4\mathrm{cosh}^2t}}`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`2\sqrt{2\pi }{\displaystyle _s^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{y\mathrm{e}^{2y^2}}{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi yh\right)}}.`$
For $`s1`$, the above integral dominated by the lower end point and is approximated by

$`k(z_1,z_2)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h\mathrm{e}^{2s^2}}{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi sh\right)}}.`$ (43)
Accordingly, the spectral density near the edge to the leading order in $`h`$ is given by

$`\rho \left(z=\sqrt{n}+s\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}k(z,z)={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _s^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{yh\mathrm{e}^{2y^2}}{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi yh\right)}}`$ (44)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{h\mathrm{e}^{2s^2}}{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi sh\right)}}.`$
At the zero temperature $`h0`$, it reduces to the spectral density for the Ginibre ensemble close to the edge given by  $`\rho \left(s\right)=\mathrm{e}^{2s^2}/\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}s`$. Likewise, the two-point function given by (33) simplifies to

$`R_2\left(z_1=\sqrt{n}+s_1,z_2=\sqrt{n}+s_2\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{h^2\mathrm{e}^{\left[\left(s_1+s_1^{}\right)^2+\left(s_2+s_2^{}\right)^2\right]/2}}{\left|\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \left(s_1+s_2^{}\right)h\right)\right|^2}}.`$ (45)
for $`\left|s_1+s_2^{}\right|1`$. As a consistency check, we find that the zero temperature limit for $`y_1y_2x_k`$ (with $`s_k=x_k+iy_k`$) ,

$`R_2(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2\left(x_1^2+x_2^2\right)}}{\left(y_1y_2\right)^2}}.`$ (46)
is in agreement with the result in  although different prefactors have appeared in the literature . We mention that at zero temperature the asymptotic behavior of the prekernel can be obtained directly from its definition (30) and agrees with (46).

On the other hand, in the high temperature limit the Fermi-Dirac distribution in (30) can be replaced by a Boltzmann distribution. The prekernel is thus given by

$`k(z_1,z_2)=\mathrm{e}^{z_1z_2^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(z_1z_2^{}\right)^k}{k!}}\zeta \mathrm{e}^{\beta k}.`$ (47)
In this limit the fugacity is equal to $`\zeta =\beta n`$, resulting in

$`k(z_1,z_2)=\beta n.`$ (48)
This requires us to define the scaled temperature by

$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{hn}},`$ (49)
as opposed to the low-temperature case (40). The spectral density is thus given by

$`\rho \left(z\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi h}},`$ (50)
and the two-point correlation function has the exponential form

$`R_2(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2h^2}}\mathrm{e}^{\left|z_1z_2\right|^2}.`$ (51)
Since the average spectral density decreases as $`1/h`$, the unfolded eigenvalues become uncorrelated (Poisson statistics) in the high temperature limit.

## 4 Weak nonhermiticity

In the case of weak nonhermiticity, we start from the identity

$`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\alpha }{\tau \left(1\alpha ^2\right)}z_iz_j^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1\alpha ^2}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\alpha ^2}{2\tau \left(1\alpha ^2\right)}\left(z_i^2+z_j^^2\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^m}{m!}}H_m\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_i}{\sqrt{\tau }}}\right)H_m\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_j^{}}{\sqrt{\tau }}}\right),`$ (52)
where $`H_m\left(z\right)`$ are the Hermite polynomials. Performing exactly the same manipulations as in (17) we obtain

$`det\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\alpha }{\tau \left(1\alpha ^2\right)}z_iz_j^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\sqrt{1\alpha ^2}\right)^n{\displaystyle \underset{m_1<m_2<\mathrm{}<m_n}{}}\alpha ^{m_1+\mathrm{}+m_n}`$ (53)
$`\times det{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\alpha ^2}{2\tau \left(1\alpha ^2\right)}z_j^2}H_{m_i}\left(\frac{z_j}{\sqrt{\tau }}\right)}{\sqrt{m_i!}}}det{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\alpha }{2\tau \left(1\alpha ^2\right)}z_k^2}H_{m_l}\left(\frac{z_k^{}}{\sqrt{\tau }}\right)}{\sqrt{m_l!}}}.`$
The joint probability distribution (13) can thus be written as

$`P\left(z\right)\pi ^n\left(1\alpha ^2\right)^{n/2}\left(1\tau ^2\right)^{n/2}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1<m_2<\mathrm{}<m_n}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\tau }}\right)^{m_1+\mathrm{}+m_n}det\varphi _{m_i}\left(z_j\right)det\varphi _{m_k}\left(z_l^{}\right),`$ (54)
where the wave functions defined by

$`\varphi _k\left(z\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^{k/2}}{\sqrt{\pi }\left(1\tau ^2\right)^{1/4}\sqrt{k!}}}H_k\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sqrt{\tau }}}\right)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{1\tau ^2}\left[\left|z\right|^2\tau z^2\right]}`$ (55)
satisfy the orthogonality relations

$`{\displaystyle d^2z\varphi _k\left(z^{}\right)\varphi _l\left(z\right)}=\delta _{kl}.`$ (56)
The above wave functions (55) also span the set of the single particle wave functions in the lowest Landau level obeying the Schrödinger equation (21-22) which, in terms of properly rescaled coordinates, reads

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\tau ^2\right)\left(i_x{\displaystyle \frac{y}{1\tau ^2}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\tau ^2\right)\left(i_y+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1\tau ^2}}\right)^2\right]\varphi _m=\varphi _m.`$ (57)
If we write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\tau }}=\mathrm{e}^\beta ,`$ (58)
the joint eigenvalue distribution may be interpreted as the diagonal element of the $`n`$-body density matrix of the lowest Landau level fermions at temperature $`1/\beta `$. The Schrödinger equation corresponding to (25) now reads

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\tau \right)\left(i_x+{\displaystyle \frac{y}{1\tau ^2}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1\tau \right)\left(i_y{\displaystyle \frac{x}{1\tau ^2}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{1\tau ^2}}\left(x+iy\right)^2\right]\varphi _m=\left(2m+1\right)\varphi _m.`$
(59)
Although, this relation is physically appealing we do not rely on it to obtain our results.

Now we turn to the calculation of correlation functions. The $`p`$-particle correlation function is obtained by integrating $`P(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ over $`z_{p+1},\mathrm{},z_n`$. Using the orthogonality of the wave functions and expressing (54) as a single determinant one easily finds

$`R_p^n(z_1,\mathrm{},z_p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{\left(np\right)!}}{\displaystyle d^2z_{p+1}\mathrm{}d^2z_nP_n\left(z\right)}`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_1<m_2<\mathrm{}<m_n}{}}\underset{i,j=1,\mathrm{},p}{det}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta m_k}\varphi _{m_k}\left(z_i\right)\varphi _{m_k}\left(z_j^{}\right).`$
Here, the overall normalization constants $`Z_n`$ have been chosen such that the joint probability integrates to unity. In an occupation number representation this correlator can be written as

$`R_p^n(z_1,\mathrm{},z_p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_0+n_1+\mathrm{}=n}{}}\underset{i,j=1,\mathrm{},p}{det}\mathrm{e}^{\beta _qqn_q}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n_k\varphi _k\left(z_i\right)\varphi _k\left(z_j^{}\right),`$ (61)
where the occupation number $`n_k`$ runs over $`\{0,1\}`$. Such sums are easily calculated in the grand canonical ensemble

$`R_p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\zeta ^nZ_nR_p^n(z_1,\mathrm{},z_p),`$ (62)
where $`\zeta `$ is the fugacity and $`Z`$ is the grand canonical partition function given by

$`Z={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(1+\zeta \mathrm{e}^{\beta k}\right).`$ (63)
In the thermodynamic limit the correlators obtained by means of the grand canonical ensemble coincide with those from the canonical ensemble. The sum of the $`n_k`$ can now be performed easily. The result is given by

$`R_p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_p)=\underset{i,j=1,\mathrm{},p}{det}K(z_i,z_j),`$ (64)
with kernel defined by

$`K(z_i,z_j)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _k\left(z_i\right)\varphi _k\left(z_j^{}\right)}{1+\zeta ^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta k}}}.`$ (65)
The average spectral density, obtained by integrating over all eigenvalues except one, is thus given by

$`\rho \left(z\right)=K(z,z)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _k\left(z\right)\varphi _k\left(z^{}\right)}{1+\zeta ^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta k}}}.`$ (66)
The fugacity follows from the normalization integral and is given by

$`n={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\zeta ^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta k}}}.`$ (67)
Similarly, the two-point correlation function is obtained by integrating over all eigenvalues except two. Subtracting $`\rho \left(z_1\right)\rho \left(z_2\right)`$ results is the connected two-point correlation function given by

$`R_2(z_1,z_2)=\left|K(z_1,z_2)\right|^2.`$ (68)
As in the case of strong nonhermiticity, the kernel can be simplified by means of a partial resummation

$`K(z_i,z_j)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\varphi _k\left(z_i\right)\varphi _k^{}\left(z_j\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\zeta ^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\zeta ^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta \left(m+1\right)}}}\right]`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}K_m^0(z_i,z_j)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\zeta ^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\zeta ^1\mathrm{e}^{\beta \left(m+1\right)}}}\right],`$
where the zero temperature kernel is defined by

$`K_m^0(z_i,z_j)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\varphi _k\left(z_i\right)\varphi _k\left(z_j^{}\right).`$ (70)
### 4.1 Correlations in the bulk

The bulk scaling limit of the zero temperature kernel (70) was analyzed in detail in . We will recall their method for the sake of completeness. Using an integral representation of the Hermite polynomials, it can be rewritten as

$`K_m^0(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2\tau \sqrt{1\tau ^2}}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\left(1\tau ^2\right)}\left[\left|z_1\right|^2+\left|z_2^2\right|\frac{\tau }{2}\left(z_1^2+z_2^2+z_1^2+z_2^2\right)\right]+\frac{1}{2\tau }\left(z_1^2+z_2^2\right)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}drds\mathrm{e}^{\left(r^2/2+irz_1s^2/2isz_2^{}\right)/\tau +rs}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1,rs)}{m!}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2\tau \sqrt{1\tau ^2}}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\left(1\tau ^2\right)}\left[\left|z_1\right|^2+\left|z_2^2\right|\frac{\tau }{2}\left(z_1^2+z_2^2+z_1^2+z_2^2\right)\right]+\frac{1}{2\tau }\left(z_1^2+z_2^2\right)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dudv\mathrm{e}^{u^2\left(11/\tau \right)v^2\left(1+1/\tau \right)+iu\left(z_1z_2^{}\right)/\tau +iv\left(z_1+z_2^{}\right)/\tau }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1,u^2v^2)}{m!}}.`$
where $`r=u+v`$ and $`s=uv`$. The $`v`$-integral can be performed by a saddle-point approximation. To the leading order, the argument $`v`$ in the incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function can be replaced by its saddle-point value given by

$`\overline{v}={\displaystyle \frac{i\left(z_1+z_2^{}\right)}{2\left(1+\tau \right)}}.`$ (72)
For $`u^2v^2m`$ and $`m\mathrm{}`$, the incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function can be approximated by a step function

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1,u^2v^2)1\mathrm{for}u^2<m+\overline{v}^2=m{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{\left(1+\tau \right)^2}}`$ (73)
and zero otherwise, depending on whether its integration domain contains the saddle point or not. We thus find the kernel

$`K_m^0(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{\pi ^2\tau \sqrt{1\tau ^2}\sqrt{1+1/\tau }}}{\displaystyle _{\sqrt{m+\overline{v}^2}}^{\sqrt{m+\overline{v}^2}}}𝑑u\mathrm{e}^{u^2\left(11/\tau \right)+iu\left(z_1z_2^{}\right)/\tau }`$ (74)
$`\times \mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\left(1\tau ^2\right)}\left[\left|z_1\right|^2+\left|z_2^2\right|\frac{\tau }{2}\left(z_1^2+z_2^2+z_1^2+z_2^2\right)\right]+\frac{1}{2\tau }\left(z_1^2+z_2^2\right)\frac{\left(z_1+z_2^{}\right)^2}{4\tau \left(\tau +1\right)}}.`$
In the limit of weak nonhermiticity we magnify the bulk of the spectrum according

$`z_1`$ $`=`$ $`x\sqrt{n}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi r}{2\sqrt{n}}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{y_1}{\sqrt{n}}},`$
$`z_2`$ $`=`$ $`x\sqrt{n}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi r}{2\sqrt{n}}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{y_2}{\sqrt{n}}},`$
$`\tau ^2`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{n}},`$ (75)
where $`2<x<2`$. For $`n\mathrm{}`$ this results in

$`K_m^0(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n\sqrt{\pi }}{\pi ^2a\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{a^2}\left(y_1^2+y_2^2\right)+\frac{i}{2}x\left(y_1y_2\right)}{\displaystyle _{\sqrt{\left(m+\overline{v}^2\right)/n}}^{\sqrt{\left(m+\overline{v}^2\right)/n}}}𝑑u\mathrm{e}^{\frac{a^2u^2}{2}+iu\left(\pi r+i\left(y_1+y_2\right)\right)}.`$ (76)
For $`\beta 0`$ the sum over $`m`$ can be replaced by an integral. In this limit the kernel (69) is given by

$`K(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{1+x^2/4}^{\mathrm{}}}n𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\beta K_{n\left(1+t\right)}^0(z_1,z_2)}{4\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\beta nt/2\right)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{\pi a\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{1+x^2/4}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{4\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\beta nt/2\right)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\sqrt{1+tx^2/4}}}𝑑ue^{\frac{a^2u^2}{2}}\mathrm{cos}u\left(\pi r+i\left(y_1+y_2\right)\right)`$
$`\times e^{\frac{1}{a^2}\left(y_1^2+y_2^2\right)+\frac{i}{2}x\left(y_1y_2\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\pi a\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{\left(p^21+x^2/4\right)/h}}}e^{\frac{a^2p^2}{2}}e^{ip\left(\pi r+i\left(y_1+y_2\right)\right)}e^{\frac{1}{a^2}\left(y_1^2+y_2^2\right)+\frac{i}{2}x\left(y_1y_2\right)}`$
where the combination

$`n\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}`$ (78)
is kept fixed in the thermodynamic limit. Finally, we derive the small $`h`$ limit of the kernel for $`x`$ in the center of the spectrum $`\left(x0\right)`$. The second integral in (LABEL:copon) is rewritten by expressing the Gaussian term as,

$`e^{\frac{a^2u^2}{2}+iu\left(\pi r+i\left(y_1+y_2\right)\right)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{\frac{\left(s\pi ri\left(y_1+y_2\right)\right)^2}{2a^2}+isu}`$ (79)
After performing the integral over $`u`$ we obtain

$`K(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{n}{\pi ^2a^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{\frac{\left(s\pi ri\left(y_1+y_2\right)\right)^2}{2a^2}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(s\sqrt{1+t}\right)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{t}{2h}}}e^{\frac{1}{a^2}\left(y_1^2+y_2^2\right)}`$ (80)
The integral over $`t`$ can be performed to leading order in $`h`$. In that case $`\sqrt{1+t}`$ can be expanded to first order in $`t`$ and the resulting integral over $`t`$, after extending its lower limit to $`\mathrm{}`$, is known analytically. We finally obtain

$`K(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{nh}{2\pi a^2}}e^{\frac{y_1^2+y_2^2}{a^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{\frac{\left(s\pi ri\left(y_1+y_2\right)\right)^2}{2a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}s}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\pi sh/2\right)}}.`$ (81)
Sometimes it is useful to explicitly display the $`h=0`$ contribution to the kernel. From the second integral in (LABEL:copon) at $`h=0`$ one can explicitly find the zero temperature result reported in . By subtracting and adding this term to (81) we find

$`K(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{2n}{\pi a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}e^{\frac{y_1^2+y_2^2}{a^2}}[{\displaystyle _0^1}due^{\frac{\left(au\right)^2}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(u(\pi r+i(y_1+y_2))\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi h}{2a\sqrt{2\pi }}}`$ (82)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}ds({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}s}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\pi hs/2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}s}{\pi hs/2}})e^{\frac{1}{2a^2}\left(s\left(r\pi +i\left(y_1+y_2\right)\right)\right)^2}],`$
where the first and third integrals cancel each other.

The spectral density at the center of the band is given by,

$`\rho \left(y\right)=K(z=iy/\sqrt{n},z=iy/\sqrt{n})={\displaystyle \frac{2n}{\pi a}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}[e^{\frac{2y^2}{a^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dte^{\frac{a^2t^2}{2}}\mathrm{cosh}\left(2ty\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi h}{a\sqrt{2\pi }}}`$ (83)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dt({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}t}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\pi ht/2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}t}{\pi ht/2}})e^{\frac{t^2}{2a^2}}\mathrm{cos}(2yt/a^2)]`$
where $`y_1=y_2=y`$. The integral over $`\mathrm{Im}\left(z\right)`$ of the spectral density is given by

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}K(z,z)𝑑\mathrm{Im}z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\rho \left(y\right)𝑑y`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{n}}{\pi }}`$
In Fig. 1, we show the normalized kernel $`\overline{K}(z_1,z_2)`$ defined by

$`\overline{K}(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{K(z_1,z_2)}{\sqrt{\rho \left(z_1\right)\rho \left(z_2\right)}}}`$ (85)
for $`h=0.15`$ and different values of the nonhermiticity parameter. We find that the spectral correlations weaken for increasing values of $`a`$ and approach the result for the Ginibre ensemble for $`a2`$. Although not shown in the picture, it was verified numerically that the exact result (LABEL:copon) is almost indistinguishable from the small $`h`$ result (82) for values of $`h`$ up to $`h0.3`$, and significant differences are only found for values of $`h`$ as large as $`h1`$. The normalized critical kernel for Hermitian ensembles  is easily reproduced from the ratio (85) starting from the expression (81) and taking the limit $`a0`$,

$`\overline{K}(z_1,z_2){\displaystyle \frac{\pi h}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi r\right)}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\pi ^2rh/2\right)}}.`$ (86)
If we consider the $`a0`$ limit of the kernel (82) or the spectral density (83), $`\delta `$-functions of the imaginary part of the eigenvalues have to be taken into account carefully. For example, the $`a0`$ limit of the spectral density (83) is given by

$`\rho \left(z\right)={\displaystyle \frac{n}{\pi }}\delta \left(y\right).`$ (87)
Finally, let us mention that for $`a1`$ we recover the Ginibre’s kernel for general complex matrices.

### 4.2 Correlations at the edge

Next we consider a microscopic scaling limit at the vicinity of either edge of the band of eigenvalues for $`z\pm 2\sqrt{n}`$, as an extension of edge correlation of the Hermitian Random Matrix ensembles.

We shall need a more refined asymptotic formula for the incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function than Eq. (73). For $`x\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}m`$ and $`m1`$, the incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-function is dominated by the contribution from the lower end point, so that

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1,x)=\mathrm{e}^x{\displaystyle \frac{x^{m+1}}{xm}}\left[1+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{\left(xm\right)^2}}\right)\right].`$ (88)
Accordingly, the kernel at zero temperature (4.1) reads

$`K_m^0(z_1,z_2)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2\tau \sqrt{1\tau ^2}}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2\left(1\tau ^2\right)}\left[\left|z_1\right|^2+\left|z_2^2\right|\frac{\tau }{2}\left(z_1^2+z_2^2+z_1^2+z_2^2\right)\right]+\frac{1}{2\tau }\left(z_1^2+z_2^2\right)}`$ (89)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{drds}{rsm}}\mathrm{e}^{\left(r^2/2+irz_1s^2/2isz_2^{}\right)/\tau +\left(m+1\right)\mathrm{log}rs\mathrm{log}m!}.`$
For $`z_1,z_22\sqrt{n}`$, $`mn`$, and $`\tau 1`$, the two saddle points of the $`r`$ ($`s`$) integral merge at $`r=i\sqrt{n}`$ ($`s=i\sqrt{n}`$). In order to obtain a nontrivial result, we magnify this region according to the scaling

$`z_i`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{n}+{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{n^{1/6}}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{n^{1/2}}},`$
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`n+n^{1/3}t,`$ (90)
$`\tau ^2`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{n}},`$
and change the integration variables as

$`r=i\sqrt{n}+n^{1/6}p,s=i\sqrt{n}n^{1/6}q.`$ (91)
The subleading terms in (88) are of order $`O\left(n^{1/6}\right)`$ in this scaling limit and can be ignored. To the leading order in $`n`$ we obtain

$`K_m^0(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{1/3}}{a}}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(y_1y_2\right)\frac{1}{a^2}\left(y_1^2+y_2^2\right)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{p^3}{3}+ip\left(x_1t\right)+i\frac{q^3}{3}+iq\left(x_2t\right)}}{i\left(p+q\right)}}`$ (92)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{1/3}}{a}}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(y_1y_2\right)\frac{1}{a^2}\left(y_1^2+y_2^2\right)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t^{}\mathrm{Ai}\left(x_1t^{}\right)\mathrm{Ai}\left(x_2t^{}\right).`$
where $`\mathrm{Ai}\left(x\right)`$ is the Airy function

$`\mathrm{Ai}\left(x\right)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }}\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{p^3}{3}+ipx}={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{\pi }}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p^3}{3}}+px\right).`$ (93)
The integral in Eq. (92) is called the Airy kernel $`K_{\mathrm{Ai}}(x_1t,x_2t)`$ (See Ref., §18), describing the edge correlations of the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble. By partial integrations one may express it in an alternative and more familiar form

$`K_{\mathrm{Ai}}(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Ai}\left(x_1\right)\mathrm{Ai}^{}\left(x_2\right)\mathrm{Ai}^{}\left(x_1\right)\mathrm{Ai}\left(x_2\right)}{x_1x_2}}.`$ (94)
The scaling of $`m`$ in (90) requires the introduction of a finite temperature parameter $`h`$ by

$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{1/3}h}},`$ (95)
in contrast to the bulk scaling (78). After replacing the sum over $`m`$ by an integral over $`t`$, the low-temperature limit of the kernel (69) is given by

$`K(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{1/3}}{a}}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(y_1y_2\right)\frac{1}{a^2}\left(y_1^2+y_2^2\right)}{\displaystyle _{n^{2/3}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tK_{\mathrm{Ai}}(x_1t,x_2t){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+e^{t/h}}}\right)`$ (96)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{n^{1/3}}{a}}\mathrm{e}^{i\left(y_1y_2\right)\frac{1}{a^2}\left(y_1^2+y_2^2\right)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Ai}\left(x_1t\right)\mathrm{Ai}\left(x_2t\right)}{1+e^{t/h}}}.`$
Due to the different orders of the level spacings in real and imaginary directions, the zero-temperature kernel is factorized, unlike the bulk kernel Eq. (52) of  or our Eq. (76). Namely, the dependence of $`K_m^0`$ on the order $`m`$ is merely to dilate the eigenvalue support, which can be compensated by a change of the real part of the eigenvalue coordinate, $`xxt`$. Accordingly, the effects of nonhermiticity and finite temperature are factorized. The former is reflected in the scaled kernel as a Gaussian blurring in the $`y`$-direction whereas, as the temperature $`h`$ increases, the oscillation of the scaled spectral density along the $`x`$-direction is weakened toward the Poissonian limit. This is shown in Fig. 2 where we plot the spectral density in the Hermitian limit given by $`\rho \left(x\right)=𝑑t\mathrm{Ai}\left(xt\right)^2/\left(1+\mathrm{e}^{t/h}\right)`$.

## 5 Number variance

The number variance in an arbitrary domain $`A`$ of the complex plane is given by,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\left(L\right)=L{\displaystyle _A}d^2z_1{\displaystyle _A}d^2z_2Y_2(z_1,z_2)\mathrm{with}L={\displaystyle _A}d^2z\rho \left(z\right),`$ (97)
where $`\rho \left(z\right)=K(z,z)`$, $`Y_2(z_1,z_2)=\left|K(z_1,z_2)\right|^2`$ and $`K(z_1,z_2)`$ is the spectral kernel defined in (LABEL:copon). Apart from edge correlations we have found that in the strong nonhermiticity case the two-point correlations decay exponentially on a scale of one level spacing or less which results in an asymptotic linear dependence of the number variance on $`A`$ with unit slope. Below we focus our analysis on the more interesting weak nonhermiticity limit.

As will be seen in the figures below, the fluctuations of the eigenvalues increase with both increasing temperature $`h`$ and increasing degree of week nonhermiticity $`a`$. The reasons for such behavior are the following: For larger values of $`h`$, the correlations of distant eigenvalues are suppressed resulting in stronger fluctuations and the slope of the asymptotically linear number variance increases with $`h`$. By increasing the degree of nonhermiticity, eigenvalues have more room to avoid each other along the imaginary axis. As a consequence, spectral fluctuations are stronger and deviations from Wigner statistics are observed.

In the limit $`h1`$ we calculate the number variance for the area $`A=[L_x/2,L_x/2]\times (\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$. Because of the normalization integral (84) we choose $`L_x=L\pi /\sqrt{n}`$ so that the area $`A`$ contains $`L`$ eigenvalues on average. The dependence of the kernel on $`x`$ is subleading in the thermodynamic limit. This allows us to rewrite the number variance as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\left(L\right)=L{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{n^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑r\left(\pi L/\sqrt{n}\pi r/\sqrt{n}\right){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y_1𝑑y_2\left|K(z_1,z_2)\right|^2,`$ (98)
where the prefactor includes a contribution from the Jacobian of the transformation (4.1). The integrals over $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ are easily performed in terms of the variables $`uy_1+y_2`$ and $`vy_1y_2`$. The final result for the small $`h`$ limit of the number variance is thus given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\left(L\right)=L2{\displaystyle _0^L}dr(Lr)[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi r\right)}{\pi ^2r^2}}e^{\frac{a^2r^2}{L^2}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2h^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dt({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(t\right)}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\left(\pi ht/2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(t\right)}{\left(\pi ht/2\right)^2}})e^{\frac{1}{a^2}\left(t\pi r\right)^2}].`$ (99)
We observe that in this limit the finite temperature effects decouple from the weak nonhermiticity corrections. For $`L1/h`$ and $`aL`$ it can be shown from (5) that the number variance is given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\left(L\right)={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2}}L+O\left(1/L\right),`$ (100)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant. The term linear in $`a`$ can be calculated in the $`h0`$ limit and was obtained in , whereas the term linear in $`h`$ can be calculated for $`a0`$ and was derived in . In Fig. 3, we show the small $`h`$ limit of the number variance (5) for $`h=0.1`$ and different values of the nonhermiticity parameter. We observe that the asymptotic linear behavior given by (100) is already reached well below the expected scale of $`1/h`$. We remark that for values of $`h`$ as large as $`0.3`$ the small $`h`$ result (97) is still very close to the exact result obtained with the kernel (LABEL:copon).

The small $`h`$ result for the number variance (5) is also valid for large values of the nonhermiticity parameter. Plots of (5) for $`a1`$ are shown in Fig. 4. We find that the asymptotic result for the slope is still approximately given by $`h/2`$ and depends only weakly on $`a`$. For $`La`$ we find that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\left(L\right)L`$ which is the result for strong nonhermiticity. This crossover behavior was first found in the limit $`h0`$ .

The imaginary part of the eigenvalues is of order $`a`$. This is shown in Fig. 5 where we plot the $`\rho \left(y\right)/\rho \left(0\right)`$ (with $`\rho \left(y\right)`$ given in eq. (83)) versus $`y`$. Since the imaginary part of the eigenvalues is of the same order as the spacing of the real part of the eigenvalues, the number variance computed for a rectangle $`0<\mathrm{Im}z<\mathrm{\Delta }ya`$ is expected to be given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\left(L\right)L`$ where $`L`$ is the total number of eigenvalues in the rectangle. This is shown in Fig. 5 where we plot the number variance obtained from (97) using the kernel (82).

## 6 Conclusions

In this article we have introduced a two parameter ensemble of complex random matrices with no hermiticity conditions imposed. This ensemble interpolates between the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble, the Ginibre ensemble and the Poisson ensemble. Using methods from statistical mechanics and properties of orthogonal polynomials, we have analyzed this ensemble in two different limits: weak nonhermiticity and strong nonhermiticity.

We have shown that the joint eigenvalue distribution of our random matrix model coincides with the diagonal element of the density matrix of a two dimensional gas of spinless fermions in the lowest Landau level at finite temperature. The two parameters of our model have been interpreted in terms of a shape parameter of the two dimensional domain of eigenvalues (or particles) and a temperature.

In the strong nonhermiticity limit, in the bulk of the spectrum, the correlations of the eigenvalues are given by Ginibre statistics and decrease exponentially on the scale of the average level spacing. The situation is different near the surface of the spectrum where, at zero temperature, the correlations decrease as an inverse square law in the direction of the surface. At finite temperature this power-law behavior changes into an exponential behavior. At very high temperatures the surface and the bulk are no longer distinguishable. In that case the two-point correlation function of the unfolded eigenvalues still decays exponentially but with an exponent that is proportional to the temperature. In this way the Poisson limit is recovered at high temperatures.

In the weak nonhermiticity limit there is no clear distinction between bulk and surface and the temperature affects the correlation functions of the eigenvalues. In the low temperature limit we have obtained a closed analytical expression for the two-point correlation function which reproduces critical statistics. We have found that, although level repulsion is still present, the number variance is asymptotically linear with a slope depending on the temperature parameter but not on the nonhermiticity parameter. A remarkable feature is that temperature and weak nonhermiticity effects decouple in this region. Thus critical statistics is not modified by a weak nonhermitian perturbation.

Finally, let us explain a physical prediction of the present model. Since for critical statistics the slope of the number variance is related to the multifractal dimension of the wave function and, in our model, the slope does not depend on the nonhermiticity parameter, we predict that the multifractal dimension of a physical system does not depend on the nonhermiticity parameter either. We thus predict the same multifractal dimensions for open and dissipative systems. A simple model for which this prediction may be tested is a three dimensional disordered system at the critical density of impurities and with several leads attached to it. We thus expect that in the weak nonhermiticity domain the leads do not affect the multifractal dimension of the wavefunctions.

Acknowledgments

This work is was partially supported by the Department of Energy grants No. DE-FG02-92ER40716 (SMN) and DE-FG-88ER40388 (AMG and JJMV).


format: text

text:
# Aharonov-Bohm Oscillations with Spin: Evidence for Berry’s Phase

## Abstract

We report a study of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the oscillations of the resistance of a mesoscopic ring as a function of a perpendicular magnetic field, in a GaAs two-dimensional hole system with a strong spin-orbit interaction. The Fourier spectra of the oscillations reveal extra structure near the main peak whose frequency corresponds to the magnetic flux enclosed by the ring. A comparison of the experimental data with results of simulations demonstrates that the origin of the extra structure is the geometric (Berry) phase acquired by the carrier spin as it travels around the ring.

An important and, at times, mysterious concept in modern physics is the phase factor that a quantum mechanical wave function acquires upon a cyclic evolution. This phase factor can lead to interference phenomena which are experimentally observable. An example is the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect AharonovBohm59 ; Review , the oscillations in the resistance of a mesoscopic conducting ring as a function of an external magnetic flux piercing the ring. The origin of the oscillations is the phase acquired by the electron wave as it travels around the ring, and the interference of this wave with itself. The phase in this case is equal to $`2\pi (\mathrm{\Phi }_{ext}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ext}=\pi r^2B_{ext}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=(h/e)`$ is the flux quantum ($`r`$ is the ring radius and $`B_{ext}`$ is the external perpendicular magnetic field). As a result, the resistance of the ring exhibits oscillations periodic in $`B_{ext}`$ with a frequency equal to $`\pi r^2/(h/e)`$. A requirement for the observation of such oscillations is of course that the electron motion around the ring be phase coherent.

In a seminal paper Berry84 , M. V. Berry showed that, even in the absence of electromagnetic fields, a quantum state undergoing an adiabatic evolution along a closed curve in parameter space develops a phase which depends only on this curve AnyCyclic . Thanks to its fundamental origin, this so-called geometric (or Berry) phase has attracted considerable attention Shapere89 . However, its experimental observation has been scarce. Evidence for Berry’s phase was obtained early on in experiments with neutrons, fiber optics, and quadrupole resonance of nuclei Shapere89 , but its observation in a condensed-matter system has proved challenging.

To observe Berry’s phase in an electronic system with spin, Loss et al. Loss90  proposed to study transport in a mesoscopic ring structure in the presence of an orientationally inhomogeneous (e.g., radial) magnetic field. This can be experimentally implemented via fabricating the ring from a material with spin-orbit (SO) interaction. In recent, pioneering studies Morpurgo98 ; Nitta99b , the AB oscillations were studied in an InAs two-dimensional (2D) electron system with strong SO interaction. The Fourier transforms of over 30 traces of AB oscillations were averaged and a small splitting of the main peak in the final Fourier spectrum was interpreted as a possible manifestation of the spin Berry phase. Here we report AB measurements on a GaAs 2D hole system with well-characterized SO interaction Lu98b . The Fourier spectra of the AB oscillations contain extra structure, often in the form of side peaks, near the central peak which occurs at $`\pi r^2/(h/e)`$. The shape of this extra structure evolves with the range of magnetic field over which the spectra are taken. We compare this evolution with the results of a realistic simulation which includes Berry’s phase in AB oscillations of a system with SO interaction. The comparison provides a striking demonstration of Berry’s phase.

The starting material for our experiment is a modulation-doped GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure, with a 2D hole system (density $``$ 2.4 $`\times `$ 1015 m-2 and mobility $``$ 30 m2/ V s) at a distance of 100 nm below the surface. Using standard optical and electron-beam lithography techniques and wet etching, we fabricated the ring structure whose micrograph is shown in Fig. 1(a). The inner and outer radii of the ring have nominal values of 0.475 and 0.725 $`\mu `$m, respectively. The mean-free-path is about 2 to 3 $`\mu `$m for the 2D holes in an unpatterned region of the sample. However, because of the narrow width of the ring’s arms and surface depletion, a front gate is needed to populate the arms with carriers. It is therefore not possible for us to precisely know the mean-free-path of the holes in the ring. We measured the resistance of the ring at a temperature of about 20 mK in a dilution refrigerator and as a function of magnetic field perpendicular to the plane.

Figure 1(b) shows an example of the measured magnetoresistance of the ring. The resistance, after subtraction of a smooth background \[see Fig. 1(c)\], reveals clear AB oscillations with an amplitude of $``$ 5 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ UCF . Our key result is that these oscillations are not at a single frequency: as shown in Fig. 2(a), the Fourier transform (FT) of the oscillations exhibits extra structure whose form depends on the range of the magnetic field over which the signal is analyzed. In the remainder of the paper, we will demonstrate that the extra structure is a manifestation of Berry’s phase in a system with SO interaction.

An important and relevant characteristic of the GaAs 2D hole systems is a strong SO interaction which, combined with the inversion asymmetry of the confinement potential, leads to significant spin-splitting of the energy bands in the absence of an applied magnetic field Lu98b ; Bychkov84 . The inversion asymmetry stems partly BulkInv  from an electric field, which is perpendicular to the 2D plane. In its rest frame, a moving carrier in such systems feels an effective in-plane magnetic field ($`B_{eff}`$) which is determined by the vector product of the carrier’s velocity and this electric field. The field $`B_{eff}`$ couples to the carrier’s spin so that the energy bands at any nonzero wave vector are split into two spin subbands. As a result, the Fermi wave vectors of the opposite-spin carriers occupying the two spin subbands differ by a finite value, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$. As we show below, $`B_{eff}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ are the key parameters that allow us to demonstrate the observation of Berry’s phase.

Let us consider the phase that the wave function of a particle acquires as it travels around the ring structure of radius $`r`$. As described in the opening paragraph, in the presence of an external, perpendicular magnetic field $`B_{ext}`$, the particle picks up an AB phase $`\delta _{AB}=2\pi (\mathrm{\Phi }_{ext}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ext}=B_{ext}\pi r^2`$ is the magnetic flux enclosed by the ring. This $`\delta _{AB}`$ phase leads to the well known AB oscillations of the resistance at a frequency of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ext}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\pi r^2/(h/e)`$. In the FT spectra of Fig. 2(a), the main peak observed at a frequency of 181 T-1 corresponds to a ring radius of 0.488 $`\mu `$m, consistent with the size of our ring. For a system with SO interaction, however, an additional (Berry’s) phase comes about due to the field $`B_{eff}`$.

As shown schematically in Fig. 1(d), the spin of the particle travelling around the ring precesses around the net magnetic field ($`\stackrel{}{B}_{ext}`$+$`\stackrel{}{B}_{eff}`$). In this situation the total phase acquired by the particle is determined by the angle ($`\theta `$) between the net field and the normal to the plane. Depending on the particle spin, this phase is given by Meir89 ; Loss92 ; Stern92 ; Aronov93 ; Qian94 ; Nitta99a ; Loss00 :

$$\delta _{(or)}=\delta _{AB}\pm \delta _B$$
(1)
$$\delta _{(or)}=\delta _{AB}\pm \delta _D$$
(2)
with:

$$\delta _B=\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(3)
$$\delta _D=\pi r\mathrm{\Delta }k\mathrm{sin}\theta $$
(4)
where $`\theta =tan^1[B_{eff}/B_{ext}]`$. The arrow notation is used here to mark the direction of the particle spin as it travels along the two arms of the rings, e.g., $``$ means the particle moves with like spins in both arms and $``$ means the particle moves with opposite spins. As a result, we expect the oscillatory part of the ring resistance to be proportional to the sum of four terms dBdD :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\delta _{AB}+\delta _B)+\mathrm{cos}(\delta _{AB}\delta _B)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\delta _{AB}+\delta _D)+\mathrm{cos}(\delta _{AB}\delta _D).`$
We now show, via simulations, that Eq. (5) indeed describes well the experimental data. Figure 2(b) presents the FT of the simulated $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$, as expressed by Eq. (5) with $`B_{eff}=0.55`$ T, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ = 2.05$`\times 10^7`$ $`m^1`$, and $`r`$ = 0.488 $`\mu `$m. These values for the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ and $`B_{eff}`$ are reasonable and are consistent with our knowledge of the SO interaction and spin splitting in samples similar to the one used here Lu98b . The qualitative resemblance of the simulated FT to the measured data in Fig. 2 is remarkable. In particular, the simulation faithfully reproduces the side peaks observed in the experimental data. Moreover, the evolution of these side peaks with the range of magnetic field over which the FT is obtained is similar for the simulated and measured data. When the FT is performed over a small range of magnetic field, only a broad peak, centered at $`\pi r^2/(h/e)`$, and very weak side peaks are observed. As the range is made larger, the side peaks become more visible and their positions shift slightly towards the central peak position. We emphasize that in all our Fourier analyses, we used the Hamming window DSP  which significantly suppresses side peaks generated due to the finite range of data Mitra93 . Therefore, the side peaks observed in our data and simulation are genuine and not artifacts of the FT.

The results shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) provide further evidence that Eq. (5) indeed qualitatively describes the experimental data. For these spectra, we shifted the field range over which the FT was taken so that the range was no longer symmetric around $`B_{ext}=0`$. As seen in these figures, in FT spectra of both experimental data and simulations, the central peak splits into two strong peaks and the side peaks become weak. These observations also argue against the side peaks possibly coming from an effective multi-path structure in our sample. If such structure were present so that the peaks observed in the FT spectra came from rings of different radii, we would expect the peaks not to qualitatively depend on the magnetic field range over which the FT is performed.

In our measurements, we have found that, even when the magnetic field range over which the FT is performed is kept symmetric around $`B_{ext}=0`$, the shapes of the FT spectra can qualitatively change if the range is made very large. To illustrate this point, in Figs. 3(a) and (a), we present FT spectra of experimental data taken at a gate voltage ($`V_g`$ = $``$0.6 V), different from Fig. 2 data RingSize1 . Similar to the data of Fig. 2(a), the FT spectra exhibit a main peak and two side peaks which grow as the magnetic field range of the FT analysis increases. When the range is increased beyond $`0.2`$ to $`+0.2`$ T, however, the shapes of the FT spectra qualitatively change. The central peak at 171 T-1 starts to split into two peaks and, when the range is further increased (e.g., to $`0.3`$ to $`+0.3`$ T), the central peak reappears but is now straddled by two strong and near side peaks. Meanwhile, the original side peaks keep increasing in size so that, for the largest range shown, they are nearly as strong as the structure near the center frequency. Our simulations, shown in Figs. 3(b) and (b), reveal that this evolution of the FT can indeed be qualitatively reproduced based on Eq. (5) and reasonable values of $`B_{eff}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ RingSize2 .

Some remarks regarding the values of parameters $`B_{eff}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ and how they affect the shape of the FT spectra are in order. First, to produce a spectrum with side peaks as seen in the experimental data, it is necessary to include both $`\delta _B`$ and $`\delta _D`$ phases, and to assign non-zero values to $`B_{eff}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$. Second, the values of $`B_{eff}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ used in simulations of Figs. 2 and 3 were chosen to qualitatively match the experimental data. Although we do not precisely know $`B_{eff}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ for our present 2D hole system, the values we use are reasonable and realistic based on our previous measurements of the spin splitting in similar systems Lu98b . Third, the shapes of the simulated FT spectra are in fact quite sensitive to the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$. Small changes in $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ can change the shape of the FT qualitatively and cause the side peaks to shift in position and magnitude or even disappear. An inspection of Eq. (4) reveals that the FT spectra depend on $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ in an approximately periodic manner: for a fixed value of $`B_{eff}`$, when $`r\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ changes by an even integer, $`\delta _D`$ changes by 2$`\pi `$ and the FT of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ vs. $`B_{ext}`$ in Eq. (5) almost repeats. We have looked for such sensitivity and periodicity in the experimental data. Since the spin-splitting depends on the perpendicular electric field, we can in principle tune the splitting and therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ by changing the gate bias. Our data so far reveal that the shapes of the FT spectra are indeed very sensitive to the gate bias, and even hint at a periodic behavior. However, we need more systematic data to conclusively show this trend.

The overall agreement between our experimental data and simulations provides strong evidence for the observation of Berry’s phase in a system with spin-orbit induced spin-splitting. Some discrepancies, however, exist. For example, the side peaks in the simulations are always equal in magnitude and are symmetric in position with respect to the main peak. In the experiments, on the other hand, we often observe some asymmetry in their positions and magnitudes. The asymmetry is puzzling IFFT ; it may be related to the finite width of the ring’s arms in our sample. Future theoretical work, as well as detailed measurements of the evolution of the Fourier spectra with parameters such as gate bias, will hopefully lead to a quantitative understanding of the shapes of these spectra.

This work was supported by the NSF, ARO, DOE, and the von Humboldt Foundation. We thank B. Altshuler, A. Erbe, A. Hansen, K. Karrai, D. Loss, J.P. Lu, S. Papadakis, Y. Shkolnikov, E. Tutuc, and R. Warburton for many helpful discussions.