text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Deformation quantization introduced in 1978 by Bayen, Flato, Fronsdal, Lichnerowicz and Sternheimer  seems now to be one of the most interesting part of the mathematical physics, especially after works of Fedosov  and Kontsevich  have been published. From the physical point of view the important question is if the mathematical formalism of deformation quantization describes the physical reality. One way to deal with this problem is looking for the ”natural” generalization of the Weyl-Wigner-Moyal formalism to a Riemannian configuration space and then comparing this with the general theory of deformation quantization. Perhaps the most natural generalization of the Weyl quantization rule , \[5-9\] was given by Underhill  and Emmrich .

In section 2 of our paper we deal with Weyl-Underhill-Emmrich (WUE) approach and some its generalization. Then we consider how this approach leads to the definition of Stratonovich-Weyl (SW) quantizer. This quantizer is used by some authors \[8,12-15\] as the fundamental object defining the deformation quantization. In our paper it is argued that the axiomatic approach to the SW quantizer seems to lead to severe difficulties (see also ).

In section 3 some aspects of deformation quantization on the cylinder within the WUE formalism are considered. It is shown how in this formalism one can define the discrete SW quantizer given by Mukunda  and then also obtained in .

## 2 WUE quantization and its generalization

First assume that the configuration space of a dynamical system is the Euclidean manifold $`^n.`$ Then the phase space is $`^{2n}`$ with the natural symplectic form

$$\omega =d𝐩_\alpha d𝐱^\alpha ,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n$$
(2.1)
where $`𝐱^1,\mathrm{},𝐱^n`$ are the Cartesian coordinates on $`^n`$ and $`𝐩_1,\mathrm{},𝐩_n`$ denote the respective momenta.

According to the Weyl quantization rule \[1,5-9\] if $`f=f(𝐩,𝐱)`$ is a function on $`^{2n}`$ then the corresponding operator $`\widehat{f}_W`$ in the space of quantum states $``$ is given by

$$\widehat{f}_W:=\underset{^{2n}}{}\frac{d𝐩d𝐱}{\left(2\pi \mathrm{}\right)^n}f(𝐩,𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)$$
(2.2)
where $`d𝐩d𝐱:=d𝐩_1\mathrm{}d𝐩_nd𝐱^1\mathrm{}d𝐱^n`$ and the operator valued function $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)`$ is defined by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱):=2^n\underset{^n}{}𝑑\xi \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2i𝐩\xi }{\mathrm{}}\right)𝐱\xi 𝐱+\xi ,𝐩\xi :=𝐩_\alpha \xi ^\alpha $$
(2.3)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is called the Stratonovich -Weyl (SW) quantizer \[8,9,12-15\]

One can quickly show that

$$\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)\right\}^{}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)$$
(2.4)
$$Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)\right\}=1$$
(2.5)
and

$$Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩^{},𝐱^{})\right\}=(2\pi \mathrm{})^n\delta (𝐩𝐩^{})\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})$$
(2.6)
The last formula, (2.6), enables us to find the function $`f=f(p,x)`$ from its Weyl image $`\widehat{f}_W.`$ Indeed, (2.2) and (2.6) give

$$f=f(𝐩,𝐱)=Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)\widehat{f}_W\right\}$$
(2.7)
Given any kets $`\phi ,\psi `$ one gets from (2.2) and (2.3)

$`\phi |\widehat{f}_W|\psi `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{^{2n}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩d𝐱}{\left(2\pi \mathrm{}\right)^n}}f(𝐩,𝐱)\phi |\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)|\psi ,`$
$`\phi |\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)|\psi `$ $`=2^n{\displaystyle \underset{^n}{}}𝑑\xi \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2i𝐩\xi }{\mathrm{}}}\right)\overline{\phi (𝐱\xi )}\psi (𝐱+\xi )`$ (2.8)
where $`\phi (𝐱)=𝐱|\phi `$ and $`\psi (𝐱)=𝐱|\psi `$ denote the Schrödinger representation of $`|\phi ,`$ and $`|\psi ,`$ respectively, and the overbar stands for the complex conjugation. Finally,

$`\phi |\widehat{f}_W|\psi `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\pi \mathrm{})^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{^{2n}\times ^n}{}}𝑑𝐩𝑑𝐱𝑑\xi f(𝐩,𝐱)`$
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2i𝐩\xi }{\mathrm{}}}\right)\overline{\phi (𝐱\xi )}\psi (𝐱+\xi )`$ (2.9)
In particular, let $`f`$ be a monomial in momenta

$$f=X^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}(𝐱)𝐩_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}𝐩_{\alpha _m}$$
(2.10)
where $`X^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}(𝐱)`$ is a totally symmetric tensor field on the configuration space $`^n.`$ Substituing (2.10) into (2.9), integrating with respect to $`d𝐩`$ and then by parts with respect to $`d\xi `$ we get

$`\phi |\widehat{f}_W|\psi `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\pi \mathrm{})^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{^n\times ^n}{}}𝑑𝐱𝑑\xi X^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}(𝐱)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}}\right)^m`$
$`\overline{\phi (𝐱\xi )}\psi (𝐱+\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\xi ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\alpha _m}}}\left\{(2\pi )^n\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\xi }{\mathrm{}}}\right)\right\}`$
$$=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\right)^m\underset{^n}{}𝑑𝐱X^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}(𝐱)\frac{^m}{\xi ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\alpha _m}}\left\{\overline{\phi (𝐱\xi )}\psi (𝐱+\xi )\right\}_{\xi =0}$$
(2.11)
Finally, the integration by parts brings (2.11) to the form

$`\phi |\widehat{f}_W|\psi `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{^n}{}}d𝐱\overline{\phi (𝐱)}\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{i}}\right)^m{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^k}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}}\right)`$
$`\left(_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _k}X^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k\alpha _{k+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _m}(𝐱)\right)_{\alpha _{k+1}}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _m}\}\psi (𝐱)`$ (2.12)
Consequently, the Weyl image of the monomial (2.10) reads

$$\widehat{f}_W=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\right)^m\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{1}{2^k}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)\left(_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _k}X^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k\alpha _{k+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _m}(𝐱)\right)_{\alpha _{k+1}}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _m}$$
(2.13)
By the linear extension of (2.13) one obtains the Weyl image for an arbitrary polynomial in momenta. As it has been shown in  every operator ordering satisfying some natural axioms can be obtained with the use of an operator of the form

$$A=A\left(\mathrm{}\frac{^2}{𝐩_\alpha 𝐱^\alpha }\right)=1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_k\left(\mathrm{}\frac{^2}{𝐩_\alpha 𝐱^\alpha }\right)^k,A_k$$
(2.14)
Given operator $`A`$ one defines

$`\widehat{f}^{(A)}`$ $`:={\displaystyle \underset{^{2n}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩d𝐱}{\left(2\pi \mathrm{}\right)^n}}\left(Af(𝐩,𝐱)\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{^{2n}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩d𝐱}{\left(2\pi \mathrm{}\right)^n}}f(𝐩,𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(A)}(𝐩,𝐱)`$ (2.15)
where

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(A)}(𝐩,𝐱):=A\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(𝐩,𝐱)$$
(2.16)
is called the generalized Stratonovich-Weyl quantizer . We have

$$Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(A)}(𝐩,𝐱)\right\}=1$$
(2.17)
$$Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(A)}(𝐩,𝐱)\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(A)}(𝐩^{},𝐱^{})\right\}=(2\pi \mathrm{})^nA^2\left(\mathrm{}\frac{^2}{𝐩_\alpha 𝐱^\alpha }\right)\delta (𝐩𝐩^{})\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})$$
(2.18)
Hence one gets the generalization of the formula (2.7)

$$f=f(𝐩,𝐱)=A^2\left(\mathrm{}\frac{^2}{𝐩_\alpha 𝐱^\alpha }\right)Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(A)}(𝐩,𝐱)\widehat{f}^{(A)}\right\}$$
(2.19)
For the Weyl ordering we have

$$A=1$$
(2.20)
and for the so called standard ordering

$$A=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{^2}{𝐩_\alpha 𝐱^\alpha }\right\}$$
(2.21)
In what follows we denote by $`\widehat{f}_W`$ and $`\widehat{f}_S`$ the Weyl and the standard ordering, respectively. One can easily show that if $`f`$ is the monomial (2.10) then

$$\widehat{f}_S=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\right)^mX^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}(𝐱)_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _m}$$
(2.22)
It is evident that $`\widehat{f}^{(A)}`$ is hermitian for every real monomial of the form (2.10) if and only if

$$\overline{A}=A$$
(2.23)
Our intent is to generalize the above considerations on the case when the configuration space is an n-dimensional Riemannian manifold $`(M,g),`$ where $`gSymm(T^{}MT^{}M)`$ is the metric on $`M.`$

The phase space is the cotangent bundle $`T^{}M`$ over $`M`$ endowed with the natural symplectic form

$$\omega =dp_\alpha dq^\alpha \alpha =1,\mathrm{},n$$
(2.24)
where $`q^1,\mathrm{},q^n`$ are coordinates in $`M`$ and $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n,q^1,\mathrm{},q^n`$ are the induced coordinates (the proper Darboux coordinates) in $`T^{}M`$.

Let $`f=f(p,q)`$ be a function on $`T^{}M`$. The question is to find a natural generalization of the Weyl quantization rule for $`^{2n}`$ to the case of $`T^{}M.`$

It seems that the best answer to this question has been done by Underhill  and then by Emmrich . We follow them changing only the measure used in the integration over $`TM.`$ (About the Underhill-Emmrich approach see also distinguished papers by Bordemann, Neumaier and Waldmann  and Pflaum ).

The first glance at the formulas (2.2), (2.3) and (2.9) shows that the main problem lies in a definition of the term $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2ip\xi }{\mathrm{}}\right)`$ when $`M`$ is no longer the Euclidean space $`^n.`$ In the Underhill-Emmrich approach it is done by the use of normal coordinates.

Let $`q`$ be any point of $`M`$ and $`T_q(M)`$ and $`T_q^{}(M)`$ be the tangent and cotangent space of $`M`$ at $`q`$, respectively. For any $`\xi =\xi ^\alpha \left(\frac{}{q^\alpha }\right)_qT_q(M)`$ and $`p=p_\alpha (dq^\alpha )_qT_q^{}(M)`$ we write as before $`p\xi :=p_\alpha \xi ^\alpha .`$

For every $`qM`$ we choose a normal neighborhood $`V_q^{}T_q(M),`$ an open ball $`K_qV_q^{}`$ and some smaller neighborhood of $`q,`$ $`V_qK_q.`$ Then one defines a cutoff function $`\chi =\chi (q,\xi )C^{\mathrm{}}\left(TM\right)`$ such that for every $`qM`$

$$\chi (q,\xi )=\{\begin{array}{c}1for\text{ }\xi V_q\\ 0\text{ }for\text{ }\xi K_q\end{array}$$
(2.25)
Let $`\mathrm{exp}_q:V_q^{}U_qM`$ be the exponential map of $`V_q^{}`$ onto $`U_q.`$ For any functions $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ on $`M`$ and for every point $`qM`$ we define the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_q^+`$ on $`T_q(M)`$ by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}(\xi )`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{c}\chi (q,\xi )\phi (\mathrm{exp}_q(\xi ))\text{ }for\xi K_q\\ \text{ }0\text{ }for\text{ }\xi K_q\end{array}`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_q^+(\xi )`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{c}\chi (q,\xi )\psi (\mathrm{exp}_q\xi )\text{ }for\xi K_q\\ \text{ }0\text{ }for\text{ }\xi K_q\end{array}`$ (2.26)
Let $`f=f(p,q)`$ be a function on $`T^{}M.`$

By the analogy to (2.9) one assigns to $`f`$ the following operator $`\widehat{f}_W`$

$`\phi |\widehat{f}_W|\psi `$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\pi \mathrm{})^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{T^{}M}{}}𝑑p𝑑qf(p,q){\displaystyle \underset{T_q(M)}{}}\sqrt{g(\xi )}𝑑\xi \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2ip\xi }{\mathrm{}}}\right)`$
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}(\xi )}\mathrm{\Psi }_q^+(\xi )`$ (2.27)
Then we have also

$`\phi |\widehat{f}_W|\psi `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{T^{}M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dpdq}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^n}}f(p,q)\phi \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)\psi `$ (2.28)
$`\phi |\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)|\psi `$ $`=2^n{\displaystyle \underset{T_q(M)}{}}\sqrt{g(\xi )}𝑑\xi \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2ip\xi }{\mathrm{}}}\right)\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}(\xi )}\mathrm{\Psi }_q^+(\xi )`$
where $`g(\xi )`$ stands for the determinant of the metric on$`M`$ in the normal coordinates.

Note that Underhill  assumes the measure to be $`d\xi `$ and, consequently $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are half-densities. On the other hand Emmrich  deals with the measure $`\sqrt{g(\xi )}d\xi `$ and therefore $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are scalars. We assume that the wave functions $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are scalars but the measure on $`V_q^{}T_q(M)`$ is $`\sqrt{g(\xi )}d\xi .`$

The operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)`$ defined by (2.28) plays now the role of the SW quantizer. The only problem is that both $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`\widehat{f}_W`$ depend on the cutoff function $`\chi (q,\xi ).`$ Thus one should find the ”optimal” form of $`\chi .`$ However, as it was shown by Underhill , if the function $`f`$ is a polynomial with respect to mementa then $`\widehat{f}_W`$ doesn’t depend on $`\chi .`$ Indeed, let

$$f=f(p,q)=X^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}(q)p_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}p_{\alpha _m}$$
(2.29)
Substituing (2.29) into (2.27), integrating with respect to $`dp`$ and then, by parts, with respect to $`d\xi `$ one gets

$`\phi |\widehat{f}_W|\psi `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\pi \mathrm{})^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{T^{}M}{}}𝑑p𝑑qX^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}(q){\displaystyle \underset{T_q(M)}{}}\sqrt{g(\xi )}𝑑\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}}\right)^m`$
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\xi ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\alpha _m}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2ip\xi }{\mathrm{}}}\right)\right\}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}(\xi )}\mathrm{\Psi }_q^+(\xi )`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}}\right)^m{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}\sqrt{g(q)}𝑑qX^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m}(q)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{^m}{\xi ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\alpha _m}}}\stackrel{~}{D}(q,\xi )\right\}_{\xi =0}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{D}(q,\xi )`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g(\xi )}}{\sqrt{g(q)}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_q^{}(\xi )}\mathrm{\Psi }_q^+(\xi )`$ (2.30)
However, it is an easy matter to show that (see Petrov )

$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{^k}{\xi ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\alpha _k}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\xi )}\right\}_{\xi =0}`$ $`=(1)^k_{(\alpha _1}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _k)}\overline{\phi (q)}`$
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{^k}{\xi ^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\alpha _k}}}\mathrm{\Psi }^+(\xi )\right\}_{\xi =0}`$ $`=_{(\alpha _1}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _k)}\psi (q)`$ (2.31)
where $`_{\alpha _1}:=_{\frac{}{q^{\alpha _1}}},\mathrm{}`$ etc., and the bracket $`\left(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k\right)`$ stands for the symmetrization.

Finally, inserting (2.31) into (2.30) and integrating by parts one arrives at the following result being a generalization of the one obtained by Bordemann et al .

$$\phi \widehat{f}_W\psi =\underset{M}{}\sqrt{g(q)}𝑑q\overline{\phi (q)}\widehat{f}_W\psi (q)$$

$`\widehat{f}_W`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{i}}\right)^m{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{mk}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{mk}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{k+j}}}`$
$`\left(_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _j}\stackrel{~}{X}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _j\alpha _{j+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{mk}}(q)\right)_{\alpha _{j+1}}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _{mk}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}}\right)^k\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}}\right)\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{i}}\right)^{mk}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{mk}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2j}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{mk}{j}}\right)`$
$`\left(_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _j}\stackrel{~}{X}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _j\alpha _{j+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{mk}}(q)\right)_{\alpha _{j+1}}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _{mk}}\}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{X}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _j\alpha _{j+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{mk}}(q)`$ $`:=X^{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _k\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _j\alpha _{j+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{mk}}(q)`$
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{^k}{\xi ^{\beta _1}\mathrm{}\xi ^{\beta _k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g(\xi )}}{\sqrt{g(q)}}}\right\}_{\xi =0}`$ (2.32)
The term corresponding to $`k=0`$ is exactly the operator given in . (Compare also with (2.13)). Thus one concludes that if $`f=f(p,q)`$ is a monomial of the form (2.29) then $`\widehat{f}_W`$ given by (2.32) is independent of the cutoff function $`\chi `$. By linearity this is also true for any polynomial with respect to momenta.

Examples: (compare with )

(i) Assume

$$f=X^\alpha (q)p_\alpha $$
(2.33)
then

$$\widehat{f}_W=\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\left[X^\alpha (q)_\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\left(_\alpha X^\alpha (q)\right)\right]$$
(2.34)
(ii)

$$f=X^{\alpha \beta }(q)p_\alpha p_\beta $$
(2.35)
Here

$$\widehat{f}_W=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\right)^2[X^{\alpha \beta }(q)_\alpha _\beta +\left(_\alpha X^{\alpha \beta }(q)\right)_\beta +$$

$$\frac{1}{4}\left(_\alpha _\beta X^{\alpha \beta }(q)\right)+\frac{1}{12}X^{\alpha \beta }(q)R_{\alpha \beta }(q)]$$
(2.36)
where $`R_{\alpha \beta }(q)`$ is the Ricci tensor on $`M`$

$$R_{\alpha \beta }=R_{\alpha \gamma \beta }^\gamma =_\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma _\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \gamma }^\gamma +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \delta }^\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \delta }^\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \gamma }^\delta $$
(2.37)
(iii) Let

$`f`$ $`=X^{\alpha \beta }(q)p_\alpha p_\beta +i\mathrm{}\left(_\alpha X^{\alpha \beta }(q)\right)p_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4}}\left(_\alpha _\beta X^{\alpha \beta }(q)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{12}}X^{\alpha \beta }(q)R_{\alpha \beta }(q)`$ (2.38)
Then

$$\widehat{f}_W=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\right)^2X^{\alpha \beta }(q)_\alpha _\beta $$
(2.39)
Now we are in a position to consider an important problem. As it has been mentioned the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)`$ given by (2.28) is the SW quantizer within the WUE formalism. Of course $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)`$ depends on the cutoff function $`\chi (q,\xi ).`$ Therefore the question is if there exists $`\chi (q,\xi )`$ such that the usual axioms of the SW quantizer \[8,13-15\] i.e.

$$\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)\right\}^{}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)$$
(2.40)
$$Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)\right\}=1$$
(2.41)
$$\underset{T^{}M}{}\frac{dp^{}dq^{}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^n}f(p^{},q^{})Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p^{},q^{})\right\}=f(p,q)$$

$$Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)\widehat{f}_W\right\}=f(p,q)$$
(2.42)
are satisfied by the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)`$ defined by (2.28) (see (2.4) to (2.7)).

It is evident that the condition (2.40) holds for any $`\chi (q,\xi ).`$ Now to check (2.41) we take a complete orthonormal system of functions $`\left\{\phi _j\right\}`$ on $`M`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}\sqrt{g(q)}𝑑q\overline{\phi _k^{}(q)}\phi _k(q)`$ $`=\delta _{kk^{}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\overline{\phi _k(q^{})}\phi _k(q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta (qq^{})}{\sqrt{g(q)}}}`$ (2.43)
It is an easy matter to observe that without any loss of generality one can use the exponential functions in the tangent space $`T_q(M)`$

$`\phi _s(\xi )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\sqrt{2\pi }\right)^n\sqrt[4]{g(\xi )}}}\mathrm{exp}(is\xi )`$ (2.44)
$`s`$ $`=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)\times \mathrm{}\times `$
Consequently we get

$$Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)\right\}=\underset{s\times \mathrm{}\times }{}\phi _s\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)\phi _s$$

$$=2^n\underset{T_q(M)}{}\sqrt{g(\xi )}𝑑\xi \frac{\chi (q,\xi )\chi (q,\xi )}{\left(2\pi \right)^n\sqrt[4]{g(\xi )}\sqrt[4]{g(\xi )}}(2\pi )^n\delta (2\xi )=1$$
(2.45)
(Remark: In (2.44) and (2.45) it is assumed that $`K_q[\pi ,\pi ]\times \mathrm{}\times [\pi ,\pi ].`$ In other case we should change the period of the exponential functions but the final result of (2.45) holds true).

Thus (2.41) is fulfilled for every cutoff funtion $`\chi (q,\xi ).`$ Consider now the condition (2.42). To this end we use the example (iii). Inserting the operator (2.39) into (2.42), using as before the exponential functions (2.44) and employing also some formulas from the theory of the normal coordinate systems  one arrives at the following result

$$f(p,q)Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)\widehat{f}_W\right\}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{3}X^{\alpha \beta }(q)R_{\alpha \beta }(q)$$
(2.46)
where $`f=f(p,q)`$ is defined by (2.38). As (2.46) holds true for an arbitrary $`\chi (q,\xi )`$ the axiom (2.42) cannot be satisfied. One can quickly show that the analogous result to (2.46) holds true when the Emmrich measure $`\sqrt{g(q)}d\xi `$ is considered. Thus we conclude that: in general the axiom (2.42) is not satisfied within the WUE formalism for any choice of the cutoff function $`\chi (q,\xi ).`$ Therefore, from the WUE formalism point of view the axiomatic approach to the definition of the SW quantizer seems to be questionable. (See also  and the next section of the present paper).

Finally let us consider the problem of different operator orderings.

One can quickly find that in the Euclidean case if we perform a point transformation

$$q^\alpha =q^\alpha \left(𝐱^\beta \right),p_\alpha =\frac{𝐱^\beta \left(q^\gamma \right)}{q^\alpha }𝐩_\beta $$
(2.47)
where $`𝐱^1,\mathrm{},𝐱^n`$ are the Cartesian coordinates and $`𝐩_1,\mathrm{},𝐩_n`$ corresponding momenta, then

$$\mathrm{}\frac{^2}{𝐩_\alpha 𝐱^\alpha }=\mathrm{}\left\{\frac{^2}{p_\alpha q^\alpha }+p_\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma (q)\frac{^2}{p_\alpha p_\beta }+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\beta (q)\frac{}{p_\alpha }\right\}$$
(2.48)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha `$ are Christoffel’s symbols with respect to the coordinates $`q^\alpha .`$ Hence, it is natural to generalize the object $`A`$ defining the operator ordering in the Euclidean case (see (2.14)) to the following one

$`A`$ $`=A(\mathrm{\Delta })=1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_k\mathrm{\Delta }^k,A_k`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`:=\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{p_\alpha q^\alpha }}+p_\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{^2}{p_\alpha p_\beta }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\beta {\displaystyle \frac{}{p_\alpha }}\right)`$ (2.49)
when the configuration space is an $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold $`(M,ds^2).`$ (Operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was also found by Bordemann et al ).

Consequently, we have now

$`\phi |\widehat{f}^{(A)}|\psi `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{T^{}M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dpdq}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^n}}\left(Af(p,q)\right)\phi \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)\psi `$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{T^{}M}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dpdq}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^n}}f(p,q)\phi \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(A)}(p,q)\psi `$ (2.50)
where the generalized SW quantizer $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(A)}(p,q)`$ is defined by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(A)}(p,q):=A\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,q)$$
(2.51)
In particular for the generalized standard ordering one put

$$A=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\right\}$$
(2.52)
and for the monomial (2.29) we get

$$\widehat{f}_S:=\widehat{f}^{(A)}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{i}\right)^m\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{1}{2^k}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)\stackrel{~}{X}^{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{mk}}(q)_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}_{\alpha _{mk}}$$
(2.53)
The term with $`k=0`$ corresponds exactly to the operator in standard ordering in the case of the Emmrich measure .

## 3 Quantization on the cylinder

Consider a simple dynamical system consisting of one particle on the circle $`S^1.`$ The phase space of this system is the cylinder $`\times S^1.`$ The deformation quantization for this case might seem to be a simple modification of the Euclidean case. However, it is not because of the non-trivial topology of $`S^1.`$ In particular one arrives at the conclusion that if the deformation quantization on the cylinder $`\times S^1`$ is to give ”physical” results then the classical phase space should be quantized to be $`\mathrm{}\times S^1`$ \[16-19\]. Here we consider some aspects of the deformation quantization on the cylinder using the Weyl-Underhill-Emmrich quantiztion rule. In the present case the configuration space $`M=S^1,`$ then $`T^{}M=\times S^1`$ and $`T_qM=`$. For the coordinate $`q`$ we use the angle $`\theta `$, $`\pi \theta <\pi `$. The complete orthonormal system of $`L^2(S^1)`$ is given by

$$\phi _k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(ik\theta ),k$$
(3.1)
For simplicity we assume that the cutoff function $`\chi (\theta ,\xi )`$ is symmetric with respect to $`\xi `$

$$\chi (\theta ,\xi )=\chi (\theta ,\xi )\theta [\pi ,\pi [$$
(3.2)
The SW quantizer $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,\theta )`$ defined by (2.28) reads now

$`\phi _k|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,\theta )|\phi _k^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i(k^{}k)\theta \right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\xi \chi ^2(\theta ,\xi )\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left(k+k^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2p}{\mathrm{}}}\right)\xi \right\}`$ (3.3)
One can quickly check that according to the general formula (2.45)

$$Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,\theta )\right\}=\underset{k}{}\phi _k\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,\theta )\phi _k=1$$
(3.4)
for arbitrary $`\chi .`$ Let $`f=f(p,\theta )`$ be a monomial

$$f(p,\theta )=X(\theta )p^m$$
(3.5)
then

$$\underset{\times S^1}{}\frac{dp^{}d\theta ^{}}{2\pi \mathrm{}}f(p^{},\theta ^{})Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,\theta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p^{},\theta ^{})\right\}=\underset{k}{}\phi _k\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,\theta )\widehat{f}_W\phi _k$$

$$=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\xi \chi ^2(\theta ,\xi )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2ip\xi }{\mathrm{}}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2i}\right)^m\frac{^m}{\xi ^m}\left(X(\theta +\xi )\delta (\xi )\right)=X(\theta )p^m$$
(3.6)
By the linearity of the integral (2.42) with respect to $`f`$ one concludes that the axiom (2.42) is now satisfied for a function $`f=f(p,\theta )`$ being an arbitrary polynomial in the momentum $`p.`$

If we want the axiom (2.42) to hold for any function on the cylinder then $`Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,\theta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p^{},\theta ^{})\right\}`$ should be equal to $`2\pi \mathrm{}\delta (\theta \theta ^{})\delta (pp^{}).`$ Performing simple manipulations, remembering also that $`\chi (\theta ,\xi )=0`$ for $`\xi ]\pi ,\pi [`$ (i.e.$`K_\theta `$ $`]\pi ,\pi [`$) one finds

$$Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p,\theta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(p^{},\theta ^{})\right\}=2\delta (\theta \theta ^{})\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\xi \chi ^4(\theta ,\xi )\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2i}{\mathrm{}}(p^{}p)\xi \right\}$$

$`+4\left(\delta (\theta \theta ^{}\pi )+\delta (\theta \theta ^{}+\pi )\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\xi \chi ^2(\theta ,\xi )\chi ^2(\theta ^{},\xi +\pi )`$
$`\mathrm{cos}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}}}\left(p^{}p+\pi \right)\xi \right\}`$ (3.7)
Hence, as $`\chi (\theta ,\xi )`$ has a compact support with respect to $`\xi `$ the formula (3.7) never gives $`2\pi \mathrm{}\delta (\theta \theta ^{})\delta (pp^{}).`$ Consequently, the axiom (2.42) cannot be satisfied for an arbitrary function on the cylinder. (Note that this is always the case if the configuration space $`M`$ is such that for some point $`q`$ of $`M`$ the normal coordinates at $`q`$ cannot be extended to all the tangent space $`T_q(M)`$). We must mention here that in the important works  the SW quantizer on the cylinder satisfying the axioms (2.40), (2.41) and (2.42) has been found. However, this SW quantizer has a disadvantage (which also has our SW quantizer (3.3)), that is, it does not fulfill the condition: $`\widehat{f}_W=f(\widehat{p})`$ for arbitrary function $`f=f(p)`$, which could be expected for a particle on the circle. The same occurs in the interesting approach of Alcalde  where the notion of SW quantizer is not used. In fact, as it is known from Ref.  the violation of the above condition will always appear unless we consider a ”quantization” of the classical cylindrical phase space.

This quantization in the WUE formalism can be obtained by some limiting process. Namely, let $`\left\{\chi _j(\theta ,\xi )\right\}_j`$ be a series of cutoff functions such that for every $`j`$ and every $`\theta [\pi ,\pi [`$

$$0\chi _j(\theta ,\xi )1,\chi _j(\theta ,\xi )=0\text{ for }\xi \text{ }]\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2}[$$
(3.8)
and

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{\overset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{}}𝑑\xi \left(\chi _j(\theta ,\xi )\right)^mf(\xi )=\underset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{\overset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{}}𝑑\xi f(\xi )$$
(3.9)
for every $`m`$ and every continuous function $`f=f(\xi )`$ (see Vladimirov , Section 2.2).

Assuming that the momentum $`p=n\mathrm{},`$ $`n,`$ using (3.8) and (3.9) one quickly finds that (3.3) leads to

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\phi _k\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(k\mathrm{},\theta )\phi _k^{}=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left(k^{}k\right)\theta \right\}$$

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{\overset{\frac{\pi }{2}}{}}𝑑\xi \chi _j^2(\theta ,\xi )\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\left(k+k^{}2n\right)\xi \right\}=\phi _k\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(n,\theta )\phi _k^{}$$
(3.10)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}(n,\theta )`$ is the discrete Stratonovich-Weyl quantizer for the cylinder found by Mukunda  and also given in .

Then from (3.7) with (3.8) and (3.9) we have

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}Tr\left\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(n,\theta )\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_j(n^{},\theta ^{})\right\}=2\pi \delta _{n,n^{}}\delta (\theta \theta ^{})$$
(3.11)
(Compare with ).

Finally, note that the discrete SW quantizer (3.10) gives: $`\widehat{f}_W=f(\widehat{p})`$ for every function $`f=f(p)`$ as it is expected.

Acknowledgments

This paper was partially supported by CONACYT and CINVESTAV (México) and by KBN (Poland). One of us (M.P.) is grateful to the staff of Departamento de Física at CINVESTAV, (México, D.F.) for warm hospitality.


format: text

text:
# Growth and Structure of Stochastic Sequences

## Abstract

We introduce a class of stochastic integer sequences. In these sequences, every element is a sum of two previous elements, at least one of which is chosen randomly. The interplay between randomness and memory underlying these sequences leads to a wide variety of behaviors ranging from stretched exponential to log-normal to algebraic growth. Interestingly, the set of all possible sequence values has an intricate structure.

Integer sequences underly many problems in combinatorics, computer science, and physics, with new beautiful sequences continuing to emerge njas . Sequences are typically deterministic. Meanwhile, stochastic sequences are just as ubiquitous, occurring in random processes such as the random walk. Stochastic sequences usually arise in very different contexts, and hence are rarely compared with their deterministic counterparts. In this article, we demonstrate how rich such a comparison can be.

Consider the Fibonacci numbers, $`F_n=F_{n1}+F_{n2}`$, that describe for example the number of leaves in plants and the number of ancestors of a drone conway ; http ; rad . As every element depends on the previous two, a natural stochastic generalization is $`x_n=x_{n1}\pm x_{n2}`$, where addition and subtraction are chosen with equal probabilities F ; ET ; V ; SK  (similar sequences also describe one-dimensional disordered systems l ; cpv ). The resulting sequences are intriguing. While the sequences still grow exponentially, the ratio $`x_n/x_{n1}`$ approaches a stationary distribution that possesses singularities at all rational values V ; SK .

Inspired by this richness, we consider an alternative form of stochasticity, namely, one that does not require subtraction and therefore more similar in spirit to the original deterministic sequence. Relaxing the rule that every element depends only on the preceding two elements, we arrive at the following additive stochastic rules

$`x_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{n1}+x_q\hfill & \text{(model I);}\hfill \\ x_p+x_q\hfill & \text{(model II).}\hfill \end{array}`$ (1)
In model I, we take the preceding element $`x_{n1}`$ and another one whose index $`q`$ is randomly chosen between $`0`$ and $`n1`$. In model II, both indices $`p`$ and $`q`$ are chosen randomly, $`0p,qn1`$. Without loss of generality, the first element is set to unity, $`x_0=1`$. Consequently $`x_1=2`$, while the next elements are stochastic. The number of possible sequences increases as $`n!`$ and $`n!^2`$ for models I and II, respectively. Rule I leads to monotonically increasing sequences; sequences generated by rule II increase only on average.

The most basic characteristic, the average of the $`n`$th element, $`A_n=x_n`$, can be determined analytically. For model I, it satisfies the linear recursion relation

$$A_n=A_{n1}+\frac{1}{n}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}A_j.$$
(2)
Comparing this with the recursion for $`A_{n+1}`$, we eliminate the summation and obtain a Fibonacci-like recursion relation with $`n`$-dependent coefficients $`A_{n+1}2A_n+A_{n1}=(n+1)^1A_{n1}`$. We are primarily interested in the large-$`n`$ behavior, and hence, we treat $`A`$ and $`n`$ as continuous variables. The above difference equation reduces to the differential equation $`A^{\prime \prime }=(AA^{})/n`$ (here $`{}_{}{}^{}d/dn`$). Using the WKB method bo , we obtain the $`n`$-dependence

$$A_nan^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\sqrt{n}\right).$$
(3)
The amplitude $`a0.1711`$ is determined numerically. We see that the long range memory leads to considerably slower stretched exponential growth compared with the exponentially growing Fibonacci numbers.

Does the average characterize the growth of an actual sequence? If yes, this would imply that the normalized moments $`x_n^k/x_n^k`$ approach finite values asymptotically. Figure 1 shows otherwise: the higher order moments grow according to

$$x_n^k\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _k\sqrt{n}\right),$$
(4)
with $`\beta _k>k\beta _1`$ (for the lowest moments, we find $`\beta _k=2`$, $`4.3`$, and $`6.5`$). This so-called “multiscaling” indicates that a typical sequence may greatly depart from the average. Therefore, the average (3) is insufficient to describe a typical sequence. These results are similar in spirit to the behavior of the random Fibonacci sequences where the typical growth is $`x\mathrm{exp}(\gamma n)`$, with nontrivial Lyapunov exponent $`\gamma `$, while $`x_n^k\mathrm{exp}(\gamma _kn)`$ with $`\gamma _kk\gamma _1`$.

Interestingly, an individual realization grows slower than the average (see the inset to Fig. 1)

$$x_n\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \sqrt{n}\right),$$
(5)
with the Lyapunov exponent $`\beta 1.889`$. This coefficient was determined by studying the variable $`\mathrm{ln}x_n`$. As shown in Fig. 2, this variable is Gaussian distributed

$$P_n(\mathrm{ln}x_n)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\left(\mathrm{ln}x_nb_n\right)^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2}\right].$$
(6)
The average and the variance of $`\mathrm{ln}x_n`$ grow with $`n`$ according to $`b_n\beta n^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2\sigma ^2n^{1/2}b_n`$, respectively. Eventually, the random variable $`y=\mathrm{ln}x_n/n^{1/2}`$ becomes deterministic, $`y\beta `$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. Similar behavior, including the Gaussian fluctuations and the relation between the variance and the average, is also found in one-dimensional localization problems o ; ataf .

One can calculate the probability distribution $`P_n(x)`$ for extremal values of $`x_n`$. The minimal value $`n+1`$ is obtained by choosing $`q=0`$ at every step $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Similarly, the maximal value $`2^n`$ is obtained by choosing $`q=k1`$ at every step. Hence, $`P_n(n+1)=P_n(2^n)=1/n!`$. Further extremal cases can be evaluated manually, and for example, $`P_n(n+2)=P_n\left(32^{n2}\right)=\frac{n1}{n!}`$. However, these extremal probabilities do not elucidate the typical behavior (5).

It is interesting to study the set of all possible sequence values. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ be the support of the probability distribution $`P_n(x)`$. For small $`n`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\{1\}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\{2\}`$, and furthermore,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{3,4\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ $`=`$ $`\{4,5,6,,8\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_4`$ $`=`$ $`\{5,\mathrm{},10,,12,,,,16\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_5`$ $`=`$ $`\{6,\mathrm{},18,,20,,,,24,,\mathrm{},,32\}.`$ (7)
Determination of the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ requires enumeration of all $`n!`$ histories, and we computed them up to $`n=15`$. The simplest feature is the set size $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, listed in table I. The set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ always begins with a subsequence of $`B_n`$ consecutive integers. For $`n3`$, the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ have gaps, i.e., strings of missing elements denoted by $``$ in Eq. (Growth and Structure of Stochastic Sequences). The number of gaps $`G_n`$ is listed in table I. The three sequences $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, $`B_n`$, and $`G_n`$, all grow exponentially with $`n`$. For example, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\lambda ^n`$ with $`\lambda 1.78`$. We conclude that the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ contain a number of nontrivial deterministic integer sequences including $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, $`B_n`$, and $`G_n`$.

Remarkably, the sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ have an intricate structure. For instance, for $`n=8`$ the sequence of the gap lengths contains $`G_8=18`$ elements as follows

$`\{1,1,1,1,1,3,1,1,3,3,7,7,1,3,7,15,31,63\}.`$ (8)
Generally, going in reverse direction (from $`2^n`$ to $`n+B_n`$) one observes a family of consecutive gaps of lengths $`2^{n2}1,2^{n3}1,\mathrm{},1`$ separated by single elements. Then, there is a $`3`$-element sequence, followed by a second family of twin gaps, $`2^{n5}1,2^{n5}1,\mathrm{},1,1`$. All these gaps are separated by single elements. Next, there is a $`5`$-sequence, followed by a family of triplet gaps, again separated by single elements \[this family has not yet formed for $`n=8`$, Eq. (8)\]. There is also a fourth family of quadruplet gaps with an intertwined pattern. The complexity of this gap-sequence structure increases rapidly, and eventually, gaps of even length appear.

Naively, one may probe the probability distribution via a mean-field description that ignores the sequence history altogether. In this approximation, one obtains a recursive equation for the probability distribution

$$P_n(x)=\frac{1}{n}\underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{y=1}{\overset{x1}{}}P_{n1}(y)P_l(xy).$$
(9)
Consequently, there are closed recursion relations for the moments. While consistent with the exact equation (2), the emerging recursion relations for the higher moments are only approximate. Analysis of these equations results in ordinary scaling behavior, $`x_n^kx_n^k`$, contrary to Eq. (4). Therefore, strong correlations develop, correlations that affect the statistical characteristics.

We now turn to model II. Here, the average $`A_n`$ satisfies a recursion relation similar to Eq. (2),

$$A_n=\frac{2}{n}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}A_j.$$
(10)
Simplifying this equation to $`A_n=\left(1+n^1\right)A_{n1}`$ and using the initial condition $`A_0=1`$, we obtain

$$A_n=n+1.$$
(11)
Numerical simulations confirm this linear growth. Figure 3 shows that the normalized moments remain finite asymptotically as

$$x_n^k\mu _kn^k.$$
(12)
In contrast with model I, the average properly characterizes higher order moments. Therefore, the probability distribution $`P_n(x)`$ admits the scaling form

$$P_n(x)n^1\mathrm{\Phi }(z),z=xn^1,$$
(13)
in the asymptotic limit $`x,n\mathrm{}`$ with the scaling variable $`z=xn^1`$ fixed (see Fig. 4).

This scaling behavior enables quantitative characterization of extremal statistics. Numerically, we find that the scaling function exhibits the following extremal behaviors

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)\{\begin{array}{cc}z\hfill & z0\text{,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}\left(z^\kappa \right)\hfill & z\mathrm{}\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
with $`\kappa 0.40.5`$ (see the inset to Fig. 4). The small-$`z`$ behavior can be understood by considering the minimal value $`x_n=2`$. This occurs when the first element $`x_0=1`$ is chosen twice and therefore, $`P_n(2)=n^2`$. Combining this with Eq. (13), gives $`\mathrm{\Phi }(2n^1)=n^1`$, in agreement with the asymptotics $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)z`$ in the $`z0`$ limit. The large-$`z`$ behavior is more subtle as it depends on the entire sequence evolution. Contrary to the small argument behavior, analysis of the maximal sequences $`x_n=2^n`$ does not elucidate the large argument tail. Indeed, such sequences occur with probability $`1/n!`$, much smaller than the exponentially small probabilities dominating the large-$`z`$ behavior.

The ordinary scaling behavior indicates that mean-field theory may provide better insight in the case of model II. Ignoring the history by which sequences evolve yields the following recursion for the distribution

$$P_n(x)=n^2\underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{y=1}{\overset{x1}{}}P_l(y)P_m(xy).$$
(15)
Using Eq. (13), and replacing summations by integration, equation (15) reduces into the integral equation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=_0^1\frac{d\xi }{\xi }_0^1\frac{d\eta }{\eta }_0^z𝑑z^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{z^{}}{\xi }\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{zz^{}}{\eta }\right).$$
(16)
The convolution structure suggests using the Laplace transform, and indeed, $`F(s)=𝑑ze^{sz}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ satisfies a simple equation

$$F(s)=\left[_0^1𝑑\xi F(\xi s)\right]^2.$$
(17)
The auxiliary function $`G(s)=_0^s𝑑s^{}F(s^{})`$ obeys the ordinary differential equation $`dG/ds=(G/s)^2`$ from which $`G(s)=s/(1+cs)`$ and then $`F(s)=(1+cs)^2`$. The small-$`s`$ behavior $`F(s)=1s`$ implies $`c=1/2`$. Inverting the Laplace transform $`F(s)=(1+s/2)^2`$ yields the scaling function

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=4z\mathrm{exp}\left(2z\right).$$
(18)
In the small-$`z`$ limit, mean-field theory is correct because memory is irrelevant for $`xn`$, (see Fig. 3). In contrast, for $`xn`$, memory is important and the exponent $`\kappa =1`$ is larger than the numerical value $`\kappa 0.40.5`$. Additionally, one may compare the prefactors characterizing the moments defined in Eq. (12). Using $`\mu _k=𝑑zz^k\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ gives $`\mu _k=(k+1)!2^k`$ and in particular $`\mu _k=1`$, $`3/2`$, $`3`$, for $`k=1`$, $`2`$, $`3`$. The corresponding numerical values are $`1`$, $`1.84`$, $`5.76`$, respectively. Although the history independent approximation is quantitatively inaccurate, it still provides useful insights for model II.

We have seen that the sequence growth sensitively depends on the details of the model. In fact, the stretched exponential or algebraic growth can be tuned by varying the recurrence rules. For example, introducing a multiplicative factor to model II, $`x_n=c(x_p+x_q)`$, leads to the algebraic growth $`A_nn^{2c1}`$. Functionally different growth laws naturally emerge as well. If in model I, $`x_n=x_{n1}+x_q`$, the memory range is $`0q[bn]`$ with $`0<b<1`$, one finds log-normal growth

$$A_n\mathrm{exp}\left(C\mathrm{ln}^2n\right),$$
(19)
with $`C=\left[2\mathrm{ln}(1/b)\right]^1`$. This growth law is slower than stretched exponential but faster than power law.

In summary, we have introduced a class of stochastic integer sequences where each sequence element is a sum of two previous elements, at least one of which is randomly chosen. While the sequence may attain a vast range of possible values, the dynamics chooses a much narrower range of values. Depending on the governing rules, there is a wide spectrum of growth from algebraic to log-normal to stretched exponential. In model I, there are infinitely many relevant scales underlying the moments. In contrast, for model II, there is a single scale and consequently, a mean-field approximation is qualitatively correct.

Generally, the phase space has an intricate structure. It contains alternating sequences of consecutive integers marking allowed and forbidden sequence values. The gap structure consists of increasingly complex patterns. Interesting deterministic integer sequences such as the size of the phase space, the number of gaps, and the size of the first accessible sequence underlie this phase space.

This research was supported by DOE (W-7405-ENG-36) and NSF(DMR9978902).


text:
# Quantized adiabatic quantum pumping due to interference

## I Introduction

When parameters of the Hamiltonian are slowly varied as function of time, adiabatic control of the electronic states becomes possible. When the change is carried out periodically, such that the Hamiltonian returns to itself after each cycle, one may pump an integral number, $`𝒩`$, of electrons through the system during each cycle. This results in a direct current (dc), flowing in response to an ac signal, which, when averaged over a cycle, is proportional to the modulation frequency times $`𝒩e`$ ($`e`$ being the electronic charge). Such adiabatic control of system parameters may be realized in nanostructures, where either the shape-forming potential, or the tunnel couplings between the structure and the leads (connected to the electronic reservoirs) can be modulated in a controllable way.

The possibility to transmit an integral number of electrons per cycle through an unbiased system, has been realized in two systems: 1. Quantum-dot devices, connected to leads via point contacts having small conductances which were modulated in time (turnstile devices); 2. Surface-acoustic-wave-based devices. In both examples, the observed quantization has been attributed to the Coulomb blockade, which quantizes the number of electrons on the device. However, the possibility to achieve quantization in ‘open’ nanostructures is much more intriguing. In such geometries, the electrons are not confined to a certain region but are rather spread over the entire device. Then, Coulomb-blockade effects are expected to play a minor role; The question hence arises whether quantum interference of the electronic wave function suffices to produce quantization (as originally proposed by Thouless).

Here we explore the conditions for the charge pumped during a period, $`Q`$, to be (almost) quantized, due to interference effects alone, without invoking electron-electron interactions. Our discussion begins (in Sec. 2) with the derivation of the expression for $`Q`$, which serves to put limitations on the validity of the widely-used adiabatic approximation. We continue (in Sec. 3) with an analysis of the turnstile geometry. That discussion points out to the connection between the conditions for resonance transmission and integral values of $`Q`$. In Sec. 4 we discuss the pump based on the surface acoustic waves (SAW’s). Finally, Sec. 5 includes concluding remarks.

## II Transport through a periodically-modulated system

Consider a ballistic nanostructure of arbitrary geometry, connected by leads (denoted by $`\alpha `$) to electronic reservoirs having the chemical potentials $`\mu _\alpha `$, and subject to a potential modulated periodically in time. The current flowing through this system will be obtained by first finding the time-dependent scattering states, and then using them to obtain the current.

The required time-dependent scattering solutions are derived from a systematic expansion in the temporal derivatives of the instantaneous solutions (that is, the scattering solutions of the Hamiltonian in which time is ‘frozen’). The first-order of this expansion yields the ‘adiabatic approximation’. This expansion procedure necessitates that the characteristic inverse time-constant, $`1/\tau `$, which describes the time dependence of the modulating potential, will be smaller than any characteristic energy scale of the electrons. However, it turns out that the expansion also requires that the amplitude of the modulating potential will be small.

Let the system be described by the Hamiltonian

$`(𝐫,t)=_0(𝐫)+V(𝐫,t),`$ (1)
where the potential $`V(𝐫,t)`$ is assumed to be confined in space, so that asymptotic behaviors of the scattering solutions can be clearly defined . The Hamiltonian $`_0`$ consists of the kinetic energy. As in the usual scattering treatment, we seek for the scattering state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha n}`$, which is excited by the free wave $`w_{\alpha n}^{}`$ (incoming in the transverse mode $`n`$ of lead $`\alpha `$ with energy $`E`$), which is normalized to carry a unit flux,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha n}(𝐫,t)=e^{iEt}\left(w_{\alpha n}^{}(𝐫)+\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\alpha n}(𝐫,t)\right).`$ (2)
By inserting this form into the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, (noting that $`w_{\alpha n}^{}`$ is a solution of $`_0`$), $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\alpha n}`$ can be written in terms of the instantaneous Green function, $`G^t(E)`$,

$`\left(E(𝐫,t)\right)G^t(E;𝐫,𝐫^{})=\delta (𝐫^{}𝐫),`$ (3)
as follows

$`\left(G^t\right)^1\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\alpha n}(𝐫,t)=V(𝐫,t)w_{\alpha n}^{}(𝐫)i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\alpha n}(𝐫,t)}{t}}.`$ (4)
Note that the time dependence of the scattered wave function, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\alpha n}(𝐫,t)`$, has the same characteristic time scale as $`V`$: e.g., when the modulating potential is oscillating in time with frequency $`\omega `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ contains all harmonics.

Equation (4) is solved iteratively: the temporal derivative appearing on the right-hand-side is regarded as a small correction. The zero-order, $`\chi _{\alpha n}^t`$, is the scattering solution of the instantaneous Hamiltonian (in which time appears as a parameter),

$`\chi _{\alpha n}^t(𝐫)=w_{\alpha n}^{}(𝐫)+{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{}G^t(E;𝐫,𝐫^{})V(𝐫^{},t)w_{\alpha n}^{}(𝐫^{})}.`$ (5)
Then the scattering solution read

$`\chi (𝐫,t)=\chi ^t(𝐫)+\chi ^{(1)}(𝐫,t)+\chi ^{(2)}(𝐫,t)+\mathrm{},`$ (6)
with the first-order

$`\chi ^{(1)}(𝐫,t)=i{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{}G^t(E;𝐫,𝐫^{})\dot{\chi }^t(𝐫^{})},`$ (7)
and the second-order

$`\chi ^{(2)}(𝐫,t)=i{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{}G^t(E;𝐫,𝐫^{})\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\chi }^t(𝐫^{})},`$ (8)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\dot{\chi }^t(𝐫^{})=i{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫^{\prime \prime }\frac{d}{dt}\left(G^t(E;𝐫^{},𝐫^{\prime \prime })\dot{\chi }^t(𝐫^{\prime \prime })\right)}.`$ (9)
and $`\dot{\chi }_{\alpha n}^td\chi _{\alpha n}^t/dt`$. Hence, in our iterative solution, the time-dependent scattering states are given entirely in terms of the instantaneous solutions of the problem at hand.

In the scattering formalism  the thermal average of the current density operator is given by

$$𝐣(𝐫,t)=\frac{e}{m}\mathrm{}\frac{dE}{2\pi }\underset{\alpha n}{}f_\alpha (E)\chi _{\alpha n}^{}(𝐫,t)\frac{\chi _{\alpha n}(𝐫,t)}{𝐫},$$
(10)
where $`f_\alpha (E)`$ is the Fermi distribution in the reservoir connected to the $`\alpha `$ lead. Evaluating $`𝐣(𝐫,t)`$ as $`𝐫`$ approaches $`\mathrm{}`$ in lead $`\beta `$, and then integrating over the cross-section of that lead yields the current $`I_\beta (t)`$ flowing into lead $`\beta `$ . In the following, we analyze this current, confining for simplicity the discussion to a nanostructure connected to left ($`\mathrm{}`$) and right ($`r`$) leads.

### A The adiabatic approximation

Consider first the net current passing through the system utilizing the adiabatic approximation, that is, keeping only the term (7). Then the current flowing during a single period of the modulating potential is

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\tau }\left(I_{\mathrm{}}(t)I_r(t)\right)}=I_{\mathrm{bias}}+I_{\mathrm{pump}}.`$ (11)
The first part, $`I_{\mathrm{bias}}`$, flows only when the system is biased,

$`I_{\mathrm{bias}}=e{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\tau }\frac{dE}{2\pi }\left(f_{\mathrm{}}(E)f_r(E)\right)}`$ (12)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}[2|S_{rm,\mathrm{}n}^t|^2+\mathrm{}(S_{\mathrm{}m,\mathrm{}n}^tU_{\mathrm{}m,\mathrm{}n}^{}S_{\mathrm{}m,rn}^tU_{\mathrm{}m,rn}^{}`$ (13)
$`S_{rm,\mathrm{}n}^tU_{rm,\mathrm{}n}^{}+S_{rm,rn}^tU_{rm,rn}^{})],`$ (14)
where $`U_{\beta m,\alpha n}=𝑑𝐫\chi _{\beta m}^t(𝐫)\dot{\chi }_{\alpha n}^t(𝐫),`$ and $`S_{\beta m,\alpha n}^t`$ is the matrix element of the instantaneous scattering matrix. Equation (14) can be considered as a generalization of the Landauer formula, extended to include the effect of a time-dependent potential in the adiabatic approximation. The second part of the current, $`I_{\mathrm{pump}}`$, is established by the time-dependent potential (though it is affected by the chemical potential difference, when the latter is applied). Explicitly,

$`I_{\mathrm{pump}}=e{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{\tau }\frac{dE}{2\pi }\frac{(f_{\mathrm{}}(E)+f_r(E))}{E}}`$ (15)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\left[\chi _\mathrm{}m^t|\dot{V}|\chi _\mathrm{}m^t\chi _{rm}^t|\dot{V}|\chi _{rm}^t\right].`$ (16)
It can be shown that the terms in the square brackets of (16) reproduce the Brouwer formula, derived for an unbiased system (in which $`I_{\mathrm{pump}}`$ is given in terms of temporal derivatives of the instantaneous scattering matrix).

### B Corrections to the adiabatic approximation

When the second-order in the expansion (6) is retained, one obtains the first correction to the widely-used adiabatic approximation. We will discuss here the pumping current beyond the adiabatic approximation for an unbiased system connected to two single-channel leads. In that case, the current entering lead $`\beta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{I}_\beta `$, is

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_\beta (t)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle }dE\left({\displaystyle \frac{f(E)}{E}}\right)[\chi _\beta ^t|\dot{V}|\chi _\beta ^t`$ (17)
$`+\mathrm{}\left(\chi _\beta ^t|2\dot{V}(t)\dot{G}^t(E)+\ddot{V}(t)G^t(E)|\chi _\beta ^t\right)].`$ (18)
The first term in the square brackets is the adiabatic-approximation result. The second arises form the second-order correction (8) to the scattering state.

The relative magnitude of the correction compared to the leading-order term may be accessed by noting that

$`\chi _\beta ^t|2\dot{V}(t)\dot{G}^t(E)+\ddot{V}(t)G^t(E)|\chi _\beta ^t`$ (19)
$`=\chi _\beta ^t|2\dot{V}G^t(E)\dot{V}+\ddot{V}|{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _\beta ^t}{E}}.`$ (20)
Hence, the validity of the adiabatic approximation is not only restricted by the smallness of $`1/\tau `$ dominating the temporal derivatives. It depends as well on the energy derivatives of the scattering states (i.e., the energy scale of the instantaneous reflection and transmission amplitudes) and the strength of the modulating potential itself: For the adiabatic approximation to be valid, one should have $`V\tau 1`$. Below, we evaluate the pumping current in the adiabatic approximation, keeping the above restrictions in mind.

## III Interference effects and quantized pumping in a modulated turnstile device

Here we investigate the turnstile pump, and in particular focus on the correlation between resonant transmission and the magnitude of adiabatically pumped charge. This correlation has been pointed out by Levinson et al. and by Wei et al. The idea may be summarized generically as follows. Consider a quantum dot, connected to its external leads by two point contacts, whose conductances are controlled by split-gate voltages which are modulated periodically in time. During each cycle the system follows a closed curve, the ‘pumping contour’, in the parameter plane spanned by the point contact conductances. As the system parameters are varied (for example, the gate voltage on the dot) the pumping contour distorts and shifts, forming a Lissajous curve in the parameter plane. The pumped charge will be (almost) quantized when the pumping contour encircles transmission peak(s) (that is, resonances) of the quantum dot in that parameter plane. Its magnitude (in units of the electronic charge, $`e`$) and sign are determined by the winding number of the pumping contour.

This connection between resonant transmission and pumping may be explored by studying a simple model. Employing the tight-binding description, we imagine the quantum dot to be coupled to semi-infinite 1D (single-channel) leads by matrix elements $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`J_r`$. Those are oscillating in time with frequency $`\omega `$, such that the modulation amplitude is P and the phase shift between the $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ modulation and that of $`J_r`$ is $`2\varphi `$,

$`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=J_\mathrm{L}+\mathrm{P}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t+\varphi ),`$ (21)
$`J_\mathrm{r}`$ $`=J_\mathrm{L}+\mathrm{P}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t\varphi ).`$ (22)
The point contact conductances are then given (in dimensionless units) by X$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}J_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ and X$`{}_{r}{}^{}J_r^2`$. As the couplings of the quantum dot to the leads are modulated in time, $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`J_r`$ can attain both negative and positive values. This reflects a modulation of the potential shaping the dot: The tight-binding parameters $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`J_\mathrm{r}`$, which are derived as integrals over the site ‘atomic’ wave functions and the oscillating potential, can have both signs. The extreme modulation arises for $`J_\mathrm{L}=0`$, when the hopping matrix elements which couple the dot to the leads oscillate in the range $`\{`$-P,P$`\}`$. The conductances of the point contacts are then modulated in the range $`\{`$0,P$`{}_{}{}^{2}\}`$. The corresponding Lissajous curve of the pumping is then a simple closed curve. Another possibility is to keep the couplings finite at any time, i.e., $`J_\mathrm{L}0`$, and to modulate the couplings around this value. In that case the Lissajous curve may fold on itself \[compare Figs. 2 and 3 below\]. This yields a rather rich behavior of the pumped charge.

The quantum dot is modeled by a ‘bunch’ of tight-binding sites connected among themselves. For simplicity, we take the latter in the form of a finite chain of $`N`$ sites, each having the on-site energy $`ϵ_0`$, and attached to its nearest-neighbor with a transfer amplitude $`J_\mathrm{D}`$. This structure is connected to electronic reservoirs by two 1D chains of sites, whose on-site energies vanish, and whose nearest-neighbor transfer amplitudes are denoted by $`J`$. The Fermi energy of an electron of wave vector $`k`$ moving on the leads is

$$E_k=2J\mathrm{cos}ka,$$
(23)
where $`a`$ is the lattice constant.

In the adiabatic approximation, the charge, Q, pumped through the quantum dot during a single period of the modulation is given by (16) as follows

$`\mathrm{Q}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[\chi _r^t|\dot{V}|\chi _r^t\chi _{\mathrm{}}^t|\dot{V}|\chi _{\mathrm{}}^t\right]}.`$ (24)
(The limit of zero temperature is taken for simplicity; Obviously finite temperature will ‘smear’ the effect.) The temporal derivative of the modulating potential in the present case is

$`\dot{V}(n,n^{})=`$ $`\dot{J}_{\mathrm{}}\left(\delta _{n,1}\delta _{n^{},0}+\delta _{n^{},1}\delta _{n,0}\right)`$ (25)
$`\dot{J}_r\left(\delta _{n,N}\delta _{n^{},N+1}+\delta _{n^{},N}\delta _{n,N+1}\right).`$ (26)
The expression (24) requires the knowledge of the instantaneous scattering states. These are easily derived. One writes those states in terms of the instantaneous reflection ($`r_t`$ and $`r_t^{}`$) and transmission ($`t_t`$) amplitudes: For the scattering state incited by a free wave incoming from the left one has $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}^t(x)=A_{0,\mathrm{}}[e^{ikx}+r_te^{ikx}]`$ on the left lead, and $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}^t(x)=A_{0,\mathrm{}}t_te^{ikx}`$ on the right lead, with $`x=na`$. Similarly, $`\chi _r^t(x)=A_{0,r}[e^{ikx}+r_t^{}e^{ikx}]`$ on the right lead, and $`\chi _r^t(x)=A_{0,r}t_te^{ikx}`$ on the left lead, for the scattering state incited by a plane wave incoming from the right reservoir. For both, the normalization to a unit flux implies that $`A_{0,\mathrm{}}=A_{0,r}=(2J\mathrm{sin}ka)^{1/2}`$. The reflection and transmission amplitudes are given by (all energies are scaled in units of $`J`$)

$`r_te^{i2ka}+1=\left(e^{ika}\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{X}_r\mathrm{sin}N_{}qaJ_\mathrm{D}\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{sin}Nqa\right)M_k,`$ (27)
$`r_t^{}e^{i2Nka}+1=\left(e^{ika}\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{X}_r\mathrm{sin}N_{}qaJ_\mathrm{D}\mathrm{X}_r\mathrm{sin}Nqa\right)M_k,`$ (28)
$`t_t=e^{ikN_{}a}J_{\mathrm{}}J_rJ_\mathrm{D}\mathrm{sin}qaM_k,`$ (29)
with $`N_\pm N\pm 1`$, and

$`M_k=`$ $`2i\mathrm{sin}ka[J_\mathrm{D}^2\mathrm{sin}N_+qaJ_\mathrm{D}e^{ika}(\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{X}_r)\mathrm{sin}Nqa`$ (30)
$`+e^{i2ka}\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{X}_r\mathrm{sin}N_{}qa]^1.`$ (31)
The wave vector $`q`$ describes the propagation of the wave on the quantum dot, such that $`E_kϵ_0=2J_\mathrm{D}\mathrm{cos}qa`$. By using these expressions in (24) one finds that, as function of the modulating amplitude, (or alternatively the gate voltage on the dot), the pumped charge can vary as depicted, for example, in Fig. 1.

We next make the correspondence between the ‘quantized’ values of $`Q`$, as portrayed in Fig. 1, and the location of the pumping contour relative to the resonant transmission of the quantum dot. The transmission coefficient of our system, T=$`|t_t|^2`$, is \[see Eq. (29)\]

$$\mathrm{T}=\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{Z}^2+(J_\mathrm{D}\mathrm{sin}ka\mathrm{sin}Nqa(\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{X}_r))^2}{(2J_\mathrm{D}\mathrm{sin}ka\mathrm{sin}qa)^2\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{X}_r}\right]^1,$$
(32)
with $`\mathrm{Z}=J_\mathrm{D}^2\mathrm{sin}N_+qa+\frac{E_k}{2}J_\mathrm{D}\mathrm{sin}Nqa(\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{X}_r)+\mathrm{X}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{X}_r\mathrm{sin}N_{}qa`$ . Clearly, one has T=1 when X$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}=\mathrm{X}_r`$ and Z=0. For $`N>1`$, these equations give two points on the diagonal in the {X$`{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}`$X$`{}_{r}{}^{}\}`$ plane. The maxima of T, when either X or Xr is varied while the other parameter is kept fixed, occur on two ‘resonance lines’, shown in thick lines in Figs. 2 and 3. The figures also show the topology of the curve traversed by the system during the pumping cycle for representative values of P. In Fig. 2 we have P=1. The pumping contour encloses a small part of the upper resonance line, and also touches the peak on the lower resonance line. Indeed, Q has an intermediate value near $`0.5`$, decreasing to zero as P moves away from 1 (see Fig. 1).

Increasing the amplitude to the value P=5 reveals that the pumping contour encloses both peaks on the resonance lines, and therefore their separate contributions almost cancel one another, leading to a tiny value of Q. Also, the pumping curve begins to fold on itself, giving rise to the ‘bubble’ close to the origin (see Fig. 3). Following the increase of that bubble as P is enhanced leads to the situation in which the bubble encloses the lower resonance, and then the charge attains a unit value (see Fig. 1). As the bubble increases further, capturing the two resonance lines, Q again becomes very small. But upon further increasing P, we reach the interesting situation, depicted in Fig. 3 for P=8, in which the bubble encircles twice the upper resonance line, leading to a pumped charge very close to $`|2e|`$ (see Fig. 1).

Thus, the condition for obtaining integral values of the pumped charge is that the contour traversed by the system in the parameter plane spanned by the pumping parameters should encircle a significant portion of a resonance line in that plane. The magnitude and the sign of the pumped charge are determined by that portion, and by the direction along which the resonance line is encompassed. We emphasize that the pumping contour, as well as the resonance lines, can be determined experimentally.

The reason for this topological description of adiabatic charge pumping can be traced back to the expression for the pumped charge, Eq. (24). The main contribution to the temporal integration there comes from the poles of the integrand. The same poles are also responsible for the resonant states of the nanostructure, that is, for the maxima in the transmission coefficient. One can imagine more complex scenarios: Including higher harmonics of $`\omega `$ in the time dependence of the point contact conductances can create more complex Lissajous contours, which might encircle portions of the resonance lines more times, yielding higher quantized values of the pumped charge.

## IV Interference effects and quantized pumping in a quantum channel modulated by surface acoustic waves

Modulation of the potential acting on a nanostructure may be also achieved through the piezoelectric effect of surface acoustic waves (SAW’s), which is relatively large in GaAs. In the two-dimensional electron gas formed in GaAs-AlGaAs samples the potential created by the SAW is screened out. However, the SAW’s are effective within a quasi-one-dimensional channel (where screening is diminished) defined in GaAs-AlGaAs samples. In the experiments, the time-average current exhibits steps between plateaus, at quantized values of integer$`\times e(\omega /2\pi )`$, ($`\omega `$ is the SAW frequency), as function of either the gate voltage on the quantum channel, or the SAW amplitude. Here we propose an explanation for this observation, in terms of interference of non-interacting electrons.

Unlike the turnstile-like case, the piezoelectric potential, $`_{\mathrm{SAW}}(𝐫,t)=`$P$`\mathrm{cos}(\omega t𝐪𝐫)`$, generated by the SAW oscillates with time everywhere inside the nanostructure. The induced average current (in the absence of bias), flows in the direction of the SAW wave vector, $`𝐪`$. A realistic treatment of the experimental geometry only allowed a calculation at low SAW amplitude, P, yielding $`Q`$P2. The screening of the piezoelectric potential in the wide banks of the channel is also difficult to treat exactly. In view of this it is useful to gain insight into the phenomenon by applying a simple model: A 1D channel, connected to 1D leads. The Fermi energy of an electron moving on the leads is then again given by (23), while the ‘channel’ Hamiltonian is

$$_{\mathrm{osc}}=\underset{n}{}\{ϵ_n(t)|nn|J_n(|nn+1|+hc)\},$$
(33)
with $`J_n=J_D`$ inside the channel, $`1nN1`$, and $`J_0=J_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`J_N=J_r`$ for the ‘contacts’ with the leads. The electric field generated by the SAW’s

$$ϵ_n(t)=V+\mathrm{P}\mathrm{cos}[\omega tqa(nn_0)]$$
(34)
acts only inside the channel. (Effects due to gradual screening, or reflections from the channel ends, can be incorporated as well.) Here $`V`$ represents the gate voltage and P$`>0`$, so that $`ϵ_n`$ has a maximum (minimum) in the center of the channel $`n_0=(N+1)/2`$ at $`t=0`$ ($`\tau /2`$).

The adiabatic approximation seems to be particularly adequate for SAW frequencies, as $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ is small compared to the relevant electronic energy scales. We hence use (24), with $`\dot{V}`$ there replaced by $`\dot{}_{\mathrm{osc}}`$. The required instantaneous scattering states are straightforwardly found; The resulting expression can be put in the form

$$Q=\frac{eJ_{\mathrm{}}^2\mathrm{sin}ka}{\pi J}_{\tau /2}^{\tau /2}𝑑t\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\dot{ϵ}_n|g_{n,1}|^2,$$
(35)
where the (time-dependent) matrix $`g`$ is given by

$`\left(g^1(E)\right)_{n,n^{}}=E\delta _{n,n^{}}\left(_{\mathrm{osc}}\right)_{n,n^{}}`$ (36)
$`+\delta _{n,n^{}}e^{ika}\left(\delta _{n,1}J_{\mathrm{}}^2+\delta _{n,N}J_r^2\right)/J.`$ (37)
Using the same notations, the instantaneous transmission coefficient of the quantum channel reads T$`{}_{}{}^{t}=4|g_{N,1}|^2(J_{\mathrm{}}J_r/J)^2\mathrm{sin}^2ka`$. This has maxima, as function of $`\mathrm{cos}\omega t`$, at the $`N`$ poles of $`g_{N,1}`$, i.e. at the zeroes of $`D(\mathrm{cos}\omega t)detg^1`$. The time-averaged transmission, $`\overline{\mathrm{T}}=_{\tau /2}^{\tau /2}𝑑t\mathrm{T}^t/\tau `$ thus exhibits peaks wherever such poles occur within the period $`\tau =2\pi /\omega `$. Similarly, $`Q`$ will have singularities whenever $`\mathrm{cos}\omega t`$ comes close to a zero of $`D`$ within the integration. For small $`(J_{\mathrm{}}^2+J_r^2)/J`$, these poles have small imaginary parts, and $`Q`$ exhibits large changes as $`\mathrm{cos}\omega t`$ passes near such a pole. These steps occur exactly where $`\overline{\mathrm{T}}`$ has spikes, originating from the same poles. Thus, again, we find an intimate relation between ‘quantized’ values of the pumped charge, and resonant transmission.

Figure 4 shows $`Q/e`$ vs. $`V`$, for $`N=10`$ at zero temperature. The other parameters used are: $`J_LJ_{\mathrm{}}=J_r=0.4`$, P$`/J_D=8`$, $`ka=\pi /100`$, and the SAW wave length is taken to be 4 times the channel length. Several plateaus are clearly observed, with $`Q/e`$ very close to an integer, $`𝒩=1,\mathrm{},5`$. (We have found that, quite generally, the number $`𝒩`$ of sharp plateaus is up to $`𝒩=N/2`$, with possibly several additional rounded peaks or spikes.) The steps, at $`V_𝒩`$, between these plateaus appear to be equidistant. For large $`N`$

$$V_𝒩E_F\pm \left(P+2J_D\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒩+\frac{1}{2})\right),$$
(38)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=qa\sqrt{2\mathrm{P}J_D}`$, that is, as the SAW amplitude P increases, the steps move outwards and broaden, in apparently accordance with experiments.

Obviously, a finite pumped charge requires finite SAW amplitude P. Indeed, the steps become rounded as P, $`|E_FV|`$ or $`qa`$ decreases with the rounding beginning at the larger $`𝒩`$’s; The plateaus at $`𝒩=\pm 1`$ disappear last. These results remain robust over a wide range of $`ka,J_L`$ and $`J_D`$, provided $`0<J_L^2/JJ_D\mathrm{P},|E_FV|`$; As an example, Fig. 5 shows the effects of increasing $`J_D`$ and $`J_L`$. As Eq. (38) implies, the staircase structure of $`Q`$ is also obtained as function of P, at fixed $`V`$: $`Q`$ remains very small up to P$`{}_{0}{}^{}=E_FV2J_D+\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$, exhibits $`N/2`$ steps, at intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (which now increases with $`P`$), and then decreases gradually towards zero. Thus, both $`V`$ and P can be used for on-off switching of the pumped current.

As mentioned above, the steps in $`Q`$ are correlated with the spikes of the averaged transmission. It is interesting to follow these poles as function of the various parameters. Figure 6 depicts the partial charge $`Q(t)`$, resulting from integration of (35) only up to $`t<\tau /2`$, at different values of the gate voltage. As $`V`$ increases through the first step at $`V_1`$, $`Q(t)`$ suddenly exhibits a step from zero to one, which appears at $`t=0`$. Upon further increasing $`V`$, this step moves to the left, and at $`V=V_𝒩`$, a new step (from $`𝒩1`$ to $`𝒩`$) enters at $`t=0`$ (see the left panel of Fig. 6). Afterwards, there begin to enter steps of $`1`$, until at $`V=E_F`$ there are exactly $`N/2`$ steps of $`+1`$ followed by $`N/2`$ steps of $`1`$, yielding $`Q=0`$(the center panel of Fig. 6). A similar build-up of (negative) steps occurs starting from positive $`V`$-values which are then decreased, (right panel of Fig. 6). Thus, unlike the Coulomb blockade picture, in which $`𝒩`$ electrons move together, carried by a single minimum of the moving potential, in the interference description, $`Q(t)`$ changes by discrete steps of 1, implying separate motion of the electrons, building up to $`𝒩`$ after a full period. The step-like time dependence of $`Q(t)`$ implies the appearance of higher harmonics in $`\omega `$, with amplitudes exhibiting staircase structure as well. Apparently, this will not be true in Coulomb-blockade-type description. Measurements of the induced current noise for the $`𝒩>1`$ plateaus may be useful to distinguish between the simultaneous motion of $`𝒩`$ electrons, and the single electron steps.

To conclude this section, we note that even within this simple 1D model, it is possible to study effects arising from variations of the SAW amplitude $`P`$ in space (due to screening effects, or to multiple reflections from the channel’s ends), or from random energies $`\{V_n\}`$, which may represent impurities within the channel.

## V Concluding remarks

Using simplified models, we have demonstrated that interference effects suffice to produce transfer of integral number of electrons through a mesoscopic (unbiased) system, subject to a periodically-varying potential. The calculations presented above utilize the expression for the pumped charge, $`Q`$, in the adiabatic approximation, that is, keeping only the first-order of the expansion (6). However, the next-order corrections need not be small; It is therefore an open question whether the quantization, and its relation to resonant transmission, will still be present when higher terms in the temporal expansion are retained.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Y. Imry, Y. Levinson, and P. Wölfle for helpful conversations. This research was carried out in a center of excellence supported by the Israel Science Foundation, and was supported in part by the Albert Einstein Minerva Center for Theoretical Physics at the Weizmann Institute of Science.