arXiv:0906.1791v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 9 Jun 2009

arXiv:0906.1791v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 9 Jun 2009

CyrilPetitjean

1

, Daniel Waltner

1

, JakKuipers

1

, nanç Adagideli

1,2

and KlausRihter

1 1

Institut für Theoretishe Physik, Universität Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg, Germany.

2

Faulty of Engineering and NaturalSienes, Sabani University, 34956 TuzlaIstanbul, Turkey.

(Dated: February4,2014)

Weaddressfrequeny-dependentquantumtransportthroughmesosopiondutorsinthesemi-

lassiallimit. Bygeneralizingthetrajetory-basedsemilassialtheoryofdquantumtransportto

theaase,wederivetheaveragesreenedondutaneaswellasaweak-loalization orretions

for haotiondutors. Therebyweonrmrespetive randommatrixresultsandgeneralizethem

byaountingforEhrenfesttimeeets. Weonsidertheaseofaavityonnetedthroughmany

leads to a marosopi iruit whihontains a-soures. Inaddition to the reservoir the avity

itselfis apaitively oupledtoagate. Byinorporating tunnelbarriersbetweenavity andleads

weobtainresultsforarbitrarytunnelrates. Finally,basedonourndingsweinvestigatetheeetof

dephasingonthehargerelaxationresistaneofamesosopiapaitorinthelinearlow-frequeny

regime.

PACSnumbers:05.45.Mt,74.40.+k,73.23.-b,03.65.Yz

I. INTRODUCTION

In ontrast to d-transport experiments, the applied

external frequeny

ω

^{of an a-driven mesosopi stru-}

tureprovidesanewenergysale

~ ω

^{that permitsoneto}

aessfurtherpropertiesofthesesystems,inludingtheir

intrinsihargedistributionanddynamis.

The interestin the a-reponse of mesosopi ondu-

tors goes bakto thework of Pieperand Prie 1

on the

dynami ondutane of a mesosopi Aharonov-Bohm

ring. Thispioneeringworkwasfollowedbyseveralexper-

imentsranging from photon-assistedtransport to quan-

tumshotnoise

2,3,4,5,6,7

. Morereently,thea-regimehas

been experimentally reinvestigated ahieving the mea-

surement of the in and out of phase parts of the a-

ondutane 8

andtherealizationofahigh-frequenysin-

gleeletronsoure 9

. Moreover,thereentriseofinterest

in thefull ounting statistisof hargetransfer hasled

toareexaminationofthefrequenynoisespetra 10,11,12

.

This experimental progresshas sine triggeredrenewed

theoretialinterestin timedependent mesosopitrans-

port

13,14,15,16,17

.

Onewaytotaklethea-transportproblemistostart

from linear response theory fora given potentialdistri-

bution of thesample 18,19,20

. Thisinvolvesthediulty

that, in priniple, the potential distribution and more

preisely its link to the sreening is unknown. Another

approah onsists of deriving the a-response to an ex-

ternal perturbation that only enters into quantities de-

sribing the reservoirs. Suh approahs were initiated

by Pastawski 21

within a non-equilibruium Green fun-

tionbasedgeneralizedLandauer-Büttikerformalism,and

thenthesatteringmatrixformalismofatime-dependent

systemwasdeveloped by Büttikeret al.

22,23

. Sine the

energy is in general no longer onserved for an a-bias,

theformalismisbasedontheoneptofasatteringma-

trix that depends on twoenergy arguments 24

or equiv-

alently on two times 25

. Fortunately, when the inverse

avity,thea-transportanbeexpressedintermsofthe

derivative of the sattering matrix with respet to en-

ergy 26

. Inthis artilewestartfrom thetimedependent

satteringmatrixformalismandlimitourinvestigations

toopen,lassiallyhaotiballistiondutorsinthelow-

frequenyregime 27

.

Fora-transportwealulatetheaverageorrelatorof

satteringmatries

S(E)

^{atdierentenergies}

E

^{. Forthis}

weneedto knowthe jointdistribution ofthematrixel-

ements

S αβ;ij

^{at dierent valuesof the energy orother}

parameters. (We label the reservoirs onneted to the

ondutorby agreekindex and themode numberby a

latinindex.) Toourknowledgeageneralsolutiontothis

problem does not yet exist for haoti systems. How-

ever,in thelimitofalargenumberofhannels, therst

momentsofthedistribution

S αβ;ij (E)S _αβ;ij ^† (E ^′ )

^werede-

rived using bothsemilassial methods 28 ,29

and various

random matrixtheory (RMT) based methods

25,30,31,32

.

Althoughthea-transportpropertiesofballistihaoti

systemsseemtobewelldesribedbytheRMToftrans-

port 32

,wedevelopasemilassialapproahforthreerea-

sons: First,thisallowsustoonrmtherandommatrix

predition by using a omplementary trajetory-based

semilassial method. Seond, the energy dependene

in the random matrix formalism was introdued by re-

sorting to artiial models suh asthe "stubmodel"

25

.

Whilebeing powerful,this treatmentis far from miro-

sopiornatural. Thethirdandstrongestreasonistogo

beyondtheRMTtreatmentandinvestigatetherossover

to the lassial limit. Similarly as for the stati ase

RMTisnotappliableinthisregime.Asrstnotiedby

AleinerandLarkin 33

,ballistitransportisharaterized

byanewtimesale,knownastheEhrenfesttime

τ E

^34,35,

thatontrolstheappearane ofinterfereneeets. The

Ehrenfest time orresponds to the time during whih a

loalizedwavepaket spreadsto alassial lengthsale.

Typially,in open haoti systemstwosuh lengthsare

relevant, the system size

L

^{and the leadwidth}

W

^{. We}

one 36,37

, thelosed-avityEhrenfesttime,

τ _E ^cl = λ ⁻¹ ln[L/λ F ],

⁽¹⁾

andtheopen-avityEhrenfesttime,

τ _E ^op = λ ⁻¹ ln[W ² /λ F L],

⁽²⁾

where

λ

^{isthelassialLyapunovexponentoftheavity.}

Although the suess of the semilassial method

(beyond the so-alled diagonal approximation, see be-

low) to desribe quantitatively universal and non

universal d-transport properties is now learly es-

tablished

38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49

, the orrespond-

ing semilassial understanding of frequeny dependent

transport is far less developed. Based on an earlier

semilassialevaluation of matrixelement sumrules by

Wilkinson 50

andasemilassialtheoryoflinearresponse

funtions 51

, a semilassial approah to the frequeny-

dependent ondutivity within the Kubo-formalism led

toanexpressionofthea-(magneto-)ondutivity

σ(ω)

intermsofatraeformulaforlassialperiodiorbits 52

.

Closelyrelatedtothisevaluationof

σ(ω)

^istheproblem

offrequeny-dependent(infrared-)absorptioninballisti

mesosopi avities whih has been treated semilassi-

ally in Ref. [51℄. Peaks in theabsorption ould beas-

signedto resonaneeets when theexternal frequeny

ω

^{orrespondsto theinverseperiods of}fundamentalpe- riodi orbits in the avity. Ref. [33℄ ontains a rst,

σ

^{-model based approah to weak} loalization eets in thea-Kuboondutivity,wherethendingswereinter-

pretedinaquasilassialtrajetorypiture(beyondthe

diagonal approximation). We note also that the semi-

lassialtreatmentoftheprodutof satteringmatries

S(E)

^{at dierent energies, has been} investigated in dif- ferentontextsuhastheErisonutuations

41

andthe

timedelay 48

,howeverwithoutonsideringtheEhrenfest

timedependene.

The outlineof this artile is asfollows: InSetion II

we introdue our model to treatthe system of interest

namelyaquantumdotunderabias,andreallsomeba-

siresultsaboutonservationlawsin preseneofatime

dependenteld. InSet.IIIwepresentthemethodused

totreatsreening,whihisbasedonaself-onsistentap-

proahdevelopedbyBüttikeret al.

23

. Theadmittane,

i.e.thea-ondutane,isthenalulatedsemilassially

for the partiular ase of strong oupling to the leads

(transparentontat)inSet.IV,whereweillustrateour

resultbytreatingthetimedependeneofapulsedavity.

Wegeneralizethemethodto opewitharbitrarytunnel

rates in Set. V, and nally we use our general results

toinvestigatedephasingeetsonthehargerelaxation

resistaneofamesosopiapaitorin Set.VI.

II. THEMODEL

We onsider a ballisti quantum dot, i.e. a two-

dimensional haotiavityoupledto

M

^{eletronreser-}

voirs via

M

^{leads. Eah lead}

α

^{has a width}

W α

^and

Figure1: Twodimensional haotiavity with

M

^leadsand

onegate

0

^{. Eah lead}

α

^{has awidth}

W α

^{andis oupled to}

areservoiratpotential

U _α (ω)

^andurrent

I _α (ω)

^{. Eahtun-}

nelbarrieris haraterizedbythe set of transmission prob-

abilities

Γ ^α = {Γ α,1 , · · · , Γ α,N _α }

^{. The gate and the sam-}

ple are apaitively oupled, whih leads to a gate urrent

I ₀ (ω) = − i ωC[ U ₀ (ω) − U (ω)]

^.

is oupled to the avity through a tunnel barrier (see

Fig.1). Inadditionto thetreatmentofRef. [45℄weas-

sign apartiular tunnel probability to eah lead mode.

Thetunnelbarrieristhusharaterizedbyasetoftrans-

mission probabilities,

Γ α = { Γ α,1 , · · · , Γ α,N α }

^{, with}

N α

themaximummodenumberoflead

α

^{. Thehaotidotis}

additionallyapaitivelyoupledtoagateonnetedto

areservoiratvoltage

U ₀ (ω)

^{,fromwhihaurrent}

I ₀ (ω)

ows. This apaitive oupling with the gate is taken

intoaountviaageometrialapaitane

C

^{22 ,32,53.}

Wefurtherrequirethatthesizeoftheontatismuh

smallerthan the system size

L

^{, but still} semilassially large,

1 ≪ N α ≪ L/λ F

^{. This} requirementensures that thepartilespendenoughtimeinsidetheavitytoexpe-

rienethehaotidynamis.

Asusualforsuhmesosopistruturesweneedtodis-

tinguishbetweenquantumandlassialtimesales. On

thequantumsidewehavealreadyintroduedtheEhren-

festtimes(

τ _E ^op

^,

τ _E ^cl

^{)inEqs.(1,2),whileanothertimesale}

istheHeisenbergtime

τ H

^{, thetimeto resolvethemean}

levelspaingofthesystem. Onthelassialsidethetime

ofight

τ f

^{betweentwoonseutivebounesat thesys-}

temavitywallis relevant. In mostballistisystemsor

billiardswehave

τ f ≃ λ ⁻¹

^{. Anotherrelevanttimesale}

is the ballisti ergodi time

τ erg

^{whih determines how}

longittakesforaneletrontovisitmostoftheavailable

phasespae. However,aswedealwithtransportproper-

ties,afurther importanttimesaleisthedwelltime

τ D

^,

theaveragetime spentintheavitybefore reahingthe

ontat, we have

τ D /τ erg ≫ 1

^{. The relatedesaperate}

thereforesatises

τ _D ⁻¹ = τ _H ⁻¹

M

X

α=1 N α

X

i=1

Γ α,i .

⁽³⁾

For small openings whih we onsider here, we have

λ τ D ≫ 1

^.

Thea-transport propertiesofsuhamesosopisys-

temareharaterizedbythedimensionlessadmittane

g αβ (ω) = G αβ (ω)/G 0 = G ⁻¹ ₀ ∂I α (ω)/∂U β (ω),

⁽⁴⁾

with

G 0 = d s e ² /h

^{, where}

d s = 1

^or

2

^{in the absene}

or presene of spin degeneray. In this study we limit

ourselvestotheoeients

g αβ (ω)

^with

α, β = 1, · · · , M

where the oeientsdenotingthe gatearedetermined

by urrentonservation and the freedom to hoose the

zeropointofenergy 22

,

M

X

α=0

g αβ (ω) =

M

X

β=0

g αβ (ω) = 0 .

⁽⁵⁾

WenotethatEq.(5)isastraightforwardonsequene

of the underlying gauge invariane. Owing to the on-

servationof harge, thetotal eletriurrent fullls the

ontinuityequation

∇

∇

∇ · j p + ∂ρ

∂t = 0,

⁽⁶⁾

where

ρ

^{isthehargedensityand}

j p

^{thepartileurrent}

density. Ford-transport,thehargedensityis timein-

dependentandsowehave

∇ ∇ ∇ · j _p = 0

^{. Thusthesumofall}

urrentsthatenterintothedotisalwayszero. Moreover

theurrentpropertiesmustremainunhangedunderasi-

multaneous globalshiftofthevoltagesof thereservoirs.

These onditions imply the well know unitarity of the

satteringmatrix 54

,

X

α,i

S ^† _αβ;ij (E)S αγ;ik (E) = δ βγ;jk .

⁽⁷⁾

For a-transport, the produt of sattering matries

at dierent energies no longer obey a similar prop-

erty

54,55,56,57

i.e.

X

α,i

S ^† _αβ;ij (E)S αγ;ik (E ^′ ) 6 = δ βγ;jk ,

⁽⁸⁾

indeedthisinequalityexpressesthefatthat,duetothe

possible temporary pile up of harge in the avity, the

partile urrent density no longer satises

∇ ∇ ∇ · j _p = 0

^.

HoweveroneaninsteadusethePoissonequation

∇ ∇ ∇ · D = ρ,

⁽⁹⁾

where

D = − ǫ 0 ∇ ∇ ∇ ϕ

^with

ϕ

^{theeletripotential,todene}

thetotaleletriurrentdensitywhihsatises

∇ ∇ ∇ · j = 0

^,

asasumofapartileandadisplaementurrent:

j = j _p + ∂D

∂t .

⁽¹⁰⁾

In order to nd

j

^{oneneeds to know theeletrial eld}

D

^{. Ingeneralitsalulationisnotatrivialtaskbeause}

theintrinsimany-bodyaspetoftheproblemmakesthe

treatment of the Poisson equation (9) triky, espeially

ifit is neessaryto treat the partile and displaement

urrentonthesamefooting.

InthisworkweshalladopttheapproahofRef.[23℄to

simplifytheproblem. Inthis approahtheenvironment

is redued to a single gate, the Coulomb interation is

desribed by ageometrial apaitane

C

^{, and the two}

urrentsaretreatedondierentfooting;thepartileur-

rentisalulatedquantummehaniallyviathesatter-

ingapproah, while the displaement urrent is treated

lassiallyviatheeletrostatilaw(Eqs.(6,9)). Thissim-

pliationwillpermitusbelowtore-expressthePoisson

equation(9)to obtainthesimplest gaugeinvariantthe-

orythattakesareof thesreening. Weemphasizethat

eventhoughour model ouldbethoughtof asoversim-

plied it has the advantage of being able to probe the

eets due to the longrange Coulomb interation. In-

deed,for non-interating partilesit is possible to treat

thedotand thegateviatwosets ofunorrelatedonti-

nuity equations. TheCoulombinterationremovesthis

possibility,and weneedto onsiderthe gateand dotas

awholesystem.

III. EXPRESSION FORTHEADMITTANCE

The method to ompute the admittane proeeds in

two steps 55

: Firstthe diret response (partileurrent)

tothehangeof theexternalpotentialis alulatedun-

der the assumption that the internal potential

U (ω)

^of

the sample is xed. This leads to the denition of the

unsreenedadmittane

g _αβ ^u (ω)

^{. Seond,a}self-onsistent proedure based on the gauge invariane (urrent on-

servation andfreedom tohoosethe zeroofvoltages)is

usedtoobtainthesreenedadmittane

g αβ (ω)

^.

Theunsreenedadmittanereads 22

g ^u _αβ (ω) = Z

dE f (E − ^~ ₂ ^ω ) − f (E + ^~ ₂ ^ω ))

~ ω

⁽¹¹⁾

× Tr

δ αβ 1 α − S αβ

E + ~ ω

2

S ^† _αβ

E − ~ ω 2

,

where

f (E)

^{standsfortheFermi}distribution,

S _αβ

^isthe

N α × N β

^{satteringmatrixfromlead}

β

^tolead

α

^,and

1 _α

is an

N α × N α

^{identity matrix. Under the assumption}

that

U (ω)

^{is spatiallyuniform, the sreenedadmittane}

g αβ (ω)

^isstraightforwardto obtain

22

. Forsakeof om-

pletenesswepresenthereonlytheoutlineofthemethod

andrefertoRef. [26℄formoredetails.

Ontheonehand theurrentreponseatontat

α

^is

I _α (ω) = G 0





M

X

β=1

g _αβ ^u (ω) U _β (ω) + g _α0 ⁱ (ω) U (ω)



 ,

⁽¹²⁾

where

g _α0 ⁱ (ω)

^{is the unknown internal reponse of the}

mesosopi ondutor generated by the utuating po-

tential

U (ω)

^{. Ontheother handthe urrentinduedat}

thegateis

I ₀ (ω) = − i ωC[ U ₀ (ω) − U (ω)].

⁽¹³⁾

Gaugeinvarianepermitsashiftof

− U (ω)

^{and provides}

anexpressionfortheunknowninternalresponse,

g ⁱ _α0 (ω) = −

M

X

β=1

g ^u _αβ (ω).

⁽¹⁴⁾

Then urrent onservation,

P M

α=1 I _α (ω) + I ₀ (ω) = 0

^,

yieldstheresultofthesreenedadmittane 22

,

g αβ (ω) = g ^u _αβ (ω) + P M

δ=1 g _αδ ^u (ω) P M

δ ^′ =1 g ^u _δ ′ β (ω) i ωC/G 0 − P M

δ=1

P M

δ ^′ =1 g ^u _δδ ′ (ω) .

(15)

Inthe self-onsistent approah used to obtainEq. (15),

theonlyeletron-eletroninterationtermthathasbeen

onsideredistheapaitivehargingenergyoftheavity.

This impliesthat weshould onsider asuientlylarge

quantum dot 58

. We note that, using a

1/N

-expansion, theself-onsistentapproahabovewasreentlyformally

onrmedinRef. [59℄. Moreover,Eq. (15)anbegener-

alized to non-equilibriumproblems, using Keldysh non-

equilibriumGreenfuntions 60

.

Inthenextsetionswepresentthesemilassialevalu-

ationofEq.(11)inthezerotemperaturelimit(inluding

nitetemperatureisstraightforward).Forreasonsofpre-

sentationwerstgivethesemilassialderivationforthe

transparent ase in Set. IV, and then we explore the

generalaseinSet.V. InSet.VIwepresentanappli-

ationofthesreenedresultfortunneloupling,whenwe

omputetherelaxationresistaneofamesosopihaoti

apaitor.

IV. SEMICLASSICALTHEORYFORTHE

ADMITTANCE

A. Semilassial approximation

We rst onsider the multi-terminal ase assuming

transparentbarriers, i.e.

Γ α,i = 1

^,

∀ (α, i)

^{. In the limit}

k B T → 0

^{the unsreenedadmittane, Eq. (11), redues}

to

g ^u _αβ (ω) = N α δ αβ − Tr

S _αβ (E F + ~ ω

2 )S ^† _αβ (E F − ~ ω 2 )

.

(16)

Semilassially,thematrixelementsforsatteringpro-

essesfrommode

i

^inlead

β

^tomode

j

^inlead

α

^read29,61

S αβ;ji (E F ± ~ ω

2 ) =

⁽¹⁷⁾

− Z

β

dx 0

Z

α

dx h j | x ih x 0 | i i (2π i~ ) ^1/2

X

γ

A γ e ^{~ i S γ (x,x 0 ;E F ± ~ 2 ω )} ,

where

| i i

^{isthetransversewavefuntionofthe}

i

^-thmode.

Herethe

x 0

^(or

x

^{)integralisovertherosssetionofthe}

β

^{th (or}

α

^{th) lead. Atthis point}

S _αβ

^{is givenby asum}

over lassial trajetories, labelled by

γ

^{. The lassial}

paths

γ

^onnet

X 0 = (x 0 , p x 0 )

^{(on a ross setion of}

lead

β

^{) to}

X = (x, p x )

^{(on a ross setion of lead}

α

^).

Eah path gives a ontribution osillating with ation

S γ

^{(inluding Maslov indies) evaluated at the energy}

E F ± ~ ω/2

^{and weightedbythethe omplexamplitude}

A γ

^{. Thisreduestothesquarerootofaninverseelement}

ofthestabilitymatrix 62

,i.e.

A γ = | (dp x 0 /dx) γ | ^{1 2}

^.

We insert Eq. (17) into Eq. (16) and obtain double

sumsoverpaths

γ

^,

γ ^′

^andleadmodes

| i i

^,

| j i

^{. Thesum}

overthehannelindiesisthenperformedwiththesemi-

lassialapproximation 45

,

P N β

i=1 h x 0 | i ih i | x ^′ ₀ i ≈ δ(x ^′ ₀ − x 0 )

^,

andyields

g ^u _αβ (ω) − N α δ αβ = − Z

β

dx 0

Z

α

dx X

γ,γ ^′

A γ A ^∗ _γ ′

2π ~ e ^{~ i δS(E F ,ω)} .

(18)

Here,

δS(E F , ω) = S γ (x 0 , x; E F + ~ ω

2 ) − S γ ^′ (x 0 , x; E F − ~ ω 2 ).

(19)

Asweareinterestedinthelimit

~ ω ≪ E F

^,weanexpand

δS(E F , ω)

^around

E F

^{. The}dimensionlessa-ondutane isthen givenby

g _αβ ^u (ω) − N α δ αβ = − Z

β

dx 0

Z

α

dx X

γ,γ ^′

A γ A ^∗ _γ ′

2π ~

⁽²⁰⁾

× exp i

~ δS(E F ) + i ω

2 (t γ + t γ ^′ )

,

where

δS(E F ) = S γ (x 0 , x; E F ) − S γ ^′ (x 0 , x; E F )

^and

t γ

(

t γ ^′

^{)is thetotaldurationofthepath}

γ

⁽

γ ^′

^{). Eq.(20)is}

thestartingpointofourfurtherinvestigations.

B. DrudeAdmittane

Weare interestedin quantitiesarisingfromaveraging

overvariationsin theenergyoravityshapes. Formost

setsofpaths,thephasegivenbythelinearizedationdif-

ferene

δS(E F )

^{willosillatewidelywiththese}variations, sotheir ontributionswill averageout. In thesemilas-

siallimit, thedominantontribution toEq. (20)isthe

diagonalone,

γ = γ ^′

^,whihleadsto

t γ = t γ ^′

^,

δS (E F ) = 0

andgives

g _αβ ^u,D (ω) = N α δ αβ − Z

β

dx 0

Z

α

dx X

γ

| A γ | ²

2π ~ e ^{i ωt γ} .

⁽²¹⁾

Inthefollowingweproeed along thelines of Ref. [42℄.

Thekeypointisthereplaementofthesemilassialam-

plitudesbytheirorrespondinglassialprobabilities. To

thisend weusealassialsumrule validunder ergodi

assumptions 63

,

X

γ

| A γ | ² e ^{i ωt γ} [ · · · ] γ =

⁽²²⁾

Z ∞ 0

dt Z π/2

−π/2

dθ 0 dθ e ^{i ωt} p F cos(θ 0 )P (X, X 0 ; t)[ · · · ] _X 0 .

Figure 2: A semilassial ontribution to weak loalization

forasystemwithstrong(transparent)ouplingtotheleads.

The two paths follow eah otherlosely everywhere exept

atthe enounter,whereonepath(dashedline)rossesitself

atanangle

ǫ

^{,while theother one(fullline)doesnot(going}

the oppositeway aroundthe loop). Theross-hathedarea

denotestheregionwheretwosegmentsofthesolidpathsare

paired(within

W α ≃ W β ≃ W

^ofeahother)

InEq.(22),

p F cos(θ 0 )

^{istheinitialmomentumalongthe}

injetion lead and

P ( X , X ₀ ; t)

^{the lassial} probability density to go from an initial phase spae point

X 0 = (x 0 , θ 0 )

^{attheboundarybetweenthesystemandthelead}

totheorrespondingpoint

X = (x, θ)

^{. Theaverageof}

P

overanensembleoroverenergygivesasmoothfuntion

thatreads

h P (X, X 0 ; t) i = cos(θ) 2τ D P M

α=1 W α

e ^{−t/τ D} ,

⁽²³⁾

withtheesaperate

τ _D ⁻¹

^{giveninEq.(3).}

Using Eqs.(21), (22)and (23),wereovertheDrude

admittane

g ^u,D _αβ (ω) = N α δ αβ − N α N β

N

1 1 − i ωτ D

,

⁽²⁴⁾

where

N = P M α=1 N α

^.

C. Weakloalization fortransmission, reetion

and oherent baksattering

1. Weak loalization

The leading-order weak-loalization orretion to the

ondutanewasidentied inRefs.[33,39℄asthosearis-

ingfromtrajetoriesthatareexponentiallylosealmost

everywhere exept in the viinity of an enounter. An

example of suh a trajetory pair for haoti ballisti

systems is shown in Fig. 2. At the enounter, separat-

ingthe`loop'fromthe`legs',oneofthetrajetories(

γ ^′

⁾

intersetsitself,whiletheotherone(

γ

^{)avoidstheross-}

ing. Thus, theytravelalong the loop they form in op-

posite diretions. In the semilassial limit, only pairs

of trajetories with a small rossing angle

ǫ

^ontribute

signiantlyto weak loalization. Inthis ase,eahtra-

jetory remains orrelated for some time on both sides

ofthe enounter. In otherwords,the smallnessof

ǫ

^re-

quires two minimal times:

T L (ǫ)

^{to form a loop, and}

T W (ǫ)

^{in order for the legs to separate before esaping}

into dierentleads. Theenounter introdues atypial

length sale

δr ⊥

^{that orresponds to the} perpendiular distane between the two paths in the viinity of the

enounter. In the ase of hyperboli dynamis, we get

δr ⊥ = v F ǫ/(2λ) ∼ Lǫ

^{. Hene,the typialminimal time}

is given by

T ℓ (ǫ) = λ ⁻¹ ln[(ℓ/δr ⊥ ) ² ]

^{, with}

ℓ = { L, W }

thatweanapproximateas

T L (ǫ) ≃ λ ⁻¹ ln[ǫ ⁻² ],

^(25a)

T W (ǫ) ≃ λ ⁻¹ ln[ǫ ⁻² (W/L) ² ].

^(25b)

The presene of the external driving does not hange

this piture. Eah weak-loalization ontribution au-

mulatesaphasedierenegivenbythelinearizedation

δS(E F ) ≃ δS RS = E F ǫ ² /λ

^{39. Followingthe same lines}

asfor thederivation of the Drude ontribution, though

the sum over paths is now restrited to paths with an

enounter, the sum rule (22) still applies, provided the

probability

P (X, X ₀ ; t)

^{isrestritedtopathswhihross}

themselves. Toensurethiswewrite

P ( X , X ₀ ; t) = Z

C

d R ₂ d R ₁ P ( X , R ₂ ; t − t 2 )

× P (R 2 , R ₁ ; t 2 − t 1 )P (R 1 , X ₀ ; t 1 ) ,

⁽²⁶⁾

wherethe integration isperformedoverthe energysur-

fae

C

. Here,weuse

R i = (r i , φ i )

^,

φ i ∈ [ − π, π]

^forphase

spae points inside the avity, while

X

^{lies on the lead}

surfaeasbefore.

We then restrit the probabilities inside the integral

to trajetories whih ross themselves at phase spae

positions

R 1,2

^{with the rst (or seond) visit of the}

rossing ourring at time

t 1

^(or

t 2

^{). We an write}

dR 2 = v ² _F sin ǫdt 1 dt 2 dǫ

^{and set}

R ₂ = (r ₁ , φ 1 ± ǫ)

^{. Then}

theweak-loalizationorretionisgivenby

g ^u,wl _αβ (ω) = 1 π ~

Z

β

dX 0

Z

dǫ ℜ e h

e ^{i δS RS / ~} i

h F(X 0 , ǫ, ω) i ,

(27)

with,

F(X 0 , ǫ, ω) =

⁽²⁸⁾

2v ² _F sin ǫ Z ∞

T L +T W

dt

Z t−T W /2 T L +T W /2

dt 2

Z t 2 −T L

T W /2

dt 1

× p F cos θ 0

Z

R

dY Z

C

dR 1 P(X, R 2 ; t − t 2 )

× P(R 2 , R 1 ; t 2 − t 1 )P(R 1 , X 0 ; t 1 ) e ^{i ωt} .

Under our approximation

t γ ^′ ≃ t γ = t

^{, the intro-}

dution of the driving frequeny leads to performing a

Fouriertransformofthesurvivalprobability,andweob-

tain

h F( X ₀ , ǫ, ω) i = (v F τ D ) ² p F sin ǫ cos θ 0

πΩ

N α

N

⁽²⁹⁾

× exp [ − T L /τ D ] exp [ i ω(T L + T W )]

(1 − i ωτ D ) ³ ,

with

Ω

^{theavityarea. InsertingEq.(29)into Eq.(27),}

the

ǫ

^{integral is dominated by small angle (}

ǫ ≪ 1

⁾

ontributions, allowing for the approximation

sin ǫ ≃ ǫ

and pushing the upper limit to innity. This yields

an Euler Gamma funtion times an exponential term

e ^{−τ E cl /τ D} e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )}

^(with

τ _E ^op

^and

τ _E ^cl

^{givenbyEqs.(1,2)}

thatreads,toleadingorderin

(λ τ D ) ⁻¹

^,

Z ∞

0

dǫ 2 ℜ e

exp i E F ǫ ²

λ ~

ǫ ^{1+ λτ 2 D (1−2 i ωτ D )} W

L ^2iω _λ

≃ − π ~ mv _F ² τ D

e ⁻

τ cl E

τ D + i ω(τ _E ^cl +τ _E ^op )

(1 − 2 i ωτ D )+ O 1

λτ D

.

(30)

Performingthe

X ₀

^{integralandusing}

N β = (π ~ ) ⁻¹ p F W β

and

N = ( ~ τ D ) ⁻¹ mΩ

^,theweak-loalizationorretionto theunsreenedadmittaneis

g _αβ ^u,wl (ω) = N α N β

N ² e ^{−τ E cl /τ D} (1 − 2 i ωτ D ) e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )} (1 − i ωτ D ) ³ .

⁽³¹⁾

Wenotethatduetotheabseneofunitarityoftheun-

sreenedadmittaneweneedtoexpliitlyevaluateallthe

elements of

g _αβ ^u (ω)

^{. The} weak-loalizationontribution to reetion

r ^u,wl _αα (ω)

^{is derived in the same manner as}

g _αβ ^u,wl (ω)

^{, replaing howeverthe fator}

N β /N

^by

N α /N

^.

Wethenobtain

r _αα ^u,wl (ω) = N α

N 2

e ^{−τ E cl /τ D} (1 − 2 i ωτ D ) e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )} (1 − i ωτ D ) ³ .

(32)

However as in the d-ase there is another leading-

orderontributiontothereetion,theso-alledoherent

baksattering. This diers from weak loalization as

thepathsegmentsthathittheleadareorrelated. This

mehanismshouldbetreatedseparatelywhenomputing

theEhrenfesttimedependene,whihistheobjetofthe

nextparagraph.

2. Coherentbaksattering

Though the orrelation between two paths does not

inuene the treatment of theexternal frequeny, it in-

dues an ation dierene

δS(E F ) = δS cbs = − (p 0⊥ + mλr 0⊥ )r 0⊥

^{where the} perpendiular dierene in po- sition and momentum are

r 0⊥ = (x 0 − x) cos θ 0

^and

p 0⊥ = − p F (θ − θ 0 )

^{. As for weak} loalization, we an

identify two timesales,

1

2 T _L ^′ , ¹ ₂ T _W ^′

^{, assoiated with the}

timeforpathstospreadto

L, W

^,respetively. However unlike for weak loalization we dene these timesales

as times measured from the lead rather than from the

enounter. Thuswehave

T _ℓ ^′ (r 0⊥ , p 0⊥ ) ≃ 2

λ ln [(mλℓ)/ | p 0⊥ + mλr 0⊥ | ] ,

⁽³³⁾

with

ℓ = { L, W }

^{47. Replaing the integralover}

X 0

^by

an integral over

(r 0⊥ , p 0⊥ )

^{and using}

p F cos θ 0 dX 0 = dp 0⊥ dr 0⊥

^{, the} oherent-baksattering ontribution reads

r ^u,cbs _αα (ω) = (π ~ ) ⁻¹ Z

α

dp 0⊥ dr 0⊥ ℜ e h

e ^{~ i δS cbs} i

F ^cbs (X 0 , ω) ,

(34)

with

F ^cbs (X 0 , ω)

= Z ∞

T _L ^′

dt Z

α

dX P(X, X ₀ ; t)e ^{i ωt}

= N α

N

e ^{−(T L ′ − 1 2 T W ′ )/τ D} e ^{i ωT L ′} 1 − i ωτ D

.

⁽³⁵⁾

As in the d-ase we perform a hange of variables

˜

p 0⊥ = p 0⊥ + mλr 0⊥

^{. Then we push the}

p ˜ 0⊥

^integral

limitto innity andevaluate the

r 0⊥

^{integral over}

W α

^.

Thisresult,

Z ∞

−∞

d˜ p 0⊥

~ sin(˜ p 0⊥ W α / ~ )

˜ p 0⊥

˜ p 0⊥

mλL

(1 − 2i ωτ D )

λτ D

W L

_λτ ¹ _D

= π ~ e ⁻

τ cl E

τ D e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )} + O

(λτ D ) ⁻¹

,

⁽³⁶⁾

togetherwithEq. (35)andEq.(34)yields

r ^u,cbs _αα (ω) = − N α

N e ^{−τ E cl /τ D} e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )}

(1 − i ωτ D ) .

⁽³⁷⁾

Surprisinglythe oherent-baksattering ontribution

thus has exatly the same exponential dependene on

τ _E ^op

^and

τ _E ^cl

^astheotherweak-loalizationontributions.

While in the d-ase this property is a onsequene of

urrentonservation, this fat is not obvious in the a-

ase.

At this point we an summarize our results for the

unsreened admittane. From Eqs. (24, 31, 32, 37),

D g ^u _αβ (ω) E

anbewrittenas

g ^u _αβ (ω)

= δ αβ N α − N α N β

N(1 − i ωτ D ) + N α exp h

− ^τ τ ^E D ^cl

i exp

i ω(τ _E ^cl + τ _E ^op ) N(1 − i ωτ D )

N β (1 − 2 i ωτ D ) N (1 − i ωτ D ) ² − δ αβ

+ O (N ⁻¹ ).

⁽³⁸⁾

taneofBrouwerandBüttiker 32

. ConerningtheEhren-

festtimedependeneoftheadmittane,wenotethatthe

resultisonsistentwiththeabsorptionstudyperformed

in Ref. [64℄. As for the d-ase we nd the absene of

the Ehrenfest time

τ _E ^op

^{in the term}

exp[ − τ _E ^cl /τ D ]

^whih

derivesfrom thelassialorrelation betweenthe paths

thatonstitutetheenounter. Thephysialoriginofthe

term

exp i ω(τ _E ^cl + τ _E ^op )

omes from the fat that both

trajetoriesthatontributetoweakloalizationando-

herent baksattering involve an enounter that has a

minimaldurationof

(τ _E ^cl + τ _E ^op )

^{(Legpartandlooppart}

oftheenounter,see Fig.2). Thepreseneofthis mini-

malduration,

2τ _E ^e = τ _E ^cl + τ _E ^op

^{, isinaordanewiththe}

Ehrenfesttimeshiftpreditionofthequantumorretion

tothesurvivalprobability 65

andthephotofragmentation

statistis 66

. WereturntotheEhrenfesttimedependene

inSet.IVE.

Weanalsoonsidertheeetofamagnetiuxonthe

mesosopiadmittane. A weakmagnetieldhaslittle

eet on the lassial dynamis but generates a phase

dierenebetweentwotrajetoriesthattravelinopposite

diretions around a weak-loalization generating losed

loop. Thisphasediereneis

Φ/Φ 0

^,where

Φ 0

^istheux

quantum,and

Φ

^is proportionalto theux throughthe diretedareaenlosedbytheloop. Toinorporatethisin

theprevioussemilassialtreatmentwemustintroduea

fator

exp[ i Φ/Φ 0 ]

^into

F

^inEq.(29)and

F ^cbs

^inEq.(35).

Thealulation givesa Lorentzian shape 29,39,42

for the

Φ

^{-dependene of thequantum orretion tothe average}

admittane,

g ^u,wl/cbs _αβ (ω, Φ) = g ^u,wl/cbs _αβ (ω, 0)

1 + A ² Φ ² (τ f /τ D − i ωτ f ) ⁻¹ .

⁽³⁹⁾

Here

A ² = αΩ ²

^,with

α

^{asystemdependentparameterof}

orderunity,

Ω

^{theavityareaand}

τ f

^{isthetimeofight}

betweentwoonseutivebounesat theavitywall.

D. The sreenedadmittane

Following the self-onsistent approah, the sreened

admittane is straightforwardly obtainedwhen we sub-

stitute Eq. (38) into Eq. (15) and expand the result to

leadingorderin

N ⁻¹

^{. This simple}substitution isjusti- ed, beause the typialutuations of the unsreened

admittaneareof order

N ⁻²

^{. Thesreenedadmittane}

thenreads

h g αβ (ω) i = δ αβ N α − N α N β

N (1 − i ωτ ) +

N α exp h

− ^τ _τ ^{E cl} _D i exp

i ω(τ _E ^cl + τ _E ^op ) N(1 − i ωτ D )

N β (1 − 2 i ωτ ) N(1 − i ωτ ) ² − δ αβ

+ O (N ⁻¹ ),

⁽⁴⁰⁾

where

τ ⁻¹ = τ _D ⁻¹ + N G 0 /C

^{isthehargerelaxationtime}

orquantum RC time. Eq. (40)is therst intermediate

resultfromwhihweandrawsomegeneralonlusions.

AtzeroEhrenfesttimewereoverthetwo-terminalresult

ofBrouwerandBüttikerinRef.[32℄. Theomparisonbe-

tweenthesreened(Eq.(40))andunsreened(Eq.(38))

admittaneshowsthatthesreeningamountstothere-

plaementofthedwelltime

τ D

^bytheRCtime

τ

^every-

whereuptotheprefatorofthethirdterm. Onlyforthe

weakloalizationandtheoherent-baksatteringontri-

butionsdoesthedwelltimedependenesurvive. Though

therelevanttimesaleforthelassialadmittaneisthe

harge relaxation time

τ

^{, the quantum orretions are}

haraterized by the dwell time

τ D

^{. It is important to}

remember that

τ D

^{is a} harateristi time sale of the non-interating system. Its relevaneherehasitsorigin

in thefat that weak loalization isdue to theinterfer-

eneofeletroniwaves,whihisunimportantforharge

aumulationinthesystem. TheabseneoftheRCtime

τ

^{at leadingorder in}

ω

^{is thus quitenatural. We reall}

that,asonstrutedinthe frameworkof themodel, the

admittane matrix Eq. (40) is urrent onservingif the

gateisinluded. Theelementsoftheadmittanerelated

tothegateareobtainedviathesumrule(5). Neverthe-

less,ifweimposethisabovesumruleto theunsreened

resultwealsoobtainaonservedurrent,andthis situ-

ation orrespondsto aavity whih has innite apai-

tanetothegate. Inthereverselimitofzeroapaitane

wereah theharge neutralregime that orresponds to

putting

τ = 0

^{in Eq. (40). Upon performing that, we}

reovertheharge-neutrallimitobtainedbyAleinerand

Larkinin Refs.[33,67℄ whih fortheonventional weak-

loalizationontributionreads

g _αβ ^{wl,τ =0} (ω) = N α N β

N ² exp h

− ^τ τ ^E D ^cl + i ω(τ _E ^cl + τ _E ^op ) i (1 − i ωτ D ) .

⁽⁴¹⁾

Wenotethatforthepartiulargeometryofaapaitor

(onlyone leadand onegate), sineEq. (40) is validfor

any apaitiveoupling, we anobtaintheeet ofthe

Ehrenfesttimesaleontheinterfereneorretiontothe

admittaneofamesosopiapaitor. Thiswasnotpos-

siblewithin theharge-neutrallimitapproahofAleiner

andLarkin,sinetheinterfereneorretionsonsidered

hereareabsentinthat ase.

Here one important remark isdue. Inboth, Eq. (40)

andEq. (41) the admittaneinvolvesan osillatory be-

haviorasafuntionoftheEhrenfesttime,whihshould

inpriniplebemoreeasilyaessibleexperimentally. In-

deed, we see here in our quest for the Ehrenfest time

physisalearadvantagein investigatingweakloaliza-

tioninthea-regime. Inthestatiase,theratio

τ E /τ D

is the only relevant and tunable parameter for the d

weak-loalizationorretion. Consequently,therangeof

experimentalinvestigationisonsiderablyreduedbythe

logarithmi dependene of

τ E

^{on the system size. For}

the dynamial weak loalization the frequeny depen-

dene

ω

^{ombined with the apaitive oupling}

C

^pro-

vides more freedom in probing

τ E

^{-behavior. However,}

although the

ωτ E

^{Ehrenfest time dependene was pre-}

ditedin Ref.[33℄ (inwhihsomepossibleexperimental

veriationwasforeasted in a magnetoondutane ex-

perimentorinanoptialbaksatteringexperiment),we

arenotawareofanyexperimentalveriationoftheex-

istene of suh an osillation. To date there exist only

twoexperiments devoted to exploring the

τ E

^signature:

The shot noise experiment by Oberholzer et al.

68

and

theweakloalizationexperimentinanantidotlattieby

Yevtushenkoetal.

69

. Both experimentswereperformed

inthestatiase.

E. Pulsedavities

InthissetionweommentontheEhrenfest timede-

pendene of the admittane and its link to that of the

survivalprobability 65,66

. Tothisendweonsiderthepar-

tiularaseofapulsedavity 57

,i.e.theappliationofa

pulse

U _α (t) = a α δ(t)

^{to oneof theontats}

α

^{. There-}

sponseurrentatontat

β

^{tosuhapulsewillbepropor-}

tionaltothefrequenyintegraloverthea-ondutane,

g _αβ ^u (t) = 1 2π

Z

dω g _αβ ^u (ω) exp ( − i ωt) .

⁽⁴²⁾

ThisproblemwaspreviouslyaddressedinRef.[57℄where

theonnetion betweentheRMT alulationof thead-

mittaneandRMTresultsforthequantumandthelas-

sial survivalprobability 70,71

weredisussed. Morepre-

isely, inRefs.[70,71℄adierenebetweenthequantum

and the lassial survival probability was predited for

times oforder

t ^∗ = √ τ D τ H

^{. The onlusionofRef. [57℄}

was two-fold: rst, based on the weak-loalization or-

retion, a deviation of the unsreenedadmittane at

t ^∗

was onrmed, while seondly thesreened system was

shownnottoexhibitsuha

t ^∗

-dependene.

Basedonoursemilassialresults(38,40)weareable

to onrm this dependene. Forthe unsreened admit-

tane,theweak-loalizationandoherent-baksattering

ontribution,

δg _αβ ^u (t) = g _αβ ^u,wl (t) + g _αβ ^u,cbs (t)

^,yieldsaom-

pliated time-dependene andreadsonalogsale

ln N τ D

N α N β

δg _αβ ^u (t)

= − t − τ _E ^op τ D

(43)

+ ln

− δ αβ

N α

+ 1 N

t − 2τ _E ^e τ D

2 − t − 2τ _E ^e 2τ D

.

Here we reallthat

2τ _E ^e = τ _E ^cl + τ _E ^op

^{. At zeroEhrenfest}

time,

τ _E ^e = 0

^{,weseeasinRef.[57℄ thatwhiletheinitial}

timedependeneisdeterminedby

τ D

^{(rsttermofrhsof}

Eq.(43)), fortimes largerthan

t ^∗

^the

t ²

^{-termin thelog}

will be important. We therefore nd a deviation from

thelassialexponentialbehavior.

This onlusionstillholdsatniteEhrenfesttime, up

to the inlusion of a time shift

2τ _E ^e

^{as predited in the}

reentsemilassialderivation 65

ofthesurvivalprobabil-

ity.

Thetreatmentofthesreenedaseismoredemanding

duetothepreseneoftheRCtime

τ

^{. Howeversinethe}

polelinkedtothedwelltime

τ D

^{isonlysimple,itislear}

thatevenat inompletesreening,thereis notermpro-

portionalto

t ²

^{. Thisisinaordanewiththeabseneof}

deviationsforthe interatingadmittane. However,the

Ehrenfesttimedependenewill beequivalentto theun-

sreenedone,leadingtoatimeshift. Onlyforomplete

sreening(

τ = 0

^{)itispossibletoobtainasimpleresult,}

whihreadsonalogsale

ln N τ D

N α N β

δg _αβ ^τ=0 (t)

= − t − τ _E ^op τ D

+ ln 1

N − δ αβ

N α

.

⁽⁴⁴⁾

V. MULTI-TERMINALSYSTEMWITH

TUNNELBARRIER

Thealulationoftheadmittanewithtunnelbarriers

follows the trajetory-basedmethod reently developed

by Whitney 45

for thed-ase. Wereall herethe three

main hanges in the theory with respet to the trans-

parentase. Formoredetails ontheinlusion of tunnel

barrierswerefertoRef. [45℄.

At rst, in the presene of tunnel barriers the om-

plexamplitude

A γ

^{inEq.(17)isextendedtoinludethe}

tunnelingprobabilitiesreading 45

,

A γ = C

1

γ 2 t β,i t α,j

Y

β ^′ ,j ^′

[r β ^′ ,j ^′ ] ^{N γ (β ′ ,j ′ )}

⁽⁴⁵⁾

where

C γ = | (dp x 0 /dx) γ |

^{istherateofhangeoftheini-}

tialmomentum

p x 0

^{fortheexitposition}

x

^of

γ

^,

N _γ (β ^′ , j ^′ )

isthe numberof times that

γ

^{is reeted bakinto the}

systemfromthetunnel barrieronlead

β ^′

^andthetrans-

mission and refetion amplitudes at the lead

β

^satisfy

| t β,i | ² = (1 − | r β,i | ² ) = Γ β,i

^{. We notethat withoutany}

lossof generality,weassoiated inEq. (45)themomen-

tum

p x 0

^(or

p x

^{)withthehannel}

i

^(or

j

^).

Atthispointthereplaementofthesemilassialam-

plitudesbytheirorrespondinglassialprobabilitiesstill

holds, though the tunneling probabilities are inluded.

Asanexampletheprobabilityto gofrom aphasepoint

X ₀

^{(here weassoiate the hannel}

i

^{to the momentum}

p F cos θ 0

^)onlead

β

^{to anarbitrarypointonlead}

α

^sim-

plysatises(for

α 6 = β

^),

Z ∞

0

dt Z

α

d X h P( X , X ₀ ; t) i = Γ β,i Γ ⁽¹⁾ α

N ,

⁽⁴⁶⁾

Figure3:Afailedoherent-baksatteringontributiontoa-

ondutane,

g ^u,cbs _αβ (ω)

^{. It involvespaths whihreturnlose}

butanti-paralleltothemselvesatlead

α

^{,butarereetedo}

the tunnel-barrier,remaining inthe avity to nally esape

vialead

β

^{. The}ross-hathedareadenotes theregionwhere thetwosolidpathsarepaired(within

W α ≃ W

^ofeahother).

wherewelet

Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β = P ^N β

j=1 Γ β,j

^anddene

N = P

α Γ ⁽¹⁾ α

^.

Moreimportantly,theintrodutionofatunnelbarrier

indues three hanges: (i) The dwell time (single path

survivaltime)beomes

τ _D1 ⁻¹ = τ _H ⁻¹ X

α

Γ ⁽¹⁾ _α = τ _H ⁻¹ N ,

⁽⁴⁷⁾

beause a typial path may hit a lead but be reeted

othetunnelbarrier(remainingintheavity)numerous

timesbeforetunnelingandesaping.

(ii) The paired-paths survival time for paths loser

thantheleadwidthisnolongerequaltothedwelltime

insteaditis givenby

τ _D2 ⁻¹ = τ _H ⁻¹ X

α

2Γ ⁽¹⁾ _α − Γ ⁽²⁾ _α

= τ _H ⁻¹

2 N − N ˜

,

⁽⁴⁸⁾

where

Γ ⁽²⁾ α = P N α

i=1 Γ ² _α,i

^andwedene

N ˜ = P

α Γ ⁽²⁾ α

^{. This}

isbeauseaseondpathfollowingapathwhihhasnot

esaped will hit thesame tunnel barrier,and thus may

esapeeventhoughtherstpathdidnot. Comparethis

withasystemwithouttunnel barriers: thereapathhas

notesapedbeauseithasnottouhedtheleads;thusa

seond pathfollowingtherst onehasno possibilityto

esape.

(iii) The oherentbaksattering peak ontributesto

transmission as well as reetion. The positive ontri-

butiontothetransmissionompeteswiththeusualneg-

ativeweak-loalization ontributiontotransmission,see

alsoFig3.

For the alulation of the Drude ondutane, only

hange(i)aboveisrequired,yielding

g _αβ ^u,D (ω) = Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β δ αβ − Γ ⁽¹⁾ α Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β N

1 1 − i ωτ D1

(49)

When alulating the onventional weak-loalization

ontribution we need hanges (i) and (ii) above. Sine

the lassial paths onsidered stay lose to itself for a

time

T W (ǫ)/2

^{on either side of the enounter we must}

usethepaired-pathssurvivaltime,

τ D2

^{,forthesepartsof}

thepath. Elsewheretheesapetimeisgivenbythesingle

pathsurvivaltime,

τ D1

^{. With these new} ingredientswe ndthattheonventionalweak-loalizationontribution

beomes

g ^u,wl _αβ (ω) = Γ ⁽¹⁾ α Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β N ²

2 − ^N N ^˜

− 2 i ωτ D1

(1 − i ωτ D1 ) ³ e ^{−Θ τ E} e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )} ,

(50)

with

Θ τ E = τ _E ^op /τ D2 + (τ _E ^cl − τ _E ^op )/τ D1

^{. The}exponential suppression

exp( − Θ τ E )

^{related to the lassial orrela-}

tion is simply the probability that the path segments

survive a time

τ _E ^op

^{as a pair (}

τ _E ^op /2

^{on either side of}

therossing)and survivean additionaltime

(τ _E ^cl − τ _E ^op )

unpaired (to omplete a loop of length

τ _E ^cl

^{). Similarly}

asfor thetransparentase,theexponentialdependene

exp[ i ω(τ _E ^cl + τ _E ^op )]

^{indiatesthattheminimaldurationof}

aweakloalization trajetoryis

τ _E ^cl + τ _E ^op

^.

Howeverasrealized byWhitney 45

, this isnotthe to-

tal weak-loalization ontribution to ondutane, be-

ause of failed oherent-baksattering

g ^u,cbs (ω)

^that

ontributesto ondutane(hange(iii) above). We re-

all that this involves a path whih returns lose but

anti-parallel to itself at lead

α

^{, but is then reeted o}

thetunnel-barrieronlead

α

^{,remainingin theavityun-}

tilit eventually esapesthroughlead

β

^{. An exampleof}

suh a trajetory is shown in Fig.3. We an alulate

thebaksatteringontributionasbefore butusing

τ D2

^,

when the paths are within

W α

^{of eah other, and}

τ D1

elsewhere. This result is then multiplied by the proba-

bilitythat the pathreets olead

α

^{and thenesapes}

through lead

β

^{and weighted by the dynamial fator}

(1 − i ωτ D1 ) ⁻¹

^{due to the diagonal} transmissionfrom

α

to

β

^{i.e. the leg part of Fig 3. In addition to the o-}

herent baksatteringexpression for

r ^u,cbs (ω)

^thisgives

aontributiontotheadmittaneoftheform

g _αβ ^u,cbs1 (ω) = Γ ⁽²⁾ α − Γ ⁽¹⁾ α

(1 − i ωτ D1 ) ² Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β

N ² e ^{−Θ τ E} e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )} ,

^(51a)

g _αβ ^u,cbs2 (ω) = Γ ⁽²⁾ _β − Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β

(1 − i ωτ D1 ) ² Γ ⁽¹⁾ α

N ² e ^{−Θ τ E} e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )} ,

^(51b)

r _αβ ^u,cbs (ω) = − δ αβ

1 − i ωτ D1

Γ ⁽²⁾ α

N e ^{−Θ τ E} e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )} ,

⁽⁵¹⁾

wherewereallthat

Γ ⁽²⁾ α = P N α

i=1 Γ ² _α,i

^.

UsingEqs.(49,50,51),theunsreenedadmittanein

thepreseneoftunnel barriersreads

g ^u _αβ (ω)

= Γ ⁽¹⁾ _α δ αβ − Γ ⁽¹⁾ α Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β

N (1 − i ωτ D1 )

⁽⁵²⁾

+ Γ ⁽¹⁾ α Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β N ²

e ^{−Θ τ E} e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )} (1 − i ωτ D1 )

2 − N ˜ / N − 2 i ωτ D1

(1 − i ωτ D1 ) ² + Γ ⁽²⁾ α /Γ ⁽¹⁾ α + Γ ⁽²⁾ _β /Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β − 2 (1 − i ωτ D1 ) − Γ ⁽²⁾ α

Γ ⁽¹⁾ α

N Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β δ αβ

!

+ O N ⁻¹ .

As ahek of theformula (52), wean easilyreover

thepreviousEq.(38)fortheunsreenedadmittaneob-

tained for transparent barriers and also the tunnel d-

ondutane 45

.

After the substitution of Eq. (52) into Eq. (15) the

sreenedadmittanein preseneoftunnelbarriersreads

h g αβ (ω) i = Γ ⁽¹⁾ _α δ αβ − Γ ⁽¹⁾ α Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β

N (1 − i ωτ )

⁽⁵³⁾

+ Γ ⁽¹⁾ α Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β N ²

e ^{−Θ τ E} e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )} (1 − i ωτ D1 )

2 − N ˜ / N − 2 i ωτ

(1 − i ωτ ) ² + Γ ⁽²⁾ α /Γ ⁽¹⁾ α + Γ ⁽²⁾ _β /Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β − 2 (1 − i ωτ ) − Γ ⁽²⁾ α

Γ ⁽¹⁾ α

N Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β δ αβ

!

+ O N ⁻¹ ,

where the quantum RC time reads now

τ ⁻¹ = τ _D1 ⁻¹ + N G 0 /C

^{. We emphasize that from Eq. (53) it is possi-}

ble to derive allthe resultspresented in this paper and

thereforethisequationistheentralresultofthispaper.

In the seond line of Eq. (53), the seond ontribu-

tionin thebraketsrepresentstheorretiondueto the

presene of the failed oherent baksattering. Impor-

tantly,Eq.(53)inludesboth,thelimitofinniteapa-

itane

C

^{and the} transparent ase. In the harge neu- tralitylimit (

τ = 0

^{) thepresene of thetunnel barriers}

does not drastially alter the onlusion drawn for the

transparentase. Indeed, for theweak-loalization or-

retion, in addition to theexpeted substitution

N α , N

by

Γ ⁽¹⁾ α , N

,weobserveonlyarenormalisationbyafator

(Γ ⁽²⁾ α /Γ ⁽¹⁾ α + Γ ⁽²⁾ _β /Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β − N ˜ / N )

^{. ThusEq.(41)beomes}

g ^wl,τ _αβ ⁼⁰ (ω) =

⁽⁵⁴⁾

Γ ⁽²⁾ α

Γ ⁽¹⁾ α

+ Γ ⁽²⁾ _β Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β − N ˜

N

! Γ ⁽¹⁾ α Γ ⁽¹⁾ _β N ²

e ^{−Θ τ E} e ^{i ω(τ E cl +τ E op )} (1 − i ωτ D1 ) .

Moreimportantly,oneofthemaineetsofthetunnel

barrier in thed-ase was thesuppression of the weak-

loalization orretion 45,72

for opaque barriers. This

suppression results from the ompetition between two

purelyquantumeets, interfereneandtunneling. The

orresponding semilassial treatment 45

shows that the

anellation is due to an exat ompensation between

the weak-loalization orretion and the failed oher-

ent baksattering. It is interesting that this onlu-

sion annot be generalized to a-transport. Sine the

frequenydependeneoftheweak-loalizationorretion

diersfromtheoneofthefailedoherentbaksattering

theompensation annotour. Dynamial weak loal-

izationisthusmorerobustagainstthepreseneoftunnel

barriers.Wenote,however,thatfor

τ = 0

^wereoverthe

anellationoftheweak-loalizationorretionwithtun-

nelprobabilities,seeEq. (54).

VI. CHARGERELAXATIONRESISTANCE OF

A MESOSCOPICCHAOTICCAPACITOR

To illustrate and apply the general results derived

above, we onsider here the mesosopi equivalent of a

lassialRCiruit 22

. Aquantumoherentapaitorhas

been reently investigated experimentally by Gabelli et

al.

8

usingatwo-dimensionaleletrongas. Thequantum

apaitorisomposedofamarosopimetallieletrode

ontopofalateralquantumdotdeningtheseondele-

trode. The role of the resistane is played by a quan-

tum point ontat that onnets thequantum dotto a

reservoir. Theexperimentwasperformedintheoherent

regimeathighmagnetieldintheoneedgestatelimit.

Measuringtherealandimaginarypartoftheadmittane

ofsuh airuit,Ref.[8℄ onrmedthepredited 22

uni-

versalvalueofthequantizedhargerelaxationresistane

ofasinglehannelavity, whihisequalto half aresis-

tanequantum

h/2e ²

^.

Basedonthisexperimentalrealizationweproposehere

toinvestigatetheoppositeregimeof largehannelnum-

bersatzeromagnetield. Thisregimeisnotharater-

izedbytheuniversalvalueofthepreedingfullyquantum

one, howeverit should be experimentallyaessible. If

weassumethatthequantum dotis haotiweanmap

this system to the one-terminal geometry of the more