text:
# Caltech Faint Galaxy Redshift Survey XIV: Galaxy Morphology in the HDF (North) and its Flanking Fields to 𝑧=1.2Based in part on observations obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated jointly by the California Institute of Technology and the University of California

## 1 Introduction

The Hubble Space Telescope has, for the first time, allowed us to observe directly the evolution of galaxy morphology over a significant fraction of the age of the Universe. Soon after the images of the Hubble Deep Field North, HDF, and its Flanking Fields (FF) became available (Williams et al. 1996, Ferguson, Dickinson & Williams 2000) it was clear that distant and young field galaxies were very different from their local, contemporary counterparts (Abraham et al. 1996a,b). Indeed, half a lifetime of experience in galaxy classification (van den Bergh 1998) proved to be of only marginal usefulness in attempts to classify galaxies at intermediate and large look-back times. In the words of Ames (1997), “You are living in a land you no longer recognize. You don’t know the language.” More specifically, it was concluded that “The fraction of interacting and merging objects is seen to be significantly higher in the Hubble Deep Field than it is among nearby galaxies. Barred spirals are essentially absent from the deep sample. The fraction of early-type galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field is similar to the fraction of early-types in the Shapley-Ames Catalog, but the fraction of galaxies resembling archetypal grand-design late-type spiral galaxies is dramatically lower in the distant HDF sample.” (van den Bergh et al. 1996). Because no redshifts were available, it was not possible to establish a timescale for galaxy evolution. It is the purpose of the present paper to re-examine these conclusions, using the HDF and FF images and the new redshift information (Cohen et al. 2000 and references therein), and to discuss the galaxy evolutionary timescale.

The initial reactions to the HDF images have been largely vindicated and significantly developed over the past four years. (See Abraham 1999, 2000 for excellent reviews.) The most complete information so far available on the morphological evolution of galaxies with $`z1`$ is by Brinchmann et al. (1998) who classified HST images of a complete sample of 341 galaxies, selected from both the CFRS and LDSS surveys, for which ground-based redshifts were available. They found a substantial increase in the fraction of irregular galaxies from $``$9% at $`z`$0.4 to $``$32% at $`z`$0.8 and associated these galaxies with the increase in blue luminosity density with redshift. However, the reliability of this conclusion is undermined by the fact that the standard “irregular” galaxy that Brinchmann et al. use to calibrate their classifications appears to be an Sb pec galaxy with a central bulge and the kind of under-developed spiral structure that is typically seen in spirals at large redshift.

Using the same sample, Lilly et al. (1998) found that the sizes of large galaxy disks do not change significantly out to $`z`$1 , but that the rate of star formation was elevated by a factor 3 at $`z`$0.7. In a new approach, Abraham et al. (1999a) related the evolution of galaxy morphology to their internal star formation as monitored by their spatially-resolved colors. They confirmed that spiral bulges pre-date their disks and followed different evolutionary histories. In a study that also included the HDF South, Abraham et al. (1999b) confirmed that barred spirals were comparatively rare prior to $`z0.5`$.

Ellipticals, by contrast, appear to have evolved relatively little in density and luminosity since $`z1`$. There is evidence for ongoing and declining star formation although less than 5% of their stars are estimated to have formed over this time (Schade et al. 1999). They seem to have formed over an extended interval $`1z3`$ (Odewahn et al. 1996, Driver et al. 1998). This is consistent with the work of Corbin et al. (2000) who find that 12 out of 111 (11%) of their NICMOS images (in a data sample that extends to photometric redshifts as large as $`z=2.7`$) are probably elliptical galaxies.

Turning to irregulars, the HST images of 285 CFRS/LDSS galaxies have been analyzed to derive the evolution of the merger fraction out to $`z`$1 (Le Févre et al. 2000). Up to 20% of luminous galaxies are found to be in physical pairs (some of which may be projections) at $`z0.8`$. A typical L galaxy was found to have undergone $`12`$ mergers since $`z1`$. However, the “chain” galaxies, first identified by Cowie, Hu & Songaila (1995), appear to be neither edge-on spirals nor merger products (Abraham et al. 1999b).

In recent years, there has been a shift away from the traditional, descriptive and, inevitably, somewhat subjective morphological approach towards more quantitative measures of galaxy structure like scale lengths, central concentration, asymmetry, and so on. This is particularly valuable for connecting observations to increasingly sophisticated numerical simulations. However, galaxies are too variegated to be completely described by just a few numbers and we believe that a simple morphological approach will continue to be of value, even at high redshift. After all, the durability of the original Hubble (1936) scheme for nearby galaxies is remarkable given all that we have learned about them since the 1930s.

In this paper we continue to use the traditional morphological classification, despite its manifest inadequacy at high redshift, for three reasons. The first is quite modest, to increase our confidence that galaxies at high redshift are quite different from local galaxies by enlarging the sample size. The second is to determine if there are any counterparts to certain local galaxy types at high redshift. For example, if it is believed on dynamical grounds (see §4.1) that grand design spirals take a minimum of $`10`$ Gyr to grow, then the discovery of just one bona fide example at $`z1`$ would be highly significant. The third reason is that it is important to determine the chronology of these changes and, in the absence of an adequate high redshift classification, the best approach is to compare with the well-understood local classification scheme and to discover when it starts to fail.

In the following section, we describe our procedure and discuss some possible selection biases. In section 3, we give our empirical conclusions and we conclude with a brief interpretation of their implications for physical theories of galaxy formation.

## 2 Galaxy Classification

### 2.1 Morphology Sample

Our sample is based on the redshift survey in the region of the HDF of Cohen et al. (2000), which includes 671 objects. This survey is 92% complete with respect to the photometric catalogs of Hogg et al. (2000) to $`R24`$ in the HDF itself, and also 92% complete to $`R23`$ in a region 8 arcmin in diameter centered on the HDF. See Cohen et al. (2000) for details of the samples, the number of stars, galaxies, and high redshift ($`z>1.5`$) galaxies, AGNs and QSOs in the HDF and in the Flanking Fields. 111The assembly of the sample for the present morphological study was carried out before the final version of Cohen et al. (2000) was available. A few galaxies ($`10`$) whose redshifts were only determined in the late fall of 1999 that are included in Cohen et al. (2000) are not included here.

The sample used for morphology and discussed here is divided into three redshift intervals, $`0.25<z<0.60`$, $`0.60<z<0.80`$ and $`0.80<z<1.20`$. In each interval, the sample contains all available galaxies in the spectroscopic redshift catalog with suitable HST images. Thus the low redshift group contains 49 galaxies of which 43 are drawn from the HDF. Four galaxies are in the PC field of the WFPC2 image and two others are just outside the boundary adopted for the HDF but within the coverage of the HST $`R`$ image. (There is unfortunately no $`R`$ HST image of the rest of the area of the Flanking Fields.) Apart from this there is no bias in magnitude, color or location in this subsample. The intermediate redshift group includes 70 galaxies, while the high redshift group includes 120 galaxies. Note that the WFPC2/HST I814 images do not cover the entire area of the Flanking Fields, and hence some galaxies within the area of the redshift survey could not be used. The fraction of galaxies drawn from the HDF and from the FF is as would be expected based on the relative areas and the rise in galaxy counts as a function of $`R`$ magnitude in this magnitude regime.

### 2.2 Biases and selection effects

From a practical point of view, the morphological classification of individual galaxies at $`z1`$ presents three distinct challenges beyond similar classifications of nearby systems. The first is that the images used for the classification of nearby galaxies might contain as many as $``$10,000 pixels, whereas those of very distant Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images may contain only $``$100 pixels and apparent changes in fine scale features may simply be a consequence of resolution. Furthermore, due to longer exposure times the quality of the HDF images is markedly superior to that of the FF images. This may lead to some misinterpretation of the morphologies of the faintest FF galaxies, especially the most compact examples. For example, it is often not possible to distinguish Galactic stars with certainty from compact ellipticals of Hubble types E0 and E1. (All of the objects in the present sample, including those that have morphological classification “star” or “E0/star” are extragalactic, on the basis of their redshifts, though.) The comparative statements below are restricted to those that can be made with confidence on the basis of the poorest images. (We note, in passing, that it is the large dynamic range of CCD detectors makes them particularly suitable for use in galaxy classification, van den Bergh & Pierce 1990).

The second challenge is to correct for band-shifting. Galaxy classification is traditionally performed in the B (440nm) band. We find, (cf also Fig. 3 from Ferguson et al. 2000) that galaxy morphology varies sufficiently slowly with wavelength that it is adequate to compare R606 images from the 0.25-0.60 redshift interval (the shift is exact for $`z=0.38`$) and I814 for $`0.60<z<1.20`$ (exact for $`z=0.85`$) with local samples. In particular, the $`z`$ dependence of the frequency of barred spirals (§3.2) cannot be attributed to band-shifting, as has sometimes been suggested (e.g. Bunker et al. 2000, Eskridge et al. 2000). Some small band-shift effects could, however, still be experienced for galaxies that have $`1.0z1.2`$. In such objects the core/halo ratio might be depressed, and giant stellar associations may appear slightly enhanced, relative to similar structures seen at smaller redshifts.

The third challenge is that, in a magnitude-limited survey, we are comparing more luminous objects at high redshift with less luminous objects at low $`z`$. We emphasize that our local comparison sample is not the HDF but the more extensive Shapley-Ames catalog. With respect to the sample of the Revised Shapley-Ames Catalog, the median $`M_B`$ (rest frame) for the HDF sample is about 0.3 mag fainter than that of the RSA, where the median for the RSA sample is taken from figure 5 of Sandage and Tammann (1981) and has been adjusted to our adopted value of H0. (Only RSA galaxies with known redshifts as of that date are plotted in this figure.) A correction for internal absorption was applied to the late type spirals in the RSA sample, while none has been applied here. Hence the two samples are comparable in their luminosity range; we are in fact seeing quite far below $`L^{}`$ in the HDF sample.

Relative to the median galaxy in $`R`$ at $`z=0.3`$ the absolute magnitudes of the median galaxies with $`z=`$0.6, 0.8, 1.2 are $`1.8`$, $`2.6`$, $`3.6`$ smaller due solely to the larger distance using our adopted cosmology. 222In this paper, we assume a flat universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3,h=0.7`$ and age $`t_0=14`$ Gyr. The median (in $`z`$) galaxies in the intermediate and high redshift intervals have absolute magnitudes $`1.1`$ and $`1.9`$ smaller than the median in the low $`z`$ interval. It can be argued that about half of this luminosity selection is appropriate because it compensates passive stellar evolutionary effects. However, taking a strictly morphological approach, we have ignored this and simply make comparative observations about galaxies with similar luminosities to those at high redshift. Our prime conclusions are quite robust to this choice. However, luminosity selection is a serious concern when probing the evolution of secondary characteristics such as disk surface brightness (Simard et al. 1999).

### 2.3 Sampling

An additional and related caveat concerns the size of the sample and the sensitivity to fluctuations resulting from the luminosity selection. A good measure of this is the number density of $`L^{}`$ galaxies, specifically $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}V_c`$, where $`V_c`$ is the comoving volume and $`L^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ are determined locally, expected in our three redshift intervals (cf Ferguson et al. 2000). This corresponds to 8, 10, 20 bright galaxies on the HDF and nine times as many galaxies in the FF. However, galaxies are strongly clustered and the fluctuations over small comoving volumes are much larger than Poissonian. Furthermore, the HDF was carefully selected to avoid bright galaxies (Ferguson et al. 2000) and there is a clear deficit of these for $`z0.3`$ (Cohen et al. 2000). In particular the nature of the galaxian population in the fields studied in the present investigation might have been affected by the vagaries of the density-morphology relation (Dressler 1980) along the line of sight. This concern dictated our choice of $`z=0.25`$ as the lower limit of our redshift intervals.

### 2.4 Morphological typing

The morphological classifications reported in this paper were made by SvdB, and are on the DDO system of van den Bergh (1960abc). The images were supplied to him as 20” x 20” thumbnails along with the redshift interval and no other information. The areal scale on the sky per pixel was the same for all the images. All images were inspected, excepting those where there were serious crowding or edge effects. The classifications for the three redshift intervals, along with commentary, are presented in Tables 1-3. The $`R`$ magnitudes from Hogg et al. (2000), the redshifts from Cohen et al. (2000), and the rest frame $`B`$ luminosities from Cohen (2000) are also given. See Cohen (2000) for the definition of the rest frame luminosity and how it is derived.

The fractions of galaxies by type are collected in Table 4. (Intermediate types, such as Ir/Merger, are counted as 0.5 Ir and 0.5 Merger.) In the present paper we have, following van den Bergh et al. (1996), used the somewhat judgemental term “protogalaxy” to denote objects that resemble the prototypical galaxy H36555\_1249, which is shown in Figure 7. A color image of this object, which is shown as Plate 9 of van den Bergh et al. (1996), shows what appears to be a reddish off-center nuclear bulge that is embedded in a rather chaotic looking disk which contains half a dozen bright blue knots. Objects with this type of morphology were regarded as spirals that are still in the process of being assembled. In objects described as “mergers” the individual components/knots have not yet combined to form a single coherent structure.

## 3 Galaxy morphology at high and low redshift

As explained in the introduction, we interpret distant galaxies by reference too their local counterparts, as exemplified by the Shapley-Ames galaxies (van den Bergh 1960c, Table 4). The differences are striking.

### 3.1 Spirals

The present sample of galaxies shows an almost complete absence of “grand design” spirals, i.e. disk systems with well-developed long arms of DDO types Sb I, Sbc I and Sc I (cf van den Bergh et al. 1996). Previous experience (van den Bergh 1989), which was confirmed by radial velocity observations (Visvanathan & van den Bergh 1992), showed that such luminous grand design spirals could have been recognized on images that contain as few as $``$100 silver grains.

Even less pronounced spiral structure, such as is seen in nearby spirals of DDO luminosity classes II, III and IV, appears to be rare in distant HDF + FF galaxies. Furthermore the spiral structure that is observed in such distant spirals appears to be more chaotic (i.e less regular) than do Sc and Scd spirals at $`z0`$. The fraction of Sc, Sc/Ir galaxies increases from $`5`$% at $`z`$1 to $`10`$% at $`z`$0.5 and $``$ 23% at $`z`$0. Most of the missing Sc, Scd and Sc/Ir galaxies at $`z1`$ are probably masquerading under the categories “Protogalaxy”, “Peculiar” or “Merger”. In intermediate and early-type “spirals” little (or no) evidence is actually seen for spiral arms. At $`z`$0.8 this effect might be partly (but not entirely) due to the low spatial resolution with which galaxies at such large redshifts are viewed. However, at $`z`$0.4 the almost complete absence of well-developed spiral arms is certainly real. This is so because the mean luminosity of the galaxies in the present sample increases with redshift. Since the strength of spiral structure increases with luminosity one would actually have expected the strength of spiral arms to increase with $`z`$. In view of the fact that little or no spiral structure is actually seen at $`z0.5`$ the Sa, Sb and Sc classifications listed in Tables 2 and 3 are almost entirely based on central concentration of light in the galaxy images. In other words spiral arm tilt and resolution could usually not be factored in to the present classifications of the most distant early-type and intermediate-type spirals.

### 3.2 Barred spirals

Another striking feature of the present HDF + FF sample is the almost complete absence of barred spirals at high redshift. The highest redshift galaxy that almost certainly has a real bar is at $`z=0.321`$, although two possible barred galaxies in Table 1 have redshifts $`z=0.457,0.475`$ and one from Table 3 has $`z=0.962`$. 333 Bunker et al. (2000) claim that this object (H36483\_1214), “seems to be a chance alignment of a swath of young stars with the approximate axis of the true bar.” Taken at face value this result suggest that only $`1`$% of all high redshift galaxies are barred spirals, compared to 21% to 34% among nearby spirals (van den Bergh 1998, p.43).

### 3.3 Ellipticals

Roughly one fifth of the galaxies with $`z1`$ are compact, and have morphologies similar to those of nearby E, S0 and Sa galaxies. The data in Table 4 show no statistically significant variation with redshift in the fraction of field galaxies with classification types E, E/S0 and S0.

It is interesting to note evidence from the morphological classification for at least one density enhancement along the line of sight to the HDF which contains a clump of nine E0 – E3 galaxies with $`<z>=0.679`$. This is one of the most prominent peaks in the redshift distribution of galaxies in the region of the HDF, and was noticed as such in the initial redshift survey analysis of Cohen et al. (1996).

### 3.4 Peculiar-merging galaxies

Distant galaxies are far more likely to be classified as peculiar. Van den Bergh (1960c) found only 31 out of 540 (5.7%) of all nearby spirals of types Sa, Sb and Sc in the Shapley-Ames catalog to be peculiar. After excluding edge-on objects (in which it is difficult to detect any peculiarities), one finds that 17.5 out of 20.5 (85%) of all spirals with types Sa–Sab–Sb–Sbc–Sc and redshifts of $`0.25<z<0.60`$ are noted as being peculiar in Table 1. Only four out of seven objects of types Sa–Sab are peculiar, whereas all spirals of types Sb–Sbc–Sc are found to be peculiar. Perhaps surprisingly, Table 4 shows that the fraction of peculiar galaxies appears to remain approximately constant over the range $`0.25<z<1.2`$. The reason for this is, no doubt, that it is much easier to see peculiarities in the relatively large images of nearby galaxies at $`z0.4`$ than it is to notice similar peculiarities in the much smaller images of very distant galaxies with $`z1`$.

Similarly, galaxies classified as probable mergers, and which account for only $``$1% of the galaxies at $`z`$0, represent $``$6% of those with $`0.25<z<0.80`$ and for 14% at $`z1`$. In particular, there is a rapid increase with redshift in the fraction of triple and multiply interacting galaxies. In fact, some small regions of the Hubble Deep Field could be described as debris fields filled with fragments that might eventually merge into one or more major galaxies.

## 4 Discussion

Butcher & Oemler (1978) first established that cluster galaxies evolve with time. The observations presented here (and in earlier studies cited above), firmly establish that the morphology of field galaxies also evolves over time. The challenge now is to use these empirical observations to infer a physical description of galaxy formation and evolution. (This approach is quite complementary to deductive methods that use “semi-analytic” extensions to gravitational instability theory to make quantitative comparison with measured properties of galaxies.) The most natural way to address this problem is to take the galaxies we see around us today and to ask, in a statistical fashion, what are their histories. However, this will almost certainly lead to an incomplete view because galaxies interact and merge and are otherwise strongly affected by their environment. In addition many galaxies may become too dim to be observable locally.

### 4.1 Spirals

The low fraction of Sc and Sc/Ir galaxies at high redshift and the almost complete absence of luminous, “grand-design” galaxies beyond $`z0.3`$, when the universe had an age of $`10`$ Gyr, suggests that a major fraction of the future Sc galaxies are still classified as protogalaxies or mergers at $`z`$1, ($`t8`$ Gyr). In other words many Sc galaxies had not yet fully assembled at this time. This is supported by the observation that most early-type spirals in the field already appear to have achieved a more-or-less “normal” morphology by $`z0.4`$, while late-type spirals still look peculiar. However, it should be emphasized that the individual bits and pieces from which Sc galaxies were assembled might contain quite old stars and clusters.

This deduction, in conjunction with the fact that significant numbers of compact early-type galaxies are observed at high redshifts, may support the view of Boissier & Prantzos (2000) that the time-scale for the formation of low-mass disks is longer than that for more massive ones. This, in turn, is consistent with the view (Bell & de Jong 2000) that it is the surface density of a young galaxy that drives its rate of star formation. As Boissier & Prantzos point out, this interpretation may present some difficulties for the standard picture of hierarchical cosmology.

The observation that spiral structure is often poorly developed in galaxies with $`z>0.5`$ is perhaps not surprising. The rotational period in the outer parts of a giant galaxy ranges from $`0.31`$ Gyr and density wave theory requires several rotational periods for the arms to develop fully. Even if a disk forms when the universe is, say, 2 Gyr old, there may be only time for $`5`$ rotational periods before it appears in our high redshift interval. This constraint is particularly relevant to the grand design spirals, which may not assemble as disks till the universe was $`5`$ Gyr old and then take another $`5`$ Gyr to develop their arms. In this connection it is of interest to note (Fasano et al. 2000) that the galaxian population of rich clusters changed significantly even more recently, with spirals being transformed into S0 galaxies between $`z0.1`$ and $`z0.25`$. Such a transformation of spirals into S0 galaxies might have been produced by ram pressure stripping (Gunn & Gott 1972) or by galaxy harassment and tidal effects (Abadi, Moore & Bower 1999, Quillis, Moore & Bower 2000).

### 4.2 Barred spirals

Our observations suggests that most genuine barred spirals only started to form $`4`$ Gyr ago. This may be because galaxies at large $`z`$ are still too young to have formed dynamically cool disks which permit bar-like instabilities to develop. In this connection it is of interest to note that a number of Sb galaxies at $`z1`$ appear to have real bulges. (Good examples are F36254\_1519), F36481\_1102 and F37088\_1117). It would be important (but difficult) to do accurate photometry of these spirals to determine if the cores in these galaxies are true R1/4 bulges 444Falomo et al. (1997) have previously established that a compact galaxy with $`z=0.19`$ has an R1/4 profile. or if they are just the brightest inner parts of exponential disks. If the presence of true bulges at $`z1`$ were to be confirmed this would militate against the hypothesis of Raha et al. (1991) and of Pfenniger, Martinet & Combes (1996) that some bulges might have been formed from bars.

### 4.3 Ellipticals

This study does not shed much light on the evolution of elliptical galaxies, which appear to have mostly formed by $`z1`$. The major uncertainty is whether the compact galaxies that are classified as E, S0 or Sa at $`z1`$ are really bulges or if we are already observing disks (cf Marleau & Simard 1998). This is a crucial test for theories of galaxy formation. However, this issue is complicated by the observation (Graham & Prieto 1999) that the bulges of many late-type spirals are best described by exponential luminosity profiles.

### 4.4 Peculiar-merging galaxies

Among nearby NGC galaxies perhaps only $``$0.1% are members of multiple interacting-merging systems that resemble Stefan’s Quintet (NGC 7317-19). On the other hand a significant fraction of the present sample of HDF and FF objects appear to be members of (or associated with) multiple merging systems. This result is consistent with the view (Toomre 1977, Abraham 1999, Carlberg et al. 2000, Le Févre et al. 2000) that mergers were much more frequent in the past than they are at the present time. However, debate continues (eg Carlberg et al. 2000) about the rate at which such mergers increase with redshift, and regarding the mass range of merging galaxies.

An important caveat is that some close pairs may consist of projected superposed images of unrelated galaxies. In all four cases where the redshifts of both of a pair of galaxies SvdB considered to be mergers are known, the redshifts are discrepant, and the objects do not appear to be physically associated. (See the notes to Tables 1, 2 and 3.) 555In one of the four cases, one of the redshifts is uncertain. In the other three cases, Cohen et al. (2000) regard both redshifts as secure. This serves again as a warning that, in the absence of measured redshifts for all component galaxies, only obvious tidal distortions should move a “merger suspect” into the “merger” category.

### 4.5 Morphological classification at high redshift

Van den Bergh et al. (1996) pointed out that many of the images of very distant HDF and FF galaxies do not fit comfortably into the Hubble (1936) classification scheme which we now find to be only strictly applicable to field galaxies with $`z0.3`$. In particular, since spiral structure was rare (or absent) prior to this time, the DDO luminosity classification system (van den Bergh 1960abc, Sandage & Tammann 1981) is not especially useful.

Can we devise a galaxy classification scheme that would have been useful to sapient beings who might have been surveying galaxies in their neighborhood some 5 Gyr ago? Unfortunately the search for such a system is made more difficult by the fact that it is often not clear if adjacent luminous clumps should be regarded as separate galaxies, or as condensations within a single larger protogalaxy. In fact such a dichotomy is not even physically significant if initially separate ancestral bits and pieces eventually merge into a single galaxy. Possibly a two-parameter classification system based on central concentration of light (Morgan 1958, 1959) and asymmetry (Abraham et al. 1996b) or clumpiness, perhaps supplemented by color information, may represent the best that can be done regarding the classification of galaxies in the early universe. In rich nearby clusters only the central concentration of light appears to be a useful classification parameter.

In this study we have used redshift data and the FF images to substantiate many of the original reactions to the first inspection of the HDF over four years ago. In addition we have shown that the development of spiral structure, both wound and barred, is delayed until the universe is typically $``$10 Gyr old. Perhaps the most pressing current task is to determine if the compact objects observed at $`z1`$ are disks or spheroids. Overall, though, we remain impressed by the strong evolution in galaxy morphology. As Hartley (1953) wrote in The Go-between “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”

It is a pleasure to thank Peter Stetson for his help with the re-scaling of the present images, Simon Morris for cosmological consultations, and Jerry Sellwood for information on the formation of galactic bars. The extragalactic work of JGC, who is the PI of the Caltech Faint Galaxy Redshift Survey, is not supported by any Federal agency. RB acknowledges support under NSF grant AST-9900866.


format: text

text:
# Hall effect and inter-chain magneto-optical properties of coupled Luttinger liquids

## I Introduction

Interacting electrons in one dimension form a non-Fermi liquid state, usually called a Luttinger liquid (LL) Haldane (1981). There are several candidates for actual realizations of this state in real systems, including organic conductors, edge states and stripe phases in the Quantum Hall effect, carbon nanotubes, etc… In many cases however, one is dealing only with a quasi one-dimensional situation in which the chains are weakly coupled to one another. In the context of organic conductors in particular, the most relevant type of inter-chain coupling is an inter-chain hopping $`t_{}`$. The question that immediately arises is whether the Luttinger liquid effects can be observed in quasi-one dimensional systems. The most naive answer would be that such systems are essentially two-dimensional, and perhaps Fermi liquids, at energy scales lower than the interchain hopping term $`t_{}`$, but that at energies larger than this hopping the Luttinger liquid effects survive. The renormalization group calculation supports this picture, but due to the effect of the interaction between electrons, the inter-chain hopping term is strongly renormalized Bourbonnais *et al.* (1984) and the crossover between the one-dimensional Luttinger liquid and two-dimensional behavior takes place at the energy scale:

$$ϵ^{}=t_{}(t_{}/ϵ_F)^{\eta /(1\eta )}$$
(1)
In this expression, $`ϵ_F`$ is the Fermi energy of a single chain ($`ϵ_Ft`$, the in-chain hopping) and $`\eta /2`$ is the scaling dimension of the physical electron operator in the Luttinger liquid. For a model with spin: $`\eta =(K_\rho +1/K_\rho )/41/2`$, with $`K_\rho `$ the LL parameter in the charge sector. $`\eta `$ is also the exponent associated with the singularity of $`n(k)`$ at the Fermi surface111$`\eta `$ was called $`\alpha `$ in Ref. Georges *et al.*, 2000 and $`\eta =2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Ref. Lopatin, 1997. When interactions are strong ($`K_\rho 1`$ i.e $`\eta `$ not too small), $`ϵ^{}`$ can be much smaller than the naive estimate $`ϵ^{}=t_{}`$, suggesting that LL behavior could be observable down to a much smaller energy (temperature) scale than the bare $`t_{}`$.

We emphasize that the estimate (1) does not take into account the effect of an intra-chain umklapp scattering. When relevant, this coupling tends to open a Mott gap. One is thus faced with the more complicated situation of two relevant perturbations competing with each other, and this competition controls the physics of the dimensional crossover. It was recently pointed outGeorges *et al.* (2000) that this may be an important consideration for the physics of the quasi one-dimensional organic conductors, even for the metallic compounds $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{X}`$ . A full understanding, in these compoundsJerome (1994), of the crossover between the high energy (temperature, frequency) phase, likely to be indeed a Luttinger liquid Schwartz *et al.* (1998); Moser *et al.* (1998); Henderson *et al.* (1999), and the low energy one is still lacking.

The present paper is devoted to the calculation of the inter-chain conductivity and Hall effect in a system of weakly coupled LL chains, in the presence of a magnetic field perpendicular to the chains. We work to lowest order in a perturbative expansion in the inter-chain hopping $`t_{}`$, which is justified when one of the characteristic energies associated with the temperature $`T`$, the frequency $`\omega `$ or the field $`H`$ is larger than $`ϵ^{}`$. Furthermore, the band curvature ($`\alpha `$) must also be treated as a perturbation since for a purely linear spectrum particle-hole symmetry would lead to a vanishing Hall conductance. As explained below, there are subtleties associated with these perturbative expansions, having to do with the non-commutativity of the small $`\omega `$ and small $`\alpha `$ or small $`t_{}`$ expansions. Because of these technical difficulties, we mainly focus in this paper on the case where there is no dissipation inside the chains (in particular, no umklapp scattering) -see, however, the remarks made in the conclusion-. Two main results are obtained in this paper: i) we show that in the absence of in-chain dissipation, the Hall resistance is a constant, independent of frequency and temperature (this result is exact for the model that we study) ii) using the perturbation theory in the interchain hopping we derive an explicit expression for the inter-chain conductivity as a function of temperature, frequency and magnetic field Eq. (61), which also determines the full resistivity tensor in this dissipationless limit Eqs. (38-41).

To make contact with previous works, we note that the inter-chain conductivity in zero field was considered in Refs. Clarke *et al.*, 1994; Anderson *et al.*, 1996; Moser *et al.*, 1998 and recently reexamined in Ref. Georges *et al.*, 2000. The Hall conductivity was first considered in Ref. Lopatin, 1997 at zero temperature and for very large magnetic fields. Here we generalize this theory to finite temperature and arbitrary fields (including the physically important small field limit).

There are several experimental motivations for the present work. Inter-chain transport and optical measurements have been used as a probe of the in-chain physics in quasi-one dimensional organic conductors, and a critical discussion of the relevance of coupled Luttinger liquid models to these measurements has been given recently by two of the authors Georges *et al.* (2000). Very recently, measurements of the Hall effect in the Bechgaard salt $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$ in two different geometries have been reported Moser *et al.* (2000); Mihaly *et al.* (2000). While in-chain dissipation may be an important ingredient for the understanding of these experiments, the results of the present work for an ideal Luttinger liquid provide a benchmark to which the experiments can be compared.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we introduce the model and define the geometry that we consider. In Sec.III, we prove some general properties of the Hall effect in the absence of dissipation in the chains. In Sec.IV we calculate the transverse conductivity, and the optical Hall angle. The main results are summarized in Sec.V, where we also briefly discuss the possible consequences of in-chain dissipation. Technical details can be found in the appendices.

## II Model and Geometry

The geometry considered in this paper is depicted in Figure 1.

We consider one-dimensional chains (along the x-axis), coupled by a transverse hopping (y-axis) into a two-dimensional array. A magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the array (z-axis). For simplicity we consider the case of spinless electrons, and neglect the in-chain umklapp processes (a legitimate assumption if the system is not at a commensurate filling). The main technical difficulty of this problem is that the Hall conductivity of chains with a linear electron spectrum

$$ϵ_\pm =\pm v_F(pp_F)$$
(2)
is zero due to the particle-hole symmetry. Therefore to obtain a nontrivial answer it is necessary to consider a nonlinear correction to the spectrum

$$ϵ_\pm =\pm v_F(pp_F)+\alpha (pp_F)^2.$$
(3)
Thus the Hamiltonian of the problem is

$`H={\displaystyle }dx[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}v_F\widehat{\psi }_i^{}\tau _3(i_x)\widehat{\psi }_i\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{\psi }_i^{}_x^2\widehat{\psi }_i`$
$`+g{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{\psi }_{i+}^{}\widehat{\psi }_{i+}\widehat{\psi }_i^{}\widehat{\psi }_it_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\widehat{\psi }_i^{}\widehat{\psi }_je^{i\frac{e}{c}A_{i,j}}],`$ (4)
where $`\widehat{\psi }`$ is a two-component vector composed from the right- and left-moving electrons $`\widehat{\psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\psi }_+\\ \widehat{\psi }_{}\end{array}\right)`$, $`\tau _3`$ is a Pauli matrix and $`A_{i,j}=_i^j𝐀𝑑𝐥`$. We use the Landau gauge $`A_y=Hx`$. The second term in the Hamiltonian (4) corresponds to the nonlinear correction (3) to the free electron spectrum. The model without the hopping term and $`\alpha `$term can be solved exactly, for example by the bosonization method. It is also possible to bosonize the $`\alpha `$-term Haldane (1981) but it leads to a model with a cubic interaction between the bosons which is not exactly solvable. The perturbation theory in $`\alpha `$term seems to be always a good approximation because the nonlinear term in the spectrum (3) is small compared with the linear one as long as the typical energy scale of the problem is less than the Fermi energy. This is true, indeed, but only for the quantities that have a regular expansion in $`\alpha .`$ As we show below, the components of the resistivity tensor depend regular on $`\alpha `$ and therefore can be expanded in $`\alpha .`$ On the contrary, the components of the conductivity tensor at low frequencies depend singular on $`\alpha `$ and, thus, cannot be expanded in $`\alpha .`$

We consider in this paper the calculation of the anisotropic conductivity tensor (in the presence of the magnetic field), relating the current to the electric field:

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}j_x& \\ j_y& \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _{xx}& \sigma _{xy}\\ \sigma _{yx}& \sigma _{yy}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}E_x& \\ E_y& \end{array}\right].$$
(5)
The resistivity tensor is equal to the inverse of the conductivity tensor, and the Hall resistivity $`\rho _{xy}`$ is in particular given by:

$$\rho _{xy}=\frac{\sigma _{xy}}{\sigma _{xx}\sigma _{yy}+\sigma _{xy}^2}.$$
(6)
In the following, we shall evaluate the conductivity and resistivity tensor using a perturbative method in both the band curvature $`\alpha `$ and the inter-chain hopping $`t_{}`$. It is crucial to realize that the limits of small $`\alpha `$, small $`t_{}`$ and small frequency $`\omega `$ do not commute. As a result, great care must be taken in order to decide which quantity to expand. This will be fully clarified in the next section.

## III Hall effect in the absence of in-chain dissipation: general considerations

In this section we show that, in the case where there is no dissipation in the chains, several aspects of the Hall effect can be deduced from general principles. We first consider (Sec.III.1) the limit where $`\omega `$ is taken to zero first, in which Galilean invariance can be used. We then turn to non-zero frequency (Sec. III.2) and use the commutation relation of the in-chain current operator and Hamiltonian in order to obtain general expressions for the conductivity and resistivity tensors. These expressions involve a single non-trivial quantity, the inter-chain resistance $`\rho _{yy}(\omega ,T)`$ which will be explicitly evaluated (to lowest order) in Sec.IV. They also allow us to clarify which quantities have regular perturbative expansions in $`\alpha `$ and $`t_{}`$. In Sec.III.3, we explain physically the content of these expressions.

### III.1 Galilean invariance and the $`\omega 0`$ limit

Here we focus on the zero-frequency limit, and show that when the Hamiltonian is Galilean invariant in the direction of the chains, the Hall resistance is independent of temperature and simply given by its free electron value. The resistivity tensor is defined by

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}E_x& \\ E_y& \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\rho _{xx}& \rho _{xy}\\ \rho _{yx}& \rho _{yy}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}j_x& \\ j_y& \end{array}\right].$$
(7)
To find the Hall resistivity $`\rho _{xy}`$ it is convenient to apply the electric field in such a way that the current will flow exactly along the chains, then $`j_y=0`$ and (7) gives

$`E_y`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{yx}j_x,`$ (8)
$`E_x`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{xx}j_x.`$ (9)
Let us furthermore impose that $`E_x=0`$ (e.g. by imposing periodic conditions along $`x`$).

We now envision a different setup in which no external electric field and no current are applied, and consider a reference frame that moves with respect to this system at a velocity $`v`$ along the $`x`$ axis. In this moving frame, $`j_y`$ is still vanishing because the transverse current is not affected by the Galilean transformation. Due to such a Galilean transformation $`E_x`$ is still zero but an electric field is induced along the y-axis, given by:

$$E_y=v\frac{H}{c}$$
(10)
Finally, in the moving frame, there is a current along the chains, which can be evaluated as follows. The velocity of right (left) moving modes close to the Fermi surface is given by: $`v_k=\pm v_F+2\alpha (kk_F)`$, so that a constant velocity $`v`$ corresponds to a momentum shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=\frac{v}{2\alpha }`$. This in turn corresponds to a (one -dimensional) current density in a single chain given by: $`j_{1D}=ev_F\mathrm{\Delta }k/\pi `$. Finally, we obtain the induced current density along $`x`$ as:

$$j_x=\frac{j_{1D}}{a_y}=\frac{ev_F}{2\pi \alpha a_y}v$$
(11)
Combining the above equations for $`E_y`$ and $`j_x`$, we finally obtain:

$`\rho _{xx}(\omega =0)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (12)
$`\rho _{yx}(\omega =0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_y}{j_x}}=2\pi \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{Ha_y}{v_Fec}}`$ (13)
This expression for the Hall resistivity can also be written in terms of the electron density $`n`$, which is related to the in-chain Fermi momentum through the relation: $`na_y=k_F/\pi `$ (since $`na_y`$ is the density per one chain). Therefore:

$$\rho _{yx}=\frac{H}{nec}\frac{2\alpha k_F}{v_F}$$
(14)
In the case of a purely parabolic band $`ϵ_k=\frac{k^2}{2m}`$, one has $`2\alpha =1/m`$ and $`v_F=k_F/m`$, so that one recovers the familiar expression:

$$\rho _{yx}=\frac{H}{nec}$$
(15)
For a tight-binding dispersion along the chains $`ϵ_k=2t\mathrm{cos}k`$, one has $`v_F=2t\mathrm{sin}k_F`$ and $`\alpha =t\mathrm{cos}k_F`$, so that:

$$\rho _{yx}=\frac{H}{nec}\frac{k_F}{\mathrm{tan}k_F}$$
(16)
Hence, we have seen that Galilean invariance implies that the dc- Hall resistivity is T-independent and unchanged by interactions.

In a similar way one can use the conductivity tensor

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}j_x& \\ 0& \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma _{xx}& \sigma _{xy}\\ \sigma _{xy}& \sigma _{yy}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ E_y& \end{array}\right],$$
(17)
where $`j_x`$ and $`E_y`$ are again given by (11) and (10). This leads to

$`\sigma _{xy}(\omega =0)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{yx}(\omega =0)^1,`$ (18)
$`\sigma _{yy}(\omega =0)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (19)
Thus the Galilean invariance implies, at zero frequency

$`\rho _{xx}(\omega =0)=0,\sigma _{yy}(\omega =0)=0`$ (20)
$`\sigma _{xy}(\omega =0)^1=\rho _{xy}(\omega =0)=2\pi \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{Ha_y}{v_Fec}}.`$ (21)
Note that $`\rho _{xx}=0`$ is well in agreement with our hypothesis of a perfect conductor in the chain direction. (20) also shows that at low frequency, the Hall resistivity is perturbative in the band curvature, while $`\sigma _{xy}`$ is not. Finally, we emphasize that the fact that $`\sigma _{yy}(\omega =0)=0`$ does not provide any information on the interchain resistivity $`\rho _{yy}(\omega =0)`$ which is a finite quantity (at finite temperature) that must be calculated independently (Sec. IV).

### III.2 Commutation relations and general expressions for the resistivity tensor

In order to go beyond the zero frequency limit let us compute the commutator of the current along the chains

$`\widehat{J}_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\underset{i}{}\widehat{j}_x(x,i)}`$ (22)
$`\widehat{j}_x(x,i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_y}}\left(ev_F\widehat{\psi }_i^{}\tau _3\widehat{\psi }_i+2e\alpha \widehat{\psi }_i^{}(i_x)\widehat{\psi }_i\right),`$ (23)
with the Hamiltonian (4). This gives the remarkable result

$$\dot{\widehat{J}_x}i[\widehat{H},\widehat{J}_x]=\gamma \widehat{J}_y,$$
(24)
where

$`\widehat{J}_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\underset{i}{}\widehat{j}_y(x,i)},`$ (25)
$`\widehat{j}_y(x,i)`$ $`=`$ $`t_{}ei(\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(x)\widehat{\psi }_{i+1}(x)e^{i\frac{e}{c}A_{i,i+1}}h.c.),`$ (26)
is the current perpendicular to the chains and

$$\gamma =\frac{2e\alpha H}{c}.$$
(27)
The commutation relation (24) allows to find general relations between the components of the conductivity tensor: Suppose that a short pulse of the electric field $`E_y=E_0\delta (t)`$ is applied along the y-axis, then

$`j_x(t)=E_0\sigma _{xy}(t)`$ (28)
$`j_y(t)=E_0\sigma _{yy}(t)`$ (29)
and using (24) we get

$$\dot{\sigma }_{xy}(t)=\gamma \sigma _{yy}(t).$$
(30)
Using this equation we obtain the relation between $`\sigma _{yy}(\omega )`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}(\omega ):`$

$`\gamma \sigma _{yy}(\omega )=\gamma {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\sigma _{yy}(t)e^{i\omega t}𝑑t=`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i\omega t}\dot{\sigma }_{xy}(t)=\sigma _{xy}(t=0^+)i\omega \sigma _{xy}(\omega ).`$ (31)
From the Galilean invariance principle we know that $`\sigma _{yy}(\omega =0)=0`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}(\omega =0)`$ is finite, therefore from Eq.(31) it follows that $`\sigma _{xy}(t=0^+)=0`$ and finally we obtain

$$\sigma _{xy}(\omega )=\frac{\gamma }{i\omega }\sigma _{yy}(\omega ).$$
(32)
Moreover from the Galilean invariance we have that $`\sigma _{xy}(0)=v_Fec/2\pi \alpha Ha_y,`$ therefore

$$\sigma _{yy}(\omega )=\frac{v_Fe^2}{\pi a_y}\frac{i\omega }{\gamma ^2},\omega 0.$$
(33)
A similar consideration using the commutation relation (24) when a short electric pulse is applied along the x-axis leads to

$$\sigma _{xx}(\omega )=\frac{\gamma \sigma _{xy}(\omega )\sigma _{xx}^D}{i\omega }$$
(34)
where

$$\sigma _{xx}^D=\frac{e^2v_F}{\pi a_y}.$$
(35)
which is consistent with the expected large frequency behavior of $`\sigma _{xx}`$ (perfect conductor). Now, using (32) $`\sigma _{xx}`$ may be related with $`\sigma _{yy}`$ as

$$\sigma _{xx}(\omega )=\frac{e^2v_F}{\pi a_y}\frac{1}{i\omega }+\frac{\gamma ^2}{\omega ^2}\sigma _{yy}(\omega ).$$
(36)
According to (33) we see that the singularities $`1/\omega `$ in (36) are canceled out and that, in contrast to naive intuition, the conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}`$ is finite at zero frequency ! This is of course due to the presence of the magnetic field, and occur for frequencies smaller than the “cyclotron frequency” of the anisotropic system. The above formulas show that at low frequency the conductivity tensor is drastically affected by the presence of the magnetic field an thus does not allow for perturbative calculations. The resistivity tensor, in contrast, has a well-behaved expansion in the band curvature.

In order to derive expressions for this tensor, we use (32,34) to obtain:

$$\sigma _{xx}(\omega )\sigma _{yy}(\omega )+\sigma _{xy}^2(\omega )=\frac{1}{\gamma }\sigma _{xx}^D\sigma _{xy}(\omega )$$
(37)
Therefore $`\rho _{xx}`$ is given by

$$\rho _{xx}(\omega )=\frac{\sigma _{yy}(\omega )}{\sigma _{xx}(\omega )\sigma _{yy}(\omega )+\sigma _{xy}^2(\omega )}=\frac{i\omega }{\sigma _{xx}^D}=\frac{\pi a_y}{v_Fe^2}i\omega .$$
(38)
We see that $`\rho _{xx}`$ is independent of magnetic field, inter-chain hopping and band curvature, and that $`\rho _{xx}(0)=0`$ in agreement with the result following from Galilean invariance. We obtain $`\rho _{xy}(\omega )`$ in a similar manner:

$`\rho _{xy}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{xy}(\omega )}{\sigma _{xx}(\omega )\sigma _{yy}(\omega )+\sigma _{xy}^2(\omega )}}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`2\pi \alpha {\displaystyle \frac{Ha_y}{v_Fec}}\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{a_y\pi }{v_Fe^2}},`$
This generalizes to finite frequency the result previously obtained using Galilean invariance. $`\rho _{xy}(\omega )`$ is seen to be independent of frequency and temperature. This result established here from general principles can also be recovered from an explicit calculation valid at high frequency, presented in appendix A.

We note that these general considerations do not allow for the determination of the component $`\rho _{yy}(\omega ,T;H)`$ of the resistivity tensor. This is the only non-trivial quantity that must be calculated explicitly in this dissipationless case. It is proven in Appendix B that this quantity has a well-behaved expansion in powers of the band curvature parameter $`\alpha `$, so that to lowest order one can use the value of $`\rho _{yy}`$ for $`\alpha =0`$. To this zeroth order, the inter-chain conductivity and resistivity are simply related by:

$$\rho _{yy}(\omega ,T;H)^{(0)}=1/\sigma _{yy}(\omega ,T;H)^{(0)}$$
(40)
In Sec.IV, an expansion of $`\sigma _{yy}(\omega ,T;H)^{(0)}`$ to lowest order in the inter-chain hopping is performed (i.e to order $`t_{}^2`$), which thus fully determines $`\rho _{yy}(\omega ,T;H)^{(0)}`$ to lowest order.

Finally, for the sake of completeness, we give the general expression of the conductivity tensor in terms of $`\rho _{yy}(\omega )`$:

$`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{e^2v_F}{\pi a_y}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\omega +\gamma ^2\frac{a_y\pi }{v_Fe^2}\rho _{yy}^1(\omega )}}`$
$`\sigma _{xy}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{i\omega \rho _{yy}(\omega )+\frac{a_y\pi }{v_Fe^2}\gamma ^2}}`$ (41)
$`\sigma _{yy}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _{yy}(\omega )\frac{\gamma ^2}{i\omega }\frac{a_y\pi }{v_Fe^2}}}`$
From the equation relating $`\sigma _{yy}(\omega )`$ and $`\rho _{yy}(\omega )`$ we see that at high enough frequency the effect of curvature becomes not important and $`\rho _{yy}^1(\omega )=\sigma _{yy}(\omega )=\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega ).`$ Assuming that $`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}`$ is finite at zero frequency (this is the case for any finite temperature) we estimate the crossover frequency below which the curvature effects become important

$$\omega _0=\frac{\gamma ^2\pi a_y\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega =0)}{v_Fe^2}.$$
(42)
Thus for frequencies higher than $`\omega _0`$ one can neglect the curvature effects and use the zero curvature result for transverse conductivity calculated in Sec.IV directly. At frequencies lower than $`\omega _0`$ the zero curvature result may be used only for resistivity $`\rho _{yy},`$ since this quantity depends regularly on $`\alpha `$ even at low frequencies (see AppendixB). Thus, at frequencies lower than $`\omega _0`$ the conductivity tensor should be obtained by inserting in the expressions (41) the result for $`\rho _{yy}(\omega ,T;H)^{(0)}=1/\sigma _{yy}(\omega ,T;H)^{(0)}`$ calculated in Sec.IV.

### III.3 Physical arguments: response to a current pulse and Hall angles

Here, we rederive some of the previous results using physical arguments, and give expressions for the Hall angles of this anisotropic system. Following Ref. Drew and Coleman, 1997 (see also Ref. Lange and Kotliar, 1999), we consider the following thought experiment. A current pulse $`j_y(t)=j_0^y\delta (t)`$ is sent into the system along the y-direction (i.e. perpendicular to the chains and to the magnetic field). A transient current $`j_x(t)`$ is thus induced along the chains, and we imagine that the electric field along the chain is maintained to $`E_x=0`$. Using the definition of the conductivity tensor, the transient current $`j_x(t)`$ is found to be (for $`t>0`$):

$$j_x(t)=j_0^y\mathrm{tan}\theta _H^x(t)$$
(43)
in which $`\theta _H^x(t)`$ is the Fourier transform

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _H^x(t)=\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{i\omega t}\mathrm{tan}\theta _H^x(\omega +i0^+)$$
(44)
of the (retarded) frequency-dependent Hall angle:

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _H^x(\omega )=\frac{\sigma _{xy}(\omega )}{\sigma _{yy}(\omega )}.$$
(45)
In the absence of dissipation along the chains, we expect no time decay of the induced current $`j_x(t)`$, i.e $`j_x(t)=j_x(t=0)=C_xj_0^y\theta (t)`$ with $`C_x`$ a constant. ($`C_x`$ could a priori be temperature dependent, but the above reasoning using Galilean invariance shows that it is not). This implies that:

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _H^x(\omega )=C_x\frac{i}{\omega }$$
(46)
and hence that $`\sigma _{xy}`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}`$ are simply proportional at all frequencies and temperatures:

$$\sigma _{xy}(\omega ,T)=C_x\frac{i}{\omega +i0^+}\sigma _{yy}(\omega ,T)$$
(47)
one thus recovers the relation (32), which also determine the constant $`C_x`$ to be $`C_x=2\alpha eH/c`$

One can also consider the complementary thought experiment in which a current pulse $`j_x(t)=j_0^x\delta (t)`$ is generated along the chains. The relaxation of the induced Hall current perpendicular to the chains (with the constraint $`E_y=0`$) is then given by:

$$j_y(t)=j_0^x\mathrm{tan}\theta _H^y(t)$$
(48)
with similar notations as above, and the optical Hall angle $`\theta _H^y`$ given by:

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _H^y(\omega )=\frac{\sigma _{yx}(\omega )}{\sigma _{xx}(\omega )}=\frac{\rho _{xy}}{\rho _{yy}(\omega )}$$
(49)
To lowest order (in the band curvature and inter-chain hopping), we can thus relate this Hall angle to the inter-chain conductivity as follows:

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _H^y(\omega )=\rho _{xy}\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )+\mathrm{}$$
(50)
Using the spectral representation $`\sigma (z)=\frac{i}{\pi }𝑑ϵ\frac{\text{Re}\sigma (ϵ)}{zϵ}`$, one obtains the decay of the current pulse along $`y`$ as:

$$j_y(t)=\rho _{xy}j_0^x\theta (t)_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{i\omega t}\text{Re}\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )$$
(51)
In the next section, an explicit expression will be obtained for the frequency, temperature, and magnetic field dependence of $`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}`$, hence allowing the determination of the time decay of the current $`j_y(t)`$.

## IV Transverse conductivity

In this section, we calculate the transverse conductivity $`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}`$ in the absence of band curvature, to lowest order in the inter-chain hopping, as a function of frequency, temperature and magnetic field. As discussed above, this then completely determines the conductivity tensor (and Hall angle) by inserting $`\rho _{yy}^{(0)}=1/\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}`$ in the expressions (41).

According to the Kubo formula, the conductivity is given by

$$\sigma _{yy}(\omega )=\sigma _{yy}^𝒫(\omega )+\sigma _{yy}^𝒟(\omega ),$$
(52)
where $`\sigma ^𝒫(\omega )`$ and $`\sigma ^𝒟(\omega )`$ are the paramagnetic and the diamagnetic contributions respectively. The paramagnetic term is

$$\sigma _{yy}^𝒫(\omega )=\frac{a_y}{\omega }\underset{i}{}𝑑xP_R(x,i,\omega ),$$
(53)
where $`P_R`$ is the retarded current-current correlator

$$P_R(x,i,\omega )=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}[\widehat{j}_y(x,i,t),\widehat{j}_y(0,0,0)],$$
(54)
and $`\widehat{j}_y`$ is the operator of the inter-chain current (25).

The diamagnetic term is given by

$$\sigma _{yy}^𝒟=\frac{e^2t_{}a_y}{i\omega }\widehat{\psi }_0^{}(0)\widehat{\psi }_1(x)e^{ieA_{0,1}/c}+c.c..$$
(55)
The retarded current-current correlator $`P_R(\omega )`$ can be obtained from the Matsubara correlator

$$P_{}(x,i,\mathrm{\Omega })=_0^\beta 𝑑\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }T_\tau \widehat{j}_y(x,i,\tau )\widehat{j}_y(0,0,0)$$
(56)
by the analytical continuation of the Matsubara frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the real frequency $`\omega `$

$$P_R(\omega )=iP_M(\mathrm{\Omega })_{i\mathrm{\Omega }\omega +i0^+}.$$
(57)
To the lowest order in $`t_{}`$ the paramagnetic term is simply given by the expectation value of (56) with respect to the single chain Hamiltonian. For the diamagnetic term one should consider the hopping term in the Hamiltonian (4) to the first order. Combining the lowest order expressions for paramagnetic and diamagnetic terms we get

$`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2t_{}^2a_ye^2}{i\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{s=\pm }{}}[{\displaystyle }dx{\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }G_s^2(x,\tau )`$
$`\times \mathrm{cos}(hx)(\mathrm{\Omega }=0)]_{i\mathrm{\Omega }\omega +i0^+}`$ (58)
In this expression

$$h=eHa_y/c$$
(59)
is a characteristic energy scale associated with the magnetic field, which will play an important role in the following. $`G_\pm `$ are the single chain Green’s function for each chiral mode:

$`G_\pm `$ $`(x,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\mathrm{sinh}\pi T(\pm x+i\tau )}}`$ (60)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi Ta_x)^\eta }{[\mathrm{sinh}(\pi T(xi\tau ))\mathrm{sinh}(\pi T(x+i\tau ))]^{\eta /2}}}.`$
The integral over $`\tau `$ in (58) must be calculated for the Matsubara frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ and then the analytical continuation should be taken. This is performed explicitly in Appendix C in which the following general expression is derived:

$`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_ye^2t_{}^2(2\pi Ta_x)^{2\eta }}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega /2T)}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{\eta }{2})^2+\frac{\omega ^2+h^2}{(4\pi T)^2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+\eta )}}`$ (61)
$`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +h}{4\pi T}}i\right)\right|^2\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega h}{4\pi T}}i\right)\right|^2.`$
In the following, we examine various limiting cases of physical interest of this expression.

### IV.1 Zero temperature

At zero temperature the integrals in (58) can be taken analytically giving

$$\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )=A(\eta )\frac{1}{i\omega }\left[(h^2\omega ^2)^\eta \frac{h^2+\omega ^2}{h^2\omega ^2}h^{2\eta }\right],$$
(62)
where the coefficient $`A(\eta )`$ is

$$A(\eta )=\frac{t_{}^2a_ye^2}{\pi }\left(\frac{a_x}{2}\right)^{2\eta }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\eta )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+\eta )}.$$
(63)
In the limit of low frequencies $`\omega h`$ we get

$$\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )=A(\eta )(2\eta )i\omega \left(\frac{eHa_y}{c}\right)^{2\eta 2}.$$
(64)
and thus a purely reactive response. For zero magnetic field ($`h=0`$) we have

$`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A(\eta )\mathrm{sin}(\pi \eta )|\omega |^{2\eta 1},`$ (65)
$`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`A(\eta )\mathrm{cos}(\pi \eta )|\omega |^{2\eta }/\omega ,`$ (66)
where $`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{}`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{\prime \prime }`$ are the real and imaginary parts of the conductivity respectively. We see that the real and imaginary parts of conductivity have the same dependence on $`\omega ,`$ so the ratio $`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{}/\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{\prime \prime }`$ is $`\omega `$-independent:

$$\mathrm{sign}(\omega )\frac{\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{}}{\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{\prime \prime }}=\mathrm{tan}(\pi \eta )$$
(67)
This equation suggest an independent way to measure the exponent $`\eta `$ experimentally. Note that in case of Fermi liquid the limit of the above ratio at $`\omega 0`$ should be zero. Thus the conductivity dependence on $`\omega `$ reflects the non-Fermi liquid properties of the in-chain Luttinger liquid.

When the magnetic field is applied, according to (62), at frequencies $`|\omega |<h`$ the real part of the conductivity is zero and dissipation is absent. But when $`|\omega |>h`$ the real part is not zero and it is given by

$$\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{}=A(\eta )\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \eta )}{|\omega |}\frac{\omega ^2+h^2}{(\omega ^2h^2)^{1\eta }}.$$
(68)
Thus the magnetic field turns off dissipation for frequencies in the region $`|\omega |<h.`$

### IV.2 DC transverse conductivity

As shown in Appendix C, the d.c. transverse conductivity can also be computed analytically. The imaginary part is zero, and the real part is given by

$`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(T;H)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_ye^2t_{}^2(2\pi Ta_x)^{2\eta }}{4\pi ^2T}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{\eta }{2})^2+h^2/(4\pi T)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +2)}}`$ (69)
$`|\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\eta /2+hi/4\pi T\right)|^4.`$
In the absence of the magnetic field we have

$$\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(T;H=0)=\frac{a_ye^2t_{}^2(2\pi a_x)^{2\eta }}{4\pi ^2}\frac{(\frac{\eta }{2})^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^4(\frac{\eta }{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +2)}T^{1+2\eta },$$
(70)
so the conductivity depends on the temperature as $`T^{1+2\eta }`$, in agreement with the previous results of two of the authors in Ref. Georges *et al.*, 2000. If $`\eta 1`$ one can simplify the above expression

$$\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}=\frac{a_ye^2t_{}^2}{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{T\eta }.$$
(71)
Thus the system becomes a perfect conductor when $`\eta 0`$ as it should since the current commutes with the Hamiltonian. To plot the dependence of the DC conductivity (69) on the magnetic field it is convenient to rewrite (69) in the form

$`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{a_ye^2t_{}^2(2\pi a_x)^{2\eta }}{16\pi ^2}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^4(\frac{\eta }{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +2)}}`$ (72)
$`\times T^{1+2\eta }F(\eta ,h/4\pi T),`$
where the function $`F`$ is

$$F(\eta ,x)=\frac{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta /2+ix)|^4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^4(\frac{\eta }{2})}\frac{\eta ^2+4x^2}{\eta ^2}.$$
(73)
The function $`F(\eta ,x)`$ is plotted on Figure 2 for different values of $`\eta `$.

In case of large magnetic fields $`hT`$ one can simplify (73) obtaining for conductivity the following expression

$$\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}=\frac{a_ye^2t_{}^2(a_x/2)^{2\eta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +2)}\frac{h^{2\eta }}{T}e^{h/2T}.$$
(74)
This is different from the result (64) obtained for the zero temperature case. Thus the answer for the conductivity depends on which limit is taken first: $`\omega 0`$ or $`T0.`$ The answer (64) corresponds to the limit $`\omega T,\omega ,T0`$ and the answer (74) to $`T\omega ,\omega ,T0.`$

### IV.3 Real part of the transverse AC conductivity

In the absence of magnetic field the real part of the conductivity can be written as (see Appendix C)

$`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{}={\displaystyle \frac{a_ye^2t_{}^2(2\pi a_x)^{2\eta }}{16\pi ^2}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^4(\frac{\eta }{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta +2)}}`$
$`\times T^{1+2\eta }`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\eta ,\omega /4\pi T),`$ (75)
where the function $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(\eta ,x)=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi x)}{2\pi x}\frac{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\eta }{2}+ix)|^4}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^4(\frac{\eta }{2})}\frac{\eta ^2+4x^2}{\eta ^2}.$$
(76)
This function is plotted on Figure 3 for different values of $`\eta `$.

In the presence of the magnetic field we shall plot the dependence of the real part of the conductivity on frequency only for a particular case $`\eta =0.5`$ (The value of $`\eta `$ realized in quasi-one-dimensional organic conductors is believed to be close to $`0.5`$.) Presenting the conductivity as

$$\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )^{}=\frac{a_ye^2t_{}^2(2\pi a_x)^{2\eta }}{2\pi ^2}S(\omega )$$
(77)
we plot the function $`S`$ on Figure 4 for different values of temperature. At low enough temperatures we see a definite resonance at $`\omega =h`$. Also at low temperatures we see the effect that was mentioned above (see end of Section IV.1): At frequencies less than $`h`$ the dissipation is suppressed by the magnetic field. At higher temperatures the resonance becomes smeared and eventually disappears.

## V Summary and Conclusion

The main result of the present paper is that, in the absence of in-chain momentum relaxation, the Hall resistivity of weakly coupled Luttinger chains is not affected by the interactions. $`\rho _{xy}`$ is independent of frequency or temperature, and simply given by the free fermion expression (14) (see also (16)). This result was established at zero-frequency using Galilean invariance in the chains, and generalized at finite frequency using exact relations based on current commutation relations. This method also allows us to fully determine the conductivity tensor in terms of a single quantity: the inter-chain frequency dependent resistivity Eqs. ((41)).

We have explicitly evaluated this quantity to lowest order in the interchain hopping, as a function of frequency, temperature and magnetic field. This expansion is valid in the Luttinger liquid regime, i.e at high enough temperature $`Tϵ^{}`$ or frequencies $`\omega ϵ`$, or at large magnetic field. Various limiting forms of the general expression (61) have been investigated, which reflect the non-Fermi liquid aspects of the in-chain physics. Explicit expressions of the associated scaling functions of $`\omega /T`$ and $`H/T`$ have been given.

Because our calculation does not take into account the in-chain momentum relaxation processes, it is rather difficult to make definite statements concerning comparisons to the recent Hall measurements on the quasi one-dimensional organic conductor $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$ Moser *et al.* (2000); Mihaly *et al.* (2000). We note that both measurements yield values of $`R_H`$ close to the non-interacting band value at high enough temperature, in qualitative agreement with our result. As demonstrated in the present paper, this does not preclude strong electron-electron interactions to be present in the chains. Furthermore, it was shown in Ref. Georges *et al.*, 2000, using a generalized dynamical mean-field treatment, that the model of coupled Luttinger liquid chains considered here can lead, in the low temperature regime $`Tϵ^{}`$ where Fermi liquid coherence has set in, to a very small Drude weight. Our results therefore show that there is no contradiction between this experimental observation and the fact that $`R_H`$ is close to the band value.

The two recent experimental studies of the Hall effect in $`(\text{TMTSF})_2\text{PF}_6`$ differ by the temperature dependence observed at high temperature. In Ref. Mihaly *et al.*, 2000, with the magnetic field parallel to the chains, very little temperature dependence was observed. In Ref. Moser *et al.*, 2000, with the field along the least conducting axis, a significant temperature dependence was measured, with $`R_H(T)`$ increasing by almost a factor of two between $`150K`$ and $`300K`$ (where a saturation is apparently reached). Obviously, the temperature dependence of $`R_H`$ can only be addressed theoretically once in-chain momentum relaxation processes are included. We have not yet performed a detailed calculation along these lines, but we conclude this paper by making a few general remarks about what can be expected.

Momentum relaxation can be assigned to the inclusion of an additional operator in the Hamiltonian of the chains, in addition to the ordinary LL Hamiltonian. Let us consider the regime in which this operator can be treated in perturbation theory. Specifically, we have in mind for example the case of a commensurate filling, where an umklapp operator is generated. Perturbation theory is valid either when the umklapp is irrelevant or, if it is relevant, when temperature is high enough compared to the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ associated with the perturbation (i.e the induced Mott gap). For a model with spin at commensurability $`1/2n`$ ($`n=1`$ for half-filling, $`=2`$ for quarter-filling), we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_gg_3^x`$ with $`2x=1/(1n^2K_\rho )`$. $`g_3`$ is the coupling constant and the umklapp is relevant for $`x>0`$. For $`g_3=0`$, each chain is a perfect conductor. For a non-vanishing but arbitrary small $`g`$, the in-chain conductivity (in zero field) obeys the scaling behavior:

$$\sigma (\omega ,T)=\frac{1}{\omega }\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(\frac{g_3}{\omega ^{1/x}},\frac{g_3}{T^{1/x}})$$
(78)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ a universal scaling function (taking in general complex values). This expression can be justified from very general scaling arguments, observing that the conductivity is related to the current correlation function by $`\sigma j.j/\omega `$ and has thus the dimension of an inverse energy ($`v_F=1`$), while $`\omega /\mathrm{\Delta }_g\omega /g_3^x`$ and $`T/\mathrm{\Delta }_gT/g_3^x`$ are the dimensionless scaling variables. It has also been established by a memory function calculation Giamarchi (1991, 1992), which allows an approximate determination of the scaling function $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$. Let us recall two important limiting behaviors of this expression. At high-frequency and low temperature ($`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }_gT`$), the real part $`\omega \sigma ^{}`$ becomes a scaling function of $`g_3/\omega ^{1/x}`$ only, which vanishes for small arguments (since at $`g_3=0`$ one has a perfect conductor and hence $`\sigma `$ is imaginary). This scaling function has a regular Taylor expansion in powers of $`g/\omega ^{1/x}`$ (which starts at second order). Hence the above scaling expression allows to simply predict the dominant high-frequency behavior to be:

$$\sigma ^{}(\omega \mathrm{\Delta }_g)\frac{1}{\omega }\left(\frac{g_3^2}{\omega ^{2/x}}+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(79)
Noting that $`1+2/x=54n^2K_\rho `$, this is the result derived in Ref. Giamarchi, 1991. In the opposite limit of low frequency, $`T\sigma _{dc}`$ becomes a scaling function of $`g/T^{1/x}`$, which obviously must diverge at small $`g_3`$. Not surprisingly, it is the scaling function associated with its inverse, the resistivity, which has a smooth Taylor expansion in this limit, yielding:

$$\rho _{dc}=T\stackrel{~}{\rho }\left(\frac{g_3}{T^{1/x}}\right)T\left(\frac{g_3^2}{T^{2/x}}+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(80)
Again, with $`12/x=4n^2K_\rho 3`$, this agrees with the result of Ref. Giamarchi, 1991.

It is natural to attempt a generalization of these scaling arguments to the Hall response. We focus here on the low-field Hall number $`R_H`$ obtained from the linear term in the dc-Hall resistance $`\rho _{xy}=HR_H(T)+\mathrm{}`$. The dimensional arguments lead to the following expression for the Hall number

$$R_H=R_H^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{R}\left(\frac{g_3}{T^{1/x}}\right),$$
(81)
where $`R_H^0`$ is a band value of the Hall resistivity and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is a dimensionless scaling function. For small $`g_3`$ (or large $`T\mathrm{\Delta }_gg_3^x`$), it is expected from the results of the present paper that $`R_H`$ tends to the band value $`R_H^0`$ (Galilean invariance is restored in this limit). Since $`R_H`$ is obtained from a resistivity, it is natural to expect that the scaling function $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ has a smooth Taylor expansion in powers of $`g_3/T^{1/x}`$, and therefore that the first corrections describing the deviation from saturation as temperature is lowered are given by:

$$R_H(T)=R_H^0\left(1+a_1\frac{g_3}{T^{1/x}}+a_2\frac{g_3^2}{T^{2/x}}+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(82)
It would be very interesting to confirm this expectation from an explicit calculation and to determine the first coefficients in this expansion. Note also that these considerations suggest that a plot of $`R_H(T)`$ versus $`\rho _{xx}/T`$ should define a universal scaling curve independent of the compound or external parameters such as pressure (as long as $`T\mathrm{\Delta }_g,ϵ^{}`$). We hope to address these issues in a forthcoming work, together with a comparison of these scaling ideas to experiments.

###### Acknowledgements.

A.G and T.G would like to thank Nancy Sandler, for discussions and collaboration at an initial stage of this project, as well as D. Jerome and J. Moser for thorough discussions of their experimental results prior to publication. A.G also acknowledges fruitful discussions with J.Cooper, L. Forro, A. Sengupta and V. Yakovenko. A.L. would like to thank L. Ioffe, A.J. Millis and V. Yakovenko for useful discussions. The authors are grateful to the Institute for Theoretical Physics (Santa Barbara) which partially supported this research (under NSF grant No. PHY94-07194).

## Appendix A Explicit calculation of the high-frequency Hall conductivity

Considering the Hall conductivity we shall assume that the electric field is applied along the chains (x-axis) $`E_x=E_0e^{i\omega t},`$ thus the Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}`$ relates the transverse current $`j_y`$ with electric field $`E_x`$

$$j_y(\omega )=\sigma _{yx}(\omega )E_x(\omega ).$$
(83)
Using Kubo formula and the perturbation theory in the hopping term $`t_{}`$ for the Hall conductivity we getLopatin (1997)

$$\sigma _{yx}(\omega )=\frac{2eit_{}^2}{\omega }\left[_0^\beta 𝑑\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau )\right]_{\mathrm{\Omega }i\omega },$$
(84)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau )`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau _1\tau _3)={\displaystyle \underset{s=\pm }{}}{\displaystyle }dx_3dx_2d\tau _2[\psi _s(x_2,\tau _2)\psi _s^{}(x_1,\tau _1)`$
$`j(x_3,\tau _3)\psi _s(x_1,\tau _1)\psi _s^{}(x_2,\tau _2)+(x_1,\tau _1x_2,\tau _2)]`$
$$\times \mathrm{sin}h(x_1x_2).$$
(85)
The angular brackets in (85) represent averaging with respect to the single chain Lagrangian with density

$`^{(1)}=\psi ^{}(_\tau +iv_F\tau _3_x`$ $`+`$ $`\alpha _x^2)\psi `$ (86)
$``$ $`g\psi _+^{}\psi _+\psi _{}^{}\psi _{},`$
and the current $`j`$ is the single-chain current

$$j=ev_F\psi ^{}\tau _3\psi +2e\alpha \psi ^{}(i_x)\psi .$$
(87)
Note that it contains an $`\alpha `$contribution arising from the nonlinear correction to the spectrum.

The single-chain correlation functions in (85) can be calculated by the bosonization method. The functional technique allowing to find the necessary correlation functions at zero temperature was described in the previous work of one of authorsLopatin (1997). The generalization to finite temperatures is straightforward and in the following we will summaries only the results. The single-chain Lagrangian (86) in the bosonized form is

$$^{(1)}=^{(0)}+V(\mathrm{\Pi },_x\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
(88)
where

$`^{(0)}=i\mathrm{\Pi }_\tau \mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^2+(_x\mathrm{\Phi })^2\right),`$ (89)
$`V(\mathrm{\Pi },_x\mathrm{\Phi })={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_x\mathrm{\Phi }\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2}}\mathrm{\Pi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2}{\pi }}(_x\varphi )^2\right),`$ (90)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ is related with $`\eta `$ by $`2\eta =\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2/\pi +\pi /\stackrel{~}{\beta }^22.`$

The bosonic fields $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and original “fermionic” $`\psi ,\psi ^{}`$ fields are related by

$`\psi _\pm (x,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi a_x}}}e^{\pm i\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm (x,\tau )},`$ (91)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm (x,\tau )=\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^x}𝑑x^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(x^{},\tau ).`$ (92)
As was pointed out in Ref. Lopatin, 1997, the Green function calculated by the functional method

$$G_f(x_1x_2,\tau _1\tau _2)=\psi (x_1,\tau _1)\psi ^{}(x_2,\tau _2)$$
(93)
must be multiplied by $`\mathrm{sgn}(\tau _1\tau _2)`$ to restore the proper symmetry of the Green function arising from the fermionic anticommutation relations. The Green function corresponding to the Lagrangian $`^{(0)}`$ was already written above (60). Since the interaction $`V`$ will be treated as a perturbation it is very convenient to introduce the following generating functional

$$Z_\pm (f_0,f_1)=\psi _\pm (\xi _1)\psi _\pm ^{}(\xi _2)e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^2\xi \left[f_0(\xi )\mathrm{\Pi }(\xi )+f_1(\xi )_x\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )\right]}}^{(0)},$$
(94)
where $`\xi =(x,\tau )`$ and $`d^2\xi =dxd\tau .`$ The straightforward calculation gives

$$Z_\pm (f_0,f_1)=G_{\pm ,f}^{(0)}(\xi _1,\xi _2)$$

$$\times e^{F^\pm (f_0,f_1)+\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^2\xi _1d^2\xi _2f^T(\xi _1)D(\xi _1,\xi _2)f(\xi _2)}},$$
(95)
where $`G_{\pm ,f}^{(0)}`$ is the Green function (60) multiplied by $`\mathrm{sgn}(\tau _1\tau _2)`$, $`f=(f_0,f_1)`$ is a two-vector constructed from $`f_0,f_1`$, and $`F^\pm (f_0,f_1)`$ is a linear functional of $`f_0,f_1`$

$`F^\pm (f_0,f_1)={\displaystyle d^2\xi }`$ $`(f_0(\xi )J_0^\pm (\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi )`$ (96)
$`+f_1(\xi )J_1^\pm (\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi )),`$
with

$`J_0^\pm (\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)=i{\displaystyle \frac{T}{4}}[(\stackrel{~}{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}})\mathrm{coth}(z_1z_3)\pi T`$
$`+(\pm \stackrel{~}{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}})\mathrm{coth}(z_1^{}z_3^{})\pi T(\xi _1\xi _2)],`$ (97)
$`J_1^\pm `$ $`(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)=i{\displaystyle \frac{T}{4}}[(\pm \stackrel{~}{\beta }+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}})\mathrm{coth}(z_1z_3)\pi T`$ (98)
$`+(\pm \stackrel{~}{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}})\mathrm{coth}(z_1^{}z_3^{})\pi T(\xi _1\xi _2)]`$
where $`z=x+i\tau ,z^{}=xi\tau .`$ Finally, $`D`$ is a matrix Green function which in the momentum space is

$$D(\omega ,p)=\frac{p^2}{p^2+\omega ^2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& i\frac{\omega }{p}\\ i\frac{\omega }{p}& 1\end{array}\right].$$
(99)
Up to the first order in the nonlinear correction $`\alpha ,`$ the expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (85) can be schematically presented as

$$j\psi \psi ^{}\psi \psi ^{}=j_0\psi \psi ^{}\psi \psi ^{}+j_1\psi \psi ^{}^{(0)}\psi \psi ^{}^{(0)},$$
(100)
where $`j_0`$ and $`j_1`$ correspond to the first and second terms in the equation for the current (87) respectively. The first term in (100) contains the current to the zeroth order in $`\alpha `$ so that the nonlinear corrections come from the Lagrangian. The second term contains no $`\alpha `$-corrections from the Lagrangian because $`j_1`$ is already proportional to $`\alpha `$. It was shown in Ref. Lopatin, 1997 that the first term gives no contribution to the Hall conductivity. One can check that the same holds for finite temperatures. Thus we need to find only the contribution from the second term. The correlator

$$𝑑x_3j_1(\xi _3)\psi _\pm (\xi _1)\psi _\pm (\xi _2)^{(0)},$$

where the current correction $`j_1`$ in the bosonized form is

$$j_1=2e\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_x\mathrm{\Phi },$$

can be calculated with the help of the generating functional using Eqs.(94,95)

$$𝑑x_3j_1(\xi _3)\psi _\pm (\xi _1)\psi _\pm (\xi _2)^{(0)}$$

$$=2e\alpha 𝑑x_3J_0^\pm (\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)J_1^\pm (\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)G_\pm ^{(0)}(\xi _1,\xi _2),$$

where we used that $`𝑑xD(x,\tau )=0.`$ To obtain the Hall conductivity (84) we first need to take the integrals over $`x_3`$ and $`\tau _3`$ in

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_3}`$ $`d\tau _3e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _3}j_1(\xi _3)\psi _\pm (\xi _1)\psi _\pm ^{}(\xi _2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e\alpha T}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}G_\pm (x_2,t_2)[(\pm \beta {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\beta }})^2\mathrm{coth}(z_2^{}\pi T)`$
$`+`$ $`(\pm \beta +{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\beta }})^2\mathrm{coth}(z_2\pi T)](e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau _2}1).`$ (101)
Using Eq. (101) and the relation $`2\eta =\stackrel{~}{\beta }^2/\pi +\pi /\stackrel{~}{\beta }^22`$ for the function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`(\mathrm{\Omega })={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi e\alpha T}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau dxG_+^2(x,\tau )[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\mathrm{coth}[(xi\tau )\pi T]`$ (102)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}+1)\mathrm{coth}[(x+i\tau )\pi T]]\mathrm{sin}(hx)[e^{i\tau \mathrm{\Omega }}1]`$
Using the explicit expression for the Green function (60) and integrating (102) over $`x`$ by parts we get

$`\sigma _{yx}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{8t_{}^2e^2h\alpha }{\omega ^2}}[{\displaystyle }dx{\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }\tau }G_+^2(x,\tau )`$
$`\times \mathrm{cos}(hx)(\mathrm{\Omega }=0)]_{\mathrm{\Omega }i\omega }.`$ (103)
To the lowest order in the curvature $`\alpha `$ and the interchain hopping $`t_{}`$ the conductivity along the chains is given by

$$\sigma _{xx}^{(0)}=\frac{v_Fe^2}{a_y\pi }\frac{1}{i\omega }.$$
(104)
In addition, keeping only the leading order in the hopping $`t_{}`$ we have

$$\rho _{xy}=\frac{\sigma _{xy}}{\sigma _{yy}\sigma _{xx}}.$$
(105)
since $`\sigma _{yx}t_{}^2`$ at high enough frequency. Using (105,104,103,58) we calculate the Hall resistivity obtaining the simple result

$$\rho _{yx}=2\pi \alpha \frac{Ha_y}{v_Fec}.$$
(106)
## Appendix B Expansion of the inter-chain resistivity in the band curvature

In this appendix, we show that the inter-chain resistivity has a well-behaved expansion in powers of the band curvature parameter $`\alpha `$. We found that at low $`\omega `$ the conductivity $`\sigma _{yy}`$ behaves as

$$\sigma _{yy}(\omega )=\frac{v_Fe^2}{\pi a_y}\frac{i\omega }{\gamma ^2},\omega 0.$$
(107)
This term becomes of the order of $`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega =0)`$ at the frequency of order of $`\omega _0`$ defined by (42). Therefore the next term in the expansion should have form

$$\sigma _{yy}(\omega )=\frac{v_Fe^2}{\pi a_y}\frac{i\omega }{\gamma ^2}\left[1+\kappa \frac{\omega i}{\omega _0}\right],\omega 0$$
(108)
where $`\kappa `$ is a coefficient of order 1. Now using the expansion (108) and formula (41) for the resistivity at $`\omega 0`$ we get

$$\rho _{yy}(\omega )=\sigma _{yy}^1(\omega )+\frac{\gamma ^2}{i\omega }\frac{a_y\pi }{v_Fe^2}\kappa /\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega =0).$$
(109)
Thus the resistivity $`\rho _{yy}(\omega )`$ is regular in $`\alpha `$ even at low frequency. Also we expect that $`\kappa =1`$ because the effect of curvature must be always small (as a ratio of the effective energy of the problem and Fermi energy) for quantities that have a regular dependence on $`\alpha ,`$ so the zeroth order (in $`\alpha `$) answer should give the correct result for the transverse resistivity $`\rho _{yy}.`$

## Appendix C Calculation of the real part of the transverse conductivity

The real part of the conductivity (58) can be calculated analytically. To do this, it is convenient to introduce a complex variable $`t=i\tau `$ in Eq.(58), so that the integral over $`\tau `$ is represented by the contour 1 on Fig.5a. The Green function (60) as a function of $`t=i\tau `$ has poles and branch cuts only along the lines $`t=i\beta n,`$ where $`n`$ is an integer. Therefore the integral along the contour 1 is equal to the integrals over contours 2 and 3 (Fig. 5b). Shifting the contour 2 on $`i\beta `$ (this can be done because $`G^2(x,t+i\beta )=G^2(x,t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an even Matsubara frequency) we represent the conductivity as an integral over contour 4 (Fig 5c). At this step we can make an analytical continuation $`\mathrm{\Omega }i\omega ,`$ because the integral over $`t`$ runs over real negative values. After the analytical continuation is done, it is convenient do deform the contour 4 into contour 5 (Fig 5d). One can see that the integrals over parts of the counter 5 that are parallel to the real axis determine the real part of conductivity

$$\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )=\frac{2a_ye^2t_{}^2T^2(\pi Ta_x)^{2\eta }}{\omega }_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑t𝑑xe^{i\omega t}$$

$$\times \frac{[\mathrm{cosh}[(x+t)\pi T]\mathrm{cosh}[(xt)\pi T]]^\eta }{\mathrm{cosh}^2[(x+t)\pi T]}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\omega }{2T}.$$
(110)
The part of the contour integral 5 which is along the imaginary axis gives the imaginary part

$`\sigma _{yy}^{\prime \prime (0)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{a_ye^2t_{}^2T^2(\pi Ta_x)^{2\eta }}{\omega }}{\displaystyle _{\beta /2}^{\beta /2}}𝑑t{\displaystyle 𝑑x}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{sinh}[(x+it)\pi T]\mathrm{sinh}[(xit)\pi T]]^\eta }{\mathrm{sinh}^2[(x+it)\pi T]}}(e^{\omega t}1).`$ (111)
The integral over t in Eq.(110) can be extended to run from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ because the expression under the integral is even in $`t.`$ After this one can take the integrals over $`x`$ and $`t`$ introducing the new variables $`xt`$ and $`x+t`$ and get the answer

$`\sigma _{yy}^{(0)}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_ye^2t_{}^2(2\pi Ta_x)^{2\eta }}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega /2T)}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{\eta }{2})^2+\frac{\omega ^2+h^2}{(4\pi T)^2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta )\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+\eta )}}`$ (112)
$`\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega +h}{4\pi T}}i\right)\right|^2\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega h}{4\pi T}}i\right)\right|^2.`$