text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the last few years, many attempts have been made by authors working in different fields to point out some characteristic properties of quantal systems whose classical analogs are chaotic \[1-4\].

In this review paper we shall focus our attention mainly on the connection between quasi-degeneracies of the energy levels of a given quantum Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ and the chaotic behavior of its classical limit.

As stressed by Berry , if a system is without symmetries then degeneracies of the energy levels are considered to be accidental. In fact, for a typical Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ representing a bound quantal system, no two of the energy levels $`E`$ will coincide. Nevertheless, if one embeds $`\widehat{H}`$ in a population smoothly parameterised by variables $`\stackrel{}{R}=(X,Y,Z,\mathrm{})`$ then degeneracies of energy levels can rise from negligible to inevitable. On the basis of Von Neumann and Wigner’s famous theorem  for typical families $`\widehat{H}(\stackrel{}{R})`$ of real Hamiltonians, two parameters are necessary to produce a degeneracy, while if $`\widehat{H}(\stackrel{}{R})`$ is Hermitian (and not real) three parameters are necessary.

A very different way of embedding a given Hamiltonian in a two-parameter family is to consider it as a member of a family labelled by a single complex parameter $`C`$ . It is possible for levels to degenerate at isolated points in $`C`$-plane, even for one-dimensional problems . But, as discussed by Berry , with a complex $`C`$ the operators are not Hermitians, the eigenvalues are not real, and at degeneracies their surfaces have a branch-point, rather than conical structure.

## 2 Quasi-Crossing and Chaos

As previously discussed, a family of generic hamiltonians $`\widehat{H}(X)`$ (real or Hermitian) depending on a single real parameter $`X`$ will not exhibit degeneracies: in the plane $`E,X`$ the eigenvalue curves $`E_n(X)`$ will not cross . Instead, the curves will display quasi-crossings (QC) whose local form (which arises from a close approach to a degeneracy in an extended parameter space) is that of a pair of hyperbolas (slices of a cone or hypercone) . Such QC are now familiar in calculations of the quantal spectra of families of classical non-integrable systems.

If the family consists of Hamiltonians $`\widehat{H}(X)`$ which are not generic, but are special in some way, then degeneracies can be expected to occur. An important case is families of separable systems. For example, in two dimensions a particle of unitary mass in a rectangular box with side ratio $`X`$ and characteristic length $`L`$ has levels labelled by quantum numbers $`m,n`$ with energies

$$E_{m,n}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2}{2L^2}(m^2+X^2n^2),$$
(1)
which can degenerate when $`X^2`$ is rational. Berry and Tabor  showed that for quantum systems whose classical analogs are integrable, the distribution $`P(s)`$ of nearest-neighbor spacings $`s_i=(\stackrel{~}{E}_{i+1}\stackrel{~}{E}_i)`$ of the unfolded levels $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$ follows the Poisson distribution

$$P(s)=\mathrm{exp}(s).$$
(2)
It means that quasi-degeneracies of energy levels have the maximal probability to occur. Instead, for multidimensional systems whose classical motion is quasi-integrable, i.e. perturbation of integrable systems, Berry  suggested that multiple QC in the quantal spectrum are associated with classical chaos. In this case, the probability of quasi-degeneracies is zero, thus there is level repulsion, and $`P(s)`$ is quite well reproduced by

$$P(s)=\frac{\pi }{2}s\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\pi }{4}s^2),$$
(3)
which is the so-called Wigner distribution .

Note that, the early idea of separating the spectrum of energy levels in regular and chaotic components was proposed by Percival . Moroverer, in general, multiple QC are not always associated with classical chaos. In fact, in pseudo-integrable systems (rational billiards), all trajectories are confined to $`N`$-dimensional invariant surfaces (multiple-handled spheres rather than tori) and there is no chaos in the sense of exponential separation. Nevertheless, Richens and Berry  found multiple QC in the spectrum of a family of such systems. Isolated QC can occur even in integrable systems, for example in the double-well potential.

The research field on quasi-crossings and their connection with quantum chaos is very wide. For reasons of space, in the next sections we focus our attention only on a few selected examples taken from molecular, nuclear and particle physics.

## 3 Molecular Spectroscopy

In the field of molecular spectroscopy, Marcus \[13-15\] studied the semiclassical eigenvalues of the Hènon-Heiles Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(p_x^2+p_y^2+w_x^2x^2+w_y^2y^2\right)+\lambda x(y^2+\eta x^2),$$
(4)
with coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$, momenta $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$, and $`w_x`$ and $`w_y`$ incommensurable frequencies. $`\lambda `$ and $`\eta `$ are real parameters. A typical classical trajectory is given in Fig. 1. On the ellipse, the potential energy equals the total energy. As shown by Marcus \[13-15\], within the region ABCD, the corresponding quantum mechanical wave function is large and oscillatory, while, outside that region, it dies away exponentially with distance. By calculating $`\stackrel{}{p}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}`$ along the curves AB and BC, setting them equal to $`(n_x+1/2)\mathrm{}`$ and $`(n_y+1/2)\mathrm{}`$ respectively, semiclassical eigenvalues were calculated \[13-15\]. The agreement with the quantum mechanical eigenvalues is excellent.

Marcus  also discussed in great detail the difference between a statistical and non statistical wave function: “A statistical (stochastic) wavefunction is described as one that yields averages for dynamical quantities that are approximately equal to their microcanonical averages at the energy: when the states are sufficiently dense, a microcanonical average can be computed by averaging over all quantum states in a small interval $`(E,E+\delta E)`$. For large enough quantum numbers, the classical microcanonical average could also be used for comparison. A nonstatistical wavefunction corresponds semiclassically to an invariant torus when the latter exists, and would yield, instead, an average approximately equal to the classical average over that torus.”

A statistical wavefunction could arise in the following way. One assumes that, in the absence of QC, the principal effect of the perturbation $`\lambda `$ is to distort the shape and extent of the region largely occupied by the wavefunction, but not to otherwise change it drastically. In that case, if one plots the eigenvalues versus some perturbation parameter (e.g. $`\lambda `$ in equation (4)) and there is no QC, then each state would have a nonstatistical eigenfunction. If, however, two such eigenvalues approach each other and then repel as the perturbation parameter is increased, one has a QC. Such QC of two energy levels does not yet convey a statistical character on each of the two wavefunctions. Rather, in the vicinity of the QC, each wavefunction has some of the characteristics of the two wavefunctions that would have arisen had the QC not occurred. A QC (see Fig. 2) is an analogue of an isolated classical resonance: a vibrational frequency, which corresponds semiclassically to a difference of eigenvalues, becomes nearly zero in the vicinity of the quasi crossing, as it does in the classical case.

As pointed out by Marcus , one way of obtaining a statistical wavefunction is to have many overlapping QC, an analogue of overlapping resonances in the classical case. An example of multiple QC is given in Fig. 3.

In classical mechanics, a generic Hamiltonian written in action-angle variable $`(\stackrel{}{J},\stackrel{}{\theta })`$ is given by

$$H(\stackrel{}{J},\stackrel{}{\theta })=H_0(\stackrel{}{J})+\lambda V(\stackrel{}{J},\stackrel{}{\theta }),$$
(5)
where $`H_0`$ is the integrable part and $`\lambda V(\stackrel{}{J},\stackrel{}{\theta })`$ a perturbation. A resonance occurs when there is some value $`\stackrel{}{J}^{}`$ of $`\stackrel{}{J}`$, such that one finds

$$\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{\omega }(\stackrel{}{J}^{})=0,$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{}{\omega }=H_0/\stackrel{}{J}`$. The resonance is an isolated resonance when one needs to consider only one set of integers $`m_i`$ for which the previous condition holds. In this case, one also recalls that the Hamiltonian is integrable (even when multiples of $`m`$ are included); a canonical transformation to new variables $`(\stackrel{}{I},\stackrel{}{\varphi })`$ can be introduced such that the Hamiltonian is a function only of the new action variables $`\stackrel{}{I}`$. For small $`\lambda `$, one can make a 2nd order Taylor expansion about the resonant action variable to obtain an approximate Hamiltionian. This Hamiltonian has the form of the pendulum Hamiltonian, for which one finds librations and rotations, divided by the separatrix. Following Chirikov , the onset of widespread chaos begins when two or more resonance regions overlap, thus when two or more separatices cross. By performing the semiclassical quantization (Bohr-Sommerfeld) of the classical Hamiltonian, one can determine librational and rotational energy levels. The semiclassical effect of the crossing of separarices is the crossing of semiclassical energy levels that are close to the separatix. In actual fact, quantum mechanically one finds only quasi-crossing because of the previously discussed theorem of Von Neumann and Wigner  on quantum degeneracies.

## 4 Nuclear Models

### 4.1 ZVW Model

Various properties of nuclear spectra can be described by an ensemble of random matrices, for example the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble . However, realistic Hamiltonians of atomic nuclei contain a large regular part, that takes into account shell structure. Zirnbauer, Verbaaschot and Weidenmuller , using the Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}(\lambda )=\widehat{H}_0+\lambda \widehat{V}_{GOE},$$
(7)
studied the competition between order as induced by $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and chaos characteristic of situations where the random part of the interaction $`\widehat{V}_{GOE}`$ dominates. In practice, they took a diagonal $`\widehat{H}_0`$ with equally spaced eigenvalues, but they stress that their conclusions are valid irrespective of the special choice for $`\widehat{H}_0`$. In particular, they found complete mixing of eigenstates whenever the norm of $`\lambda \widehat{V}_{GOE}`$ is comparable or greater than the norm of $`\widehat{H}_0`$. Moreover, they studied the distribution of ”branch points”, defined as the complex values of $`\lambda `$ for which two eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian (7) coincide. The branch points $`\lambda `$ of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ are the solutions of the system

$$det(E\widehat{H}(\lambda ))=0,$$

$$\frac{}{E}det(E\widehat{H}(\lambda ))=0.$$
(8)
On the real $`\lambda `$-axis, the branch points are observable as quasi-crossings of two eigenvalues of $`\widehat{H}(\lambda )`$. (As discussed in the introduction, according to the theorem of ref. , no branch points can occur for real values of $`\lambda `$.) If $`\lambda `$ is large enough, one passes a large number of QC and, as a result, the wave functions become more and more mixed. The main conclusion of the author of  is that the distribution of branch points, namely the distribution of QC for real values of $`\lambda `$, is strongly peaked at $`\lambda 1`$: for this value of $`\lambda `$ the GOE term begins to dominate over the regular term $`\widehat{H}_0`$. For larger values of $`\lambda `$ the distribution of branch points decreases and eventually goes to zero.

### 4.2 LMG Model

Another example, taken from nuclear physics, is the three-level Lipkin-Mashow-Glick (LMG) model , whose quantum Hamiltonian is

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{2}{}}ϵ_k\widehat{G}_{kk}\frac{V}{2}\underset{kl=0}{\overset{2}{}}\widehat{G}_{kl}^2,$$
(9)
where

$$\widehat{G}_{kl}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}\widehat{a}_{km}^+\widehat{a}_{lm}$$
(10)
are the generators of the SU(3) group. This model describes $`M`$ identical particles in three, $`M`$-fold degenerate, single-particle levels $`ϵ_i`$. Like the authors of refs. , we assume $`ϵ_2=ϵ_0=ϵ=1`$, $`ϵ_1=0`$, a vanishing interaction for particles in the same level and an equal interaction for particles in different levels. For the SU(3) model a semi-quantal Hamiltonian can be defined as

$$H(p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2;M)=<q_1p_1,q_2p_2;M|\frac{\widehat{H}}{M}|q_1p_1,q_2p_2;M>,$$
(11)
where $`|q_1p_1,q_2p_2;M>`$ is the coherent state, given by:

$$|q_1p_1,q_2p_2;M>=\mathrm{exp}[z_1G_{01}+z_2G_{02}]|00>,$$
(12)
with:

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2M}}(q_k+ip_k)=\frac{z_k}{\sqrt{1+z_1^{}z_1+z_2^{}z_2}},k=1,2$$
(13)
and $`|00>=\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^Ma_{0k}^+|0>`$ is the ground state. Here $`1/M`$ plays the role of the Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$.

As discussed in great detail in \[20-25\], the classical Hamiltonian can be obtained in the thermodynamic limit

$$H_{cl}=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}H(p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2;M)=$$

$$1+\frac{1}{2}(p_1^2+q_1^2)+(p_2^2+q_2^2)+\frac{1}{4}\chi [(q_1^2+q_2^2)^2(p_1^2+p_2^2)^2$$

$$(q_1^2p_1^2)(q_2^2p_2^2)4q_1q_2p_1p_22(q_1^2+q_2^2p_1^2p_2^2)],$$
(14)
with $`\chi =MV/ϵ`$. The phase space has been scaled to give $`(q_1^2+q_2^2+p_1^2+p_2^2)2`$.

In order to analyze the stability of the system, we calculated the periodic orbits of this model using Hamilton’s equation of the classical Hamiltonian . Such equations can be written as

$$\dot{\stackrel{}{x}}=J\stackrel{}{}H_{cl}(\stackrel{}{x},\chi ),$$
(15)
where

$$\stackrel{}{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=(q_1,q_2,p_1,p_2),\stackrel{}{}=(\frac{}{q_1},\frac{}{q_2},\frac{}{p_1},\frac{}{p_2})$$
(16)
and $`J`$ is the $`4\times 4`$ symplectic matrix

$$J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I_2\\ I_2& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
where $`I_2`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix. In terms of the stability matrix $`S(t)`$, defined in the usual way

$$S_{ij}(t)=\frac{x_i(t)}{x_j(0)},$$
(18)
the largest Lyapunov exponent can be written as

$$\lambda (\stackrel{}{x})=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{t}\mathrm{log}|S(t)|,$$
(19)
where $`|S(t)|`$ is the norm of the matrix $`S(t)`$. This matrix can be calculated by solving its equations of motion:

$$\dot{S}(t)=J\frac{^2H(\stackrel{}{x})}{x^2}S(t),$$
(20)
with the initial conditions

$$S(0)=I,$$
(21)
where $`I`$ is the $`4\times 4`$ identity matrix. The calculation of the full set of Lyapunov exponents is related to that of the eigenvalues $`\sigma _i`$ of the matrix $`S(T)`$, with $`T`$ the period of the periodic orbit:

$$\lambda _i(\stackrel{}{x})=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{T}\mathrm{log}\sigma _i.$$
(22)
Using the unitarity nature of $`S`$, a periodic orbit is unstable if

$$Tr(S)>4\text{or}Tr(S)<0,$$
(23)
and stable if

$$0<Tr(S)<4.$$
(24)
It is interesting to study the change in stability of periodic trajectories as a function of the coupling constant $`\chi `$. In Fig. 4 the ratio between the number of stable periodic orbits and the number of total orbits with period $`T<30`$ is plotted versus $`\chi `$. For the coupling constant $`\chi (0,3]`$, $`T_{min}3`$, as shown in Ref. . As can be seen, the sensitivity of the orbits to a small change of $`\chi `$ is quite different for different values of $`\chi `$, reflecting the transition order-chaos as the coupling constant increases. For the sake of completeness, in Fig. 5 the density $`\rho (\omega )`$ of the periodic orbits is shown as a function of the frequency $`\omega =2\pi /T`$. Like the power spectrum, $`\rho (\omega )`$ presents few peaks in the integrable or quasi-integrable region and a quasi-continuum spectrum in the chaotic region.

In order to apply the quantal criteria to our system, the eigenvalues of Hamiltonian (9) must be calculated. A natural basis can be written $`|bc`$, meaning $`b`$ particles in the second single-particle level, $`c`$ in the third and, of course, $`Mbc`$ in the first level. In this way $`|00`$ is the ground state with all the particles in the lowest level. We can write the basis states as

$$|bc=\left(\frac{1}{b!c!}\right)^{1/2}\widehat{G}_{21}^b\widehat{G}_{31}^c|00,$$
(25)
where $`(1/b!c!)^{1/2}`$ is the normalizing constant.

From the commutation relation of $`G_{kl}`$ we can calculate expectation values of $`\widehat{H}/M`$ and thus, eigenvalues and eigenstates of $`\widehat{H}/M`$. In this way the energy spectrum range is independent of the number of particles:

$$b^{}c^{}|\frac{\widehat{H}}{M}|bc=\frac{1}{M}(M+b+2c)\delta _{bb^{}}\delta _{cc^{}}\frac{\chi }{2M^2}Q_{b^{}c^{},bc},$$
(26)
where

$$Q_{bc,b^{}c^{}}=\sqrt{b(b1)(Mbc+1)(Mbc+2)}\delta _{b2,b^{}}\delta _{cc^{}}$$
(27)
$$+\sqrt{(b+1)(b+2)(Mbc)(Mbc1)}\delta _{b+2,b^{}}\delta _{cc^{}}$$

$$+\sqrt{c(c1)(Mbc+1)(Mbc+2)}\delta _{b,b^{}}\delta _{c2,c^{}}$$

$$+\sqrt{(c+1)(c+2)(Mbc)(Mbc1)}\delta _{b,b^{}}\delta _{c+2,c^{}}$$

$$+\sqrt{(b+1)(b+2)c(c1)}\delta _{b+2,b^{}}\delta _{c2,c^{}}$$

$$+\sqrt{b(b1)(c+1)(c+2)}\delta _{b2,b^{}}\delta _{c+2,c^{}}.$$

The expectation values $`\widehat{H}/M`$ are real and symmetric. For any given number of particles $`M`$, we can set up the complete basis state, calculate the matrix elements of $`\widehat{H}/M`$, and then diagonalize $`\widehat{H}/M`$ to find its eigenvalues. $`\widehat{H}/M`$ connects states with $`\mathrm{\Delta }b=2,0,2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }c=2,0,2`$ only, which simplifies matters. States with $`b,c`$ even; $`b,c`$ odd; $`b`$ even and $`c`$ odd; $`b`$ odd and $`c`$ even are grouped together. Thus $`\widehat{H}/M`$ becomes block diagonal, containing four blocks that can be diagonalized separately; these matrices are referred to as $`ee`$, $`oo`$, $`oe`$ and $`eo`$. When the parameter $`\chi =0`$, the Hamiltonian consists of two oscillators and there are many degeneracies, but for $`\chi 0`$ these degeneracies are obviously broken (see Fig.6). For a large number of particles (semiclassical limit), we calculated the density of quasicrossings outside the degeneracy region as a function of the parameter $`\chi `$ (see Fig. 7):

$$\rho (\chi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N}{\mathrm{\Delta }\chi },$$
(28)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ is the number of quasicrossing in the parameter range $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi =0.01`$. To obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ we fixed three values $`\chi \mathrm{\Delta }\chi `$, $`\chi `$ and $`\chi +\mathrm{\Delta }\chi `$ and imposed that

$$s_i(\chi \mathrm{\Delta }\chi )>s_i(\chi ),s_i(\chi +\mathrm{\Delta }\chi )>s_i(\chi ),$$
(29)
where $`s_i(\chi )=E_{i+1}(\chi )E_i(\chi )`$. The results (Fig. 8) show a maximum of quasicrossings for $`\chi =2`$ for all classes, in agreement with the transition to chaos of Fig. 9.

In order to study the sensitivity of energy levels to small changes of the parameter $`\chi `$ we used the statistics $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(E)`$ defined in the usual way

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2(E)=|E_i(\chi +\mathrm{\Delta }\chi )+E_i(\chi \mathrm{\Delta }\chi )2E_i(\chi )|,$$
(30)
which measures the curvature of $`E_i`$ in a small range $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi `$. To remove the secular variation of the level density, each spectrum was mapped into one which has a constant level density by a numerical procedure described in Ref. . Fig. 8 shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(E)`$ for different values of $`\chi `$; we note that the maximum value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(E)`$ corresponds to the $`\chi =2`$ value.

In conclusion, in the study of the transition from order to chaos, there is, in agreement with the authors of  and , a good correspondence between the classical approach, based on the stability matrix and Lyapunov exponents, and the quantal one, based on the quasicrossing distribution and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(E)`$ statistics.

For the sake of completeness in Fig. 9 the distribution $`P(s)`$ of spacings $`s`$ between adjacent levels for the $`eo`$ class (nearest-neighbor spacing distribution) has been calculated and compared to the Brody distribution :

$$P(s)=\alpha (q+1)s^q\mathrm{exp}(\alpha s^{q+1}),$$
(31)
with

$$\alpha =\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{q+2}{q+1}\right)\right)^{q+1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}q1,$$
(32)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the factorial function. This distribution interpolates between the Poisson distribution ($`q=0`$) and the Wigner distribution ($`q=1`$). As can be seen from Fig. 11, this statistic also confirms the smooth transition from the regular to the chaotic regime discussed in the papers .

## 5 Particle Physics and Field Theory

In this section we apply a quantal analog  of the Chirikov resonance criterion  to study the suppression of classical chaos in the spatially homogenous SU(2) Yang-Mills-Higgs (YMH) system \[29-33\]. The quantal Chirikov criterion means that one applies the semiclassical quantization to calculate the critical value of the parameters corresponding to the intersection of two neighboring quantal separatrices.

The SU(2) YMH system describes a Higgs scalar field $`\varphi `$, coupled to the Yang-Mills vector fields $`A_\beta ^a`$, $`a=1,2,3`$. The Yang-Mills fields are the gauge fields of the SU(2) group . The Higgs field has the familiar sombrero-shaped potential

$$V(\varphi )=\mu ^2|\varphi |^2+\lambda |\varphi |^4.$$
(33)
The SU(2) YMH system is a simplified version of the scalar QCD, which requires the SU(3) group and $`8`$ Yang-Mills vector fields . Nevertheless, the equations of motion of the SU(2) YMH system are complex and strongly nonlinear. Some simplifications can be made by working in the (2+1)-dimensional Minkowski space ($`\beta =0,1,2`$) and choosing spatially homogenous Yang-Mills and the Higgs fields. Thus, one considers the system in the region where space fluctuations of fields are negligible compared to their time fluctuations \[29-33\]. In the gauge $`A_0^a=0`$ and using the real triplet representation for the Higgs field, the Hamiltonian of the system becomes

$$H=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{\stackrel{}{A}_1}^2+\dot{\stackrel{}{A}_2}^2)+\dot{\stackrel{}{\varphi }}^2+g^2[\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{A}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{A}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{A}_1\stackrel{}{A}_2)^2+$$

$$+(\stackrel{}{A}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{}{A}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\stackrel{}{\varphi }^2(\stackrel{}{A}_1\stackrel{}{\varphi })^2(\stackrel{}{A}_2\stackrel{}{\varphi })^2]+V(\stackrel{}{\varphi }),$$
(34)
where $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(\varphi ^1,\varphi ^2,\varphi ^3)`$, $`\stackrel{}{A}_1=(A_1^1,A_1^2,A_1^3)`$, and $`\stackrel{}{A}_2=(A_2^1,A_2^2,A_2^3)`$.

When $`\mu ^2>0`$ the potential $`V`$ has a minimum in $`|\stackrel{}{\varphi }|=0`$, but for $`\mu ^2<0`$ the minimum is:

$$|\stackrel{}{\varphi }_0|=(\frac{\mu ^2}{4\lambda })^{\frac{1}{2}}=v$$

which is the non zero Higgs vacuum. This vacuum is degenerate and after spontaneous symmetry breaking, the physical vacuum can be chosen $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_0=(0,0,v)`$. If $`A_1^1=q_1`$, $`A_2^2=q_2`$, and the other components of the Yang-Mills fields are zero, in the Higgs vacuum the Hamiltonian of the system is:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}(p_1^2+p_2^2)+g^2v^2(q_1^2+q_2^2)+\frac{1}{2}g^2q_1^2q_2^2,$$
(35)
where $`p_1=\dot{q}_1`$ and $`p_2=\dot{q}_2`$. Obviously $`w^2=2g^2v^2`$ is the mass term of the Yang-Mills fields.

Classical chaos was demonstrated in a pure Yang-Mills system , i.e. in a zero Higgs vacuum. The effect of a non zero Higgs vacuum can be analyzed by using the quantal analog of the Chirikov criterion . We introduce the action-angle variables by the canonical transformation

$$q_i=(\frac{2I_i}{\omega })^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _i,p_i=(2I_i\omega )^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _i,i=1,2.$$
(36)
The hamiltonian becomes

$$H=(I_1+I_2)\omega +\frac{1}{v^2}I_1I_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2.$$
(37)
By the new canonical transformation into slow and fast variables:

$$A_1=I_1+I_2,A_2=I_1I_2,$$

$$\theta _1=\chi _1+\chi _2,\theta _2=\chi _1\chi _2,$$
(38)
$`H`$ can be written:

$$H=A_1\omega +\frac{1}{4v^2}(A_1^2A_2^2)\mathrm{cos}^2(\chi _1+\chi _2)\mathrm{cos}^2(\chi _1\chi _2).$$
(39)
We now eliminate the dependence on the angles to the order $`1/v^4`$ by resonant canonical perturbation theory . First we average on the fast variable $`\chi _1`$. This yields

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\chi _1\mathrm{cos}^2(\chi _1+\chi _2)\mathrm{cos}^2(\chi _1\chi _2)=\frac{1}{8}(2+\mathrm{cos}4\chi _2),$$
(40)
and

$$\overline{H}_{cl}=A_1\omega +\frac{1}{32v^2}(A_1^2A_2^2)(2+\mathrm{cos}4\chi _2).$$
(41)
The dependence on $`\chi _2`$ is now eliminated by a second canonical transformation. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the perturbation part is

$`[A_1^2({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\chi _2}})^2](2+\mathrm{cos}4\chi _2)=K,`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\chi _2}}=\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{A_1^2(2+\mathrm{cos}4\chi _2)K}{2+\mathrm{cos}4\chi _2}}}.`$ (43)
and thus the Hamiltonian becomes

$$\overline{H}=B_1+\frac{1}{32v^2}K(B_1,B_2),$$
(44)
where

$$B_1=A_1,B_2=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\chi _2\frac{S}{\chi _2}.$$
(45)
It appears from the structure of this equation that the motion of our system is similar to that of a simple pendulum: for $`0<K<B_1^2`$ rotational motion, for $`K=B_1^2`$ separatrix, and for $`B_1^2<K<3B_1^2`$ librational motion. On the separatrix we have $`B_1^2(2+\mathrm{cos}4\chi _2)=K`$, and:

$$B_2=\pm \frac{2}{\pi }_a^b𝑑x\sqrt{\frac{B_1^2(2+\mathrm{cos}4x)K}{2+\mathrm{cos}4x}},$$
(46)
where $`a=\frac{\pi }{4}`$, $`b=\frac{\pi }{4}`$ for rotational motion, and $`a=\varphi _{}(K,B_1)`$, $`b=\varphi _+(K,B_1)`$ for librational motion, with:

$$\varphi _\pm (K,B_1)=\pm \frac{1}{4}\mathrm{arccos}(\frac{K}{B_1^2}2).$$
(47)
The appearance of a separatrix (which is not immediately obvious in the $`(p,q)`$ coordinates) accounts, as is well known, for the stochastic layers originating near it . This corresponds to local irregular behavior of the quantum spectrum; one of its manifestations is the local shrinking of the level spacing and the tendency to avoided crossings . Note that the resonant perturbation theory of Hamiltonian (35) can be quite easily extended also to the second order (see ).

The approximate Hamiltonian depends only on the actions so that a semiclassical quantization formula can be obtained by the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization rules . Set $`B_1=m_1\mathrm{}`$ and $`B_2=m_2\mathrm{}`$, then, up to terms of order $`\mathrm{}`$, the quantum spectrum is

$$E_{m_1,m_2}=m_1\mathrm{}\omega +\frac{1}{32v^2}K(m_1\mathrm{},m_2\mathrm{}),$$
(48)
where $`K`$ is implicitly defined by the relation

$$m_2\mathrm{}=\pm \frac{2}{\pi }_a^b𝑑x\sqrt{\frac{(m_1\mathrm{})^2(2+\mathrm{cos}4x)K}{2+\mathrm{cos}4x}},$$
(49)
with $`a=\frac{\pi }{4}`$, $`b=\frac{\pi }{4}`$ for $`0<K<(m_1\mathrm{})^2`$, and $`a=\varphi _{}(K,B_1)`$, $`b=\varphi _+(K,B_1)`$ for $`(m_1\mathrm{})^2<K<3(m_1\mathrm{})^2`$.

On the separatrix, where $`K=(m_1\mathrm{})^2`$, $`m_2=\pm \alpha m_1`$, with:

$$\alpha =\frac{2}{\pi }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^{\frac{\pi }{4}}𝑑x\sqrt{\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}4x}{2+\mathrm{cos}4x}}.$$
(50)
It is clear that for $`m_1`$ fixed, the function $`K`$, and hence the semiclassical energy $`E_{m_1,m_2}`$, is a decreasing function of the secondary quantum number $`m_2`$, and we have a quantum multiplet . We can calculate the value of the coupling constant $`1/v^2`$ corresponding to the intersection of the separatrices of two neighboring quantum multiplets

$$(m_1+1)\mathrm{}\omega +\frac{1}{32v^2}K[(m_1+1)\mathrm{},\alpha (m_1+1)\mathrm{}]=m_1\mathrm{}\omega +\frac{1}{32v^2}K(m_1\mathrm{},\alpha m_1\mathrm{}),$$
(51)
and so

$$\frac{1}{v^2}=\frac{32\mathrm{}\omega }{K[(m_1+1)\mathrm{},\alpha (m_1+1)\mathrm{}]K(m_1\mathrm{},\alpha m_1\mathrm{})}.$$
(52)
In this way, we have the quantal counterpart  of the method of overlapping resonances developed by Chirikov . The denominator can be evaluated by the Taylor expansion and finally

$$\frac{1}{v^2}=\left[\frac{8\omega }{\frac{K}{B_1}\alpha \frac{K}{B_2}}\right]_{B_1=m_1\mathrm{},B_2=\alpha m_2\mathrm{}}.$$
(53)
K is implicitly defined by the relation

$$F[B_1,B_2,K(B_1,B_2)]=B_2\frac{\pi }{2}_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^{\frac{\pi }{4}}𝑑x\sqrt{\frac{B_1^2(2+\mathrm{cos}4x)K}{2+\mathrm{cos}4x}}=0,$$
(54)
or

$$F(B_1,B_2,K)=B_2\mathrm{\Phi }(B_1,K)=0.$$
(55)
As a function of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`1/v^2`$ can be written:

$$\frac{1}{v^2}=\underset{KB_1^2}{lim}\left[\frac{8\omega \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{K}}{\alpha \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{B_1}}\right]_{B_1=m_1\mathrm{}},$$
(56)
where

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{K}=\frac{1}{\pi }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^{\frac{\pi }{4}}𝑑x\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2+\mathrm{cos}4x)[B_1^2(2+\mathrm{cos}4x)K]}}$$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{B_1}=\frac{2}{\pi }_{\frac{\pi }{4}}^{\frac{\pi }{4}}𝑑x\sqrt{\frac{B_1^2(2+\mathrm{cos}4x)}{B_1^2(2+\mathrm{cos}4x)K}}.$$
(57)
The result is

$$\frac{1}{v^2}=\frac{16\omega }{m_1\mathrm{}},$$
(58)
where $`m_1\mathrm{}E`$ (the energy of the system) and $`\omega =(2v^2g^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Therefore the chaos-order transition depends on the parameter $`\lambda =v^3g/E`$: if $`0<\lambda <\sqrt{2}/32`$, a relevant region of the phase-space is chaotic, but if $`\lambda >\sqrt{2}/32`$ the system becomes regular. This result shows that the value of the Higgs field in the vacuum $`v`$ plays an important role. The system is regular for large values of $`v`$ in agreement with numerical calculations  and the Toda Criterion of negative Gaussian curvature . The Yang-Mills coupling constant $`g`$ has the same role. Instead, if $`v`$ and $`g`$ are fixed there is an order-chaos transition increasing the energy $`E`$.

In conclusion, we have shown that, for the spatially homogenous SU(2) YMH system, the quantum resonance criterion, which describes the onset of widespread chaos associated to semiclassical crossing between separatices of different quantum multiplets, gives an analytical estimation of the classical chaos-order transition as a function of the Higgs vacuum, the Yang-Mills coupling constant and the energy of the system.

## 6 Conclusions

It is important to stress that multiple quasi-crossings are not associated with classical chaos, but simply with the onset of chaos. Although, the results of Marcus are not conclusive, those of Weidenmuller and our own suggest this conclusion. Note that the Chirikov criterion gives a qualitative picture of the transition to chaos, as well as its quantal analog. The semiclassical quantization of fully chaotic systems must be performed by using a path integral technique. Instead, the results we have presented are based on the torus quantization of approximate classical Hamiltonians, which are obtained by means of a perturbative approach.

## References

1. M.C. Gutzwiller, Chaos in Classical and Quantum Mechanics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990).

2. A.M. Ozorio de Almeida, Hamiltonian Systems: Chaos and Quantization (Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1990).

3. M.T. Lopez-Arias, V.R. Manfredi and L. Salasnich, Rivista del Nuovo Cimento, vol. 17, n. 5 (1994).

4. V.R. Manfredi and L. Salasnich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 13, 2343 (1999).

5. M.V. Berry, in Chaotic Behavior in Quantum Systems, Ed. G. Casati, NATO ASI Series B: Physics 120 (Plenum Press, New York, 1985).

6. J. Von Neumann and E. Wigner, Phys. Z. 30, 467 (1929).

7. M.V. Berry and M. Wilkinson, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 392, 15 (1984).

8. C.M. Bender and S.A. Orszag, Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers (Mc Grow-Hill, New York, 1978).

9. M.V. Berry and M. Tabor, J. Phys. A 10, 371 (1977).

10. O. Bohigas, M.J. Gannoni and C. Schmit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1 (1884).

11. I.C. Percival, Adv. Chem. Phys. 36, 1 (1977).

12. P.J. Richens and M. Berry, Physica D 1, 495 (1981).

13. R.A. Marcus, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 357, 169 (1980).

14. D.W. Noid, M.L. Koszykowski, M. Tabor and R.A. Marcus, J. Chem. Phys. 72, 6169 (1980).

15. R. Ramaswamy and R.A. Marcus, J. Chem. Phys. 74, 1385 (1981).

16. M. Hènon and C. Heiles, Astr. J. 69, 73 (1964).

17. B.V. Chirikov, Phys. Rep. 52, 265 (1979).

18. M.L. Mehta, Random Matrices and the Statistical Theory of Energy levels (Academic Press, New York, 1967).

19. H.R. Zirnbauer, J.J.M. Verbaarschot and H.A. Weidenmuller, Nucl. Phys. A 411, 161 (1983).

20. R. Williams and S. Koonin, Nucl. Phys. A 391, 72 (1982).

21. D. Meredith, S. Koonin and M. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. A 37, 3499 (1988).

22. V.R. Manfredi and L. Salasnich, Z. Phys. A 343, 1 (1992).

23. L. Demattè, V.R. Manfredi and L. Salasnich, in From Classical to Quantum Chaos, Ed. G.F. Dell’Antonio, S. Fantoni and V.R. Manfredi, SIF Conference Proceedings 41, pp. 111 (Editrice Compositori, Bologna, 1993).

24. V.R. Manfredi, L. Salasnich and L. Dematte, Phys. Rev. E 47, 4556 (1993).

25. V.R. Manfredi and L. Salasnich, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 9, 3219 (1995).

26. V.R. Manfredi, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 40, 135 (1984).

27. T.A. Brody, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 7, 482 (1973).

28. S. Graffi, T. Paul, H.J. Silverstone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 255 (1987).

29. G. K. Savvidy: Phys. Lett. B 130, 303 (1983).

30. L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. D 52, 6189 (1995).

31. L. Salasnich, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 1473 (1997).

32. L. Salasnich, Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 61, 1878 (1998).

33. L. Salasnich, J. Math. Phys. 40, 4429 (1999).

34. S. Graffi, V. R. Manfredi, L. Salasnich: Mod. Phys. Lett. B 7, 747 (1995).

35. A. J. Lichtenberg, M. A. Lieberman, Regular and Stochastic Motion (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983).

36. L. Salasnich, Meccanica 33, 397 (1998).

## Figure Captions

Figure 1: A trajectory of Hamiltonian (4) with $`w_x`$ and $`w_y`$ incommensurable (adapted from Ref. 13).
Figure 2: An example of a QC of two pairs of quantum states of the same symmetry, in a plot of eigenvalue $`E`$ versus changes in the parameter $`\lambda `$ for the Hènon-Heiles system. Also given is an actual crossing of states ($`12,\pm 12`$) (split) with ($`13,\pm 5`$) – an allowed crossing, since these two pairs of states are of different symmetry (adapted from Ref. 13).
Figure 3: An example of overlapping QC. Plot of eigenvalues vs parameter $`k_{122}`$ in the Hamiltonian $`H=1/2(p_x^2+p_y^2+p_z^2+w_xx^2+w_yy^2+w_zz^2)+k_{122}xy^2+k_{133}xz^2+k_{233}yz^2+k_{111}x^3+k_{222}y^3+k_{1122}x^2y^2+k_{2233}y^2z^2`$, with $`w_x:w_y:w_z=2:1:1`$. Only eigenvalues for eigenfunctions even in $`y`$ are plotted. The absence of hidden symmetries (producing actual crossings) was assumed in joining the points (adapted from Ref. 13).
Figure 4: Ratio between the number of stable periodic orbits and the number of total periodic orbits vs $`\chi `$, with $`T<30`$; $`T_{min}3`$ (adapted from Ref. 22).
Figure 5: The density of the periodic orbits in different regions: (a) $`\chi =2`$ and $`E<1`$; (b) $`\chi =2`$ and $`E>1`$; (c) $`\chi =100`$ and $`E<28`$; (d) $`\chi =100`$ and $`28<E<25`$ (adapted from Ref. 23).
Figure 6: A group of $`40`$ energy levels as a function of the parameter $`\chi `$ for the $`eo`$ class (adapted from Ref. 23).
Figure 7: Density of quasicrossings vs $`\chi `$ for all classes (adapted from Ref. 24).
Figure 8: $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2(E)`$ vs $`E`$ for different values of $`\chi `$ for the $`eo`$ class; $`M=102`$; (a) $`\chi =0.5`$, (b) $`\chi =2`$; (c) $`\chi =3`$, (d) $`\chi =5`$ (adapted from Ref. 23).
Figure 9: $`P(s)`$ vs $`s`$ for different values of $`\chi `$ for the the $`eo`$ class; $`M=102`$; (a) $`\chi =0.5`$, (b) $`\chi =2`$; (c) $`\chi =3`$ (adapted from Ref. 24).


format: text

text:
# Charge Pumping and Photovoltaic effect in Open Quantum Dots.

## I Introduction

Adiabatic charge pumping through open quantum dots was studied recently in the literature both theoretically  and experimentally . Such pumping occurs in a system described by a Hamiltonian periodic in time with a period $`T_\mathrm{p}`$ larger than all other characteristic time scales of the system. After one period, the system returns to its initial form; however charge $`Q`$ can be transmitted through a cross–section of the system:

$$Q=I_{\mathrm{DC}}T_\mathrm{p}=_0^{T_\mathrm{p}}I(t)𝑑t,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes quantum mechanical and thermodynamic averaging.

To obtain a finite transmitted charge at low frequencies, the Hamiltonian should depend on at least two parameters. In Refs. the time dependence of the Hamiltonian was replaced by a dependence on parameters and the system was considered quasistationary for each parameter value. The transported charge during one period of the Hamiltonian was calculated as an integral in the parameter space. The theory  shed some light on the recent experiments , namely on the amplitude dependence of the root mean square fluctuations of the transmitted charge, averaged over different realizations of the Hamiltonian.

A very similar phenomenon was considered previously by Falko and Khmelnitskii, who theoretically studied the photovoltaic effect in mesoscopic microjunctions . The experimental observation is described in Ref. . The photovoltaic effect is a generation of d.c.-current by radiation of a finite frequency. (It is obvious that this effect can only be non–linear in the oscillating field.) The bilinear regime of adiabatic pumping,  is precisely the circular photovoltaic effect introduced in Ref.  and applied to a mesoscopic system in Ref. . The results of Ref.  are not directly applicable to quantum dots because in microjunctions the Thouless energy $`E_\mathrm{T}1/\tau _{\mathrm{erg}}`$ is of the same order as the inverse escape time $`1/\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}`$, whereas for quantum dots $`1/\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}E_\mathrm{T}`$. (Here $`\tau _{\mathrm{erg}}`$ is the characteristic time for a classical particle to cover all of the available phase space in the dot and we put $`\mathrm{}=1`$.) Therefore the considerations of Refs.  have their own physical significance. On the other hand, the theory of Ref.  is not restricted to the adiabatic regime, the results being valued in a broad interval of frequencies.

The purpose of the present work is to go beyond the adiabatic approximation for d.c.-current generation in open quantum dots. One can identify two contributions to the d.c.-current — reversible and irreversible. To make a connection with the terminology of the photovoltaic effect, used in Ref. , we consider the bilinear d.c.-current response through the dot, generated by several time-dependent perturbations $`\phi _i(t)=\phi _{i,\omega }e^{i\omega t}`$.

The direct current $`I_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ can be written at $`\omega 0`$ as

$$I_{\mathrm{DC}}=i\omega ϵ_{ij}\phi _{i,\omega }\phi _{j,\omega }^{}+\omega ^2\gamma _{ij}\phi _{i,\omega }\phi _{j,\omega }^{}+𝒪(\omega ^3),$$
(2)
where $`ϵ_{ij}`$ and $`\gamma _{ij}`$ are real sample specific coefficients. They are not fixed by any symmetry (a sample does not have any!) except the condition that $`I_{\mathrm{DC}}`$ is a real number, which gives the requirements

$$\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_{ij}=ϵ_{ji},& \gamma _{ij}=\gamma _{ji}.\end{array}$$
(3)
These relations mean that as the direction of the contour in the parameter space $`\{\phi _i(t)\}`$ is reversed ($`\phi _i(t)\phi _i(t)`$ or $`\phi _{i,\omega }\phi _{i,\omega }^{}`$), the first term changes its sign whereas the second term remains intact. In the language of the photovoltaic effect, the first term is the circular photovoltaic effect, and the second term is the linear effect.  Equation (2) makes an explicit connection between the bilinear responses of d.c.-current generation through open quantum dots and the photovoltaic effect.

We will see that the separation onto reversible and irreversible parts goes far beyond the bilinear and low frequency expansions. We will find that the reversible part vanishes at high frequency whereas the irreversible part saturates. We will also show that the irreversible contribution may be interpreted in a manner similar to adiabatic pumping. In adiabatic pumping the transmitted charge was determined by a contour in parameter space. The irreversible current is determined by the contour in the extended phase space $`\{\phi _i(t),\dot{\phi }_i(t),\mathrm{}\}`$, see Sec. V.

The first term in Eq. (2) vanishes for a single pump due to the antisymmetry of $`ϵ_{ij}`$, Eq. (3). The contour in parameter space degenerates to a line in this case, while in phase space the contour encompasses a finite area. We will see that the current is proportional to this area. Note, that the contour is invariant with respect to time inversion.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In section II we formulate the model which is studied in the paper. We mainly discuss the high temperature limit $`T\omega `$, where $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the perturbation. In section III we calculate the ensemble averaged fluctuations of the current. As an example, low frequency asymptotic of reversible (adiabatic) and irreversible currents are considered. In Sec. IV we discuss how the irreversible contribution can be represented in the form of a linear integral over the contour in extended phase space. In Sec. V we discuss the low temperature limit and show how to take heating into account. Section VI summarizes our results.

## II The model

We consider the following experimental realization of the model. Gates near a two–dimensional electron gas (2DEG) form the shape of the dot. An oscillating voltage is applied to the gates $`V_1(t)`$ and $`V_2(t)`$. As a result of motion of electron energy levels in the dot, a current flows through the dot. The direction of the current depends on the particular realization of the dot and is zero on average. We calculate the fluctuations of the d.c.-current with respect to different realizations of the dot.

Calculations will be performed for an open quantum dot in the limit of a large number of open channels $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ connecting the dot to the leads. This condition allows us to neglect the electron–electron interaction, which gives corrections of the $`1/N_{\mathrm{ch}}^2`$ order, (See Ref. ). The same condition permits the use of a diagrammatic technique, similar to that described in , to calculate ensemble averaging.

We also assume that the quantum dot is small and the Thouless energy $`E_\mathrm{T}1/\tau _{\mathrm{erg}}`$ is much greater than all other energy scales of the problem. In this limit, one can use random matrix theory (RMT) to study transport and thermodynamic properties of the system, see Ref. . All corrections to the RMT are as small as $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}/g_{\mathrm{dot}}`$, where $`g_{\mathrm{dot}}=E_\mathrm{T}/\delta _1`$, $`\delta _1`$ is the mean level spacing. We neglect the fluctuations of the time dependent perturbation from sample to sample, created by the voltages $`V_{1,2}(t)`$, since they depend on the small parameter $`g_{\mathrm{dot}}^11`$.

The Hamiltonian of the system is

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_\mathrm{D}+\widehat{H}_\mathrm{L}+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{LD}},$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{H}_\mathrm{D}`$ is the Hamiltonian of the electrons in the dot, which is determined by the $`M\times M`$ matrix $`H_{nm}`$:

$$\widehat{H}_\mathrm{D}=\underset{n,m=1}{\overset{M}{}}\psi _n^{}H_{nm}\psi _m,$$
(5)
where the thermodynamic limit $`M\mathrm{}`$ is assumed.

The coupling between the dot and the leads is

$$\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{LD}}=\underset{\alpha ,n,k}{}(W_{n\alpha }\psi _\alpha ^{}(k)\psi _n+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.),$$
(6)
where $`\psi _n`$ corresponds to en electron state in the dot, $`\psi _\alpha (k)`$ denotes electron state $`(\alpha ,k)`$ in the leads, and $`k`$ labels the continuum of momentum states in each channel $`\alpha `$. For a dot connected by two leads with $`N_\mathrm{l}`$ and $`N_\mathrm{r}`$ channels respectively, we denote the left lead channels by $`1\alpha N_\mathrm{l}`$ and the right channels by $`N_\mathrm{l}+1\alpha N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$, where $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}=N_\mathrm{l}+N_\mathrm{r}`$. The coupling constants, $`W_{n\alpha }`$, in Eq.(6) are :

$$W_{n\alpha }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n,\hfill & \text{if }n=\alpha N_{\mathrm{ch}}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ are defined below in Eq. (21)

The electron spectrum in the leads near Fermi surface can be linearized

$$\widehat{H}_\mathrm{L}=v_\mathrm{F}\underset{\alpha ,k}{}k\psi _\alpha ^{}(k)\psi _\alpha (k),$$
(8)
where $`v_\mathrm{F}=1/2\pi \nu `$ is the Fermi velocity, and $`\nu `$ is the density of states per channel at the Fermi surface.

The current through the dot is given in terms of the scattering matrices $`\widehat{𝒮}(t,t^{})`$ by the following expression, see appendix A:

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \alpha }{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1𝑑t_2}`$ (9)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}𝒮_{\alpha \beta }(t,t_1)f_\beta (t_1t_2)𝒮_{\beta \alpha }^{}(t_2,t)f_\alpha (+i0)\right\},`$ (10)
where $`f_\alpha (t)`$ is the Fourier transform of the electron distribution function in the leads, $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for the quantum mechanical and thermodynamic averages for a given ensemble realization (no ensemble averaging!) and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\{\begin{array}{cc}+\frac{N_\mathrm{r}}{N_{\mathrm{ch}}},\hfill & \text{if }1\alpha N_\mathrm{l}\text{;}\hfill \\ \frac{N_\mathrm{l}}{N_{\mathrm{ch}}},\hfill & \text{if }N_\mathrm{l}<\alpha N_{\mathrm{ch}}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
The scattering matrix of the system, $`\widehat{𝒮}(t,t^{})`$, is

$$𝒮_{\alpha \beta }(t,t^{})=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta (tt^{})2\pi i\nu W_{\alpha n}^{}G_{nm}^{(R)}(t,t^{})W_{m\beta },$$
(12)
and the Green’s function $`G_{nm}^{(R)}(t,t^{})`$ is the solution to:

$$\left(i\frac{}{t}\widehat{H}(t)+i\pi \nu \widehat{W}\widehat{W}^{}\right)\widehat{G}^{(R)}(t,t^{})=\delta (tt^{}),$$
(13)
where the matrices $`\widehat{H}`$ and $`\widehat{W}`$ are comprised by their elements (see Eqs. (5) and (7)). An analogue of Eq.(9) was used before in the energy representation in Ref. .

Below we consider the special case of electrons in both leads being described by identical distribution functions $`f_j(t)f(t)`$. The function $`f(t)`$ is the Fourier transform of the Fermi–Dirac distribution function:

$$f(t)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{i\omega t}\left\{\frac{1}{e^{\omega /T}+1}\frac{1}{2}\right\}=\frac{iT}{2\mathrm{sinh}\pi Tt}$$
(14)
In this case, we can derive (see Appendix B) another formula for the current through the dot:

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2ei\pi \nu \mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1𝑑t_2f(t_1t_2)}`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{\widehat{W}^{}\widehat{G}^{(R)}(t,t_1)\left[\widehat{H}(t_1)\widehat{H}(t_2)\right]\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t_2,t)\widehat{W}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right\},`$ (16)
which is more convenient for further calculations.

We calculate the variance (mean square) of the transported charge $`Q`$ through the dot. We assume, that the Hamiltonian of the dot $`\widehat{H}`$ in Eq.(5) is represented by a time–dependent matrix in the form:

$$\widehat{H}(t)=\widehat{}+\widehat{V}_1\phi (t)+\widehat{V}_2\psi (t).$$
(17)
Here, the time independent part of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$ is a random $`M\times M`$ matrix, which obeys Gaussian statistics with the correlator

$$\overline{_{nm}_{n^{}m^{}}^{}}=\lambda \delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}+\lambda ^{}\delta _{mn^{}}\delta _{nm^{}},$$
(18)
where $`\overline{(\mathrm{})}`$ means averaging over ensemble of matrices $`\widehat{}`$, $`\lambda =M(\delta _1/\pi )^2`$ and $`\lambda ^{}=\lambda (1g_\mathrm{h}/4M)`$, and $`g_\mathrm{h}`$ defines the crossover from orthogonal ($`g_\mathrm{h}=0`$) to unitary ($`g_\mathrm{h}=4M`$) ensembles. The parameter $`g_\mathrm{h}`$ has the meaning of the dephasing rate due to an external magnetic field in units of the level spacing $`\delta _1`$, . It can be estimated as $`g_\mathrm{h}g_{\mathrm{dot}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0\right)^2`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the magnetic flux through the dot and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/e`$ is the flux quantum. The time dependent perturbation is described by symmetric $`M\times M`$ matrices, $`\widehat{V}_i`$, and the time dependent functions $`\phi (t)`$ and $`\psi (t)`$.

We make the simplifying assumption that the matrices $`\widehat{V}`$ are traceless $`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{V}=0`$. In this case, the unknown parameters $`C_{ij}`$ are defined as

$$C_{ij}=\frac{\pi }{M^2\delta _1}\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{V}_i\widehat{V}_j,$$
(19)
where we used the fact that the matrix $`\widehat{V}`$ is symmetric. (We note that according to the definition of Eq.(19), $`\widehat{C}`$ has dimension of energy.) The parameters $`\widehat{C}`$ are also related to the typical value of the level velocities which characterize the evolution of an energy level $`ϵ_\nu (𝐗)`$ under the external perturbation $`𝐗\widehat{𝐕}`$, :

$$\frac{2\delta _1}{\pi }C_{ij}=\overline{\frac{ϵ_\nu }{X_i}\frac{ϵ_\nu }{X_j}}\overline{\frac{ϵ_\nu }{X_i}}\overline{\frac{ϵ_\nu }{X_j}}.$$
(20)
Since all other responses (e.g., parametric dependence of the conductance of the dot) are expressed in terms of universal functions of the same parameters $`C_{ij}`$ , they can be found from independent measurements. Calculations can be generalized to the case in which the trace of the perturbation matrix is not zero. See, e.g. .

For reflectionless contacts, the ensemble averaged scattering matrix $`\overline{𝒮_{\alpha \beta }}`$ is zero. This condition determines the factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ in Eq. (7):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=\sqrt{\frac{M\delta _1}{\pi ^2\nu }}.$$
(21)
The ensemble average of the transmitted charge $`Q`$, defined by Eq.(1), is zero: $`\overline{Q}=0`$. We calculate the second order correlator with respect to an ensemble of random matrices, Eq. (18):

$$\overline{Q^2}=\underset{0}{\overset{T_\mathrm{p}}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{T_\mathrm{p}}{}}dtdt^{}\overline{I(t)I(t^{})}.$$
(22)
For this purpose we use a diagrammatic technique, which has been applied to a similar class of problems. See Refs.. Here we present the basic elements of the diagrams which will appear in sections III and V. The ensemble averaged Green’s function $`G_{nm}^{R,A}`$ in the absence of perturbations is equal to

$$\overline{G_{nm}^{R,A}(ϵ)}=\pm \frac{\delta _{mn}}{i\sqrt{\lambda M}}\{\begin{array}{cc}1+\frac{N_{\mathrm{ch}}\pm iϵ}{4M},\hfill & N_{\mathrm{ch}}<nM\text{;}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2},\hfill & 1nN_{\mathrm{ch}}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
Above we introduced the dimensionless energy, $`ϵ`$, measured in units of $`\sqrt{\lambda /4M}=\delta _1/2\pi `$. We expanded these Green’s functions in $`ϵ/M`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}/M`$, since only those terms survive the thermodynamic limit $`M\mathrm{}`$. For the same reason, in the expression for $`G_n^{(R)}`$ with $`nN_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ one has to neglect such terms since the contribution of these elements to the final result is already of the order of $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}/M`$.

The other element of the diagram technique used in the paper is an amputated average of the products of two Green’s functions (see Fig.2(b)), called the diffuson $`𝒟(t_1,t_2,\tau )`$ and defined by

$`\overline{\left(G_{nm}^{(R)}(t_1^+,t_2^+)G_{mn}^{(A)}(t_2^{},t_1^{})\right)}_{\mathrm{amp}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`4M\lambda 𝒟({\displaystyle \frac{t_1^++t_1^{}}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{t_2^++t_2^{}}{2}},t_1^+t_2^+)`$ (25)
$`\times `$ $`\delta (t_1^+t_2^+t_1^{}+t_2^{})`$ (26)
We can use this relation since the time arguments of diffuson satisfy $`t_1^+t_2^+=t_1^{}t_2^{}`$. Introducing new variables $`t_{1,2}=(t_{1,2}^++t_{1,2}^{})/2`$ and $`\tau =t_{1,2}^+t_{1,2}^{}`$ we obtain the following equation for the diffuson $`𝒟(t_1,t_2,\tau )`$:

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_1}}+𝒦_𝒟(t_1,\tau )\right]𝒟(t_1,t_2,\tau )=\delta (t_1t_2),`$ (27)
$`𝒦_𝒟(t,\tau )=N_{\mathrm{ch}}+\mathrm{\Phi }^T(t,\tau )\widehat{C}\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\tau ),`$ (28)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\tau )=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi \left(t+\frac{\tau }{2}\right)\varphi \left(t\frac{\tau }{2}\right)\\ \psi \left(t+\frac{\tau }{2}\right)\psi \left(t\frac{\tau }{2}\right)\end{array}\right).$$
(29)
The solution to the above equation is

$$𝒟(t_1,t_2,\tau )=\mathrm{\Theta }(t_1t_2)\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{t_2}{\overset{t_1}{}}𝒦_𝒟(t,\tau )𝑑t\right).$$
(30)
Equations (28)–(30) are written in dimensionless variables, so that energy and time are measured in units of $`\delta _1/2\pi `$ and $`2\pi /\delta _1`$ respectively. Below, intermediate expressions are also written in terms of dimensionless energy and time variables, while the final answers are represented in terms of physical quantities.

## III Mesoscopic fluctuations of the Current at high temperatures

In this section we will consider the high temperature limit, in which the frequency of the perturbation is much smaller than the temperature. (More accurate definition of the high temperature limit is given in Sec. V.) In this case the only contribution to the charge correlation function, $`\overline{Q^2}`$, is given by the diagram shown in Fig. 3. The corresponding analytical expression is

$`\overline{Q^2}`$ $`=`$ $`4e^2g{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}}𝑑x𝑑y(x,y){\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \underset{\theta }{\overset{\theta }{}}}𝑑\tau F^2(\tau )`$ (31)
$`\times `$ $`𝒟({\displaystyle \frac{x+y}{2\omega }}+\theta ,{\displaystyle \frac{x+y}{2\omega }}+\tau ,{\displaystyle \frac{xy}{\omega }})`$ (32)
$`\times `$ $`𝒟({\displaystyle \frac{x+y}{2\omega }}+\theta ,{\displaystyle \frac{x+y}{2\omega }}\tau ,{\displaystyle \frac{xy}{\omega }}),`$ (33)
where

$`(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{11}\mathrm{sin}x\mathrm{sin}y+C_{22}\mathrm{sin}(x+\varphi )\mathrm{sin}(y+\varphi )`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`C_{12}\left(\mathrm{sin}(x+\varphi )\mathrm{sin}y+\mathrm{sin}x\mathrm{sin}(y+\varphi )\right),`$ (35)
$$g=\frac{N_\mathrm{l}N_\mathrm{r}}{N_{\mathrm{ch}}}$$
(36)
is the dimensionless conductance through the dot from the left to right leads and

$$F(\tau )=\frac{T\tau }{\mathrm{sinh}2\pi T\tau }.$$
(37)
Expression (LABEL:22) can be computed for different values of parameters. In Fig. 4 we present the result of computation of $`\overline{Q^2}`$ for two frequencies $`\omega =0.1\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$ and $`\omega =\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$. Both those curves exhibit $`C_\mathrm{l}^2`$ and $`\sqrt{C_\mathrm{l}}`$ dependences at weak and strong pumping respectively. We also show the analytical curve given by Eq.(46) for the $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ limit. Below we discuss different limits of Eq.(LABEL:22)

### A Bilinear response

First we consider the weak perturbation and perform an expansion of the diffusons up to terms linear in $`C_{ij}`$. As a result we obtain:

$`\overline{Q^2}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2e^2g{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\theta e^{2N_{\mathrm{ch}}\theta }{\displaystyle _\theta ^{+\theta }}𝑑\tau F^2(\tau )`$ (38)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{l}^2(2\omega \theta \mathrm{sin}2\omega \theta )+C_\mathrm{c}^2\mathrm{sin}2\omega \theta }{\omega }},`$ (39)
where we have introduced the linear and circular pumping amplitudes

$`C_\mathrm{l}`$ $`=`$ $`C_{11}+2C_{12}\mathrm{cos}\varphi +C_{22},`$ (40)
$`C_\mathrm{c}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{sin}\varphi \sqrt{C_{11}C_{22}C_{12}^2}.`$ (41)
In the case of temperature $`T`$ larger than the escape rate $`\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}=N_{\mathrm{ch}}\delta _1/2\pi `$, ($`T\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$) we find

$`\overline{Q^2}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{24}}g{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _1}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}^2+\omega ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}^2}}C_\mathrm{l}^2+C_\mathrm{c}^2\right).`$ (42)
The second term of Eq.(42) survives the limit $`\omega 0`$, thus reproducing the known result for adiabatic pumping . On the other hand, this term vanishes at high frequency. The linear term is quadratic in frequency at small frequency and tends to a constant at large frequency.

The linear pumping amplitude $`C_\mathrm{l}`$ in the case of two pumps has the form of Eq.(40), which implies that the amplitude is just a vector sum of different pumps in the parameter space. On the other hand the circular amplitude is related to the area in the parameter space, covered by the pumps.

### B Low frequencies

Equation (LABEL:22) in the adiabatic limit $`\omega 0`$ is in agreement with the results of Ref.. Namely, this expression gives the same asymptotic behavior for the limits of weak and strong pumping. To demonstrate this we consider the special case of the $`\widehat{C}`$ matrix having the form $`C_{11}=C_{22}=C`$ and $`C_{12}=0`$. In this case we obtain

$`\overline{Q^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}e^2g{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _1}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{2C+(\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}\sqrt{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}+4C)})}{\sqrt{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}+4C)}}}.`$ (43)
As temperature drops down to $`T\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}=N_{\mathrm{ch}}\delta _1/2\pi `$, the variance of the transmitted charge saturates to

$$\overline{Q^2}=\frac{2}{\pi }e^2g\frac{\delta _1}{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}}\frac{C^2}{\sqrt{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}+4C)^3}}$$
(44)
The authors of Ref. showed that for strong pumping the mean square transported charge is proportional to the length of the contour in the parameter space, and does not depend on the particular shape of the contour. Equations (43) and (44) support this statement, since for $`C\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$ they reproduce a $`\sqrt{C}`$ dependence on the pumping amplitude. In the opposite case of weak pumping Eqs. (43) and (44) give $`C^2`$ dependence in accordance with . To understand the strong pumping dependence, we consider a loop in the parameter space. See Fig.(5). We notice (see Eq.(53)) and Refs. , that adiabatic pumping can be related to a contour integral in the parameter space. At sufficiently strong pumping the system at distant points of this space is uncorrelated and the total contribution to the pumped charge comes from the uncorrelated pieces of the loop, being proportional to their number.

In the limit of low frequency and zero $`C_\mathrm{c}`$ (single pump), the mean square fluctuation of the charge per cycle is quadratic in frequency. For weak pumping the amplitude of charge fluctuations is determined by Eq.(42) with $`\varphi =0`$ for arbitrary frequency $`\omega `$. (For a single pump, $`C_\mathrm{l}`$ is the only parameter.) For strong pumping (but still $`\omega ^2C_\mathrm{l}\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}^3`$) we find

$$\overline{Q^2}=\frac{25}{576\pi }e^2g\frac{\omega ^2}{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}^2}\frac{\delta _1}{T}\left(\frac{C_\mathrm{l}}{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(45)
We explain this dependence on the amplitude of the perturbation in the next section.

### C High frequencies

In the limit of high frequencies, $`T\omega \gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$, the variance of the transmitted charge is given by

$`\overline{Q^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}e^2g{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _1}{T}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{l}+\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}\sqrt{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}+2C_\mathrm{l})}}{\sqrt{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}(\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}+2C_\mathrm{l})}}}.`$ (46)
In the limit of strong pumping this expression has the $`\sqrt{C_\mathrm{l}}`$ asymptotic behavior. The curve Eq.(46) is represented in Fig. 4 by the solid line.

## IV Photovoltaic effect as pumping in phase space

In this section we discuss the mechanism of charge transport by a single pump at finite frequencies (i.e. the irreversible contribution to the d.c.-current). We show the similarity with the mechanism of adiabatic charge pumping, discussed in . In the adiabatic approximation the system’s motion is considered in a parameter space. For finite frequencies the parameter space has to be extended to phase space, which contains not only the perturbation parameters but also their time derivatives.

According to Eq. (9), the transported charge for one period is determined by

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle _0^{T_\mathrm{p}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle 𝑑t^{}𝑑\tau \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }e^{iϵ\tau }f(\tau )}`$ (47)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left\{𝒮(ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{t+t^{}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{4}})𝒮^{}(ϵ,{\displaystyle \frac{t+t^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{4}})\mathrm{\Lambda }\right\}.`$ (48)
We use the Wigner transform for the scattering matrix:

$$𝒮(t,t^{})=𝒮(ϵ,(t+t^{})/2)e^{iϵ(tt^{})}\frac{dϵ}{2\pi }.$$
(49)
We consider charge pumping at high temperature ($`T\omega `$). In this case the integration over $`\tau `$ is limited by the inverse temperature $`1/T`$. On the other hand, the scattering matrix $`𝒮(ϵ,t)`$ in the Wigner representation varies slowly with respect to its time argument $`t`$. This allows us to expand the scattering matrices in Eq.(47) to linear order in $`\tau `$. Using the unitarity of the scattering matrix we finally obtain

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle _0^{T_\mathrm{p}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2ϵ/2T}}`$ (50)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Lambda }\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒮(ϵ,t)}{t}}𝒮^{}(ϵ,t)𝒮(ϵ,t){\displaystyle \frac{𝒮^{}(ϵ,t)}{t}}\right)\right\}`$ (51)
This equation was used by Brouwer in . (See also ). The scattering matrix in the Wigner representation is a function of the perturbation itself and its higher order derivatives with respect to time. (See Appendix C.) In the adiabatic approximation the derivatives are neglected as being small to higher orders in frequency. Beyond the adiabatic approximation, we have to include the derivatives.

We demonstrate that the analysis of Ref.  can be applied to our case. We assume, that there is a single parameter $`\phi (t)`$. Then, following Brouwer, Ref. , we introduce a vector field

$$P_i(ϵ,t)=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{𝒮(ϵ,t)}{X_i}𝒮^{}(ϵ,t)\right\},$$
(52)
where $`X_i=d^i\phi (t)/dt^i`$ and $`i`$ is a non–negative integer.

In these notations Eq.(50) for the transported charge $`Q`$ is given by

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2ϵ/2T}\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_i(ϵ)dX_i}.`$ (53)
The loop integral in the above equation can be rewritten as a surface integral using Stoke’s theorem. We develop our analysis for the transported charge to the lowest order in frequency, so that the scattering matrix depends only on $`X_0=\phi (t)`$ and $`X_1=\dot{\phi }(t)`$. According to Stoke’s theorem for this two dimensional space, we obtain

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`e{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2ϵ/2T}𝑑\phi 𝑑\dot{\phi }\mathrm{\Pi }(ϵ)},`$ (54)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{𝒮(ϵ)}{\phi }}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒮^{}(ϵ)}{\dot{\phi }}}\right\}.`$ (55)
In appendix C we present a formal derivation of $`𝒮/\dot{\phi }`$ from the equation of motion, Eq.(13), in terms of the Green’s functions of the dot to lowest order in $`\omega /\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$.

Now we interpret results found in the previous section using Eq.(54). For weak pumping we keep the time dependent perturbation to lowest order to calculate the derivatives with respect to $`\phi `$ and $`\dot{\phi }`$. Then we consider $`\mathrm{\Pi }(ϵ)`$ to be a constant and the integral over $`\phi `$ and $`\dot{\phi }`$ gives the area of the contour in phase space. For a harmonic field $`\phi (t)=\mathrm{cos}\omega t`$, the contour is an ellipse with large semiaxis $`\sqrt{C}`$, small semiaxis $`\omega \sqrt{C}`$ and area $`\pi \omega C`$. For the variance of the transmitted charge, we expect $`\overline{Q^2}\omega ^2C^2/\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}^4`$, which is in agreement with Eq.(42) for $`\omega \gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$.

In the limit of low frequency but strong pumping, we can apply Eq.(54) to understand Eq.(45). The power dependence \[$`C^{3/2}`$\] is different from the adiabatic case \[$`C^{1/2}`$\]. The loop in phase plane is long along the $`\phi `$ axis but narrow in the $`\dot{\phi }`$ direction because the frequency is small. \[See Fig. 5(b).\] The charge variation is determined by a sum of independent contributions from pieces of the contour along the $`\phi `$ axis. As can be seen from Fig. 5(b) the number of the independent pieces is $`N_{\mathrm{ind}}=\sqrt{C/\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}}`$. In the $`\dot{\phi }`$ direction the system is correlated inside each piece of the contour since all points along the $`\dot{\phi }`$ direction are separated by a distance, smaller than the correlation length. The characteristic area $`S_\mathrm{c}`$ of each part is proportional to $`\omega \sqrt{C\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}}`$. The variance of the transported charge can thus be estimated as

$$\overline{Q^2}e^2N_{\mathrm{ind}}S_\mathrm{c}^2e^2\frac{\omega ^2}{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}^2}\left(\frac{C}{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(56)
When the amplitude of the field $`C`$ or the frequency $`\omega `$ increases further, so that $`\omega ^2C_\mathrm{l}\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}^3`$, this picture is no longer valid. The trajectory does not have parts close to each other and each part gives an independent contribution. The situation is similar to the case of strong adiabatic pumping, as shown in Fig. 5(a) and discussed in . The variance of the transported charge is proportional to the total number of uncorrelated parts, so that $`\overline{Q^2}\sqrt{C}`$, see Eq. (46).

## V Low temperature

The previous discussion of d.c.-current generation is quite general. However, it does not take into account the heating of electrons by an external field which becomes important at low temperature. In this regime, the electron distribution function in the dot changes and acquires a width larger than the electron temperature in the leads.

The new width $`T_\mathrm{h}`$ of the distribution function can be estimated from the following picture. An electron has random transitions between different energy levels. The time between consecutive transitions $`t_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ is determined by the Fermi golden rule:

$$t_{\mathrm{tr}}^1=\underset{m}{}2\pi |V_{nm}|^2\delta (ϵ_nϵ_m\pm \omega )\overline{|V_{nm}|^2}/\delta _1=\frac{C}{\pi }.$$
(57)
The first equality sign follows from the Fermi golden rule, the second sign represents an estimate of the characteristic value of the matrix elements $`\overline{|V_{nm}|^2}`$ and the density of states $`1/\delta _1`$, the last equation is the definition of $`C`$, cf. Eq.(19). Since an electron stays in the dot for a time $`\tau _{\mathrm{esc}}=\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}^1=2\pi /N_{\mathrm{ch}}\delta _1`$, it performs $`N_{\mathrm{tr}}=1/t_{\mathrm{tr}}\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}=C/\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$ transitions. Each transition changes the energy of the electron by $`\omega `$. As in the random walk problem, the displacement of electrons in energy space is $`\omega \sqrt{C/\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}}`$.

This analysis gives a new temperature scale $`T_\mathrm{h}`$:

$$T_\mathrm{h}=\omega \sqrt{\frac{C}{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}}}.$$
(58)
This scale has a meaning only for strong fields, $`C\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$, so that the diffusion picture in energy space is valid. Otherwise, electrons experience few transitions with change of energy $`\omega `$. Now we consider low temperatures, so that $`TT_\mathrm{h}`$ is not valid. We calculate the fluctuations of d.c. current for a system with a single pump. As we know from Sec. III, at high frequency the number of pumps is not important and the result depends on their linear combination.

Unlike the diagram, shown in Fig. 3, diagrams presented in Fig. 6 have additional diffusons dressed on the distribution functions $`f(\tau )`$. Collecting diagrams in Fig. 3 and Fig. 6 we obtain the following expression for the variance of the pumped charge:

$`\overline{Q^2}`$ $`=`$ $`4e^2CN_{\mathrm{ch}}g{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{T_p}{}}𝑑t𝑑t^{}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\theta _\theta ^{+\theta }𝑑\tau \stackrel{~}{F}^2(\tau )}`$ (59)
$`\times `$ $`𝒟({\displaystyle \frac{t+t^{}}{2}}+\theta ,{\displaystyle \frac{t+t^{}}{2}}+\tau ,tt^{})`$ (60)
$`\times `$ $`𝒟({\displaystyle \frac{t+t^{}}{2}}+\theta ,{\displaystyle \frac{t+t^{}}{2}}\tau ,tt^{})`$ (61)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi 𝒟(t,t\xi ,2\tau ){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi ^{}𝒟(t^{},t^{}\xi ^{},2\tau )`$ (62)
$`\times `$ $`\{2C\mathrm{sin}^2\omega (t\xi )\mathrm{sin}^2\omega (t^{}\xi ^{})\mathrm{sin}^2\omega \tau `$ (64)
$`+N_{\mathrm{ch}}\mathrm{sin}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega t^{}\}`$
where $`g`$ is the dimensionless conductance of the dot (see Eq.(36)) and

$$\stackrel{~}{F}(\tau )=\frac{T\mathrm{sin}\omega \tau }{\mathrm{sinh}2\pi T\tau }.$$
(65)
At high temperature $`T\omega `$ Eq.(60) reduces to Eq.(LABEL:22). Indeed, all three diagrams in Fig. 6 are smaller than the diagram in Fig. 3 at least by one factor $`\omega /T`$.

Now we discuss the limit of high frequency $`\omega \mathrm{max}\{\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}},C\}`$. This inequality allows us to perform integration over $`\xi `$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ in Eq.(60). We can replace $`\mathrm{sin}^2\omega (t\xi )`$ by $`1/2`$ and use the approximation

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝒟(t,t\xi ,2\tau )𝑑\xi \frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{ch}}+2C\mathrm{sin}^2\omega \tau }.$$
(66)
In this limit the product of the diffusons in the second and third lines of Eq.(60) does not depend on $`\tau `$.

Energy of an electron in the dot changes due to the external field resulting in the redistribution of the electrons in the energy space. The new distribution function becomes wider than that of electrons in the leads at temperature $`T`$. Consequently, the Fourier transform of the electron distribution function becomes narrower. The right hand side of Eq.(66) represent the effect of heating. This function appears in the integral over $`\tau `$ in Eq.(60) along with the function $`F(\tau )`$, defined by Eq.(37). At sufficiently low temperature the convergence of the integral over $`\tau `$ is determined by the ’heating factors’, Eq.(66) rather than by $`F(\tau )`$. We note, that the shape of the new distribution function is not a Fermi function with a higher temperature. Instead, its Fourier transform has the form of the right hand side of Eq. (66).

To be more specific, we consider the strong pumping limit $`C\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$, when the electron distribution function is determined by the new scale $`T_\mathrm{h}`$, see Eq.(58). We find

$$\overline{Q^2}=\frac{3}{16}e^2g\frac{\delta _1}{\omega }.$$
(67)
The same parameter dependence can be found from Eq.(46) replacing temperature $`T`$ by the new energy scale $`T_\mathrm{h}`$.

Equation (60) has two terms. One term contains factor $`\mathrm{sin}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega t^{}`$. This term survives the high temperature limit, see Sec. III. Nonetheless at low temperature the heating modifies the results of Sec. III, so that the temperature dependence saturates at the characteristic temperature scale $`T_\mathrm{h}`$.

The second term was completely neglected in the previous sections. The origin of this term is similar to that of the thermoelectric effect in a conductor out of thermodynamic equilibrium. Although electrons are in equilibrium in the leads, the heating changes their distribution function in the dot, producing a non-equilibrium distribution. Then non-equilibrium electrons escape from the dot. The direction of each escape is determined by the realization of the dot. An unbalance between electrons escaping through the left or right leads gives current. ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\omega \tau `$ term in Eq. (60) reflects the electron–hole asymmetry, necessary for thermoelectric effects.)

## VI Conclusions

We studied the d.c.-current through the quantum dot generated e.g. by time-dependent distortions of the dot shape. This d.c.-current is fluctuating from sample to sample and we found the second moment of its distribution. Unlike the previous works  on the adiabatic pumping we treated the system for a broad range of external frequencies thus providing a bridge between adiabatic pumping and photovoltaic effects in microjunctions of Ref. .

The adiabatic approximation is not valid when the frequency of the perturbation $`\omega `$ is comparable with the escape rate from the dot $`\gamma _{\mathrm{esc}}`$. Beyond the adiabatic approximation the d.c.-current consists of reversible and irreversible parts. The reversible contribution was studied in the adiabatic regime. This contribution is determined by an integral over the contour in parameter space. On the other hand the irreversible contribution to the d.c.-current is determined by an integral over this contour in phase space.

A crossover from the bilinear ($`C^2`$) to $`\sqrt{C}`$ regime was found in . The crossover happens when the system makes a large loop during one period of the external field, so that it is uncorrelated at different points of the loop, see Fig. 5(a). We showed, that this crossover is universal and happens at arbitrary frequency. This result is consistent with the representation of the d.c.-current as an integral along the contour in the phase space. An intermediate regime exists for a single pump at low frequency and moderate amplitude of the external field. This regime is described by a $`C^{3/2}`$ dependence of the variance of the d.c.-current on the field amplitude.

We also considered a wide temperature range. At high temperature the variance of the current decreases as $`T^1`$. We found that at low temperature heating becomes important and it introduces a characteristic temperature $`T_\mathrm{h}`$, see Eq. (58), below which the temperature dependence of the d.c.-current saturates. The result of heating on the d.c.-current is twofold. The first effect diminishes the d.c.-current by broadening of the electron distribution function. The second effect produces the a thermoelectric field, and is a non-equilibrium effect. This effect is related to the electron-hole asymmetry in the dot. Our results are different from the observed experimentally temperature dependence, see also Ref. .

Finally, the photovoltaic effect is not symmetric with respect to inversion of magnetic field, similarly to adiabatic pumping case, see Ref. .

We are thankful to P. W. Brouwer for useful discussions. The work was supported by Cornell Center for Materials Research under NSF grant No. DMR-9632275 (M.G.V. and V.A.) and Packard Fellowship (I.L.A.).

## A

We define the wave function of electrons in channel $`\alpha `$ moving towards the dots by $`\psi _\alpha (x,t)`$ with $`x<0`$, where $`|x|`$ determines the distance from the dot boundary, see Fig.(8). Then $`\psi _\alpha (x,t)`$ for $`x>0`$ represents the outcoming electrons. The boundary $`x=0`$ is described by a superposition of the incoming and outcoming electron states and we denote it by $`\psi _\alpha (0,t)`$. The wave function of electrons in state $`i`$ is denoted by $`\psi _i(t)`$.

We introduce the Keldysh Green’s functions

$`\widehat{𝒢}_{\alpha \beta }(t,t^{},x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ (A4)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒢_{\alpha \beta }^{(R)}(t,t^{},x,x^{})& 𝒢_{\alpha \beta }^{(K)}(t,t^{},x,x^{})\\ 0& 𝒢_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}(t,t^{},x,x^{})\end{array}\right),`$
$`\widehat{𝒢}_{i\alpha }(t,t^{},x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒢_{i\alpha }^{(R)}(t,t^{},x^{})& 𝒢_{i\alpha }^{(K)}(t,t^{},x^{})\\ 0& 𝒢_{i\alpha }^{(A)}(t,t^{},x^{})\end{array}\right),`$ (A7)
which are defined in terms of

$`𝒢_{\alpha \beta }^{(R)}(t,t^{},x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Theta }(tt^{})[\psi _\alpha (x,t),\psi _\beta ^{}(x^{},t^{})]_+,`$ (A8)
$`𝒢_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}(t,t^{},x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Theta }(t^{}t)[\psi _\alpha (x,t),\psi _\beta ^{}(x^{},t^{})]_+,`$ (A9)
$`𝒢_{\alpha \beta }^{(K)}(t,t^{},x,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i[\psi _\alpha (x,t),\psi _\beta ^{}(x^{},t^{})]_{},`$ (A10)
where $`[,]_\pm `$ denote commutator and anticommutator respectively. The similar expressions can be written down for $`\widehat{𝒢}_{i\alpha }(t,t^{},x^{})`$ Green’s function, with $`\psi _\alpha (x,t)`$ replaced by $`\psi _i(t)`$.

We assume that electrons do not interact in the reservoirs and the Green’s function of the incoming electrons ($`x;x^{}<0`$) is given by the Keldysh structure:

$`𝒢_{\alpha \beta }(t,t^{},x,x^{})`$ (A11)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_{\alpha \beta }^{(R)}(tt^{},xx^{})& G_{\alpha \beta }^{(K)}(tt^{},xx^{})\\ 0& G_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}(tt^{},xx^{})\end{array}\right),`$ (A14)
where

$`G_{\alpha \beta }^{(R)}(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta \left(v_Ftx\right),`$ (A15)
$`G_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta \left(v_Ftx\right),`$ (A16)
$`G_{\alpha \beta }^{(K)}(ϵ,x)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}_\alpha (ϵ)\left(G_{\alpha \beta }^{(R)}(ϵ,x)G_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}(ϵ,x)\right),`$ (A17)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}(ϵ)`$ is the distribution function of electrons in the channel $`\alpha `$. In equilibrium with temperature $`T`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_\alpha (ϵ)=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{ϵ\delta \mu _\alpha }{2T},$$
(A18)
where $`\delta \mu _\alpha `$ represent relative change in chemical potential for different leads.

The equations of motion for the Green’s functions defined by Eqs. (A4) and (A7) have the form:

$`i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}v_F{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\right]\widehat{𝒢}_{\alpha \beta }(t,t^{},x,x^{})`$ (A19)
$`=\delta (x)W_{\alpha i}\widehat{𝒢}_{i\beta }(t,t^{},x^{})+\delta (tt^{})\delta (xx^{})\widehat{1},`$ (A20)
$`\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}H_{ij}(t)\right]\widehat{𝒢}_{j\alpha }(t,t^{},x^{})`$ (A21)
$`=W_{i\beta }^{}\widehat{𝒢}_{\beta \alpha }(t,t^{},0,x^{}).`$ (A22)
We notice that due to causality, $`G_{\alpha \beta }^{(A)}(t,t^{},0,x^{})0`$ for $`x^{}<0`$. This observation significantly simplifies further calculations. Indeed, we can represent the Keldysh component of the Green’s function in the left hand side of Eq.(A21) in the form

$`𝒢_{i\alpha }^{(K)}(t,t^{},x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1\left[\frac{1}{i/t\widehat{H}(t)}\right]_{ij}(t,t_1)}`$ (A23)
$`\times `$ $`W_{j\beta }^{}𝒢_{\alpha \beta }(t_1,t^{},0,x^{}),`$ (A24)
The corresponding advance component is zero. Here $`1/(i/t\widehat{H}(t))`$ is the retarded component of the electron Green’s function in the dot. This definition is different from that given in the main part of the paper, see Eq.(11). The latter will appear naturally in the end of this section. The additional term $`W^{}W`$ takes into account the escape from the dot through the leads.

The next step is to represent Eq.(A19) in the form

$`𝒢_{\alpha \beta }^{(K)}(t,t^{},x,x^{})=G_{\alpha \beta }^{(K)}(tt^{},xx^{})`$ (A25)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1𝑑t_2G_{\alpha \gamma }^{(R)}(tt_1,x)\left[W\frac{1}{i/t\widehat{H}(t)}W^{}\right]_{\gamma \delta }(t_1,t_2)}`$ (A26)
$`\times 𝒢_{\delta \beta }^{(K)}(t_2,t^{},0,x^{})`$ (A27)
In the above equation we consider $`x=0`$. Using $`G_{\alpha \beta }^{(R)}(tt^{},0)`$ from Eq.(A15) we find

$`𝒢_{\alpha \beta }^{(K)}(t,t^{},0,x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1\left[1\widehat{W}\frac{i\pi \nu }{i/t\widehat{H}(t)}\widehat{W}^{}\right]_{\alpha \delta }^1(t,t_1)}`$ (A28)
$`\times `$ $`G_{\delta \beta }^{(K)}(t_1,t^{},0,x^{}),x^{}<0.`$ (A29)
Substituting this expression to Eq.(A25) and taking $`x=+|\delta |0`$, we obtain for $`x^{}<0`$:

$$𝒢_{\alpha \beta }^{(K)}(t,t^{},+|\delta |,x^{})=𝑑t_1𝒮_{\alpha \gamma }(t,t_1)G_{\gamma \beta }^{(K)}(t_1t^{},x^{}),$$
(A30)
where the scattering matrix $`𝒮_{\alpha \beta }(t,t^{})`$ is given by Eq.(12).

Equation (A30) is valid for $`x^{}<0`$. We have to repeat the procedure described above to calculate the electron Green’s function in the leads for $`x^{}>0`$. Since the equations which determine evolution of the Green’s function from $`x^{}<0`$ to $`x^{}>0`$ are conjugated to those for $`x`$, we conclude, that

$`𝒢_{\alpha \beta }^{(K)}(t,t^{},+|\delta |,+|\delta |)`$ (A31)
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑t_1𝑑t_2𝒮_{\alpha \gamma }(t,t_1)G_{\gamma \delta }^{(K)}(t_1t_2,0)𝒮_{\delta \beta }^{}(t_2,t^{})}`$ (A32)
The currents in the left and right leads are given by

$`I_\mathrm{l}(t)=ev_\mathrm{F}`$ (A33)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N_\mathrm{l}}{}}}(𝒢_{\alpha \alpha }^{(K)}(t,t,+|\delta |,+|\delta |)𝒢_{\alpha \alpha }^{(K)}(t,t,|\delta |,|\delta |))`$ (A34)
$`I_\mathrm{r}(t)=ev_\mathrm{F}`$ (A35)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =N_\mathrm{l}+1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{ch}}}{}}}(𝒢_{\alpha \alpha }^{(K)}(t,t,+|\delta |,+|\delta |)𝒢_{\alpha \alpha }^{(K)}(t,t,|\delta |,|\delta |)),`$ (A36)
where $`\delta 0`$. This limit is just a reminder that $`𝒢_{\alpha \alpha }^{(K)}(t,t,|\delta |,|\delta |)`$ is taken for incoming electrons and is given by Eq.(A17). Consequently,

$`𝒢_{\alpha \alpha }^{(K)}(t,t,|\delta |,|\delta |)`$ $`=`$ $`f(+i0),`$ (A37)
$`f(t)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega t}\stackrel{~}{f}(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}.`$ (A38)
Since the charge is conserved, $`I_\mathrm{l}(t)=I_\mathrm{r}(t)`$. We rewrite the current through the dot as

$$I(t)=\frac{N_\mathrm{r}I_\mathrm{l}(t)N_\mathrm{l}I_\mathrm{r}(t)}{N_{\mathrm{ch}}}=I_\mathrm{l}(t)=I_\mathrm{r}(t).$$
(A39)
Substituting Eqs. (A31) and (A37) into Eqs. (A33) and (A35) and using Eq.(A39) we obtain Eq.(9).

## B

In this appendix we derive Eq.(15) from the general Eq. (14). The only assumption we are using here is that the distribution function of electrons is the same in all channels, i.e. $`f_\alpha (t)f(t)`$. Substituting the explicit form of the scattering matrix from Eq. (12), we obtain

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i\nu e\{{\displaystyle }dt_1f(tt_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }\left[\widehat{W}^{}\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t_1,t)\widehat{W}\right]_{\beta \alpha }`$ (B1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1f(t_1t)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }\left[\widehat{W}^{}\widehat{G}^{(R)}(t,t_1)\widehat{W}\right]_{\beta \alpha }}`$ (B2)
$``$ $`2\pi i\nu {\displaystyle 𝑑t_1𝑑t_2f(t_1t_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }}`$ (B3)
$`\times `$ $`\left[\widehat{W}^{}\widehat{G}^{(R)}(t,t_1)\widehat{W}\widehat{W}^{}\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t_2,t)\widehat{W}\right]_{\beta \alpha }\},`$ (B4)
where the diagonal matrix $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is defined in Eq. (12), and $`\widehat{G}(t,t^{})`$ denotes the Green’s function in the dot.

Now we use the equation of motion of the retarded and advanced Green’s functions, Eq. (13), to simplify the right hand side of Eq. (B2). For this purpose, we pre–multiply the equation for the advanced component $`\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t_2,t^{})`$ by the retarded component $`\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t,t_1)`$, then we post–multiply the transposed equation for the retarded component $`\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t,t_1)`$ by $`\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t_2,t^{})`$. Subtracting from the second equation the first one, we obtain

$`2\pi i\nu \widehat{G}^{(R)}(t,t_1)\widehat{W}\widehat{W}^{}\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t_2,t^{})`$ (B5)
$`=`$ $`i\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_2}}\right]\widehat{G}^{(R)}(t,t_1)\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t_2,t^{})`$ (B6)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{G}^{(R)}(t,t_1)\left[\widehat{H}(t_1)\widehat{H}(t_2)\right]\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t_2,t^{})`$ (B7)
$``$ $`\left[\widehat{G}^{(R)}(t,t_1)\delta (t_2t^{})\delta (tt_1)\widehat{G}^{(A)}(t_2,t^{})\right]`$ (B8)
Substituting this equation to Eq. (B2) we obtain Eq.(15).

## C

The equation for the Green’s function in the Wigner representation for a time–dependent Hamiltonian is

$`2ϵ\widehat{G}(ϵ,t)[H_0i\pi \nu \widehat{W}\widehat{W}^{},\widehat{G}(ϵ,t)]_+`$ (C1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{(k)}(t)}{(2i)^kk!}}\left\{\widehat{V}{\displaystyle \frac{^k\widehat{G}(ϵ,t)}{ϵ^k}}+(1)^k{\displaystyle \frac{^k\widehat{G}(ϵ,t)}{ϵ^k}}\widehat{V}\right\}=2.`$ (C2)
Here $`\widehat{G}(ϵ,T)`$ is the Green’s function in the Wigner variables $`ϵ`$ and $`t`$. We represented $`\widehat{H}(t)`$ in the form $`\widehat{H}(t)=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{V}\phi (t)`$.

In the adiabatic limit only the $`k=0`$ is taken into account. This approximation is crucial in the case of a single pump. By appropriate choice of the beginning of the cycle the pump moves for the second half of the cycle along the same trajectory as for the first half, but in the opposite direction. As a consequence, the total transported charge $`Q`$, Eq.(50), vanishes in the adiabatic approximation. To remove this symmetry, we can add another pump oscillating with the same frequency, but with different phase shift. Also, the higher order terms in Eq.(C1) break this symmetry.

We consider contribution to the lowest order in frequency to the transported charge $`Q`$. For this purpose, we neglect all terms with $`k2`$, keep the $`k=1`$ term to the first order and include all orders in $`k=0`$ term. The solution is

$`\widehat{G}_0(ϵ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ\widehat{H}_0\widehat{V}\phi (t)+i\pi \nu \widehat{W}\widehat{W}^{}}},`$ (C3)
$`\widehat{G}_1(ϵ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\phi }(t)}{2}}\left(\widehat{G}_0(ϵ,t)\widehat{V}\widehat{G}_0^2(ϵ,t)\widehat{G}_0^2(ϵ,t)\widehat{V}\widehat{G}_0(ϵ,t)\right).`$ (C4)
To the lowest order in $`\dot{\phi }(t)`$, the scattering matrix $`\widehat{𝒮}`$ has the form

$$\widehat{𝒮}_1(ϵ,t)=\widehat{𝒮}_0(ϵ,\phi (t))+\dot{\phi }(t)\widehat{𝒜}(\phi (t)),$$
(C5)
where

$$\widehat{𝒮}_0(ϵ,\phi (t))=12\pi \nu \widehat{W}^{}\widehat{G}_0(ϵ,t)\widehat{W},$$
(C6)
and

$`\widehat{𝒜}(ϵ,t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝒮}}{\dot{\phi }}}`$ (C7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\widehat{G}_0(ϵ,t)\widehat{V}\widehat{G}_0^2(ϵ,t)\widehat{G}_0^2(ϵ,t)\widehat{V}\widehat{G}_0(ϵ,t)\right).`$ (C8)