text:
# 1 Introduction:

## 1 Introduction:

Thermal properties of ferrimagnetic chains were theoretically investigated recently employing various methods like the modified spin-wave theory (MSWT), density matrix renormalization group (DMRG), quantum Monte Carlo method (QMC), and Schwinger boson mead field theory (SB). The specific heat $`C_v`$ and magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$ were shown to depend upon temperature as T1/2 and T-2 respectively at low temperatures, and $`\chi T`$ and $`C_v`$ were shown to have, respectively, a rounded minimum and a Schottky-like peak at intermediate temperatures. The spin correlation length was shown to have a $`T^1`$dependence at low temperature. The modified spin wave theory, modified either by including Takahashi constraint or by including higher order corrections in the spin wave theory, was also shown to give results in surprisingly good agreement with those from quantum Monte Carlo method in the thermodynamic limit for this system.

Ferrimagnetic systems have been classified into three categories: one with a predominantly Ferromagnetic (F) character, the second with a predominantly antiferromagnetic (AF) character, and the third with a mixture of the two. If the two spins constituting a ferrimagnet are $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ with $`s_1>s_2`$, then it is conjectured that the systems in the first category are those with $`s_1>2s_2`$, those in the second category have $`s_1<2s_2`$, and the systems in the third category have $`s_1=2s_2`$. We call it Yamamoto classification. Thus the system $`(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ is ferromagnetic in character, $`(\frac{3}{2},1)`$ is antiferromagnetic, and $`(1,\frac{1}{2})`$ has a mixture of the two characters.

The $`\chi T`$ vs temperature curves of different ferrimagnetic systems look alike - a rapidly decaying ferromagnetic part at low $`T`$, a rounded minimum at intermediate $`T`$ and a linearly increasing antiferromagnetic part at high $`T`$ \- except that some systems like the predominately ferromagnetic $`(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ have a smaller rate of increase with temperature after the minimum compared to others. The heat capacities of the three systems also have qualitatively the same shape: a $`T^{1/2}`$ dependence at low $`T`$, a Schottky-like peak and a decay at large temperatures. The MSW results on $`(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ system, however, show a shoulder in the heat capacity below the peak temperature, which has been explained as being a result of the deficiency of the theory. When an external magnetic field is applied, a second peak appears at low temperatures. It is, therefore, quite likely that the heat capacity of ferrimagnets has, under suitable conditions, inherent structures like shoulders and double peaks. We would like in this paper to create such conditions and understand the nature of the heat capacity peak of ferrimagnets.

In a recent work, we used a zero-temperature linear spin wave theory to study ferrimagnetic systems under the effects of dimerization and frustration, represented by the parameters $`\delta `$ and $`\alpha `$. Dimerization as well as the frustration were shown to affect the dispersion curves by either pushing them up or pulling them down in energy. Since this would change the gap that determines the heat capacity peak, these two effects are expected to influence the peak structure. It is also possible that they may give rise to additional peaks in heat capacity.

There were two distinct values of the frustration parameter; the critical value $`\alpha _c=\frac{s_1}{2(s_1+s_2)}`$ at which the long range order is destroyed, and point $`\alpha ^{}=\frac{s_1s_2}{2(s_1^2+s_2^2)}`$, that heralds transition from a commensurate ferrimagnetic state to a spiral state. The heat capacity and susceptibility are also expected to show the tell-tale signs of the transition induced by $`\alpha `$.

Linear spin wave theory is known to give a fair picture in the case of ferromagnetic chains and gives only a qualitative picture for antiferromagnetic chains . It has also been shown that it gives sufficiently good results for a ferrimagnetic system. In a frustrated system, it has already been argued that the LSW theory yields satisfactory results at least in the limit of small frustration. The use of LSW for larger values of frustration is indeed unreliable, but it is expected to give a qualitative picture that we are seeking here. As noted above, there was no remarkable improvement in the results at non-zero temperatures when linear spin wave theory was modified either by introducing a Takahashi constraint or by including higher order corrections in the spin wave theory. Nor were the results at zero temperature any more improved by considering non-linear spin wave theory. The LSW theory is therefore expected to be valid in obtaining qualitative results even in the presence of dimerization and frustration in the thermodynamic limit.

In this paper we will study alternating spin systems formed with spin values ($`s_1,s_2)`$ using linear spin wave theory. We investigate the temperature dependence of magnetization, specific heat, free energy, and susceptibility. We would like to see how the predominantly ferromagnetic, antiferromagnetic or mixed characters of the systems are brought out by subjecting them to dimerization and frustration. In particular, we would like to see the effect of the frustration-induced ferrimagnetic-to-spiral state phase transition on heat capacity and magnetic susceptibility. It is suggested that such peculiar effects will help identify the presence or absence of spin-Peierls dimerization and frustration in real low-dimensional ferrimagnetic systems.

## 2 Linear spin wave theory:

We consider a chain with spins $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ ( $`s_1`$ $`>`$ $`s_2`$) sitting on alternating sites with the possibility of lattice distortion leading to dimerization, and of competing antiferromagnetic nearest and next nearest neighbor couplings, $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ respectively. A two sublattice model of this system may be described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i}{}J_1^iS_i^AS_{i+1}^B+J_2\underset{i}{}\left[S_i^AS_{i+2}^A+S_{i+1}^BS_{i+3}^B\right],$$
(1)
with $`S^A`$ belonging to one sublattice containing spins $`s_1`$ and $`S^B`$ to the second sublattice containing spins $`s_2`$. The interaction $`J_1^i=J_1(1+`$ $`(1)^i\delta )`$ describes the alternate weaker and stronger couplings between two adjacent sites that may come about because of a spin-Peierls dimerization of the lattice. $`\delta `$ is the diemrization parameter. The degree of frustration is given by the ratio $`\alpha =\frac{J_2}{J_1}.`$

In the standard linear, non-interacting spin wave analysis, the above Hamiltonian is written in terms of bosonic spin-deviation operators with the help of Holstein-Primakoff transformations, linearized and then diagonalized in terms of normal mode operators to

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\epsilon _g+\underset{k}{}\left[E_1(k)\alpha _k^{}\alpha _k+E_2(k)\beta _k^{}\beta _k\right]$$
(2)
with $`\epsilon _g`$ is the ground state energy, $`E_{1,2}`$ are the acoustic and optical mode energies and the sum runs over half the Brillouin zone. The nomenclature used here is the same as in our previous report.

The free energy of the system is

$$F=\epsilon _g+\underset{k}{}[n_aE_1(k)+n_bE_2(k)],$$
(3)
where $`n_a`$ and $`n_b`$ are the bose distribution functions for the two modes. It was reported earlier that the free energy decreases with increasing temperature in a ferrimagnetic chain.

The static susceptibility $`\chi `$ is

$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3T}}\left(<M^2><M>^2\right)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3T}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}[n_a(n_a+1)+n_b(n_b+1)]`$ (5)
where $`M=\underset{i}{}(S_a^z+S_b^z)`$. The product $`\chi T`$ shows a minimum at intermediate temperatures, indicating that both the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic modes coexist in ferrimagnets.

The sublattice magnetization is calculated by taking the thermal average of the occupation number as

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`s_1{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\stackrel{~}{n}_k^a`$ (6)
$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\stackrel{~}{n}_k^bs_2`$ (7)
and

$$M_{tot}=M_1+M_2=s_1s_2\underset{k}{}\left(n_an_b\right)$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{n}_k^a=v_k^2(n^a+n^b+1)+n^a`$ , $`\stackrel{~}{n}_k^b=v_k^2(n^a+n^b+1)+n^b`$ and $`v_k^2`$ is the coefficient in the Bogoliubov transformation; see Ref..

Specific heat $`C_v`$ has a Schottky-like peak. In a text-book two level system, the peak is a result of the gap, and an increase in this gap makes the peak shift to higher values of temperature, and a decrease makes it shift to lower values.

A ferrimagnet has two low lying excitations, one ferromagnetic in character (the acoustic dispersion) and the other antiferromagnetic (the optic dispersion curve). The Schottky like peak in the heat capacity is understood to be due to the two dispersion curves. In principle, because of the two excitation dispersion curves, one would expect this to behave like a three level system. But the heat capacity of a ferrimagnet does not follow the pattern of a 3 level system. Instead, from the non-interacting spin wave theory results of ferrimagnets, the contributions of the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic dispersions to the heat capacity of a ferrimagnet seem to be additive. The heat capacities calculated for the modes separately has each a Schottky-like peak structure, and the two add up to give the heat capacity of the ferrimagnet. This is also expected from the fact that in the absence of spin wave-spin wave interactions, the free energy is a sum of the ferromagnetic (F) and antiferromagnetic (AF) normal mode energies, as in Eq.(3). The F and AF heat capacity peaks, which have the usual $`T^{1/2}`$ and $`T^2`$ dependence, respectively, at low temperatures, are mostly overlapping due to which the resultant heat capacity has a single peak. The additive nature of the two contributions is also reflected in the dependence of susceptibility on temperature. With increasing temperature, the ferromagnetic contribution decays earlier, while the antiferromagnetic one increases and persists up to higher temperatures

The behavior of these physical quantities with temperature in the presence of dimerization $`\delta `$ and frustration $`\alpha `$ parameters for different system ($`s_1,s_2);(1,\frac{1}{2}),`$ $`(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ and ($`\frac{3}{2},1),`$ shall be discussed below. The effect of dimerization alone is discussed in section III, and that of frustrating alone in section IV.

## 3 Dimerized chains

The free energy is known to decrease with temperature. We find that it decreases with dimerization also for all ($`s_1,s_2`$) systems, as shown for the $`(1,\frac{1}{2})`$ system in Fig.(1). The LSW results show that the free energy scales as $`T^{1/4}`$, and $`\delta `$ as $`\delta ^2`$.

Total magnetization decreases with increasing $`T`$ and $`\delta ,`$ with a slower decrease for higher dimerization. This decrease is illustrated in Fig.(2), and scales as $`T`$ , and $`\delta `$ as $`\frac{\delta ^{1.5}}{|\mathrm{ln}\delta |}`$.

Fig.(3) shows the effect of dimerization on the heat capacity of the (1,$`\frac{1}{2})`$ ferrimagnetic chain which is supposed to have a mixed F and AF characters. Fig.(3a) gives the heat capacity without dimerization, and Fig.(3b) with $`\delta =0.9.`$ The figures show the heat capacities when the contributions of the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic excitation branches are taken separately and also when taken together. As expected, the total heat capacity is the sum of the heat capacities from the individual excitation branches in each case. It comes out that while both the F and AF peaks shift to lower temperatures with dimerization, the effect is different on the two. The F peak shifts by a larger amount than the AF peak, and the magnitude of the AF peak increases with $`\delta ,`$ while that of the F peak decreases. This is true for the other two ferrimagnetic systems ($`\frac{3}{2},1`$) and ($`\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$) also, and appears to be a universal feature of a ferrimagnet, be it predominantly F, AF or a mixture the two characters. The increase and decrease in the AF and F peak magnitudes clearly shows that dimerization increases the antiferromagnetic character and decreases the ferromagnetic one. The net effect of this different effect is the emergence of the second peak in the total heat capacity, and a decrease in the magnitude of the main peak for the (1,$`\frac{1}{2})`$ system, as shown in the inset. The predominantly F system ($`\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$) has this effect so accentuated that the shoulder, which in the LSW and MSW analyses is present even at $`\delta =0`$, turns into a double peak, as shown in Fig.(4a). The predominantly AF system ($`\frac{3}{2},1`$), on the other hand, shows no second peak or even a shoulder, as in Fig.(4b). It is interesting to note that the difference arises despite the fact that the F and AF dispersion curves are lowered by an equal amount by dimerization. It appears to be a result of a more involved interplay of the $`\delta `$-dependence of the excitation energies and the bosonic numbers in the free energy.

The shift of the peaks to lower temperatures can be understood in terms of the energies of excitation. The heat capacity peaks are indeed Schottky-like peaks in that they are a result of the gaps in excitation spectra. The Schottky peak in the heat capacity of a simple text-book two-level system with a gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between the two levels has a position that shifts with the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ decreases, it shifts to lower temperatures, and vice versa. For a ferrimagnetic chain, contribution to the peak comes from all the modes which have well-defined dispersions in k-space, each mode having a different gap. With dimerization, the dispersion curves are lowered in energy, giving rise to a shift of the peak to lower temperatures.

That the shifting is a result of the changes in the excitation spectra is also supported when the effect of dimerization on heat capacity is calculated by using a different parametrization of dimerization. We had earlier introduced $`\frac{J}{1\delta }`$ as another possibility. The reasons are given in that reference. This parametrization has an opposite effect on the dispersion curves. Instead of decreasing in energy with $`\delta `$ as in the case of the usual $`J(1\pm \delta )`$, the dispersion curves are now pushed up in energy with increasing $`\delta `$, with a nonlinear dependence on $`\delta .`$ Fig.(5) shows the heat capacity of the (1,$`\frac{1}{2})`$ chain with this parametrization. The Schottky peaks now shift to higher temperatures with increasing $`\delta `$. Also, the individual F and AF peaks respond differently to $`\delta `$. Just as the rate of increase of the AF dispersion curve with $`\delta `$ is much larger at higher $`\delta `$ values than that of the F dispersions, the AF Schottky peak shifts by a much larger amount than the F peak. Consequently, there comes a time when the AF peak is pushed so far to the high temperature side that a double peak structure develops. This appears more clearly in the case of the ($`\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ ferrimagnetic chain in which ferromagnetic character dominates. This is shown in Fig.(6). The AF peak is so strongly pushed to higher temperatures that the F and AF peaks almost separate from each other. Correspondingly, in the dispersion curves of this system, the optic mode is pushed up by a far larger magnitude than the acoustic one. This establishes then that the heat capacity peaks reflect the effects an external or internal influence has on the dispersion curves.

The change of character upon dimerization shows up in the susceptibility of ferrimagnets also. Fig.(7) shows $`\chi T`$ vs $`T`$, the low temperature part of which is dominated by the F contribution and the high temperature part by the AF contribution. The minimum at intermediate temperatures is a result of a comparable contributions of the two. With dimerization using $`J(1\pm \delta )`$, the increase in the slope at high temperatures testifies to the increasing AF character of a ferrimagnet. This increase is the largest for the predominantly AF ($`\frac{3}{2},1)`$ system; Fig.(7c), smaller for the ($`1,\frac{1}{2})`$ system; Fig.(7a) and the smallest for the predominantly ferromagnetic ($`\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$) system; Fig.(7b), showing again the validity of the Yamamoto classification.

## 4 Frustrated ferrimagnetic chains

The effect of frustration in ferrimagnetic systems has been investigated at zero temperature. Two key values of the frustration parameter were identified; namely, $`\alpha _c`$ which marks complete destruction of the long range order in the system and $`\alpha ^{}`$ which marks the onset of phase transition to a spiral spin structure. At any finite temperature, we find that within the linear spin wave theory the two are temperature independent. We will study the thermal effect of a frustrated chain in the absence of dimerization.

Free energy decreases with frustration. This decrease is faster for higher $`\alpha `$. It was reported earlier that at $`T=0`$ the ground states energy increases with frustration and then starts to decrease for values of frustration close to $`\alpha _c`$. This behavior is illustrated in Fig.(8) for the spin system $`(1,\frac{1}{2})`$.

The effect of frustration on heat capacity will again be discussed for the F and AF contributions separately. Frustration causes the AF $`C_v`$ peak to slightly increase in size and shift to lower temperatures. But its effect on the $`C_v`$ peak due to the F excitation modes is more dramatic. Here the transition to the spiral phase at $`\alpha ^{}`$ has its impact. Before $`\alpha ^{}`$ the peak decreases in size and shifts to lower temperatures. Beyond this value, when the system goes into the spiral phase, a further increase in frustration causes the peak to increase in size and shift to higher temperatures. All of this is a result of the mode-softening changes that the F dispersion curves go through, as seen in Fig.(9). The total $`C_v`$ being a sum of the AF and F contributions in the non-interacting spin-wave theory changes with $`\alpha `$ as shown in Fig.(10).

In the case of the ($`1,\frac{1}{2}`$) system, the $`\alpha =0`$ chain having a mixed F and AF characters, the $`C_v`$ curve has an AF-like $`T^2`$ dependence at low temperatures. With added frustration, the F peak separates out at low temperatures making the total $`C_v`$ curve have an F-like $`T^{1/2}`$ dependence at low $`T`$. The F peak diminishes in size with increasing $`\alpha `$, almost vanishing at $`\alpha ^{}`$, beyond which it regrows and eventually merges with the AF peak. At this point the $`C_v`$ curve again has an AF-like $`T^2`$ dependence at low temperatures. This is shown in Fig.(10a)

In the case of the predominantly F system ($`\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$), the heat capacity of which has a low temperature shoulder due to the F peak even in the absence of frustration, the changes affecting the F peak are very prominent, as in Fig.(10b). As $`\alpha `$ increases, the F peak separates out and diminish in size before $`\alpha ^{}`$, after which it rises and eventually merges with the AF peak. The net $`C_v`$ also experiences a low-temperature cross-over from a ferromagnetic $`T^{1/2}`$ dependence at zero frustration to the antiferromagnetic $`T^2`$ dependence at $`\alpha `$ beyond $`\alpha ^{}`$ in the spiral state.

In the case of the predominantly AF system ($`\frac{3}{2},1`$), the F peak in itself experiences the same changes as in the ($`1,\frac{1}{2}`$) system, but it remains submerged in the AF peak, and the net $`C_v`$ never shows a second peak, as in Fig.(10c). It, however, also experiences the cross-over from $`T^2`$ to $`T^{1/2}`$ behavior at low temperatures.

The effect of frustration on $`\chi `$ is the same as that of dimerization. The minimum shifts to lower temperatures and the slope of the high temperature tail increases as shown in Fig.(11).

In short, the effect of dimerization and frustration on the thermal behavior provides a nice evidence of the validity of the Yamamoto classification of ferrimagnetic chains.

We thus conclude that the heat hapacity of a ferrimagnet can have a more complicated structure than a simple Schottky-like peak. It can have a low temperature shoulder or a double peak structure. The peak can shift to lower or higher temperatures and can also change in size depending upon the influences the system is undergoing. All of this can be understood in terms of the component ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic peaks that retain their individuality as long as the spin wave-soin wave interactions are ignored. The Yamamoto classification of the ferrimagnetic systems into predominantly ferromagnetic ($`s_1>2s_2)`$, antiferromagnetic ($`s_1<2s_2)`$ and ferrimagnetic ($`s_1=2s_2)`$ appears to have a basis in this characteristic.

A. A. would like to thank Wu Congjun for discussion and help.

Figure captions

Figure 1: Dependence of the free energy on $`T`$ for several values of the dimerization parameter $`\delta `$ in one-dimensional spin system (1,$`\frac{1}{2}`$). A similar behavior was found for the other two systems $`(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$) and ($`\frac{3}{2},1)`$.

Figure 2: The total magnetization of the alternating spin chain (1,$`\frac{1}{2}`$) vs temperature for different values of the dimerization parameter $`\delta .`$ A systematic behavior was observed for the other two systems $`(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$) and ($`\frac{3}{2},1)`$.

Figure 3: Heat capacity for the chain (1,$`\frac{1}{2}`$) as a function of $`T`$ . The heat capacities calculated with only the ferromagnetic (acoustic) branch of the elementary excitation spectrum and with only the antiferromagnetic (optic) branch are shown separately. Their sum is also shown which is exactly the heat capacity when the two excitation branches are taken into account together. Figure (a) is for $`\delta =0.0`$, and (b) for $`\delta =0.9`$. The inset for total $`C_v`$ for the two values of $`\delta `$ highlights how the Schottky-like peak shifts in temperature, reduces in size, and acquires a shoulder. The curves are shown for the system (1,$`\frac{1}{2}`$).

Figure 4: (a) Heat capacity of the ferrimagnetic chain $`(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$). This being a predominantly F system, the Schottky-like peak has a shoulder even in the absence of dimerization. The effect of dimerization is strong enough to separate out the F and AF peaks to result in a two-peak structure. Fig.(b) is for the predominantly AF system ($`\frac{3}{2},1)`$ which fails to show a shoulder or a double peak structure even at large dimerization.

Figure 5: The dependence of heat capacity on $`T`$ when the dimrization is parametrized by the interaction $`\frac{J_1}{1\delta }`$ for the alternating spin chain (1,$`\frac{1}{2}`$). The shift in the Schottky-like peak is to higher $`T`$, in contrast to the shift to lower $`T`$ in Fig.(3). A large dimerization pushes the AF peak much farther than the F peak, resulting in a two-peak structure.

Figure 6: The heat capacity for the alternating spin chain ($`\frac{3}{2}`$,$`\frac{1}{2}`$) with the parametrization as in Fig. (5). The F and AF peaks are now very dramatically separated.

Figure 7: The $`\chi T`$ vs $`T`$ in ferrimagnetic chains: (a) for the system (1,$`\frac{1}{2}`$), (b) for $`(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$) and (c) for ($`\frac{3}{2},1),`$ for various values of the dimerization parameter $`\delta `$. That dimerization enhances the AF character of ferrimagnets is clearly observable here.

Figure 8: The free energy for the alternating spin chain (1,$`\frac{1}{2}`$) as a function of temperature for several values of the frustration parameter $`\alpha `$. The same behavior was found for $`(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}`$) and ($`\frac{3}{2},1)`$.

Figure 9: The dependence of the excitation energies on frustration parameter $`\alpha `$ for the spin system (1,$`\frac{1}{2}`$) shows the mode softening that heralds the transition to spiral state.

Figure 10: Specific heat vs $`T`$ : (a) for the spin system (1,$`\frac{1}{2}`$), (b) for ($`\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ and c) for $`(\frac{3}{2},1`$), for various values of the frustration parameter $`\alpha `$.

Figure 11: The behavior of $`\chi T`$ vs $`T`$ of the ferrimagnetic system (1,$`\frac{1}{2}`$) on a chain for different values of $`\alpha `$.


format: text

text:
# Correcting Parameters of Events Based on the Entropy of Microlensing Ensemble

## 1 Introduction

There are two complementary processes that have led to progress in physical sciences: 1) new hypotheses have triggered experiments which either verify or falsify these hypotheses, 2) observations of unexpected phenomena force theorists to refine old or invent new models and mathematical descriptions. Most of the achievements in astrophysics have followed the second pattern. Here we argue that an extreme variation of the first path can be very useful in some astrophysical problems. We present the idea that robust theoretical expectations can become a tool in removing hidden observational biases. We illustrate this approach by deriving possible corrections to the distribution of impact parameters for a sample of microlensing events.

Over the last decade, the microlensing surveys have grown from a fascinating idea entertained by a group of enthusiastic theoreticians (Paczyński 1986; Paczyński 1991; Griest 1991) to a reality of data sets containing tens and hundreds of real events (Alcock et al. 2000; Popowski et al. 2000; Udalski et al. 2000). The more data we gather, the more we appreciate the ability to do precise microlensing analyses. The effects of ’parallax’ (Gould 1992; Alcock et al. 1995), binary caustic crossing (Paczyński & Mao 1991; Afonso et al. 2000), and finite source (Gould 1994; Alcock et al. 1997) are particularly appreciated due to their ability to break degeneracies present in the simplest cases and provide useful constraints on stellar physics. On the other hand, blend fits (needed to determine how much flux of a few unresolved stars at a given location has been microlensed) are a standard tool in investigating crowding/seeing biases common to most of the events. As long as one tries to infer the geometry from the fluxes themselves, the determinations are sensitive to the sky level and other weakly controlled factors. Therefore, it is possible that even doing the best possible analysis on reported events, one still has to correct an entire data set for undetected biases.

Here we argue that it is possible to obtain a more accurate determination of the parameters of events using the information that they belong to a microlensing family. The robust prediction of microlensing is that different impact parameters are equally likely, and, as a result, the distribution of the impact parameter is box-like with a values bracketed by 0 and $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$, where $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$ is the maximum value of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ allowed by the minimum amplification chosen for a particular event selection (see Figure 1 and the following sections). This robust prediction may appear to break for blended events if blending tends to populate certain $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ ranges on the expense of the others. Similarly, it may seem to break if observing strategy, conditions or instrumentation preferentially select certain $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ ranges. In the following treatment we will assume that such effects are either insignificant or that they have been reduced to a negligible level through some correction procedures (e.g., deblending). Therefore, we concentrate on hypothetical irremovable biases that may originate at the stage of data reduction and analysis. We suggest that, when dealing with a clean (almost clean) microlensing sample111The assumption of clean microlensing sample is discussed in detail in §5., one should correct all individual $`u_{\mathrm{min},i}`$ in such a way as to achieve the highest possible agreement between the observed and theoretically predicted cumulative distribution of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$. The corrected $`u_{\mathrm{min},i}`$ values may be used to re-determine the duration of microlensing events. This, in turn, would lead to a new estimate of the microlensing optical depth and modification of most likely lens’ masses.

In the most general case, one would like to use a Kolmogorov test to choose a set of $`u_{\mathrm{min},i}`$, which is consistent with microlensing at the highest possible confidence level. The distribution function constraint coming from the Kolmogorov test is formally equivalent to an infinite number of constraints on all the moments of the distribution. This does not mean that the information contained in Kolmogorov statistic (see §4) is equivalent to the information contained in all the moments of the distribution. However, the determination of the Kolmogorov statistic may require the knowledge of all the moments of the distribution. The moments are easier to deal with in the general approach of maximum likelihood which we are going to invoke here. The high moments of the distribution (even the shape parameters of skewness and kurtosis) are very weakly constrained in the case of small number statistics. One may think that it should be advantageous to use just lower, well-constrained moments. This is not always correct. Despite the fact that higher moments are correlated with lower moments, the infinite number of very weak constraints coming from higher moments may overcome the statistical signal of the well-constrained mean and variance of the distribution. Therefore, in the general case the limited moment approach to correct microlensing parameters may be biased in an unpredictable way. However, there is one type of correction which is completely determined just by the mean, $`\mu `$, and variance, $`\sigma ^2`$, of the $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-distribution. In this case described in §3, it is mathematically more elegant and convenient to use the moment formalism as an ersatz for the complete Kolmogorov statistic.

The structure of this paper is the following. In §2, we briefly review the basic principles of microlensing and the possible biases in the determination of stellar parameters. In §3, we present our new formalism pointing to its likely practical application. In §4 we discuss the question of how to obtain microlensing constraints from the traditional Kolmogorov procedure in the general case. We argue that it is not possible to improve the parameter determination of the fits to the individual highly-degenerate blending events. Finally, in §5, we summarize our results.

## 2 General microlensing

The microlensing of stellar light is produced when a massive object (e.g., a star) passes very close to the line of sight between the source of light and the observer (see e.g., Gould 2000 for a theoretical review). The light is gravitationally deflected and the processed image changes its surface as projected on the plane of the source. Because during lensing the surface brightness is conserved, the observed flux from the source increases proportionally to the change in the image surface. As a result the source is magnified and the maximum magnification $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$ depends on the impact parameter $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$, which describes the level of alignment between the source, lens and observer. The centroid of the new distribution of light in the sky changes, but because the shift is $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{}_{}{}^{}{}_{_<}{}^{}}{{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}}100\mu \mathrm{arcsec}`$ for a typical event (Boden, Shao, & van Buren 1998), it cannot be observed from the ground with current instruments. Therefore, the classical signature of the simplest microlensing is a characteristic achromatic light curve, which is time-symmetric with respect to the epoch with the highest flux.

Microlensing surveys typically have noisy photometry and therefore are forced to allow only the events with $`A_{\mathrm{max}}`$ exceeding 1.5 or so. The minimum recorded maximum amplification, $`A_{\mathrm{max}}^{}`$, sets the limits on the largest recorded impact parameter $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$:

$$u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}=\sqrt{2+\frac{2A_{\mathrm{max}}^{}}{\sqrt{A_{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}1}}}.$$
(1)
The stellar systems in which microlensing is observed contain enough objects on the random enough orbits so that all the values of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ in the range between $`0`$ and $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$ are equally likely.

There are several effects that complicate this simple picture. First of all, there are binary lenses, which produce lines of formally infinite magnification (caustics) and light curves with a zoo of shapes (Griest & Hu 1992). Here we mean both stellar binaries as well as stars with planetary companions. Second, the sources are not point like, and as a result the magnification pattern differs from the basic case. Third, the constraints coming from the survey instruments, sampling and site weather introduce a whole class of biases. Most of them can be summarized in two categories: blending and efficiency. Blending is mostly about atmospheric seeing. All microlensing surveys have to deal with seeing of about 1 arcsecond or more. The seeing disk of that size typically covers more than 1 star in the sky, especially when one wants to account for the faint end of the luminosity function. However, in almost all cases there is only one star (or stellar system like a binary) that is microlensed. One has to make “blend fits” which determine what fraction of the light observed in the seeing disk has been actually microlensed. Efficiency is about the duration of the survey, the frequency of sampling the light curves and the photometric response of the system. The events shorter than an average interval between observations are likely to go unnoticed as are the events which last much longer than the whole survey. The magnitude-limited character of the survey will not substantially bias the detection of bright sources, but will allow only highly magnified faint sources. These effects leave their mark on the $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-distribution and are likely to show preference for specific $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ ranges. The qualitative character of such preference can be revealed only through a complete analysis conducted by a given survey. Once necessary adjustments are applied, the $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-distribution should be approximately box-like. In an ideal case such distribution would not require any further correction. The more realistic case is presented in §3.

## 3 Basic formalism

As mentioned in the previous section all values of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ in the range between $`0`$ and $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$ are theoretically equally likely, and, therefore, $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ should be box-like distributed:

$$f(u_{\mathrm{min}})=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}}& \mathrm{if}& 0u_{\mathrm{min}}u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\\ 0& \mathrm{if}& u_{\mathrm{min}}>u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\end{array}$$
(2)
Therefore the moments of the distribution should be given by

$$m_n=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}x^nf(u_{\mathrm{min}})𝑑x}{_0^{\mathrm{}}f(u_{\mathrm{min}})𝑑x}=\frac{_0^{u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}}x^n\frac{1}{u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}}𝑑x}{_0^{u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}}\frac{1}{u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}}𝑑x}=\frac{\left(u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)^n}{n+1}$$
(3)
As a result:

$$E\left(\mu \left(u_{\mathrm{min}}\right)\right)m_1=\frac{1}{2}u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}$$
(4)
and

$$E\left(\sigma ^2\left(u_{\mathrm{min}}\right)\right)m_2m_1^2=\frac{1}{12}\left(u_{min}^{}\right)^2,$$
(5)
where $`E`$ stands for the expectation value. Now the question is how one can use this information to make a better estimate of the microlensing parameters. Here we are going to call a thermodynamic analogy, which we think corresponds closely to the currently considered case. Imagine a huge reservoir of particles which are characterized by a certain temperature and therefore have a certain distribution of kinetic energies. To measure some properties of these particles one could investigate average properties of any sub-volume of this huge reservoir because such a sub-volume is representative of the entire volume. In practice, one would rather attach to the reservoir a small chamber separated from the main volume by a partition. If the partition is semi-permeable, the number of the particles in the small chamber will increase till the experiment is finished and the particle properties are measured. As long as the number of particles in the small chamber is much smaller than the number of particles in the huge reservoir, the chamber will be filled with particles that originate from the reservoir but are on average more energetic. This is because the faster particles are more likely to hit the partition than one would infer from their number density. However, if one knows the original velocity distribution, one can make an adjustment for this effect. After this correction, the small chamber collection should be equivalent to a randomly chosen sub-volume mentioned above and, therefore, representative of the huge reservoir. The most likely state of such sub-volume is the one which maximizes the entropy. The state, which maximizes the entropy is the one where the distributions of energies of particles in the reservoir and the corrected energies of the particles in the chamber are identical.

In the case of microlensing the reservoir is filled with all the possible events. The small chamber corresponds to a microlensing survey, which gathers the data. The factors biasing the distribution of event parameters are both detection efficiencies of the survey as well as blending of the events. Once corrected for the known biases, the distribution of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ of events in the survey should closely resemble the distribution in the reservoir. And it does unless there are hidden biases associated with data reduction and analysis. We will define the state of maximum microlensing entropy as the one in which the $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-distribution resembles the expected distribution to the highest possible extent. Because the reservoir contains a tremendous number of possible microlensing events, its distribution of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is to a very high accuracy box-like. We want to modify the $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-distribution of the survey to make it look like the expected box-like distribution.

For simplicity, we will here present only the conditions imposed on the mean and the variance of the distribution. We define:

$$u_{\mathrm{min},i}^{\mathrm{new}}=g_i(P)u_{\mathrm{min},i},$$
(6)
where $`g_i(P)`$ is a function of different parameters designated by the capital $`P`$ (in what follows we will use just $`g_i`$ to avoid clutter). The two most extreme cases are that all $`g_i(P)`$ are equal to 1 and so the entire transformation is in effect an identity and that all $`g_i(P)`$ are different and unrelated to each other. For the treatment with only first two moments taken into account (flawed in the general case as described in the Introduction), the likelihood of certain configuration of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values (if no other information is available) is

$$L(u_{\mathrm{min},i},i\overline{1,N})=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\chi _\mu ^2}{2})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\chi _{\sigma ^2}^2}{2})$$
(7)
The maximization of this probability is equivalent to minimization of

$$2\mathrm{ln}L=\chi _\mu ^2+\chi _{\sigma ^2}^2,$$
(8)
where

$$\chi _\mu ^2=\frac{\left(\frac{1}{N}_{i=1}^Ng_iu_{\mathrm{min},i}\frac{1}{2}u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)^2}{\frac{1}{N}\left[\frac{1}{N1}_{i=1}^N\left(g_iu_{\mathrm{min},i}\frac{1}{N}_{i=1}^Ng_iu_{\mathrm{min},i}\right)^2\right]}$$
(9)
and

$$\chi _{\sigma ^2}^2=\frac{\left(\left[\frac{1}{N1}_{i=1}^N\left(g_iu_{\mathrm{min},i}\frac{1}{N}_{i=1}^Ng_iu_{\mathrm{min},i}\right)^2\right]\frac{1}{12}\left(u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)^2\right)^2}{\frac{K(u_{\mathrm{min}},g)1}{N}\left[\frac{1}{N1}_{i=1}^N\left(g_iu_{\mathrm{min},i}\frac{1}{N}_{i=1}^Ng_iu_{\mathrm{min},i}\right)^2\right]^2}$$
(10)
In the general case, the kurtosis $`K(u_{\mathrm{min}},g)`$ is a function of both the original distribution and the modifying functions and so it enters the minimization in an active way making all the expressions very complicated. Here we are going to consider a special case where

$$\underset{i\overline{1,N}}{}g_i=\alpha =\mathrm{const}.$$
(11)
Then the equations (9) and (10) are simplified to

$$\chi _\mu ^2=\frac{\left(\alpha \mu \frac{1}{2}u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)^2}{\alpha ^2\sigma ^2}$$
(12)
and

$$\chi _{\sigma ^2}^2=\frac{\left(\alpha ^2\sigma ^2\frac{1}{12}\left(u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)^2\right)^2}{\frac{K(u_{\mathrm{min}})1}{N}\alpha ^4\sigma ^4},$$
(13)
where $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma ^2`$ are the mean and dispersion of the original distribution of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$, respectively.

Now the kurtosis $`K`$ is only a function of the initial distribution of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$, because the higher standardized moments are invariable against multiplication of the entire distribution by a constant. Therefore, in minimization, $`K`$ can be treated as constant of the sought value of $`\alpha `$. More importantly, all the standardized moments higher than variance remain constant under the multiplication of the whole distribution by a constant. In this case, the infinite number of conditions on all the moments of the distribution is equivalent to two conditions on the mean and variance of the distribution. We start with a separate minimizations of equations (12) and (13) to earn some intuitive understanding of the desired corrections to the observed set of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values. From (12):

$$\frac{\chi _\mu ^2}{\alpha }=\frac{Nu_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\left(\alpha \mu \frac{1}{2}u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)}{\alpha ^3\sigma ^2}$$
(14)
Therefore

$$\frac{\chi _\mu ^2}{\alpha }=0\alpha =\frac{\frac{1}{2}u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}}{\mu }.$$
(15)
From (13):

$$\frac{\chi _{\sigma ^2}^2}{\alpha }=\frac{\frac{N}{3(K1)}\left(u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)^2\left(\alpha ^2\sigma ^2\frac{1}{12}\left(u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)^2\right)}{\alpha ^5\sigma ^4}$$
(16)
Therefore

$$\frac{\chi _{\sigma ^2}^2}{\alpha }=0\alpha ^2=\frac{\frac{1}{12}\left(u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)^2}{\sigma ^2}$$
(17)
Solutions (15) and (17) are what one would expect. They force either the mean or variance of the modified distribution to be equal to the theoretically expected values reported in (4) and (5). Note that the requirement that the $`\alpha `$ returned by (15) and (17) be identical to each other is equivalent to $`\mu ^2=3\sigma ^2`$ (every box-like distribution with a support in the range from 0 to a constant meets this condition). Now we combine (14) and (16) to find the value of $`\alpha `$ that is optimum from the point of view of both mean and variance of the distribution.

$$\frac{\chi _\mu ^2}{\alpha }+\frac{\chi _{\sigma ^2}^2}{\alpha }=0\alpha ^3+\frac{23(K1)}{3(K1)}\frac{u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}}{\mu }\alpha ^2\frac{1}{36(K1)}\frac{\left(u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)^3}{\mu \sigma ^2}=0$$
(18)
We define:

$$B\frac{23(K1)}{3(K1)}\frac{u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}}{\mu }\mathrm{and}D\frac{1}{36(K1)}\frac{\left(u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}\right)^3}{\mu \sigma ^2}$$
(19)
We introduce a new variable $`y=\alpha +\frac{B}{3}`$. Then the equation (18) takes the form:

$$y^3\frac{B^2}{3}y+\left(\frac{2B^3}{27}+D\right)=0$$
(20)
From the theory of solving third order equations one knows that equation (20) has two complex and only one real solution if

$$\mathrm{\Delta }D\left(\frac{B^3}{27}+\frac{D}{4}\right)>0$$
(21)
If $`K>1`$ then we see from (19) that $`D<0`$. Therefore, condition (21) is equivalent to

$$\left(\frac{B^3}{27}+\frac{D}{4}\right)<0$$
(22)
Condition (22) is true, independent of the values of $`\mu `$ and $`\sigma ^2`$, if

$$B0K\frac{5}{3}$$
(23)
Condition (23) is likely to be the case most of the time222The kurtosis of the box-like distribution is $`K=1.8`$, so most of the deviations from this distribution will have $`K\frac{5}{3}`$. and the only real root of equation (18) will be the most probable solution for $`\alpha `$. This solution can be written as

$$\alpha =\sqrt[3]{\frac{B^3}{27}\frac{D}{2}+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}+\sqrt[3]{\frac{B^3}{27}\frac{D}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\frac{B}{3}$$
(24)
In the case when all the roots of equation (18) are real one has to choose the one which minimizes the combined $`\chi ^2`$ of equation (8) instead of just taking the solution (24). We do not discuss such complications in any detail because the procedure is mathematically straightforward and completely standard.

Multiplication of the entire $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-distribution by $`\alpha `$ is likely to change the number of events in the range $`(0,u_{\mathrm{min}}^{})`$. The described procedure should be repeated on new sets as many times as necessary for the results to converge. Therefore, the result of the analysis can be given as $`\alpha =_{i=1}^R\alpha _i`$, where $`R`$ is the number of needed repetitions and $`\alpha _i`$ are corrections of individual iterations.

In Figure 2 we present the application of equation (24) to an artificial set of 17 $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values. The dashed line is a theoretically expected distribution for magnification threshold of $`A_{\mathrm{max}}^{}=1.34`$ or $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}=1.0`$. The thin solid line is an original, uncorrected cumulative distribution of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values. The thick solid line is this distribution multiplied by $`\alpha =0.9`$, as obtained from equation (24). The improvement is easily visible and can be quantified by reduction in maximum vertical distance between the two distribution $`D_N`$ (formally introduced in the next section).

## 4 Remarks about the more general treatment and impossibility to constrain individual blended events

We will now consider the most general case as described by equations (9), (10), and the infinite number of other equations for the higher moments. Because all the moments now contain the statistical information, the only solution is to turn to the original Kolmogorov treatment.

The Kolmogorov test verifies the hypothesis that a continuous variable X could have been drawn from a cumulative distribution function $`F_0(x)`$. The test statistic is

$$D_N=\underset{x}{sup}\left|F_0(x)S_N(x)\right|,$$
(25)
where $`S_N(x)`$ is the observed cumulative distribution function based on the ordered sample of N measurements. If $`d_N(1\beta )`$ designate quantiles of the statistic $`D_N`$, then $`P(D_Nd_N(1\beta ))=\beta `$. The higher $`\beta `$, the less sensitive the test is.

Suppose that we construct all the possible sets of corrected $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values from the interval 0 to $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$. Then for each set we can find a $`D_N`$ statistic and a corresponding significance level $`\beta `$. In a formal Kolmogorov-type analysis, it is inappropriate to conclude that the relative probabilities of different sets scale as $`\frac{P(\mathrm{set1})}{P(\mathrm{set2})}=\frac{\beta (\mathrm{set2})}{\beta (\mathrm{set1})}`$. However, even though we cannot assign relative probabilities of certain corrected configurations, we can select the set of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values with smallest $`\beta `$ as the preferred solution (for the cumulative distribution only).

The main problem with this approach is that from the point of view of the cumulative distribution only, there will be a number of optimum solutions, all of which, except one, will mix the original order of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values. To avoid total chaos one can consider a simplified situation when:

1. the order of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ to be corrected is going to be conserved, that is that the event with the i-th lowest $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$, will remain the event with the i-th lowest $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ after the correction has been done.

Imagine that we operate in this idealized situation and select $`N`$ microlensing events and order them according to increasing $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$. One will reach the highest possible agreement if one sets:

$$u_{\mathrm{min},i}=\frac{i0.5}{N+1}u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}.$$
(26)
If correcting factors $`g_i`$ can be represented as a function of $`u_{\mathrm{min},i}`$ that is $`g_i=g(u_{\mathrm{min},i}`$), then as long as $`g/u_{\mathrm{min}}>1/u_{\mathrm{min}}^2`$ in the range $`(0,u_{\mathrm{min}}^{})`$, condition A. does not have to be imposed but is naturally met. Condition A. makes the most sense if one deals with a separated set of events. “Separated set” here is a well defined concept described as

$$\underset{i\overline{1,N}}{}\delta u_{\mathrm{min},i}\mathrm{min}([u_{\mathrm{min},(i+1)}u_{\mathrm{min},i}],[u_{\mathrm{min},i}u_{\mathrm{min},(i1)}]),$$
(27)
where $`\delta u_{\mathrm{min},i}`$ is the formal error in $`u_{\mathrm{min},i}`$. At the first glance, one may think that due to the requirement of small formal errors, the inequality (27) automatically guarantees that all $`u_{\mathrm{min},\mathrm{i}}`$ were determined correctly. However, that may not be the case, when unrecognized biases are present. In a separated set case, the constraints from the fits to individual events are crucial in establishing the order of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values and the Kolmogorov test is used to stretch or squeeze the entire distribution. The prescription described here and in §3 can be implemented in an iterative program, which can converge on the solution using both the cumulative distribution information as well as other constraints on individual $`u_{\mathrm{min},i}`$ with the relative weights selected by the investigator.

It is important to note that one is not allowed to draw the same statistical conclusions by fixing the $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-positions of some events and “filling the gaps” with the others. To give an example, one may hope that the information contained in the microlensing character of the ensemble can help to deblend the events with highly degenerate fits. Imagine that we have $`(N1)`$ events with nicely determined parameters (for which we would be happy to put $`g_i1`$) and one blending event with a very uncertain blending fraction (let say k-th on the ordered list). This corresponds to a situation when only one $`g_i1=\alpha `$. In this case, the blindly applied Kolmogorov analysis is going to return quite a strong preference for a certain value of $`u_{\mathrm{min},\mathrm{k}}`$ of this particular event. However, the actual probability that the considered event will be in this narrow preferred range is low and all the values of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ between 0 and $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$ are almost equally likely. This is because the right treatment here is just to consider a conditional probability of a certain $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ value given the set of $`(N1)`$ other $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values. Because the reservoir of possible microlensing events is huge, this conditional probability is extremely close to the flat distribution expected from the infinite set. Therefore, the rule is to either adjust the parameters of all events applying the Kolmogorov approach (and extra constraints) to the whole set of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values or leave it untouched. All the naive “partial” procedures involving Kolmogorov test will produce spurious results.

## 5 Summary

We have investigated the question how the information that events constitute microlensing family can help to reduce systematic errors in parameter determination. We have argued that the Kolmogorov test for the agreement between the observed and theoretical cumulative distributions of the impact parameter $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ can put useful additional constraints on microlensing parameters. However, there is no natural way to incorporate the classical Kolmogorov approach into the convenient maximum likelihood analysis. Fortunately, the constraints on the cumulative distribution can be replaced with the constraints on the infinite number of the moments of the distribution. We explain why taking into account only a few lower moments of the distribution is flawed, and, therefore eliminates the usefulness of such limited moment approach. However, we show that when the whole distribution of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values is multiplied by the same factor $`\alpha `$, all the information about the probabilities of different $`\alpha `$’s is stored in the mean and variance of the original distribution and the selection criteria of events. Assuming that no other statistical information on events is available (or relevant at this point), we solve for $`\alpha `$. Our results are given in equation (24) of §3.

In the follow-up, given the corrected $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values one may keep them fixed and re-determine the other parameters. Such approach is applicable if there is a systematic homogeneous bias of all $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values. The fully consistent treatment should proceed through the simultaneous determination of the multiplying factor $`\alpha `$ and the parameters of individual events. A useful consistency check would be to select different $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$ values and make sure that $`\alpha `$ does not strongly depend on this choice 333Here we mean $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$ values that do not differ too much from the original one — $`\alpha `$ is a local correction and as such is expected to very if $`u_{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$ changes substantially..

One may ask when it is justified to apply an $`\alpha `$-type correction to the data. This is a serious concern because it is normal that every actual realization of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-distribution will be affected by finite number statistics and, as a result, $`\alpha `$ is expected to be $`1`$ even for unbiased data, which need no correction. However, in this case, correction by $`\alpha `$ will typically be small and will not significantly change the properties of the distribution. Consequently, it seems safe to apply the $`\alpha `$-type correction even if the original distribution is consistent with the expected one.

Finally, we should examine the assumption that the microlensing sample under analysis is clean. In the traditional approach of massive microlensing searches directed at random events, it is very hard to construct a completely clean microlensing sample. In defense of $`\alpha `$-type correction, we should notice, that sensitivity to contamination is common to all determinations associated with microlensing. For example: 1) few long-duration variables mistakenly classified as microlenses can change the microlensing optical depth by a factor of two, 2) few very short stellar flares mistakenly classified as microlenses can entirely change the slope and cutoff of the mass function of lenses derived from the duration distribution of events.
Similarly our method may bias the final $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-distribution if some candidate events are not microlenses. Therefore, a particular survey should apply this method to their data only if the bias caused by sample contamination is smaller than the advantage gained due to the described adjustment. A potential improvement can be judged using a learning set of highly-constrained events444Such a learning set can also answer the question of what type of systematic errors are best removed with $`\alpha `$-type correction. However, in general, the understanding of the nature of systematic errors is not required to achieve improvement in parameter determination..

However, $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-test is often used as evidence for microlensing character of the events. This makes its status somewhat different from the optical depth or duration distribution of the events. As a result, what we need in an ideal case is a way to separate the “convoluted” nature of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-test (which intrinsically allows to check both the clean character of the sample and the correctness of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ values) into two independent issues. If we could select a clean sample, then we could limit the role of $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-test to a single task of parameter control. In this way $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$-distribution could become an active, unbiased tool in parameter determination, as we have presented it above.

Here we give two examples of realistic situation, when the clean character of the sample can be established with very high probability.
1. Events on demand from high proper motion lenses.
In the current microlensing searches there is no expectation of the location of the next event. The next event happens somewhere on one of $`10^7`$ monitored stars. In this scenario and with typical optical depths of order of $`10^710^6`$, it is expected that most varying objects will not be microlensing events. Moreover, there will be enough variables detected per each microlensing event to produce cases that look very much like microlensing and can contaminate the sample. Fortunately, observations do not have to follow this pattern. Some high proper motion stars toward dense stellar fields (e.g., Galactic bulge) will within $`10`$ years become sufficiently aligned with the known bulge sources to produce microlensing events (Salim & Gould 2000; Drake et al. 2002). As the occurrence of such events can be predicted based on known stellar motions, one can check the sky patch under investigation for possible non-microlensing contaminants in advance. More importantly, if the event happens when scheduled, the probability that it is not microlensing is negligible.
2. Astrometrically constrained events.
Single variable stars (including cataclysmic ones) are the main contaminants of microlensing samples. With high accuracy astrometric observations of candidate events carried out by Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) or similar astrometric satellite, it is easy to eliminate such contaminants: the centroids of varying flux due to variables do not move, whereas the centroids of light from microlensing images follow a well defined path (e.g., Boden et al. 1998). A detection of the centroid shift of varying flux (even the one insufficient to constrain microlensing parameters from astrometry alone) will be a very good indication of the microlensing character of the event.
Both types of samples described above should be clean enough for the purpose of non-restrictive application of $`\alpha `$-type correction, which may be based on light curves alone.

We thank Thor Vandehei whose genuine desire to accurately de-bias the MACHO data on the Large Magellanic Cloud triggered this investigation. We are grateful to Kim Griest for stimulating discussions on the issues related to this project. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.


text:
# Mobility Edge in Aperiodic Kronig-Penney Potentials with Correlated Disorder: Perturbative Approach

## Abstract

It is shown that a non-periodic Kronig-Penney model exhibits mobility edges if the positions of the scatterers are correlated at long distances. An analytical expression for the energy-dependent localization length is derived for weak disorder in terms of the real-space correlators defining the structural disorder in these systems. We also present an algorithm to construct a non-periodic but correlated sequence exhibiting desired mobility edges. This result could be used to construct window filters in electronic, acoustic, or photonic non-periodic structures.

The Kronig-Penney model has been widely used to explore the characteristics of electrons in a periodic potential, as this model provides one with perhaps the simplest instance of Bloch states. This model is also used systematically to provide estimates of the bandwidths in semiconductor superlattices with high reliability.  The Kronig-Penney model and its relation with superlattices has also been used in recent times to provide an implementation of the physics of random and quasi-periodic systems,  and interesting experiments have been reported on arrangements such as the well-known Fibonacci sequences.  It is because of its importance and wide applicability that we focus our attention on the Kronig-Penney model. We will demonstrate that the aperiodic model with constant scattering potential but random spacings yields mobility edges if the disorder has long-range correlations, in sharp contrast to the situation for white noise potentials.

The Kronig-Penney model in this study is given by a 1D chain of delta-function scatterers with amplitude $`U_n`$ and centered at points $`z_n`$. The Schrödinger equation for a particle moving in this random potential has the form,

$$(\mathrm{}^2/2m)\psi ^{\prime \prime }(z)+E\psi (z)=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}U_n\psi (z_n)\delta (zz_n).$$
(1)
This is equivalent to the discrete equation,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{sin}\mu _{n1}\psi _{n+1}+\mathrm{sin}\mu _n\psi _{n1}=\\ & \left[\mathrm{sin}(\mu _n+\mu _{n1})+(U_n/q)\mathrm{sin}\mu _{n1}\mathrm{sin}\mu _n\right]\psi _n,\end{array}$$
(2)
where $`\psi _n\psi (z_n)`$, $`\mu _n=q(z_{n+1}z_n)`$, $`q=\sqrt{E}`$, and the energy is measured in units where $`\mathrm{}^2/2m=1`$. The linear relation (2) between $`\psi _{n1}`$, $`\psi _n`$, and $`\psi _{n+1}`$, can be easily arrived at by integrating Eq. (1) in the vicinity of sites $`n1`$, $`n`$, and $`n+1`$, and substituting the amplitudes for the various constants in the piece-wise zero-potential regions between the scatterers. If the site potential is different from a delta function, a linear relation similar to Eq. (2) can be obtained using a general method described in Ref. . Therefore, Eq. (2) can be considered as a rather generic relation for 1D chains with potential scatterers. We focus here on a sequence of scatterers of equal amplitude, $`U_nU`$, but with varying positions, i.e. the case of ‘structural’ or ‘positional’ disorder. An obvious experimental realization of this model is a semiconductor superlattice with fluctuating period.

The case of compositional disorder, i.e., a periodic arrangement of sites, $`z_n=n`$, with random amplitude $`U_n`$, has been studied intensively during the last decade. The importance of short-range correlations was first explored recently,  and a ‘random dimer’ model was studied as a specific example.  Using this model, it was shown that short-range correlations in the infinite random sequence $`\left\{U_n\right\}`$ give rise to a discrete number of delocalized states as well as to some anomalies in transport properties.  The presence of such anomalies has been recently observed in experiments with GaAs-AlGaAs random-dimer superlattices.  Moreover, the non-trivial role of correlations in the formation of mobility edges has been pointed out by the study of localization in pseudorandom and incommensurate potentials.  In contrast, only relatively recently the role of long-range correlations in random potentials has received special attention. The interplay of long-range correlations and disorder has been shown to lead to the existence of a continuum of extended states in the energy spectrum and to the appearance of mobility edges. These edges have been shown to exist in experiments of microwave transmission in a single-mode waveguide with a random array of correlated scatterers, and their possible relevance for metal-insulator transitions in 2D electron systems has been recently explored.

Localization length for weak disorder. To calculate the localization length $`l(E)`$ in the case of structural disorder we use a Hamiltonian approach.  In this scheme, the discrete Schrödinger equation is replaced by a classical Hamiltonian map for coordinate $`x_n`$ and momentum $`p_n`$. For the case of Eq. (2), conjugate variables are introduced as, $`x_n=\psi _n`$ and $`p_n=(x_n\mathrm{cos}\mu _{n1}x_{n1})/\mathrm{sin}\mu _{n1}`$. Correspondingly, the discrete-time evolution of $`x_n`$ and $`p_n`$ is obtained from

$$\begin{array}{cc}p_{n+1}=(p_n+A_nx_n)\mathrm{cos}\mu _nx_n\mathrm{sin}\mu _n,& \\ x_{n+1}=(p_n+A_nx_n)\mathrm{sin}\mu _n+x_n\mathrm{cos}\mu _n.& \end{array}$$
(3)
This map describes the behavior of a linear rotator subjected to non-periodic delta-kicks with amplitude $`A_n=U_n/q`$. Free rotation between kicks corresponds to free propagation between scatterers and each kick corresponds to scattering at each $`\delta `$-function potential. It is easy to check that the first equation in (3) is equivalent to (2), while the second is reduced to an identity after $`p_n`$ substitution.

In what follows we consider the case of weak disorder, assuming that the deviation of the scatterers from their positions in a periodic lattice is small, $`|\delta _n|=q|z_nn|1`$. We can then expand trigonometric functions in (3) and up to second order in $`\lambda _n=q(\delta _{n+1}\delta _n)`$, obtain the approximate map for constant kick amplitude $`A=U/q`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}p_{n+1}=\mathrm{cos}q\left[p_n(1\frac{\lambda _n^2}{2})+x_n(A\lambda _nA\frac{\lambda _n^2}{2})\right]& \\ \mathrm{sin}q\left[p_n\lambda _n+x_n(1+A\lambda _n\frac{\lambda _n^2}{2})\right],& \\ x_{n+1}=\mathrm{cos}q\left[p_n\lambda _n+x_n(1+A\lambda _n\frac{\lambda _n^2}{2})\right]& \\ +\mathrm{sin}q\left[p_n(1\frac{\lambda _n^2}{2})+x_n(A\lambda _nA\frac{\lambda _n^2}{2})\right].& \end{array}$$
(4)
Note that since $`\lambda _nq=\sqrt{E}`$, this expansion is valid only for low energies.

In order to extract the effect that comes only from the positional non-periodicity, it is convenient to eliminate the mean field associated with the constant amplitude $`U`$. This can be done by a canonical transformation of variables,

$$\begin{array}{cc}p_n=\alpha ^1\mathrm{cos}\varphi P_n\alpha \mathrm{sin}\varphi X_n,& \\ x_n=\alpha ^1\mathrm{sin}\varphi P_n+\alpha \mathrm{cos}\varphi X_n.& \end{array}$$
(5)
The parameters of this transformation ($`\alpha `$ and $`\varphi `$) are obtained from the condition that to zeroth order in $`\lambda _n`$ the dynamical map for $`(P_n,X_n)`$ be a simple rotation without kicks, i.e., $`P_{n+1}^{(0)}=P_n^{(0)}\mathrm{cos}\gamma X_n^{(0)}\mathrm{sin}\gamma `$, and $`X_{n+1}^{(0)}=P_n^{(0)}\mathrm{sin}\gamma +X_n^{(0)}\mathrm{cos}\gamma `$. Applying this condition to Eqs. (5) and (4) we get after some algebra:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\varphi =\frac{1}{2}q,\mathrm{cos}\gamma =\mathrm{cos}q+(A/2q)\mathrm{sin}q,& \\ \alpha ^4=1+2A/\left[2\mathrm{sin}qA(1+\mathrm{cos}q)\right].& \end{array}$$
(6)
It is clear that $`\gamma `$ plays the role of the Bloch number in the periodic Kronig-Penney model.  We can now rewrite the map (4) in terms of variables $`(P_n,X_n)`$ and angle $`\gamma `$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}P_{n+1}=\left(1\lambda _n^2/2\right)(P_n\mathrm{cos}\gamma X_n\mathrm{sin}\gamma )& \\ \lambda _n\alpha ^2(P_n\mathrm{sin}\gamma +X_n\mathrm{cos}\gamma ),& \\ X_{n+1}=\left(1\lambda _n^2/2\right)(P_n\mathrm{sin}\gamma +X_n\mathrm{cos}\gamma )& \\ +\lambda _n\alpha ^2(P_n\mathrm{cos}\gamma X_n\mathrm{sin}\gamma ).& \end{array}$$
(7)
Following our previous approach, it is convenient to introduce action-angle variables for map (7),

$$P_n=R_n\mathrm{sin}\theta _n,X_n=R_n\mathrm{cos}\theta _n.$$
(8)
The inverse localization length for the original quantum model Eq. (1) (or equivalently, the Lyapunov exponent for the dynamical map in (3)), can be expressed in terms of the ratio $`R_{n+1}/R_n`$ (see details in Ref. ),

$`l^1(E)=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _{n+1}}{\psi _n}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{X_{n+1}}{X_n}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{n+1}^2}{R_n^2}}.`$ (9)
Here, angular brackets stand for the average over sites (kicks), so that, $`\mathrm{}=lim_N\mathrm{}\frac{1}{N}_{n=1}^N\left(\mathrm{}\right)`$. Using the map (7) we can calculate the ratio $`R_{n+1}/R_n`$ as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\left(R_{n+1}/R_n\right)^2=1U\lambda _n\mathrm{sin}\left[2\left(\theta _n\gamma \right)\right]/(q\mathrm{sin}\gamma )& \\ +\lambda _n^2\left[\alpha ^4\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _n\gamma )+\alpha ^4\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _n\gamma )1\right]& \end{array}$$
(10)
The fact that the ratio $`R_{n+1}/R_n`$ is close to unity for small $`\lambda _n`$ is what motivated switching from the variables ($`p_n,x_n`$) to ($`P_n,X_n`$) using (5). The logarithm in (9) can be expanded as $`\mathrm{ln}(1+x)xx^2/2`$, and, up to second order in $`\lambda _n`$, the average is performed over the unperturbed motion given by the $`(P_n^{(0)},X_n^{(0)})`$ variables. Since this motion is a free rotation (in the old variables it is a rotation with periodic kicks), the angle variable $`\theta _n`$ is clearly distributed uniformly within the interval $`[0,2\pi ]`$. One then obtains that $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _n=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _n=1/2`$, and

$$l^1(E)=\frac{\lambda _n^2U^2}{8q^2\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }\frac{U}{q\mathrm{sin}\gamma }\lambda _n\mathrm{sin}[2(\theta _n\gamma )].$$
(11)
The first term in (11) gives the inverse localization length in an uncorrelated random potential. In this Born approximation, it is proportional to the variance $`\lambda _n^2`$ and to the squared amplitude of the scattering potential, $`U^2`$. Since $`\lambda _n^2q^2`$, the factor $`q^2`$ disappears and the only energy dependence is due to the factor $`\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma `$ in the denominator. At the edges of the allowed zones $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma =0`$, and here the localization length $`l(E)`$ approaches zero. A similar enhancement of localization in the vicinity of the band edges  has stimulated the study of photonic-band-gap materials in the last decade.

The second term in (11) describes the contribution of correlations in the scattering potential. To calculate explicitly the correlator $`\lambda _n\mathrm{sin}[2(\theta _n\gamma )]`$, one needs the recursion relation for the angle variable $`\theta _n`$. Since this correlator already contains a factor $`\lambda _n`$, only linear terms in the recursion relation are needed from Eqs. (7) and (8), so that $`\theta _n=\theta _{n1}\gamma \lambda _{n1}\left[\alpha ^2U\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{n1}\gamma )/(q\mathrm{sin}\gamma )\right]`$. The correlator $`\lambda _n\mathrm{sin}[2(\theta _n\gamma )]`$ can be written as a Fourier series in Bloch number $`\gamma `$, where the dimensionless correlators $`\xi (k)`$ are the Fourier coefficients,

$$\lambda _n\mathrm{sin}[2(\theta _n\gamma )]=\frac{Uq\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2\mathrm{sin}\gamma }\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\xi (n)\mathrm{cos}(2\gamma n).$$
(12)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_n^2`$, with $`\xi (k)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{n+k}\mathrm{\Delta }_n/\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=\delta _{n+1}\delta _n`$. Note that the localization length is determined by the statistical properties of the sequence of relative displacements $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$, and not by the displacements $`\delta _n`$ themselves.

Substituting the correlator (12) into (11) we get the final result for the inverse localization length,

$$\frac{1}{l(E)}=\frac{U^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{8\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }\phi (\gamma ),\phi (\gamma )=1+2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\xi (n)\mathrm{cos}(2\gamma n).$$
(13)
This formula has the same structure as that obtained for a tight-binding (and the corresponding Kronig-Penney) model with random amplitudes $`U_n`$, but equidistant sites ($`z_n=n`$).  These three different models have a different dependence on energy via the factors $`q^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma `$. The present case exhibits the weakest dependence of the localization length on energy within the allowed zone since a factor $`q^2=E`$ appears in other cases but not here. This property should be favorable for the experimental observation of mobility edges in superlattices with positional disorder.

Correlations and mobility edge. If the sequence of random displacements $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ is uncorrelated, $`\xi (k)=0`$, the localization length is given by the first term in (13). In the opposite limit of a completely correlated sequence, $`\xi (k)=`$const., the displacements are independent on the site number, $`\delta _n=\delta _0`$, giving a regular sequence with period $`1+\delta _0`$, and extended states, $`l^1=0`$, for all energies. A smooth transition between these two limits can be described by an exponential function, $`\xi (k)=\mathrm{exp}(k/k_0)`$, where $`k_0`$ is a correlation radius. Substituting this form into (13) one obtains

$$l^1(E)=\frac{U{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{2}}{8\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma }\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(1/k_0)}{\mathrm{cosh}(1/k_0)\mathrm{cos}(2\gamma )}.$$
(14)
For any finite $`k_0`$ all states are localized. Only in a periodic lattice ($`k_0=\mathrm{}`$) does the inverse localization length (14) vanish and the states become delocalized. This localization-delocalization transition occurs simultaneously for all energies, and a mobility edge does not appear in the spectrum. This conclusion is valid for arbitrary amplitude of the scattering potential $`U`$. A discrete number of delocalized states can in fact appear if the binary correlator $`\xi (k)`$ oscillates with exponentially decaying amplitude. This can be obtained from (14), if the correlation radius $`k_0`$ is allowed to take complex values. On the other hand, a mobility edge may appear if correlations decay not exponentially but according to a power law. We show numerically below that mobility edges exist if, e.g., $`\xi (k)1/k`$.

Designed mobility edges. In a real (or numerical) experiment one needs to know explicitly the displacements $`\delta _n`$ which provide a desirable dependence $`l(E)`$. This leads us to the ‘inverse problem’ in the theory of localization. The solution would give us in general a random scattering potential $`\{U_n,\delta _n\}`$ through the dependence $`l(E)`$. In the present case of positional disorder, $`U_n=U`$, we need to calculate only the relative displacements. One can explicitly evaluate the correlator $`\xi (k)`$ as the Fourier coefficient,

$$\xi (k)=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\pi /2}\phi (\gamma )\mathrm{cos}(2k\gamma )𝑑\gamma ,$$
(15)
where the energy dependence of $`\phi (\gamma )=8\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma /(U^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2l(E))`$, is assumed to be known. The energy $`E=q^2`$ is expressed through $`\gamma `$ via the dispersion relation in (6). It is easy to check that the binary correlator of a sequence $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_n/\mathrm{\Delta })=_{k=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\beta (k)Z_{n+k}`$, coincides with $`\xi (k)`$ if $`Z_k`$ are random numbers with zero mean and unit variance, and where the function $`\beta (k)`$ is given by

$$\beta (k)=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\pi /2}\sqrt{\phi (\gamma )}\mathrm{cos}(2k\gamma )𝑑\gamma .$$
(16)
Once the relative displacements $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ are known, a sequence of absolute displacements can be easily calculated, setting $`\delta _0=0`$, for example, and then $`\delta _1=\mathrm{\Delta }_0,`$ $`\delta _2=\mathrm{\Delta }_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_1,`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ , $`\delta _n=_{k=0}^{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$. This procedure allows the calculation of displacements $`\delta _n`$ for any energy dependence of the localization length $`l(E)`$, including situations with mobility edges. Appropriately correlated elements may be used for fabrication of effective filters of electrical or optical signals, even if the system is not periodic.  The bandwidth of a filter can be made arbitrarily wide or narrow depending on the statistical properties of the random sequence used (via the function $`\beta (k))`$.

Numerical examples. In order to examine our predictions, we construct explicit random sequences $`\{\delta _n\}`$ for which the function $`\phi (\gamma )`$ in (13) has four mobility edges at $`\gamma _i=0.2\pi i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$. The positions of the mobility edges are chosen within the interval $`0<\gamma <\pi `$, symmetrically about $`\gamma =\pi /2`$. Via relation (6), the position of the mobility edges on the axis $`q/\pi `$ are given by 0.326, 0.478, 0.649, and 0.850, for the mean field amplitude $`U=0.7`$. In the ideal lattice with the same strength of the potential, the first allowed band lies between $`q_l/\pi 0.26`$ ($`\gamma =0`$) and $`q_r/\pi 1`$ ($`\gamma =\pi `$). Numerical data are given for two complimentary situations $`\phi _{1,2}(\gamma )`$: $`\phi _1`$ vanishes (i.e. $`l(E)=\mathrm{}`$ and states are delocalized) in the region $`\gamma (0,\gamma _1)(\gamma _2,\gamma _3)(\gamma _4,\pi )`$; while $`\phi _2`$ vanishes in the complementary region $`\gamma (\gamma _1,\gamma _2)(\gamma _3,\gamma _4)`$. Outside these regions, the function $`\phi _{1,2}(\gamma )`$ is a constant defined by the normalization condition $`\xi _{1,2}(0)=1`$. From Eq. (15), we get that because of the presence of sharp mobility edges the correlators (Fourier components of a discontinuous function) decay slowly:

$`\xi _1(k)=1.5\xi _2(k)=`$ (17)
$`(5/2\pi k)\left[\mathrm{sin}(0.8\pi k)\mathrm{sin}(0.4\pi k)\right].`$ (18)
We show the corresponding data in Fig. 1 and 2 for $`U=0.7`$. The analytical dependence (13) for the dimensionless inverse localization length $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=8/l(E)U^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ is shown by the full lines for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.05`$ in the figures. Numerical data are obtained for a large sample size $`N=10^6`$, with two amplitudes of disorder, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.05`$ (circles) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.15`$ (crosses). The insets show results for a much shorter sample, $`N=1000`$, with additional average over 100 different realizations of disorder but the same correlations. One can see that for small disorder, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.05`$, Eq.(13) describes the numerical results very well, with only minor deviations close to the onset of mobility $`q_i`$ and band edges, $`q_{l,r}`$ . Notice that Eq.(13) is excellent at giving the mobility edges at the prescribed energies, which proves its usefulness, and breadth of applicability.

This work was supported by CONACyT (Mexico) Grants No. 26163-E and 28626-E, and by the US Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG02-91ER45334. AAK is grateful for a Rufus Putnam Fellowship from Ohio University.