text:
# Conductivity of disordered electrons: Mean-field approximation containing vertex corrections

## Abstract

The electrical dc-conductivity of disordered, non-interacting electrons is calculated in the asymptotic limit of high lattice dimensions $`d\mathrm{}`$. To go beyond the lowest-order contribution in the expansion parameter $`1/d`$ of the single bubble diagram, vertex corrections are calculated from an asymptotic expression for the two-particle vertex. A mean-field approximation for the $`dc`$-conductivity containing the leading high-dimensional vertex corrections is proposed which is free of spurious non-analyticities, i.e. the conductivity is non-negative and shows no unphysical behavior in $`d3`$.

Electronic problems with interactions or disorder can almost never be solved exactly, except for special limits. The resolvent functions of an exact solution fulfill conservation laws and have the correct analytic (Herglotz) properties, i.e. do not contain spurious poles. This is generally not true for approximate, e.g. perturbative, solutions. Only global, self-consistent approximations have a chance to be free of unphysical behavior and to yield the desired analyticity of a solution for all input parameters.

For non-interacting tight-binding electrons in a random potential the first self-consistent solution with the correct analytic properties was the ”coherent potential approximation” (CPA).  The Herglotz analyticity of the CPA-equations was proved explicitly by Müller-Hartmann.  Only later the CPA was found to be the exact solution of the Anderson disorder model in two particular limits. First, the CPA with a semicircular disorder distribution was shown to correspond to the exact solution of an $`n`$-orbital model in the limit $`n=\mathrm{}.`$ Then, after the limit of high spatial dimensions $`d`$ for fermionic lattice models had been introduced,  it was found that the CPA represents the exact solution of the Anderson disorder model in $`d=\mathrm{}`$ for arbitrary disorder distributions.  Since then the limit $`d\mathrm{}`$ has served as a useful tool for deriving self-consistent, fully dynamical approximation schemes for interacting lattice electron systems,  referred to as Dynamical Mean-Field Theory (DMFT).

By calculating a physical quantity in $`d=\mathrm{}`$ one obtains a particular mean-field value. The situation becomes subtle if the value obtained in this limit is zero. This is, for example, the case for non-local quantities such as the off-diagonal propagator $`G_{ij}`$, $`ij`$. They depend on the distance between two or more different lattice sites (i.e., their Fourier transform is wave-vector dependent) and are thus necessarily proportional to some power of $`1/d`$, e.g., $`G_{ij}O(1/\sqrt{d})`$, for nearest-neighbor sites $`i,j`$. However, that does not imply that these quantities can be neglected in $`d=\mathrm{}`$. They may contribute, since they appear in lattice sums where the summation over the $`d\mathrm{}`$ many sites compensates their $`1/d`$-smallness. To include these quantities properly, one has to calculate their asymptotic behavior in the limit $`d\mathrm{}`$, thus going beyond the strict $`d=\mathrm{}`$ limit. The necessity to go beyond $`d=\mathrm{}`$ is also evident from the fact that higher-order non-local Green functions are related to lower-order local Green functions by functional derivatives via generalized Ward identities, reflecting conservation laws. It was recently shown by one of us  and by Hettler et al.  that, when only the leading asymptotic contributions to one- and two-particle Green functions are taken into account, the Ward identities are not fulfilled in $`d=\mathrm{}`$. One has to go beyond the leading order at the lower particle level, or introduce anomalous functions, to restore conservation laws.  This shows that the definition of two- and higher-order Green functions is ambiguous in the limit $`d=\mathrm{}`$.

A particularly important example of a quantity whose mean-field value in $`d=\mathrm{}`$ vanishes, is the electrical conductivity $`\sigma `$. It is defined from a Kubo formula with the current-current correlation function. In the limit $`d\mathrm{}`$ the optical $`dc`$-conductivity is given by a single bubble diagram, with $`\sigma O(1/d)`$.  In a formal $`1/d`$-expansion this result would be the first non-vanishing contribution to $`\sigma `$. It is useful to consider this non-vanishing asymptotic result as a ”mean-field value” of the conductivity . Likewise one may define a mean-field value of any physical quantity through its leading non-vanishing asymptotic result in the limit $`d\mathrm{}`$.

A mean-field result for the $`dc`$-conductivity $`\sigma O(1/d)`$ defined in this way does not contain vertex corrections. Hence it does not include the physics of back-scatterings. However, in random systems vertex corrections are known to be extremely important since they are responsible for Anderson localization at zero temperature in sufficiently low dimensions ($`d=1,2`$) or for sufficiently strong disorder in $`3d<\mathrm{}`$. At least from a diagrammatic point of view it is not yet fully understood how the conductivity $`\sigma `$ approaches zero at the localization transition.  Clearly one has to go beyond the mean-field single-site diagrams to incorporate localization effects.

Most recently Jarrell and Krishnamurthy  introduced systematic non-local corrections to the CPA on the one-particle level using the Dynamical Cluster Approximation to obtain results compatible with Herglotz analyticity, i.e., a non-negative density of states. Here we choose another route to go beyond the mean-field limit and calculate non-local corrections to the CPA two-particle irreducible vertex function. The aim of our paper is to employ the limit of high lattice dimensions to improve upon the mean-field conductivity $`\sigma O(1/d)`$ by including vertex corrections. We follow the proposal of ref.  where the high-dimensional asymptotics of the full vertex function with leading vertex corrections to the electrical conductivity was derived. Our main result in this paper is a mean-field expression for the electrical conductivity which includes leading asymptotic vertex corrections in $`d\mathrm{}`$ while remaining non-negative in $`d3`$.

The vertex function from ref.  contains the leading $`1/d`$-asymptotics of all two-particle quantities. Employing the Kubo formula for the electrical conductivity with the two-particle vertex we may derive the leading asymptotics for the conductivity and its vertex corrections. However, approximations of the full vertex function in the Kubo formula can, in principle, lead to unphysical results. Indeed, the vertex corrections to the single-bubble term may have a negative sign and hence positivity of the conductivity cannot be warranted. Clearly, a meaningful and consistent approximation for the conductivity must never become negative. To obtain such an approximation we represent the full vertex function by means of an irreducible vertex and a Bethe-Salpeter equation in the electron-hole channel. To produce the leading contribution to the vertex corrections in $`d\mathrm{}`$, the irreducible function must be evaluated with its leading non-local contribution. By simplifying the Bethe-Salpeter equation in high spatial dimensions we then obtain a closed, mean-field expression for the conductivity with vertex corrections.

In the following we consider the Anderson disorder Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{t^{}}{\sqrt{Z}}}{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}c_i^{}c_j+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}V_ic_i^{}c_i,`$ (1)
to describe the effects of randomness. Here $`t^{}`$ is the hopping matrix element between nearest neighbors, scaled in such a way as to produce a meaningful limit $`d\mathrm{}`$, with $`Z`$ as the coordination number of the lattice.  The local, static potential $`V_i`$ is a random variable with site-independent distribution function. The conductivity of a quenched random system without interparticle interactions is described by averaged one- and two-particle Green functions (resolvents) $`G_{ij}(z)=\left[z\widehat{1}\widehat{t}\widehat{V}\right]_{ij}_{av}`$ and $`G_{ij,kl}^{(2)}(z_1,z_2)=\left[z_1\widehat{1}\widehat{t}\widehat{V}\right]_{ij}^1\left[z_2\widehat{1}\widehat{t}\widehat{V}\right]_{kl}^1_{av}`$, respectively. It is our first goal to determine these functions in the asymptotic limit $`d\mathrm{}`$.

It is straightforward to derive the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit of the self-energy which carries the information about how the randomness influences the motion of a single electron. The self-energy becomes local and can be obtained from the single-site equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)V_i\right)G(z)}}_{av}=1.`$ (2)
This is precisely the well-known CPA equation for the self-energy. Here the local (diagonal) one-particle propagator is denoted by $`G(z)=N^1_𝐤G(𝐤,z)=𝑑\rho (ϵ)[z\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)ϵ]^1`$ where $`\rho `$ is the density of states. It is less evident how to derive expressions for averaged two-particle functions which are consistent with the local self-energy, since we have to work explicitly with non-local quantities. At the two-particle level one has to keep two separate lattice points to derive the leading asymptotics for large $`d`$.  It is more convenient and practical to work with an averaged cumulant, or better with a vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined in momentum space as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤_1,z_1,𝐤_2,z_2;𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`G^1(𝐤_1,z_1)G^1(𝐤_2,z_2)\left[G^{(2)}(𝐤_1,z_1,𝐤_2,z_2;𝐪)\delta (𝐪)G(𝐤_1,z_1)G(𝐤_2,z_2)\right]`$ (4)
$`\times G^1(𝐤_1+𝐪,z_1)G^1(𝐤_2+𝐪,z_2).`$
It was shown in ref.  that the asymptotic $`d\mathrm{}`$ solution for the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be represented as a sum of three contributions, solutions of Bethe-Salpeter equations in three inequivalent two-particle irreducibility channels. The integral kernels of these equations are always the local two-particle irreducible vertex (being the same in all channels) accompanied by a non-local two-particle bubble. The local two-particle irreducible vertex in $`d=\mathrm{}`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(z_1)}{\delta G(z_2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(z_1)G(z_2)}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)V_i\right)G(z_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)V_i\right)G(z_2)}}_{av}^1\right]`$ (5)
and the two-particle bubbles containing the entire momentum dependence are given by $`\chi ^\pm (𝐪;z_1,z_2)=N^1_𝐤G(𝐤,z_1)G(𝐪\pm 𝐤,z_2)`$. In the limit $`d\mathrm{}`$ the vertex functions from the three two-particle channels (electron-hole, electron-electron, and vertical) take the form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{eh}(𝐪;z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_1,z_2)}{1\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_1,z_2)\chi ^+(𝐪;z_1,z_2)}},`$ (6a)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ee}(𝐪;z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_1,z_2)}{1\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_1,z_2)\chi ^{}(𝐪;z_1,z_2)}},`$ (6b)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^v(𝐪;z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (z_1,z_2){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_i,z_i)G(z_i)G(z_i)}{\left[1\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_i,z_i)\chi ^+(𝐪;z_i,z_i)\right]}}.`$ (6c)
The local part of the vertex functions in (6) is always the same, i.e. is given by $`\gamma (z_1,z_2)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_1,z_2)/\left[1\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_1,z_2)G(z_1)G(z_2)\right]`$. The full vertex is a sum of the above three contributions, where the transferred momentum $`𝐪`$ has a different meaning in each channel. This is due to the fact that the irreducibility channels are topologically inequivalent and differ in the momentum that is conserved during multiple scatterings. If the incoming particle and hole carry momenta $`𝐤_1`$ and $`𝐤_2`$ then the conserved momentum is $`𝐤_2𝐤_1`$, $`𝐤_1+𝐤_2+𝐪`$, and $`𝐪`$ for the electron-hole, electron-electron, and vertical channels, respectively.  The momentum $`𝐪`$ is the momentum transferred during the scattering on impurities, i.e., the outgoing particle and hole carry momenta $`𝐤_1+𝐪`$ and $`𝐤_2+𝐪`$, respectively. In order to avoid multiple summation on the same site we must subtract the local vertex from the sum of the channel-dependent vertex functions twice. We then obtain an explicit representation for the two-particle vertex in high dimensions in the notation of ref.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤_1,z_1,𝐤_2,z_2;𝐪)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{eh}(𝐤_2𝐤_1;z_1,z_2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ee}(𝐤_1+𝐤_2+𝐪;z_1,z_2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^v(𝐪;z_1,z_2)2\gamma (z_1,z_2).`$ (7)
We note that the CPA vertex function derived in ref.  is given by only the first term in the above equation, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{eh}`$. Hence it does not contain the transferred momentum $`𝐪`$ needed to incorporate vertex corrections to the conductivity.

The density of the static ($`dc`$) electrical conductivity at zero temperature is defined by a Kubo formula with the full vertex as ($`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$`\text{Re}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}}v_\alpha (𝐤)v_\beta (𝐤^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}(\sigma \tau )G_\sigma (𝐤)G_\tau (𝐤)\left[\delta (𝐤𝐤^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \tau }(𝐤,𝐤;𝐤^{}𝐤)G_\sigma (𝐤^{})G_\tau (𝐤^{})\right]`$ (8)
where $`\sigma ,\tau =\pm 1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma \tau }(𝐤,𝐤^{};𝐪)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,E_F+i\sigma 0^+,𝐤^{},E_F+i\tau 0^+;𝐪)`$, $`G_\sigma (𝐤)=G(𝐤,E_F+i\sigma 0^+)`$, $`v_\alpha (𝐤)=m^1ϵ(𝐤)/k_\alpha `$, $`ϵ(𝐤)`$ is the dispersion relation and $`m`$ the mass of the electron.

Eq. (8) with the vertex functions (6) contains nontrivial corrections to the one-electron conductivity (the single-bubble diagram). However, (8) is not appropriate for approximate evaluations in finite dimensions. The vertex corrections are merely added to the one-particle conductivity, such that negative contributions may reverse the overall sign, thus leading to unphysical behavior. To avoid such a situation we represent the conductivity in a different way. We use a Bethe-Salpeter equation in the electron-hole channel expressing the full vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ via an irreducible one, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$. The irreducible vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ together with $`\chi ^+`$ determine the integral kernel of the Bethe-Salpeter equation explicitly and define a matrix multiplication scheme in momentum space.  The integral kernel and the multiplication rule for the electron-hole channel are given by

$`\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \tau }^{eh}G_\sigma G_\tau \right](𝐤,𝐤^{};𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \tau }^{eh}(𝐤,𝐤^{};𝐪)G_\sigma (𝐤+𝐪)G_\tau (𝐤^{}+𝐪),`$ (9a)
$`\left[XY\right](𝐤,𝐤^{};𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪^{}}{}}X(𝐤,𝐤^{};𝐪^{})Y(𝐤+𝐪^{},𝐤^{}+𝐪^{};𝐪𝐪^{}).`$ (9b)
A solution of the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the two-particle vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ can formally be written as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{1\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}GG\right]\}^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ where the bullet indicates that, upon expansion of $`\left\{\mathrm{}\right\}^1`$, the two-particle functions $`\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}GG\right]`$ are multiplied according to (9b). Inserting this solution into (8) we obtain a new, equivalent representation for the conductivity

$`\text{Re}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}}v_\alpha (𝐤)v_\beta (𝐤^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}(\sigma \tau )G_\sigma (𝐤)G_\tau (𝐤)\{1\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \tau }^{eh}G_\sigma G_\tau \right]\}^1(𝐤,𝐤;𝐤^{}𝐤).`$ (10)
For not too strong disorder the norm of the operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \tau }^{eh}G_\sigma G_\tau 1`$. Hence the conductivity remains non-negative.

Note that only the non-local part with odd parity with respect to reflections in $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ of the vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}(𝐤,𝐤;𝐤^{}𝐤)`$ contributes to the conductivity. We obtain its leading asymptotic term if we use the representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{1\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}GG\right]\}^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ and solve it for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\{\left[GG\mathrm{\Gamma }\right]+1\}^1`$. Using the vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from (7) one finds in the order $`O(1/d)`$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}(𝐤_1,z_1,𝐤_2,z_2;𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_1,z_2)+\left(1\mathrm{\Lambda }(z_1,z_2)G(z_1)G(z_2)\right)^2\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤_1,z_1,𝐤_2,z_2;𝐪)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{eh}(𝐤_2𝐤_1;z_1,z_2)\right].`$ (11)
The irreducible vertex (11) together with the multiplication scheme (9b) used in (10) leads to an integral-equation representation of the conductivity. In the limit $`d\mathrm{}`$ the momentum convolutions decouple. This fact helps us further simplify the expression for the conductivity. To derive the leading asymptotic contribution from the nonlocal part of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ to the conductivity we have to calculate the momentum convolutions on the level of order $`O(1/d)`$ so that the velocities appear in squares and the momentum integrals do not vanish.

In the following we resort to a hypercubic lattice where only the diagonal (longitudinal) conductivity remains. Keeping only the leading-order terms in the expansion of the denominator in (10) we end up with a mean-field-like expression for the dc-conductivity

$`\text{Re}\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}(\sigma \tau ){\displaystyle \frac{v_\alpha ^2G_\sigma G_\tau }{1v_\alpha ^2G_\sigma G_\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \tau }^\alpha }}`$ (12a)
where $`v_\alpha ^2G_\sigma G_\tau =N^1_𝐤v_\alpha (𝐤)^2G_\sigma (𝐤)G_\tau (𝐤)`$ and
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \tau }^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta v_\alpha (𝐤)\delta v_\alpha (𝐤^{})}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \tau }^{eh}(𝐤,𝐤;𝐤^{}𝐤).`$ (12b)
In the asymptotic limit $`d\mathrm{}`$ the irreducible vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ is determined from (6) and (11) with a simplified momentum dependence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ via the quantity $`X(𝐤)=\frac{1}{d}\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{d}{}}\mathrm{cos}k_\nu `$.  We note that in the asymptotic limit $`d\mathrm{}`$ one has $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}{}_{\sigma \tau }{}^{\alpha }O(1)`$ and $`v_\alpha ^2G_\sigma G_\tau O(1/d)`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}{}_{\sigma \tau }{}^{\alpha }=0`$ (as, for example, in the case of a $`𝐤`$-independent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \tau }^{eh}`$) the resulting expression for the conductivity reduces to the CPA-result

$`\text{Re}\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }^{\text{CPA}}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}(\sigma \tau )v_\alpha ^2G_\sigma G_\tau .`$ (13)
This is precisely the mean-field conductivity defined from the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit, with $`\text{Re}\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }^{\text{CPA}}O(1/d)`$ due to $`v_\alpha ^2O(1/d)`$. The denominator in (12a) then contains the leading asymptotic contribution from the vertex corrections to the conductivity.

We note that the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ are connected via a Ward identity. Velický  showed that the CPA self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, (2), and the CPA-vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, (5), fulfill the Ward-identity exactly. In our case, where we use the local CPA self-energy and the non-local part of the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$, (11), or rather $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}{}_{\sigma \tau }{}^{\alpha }`$ from (12b), the Ward identity is fulfilled only asymptotically in the leading order of $`1/d`$ for both quantities. This is fully consistent with the spirit of the simplification we made in deriving the mean-field expression for the conductivity with vertex corrections (12).

Generally, in (12) we have to perform integrals in momentum space that cannot be reduced to integrals over the density-of-states as it would be typical for mean-field theories. A reduction to an expression with integrals over the density-of-states is possible only if we resort to the leading contribution to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}{}_{\sigma \tau }{}^{\alpha }`$ in $`1/d`$. This further simplification yields

$`\text{Re}\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^2t^2}{8\pi d}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \tau }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sigma \tau )G_\sigma G_\tau }{1+\frac{t^2}{2d}G_\sigma G_\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \tau }\left(1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma \tau }G_\sigma G_\tau \right)\left[\gamma _{\sigma \tau }G_\sigma ^2G_\tau ^2\gamma _{\sigma \sigma }G_\sigma ^2^2\gamma _{\tau \tau }G_\tau ^2^2\right]}},`$ (14)
where $`G_\sigma G_\tau `$ is defined as in (12) and $`\gamma _{\sigma \tau }=\gamma (E_F+i\sigma 0^+,E_F+i\tau 0^+)`$. Here we used the fact that the velocity can be factorized, and $`v_\alpha ^2=t^2/2d`$ on a hypercubic lattice in the high-dimensional limit. We immediately see that expression (14) is exact to $`O(1/d)`$ for the conductivity and to $`O(1/d^2)`$ concerning the vertex corrections. For the conductivity itself to be exact to $`O(1/d^2)`$ an additional contribution in the numerator due to self-energy corrections of $`O(1/d)`$ would have to be included. This, however, would not affect the vertex corrections in the leading order. We note once more that results obtained from a direct expansion of the conductivity or the self-energy in powers of $`1/d`$ would not be guaranteed to be physical, e.g., the conductivity may become negative and the self-energy non-Herglotz.

Vertex corrections to the conductivity are particularly important in low dimensions ($`d=1,2`$), where they lead to Anderson localization even for arbitrarily weak disorder. This is due to the diffusion pole in the two-particle propagator with energies from different complex half-planes. Eq. (12), which was derived in the limit of high dimensions, is not expected to be applicable in low dimensions, or to describe Anderson localization. Nevertheless, it is apparent from the form of the vertex in eq. (11) that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ includes a diffusion pole (in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ee}`$) and thereby also a Cooper pole describing coherent back scattering. For $`(\sigma \tau )=+1`$ the $`𝐤`$-integrals over the bare Cooper poles in (12b) diverge in dimensions $`d2`$. Hence $`d=2`$ naturally appears as a critical dimension in our high dimensional approximation where the mean-field description must break down.

In dimensions $`d>2`$ the effect of the diffusion pole in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ee}`$ on the electrical conductivity is not as strong in general and depends on the strength and type of disorder, band filling and the lattice structure. Below we demonstrate this trend with the help of two different disorder distributions. We put the Fermi energy into the band center and choose the dispersion of a $`d=\mathrm{}`$ Bethe lattice, with next-neighbor hopping amplitude $`t^{}=1`$ to simplify the relation between the self-energy and the local propagator. First we choose the simplest disorder model, i.e. a percolation-type disorder distribution with $`V_i=0,\mathrm{}`$ occuring with probabilities $`1x,x`$, respectively. The conductivity from (14) can now be evaluated explicitly. The result is

$`\text{Re}\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }^{\text{perc}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi d}}\right)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1x}{x}}{1+\frac{3}{2d}\frac{x(1x)}{(2x)^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1x}{2x}}{1+\frac{1}{2d}\frac{x^2(1x)}{(2x)^3}}}\right\}.`$ (15a)
The conductivity (15a) remains positive everywhere and is a monotonically decreasing function of the disorder strength $`x`$. Fig. 1 shows that the vertex corrections decrease the one-particle (i.e. CPA-) conductivity
$`\text{Re}\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }^{\text{CPA,perc}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi d}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2(1x)}{x(2x)}}.`$ (15b)
for all concentration values $`x`$.

Another and more important example is the standard binary alloy with two values of the random potential $`V_i=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }`$ with equal probability, where we obtain

$`\text{Re}\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }^{\text{bin}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi d}}\right)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{1\frac{1}{2d}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}{(2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{1+\frac{1}{2d}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^4(1\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}{(12\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^2(2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)^3}}}\right\}.`$ (16a)
Fig. 2 shows that vertex corrections cause the conductivity to slightly increase  with respect to the CPA result
$`\text{Re}\sigma _{\alpha \alpha }^{\text{CPA,bin}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi d}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2(1\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2(2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}}.`$ (16b)
at weak and moderate disorder strength. Around $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1/\sqrt{2}`$, the two-particle scattering in the vertex corrections result in a decrease of the CPA conductivity. For stronger disorder conductivity (16a) remains positive and smaller than the CPA result (16b) up to the split-band limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, where it vanishes. Both conductivities (16) monotonically decrease as functions of the disorder strength. However, the largest relative suppression of the CPA conductivity due to vertex corrections occurs at $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1/\sqrt{2}`$ where the denominator of the second term in (16a), i.e., the terms with $`\sigma \tau =1`$ in (14), diverges and changes sign. Note that if the denominators in (16a) were expanded only to the leading order in $`1/d`$, the conductivity would turn negative and hence become unphysical around $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1/\sqrt{2}`$. This explicitly demonstrates the importance of calculating the conductivity via approximations to the irreducible vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$, as proposed in this paper, instead of evaluating the conductivity corrections to the single-bubble diagram directly from the full vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The results for the two models presented above demonstrate that the effect of vertex corrections in high dimensions is non-universal. Additional scatterings from the random potential contained in the vertex corrections can decrease as well as increase the single-bubble conductivity. When treated inappropriately vertex corrections can even lead to unphysical, negative results. The actual impact of vertex corrections in $`d>2`$ depends on band structure, band filling, and disorder distribution and strength.

In conclusion, we derived a mean-field expression for the vertex corrections to the electrical dc-conductivity which becomes exact in the asymptotic limit of high lattice dimensions. To warrant the conductivity to be non-negative it was expressed as a functional of the irreducible vertex function in the electron-hole channel $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$. We calculated the leading high-dimensional asymptotics of the  non-local part of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ and thereby derived an expression in closed form for the dc-conductivity including vertex corrections. Although this mean-field approximation does not describe Anderson localization, it goes systematically beyond the CPA. The result, Eq. (12), can be used as a mean-field formula for calculating the effects of vertex corrections to the electrical conductivity in, e.g., three-dimensional alloys, and may serve as a starting point for improved approximation schemes beyond the CPA limit. To include the essentials of the physics of Anderson localization one needs to improve the mean-field approximation for the irreducible vertex presented in this paper. A minimal requirement for this is a self-consistent theory for the non-local part of the vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{eh}`$ which may, for example, be obtained from a parquet approximation.

This work was supported in part by Grant No. 202/98/1290 of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic (VJ) and by the Sonderforschungsbereich 484 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.