text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum field theory has had many remarkable successes in the past fifty years using the standard methods of perturbative expansions. However, there are many situations where such techniques are not appropriate. The obvious example is QCD, which has strongly coupled bound states at low momenta. However, phase transitions at non-zero temperatures and densities, even in models without infrared slavery like the electroweak model, are also poorly explained by perturbative methods. It is this latter example which motivates our interest in scalar Higgs fields. The global U(1) model is also a relatively simple testing ground for techniques at finite chemical potential and temperature. There are many examples of physical situations at finite charge densities. Any phase transitions after baryogenesis in the early universe occur at finite baryon charge density. Heavy ion collisions also occur in the same regime.

Having ruled out a perturbative approach we turn to the various available non-perturbative techniques. One’s first thought is to use Monte Carlo (MC) techniques to tackle the problem. However, MC methods usually fail when considering models at finite densities. This is because the Euclidean action, which is used as a statistical weight for the system, becomes complex, making a simple statistical integration technique imposible.

To replace the MC approach we need an analytical non-perturbative method. The method chosen in this paper is an example of a general family sometimes called linear $`\delta `$-expansions . Examples of these methods have appeared under many names, including optimised pertubation theory, action-variational approach , variational perturbation theory , method of self-similar approximations , screened perturbation theory ,and the variational cumulant expansion . The method has been applied successfully to111The papers quoted are not necessarily the first in their area but are usually good starting points for examining the literature in greater detail. the evaluation of simple integrals , solving non-linear differential equations , quantum mechanics , cosmological slow roll transitions  and to quantum field theory, both in the continuum  and on the lattice . Since the LDE approach is analytical, we do not have to worry about the presence of a complex action. The expectation value of all physical observables will turn out to be real.

The work in this paper with the $`U(1)`$ or $`O(2)`$ model builds on that set out in  for the case of zero temperature and zero chemical potential. However, here we phrase the model in terms of the field and its conjugate $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ rather than working with the real components of the field. This change is made because the charge operator is diagonal in this representation and so much easier to deal with.

This paper is also complementary to the work done on the $`U(1)`$ model using LDE methods in the continuum at finite temperature and finite chemical potential .

## 2 The Linear Delta expansion

The general format of the LDE method is to take a given expansion, whether it be a perturbative expansion in the continuum or a cumulant expansion on the lattice, and to provide an order by order optimisation of this expansion. It is in this process of optimisation that non-perturbative information emerges. It is straightforward, in principle, to expand beyond leading order, unlike other non-perturbative methods like large-N expansions or mean-field approximations.

The first step in the method is to replace the physical action with an interpolating action made up of a linear combination of the physical action and a soluble trial action. This trial action is characterised by some set of new variational parameters $`\{\stackrel{}{v}\}`$. The particular choice of trial action is the main decision to be made in implementing the method. The more general the trial action, and the more terms one includes, the greater the number of variational parameters required to characterise it. The interpolating action takes the form $`SS_\delta =S_0(\stackrel{}{v})+\delta (SS_0(\stackrel{}{v}))`$. If we set $`\delta =1`$ in the interpolating action then $`S_\delta =S`$. The new statistical average of an operator $`O`$ is

$$O_\delta =\frac{1}{Z_\delta }𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }Oe^{S_0}e^{\delta (SS_0)}$$
(1)
We now perform our chosen expansion technique on this new action. In this paper we use an expansion for the free energy on the lattice in terms of cumulant averages (sometimes known as a linked cluster expansion). However, we expand in the unphysical parameter $`\delta `$ instead of the coupling or the hopping parameter. The new expansion, as compared to the original, has additional terms at each order which depend upon the variational parameters. When we truncate the expansion at a given power of $`\delta `$ and then impose $`\delta =1`$ there remains a residual dependence on these varational parameters. So the LDE up to $`\delta ^R`$ for the expectation value of some operator $`\widehat{𝒪}`$ is

$$𝒪_R=𝒪_R\left(\stackrel{}{v}\right):=\underset{\delta 1}{lim}\left\{𝒪_\delta \left(\stackrel{}{v}\right)\right\}_R$$
(2)
where the $`\{\}_R`$ bracket signifies the truncation of the power series to order $`\delta ^R`$. It is how we choose to fix the variational parameters, order by order in the expansion, which introduces the main fully non-perturbative effects. There are at least two apparently different approaches to this final part of the method listed in the literature. The first is to demand that the series converge as fast as possible by minimising the highest order term with respect to the lower order terms  \- the principle of fastest convergence. However, we shall take the second main approach, often called the principle of minimal sensitivity (PMS). This is discussed in  and used in standard partical physics to minimise dependence of perturbative results on the renormalisation scheme choice. For the PMS case the parameters, $`\{\stackrel{}{v}\}`$, are set at each order in the expansion by demanding that the variation of some physical observable be zero. It is useful to be aware of the general statement that a derivative of (2) with respect to some arbitary parameter $`x`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒪_R}{x}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝒪}{x}}_R`$ $``$ $`\underset{\delta 1}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{x}}𝒪_\delta {\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{x}}_\delta 𝒪_\delta \right]_{\mathrm{R}^{\mathrm{𝑡ℎ}}\mathrm{term}}`$ (3)
$``$ $`\underset{\delta 1}{lim}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{S}{x}}𝒪_\delta {\displaystyle \frac{S}{x}}_\delta 𝒪_\delta \right\}_{R1}`$
The first term is just an LDE up to order $`R`$, the second is just the last term in an LDE expansion up to order $`R`$ and the final term is an LDE up to order $`R1`$. This means that the PMS condition on a variational parameter is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒪_R}{v}}=0\underset{\delta 1}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{v}}𝒪_\delta {\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{x}}_\delta 𝒪_\delta \right]_{\mathrm{R}^{\mathrm{th}}\mathrm{term}}=0`$ (4)
In the special case of the free energy, defined by $`F=(1/N)\mathrm{ln}Z`$, we have instead

$$\frac{F_R}{x}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{\delta 1}{lim}\left[\frac{S_0}{x}_\delta \right]_{\mathrm{R}^{\mathrm{th}}\mathrm{term}}+\frac{1}{N}\underset{\delta 1}{lim}\left\{\frac{S}{x}_\delta \right\}_{R1}$$
(5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_R}{v}}=0\underset{\delta 1}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{v}}_\delta \right]_{\mathrm{R}^{\mathrm{th}}\mathrm{term}}=0`$ (6)
In general the PMS condition is only a condition on the final term in the expansion. In this way one sees that the PMS and principle of fastest convergence are quite closely related.

The variational parameters are set order by order by (4) or (6) and then substituted back into the expression for the physical observable to obtain the LDE estimate for its value. In quantum mechanical models at least, the absolute convergence of this LDE estimate to the true solution can be proven.

We have set out the two overall approaches to fixing the varational parameters. However, the choice of what physical observable one chooses for the PMS procedure vastly increases the possible options. One can for example always apply the PMS techniques to an LDE for the particular observable one is trying to measure; this could be called a true PMS approach. On the other hand one could choose to extremise an LDE for one particular physical observable, say the free energy, and then apply the values of the variational parameters gleaned therefrom to another LDE for the particular physical observable one is interested in. These two options are discussedin  for the $`O(2)`$ scalar model and the second option is preferred.

We have set out the two overall approaches to fixing the variational parameters. However, there is a further degree of freedom in the choice of which physical observable to apply the PMS procedure to. The strict LDE approach would be to apply the PMS procedure to the expansion for the observable one is interested in. However, in some cases (see, for example, Ref. 4 for the $`O(2)`$ scalar model) there may be no PMS points in that expansion. The alternative is to fix the variational parameters by applying the PMS procedure to the expansion for one particular, privileged observable, e.g. the free energy, and then use those parameters in the expansions for all other observables.

In this paper we shall take what is effectively the second approach, but instead of calculating two expansions, one for the free energy and one for the physical parameter we are trying to evaluate, we will evaluate the free energy using an LDE approach with the PMS criterion and then calculate all the other required physical observables by numerical differentiation with respect to the physical parameters of the free energy.

## 3 The U(1) complex scalar model on the lattice

We work with a Euclidean time formulation of the $`U(1)`$ field theory. In the continuum the global U(1) model at finite density has a conserved charge of the form $`𝒬=i(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Pi }^{})`$. The presence of a finite charge density at finite temperature gives rise to an effective action

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle _0^\beta }dt{\displaystyle }d^3x[(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })+(\mu _0^2m_0^2)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\lambda _0(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2`$
$`i\mu _0(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}})+J_0^{}\mathrm{\Phi }+J_0\mathrm{\Phi }^{}]`$ (7)
The temperature appears as a finite boundary condition in the Euclidean time direction, where $`N_ta_t=1/T`$. The integer $`N_t`$ is the number of lattice links in the temporal direction and $`a_t`$ is the temporal lattice spacing. In contrast the chemical potential is present in the main body of the Lagrangian. In particular we have a slightly surprising $`\mu _0^2`$ term which arises from integrating out the conjugate fields when constructing the effective action. This term can cause symmetry breaking with positive $`m_0^2`$, even for free fields, when the transition occurs at $`\mu =m_L`$. In a Euclidean formulation the effective action is complex. This complexification caused by the introduction of a chemical potential is generic. In addition, the presence of the chemical potential means that the action is not invariant under $`tt`$ (Osterwalder-Schrader reflection).

To regularise the UV infinities of quantum field theory we introduce a lattice formalism and replace Euclidean spacetime with a hypercubic 4d lattice. The lattice points are denoted by $`n(n_4,𝐧)`$. With a standard redefinition of the physical parameters and fields we get

$`S={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}[\kappa _s{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧+𝐞_𝐢}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧+𝐞_𝐢}^{}]\kappa _t(1+\mu _L)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4+1,𝐧}`$
$`\kappa _t(1\mu _L)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4+1,𝐧}^{}+(m_L^2\mu _L^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n+\lambda _L(\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n)^2J_L^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_nJ_L\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}]`$ (8)
where $`J_L=(J_1+iJ_2)/\sqrt{2}`$. The physical lattice parameters are all dimensionless and so measured in units of the lattice cutoff. The derivative terms have become nearest-neighbour interactions. We also introduce separate hopping parameters, $`\kappa _s`$ and $`\kappa _t=1`$, for the spatial and temporal nearest-neighbour interaction. The $`\kappa _t`$ has a physical value of unity but we introduce it as an additional arbitary parameter to allow us to take derivatives with respect to it later on. The different hopping parameters allow for a different effective lattice spacing in the Euclidean time direction as compared to the spatial direction, thus allowing one to indirectly vary the lattice temperature continuously, while keeping the number of links in the temporal direction constant, by varing $`\kappa _s`$. The detail of this process is discussed in section 7.2. To keep calculations relatively easy we will keep the Euclidean temporal direction two links in extent, $`N_t=2`$. This means that we will be working with only the first three Matsubara modes and so effectively at high temperatures.

As the physical action stands, when we set $`J_L=0`$ we have automatically, via symmetry arguments, that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, so the symmetry is unbroken. This remains the case whether one is considering a perturbative expansion in the continuum or a hopping parameter expansion on the lattice.

If the nearest-neighbour terms were to go to zero then the remaining action, containing only ultralocal terms, would be exacly soluble. On the lattice we make an expansion around this solution in powers of the nearest-neighbour terms, not in powers of the coupling. This is often called a hopping parameter expansion. It is the hopping parameter expansion for the free energy, often given the special title of a linked cluster expansion , which we will optimise in this paper using LDE techniques.

## 4 LDE applied to U(1) model on the lattice

The groundwork for the choice of trial action is set out in . Following the lead of this paper we shall include a source term, a quadratic term and a quartic term. Unfortunately, because we are dealing with an action in terms of the field and its conjugate rather than its real components, defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\varphi +i\psi \right)/\sqrt{2}`$, we will have to change the notation slightly222To compare the two papers set $`k_+=\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ , $`k_{}=0`$ , $`j_\varphi =j_1`$ and $`j_\psi =j_2`$. The physical parameters are also defined slightly differently: $`\lambda _{EJW}=4\lambda _{EIM}`$ and $`m_{EJW}^2=2m_{EIM}^2`$. .

$`S_0={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[(\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mu _L^2)\mathrm{\Phi }^n\mathrm{\Phi }^n+\lambda _L(\mathrm{\Phi }^n\mathrm{\Phi }^n)^2j^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^nj\mathrm{\Phi }^n\right]`$ (9)
where $`j=\left(j_1+ij_2\right)/\sqrt{2}`$. With this choice of $`S_0`$ we obtain an $`S_\delta `$ which we organise as follows:

$`S_\delta `$ $`=`$ $`S_0+\delta S_1\delta S_{int}=S_U(\delta )\delta S_I`$
$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[(m_L^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(J_L^{}j^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_n(J_Lj)\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{}\right]`$
$`S_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}[\kappa _s{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧+𝐞_𝐢}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧+𝐞_𝐢}^{}]+\kappa _t(1+\mu _L)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4+1,𝐧}`$ (10)
$`+\kappa _t(1\mu _L)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4+1,𝐧}^{}]`$
Although the $`S_U`$ is still $`\delta `$ dependent it is ultralocal, i.e. it contains no interaction terms between lattice points. We now perform a diagrammatic expansion of the $`S_I`$ term identical to the standard hopping parameter link expansion. As it stands this is not strictly a $`\delta `$ expansion, as there is some residual $`\delta `$ dependence in the $`S_U`$ action. However, this can be dealt with separately later on in the calculation. The expansion is best represented graphically, where we define the spatial and temporal links as

$`L_s`$ $`:=`$ $`\kappa _s{\displaystyle \underset{n,i}{}}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧+𝐞_𝐢}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧+𝐞_𝐢}^{}\right]:={\displaystyle \underset{n,i}{}}\text{}`$
$`L_t`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\kappa _t\right(1+\mu _L)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4+1,𝐧}+\kappa _t(1\mu _L\left)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4,𝐧}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_4+1,𝐧}^{}\right]:={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\text{}`$
$`S_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\text{}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\text{}\right]`$ (11)
Thick vertical lines are in the temporal direction, and thin horizontal or diagonal lines represent spatial directions. An arrow is added to the temporal link because, due to the presence of a non-zero chemical potential, $`L_t`$ is not symmetric under interchange of initial and final lattice points, this is due to the lack of Osterwalder-Schrader symmetry in the starting action (3). The arrow can be thought of as representing a net flow of charge in the imaginary ‘time’ direction.

To extract the thermodynamical information we calculate the free energy per lattice site in terms of cumulant averages. To do this we first construct statistical averages with respect to the $`S_U`$ action (4); these are given a subscript $`U`$.

$`𝒪_U`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_U}}{\displaystyle 𝒟\mathrm{\Phi }𝒪e^{S_U}}`$
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`Z_U(\delta )e^{\delta S_I}_U=Z_U(\delta ){\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{R}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^j}{j!}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\text{}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\text{}\right]\right)^j_U\right]`$ (12)
Then cumulant averages, denoted by a subscript $`C`$, are constructed from the $`S_U`$ statistical averages according to

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{j!}O^j_C:=\mathrm{ln}\left[e^O_U\right]$$
(13)
We thus obtain the following expression for the free energy

$$F=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{ln}Z_U\frac{1}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\delta ^j}{j!}\left(\underset{n}{}\text{}+\underset{n,i}{}\text{}\right)^j_C$$
(14)
Because this is in terms of cumulant averages we only have to consider connected diagrams. As an example, the $`j=2`$ term is:

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\text{}+{\displaystyle \underset{n,i}{}}\text{}\right)^2_C`$ $`=`$ $`N\text{}_C+2N\text{}_C+2N(d1)\text{}_C`$
$`+2N(d1)\text{}_C`$ $`+`$ $`N(d1)\text{}_C+N(d1)\text{}_C`$ (15)
where $`d`$ is the number of spacetime dimensions. The multiplicities are calculated by hand for each of the distinct diagrams. As one goes up in order the number of diagrams in the cumulant expansion increases rapidly. The hopping parameter expansion has been evaluated at least up to $`14^{th}`$ order for an $`O(N)`$ scalar field theory at zero temperature and zero chemical potential . There have also been some calculations at finite temperature .

We take the hopping parameter expansion for $`F`$ up to third order, calculating the diagrams by hand. The full list of diagrams and multiplicities used is given in Appendix A. Having performed the standard linked cluster expansion to a given order, with the additional diagrammatic complications introduced by the presence of the chemical potential, we need to convert the expansion to one in terms of powers of $`\delta `$. To do this we have to Taylor expand the cumulant averages to include the residual $`\delta `$ dependence caused by the fact that $`S_U=S_U(\delta )`$. This will introduce additional optimisable terms at each order in the expansion. This method of calculating the LDE is much simpler than including all the $`\delta `$ dependent terms in $`S_{int}`$ at the start, which requires many additional diagrams.

Not all the diagrams in the hopping parameter expansion ‘feel’ the temperature, as they are not periodic across the Euclidean time direction. However, when we apply the variational part of the LDE approach all the diagrams effects are combined and so the temperature is felt indirectly by the whole of the expansion.

The presence of a $`j^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ term in the trial action, where the $`j`$ value is fixed variationally, allows for the possibility that $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$ even when $`J_L=0`$. This means that we can examine the symmetry breaking of the model using the optimised LDE version, unlike the standard free energy expansion, which is fixed on one side of the phase transition by the symmetry of the physical action.

## 5 Example diagram calculation

The statistical and cumulant averages result in an expression made up of known parameters and a set of integrals involving the $`L_U`$ Lagrangian. These integrals in turn, when one performs the Taylor expansion in $`\delta `$, become integrals with respect to $`L_0`$ because $`L_U=L_0+\delta L_1`$. At this point we should define the general set of integrals

$`J_{mn}(\delta )`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\varphi ^{}(\varphi )^m(\varphi ^{})^ne^{L_U(\delta )}}K_{mn}(\delta ):={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi _2𝑑\varphi _1(\varphi _1)^m(\varphi _2)^ne^{L_U(\delta )}}`$
$`B_{mn}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi _2𝑑\varphi _1(\varphi _1)^m(\varphi _2)^ne^{L_0}}`$ (16)
$`\widehat{J}_{mn}(\delta ):={\displaystyle \frac{J_{mn}(\delta )}{J_{00}(\delta )}}\widehat{K}_{mn}(\delta ):={\displaystyle \frac{K_{mn}(\delta )}{K_{00}(\delta )}}\widehat{B}_{mn}:={\displaystyle \frac{B_{mn}}{B_{00}}}`$
In terms of these definitions,

$$\mathrm{ln}Z_U=N\mathrm{ln}J_{00}$$
(17)
All the diagrams we need to calculate are expressible in terms of these integrals. Consider the very simple example of the cumulant average of the single spatial link. The cumulant as defined in (13) is expandable in terms of statistical averages with respect to the $`S_U`$ action (4). We get

$`\text{}_C=\text{}_U`$
$`=\kappa _s\left[\varphi _{n_4,𝐧}^{}\varphi _{n_4,𝐧+𝐞_𝐢}_U+\varphi _{n_4,𝐧}\varphi _{n_4,𝐧+𝐞_𝐢}^{}_U\right]=\kappa _s\left[\varphi _a^{}\varphi _b_U+\varphi _a\varphi _b^{}_U\right]`$
$`=\kappa _s[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(_md\varphi ^md\varphi ^m\right)\varphi _a^{}\varphi _b\mathrm{exp}\left\{_nL_U^n(\delta )\right\}}{\left(_md\varphi _md\varphi _m^{}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{_nL_U^n(\delta )\right\}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(_md\varphi _md\varphi _m^{}\right)\varphi _a\varphi _b^{}\mathrm{exp}\left\{_nL_U^n(\delta )\right\}}{\left(_md\varphi _md\varphi _m^{}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left\{_nL_U^n(\delta )\right\}}}]`$ (18)
As $`L_U`$ is ultralocal all the integrals separate from each other. It was to ensure this fact that we imposed ultralocality on our choice of trial action, $`S_0`$. The integrals over variables other than $`\varphi _a`$ and $`\varphi _b`$ cancel between the numerator and denominator. Therefore in both terms in (5) we will just be left with the product of two integrals. Using the identities defined in (5) we get

$`\text{}_C=`$ $`\kappa _S\left[\varphi ^a_U\varphi ^b_U+\varphi ^a_U\varphi ^b_U\right]=2\kappa _S\varphi ^a_U\varphi ^a_U`$ (19)
$`=2\kappa _S{\displaystyle \frac{J_{10}(\delta )J_{01}(\delta )}{J_{00}(\delta )^2}}=2\kappa _S\widehat{J}_{10}(\delta )\widehat{J}_{01}(\delta )`$
All the cumulants obtained from the expansion in (14) are similarly expressible in terms of some combination of our integrals. The final step in evaluating the expansion of $`F`$ to a given explicit order in $`\delta `$ is to Taylor expand the $`\widehat{J}`$ integrals. We first express the $`\widehat{J}`$ integrals as $`\widehat{K}`$ integrals. Then we Taylor expand the later using the following recursion relation for the derivative:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{K}_{mn}}{\delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_L^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\widehat{K}_{m+2n}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_L^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\widehat{K}_{mn+2}+(J_1j_1)\widehat{K}_{m+1n}`$ (20)
$`+(J_2j_2)\widehat{K}_{mn+1}\widehat{K}_{mn}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_L^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\widehat{K}_{20}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_L^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\widehat{K}_{02}`$
$`+(J_1j_1)\widehat{K}_{10}+(J_2j_2)\widehat{K}_{01}]`$
Noting that $`\widehat{K}_{mn}|_{\delta =0}=\widehat{B}_{mn}`$ we have all the required information to evaluate the Taylor expansion to any order. For example, the single spatial link can now be calculated using

$$\widehat{K}_{10}(\delta )=\widehat{B}_{10}+\delta \frac{\widehat{K}_{10}}{\delta }|_{\delta =0}+\mathrm{}\widehat{K}_{01}(\delta )=\widehat{B}_{01}+\delta \frac{\widehat{K}_{01}}{\delta }|_{\delta =0}+\mathrm{}$$

as

$$\text{}_C=2\kappa _S\left[\widehat{B}_{10}^2+\widehat{B}_{01}^2\right]+4\kappa _S\delta \left[\widehat{B}_{10}\frac{\widehat{K}_{10}}{\delta }|_{\delta =0}+\widehat{B}_{01}\frac{\widehat{K}_{01}}{\delta }|_{\delta =0}\right]$$
(21)
All the other cumulant averages, initially evaluated in terms of $`\widehat{J}`$ integrals, and the $`\mathrm{ln}J_{00}`$ term, can be similarly expressed as a power series in $`\delta `$ in terms of the $`\widehat{B}`$ integrals. As one increases the order of the $`\delta `$-expansion the number of diagrams soon becomes too large to deal with by hand. At order $`3`$, for example, there are roughly $`20`$ diagrams (see Appendix A). We therefore use an algebraic manipulation program which can handle the repetitious task of calculating all the Taylor expansions and rearranging the overall expansion in explicit powers of $`\delta `$.

## 6 Minimisation

As the expression for $`F`$ given in (14) stands, each order in the expansion has residual dependence on the variational parameters $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }^2,j_1,j_2\}`$, as well as the expected dependence on the physical parameters $`\{m_L^2,\kappa _s,\kappa _t,\mu _L,\lambda _L,J_1,J_2\}`$. We will fix the variational parameters using the PMS condition set out in (6). But first we note that we can immediately set $`j_2=0`$, which can be justified using symmetry considerations . Having made this choice we are reduced to a two-dimensional variational parameter space. Minimisation of the free energy in this space is best represented as a two-dimensional contour plot. The phase transitions in the physical parameter space are actually mirrored in the variational parameter space in terms of the number of minima present. This behaviour has already been noted in more limited terms in . As a result of this there are a few generic pictures for the minimisation depending on the values of the physical parameters. The minimisation curves are plotted in Figure 1.

We include the lattice temperature with these plots. See section 7.2 for the derivation of these temperatures. Going from Fig. 1(a) to 1(b) we increase $`\kappa _s`$ and so decrease the lattice temperature. In so doing we move from one minimum to two minima in the variational parameter space and at the same time undergo a second order phase transition in the physical parameter space. Similarly, going from Fig. 1(a) to 1(c) we increase $`\mu _L`$ (also indirectly increase $`T`$) and in so doing move from one minimum to three minima in the variational parameter space. At around the same time in the physical parameter space we undergo a first-order phase transition. The order of the ‘phase transition’ in variational parameter space matches the order of the true phase transition in the physical parameter space.

In the unbroken physical phase the minima will be found at the point:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=m^2,j_1=0`$ (22)
This is discussed further for the zero temperature and zero chemical potential case in . As noted in that paper, because the minimisation space for the free energy reflects the physical parameter phase space, the value of the variational parameters at the minimum is often sufficient information to find the phase of the system, without a full calculation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. However, in the case of a first-order phase transition more care is needed, as there will be both ‘broken’ and ‘unbroken’ minima, as in Fig. 1(c). One chooses between them by taking the overall minimum. As an aside, note that minimising the free energy is equivalent to maximising the entropy, which gives us a further physical justification for our particular PMS approach.

By tracking the value of $`F`$ at all the minima, and taking special care when we have a first-order transition, we can build up a set of $`F`$ values for any range of physical parameters. From the free energy data we can then evaluate many other correlators by taking numerical derivatives with respect to the physical parameters.

Of course the method is always limited by the fact that it requires the presence of a minimum. When the minima in $`F`$ disappear the method breaks down. However, the method is sustained far enough on either side of the phase transition for a large enough range of physical parameters to allow it to be used to plot out reasonable phase diagrams.

Having minimised the free energy we can now take numerical derivatives of $`F`$ to evaluate particular physical observables. This will allow us to build up phase portraits in the $`\{T,\mu _L\}`$ plane for any choice of the other physical parameters.

## 7 Numerical Results

### 7.1 Phase transition using $`\kappa _s`$

As a first example we shall look at evaluating $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ as a function of the hopping parameter, $`\kappa _s`$, to look for a phase transition. To do this we evaluate the estimated $`F`$ value, by tracking the minima across our 2D variational parameter space, at two nearby $`J_1`$ values around zero to allow us to evaluate a numerical derivative with respect to $`J_1`$. This is related to the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ value using (5) to give

$$\frac{F}{J_1}|_{J_1=0}=\frac{1}{N}\underset{n}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{1n}=\mathrm{\Phi }_1$$
(23)
Therefore by taking numerical derivatives we can look for symmetry breaking, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_10`$. For simplicity we consider the $`\mu _L=0`$ curves. In this case the variational parameter space tracks between Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b).

We have a second order phase transition to a broken symmetry sector as we increase the $`\kappa _s`$ value, and so decrease the lattice temperature. This transition happens at lower and lower temperatures as one increases the lattice mass.

### 7.2 Evaluating the lattice temperature

To construct a true phase diagram we need to translate from the hopping parameter $`\kappa _s`$ to the lattice temperature $`T`$. Therefore we need to calculate the lattice temperature caused by particular choices of the $`\kappa _s`$ hopping parameter.

To do this we note that the presence of different hopping parameters in the temporal and spatial directions means that correlation functions will also be anisotropic with respect to the temporal and spatial axes of the lattice. The correlation length in lattice units in the time direction, $`\xi _t`$, will be different from the space-like correlation length, $`\xi _s`$. However, we expect the correlation lengths in physical units to be the same, even though the lattice spacings $`a_t`$ and $`a_s`$ will be different. This means that $`a_s\xi _sa_t\xi _t`$, which implies that

$$\frac{\xi _t}{\xi _s}=\frac{a_s}{a_t}=2Ta_s=\frac{2T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ is the spatial cutoff. By varying the spatial hopping parameter, $`\kappa _s`$, we will vary the relative size of the two correlation lengths and so vary the effective lattice anisotropy. This in turn allows us to vary the temperature .

The overall scale of the lattice temperature is set by $`N_t=2`$, which limits us to high temperatures, but within this range of high values we can vary the temperature continuously using the hopping parameter $`\kappa _s`$.

Now (5) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\kappa _s}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,i}{}}\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`(d1)\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_4,𝐧}\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_4,𝐧+𝐞_𝐢}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_4,𝐧}\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_4,𝐧+𝐞_𝐢}=(d1)\xi _s`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\kappa _t}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\mu _L)\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_4,𝐧}\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_4+1,𝐧}+(1\mu _L)\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_4,𝐧}\mathrm{\Phi }^{n_4+1,𝐧}=\xi _t`$ (25)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}}={\displaystyle \frac{(d1)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\kappa _t}}/{\displaystyle \frac{F}{\kappa _s}}`$
Therefore purely by taking numerical derivatives with respect to the hopping parameters we can construct the lattice temperature for a given value of $`\kappa _s`$. As an example we plot $`\mathrm{ln}(T/\mathrm{\Lambda }_s)`$ against $`\mathrm{ln}(\kappa _s)`$ for a particular range of physical parameters in Figure 3.

In the unbroken regime of physical parameters there is a simple inverse relationship $`\kappa _sT=k`$. This is true for both zero and non-zero chemical potential. The only effect of the chemical potential is to change the value of the constant $`k`$. In the unbroken regime we find an almost perfect fit for the empirical curve

$$\kappa _sT=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mu _L^2+3\right)$$
(26)
However, as we pass through what is a second order phase transition, the relationship becomes more complex. This break-off point occurs at lower and lower $`\kappa _s`$ as one decreases the lattice mass.

For any other set of physical parameters we can similarly evaluate the effective temperature given by a particular choice of $`\kappa _s`$.

### 7.3 Phase transition using $`T`$

We can now combine the information in sections 7.1 and 7.2 to allow us to evaluate $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ as a function of $`T`$ and look for a phase transition. This leads to the curves shown in Fig. 4.

These curves follow directly from Fig. 2 and, as expected, as the temperature is lowered the symmetry breaks at some point, starting first with the lowest mass. The phase transition is second order in form. As the temperature decreases towards zero there is an unexpected divergence of the value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$. However, this is precisely in the regime where the approximation we are using is expected to break down, so no physical interpretation should be made of this behaviour.

### 7.4 Phase transition using $`m_L^2`$

For completeness we show the standard symmetry breaking which occurs as one lowers the physical mass. This second-order phase transition is discussed in much more detail in . For particular choices of physical parameters we have the phase transition curves shown in Figure 5.

As expected, lowering the lattice mass breaks the symmetry, starting first with the highest $`\kappa _s`$ curve. The phase transition is second order. The curves are performed at fixed hopping parameter values and not at fixed lattice temperature. In the unbroken phase, as we can see in Fig. 3, the effective lattice temperature is independent of the lattice mass, so fixing $`\kappa _s`$ is equivalent to fixing $`T`$. However, when the symmetry is broken the temperature becomes mass dependent. Although this make things more complex it does not stop us from measuring the lattice temperature at the phase transition. Using the empirical formula (26) we can calculate the lattice temperatures. $`\kappa _s=0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9`$ and $`1.0`$ correspond to $`T=2.499,2.143,1.875,1.667`$ and $`1.5`$ respectively.

### 7.5 Phase transition using $`\mu _L`$

Having seen how the symmetry is restored as one increases the temperature and lattice mass, we should finally look at evaluating $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ as a function of $`\mu _L`$. The phase transition with $`\mu _L`$ involves travelling between variational parameter spaces which look like Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(c). This means that we will have first-order phase transitions. Examining the free energy across the transition leads to the curves shown in Figure 6.

In the $`m_L^2=15\mathrm{}25`$ plots we can see that there is a kink in the free energy due to the first order phase transition from an unbroken (U) to a broken (B) global $`U(1)`$ symmetry. The transition point moves to lower $`\mu `$ values as the mass is decreases. These curves have variational parameter spaces which move between Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(c). The kinks arise as one jumps from the unbroken to the broken minima in the variational parameter space.

At $`m_L^2<30`$, and lower, the symmetry is broken for all $`\mu `$ values. The variational parameter space moves between Fig. 1(b) and Fig. 1(d). The symmetry is already broken at $`\mu _L=0`$ because of the second order phase transition which occurs at low enough temperatures, as discussed in section 7.4. The special case of the $`m_L^2=30`$ curve is discussed in more detail later.

Using the free energy data, and again noting (23), we can construct the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ value. Where there is a kink in the $`F`$ value we expect a first order phase transition in the field value. This is precisely the behaviour seen for the curves in Figure 7.

In the $`m_L^2=15\mathrm{}25`$ plots we see there is a first order phase transition from an unbroken to a broken global $`U(1)`$ symmetry. Crossing through this phase transition we move from Fig. 1(a) to Fig. 1(c) in variational space. Raising the chemical potential breaks the symmetry, starting first with the lowest $`m_L^2`$ curve. The transition point moves to higher $`\mu _L`$ values as one raises the lattice mass.

The $`m_L^2=30`$ case is more unusual because, although the symmetry is already broken at $`\mu _L=0`$, we find evidence for a further phase transition at $`\mu _L=2.1`$. It turns out that this unexpected behaviour occurs at the place in phase space where the first order phase transition meets the second order phase transition. We shall postpone discussion of this point, as it will become much clearer on consideration of the full phase diagram, see section 7.6.

For $`m_L^2<30`$ we see that the symmetry is already completely broken. There is a smooth crossover as one increases the chemical potential value from zero and in doing this one moves from Fig. 1(b) to Fig. 1(d) in variational parameter space.

Just as in section 7.4 these curves are derived at fixed hopping parameter values and not at fixed lattice temperature. However, unlike the lattice mass, the temperature is chemical potential dependent, whether or not one is in the broken regime. Each point on the curves is at a different lattice temperature. Again this make things more complex but we can still find the lattice temperature at the phase transition. We find that that $`\{m_L^2=15,\mu _L=4\}`$ gives $`T=9.5`$, $`\{m_L^2=20,\mu _L=3.5\}`$ gives $`T=7.625`$, $`\{m_L^2=25,\mu _L=2.9\}`$ gives $`T=5.705`$, and finally $`\{m_L^2=30,\mu _L=2.1\}`$ gives $`T=3.705`$.

### 7.6 Phase diagrams

#### 7.6.1 $`\{T,\mu _L\}`$ Phase diagram

Combining all the information from the previous sections we can build up phase diagrams for the theory in $`\{T,\mu _L\}`$ space. These are plotted for various value of the lattice mass in Figure 8.

Close to the $`\mu _L=0`$ axis we have a second-order phase transition between the unbroken phase at high temperatures and the broken phase at low temperatures. As one crosses through this transition the minima plots change from Fig. 1(a) to Fig. 1(c). However, as one follows this transition out to higher densities it becomes first order in nature. For the first order phase transition the minima plots change from Fig. 1(a) to Fig. 1(b).

For a small region at the changeover between the first-order and second-order phase transition lines both the minima at $`\lambda _L`$ and the minima at $`m_L^2`$ are present in variational parameter space. Travelling from the second-order regime into the first-order part the minima at $`m_L^2`$ spawn two further minima which rapidly move up towards $`\lambda _L`$. This is captured in the variational parameter space picture seen in Figure 9.

As $`\mu _L`$ and $`T`$ are increased further one enters the first-order phase transition regime and the two minima at $`m_L^2`$ become one minimum.

It is this overlap which explains the unusual phase structure seen for the $`m_L^2=30`$ curve in Fig. 7. We can that the unexpected additional first-order transition for this curve sits at $`\mu _L=2.1,T=3.7`$, which is right in the changeover regime for the $`m_L^2=30`$ case in Fig. 8. For $`\mu _L<2.1`$ the field value is being evaluated at one of a pair of minima at $`m_L^2`$, for the $`\mu _L>2.1`$ the field value is being evaluated at a pair of minima at $`\lambda _L`$. The jump between the two causes the first-order phase transition.

In physical space we have the three distinct types of pictures on the broken side of the transition, these are shown in Fig. 10.

As one moves through the changeover area, starting from the second-order area of the phase diagram, the first-order style metastable states appear out beyond the second-order style minima. Then as one moves into the first-order area the two second-order minima merge to give the classic first-order field distribution.

#### 7.6.2 $`\{T,\rho \}`$ Phase diagram

One can also calculate the charge density in lattice units which, noting that $`_{eff}=+\mu 𝒬`$ and $`\mu _L=a_t\mu `$, is

$$\rho :=\frac{𝒬}{N_sa_s^3}=2T\frac{F}{\mu _L}$$
(27)
where, because we are in lattice units, $`a_s=\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=1`$. Using (27) one can construct the phase diagram of temperature against charge density. This is plotted in Figure 11.

The lower ends of the transition lines move closer to the origin in $`\{T,\rho \}`$ space as one increases the mass. In the close-up of the second-order phase transition lines, near to the $`\mu =0`$ axis, we can see an interesting complex curve form. As the transition becomes first-order for higher chemical potentials the transition lines become straighter.

## 8 Conclusions

An LDE optimisation of the standard hopping parameter expansion has allowed access to some of the truly non-perturbative physics of the scalar global $`U(1)`$ model. Close to the $`\mu _L=0`$ axis we find the expected second-order phase transition but as we track out to higher chemical potentials we see that this transition becomes first order. At our level of approximation at least there appears to be evidence for a more complex phase structure than expected.

Although the $`U(1)`$ model is in itself intrinsically interesting as a simple model for Higgs physics, the work in this paper can also be seen as a test of LDE techniques as applied to phase transition at finite density in general. In this context we can see that the LDE is a sucessful approach. The presence of the additional variational parameters allows one to examine a theory as one tracks through the phase transition with any of the physical parameters. By the choice of variational parameter one can actually choose which particular equivalent broken vacuum state the model is in, as demonstrated in . Also the form of the free energy contours in variational parameter space signals the phase-space behaviour of the physical model itself. This allows one to extract the physical phase of the system without explicitly calculating the particular order parameter such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$.

To extend our approach to plotting out a phase diagram at finite density to a more complex model, in particular a gauge theory, we need to find an equivalent, lattice regularised, expansion to optimise. The hopping parameter expansion is only available for scalar theories: the derivative terms cannot be broken up in the same way for a gauge field theory. However, there is an alternative lattice expansion in the strong coupling expansion, i.e. an expansion in powers of the trace round lattice plaquettes. An example of an LDE optimisation of a plaquette expansion for gauge theories on the lattice at zero temperature and chemical potential is given in . Using a similar scheme to that used in this paper for scalars one could extend considerations of gauge theories on the lattice to finite temperature and densities.

## 9 Acknowledgements

We are grateful to R.J. Rivers for useful discussions. D. Winder also gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.

## A Diagrams

Below we list all the diagrams which contribute to the cumulant expansion for the free energy of a $`U(1)`$ scalar Higgs model with finite temperature and chemical potential up and including order 3. With a lattice of two temporal links in extent we have periodicity across some of the diagrams. Points which are identified as identical are signified with an open circle in the diagrams. In the multiplicities that accompany the diagrams we have omitted the overall $`N`$ factor and used the shorthand

$$d_j=2(d1)j,$$
(28)
where $`d`$ is the spacetime dimension of the lattice and $`j𝒵`$.

|  | $`m_{1,1}=\frac{1}{2}d_0`$ |  | $`m_{1,2}=1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`m_{2,1}=\frac{1}{2}d_0`$ |  | $`m_{2,2}=d_0d_1`$ |
|  | $`m_{2,3}=2d_0`$ |  | $`m_{2,4}=2d_0`$ |
|  | $`m_{2,5}=1`$ |  | $`m_{2,6}=2`$ |
|  | $`m_{3,1}=\frac{1}{2}d_0`$ |  | $`m_{3,2}=3d_0d_1`$ |
|  | $`m_{3,3}=3d_0d_1^2`$ |  | $`m_{3,4}=d_0d_1d_2`$ |
|  | $`m_{3,5}=3d_0`$ |  | $`m_{3,6}=3d_0`$ |
|  | $`m_{3,7}=6d_0d_1`$ |  | $`m_{3,8}=3d_0d_1`$ |
|  | $`m_{3,9}=6d_0^2`$ |  | $`m_{3,10}=3d_0d_1`$ |
|  | $`m_{3,11}=6d_0d_1`$ |  | $`m_{3,12}=3d_0`$ |
|  | $`m_{3,13}=3d_0`$ |  | $`m_{3,14}=3d_0`$ |
|  | $`m_{3,15}=6d_0`$ |  | $`m_{3,16}=3d_0`$ |
|  | $`m_{3,17}=3d_0`$ |  | $`m_{3,18}=1`$ |
|  | $`m_{3,19}=3`$ |  |  |


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

METAL-INSULATOR TRANSITION
IN HOMOGENEOUSLY DOPED GERMANIUM

MICHIO WATANABE

| Department of Applied Physics and Physico-Informatics, |
| --- |
| Keio University, 3-14-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku, |
| Yokohama 223-8522, Japan |

INTRODUCTION

The metal-insulator transition (MIT) in doped semiconductors with a random distribution of impurities is a unique quantum phase transition in the sense that both disorder and electron-electron interaction play a key role (see for example Refs. 1 and 2). The metallic phase of the transition is characterized by a finite electrical conductivity at $`T=0`$, while the conductivity in the insulating phase vanishes in the limit of zero temperature. From a theoretical point of view, the correlation length in the metallic phase and the localization length in the insulating phase diverge at the critical point with the same exponent $`\nu `$, i.e., they are proportional to $`|N/N_c1|^\nu `$ in the critical regime of the MIT, and the value of $`\nu `$ provides important information about the MIT. Here, $`N`$ is the impurity concentration and $`N_c`$ is the critical concentration for the MIT. Since direct experimental determination of $`\nu `$ is extremely difficult, researchers have usually determined, instead of $`\nu `$, the value of the conductivity critical exponent $`\mu `$ defined by

$$\sigma (0)=\sigma ^{}(N/N_c1)^\mu $$
(1)
immediately above $`N_c`$ ($`0<N/N_c11`$). Here, $`\sigma (0)`$ is the conductivity extrapolated to $`T=0`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ is a prefactor. Values of $`\nu `$ are then obtained assuming the relation $`\nu =\mu `$  which is valid for three-dimensional systems without electron-electron interaction. With a number of nominally uncompensated semiconductors $`\mu 0.5`$ has been obtained . One of the best studied nominally uncompensated semiconductors is Si:P. Rosenbaum et al. studied both the doping-induced MIT and the uniaxial-stress-induced MIT, and showed that Eq. (1) describes $`\sigma (0)`$ of Si:P with a single exponent $`\mu 0.5`$ over a wide range $`0.001N/N_c1<1`$ . Here, uniaxial stress was used for “tuning” because fine control of $`N/N_c1`$ is difficult. In the same material, however, $`\mu 1.3`$ was claimed about ten years later for a narrow regime $`N_c<N<1.1N_c`$ by a different group . Moreoever, $`\mu 1`$ was reported recently for the MIT driven by uniaxial stress . As the origin of the discrepancy, inhomogeneous distribution of the impurities has been pointed out .

For the case of melt- (or metallurgically) doped samples, which have been employed in most of the previous studies including Refs. $`46`$, the spatial fluctuation of $`N`$ due to dopant striations and segregation can easily be on the order of 1% across a typical sample for the four-point resistance measurement that has a length of $``$5 mm or larger (see for example Ref. 8). For this reason, it will not be meaningful to discuss physical properties in the critical regime (e.g., $`|N/N_c1|<0.01`$), unless one evaluates the macroscopic inhomogeneity in the samples and its influence on the results. In order to rule out the ambiguity arising from the inhomogeneity, we prepared 70Ge:Ga samples by neutron-transmutation doping (NTD) of isotopically enriched 70Ge single crystals. The NTD method inherently guarantees the random distribution of the dopants down to the atomic level . We show from the conductivity measurements at $`T=0.021`$ K that $`\sigma (0)`$ of the NTD 70Ge:Ga samples is described by Eq. (1) with $`\mu =0.50\pm 0.04`$ over a wide range $`4\times 10^4N/N_c1<0.4`$ .

In order to determine $`\nu `$ without assuming $`\mu =\nu `$, we have analyzed the temperature dependence of the conductivity on the insulating side of the MIT in the context of variable-range-hopping (VRH) conduction within the Coulomb gap . Low-temperature ($`T<0.5`$ K) conductivity of the insulating 70Ge:Ga samples obeys $`\sigma (T)=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(T)\mathrm{exp}[(T_0/T)^{1/2}]`$, which is predicted by the VRH theory , with an appropriate temperature dependence in the prefactor $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(T)`$. Magnetic field and temperature dependence of the conductivity of the samples are subsequently measured in order to determine directly the localization length $`\xi `$ and the impurity dielectric susceptibility $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}`$ as a function of $`N`$ in the context of the theory. This kind of determination of $`\xi `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}`$ was performed for compensated Ge:As by Ionov et al.  They found $`\xi (1N/N_c)^\nu `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}(N_c/N1)^\zeta `$ with $`\nu =0.60\pm 0.04`$ and $`\zeta =1.38\pm 0.07`$, respectively, for samples having $`N`$ up to $`0.96N_c`$. The significance of their result is the experimental verification of the relation $`2\nu \zeta `$ that had been predicted by scaling theories . However, the critical exponents of compensated samples are known to be different from those of nominally uncompensated samples . Therefore, our determination of $`\xi `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}`$ in nominally uncompensated samples is important.

The previous effort to measure the impurity dielectric susceptibility as a function of $`N`$ has also contributed greatly. Hess et al. found $`\zeta =1.15\pm 0.15`$ in nominally uncompensated Si:P . Since $`\mu 0.5`$ was determined for the same series of Si:P samples , the relation $`2\mu \zeta `$ was again valid. Katsumoto has found $`\zeta 2`$ and $`\mu 1`$ for compensated Al0.3Ga0.7As:Si, i.e., again, $`2\mu \zeta `$ applies . Thus, in these cases the conclusion $`2\nu \zeta `$ was reached indirectly, by assuming $`\mu =\nu `$. We, on the other hand, determine $`\nu `$ directly, i.e., we do not have to rely on the assumption $`\mu =\nu `$ in order to study the behavior of the localization length $`\xi `$ near the MIT.

According to theories  on the MIT which take into account both disorder and electron-electron interaction, the critical exponents do not depend on the details of the system, but depend only on the universality class to which the system belongs. Moreover, there is an inequality $`\nu 2/3`$, which is expected to apply generally to disordered systems irrespective of the presence of electron-electron interaction . Hence, if one assumes $`\mu =\nu `$, which is derived for systems without electron-electron interaction, $`\mu 0.5`$ violates the inequality. This discrepancy has been known as the conductivity critical exponent puzzle. Kirkpatrick and Belitz have claimed that there are logarithmic corrections to scaling in universality classes with time-reversal symmetry, i.e., when the external magnetic field is zero, and that $`\mu 0.5`$, found at $`B=0`$, should be interpreted as an “effective” exponent which is different from a “real” exponent satisfying $`\mu 2/3`$ . Therefore, comparison of $`\mu `$ with and without the time-reversal symmetry, i.e., with and without external magnetic fields becomes important. We study the MIT of 70Ge:Ga in magnetic fields up to $`B=8`$ T and show that $`\mu `$ changes from 0.5 at $`B=0`$ to 1.1 at $`B4`$ T . The same exponent $`\mu ^{}=1.1`$ is also found in the magnetic-field-tuned MIT for three different samples, i.e.,

$$\sigma (N,B,T0)[B_c(N)B]^\mu ^{},$$
(2)
where $`B_c(N)`$ is the critical magnetic field for concentration $`N`$. Moreover, an excellent finite-temperature scaling

$$\sigma (N,B,T)T^xf(|B_c(N)B|/T^y),$$
(3)
where $`x/y`$ is equivalent to $`\mu ^{}`$, is obtained with the same value of $`\mu ^{}`$. The phase diagram on the $`(N,B)`$ plane is successfully constructed, and we find a simple scaling rule which $`\sigma (N,B,T0)`$ would obey and derive from a simple mathematical argument that $`\mu =\mu ^{}`$ as has been observed in our experiment.

EXPERIMENTS

Sample preparation

All of the 70Ge:Ga samples were prepared by neutron-transmutation doping (NTD) of isotopically enriched 70Ge single crystals. The basic idea of NTD is as follows. Suppose that a nucleus in a crystal of a semiconductor captures a thermal neutron. After the capture, the nucleus is not necessarily stable. If it is stable, the element remains unchanged, but if it is not, it decays and transmutes into a new element which may act as a dopant. This is NTD. Practically, a crystal is placed in a nuclear reactor which produces thermal neutrons. Since the neutron field produced by a reactor is large enough to guarantee a homogeneous flux over the crystal dimensions and the small capture cross section (typically 10-24 cm2) of semiconductors for neutrons minimizes “self-shadowing”, NTD is known to produce the most homogeneous, perfectly random distribution of dopant down to the atomic level .

As for Ge, there are five stable isotopes: 70Ge (20.5%), 72Ge (27.4%), 73Ge (7.8%), 74Ge (36.5%), and 76Ge (7.8%). The numbers in the parentheses represent the natural abundance. These five stable isotopes of Ge undergo the following nuclear reactions after capturing a thermal neutron.

$`{}_{32}{}^{70}\mathrm{Ge}+_0^1\mathrm{n}`$ $``$ $`{}_{32}{}^{71}\mathrm{Ge}_{31}^{71}\mathrm{Ga}(\mathrm{EC},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11.2}\mathrm{d}),`$ (4)
$`{}_{32}{}^{72}\mathrm{Ge}+_0^1\mathrm{n}`$ $``$ $`{}_{32}{}^{73}\mathrm{Ge},`$ (5)
$`{}_{32}{}^{73}\mathrm{Ge}+_0^1\mathrm{n}`$ $``$ $`{}_{32}{}^{74}\mathrm{Ge},`$ (6)
$`{}_{32}{}^{74}\mathrm{Ge}+_0^1\mathrm{n}`$ $``$ $`{}_{32}{}^{75}\mathrm{Ge}_{33}^{75}\mathrm{As}(\beta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}82.8}\mathrm{min}),`$ (7)
$`{}_{32}{}^{76}\mathrm{Ge}+_0^1\mathrm{n}`$ $``$ $`{}_{32}{}^{77}\mathrm{Ge}_{33}^{77}\mathrm{As}(\beta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11.3}\mathrm{hrs})_{34}^{77}\mathrm{Se}(\beta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}38.8}\mathrm{hrs}).`$ (8)
Here, $`{}_{0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$n is a neutron, EC and $`\beta `$ denote electron capture and $`\beta `$ decay, respectively, and the time in the parentheses represents the half life. Note that the natural Ge form both acceptors (Ga) and donors (As and Se) after NTD. Empirically, the impurity compensation is known to affect the value of the critical exponent . To avoid the impurity compensation, we use isotopically enriched 70Ge.

The Czochralski grown, chemically very pure 70Ge crystal has isotopic composition \[70Ge\]=96.2 at. % and \[72Ge\]=3.8 at. % . The as-grown crystal is free of dislocations, p type with a net electrically-active-impurity concentration less than 5$`\times `$1011 cm-3. The thermal neutron irradiation was performed with the thermal to fast neutron ratio of $``$30:1. The small fraction of 72Ge becomes 73Ge which is stable, i.e., no further acceptors or donors are introduced. The post-NTD rapid thermal annealing at 650 C for 10 sec removed most of the irradiation-induced defects from the samples. The short annealing time is important in order to avoid the redistribution and/or clustering of the uniformly dispersed 71Ga acceptors. The concentration of the electrically active radiation defects measured with deep level transient spectrometry (DLTS) after the annealing is less than 0.1% of the Ga concetration, i.e., the compensation ratio of the samples is less than 0.001. The dimension of most samples used for conductivity measurements was 6$`\times `$0.9$`\times `$0.7 mm3. Four strips of boron-ion-implanted regions on a 6$`\times `$0.9 mm2 face of each sample were coated with 200 nm Pd and 400 nm Au pads using a sputtering technique. Annealing at 300 C for one hour activated the implanted boron and removed the stress in the metal films.

The concentration of Ga acceptors after NTD is determined from the time of thermal-neutron irradiation. The concentration is proportional to the irradiation time as long as the same irradiation site and the same power of a nuclear reactor are employed.

Low-temperature measurements

The electrical conductivity measurements were carried out down to temperatures of 20 mK using a 3He-4He dilution refrigerator. All the electrical leads were low-pass filtered at the top of the cryostat. The sample was fixed in the mixing chamber and a ruthenium oxide thermometer \[Scientific Instrument (SI), RO600A, 1.4$`\times `$1.3$`\times `$0.5 mm3\] was placed close to the sample. To measure the resistance of the thermometer, we used an ac resistance bridge (RV-Elekroniikka, AVS-47). The thermometer was calibrated against 2Ce(NO$`{}_{3}{}^{})_33`$Mg(NO$`{}_{3}{}^{})_2`$24H2O (CMN) susceptibility and against the resistance of a canned ruthenium oxide thermometer (SI, RO600A2) which was calibrated commercially over a temperature range from 50 mK to 20 K. We employed an ac method at 21.0 Hz to measure the resistance of the sample. The power dissipation was kept below 10-14 W, which is small enough to avoid overheating of the samples. The output voltage of the sample was detected by a lock-in amplifier (EG&G Princeton Applied Research, 124A). All the analog instruments as well as the cryostat were placed inside a shielded room. The output of the instruments was detected by digital voltmeters placed outside the shielded room. All the electrical leads into the shielded room were low-pass filtered. The output of the voltmeters was read by a personal computer via GP-IB interface connected through an optical fiber. Magnetic fields up to 8 T were applied in the direction perpendicular to the current flow by means of a superconducting solenoid.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Temperature dependence of conductivity in metallic samples and the critical exponent for the zero-temperature conductivity

The temperature dependence of the electrical conductivity mostly for the metallic samples is shown in Fig. 1. The temperature variation of the conductivity of disordered metal is governed mainly by electron-electron interaction at low temperatures , and can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (T)\sigma (T)\sigma (0)=m\sqrt{T},$$
(9)
where

$$m=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi ^2}\frac{1.3}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{4}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}\frac{3}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}\stackrel{~}{F}\right)\sqrt{\frac{k_B}{\mathrm{}D}}=A/\sqrt{D}.$$
(10)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is a dimensionless and temperature-independent parameter characterizing the Hartree interaction and $`D`$ is the diffusion constant , which is related to the conductivity via the Einstein relation

$$\sigma =(n/\mu )e^2D,$$
(11)
where $`(n/\mu )`$ is the density of states at the Fermi level. In various reports such as Refs. 5 and 10, $`\sigma (0)`$ was obtained by extrapolating $`\sigma (T)`$ to $`T=0`$ assuming $`\sqrt{T}`$ dependence based on Eq. (9). One should note, however, that it is sound only in the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (T)\sigma (0)\sigma (T)`$, where $`D`$ can be considered as a constant, i.e., $`m`$ is constant, and that the inequality is no longer valid as $`N`$ approaches $`N_c`$ from the metallic side since $`\sigma (0)`$ also approaches zero. In such cases $`m`$ in Eq. (9) is not temperature independent and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (T)`$ may exhibit a temperature dependence different from $`\sqrt{T}`$. To examine this point in our experimental results, we go back to Fig. 1. We see there that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (T)`$ of the bottom five curves are not proportional to $`\sqrt{T}`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (T)`$ of the other higher $`N`$ samples are described by $`\sqrt{T}`$. The close-ups of $`\sigma (T)`$ for the six samples with positive $`d\sigma /dT`$ in the scale of $`\sqrt{T}`$ and $`T^{1/3}`$ are shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b), respectively. The upper and lower dotted lines represent the best fit using the data between 0.05 K and 0.5 K for the samples with $`N=1.912\times 10^{17}`$ cm-3 and $`N=1.861\times 10^{17}`$ cm-3, respectively. Each fit is shifted downward slightly for the sake of clarity. From this comparison, it is clear that a $`T^{1/3}`$ dependence rather than a $`\sqrt{T}`$ dependence holds for samples in the very vicinity of the MIT. The opposite is true for the curve at the top. This means that the $`\sqrt{T}`$ dependence in Eq. (9) is replaced by a $`T^{1/3}`$ dependence as the MIT is approached.

A $`T^{1/3}`$ dependence close to the critical point for the MIT was predicted originally by Al’tshuler and Aronov . They considered an interacting electron system with paramagnetic impurities, for which they obtained a single parameter scaling equation. At finite temperatures, they assumed a scaling form for conductivity according to the scaling hypothesis:

$$\sigma =\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}\xi ^{}}f_1(\xi ^{}/L_T),$$
(12)
where $`\xi ^{}`$ is the correlation length and $`L_T\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/k_BT}`$ is the thermal diffusion length. When $`L_T\xi ^{}`$, $`f_1(\xi ^{}/L_T)=A_0+A_1\xi ^{}/L_T`$, which is equivalent to Eq. (9). In the critical region, where $`L_T\xi ^{}\mathrm{}`$, Eq. (12) should be reduced to

$$\sigma =C_1\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}L_T}.$$
(13)
Combining this equation and Eq. (11), they obtained $`\sigma T^{1/3}`$. The $`T^{1/3}`$ dependence was also predicted from numerical calculations that consider solely the effect of disorder .

It is not clear whether the argument in Refs. 21 or 22 is applicable to the present system or not, but there is an experimental fact that $`\sqrt{T}`$ dependence of conductivity changes to $`T^{1/3}`$ as $`N_c`$ is approached. It is important that we find a consistent method that allows the determination of $`\sigma (0)`$ for both the cases. For this purpose, we follow Al’tshuler and Aronov’s manipulation  of eliminating $`m`$ and $`D`$ in Eqs. (9)–(11) and obtain

$$\sigma (T)=\sigma (0)+m^{}\sqrt{T/\sigma (T)},$$
(14)
where $`m^{}=eA\sqrt{(n/\mu )}`$, which is temperature independent. In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (T)\sigma (0)\sigma (T)`$, this equation gives the same value of $`\sigma (0)`$ as Eq. (9) does. When $`\sigma (0)\sigma (T)`$, it yields a $`T^{1/3}`$ dependence for $`\sigma (T)`$. Thus, it is applicable to both $`\sqrt{T}`$ and $`T^{1/3}`$ dependent conductivity. From today’s theoretical understanding of the problem, Eqs. (9) and (14) are valid only for $`L_T\xi ^{}`$, and their applicability to the critical region is not clear, because the higher-order terms of the $`\beta `$ function  which were once erroneously believed to be zero do not vanish . Nevertheless, we expect Eq. (14) to be a good expression for describing the temperature dependence of all metallic samples because it expresses both $`\sqrt{T}`$ and $`T^{1/3}`$ dependences as limiting forms. Then, based on Eq. (14), we plot $`\sigma (T)`$ vs $`\sqrt{T/\sigma (T)}`$ for the four close to $`N_c`$ samples in Fig. 3(a). The data points align on straight lines, which supports the adequacy of Eq. (14). The zero-temperature conductivity $`\sigma (0)`$ is obtained by extrapolating to $`T=0`$. The curve on the top of Fig. 3(a) is for the sample with the lowest $`N`$ among the ones showing $`\sqrt{T}`$ dependence at low temperatures, i.e., this sample has the largest value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (T)/\sigma (0)`$ among $`\sqrt{T}`$ samples. The value of $`\sigma (0)`$ obtained for this particular sample using Eq. (14) differs only by 0.6% from the value determined by the conventional extrapolation assuming Eq. (9). This small difference is comparable to the variation arising from the choice of the temperature range in which the fitting is performed. Therefore, the extrapolation method proposed here is compatible with the conventional method based on the $`\sqrt{T}`$ extrapolation.

Based on this analysis the MIT is found to occur between the first and second samples from the bottom in Fig. 3(a), i.e., $`1.858\times 10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3<N_c<1.861\times 10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. Thus, unlike the case for Si:P , $`N_c`$ is fixed already within an accuracy of 0.16% and the evaluation of the critical exponent $`\mu `$ will not be affected by the ambiguity in the determination of $`N_c`$. Figure 3(b) shows the zero-temperature conductivity $`\sigma (0)`$ as a function of $`N/N_c1`$ on a double logarithmic scale. A fit of Eq. (1) (dotted line) is excellent all the way down to $`(N/N_c1)=4\times 10^4`$. The fitting parameters are $`\mu =0.50\pm 0.04`$, $`N_c=(1.860\pm 0.002)\times 10^{17}`$ cm-3, and $`\sigma ^{}=(40\pm 2)`$ S/cm. We note that $`\mu =0.46\pm 0.18`$ is obtained even when we use only the four samples closest to $`N_c`$ for the fitting.

Variable-range-hopping conduction in insulating samples and the critical exponents for localization length and dielectric susceptibility

The temperature dependence of the conductivity $`\sigma (T)`$ of insulating samples is shown in Fig. 4. The electrical conduction of doped semiconductors on the insulating side of the MIT is often dominated by variable-range hopping (VRH) at low temperatures. The temperature dependence of $`\sigma (T)`$ for VRH is written in the form of

$$\sigma (T)=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(T)\mathrm{exp}[(T_0/T)^p],$$
(15)
where $`p=1/2`$ for the excitation within a parabolic-shaped energy gap (Coulomb gap), and $`p=1/4`$ for a constant single-particle density of states around the Fermi level . The temperature dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(T)`$ contributes greatly to the temperature dependence of $`\sigma (T)`$ near $`N_c`$ because the factor $`T_0/T`$ in the exponential term becomes very small, i.e., the temperature dependencies of the prefactor and that of the exponential term become comparable. Theoretically, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(T)`$ is expected to depend on temperature as

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(T)T^r$$
(16)
but the value of $`r`$ including the sign has not been derived yet for VRH conduction with both $`p=1/2`$ and $`p=1/4`$.

As we have seen in Fig. 2(b), the temperature variation of the low-temperature conductivity of the 70Ge:Ga samples within $`\pm `$0.3% of $`N_c`$ is proportional to $`T^{1/3}`$. Since both the $`T^{1/3}`$ dependence of the conductivity and the VRH with $`p=1/2`$ are results of the electron-electron interaction in disordered systems, they can be expressed, in principle, in a unified form. Moreover, the electronic transport in barely metallic samples and that in barely insulating samples should be essentially the same at high temperatures so long as the inelastic scattering length and the thermal diffusion length are smaller than, or at most comparable to the correlation length or the localization length. So, the temperature dependence of conductivity at high temperatures should be the same on both sides of the transition. Such behavior is confirmed experimentally in the present system, i.e., as seen in Fig. 2(b) the conductivity of samples very close to $`N_c`$ shows a $`T^{1/3}`$ dependence at $`T0.5`$ K, irrespective of the phase (metal or insulator) to which they belong at $`T=0`$. Based on this consideration we fix $`r=1/3`$. Figure 5 shows $`\sigma T^r`$ with $`r=1/3`$ for four samples ($`N/N_c=0.993`$, 0.994, 0.996, and 0.998) as a function of (a) $`T^{1/2}`$ and (b) $`T^{1/4}`$. All the data points lie on straight lines with $`p=1/2`$ in Fig. 5(a) while they curve downward with $`p=1/4`$ in Fig. 5(b). This dependence is maintained even when we change the values of $`r`$ between $`r=1/2`$ and 1/4. Thus we conclude that the conductivity of all samples on the insulating side for $`N`$ up to 0.998$`N_c`$ is described by the theory for the VRH conduction where the excitation occurs within the Coulomb gap, i.e., Eq. (15) with $`p=1/2`$.

Based on these findings, we evaluate the $`N`$ dependence of $`T_0`$ in Eq. (15) with $`p=1/2`$ and $`r=1/3`$. Figure 6 shows $`T_0`$ as a function of $`1N/N_c`$.

The vertical and horizontal error bars have been estimated based on the values of $`T_0`$ obtained with $`r=1/2`$ and $`r=1/4`$, and the values of $`1N/(1.858\times 10^{17}`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{3})`$ and $`1N/(1.861\times 10^{17}`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{3})`$, where $`1.858\times 10^{17}`$ cm-3 is the highest concentration in the insulating phase and $`1.861\times 10^{17}`$ cm-3 is the lowest in the metallic phase, respectively. According to theory , $`T_0`$ in Eq. (15) is given by

$$k_BT_0\frac{1}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi ϵ_0}\frac{2.8e^2}{ϵ(N)\xi (N)}$$
(17)
in SI units, where $`ϵ(N)`$ is the dielectric constant, and $`\xi (N)`$ is the localization length. Here, we should note that the condition $`T<T_0`$ is needed for the VRH theory to be valid, i.e., $`T_0`$ has to be evaluated only from the data obtained at temperatures low enough to satisfy the above condition. This requirement is fulfilled in Fig. 6 for all the samples except for the one with $`N=0.998N_c`$. Concerning this latter sample, we will include it for the determination of $`\gamma `$ (Fig. 8) and $`\xi `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}`$ (Fig. 9) but not for the calculation of the critical exponents.

Our next step is to separate $`T_0`$ into $`ϵ`$ and $`\xi `$ in the framework of the theory of VRH conduction with and without a weak magnetic field . For $`\xi /\lambda 1`$, the magnetoconductance is expressed as

$$\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\sigma (B,T)}{\sigma (0,T)}\right]0.0015\left(\frac{\xi }{\lambda }\right)^4\left(\frac{T_0}{T}\right)^{3/2},$$
(18)
where $`\lambda \sqrt{\mathrm{}/eB}`$ is the magnetic length in SI units. According to Eq. (18), the magnetic-field variation of $`\mathrm{ln}\sigma `$ at $`T=\mathrm{const}.`$ is proportional to $`B^2`$, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{ln}\sigma (B,T)=\mathrm{ln}\sigma (0,T)+C_2(T)B^2,$$
(19)
and the slope $`C_2(T)`$ in the above equation is proportional to $`T^{3/2}`$. In order to demonstrate that these relations hold for our samples, we show for the $`N=0.989N_c`$ sample $`\mathrm{ln}\sigma (B,T)`$ vs $`B^2`$ in Fig. 7(a) and $`C_2(T)`$ determined by least-square fitting of $`\mathrm{ln}\sigma /B^2`$ vs $`T^{3/2}`$ in Fig. 7(b).

Since Eq. (18) is equivalent to

$$\gamma C_2(T)/T^{3/2}0.0015(e/\mathrm{})^2\xi ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}T_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/2},$$
(20)
$`\xi `$ is given by

$$\xi 5.1(\mathrm{}/e)^{1/2}\gamma ^{1/4}T_0^{3/8}.$$
(21)
In this way we have determined $`\gamma `$ as a function of $`T_0`$ for nine samples (Fig. 8).

The value of $`\gamma `$ is almost independent of $`T_0`$, and if one assumes the form of $`\gamma T_0^\delta `$, one obtains a small value of $`\delta =0.094\pm 0.005`$ from least-square fitting. We determine $`\xi `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}=ϵϵ_h`$ from Eqs. (17) and (21), and show them in Fig. 9 as a function of $`1N/N_c`$ and $`N_c/N1`$, respectively. Here, $`ϵ_h`$ is the dielectric constant of the host Ge, and hence, $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}`$ is the dielectric susceptibility of the Ga acceptors. We should note that both $`\xi `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}`$ are sufficiently larger than the Bohr radius (8 nm for Ge) and $`ϵ_h=15.4`$ , respectively. According to the theories of the MIT, both $`\xi `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}`$ diverge at $`N_c`$ as $`\xi (N)(1N/N_c)^\nu `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}(N)(N_c/N1)^\zeta `$, respectively. We find, however, both $`\xi `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}`$ do not show such simple dependencies on $`N`$ in the range shown in Fig. 9, and that there is a sharp change of both dependencies at $`N0.99N_c`$.

On both sides of the change in slope, the concentration dependence of $`\xi `$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{imp}}`$ are expressed well by the scaling formula as shown in Fig. 9. Theoretically, the quantities should show the critical behavior when $`N`$ is very close to $`N_c`$. So $`\nu =1.2\pm 0.3`$ and $`\zeta =2.3\pm 0.6`$ may be concluded from the data in $`0.99<N/N_c`$. However, the other region ($`0.9<N/N_c<0.99`$), where we obtain $`\nu =0.33\pm 0.03`$ and $`\zeta =0.62\pm 0.05`$, is also very close to $`N_c`$ in a conventional experimental sense.

As a possible origin for the change in slope, we refer to the effect of compensation. Although our samples are nominally uncompensated, doping compensation of less than 0.1% may be present due to residual isotopes that become n-type impurities after NTD. In addition to the doping compensation, the effect known as “self compensation” may play an important role near $`N_c`$ . It is empirically known that the doping compensation affects the value of the critical exponents . Rentzsch et al. studied VRH conduction of n-type NTD Ge in the concentration range of $`0.2<N/N_c<0.91`$, and showed that $`T_0`$ vanishes as $`T_0(1N/N_c)^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 3`$ for $`K=38`$% and 54%, where $`K`$ is the compensation ratio . Since $`\alpha \nu +\zeta `$ \[Eq. (17)\], we find for our NTD 70Ge:Ga samples $`\alpha =3.5\pm 0.8`$ for $`0.99<N/N_c<1`$ and $`\alpha =0.95\pm 0.08`$ for $`0.9<N/N_c<0.99`$. Interestingly, $`\alpha =3.5\pm 0.8`$ agrees with $`\alpha 3`$ found for compensated samples. Moreover, we have recently proposed the possibility that the conductivity critical exponent $`\mu 1`$ in the same 70Ge:Ga only within the very vicinity of $`N_c`$ (up to about +0.1% of $`N_c`$) . An exponent of $`\mu =0.50\pm 0.04`$, on the other hand, holds for a wider region of $`N`$ up to $`1.4N_c`$ as we have seen in Fig. 3(b). Again, $`\mu 1`$ near $`N_c`$ may be viewed as the effect of compensation. Therefore, it may be possible that the region of $`N`$ around $`N_c`$ where $`\nu 1`$ and $`\mu 1`$ changes its width as a function of the doping compensation. In the limit of zero compensation, the part which is characterized by $`\nu 1`$ and $`\mu 1`$ vanishes, i.e., we propose $`\nu =0.33\pm 0.03`$, $`\zeta =0.62\pm 0.05`$, and $`\mu =0.50\pm 0.04`$ for truly uncompensated systems and that the relation $`\mu =\nu `$  is not satisfied. In compensated systems, on the other hand, $`\mu =\nu `$ may hold as it does in the very vicinity of $`N_c`$. However, the preceding discussion needs to be proven experimentally in the future by using samples whose compensation ratios are controlled precisely and systematically.

Metal-insulator transition in magnetic fields

Figure 10 shows the temperature dependence of the conductivity of the sample having $`N=2.004\times 10^{17}`$ cm-3 for several values of the magnetic induction $`B`$.

Application of the magnetic field decreases the conductivity and eventually drives the sample into the insulating phase. This property can be understood in terms of the shrinkage of the wave function due to the magnetic field. In strong magnetic fields and at low temperatures, i.e., when $`g\mu _BBk_BT`$, the conductivity shows another $`\sqrt{T}`$ dependence

$$\sigma (N,B,T)=\sigma (N,B,0)+m_B(N,B)\sqrt{T},$$
(22)
where

$$m_B=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi ^2}\frac{1.3}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\frac{4}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}\stackrel{~}{F}\right)\sqrt{\frac{k_B}{\mathrm{}D}}.$$
(23)
One should note that Eqs. (9) and (22) are valid only in the limits of $`[\sigma (N,0,T)\sigma (N,0,0)]\sigma (N,0,0)`$ or $`[\sigma (N,B,T)\sigma (N,B,0)]\sigma (N,B,0)`$. It is for this reason that we have observed a $`T^{1/3}`$ dependence rather than the $`\sqrt{T}`$ dependence at $`B=0`$ in Fig. 2 as the critical point \[$`\sigma (N,0,0)=0`$\] is approached from the metallic side. However, Fig. 10 shows that the $`\sqrt{T}`$ dependence holds when $`B0`$ even around the critical point. Hence, we use Eq. (22) to evaluate the zero-temperature conductivity $`\sigma (N,B,0)`$ in magnetic fields. Since $`m_B`$ is independent of $`B`$, the conductivity for various values of $`B`$ plotted against $`\sqrt{T}`$ should appear as a group of parallel lines. This is approximately the case as seen in Fig. 10 at low temperatures (e.g., $`T<0.25`$ K).

The zero-temperature conductivity $`\sigma (N,B,0)`$ in various magnetic fields obtained by extrapolation of $`\sigma (N,B,T)`$ to $`T=0`$ based on Eq. (22) is shown in Fig. 11.

Here, $`\sigma (N,B,0)`$ is plotted as a function of the normalized concentration:

$$n[\sigma (N,0,0)/\sigma ^{}(0)]^{2.0}.$$
(24)
Since the relation between $`N`$ and $`\sigma (N,0,0)`$ was established in Fig. 3(b) as $`\sigma (N,0,0)=\sigma ^{}(0)[N/N_c(0)1]^{0.50}`$ where $`N_c(0)=1.860\times 10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`\sigma ^{}(0)=40`$ S/cm, $`n`$ is equivalent to $`N/N_c(0)1`$. Henceforth, we will use $`n`$ instead of $`N`$ because employing $`n`$ reduces the scattering of the data caused by several experimental uncertainties, and it further helps us concentrate on observing how $`\sigma (N,B,0)`$ varies as $`B`$ is increased. Similar evaluations of the concentration have been used by various groups. In their approach, the ratio of the resistance at 4.2 K to that at a room temperature is used to determine the concentration . The dashed curve in Fig. 11 is for $`B=0`$, which merely expresses Eq. (24), and the solid curves represent fits of

$$\sigma (N,B,0)=\sigma _0(B)[n/n_c(B)1]^{\mu (B)}.$$
(25)
The exponent $`\mu (B)`$ increases from 0.5 with increasing $`B`$ and reaches a value close to unity at $`B4`$ T. For example, $`\mu =1.03\pm 0.03`$ at $`B=4`$ T and $`\mu =1.09\pm 0.05`$ at $`B=5`$ T. When $`B6`$ T, three-parameter \[$`\sigma _0(B)`$, $`n_c(B)`$, and $`\mu (B)`$\] fits no longer give reasonable results because the number of samples available for the fit decreases with increasing $`B`$. Hence, we give the solid curves for $`B6`$ T assuming $`\mu (B)=1.15`$.

We show $`\sigma (N,B,0)`$ as a function of $`B`$ in Fig. 12 for three different samples.

When the magnetic field is weak, i.e., the correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _B(N,B,0)\sigma (N,B,0)\sigma (N,0,0)`$ due to $`B`$ is small compared with $`\sigma (N,0,0)`$, the field dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _B(N,B,0)`$ looks consistent with the prediction by the interaction theory ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _B(N,B,0)=\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{F}}{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi ^2}\sqrt{\frac{g\mu _BB}{2\mathrm{}D}}\sqrt{B}.$$
(26)
In larger magnetic fields, $`\sigma (N,B,0)`$ deviates from Eq. (26) and eventually vanishes at some magnetic induction $`B_c`$. For the samples in Fig. 12, we tuned the magnetic induction to the MIT in a resolution of 0.1 T.

We fit an equation similar to Eq. (25),

$$\sigma (N,B,0)=\sigma _0^{}(n)[1B/B_c(n)]^{\mu ^{}(n)},$$
(27)
to the data close to the critical point. As a result we obtain $`\mu ^{}=1.1\pm 0.1`$ for all of the three samples. The value of $`\mu ^{}`$ depends on the choice of the magnetic-field range to be used for the fitting, and this fact leads to the error of $`\pm 0.1`$ in the determination of $`\mu ^{}`$. In Fig. 13 we show that $`\mu ^{}=1.1`$ yields an excellent finite-temperature scaling \[Eq. (3)\]. Note that the data both on the metallic side and on the insulating side are included in this scaling plot. Here we employ $`B_c`$ obtained by fitting Eq. (27), $`x=1/2`$ from the fact that $`\sqrt{T}`$ dependence holds in magnetic fields even around the critical point, and $`y=x/\mu ^{}=0.45`$, i.e., none of them are treated as a fitting parameter. Hence, Fig. 13 strongly supports $`\mu ^{}=1.1`$.

From the critical points $`n_c(B)`$ and $`B_c(n)`$, the phase diagram at $`T=0`$ is constructed on the $`(N,B)`$ plane as shown in Fig. 14.

Here, $`n_c(B)`$ for $`B6`$ T shown by triangles are obtained by assuming $`\mu =1.15`$. The vertical solid lines associated with the triangles represent the range of values over which $`n_c(B)`$ have to exist, i.e., between the highest $`n`$ in the insulating phase and the lowest $`n`$ in the metallic phase. Solid diamonds represent $`B_c`$ for the three samples in which we have studied the magnetic-field-induced MIT. Estimations of $`B_c`$ for the other samples are also shown by open boxes with error bars. The boundary between metallic phase and insulating phase is expressed by a power-law relation:

$$n=C_3B^\beta .$$
(28)
From the eight data points denoted by the solid symbols, we obtain $`C_3=(1.33\pm 0.17)\times 10^3`$ T and $`\beta =2.45\pm 0.09`$ as shown by the dotted curve. The shift of $`N_c`$ in magnetic fields was studied theoretically by Khmel’nitskii and Larkin . They considered a noninteracting electron system starting from

$$\sigma (N,B,0)\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}\xi ^{}}f_2(B^\alpha ^{}\xi ^{}),$$
(29)
where $`\xi ^{}`$ is the correlation length. They claimed that the argument of the function $`f_2`$ should be a power of the magnetic flux through a region with dimension $`\xi ^{}`$. This means

$$\sigma (N,B,0)\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}\xi ^{}}f_2(\xi ^{}/\lambda ),$$
(30)
where $`\lambda \sqrt{\mathrm{}/eB}`$ is the magnetic length, and hence, $`\alpha ^{}=1/2`$. In order to discuss the shift of the MIT due to the magnetic field, they rewrote Eq. (30) as

$$\sigma (N,B,0)\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}\lambda }\varphi (t\lambda ^{1/\nu }),$$
(31)
based on the relation in zero magnetic field

$$\xi ^{}t^\nu .$$
(32)
Here, $`t`$ is a measure of distance from the critical point in zero field, e.g.,

$$t[N/N_c(0)1].$$
(33)
The zero point of the function $`\varphi `$ gives the MIT, and the shift of the critical point for the MIT equals

$$N_c(B)N_c(0)B^{1/2\nu }.$$
(34)
Thus, $`\beta =1/(2\nu )`$ results. In the present system, however, this relation does not hold, as long as we assume $`\mu =\nu `$ . Experimentally, we find $`\beta =2.5`$, while $`1/(2\nu )=1/(2\mu )=1`$ for 70Ge:Ga at $`B=0`$.

Based on the phase diagram we shall consider the relationship between the two critical exponents: $`\mu `$ for the doping-induced MIT and $`\mu ^{}`$ for the magnetic-field-induced MIT. Suppose that a sample with normalized concentration $`n`$ has a zero-temperature conductivity $`\sigma `$ at $`B0`$ and that $`[n/n_c(B)1]1`$ or $`[1B/B_c(n)]1`$. From Eqs. (25) and (27), we have two expressions for $`\sigma `$:

$$\sigma =\sigma _0(n/n_c1)^\mu $$
(35)
and

$$\sigma =\sigma _0^{}(1B/B_c)^\mu ^{}.$$
(36)
On the other hand, we have from Eq. (28)

$$n/n_c=(B/B_c)^\beta =[1(1B/B_c)]^\beta 1+\beta (1B/B_c)$$
(37)
in the limit of $`(1B/B_c)1`$. This equation can be rewritten as

$$(n/n_c1)/\beta (1B/B_c).$$
(38)
Using Eqs. (35), (36), and (38), we obtain

$$\sigma _0^{}(1B/B_c)^\mu ^{}\beta ^\mu \sigma _0(1B/B_c)^\mu .$$
(39)
Since Eq. (39) has to hold for arbitrary $`B`$, the following relations

$$\sigma _0^{}=\beta ^\mu \sigma _0$$
(40)
and

$$\mu ^{}=\mu $$
(41)
are derived.

In Fig. 15 we see how well Eq. (41) holds for the present system. We have already shown in Fig. 12 that $`\mu ^{}=1.1\pm 0.1`$ is practically independent of $`n`$. Concerning the exponent $`\mu `$, however, its dependence on $`B`$ has not been ruled out completely even for the highest $`B`$ we used in the experiments. This is mainly because the number of available data points at large $`B`$ is not sufficient for a precise determination of $`\mu `$. In Fig. 15 the results of the doping-induced MIT for $`B4`$ T (solid symbols) and the magnetic-field-induced MIT for three different samples (open symbols) are plotted. Here, we plot $`\sigma (N,B,0)/[\beta ^\mu \sigma _0(B)]`$ vs $`[n/n_c(B)1]/\beta `$ with $`\beta =2.5`$ and $`\mu =1.1`$ for the doping-induced MIT, and $`\sigma (N,B,0)/\sigma _0(B)^{}`$ vs $`[1B/B_c(n)]`$ for the magnetic-field-induced MIT. Figure 15 shows that the data points align exceptionally well along a single line describing a single exponent $`\mu =\mu ^{}=1.1`$.

We saw in Fig. 11 that $`\mu `$ apparently takes smaller values in $`B3`$ T, which seemingly contradicts the above consideration. We can understand this as follows. We find that the critical exponent $`\mu `$ in zero magnetic field is 0.5 which is different from the values of $`\mu `$ in magnetic fields. Hence, one should note whether the system under consideration belongs to the “magnetic-field regime” or not. In systems where the MIT occurs, there are several characteristic length scales: the correlation length, the thermal diffusion length, the inelastic scattering length, the spin scattering length, the spin-orbit scattering length, etc. As for the magnetic field, it is characterized by the magnetic length $`\lambda \sqrt{\mathrm{}/eB}`$. When $`\lambda `$ is smaller than the other length scales, the system is in the “magnetic-field regime.” As the correlation length $`\xi ^{}`$ diverges at the MIT, $`\lambda <\xi ^{}`$ holds near the critical point, no matter how weak the magnetic field is. When the field is not sufficiently large, the “magnetic-field regime” where we assume $`\mu =1.1`$ to hold, is restricted to a narrow region of concentration. Outside the region, the system crosses over to the “zero-field regime” where $`\mu =0.5`$ is expected. This is what is seen in Fig. 11.

CONCLUSION

We have measured the electrical conductivity of NTD 70Ge:Ga to study the metal-insulator transition, ruling out an ambiguity due to inhomogeneous distribution of impurities. The critical exponent $`\mu 0.5`$ in zero magnetic field for doped semiconductors without impurity compensation has been confirmed. On the insulating side of the MIT, while the relation $`2\nu \zeta `$ predicted by scaling theories  holds for $`0.9<N/N_c<1`$, the critical exponents for localization length and impurity dielectric susceptibility change at $`N/N_c0.99`$. The small amount of doping compensation that is unavoidably present in our samples may be responsible for such a change in the exponents. We have also measured the conductivity in magnetic fields up to $`B=8`$ T in order to study the doping-induced MIT (in magnetic fields) and the magnetic-field-induced MIT. For both of the MIT, the critical exponent of the conductivity is 1.1, which is different from the value 0.5 at $`B=0`$. The change of the critical exponent caused by the applied magnetic fields supports a picture in which $`\mu `$ varies depending on the universality class to which the system belongs. The phase diagram has been determined in magnetic fields for the 70Ge:Ga system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work has been performed in collaboration with K. M. Itoh, Y. Ootuka, and E. E. Haller. We are thankful to T. Ohtsuki for fruitful discussions, and to S. Katsumoto, B. I. Shklovskii, M. P. Sarachik, and J. C. Phillips for valuable comments. The author is supported by Research Fellowship of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists.

REFERENCES

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Lee, P.A. and Ramakrishnan, T.V. (1985) Disordered electronic systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 57, 287-337. |
| 2. | Belitz, D. and Kirkpatrick, T.R. (1994) The Anderson-Mott transition, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 261-380. |
| 3. | Wegner, F.J. (1976) Electrons in disordered systems. Scaling near the mobility edge, Z. Phys. B 25, 327-337; (1979) The mobility edge problem: continuous symmetry and a conjecture, ibid. 35, 207-210. |
| 4. | Rosenbaum, T.F. Milligan, R.F. Paalanen, M.A. Thomas, G.A. Bhatt, R.N. and Lin, W. (1983) Metal-insulator transition in a doped semiconductor, Phys. Rev. B 27, 7509-7523. |
| 5. | Stupp, H. Hornung, M. Lakner, M. Madel, O. and Löhneysen, H.v. (1993) Possible solution of the conductivity critical exponent puzzle for the metal-insulator transition in heavily doped uncompensated semiconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2634-2637. |
| 6. | Waffenschmidt, S. Pfleiderer, C. and Löhneysen, H.v. (1999) Critical behavior of the conductivity of Si:P at the metal-insulator transition under uniaxial stress, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3005-3008. |
| 7. | Rosenbaum, T.F. Thomas, G.A. and Paalanen, M.A. (1994) Critical behavior of Si:P at the metal-insulator transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2121. |
| 8. | Zulehner, W. (1989) Czochralski growth of silicon, in Harbeke, G. and Schulz, M.J. (eds.) Semiconductor Silicon: Material Science and Technology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 2-23. |
| 9. | Haller, E.E. Palaio, N.P. Rodder, M. Hansen, W.L. and Kreysa, E. (1984) NTD germanium: a novel material for low temperature bolometers, in Larrabee, R.D. (ed.) Neutron Transmutation Doping of Semiconductor Materials, Plenum, New York, pp. 21–36. |
| 10. | Itoh, K.M. Haller, E.E. Beeman, J.W. Hansen, W.L. Emes, J. Reichertz, L.A. Kreysa, E. Shutt, T. Cummings, A. Stockwell, W. Sadoulet, B. Muto, J. Farmer, J.W. and Ozhogin, V.I. (1996) Hopping conduction and metal-insulator transition in isotopically enriched neutron-transmutation-doped 70Ge:Ga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4058-4061. |
| 11. | Watanabe, M. Ootuka, Y. Itoh, K.M. and Haller, E.E. (1998) Electrical properties of isotopically enriched neutron-transmutation-doped 70Ge:Ga near the metal-insulator transition, Phys. Rev. B 58, 9851-9857. |
| 12. | Watanabe, M. Itoh, K.M. Ootuka, Y. and Haller, E.E. (2000) Localization length and impurity dielectric susceptibility in the critical regime of the metal-insulator transition in homogeneously doped p-type Ge, Phys. Rev. B 62, R2255-R2258. |
| 13. | Shklovskii, B.I. and Efros, A.L. (1984) Electronic Properties of Doped Semiconductors, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. |
| 14. | Ionov, A.N. Shlimak I.S. and Matveev, M.N. (1983) An experimental determination of the critical exponents at the metal-insulator transition, Solid State Commun. 47, 763-766. |
| 15. | Kawabata, A. (1984) Renormalization group theory of metal-insulator transition in doped silicon, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 53, 318-323. |
| 16. | Hess, H.F. DeConde, K. Rosenbaum, T.F. and Thomas, G.A. (1982) Giant dielectric constants at the approach to the insulator-metal transition, Phys. Rev. B 25, 5578-5580. |
| 17. | Katsumoto, S. (1990) Photo-induced metal-insulator transition in a semiconductor, in Kuchar, F. Heinrich, H. and Bauer, G. (eds.) Localization and Confinement of Electrons in Semiconductors, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 117-126. |
| 18. | Chayes, J.T. Chayes, L. Fisher, D.S. and Spencer, T. (1986) Finite-size scaling and correlation lengths for disordered systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2999-3002. |
| 19. | Kirkpatrick, T.R. and Belitz, D. (1993) Logarithmic corrections to scaling near the metal-insulator transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 974-977. |
| 20. | Watanabe, M. Itoh, K.M. Ootuka, Y. and Haller, E.E. (1999) Metal-insulator transition of isotopically enriched neutron-transmutation-doped 70Ge:Ga in magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B 62, 15817-15823. |
| 21. | Al’tshuler, B.L. and Aronov, A.G. (1983) Scaling theory of Anderson’s transition for interacting electrons, JETP Lett. 37, 410-413. |
| 22. | Ohtsuki, T. and Kawarabayashi, T. (1997) Anomalous diffusion at the Anderson transitions, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 66, 314-317. |
| 23. | Abrahams, E. Anderson, P.W. Licciardello, D.C. and Ramakrishnan, T.V. (1979) Scaling theory of localization: absence of quantum diffusion in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 673-676. |
| 24. | Bernreuther, W. and Wegner, F.J. (1986) Four-loop-order $`\beta `$ function for two-dimensional nonlinear sigma models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1383-1385. |
| 25. | Castner, T.G. Lee, N.K. Tan, H.S. Moberly, L. and Symko O. (1980) The low-frequency, low-temperature dielectric behavior of n-type germanium below the insulator-metal transition, J. Low Temp. Phys. 38, 447-473. |
| 26. | Bhatt, R.N. and Rice, T.M. (1980) Clustering in the approach to the metal-insulator transition, Philos. Mag. B 42, 859-872. |
| 27. | Rentzsch, R. Ionov, A.N. Reich, Ch. Müller, M. Sandow, B. Fozooni, P. Lea, M.J. Ginodman, V. and Shlimak, I. (1998) The scaling behaviour of the metal-insulator transition of isotopically engineered neutron-transmutation doped germanium, Phys. Status Solidi B 205, 269-273. |
| 28. | Itoh, K.M. Watanabe, M. Ootuka, Y. and Haller, E.E. (1999) Scaling analysis of the low temperature conductivity in neutron-transmutation-doped 70Ge:Ga, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 8, 631-637. |
| 29. | Khmel’nitskii, D.E. and Larkin, A.I. (1981) Mobility edge shift in external magnetic field, Solid State Commun. 39, 1069-1070. |