text:
# Hall coefficient in an interacting electron gas

## I Introduction

In recent experiments on the two-dimensional dilute electron gases the renormalization of the Fermi-liquid parameters is found to be significant.Pudalov1 -Prus  These strong renormalizations are natural for a dilute gas with a large value of the ratio of the Coulomb energy to the Fermi energy. It was shown, however, that in a high mobility MOSFETs (metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor) the density of electrons $`n_H`$ found from the Hall coefficient $`R_H=1/n_Hec`$ coincides with that obtained from the Shubnikov$``$de Haas measurements $`n`$ to within a few percent \[see Fig. 4 in Ref. Pudalov2,  and the inset in Fig. 4 in Ref. Shashkin, (b)\]. This remarkable fact raises a question about the electron-electron (e-e) interaction renormalizations of the Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in a small magnetic field, $`\omega _c\tau 1`$, where $`\omega _c`$ is a cyclotron frequency and $`\tau `$ is the free path time. Notice that while the e-e interaction is very strong, in other aspects this system is rather simple, because the effect of the crystalline lattice can be safely studied in the effective-mass approximation. Apart from impurities, one may consider the electron liquid as if it is in a translational invariant background. Therefore the influence of the interaction on the Hall coefficient should not be masked by unnecessary complications. The issue of the Hall coefficient renormalization has not been discussed much in the literature despite its obvious importance. We have in mind the renormalization of the leading in $`\tau _{tr}`$ terms in the conductivity tensor, i.e., of the Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}B\tau _{tr}^2`$, and the diagonal term $`\sigma _{xx}=ne^2\tau _{tr}/m^{}`$. Here $`\tau _{tr}`$ is the transport relaxation time, and $`B`$ is a magnetic field; notice that $`R_HB^1\sigma _{xy}/(\sigma _{xx})^2`$.

In this paper we examine the effect of the e-e interaction on the Hall coefficient within the microscopical theory. We avoid the currently used procedure that introduces an artificial spatial modulation of the magnetic field. Based on an idea of the flux of a loop in a diagrammatic technique, we obtain a gauge invariant procedure for the calculations in the presence of a homogeneous magnetic field which makes it possible to conduct the analysis of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in a general manner. In particular, in the course of the calculations the translational invariance of the problem is maintained, and the usual rather involved procedure of extracting a constant $`B`$ from the $`𝐪0`$ limit of a singular expression for the vector potential $`𝐀(𝐪)`$ can be avoided.

In this paper, we show that the Hall coefficient for electrons with the quadratic spectrum, $`ϵ(p)=p^2/2m,`$ in the leading order in $`\tau _{tr}`$, is not renormalized by the e-e interaction, i.e., $`R_H=1/nec`$. \[In fact, the cancellation of the e-e renormalization in the Hall coefficient holds for any spherically symmetric dispersion $`ϵ(|𝐩|)`$; see Appendix B for comments.\] This result explains the stability of the Hall coefficient $`R_H`$ to the e-e interaction demonstrated in Refs. Pudalov2,  and Shashkin, (b). Notice that the Altshuler-Aronov corrections to $`\sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}`$ teach us that there cannot be any general principle for the absence of renormalizations in $`R_H`$, because corrections to $`R_H`$ of the order $`1/ϵ_F\tau _{tr}`$ do exist.Altshuler1  Therefore the fact stated here about the cancellation of e-e renormalizations in the leading term of $`R_H`$ should be proved specifically.

The renormalization of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ can be also studied within the Fermi-liquid theory following the line given in Ref.PN . The magnetic field $`𝐁`$ comes into a transport equation in a combination with the velocity of a charge carrier as $`(e[𝐯_𝐩\times 𝐁]/𝐩)\delta n_𝐩`$, where $`\delta n_𝐩`$ is the departure of the distribution function from equilibrium due to the applied electric field (see e.g., Ref. Ziman, ). In the presence of the electron-electron interaction one may expect in addition terms like $`(e[𝐯_𝐩\times 𝐁]/𝐩)f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}\delta n_𝐩^{}`$, or $`f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}(e[𝐯_𝐩^{}\times 𝐁]/𝐩^{})f_{𝐩^{}𝐩^{\prime \prime }}\delta n_{𝐩^{\prime \prime }}`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ means the average over the Fermi surface. Here $`f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}\delta n_𝐩^{}`$ is the response of the Fermi liquid to the departure of the distribution function from equilibrium.PN  This approach gives $`\sigma _{xy}`$ renormalized by the e-e interaction which when combined with $`\sigma _{xx}`$ yields the Hall coefficient $`R_H`$ with no renormalization factors. It is, however, not clear that the derivation of the Hall conductivity in a weak magnetic field via the transport equation within the Fermi-liquid theory is accurate enough. For instance, consider the following process: the electric field leads to the departure of the distribution function from equilibrium; the electron liquid responds to this $`\delta n`$ via the electron interaction; the magnetic field acts on the result of this response and transforms it into the Hall current involving again the e-e interaction. The nonfactorized part of such two time interaction process $`(e[𝐯_𝐩^{}\times 𝐁]/𝐩^{})f_{np}(𝐩;𝐩^{};𝐩^{\prime \prime })\delta n_{𝐩^{\prime \prime }}`$ corresponds to nonpair correlations, and is beyond the scope of the Fermi-liquid theory. (Some doubts about the derivation via the kinetic equation were expressed in the literature, e.g., Ref. Ziman, , Sec. 7.12.) We will see, however, that this contribution is small by the parameter $`1/ϵ_F\tau _{tr}`$. Therefore the present microscopical derivation justifies the applicability of the Fermi-liquid treatment of this problem.

In Sec. II the technicalities of the calculation of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in a constant magnetic field are given. In Sec. III the Hall conductivity of the noninteracting electrons is considered, and in particular a nontrivial problem of the Hall conductivity in a system with an arbitrary (nonshort range) impurity potential is studied. By studying this case we make the needed preparations for the analysis of the effects of the e-e interaction to the Hall conductivity \[see Eqs. (23)$``$(25)\]. The problem of the Hall effect in a weak magnetic field is reformulated in a way such that the magnetic flux associated with the scattering process becomes the central element of the calculation. In Sec. IV the role of the e-e interaction is analyzed. There, the main contribution to $`\sigma _{xy}`$ is given by Eq. (35). The latter expression contains a product of two terms; one describes the scattering of the quasiparticles by impurities, while the other corresponds to the decoration of the current vertices by the e-e interaction. The derivatives over the momentum in Eq. (35) correspond to the vector product of the two coordinate differences, see Eq. (23), in the representation of the flux which leads to the skew action of the magnetic field.

In the concluding section for completeness we discuss $`R_H`$ using the Fermi-liquid theory.PN  In Appendix C we reproduce the known answer (Ref. Fukuyama2, ) for the weak localization corrections to $`\sigma _{xy}`$ as an instructive example of the calculation within the new procedure.

## II Diamagnetic and Flux contributions in a homogeneous magnetic field

To describe electrons moving in a magnetic field the magnetic vector potential $`𝐀`$ can be introduced through the extension of the momentum in the kinetic energy term: $`ϵ(𝐩)ϵ(𝐩(e/c)𝐀)`$. Although the analysis presented in this paper is valid for any spectrum with a spherical symmetry (see Appendix B), the consideration in the main text will be limited to the case of the electron gas with a quadratic spectrum

$$H_0=\frac{1}{2m}\left(𝐩\frac{e}{c}𝐀\right)^2,$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the conduction band mass (i.e., $`m`$ is not renormalized yet by the electron-electron interaction), and we use the fact that for low concentrations of the electrons only the quadratic term in $`ϵ(p)`$ is relevant.

Notice that the homogeneous magnetic field demands special care as the Fourier components of the vector potential, $`𝐀(𝐪)=d^dre^{i\mathrm{𝐪𝐫}}𝐀(𝐫)`$, are singular in this important case. Let us take the vector potential in the Landau gauge,

$$𝐁=B\widehat{𝐳};A_x=0,A_y=Bx.$$
(2)
Then the Fourier components of $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ are

$$A_y(𝐪)=iB\frac{}{q_x}\delta ^d(𝐪).$$
(3)
When inserted directly into diagrams the expression for $`A_y(𝐪)`$ being highly singular leads to complications. In order to circumvent this difficulty it was proposed in Ref. FEW,  to introduce a magnetic field modulated in space at some wave vector $`𝐪`$ in addition to a homogeneous electric field at finite frequency $`\omega ,`$ and to study the $`(𝐪,\omega )`$ response of the current. It has been argued in Ref. FEW,  that in the calculation of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ one should perform the limiting procedure as follows: first extract the $`𝐪`$-linear contributions related to the vector potential and arrange them into the gauge invariant combination $`𝐁(𝐪)=i𝐪\times 𝐀(𝐪)`$; next let $`𝐪0`$ keeping $`𝐁(𝐪)`$ to be finite; and, finally, perform the dc limit for the current response. The first step in this procedure requires combining different pieces into the gauge invariant combination, and this involves nontrivial cancellations amongst different diagrams. The outlined procedure is effective when a specific process is needed to be calculated (see, e.g., Refs. Altshuler1,  and Fukuyama2, ), but unfortunately it is unsuitable for a general analysis.

The method proposed below treats the magnetic field at $`𝐪=0`$ ab initio, and at no stage of the calculation does the vector potential appear explicitly. In addition to the apparent gauge invariance the developed technique shows clearly that although the Hamiltonian in the magnetic field is not translational invariant, any measured quantity like conductivity can be calculated in an explicitly transitional invariant manner. The calculation is based on the fact that the Green’s function in a constant magnetic field can be represented in the form Levinson -Edelstein

$$𝒢(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\tau )=\mathrm{exp}\left[(ie/c)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)\right]\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_1𝐫_2,\tau ),$$
(4)
where the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is equal to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=(𝐫_1𝐫_2)𝐀\left(\frac{𝐫_1+𝐫_2}{2}\right)$$
(5)
and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ is the core Green’s function which contains the information about the Landau-level quantization. The function $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ is translational and rotational invariant and is also invariant with respect to different gauge representations of the magnetic field $`𝐁`$ (see Appendix A). Notice that in the presence of e-e interaction the representation (4) and (5) is still valid.

The rotational invariance of the core function $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ is responsible for the fact that the Hall current originates either from the diamagnetic part of the current operator, or with the participation of the phase terms $`\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ No contribution to $`\sigma _{xy}`$ comes out from the core functions alone. This is because the calculation of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in the Kubo formula involves the averaging over the momenta of the nondiagonal current-current correlator $`J_xJ_y`$. Since the functions $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ are rotational invariant, the angular integration of the type $`p_x\mathrm{}p_y^{}`$ makes the core function’s contribution to $`\sigma _{xy}`$ zero if the scattering by impurities is simple enough and does not itself produce the skew effect on average. Then only the interference of the phase factor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ or the diamagnetic current make it possible to achieve the skew action of the magnetic field to avoid the vanishing of the $`J_xJ_y`$ current correlator after the angular integration. (Notice in this connection that the Lorentz force can be interpreted as a consequence of the phase accumulation in the magnetic field, Ref. Feynman, .)

The diamagnetic part of the current operator, $`(e^2/mc)𝐀,`$ being nongauge invariant has to be completed into a gauge invariant contribution in any calculation of a measurable quantity. This completion comes out naturally here due to the differentiation of the phase factors in the Green’s functions in the current operator,

$`J_\nu (𝐫_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(e/2mi\right)\underset{𝐫_i^{}𝐫_i}{lim}(_{𝐫_i^{}}^\nu _{𝐫_i}^\nu )\psi ^{}(𝐫_i)\psi (𝐫_i^{})`$ (6)
$`(e^2/mc)A^\nu (𝐫_i)\psi ^{}(𝐫_i)\psi (𝐫_i).`$
Consider the current vertex at the point $`𝐫_i`$ connected to the rest of a diagram (e.g., for a current-current correlator) by a pair of Green’s functions $`𝒢(𝐫_1,𝐫_i)`$ and $`𝒢(𝐫_i,𝐫_2)`$. Then the diamagnetic part results in

$$(e^2/mc)𝐀(𝐫_i)𝒢(𝐫_1,𝐫_i)𝒢(𝐫_i,𝐫_2),$$

whereas the first term yields

$$(e/2m)[𝒢(𝐫_1,𝐫_i)(i)_{𝐫_i}𝒢(𝐫_i,𝐫_2)+i_{𝐫_i}𝒢(𝐫_1,𝐫_i)𝒢(𝐫_i,𝐫_2)].$$

To treat the phase factors in the Green’s functions it is useful to split the $`𝐀`$ term into two half pieces and introduce the following relations:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& [i_{𝐫_i}(e/c)𝐀(𝐫_i)]𝒢(𝐫_i,𝐫_2;\tau )=\hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}\left[\left(ie/c\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_i,𝐫_2)\right]\hfill \\ & \times \left[i_{𝐫_i}+(e/2c)\left(𝐫_i𝐫_2\right)\times 𝐁\right]\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_i𝐫_2;\tau ),\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}& [i_{𝐫_i}(e/c)𝐀(𝐫_i)]𝒢(𝐫_1,𝐫_i;\tau )=\hfill \\ & \mathrm{exp}\left[\left(ie/c\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_i)\right]\hfill \\ & \times \left[i_{𝐫_1}(e/2c)\left(𝐫_1𝐫_i\right)\times 𝐁\right]\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_1𝐫_i;\tau ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
The terms on the right-hand side that contain $`B`$ explicitly yield the diamagnetic contribution extended to gauge invariant combinations. Combining Eqs. (7) and (8) we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}& J_{extended}^{diam}=(e\omega _c/4)\left[\left(𝐫_i𝐫_2\right)\times \widehat{𝐁}\left(𝐫_1𝐫_i\right)\times \widehat{𝐁}\right]\hfill \\ & \times \stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_1𝐫_i)\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_i𝐫_2)R(𝐫_1𝐫_f,𝐫_2𝐫_f),\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`R(𝐫_1𝐫_f,𝐫_2𝐫_f)`$ is the remaining part of a correlator ending at a point $`𝐫_f`$. Notice that $`J_{extended}^{diam}`$ is also translation invariant. In Eq. (9) the cyclotron frequency has been introduced in such way that its sign is that of the carriers: $`\omega _c=eB/mc`$. The phase factor $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$ appearing in the Green’s function $`𝒢(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\tau )`$ may be rewritten as the integral over the straight line:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=(𝐫_2𝐫_1)𝐀\left(\frac{𝐫_1+𝐫_2}{2}\right)=_{𝐫_1}^{𝐫_2}𝐀(𝐫)𝑑𝐫.$$
(10)
Then collecting the phase factors from all Green’s functions of a given loop of a diagram one will obtain the so-called “flux of a loop” of a diagram. \[The phase factors that appear in the right-hand side of Eqs. (7) and (8) after passing through the differentiation operator join other such factors from the rest of the Green’s functions.\] It follows from Eq. (10) that the phase associated with each loop in a diagram is proportional to the flux,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{loop}=𝐀(𝐫)𝑑𝐫,$$
(11)
with the integral taken along the closed polygon corresponding to the loop. (The importance of the flux in the calculation of the Hall effect in the insulating state was emphasized in Refs. Holstein,  and Imry, .) Notice that the polygon is oriented along the loop in the direction of the arrows of the Green’s function. The magnetic flux through the polygon is gauge and translational invariant. It is equal to $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐒},`$ where $`𝐒`$ is the oriented area of a polygon. Depending on the situation one can decompose the polygon into the sum of different pieces. The decomposition can be done in a variety of ways, and a convenient choice may simplify the calculation. This is an advantage of this method. With the purpose of a general analysis of the Hall conductivity we will decompose the loop polygon in a diagram for the current-current correlator into the sum of triangles, and then use the fact that the flux through a triangle $`(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)`$ is equal to $`(1/2)𝐁[(𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_3𝐫_2)]`$. The details of the decomposition procedure will be postponed to the next section \[see Eqs. (20)$``$(23)\], where it will be shown how the flux contribution can be analyzed for the calculation of the Hall conductivity in a system with an arbitrary (nonshort range) impurity potential.

Let us summarize. It follows from the symmetry of the problem that the Hall current may appear either from the diamagnetic part of the current operator, or through the phase factors of the Green’s functions. Partially we have used the phase factors to extend the diamagnetic term in Eqs. (7)$``$(9). The rest of the phase factors contributions can be organized in the form of the fluxes of the loops. The main consequence of this structure is that if one is interested in $`\sigma _{xy}`$ linear in the external magnetic field only, $`\sigma _{xy}B`$, then it is enough for the calculations of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ that the core Green’s functions will be taken in the limit $`B0`$, when $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ coincide with the Green’s functions in the absence of the magnetic field: $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{B0}=𝒢_{B=0}`$. The latter fact enables us to reduce the calculation of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in a small magnetic field to a diagrammatic problem that uses the Green’s functions in the absence of the magnetic field.

## III Hall conductivity for noninteracting electrons in the presence of a finite range disorder

We first illustrate the use of Eq. (9) by deriving the Drude Hall conductivity for the simplest case of short-range impurities. The conductivity will be calculated in the framework of the Kubo linear-response theory. The current-current correlator on the Matsubara frequencies is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }(i\omega _n)=_0^\beta e^{i\omega _n\tau }T_\tau J_\alpha (\tau )J_\beta (0).$$
(12)
The analytic continuation from the discrete frequencies on the upper complex half plane to the real axes yields the retarded correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^R(\omega )`$. This correlator is directly related to the conductivity,

$$\sigma _{\alpha \beta }(\omega )=\frac{i}{\omega }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }^R(q=0,\omega ).$$
(13)
In the case of a short-range disorder the correlator (12) in the Drude approximation is equal to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}(r_i,r_f;\tau )& =(e^2/4m^2)\mathbf{(}\underset{𝐫_i^{}𝐫_i}{lim}\{i_{𝐫_i^{}}^x(e/c)A^x(𝐫_i^{})\}+i_{𝐫_i}^x(e/c)A^x(𝐫_i)\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}i_{𝐫_f}^y(e/c)A^y(𝐫_f)\hfill \\ & +\underset{𝐫_f^{}𝐫_f}{lim}\{i_{𝐫_f^{}}(e/c)A^y(𝐫_f^{})\}\mathbf{)}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_f𝐫_i,\tau )\mathrm{exp}[(ie/c)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_f,𝐫_i)]\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_i^{}𝐫_f^{},\tau )\mathrm{exp}[(ie/c)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_i^{},𝐫_f^{})].\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
Using Eqs. (7) and (8), Eq. (14) can be rewritten as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}(𝐫_i,𝐫_f;\tau )& =(e^2/4m^2)\mathbf{(}\underset{𝐫_i^{}𝐫_i}{lim}\{i_{𝐫_i^{}}^x+(e/2c)[(𝐫_i^{}𝐫_f^{})\times 𝐁]_x\}+i_{𝐫_i}^x(e/2c)[(𝐫_f𝐫_i)\times 𝐁]_x\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}i_{𝐫_f}^y\hfill \\ & +(e/2c)[(𝐫_f𝐫_i)\times 𝐁]_y+\underset{𝐫_f^{}𝐫_f}{lim}\{i_{𝐫_f^{}}^y(e/2c)[(𝐫_i^{}𝐫_f^{})\times 𝐁]_y\}\mathbf{)}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_f𝐫_i,\tau )\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_i^{}𝐫_f^{},\tau ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Notice that when in Eq. (15) the gradients from the $`J_x`$ vertex act on the coordinate dependent terms in the $`J_y`$ part the corresponding contributions cancel out. The part linear in $`B`$ arising from the $`J_x`$ vertex is equal to

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^{(x)}(𝐫_i,𝐫_f;\tau )=(e^2\omega _c/4m)[(𝐫_i𝐫_f)\times \widehat{𝐁}]_x\hfill \\ & \times \{[i_{𝐫_f}^y\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_f𝐫_i,\tau )]\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_i𝐫_f,\tau )\hfill \\ & +\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_f𝐫_i,\tau )[i_{𝐫_f}^y\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_i𝐫_f,\tau )]\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
and the other term from the $`J_y`$ vertex is

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^{(y)}(𝐫_i,𝐫_f;\tau )=(e^2\omega _c/4m)[(𝐫_f𝐫_i)\times \widehat{𝐁}]_y\hfill \\ & \times \{[i_{𝐫_i}^x\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_f𝐫_i,\tau )]\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_i𝐫_f,\tau )\hfill \\ & +\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_f𝐫_i,\tau )[i_{𝐫_i}^x\stackrel{~}{𝒢}(𝐫_i𝐫_f,\tau )]\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
\[Notice that Eqs. (16) and (17) reproduce the structure of Eq. (9).\] Now the transition $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{B0}=𝒢_{B=0}`$ can be performed in these expressions, and as all terms are translational invariant one may use the Fourier transformation. Then the coordinate difference $`(𝐫_f𝐫_i)`$ leads to the differentiation of the Green’s function with respect to momentum:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^{(x)}(q=0,i\omega _n)=i(e^2\omega _c/4m)T\underset{iϵ_n}{}\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}\hfill \\ \hfill \times & [𝒢^A(𝐩)/p_y𝒢^R(𝐩)𝒢^R(𝐩)/p_y𝒢^A(𝐩)]p_y,\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
and correspondingly

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^{(y)}(q=0,i\omega _n)=i(e^2\omega _c/4m)T\underset{iϵ_n}{}\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}\hfill \\ \hfill \times & p_x[𝒢^A(𝐩)/p_x𝒢^R(𝐩)𝒢^R(𝐩)/p_x𝒢^A(𝐩)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
The summation over the frequencies and momentum in Eqs. (18) and (19) leads to the standard answer: $`\sigma _{xy}=\omega _c\tau \sigma _{xx}`$. This part of the calculation is close to the one presented in Ref. Edelstein, .

Next we consider a nontrivial problem of the calculation of the Drude Hall conductivity for noninteracting electrons in the presence of a finite range disorder, i.e., for nonshort-range impurities. To the leading order in $`1/ϵ_F\tau `$ the conductivity in this case is given by a set of ladder diagrams. To get $`\sigma _{xy}`$ that is linear in the external magnetic field we consider separately the diamagnetic (extended) contribution, and the flux contribution that comes out from the phase factors accumulated by the Green’s functions in a diagram. In the case of a finite range disorder the fermion loop does not degenerate to two retraced paths and the flux term becomes absolutely essential. (Naturally, we have to expand $`\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(ie/c\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{loop}\right]`$ and keep the linear term only as we are interested in $`\sigma _{xy}`$ that is linear in $`B`$.)

The diamagnetic contribution is represented in Fig. 1. The cross means differentiation with respect to momentum. Only the Green’s functions adjacent to the current vertex are differentiated. This contribution is obtained using the relations (7), (8), and (9) similar to the case of the short-range impurities.

To analyze the flux contribution to the Hall conductivity we decompose the loop polygon in a diagram for the current-current correlator into the sum of triangles. The decomposition will be done as follows: one of the vertexes of a $`n`$-vertex polygon is chosen as a reference point (let us call it $`𝐫_1)`$, and then $`𝐫_1`$ is connected to all other vertexes. In result the polygon is decomposed into oriented triangles all having the reference point as their vertex. (As an example consider a loop presented in Fig. 2.)

The flux through the polygon is therefore equal to the sum of the fluxes through each triangle:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{loop}& =\frac{1}{2}𝐁[(𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_3𝐫_2)\hfill \\ & +(𝐫_3𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_4𝐫_3)+\mathrm{}],\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
which in turn is equal to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{loop}=& \frac{1}{2}𝐁[(𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_3𝐫_2)+(𝐫_3𝐫_2)\times (𝐫_4𝐫_3)\hfill \\ \hfill +& (𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_4𝐫_3)+\mathrm{}].\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
Here we rewrote the vector differences $`(𝐫_j𝐫_1)`$ as $`[(𝐫_j𝐫_{j1})+(𝐫_{j1}\mathrm{})+(𝐫_2𝐫_1)]`$. Finally we add to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{loop}`$ a zero flux expression that does not change its value,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0=\frac{1}{2}𝐁(𝐫_n𝐫_{n1}& +𝐫_{n1}\mathrm{}𝐫_2\hfill \\ & +𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_1𝐫_n).\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
Now we are ready to state the general rule. After some reference point has been chosen the flux of the oriented polygon is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{loop}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}^{}(\pm )𝐁\left(𝐫_{i+1}𝐫_i\right)\times \left(𝐫_{j+1}𝐫_j\right),$$
(23)
where prime means that each pair $`(i,j),`$ or $`(j,i)`$ which is the same, enters the sum only once, and the pair is oriented with respect to the reference point in such a manner that its sign is “$`+`$” if we do not pass the reference point moving along the loop from $`r_i`$ to $`r_j`$ in the arrow direction. The sign is “$``$” otherwise.

After the flux contribution has been decomposed in pairs each pair supplies the diagram with a vector product of the two coordinate differences. When Fourier transformed these coordinate factors lead to the differentiation of the corresponding Green’s function with respect to the momentum components $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$. There are also situations when one or two of $`(𝐫_{i+1}𝐫_i)`$ are adjacent to the current vertexes. Then the Fourier transformation leads, in addition to the differentiation of the vertex-attached Green’s functions, also to the differentiation of the vertex momentum.

Let the left-end current vertex be the $`p_x`$ vertex, and let the $`p_y`$ vertex be on the right end. The left-end located vertex will be chosen as the reference point with respect to which the orientation in Eq. (23) has been performed. First consider the terms represented in Figs. 3 and 4 when the vertices have not been differentiated.

The difference between the two terms is that in Fig. 3 the differentiation $`/p_x`$ is closer to the left $`p_x`$ vertex, whereas in Fig. 4 it is $`/p_y`$ that is closer to the $`p_x`$ vertex. The ambiguous terms with $`/p_x`$ and $`/p_y`$ standing on equal distance, i.e., when they stand opposite to each other, are canceled out. Figure 5 represents schematically the flux contribution involving the differentiation of the $`p_y`$ vertex at the right-end. In Figs. 5(a) and (b) the $`/p_x`$ differentiation acts on each place in the loop. It should be noticed, however, that the momentum of the vertex originates from the gradients of the two Green’s functions that are attached to the vertex \[see, e.g., Eq. (14)\]. Therefore the differentiations in Fig. 5 contain false nonflux contributions when $`/p_x`$ and $`/p_y`$ act on the same Green’s function attached to the vertex. The compensation of the false terms is given in Fig. 6 where only the Green’s functions closest to the $`p_y`$ vertex are differentiated. Finally, in Fig. 7 the contribution involving the $`p_x`$ vertex differentiation is represented. Here after cancellations amongst various terms combined into a full derivative only the two terms with the derivatives that act only on the Green’s function closest to the $`p_x`$ vertex survive. The apparent asymmetry between Figs. 5 and 6 compared to Fig. 7 is due to the fact that it was the $`p_x`$ vertex that was chosen here as a reference point for the orientation of the pairs, rather than the $`p_y`$ vertex.

The total contribution. Let us collect all the terms together. Notice the cancellations of Fig. 6 with Fig. 1(b), and Fig. 7 with Fig. 1(a). Then Figs. 3(a), 3(b), and 5(a) on one hand and Fig. 3(c), 3(d), and 5(b) on the other can be packed in combinations such that everything on the right from the $`p_x`$ derivative becomes a $`p_y`$ derivative of the current operator:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^{(3,5)}=& i(\omega _cme^2/2)[𝒢^A(𝐩)/p_x𝒢^R(𝐩)\hfill \\ & 𝒢^R(𝐩)/p_x𝒢^A(𝐩)]J_x/p_yJ_y.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
(In the last expression we have omitted for brevity $`T_{iϵ_n}[d^dp/(2\pi )^d]`$, as well as in Eqs. (25) and (26) below.) In addition, Figs. 4(a) and (b) on one hand and Fig. 4(c) and (d) on the other yield a similar combination,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^{(4)}=& i(\omega _cme^2/2)[𝒢^A(𝐩)/p_y𝒢^R(𝐩)\hfill \\ & 𝒢^R(𝐩)/p_y𝒢^A(𝐩)]J_x/p_xJ_y.\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
Notice that finally we get a very simple rule: start with the derivative that stands at the left, and organize all the rest on the right as a derivative of the $`J_y`$ current; arrange the signs depending on whether the derivative is on the left-to-right or the right-to-left segments of the loop, and depending on whether it is a $`/p_x`$ or $`/p_y`$ derivative \[the change of the sign is in accord with the orientation rules for pairs formulated for Eq. (23)\]. Remarkably, the diamagnetic and flux terms match each other to produce a rather simple form. (The Peierls substitution for the hopping matrix elements in the presence of a magnetic field is useful to discuss the diamagnetic contribution on an equal footing with the flux term.Holstein  In the continuous limit both terms originate from the phase factor $`ie/c\dot{𝐫}𝐀`$ in the path-integral formulation of the motion of the electron in the presence of the vector potential.Feynman\_Hibbs )

The Onsager relation, $`\sigma _{xy}(𝐁)=\sigma _{yx}(𝐁)`$, follows directly from the rule formulated above. To get $`\sigma _{yx}(𝐁)`$ from a given contribution to $`\sigma _{xy}(𝐁)`$ one has to interchange derivatives $`/p_x`$ and $`/p_y`$ and reverse $`𝐁`$ to compensate the change of the sign.

Now we use a usual trick, FEW  and interchange in the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^{(4)}`$ integration variables $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$. This leads to a convenient expression for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}=& i\omega _cm\frac{e^2}{2}\left(𝒢^A(𝐩)\frac{}{p_x}𝒢^R(𝐩)𝒢^R(𝐩)\frac{}{p_x}𝒢^A(𝐩)\right)\hfill \\ & \times \left(J_x\frac{}{p_y}J_yJ_y\frac{}{p_y}J_x\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
The scattering by long-ranged impurities results in the renormalization of the current vertex by the ratio of the transport time $`\tau _{tr}`$ to the single-particle scattering time $`\tau `$:

$$J_\alpha =\frac{\tau _{tr}(|𝐩|)}{\tau }\frac{p_\alpha }{m}.$$
(27)
Fortunately, in the combination $`(J_x/p_yJ_yJ_y/p_yJ_x)`$ the terms of the type $`/p_y\tau _{tr}(|𝐩|)`$ cancel each other out. Then the standard integrations in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}`$ lead us to a natural conclusion that the answer for the finite-range impurities differs from that one for the short-range case by the substitution $`\tau \tau _{tr}`$:

$$\sigma _{xy}=\omega _c\tau _{tr}\sigma _{xx}.$$
(28)
Correspondingly, it follows from this conclusion that the Hall coefficient is independent on the impurity range. \[Here one point remains to be cleared up. In the presence of disorder the Green’s functions acquire a self-energy part whose imaginary part is $`1/\tau `$. Its real part shifts the chemical potential and hence is of no interest, but its dependence on the momentum near the Fermi energy may influence the result of the integration over momentum in Eq. (26). However, in the absence of a special structure of the scatterers, like in liquid metals, the sensitivity to the energy of the electron state is very small when $`ϵ_F\tau _{tr}1,`$ and this effect can be ignored.\]

A comment may be in place here. It was important in the above derivation to keep the $`p`$ derivatives in the form of combined expressions of the type $`/p_yJ_y`$ rather than to consider separate terms. Separately these terms are larger or even more singular than their sum. Let us see how it works in a somewhat pathological but instructive example of short-range impurities. In this case the dressing of the vector vertex by the impurity lines does not give any effect because of the momentum averaging. The $`p_y`$ derivative makes the vector averaging noneffective as it is illustrated in Fig. 8.

Each of the three diagrams presented in Fig. 8 contains the singular propagator of the diffusion ladder diagrams (diffuson) that does not vanish after the averaging. This does not lead to any complications, however, as the sum of these singular terms vanishes identically. Indeed, the expression corresponding to the ending block (i.e., separated by the last vertical impurity line) when summed over the three diagrams turns out to be a derivative $`/\stackrel{~}{p}_y\left(𝒢^R\stackrel{~}{p}_y𝒢^A\right),`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐩}`$ is the momentum circulating inside this block. The integration over $`\stackrel{~}{𝐩}`$ forces the whole contribution to be zero. As a result only the diagram that does not contain vertical impurity lines survives in the case of the short-range impurities as it is obvious when one considers these terms not separately but in the combined form $`/p_yJ_y.`$ The observation about the importance of keeping combined expressions in the calculation of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ is of general character. Separate terms can be more involved than their total contribution, see, e.g., the discussion related to $`^2\mathrm{\Sigma }/\xi ^2`$ following Eq. (36).

To conclude this section we notice that Eq. (26) reproduces the structure of the iterative solution of the transport equation for $`\sigma _{xy}`$. Let us compare Eq. (26) with the term $`(e[𝐯_𝐩\times 𝐁]/𝐩)\delta n_𝐩`$ that appears in the transport equation as a result of the action of the Lorentz force and discribes the turn of the current. In the first bracket of Eq. (26) the derivative $`/p_x`$ yields the velocity $`𝐯_𝐩`$, while $`/p_y`$ in the second bracket corresponds to the momentum derivative acting on the distribution function $`\delta n_𝐩`$. The derivation in this section was limited to the leading order in $`1/ϵ_F\tau _{tr}`$. To get further, one has to study the dependence of $`1/\tau _{tr}`$ on the flux. The leading term of that kind arises due to the Cooperon corrections and is discussed in Appendix C.

## IV Electron-electron interaction

We are interested in the current-current correlator, and therefore the basic process to be considered is a sequential rescattering of electron-hole pairs. Diagrammatically this process is described by the particle-hole ladder sections alternating with the irreducible amplitudes of the e-e interaction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. Amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ differ in spin structure as it is schematically represented in Fig. 9.

Examples of such amplitudes are given in Fig. 10.

A typical diagram for the Hall current correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}`$ includes the $`J_x`$-current vertex, several $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ amplitudes connected by the $`RR,`$ $`AA`$, or $`RA`$ sections and, finally, the $`J_y`$-current vertex. In essence, the correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}`$ may be evaluated following the same line as in the case of the long-range impurity scattering. There is, however, a complication related to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ insertions. In the case of noninteracting electrons we have dealt with a flux of a single loop extending from the $`J_x`$ to the $`J_y`$ vertex. An insertion of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ leaves the number of loops in a diagram to be the same, while the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ amplitude splits the loop into pieces and breaks the single loop structure. We restore the construction with the main flux loop having in mind to use the basic results of the previous section, i.e., Eqs. (24) and (25).

Consider an insertion of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ that splits a loop at the points $`i,j,k,l.`$ To restore the construction with the main flux loop we attach the phase factor $`i(e/c)(𝐫_j𝐫_i)𝐀((𝐫_i+𝐫_j)/2)`$ to the segment $`𝐫_i𝐫_j`$ in Fig. 11(a). The analogous operation will be done with the segment $`𝐫_k𝐫_l.`$ Simultaneously the compensating phase factors with the opposite sign are attached to the lines going in the opposite directions, $`𝐫_j𝐫_i`$ and $`𝐫_l𝐫_k.`$ In Fig. 11 all these segments are denoted by the dashed lines with arrows. These dashed lines carry phases but do not represent any Green’s functions.

Now we regroup the phase factors. It is possible because we are interested in $`\sigma _{xy}`$ that is linear in $`B,`$ and therefore we have to expand and keep only linear terms in the phase factors. The phases of the two dashed lines, $`𝐫_i𝐫_j`$ and $`𝐫_k𝐫_l`$, are used to obtain the flux of the main loop extending from the $`J_x`$ to the $`J_y`$ vertex \[a fragment of this loop is presented in Fig. 11(b) where it is indicated by the thick lines\]. The other two phase factors attached to the segments $`𝐫_j𝐫_i`$ and $`𝐫_l𝐫_k`$ are used to form a new flux loop encircling the brick of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ amplitude in the direction opposite to the main flux loop. In Fig. 11(c) all the parts of the corresponding loop are given by the thick lines.

To get the contribution to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}`$ from the main flux loop we shall follow the derivation given in the previous section. Consider first the situation when the left standing derivative acts on a Green’s function in a particle-hole section rather than on the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ amplitudes. Let this left standing derivative be the $`p_x`$ derivative. Then, the $`p_y`$ derivative is supposed to act on everything on the right of the $`p_x`$ derivative. The new element here is that the dashed lines added to restore the flux structure do not carry any Green’s functions, but only the phase factors. Let us study the situation when the additional phase factors arise from one of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ amplitudes with the dashed segments $`𝐫_3𝐫_4`$ and $`𝐫_5𝐫_6`$, as shown in Fig. 12. After the decomposition procedure the corresponding flux contribution is equal to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{dashed}& =\frac{1}{2}𝐁[(𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_4𝐫_3)\hfill \\ & +(𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_6𝐫_5)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
Next, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{dashed}`$ can be rearranged as $`\frac{1}{2}𝐁[(𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_4𝐫_5)+`$ $`(𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_6𝐫_3)]`$, and for any structure of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ amplitude one obtains

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{dashed}& =\frac{1}{2}𝐁[(𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_4𝐫_j+𝐫_j\mathrm{}𝐫_5)\hfill \\ & +(𝐫_2𝐫_1)\times (𝐫_6𝐫_i+𝐫_i\mathrm{}𝐫_3)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
It follows as a result of this rearrangement that after the Fourier transformation the operation of the $`p_y`$ differentiation will move all along the Green’s functions in the segments $`𝐫_3𝐫_6`$ and $`𝐫_5𝐫_4`$.

Since Eq. (30) is valid for any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ amplitude, we come to the conclusion that the dashed lines do not spoil the general structure of the discussed contributions, and every Green’s function on the “vertical” lines, like $`𝐫_3𝐫_6`$ and $`𝐫_5𝐫_4`$, is $`p_y`$ differentiated on the same footing as any other Green’s function. Thus in the considered case the $`p_y`$ derivative indeed acts on everything on the right to the $`p_x`$ derivative, as it should be expected.

Now we continue with the analysis of the case of the left standing $`p`$ derivative that acts on one of the Green’s functions in the particle-hole section. The sections $`RR`$ or $`AA`$ need not to be considered as each of them yields two expressions that cancel each other out. By the $`RA`$ section we assume a set of the impurity scattering ladder diagrams that modify a current vertex $`J`$ by a factor $`\tau _{tr}/\tau .`$ In the limit when the external frequency $`\omega 0`$ only one $`RA`$ section should be kept in the current-current correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$, because each such section yields an additional power of $`\omega `$. Differentiation of the Green’s functions in the $`RA`$ section splits the set of the ladder diagrams into two pieces that modify both vertices $`J_x`$ and $`J_y`$ by $`\tau _{tr}/\tau .`$ As a result the contribution analogous to that represented in Figs. 3 and 5 reduces to Eq. (24), and in the same way the contribution analogous to Fig. 4 reduces to Eq. (25). Altogether we come back to Eq. (26) but with the current vertices and the Green’s functions dressed by the e-e interaction.

The terms that have been discussed untill now determine the leading contribution to $`\sigma _{xy}`$ $`\tau _{tr}^2.`$ Its analysis will be completed in the end of this section, but first we turn to the other case when the left standing derivative, let it be the $`p_x`$ derivative, is inside one of the interaction amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, while the $`p_y`$ derivative acts on everything to the right from this amplitude \[an example is presented in Fig. 13(a)\]. As a candidate for a contribution of the order $`\tau _{tr}^2`$ to $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in the discussed process consider the case when the $`p_y`$ derivative is applied to the $`RA`$ section standing on the right from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This differentiation produces the singular terms $`(/p_y𝒢^R)𝒢^A`$ and $`𝒢^R(/p_y𝒢^A)`$ that separately yield the contributions $`\tau _{tr}^2`$ but in the leading order they cancel each other out. The latter fact is obvious because we may take the integration over $`p_y`$ by parts and then the $`RA`$ section yields a contribution that is only $`\tau _{tr}.`$ A similar contribution appears when the $`RA`$ section is located on the left from the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that is marked by the differentiation. Arranging both the terms in a way that the $`RA`$ section becomes free from the differentiation the contribution to $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in the discussed case can be presented as

$$\sigma _{xy}\omega _c\tau _{tr}\stackrel{~}{J}_x(q_xp_yq_yp_x)\stackrel{~}{J}_y.$$
(31)
Here the current vertices $`\stackrel{~}{J}_{x,y}`$ are dressed by the e-e interaction, but unlike $`J`$ they do not contain the factor $`\tau _{tr}/\tau `$. The symbol $``$ \[as well as the right-directed bar in Fig. 13(b)\]

indicates that the derivatives are ordered and the derivative over $`p`$ acts on the right to the $`q`$ derivative where $`q`$ is an infinitesimal momentum in the current vertex $`J_y`$ as shown in Fig. 14(a).

The momentum $`q`$ has been introduced to get opposite signs for the derivatives acting on oppositely directed lines in the current vertex. Since the parameters of the electron liquid change on the scale of the Fermi momentum this contribution is small compared to the leading one by the parameter $`1/ϵ_F\tau _{tr}`$. The reason of this smallness is that in the discussed process the skew action of the magnetic field may develop only on an electron wavelength, while for the leading term the skew effect develops on a free path length. Notice that the processes just discussed involve the derivatives of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ amplitudes that generate terms with the nonpair electron correlations $`f_{np}`$ that were mentioned in the Introduction. The discussed term may become significant if apart from the wavelength and the mean free path there is another length scale in the problem. For example, near the superconducting transition the fluctuations of the order parameter may contribute significantly and change the Hall coefficient.

The last contribution to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}`$ that remains to be analyzed is related to the flux loops encircling the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ amplitudes. Consider the loop encircling the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3,𝐫_4)`$. The flux through the polygon $`𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3,𝐫_4`$ may be written as the sum of the fluxes through the two triangles:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}& =𝐁[(𝐫_1𝐫_2)\times (𝐫_4𝐫_1)\hfill \\ & +(𝐫_3𝐫_4)\times (𝐫_2𝐫_3)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(32)
We define the Fourier representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3,𝐫_4)`$ as follows \[see Fig. 14(b)\]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝐫_1& ,𝐫_2,𝐫_3,𝐫_4)=\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^dp^{}}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}\hfill \\ & \times \mathrm{exp}\{i[(𝐩+𝐪/2)𝐫_1(𝐩^{}+𝐪/2)𝐫_2\hfill \\ & +(𝐩^{^{}}𝐪/2)𝐫_3(𝐩𝐪/2)𝐫_4]\}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐩,𝐩^{};𝐪).\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
Comparing Eq. (32) with Eq. (33) we obtain that the product $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}`$ when Fourier transformed yields the following combination that enters the correlator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\widehat{𝐁}\left[\frac{}{𝐪}\times \left(\frac{}{𝐩^{}}\frac{}{𝐩}\right)\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝐩,𝐩^{};𝐪).$$
(34)
As the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is taken in the limit $`𝐁=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ it is a scalar function of its momenta, and therefore the expression (34) vanishes.

Summarizing the analysis presented in this section we conclude that the leading contribution to $`\sigma _{xy}`$ is determined by the following expression:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}& =ieB\frac{e^2}{2c}\left(\frac{\tau _{tr}}{\tau }\right)^2\hfill \\ & \times \left(𝒢^A(𝐩)\frac{}{p_x}𝒢^R(𝐩)𝒢^R(𝐩)\frac{}{p_x}𝒢^A(𝐩)\right)\hfill \\ & \times \left(\stackrel{~}{J}_x\frac{}{p_y}\stackrel{~}{J}_y\stackrel{~}{J}_y\frac{}{p_y}\stackrel{~}{J}_x\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
The derivatives over the momentum in Eq. (35) correspond to the vector product of the two coordinate differences in the representation of the flux in Eq. (23). The current vertexes $`\stackrel{~}{J}_{x,y}`$ are not sensitive to the renormalizations by impurities due to $`1/ϵ_F\tau 1`$, and are determined by the Ward identity:LN

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_\mu =\frac{p_\mu }{m}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,ϵ)}{\xi _p}\right),$$
(36)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,ϵ)`$ is a self-energy of the Green’s function in the presence of the e-e interaction. Eqs. (35) and (36) correspond to the solution of the transport equation for $`\sigma _{xy}`$ for the interacting electrons \[see the discussion of Eq. (26) concluding Sec. III\]. Due to the specific structure of the last bracket in Eq. (35) the second derivative $`^2\mathrm{\Sigma }/\xi ^2`$, which is not conventional in the Fermi-liquid theory, does not enter the final answer. Altogether we get the factor $`\left(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,0)/\xi _p\right)`$ three times: two from the vertexes and one from the $`p_x`$ derivatives of the Green’s functions in the square brackets. The integration over momentum in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}`$ can be performed keeping the Green’s functions in the pole approximation:

$$𝒢^{R,A}(ϵ,𝐩)=\frac{(1\mathrm{\Sigma }(p_F,ϵ)/ϵ)^1}{ϵ\frac{m}{m^{}}\xi _p\pm \frac{i}{2\tau }},$$
(37)
where $`\tau `$ is the free path time of the quasiparticles that includes the renormalization by the e-e interaction, and

$$m/m^{}=\left[1+\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,0)/\xi _p\right]/\left[1\mathrm{\Sigma }(p_F,ϵ)/ϵ\right].$$
(38)
The latter relation is a standard one for the microscopical theory of the Fermi liquid.LN  All three factors $`[1\mathrm{\Sigma }(p_F,ϵ)/ϵ]^1`$ created by the Green’s functions in Eq. (35) together with the three factors $`\left[1+\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,0)/\xi _p\right]`$ can be combined into the cube of the physical combination $`m/m^{}.`$ After integration over $`\xi _p`$ one power of $`m/m^{}`$ will be eliminated and ultimately we obtain

$$\sigma _{xy}=\omega _c^{}\tau _{tr}\sigma _{xx},$$
(39)
with $`\omega _c^{}=eB/m^{}c`$ and $`\sigma _{xx}=ne^2\tau _{tr}/m^{}`$. This result implies that no Hall coefficient renormalization develops due to the e-e interaction in the leading terms over $`1/ϵ_F\tau _{tr}`$.

## V discussion

We have shown microscopically that the Hall coefficient in a weak magnetic field is not renormalized by the e-e interaction in the leading order in $`1/ϵ_F\tau _{tr}`$. Although the terms that are not conventional in the Fermi-liquid theory appear in the intermediate stages, they do not enter the final answer. This remarkable fact is a direct consequence of the skew structure which arises in the Hall effect because of the magnetic flux.

The result about the cancellation of the Fermi-liquid renormalization corrections in the Hall coefficient differs from the one obtained previously in Refs. FEW,  and KOHNO, . It is formidable to make a comparison with the analysis of these papers because the distinction of the impurity scattering amplitudes from the e-e interaction amplitudes was not performed explicitly. These amplitudes have different structure in exchange of the frequency, however. Therefore any treatment lacking clear distinction between these amplitudes is potentially dangerous. The analysis of the Fermi liquid in Ref. KOHNO,  did not reproduce the well established results of the transport theory, because of the confusing treatment of the frequency integrations induced by the e-e interaction amplitudes. On the other hand, in Ref. FEW,  the authors were mainly concerned with the impurity scattering. One can check, in fact, that their factor $`[1+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(p,0)/ϵ(p)]^2`$ in $`R_H`$ differs negligibly from unity in the case of noninteracting electrons scattered by a random potential.

The absence of the renormalization in the Hall coefficient corresponds to the result that can be obtained within the phenomenological theory of the Fermi liquid. For completeness we reproduce it here following Sec. 3.6 in Ref. PN, . In the Fermi-liquid theory the excited states of the interacting electrons are described by the gas of quasiparticles with the effective Hamiltonian written via the distribution function of the quasiparticles $`n_𝐩(𝐫,t)`$:

$$\overline{ϵ}_𝐩(𝐫)=ϵ_𝐩+\underset{𝐩^{^{}}}{}f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}\delta n_𝐩^{^{}}(𝐫).$$
(40)
Here $`(𝐩,𝐫)`$ are classical variables, and the interaction term $`f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{}}=𝑑𝐫^{}`$ $`f(\mathrm{𝐩𝐫},𝐩^{}𝐫^{})`$ is assumed to be local. In the presence of the vector potential $`𝐀(𝐫,t)`$ one should make a transition to the pair of the conjugate variables $`(𝐏,𝐫)`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_𝐏(𝐫)=\overline{ϵ}_{𝐏(e/c)𝐀}(𝐫);\stackrel{~}{n}_𝐏(𝐫)=n_{𝐏(e/c)𝐀}(𝐫),$$
(41)
where the vector potential $`𝐀(𝐫,t)`$ represents both magnetic and electric fields: $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$, $`𝐄=(1/c)𝐀/t`$. In the phase space $`(𝐏,𝐫)`$ the flow of the quasiparticle density $`\stackrel{~}{n}_𝐏(𝐫)`$ satisfies the Liouville equation:

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}}{t}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}}{𝐫}\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}{𝐏}\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}}{𝐏}\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}{𝐫}=I_{coll}.$$
(42)
To make the dependence on the external fields explicit it is convenient to reexpress Eq. (42) in terms of $`n(𝐩,𝐫,t)`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{n}{t}& +\frac{\overline{ϵ}}{p_\alpha }\frac{n}{r_\alpha }\frac{\overline{ϵ}}{r_\alpha }\frac{n}{p_\alpha }+eE_\alpha \frac{n}{p_\alpha }\hfill \\ & +\frac{e}{c}\left(\frac{\overline{ϵ}}{𝐩}\times 𝐁\right)_\alpha \frac{n}{p_\alpha }=I_{coll}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
Next, it is useful to introduce the deviations from the global and local equilibrium defined as

$$\delta n_𝐩(𝐫)=n_𝐩(𝐫)n^0(ϵ_𝐩),\delta \overline{n}_𝐩(𝐫)=n_𝐩(𝐫)n^0(\overline{ϵ}_𝐩(𝐫)),$$
(44)
respectively. The two are related as follows

$$\delta \overline{n}_𝐩(𝐫)=\delta n_𝐩(𝐫)\frac{n^0}{ϵ_𝐩}\underset{𝐩^{^{}}}{}f_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐩}^{^{}}}\delta n_𝐩^{^{}}(𝐫).$$
(45)
With the use of Eqs. (44) and (45), Eq. (43) yields after linearization

$$\frac{\delta n}{t}+eE_\alpha \frac{n^0}{p_\alpha }+v_\alpha \frac{\delta \overline{n}}{r_\alpha }+\frac{e}{c}\left(𝐯\times 𝐁\right)_\alpha \frac{\delta \overline{n}}{p_\alpha }=I_{coll},$$
(46)
where $`v_\alpha =p_\alpha /m^{}`$, and in the relaxation time approximation $`I_{coll}=\delta \overline{n}_𝐩/\tau _{tr}`$. The current density is also expressed through the deviation from the local equilibrium

$$J_\alpha (𝐫)=\underset{𝐩}{}\frac{p_\alpha }{m^{}}\delta \overline{n}_𝐩.$$
(47)
To study the Hall effect one should look for the stationary, homogeneous distribution $`\delta \overline{n}_𝐩`$. The static limit of Eqs. (46) and (47) are identical to the corresponding equations for noninteracting electrons, if $`m^{}m`$ and $`\delta \overline{n}\delta n`$. Therefore the transport coefficients are given by the free electron expressions with the substitution $`m`$ to $`m^{},`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}=\omega _c^{}\tau _{tr}\sigma _{xx}`$.

It is clear form this discussion that since the Fermi-liquid theory uses a local functional with the distribution function depending on the classical variables $`(𝐩,𝐫)`$ it does not contain the nonpair-correlation contribution (31). The latter describes the influence of the flux phase on the interaction amplitudes and, obviously, is beyond the scope of the Fermi-liquid theory. Fortunately, this term is small by the parameter $`1/ϵ_F\tau _{tr}`$.

To summarize, we have proved that the Hall coefficient is not renormilized by the e-e interaction in the leading order in $`1/ϵ_F\tau `$. The result holds for not too low temperatures when the logarithmic corrections from the Altshuler-Aronov effect can be ignored, i.e., when $`(e^2/h\sigma _{xx})\mathrm{ln}(1/T\tau )1`$. Furthemore it follows from the analysis of Ref. Zala,  that while as we show the leading term is robust, the temperature corrections to the Hall coefficient remain small up to the tempertures substantially lower than $`1/\tau `$. Combined with this observation the present analysis gives an explanation of the stability of the Hall coefficient $`R_H`$ to the e-e interaction observed in Refs. Pudalov2,  and Shashkin, (b) for the dilute electron gas in MOSFETs not too close to the metal-insulator transition.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are grateful to M. Gershenson, V. Pudalov, I. Burmistrov, Y. Levinson, and A. Punnoose for valuable discussions. The work was supported by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) and the Minerva Foundation. A.F. thanks the Aspen Center for Physics for its hospitality during the completion of this work.

## Appendix A Symmetry properties

In this appendix the symmetry properties of the core Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ are presented. A useful discussion of the symmetry properties of the Green’s function in the presence of e-e interaction can be found in the classical papersLuttinger ,Bychkov  which study the quantum oscillations in a magnetic field.

### A.1 Translation invariance

A many-body system in a homogeneous magnetic field is described by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i}{}\frac{1}{2m}\left(𝐩_i\frac{e}{c}𝐀(𝐫_i)\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ij}{}V(|𝐫_i𝐫_j|).$$
(48)
In this case the vector potential depends linearly on the coordinates, and we introduce a matrix $`A^{\mu \nu }`$ following the considerations of Ref. Laikhtman, ,

$$A^\mu (𝐫)=A^{\mu \nu }r_\nu .$$
(49)
The conjugate vector potential is defined through its transpose $`\stackrel{~}{A}^\mu (𝐫)=\stackrel{~}{A}^{\mu \nu }r_\nu `$ in such a way that the gauge invariant relation $`\stackrel{~}{A}^{\mu \nu }A^{\mu \nu }=B\epsilon _{\mu \nu }`$ holds. The generators of the magnetic translations are defined as

$$T^\mu =\underset{i}{}\left(p_i^\mu \frac{e}{c}\stackrel{~}{A}^\mu (𝐫_i)\right),$$
(50)
where the sum is taken over all electrons. Consider the operator of a finite translation $`S_𝐚=\mathrm{exp}\left(ia_\mu T^\mu \right)`$. The Matsubara Green’s function $`𝒢(𝐫_1,𝐫_2;\tau )=T_\tau \psi (𝐫_1,\tau )\psi ^{}(𝐫_2)`$ remains unchanged under the canonical transformation $`\psi \psi ^{}=S_𝐚^1\psi S_𝐚`$, as the generators (50) commute with the Hamiltonian (48). Consider now this transformation explicitly. Using the Baker-Hausdorff identity $`\mathrm{exp}(A+B)=\mathrm{exp}(A)\mathrm{exp}(B)\mathrm{exp}([A,B]/2)`$ the $`S_𝐚`$ may be decomposed as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_𝐚=& \mathrm{exp}\left(i𝐚𝐏_{tot}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{e}{c}𝐚\stackrel{~}{}A_{tot}\right)\hfill \\ & \times \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{ie}{4c}a_\mu a_\nu \left(\stackrel{~}{A}^{\nu \mu }+\stackrel{~}{A}^{\mu \nu }\right)\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(51)
where the $`𝐏_{tot}`$ is the total momentum and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐀}_{tot}`$ is the sum of the conjugate vector potentials felt by all the particles in the system. Then the transformed operator $`\psi ^{}`$ becomes

$$\psi ^{}(𝐫)=\psi (𝐫𝐚)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ie}{c}𝐚\stackrel{~}{𝐀}(𝐫)\right)$$
(52)
and correspondingly

$$\psi ^{{}_{}{}^{}}(𝐫)=\psi (𝐫𝐚)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ie}{c}𝐚\stackrel{~}{𝐀}(𝐫)\right).$$
(53)
Relations (52) and (53) imply that

$$𝒢(𝐫_1,𝐫_2;\tau )=𝒢(𝐫_1𝐚,𝐫_2𝐚;\tau )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{ie}{c}𝐚\stackrel{~}{𝐀}(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})\right).$$
(54)
It follows then from the relation (54) that the core Green’s function defined in Eq. (4) is translation invariant. In the presence of disorder the statement is still valid for averaged Green’s functions. (The average over disorder generates translation invariant two-body “interaction” terms when one introduces $`n0`$ replicas of the system, or uses other standard tricks.)

### A.2 Gauge invariance

It has been shown in Ref. Luttinger,  that Green’s functions are transformed as

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{e}{c}[\chi (𝐫_1)\chi (𝐫_2)]\right)𝒢_𝐀(r_1,r_2;\tau )=𝒢_{𝐀+\chi }(r_1,r_2;\tau )$$
(55)
under the gauge transformation $`𝐀𝐀^{}=𝐀+\chi `$. Clearly, the integral $`(ie/c)_{𝐫_2}^{𝐫_1}𝐀𝑑𝐫`$ in the exponential prefactor in Eq. (4) changes exactly in a way as to cancel out the factor appearing in the left-hand side of Eq. (55). This cancellation ensures the gauge invariance of the core Green’s function.

### A.3 Rotational invariance

We consider the transformation properties under rotations in the $`xy`$ plane in the circular gauge,

$$𝐀=\frac{1}{2}𝐁\times 𝐫.$$
(56)
In this gauge the Hamiltonian (48) takes explicitly the form which contains rotational invariant terms only. Similarly to $`S_𝐚`$ the operators $`S_\varphi =\mathrm{exp}\left(i\varphi L_z\right)`$ can be introduced. As $`S_\varphi `$ commute with the Hamiltonian, the Green’s function remains invariant under the action of $`S_\varphi `$ which rotate the coordinates $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$ in $`𝒢(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,\tau )`$. The phase factor $`(ie/c)_{𝐫_2}^{𝐫_1}𝐀𝑑𝐫`$ is also unchanged in the course of rotation in the circular gauge, and therefore the core Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ should be rotational invariant as well. Since $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is gauge invariant the statement holds for any gauge.

## Appendix B Spherically symmetric spectrum

Transport properties in the case of a complicated band structure are nonuniversal. For this reason we are not going to extend the present analysis of the renormalization of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ by e-e interaction for an arbitrary spectrum. However, the obtained result can be readily extended to $`R_H`$ in the case of a general but spherically symmetric spectrum $`ϵ(|𝐩|)`$. (Such spectrum can naturally appear if the degrees of freedom in some energy shell are integrated out in the course of the Renormalization Group treatment.) In the presence of the magnetic field the corresponding part of the Hamiltonian is given by the gauge invariant extension of $`ϵ(|𝐩|)`$ with a subsequent symmetrization required to make the Hamiltonian Hermitian. The latter is needed since different components of the velocity operator do not commute. To get a symmetrized extension of the kinetic term we expand $`ϵ(|𝐩|)`$ in the Taylor series,

$$ϵ(|𝐩|)=\underset{m,n}{}ϵ_{m,n}p_x^mp_y^n.$$
(57)
The symmetrization procedure leads to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ϵ(|𝐩|)& \underset{m,n}{}ϵ_{m,n}\left(C_{m+n}^n\right)^1\underset{P}{}\left(𝐩\frac{e}{c}𝐀\right)_{P[1]}\hfill \\ & \times \left(𝐩\frac{e}{c}𝐀\right)_{P[2]}\mathrm{}\left(𝐩\frac{e}{c}𝐀\right)_{P[m+n]},\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
where the sum is taken over all inequivalent permutations $`P`$, in such a way that altogether there are $`m`$ and $`n`$ factors $`\left[𝐩(e/c)𝐀\right]_x`$ and $`\left[𝐩(e/c)𝐀\right]_y`$ respectively, and $`P[l]=x,y`$. The current operator is determined by the variation of the energy with respect to the vector potential:

$$J_\mu =\delta H/\delta A_\mu .$$
(59)
Now we follow the main text after Eq. (6). Consider the diagrammatic element related to the current operator at the point $`𝐫_i`$ after the contractions with the operators $`\psi (𝐫_1)`$ and $`\psi ^{}(𝐫_2)`$ have been performed. Using Eqs. (58) and (59) and integrating by parts we obtain for this element

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J_\mu ^{m,n}& =ϵ_{m,n}\underset{P}{}\underset{l}{}^{}\left(C_{m+n}^n\right)^1\left(i_{𝐫_1}\frac{e}{c}𝐀\right)_{P(l1)}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& \left(i_{𝐫_1}\frac{e}{c}𝐀\right)_{P(1)}G(𝐫_1𝐫_i)\left(i_{𝐫_i}\frac{e}{c}𝐀\right)_{P(l+1)}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& \left(i_{𝐫_i}\frac{e}{c}𝐀\right)_{P(m+n)}G(𝐫_i𝐫_2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(60)
Here for each permutation all terms with the projection $`\mu `$ are varied to get the current $`J_\mu `$; correspondingly the sum $`^{}`$ is taken over all $`l`$ with $`P[l]=\mu `$. In the absence of the vector potential the current operator yields $`ϵ/𝐩`$ as expected. To obtain the diamagnetic term in its extended form \[see Eq. (9) above\] it is needed to apply Eq. (4) and to pass the terms $`[i(e/c)𝐀]`$ through the phase factors using Eqs. (7) and (8). The result is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J_\mu ^{m,n}& =ϵ_{m,n}\underset{P}{}\underset{l}{}^{}(C_{m+n}^n)^1\mathrm{exp}[(ie/c)(\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_i)\hfill \\ \hfill +& \mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_i,𝐫_2))](i_{𝐫_1}\frac{e}{2c}(𝐫_1𝐫_i)\times 𝐁)_{P(l1)}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& \left(i_{𝐫_1}\frac{e}{2c}\left(𝐫_1𝐫_i\right)\times 𝐁\right)_{P(1)}\stackrel{~}{G}(𝐫_1𝐫_i)\hfill \\ \hfill \times & \left(i_{𝐫_i}+\frac{e}{2c}\left(𝐫_i𝐫_2\right)\times 𝐁\right)_{P(l+1)}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& \left(i_{𝐫_i}+\frac{e}{2c}\left(𝐫_i𝐫_2\right)\times 𝐁\right)_{P(m+n)}\stackrel{~}{G}(𝐫_i𝐫_2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(61)
Here the gradients not acting on the Green’s functions are canceled out due to the symmetrization procedure. At this stage the analysis of the main text can be extended up to the Eq. (35), where now

$$\stackrel{~}{J}_\mu =\frac{ϵ(p)}{p_\mu }\left(1+\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,ϵ)}{\xi _p}\right).$$
(62)
The result (39) still holds with

$`\omega _c^{}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{}(p)}{p}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,0)/\xi _p}{1\mathrm{\Sigma }(p_F,ϵ)/ϵ}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{eB}{c}}.`$ (63)
It follows from Eq. (63) that the renormalization corrections to $`R_H`$ are canceled out.

## Appendix C Weak localization corrections to the Hall coefficient

The weak localization corrections originate from the quantum interference, and diagrammatically are known to be related to a set of the ladder diagrams in the particle-particle channel which is called “the cooperon.” As a doubly charged object the cooperon in the magnetic field acquires the form

$$C_B(𝐫_i,𝐫_f)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(i2e/c\right)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_i,𝐫_f)\right]\stackrel{~}{C}(𝐫_i𝐫_f),$$
(64)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by Eq. (5) and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ has the same symmetry properties as the corresponding function $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ in Eq. (4). The latter fact can be seen from the Dyson equation for the cooperon in the magnetic field

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C_B(𝐫_i,𝐫_f)& =\frac{\delta (𝐫_i𝐫_f)}{2\pi \tau \nu }+\frac{1}{2\pi \tau \nu }𝑑𝐫^{^{}}𝒢^R(𝐫_i,𝐫^{^{}})\hfill \\ & \times 𝒢^A(𝐫_i,𝐫^{^{}})C(𝐫^{^{}},𝐫_f)\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
Using Eqs. (4) and (64) one gets from Eq. (65) an integral equation for $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{C}(& 𝐫_i,𝐫_f)=\frac{\delta (𝐫_i𝐫_f)}{2\pi \tau \nu }+\frac{1}{2\pi \tau \nu }d𝐫^{^{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}^R(𝐫_i𝐫^{^{}})\hfill \\ \hfill \times & \stackrel{~}{𝒢}^A(𝐫_i𝐫^{^{}})\mathrm{exp}\left[(2ie/c)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_i,𝐫^{^{}},𝐫_f)\right]\stackrel{~}{C}(𝐫^{^{}},𝐫_f),\hfill \end{array}$$
(66)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)`$ is the magnetic flux through the triangle with vertexes $`(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_2,𝐫_3)=\frac{1}{2}𝐁\left[(𝐫_1𝐫_3)\times (𝐫_2𝐫_1)\right].$$
(67)
Equation (66) contains invariant ingredients only, and this ensures that $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ has the same symmetry properties as $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. One can readily derive the following equation for $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$:

$$\left[D\left(i\frac{2e𝐁}{2c}\times 𝐫\right)^2+|\omega _n|\right]\stackrel{~}{C}(𝐫,\omega _n)=\frac{\delta ^d(𝐫)}{2\pi \tau ^2\nu }.$$
(68)
As it has been already explained in the main text for $`\sigma _{xy}`$ linear in $`B`$ it is enough to keep $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ in the limit $`B=0`$. At the vanishing magnetic field $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ turns into the singular propagator

$$C(𝐐,i\omega _n)=\frac{1}{2\pi \tau ^2\nu }\frac{1}{|\omega _n|+DQ^2}.$$
(69)
In this Appendix we will assume that the scattering potential is short ranged and that the electrons have an arbitrary but spherically symmetric spectrum $`ϵ(p)`$. Consider first the diagram presented in Fig. 15(a).

With the use of Equation (9) the diamagnetic contribution from the $`J_x`$ vertex can be written as

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^x(𝐪=0,i\omega _n)=i\frac{e^3B}{4c}T\underset{iϵ_n}{}\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^dQ}{(2\pi )^d}\hfill \\ \hfill \times & \epsilon _{\mu \nu }\frac{^2ϵ}{p_xp_\mu }\left(𝒢^A(𝐩)\frac{}{p_\nu }𝒢^R(𝐩)𝒢^R(𝐩)\frac{}{p_\nu }𝒢^A(𝐩)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \times & C(𝐐)𝒢^R(𝐩+𝐐)𝒢^A(𝐩+𝐐)v_y\left(p+Q\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(70)
where $`v_\alpha (p)=ϵ/p_\alpha `$ is the velocity and $`^2ϵ/p_\alpha p_\beta `$ is the inverse mass tensor. Together with the $`J_y`$ vertex contribution a symmetric combination

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [(^2ϵ& /p_x^2)(ϵ/p_y)^22(^2ϵ/p_xp_y)(ϵ/p_x)(ϵ/p_y)\hfill \\ \hfill +& (^2ϵ/p_y^2)(ϵ/p_x)^2]\hfill \end{array}$$

arises. Exactly the same combination appears also in the calculation of $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in the Drude’s approximation. In the spherically symmetric case this combination reduces to $`(2/d)v_F^2m^1`$, where $`m^1=v_F/p_F`$. \[The fact that the discussed combination contains the first derivative of $`ϵ(p)`$ only was important for the derivation of $`R_H=1/nec`$ for the arbitrary spectrum $`ϵ(|𝐩|)`$, see Eq. (63).\]

To evaluate the flux term, we split the phase of the cooperon into two equal parts indicated by the dashed lines in Fig. 15(a). Then the flux of this diagram becomes a sum of the fluxes through the two triangles:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_a=\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_i,𝐫_1,𝐫_2)+\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_f,𝐫_1,𝐫_2).$$
(71)
When the Fourier transformation is performed the coordinate differences in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ lead to the differentiation with respect to momentum. To get a nonvanishing contribution to $`\sigma _{xy}`$ one of the differentiation should be applied to a current vertex. It turns out that the diamagnetic and flux terms are identical. Together they yield

$$\delta \sigma _{xy}^a=3\omega _c\tau \delta \sigma _{xx},$$
(72)
where $`\omega _c=(eB/c)m^1`$, and $`\delta \sigma _{xx}`$ is the weak localization correction to the longitudinal conductivity.

For the terms presented in Figs. 15(b) and (c) the diamagnetic contributions are absent. The flux term of the diagram 15(b) may be represented most economically as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_b=\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_i,𝐫_1,𝐫_3)+\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_f,𝐫_2,𝐫_1)2\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫_1,𝐫_3,𝐫_2).$$
(73)
The advantage of this representation is that the first two fluxes are similar to the diamagnetic terms and do not contribute to $`\sigma _{xy}`$. The remaining flux term leads to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^b(𝐪=0,i\omega _n)=& i\frac{e^3B}{c}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau }\right)T\underset{iϵ_n}{}\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^dp^{}}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^dQ}{(2\pi )^d}v_x(p)𝒢^A(p)𝒢^R(p)\frac{𝒢^A(|𝐩+𝐐|)}{(p+Q)_x}\hfill \\ & \times C(Q)𝒢^A(|𝐩^{}+𝐐|)𝒢^R(|𝐩^{}+𝐐|)\frac{𝒢^A(p{}_{}{}^{})}{p_y^{}}v_y(𝐩^{}+𝐐).\hfill \end{array}$$
(74)
The differentiated Green’s functions are indicated by crosses in Figs. 15(b) and (c). Similarly, the flux term of the diagram 15(c) is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^c(𝐪=0,i\omega _n)=& i\frac{e^3B}{c}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau }\right)T\underset{iϵ_n}{}\frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^dp^{}}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d^dQ}{(2\pi )^d}v_x(p)𝒢^A(p)𝒢^R(p)\frac{𝒢^R(|𝐩+𝐐|)}{(p+Q)_x}\hfill \\ & \times C(Q)𝒢^A(|𝐩^{}+𝐐|)𝒢^R(|𝐩^{}+𝐐|)\frac{𝒢^R(p{}_{}{}^{})}{p_y^{}}v_y(𝐩^{}+𝐐).\hfill \end{array}$$
(75)
To proceed further, we rearrange the sum $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{xy}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^b+\mathrm{\Pi }_{xy}^c`$ to the following form:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{xy}(𝐪& =0,i\omega _n)\hfill \\ \hfill =& i\frac{e^3B}{c}\left(\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau }\right)T\underset{iϵ_n}{}\frac{dQ}{(2\pi )^d}C(Q)\hfill \\ \hfill \times & \frac{d^d\stackrel{~}{p}}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{d}v^2[𝒢_R^3(\stackrel{~}{p})𝒢_A(\stackrel{~}{p})+𝒢_A^3(\stackrel{~}{p})𝒢_R(\stackrel{~}{p})]\hfill \\ \hfill \times & \frac{d^dp}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{d}v^2[𝒢_R^3(p)𝒢_A(p)𝒢_A^3(p)𝒢_R(p)].\hfill \end{array}$$
(76)
One should be cautious with the last integral as

$$\tau (𝒢_R^3𝒢_A𝒢_A^3𝒢_R)=2i\xi (𝒢_R𝒢_A)^3$$

is an odd function in $`\xi .`$ We have therefore to perform an expansion in $`\xi `$ to get a nonvanishing result. This leads us to an integral

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{2i}{d}𝑑\xi \frac{d(\nu v^2\tau ^1)}{d\xi }\xi ^2\left(𝒢_R𝒢_A\right)^3\hfill \\ & =\frac{4i}{d}𝑑\xi \left[(\nu \tau ^1)\frac{^2ϵ(p)}{p^2}+v^2\frac{d(\nu \tau ^1)}{d\xi }\right]\xi ^2\left(𝒢_R𝒢_A\right)^3.\hfill \end{array}$$
(77)
Unlike the expressions discussed above, the integrand in Eq. (77) depends on the specific form of the spectrum, i.e., it is not universal. For $`ϵ(p)=p^2/2m`$ and $`d=2`$ the diagrams of Figs. 15(b) and (c) yield $`\delta \sigma _{xy}^{(b+c)}=\omega _c\tau \delta \sigma _{xx}.`$ Then the weak localization correction to the Hall coefficient,

$$\frac{\delta R_H}{R_H}=\frac{\delta \sigma _{xy}}{\sigma _{xy}}2\frac{\delta \sigma _{xx}}{\sigma _{xx}},$$
(78)
vanishes as it was first shown by H. Fukuyama.Fukuyama2

The possibility of an economic representation of the flux is the essential advantage of the method. The expressions (70), (74), and (75) have been obtained without any intermediate steps here.


format: text

text:
# Generalized Quantum Games with Nash Equilibrium

## I Introduction

As a new vehicle to explore the exotic natures of quantum informationqinform , quantum games were proposed as the ”quantization” of the classical gamesMeyer ; EWL99 ; qgame1 . Most recently a quantum game was implemented via nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) systemexp-du . It was demonstrated that neither of the two players would win the game if they play rationally, but if they adopt quantum strategies both of them would win. A classical game cgame , as is well known, consists of three elements - the players, the strategies taken by the players and the payoff functions. In a gambling process, a player takes a strategy without knowing the strategy adopted by the other players. All players having taken actions simultaneously or successively, the payoff is awarded to each player according to the payoff function, which depends on the actions of all of the players. If a player can maximize his payoff, one says he wins the game.

The early ”quantization” of classical game is to replace the classical strategy space with the quantum one consisting of unitary operations on a quantum state. In the ordinary two player quantum game, one takes as the initial quantum state an entangled state (EPR state EPR correlating two qubits in a distance and the players can take as strategies local unitary operations acting on the two qubits separately. The payoff functions are defined by the probabilities, rather than the probability amplitudes, of projecting the final state to some chosen states. For this reason, we think this definition of quantum game is incoherent. As in this ”semi-classical game theory ”, the payoff function is based on the classical probability to a large extent, there is a fundamental interest in generalizing it to a ”fully-quantum game theory ”.

In this note we make two generalizations. First, we introduce the coherent payoff functions in terms of certain probability amplitudes. Second, we loosen the requirement that the initial state be an entangled qubit state. With these generalizations, we can still prove the Nash Equilibrium Theorem Nash for a special type of quantum games, including single qubit case and two entangled qubit case. Notice that the existence of Nash equilibrium is an essential element in defining an interesting game. But it seems that this point has not been fully realized. Indeed, in some proposed quantum games, while new features have been demonstrated, Nash equilibrium appears to occur accidentally for specifically-chosen parameters. A most recent work concerns the universality of the Nash theorem NT , but it requires a very large quantum strategy space that consists of both unitary transformations and non-unitary ”quantum measurement ” operations. Naturally, Nash equilibrium is more likely to occur in a bigger strategy space. However, from the practical point of view, it is desirable to introduce a reasonable quantum game in a limited strategy space with Nash equilibrium whose existence is not the result of carefully choosing parameters. Anyway, it should be possible to implement by practically physical processes.

## II Generalized Quantum Games

Let us describe the scheme of our generalized $`N`$ player quantum game in a general framework. Fix a vector space $`V`$. Then mathematically the game is a triple $`(S,\rho ,P)`$ where $`\rho End(V)`$ being a density matrix, $`S=(S_1,S_2,\mathrm{},S_N),S_iEnd(V)`$ consisting of unitary operators, and $`P=(P_{1,}P_{2,}\mathrm{},P_N)`$, $`P_i`$ $`End(V)`$ being an Hermitian operator, called a payoff operator. For a given quantum state described by a density matrix $`\rho `$ ,the players transform it by operations $`U_iS_i`$ $`\left(i=1,2,\mathrm{},N\right)`$ simultaneously for a static type game or in succession for a dynamic type game. Based on the obtained final state

$$\rho _f=(\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}U_k)\rho (\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}U_k)^{}$$
(1)
the payoff $`f_i`$ for the i’th player is calculated according to the formula

$$f_i=Tr(P_i\rho _f)R$$
(2)
Notice that in this generalized version, the operations $`U_k`$ are not required to be localized and so $`[U_{k,}U_s]=0`$ $`(sk)`$is not necessarily true. When $`[\rho _f,P_i]0`$ or $`[U_k,P_i]0,`$the role of the off-diagonal elements in $`\rho _f`$ and $`P_k`$ reflect the quantum coherence character of the payoff function. Notice that quantum coherence plays crucial role in quantum computing and quantum information, but it is sensitive to quantum meaurement sun-qm  and any evironment-couplings with it sun-dec .

The above described $`N`$ player game includes the original quantum game as a special case. In that case, an N-multiple entangled pure state $`|\sigma V=V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_N`$ is used as an initial state. Here, $`V_k`$ is the space under the action of the operation $`U_k`$ by the k’th player. One necessarily has $`[U_{k,}U_s]=0`$ and $`|\sigma `$ is transformed by independent operations $`U_k`$ simultaneously in different spatial locations. The payoff

$$f_k(\sigma )=\underset{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j}{}C_{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_2}^{[k]}|\sigma _{j_1}\sigma _{j_2,}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j_N}|E|^2$$
(3)
for each player is calculated based on the probabilities $`|\sigma _{j_1}\sigma _{j_2,}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j_N}|E|^2`$ for projections of final state $`|E=U_1U_{2,}\mathrm{}U_N|\sigma `$ onto the basis $`|\sigma _{j_1}\sigma _{j_2,}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j_N}.`$Here, $`C_{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_2}^{[k]}`$ are the real parameters assigned for a given game. Obviously, it is a special case of our generalized version with the payoff matrix

$$P_k=\underset{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j}{}C_{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_2}^{[k]}|\sigma _{j_1}\sigma _{j_2,}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j_N}\sigma _{j_1}\sigma _{j_2,}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j_N}|$$
(4)
and the initial density matrix $`\rho =|\sigma \sigma |.`$

Next we consider two models of the above generalized quantum game with single qubit and two entangled qubits, in which the Nash theorem holds. For convenience, we start from an abstract classical game called GAME A defined on a subset of $`S^1\times S^1:`$ $`\left\{(\theta ,\phi )\right|0\theta ,\phi \frac{\pi }{2}\}`$. We will show that the two generalized games are mathematically equivalent to the GAME A. So we need only to see whether the Nash theorem holds universally for the GAME A.

## III  <br>Classical Abstract Game with Nash equilibrium on $`S^1\times S^1`$

The GAME A is described as follows. The two players have the strategy spaces $`\left\{\theta \right|0\theta \frac{\pi }{2}\}`$ $`S^1`$ and $`\left\{\phi \right|0\phi \frac{\pi }{2}\}`$ $``$ $`S^1`$respectively. The pay off function for the $`ith`$ player can be written in the form

$$f_i(\theta ,\phi )=p_i+q_i\mathrm{sin}\left(\theta +\phi +\mathrm{\Psi }_i\right)$$
(5)
where $`q_i>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i[\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2}].`$

Proposition. For Game A, there exists a Nash equilibrium.

Proof. We imitate the proof of Nash Equilibrium Theorem. From the conditions $`0\theta ,\phi \frac{\pi }{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1[\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2}]`$ we observe that for a fixed $`\phi `$ there exists exactly one $`\theta ,`$ which we denote by $`\chi \left(\phi \right),`$ that maximizes the pay off function $`f_1.`$ Similarly, for a fixed $`\theta `$ there is exactly one $`\phi ,`$ which we denote by $`\varkappa \left(\theta \right),`$ that maximizes the pay off function $`f_2.`$ So we can define a map $`g`$ from the convex set $`[0,\frac{\pi }{2}]\times `$ $`[0,\frac{\pi }{2}]`$ to itself such that

$$g(\theta ,\phi )=(\chi \left(\phi \right),\varkappa \left(\theta \right)).$$
(6)
It is easy to show that $`g`$ is a continuous map. Hence, by Brower Fixed Point Theorem $`g`$ has a fixed point $`(\theta _0,\phi _0).`$ It is readily verified that $`(\theta _0,\phi _0)`$ is a Nash equilibrium. The proof of the proposition is thus completed.

The Nash equilibrium of GAME A can actually be calculated explicitly. The results, depending on the values of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$, are as follows.Suppose $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\mathrm{\Psi }_2=\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ Then the Nash equilibrium might not be unique. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }[\frac{\pi }{2},0]`$, then each point $`(\theta _0,\phi _0)`$ in $`[\mathrm{\Psi },\frac{\pi }{2}]\times [\mathrm{\Psi },\frac{\pi }{2}]`$ satisfying $`\theta _0+\phi _0+\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ is a Nash equilibrium; If $`\mathrm{\Psi }[0,\frac{\pi }{2}]`$, then each point $`(\theta _0,\phi _0)`$ in $`[0,\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{\Psi }]`$ $`\times [0,\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{\Psi }]`$ satisfying $`\theta _0+\phi _0+\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ is a Nash equilibrium. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2.`$ Then the Nash equilibrium is unique. Precisely, there are the following possibilities.

1) $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2[\frac{\pi }{2},0],\mathrm{\Psi }_1>\mathrm{\Psi }_2,(\theta _0,\phi _0)=(\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\frac{\pi }{2});`$

2) $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2[\frac{\pi }{2},0],\mathrm{\Psi }_1<\mathrm{\Psi }_2,(\theta _0,\phi _0)=(\frac{\pi }{2},\mathrm{\Psi }_2);`$

3) $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1[\frac{\pi }{2},0],\mathrm{\Psi }_2[0,\frac{\pi }{2}],(\theta _0,\phi _0)=(\frac{\pi }{2},0);`$

4) $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1[0,\frac{\pi }{2}],\mathrm{\Psi }_2[\frac{\pi }{2},0],(\theta _0,\phi _0)=(0,\frac{\pi }{2});`$

5) $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2[0,\frac{\pi }{2}],\mathrm{\Psi }_1>\mathrm{\Psi }_2,(\theta _0,\phi _0)=(0,\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_2);`$

6) $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2[0,\frac{\pi }{2}],\mathrm{\Psi }_1<\mathrm{\Psi }_2,(\theta _0,\phi _0)=(\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_1,0).`$

It is easy to prove these results. For example, when $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\mathrm{\Psi }_2[\frac{\pi }{2},0],`$ we have

$`\chi \left(\phi \right)`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\pi }{2},\hfill & \frac{\pi }{2}\phi +\mathrm{\Psi }_10;\hfill \\ \frac{\pi }{2}(\phi +\mathrm{\Psi }_1),\hfill & 0\phi +\mathrm{\Psi }_1\frac{\pi }{2}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (9)
$`\varkappa \left(\theta \right)`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\pi }{2},\hfill & \frac{\pi }{2}\theta +\mathrm{\Psi }_20;\hfill \\ \frac{\pi }{2}(\theta +\mathrm{\Psi }_2),\hfill & 0\theta +\mathrm{\Psi }_2\frac{\pi }{2}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (12)
If $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1>\mathrm{\Psi }_2,`$ it then follows from the fixed point condition $`(\chi \left(\phi _0\right),\varkappa \left(\theta _0\right))=(\theta _0,\phi _0)`$ that $`(\theta _0,\phi _0)=(\mathrm{\Psi }_1,\frac{\pi }{2}).`$ The other results can be proved in a similar way. We notice that when $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1=\mathrm{\Psi }_2,`$ if the two players do not exchange information, there is little chance of reaching a Nash equilibrium. On the other hand, when $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2,`$ as the Nash equilibrium is unique it will appear, but at the equilibrium at most only one player will maxize the payoff function.

## IV One Qubit Realization

Now we consider the first realization of Game A only using one qubit, which is similar to the classical game of roulette. Given an initial state $`\rho ,`$ the first player operates on it by a rotation

$$U\left(\theta \right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(13)
and then the second player operates on the resulted state by another rotation $`U\left(\phi \right).`$Since the two operations $`U\left(\theta \right)`$ and $`U\left(\phi \right)`$ take action in succession, this is a game of dynamic type. Assign two payoff matrices $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ to the two players. By definition they are Hermitian operators. Generally, we can write

$$P_i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_i& b_i\\ \overline{b_i}& d_i\end{array}\right),i=1,2$$
(14)
with respect to the basis $`\{|0,|1\},`$ where $`a_i,d_i`$ are real numbers. The complex elements $`b_i`$ characterize the quantum coherence of the pay off functions $`f_i`$ $`\left(i=1,2\right)`$ for the two players

$$f_i=tr\left(P_iU\left(\theta +\phi \right)\rho U\left(\theta +\phi \right)^{}\right).$$
(15)
To acquire the non-trivial nature of quantum coherence it should be required that $`[P_1,P_2]`$ and $`[P_i,U\left(\theta \right)]0.`$Otherwise one can simultaneously diagonalize $`P_1,`$ $`P_2`$ and $`U\left(\theta \right)`$ and the defined game would be trivial.

First, we take as the initial state the pure state

$$|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0+|1\right)$$
(16)
of a qubit. Then we have

$`U\left(\theta \right)|0`$ $`=\mathrm{cos}\theta |0+\mathrm{sin}\theta |1,`$
$`U\left(\theta \right)|1`$ $`=\mathrm{sin}\theta |0+\mathrm{cos}\theta |1.`$ (17)
After simple calculation we obtain

$`f_i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(a_i+d_i)+(a_id_i)\mathrm{sin}2(\theta +\phi )`$
$`+(b_i+\overline{b_i})\mathrm{cos}2(\theta +\phi )].`$ (18)
If $`a_id_i0`$ then $`f_i`$ can be rewritten as

$$f_i=p_i+q_i\mathrm{sin}\left(2\left(\theta +\phi \right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_i\right),$$
(19)
where

$`p_i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a_i+d_i\right),`$
$`q_i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\left(a_id_i\right)^2+\left(b_i+\overline{b_i}\right)^2},`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ $`=\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(b_i+\overline{b_i}\right)}{\left(a_id_i\right)}}.`$ (20)
Clearly, if we put the restrictions $`a_id_i0`$ and $`0\theta ,\phi \frac{\pi }{4}`$ then this quantum game is a realization of Game A. Thus in this case it has a Nash equilibrium.

Next, we take the mixed state

$$\rho =\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& 0\\ 0& 1p\end{array}\right),0p1$$
(21)
as the initial state. In this case we have

$`f_i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(a_i+d_i)+(12p)(b_i+\overline{b_i})\mathrm{sin}2(\theta +\phi )`$
$`+(1p)(d_ia_i)\mathrm{cos}2(\theta +\phi )].`$
It does not harm to assume $`p\frac{1}{2}.`$ Then if $`b_i+\overline{b_i}0,`$ $`f_i`$ can be rewritten as

$$f_i=p_i+q_i\mathrm{sin}\left(2\left(\theta +\phi \right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_i\right),$$

where

$`p_i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a_i+d_i\right),`$
$`q_i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\left(d_ia_i\right)^2\left(1p\right)^2+\left(b_i+\overline{b_i}\right)^2\left(12p\right)^2},`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ $`=\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1p\right)\left(d_ia_i\right)}{\left(12p\right)\left(b_i+\overline{b_i}\right)}}.`$
Thus this game with the additional restriction $`0\theta ,\phi \frac{\pi }{4}`$ is also a realization of GAME A.

## V Two Qubit Realization

Our next model is a static quantum game with two qubits. We take the quantum entangled state

$$|\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|0|1+|1|0\right)$$
(23)
for a simple two qubit system. The two players independently operate on the first and the second qubits by the above defined $`U\left(\theta \right)`$ and $`U\left(\phi \right)`$ respectively. Notice that, since the two local operations $`U_1\left(\theta \right)=U\left(\theta \right)1`$ and $`U_2\left(\phi \right)=1U\left(\phi \right)`$ can take action simultaneously or in succession, we can realize this two-bit game both in the static and dynamic ways. As in the first model, two Hermitian payoff operators $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are assigned to the two players and the two pay off functions $`f_i`$ $`\left(i=1,2\right)`$ are defined as

$$f_i=tr\left(P_i\left(U\left(\theta \right)U\left(\phi \right)\right)|\varphi \varphi |\left(U\left(\theta \right)U\left(\phi \right)\right)^{}\right).$$
(24)
Suppose that $`P_i`$ has the matrix representation

$$\left(P_i\right)_{kl}=x_{kl}^i,x_{kl}^i=\overline{x_{lk}^i},k,l=1,2,3,4,$$
(25)
with respect to the basis

$$\{|0|0,|0|1,|1|0,|1|1\}.$$
(26)
Then by direct calculation we obtain

$`4f_i`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}x_{jj}^i+2\mathrm{Re}x_{23}^i2\mathrm{Re}x_{14}^i\right)`$
$`+(x_{11}^i+x_{22}^i+x_{33}^ix_{44}^i`$
$`+2\mathrm{Re}x_{23}^i+2\mathrm{Re}x_{14}^i)\mathrm{cos}2(\theta +\phi )`$
$`2(\mathrm{Re}x_{12}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{13}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{24}^i`$
$`+\mathrm{Re}x_{34}^i)\mathrm{sin}2(\theta +\phi ).`$ (27)
If

$$\mathrm{Re}x_{12}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{13}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{24}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{34}^i0,$$
(28)
the pay off functions can be rewritten as

$$f_i=p_i+q_i\mathrm{sin}\left(2\left(\theta +\phi \right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_i\right),$$
(29)
where

$`p_i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}x_{jj}^i+2\mathrm{Re}x_{23}^i2\mathrm{Re}x_{14}^i),`$
$`q_i`$ $`=[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(x_{11}^i+x_{22}^i+x_{33}^ix_{44}^i`$
$`+2\mathrm{Re}x_{23}^i+2\mathrm{Re}x_{14}^i)^2+`$
$`4(\mathrm{Re}x_{12}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{13}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{24}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{34}^i)^2]^{1/2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ $`=\mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{A}{B}}:`$
$`A`$ $`=x_{11}^i+x_{22}^i+x_{33}^i`$
$`x_{44}^i+2\mathrm{Re}x_{23}^i+2\mathrm{Re}x_{14}^i`$
$`B`$ $`=\mathrm{Re}x_{12}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{13}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{24}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{34}^i`$ (30)
Thus we conclude that this quantum game with the restrictions

$$\mathrm{Re}x_{12}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{13}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{24}^i+\mathrm{Re}x_{34}^i0$$
(31)
and $`0\theta ,\phi \frac{\pi }{4}`$ also realizes Game A.

## VI Remarks

In sum, we introduce in this paper a new type of quantum game and prove the Nash Equilibrium Theorem. We also calculate the equilibrium explicitly. In the two models though ”coherent ” pay-off functions of quantum nature are introduced, the universal existence of Nash equilibrium follows from the simple mathematical structure of the classical Game A. In this sense, the game is not really quantized. On the other hand, this suggests the possibility of studying quantum games from an abstract point of view, transcending concrete examples.

Finally we point out that the interesting examples introduced in this letter can easily be implemented in experiments. For the above one-spin qubit model, the operation $`U\left(\theta \right)`$ can be realized as a Rabi rotation of angle $`\theta `$ around z-axe in a spin procession experiment. If we take the two payoff matrices to be the Pauli matrices $`\sigma _z`$ and $`\sigma _x`$ respectively, then the measurement of the payoff function is to see the average polarization of spin along $`xaxe`$ and $`zaxe`$. Thus this quantum game is implementable by a qubit NMR quantum computing systemNMR , described as one nucleolus spin in a magnetic field driven by a radio frequency (rf ) field. This system realizes a single qubit quantum logic gate.

This work is supported by the NSF of China and the knowledge Innovation Program (KIP) of the Chinese Academy of Science. It is also founded by the National Fundamental Research Program of China with No 001GB309310. We also thank Jiangfeng Du for the helpful discussions with him.