text:
# Loschmidt Echo and Lyapunov Exponent in a Quantum Disordered System

## I Introduction

Quantum manifestations of the classical chaotic dynamics represent a central issue for the field of quantum chaos. To characterize quantitatively the stability of quantum motion, Peres Peres84 ; PeresBook  proposed to consider the fidelity

$$M(t)=|\psi |\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{H}^{}t)\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{H}t)|\psi |^2,$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{H}^{}`$ differs by a small perturbation from the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ of the system under consideration, and $`|\psi `$ is some original state (wave packet). The quantity (1) is the probability to return into the state $`|\psi `$ after propagation for a time $`t`$ governed by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ followed by a backward propagation with a slightly perturbed Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}^{}`$. Recently, Jalabert and Pastawski Jalabert01  argued that for a system whose classical counterpart is chaotic the fidelity (1) will decay exponentially in time, with the rate given by the classical Lyapunov exponent. Their work was motivated by measurements of a spin-echo decoherence rate in nuclear magnetic resonance experiments PastawskiSpinEcho , and they gave a name “quantum Loschmidt echo” to the overlap (1). The paper Jalabert01  triggered a considerable outbreak of research activity devoted to the sensitivity of quantum chaotic systems to external perturbations. In a number of subsequent publications Jacquod01 ; Cucchietti02a ; Cucchietti02b ; Benenti02a ; Silvestrov02a ; Cerruti02 ; Prosen02 ; Silvestrov02b ; Benenti02b ; Jacquod02 ; Zurek02 ; wisniacki02 ; prosen02b ; prosen02c  the Loschmidt echo was studied (predominantly by means of numerical simulations) for a variety of classically chaotic systems and its relation to decoherence problems was discussed. These numerical works have confirmed the key prediction of Jalabert01  that in an appropriate parameter range the decay rate of the Loschmidt echo is governed by the classical Lyapunov exponent.

In the present paper, we study the Loschmidt echo (1) in a different context, namely that of a quantum disordered system. Specifically, we consider a particle moving in a weak quantum random potential. The word “quantum” means here that the scattering on this disorder is of diffractive nature. For a Gaussian random potential assumed here this is equivalent to the condition

$$dl_s,$$
(2)
where $`l_s`$ is the quantum mean free path. This situation should be contrasted with the opposite case of a classical disorder, for which the disorder-induced contribution to the action on a distance $`d`$ is much larger than $`\mathrm{}`$, and the representation of propagators in terms of a sum over classical orbits (as used e.g. in Jalabert01 ) is justified. On the other hand, the standard theoretical tool for the quantum-disorder regime is the impurity diagram technique. It is therefore natural to attempt to apply the diagrammatics to the Loschmidt echo problem.

We show that indeed the diagrammatic technique can be used to calculate the fidelity for short times (where it is given simply by the golden rule formula), as well as for sufficiently long times (where it decays according to a power law reflecting the diffusive character of the classical motion). We demonstrate however that for a sufficiently smooth (but still quantum as defined by (2)) disorder an intermediate time range emerges, where the diagrammatic method breaks down. Using the path-integral approach, we calculate the Loschmidt echo in this regime and find that it does show the decay governed by the classical Lyapunov exponent, which is highly non-trivial in view of the diffractive character of disorder.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we consider the case of a short-range disorder ($`d\lambda _0`$, where $`\lambda _0`$ is the electron wavelength) when the diagrammatic calculation works in the whole range of times. We identify diagrams corresponding to the short-time (golden rule) and the long-time (diffusion-induced power law) behavior of the fidelity and evaluate them. Section III, which is the central one for the paper, is devoted to the case of a long-range random potential ($`d\lambda _0`$) when the scattering is of small-angle character. Our conclusions are summarized in Sec. IV. In particular, we discuss there a connection between the Loschmidt echo problem and a recent activity aleiner96 ; aleiner97 ; agam00 ; GM02 ; vavilov02  devoted to quantum interference effects in the regime of quantum chaos.

## II  Loschmidt Echo for the short range potential

As discussed in Sec. I, we consider a model of the particle moving in a random potential inducing a quantum (diffractive) scattering. The Hamiltonians $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ describing the forward and the backward propagation in (1) correspond to two slightly different potentials,

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}+U;\widehat{H}^{}=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}+U^{},$$
(3)
where $`m`$ is a mass of the particle. In this section we study the case of a short-range disorder, with the correlation length $`d\lambda _0`$, which is essentially equivalent to a $`\delta `$-correlated (white-noise) random potential. Thus, we have the following expressions for the correlators

$$U(𝐫_1)U(𝐫_2)=U^{}(𝐫_1)U^{}(𝐫_2)=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau }\delta (𝐫_1𝐫_2),$$
(4)
where $`\tau `$ is the mean free time (to simplify notations, we assume it to be exactly the same for $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$), and $`\nu `$ is a density of states at the Fermi energy. The difference between the potentials $`\delta U=U^{}U`$ is characterized by another time scale $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$,

$$\delta U(𝐫_1)\delta U(𝐫_2)=\frac{1}{\pi \nu \stackrel{~}{\tau }}\delta (𝐫_1𝐫_2).$$
(5)
Clearly, we want to study the effect of a weak perturbation $`\delta UU`$ or, in the other words, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\tau `$. Finally, we take the initial state $`|\psi `$ in the form of a Gaussian wave packet

$$\psi (𝐫)=\left(\frac{1}{\pi \sigma ^2}\right)^{D/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{i}𝐩_0𝐫\frac{𝐫^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right],$$
(6)
where $`\sigma \lambda _0=2\pi /p_0`$ is a width of the packet and $`D`$ is a number of space dimensions (we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$ throughout the paper).

To translate (1) into the diagrammatic language, we represent the ensemble-averaged fidelity as an average product of four Green’s functions

$`M(t)={\displaystyle }d𝐫_1\mathrm{}d𝐫_6\psi (𝐫_1)G^R(𝐫_1,𝐫_2;t)G^A^{}(𝐫_2,𝐫_3;t)`$
$`\times \psi ^{}(𝐫_3)\psi (𝐫_4)G^R^{}(𝐫_4,𝐫_5;t)G^A(𝐫_5,𝐫_6;t)\psi ^{}(𝐫_6),`$ (7)
where

$`G^{R,A}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }(E\widehat{H}\pm i0)^1e^{iEt}},`$
$`G^{R^{},A^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi }(E\widehat{H}^{}\pm i0)^1e^{iEt}}.`$ (8)
The diagrams are then obtained by connecting four lines representing the Green’s functions in (II) via the diffuson ladders. At sufficiently short times the leading contribution is given by the simplest diagram shown in Fig.1.

The solid lines in Fig.1 correspond to the impurity-averaged Green’s functions,

$`\overline{G}^{R,A}(ϵ,𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{G}^{R^{},A^{}}(ϵ,𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵϵ_p\pm i/2\tau }},`$ (9)
with $`ϵ_p=p^2/2m`$, and the shaded box represents the diffuson (see Fig. 2),

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(𝐐,\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau ^2(𝒟Q^2i\omega +1/\stackrel{~}{\tau })},$$
(10)
where $`𝒟=v_0^2\tau /D`$ is the diffusion coefficient and $`v_0=p_0/m`$. Note that this diffuson has a non-zero “mass” $`1/\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$, since it represents an averaged product of two Green’s functions in different potentials, $`G^RG^A^{}`$. We will only need this diffuson for zero momentum $`𝐐`$ and integrated with two Green’s functions, therefore it is convenient to introduce

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^D}G^R(ϵ+\frac{\omega }{2},𝐩)G^A^{}(ϵ\frac{\omega }{2},𝐩)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\mathrm{𝟎},\omega )}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau (i\omega +1/\stackrel{~}{\tau })}}.`$
To shorten notations, we will also denote $`\overline{G}_\psi ^{R,R^{}}(ϵ,𝐩)=\psi (𝐩)\overline{G}^{R,R^{}}(ϵ,𝐩)`$ and $`\overline{G}_\psi ^{A,A^{}}(ϵ,𝐩)=\psi ^{}(𝐩)\overline{G}^{A,A^{}}(ϵ,𝐩)`$, where $`\psi (𝐩)=(4\pi \sigma ^2)^{D/4}e^{(𝐩𝐩_0)^2\sigma ^2/2}`$ is the wave function in the momentum representation.

With the above definitions, the expression corresponding to the diagram Fig. 1 has the form

$`M(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^D}}{\displaystyle \frac{dϵdϵ^{}}{(2\pi )^2}}e^{i(ϵϵ^{})t}`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`\overline{G}_\psi ^R(ϵ,𝐩)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(ϵϵ^{})\overline{G}_\psi ^A^{}(ϵ^{},𝐩)|^2.`$
After a straightforward calculation, we get the following result for the fidelity,

$`M(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2t/\stackrel{~}{\tau }}.`$ (13)
This is nothing but the golden rule decay induced by the perturbation (5).

For long times $`t\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ the contribution (13) becomes exponentially small in view of the massive character of the diffusons (10). The long-time behavior of the fidelity is however determined by a different diagram shown in Fig. 3, with two massive diffusons “colliding” and transforming into two conventional, massless diffusons (Fig. 4),

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐐,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒟Q^2i\omega }}.`$ (14)
The diffuson “collision” vertex, conventionally termed the Hikami box, is given by a sum of diagrams shown in Fig. 5, yielding

$`\chi (𝐐,ϵϵ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \nu \tau ^2}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵϵ^{})^2+(1/\tau )^2}}.`$ (15)
Note the unconventional form of the expression for the Hikami box: due to $`UU^{}UU`$, the diagrams on Fig. 5 do not cancel when all diffuson momenta and frequencies are equal to zero. Further, we neglected the momentum and frequencies of massless diffusons in Eq. (15); the corresponding terms will be smaller by a factor $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }/t1`$.

Combining everything, we thus get the following expression corresponding to the diagram Fig. 3

$`M(t)={\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩d𝐩^{}d𝐐}{(2\pi )^{3D}}\frac{dϵdϵ^{}d\omega _1d\omega _2}{(2\pi )^4}e^{i(\omega _1+\omega _2)t}}`$
$`\times \overline{G}_\psi ^R(𝐩{\displaystyle \frac{𝐐}{2}},ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _1}{2}})\overline{G}_\psi ^A(𝐩+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐐}{2}},ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _1}{2}})`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Pi }(𝐐,\omega _1)\chi (𝐐,ϵϵ^{})|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(ϵϵ^{})|^2\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐐,\omega _2)`$
$`\times \overline{G}_\psi ^A^{}(𝐩^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐐}{2}},ϵ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _2}{2}})\overline{G}_\psi ^R^{}(𝐩^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐐}{2}},ϵ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _2}{2}}).`$ (16)
Performing all the energy integrations, we get the following result:

$`M(t)={\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩d𝐩^{}d𝐐}{(2\pi )^{3D}}e^{2𝒟Q^2t}e^{Q^2\sigma ^2/2}e^{(𝐩𝐩_0)^2\sigma ^2}}`$
$`\times e^{(𝐩^{}𝐩_0)^2\sigma ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi \sigma ^2)^D}{\pi \nu \tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(ϵ_𝐩ϵ_𝐩^{})^2+\frac{1}{\tau ^2}}}.`$ (17)
Before writing down the final result, we should be more specific about the width $`\sigma `$ of the original wave packet. When it is large compared to the mean free path, $`\sigma v_0\tau `$, the characteristic deviations $`|𝐩𝐩_0|`$, $`|𝐩^{}𝐩_0|`$ are of the order of $`1/\sigma `$ due to Gaussian factors, and we can set $`|𝐩|=|𝐩^{}|`$ in the last factor in (II). In the opposite case $`\sigma v_0\tau `$ the difference $`|𝐩||𝐩^{}|`$ is of order $`1/(v_0\tau )1/\sigma `$ and can be neglected in the above Gaussian factors. Thus we have

$`M(t)={\displaystyle \frac{v_0\tau }{2\pi \sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)}{(p_0\sigma )^{D1}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\sigma ^2}{4𝒟t+\sigma ^2}}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}},\sigma v_0\tau ,`$ (19)
$`M(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(D/2)}{\left(p_0\sigma \right)^{D1}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{2𝒟t}}\right)^{\frac{D}{2}},\sigma v_0\tau ,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the Euler gamma function. Remarkably, this large-$`t`$ behavior of the Loschmidt echo is independent of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$, i.e. of the perturbation strength.

Therefore, the long-time asymptotic behavior of the fidelity is a power-law decay governed by the diffusion, with $`M(t)`$ proportional to the inverse diffusion volume $`V_{\text{diff}}=(𝒟t)^{D/2}`$. Clearly, this result obtained from the diffuson diagram technique is not specific for the white-noise disorder considered in this section but rather yields a generic form of the long-$`t`$ behavior of $`M(t)`$ in diffusive systems. Comparing the results (19), (19) with contribution (13), one can determine the time $`t^{}`$ of crossover between the exponential and the power-law regimes, which is larger than $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ by a logarithmic factor. In particular, for a two-dimensional system with $`\sigma <l`$ we have $`t^{}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{p_0𝒟\stackrel{~}{\tau }}{\sigma }`$. The behavior of $`M(t)`$ for the case of a short-range potential studied in this section is illustrated schematically in Fig. 6.

It is worth mentioning that our diagrammatic calculation bears a certain similarity to earlier studies of intensity fluctuations and correlations for waves propagating in random media SpivakZyuzin37 ; ShapiroPRL86 ; Stephencollect81 . In particular, sensitivity of transport quantities to a small change of the impurity potential (e.g. due to a displacement of a single scattering center) has been investigated AltshulerSpivakJETPL85 ; SpivakZyuzin37 . However, the Loschmidt echo is essentially different from the quantities studied in these papers since it involves propagation in two different potentials $`U`$, $`U^{}`$ already before the ensemble averaging. Formally, this corresponds to switching between the Green’s functions $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ in external vertices (see Figs. 1,3).

## III  Loschmidt Echo for long range potential

After having understood the behavior of the fidelity in a white-noise disorder, we turn to the case of our main interest: a long-range potential with a correlation length $`d\lambda _0`$. For this kind of potential, the characteristic angle of diffraction for each scattering event is small, $`\delta \varphi \lambda _0/d`$, so that many scattering events are needed to change strongly the velocity direction. As a result, the motion in such a disorder is characterized by two relaxation times. The first one is the quantum (or, in another terminology, single-particle) relaxation time $`\tau _s`$, which is the mean time between scattering events. This time determines the decay rate of the averaged Green’s function $`G^R(𝐫,t)=G_0^R(𝐫,t)e^{t/2\tau _s}`$. The second one, the momentum (or, transport) relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$ sets the time scale on which the velocity direction changes by an angle of order $`\pi `$. It is parametrically larger, $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(d/\lambda _0)^2\tau _s`$. The transport time determines, in particular, the diffusion coefficient $`𝒟=v_0^2\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}/D`$.

The condition (2) implies that in the diagrammatic approach the leading contribution is given by diagrams with non-crossing impurity lines. In particular, $`\tau _s`$ is determined by the Born-approximation self-energy diagram, $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$ is obtained by taking into account the ladder-type vertex correction, and the diffusion propagator can be calculated by solving the equation corresponding to the sum of the ladder diagrams woelfle84 . Furthermore, even in the ballistic range of frequency and momenta $`ql_{\mathrm{tr}}>1`$, $`\omega \tau _{\mathrm{tr}}>1`$, the average product of two Green’s functions $`G_RG_A`$ is determined by a sum of ladder diagrams, the “ballistic diffuson”. One might thus expect that the diagrammatic calculation of the preceding section can be generalized to the case of a long-range disorder. Indeed, both the golden rule short-time behavior corresponding to Fig. 1 and the long-time diffusion power-law asymptotics determined by the diagram of Fig. 3 do retain their validity for a long-range disorder. However, as we demonstrate below, an intermediate time range emerges, where the diagrammatic approach is not applicable. The reason for this is a necessity to average a product of four Green’s functions describing four electronic trajectories propagating close to each other. As was shown in GM02 , in a certain time range (specified below) these four Green functions do not decouple into two (ballistic) diffusons, but rather are coupled all together by impurity correlators into a more complicated object, a “4-diffuson”. In view of the failure of the ballistic-diffuson diagrammatics, we will use the path integral approach developed in MAW ; GM02 . For simplicity, we consider a two-dimensional system.

We begin by defining the disorder correlation functions (replacing the white-noise formulas (4) and (5)),

$`U(𝐫)U(𝐫_1)`$ $`=`$ $`U^{}(𝐫)U^{}(𝐫_1)=W(|𝐫𝐫_1|),`$
$`\delta U(𝐫)\delta U(𝐫_1)`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta W(|𝐫𝐫_1|).`$ (20)
Introducing the Feynman path integral representation and averaging over the disorder we rewrite the product of four Green’s functions in (II) as

$`G_R(𝐑_1,𝐑_2,T)G_A^{}(𝐑_2,𝐑_3,T)`$
$`\times G_R^{}(𝐑_4,𝐑_5,T)G_A(𝐑_5,𝐑_6,T)=`$
$`={\displaystyle _{𝐫_1(0)=𝐑_1}^{𝐫_1(T)=𝐑_2}}{\displaystyle _{𝐫_3(0)=𝐑_2}^{𝐫_3(T)=𝐑_3}}{\displaystyle _{𝐫_2(0)=𝐑_4}^{𝐫_2(T)=𝐑_5}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _{𝐫_4(0)=𝐑_5}^{𝐫_4(T)=𝐑_6}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}𝒟𝐫_i\mathrm{exp}[iS_{\mathrm{kin}}S_\mathrm{W}];`$ (21)
$`S_{\mathrm{kin}}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t\left(\dot{𝐫}_1^2+\dot{𝐫}_2^2\dot{𝐫}_3^2\dot{𝐫}_4^2\right);`$
$`S_\mathrm{W}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(S_{11}+S_{22}+S_{33}+S_{44})`$
$`+S_{12}+S_{34}S_{13}S_{14}S_{23}S_{24}`$
$`\delta S_{12}\delta S_{34}+\delta S_{13}+\delta S_{24};`$
$`S_{ij}={\displaystyle _0^T}{\displaystyle _0^T}W(𝐫_i(t)𝐫_j(t^{}))𝑑t𝑑t^{},`$
$`\delta S_{ij}={\displaystyle _0^T}{\displaystyle _0^T}\delta W(𝐫_i(t)𝐫_j(t^{}))𝑑t𝑑t^{},`$ (22)
where the paths $`𝐫_1,𝐫_2`$ correspond to the retarded, and $`𝐫_3,𝐫_4`$ to the advanced Green’s functions. The path integral (21) is similar to the one evaluated in Ref. GM02 , a difference being in boundary conditions and in the additional terms $`\delta S_{ij}`$ in the action induced by the perturbation $`\delta U`$. As in GM02 , it is useful to perform the change of variables, introducing $`𝐑_+=(𝐫_1+𝐫_2+𝐫_3+𝐫_4)/4,𝐑_{}=(𝐫_1+𝐫_2𝐫_3𝐫_4),𝐫_+=(𝐫_1𝐫_2+𝐫_3𝐫_4)/2,𝐫_{}=(𝐫_1𝐫_2𝐫_3+𝐫_4)/2.`$ The boundary conditions in terms of the new variables are as follows. At $`t=T`$ we have $`𝐑_{}(T)=0`$ and $`𝐫_{}(T)=0`$, while the integration over $`𝐑_+(T)`$ and $`𝐫_+(T)`$ are unrestricted. At $`t=0`$ the integration over $`𝐑_\pm (0)`$ and $`𝐫_\pm (0)`$ is performed with the weight

$`\psi (𝐑_1)\psi ^{}(𝐑_3)\psi (𝐑_4)\psi ^{}(𝐑_6)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \sigma ^2}}\right)^2`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{4𝐑_+(0)^2+𝐑_{}^2(0)/4+𝐫_+(0)^2+𝐫_{}(0)^2}{2\sigma ^2}}`$
$`+i𝐩_0𝐑_{}(0)\}.`$ (23)
The kinetic part of the action reads in the transformed variables as

$$S_{\mathrm{kin}}=m_0^T𝑑t\left(\dot{𝐫}_+\dot{𝐫}_{}+\dot{𝐑}_+\dot{𝐑}_{}\right).$$
(24)
As was shown in GM02 , the pairs of variables $`(𝐑_+,𝐑_{})`$ and $`(𝐫_+,𝐫_{})`$ decouple. On ballistic distances $`l_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ the integral over the first pair is essentially of the free-particle type, and its saddle-point yields the classical equation of motion for the “center of mass” coordinate $`𝐑_+`$,

$$𝐑_+(t)=𝐑_+(0)+(𝐑_+(T)𝐑_+(0))\frac{t}{T}.$$
(25)
After integrating out $`𝐑_+,𝐑_{}`$, the action (24) is reduced to the form

$`S_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`m{\displaystyle \frac{𝐑_+(T)𝐑_+(0)}{2T}}(𝐑_{}(T)𝐑_{}(0))`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`m{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑t\dot{𝐫}_+\dot{𝐫}_{}.`$
Since we are interested in the ballistic scales ($`l_{\mathrm{tr}}`$), it is convenient to split $`𝐑_{},𝐫_+,𝐫_{}`$ into components parallel ($`||`$) and perpendicular ($``$) to the direction of the motion $`\dot{𝐑}_+`$. Then the disorder-induced part of the action $`S_\mathrm{W}`$ depends only on the transverse components $`𝐑_{}`$ and $`𝐫_\pm `$, which we will denote $`Y_{}`$ and $`\rho _\pm `$ respectively,

$`S_\mathrm{W}{\displaystyle _0^T}𝒰(\rho _{}(t),\rho _+(t))𝑑t2{\displaystyle _0^T}𝑑tY_{}^2(t)`$
$`\times \{G(\rho _{}(t))\delta G(\rho _{}(t))+G(\rho _+(t))\},`$ (27)
where

$`𝒰=𝒰_0+\delta 𝒰,`$
$`𝒰_0=2(F(\rho _+)+F(\rho _{}))F(\rho _++\rho _{})F(\rho _+\rho _{}),`$
$`\delta 𝒰=2\delta F(\rho _{})+\delta F(\rho _++\rho _{})+\delta F(\rho _+\rho _{}),`$ (28)
and we have introduced the functions

$`F(y){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{v_0}}[W(x,0)W(x,y)],`$
$`\delta F(y){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{v_0}}[\delta W(x,0)\delta W(x,y)],`$ (29)
$`G(y){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{y^2}}W(x,y),`$
$`\delta G(y){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{y^2}}\delta W(x,y).`$ (30)
Since the correlation functions $`W(r)`$, $`\delta W(r)`$ decay on the scale $`d`$, the functions $`F`$, $`G`$, $`\delta F`$, and $`\delta G`$ have the following asymptotic behavior: $`F(yd)G(0)y^2/2`$, $`F(yd)\tau _s^1`$, $`G(0)=m^2v^2/\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$, and $`G(yd)0`$, and analogously $`\delta F(yd)\delta G(0)y^2/2`$, $`\delta F(yd)\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s^1`$, $`\delta G(0)=m^2v^2/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$, $`\delta G(yd)0`$. Here the times $`\tau _s`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$ are defined according to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _s}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{v_0}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}W(r)𝑑r,`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2v_0^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{dW(r)}{dr}}.`$ (32)
As shown in MAW , these are exactly the expressions for the single-particle and the transport times in a long-range disorder. The times $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ are defined by the equations analogous to (31), (32) but with a substitution $`W\delta W`$.

Taking into account the boundary conditions (III) and integrating out the variables $`𝐑_\pm `$, we get the following expression for the fidelity

$$M(T)=\frac{d\rho _+d\rho _{}}{\sqrt{2\pi \sigma ^2}}e^{\frac{\rho _{}^2+\rho _+^2}{2\sigma ^2}}g(\rho _+,\rho _{};T)$$
(33)
The function $`g`$ entering (33) is determined by the $`\rho _\pm `$-part of the path integral, which can be reduced in the standard way to a differential equation:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\rho _+\rho _{}}}+𝒰(\rho _+,\rho _{})\right)g(\rho _+,\rho _{},t)`$
$`=\delta (t)\delta (\rho _{}).`$ (34)
The l.h.s. of this equation reduces to that of Eq.(36) in GM02  if the forward and backward evolution are performed in the same potential, $`\delta 𝒰=0`$ (the r.h.s. differs from GM02  because of different boundary conditions). The presence of $`\delta 𝒰`$ \[which enters the “potential energy” $`𝒰`$, see Eq. (III)\] in (III) is crucially important: otherwise the solution would be simply $`g(\rho _+,\rho _{},t)=\delta (\rho _{})`$ for any $`t>0`$, since the boundary condition in (III) is independent on $`\rho _+`$ and $`𝒰_0(\rho _+,0)=0`$. After a substitution into (33), this would lead to $`M(t)=1`$, which is the correct result in the absence of perturbation.

We have therefore reduced the problem of calculation of the Loschmidt echo in the ballistic time range to a solution of the kinetic equation (III). Let us consider the time evolution of the solution of Eq. (III). The initial value at $`t0`$ is $`g=\delta (\rho _{})`$, and as explained above, the time evolution is initially determined by the term $`\delta 𝒰`$ which induces a $`\rho _+`$ dependence of the solution. As a result, the distribution $`g`$ becomes quickly suppressed at $`\rho _+d`$ because

$$\delta 𝒰(\rho _+,0)\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s},\rho _+d.$$
(35)
Thus for $`\rho _+d`$ Eq. (III) reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}g+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s}}g=0,`$ (36)
which gives an exponential decay,

$$g\{\begin{array}{cc}\delta (\rho _{}),\hfill & \rho _+d\hfill \\ \delta (\rho _{})e^{2t/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s},\hfill & \rho _+d\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
Therefore, for $`t\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s`$ the function $`g`$ remains essentially non-vanishing only in the region $`\rho _+,\rho _{}d`$. In this region we can expand $`𝒰`$ up to the leading terms in $`\rho _+`$ and $`\rho _{}`$ and rewrite Eq. (III) in the form

$$\left(\frac{}{t}\frac{i}{m}\frac{^2}{\rho _+\rho _{}}+\frac{m^2}{\tau _L^3}\rho _+^2\rho _{}^2+\frac{2m^2v_0^2}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}}\rho _+^2\right)g=0.$$
(38)
We have introduced here a new time scale

$`\tau _L`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2m^2v_0}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{dW(r)}{dr}}\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ (39)
$``$ $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{l_{\mathrm{tr}}}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}.`$
As discussed below, $`\tau _L`$ is equal (up to a numerical coefficient) to the inverse Lyapunov exponent in the corresponding classical problem, and we will call it the Lyapunov time.

At the early stage of the evolution, characteristic values of $`\rho _{}`$ are small, and the $`\rho _+^2\rho _{}^2`$ term in (38) is small compared to the $`\rho _{}^2`$ term. More specifically, at $`t\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s`$ we have $`\rho _{}\stackrel{~}{l}_s/(p_0d)`$, so that the condition for neglecting the quartic term in this time range is $`l_L\stackrel{~}{l}_s`$, where $`l_L=v_0\tau _L`$ is the Lyapunov length. We will assume in the sequel that this condition is fulfilled note1 . Thus, Eq. (III) reduces to

$$\left(\frac{}{t}\frac{i}{m}\frac{^2}{\rho _+\rho _{}}+\frac{2m^2v_0^2}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}}\rho _+^2\right)g=0.$$
(40)
Performing further a Fourier transformation $`\rho _+i(mv_0)^1/\varphi `$, $`/\rho _+imv_0\varphi `$, we cast Eq. (III) into the following form

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+v_0\varphi \frac{}{\rho _{}}\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}}\frac{^2}{\varphi ^2}\right)g=0.$$
(41)
Remarkably, Eq. (41) has a meaning of the Boltzmann kinetic equation for the phase-space distribution function describing the motion in the transverse direction characterized by the coordinate $`\rho _{}`$, with $`v_0\varphi `$ playing the role of the corresponding velocity. This clarify the meaning of $`\varphi `$ (and explains the notation): it is the angle the velocity vector makes with the $`||`$ axis. (We remind that we are considering ballistic time scales, so that $`\varphi 1`$) The last term in (41) plays the role of a collision integral and describes a diffusion process for the velocity angle. Solution of this equation is a Gaussian packet

$$g(\varphi ,\rho _{})=\frac{\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{\tau }}{2mv_0^2t^2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left(\frac{3\varphi \rho _{}}{v_0t}\frac{3\rho _{}^2}{(v_0t)^2}\varphi ^2\right)\frac{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}}{2t}\right\}.$$

Transforming back to the variable $`\rho _+`$, we get

$$g(\rho _+,\rho _{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\rho _{}^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^2}\frac{\rho _+^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^2}+2i\sqrt{3}\frac{\rho _+\rho _{}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}}\right\},$$

where

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2v_0t}{\sqrt{3}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2t}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}}}\right)^{1/2},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{mv_0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}}{2t}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (42)
For the phase-space distribution function $`g(\varphi ,\rho _{},)`$ the quantities $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^1`$ play the role of widths of the distribution with respect to the coordinate $`\rho _{}`$ and the momentum $`mv_0\varphi `$, respectively.

To simplify calculations, we will neglect the cross-correlations between $`\rho _+`$ and $`\rho _{}`$ (this will only influence a numerical prefactor in $`M(t)`$, which is of minor importance here) and assume that $`g`$ has the form

$`g(\rho _+,\rho _{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{}^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _+^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_+^2}}\right\}.`$ (43)
We will see that this form of $`g`$ will preserve during the further evolution of the distribution.

The characteristic values of $`\rho _{}`$ are increasing proportionally to $`t^{3/2}`$. Eventually, the neglected third (quartic) term in Eq. (38) becomes comparable to the fourth one. Using the result (III) for the characteristic value $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(t)`$ of $`\rho _{}`$, it is easy to see that this happens at $`t=\tau _L`$. At $`t>\tau _L`$ the fourth term dominates, and equation (38) takes the form

$$\left(\frac{}{t}\frac{i}{m}\frac{^2}{\rho _+\rho _{}}+\frac{m^2}{\tau _L^3}\rho _+^2\rho _{}^2\right)g=0.$$
(44)
After the Fourier transformation from $`\rho _+`$ to $`\varphi `$, the last term takes the form $`(m^2/\tau _L^3)^2g/\varphi ^2`$ and describes a diffusion process for the angle $`\varphi `$ with the diffusion coefficient proportional to to the coordinate $`\rho _{}`$. This is exactly the kinetic equation for the disorder-averaged distribution function $`g(\varphi ,\rho _{})`$ of phase-space separations between two classical paths aleiner96 ; GM02 . It leads to an exponential increase of the width of the distribution function $`g(\rho _{},\varphi )`$ with a rate given by the Lyapunov exponent $`\tau _L^1`$. Thus in this Lyapunov regime we have

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(t)`$ $``$ $`v_0\tau _L\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau _L}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{c{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau _L}}\right\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(t)`$ $``$ $`\lambda _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}}{\tau _L}}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{c{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau _L}}\right\},`$ (45)
where $`c`$ is a numerical coefficient of order unity.

Let us emphasize a highly non-trivial character of the emergence of a classical kinetic equation. Indeed, we consider a random potential for which each scattering act is of a quantum (diffractive) nature and can not be described classically. It is only after the disorder averaging that the classical kinetics is restored.

The Lyapunov regime breaks down when the width $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ reaches the correlation length $`d`$, i.e. at $`\tau _E^{}=(\tau _L/c)\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}/\tau _{\mathrm{tr}})`$. This time plays a role analogous to the Ehrenfest time but only depends on classical parameters (if one assumes that the perturbation $`\delta U`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{}`$).

When $`t>\tau _E^{}`$, so that $`\rho _{}d`$, we can use another asymptote of the “potential” $`𝒰(\rho _+,\rho _{})|_{\rho _{}d}=2m^2v_0^2\rho _+^2/\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$. This leads to an equation very similar to Eq. (40) but with $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$ replaced by $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$. Therefore, in analogy with (III), we have again a power-law dependence of the distribution widths,

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(t)`$ $``$ $`v_0t\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}}\right)^{1/2},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(t)`$ $``$ $`\lambda _0\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}{t}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (46)
For times larger than $`t_E^{}`$ all the calculations can also be performed using the diagrammatic technique for ballistic systems. This is because four trajectories, which were coupled all together into a “4-diffuson” by disorder correlations in the Lyapunov regime, split now in two conventional ballistic-diffusons separated by a distance $`d`$ aleiner96 ; GM02 .

Having got the solution $`g`$ of the kinetic equation in all the regimes of interest, we can calculate the fidelity $`M(t)`$. Substituting (43) into Eq. (33), we get

$`M(T)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{min}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(T),\sigma )}{\text{max}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(T),\sigma )}}.`$ (47)
Thus, two additional time scales may become significant when we consider the fidelity: $`\tau _{\sigma +}`$, which is defined by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(\tau _{\sigma +})=\sigma `$, and $`\tau _\sigma `$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(\tau _\sigma )=\sigma `$. Position of these time scales with respect to main characteristic times ($`\tau _L`$, $`\tau _E^{}`$, $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$) depends on the width $`\sigma `$ of the initial state. As an example, we choose $`d<\sigma <l_{\mathrm{tr}}`$. In this case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+<\sigma `$ for all times $`t>\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s`$, so that the scale $`\tau _{\sigma +}`$ does not arise, and $`\tau _E^{}<\tau _\sigma <\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$. The order of all characteristic scales on the time axis is illustrated in Fig. 7.

We mention for completeness that there is one more characteristic time $`\tau _{\sigma ||}`$ located between $`\tau _\sigma `$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$. At this time, the approximation (25) of straight motion in the coordinate $`𝐑_+`$ loses its validity. This leads to an additional factor $`\sigma /\mathrm{max}\{\sigma ,\mathrm{\Sigma }_{||}\}`$ in the expression for $`M(t)`$, where

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{||}`$ $``$ $`vt{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}}`$ (48)
characterizes longitudinal fluctuations of $`𝐑_+`$. There is thus an additional crossover inside the ballistic-diagrammatics regime, which takes place at a time $`\tau _{\sigma ||}`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{||}(\tau _{\sigma ||})=\sigma `$.

We are now prepared to summarize the results of this section and to give a list of all the regimes of behavior of the fidelity. We have found as much as 6 essentially different regimes (as illustrated in Fig. 7), one of them (the ballistic diffusion) splits up into three subregimes with different power-law behavior. We list the regimes in the order they appear as the time increases:

1. Perfect echo regime, $`t\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s`$.

At such short times the perturbation is essentially irrelevant, and $`M(t)1`$.
2. Golden rule regime, $`t<\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s\mathrm{ln}(\sigma /d)`$.

Substituting Eq. (37) into (33) we get the exponential decay,

$$M(t)=e^{2t/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s}.$$
(49)
3. Power-law “pre-Lyapunov inflation” regime, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s\mathrm{ln}(\sigma /d)<t<\tau _L`$.

Substituting Eq. (III) into (47) we get

$$M(t)\frac{d}{\sigma }\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s}{t}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(50)
This behavior of the fidelity is related to a power-law spreading of classical trajectories in this regime due to the “ballistic diffusion” in the perturbation potential $`\delta U`$.
4. Lyapunov regime, $`\tau _L<t<\tau _E^{}`$.

Combining (III) and (47), we get an exponential decay of the Loschmidt echo determined by the classical Lyapunov exponent,

$$M(t)\frac{d}{\sigma }\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s}{\tau _L}\right)^{1/2}e^{ct/\tau _L}.$$
(51)
5. “Ballistic diffusion” regime, $`\tau _E^{}<t<\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$.

This regime characterized by a power-law behavior of the fidelity is further subdivided into three sub-regimes:

1. $`\tau _E^{}<t<\tau _\sigma `$. Using (47), (III) and noticing that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ is still smaller than $`\sigma `$ in this time range, we find

    $$M(t)\frac{1}{p_0\sigma }\left(\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}{t}\right)^{1/2}.$$
    (52)
    2. $`\tau _\sigma <t<\tau _{\sigma ||}`$. The only difference compared to the previous case is that now $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}>\sigma `$, yielding

    $$M(t)\frac{1}{p_0l_{\mathrm{tr}}}\left(\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}{t}\right)^2.$$
    (53)
    3. $`\tau _{\sigma ||}<t<\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$. In this regime fluctuations in the motion in the parallel direction also become important, see the text around Eq. (48), with the result

    $`M(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{p_0l_{\mathrm{tr}}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}{t}}\right)^4.`$ (54)
6. Conventional diffusion regime, $`t>\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}`$.

In this regime the nature of disorder (short-range vs. long-range) is irrelevant, and the result (19) derived in Sec. II is applicable,

$$M(t)\frac{\sigma }{p_0l_{\mathrm{tr}}^2}\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}}{t}.$$
(55)

We would like to remind that the ordering of relevant time scales in Fig. 7 depends on the microscopic parameters of the problem. We have considered the most interesting case ($`\stackrel{~}{l}_sl_L`$ and $`d<\sigma <l_{\mathrm{tr}}`$), when all possible regimes are developed. For other choices of parameters, some of the regimes may disappear (see, in particular, the footnote note1 ).

## IV Conclusions

In this paper, we have studied the Loschmidt echo (or, in a different terminology, the fidelity), which characterizes the sensitivity of a quantum system to an external perturbation, in a model with a weak quantum random potential. Using the diagrammatic approach, we have shown that at short times the fidelity decays exponentially with the rate $`2/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s`$ set by the golden rule, while its long-time asymptotics is of power-law type and is determined by the diffusive nature of the dynamics on this time scale. For a sufficiently long-range disorder a time range emerges where the diagrammatics becomes inapplicable due to merging of two ballistic diffusons into a more complicated “4-diffuson”. To study the fidelity in this regime, we have applied a quasiclassical (path integral) approach. This allowed us to express the disorder-averaged fidelity in terms of a solution of a quasiclassical evolution equation, see Eqs. (33) and (III). On time scales larger than $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_s`$ this equation takes a form of the kinetic equation for the distribution function $`g(\varphi _,\rho _{})`$ of phase-space separations between two classical paths (one of which is subject to the perturbation). Solving the kinetic equation, we find several additional regimes of behavior of the Loschmidt echo, separating the short-time golden-rule decay from the long-time diffusive asymptotics. In particular, there arises a “Lyapunov regime”, where the fidelity decays exponentially with a rate governed by the classical Lyapunov exponent.

It is worth mentioning that our path-integral calculation of the fidelity is closely connected to the analysis of quantum interference effects in a long-range disorder performed in aleiner96 ; GM02 . In particular, after the Fourier transformation $`\rho _+\varphi `$ our evolution equation (38) has the same form as the equation describing the “Hikami box” in aleiner96  (after averaging over the smooth random potential). This is a remarkable agreement, since the methods used are essentially different: Aleiner and Larkin aleiner96  work in a given realization of a random potential (which assumes that the potential is classical, i.e. the condition opposite to Eq. (2) is fulfilled), while we consider the case of a diffractive scattering \[Eq. (2)\] and perform all calculations for disorder-averaged quantities. There is, however, an important difference between the equations obtained. Specifically, in our case the last term of Eq. (38) (which is proportional to $`1/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$) is due to the difference $`\delta U`$ between the Hamiltonians for the forward and the backward propagation. On the other hand, the authors of Ref. aleiner96  add “by hand” a term of exactly the same type (with a certain time $`\tau _q`$ replacing our $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}`$) for a problem without any perturbation $`\delta U`$, arguing that it mimics a small-angle diffraction in the system. To our opinion, this justification is questionable (at least, for a system with a weak smooth disorder). Indeed, in this case all scattering processes determining the transport in the system are of diffractive type and are taken into account in our approach. There is thus no freedom to add an additional “diffractive” term to the kinetic equation. We thus believe that the Hikami box is described by an equation without such term (i.e. analogous to our equations (III), (38) in the absence of perturbation, $`\delta 𝒰,\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{\mathrm{tr}}^1=0`$) but with appropriate boundary conditions. While this will probably not affect the main results of Ref. aleiner96  (depending only logarithmically on $`\tau _q`$), such a more consistent treatment of the quasiclassical Hikami box note2  would be of conceptual importance for the theory of quantum interference effects in systems with large-scale inhomogeneities. We leave this issue as an open problem for the future research.

## V Acknowledgments

Discussions with B. Shapiro are gratefully acknowledged. This work was supported by the SFB195 der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinshaft, by the German-Israeli Foundation and by the RFBR.

A part of this work was done when two of us (I.V.G. and A.D.M.) participated in the program “Chaos and Interactions: from Nuclei to Quantum Dots” of the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington, Seattle. We thank the Institute for Nuclear Theory for hospitality and partial support.


format: text

text:
# Higher order addition laws on Abelian varieties and the fractional quantum Hall effect

## 1. Introduction

As is well known, classical addition formulas for theta functions are formulas of degree two. In this paper we prove addition formulas of arbitrary degree for theta functions. The explicit generalized addition formulas are stated in 2.5 and 2.6 and the main ingredients in the proof are the cube theorem and the isogeny theorem of Mumford ( and  ).

We apply these results to offer a formulation of the fractional quantum Hall effect in a multi-layer many-electron system and possible generalizations. In the study of the ordinary quantum Hall effect under periodic conditions (), the basic geometric object is an algebraic torus

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{𝐂}{𝐙+\tau 𝐙},$$

and study of the isogeny

$$\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N,x_1x_2,\mathrm{},x_1x_N)$$

determines the change of coordinates from one-particle to center-of-mass and relative coordinates in the space of wave functions of the system. The change from one-particle coordinates, $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$, to center-of-mass and relative coordinates, $`(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N,x_1x_2,\mathrm{},x_1x_N)`$ is crucial in the definition of the Laughlin wave function describing the ground state of the FQHE on the complex plane. On the algebraic torus, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, this change of coordinates becomes the isogeny mentioned above. In the second quantization formalism, to extend the Laughlin variational principle for the fractional quantum Hall effect to the periodic case thus requires the use of generalized addition formulas for elliptic theta functions, see .

The goal of this work is generalize this construction to an arbitrary algebraic torus of dimension g $`X=\frac{𝐂}{𝐙^g+\tau 𝐙^g}`$ ( where $`\tau =(\tau _{ij}`$ is a complex $`g\times g`$ symmetric matrix with the imaginary part positive definite). From a physical point of view, this means that we are considering a system of many electrons moving on g two-dimensional layers with different periodic conditions defined by the period matrix $`\tau _{ij}`$. As in our earlier paper  , we are naturally lead to study the isogenies

$$\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N,x_1x_2,\mathrm{},x_1x_N).$$

The behaviour of the global sections of some line bundles over $`X^N`$ under the isogeny $`\phi _N`$ will determine the vector space of wave functions of the system of electrons under the generalized periodic conditions . This behaviour and the link between wave functions depending either on $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ or $`(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N,x_1x_2,\mathrm{},x_1x_N)`$ is completely described by the generalized addition formulas. We thus obtain a complete description of the space of wave functions of the FQH effect in a multi-layer two-dimensional electron system. In fact, in the real physical situation it suffices to consider a diagonal period matrix $`\tau `$, unless tunnel effects between different layers are taken into account, see (  ).

Having done this , we also consider the Fourier-Mukai transform of some line bundles over $`X^N`$ determined by the generalized Haldane-Rezayi wave functions and the semi-stability of these transforms. We show how the slope of these bundles is related to the Hall conductivity, which therefore appears as a topological invariant. There is an isomorphism between the Fourier-Mukai transforms for any number of electrons N and, thus, the Hall conductivity depends only on the center-of-mass dynamics characterized by the Haldane-Rezayi states.

The organization of the paper is as follows: In Section §.2, we show the main theorems and establish the generalized addition formulas for Abelian varieties. In Section §.3, the vector spaces for the quantum ground states are constructed in terms of higher order odd theta functions. Section §.4 is devoted to studing the Fourier-Mukai transform of the line bundles over $`X^N`$ related to the quantum vector spaces. In Section §.5, all these developments are applied to the analysis of the fractional quantum Hall effect in multi-layer periodic electron systems. Finally, in Section §.6 a comparison with the physics literature is offered and some obscure points are clarified.

## 2. Generalized addition formulas for abelian varieties

Let $`X`$ be an abelian variety of dimension $`g`$ over the field $``$ of complex numbers. Let us define the following family of morphisms:

$`M(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ $`=x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N`$
$`m_{ij}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ $`=x_i+x_j`$
$`s_{ij}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ $`=x_ix_j`$
will be the natural projections.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Generalized Cube Theorem

For any symmetric invertible sheaf $`L`$ on $`X`$ one has a natural isomorphism:

$$M^{}L\left(\underset{i<j}{}m_{ij}^{}L\right)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^{}L^{N+2}\right)$$

###### Proof 2.1.

This follows from the cube theorem, , and induction over $`N`$.

###### Corollary 2.2.

For any symmetric invertible sheaf $`L`$ over $`X`$, one has a natural isomorphism:

$$M^{}L\left(\underset{i<j}{}s_{ij}^{}L\right)p_1^{}L^N\mathrm{}p_N^{}L^N$$

###### Proof 2.2.

By the Theorem 2.1 one has:

$$M^{}L\left(\underset{i<j}{}s_{ij}^{}L\right)\underset{i<j}{}\left(m_{ij}^{}Ls_{ij}^{}L\right)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^{}L^{N+2}\right)$$

Let us denote by the projection on the factors $`(i,j)`$ and by $`\text{}(i=1,2)`$ the natural projections. One has:

$$m_{ij}^{}Ls_{ij}^{}Lp_{ij}^{}\left(\xi ^{}\left(\pi _1^{}L\pi _2^{}L\right)\right)p_{ij}^{}\left(\pi _1^{}L^2\pi _2^{}L^2\right)$$

where is the morphism: $`\xi (x,y)=(x+y,xy)`$

We therefore have:

$`M^{}L\left({\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}s_{ij}^{}L\right)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}p_{ij}^{}\left(\pi _1^{}L^2\pi _2^{}L^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i^{}L^{N+2}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\left(p_i^{}L^2p_j^{}L^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i^{}L^{N+2}\right){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i^{}L^N`$
Let us consider the morphism of Abelian varieties:

$`\xi _N:X\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times X`$ $`X\times \stackrel{𝑟}{\mathrm{}}\times X\left(r={\displaystyle \frac{N\left(N1\right)}{2}}+1\right)`$
$`(x_1,\mathrm{}.,x_n)`$ $`(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N,x_1x_2,\mathrm{},x_{N1}x_N)`$
By Corollary 2.2 one has an isomorphism:

$$\xi _N^{}\left(p_1^{}L\mathrm{}p_r^{}L\right)M^{}L\left(\underset{i<j}{}s_{ij}^{}L\right)p_1^{}L^N\mathrm{}p_r^{}L^N$$

which induces a homomorphism between the vector spaces of global sections:

$$\xi _N^{}:H^0(X,L)\stackrel{𝑟}{\mathrm{}}H^0(X,L)H^0(X,L^N)\stackrel{𝑟}{\mathrm{}}H^0(X,L^N)$$

For applications to the study of the quantum Hall effect under periodic conditions, it is very important to compute explicitly the homomorphism $`\xi _N^{}`$(see  and the last Section of this paper).

Observe that the kernel of $`\xi _N`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }(X_N)`$, where $`X_N`$ is the $`N`$torsion subgroup of $`X`$ and is the diagonal immersion.

The morphism $`\xi _N`$ factors as follows:

$$\xi _N=i\varphi _N$$

Let us set $`=\left(p_1^{}L\stackrel{𝑟}{\mathrm{}}p_r^{}L\right).`$

One has that $`\varphi _N^{}_{|_Y}=M^{}L\left(_{i<j}s_{ij}^{}L\right)=_N.`$

We can now consider the morphism:

$$\phi (x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N,x_1x_2,\mathrm{},x_1x_N)$$

and define an invertible sheaf $`_N`$ on $`Z`$ by:

$$_N=(p_1^{}L\mathrm{}p_N^{}L)(s_{ij}^{}L)$$

One has a commutative diagram:

$`\pi _{1\mathrm{}N}`$ being the projection on the $`N`$ first factors. $`\pi _{1\mathrm{}N}`$ induces an isomorphism such that:

$$\pi _{1\mathrm{}N}^{}_N\text{ and }\xi _N^{}=\phi _N^{}_N_N.$$

But $`\phi _N`$ is an isogeny of kernel $`\mathrm{\Delta }(X_N)`$ and the problem of computing the homomorphism $`\xi _N^{}`$ is reduced to computing the homomorphism:

To compute this homomorphism, we can apply the Mumford theory of algebraic theta functions, .

To make explicit computations, let us fix a principal polarization (p.p.) $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on the abelian variety $`X`$, and assume that $`L=𝒪_X\left(m\mathrm{\Theta }\right)`$; then, one has that $`_{i=1}^Np_i^{}𝒪_X(N.m\mathrm{\Theta }).`$

For any invertible sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, let us denote by $`K()`$ the subgroup of $`X`$ which leaves $``$ invariant under translations ($`K()=xX:T_x^{}`$) and by $`𝒢()`$ the theta-group of $``$.

In our case, one has:

$$K(L)=X_m=\text{ subgroup of }m\text{-torsion points of }X$$

$$K(L^N)=X_{N.m}\text{ and }K(L)=NK(L^N)X_{N.m}$$

The isomorphism $`\phi ^{}_N_N`$ implies that:

$$K\left(_N\right)=K\left(L^N\right)\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times K\left(L^N\right)=X_{Nm}\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times X_{Nm}K\left(_N\right)X_m\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times X_m$$

For any invertible sheaf $`L=𝒪_X(D)`$ on an Abelian variety $`X`$ of dimension $`g`$, let us denote by $`\mathrm{deg}(L)`$ the number $`D^g`$.

###### Proposition 2.3.

$$|K(_N)|=N^{2(N2)g}m^{2Ng}$$

$$\mathrm{deg}_N=(Ng)!N^{(N2)g}m^{Ng}$$

###### Proof 2.3.

Observe that $`\mathrm{ker}\phi _N=\mathrm{\Delta }(X_N)X_N`$. One then has that

$$\mathrm{deg}\phi _N^{}_N=\mathrm{deg}\phi _N^{}\mathrm{deg}_N=N^{2g}_N$$

and

$$\mathrm{deg}\phi _N^{}_N=(Ng)!N^{Ng}m^{Ng}$$

Therefore: $`\mathrm{deg}_N=(Ng)!N^{(N2)g}m^{Ng}.`$

The structure of the group $`K(_N)`$ is given by the following theorem:

###### Theorem 2.4.

$`K(_N)`$ is the subgroup of points $`\phi _N(p)=(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N,x_1x_2,\mathrm{},x_1x_N)X\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times X`$ such that: $`p=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)X_{Nm}\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times X_{Nm}`$ and $`x_1+\mathrm{}+x_NX_m`$.

In particular, $`K(_N)`$ has subgroups isomorphic to $`X_N\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times X_N`$ given by:

(with respect to the natural immersion $`X_m=NX_{Nm}X_{mN}`$) and :

###### Proof 2.4.

Let $`\widehat{X}=\mathrm{Pic}^0(X)`$ be the dual abelian variety. From the exact sequence:

one deduces the existence of the following dual exact sequence:

which means that given a point $`p=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)K(_N)`$, one has:

$$T_{\varphi (p)}^{}_N_N^1p_1^{}M\mathrm{}p_N^{}M$$

for a certain invertible sheaf $`M`$ of degree zero on $`X`$. By restricting this equality to $`X\times \{e\}\times \mathrm{}\{e\}`$ we compute $`M`$ and obtain the following isomorphism:

$$T_{\varphi (p)}^{}_N_N^1p_1^{}\left(T_{x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N}^{}LL^1\right)\mathrm{}p_N^{}\left(T_{x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N}^{}LL^1\right)$$

Then, $`T_{\varphi (p)}^{}_N_N`$ if and only if $`x_1+\mathrm{}+x_NX_m`$. The rest of the theorem follows easily from this result.

###### Remark 2.1.

We have constructed two subgroups, $`X_m\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times X_m`$ and $`X_N\times \stackrel{N2}{\mathrm{}}\times X_N`$ of $`K(_N)`$. Thus if $`(m,N)=1`$, a general element of $`K(_N)`$ has the form:

$$(y_1,y_2x_2,\mathrm{},y_{N1}x_{N1},y_N+x_2+\mathrm{}+x_{N_1})$$

where $`(y_1,\mathrm{},y_N)X_m^N`$ and $`(x_2,\mathrm{},x_{N1}X_N^{N2}).`$

Let us fix compatible theta-structures ( ) on $`L`$ and $`L^N`$. These theta-structures induce compatible theta-structures on $`_N`$ and $`_N`$ and decompositions:

$`K(L)A(L)\times B(L),A(L)(/m)^g`$
$`K(L^NA(L^N)\times B(L^N),A(L^N)(/mN)^g`$
$`K(_N)A(L^N)^N\times B(L^N)^N`$
$`K(_N)A(_N)\times B(_N)`$
where $`B(_N)B(L^N)^N`$, and by Theorem 2.4 one has:

$$B(L)^NB(_N),mB(L^N)^{N2}B(_N)$$

$$B(L)^N=N.B(L^N)^N$$

in such a way that $`B(_N)`$ is the subgroup of $`B(L^N)^N`$ generated by $`m.B(L^N)^{N2}`$ and $`N.B(L^N)^N`$.

We have natural isomorphisms :

$`H^0(X,L)=V_m=\{\text{functions}\text{}\}`$
$`H^0(X,L^N)=V_{Nm}=\{\text{functions}\text{}\}`$
For each $`dB(L)`$, let $`\delta _d`$ be the global section of $`L`$ defined by the characteristic function of $`d`$, and for each $`bB(L^N)`$ let $`\delta _b`$ be the corresponding global section of $`L^N`$.

Observe that $`H^0(Z,_N)`$ is a $``$-vector space of dimension $`N^{(N2)g}m^{Ng}`$ and $`H^0(Z,_N)`$ is a $``$-vector space of dimension $`N^{Ng}m^{Ng}`$. The following result give us an explicit description of the homomorphism:

###### Theorem 2.5.

Let us assume that $`L`$ and $`L^N`$ have compatible theta-structures satisfying the above conditions. For each $`dB(_N)`$ one has:

$$\phi _N^{}(\delta _d)=\lambda \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{bB\left(_N\right)}{f\left(b\right)=d}}{}\delta _d$$

where $`\lambda `$ is a constant which we will assume to be equal to 1.

###### Proof 2.5.

This follows from the isogeny theorem,  and .

This result allow us to give more explicit expressions for $`\phi _N^{}`$.

Given $`d=(d_1,\mathrm{},d_n)NB(L)^N=[(/m)^g]^NB(_N)`$, let us denote by $`\delta _d`$ the element:

$$\delta _d=\delta _{d_1}\mathrm{}\delta _{d_N}(_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i>j}{j2}}}s_{ij}^{}\delta _{d_id_j})H^0(Z,_N)$$

and for each $`h=(0,h_2,\mathrm{},h_{N1},h_2+\mathrm{}+h_{N1})[(/m)^g]^{N2}B(_N)`$ we denote by $`\delta _h`$ the corresponding global section of $`_N`$.

With these notations one has:

###### Proposition 2.6.

1. $`\phi _N^{}(\delta _d)`$ $`=\theta [d_1](x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N){\displaystyle \underset{j2}{}}\theta [d_j](x_1x_j){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i>j}{j2}}{}}\theta [d_id_j](x_ix_j)`$
$`=\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_iB\left(L^N\right)}{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_1+\mathrm{}+b_N=d_1}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_1b_2=d_2}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}}{b_1b_N=d_N}}}}}}{}}\theta [b_1](x_1)\theta [b_2](x_2)\mathrm{}\theta [b_N](x_N)`$
$`\theta [b_i](x_i)`$ being the global section of $`L^N`$ defined by $`\delta _{b_i}`$ (in the i-th component of $`X^N`$) and $`\theta [d_i](z)`$ the global section of $`L`$ defined by $`\delta _{d_i}`$.
2. $`\phi _N^{}\left(\delta _h\right)=`$ $`\theta _h(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N,x_1x_2,\mathrm{},x_1x_N)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_iB\left(L^N\right)}{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_1+\mathrm{}+b_N=0}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_1b_2=h_2}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_1b_{N1}=h_{N1}}{b_1b_N=h_2+\mathrm{}+h_N}}}}}}}{}}\theta \left[b_1\right]\left(x_1\right)\theta \left[b_2\right]\left(x_2\right)\mathrm{}\theta \left[b_N\right]\left(x_N\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{(b_1,\mathrm{},b_N)}{}}(\theta \left[b_1\right]\left(x_1\right)\theta [b_2+h_2]\left(x_2\right)\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}\theta [b_{N_1}+h_{N1}]\left(x_{N1}\right)\theta [b_Nh_2\mathrm{}h_{N1}]\left(x_N\right))`$

where $`(b_1,\mathrm{},b_N)\mathrm{ker}(\text{}`$ and in both formulae $`\lambda `$ is a constant independent of $`d`$ and $`h`$.

###### Proof 2.6.

This follows easily from Theorem 2.5 and the description of $`K(_N)`$.

###### Remark 2.2.

In the case $`(m,N)=1`$, a general element of $`B(_N)`$ takes the form:

$$d=(d_1,d_2h_2,\mathrm{},d_{N1}h_{N1},d_N+h_2+\mathrm{}+h_{N1})$$

where $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_N)B(L)^N`$ and $`(h_2,\mathrm{},d_{N1})[(/N)^g]^{N2}`$, and the general addition formula is:

$`\phi _N^{}(\delta _h)`$ $`=\theta _h(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N,x_1x_2,\mathrm{},x_1x_N)`$
$`=\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_iB\left(L^N\right)}{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_1+\mathrm{}+b_N=d_1}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_1b_2=d_2h_2}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_1b_{N1}=d_{N1}h_{N1}}{b_1b_N=d_N+h_2+\mathrm{}+h_N}}}}}}}{}}\theta [b_1](x_1)\theta [b_2](x_2)\mathrm{}\theta [b_N](x_N)`$
###### Remark 2.3.

We have explicitly computed the homomorphism of vector spaces . If we wish to compute:

let us note that we have the commutative diagram:

and we have:

$$K()X_m^r,K()YK(_{|_Y})K(_N)$$

$$K()YX_m\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times X_m$$

From these identities one can easily prove that the vector subspace $`\xi _N^{}H^0(X^r,)H^0(Z,_N)`$ can be identified with the subspace generated by the global sections $`\{\phi _N^{}(\delta _d)\}`$ defined in 2.6.(a) .

## 3. Vector spaces of higher order odd theta functions

We shall apply the results of the first section to compute some vector spaces of theta functions which are relevant in the study of the fractional quantum Hall effect, ( for a similar discussion for elliptic curves see ) .

Following the same notations as in the previous section, let us set an invertible sheaf $`L_m=𝒪_X(m\mathrm{\Theta })`$ on the principally polarized Abelian variety $`(X,\mathrm{\Theta })`$ of dimension $`g`$.

Let us assume that $`k=mN`$ and let $`L_k`$ be the invertible sheaf $`𝒪_X(k\mathrm{\Theta })`$; on $`X\times \stackrel{𝑟}{\mathrm{}}\times X=Z`$ we consider the invertible sheaf:

$$_N=p_1^{}L_k\mathrm{}P_N^{}L_kp_1^{}L_k^N\mathrm{}P_N^{}L_k^N$$

Let us define the vector subspace $`E_k(N)H^0(Z,_N)`$ by the following conditions:

$$sE_k(N)s\text{ is invariant with respect to the action of the }N\text{-torsion subgroup }\mathrm{\Delta }(X_N)Z\text{ and is odd with respect to the permutations acting on }H^0(Z,_N)=H^0(X,L_k)\mathrm{}H^0(X,L_k)$$

Let us set $`V_m=H^0(X,L_m)`$ and $`V_k=H^0(X,L_k)`$. By the very definition, one has that:

$$E_k(N)=\stackrel{N}{}V_k\mathrm{Im}\phi _N^{}V_k\stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}V_k$$

where is the addition homomorphism defined in the last section.

Note that the factorization $`\phi _N^{}=\pi _{1\mathrm{}N}\xi _N`$ implies that:

$$E_k^0(N)=\stackrel{N}{}V_k\mathrm{Im}\xi _N^{}E_k(N)V_k^N$$

Let $`E_i^\pm H^0(Z,_N)`$ be the subspaces of eigenvectors of the automorphism on $`H^0(Z,_N)`$ induced by $`\text{},\sigma _i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_i,\mathrm{},x_N)`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

There exists a natural isomorphism:

$$E_k(N)\phi _N^{}H^0(Z,_N)_{}$$

$`H^0(Z,_N)_{}`$ being the vector subspace of $`H^0(Z,_N)`$ defined as the intersection of the vector subspaces $`E_i^{}`$ with $`i>1`$.

###### Proof 3.1.

This is easy from the equality $`E_k(N)=^NV_k\mathrm{Im}\phi _N^{}`$.

We can give a more explicit description of the subspace $`E_k^0(N)`$.

From the Remark 2.3 , it follows that $`\mathrm{Im}\xi _N^{}`$ is the vector subspace of $`H^0(Z,_N)`$ described in Proposition 2.6.

Let $`V_m^\pm `$ be the subspaces of eigenvectors of $`V_m`$ with respect to the action of the involution $`\text{}([1]_X(x)=x)`$. Then, we have:

###### Proposition 3.2.

$$E_k^0(N)=\phi _N^{}(V_mV_m^{}\stackrel{N1}{\mathrm{}}V_m^{})$$

###### Proof 3.2.

One has only to observe that $`\mathrm{Im}\xi _N^{}`$ is naturally identified with $`V_m\stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}V_m`$.

In our interpretation of the FQHE, the vector subspace $`E_k^0(N)`$ is the space of wave functions of a system of $`N`$ electrons.

## 4. Poincaré bundles and Fourier-Mukai transforms

Let $`(X,\mathrm{\Theta })`$ be a p.p.a.v. of dimension $`g`$ and $`\widehat{X}`$ its dual Abelian variety. Let $`𝒫`$ be a Poincaré bundle on $`X\times \widehat{X}`$; $`𝒫`$ is the line bundle on $`X\times \widehat{X}`$ given by the universal property of $`\widehat{X}`$.

Given an invertible sheaf $`L_m𝒪_X(m\mathrm{\Theta })`$ on $`X`$ (with $`m>0`$), we can construct the invertible sheaf on $`X\times \widehat{X}`$:

$$_m=\pi _X^{}L_m𝒫$$

where and are the natural projections.

The Fourier-Mukai transform of $`L_m`$ is ( see  and  for details):

$$S(L_m)=\pi _{\widehat{X}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\pi _X^{}L𝒫\right)=\pi _{\widehat{X}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}_m$$

It is well known that $`S(L_m)`$ is a rank $`m^g`$ vector bundle on $`\widehat{X}`$.

We can interpret $`_m`$ as the family of line bundles over $`X`$, parametrized by $`\widehat{X}`$, which are algebraically equivalent to $`L_m`$.

If we wish to generalize the results of Section.1 to the case of a “variable line bundle” $`L_m`$, we must perform the base change and replace $`L_m`$ by $`_m`$.

We can then define on $`Z\times \widehat{X}`$ the following line bundles:

$`\stackrel{~}{_N}=\overline{M}^{}_m\left({\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\overline{s}_{ij}^{}_m\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{_N}=\left(\overline{p}_1^{}_m\mathrm{}\overline{p}_N^{}_m\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i>j}{j2}}{}}\overline{s}_{ij}^{}_m\right)`$
where $`\overline{M}`$ and $`\overline{s}_{ij}`$ are the morphisms defined by: $`\overline{M}=M\times \mathrm{Id}_{\widehat{X}},\overline{s}_{ij}=s_{ij}\times \mathrm{Id}_{\widehat{X}}`$ and are the natural projections.

Defining as $`\overline{\phi }_N=\phi _N\times \mathrm{Id}_{\widehat{X}}`$ we have that:

$$\overline{\phi }_N^{}\stackrel{~}{_N}\stackrel{~}{_N}$$

and Corollary 2.2 implies that:

$$\overline{\phi }_N^{}\stackrel{~}{_N}\stackrel{~}{_N}\overline{p}_1^{}_m^N\mathrm{}\overline{p}_N^{}_m^N\pi _{\widehat{X}}^{}F$$

for some invertible sheaf $`F`$ on $`\widehat{X}`$.

Bearing in mind the applications to the FQHE, we are mainly interested in the bundles:

$$W_N(L_m)=\pi _{\widehat{X}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(M^{}_m)=\pi _{\widehat{X}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\overline{M}^{}\left(\pi _X^{}L_m𝒫\right)\right)$$

which describe the dynamics of the center of mass.

Our main result on the structure of $`W_N(L_m)`$ is as follows:

###### Theorem 4.1.

For every $`N>0`$ and $`m>0`$, $`W_N(L_m)`$ are vector bundles over $`\widehat{X}`$ of rank $`m^g`$. These vector bundles are semistable with respect to the principal polarization $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ induced by $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on $`\widehat{X}`$. Moreover, for every $`N2`$, there exist natural isomorphisms .

###### Proof 4.1.

Proof of the existence of isomorphisms is the same as the proof given in the case of elliptic curves.

Therefore, the proof of the theorem is reduced to the case of $`W_1(L_m)`$ which is precisely the Fourier-Mukai transform of $`L_m`$, which is well known to be a vector bundle of rank $`m^g`$ (for $`m>0`$).

We only have to prove the semi-stability of $`W_1(L_m)`$ with respect to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$.

Let us compute the slope of $`W_1(L_m)`$: we consider the isogeny $`\phi _{L_m}:X\widehat{X}`$ of degree $`m^{2g}`$ defined by:

$$\phi _{L_m}=T_x^{}L_mL_m^1$$

being the translation by $`x`$. It is known () that:

$$\phi _{L_m}^{}W_1(L_m)H^0(X,L_m)L_m^1$$

Let us set $`𝒪_X(D)=\mathrm{det}W_1(L_m)`$ ; one has:

$$\phi ^{}(D\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{g1})=\mathrm{deg}(\phi )\mathrm{deg}(D)=m^{2g}\mathrm{deg}(D)$$

and

$$\phi ^{}(D\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{g1})=\phi ^{}D(\phi ^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})^{g1}=(m^{g+1}\mathrm{\Theta })(m^2\mathrm{\Theta })^{g1}=m^{3g1}g!$$

Then, $`\mathrm{deg}(D)=m^{g1}g!`$.

$$\mu (W_1(L_m))=\frac{\mathrm{deg}W_1(L_m)}{\mathrm{rk}W_1(L_m)}=\frac{g!}{m}$$

Let us recall that from the computations of  one easily deduces that given an invertible sheaf $``$ on $`\widehat{X}`$, one has that $`c_1()\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{g1}=g!c`$ for some integer $`c`$. Thus, in the definition of semi-stability on $`\widehat{X}`$, with respect to the polarization $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$, we can replace the degree $`c_1()\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{g1}`$, of an invertible sheaf $``$, by the reduced degree:

$$r\mathrm{deg}()=\frac{c_1()\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{g1}}{g!}$$

and the reduced slope:

$$\mu _r()=\frac{c_1()\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}^{g1}}{g!\mathrm{rk}}$$

Let $`FW_1(L_m)`$ be a subbundle of rank $`r<m^g`$ and reduced degree $`r\mathrm{deg}(F)=d`$. One has to show that:

$$\mu _r(F)=\frac{d}{r}\mu _r\left(W_1(L_m)\right)=\frac{1}{m}$$

But it is known that to prove the semi-stability condition for $`W_1(L_m)`$ it suffices to prove that it is satisfied by the subbundles of $`\mathrm{rk}=1`$; that is, we can assume that $`r=1`$. In this case, the inequality is equivalent to $`d<0`$.

Let us take the pullback of $`FW_1(L_m)`$ with respect to the isogeny $`\phi _{L_m}`$:

$$\phi _{L_m}^{}F\phi _{L_m}^{}{}_{}{}^{}W_1(L_m)H^0(X,L_m)L_m^1$$

and $`r\mathrm{deg}\phi _{L_m}^{}F=m^{2g}dr\mathrm{deg}L_m^1=m<0`$. Then, one has that $`d<0`$.

## 5. Fractional quantum Hall states in multi-layer two-dimensional electron systems

For applications to the FQH effect, we shall apply the theory developed in previous sections to the following situation:

Let us consider the forms $`E=/\tau `$ defined by $`\tau _1`$ (upper half-plane) and let us denote by $`eE`$ the origin of the group law of $`E`$. The natural polarization on $`E`$ is given by the invertible sheaf $`𝒪_E(e)`$.

For any positive integer $`g`$, let us denote by $`X_g`$ the abelian variety:

$$X_g=E\times \stackrel{𝑔}{\mathrm{}}\times E$$

Let be the natural projection into the i-th factor. One can define a principal polarization, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, on $`X_g`$ as follows:

$$𝒪_X(\mathrm{\Theta })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}q_i^{}𝒪_E(e)$$

Let $`K`$ be a symmetric, positive, integer-valued $`g\times g`$ matrix. This matrix defines an isogeny:

One can define a line bundle $`L_k`$ on $`X`$ by:

$$L_k=K^{}𝒪_X(\mathrm{\Theta })$$

We can apply the results of Sections 1 and 2 to this sheaf.

Let $`N>0`$ be an integer number, $`r=\frac{N(N1)}{2}+1`$, and $`\xi _N,\phi _N`$ the morphisms defined in Section.1

On $`Z=X^N`$, one has the sheaf:

$$_N=(p_1^{}L_K\mathrm{}p_N^{}L_K)\left(\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i>j}{j2}}{}s_{ij}^{}L_K\right)$$

and isomorphisms:

$$\xi _N^{}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}p_i^{}L_K\right)\phi _N^{}R_N\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^{}L_K^N_N(K)$$

Analogously to Section.2 , for each matrix $`K`$ we can define the vector subspace:

$$E_K(N)H^0(Z,_N(K))$$

which will be identified with the Hilbert space of our problem:

$$sE_K(N)s\text{ is invariant with respect to the action of the subgroup }\mathrm{\Delta }(X_N)Z\text{ and is odd with respect to the permutations acting on }H^0(Z,_N(K))=H^0(X,L_K^N)\mathrm{}H^0(X,L_K^N)$$

Also one has that:

$$E_K(N)=\stackrel{N}{}H^0(X,L_K^N)\mathrm{Im}\phi _N^{}$$

Analogously to Section.2 we can also define the subspace $`E_K^0(N)=^NH^0(X,L_K^N)\mathrm{Im}\xi _k^{}`$

Let us denote a point of $`X^N`$ by $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)`$ and $`x_i=(t_1^i,\mathrm{},t_g^i)E^g=X`$.

The explicit computations can be performed along the lines of () and ().

Note that the kernel of the isogeny can be identified with the finite subgroup:

$$X_K^g/K^g\times \widehat{^g/K^g}$$

The order of this group is $`|X_K|=|\mathrm{det}K|^2`$ and $`H^0(X,L_K)`$ is a $``$-vector space of dimension $`|\mathrm{det}K|`$. Obviously one has:

$$K(L_K)=X_KK(L_K^N)$$

$$NK(L_K^N)=K(L_K)$$

Let us set $`V=H^0(X,L_K)`$ and $`V_K=H^0(X,L_K^N)`$. One has the analogous results of those proved in Sections 2 and 3 and :

$`E_K(N)=\phi _N^{}H^0(Z,_N)_{}`$
$`E_K^0(N)=\phi _N^{}(VV^{}\stackrel{N1}{\mathrm{}}V_{})`$
Moreover, given $`d=(d_1,\mathrm{},d_N)NB(L_K)^N=[^g/K^g]^NB(_N)`$, let us denote by $`\delta _d`$ the element

$$\delta _d=\delta _{d_1}\mathrm{}\delta _{d_N}\left(\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i>j}{j2}}{}s_{ij}^{}\delta _{d_id_j}\right)H^0(Z,_N)$$

It follows that the vector subspace $`E_K^0(N)`$ is generated by the sections $`\phi _N^{}(\delta _d)`$ and one has the identity:

$`\phi _N^{}(\delta _d)`$ $`=\theta [d_1](x_1+\mathrm{}+x_N){\displaystyle \underset{j2}{}}\theta [d_j](x_1x_j){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i>j}{j2}}{}}\theta [d_id_j](x_ix_j)`$
$`=\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_1+\mathrm{}+b_N=d_1}{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b_1b_2=d_2}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}}{b_1b_N=d_N}}}}}{}}\theta [b_1](x_1)\theta [b_2](x_2)\mathrm{}\theta [b_N](x_N)`$
where $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)X\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times X=E^{gN}`$ that is, $`x_i=(z_{i1},\mathrm{},z_{ig})E^g`$.

Observe that:

$$^g/K^g/n_1\mathrm{}/n_g$$

for some integers $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_g`$ such that $`\mathrm{det}K=n_1\mathrm{}n_g`$.

Then, in the above statements $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_N`$ are elements of the group $`/n_1\mathrm{}/n_g`$ (once one has fixed the corresponding theta-structures).

## 6. Filling factors and Hall conductivity

In a multi-layer many-electron system where the fractional quantum Hall effect is observed, the ground state is a quantum fluid with several possible topological orders; see  . The different phases are characterized by the $`g\times g`$ matrix:

$$K=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}2p+1& 2p& \mathrm{}& 2p\\ 2p& 2p+1& \mathrm{}& 2p\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 2p& 2p& \mathrm{}& 2p+1\end{array}\right),$$

where $`p`$ is an integer greater than zero and $`g`$ is the number of layers.

The ground state wave function

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i,j=1}{i<j}}{\overset{N}{}}[\underset{a=1}{\overset{g}{}}(z_i^az_j^a)^{2p+1}\underset{a<b}{}(z_i^az_j^b)^{2p}]\text{exp}[\underset{a=1}{\overset{g}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}|z_i^a|^2]$$

is the generalization of the Laughlin state to the case in which each layer is isomorphic to $``$; here, $`z_i^a`$ is the $`i`$-th particle position in the $`a`$-th layer, and we assume that there are $`N`$ particles per layer, so that the total number of particles is $`N_T=gN`$.

We focus on this problem when each electron moves on a torus; the one-particle configuration space is the elliptic curve $`E=/+\tau `$ of the previous Sections. The modular parameter $`L_2e^{i\theta }/L_1`$ encodes the periodicities of the basic lattice, which is the same for every layer. A constant magnetic field $`B`$ allows for a well behaved quantum system, compatible with the lattice and the order “meant” by the matrix $`K`$, if and only if:

$$K_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}(2p+1)N& 2pN& \mathrm{}& 2pN\\ 2p& 2p+1& \mathrm{}& 2p\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 2p& 2p& \mathrm{}& 2p+1\end{array}\right),\frac{eB}{\mathrm{}c}L_1^2=\frac{2\pi |\mathrm{det}K_1|}{\mathrm{Im}\tau }.$$

Here, $`e,\mathrm{}`$ and $`c`$ are respectively the electron charge, the Planck constant and the speed of light in vacuum. The quantum space of one-particle states is the space of sections of the line bundle $`L_{K_1}=K_1^{}\theta _{X_g}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ and the first Landau level corresponds to the sub-space of holomorphic sections $`H^0(X_g,L_{K_1})`$.

There is a many-electron wave function proposed by Haldane and Rezayi as the ground state for the quantum Hall fluid in a periodic lattice, see  and . Both the HR wave function and its generalization to a multi-layer are of Laughlin type and the framework for the mathematical understanding of such complex quantum states is provided by the developments set forth before in this paper. We start by noticing that the isomorphism established at the end of Section .4 now reads:

$$^g/K^g/(2gp+1)11\mathrm{}1$$

i.e. $`n_1=(2gp+1),n_2=n_3=\mathrm{}=n_g=1`$ because these are the eigenvalues of the $`K`$ matrix.

The center-of-mass dynamics and the relative motion of each pair of particles produce contributions that factorize in the ground state wave function. In a basis in $`X_g`$ in which $`K`$ is diagonal:

1. The center-of-mass wave function is a Theta function of $`g`$ variables that we write following the conventions of Reference  in order to translate the developments of the previous Sections to the notation used in the physics literature:

$$F_{CM}(\stackrel{}{X})=\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}d_1K_D^1\stackrel{}{e}_1\\ \stackrel{}{0}\end{array}\right](K_D\stackrel{}{X}|K_D\tau )$$

$$\stackrel{}{X}=\stackrel{}{x_1}+\stackrel{}{x_2}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{}{x_N}$$

$`\stackrel{}{X}`$ is the CM coordinate, $`K_D`$ is a diagonal matrix such that $`\mathrm{det}K_D=\mathrm{det}K`$ (we have chosen $`K_{D_{11}}=2gp+1`$) and the vector of $`g`$ components $`\stackrel{}{e}_1`$ is $`(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$.

This expression for the center-of-mass wave function is exactly the same as $`\theta [d_1](x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}+x_N)`$ in the previous Section and, undoing the diagonalization, one obtains:

$$F_{CM}(\stackrel{}{Z})=\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}K^1\stackrel{}{\alpha }\\ \stackrel{}{0}\end{array}\right](K\stackrel{}{Z}|K\tau )$$

where $`\stackrel{}{Z}=\stackrel{}{z_1}+\stackrel{}{z_2}+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{}{z_N}`$ is the CM coordinate in a basis of $`X_g`$ where $`K`$ is not diagonal, and $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }^g/K^g`$. This is the form in which it appears in the physics literature.
2. The factor in the ground state wave function due to relative motion has the form: if $`\stackrel{}{x}_{ij}=\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{x}_j`$,

$$F_r(\stackrel{}{x}_{ij})=\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{}\left[\begin{array}{c}d_{ij}^{}K_D^1\stackrel{}{e}_1\\ \stackrel{}{0}\end{array}\right](K_D\stackrel{}{x}_{ij}|K_D\tau )$$

$$d_{ij}^{}=d_i^{}d_j^{},i2,d_{ij}=d_j^{},i=1,d_{ij}^{}=1,2,\mathrm{},gp$$

Fermi statistics requires the use of anti-symmetric functions in $`\stackrel{}{x}_{ij}\stackrel{}{x}_{ij}`$:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Theta }_{}\left[\begin{array}{c}d_{ij}^{}K_D^1\stackrel{}{e}_1\\ \stackrel{}{0}\end{array}\right]\left(K_D\stackrel{}{x}_{ij}|K_D\tau \right)}{={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}d_{ij}^{}K_D^1\stackrel{}{e}_1\\ \stackrel{}{0}\end{array}\right]\left(K_D\stackrel{}{x}_{ij}|K_D\tau \right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}d_{ij}^{}K_D^1\stackrel{}{e}_1\\ \stackrel{}{0}\end{array}\right]\left(K_D\stackrel{}{x}_{ij}|K_D\tau \right)\right)}$$

Nevertheless, the ground state wave function

$$\psi =F_{CM}(\stackrel{}{X})F_r(\stackrel{}{x}_{ij})\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{4}\underset{i}{}(\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{}{x}_i)(\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{}{x}_i)\},$$

apart from the non-analytic exponential factor, consists of terms of the form of the left-hand member of formula ( 5 ) in Section §.5 .

Therefore, $`\psi `$ can also be expressed as a product of Theta functions in the $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ variables with characteristics:

$$b_i/(2gp+1)11\mathrm{}1$$

related to the $`K_D`$ matrix.

In the physics of the quantum Hall effect, the concept of the filling factor plays a central rôle; if the magnetic field is strong enough to provide more states in the first Landau level than electrons, it is defined as:

$$f=\frac{\text{number of particles}}{\text{number of states in the first }LL},$$

and the Hall conductivity is studied as a function of $`f`$.

If the number of states in the first $`LL`$ is a finite number, $`\mathrm{dim}H^0(X_g,L_{K_1})=\mathrm{det}(K_1)`$ in our case, then $`f`$ is:

$$f_{HR}=N_T/\mathrm{det}K_1=\frac{g}{2gp+1}.$$

Different integers $`g`$, and hence different values of $`f_{HR}`$, give rise to a hierarchy of experimentally observed topological orders: associated with each $`f`$ of this form there are quantum fluids that arise as ground states of the fractional quantum Hall effect without periodic boundary conditions.

What we have shown by proving the generalized addition formulae for Abelian varieties is that the fractional quantum Hall states in multi-layer two-dimensional electron systems are compatible with periodic lattices. Only the existence of such addition formulae makes it possible to claim that the generalized Haldane-Rezayi wave function implies $`f_{HR}=\frac{g}{2gp+1}.`$

In fact, a further development remains to be made in order to make contact with the HR ground state. We remark that there is a linear combination such that:

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{\displaystyle \underset{d_{ij}^{}=1}{\overset{gp}{}}}c[d_{ij}^{}]\mathrm{\Theta }_{}\left[\begin{array}{c}d_{ij}^{}K_D^1\stackrel{}{e}_1\\ \stackrel{}{0}\end{array}\right](K_D\stackrel{}{X}_{ij}|K_D\tau )}{=\mathrm{\Theta }^{2gp+1}\left[\begin{array}{c}1/2\\ 1/2\end{array}\right](x_i^1x_j^1|\tau )_{a=2}^g\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}1/2\\ 1/2\end{array}\right](x_i^ax_j^a|\tau )},$$

appearing in the right-hand member odd Theta functions of one variable. Undoing the diagonalization of $`K`$, one easily checks that,

$$\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{g}{}}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{2p+1}\left[\begin{array}{c}1/2\\ 1/2\end{array}\right](z_i^az_j^a|\tau ){\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{2p}\left[\begin{array}{c}1/2\\ 1/2\end{array}\right](z_i^az_j^a|\tau )}{\mathrm{\Theta }^{2gp+1}\left[\begin{array}{c}1/2\\ 1/2\end{array}\right](x_i^1x_j^1|\tau )_{a=2}^g\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}1/2\\ 1/2\end{array}\right](x_i^ax_j^a|\tau )}$$

in such a way that the HR wave function can be traced back to the above $`\psi `$.

The generalized addition formulae are valid for any Abelian variety $`X_g=\frac{𝒞^g}{𝒵^g\mathrm{\Omega }𝒵^g}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ a matrix in the Siegel upper half-space of rank $`g`$ in $`_g`$. In the application to the quantum Hall effect, we have restricted ourselves to the case $`X_g=E^g`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\tau I_{g\times g}`$. There is no difficulty in extending the analysis to any $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g`$ that physically corresponds to taking into account different periodicities for different layers and a tunnel effect of weak amplitude between layers, a situation also considered by condensed matter physicists, see . It is also convenient to make a brief comment on the second type of addition formulas; Proposition 2.6 of Section .1 , from a physical point of view. Mathematically, the origin of such addition formulas is the freedom of choosing the isogeny : there are different projections from $`X_g\times \stackrel{𝑟}{\mathrm{}}\times X_g`$ to $`Z=X_g\times \stackrel{𝑁}{\mathrm{}}\times X_g`$ ($`r=\frac{N(N1)}{2}+1`$). Another choice of $`\pi _{1\mathrm{}N}`$, for instance, would lead one define

$$\phi _N^{}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=(x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}+x_N,x_2x_1,x_2x_3,\mathrm{},x_2x_N),$$

i.e. it would singularize relative coordinates with respect to the second particle. In quantum mechanics particles are indistinguishable and thus this possibility is physically equivalent to choosing $`\phi _N`$ based on the first particle coordinate. For this reason the wave functions invariant under the second sub-group of $`K(_N)`$ do not enter in physical arguments, and the ordering $`i<j`$ is chosen as the most natural one.

Further knowledge of the implications of the nature of the HR ground state wave function can be obtained by means of a gedanken experiment, see  : magnetic fluxes are induced by two solenoids per layer connected to the Hall device in such a way that they are compatible with the electrons if:

$$\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{}{\varphi }[\stackrel{}{0},\frac{\mathrm{}c}{e}\stackrel{}{u}],\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{}{\varphi }[\stackrel{}{0},\frac{\mathrm{}c}{e}\stackrel{}{u}]$$

according to the Aharanov-Bohm effect. Here, $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ is a complex $`g`$ vector which encodes the solenoid fluxes and $`\stackrel{}{u}=(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ is a real constant $`g`$ vector. The generalized HR states are modified to,

$$\psi _{d_1}[\stackrel{}{\varphi }]=F_{CM}^{d_1}[\stackrel{}{\varphi };\stackrel{}{X}]F_r[\stackrel{}{X}_{ij}]\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{4}\underset{i}{}[(\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{}{X}_i)^t\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{}{X}_i]\}$$

$$F_{CM}^{d_1}[\stackrel{}{\varphi };\stackrel{}{X}]=\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}d_1K_D^1\stackrel{}{e}_1+\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1\\ \stackrel{}{\varphi }_2\end{array}\right](K_D\stackrel{}{X}_{ij}|K_D\tau )$$

where $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}c}\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_2=\frac{e}{\mathrm{}c}\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$. The relative motion is not affected but the contribution of the center-of-mass dynamics to the ground state is modified by including the solenoid fluxes as characteristics of the Theta function.

Mathematically, one must interpret $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ as points in the Jacobian $`\widehat{X}_g`$ of $`X_g`$ and we proceed to identify the bundle where $`\psi ^{d_1}[\stackrel{}{\varphi }]`$ is defined as a section, using the developments of Section .3 . In fact, only the replacement of $`L_m`$ by $`L_K`$ is necessary. We thus start by constructing the invertible sheaf:

$$_K=\pi _X^{}L_K𝒫,$$

a family of line bundles over $`X`$ parametrized by $`\widehat{X}`$, and defining the Fourier-Mukai transform of $`L_K`$:

$$S(L_K)=\pi _{\widehat{X}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\pi _X^{}L_K𝒫)=\pi _{\widehat{X}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}_K.$$

$`S(L_K)`$ is a vector bundle over $`\widehat{X}`$ of rank $`(\mathrm{det}K)^g`$ whose fibers are vector spaces of dimension $`(\mathrm{det}K)^g`$ whose bases are provided by the basis of $`H^0(\widehat{X},L_K)_{|_{\widehat{x}_0\widehat{X}}}`$. Taking this into account, one easily recognizes that

$$s^{d_1}=F_{CM}^{d_1}[\stackrel{}{\psi };\stackrel{}{X}]F_r[\stackrel{}{x}_{ij}]$$

is a holomorphic section in the bundle

$$\stackrel{~}{}_N^K=\overline{M}^{}_K\left(\underset{i<j}{}\overline{s}_{ij}^{}_K\right)$$

defined in perfect analogy with the bundle $`\stackrel{~}{}_N`$ of Section .3 : one merely replaces $`_m`$ by $`_K`$.

We now focus on the center-of-mass dynamics. Taking direct image amounts to integrate over the variables in the other factors and we find

$$S_{CM}^{d_1}=F_{CM}^{d_1}[\stackrel{}{\varphi }]=_X𝑑\mathrm{vol}_XF_{CM}^{d_1}[\stackrel{}{\varphi };\stackrel{}{X}],$$

which determines the contribution of the solenoid fluxes to the CM ground state wave function; this is a holomorphic section in the Fourier-Mukai transform of the bundle $`\overline{M}^{}L_K`$:

$$W_N(L_K)=\pi _{\widehat{X}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\overline{M}^{}_K)=\pi _{\widehat{X}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\overline{M}^{}(\pi _{X}^{}{}_{}{}^{}L_K𝒫)\right).$$

From Section .3 we know that $`W_N(L_K)W_{N1}(L_K)`$ and the slope and reduced slope of $`W_1(L_K)`$ are given by:

$`\mu (W_1(L_K))={\displaystyle \frac{g(\mathrm{det}K)^{g1}g!}{(\mathrm{det}K)^g}}={\displaystyle \frac{gg!}{\mathrm{det}K}}`$
$`\mu _r(W_1(L_K))={\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{det}K}}`$
There is a novelty: the factor $`g`$ appears due to the freedom of choosing $`2gp+1`$ as any of the $`g`$ eigenvalues of $`K`$.

The Hall conductivity of the system is expressed in perturbation theory by the Kubo-Thouless formula  :

$$\sigma _H=\frac{i}{2\pi }\frac{ge^2}{r\mathrm{}}\underset{d_1=1}{\overset{r}{}}[<\stackrel{}{}_1\psi ^{d_1}|\stackrel{}{}_2\psi ^{d_1}><\stackrel{}{}_2\psi ^{d_1}|\stackrel{}{}_1\psi ^{d_1}>]$$

where $`r=\mathrm{det}K`$, $`\stackrel{}{}_a=\frac{}{\stackrel{}{\varphi }_a}`$ and $`<|>`$ defines the $`L^2`$-norm:

$$<f|g>=_{X^N}𝑑\mathrm{vol}_{X^N}f^{}(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x}_N)g(\stackrel{}{x}_1,\stackrel{}{x}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x}_N).$$

This formula can be interpreted as follows: from the section $`\psi ^{d_1}`$, we obtain a connection, for any $`d_1`$,

$$\omega ^{d_1}=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}<\psi ^{d_1}|\stackrel{}{}_2\psi ^{d_1}>d\stackrel{}{\varphi }_2$$

in a certain line bundle over $`\widehat{X}`$. The curvature

$$_{\omega ^{d_1}}=2\pi d\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1d\stackrel{}{\varphi }_2$$

is constant on $`\widehat{X}`$ and therefore $`\sigma _H`$ is equal to its average value $`<\sigma _H>`$:

$`<\sigma _H>`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{ge^2}{r\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{d_1=1}{\overset{r}{}}}[<\stackrel{}{}_1\psi ^{d_1}|\stackrel{}{}_2\psi ^{d_1}><\stackrel{}{}_2\psi ^{d_1}|\stackrel{}{}_1\psi ^{d_1}>]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2gp+1}}.`$
The bundle is therefore $`W_1(L_K)`$ and the Hall conductivity is a topological invariant, the reduced slope of $`W_1(L_N)`$:

$$\sigma _H=|\mu _r(W_1(L_K))|$$