text:
# 1 INTRODUCTION

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Although the Standard Model (SM) is in agreement with experiment up to energies near the electroweak scale , it is believed to be an effective theory. Many of its completions, as for instance string theory, require extra dimensions which, if large enough, may manifest at large colliders.

Let $`M_c`$ be the compactification scale with $`RM_c^1`$ the size of the largest extra dimension. If the scale $`M_s`$ of the more fundamental theory is larger than $`M_c`$, there should be a range of energies where physics can be described by an effective theory in $`d>4`$ dimensions. Such theories are interesting not only by their phenomenological implications but for giving new insights into more theoretical questions like the replica of families or the breaking of symmetries. All these questions have received a great deal of attention. Here we want to review the prospects for having new matter and/or interactions at the TeV scale, ignoring at this stage new gravitational effects.

Even in the case of one extra dimension, the simplest models allow for a rich phenomenology. Fields living in the fifth dimension, bulk fields, can be described by an infinite tower of Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes. The known particles corresponding to the zero modes and the heavy excitations to new exotic fermions and/or gauge bosons and scalars. Typically the heavy masses scale with $`M_c`$ which plays the role of the order parameter of the physics beyond the SM. Thus models can be classified according to the present experimental bounds on its value. In Table 1 we order the different classes of models with growing compactification scale limits.

As observed in Ref. , if there is conservation of the KK number, there are no couplings of SM fields with only one heavy mode. Hence the new contributions to SM observables come only at one loop, implying an extra suppression factor $`\alpha `$. This translates into a relatively low $`M_c`$ limit, $`300`$ GeV, mainly resulting from the T parameter and the running of the heavy excitations around the loop. A simple realization of this scenario is a five-dimensional theory with the extra dimension parametrizing an orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$: $`\pi Ry\pi R`$ with opposite points identified, and all fields in the bulk and without brane terms.

The addition of brane interactions violates momentum conservation in the fifth dimension and introduces new vertices involving SM particles and only one heavy mode. Then, if standard matter is assumed to live only in the brane in order to avoid large Flavour Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC), the strongest constraint on the compactification scale results from the tree level exchange of the KK tower of gauge bosons, implying $`M_c\stackrel{>}{}4`$ TeV to maintain the electroweak parameters within experimental limits .

These simple models have a flat background but enough physics to share the main new effects. Nature can choose, however, a more general situation with a non-trivial background, as for instance in the case of the Randall-Sundrum model . A detailed analysis gives in this case $`M_c\stackrel{>}{}10`$ TeV .

A different scenario appears when the models are generalized to include fermions in the bulk in order to explain the observed pattern of fermion masses and mixings geometrically, split fermions . Doing so the disalignment of the KK gauge couplings to SM fermions generates large FCNC , which banish the gauge boson masses and $`M_c`$ to high energy, $`\stackrel{>}{}100`$ TeV, making them unobservable at future colliders. This is only a particular case. When general five-dimensional masses and/or brane kinetic terms are introduced, the masses of the lightest KK excitations can decouple from $`M_c`$ due to their dependence on the size of the new terms, and become observable. Here we concentrate on this type of models and their manifestation at large colliders.

In the following we review the KK formulation of these models. Then we first introduce five-dimensional mass terms for the fermions and discuss simple models with multi-localization of the lightest KK fermion wave function in the extra dimension. In this way the observed pattern of fermions masses and mixings can be obtained with order one Yukawa couplings, together with relatively light exotic fermions  decoupled from a rather heavy compactification scale and observable at large colliders . Afterwards, we consider brane kinetic terms for gauge bosons . For a choice of terms one can also reduce the mass of the lightest KK gauge boson excitation, making it eventually observable. This can also be done for fermions. In both cases the decoupling of the lightest heavy masses are not due to the multi-localization of the wave functions but to a sharper localization.

## 2 FOUR-DIMENSIONAL FIELDS, MASSES AND COUPLINGS

An effective five-dimensional theory whose Lagrangian reads

$$(\varphi )=_{\mathrm{kin}}(\varphi )+_{\mathrm{int}}(\varphi ),$$
(1)
can be described in terms of four-dimensional fields decomposing the corresponding five-dimensional fields in four-dimensional (KK) modes

$$\varphi (x,y)=\underset{n}{}\varphi ^{(n)}(x)\frac{f_n(y)}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}.$$
(2)
After integrating the extra dimension one is left with a four-dimensional Lagrangian with an infinite number of KK fields $`\varphi ^{(n)}(x)`$ with masses $`m_n`$, gauge couplings $`g_n\mathrm{}`$ and Yukawa couplings $`\lambda _n\mathrm{}`$. In this procedure the wave functions $`f_n(y)`$ are fixed requiring orthonormality conditions, in order to guarantee canonical kinetic terms for $`\varphi ^{(n)}`$, and fulfilling the differential equations giving them diagonal masses. Obviously different $`_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ give different wave functions, thus modifying the gauge and Yukawa couplings, and the physics derived from them. For a bulk gauge boson $`A_\mu `$ and a fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$

$$_{\mathrm{gauge}}=dyg_5\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu A_\mu \mathrm{\Psi },$$
(3)
and after decomposing and integrating the fifth dimension

$$_{\mathrm{gauge}}=\underset{nmr}{}\left[g_{nmr}^{LLV}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L^{(n)}\gamma ^\mu A_\mu ^{(r)}\mathrm{\Psi }_L^{(m)}+(LR)\right],$$
(4)
with

$$g_{nmr}^{LLV}=\frac{g_5}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}_{\pi R}^{\pi R}dy\frac{f_n^Lf_m^Lf_r^V}{2\pi R}$$
(5)
the dimensionless four-dimensional gauge couplings. Similarly,

$`_{\mathrm{Yuk}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}y[\lambda _5\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\chi \varphi +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.]`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nmr}{}}[\lambda _{nmr}^{\mathrm{\Psi }\chi S}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L^{(n)}\chi _R^{(m)}\varphi ^{(r)}+\lambda _{mnr}^{\chi \mathrm{\Psi }S}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R^{(n)}\chi _L^{(m)}\varphi ^{(r)}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],`$
with

$$\lambda _{nmr}^{\mathrm{\Psi }_1\mathrm{\Psi }_2S}=\frac{\lambda _5}{\sqrt{\pi R}}_{\pi R}^{\pi R}dy\frac{f_n^{\mathrm{\Psi }_1L}f_m^{\mathrm{\Psi }_2R}f_r^S}{2\pi R}$$
(7)
the dimensionless four-dimensional Yukawa couplings. Tree level estimates of the contribution of the KK excitations are derived in the properly normalized mass eigenstate basis using $`g`$ and $`\lambda `$ in Eqs. (5) and (7), respectively. For the particular case of a boundary Higgs (without scalar KK tower)

$$\lambda _{nm}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_5}{2\pi R}f_n^{\mathrm{\Psi }L}(0)f_m^{\chi R}(0),$$
(8)
where the tilde stands for the different dimension normalization.

## 3 FIVE-DIMENSIONAL FERMION MASSES AND MULTILOCALIZATION

Models with extra dimensions can explain the observed hierarchy of fermion masses and mixings relating them to the localization of the corresponding zero modes around different points in the extra dimensions. However, the lightest modes are often not localized but multi-localized if the five-dimensional fermion masses are non-trivial. Indeed, the addition of a step-function mass term in the $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold case allows for the bi-localization of the first two fermion modes. As shown in Ref.  for

$$_{\mathrm{kin}}=dy\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}[\mathrm{i}\gamma ^N_NM(y)]\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(9)
with $`\gamma ^N=\{\gamma ^\mu ,\mathrm{i}\gamma ^5\}`$ and

$$M(y)=M\sigma (y)\sigma (\pi a|y|),\sigma (y)|y|/y,$$
(10)
one obtains the mass spectrum in Fig. 1 solving the corresponding normalization and eigenvalue equations.

The corresponding wave functions for the zero mode and the lightest KK excitation are drawn in Fig. 2. (We choose the Right-Handed (RH) component even.) For $`M=0`$ one obtains the usual equidistant spectrum, whereas for negative $`M`$ the four-dimensional masses get extra larger contributions but for positive $`M`$ the lightest KK mode can be as light as required. In this case the difference between the absolute values of the two wave functions in Fig. 2 are exponentially suppressed. Many (split fermion) models give a similar behaviour . This type of models can accommodate in a natural way the observed spectrum of masses and mixings (starting with five-dimensional Yukawa couplings of order one), and at the same time an observable departure from the SM at large colliders . In Fig. 3 we plot the predicted mass of a new quark of charge $`2/3`$ and the third family charged current coupling as a function of the parameters of the model 222Multi-localization can also have interesting phenomenological implications for neutrino oscillations .. The shaded region is excluded by electroweak precision data.

## 4 BRANE KINETIC TERMS AND LIGHT NEW PARTICLES

Brane kinetic terms are naturally present in orbifold theories . They cannot be set to zero at all scales in general, since the breaking of translation invariance induces them at the quantum level. In this case the equations of motion are modified leading to a different spectrum which can include light KK states. In this section we review examples in which the inclusion of brane kinetic terms can induce a light first KK mode for gauge bosons and/or fermions. We do not intend to be exhaustive here but just show, with the very practical goal of getting light KK excitations, the effects of some of these terms and discuss the corresponding phenomenology. A more detailed study will be presented elsewhere .

Let us consider the Lagrangian for a five-dimensional ($`U(1)`$ for simplicity) gauge theory with the following brane kinetic terms

$$=\frac{1}{4}dy\left\{F^{MN}F_{MN}+\left[a_0\delta _0+a_\pi \delta _\pi \right]F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right\},$$
(11)
where $`\delta _0\delta (y)`$ and $`\delta _\pi \delta (y\pi R)`$. Performing the KK expansion in the Lagrangian and requiring the quadratic terms to decouple, we arrive at the following orthonormality and differential equation conditions

$$dy[1+a_0\delta _0+a_\pi \delta _\pi ]\frac{f_mf_n}{2\pi R}=\delta _{nm},$$
(12)
$$_y^2f_n(y)=m_n^2(1+a_0\delta _0+a_\pi \delta _\pi )f_n(y),$$
(13)
respectively. The corresponding spectrum consists on a massless flat zero mode plus a tower of massive modes with wave functions

$$f_n(y)=A_n[\mathrm{cos}(m_ny)\frac{a_0m_n}{2}\mathrm{sin}(m_n|y|)],$$
(14)
where $`A_n`$ is a normalization constant and $`m_n`$ satisfies the eigenvalue equation

$$(4a_0a_\pi m_n^2)\mathrm{tan}(\pi m_nR)+2(a_0+a_\pi )m_n=0.$$
(15)
The main effects of these two brane kinetic terms are to decouple the heavy KK modes from the brane (it becomes less transparent to them) and to make the mass of the first KK mode light,

$$m_1^2\frac{2}{\pi R}\frac{(a_0+a_\pi )}{a_0a_\pi },\text{ for }a_{0,\pi }R.$$
(16)
This first light KK mode does not completely decouple from the branes in the large $`a_0a_\pi `$ limit but tends to a finite coupling, which seems necessary to correct the high energy behaviour of the zero mode coupling .

The phenomenological implications of brane kinetic terms strongly depend on the value of the coeffcients. In the particular case that $`a_0=a_\pi R`$ we have a single light KK excitation with coupling to the branes equal to that of the zero mode, the remaining modes being heavy ($`m_{n2}(n1)/R`$) and with very suppressed couplings to the branes. In this way we can get the first KK mode fulfilling the sequential $`Z^{}`$ scenario (the case with no mixing corresponds to a Higgs in the bulk). Then all the experimental bounds on such a $`Z^{}`$ apply, $`M_Z^{}>1.5`$ TeV . This limit is saturated for large enough boundary kinetic terms .

A similar behaviour can be observed in the case of fermions . Consider as an example the case in which the only relevant brane operator is a kinetic term for the even component (which we take to be the RH one),

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dy\left\{[1+a_0\delta _0+a_\pi \delta _\pi ]\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R\mathrm{i}\overline{)}\mathrm{\Psi }_R+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L\mathrm{i}\overline{)}\mathrm{\Psi }_L+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_R_y\mathrm{\Psi }_L\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L_y\mathrm{\Psi }_R\right\}}.`$ (17)
The orthonormality and differential equations, which determine the KK expansion, are in this case

$$dy[1+a_0\delta _0+a_\pi \delta _\pi ]\frac{f_m^Rf_n^R}{2\pi R}=\delta _{nm},$$
(18)
$$dy\frac{f_m^Lf_n^L}{2\pi R}=\delta _{nm},$$
(19)
and

$`_yf_n^R`$ $`=`$ $`m_nf_n^L,`$ (20)
$`_yf_n^L`$ $`=`$ $`m_n[1+a_0\delta _0+a_\pi \delta _\pi ]f_n^R,`$ (21)
respectively. The two differential equations can then be iterated to get a second order differential equation for the even component, obtaining the same equation as the one for a gauge boson. In this case one also obtains a light KK fermion for large brane terms, and the allowed region in Fig. 3, in particular the cross-point with $`m_Q=478`$ GeV and $`W_{tb}^L=0.96`$, can be recovered for appropriate (large) values of $`a_{0,\pi }`$.


format: text

text:
# A Farewell to Liouvillians

## I Introduction

It has long been appreciated that the quantum Hall effect depends for its existence on localization by disorder of quasiparticles in Landau level tails, and that neighboring quantum Hall plateaus are separated by a continuous quantum phase transition characterized by a diverging localization length.Huckestein  The scaling ideas which encapsulate this understanding Pruisken ; Khemlnitskii  are supported by extensive numerical studies Huckestein  and by some of the available experimental dataWei ; Haug  although the full experimental situation remains unsettled shahar . An analytic theory of the transition, however, has proved elusive, even for the simplest models which include disorder and magnetic field but omit electron-electron interactions.

In this context, two successive recent developments have attracted interest: Sinova, Meden and GirvinSMG  (SMG) have introduced a Liouvillian approach to localization in the lowest Landau level, which Moore, Sinova and ZeeMZS  (MSZ) have extended, with the introduction of $`N_L`$ Liouvillian flavors and an expansion in powers of $`1/N_L`$ about the large $`N_L`$ limitGurZee . In brief, the Liouvillian is the time evolution operator for electron probability density, and the information it encodes on localization is integrated over states at all energies within the disorder-broadened Landau level. Despite the energy integration, the critical behavior of the localization length at the plateau transition can, in principle, be extracted from the dependence of the Liouvillian propagator on frequency $`\omega `$, provided this is known sufficiently accurately (see SMG and also Appendix A of this paper). The original work of SMG reported a calculation of the Liouvillian propagator using a version of the self-consistent Born approximation (SCBA), which is exact for the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ limit of MSZ, and yields diffusive time evolution without localization. MSZ have conjectured that the $`𝒪(1/N_L)`$ correction, which is logarithmically divergent at small $`\omega `$, may be used to arrive at an estimate for the localization length exponent $`\nu `$.

Prima facie there are three reasons to think that this work may have outflanked the obstructions faced by previous approaches. First, the derivation of the Liouvillian formalism by SMG invokes the algebra of density operators projected onto the lowest Landau level, thus appearing to build in the physics of high magnetic fields at the first step. Second, the formalism deals directly with a disorder-averaged two-particle quantity, avoiding intermediate calculations of a one-particle Green function, and hence, plausibly, goes directly to the heart of the matter. Third, the extension to $`N_L`$ Liouvillian flavors is distinct from the standard extension to $`N`$ orbitals in localization problems, oppweg  which is known to capture weak localization physics but not the quantum Hall delocalization transitionfn-Ntransitions . This gives grounds for hope that the logarithm found by MSZ may not simply be due to weak localization effects and might indeed be used to get an estimate for the correlation length exponent.

Given the potential importance of these developments, it seems useful to investigate the Liouvillian approach in some detail and to relate it to established methods. This is our objective in the present paper. There are four distinct facets to our results. First, we show that although the Liouvillian approach has appeared in past work to be tailored specifically to the quantum mechanics of particles moving in a single Landau level, since it makes use of the algebra of projected density operators, it can in fact be formulated for any disordered single-particle Hamiltonian. Second, we compare the perturbation expansion for the Liouvillian propagator with conventional calculations of the disorder-averaged two-particle Green function. We demonstrate that each term in the perturbation expansion for the Liouvillian propagator corresponds to a specific combination of terms in the Green function expansion. As a consequence, any approximation scheme within one approach has an equivalent in the other approach. Moverover, it is possible to translate between the two approaches in either direction: to go from the two-particle Green function to the Liouvillian simply involves an energy integration, while a more elaborate proceedure, which we set out, is required to undo this energy integration and pass in the opposite direction. Third, we illustrate these ideas by applying the Liouvillian approach to random matrix theory, discussing the Gaussian unitary and orthogonal ensembles. We obtain an analytic solution in the limit of large flavor number $`N_L`$, for arbitrary matrix size $`N`$, and we supplement this with numerical calculations for finite $`N_L`$, finding qualitative differences between results at $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ (and all $`N_L>1`$) and those at $`N_L=1`$. We also undo the energy average at $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$, showing that the Liouvillian SCBA has a very different character from established approximations when translated into a calculation for the two-particle Green function. It constitutes an approximation without the usual structure based on single-particle self-energies and two-particle irreducible vertices. Disappointingly, this is not progress as the approximation is pathological: the resulting Green functions exhibit spurious singularities inside the band and fail to factorize correctly at large energy separations. Finally, we return to the plateau transition. Progress in this case is more difficult, because even the Liouvillian SCBA of SMG requires a numerical solution. We are nevertheless able to show that the two-particle Green function generated by the Liouvillian SCBA has undesirable features in this case, too, failing to factorise as it should for large separations between pairs of its spatial arguments, and exhibiting spurious singularities as a function of energy in this limit.

In sum, on one hand we have shown generally that any Liouvillian approximation can equally well be expressed using the better-understood machinery of Green functions, and on the other hand we have argued that the only existing basis for Liouvillian calculations, the $`1/N_L`$ expansion, is seriously flawed. In combination, these results leave us pessimistic about the scope for advances in the theory of the quantum Hall plateau transition using Liouvillian methods.

In the balance of the paper we set out the technical content of these assertions. In Section II we develop Liouvillian machinery in a general setting and describe, first, how to go from two particle Green functions to Liouvillians by energy integration, and second, our algorithm for undoing this energy integration within a given Liouvillian approximation. In Section III we review the $`1/N_L`$ expansion scheme introduced by MSZ, again in a general setting. Section IV is devoted to a detailed examination of the Liouvillian technique applied to the test case of random matrix statistics. In Section V we consider the quantum Hall problem and describe the pathology that is immediately apparent by recourse to the previous results. We end with a summary and three appendices which provide: a more careful discussion of the critical behavior of the quantum Hall Liouvillian than is available in previous work; some details omitted in the main text; and a construction that yields an algebra for an arbitrary single-particle Hamiltonian that is identical to the algebra of density operators projected onto the lowest Landau level.

## II General considerations

### II.1 From two-particle Green functions to the Liouvillian

Consider a single-particle Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ acting on basis states $`|a`$ in a space $`𝒱`$ of dimensionality $`N`$. Although all of its properties are encapsulated in the corresponding one-particle Green functions

$`G_{ab}^\pm (E)`$ $`=`$ $`a|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E\widehat{H}\pm i\delta }}|b,`$ (1)
(where $`\delta `$ is a positive infinitesimal), in most problems of interest their more easily computed disorder averages $`G^\pm `$ have little of the interesting information contained in $`G^\pm `$. One is then forced to consider higher order correlators such as the two-particle retarded-advanced Green function

$$K_{aA;bB}^+(E,\omega )=G_{ab}^+(E+\frac{\omega }{2})G_{BA}^{}(E\frac{\omega }{2}),$$
(2)
whose disorder average does contain useful information. Analogously one can define $`K^{++}`$,$`K^+`$ and $`K^{}`$. Here and in the following, we use $`\pm `$ as superscripts to indicate retarded and advanced Green functions, and reserve lower case state labels ($`a,b`$) for the former, and upper case ones ($`A,B`$) for the latter.

The central object in this paper is the energy integral of $`K_{aA;bB}^+(E,\omega )`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}(\omega )_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dE}{2\pi i}K_{aA;bB}^+(E,\omega ).$$
(3)
We will now show that, quite generally, this can be expressed as the one particle Green function of a Liouville “super-operator” (the Liouvillian) which itself acts on the space $`𝒜_𝒱`$ of all linear operators on the space $`𝒱`$. Clearly, this Liouvillian Green function is to be distinguished from the usual Green function of the Hamiltonian, introduced in Eq. (1). The space $`𝒜_𝒱`$ is $`N^2`$ dimensional and is spanned by the basis set $`|ab|`$. To emphasize that these operators themselves form a linear space, we will use the notation $`|a,b)=|ab|`$. A natural inner product on this space is defined as $`\mathrm{Tr}P^{}Q`$ for any operators $`P`$ and $`Q`$ that belong to $`𝒜_𝒱`$. In terms of the basis this yields

$$(a,b|c,d)\mathrm{Tr}\{[|ab|]^{}|cd|\}=a|cd|b.$$
(4)
Finally, pairs of operators $`P`$, $`Q`$ define a super-operator on $`𝒜_𝒱`$ via the action $`PQ|a,b)=P|ab|Q`$ from left and right respectively.

Now consider rewriting Eq. (3) (with tildes denoting inverse Fourier transforms)

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi i}}G_{ab}^+(E+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}})G_{BA}^{}(E{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}})`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_2e^{i(E+\omega /2+i\delta )t_1+i(E\omega /2i\delta )t_2}\stackrel{~}{G}_{ab}^+(t_1)\stackrel{~}{G}_{BA}^{}(t_2)`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i(\omega +i\delta )t}\stackrel{~}{G}_{ab}^+(t)\stackrel{~}{G}_{BA}^{}(t)=i{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i(\omega +i\delta )t}(\theta (t))^2a|e^{iHt}|bB|e^{iHt}|A`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dte^{i(\omega +i\delta )t}\theta (t)Tr\{(e^{iHt}|Aa|e^{iHt})|bB|\}i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dte^{i(\omega +i\delta )t}{}_{t}{}^{}(a,A|b,B)_{0}^{}`$
The single particle Hamiltonian induces a time evolution super-operator, the Liouvillian $``$, on $`𝒜_𝒱`$

$$|a,A)_t=e^{it}|a,A)_0$$
(6)
and the matrix elements of $``$ can be read off from

$$\frac{d}{dt}|aA|=i[\widehat{H},|aA|]=i\underset{bB}{}(H_{ab}\delta _{BA}\delta _{ab}H_{BA})|bB|i\underset{bB}{}_{aA;bB}|bB|.$$
(7)
More abstractly,

$$\widehat{}=\widehat{H}\widehat{1}\widehat{1}\widehat{H}.$$
(8)
In terms of $``$ we have finally

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`(a,A|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \widehat{}+i\delta }}|b,B)`$ (9)
which is the promised rewriting of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}(\omega )`$. While Eq. (8) does not appear in the work of SMG and MSZ, our $``$ is simply the generalisation for arbitrary $`\widehat{H}`$ of the Liouvillian discussed for the quantum Hall plateau transition in previous papers. We continue our general discussion below and take up the plateau transition in Section V.

### II.2 Exact properties of $`\widehat{}`$

A few general and exact properties of $`\widehat{}`$ can be inferred from the preceding formulae. The eigenvalues $`\lambda _{ab}`$ of $`\widehat{}`$ are simply related to the eigenvalues $`ϵ_a`$ of $`\widehat{H}`$ by

$$\lambda _{ab}=ϵ_aϵ_b.$$
(10)
This implies that $`\lambda _{ab}=\lambda _{ba}`$, so that the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{}`$ occur in pairs symmetric about $`\lambda =0`$. In addition, the Liouvillian has at least $`N`$ zero eigenvalues, since $`\lambda _{mm}=0`$. Finally, if the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{H}`$ occupy a band of width $`W`$, the bandwidth of $`\widehat{}`$ is $`2W`$.

### II.3 Perturbation theory

From Eq. (9) we can generate the perturbation expansion

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}(\omega )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a,A|\widehat{}^n|b,B)}{(\omega +i\delta )^{n+1}}.$$
(11)
It is interesting to see how this arises from energy integrating the perturbative expression for the two-particle Green function. Consider the contribution to $`K_{aA;bB}^+(\omega )`$ at order $`n`$ in $`\widehat{H}`$, which is

$$K_{aA;bB}^{(n)}(E,\omega )=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{[\widehat{H}^m]_{ab}[\widehat{H}^{nm}]_{BA}}{(E\frac{\omega }{2}i\delta )^{m+1}(E+\frac{\omega }{2}+i\delta )^{n+1m}}.$$
(12)
Integration over $`E`$,

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}K_{aA;bB}^{(n)}(E,\omega )\frac{dE}{2\pi i}=\frac{1}{(\omega +i\delta )^{n+1}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(1)^mn!}{(nm)!m!}[\widehat{H}^m]_{ab}[\widehat{H}^{nm}]_{BA},$$
(13)
produces precisely the corresponding term in the expansion for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\omega )`$.

### II.4 Disorder averaging

For the Green function perturbation theory with Gaussian randomness in $`\widehat{H}`$, the effect of disorder averaging is to replace $`\widehat{H}^{2n}`$ with a sum of products of all pairwise contractions $`\widehat{H}\widehat{H}`$. We can translate this into the language of the Liouvillian theory by using the definition of $`\widehat{}`$ to express its matrix elements in terms of those of $`\widehat{H}`$, then using the correlators for the matrix elements of $`\widehat{H}`$ to obtain those for $`\widehat{}`$,

$`_{aA;bB}_{cC;dD}`$ $`=`$ $`(\delta _{ab}H_{BA}H_{ab}\delta _{BA})(\delta _{cd}H_{DC}H_{cd}\delta _{DC})`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\delta _{ab}\delta _{cd}H_{BA}H_{DC}\delta _{ab}\delta _{DC}H_{BA}H_{cd}\delta _{BA}\delta _{cd}H_{ab}H_{DC}+\delta _{BA}\delta _{DC}H_{ab}H_{cd},`$
and finally using these to average over the powers $`\widehat{}^{2n}`$ that occur in the perturbative expansion.

### II.5 From Liouvillian perturbation theory to Green function perturbation theory

The purpose of this subsection is to construct an algorithm for passing from a given (likely approximate) expression for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\omega )`$ to one for $`\widehat{K}(E,\omega )`$. Specifically, we would like to associate uniquely each disorder averaged diagram for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\omega )`$ with a corresponding set involving Green functions. To make the reader’s task simpler we we first summarize the basic idea of the algorithm, then provide a representative example, and finally state the general formula.

#### II.5.1 Basic idea

In going between Eq. (12) and Eq. (13), we have lost the distinction between advanced and retarded propogators (since $`E\pm \frac{\omega }{2}\pm i\delta `$ have been traded for $`\omega `$) but the matrix elements still record where the original disorder lines were attached in the two-particle Green function diagram. If we reconstruct this information from the Liouvillian matrix elements, where it must reside since they are defined by matrix elements of the Hamiltonian, our remaning task is merely one of undoing the signs and combinatorial factors introduced by the energy integration. This is easier done than said.Iddo

#### II.5.2 Example

Let us see how this works at lowest non-trivial order (fourth, since at second order there is only one Liouvillian diagram). Of the three diagrams in Fig. 1

we will use the middle one, denoting its contribution to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}(\omega )`$ by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}^{(\beta )}(\omega )`$. In terms of $`\widehat{H}`$ it is (summation over all repeated indices is implied)

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}^{(\beta )}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega +i\delta )^5}}_{aA;uU}_{wW;bB}_{uU,vV}_{vV;wW}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega +i\delta )^5}}[\delta _{ab}H_{BW}H_{UA}\widehat{H}^2_{WU}+\delta _{BA}H_{au}H_{wb}\widehat{H}^2_{uw}`$
$`2H_{au}H_{vb}H_{BA}H_{uv}2H_{ab}H_{VU}H_{BV}H_{UA}`$
$`H_{au}H_{BA}H^2_{ub}H_{ab}H_{BU}H^2_{UA}H^2_{au}H_{ub}H_{BA}H_{ab}H_{UA}H^2_{BU}`$
$`+2\widehat{H}^2_{ab}\widehat{H}^2_{BA}+4H_{au}H_{BU}H_{ub}H_{UA}],`$
which can be represented graphically by drawing the bare Liouvillian propagator as a double line and resolving disorder vertices using the Hamiltonian as indicated in Fig. 2. This is done in detail in Fig. 3, in which the first diagram is Eq. (16) and last ten are Eq. (16).

The final step is to undo the signs and combinatorial factors generated by the energy integration in going from Eq. (12) to Eq. (13). For each term in our example, this may be done by simply counting how many times $`H`$ appears on upper or lower lines, representing retarded or advanced Green functions. In this way, writing $`E_\pm E\pm \omega /2\pm i\delta `$, we find that Eq. (16) generates a contribution to $`K_{aA;bB}^\pm (E,\omega )`$ of

$`K_{aA;bB}^{(\beta )}(E,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ab}H_{BW}H_{UA}H^2_{WU}}{E_+^5E_{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{BA}H_{au}H_{wz}H^2_{uw}}{E_+E_{}^5}}`$ (17)
$`2\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{H_{au}H_{vb}H_{BA}H_{uv}}{E_+^2E_{}^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{ab}H_{VU}H_{BV}H_{UA}}{E_+^4E_{}^2}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{H_{au}H_{BA}H^2_{ub}}{E_+^2E_{}^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{ab}H_{BU}H^2_{UA}}{E_+^4E_{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{H^2_{au}H_{ub}H_{BA}}{E_+^2E_{}^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{H_{ab}H_{UA}H^2_{BU}}{E_+^4E_{}^2}}\right)`$
$`+2\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{H^2_{ab}H^2_{BA}}{E_+^3E_{}^3}}+4\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{H_{au}H_{BU}H_{ub}H_{UA}}{E_+^3E_{}^3}}`$
This equation is depicted graphically in Fig.4.

Three aspects of this exercise are worth noting. First, a given Liouvillian diagram contains a partial sum of several Green function diagrams. Second, the Green function diagrams are all added with positive weights. Third, one’s conventional intuition about the importance of diagrams in Green function perturbation theory is suspect when carried over to Liouvillian perturbation theory. In this example, a seemingly simple, non-crossing Liouvillian diagram actually sums some of the crossing diagrams in Green function perturbation theory.

#### II.5.3 The algorithm

To apply the method illustrated above to all diagrams we need to automate the procedure for keeping track of the topology of disorder contractions. This can be accomplished by deforming the problem defined by Eqns. (8) and (9) to the form

$`\widehat{}(p,h)`$ $`=`$ $`p\widehat{H}\widehat{1}h\widehat{1}\widehat{H}`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\omega ,p,h)`$ $`=`$ $`[\omega \widehat{}(p,h)+i\delta ]^1.`$ (18)
Here, $`p`$ and $`h`$ are arbitrary parameters which record whether $`H`$ acts on a retarded or an advanced Green function line. Consider any particular Liouvillian diagram at order $`2n`$, which we label below with $`\mu `$. Its contribution to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )`$ is

$$\frac{\widehat{L}^{2n}_\mu }{(\omega +i\delta )^{2n+1}}=\underset{m\alpha }{}A_{m\alpha }^{(\mu )}p^{2nm}h^m\frac{\widehat{H}^m\widehat{H}^{2nm}_{\alpha \mu }}{(\omega +i\delta )^{2n+1}},$$
(19)
where $`A_{m\alpha }^{(\mu )}`$ are combinatorial coefficients and $`_\mu `$ denotes a particular subset of Wick contractions of $`\widehat{}^{2n}`$ corresponding to $`\mu `$ (and similarly for $`_{\alpha \mu }`$ in the case of $`\widehat{H}^{2n}`$). The diagram gives rise to a contribution to $`K_{aA;bB}^\pm (E,\omega )`$ of

$$\underset{m\alpha }{}A_{m\alpha }^{(\mu )}(1)^m\frac{m!(2nm)!}{(2n)!}\frac{\widehat{H}^m\widehat{H}^{2nm}_{\alpha \mu }}{E_+^{m+1}E_{}^{2nm+1}}.$$
(20)
This step can be automated by making the substitutions: $`\omega +i\delta E_+E_{}`$, $`pxE_+/z`$, and $`hyE_{}/z`$, and then, to attach the binomial coefficients, resorting to the identity

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{dz}{2\pi iz}\mathrm{exp}(xy+z)\frac{x^my^n}{z^l}=\frac{m!n!}{l!},$$
(21)
where the $`z`$ integration contour encloses the origin once in the anticlockwise direction. Thus the algorithm for energy un-integrating the Liouvillian perturbation theory is reformulated as a particular integral transform.

To summarize, $`K(E,\omega )`$ can be recovered from $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )`$ by first generalizing $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega )`$ to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ,p,h)`$ for a Liouvillian as in Eq. (II.5.3) and then carrying out the integrals in

$$K(E,\omega )=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\frac{dz}{2\pi iz}\mathrm{exp}(xy+z)\mathrm{\Pi }(E_+E_{},\frac{x}{z}E_+,\frac{y}{z}E_{}).$$
(22)
As the objects on both sides are formally defined by their diagrammatic series, this is an exact relationship between them. Given a finite set of Liouvillian diagrams, this procedure can clearly be carried out diagram by diagram. On the other hand, the procedure may prove too cumbersome to deal successfully with a particular approximate resummation of Liouvillian perturbation theory. It turns out that our program can be carried through for the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ limit of MSZ, applied to random matrix ensembles, as we show in Section IV. By contrast, for the quantum Hall problem even the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ limit requires numerical solution of an integral equation to obtain the Liouvillian. The chore of energy unintegration in this case is much more involved and we will consider it only in a special limit. It is conceivable that in still other cases one may need to resort to numerical resummations of the unintegrated series.

## III $`1/N_L`$ Expansion

No exact solution of a problem using the Liouvillian formalism is known at present. It is therefore pertinent to ask whether there are useful, natural approximations in the Liouvillian approach that are hard to uncover in the standard approach. The simplest one, suggested by the interpretation of the Liouvillian as a random Hamiltonian in its own right, is the self-consistent Born approximation (SCBA), employed for this purpose by SMG. In the supersymmetric functional integral approach of MZS, the SCBA is a saddle point approximation, but we will instead take the diagrammatic route, in which it is a summation of all non-crossing diagrams. In either case, the procedure is justified formally by deforming the problem to one with $`N_L`$ Liouvillian flavors and taking the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ limit. One can then examine the stability of the solution by perturbing in $`1/N_L`$, in the hope that most of the structure in the problem of interest, $`N_L=1`$, survives to large $`N_L`$.

The recipe for introducing $`N_L`$ flavors into a general Liouvillan problem is as follows. One replicates the original $`N^2`$ dimensional space of bilinears $`N_L`$ times and allows for scattering between different flavors. Then

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(a,A;i|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega \widehat{}+i\delta }}|b,B;j),`$ (23)
with

$`\widehat{}^{kl}\widehat{}^{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_L}}(\delta _{kn}\delta _{lm}+\delta _{km}\delta _{ln})\widehat{}^{kl}\widehat{}^{kl}.`$ (24)
where in the Liouvillian correlator we have indicated only the flavor indices. The replicated Liouvillian can be thought of as an $`N_L\times N_L`$ matrix with individual elements which are themselves $`N^2\times N^2`$ Liouvillians of the original, single flavor, problem constructed from different realizations of disorder. Moreover, $`\widehat{}^{kl}=\widehat{}^{lk}`$, so that $`(N_L^2+N_L)/2`$ independent realizations of disorder are necessary to construct a single realization of the replicated problem. The entire $`N_LN^2\times N_LN^2`$ matrix is Hermitian. The construction we have described is, in the terminology of MSZ, the orthogonal generalization of the $`N_L=1`$ problem and is the one they have argued is useful in generating a $`1/N_L`$ expansion for the localization length exponent for the quantum Hall plateau transition.

To see how the expansion goes, consider as $`N_L\mathrm{}`$ the low order diagrams shown in Fig. 5.

Evidently, diagrams with crossed disorder lines are suppressed by factors of $`1/N_L`$ relative to those without crossed lines. This suppression of crossed diagrams continues in higher orders of the expansion. Thus the leading approximation at large $`N_L`$ is to sum all non-crossing terms, which are of order $`N_L^0`$. As usual, this sum can be carried out by solving the equivalent self-consistency equation

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}^{ij}=\frac{\delta _{ab}\delta _{AB}\delta _{ij}}{\omega +i\delta }+\frac{1}{\omega +i\delta }\left[\widehat{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}\widehat{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}\right]_{aA;bB}^{ij}$$
(25)
represented graphically in Fig. 6.

At next order ($`N_L^1`$) one needs to sum maximally crossed graphs and rainbow diagrams shown in Fig. 8. At any order the Liouvillian Green function is diagonal in the flavor index

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}^{ij}(\omega )=\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}(\omega )$$
(26)
and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}(\omega )`$ is taken as an approximation to the $`N_L=1`$ Liouvillian Green function.

## IV Random Matrix Theory

We now turn to the problem of random matrix statistics as a test of the Liouvillian large $`N_L`$ approach. The large number of known exact results on this problem and the relative simplicity of calculations make it an ideal test case. While there is no phase transition (all Green functions are analytic inside the band), we will see that there is sufficient non-trivial structure in the statistics of the eigenvalues that can be used diagnostically. Oddly enough, we will find that the Liouvillian analysis will yield some Green functions that are singular inside the band (see Section IVE).

The program is this: for $`N\times N`$ random matrices, we introduce an enlarged Liouvillian with $`N_L`$ flavors. Now we have (at least) two different limits to consider. The standard one takes $`N1`$ at $`N_L=1`$, and leads to a familiar set of simplifications such the Wigner semicircle law for the density of eigenvalues which are summarized below. It also leads to a perturbation theory in $`1/N`$ which is the zero dimensional version of impurity averaged perturbation theory for single-particle Green functions in disordered conductors. The new limit we will consider is $`N_L1`$ at fixed $`N`$. As in all large-$`n`$ expansions, this will prove useful if the large $`N_L`$ problem is sufficiently smoothly connected to the $`N_L=1`$ problem of interest. While we will find it useful to then take $`N1`$ (but keeping $`NN_L`$) as well, the possibility of finding non-trivial information on finite matrices is a potential asset of this limit. Similarly, in the application to the quantum Hall plateau transition, the infinite volume limit is taken after $`N_L\mathrm{}`$.

Before proceeding we collect some standard definitions and results on the random matrix theory for ease of comparison with the following Liouvillian analysis.

### IV.1 Ensembles

We will be interested in random Hermitean matrices $`\widehat{H}`$ drawn from the Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE) if $`\widehat{H}`$ is complex, and the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) if $`\widehat{H}`$ is required to be purely real. For these ensembles it is sufficient to specifiy the correlators of the matrix elements,

$`H_{ab}H_{cd}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{N}}(\delta _{ad}\delta _{bc}+\alpha \delta _{ac}\delta _{bd}),`$ (27)
where $`\alpha =0`$ for GUE and $`\alpha =1`$ for GOE. The variance has been normalized by the matrix size, $`N`$, to produce a bandwidth which remains finite as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

### IV.2 Correlators

In addition to the fundamental one and two particle Green functions defined in Section II, we will be interested in the the density of states (DOS) of $`\widehat{H}`$

$$\rho (E)=\underset{n}{}\delta (Eϵ_n)=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ImTr}\left[\frac{1}{E\widehat{H}+i\delta }\right]$$
(28)
and its disorder averaged correlation function

$$R(E,\omega )=\rho (E+\frac{\omega }{2})\rho (E\frac{\omega }{2}).$$
(29)
$`R(E,\omega )`$ is related to the two-particle Green functions $`K`$ by

$$R(E,\omega )=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\underset{aA}{}[K_{aA;aA}^++K_{aA;aA}^+K_{aA;aA}^{++}K_{aA;aA}^{}].$$
(30)
The Liouvillian Green function allows us to extract the Liouvillian density of states (LDOS)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )=\underset{mn}{}\delta (\omega \lambda _{mn})=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ImTr}\left[\frac{1}{\omega \widehat{}+i\delta }\right]$$
(31)
and it follows from Eq. (10) that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )=𝑑ER(E,\omega )`$.

Disorder averaging (at any $`N`$) simplifies the structure of various correlators

$`G_{mn}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{mn}G(E)`$
$`K_{aA;bB}(E,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ab}\delta _{AB}K_1(E,\omega )+\delta _{aA}\delta _{bB}K_2(E,\omega )+\delta _{aB}\delta _{Ab}K_3(E,\omega )`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{aA;bB}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ab}\delta _{AB}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )+\delta _{aA}\delta _{bB}\mathrm{\Pi }_2(\omega )+\delta _{aB}\delta _{Ab}\mathrm{\Pi }_3(\omega )`$ (32)
with the constraints $`K_2=K_3`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2=\mathrm{\Pi }_3`$ for GOE and $`K_3=\mathrm{\Pi }_3=0`$ for GUE. Finally, the Liouvillian density of states has the form

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{\pi }}\left(\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_2(\omega )+\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_3(\omega )}{N}}\right),`$ (33)
where the powers of $`N`$ arise from taking a trace over the index structure in Eq. (32).

### IV.3 Standard results: large N at $`N_L=1`$

At $`N=\mathrm{}`$ the SCBA for the single-particle Green function,foot:sqrt

$$G_{mn}^{\mathrm{}}(E)=\delta _{mn}\frac{E}{2v^2}\left(1\sqrt{14v^2/E^2}\right)$$
(34)
is exact, and hence the DOS is the Wigner semicircle: $`lim_N\mathrm{}\rho (E)/N=(1/\pi v)\sqrt{1(E/2v)^2}`$. For $`N`$ large but finite, the deviations from this limiting form are small. For example, the leading behavior of the DOS at energies above the large $`N`$ upper band edge, $`E=2v`$, is $`\rho (E)\mathrm{exp}(4N(E/v2)^{3/2}/3)`$. Higher order correlators of the DOS, including $`R(E,\omega )`$, can be discussed in each of two limits. First, taking $`N\mathrm{}`$ with energy arguments fixed and all different, they factorize. For example, with $`\omega 0`$,

$$R_{\mathrm{}}(E,\omega )=\rho _{\mathrm{}}(E+\frac{\omega }{2})\rho _{\mathrm{}}(E\frac{\omega }{2}).$$
(35)
Second, by scaling the separation of energy arguments with the mean level spacing, universal corrleation functions are obtained, which are dominated at small energy separations by level repulsion. Thus, for $`N\omega 1`$,

$$R(E,\omega )(\omega N)^\beta \rho (E)^2,$$
(36)
with $`\beta =1`$ for GOE and $`\beta =2`$ for GUE.

Combining these with our earlier listing of the general properties of Liouvillians we conclude that the exact LDOS will have almost all its weight within the range $`4v<\omega <4v`$ for $`N1`$. For $`N=\mathrm{}`$ it is exactly zero outside and vanishes with zero slope (quadratically $`(4v\pm \omega )^2`$) near the edges. Finally, at finite $`N`$, there should be a pseudogap of width $`v/N`$ near $`\omega =0`$ with details depending on the symmetry of the ensemble.

### IV.4 RMT Liouvillian

#### IV.4.1 $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$, $`N`$ arbitrary

For the GUE Eq. (25) becomes

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +i\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2v^2\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )^2}{\omega +i\delta }}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2v^2}{N(\omega +i\delta )}}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +i\delta }}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_3(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (37)
The solution is similar to that for $`N=\mathrm{}`$ RMT (cf. Eq. 34). Using Eq. (33) the LDOS is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{N^21}{\pi \sqrt{2v^2}}}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{8v^2}}}`$ (38)
for $`|\omega |<2\sqrt{2}v`$ and zero otherwise. Notice that the support of the spectrum at $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ is completely independent of $`N`$.

Turning to GOE, the self-consistency condition reduces to the quadratic equations

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +i\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2v^2(N+1)}{N(\omega +i\delta )}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )^2\mathrm{\Pi }_3(\omega )^2)`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_3(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2v^2}{N(\omega +i\delta )}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_3(\omega )^2\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N+1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +i\delta }}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )\right)`$ (39)
with solution

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4v^2+(1+N)(N(\omega +i\delta )^2\sqrt{16v^28N(1+N)v^2(\omega +i\delta )^2+N^2(\omega +i\delta )^4})}{4N(2+N)v^2(\omega +i\delta )}},`$ (40)
leading to the LDOS

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\left(N^2{\displaystyle \frac{2N}{N+1}}\right)\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{2N}{\pi (N+1)}}\mathrm{Im}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +i\delta }}.`$ (41)
As $`N\mathrm{}`$ the leading, $`𝒪(N^2)`$, piece of this result is identical to the corresponding piece of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )`$ for the GUE. For finite N, however, the LDOS is zero in the window $`|\omega |<\sqrt{2v^2}/N`$, in stark contrast with the GUE result (or anything else one might expect of a disordered system: according to this approximation the spectrum of the disordered problem is completely gapped). These results are illustrated in Fig. 7.

There are at least four important differences between these exact $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ results and the corresponding, correct, $`N_L=1`$ solutions:

* At $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ results for both GUE and GOE imply a bandwidth of $`2\sqrt{2}v`$ for the underlying random matrices. This is a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ less than that of the correct solution.
* The infinite gradient of the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )`$ at the Liouvillian band edges is at odds with the exact result, which has vanishing slope. Contributions to the LDOS at the Liouvillian band edges come from pairs of random matrix eigenvalues which are near opposite random matrix band edges. If one assumes that $`R`$ will factorize in such cases, which is certainly true of the exact result and should be expected anyway for such widely separated eigenvalues, the form found for LDOS implies a DOS divergent near the random matrix band edges, with $`\rho (E)(v\sqrt{2}\pm E)^{1/4}`$. In fact, we shall see that $`R`$ does not factorize at $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$, which turns out to be the central pathology of that limit.
* Although there is a delta function at zero frequency, arising from zero eigenvalues of $`\widehat{}`$ (see Eq. (10)), its weight is $`1`$, and not $`N`$ as it should be.
* Finally, the two solutions are qualitatively wrong in the small frequency limit ($`|\omega |1/N`$) in opposite ways. The GUE LDOS is non-zero with no indication of level repulsion, while the GOE develops a clean gap over a region of $`𝒪(1/N)`$.

The $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ result above is clearly not an adequate approximation to $`N_L=1`$ even for the purposes of computing properties of the Liouvillian . In the next section we will see that matters get worse when we energy unintegrate the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ result. Before turning to that, we first ask whether one may construct a smooth interpolation between the two limits by perturbing in $`1/N_L`$. We offer evidence that this is unlikely, both from considering the $`1/N_L`$ expansion analytically, and from studying the problem numerically for a range of $`N_L`$ values.

#### IV.4.2 Leading $`1/N_L`$ corrections

As discussed in Section III, the leading correction for large $`N_L`$ to the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ Liouvillian Green function is given by the maximally crossed diagrams. These are resummed by two consecutive geometric series, represented graphically in Fig. 8.

Denoting the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ solution by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$, the result of this calculation for the GUE is

$`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1N^2}{N_L\pi }}\mathrm{Im}({\displaystyle \frac{2(\mathrm{\Pi }_1)^5v^4}{(1v^2(\mathrm{\Pi }_1)^2)(12v^2(\mathrm{\Pi }_1)^2)}})`$
As is the case with $`1/N`$ corrections to the RMT DOS, the $`1/N_L`$ correction to the LDOS is finite near $`\omega =0`$ and develops a singularity at band edges, as illustrated in Fig. 9. In the case of the GOE, the $`1/N_L`$ correction, which for brevity we do not display, is divergent at all four band edges. These divergences show that any attempt to fix the bandwidth problems of the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ limit, if feasible, must involve an analysis including contributions at all orders in $`1/N_L`$. We have not pursued this analysis further. Instead, we offer evidence from numerical studies that expansion about $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ is unlikely to yield useful information on behavior at $`N_L=1`$.

#### IV.4.3 Numerics at small $`N_L`$

The simplicity of the random matrix problem affords us a different, more direct line of attack via exact diagonalization. Specifically, we have diagonalised numerically Liouvillian RMT for a range of $`N_L`$ and $`N`$, both to test the relevance of analytic results above and also to search for new features, especially in the interesting regime of small $`N_L`$. Representative plots of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )`$ are shown for the GUE in Fig. 10 and for the GOE in Fig. 11, both covering a range in $`N_L`$ at $`N=2`$. We have searched for, but found no significant qualitative differences at larger N. Our conclusions from these figures are as follows. First, the gross of features of the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ limit (see Fig. 7) are already observable at $`N_L`$ as small as $`N_L=8`$. Second, Liouvillian theories at $`N_L>1`$ are sufficiently different from the theory at $`N_L=1`$, even for $`N_L=2\mathrm{and}3`$, that the quantitative utility of any $`1/N_L`$ corrections seems questionable. Readers should note especially the rapid change in the distribution of small eigenvalues as $`N_L`$ is increased. Third, while one clearly cannot hope to investigate analyticity conclusively by these means, there are two features to the numerical results which suggest behavior non-analytic in $`1/N_L`$ at $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$. One of these is the number of states outside the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ band, which appears to decrease exponentially in $`N_L`$, as in the band tails of the RMT DOS. The other is the presence of oscillations in the LDOS for the GUE at small energies, as a function of $`N_L`$: $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0)`$ vanishes for odd $`N_L`$ and is non-zero for even ones.

### IV.5 Undoing the energy integration

In this subsection we apply the formalism developed in Sec IIE to translate the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ RMT calculation into Green function language. We start from Eq. (18), applied to RMT. Summing the non-crossed diagrams with $`\widehat{}(p,h)`$ leads for the GUE, to the self-consistency equations, modified from Eq. (37) to

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +i\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )v^2}{\omega +i\delta }}\left[(p^2+h^2)\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{(ph)^2}{N}}\mathrm{\Pi }_2(\omega )\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2phv^2\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )^2}{N(\omega +i\delta )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2(ph)^2\mathrm{\Pi }_2(\omega )}{\omega +i\delta }}\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_2(\omega )}{N}}\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_3(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (42)
We now take the further limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ whereon the solution is

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2v^2(p^2+h^2)}}\left(1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4(p^2+h^2)v^2}{(\omega +i\delta )^2}}}\right)`$
In this limit the solution for the GOE is identical.

Using Eq. (22) we obtain $`K_{aA;bB}^+(E,\omega )=\delta _{ab}\delta _{AB}K_1(E,\omega )`$ where

$`K_1(E,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\mathrm{exp}(xy){\displaystyle \frac{dze^zE_+^1E_{}^1}{2\pi i2v^2[(xE_{}^1)^2+(yE_+^1)^2)]}\left[z\sqrt{z^24v^2[(xE_+^1)^2+(yE_{}^1)^2]}\right]}.`$ (43)
We carry out the integral for large positive $`E_\pm `$ (see Appendix B for details) and obtain results for general $`E_\pm `$ by analytic continuation. We find

$`K_1(E_+,E_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v^2}}\left[\mathrm{sin}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_+\sqrt{E_+^24v^2}+E_{}\sqrt{E_{}^24v^2}}{E_+^2+E_{}^24v^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right]`$ (44)
where the signs of the square roots are positive for real $`E_\pm >2v`$, and branch cuts in the complex $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$ planes run on the real axes, from $`E_\pm =2v`$ to $`E_\pm =2v`$.

The very first thing to note about this result is that, unlike the exact answer

$`K_{aA;bB}^+`$ $`=`$ $`G^+(E_+)G^{}(E)=\delta _{ab}\delta _{AB}{\displaystyle \frac{E_+E_{}}{4v^4}}\left(1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4v^2}{E_+^2}}}\right)\left(1\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4v^2}{E_{}^2}}}\right),`$ (45)
it does not factor in its dependence upon $`E_\pm `$. At $`N=\mathrm{}`$, where the energies $`E_\pm `$ involve eigenvalues which are at infinite separation on the scale of the level spacing, this is manifestly wrong.

To proceed further in this discussion, we need to examine the analytic structure of Eq. (44). Observe that the result is an analytic function of real $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$ when both $`E_+>2`$ and $`E_{}>2`$. In this region it is the sum of the convergent perturbative expansion in inverse powers of $`E_\pm `$ that is generated by unintegrating the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ series term by term. Also, in this region $`K^+`$ is purely real and the choice of the sign of the imaginary infinitesimals in $`E_\pm `$ is immaterial: it equally well describes an approximation to $`K^{++}`$.

The series diverges on approaching the boundary of this region. In the two-dimensional plane of real $`E_+,E_{}`$, this happens at the outer boundary of the cross-shape formed by the four lines $`E_+=\pm 2v`$ and $`E_{}=\pm 2v`$, shown in Fig. 12. Inside this cross-shape, the choice of infinitesimal imaginary parts to $`E_\pm `$ is essential to specify which side one is of the branch cuts in Eq. (44). Depending on how this is done, we obtain inside the cross both $`K^+`$ and $`K^{++}`$, which are no longer equal but are both generically complex. The development of imaginary parts to the Green functions occurs when one of their arguments enters the band. Indeed, in the exact expression, Eq. (45), this is trivially true.

Random matrices do not exhibit a phase transition and so we should expect that $`K^+`$ and $`K^{++}`$ are analytic functions of $`E_+`$ and $`E_{}`$ except at the band edges, $`E_\pm ^2=4v^2`$. This is true of the exact result, Eq. (45). Surprisingly, it is not true of the correlators derived from Eq. (44). Specifically, inside the cross, while $`K^+`$ is analytic, $`K^{++}`$ exhibits singularities on the circle $`E_+^2+E_{}^2=4v^2`$. For example, along the line $`E_+=E_{}`$, i.e. $`\omega =0`$, we find

$$K^+(E,\omega =0)=\frac{\pi }{4v^2}$$
(46)
while

$$\mathrm{Re}K^{++}(E,\omega =0)=\frac{\pi }{4v^2}\mathrm{sgn}(\frac{E}{v}\sqrt{2})$$
(47)
for $`0<E/v<2`$ and

$$\mathrm{Im}K^{++}(E,\omega =0)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{v^2}\mathrm{cosh}^1\left(\frac{E/v}{\sqrt{2(E/v)^24}}\right)& \mathrm{when}& \sqrt{2}<E/v<2\\ \frac{1}{v^2}\mathrm{sinh}^1\left(\frac{E/v}{\sqrt{42(E/v)^2}}\right)& \mathrm{when}& 0<E/v<\sqrt{2}\end{array}$$

where the negative branch is picked for the $`\mathrm{cosh}^1`$. These results are plotted in Fig. 13 and Fig. 14 along with the exact Green functions for comparison.

Finally, one can extract from the knowledge of both $`K^+`$ and $`K^{++}`$ the correlator of the density of states, which has the simple form

$$R(E,\omega )=\frac{1}{4\pi v^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(4v^22E^2\frac{\omega ^2}{2})$$
(48)
It is constant inside the circle $`E_+^2+E_{}^2=4v^2`$ and zero outside. This solves one remaining puzzle. While the Liouvillian derived two particle Green functions imply the same RMT band as the the exact ones, in the sense that both are analytic outside the cross, we noted previously that the Liouvillian bandwidth was wrong by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$. We can now recover the LDOS, Eq. (38), by integrating $`R(E,\omega )`$ over energy

$$\frac{1}{N^2}\mathrm{\Omega }(\omega )=\frac{dE}{4\pi v^2}\mathrm{\Theta }(2E^2+\frac{\omega ^2}{2}4v^2)=\frac{1}{\pi \sqrt{2v^2}}\sqrt{1\frac{\omega ^2}{8v^2}},$$

which serves also to verify that our analysis is internally consistent.

### IV.6 Summary of random matrix analysis

Briefly, in our direct examination of the Liouvillian method we find that the large $`N_L`$ limit is unrepresentative of the behavior of the $`N_L=1`$ problem. Upon energy unintegrating the Liouvillian $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ calculation, we find a pathological approximation which fails to factor correctly and even produces singularities inside the band. Together, these facts indicate that the Liouvillian $`1/N_L`$ expansion is not a useful way of approaching the random matrix problem.

In this analysis we have utilized two complementary perspectives on the large $`N_L`$ method and a comment on those is perhaps useful. The first perspective is that we generate a family of problems with enlarged symmetry groups indexed by an integer each one of which can be studied directly—which is what we have done in the numerical analysis. The enlarged problems are defined by multi-flavor Liouvillians that do not themselves arise from from single particle Hamiltonians. The second perspective treats the large $`N_L`$ limit as formalizing perturbation theory about a saddle point that is believed to capture the relevant physics. In this fashion we generate a series in powers of $`1/N_L`$ whose first term comes solely from the saddle point. The utility of the method is, of course, that setting $`N_L=1`$ in the perturbation theory yields the answer for the case of interest. In using the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ answer as input for the energy unintegration algorithm we have followed standard practice and simply truncated the series at its first term and set $`N_L=1`$. If the large $`N_L`$ method is useful in describing the $`N_L=1`$ problem this should be a sensible approximation. Since we find that this is not so, the premise must be flawed.

## V The Quantum Hall transition

Our Liouvillian analysis of the random matrix problem suggests to us that the method is unreliable and hence not to be trusted in its application to the quantum Hall problem. This is a disincentive to pursue a similarly detailed study of the quantum Hall case, especially as it would be a substantial undertaking: even the Liouvillian $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ analysis of that problem requires a numerical solution, and a full energy unintegration would require much more intensive numerical work. We therefore confine ourselves to three sets of observations. First, we confirm that our general Liouvillian formalism reduces to the one used by SMG and MSZ for the quantum Hall case. Second, we exhibit the unintegration algorithm specialized to this case. Third, we apply the unintegration algorithm to a special sector of the $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ problem, that of very large momenta, where it reduces to precisely the Liouvillian random matrix problem studied in the last section. This then imbeds the pathologies of that problem into the quantum Hall case.

### V.1 Liouvillian formulation

We consider a charged particle moving in a magnetic field on a torus of area $`2\pi l^2N`$, where $`l(\mathrm{}c/eB)^{1/2}`$ is the magnetic length and $`N`$ is the integer degeneracy of each Landau level. We denote the projection operator onto the lowest Landau level by $`𝒫`$. As the kinetic energy is constant within each Landau level, the Hamiltonian projected to the lowest Landau level is simply $`H=𝒫V(𝐫)𝒫`$ where $`V(𝐫)`$ is the impurity potential.

It is convenient to work initially with the states $`\{𝒫|𝐫\}`$ which form an overcomplete basis for the lowest Landau level; to lighten notation we will write $`\{|𝐫\}`$ for $`\{𝒫|𝐫\}`$. In terms of these we can define the single-particle Green functions in real space

$$G^\pm (E;𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=𝐫_1|\frac{1}{(EH\pm i\delta )}|𝐫_2$$
(49)
and the two-particle retarded-advanced Green function in real space

$$K^+(E,\omega ;𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})=G^{}(E\omega /2;𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})G^+(E+\omega /2;𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}),$$
(50)
where we have chosen a pairing of position coordinates appropriate for a diffusion propagator. These are evidently the analogs of Eqns. (1) and (2) in Section II. From these we derive the analog of Eq. (3),

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐},\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi i}}K^+(E,\omega ;𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`(𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega +i\delta )}}|𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}).`$
As disorder averaging restores translational invariance, we take Fourier transforms and define (denoting the disorder averaged quantities by the same symbols),

$`K^+(E,\omega ;𝐪)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi l^2N}}{\displaystyle K^+(E,\omega ;𝐫_1,𝐫_2)e^{i𝐪.(𝐫_2𝐫_1)}𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ;𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi l^2N}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ;𝐫_1,𝐫_2)e^{i𝐪.(𝐫_2𝐫_1)}𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2}`$ (52)
and the states

$$|\rho _𝐪)=|𝐫,𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪.𝐫)d^2𝐫,$$
(53)
which represent the projected density operators $`𝒫\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪.𝐫)𝒫`$ in the space of operators $`𝒜`$ on the lowest Landau level. In terms of these we can rewrite Eq. (51) as

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{2\pi i}}K^+(E,\omega ;𝐪)`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}l^2N}}(\rho _𝐪|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega +i\delta )}}|\rho _𝐪).`$
In place of the density operators, it is slightly more convenient to use (as a basis for $`𝒜`$) the magnetic translation operators $`\tau _𝐪=e^{+l^2q^2/4}\rho _𝐪`$, which are closed under the algebra

$$\tau _𝐪\tau _𝐪^{}=\mathrm{exp}(il^2𝐪𝐪^{}/2)\tau _{𝐪+𝐪^{}},$$
(55)
where $`qq^{}=ϵ_{ij}q_iq_j^{}`$, and are orthogonal with normalisation

$$(\tau _{𝐪1}|\tau _{𝐪2})=N\delta _{𝐪1,𝐪2}.$$
(56)
With the identification

$$|\rho _𝐪)=e^{l^2q^2/4}|\tau _𝐪)$$
(57)
one can show that in this basis the matrix elements of $`\widehat{}=\widehat{H}\widehat{1}\widehat{1}\widehat{H}`$ are

$`_{\mathrm{𝐪𝐪}^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{𝐪𝐪^{}}e^{\frac{|𝐪𝐪^{}|^2l^2}{2}}\left[e^{i\frac{𝐪𝐪^{}l^2}{2}}e^{i\frac{𝐪𝐪^{}l^2}{2}}\right]`$ (58)
$`=`$ $`2iV_{𝐪𝐪^{}}e^{\frac{|𝐪𝐪^{}|^2l^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{𝐪𝐪^{}l^2}{2}}).`$ (59)
With these we arrive finally at the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(q^2l^2/2)}{2\pi l^2}\left[\frac{1}{\omega +i\delta \widehat{}}\right]_{\mathrm{𝐪𝐪}},$$
(60)
which is the one introduced by SMG (up to a constant due to difference in definitons).

From known facts about the two particle Green function it can be deduced (see Appendix A for details) that the exact Liouvillian self energy varies for small $`q,\omega `$ as

$`\omega \mathrm{\Pi }^1(𝐪,\omega )iq^2D(\omega )iq^2\omega ^{\frac{1}{2\nu }}.`$ (61)
This is sub-diffusive behavior and is controlled by the correlation length exponent as $`q0`$ at fixed $`\omega `$. The combined work of SMG and MSZ has yielded a self energy, in the $`1/N_L`$ expansion, of this form with

$$D(\omega )D_0[1+O(\frac{\mathrm{log}\omega }{N_L})],$$
(62)
suggestive of an expansion of a critical power law. In the following subsection we note that the general algorithm of Section II could be used to examine this result at different energies in the disorder broadened Landau level.

### V.2 Energy unintegration

Formally, the procedure for recovering $`K(𝐪,E,\omega )`$ from $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )`$ is a straightforward specialization of Section II. One starts by deforming $`\widehat{}`$ to

$`_{\mathrm{𝐪𝐪}^{}}(p,h)`$ $`=`$ $`V_{𝐪𝐪^{}}e^{\frac{|𝐪𝐪^{}|^2l^2}{2}}\left[pe^{i\frac{𝐪𝐪^{}}{2}l^2}he^{i\frac{𝐪𝐪^{}}{2}l^2}\right].`$
This generates a deformation of any given Liouvillian diagram or of some partial summation that leads to an approximate form for $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )`$. In either case, carrying out the replacements in Eq. (18) and the integrals in Eq. (22) gives the corresponding energy resolved expressions.

As for the general example of Sec. II the algorithm relies on disorder contractions to keep track of the topology of individual diagrams with $`p`$ and $`h`$ used to assign appropriate weights via Eq. 22. Since the first step of the procedure is particularly transparent in the LL setting we briefly consider the analog of Fig. 3. In particular, for each of the ten “unfolded” diagrams we can immdediately write down its value by drawing momentum carrying lines (both disorder and external) inside the “particle-hole circle” and integrating correlators of disorder potential with an exponential/phase factor chosen according to diagram’s topology. For example, the diagram of Fig. 15 is given (aside from energy dependence) by

$$e^{\frac{Q^2l^2}{2}}\frac{d^2qd^2p}{(2\pi )^4}V_𝐪V_𝐪V_𝐩V_𝐩e^{\frac{(p^2+q^2)l^2}{2}i(𝐪𝐩+𝐩𝐐)l^2},$$
(63)
and boils down to evaluating a determinant. The wedge factors ($`𝐪𝐩\widehat{𝐳}𝐪\times 𝐩`$) appear whenever two momentum lines cross ( one also selects a sign convention) and effectively serve as a fingerprint of each diagram. These diagrammatic rules are familiar to workers in the field and have enabled considerable progress in series analysis of the problem singh ; wegner . Here, they illustrate the connection between Liouvillian and Green function perturbation series.

In order to apply this procedure in full to the Liouvillian $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ limit, we must compute $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega ,p,h)`$, which in turn requires numerical solution of an integral equation and is therefore a substantial undertaking. We turn now to the large $`𝐪`$ limit, for which the energy unintegration can be carried out more easily.

### V.3 Energy unintegration at $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$, as $`𝐪\mathrm{}`$

The key observationMZS  that allows us to execute the energy unintegration procedure in this limit is that the self-consistency equation simplifies drastically. Defining $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(𝐪,\omega )`$ by $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )=e^{l^2q^2/2}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(𝐪,\omega )`$, as $`q\mathrm{}`$ the self-consistency equation

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +i\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(𝐪,\omega )}{\omega +i\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q^{}}{4\pi ^2}\widehat{}_{𝐪,𝐪+𝐪^{}}\widehat{}_{𝐪+𝐪^{},𝐪}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(𝐪+𝐪^{},\omega )}`$ (64)
reduces to

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\mathrm{},\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +i\delta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2v^2\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}^2(\mathrm{},\omega )}{\omega +i\delta }},`$ (65)
which is identical to the corresponding RMT equation (either GUE or GOE) at $`N=\mathrm{}`$. It follows then that the energy unintegrated solution of this equation, the quantity $`\overline{K}(\mathrm{},E_+,E_{})=lim_𝐪\mathrm{}e^{+q^2l^2/2}K(𝐪,E_+,E_{})`$, is given by the expression already exhibited in Eq. (44):

$`\overline{K}(\mathrm{},E_+,E_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v^2}}\left[\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{E_+\sqrt{E_+^24v^2}+E_{}\sqrt{E_{}^24v^2}}{E_+^2+E_{}^24v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right].`$ (66)
As before, the two particle Green function fails to factorize in energy. This has, however, a more serious consequence in the quantum Hall problem. Large momenta also correspond to large spatial separations in magnetic fields. More precisely, one has

$`G^+(𝐫,𝐫,E_+)G^{}(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎},E_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2l^2}|𝐳\times 𝐫+𝐪l|^2)\overline{K}(𝐪,E_+,E_{})},`$ (67)
and hence

$$\underset{𝐫\mathrm{}}{lim}G(𝐫,𝐫,E_+)G(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{𝟎},E_{})=\underset{𝐪\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2\pi l^2}\overline{K}(𝐪,E_+,E_{}).$$
(68)
So we discover that lack of energy factorization translates into a lack of factorization at infinite spatial separation, which is clearly unphysical. In addition, we again find that the retarded-retarded Green function is singular inside the impurity band in a limit where the exact answer is neccessarily analytic.

## VI Summary and Outlook

As this has been a largely technical discussion of the Liouvillian formalism, it is perhaps useful to summarize the main argument again. The work of SMG and MSZ has suggested that the critical divergence of the localization length for the (non-interacting) quantum Hall transition can be computed within the Liouvillian formalism by the $`1/N_L`$ expansion in the number of Liouvillian flavors. We find, based on testing the Liouvillian approach on random martrix theory and energy unintegrating it at large momenta in the quantum Hall problem, that this program has serious problems already at $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ which do not appear to be remediable within the $`1/N_L`$ expansion. Accordingly, we conclude that the calculation of MSZ does not represent a computation of the quantum Hall correlation length exponent. As there isn’t another approximation scheme that readily suggests itself in the Liouvillian formalism, we are pessimistic, as indicated by our title, about its utility for making progress on the problem of the quantum Hall transition.

That said, there are a couple of loose ends in our analysis that would be nice to tie up. First, we have not carried out the energy unintegration of the Liouvillian $`N_L=\mathrm{}`$ answer for the quantum Hall problem near $`𝐪=0`$ and it would be of some technical interest to see if that has an analytic structure different from large momenta as well as a technical challenge to see how that might get done. Second, it may be possible to use our ideas on energy unintegration to see if the logarithm found by MSZ has any interpretation in Green function perturbation theory. Perhaps an intrepid reader will be inspired to sort these out.

Finally, as we were finishing this work, there appeared a preprintJEM  by Moore which studies the evolution of the QH Liouvillian as a function of $`N_L`$. Its most relevant finding, via numerical analysis at small $`N_L`$, is that the Liouvillian theory likely exhibits metallic diffusion, instead of critical scaling, at all $`N_L>1`$. Evidently, this is consistent with our own conclusion in Section IV.4.3 that the theory for all $`N_L1`$ is unrepresentative of the original problem of interest ($`N_L=1`$).

Acknowledgements: We have benefitted from numerous invigorating conversations with E. Fradkin, S. Girvin, S. Sachdev, I. Ussishkin and, especially, J. Moore. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation through grant No. DMR 99-78074 (VO and SLS), by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation (VO and SLS), and by the EPSRC under grant GR/J78327 (JTC).

## Appendix A Critical behavior of the quantum Hall Liouvillian

For completeness, but also because some of the original discussionSMG  was incorrectDq , we discuss here how it is that the energy integrated Liouvillian propagator can be used to extract the localization length exponent. One might worry that, as the critical wavefunctions are a set of measure zero in the spectrum, any information on them will be lost upon integrating over the band and the behavior at small $`\omega `$ and $`q`$ will be that of an insulator. This is not the case: the Liouvillian Green function exhibits critical asymptotics intermediate between those of the metal and insulator in the transport limit $`q\omega `$, with the diffusion constant $`D(\omega ,𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎})\omega ^{1/2\nu }`$, where $`\nu `$ is the correlation length exponentDq .

Near the critical energy $`E_c`$, the two particle Green function for the quantum Hall problem can be parametrized as chalker-param

$$K(E,\omega ;𝐪)=\frac{2\pi \rho (E)}{i\omega D(E,\omega ;𝐪)q^2}.$$
(69)
In the transport limit $`Dq^2\omega `$ we can expand the denominator to obtain

$$K(E,\omega ;𝐪)2\pi \rho (E)\left[\frac{1}{i\omega }\frac{Dq^2}{\omega ^2}\right].$$
(70)
These forms also hold for a metal, with $`D(E,\omega ;𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎})`$ non-zero, and for an insulator with $`D(E,\omega ;𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎})`$ vanishing for $`\omega 0`$ roughly as $`\omega ^2`$. For the quantum Hall problem, $`D(E,\omega ,𝐪)`$ has a non-trivial dependence on $`E`$, $`\omega `$ and $`𝐪`$.

To quantify this dependence, consider the two important length scales in the transport limit. These are the localization length $`\xi l|E_c/(EE_c)|^\nu `$ and $`L_\omega =(\rho (ϵ)\omega )^{1/2}`$ which is the size of a box with level spacing of order the frequency. Then, when $`L_\omega \xi (E)`$, localization is unimportant and we may take $`D(E,\omega ,𝐪)D_c`$, a non-zero constant. In the opposite limit, $`L_\omega \xi (E)`$, we have the insulating behavior, $`D(E,\omega ,𝐪)=D_{\mathrm{ins}}(\omega )\omega ^2`$. In the following we will assume a sharp crossover between these two limiting forms, which is sufficient for our purposes.

Armed with these facts we can now carry out the energy integration to deduce the form of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )`$ in the transport limit. Specifically,

$$𝑑E\mathrm{Re}K(E,\omega ;𝐪)=2\pi \frac{q^2}{\omega ^2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E\rho (E)D(E,\omega ,𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}).$$
(71)
We will see that the integral is dominated by energies near $`E_c`$ so that we can replace $`\rho (E)\rho (E_c)`$ and trade the integral over $`E`$ for one over the localization length using the asymptotic relation $`\xi l|E_c/(EE_c)|^\nu `$. This yields

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_cl^{1/\nu }}{\nu }}\rho (E_c){\displaystyle _l^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi \xi ^{11/\nu }D(E_c+E_c(l/\xi )^{1/\nu },\omega ,𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎})`$ (72)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_cl^{1/\nu }}{\nu }}\rho (E_c)\left[{\displaystyle _l^{L_\omega }}𝑑\xi \xi ^{11/\nu }D_{\mathrm{ins}}(\omega )+{\displaystyle _{L_\omega }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi \xi ^{11/\nu }D_c\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\omega ^2}}E_c\rho (E_c)\left[D_{\mathrm{ins}}(\omega )+D_c(l^2\rho (E_c)\omega )^{1/2\nu }\right]{\displaystyle \frac{D_cq^2}{\omega ^2}}(l^2\rho (E_c)\omega )^{1/2\nu },`$
where the last simplifcation follows upon noting that $`D_{\mathrm{ins}}(\omega )\omega ^2`$ is much smaller than $`\omega ^{\frac{1}{2\nu }}`$ for $`\nu >1/4`$, which is true in general of a random critical point in two dimensions on the grounds of the Harris criterion, and holds for the reasonably precise estimates of $`\nu `$ available in this case. As a statement about Liouvillian theory, this result implies that the self-energy of the exact Liouviliian Green function has the behavior $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega ,q0)=\omega 1/\mathrm{\Pi }(\omega ,q)iq^2\omega ^{\frac{1}{2\nu }}`$.

## Appendix B Details of Energy Unintegration

We start from Eq. (43). After a change of variables, it reads

$`K(E_+,E_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\theta {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{rdr\mathrm{exp}(r(E_{}\mathrm{cos}\theta +E_+\mathrm{sin}\theta ))}{2v^2r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dze^z}{2\pi i}[z\sqrt{z^2(2vr)^2}]}`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\theta {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr\mathrm{exp}(r(E_{}\mathrm{cos}\theta +E_+\mathrm{sin}\theta ))}{v}}I_1(2vr)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{R\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\varphi )}{\sqrt{R^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta +\varphi )1}}}1\right),`$
where we have defined

$`R`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v}}\sqrt{E_+^2+E_{}^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v}}\sqrt{E^2+(\omega /2+i0^+)^2}`$ (74)
and

$`\mathrm{tan}\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{}}{E_+}}.`$ (75)
Proceeding further,

$`K(E_+,E_{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v^2}}\left[\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{R\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\sqrt{R^21}}}+\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{R\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\sqrt{R^21}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right]`$ (76)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v^2}}\left[\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{E_+}{\sqrt{E_+^2+E_{}^24v^2}}}+\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{E_{}}{\sqrt{E_+^2+E_{}^24v^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v^2}}\left[\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{E_+\sqrt{E_+^24v^2}+E_{}\sqrt{E_{}^24v^2}}{E_+^2+E_{}^24v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right]`$
which is Eq. (44).

## Appendix C Magnetic algebra and random matrices

In this appendix we demonstrate that an algebra like that of density operators in the lowest Landau level may be set up for an arbitrary Hamiltonian. We consider an orthonormal basis $`\{|a\}`$ for $`𝒱`$ and the corresponding basis $`\{|a,b\}`$ on $`𝒜_𝒱`$, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ range from $`1`$ to $`N`$). We define

$$|𝐪)=\frac{1}{N^{1/2}}e^{iq_xq_y\pi /N}\underset{n}{}|n+q_y,n)e^{iq_xn2\pi /N}$$
(77)
for integer $`q_x`$ and $`q_y`$ (ranging from $`1N`$) which also form an orthonormal basis. We can rewrite

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{mn}{}H_{mn}|m,n)=\underset{𝐪}{}V_𝐪|𝐪),$$
(78)
where

$$V_𝐪\underset{n}{}\frac{H_{n+q_y,n}}{N^{1/2}}e^{iq_x(n+q_y/2)2\pi /N}$$
(79)
Switching to operator notation, with $`\tau _𝐪|𝐪)`$, one can check that

$$[\tau _𝐪,\tau _𝐩]=2i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi 𝐪𝐩}{N}\tau _{𝐪+𝐩}$$
(80)
so that

$$\frac{}{it}|𝐪)=\frac{1}{N^{1/2}}\underset{𝐩}{}2iV_𝐩\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi 𝐪𝐩}{N}|𝐩+𝐪).$$
(81)
These expressions parallel those for the Liouvillian in the lowest Landau level. Strikingly we have recast a generic problem in the notation of the magnetic translation operators. Of course, the definition of the (discrete) momenta is adhoc, and so, while this rewriting appears suggestive, it is not generally useful. Nevertheless, the GUE retains its simplicity in this approach: Eq. (27) implies that

$$V_𝐩V_𝐪=\frac{v^2}{N}\delta _{𝐩,𝐪}.$$
(82)
Disorder-correlators are thus diagonal in $`𝐪`$, continuing the analogy with spatially extended systems.