text:
# Josephson transport through a Hubbard impurity center.

\[

## Abstract

We investigate the Josephson transport through a thin semiconductor barrier containing impurity centers with the on-site Hubbard interaction $`u`$ of an arbitrary sign and strength. We find that in the case of the repulsive interaction the Josephson current changes sign with the temperature increase if the energy of the impurity level $`\epsilon `$ (measured from the Fermi energy of superconductors) falls in the interval $`(u,0)`$. We predict strong temporal fluctuations of the current if only a few centers present within the junction. In the case of the attractive impurity potential ($`u<0`$) and at low temperatures, the model is reduced to the effective two level Hamiltonian allowing thus a simple description of the nonstationary Josephson effect in terms of pair tunneling processes.

\]

Josephson transport through a semiconductor barrier containing resonance impurity centers is a subject of intense current theoretical and experimental interest. Being a coherent current of Cooper pairs, the Josephson current flowing through the impurity center is extremely sensitive to the presence of on-site impurity interaction . This offers a possibility of using the Josephson effect as a unique spectroscopic tool for measurements of impurities energy states and calls for a theoretical study of Josephson transport through an impurity level with arbitrary strength and sign of the on-site interaction.

The on-site Coulomb repulsion makes the occupation of an impurity center by a Cooper pair unfavorable. Thus, one would expect that the Josephson current flowing through an impurity level is considerably suppressed (unlike the normal current via a resonance state). However, recent analysis of the hopping magnetoresistance data for different semiconductors, revealed a presence of a comfortable transmission channel via the double occupied level (related to the states of the upper Hubbard band)  with the very low, as compared to the naively expected value, repulsion energy. Such a repulsion reduction may result from the polaronic effect, which sometimes can even “overscreen” the Coulomb repulsion reverting it to the effective attraction at the site. The so-called DX-centers in semiconductors formed by substitutional dopants in $`GaAs`$ and $`AlGaAs`$ alloys (see e.g.) represent an example of those attractive impurities.

In this Letter we investigate the Josephson transport through a semiconductor barrier with impurity centers of arbitrary on-site interaction strength and sign. We restrict ourselves to a sufficiently low impurity concentration such that the presence of an electron on a given site does not affect its neighbors. We consider the semiconductor film to be thin enough, so that it’s width is less than the average distance between the impurity centers: in this case the transport is indeed determined by the tunneling through a single impurity rather than by hopping over a chain of resonant impurities levels.

Given an on-site interaction strength, $`u`$, the occupancy of the impurity level is controlled by the level energy $`\epsilon .`$ For $`u>0`$ (repulsion), the impurity level is double occupied if $`\epsilon <u`$. It is single-occupied when $`u<\epsilon <0`$, and, finally, the impurity state is empty if $`\epsilon >0`$. In case of very strong repulsion $`u\mathrm{}`$ and zero temperature, the Josephson current changes sign abruptly as soon as the transition from the empty state to a single-occupied state occurs, in the later case a so-called $`\pi `$-junction is realized . We show that this effect holds and that the jump of the Josephson current becomes even more pronounced for any finite positive interaction $`u`$. At finite temperatures in the regime $`u<\epsilon <0`$ the double - and zero occupied states that carry positive Josephson currents become exited. We demonstrate that it results in nonmonotonic dependence of the Josephson current on temperature: the current first increases from negative to positive values and then decreases.

In case of an attracting center, the impurity level is either double occupied, if $`\epsilon <u/2`$, or empty when $`\epsilon >u/2`$. Close to the resonance, when $`\epsilon u/2`$, the main contribution to the Josephson current comes from pair tunneling processes, and the system can be described by the effective two level Hamiltonian that includes pair tunneling processes only . Solution of this model gives two energy branches with energies $`E_\pm (\varphi )`$ that depend on the phase difference $`\varphi =\varphi _2\varphi _1`$ of the superconductors and correspond to exactly opposite Josephson currents (see Fig. 3). At finite temperatures the upper level is exited and the Josephson current depends on the temperature as $`\mathrm{tanh}E(\varphi )/2T`$ with $`E(\varphi )=E_+(\varphi )E_{}(\varphi )`$. This model also allows for a simple enough analysis of the nonstationary Josephson effect in the regime where the applied voltage $`Vmin(\mathrm{\Delta },u)/e`$. We will consider the simplest set-up where the Josephson current is shunted by the resistor and show that in this regime the current-voltage dependence exhibits resonant peaks.

Model. We describe our system by the Hamiltonian of impurity level coupled with superconductors via weak tunneling matrix elements $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_1+\widehat{H}_2+\widehat{H}_0+\underset{k=1,2}{}t_k[\widehat{\psi }_{k\alpha }^{}(0)\widehat{d}_\alpha +\widehat{d}_\alpha ^{}\psi _{k\alpha }(0)]$$

where $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are the BCS Hamiltonians of the superconductors and $`H_0`$ is the impurity Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0=\epsilon \widehat{d}_\alpha ^{}\widehat{d}_\alpha +u\widehat{d}_{}^{}\widehat{d}_{}\widehat{d}_{}^{}\widehat{d}_{}.`$

Perturbation theory in tunneling matrix elements. The current flowing through the impurity can be found as the expectation value of the current operator $`\widehat{I}_1=t_1ei[\widehat{\psi }_{1\alpha }^{}(0)\widehat{d}_\alpha \widehat{d}_\alpha ^{}\widehat{\psi }_{1\alpha }(0)]`$ flowing between the superconductor 1 and the impurity. In the second order perturbation theory in $`t_1`$ the current $`I=I_1`$ is

$$I=4iet_1^2\mathrm{Im}_0^\beta 𝑑\tau _1F_{1\psi }^{}(\tau )F_d(\tau ),$$
(1)
where $`F_{1\psi }(\tau )`$ is the local anomalous Green function of the superconductor 1, $`F_{1\psi }(\omega )=\pi \nu _1\mathrm{\Delta }_1/\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|^2+\omega ^2}`$, where $`\nu _1`$ is the density of states. The anomalous Green function of the impurity center $`F_d(\tau _1,\tau _2)=d_{}(\tau _1)d_{}(\tau _2)`$ is found by the second order perturbation theory in $`t_2`$ and the current $`I`$ becomes

$`I=4iet_1^2t_2^2{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau 𝑑\tau _3}`$ $`d\tau _4F_{1\psi }^{}(\tau )`$ (3)
$`\times K(0,\tau ,\tau _3,\tau _4)F_2(\tau _4\tau _3),`$
where the correlation function

$$K(\tau _1,\tau _2,\tau _3,\tau _4)=d_{}(\tau _1)d_{}(\tau _2)d_{}^{}(\tau _3)d_{}^{}(\tau _4)_d,$$
(4)
is defined with respect to impurity Hamiltonian $`H_0.`$ Assuming for simplicity that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_1|=|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we arrive at the final answer for the current in the form

$$I=I_0(\varphi )\left(i_0+i_1e^{\beta \epsilon }+i_2e^{\beta \epsilon _2}\right)Z^1$$
(5)
where $`\epsilon _2=2\epsilon +u`$ is the energy of double-ocupied state,

$$I_0(\varphi )=4\pi ^2e(t_1t_2)^2\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ),$$
(6)
the impurity partition function $`Z=1+2e^{\beta \epsilon }+e^{\beta \epsilon _2},`$ and the terms $`i_0`$ and $`i_2`$ are

$`i_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon _2}}A^2(\epsilon )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}B(\epsilon ),`$ (7)
$`i_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon _2}}A^2(\epsilon \epsilon _2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}B(\epsilon \epsilon _2),`$ (8)
with functions $`A`$ and $`B`$ defined by

$`A(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`2T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{ϵ^2+\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\omega ^2}}},`$ (9)
$`B(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }A^2(ϵ)/2ϵ+T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2+\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\omega ^2}}.`$ (10)
The contribution $`i_1`$ in (5) is

$`i_1={\displaystyle \frac{A^2(\epsilon )A^2(\epsilon \epsilon _2)}{\epsilon _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(\epsilon )+B(\epsilon _2\epsilon ))}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (11)
$`+4T{\displaystyle \underset{\omega }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon (\epsilon _2\epsilon )+\omega ^2}{(\epsilon ^2+\omega ^2)((\epsilon _2\epsilon )^2+\omega ^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\omega ^2}}.`$ (12)
Repulsive Hubbard center.  In the case of repulsive interaction at zero temperature Eq.(5) simplifies to

$$I=I_0(\varphi )\times \{\begin{array}{ccc}i_2,& \epsilon <u& \\ i_1/2,& u<\epsilon <0& \\ i_0,& \epsilon >0,& \end{array}$$
(13)
that describes double-occupied, single occupied and unoccupied contributions respectively. The dependence of the Josephson current on $`\epsilon `$ given by Eq.(13) is discontinuous (see Fig.1) with the jumps at points $`\epsilon =0`$ and $`\epsilon =u`$ where the Josephson current changes sign. The maximal values of the Josephson current $`I_{max}/I_0(\varphi )=1/u+(2/\pi 1/2)/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ grow as $`1/u`$ when $`u0`$ such that for $`u<t^2\nu `$ the perturbation theory in hopping elements at $`\epsilon 0,u`$ becomes unapplicable. In the region $`u<\epsilon <0`$ the Josephson current does not exibit a singular behavior because ocupation of the impurity level by one electron prevents from the resonant pair current flow even in case of small $`u.`$ Thus the height of the jumps of the Josephson current at points $`\epsilon =0`$ and $`\epsilon =u`$ decreases with the increase of the interaction strength $`u`$.

At finite temperatures the dependence of the Josephson current on $`\epsilon `$ becomes continuous (Fig.1) and, eventually, at high enough $`T`$ the Josephson current becomes positive for all $`\epsilon .`$ Thus for $`\epsilon `$ laying within the interval $`(u,0)`$ the Josephson current changes it’s sign as temperature grows (Fig.2a). This can be understood as follows: At low temperatures the current is given by the single occupied contribution $`i_1`$ which is negative, at finite temperature the zero and double occupied states corresponding to positive currents are exited. Since the latter ones make larger contributions, the Josephson current eventually changes sign with the increase of temperature.

The temperature dependence in question implies the statistical averaging over impurity centers. If only few centers are present, one expects significant temporal fluctuations of the critical current. These fluctuations can be observed, for example, by including the Josephson junction in a superconducting loop. The energy of such a loop in the abscence of external magnetic field can be written as a function of magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=LI,`$ with $`L`$ being the inductance of the loop, as $`E_l(\mathrm{\Phi })=I_c\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)+\mathrm{\Phi }^2/2L,`$ where $`I_c`$ is the critical current defined by Eqs.(5,6) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the magnetic flux quantum. Assuming $`I_cL\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ we see that for positive $`I_c`$ the minimal solution corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ while for $`I_c<0`$ the solution corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$. Transitions between different states of the impurity center lead to fluctuations of the magnetic flux through the loop. Change in the occupation number requires a quasiparticle tunneling from the leads to the center or vice versa. Thus, if $`T<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the characteristic fluctuation time is of the order of $`\tau ^1(t^2/\mathrm{})\nu \mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }/T)`$. The characteristic times spent in the empty, single-occupied and double-occupied states are given as $`\tau Z`$, $`\tau Z\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ)`$ and $`\tau Z\mathrm{exp}(\beta ϵ_2)`$, respectively.

Attractive Hubbard center. At $`u<0`$ the dependence of the Josephson current on the level energy $`\epsilon `$ shows a resonance at values $`\epsilon |u|/2,`$ where the energy of the double-occupied state $`\epsilon _2`$ approaches zero (see Fig.2b). Near the resonance Eq.(5) can be simplified leaving only the terms that demonstrate singular behaviors $`1/\epsilon _2`$

$$I=\frac{I_0(\varphi )}{\epsilon _2}\frac{A^2((\epsilon _2+|u|)/2)A^2((\epsilon _2|u|)/2)e^{\beta \epsilon _2}}{1+e^{\beta \epsilon _2}}$$

For $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the maximal value of the current is

$$I_{max}=I_0(\varphi )A^2(|u|/2)/2T.$$
(14)
This expression diverges at very low temperatures $`T<t^2\nu `$ where the approach based on the direct perturbation theory in tunneling elements becomes unapplicable.

Effective low temperature model. In case of the attractive interaction the Josephson current obtained by the perturbation theory in $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ has a form of the Gibbs average of two terms corresponding to unoccupied and double occupied states. This holds as long as $`Tu`$, and the system in this regime can be described by the effective Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}_{eff}=\epsilon _2\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}+\stackrel{~}{t}_1[\widehat{b}^{}e^{i\varphi _1}+\widehat{b}e^{i\varphi _1}]+\stackrel{~}{t}_2[\widehat{b}^{}e^{i\varphi _2}+\widehat{b}e^{i\varphi _2}],$$

where $`\widehat{b}=\widehat{d}_{}\widehat{d}_{}`$ is the hard-core boson operator satisfying $`[\widehat{b},\widehat{b}^{}]=12\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b},\widehat{b}^{}\widehat{b}^{}=0.`$ The eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_{eff}`$ can be written as $`\psi =\alpha |0>+\beta |1>,`$ where $`|0>`$ is the empty state and $`|1>`$ is the double occupied (one pair) state. The operator of the current flowing through the impurity is

$$\widehat{I}=2ei\stackrel{~}{t}_1<\psi |\widehat{b}e^{i\varphi _1}b^{}e^{i\varphi _1}|\psi >.$$
(15)
Solving the Schrodinger equation $`\widehat{H}_{eff}\psi =E\psi `$ we find two eigenstates with energies

$$E_\pm (\varphi )=\epsilon _2/2\pm \sqrt{\delta ^2+E_0^2(\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )+1)}$$
(16)
where $`\delta ^2=\epsilon _2^2/4+(\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_2)^2,`$ $`E_0^2=2\stackrel{~}{t}_1\stackrel{~}{t}_2`$. The currents corresponding to these two states are

$$I_\pm (\varphi )=\frac{eE_0^2\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )}{\sqrt{\delta ^2+E_0^2(\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )+1)}}=2e\frac{dE_\pm (\varphi )}{d\varphi }.$$
(17)
Dependences of the energies $`E_\pm `$ and currents $`I_\pm `$ on the phase $`\varphi `$ are shown on Fig 3. Comparing the current $`I_{}`$ given by Eq.(17) with the result of perturbation theory in $`t_1,t_2`$ we find the effective tunneling matrix elements $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{1,2}=\pi t_{1,2}^2\nu _{1,2}A(|u|/2).`$ At $`Tu`$ the summation in (9) can be reduced to the integration resulting in

$$A(ϵ)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1(2/\pi )\mathrm{arcsin}(ϵ/\mathrm{\Delta })}{\sqrt{1ϵ^2/\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}<ϵ<\mathrm{\Delta }& \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi \sqrt{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{ϵ+\sqrt{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{ϵ\sqrt{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}ϵ>\mathrm{\Delta }.& \end{array}$$
(18)
At finite temperatures the Josephson current is given by the thermodynamic average of the two states $`I(\varphi )=I_{}(\varphi )\mathrm{tanh}E(\varphi )/2T`$ with $`E(\varphi )=E_+(\varphi )E_{}(\varphi )`$. As in case of repulsive interaction, for the junction containing only few centers we expect strong temporal fluctuations of the current since the critical currents for two branches have opposite signs. In particular, for the weakly coupled superconducting loop controlled by a single center within the Josephson junction the flux fluctuations between the values $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$ are expected according to the discussion given above.

Nonstationary regime. Let us consider the simplest experimental set-up (see Fig 4.): Superconductor contacts are shunted by the resistor while the potential of the superconductor 1 and the current $`I_0`$ are fixed. The potential of the superconductor 2 $`V_2`$ is determined by current conservation equation

$$V_2/R+I_2(t)=I_0,$$
(19)
where $`I_2(t)`$ is the current flowing between the impurity center and the superconductor 2

$$I_2(t)=2eit_2Im\{\alpha ^{}\beta e^{i\varphi _2}\}$$
(20)
The phase $`\varphi _2`$ is related to the voltage $`V_2`$ by

$$\dot{\varphi }_2=2eV_2.$$
(21)
To close the system of equations (19-21) we write the Schrodinger equation for the amplitudes $`\alpha ,\beta `$

$`i\dot{\alpha }=\beta \stackrel{~}{t}_1+\beta \stackrel{~}{t}_2e^{i\varphi _2}`$ (22)
$`i\dot{\beta }=\beta ϵ_i+\alpha \stackrel{~}{t}_1+\alpha \stackrel{~}{t}_2e^{i\varphi _2}.`$ (23)
The Cooper pair energy on the impurity site $`\epsilon _i`$ has a contribution from the potential of the superconductor 2 $`\epsilon _i=\epsilon _2+2keV_2`$ where $`k=l_1/(l_1+l_2)`$ and $`l_1,l_2`$ are the distances between the impurity center and superconductors 1 and 2 respectively. Eqs.(19-23) can be easily solved numerically. Solution for $`k=0,ϵ_2/E_0=0.5,\stackrel{~}{t}_1/E_0=2.0,\stackrel{~}{t}_2/E_0=0.5`$ and different shunting resistors are shown on Fig. 4 along with approximate adiabatic solutions shown by the dashed lines. The adiabatic approximation is valid in the low voltage regime where the phase $`\varphi _2`$ changes slowly and the current is given by

$$I_2(t)=eE_0^2\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _2t)/\sqrt{\delta ^2+E_0^2(\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _2t)+1)},$$
(24)
corresponding to the lower energy branch $`E_{}(\varphi _2)`$. At higher voltages the effect of Landau-Zenner tunneling between two energy branches cannot be neglected. As we see it from the numerical solution, transitions between the branches appear as resonances on the current-voltage dependence. Positions of these resonances can be easily estimated in case $`t_1t_2`$; taking $`t_2=0`$ in Eq.(16) we obtain that the energy levels are splitted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=2\sqrt{\epsilon _2^2/4+\stackrel{~}{t}_1^2}`$. Resonances arise when the frequency of the phase oscillations of the superconductor 2 $`\omega =2eV_2/\mathrm{}`$ is related with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ as $`m\mathrm{}\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. Shown in the the inset of Fig. 4 is the differential resistance as a function of voltage. One clearly sees resonances satisfying the above conditions.

Conclusions. In conclusion we considered the Josephson transport through an impurity center for the cases of arbitrary sign and arbitrary strength of the Hubbard interaction. For repulsive centers we show that the Josephson current changes sign with temperature when the energy of single occupied states $`\epsilon `$ lays within the interval $`(u,0).`$ If the junction contains only few centers strong temporal fluctuations of the current are predicted. In the case of attractive centers we study the nonstationary Josephson effect with the help of the effective model that takes into account only pair tunneling processes. We consider the case of resistivelly shunted Josephson junction and show that current-voltage characteristic has resonances associated with transition between two states formed due to coupling of the impurity with one of the superconductors.

We would like to thank Y.M. Galperin, A.E. Koshelev and K. Matveev for useful discussions. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science under contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38.


format: text

text:
# TRANSPORT COEFFICIENTS AND QUANTUM FIELDS11footnote 1Combined invited talk by G. A. and contributed poster by J. M. M. R. presented at Strong and Electroweak Matter (SEWM2002), Heidelberg, Germany, 2-5 October 2002.

## 1 Introduction

Transport coefficients characterize the response of a system in thermal equilibrium to a weak perturbation associated with a conserved current. Examples are the shear and bulk viscosities, electrical conductivity and diffusion constants. Transport coefficients can be relevant in various physical scenarios: in the formation and diffusion of large-scale magnetic fields, in compact stars and in relativistic heavy-ion collisions.

The calculation of transport coefficients in thermal field theory through Kubo formulas turns out to be highly nontrivial. The main problem is that already at leading-logarithmic order an infinite class of diagrams, known as ladder diagrams, has to be summed. This has favored the use of kinetic theory where a few scattering amplitudes must be included in the collision term. It is within the kinetic approach that it was first realized that screening processes are necessary and sufficient to obtain finite transport coefficients and a complete leading-log calculation for a variety of transport coefficients has appeared a few years ago.

However, recent work has contributed to establish an efficient and easy way to compute transport coefficients to leading-log order using the imaginary-time formalism of thermal field theory in a way that is consistent with the Ward identity. In the following we focus on these developments, describing the leading-log calculation of the electrical conductivity. After that we comment on why the nonabelian color conductivity turns out to be a much simpler quantity to compute. Finally we discuss the use of lattice QCD as a nonperturbative approach to the calculation of transport coefficients.

## 2 Electrical conductivity

In linear response theory transport coefficients are written as equilibrium expectation values of commutators of currents. Indeed, the Kubo formula for the electrical conductivity in QED is

$$\sigma =\underset{q^00}{lim}\frac{1}{3}\frac{}{q^0}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{ii}(q^0,\mathrm{𝟎}),$$
(1)
where the retarded polarization tensor and electromagnetic current are

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_R^{\mu \nu }(xy)=i\theta (x^0y^0)[j^\mu (x),j^\nu (y)],j^\mu (x)=\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma ^\mu \psi (x).$$
(2)
At weak coupling one might naively expect a one-loop calculation to be sufficient and such a calculation yields

$$\sigma =\frac{2e^2}{3}_{𝐩,\omega }n_F^{}(\omega )\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_+^R(\omega ,𝐩)\mathrm{\Delta }_+^A(\omega ,𝐩)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^R(\omega ,𝐩)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^A(\omega ,𝐩)\right],$$
(3)
where $`_𝐩=d^3p/(2\pi )^3`$, $`_\omega =𝑑\omega /(2\pi )`$ and $`n_F`$ is the Fermi distribution function. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^R`$ denotes the retarded particle/anti-particle propagator and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^A`$ the corresponding advanced one. These scalar propagators were introduced by decomposing the fermion propagator as

$$S(\omega ,𝐩)=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(\omega ,𝐩)h_+(\widehat{𝐩})+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\omega ,𝐩)h_{}(\widehat{𝐩}),$$
(4)
with $`h_\pm (\widehat{𝐩})=(\gamma ^0𝜸\widehat{𝐩})/2`$, $`\widehat{𝐩}=𝐩/p`$, and here and below we neglect the zero temperature electron mass for fermions with momentum $`p=|𝐩|T`$. In the free theory the scalar propagators are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pm ,\mathrm{free}}^R(\omega ,𝐩)=\frac{1}{\omega p+i0^+}=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pm ,\mathrm{free}}^A(\omega ,𝐩)\right]^{}.$$
(5)
Since the free retarded (advanced) propagator has a pole at $`\omega =\pm p`$ approaching the real axis from below (above), the products of the retarded and advanced propagators as they appear in Eq. (3) suffer from so-called pinching poles: the integration over the energy variable in Eq. (3) is ill-defined and the naive result for the conductivity is infinity!

This particular result is of course well-known and has two major consequences. One has to

* include a thermal width,
* include an infinite series of ladder diagrams like the one in Fig. 1.

The inclusion of the thermal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩`$ modifies the retarded and advanced single-particle propagators, which now read

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^R(\omega ,𝐩)=\frac{1}{\omega p+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩/2}=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^A(\omega ,𝐩)\right]^{}.$$
(6)
As a result the pinching poles are screened (the distance between the poles is finite, namely $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩`$), which makes Eq. (3) well-defined. Indeed, the products of the retarded and advanced propagators are now

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^R(\omega ,𝐩)\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm ^A(\omega ,𝐩)=\frac{1}{(\omega p)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩/2)^2}\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩}\delta (\omega p),$$
(7)
where the last equation is valid in the limit of weak coupling.

The second consequence, the need to sum all ladders, is technically more involved. For the shear viscosity in scalar field theory this feature has been first recognized and implemented in full detail by Jeon. His analysis has subsequently been confirmed and simplified by a number of groups. For gauge theories the problem was realized by Lebedev and Smilga ten years ago, but no complete calculation has been provided. Mottola and Bettencourt have discussed the possibility of extracting the electrical conductivity from a consistent truncation of the Schwinger-Dyson hierarchy, but again without presenting a complete calculation.

This unsatisfactory situation for gauge theories changed only recently when Valle Basagoiti used a concise method to sum ladder diagrams, borrowing techniques from the condensed-matter literature, and obtained equations for the shear viscosity and electrical conductivity to leading-logarithmic order in (non)abelian gauge theories that are equivalent to those obtained before using effective kinetic theory. One way to sum all the ladders diagrams for the electrical conductivity in QED is to introduce an effective electron-photon vertex defined by an integral equation whose formal solution is the geometric series summing all the rungs in the ladder. Although the method presented by Valle Basagoiti solved in a simple way the problem of summing the ladder series, his treatment missed one important point since his integral equation was not consistent with the Ward identity. Indeed, in order to fulfill the Ward identity an additional diagram has to be included in the equation for the effective vertex and the correct integral equation is depicted in Fig. 2 (the second diagram on the RHS is the new necessary element). However, although this extra diagram is essential to fulfill the Ward identity, it does not contribute to the conductivity at leading-log order. These results have been confirmed recently.

Using the techniques previously mentioned the complete expression for the electrical conductivity at leading-log order can now be written in a way that closely resembles the one-loop result. It reads

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^2{\displaystyle _{𝐩,\omega }}n_F^{}(\omega )[\mathrm{\Delta }_+^R(\omega ,𝐩)\mathrm{\Delta }_+^A(\omega ,𝐩)\widehat{p}^i\mathrm{Re}D_+^i(\omega ,\omega ;𝐩)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^R(\omega ,𝐩)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^A(\omega ,𝐩)\widehat{p}^i\mathrm{Re}D_{}^i(\omega ,\omega ;𝐩)],`$ (8)
where we defined

$`D_+^\mu (\omega +q^0,\omega ;𝐩)`$ $``$ $`\overline{u}_\lambda (\widehat{𝐩})\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (\omega +q^0+i0^+,\omega i0^+;𝐩)u_\lambda (\widehat{𝐩}),`$ (9)
$`D_{}^\mu (\omega +q^0,\omega ;𝐩)`$ $``$ $`\overline{v}_\lambda (\widehat{𝐩})\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (\omega +q^0+i0^+,\omega i0^+;𝐩)v_\lambda (\widehat{𝐩}).`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ represents the effective vertex and $`u_\lambda `$ ($`v_\lambda `$) are spinors for the electron (positron) in a simultaneous chirality-helicity base. Since the conductivity is dominated by the pinching-pole contribution, out of the many different electron-photon vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i`$ with real energies only one particular analytical continuation contributes. Recalling Eq. (7), it is convenient to define

$$𝒟(p)\pm \widehat{p}^i\mathrm{Re}D_\pm ^i(\pm p,\pm p;𝐩),$$
(11)
where we made use of rotational invariance and CP properties of the vertex, and the electrical conductivity is given by

$$\sigma =\frac{4e^2}{3}_𝐩n_F^{}(p)\frac{𝒟(p)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩}.$$
(12)
The 4 arises from electrons and positrons with either helicity that contribute in the same way to the conductivity.

## 3 Ward identity

The diagrammatic evaluation of transport coefficients has two main ingredients: the inclusion of the thermal width which modifies the propagator and the summation of an infinite series of ladder diagrams which modifies the electron-photon vertex. In a gauge theory these two features have to be related, since the propagator and the vertex are connected through the Ward identity

$$Q_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu (P+Q,P)=S^1(P)S^1(P+Q).$$
(13)
For the specific situation we are considering, the Ward identity reads

$$q^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^0(p^0+q^0+i0^+,p^0i0^+;𝐩)=q^0\gamma ^0+\mathrm{\Sigma }^A(p^0,𝐩)\mathrm{\Sigma }^R(p^0+q^0,𝐩),$$
(14)
in the special kinematical regime relevant for the conductivity, i.e. $`q^00`$ and $`p^0\pm p`$. In terms of the quantity

$$𝔇(𝐩)\underset{q^00}{lim}q^0D_\pm ^0(\pm p+q^0,\pm p;𝐩),$$
(15)
the Ward identity takes a particularly simple form

$$𝔇(𝐩)=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩.$$
(16)
Since only the imaginary part of the self-energy is resummed, the RHS of the equation above is purely imaginary. From the definition in Eq. (15) it is clear that the imaginary part of the vertex should diverge as $`1/q^0`$ when $`q^00`$. We want to verify that the Ward identity is indeed satisfied, by computing both sides of Eq. (16) independently.

The thermal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩`$ of an on-shell electron with hard momentum can be computed from the imaginary part of the self-energy. The leading terms with logarithmic sensitivity to the coupling constant arise from the diagrams shown in Fig. 3, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩=\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sp})}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sf})}`$.

The soft-photon contribution can be written as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sp})}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sp},\mathrm{lo})}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sp},\mathrm{nlo})}`$ for the first two terms with logarithmic sensitivity. The explicit expressions are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sp},\mathrm{lo})}`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha T\mathrm{ln}(m_D/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{min}}),`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sp},\mathrm{nlo})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m_D^2\mathrm{ln}(1/e)}{2p}}\left[1+2n_F(p)+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{6T}}+2pn_F^{}(p)\right],`$ (18)
where $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi `$ and $`m_D=eT/\sqrt{3}`$ is the Debye mass. The leading-log contribution from soft fermions is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sf},\mathrm{lo})}=\frac{\alpha m_f^2\mathrm{ln}(1/e)}{p}\left[1+2n_B(p)\right],$$
(19)
with $`m_f=eT/\sqrt{8}`$ the fermionic thermal mass and $`n_B`$ the Bose distribution function. The technical reason why one needs to include the next “logarithmic” order is that just doing a naive leading-log order calculation (i.e. keeping only $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sp},\mathrm{lo})}`$) leads to an integral equation without solution. We demonstrate this below. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sp},\mathrm{lo})}`$ is actually ill-defined and diverges logarithmically; $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is an ad-hoc infrared cut-off introduced to regulate the divergence. It is then clear that for the method to be meaningful any dependence on this piece of the thermal width must disappear in the end. The physical reason is that the electrical conductivity is determined by large-angle Coulomb scattering along with pair annihilation and Compton scattering: this sets the relevant scale to be $`e^4T\mathrm{ln}(T/m_D)`$. The leading term in the thermal width, however, arises from the exchange of ultrasoft quasistatic gauge bosons which corresponds to small-angle scattering. Processes which give the next “logarithmic” order of the thermal width (as can be seen by cutting the diagrams) are precisely those related to the scale $`e^4T\mathrm{ln}(T/m_D)`$; in the soft-fermion case directly through the thermal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sf},\mathrm{lo})}`$ and in the soft-photon case in a more subtle way through the integration over the rung in the integral equation. It is therefore understandable (of course, now that both the underlying physics and the technical details are known) that subleading terms in the thermal width must be included and that the dependence on the leading one in the end should disappear. We will see how this works in detail in the next section.

We now to turn to verify that our integral equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0=\gamma ^0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{HTL}}^0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ladder}}^0`$ (see Fig. 2) is consistent with the Ward identity. It can be checked in detail, but here we will just argue that Eq. (13) makes it natural to expect that the inclusion of a contribution to the self-energy with soft fermion lines must go with a corresponding contribution to the vertex. The correspondence is shown in Fig. 4.

The contribution of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ladder}}^0`$ to $`𝔇(𝐩)`$ is precisely the soft-photon contribution to the thermal width, while the new diagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{HTL}}^0`$ is precisely the required piece to obtain the soft-fermion part of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩`$. Therefore, the inclusion of the thermal width and the summation of ladder diagrams are in fact closely related and one cannot do one without the other. This is relevant for computations beyond leading-log: any additional diagram that contributes to the thermal width should be reflected in corresponding new contributions to the integral equation for the effective vertex and vice versa.

## 4 Leading-log result

To obtain the final result for the electrical conductivity the integral equation for the spatial part of the effective electron-photon vertex still has to be solved. Because only the real part of the effective vertex is needed, see Eq. (11), the calculation simplifies considerably since the real part of the new diagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{HTL}}^i`$ is subleading and therefore does not contribute.

The integral equation for the vertex $`𝒟(p)`$ can be written as

$`𝒟(p)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2p^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}}}𝑑kk{\displaystyle _k^k}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}\left[n_B(\omega )+n_F(p+\omega )\right]\left\{\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝐫}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒟(r)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐫}}|_{z=z_0}\right\}`$
$`\times \left[{}_{}{}^{}\rho _{T}^{}(\omega ,k){\displaystyle \frac{k^2\omega ^2}{k^2}}\left[(\omega +2p)^2+k^2\right]+{}_{}{}^{}\rho _{L}^{}(\omega ,k)\left[(\omega +2p)^2k^2\right]\right].`$ (20)
Here $`{}_{}{}^{}\rho _{T/L}^{}(\omega ,k)`$ are the spectral densities for the soft transverse/longitudinal photons in the rung, $`𝐫=𝐩+𝐤`$, $`z=\widehat{𝐤}\widehat{𝐩}`$, and $`z_0=\omega /k+(\omega ^2k^2)/(2pk)`$. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is an upper cut off introduced to be consistent with the condition that the photon carries soft momentum; at leading-log accuracy it can be taken to be $`T`$. Save for the factor within braces, the integral is precisely the soft-photon contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^{(\mathrm{sp})}`$ to the thermal width.

At this moment we can demonstrate the technical reason why keeping just the leading term $`e^2T`$ to the thermal width is inconsistent. In the vertex equation the on-shell particles carry hard momentum $`p`$ and the collective HTL modes carry soft momentum $`k`$. This scale separation allows to expand the integrand in powers of $`k/p`$. At (naive) leading order, the term within the braces is just $`𝒟(p)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩`$ and can be taken out of the integral. The integral equation then reduces to $`𝒟(p)=1+𝒟(p)`$ which has no solution!

We therefore proceed keeping subleading contributions to the width. In order to show that any dependence on the scale $`e^2T`$ drops out, we write

$$\chi (p)=\frac{𝒟(p)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩},\sigma =\frac{4e^2}{3}_𝐩n_F^{}(p)\chi (p).$$
(21)
Expanding, as before, in powers of $`k/p`$ leads now to a differential equation for $`\chi `$, which with leading-log accuracy reads

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m_f^2\mathrm{ln}(1/e)}{p}}\left[1+2n_B(p)\right]\chi (p)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha m_D^2\mathrm{ln}(1/e)}{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{p}}`$ (22)
$`\times \left[\chi (p)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2T}}[12n_F(p)]\right)p\chi ^{}(p){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p^2\chi ^{\prime \prime }(p)\right].`$
The only scale present in this equation is $`e^4T\mathrm{ln}(1/e)`$, as it should be. There is no dependence on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{min}}`$. The parametrical dependence of the conductivity can be made explicit by writing

$$\chi (p)=\frac{T}{\alpha m_D^2\mathrm{ln}(1/e)}\varphi (p/T),$$
(23)
such that

$$\sigma =C\frac{T}{e^2\mathrm{ln}(1/e)},C=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑yy^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(y/2)}\varphi (y),$$
(24)
and the dimensionless function $`\varphi (y)`$ obeys the differential equation

$$1=\left[\frac{3\mathrm{coth}(y/2)}{8y}+\frac{1}{y^2}\right]\varphi (y)+\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tanh}(y/2)\frac{1}{y}\right]\varphi ^{}(y)\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(y).$$
(25)
The integral in Eq. (24) is dominated by hard “momentum” $`y=p/T`$. In the limit of large $`y`$ the differential equation (25) simplifies considerably and is solved by the particular solution $`\varphi (y)=8y/7`$. Using this approximate result yields

$$C_{\mathrm{approx}}=\frac{288}{7\pi }\zeta (3)15.7424,$$
(26)
which is close to the exact result $`C=15.6964`$, obtained by AMY using a variational approach.

## 5 Soft fermions

As can be seen above, the relevant inverse time scale for the electrical conductivity is $`e^4T\mathrm{ln}(1/e)`$. This scale enters the integral equation determining the effective vertex $`\chi (p)`$, see Eq. (22), and arises partly from the integration over the soft-photon rung and partly through the explicit appearance of the soft-fermion contribution to the thermal width (the first term on the RHS of Eq. (22)). Since in the diagrammatic calculation the soft-fermion contribution to the thermal width appears explicitly in the equation for the conductivity and since the imaginary part of the self-energy is directly related to scattering processes (as can be seen by cutting the diagrams), we expect that there is a direct relation between it and the inverse relaxation time from the corresponding scattering processes included in the collision term in the kinetic approach. The reason why we do not expect so with the soft-photon contribution is that it is ill-defined and the corresponding process contributes in a more subtle way to the integral equation, as explained above.

The scattering processes that contribute to the electrical conductivity at leading-log order in kinetic theory are shown in Fig. 5: large-angle Coulomb scattering (diagram C), pair creation/annihilation (D) and Compton scattering (E) (throughout this section we follow the notation of AMY).

Since, as explained above, we are interested here in scattering processes where a soft fermion is exchanged, we restrict ourselves in the following to diagrams D and E. For two-to-two scattering processes the collision term reads

$`C[f](𝐩)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐩^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left|(𝐩,𝐤;𝐩^{},𝐤^{})\right|^2}{2^4pp^{}kk^{}}}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(P+KP^{}K^{})`$
$`\times \left\{f(𝐩)f(𝐤)[1\pm f(𝐩^{})][1\pm f(𝐤^{})]f(𝐩^{})f(𝐤^{})[1\pm f(𝐩)][1\pm f(𝐤)]\right\},`$
where the $`+/`$ signs refers to bosons/fermions. If the distribution function for the incoming fermion with momentum $`𝐩`$ is perturbed slightly away from equilibrium, $`f(𝐩)=n_F(𝐩)+\delta f(𝐩)`$, while all other distribution functions (bosonic and fermionic) are kept in equilibrium (i.e. using a relaxation-time approximation), the collision term can be written as

$$C[f](𝐩)=\frac{1}{\tau _𝐩}\delta f(𝐩),$$
(28)
with the inverse relaxation time given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _𝐩}=\frac{1}{2(4\pi )^4p^2}_{eT}^Tdq_q^qd\omega _0^{\mathrm{}}dk_0^{2\pi }d\varphi ||^2[\text{stat}.],$$
(29)
and $`[\text{stat}.]`$ is what remains of the statistical factors. Here $`\omega =p^{}p`$ and $`q=|𝐩^{}𝐩|`$ are the energy and momentum of the exchanged fermion and the integral over $`q`$ is cut off in the infrared by the expected Debye scale. Note that in the leading-log calculation using kinetic theory this is the only place where medium effects appear. To leading-log accuracy, one finds

$$||_\mathrm{D}^2=||_\mathrm{E}^2=\frac{16e^4pk}{q^2}(1\mathrm{cos}\varphi ),$$
(30)
and

$`[\text{stat}.]_\mathrm{D}=n_F(k)[1+n_B(p)][1+n_B(k)]+n_B(p)n_B(k)[1n_F(k)],`$ (31)
$`[\text{stat}.]_\mathrm{E}=n_B(k)[1+n_B(p)][1n_F(k)]+n_B(p)n_F(k)[1+n_B(k)].`$ (32)
The integrals in Eq. (29) can now be performed. To leading-log accuracy the relaxation rates associated with D and E are identical and the total relaxation rate corresponding to processes where a fermion is exchanged is, in the leading-log approximation,

$$\frac{1}{\tau _𝐩}|_{\text{fermion exchanged}}=e^4\mathrm{ln}(1/e)\frac{T^2}{32\pi p}\left[1+2n_B(p)\right].$$
(33)
This is exactly the value of the soft-fermion contribution to the thermal width, see Eq. (19), as expected.

## 6 Color vs. electrical conductivity

It is instructive to compare the diagrammatic computation of the electrical conductivity with that of the color conductivity to leading-logarithmic order in hot QCD. The color conductivity appears in the effective theory describing the nonperturbative dynamics of ultrasoft modes of nonabelian gauge fields. It was first computed within kinetic theory and it has also been obtained from a simplified ladder summation. Although there is, as far as we know, no gauge invariant definition of this quantity, one can compute it diagrammatically using the nonabelian generalization of the Kubo formula (compare with Eq. (1)),

$$\sigma _c=\underset{q^00}{lim}\frac{1}{3(N_c^21)}\frac{}{q^0}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{iiR}^{aa}(q^0,\mathrm{𝟎}).$$
(34)
In principle one could think that the color conductivity is a more complicated quantity to compute than the electrical conductivity due to its nonabelian character. In reality the opposite is true. The reason is that the nonabelian nature of the interactions allows small-angle scattering to randomize the current by just changing the color charge of the current carriers. This means that in this case it is sufficient to do a “real” leading-log calculation, i.e. it is enough to keep the leading-order term of the thermal width $`g^2T\mathrm{ln}(1/g)`$. In a nonabelian theory the infrared logarithmic divergent behavior of this width is not a problem because there is natural mechanism to regulate it, the magnetic mass $`m_g`$.

We now outline the diagrammatic calculation of the leading-log order of the color conductivity, following, but using the exact and simplest way of carrying out the ladder summation. The calculation of the color conductivity goes along the same lines as the electrical conductivity. Since gluons are self-interacting there are both a quark and a gluon contribution. The integral equations are depicted in Fig. 6. We find (compare with Eq. (12))

$$\sigma _c=\frac{4g^2}{3}\frac{N_f}{2}_𝐩n_F^{}(p)\frac{𝒟_\mathrm{q}(p)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^\mathrm{q}}\frac{4g^2}{3}\frac{N_c}{2}_𝐩n_B^{}(p)\frac{𝒟_\mathrm{g}(p)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^\mathrm{g}},$$
(35)
where $`N_f`$ is the number of flavors. The quark-gluon effective vertex $`𝒟_\mathrm{q}(p)`$ is defined similarly to the electron-photon one, see Eq. (11). For the gluonic vertex we note that since the gluons on the side rails carry hard momentum the longitudinal contributions are exponentially suppressed and the gluon propagators are proportional to the transverse projector $`P^T`$. The gluon scalar function $`𝒟_\mathrm{g}(p)`$ is defined from the three-gluon effective vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{abc}^{ijk}`$ after performing the analytical continuation, putting the hard gluons on the side rails on-shell, taking the energy $`q^0`$ of the external gluon to zero and contracting with transverse projectors, as

$$2f^{abc}p^iP_{jk}^T(\widehat{𝐩})𝒟_\mathrm{g}(p)P_{kk^{}}^T(\widehat{𝐩})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{abc}^{ij^{}k^{}}P_{jj^{}}^T(\widehat{𝐩}).$$
(36)
As in the case of the electrical conductivity the $`𝒟`$’s represent the full vertex. The bare vertices correspond to $`𝒟_\mathrm{q}(p)=𝒟_\mathrm{g}(p)=1`$. The leading-order thermal width of quarks resp. gluons is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^\mathrm{q}=\frac{N_c^21}{2N_c}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha _sT\mathrm{ln}(m_D/m_g),\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^\mathrm{g}=N_c\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\alpha _sT\mathrm{ln}(m_D/m_g),$$
(37)
with $`m_gg^2T`$ the magnetic mass and therefore $`\mathrm{ln}(m_D/m_g)\mathrm{ln}(1/g)`$.

It is now straightforward to adapt the calculation of the electrical conductivity to the problem at hand: the quark contribution to the color conductivity can easily be obtained just by inserting the correct group factors. The integral equation for the effective quark-gluon vertex is as in Eq. (4), with the substitutions: $`\alpha \alpha _s/(2N_c)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{min}}m_g`$. At leading order in the expansion in $`k/p`$ the term within braces is just $`𝒟_\mathrm{q}(p)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^\mathrm{q}`$. It is independent of the integration variables and can be taken out of the integral. As we mentioned for the electrical conductivity, the remaining integral is just the thermal width, save for group factors in this case. The integral equation reduces therefore to an algebraic equation

$$𝒟_\mathrm{q}(p)=1\frac{1}{2N_c}\times \frac{𝒟_\mathrm{q}(p)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^\mathrm{q}}\times \frac{2N_c}{N_c^21}\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐩^\mathrm{q}𝒟_\mathrm{q}(p)=1\frac{1}{N_c^2}.$$
(38)
The calculation of the gluon contribution is quite similar and again the integral equation can be solved algebraically: the solution is $`𝒟_\mathrm{g}(p)=2`$.

Since neither the effective vertices nor the thermal widths depend on momentum, the final result for the color conductivity from Eq. (35) is

$$\sigma _c=\frac{g^2T^2}{9}\frac{N_f}{2}\frac{𝒟_\mathrm{q}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{q}}+\frac{g^2T^2}{9}N_c\frac{𝒟_\mathrm{g}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{g}}.$$
(39)
The ladder summation for the color conductivity is, as we see, substantially simpler than for other transport coefficients in hot gauge theories.

## 7 Transport coefficients from the lattice

Both kinetic and field theory allow to compute transport coefficients at high temperature, where the coupling constant is small. However, it would also be interesting to be able to compute transport coefficients at lower temperatures, where the coupling constant is no longer (very) small, which is relevant for heavy-ion collisions. In this section we discuss briefly the prospects of extracting transport coefficients at high temperature nonperturbatively from lattice QCD. As shown in Eq. (1) for the electrical conductivity, transport coefficients can defined from the slope of a spectral function $`\rho (\omega ,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ at vanishing energy ($`\rho `$ equals twice the imaginary part of the retarded correlator). Spectral functions can be related to euclidean-time correlators through a dispersion relation so that

$$G_E(\tau ,𝐩)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }K(\tau ,\omega )\rho (\omega ,𝐩),$$
(40)
with the kernel $`K(\tau ,\omega )=n_B(\omega )e^{\omega \tau }+[1+n_B(\omega )]e^{\omega \tau }`$. In the context of transport coefficients Eq. (40) has been employed first by Karsch and Wyld and more recently by Nakamura et. al. This approach consists of three steps:

* compute $`G_E(\tau )`$ (at zero momentum) numerically on the lattice,
* reconstruct $`\rho (\omega )`$ using either an ansatz (old-fashioned approach) or the Maximal Entropy Method (modern approach),
* extract the transport coefficient from the slope at vanishing energy.

Recently we have analyzed what can be expected in the context of the shear viscosity in scalar and nonabelian gauge theories at very high temperature (the results can be adapted easily to other transport coefficients such as the electrical conductivity). We found that in a weakly-coupled field theory at high temperature the spectral function has a characteristic shape. In particular, there is a bump at very small energies which has its origin in the pinching singularities discussed above. The height of this bump at small energies is $`1`$ in units of the temperature.

The interesting question is how the spectral weight at small energies manifests itself in the euclidean correlator. For small energies $`\omega T`$ the kernel can be expanded as $`K(\tau ,\omega )2T/\omega +𝒪(\omega /T)`$. Since all the $`\tau `$ dependence resides in the subdominant terms, the region relevant for transport coefficients contributes a single, constant term to the euclidean correlator: $`G_E(\tau )𝑑\omega \rho (\omega )/\omega `$. We find therefore that although euclidean correlators are sensitive to spectral weight at small energies in integrated form, they are, in weakly coupled theories, remarkably insensitive to further details of the spectral function in this region and, therefore, also to transport coefficients.

The findings about the small-energy region turn out to be rather generic. They may therefore be relevant for recent attempts to reconstruct spectral functions at finite temperature in the high-temperature deconfined phase of QCD using the Maximal Entropy Method.

## 8 Summary

We have reviewed several aspects of the diagrammatic calculation of transport coefficients in hot gauge theories to leading-log order. We focused in particular on recent progress within the imaginary-time formalism to sum the ladder series in an efficient way, on the importance of the Ward identity relating self-energy and vertex corrections, and on similarities and differences between the color and electrical conductivity. Finally, the prospects of extracting nonperturbative values for transport coefficients using lattice QCD were briefly mentioned.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank the organizers for a stimulating Workshop in a familiar (for one of us) environment. Discussions with E. Braaten, U. Heinz, G. D. Moore, and M. A. Valle Basagoiti are gratefully acknowledged.

G. A. is supported by the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-FG02-01ER41190. J. M. M. R. is supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Basque Government and in part by the Spanish Science Ministry under Grants AEN99-0315 and FPA 2002-02037 and by the University of the Basque Country under Grant 063.310-EB187/98.