text:
# Current Fluctuations and Electron-Electron Interactions in Coherent Conductors

## I Introduction

Recent advances in nanotechnology enable detailed investigations of a variety of quantum effects in mesoscopic conductors. These investigations are of primary interest because of fundamental importance of such effects as well due to rapidly growing number of their potential applications. A great deal of information is usually obtained from studying electron transport. Additional/complementary information can be extracted from investigations of fluctuation effects, such as shot noise bb . For instance, it was demonstrated Khl ; Les ; Bu1  that the power spectrum of the shot noise in coherent mesoscopic conductors is expressed in terms of the parameter

$$\beta =\frac{_nT_n(1T_n)}{_nT_n}.$$
(1)
Here and below $`T_n`$ stands for the transmission of the $`n`$-th conducting channel of a coherent conductor. Thus, since transport measurements only allow to determine the combination

$$\frac{1}{R}=\frac{2e^2}{h}\underset{n}{}T_n,$$
(2)
studies of the shot noise provide additional valuable information about the transmission distribution of conducting modes.

The above results apply to the situations when interaction between electrons can be neglected. In the presence of electron-electron interactions the Landauer conductance (2) and the $`IV`$ curve are modified in a non-trivial way. Recently it was shown GZ00  that the $`IV`$ curve of a (comparatively short) coherent conductor with arbitrary transmission distribution $`T_n`$ in the presence of interactions can be expressed in the form

$$R\frac{dI}{dV}=1\beta f(V,T),$$
(3)
where $`f(V,T)`$ is a universal function to be defined below. This result holds in the limit of large conductances $`RR_q=h/e^2`$ or, otherwise, at sufficiently high temperatures/voltages. It demonstrates that the magnitude of the interaction correction is controlled by the same parameter $`\beta `$ (1) which is already well known in the theory of shot noise. Physically this result can easily be understood since both phenomena are related to discrete nature of the electron charge. Hence, there exists a direct link between shot noise and interaction effects in mesoscopic conductors.

It is obvious that not only the $`IV`$ curve (3) but also shot noise as well as higher moments of the current operator should be affected by electron-electron interactions. This paper is devoted to a detailed investigation of current fluctuations in mesoscopic coherent conductors in the presence of electron-electron interactions. Previously various aspects of this problem have been studied for a particular case of tunnel junctions in the Coulomb blockade regime, see, e.g. Refs. BMS, ; Yuli, ; ZGP, ; LL, . The effect of interactions on shot noise in 2d diffusive conductors at sufficiently high temperatures was recently addressed in Ref. Gefen, .

Here we will employ a model of a coherent conductor GZ00 ; Naz ; GZ02 . Within this model we will demonstrate that interactions lead to two different corrections to the shot noise spectrum. One of these corrections scales with the parameter $`\beta `$ (1). This correction is always negative, similarly to that found in Eq. (3) for the $`IV`$ curve. It describes (partial) suppression of the current noise due to Coulomb blockade. In addition to this correction we shall find another one, which is proportional to the parameter

$$\gamma =\frac{_nT_n^2(1T_n)}{_nT_n}.$$
(4)
This second correction is positive, i.e. it leads to relative enhancement of the shot noise. The latter correction turns out to be important only at voltages exceeding both frequency and temperature and is negligible otherwise. Thus, at sufficiently high voltages two interaction corrections – negative and positive – compete, for $`\gamma >\beta /2`$ the second one wins and, hence, in this case an overall enhancement of the shot noise by interactions is predicted.

Our paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we will describe the model and highlight our key results. A detailed derivation of these results is then performed in section 3. Our main conclusions are briefly summarized in section 4. Most of the technical details, such as the derivation of our effective action as well as a few other issues are presented in Appendices A,B and C.

## II The Model and key results

Similarly to Refs. GZ00, ; Naz, ; GZ02,  we will consider a coherent scatterer between two big reservoirs. The scatterer is described by an arbitrary distribution of transmissions $`T_n`$ of its conducting modes, and the corresponding Landauer conductance $`1/R`$ is defined in Eq. (2). The transmissions $`T_n`$ are assumed to be energy independent. Phase and energy relaxation may take place in these reservoirs but not inside the scatterer, i.e. the scatterer is assumed to be shorter than both dephasing and inelastic lengths. The scatterer region has an effective capacitance $`C`$. For simplicity we will also assume that the charging energy $`E_C=e^2/2C`$ does not exceed the typical inverse traversal time. The scatterer is connected to the voltage source $`V_x`$ via linear external impedance $`Z_S`$ (see Fig. 1). Here we restrict ourselves to a simple case $`Z_S(\omega )=R_S`$. If necessary, generalization of our calculation to arbitrary $`Z_S(\omega )`$ can be performed in a straightforward manner.

In what follows we will investigate the current noise and evaluate the correlation function

$$𝒮(t,t^{})=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{I}(t)\widehat{I}(t^{})+\widehat{I}(t^{})\widehat{I}(t)\widehat{I}^2,$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{I}`$ is the current operator in the circuit of Fig. 1. This correlator can be expressed in the form

$$𝒮(t,t^{})=𝒮^{\mathrm{ni}}(t,t^{})+\delta 𝒮(t,t^{}),$$
(6)
where $`𝒮^{\mathrm{ni}}`$ is the noninteracting contribution to the current noise Khl ; Les ; Bu1  and $`\delta 𝒮`$ is the correction due to electron-electron interactions inside the scatterer. This correction will be evaluated in the most interesting “metallic” limit

$$g_0=g+g_S1.$$
(7)
Here we introduced dimensionless conductances of the scatterer and the shunt, respectively $`g=R_q/R`$ and $`g_S=R_q/R_S`$. Eq. (7) implies that at least one of these two dimensionless conductances is required to be much larger than unity.

Quite obviously, the latter correlator (5) should depend on both $`R`$ and $`R_S`$. We also introduce another correlator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(t,t^{})`$ defined by the same Eq. (5) in which one should substitute the current operator across the scatterer $`\widehat{I}\widehat{I}_{\mathrm{sc}}`$. The two correlators $`𝒮(t,t^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(t,t^{})`$ are not independent. With the aid of the current conservation condition and performing the Fourier transformation with respect to $`tt^{}`$, one easily finds the relation

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_S^2}{R_0^2}}(1+\omega ^2R_0^2C^2)𝒮_\omega `$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R_S}{R^2}}(1+\omega ^2R^2C^2)\omega \mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}},`$
where $`R_0=RR_S/(R+R_S).`$ The second term is due the noise produced by the external resistor $`R_S`$ which has to be subtracted in order to arrive at $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega `$.

In general also the correlator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega `$ depends on both $`R`$ and $`R_S`$. However, in the limit $`R_SR`$ the dependence on the shunt resistance is weak and can be neglected. In this case the interaction correction to the current noise spectrum $`\delta \stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega `$ depends only on the properties of the scatterer. Below we will present our key results for $`\delta \stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega `$ only in this limit. More general expressions can be found in Sec. 3.

Let us define the average voltage across the scatterer $`V=V_xR/(R+R_S)`$ and consider first the limit of relatively small voltages. At sufficiently large temperatures and/or frequencies we find

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{2\beta E_C}{3R}},`$ $`\text{if}TgE_C,|eV|,|\omega |,`$ (9)
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{\beta E_C}{R}},`$ $`\text{if}|\omega |T,gE_C,|eV|.`$ (10)
At lower temperatures and frequencies we obtain

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{4\beta T}{R_q}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{gE_C}{T}},\text{if}|\omega |,|eV|TgE_C,`$ (11)
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{2\beta |\omega |}{R_q}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{gE_C}{|\omega |}},\text{if}T,|eV||\omega |gE_C.`$ (12)
These results apply as long as either temperature or frequency exceeds an exponentially small parameter $`gE_C\mathrm{exp}(g/2)`$. For even smaller frequencies and temperatures FN  we get

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega =\frac{\beta \omega }{R}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\omega }{2T}.$$
(13)
Note that the above expressions could also be anticipated from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) combined with the results GZ00 . Indeed, in the limit of low voltages the current noise is described by the standard Nyquist formula. Hence, in order to satisfy FDT one should simply substitute the effective conductance (3) into this formula. In this way one gets the interaction correction $`\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_\omega `$ proportional to $`\beta f`$. For instance, in the low frequency limit one finds GZ00  $`f(0,T)E_C/3T`$ for $`TgE_C`$, $`f(0,T)(2/g)\mathrm{ln}(gE_C/T)`$ for $`\mathrm{exp}(g/2)T/gE_C1`$ and $`f(0,T)1`$ for $`T<gE_C\mathrm{exp}(g/2)`$. Combining these expressions with FDT one immediately reproduces Eqs. (9), (11) and (13).

It is worth stressing that here we evaluate the current-current correlation functions directly and do not use the results GZ00  together with FDT. However, it is satisfactory to observe that FDT is explicitly maintained in our calculation and the results derived here are fully consistent with those of Ref. GZ00, .

Now let us turn to the case of relatively large voltages $`V`$ where the shot noise becomes important. As it was already announced, in this case the correction to the noise power spectrum is proportional to the parameter

$$\beta 2\gamma =\frac{_nT_n(1T_n)(12T_n)}{_nT_n}.$$
(14)
In particular we obtain

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{2(\beta 2\gamma )|eV|}{R_q}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{gE_C}{|eV|}},`$ (15)
$`\text{if}T,|\omega ||eV|gE_C,`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{S}_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{(\beta 2\gamma )E_C}{R}},\text{if}|eV|T,gE_C,|\omega |.`$ (16)
We note that this correction can be either negative or positive depending on the relation between the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$. Thus, in contrast to the limit of low voltages (Nyquist noise), one cannot conclude that shot noise is always reduced by interactions. This reduction occurs only for conductors with relatively low transmissions $`\beta >2\gamma `$, while for systems with higher transmissions the net effect of the electron-electron interaction enhances the shot noise. In the important case of diffusive conductors one has $`\beta =1/3`$, $`\gamma =2/15`$ and, hence,

$$\beta 2\gamma =\frac{1}{15}.$$

In this case the shot noise is reduced by interactions.

The above results have a transparent physical interpretation. At low voltages the power spectrum of the Nyquist noise is proportional to the system conductance $`_nT_n`$. Since in the presence of interactions the conductance acquires a correction proportional to $`\beta `$, the interaction correction to the Nyquist noise should scale with the same parameter (1). On the other hand, shot noise is determined by the combination $`_n(T_nT_n^2)`$. Accordingly, the interaction correction to the shot noise power should consist of two contributions. One of them comes from $`_nT_n`$ and is again proportional to $`\beta `$. Another contribution originates from the interaction correction to $`_nT_n^2`$ which turns out to scale as $`2\gamma `$. Since these two corrections enter with the opposite signs we immediately arrive at the combination (14).

We also point out that the third cumulant of the current operator for noninteracting electrons is known many  to be proportional to the parameters (1) and (14) respectively at low and high voltages. Following the same arguments as above we can conjecture that the interaction correction to the third cumulant should scale as $`\beta 2\gamma `$ at low voltages, while in the limit of large voltages one can expect that this correction is governed by the combination $`\beta 6\gamma +6\delta `$, where

$$\delta =\frac{_nT_n^3(1T_n)}{_nT_n}.$$
(17)
This conjecture can also be generalized to higher cumulants of the current operator.

We would like to emphasize that – although the above conjecture seems intuitively appealing – it should still be verified by means of a rigorous calculation which is beyond the scope of the present paper. In the next section we will concentrate on the current noise and will provide a detailed derivation of the results presented above.

## III Effective action and current noise

Similarly to Ref. GZ00,  we will use the effective action technique in order to evaluate the current-current correlator for the system depicted in Fig. 1. It is convenient to introduce the quantum phase variable $`\phi `$ which is proportional to the integral of the fluctuating voltage (see Appendix A). We will proceed within the Keldysh formalism and introduce two phase variables $`\phi _{1,2}`$ related to the two branches of the Keldysh contour. Defining $`\phi ^+=(\phi _1+\phi _2)/2`$ and $`\phi ^{}=\phi _1\phi _2`$ one can denote the overall phase jumps across the scatterer as $`\phi ^++eVt`$ and $`\phi ^{}`$. Correspondingly, the phase jumps across the Ohmic shunt are $`(eV_xeV)t\phi ^+`$ and $`\phi ^{}`$. The symmetric current-current correlation function (5) can be expressed as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{I}(t)\widehat{I}(t^{})+\widehat{I}(t^{})\widehat{I}(t)=e^2{\displaystyle 𝒟\phi ^\pm }`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \phi _S^{}(t)\delta \phi _S^{}(t^{})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{4\delta \phi _S^+(t)\delta \phi _S^+(t^{})}}\right]e^{iS_{\mathrm{tot}}[\phi ^\pm ]},`$ (18)
see Appendix A for further discussion. By $`\phi _S^\pm `$ we denote the phase jumps over the ohmic shunt. The variational derivatives in Eq.(18) act on the shunt part of action. Here $`S_{\mathrm{tot}}[\phi ^\pm ]`$ is the total action of our system

$$S_{\mathrm{tot}}[\phi ^\pm ]=S[\phi ^\pm ]+S_S[\phi ^\pm ],$$
(19)
where the term

$`iS_S[\phi ^\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{e^2R_S}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\phi ^{}(t)\left({\displaystyle \frac{eV_xR_S}{R+R_S}}\dot{\phi }^+(t)\right)`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2e^2R_S}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_2\alpha (t_1t_2)\phi ^{}(t_1)\phi ^{}(t_2)`$
comes from the shunt, $`S[\phi ^\pm ]`$ is the scatterer action and

$$\alpha (tt^{})=\frac{1}{\pi }\left(\frac{\pi T}{\mathrm{sinh}[\pi T(tt^{})]}\right)^2.$$
(21)
A detailed derivation of the action $`S[\phi ^\pm ]`$ is carried out in Appendices A, B and C. The main idea of this derivation is to expand $`S[\phi ^\pm ]`$ in powers of $`\phi ^{}`$ keeping the full nonlinearity of the corresponding terms in $`\phi ^+`$. This procedure is just the quasiclassical approximation for the phase variable. It is parametrically justified under the condition (7). In Ref. GZ00,  the action $`S[\phi ^\pm ]`$ was evaluated up to the second order in $`\phi ^{}`$. This is sufficient to derive the current-voltage characteristics of the scatterer. However, in order to describe the current noise it is necessary to expand the action $`S[\phi ^\pm ]`$ further and to retain all terms up to the third order in $`\phi ^{}`$

$$S[\phi ^\pm ]=S^{(1)}+S^{(2)}+S^{(3)}.$$
(22)
This expansion is analyzed in Appendix C. We will now use these results and explicitly evaluate the current-current correlator (5).

### III.1 Contribution of first and second order terms

Let us first restrict our attention to the contribution of the first and second order terms in (22). They read

$`iS^{(1)}[\phi ^\pm ]+iS^{(2)}[\phi ^\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{e^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\phi ^{}(t)\left[C\ddot{\phi }^+(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\left(\dot{\phi }^+(t)+eV\right)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2e^2R}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_2\alpha (t_1t_2)\phi ^{}(t_1)\phi ^{}(t_2)\left\{1\beta +\beta \mathrm{cos}\left[eV(t_1t_2)+\phi ^+(t_1)\phi ^+(t_2)\right]\right\}.`$
Employing Eq. (18) we obtain

$$\frac{1}{2}\widehat{I}(t)\widehat{I}(t^{})+\widehat{I}(t^{})\widehat{I}(t)=\frac{\alpha (tt^{})}{R_S}+e^2K(t)K(t^{}),$$
(23)
where we defined

$$K(t)=\frac{1}{e^2R_S}\left[eV_xeV\dot{\phi }^++i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}\alpha (t\stackrel{~}{t})\phi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{t})\right].$$
(24)
Note that here we neglected terms which originate from the second variational derivative with respect to $`\phi ^+`$ in (18) since these terms are smaller in the parameter $`1/g_0^2`$ than those kept. Angular brackets in Eq. (23) imply averaging with the path integral

$$\mathrm{}=𝒟\phi ^\pm (\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}\left(iS^{(1)}[\phi ^\pm ]+iS^{(2)}[\phi ^\pm ]+iS_S[\phi ^\pm ]\right).$$

Rewriting the correlator $`KK`$ as

$$K(t)K(t^{})=\underset{\eta 0}{lim}𝒟\phi ^\pm \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \eta (t)\delta \eta (t^{})}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\underset{i=1,2}{}S^{(i)}[\phi ^\pm ]+iS_S[\phi ^\pm ]+i_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}\eta (\stackrel{~}{t})K(\stackrel{~}{t})\right\}$$
(25)
and performing a shift of $`\phi _\omega ^{}\phi _\omega ^{}+\eta _\omega R_0/R_s(1i\omega R_0C)`$, we obtain the expression for the Fourier transformed noise spectrum (5)

$`𝒮_\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\omega \mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}}\left\{\text{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z(\omega )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{R\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta [\alpha (tt^{})\mathrm{cos}(eV(tt^{})+\phi ^+(t)\phi ^+(t^{}))]_\omega }{R\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{e^2R^2\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}\left[H(t)^2H(t)H(t^{})\right]_\omega ,`$
where

$$H(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}\alpha (t\stackrel{~}{t})\phi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{t})\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(eV(t\stackrel{~}{t})+\phi ^+(t)\phi ^+(\stackrel{~}{t})\right)\right].$$
(27)
In Eq. (III.1) we also introduced the following notations

$$Z(\omega )=R_S+\frac{1}{R^1i\omega C},\mathrm{\Omega }=1+\omega ^2R_0^2C^2,\kappa =\frac{(R+R_S)^2}{R^2}.$$
(28)
Making use of the relation (8), we arrive at the correlator $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\omega ,`$

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega =\frac{1}{R}\left((1\beta )\omega \mathrm{coth}\frac{\omega }{2T}+\beta [\alpha (tt^{})\mathrm{cos}(eV(tt^{})+\phi ^+(t)\phi ^+(t^{}))]_\omega \right)+\mathrm{}.$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for the terms containing $`\left[H(t)^2H(t)H(t^{})\right]_\omega `$ in Eq. (III.1).

Within our approach interaction effects are described by the terms containing the fluctuating variable $`\phi ^+`$. If one formally sets this variable equal to zero, from (III.1) one immediately recovers the noninteracting result Khl ; Les ; Bu1

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_\omega ^{\mathrm{ni}}=(1\beta )\frac{\omega }{R}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\omega }{2T}+\frac{\beta }{2}\underset{\pm }{}(\omega \pm eV)\mathrm{coth}\frac{\omega \pm eV}{2T}.$$
(30)
Taking the phase fluctuations into account we arrive at the expression for the interaction correction to (30). However, the corresponding expression turns out to be incomplete in two respects. First, one of the terms does not satisfy FDT. Second, the correction to (30) obtained in this way scales with the parameter $`\beta `$ in both limits of small and large voltages. While in the former limit (Nyquist noise) this result is understandable and consistent with Ref. GZ00, , at large voltages (shot noise) one also expects an extra contribution. Its existence can be anticipated because the shot noise is governed by the combination $`_nT_n(1T_n)`$ and not simply by $`_nT_n`$ as the Nyquist noise, see also our discussion in Sec. 2.

Both these problems are remedied by taking into account the third order in $`\phi ^{}`$ contribution to the effective action. This will be demonstrated in the next subsection.

### III.2 Corrections due to third order terms

Following the analysis in Appendix C we identify two different contributions to the third order term

$$S^{(3)}=S_\beta ^{(3)}+S_\gamma ^{(3)}.$$

The first contribution has the form

$$iS_\beta ^{(3)}[\phi ^\pm ]=\frac{i\beta }{6e^2R}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\tau (\phi ^{}(\tau ))^3\dot{\phi }^+(\tau ).$$
(31)
Taking this term into account and repeating the above analysis we arrive at an extra contribution to the current noise in the form $`e^2\beta \delta (tt^{})/2RC`$, see also Appendix C. Adding this contribution to Eq. (III.1) and subtracting the noninteracting result (30) we arrive at the interaction correction

$$\delta S_\omega ^{(\beta )}=\frac{\beta }{R\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}\left[\alpha (tt^{})\mathrm{cos}\left(eV(tt^{})\right)\left(e^{F(tt^{})}1\right)e^2\delta (tt^{})/2C\right]_\omega .$$
(32)
The function $`F(t)`$ results from averaging over the phase fluctuations

$$\mathrm{cos}[eV(tt^{})+\phi ^+(t)\phi ^+(t^{})]=\mathrm{cos}[eV(tt^{})]e^{F(tt^{})}.$$
(33)
This function has the form

$$F(t)=e^2R_0^2\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\omega t}{\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }}\left\{\left(\frac{1}{R_0}\frac{\beta }{R}\right)\omega \mathrm{coth}\frac{\omega }{2T}+\frac{\beta }{2R}\underset{\pm }{}(\omega \pm eV)\mathrm{coth}\frac{\omega \pm eV}{2T}\right\}.$$
(34)
We also note that in Eq. (32) we omitted the last term of Eq. (III.1) which contains averages of the function $`H`$ (27). Our analysis demonstrates that these terms are small in all the regimes considered below.

What remains is to evaluate the correction to the shot noise from the second contribution to $`S^{(3)}`$. The derivation of this contribution is presented in Appendix C. Here we only quote the result:

$`iS_\gamma ^{(3)}[\phi ^\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi i\gamma T^3}{6e^2R}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dy_1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dy_2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dy_3{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}(y_1)\phi ^{}(y_2)\phi ^{}(y_3)}{\mathrm{sinh}[\pi Ty_{21}]\mathrm{sinh}[\pi Ty_{32}]\mathrm{sinh}[\pi Ty_{13}]}}\times `$
$`\left\{\mathrm{sin}\left(eVy_{21}+\phi ^+(y_2)\phi ^+(y_1)\right)+\mathrm{sin}\left(eVy_{32}+\phi ^+(y_3)\phi ^+(y_2)\right)+\mathrm{sin}\left(eVy_{13}+\phi ^+(y_1)\phi ^+(y_3)\right)\right\},`$ (35)
where $`y_{ij}=y_iy_j`$ and the parameter $`\gamma `$ is defined in Eq. (4).

At the first glance this contribution to the effective action could be considered unimportant. This is indeed the case in several limits. For instance, at sufficiently small transmissions $`\beta \gamma `$ the term (35) can obviously be neglected. In the limit of low voltages one can, making use of the condition (7), expand $`S_\gamma ^{(3)}`$ in small phase fluctuations $`\phi ^\pm `$. Then one gets $`S_\gamma ^{(3)}`$ proportional to the combination $`(\phi ^+)^3(\phi ^{})^3`$ which can be dropped as compared to other terms provided $`g_01`$. However, in the limit of large voltages the term (35) gains importance and – as we shall see – provides significant contribution to $`\delta 𝒮_\omega `$.

Proceeding along the lines with the above analysis we find

$`\delta 𝒮_\omega ^{(\gamma )}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\gamma T^3}{g_0R\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1e^{x/R_0C}\right)\left(\mathrm{cos}[eVt]\mathrm{cos}[eVx]\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega t}{\mathrm{sinh}[\pi Tx]\mathrm{sinh}[\pi Tt]}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}[\pi T(xt)]}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}[\pi T(x+t)]}}\right).`$
This expression will be analyzed below in Sec. 3F.

### III.3 Relation to FDT

Before we proceed with the analysis of the above results let us establish some useful general expressions and illustrate the relation between our approach and FDT. Throughout this subsection we will only consider the limit of small voltages $`eV1/R_0C`$ and neglect the dependence of the function $`F(t)`$ on $`V`$. In the spirit of the $`P(E)`$-theory pe  let us define the function

$`P(E)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{iEt}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }(t)},`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=F(t)|_{V=0}+{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2R_0}{2}}\text{sign}[t]\left(1e^{|t|/R_0C}\right).`$
This function obeys the “detailed balance” symmetry $`P(E)=e^{E/T}P(E)`$ which follows from the property $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t(i/T))=\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$. Let us also introduce the function

$`𝒩_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi R_0}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E{\displaystyle \frac{E(1+e^{(\omega \pm eV)/T})}{1e^{E/T}}}P(\omega \pm eVE),`$ (38)
and rewrite it in the form

$`𝒩_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_0}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dte^{i\omega t}\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2C}}\delta (t)+`$
$`\alpha (t)e^{F(t)}\mathrm{cos}(eVt)\mathrm{cos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{g_0}}(1e^{t/R_0C})\right]\}.`$ (39)
We observe that, since in the interesting for us limit $`g_01`$ the argument of $`\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{\pi }{g_0}\left(1e^{t/R_0C}\right)\right]`$ is small, with the accuracy $`1/g_0^2`$ one can use the function (39) in order to analyze the result (32).

Proceeding further let us rewrite Eq. (38) as

$$𝒩(\omega )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\pm }{}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\omega \pm eV}{2T}(\omega \pm eV),$$
(40)
where

$$(\omega )=\frac{1e^{\omega /T}}{2\pi R_0}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dEE}{1e^{E/T}}P(\omega E).$$
(41)
After a simple algebra from Eq. (41) we obtain $`(\omega )=\frac{\omega }{R_0}+\delta (\omega )`$ and

$`\delta (\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{R_0}}\times `$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)e^{F(t)}\alpha (t)\mathrm{sin}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{g_0}}\left(1e^{t/R_0C}\right)\right].`$ (42)
Comparing the above expressions with Eq. (32) we arrive at the following correction to the current noise

$$\delta 𝒮_\omega =\frac{\beta R_0}{2R\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{\pm }{}\mathrm{coth}\frac{\omega \pm eV}{2T}\delta (\omega \pm eV).$$
(43)
In order to illustrate the relation between our results and FDT we notice that in the relevant limit $`g_01`$ the quantity $`\delta (eV)`$ (42) is defined by exactly the same time integral as the interaction correction to the $`IV`$ curve, cf. Eq. (27) of Ref. GZ00, . In particular, in the limit of zero frequency and voltage one finds

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{𝒮}_{\omega =0}=2Te^2\beta _0^{\mathrm{}}t\alpha (t)e^{F(t)}\left(1e^{t/R_0C}\right)𝑑t.$$
(44)
In accordance with FDT the combination in the right hand side is just the interaction correction to the zero-bias conductance of a coherent scatterer GZ00  multiplied by $`2T`$.

We will now derive the interaction correction to the current noise in several important limits.

### III.4 High temperatures

In the limit $`T1/R_0C`$ it is sufficient to evaluate the function $`F(t)`$ only at short times $`t1/T`$. In this limit from Eq. (34) we get

$$F(t)=\frac{e^2t^2}{2C}\left[\left(1\frac{\beta R_0}{R}\right)T+\frac{\beta R_0}{2R}eV\mathrm{coth}\frac{eV}{2T}\right].$$
(45)
Expanding $`e^{F(t)}`$ in Eq. (32) to the first order in $`F`$ we obtain

$`\delta 𝒮_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\beta }{2RC\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}\{1+`$
$`[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta R_0}{R}}({\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2T}}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2T}}1)]{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega \pm eV}{2T}}\right)\},`$ (46)
where function $`f(x)`$ reads

$$f(x)=\frac{x\mathrm{cosh}x}{2\mathrm{sinh}^3x}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{sinh}^2x}.$$
(47)
In the limit of small frequencies and voltages we then find

$$\delta 𝒮_\omega =\frac{e^2\beta }{3RC\kappa }.$$
(48)
At high frequencies $`\omega T,eV`$ or large voltages $`eVT,\omega `$ we get

$$\delta 𝒮_\omega =\frac{e^2\beta }{2RC\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(49)
Both results (48) and (49) describe partial suppression of the current noise by Coulomb interaction. As we have already discussed, Eq. (48) is consistent with the results GZ00  combined with FDT, whereas Eq. (49) just corresponds to the Coulomb offset $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=e\beta /2C`$ on the $`IV`$ curve of a coherent scatterer at large voltages. For the sake of completeness we also note that in a specific limit $`|\omega \pm eV|T`$ Eq. (46) yields positive correction to the current noise

$$\delta 𝒮_\omega =\frac{e^2\beta ^2R_0|eV|}{24CTR^2\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}.$$
(50)
However, the magnitude of this correction is small in the parameter $`e^2R_0/(RCT)1/g_0`$.

### III.5 Low temperatures

Now let us consider the limit of low temperatures $`T1/CR_0`$. At low voltages $`eV1/R_0C`$ and times much longer than $`1/R_0C`$ the function $`F(t)`$ reads

$$F(t)\frac{2}{g_0}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}[\pi Tt]}{\mathrm{sinh}[\pi TR_0C]}\right).$$
(51)
Combining this expression with Eq. (32), in the limit of small $`\omega ,eV<T`$ we obtain

$$𝒮_\omega =2T\left[\frac{1}{R+R_S}\frac{\beta }{R\kappa }\left(1(TR_0C)^{\frac{2}{g_0}}\right)\right].$$
(52)
For $`Tg_0E_C\mathrm{exp}(g_0/2)`$ the result (52) can be expanded in $`2/g_0`$. In this limit for the interaction correction we get

$$\delta 𝒮_\omega =\frac{4T\beta }{g_0R\kappa }\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{R_0CT}.$$
(53)
In the opposite limit of very low $`T<g_0E_C\mathrm{exp}(g_0/2)`$ (but still $`T\omega ,eV`$) the last term in (52) can be neglected and the interaction correction becomes

$$\delta 𝒮_\omega =\frac{2T\beta }{R\kappa }.$$
(54)
In the limit $`T\omega ,eV1/R_0C`$ we can set $`T=0`$ in Eq. (51). Then we obtain

$`𝒮_\omega =|\omega |\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{R+R_S}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{R\kappa }}\right)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2R\kappa }}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}|\omega \pm eV|\left[|\omega \pm eV|R_0C\right]^{\frac{2}{g_0}}.`$ (55)
If both $`\omega `$ and $`V`$ tend to zero, the last term in (55) can again be neglected and we find

$$\delta 𝒮_\omega =\frac{|\omega |\beta }{R\kappa }.$$
(56)
If, however, $`\omega `$ and/or $`eV`$ exceed the scale $`g_0E_C\mathrm{exp}(g_0/2)`$, one expands Eq. (55) in $`2/g_0`$ and gets

$$\delta 𝒮_\omega =\frac{2|\omega |\beta }{g_0R\kappa }\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{|\omega |R_0C}.$$
(57)
This expression applies for $`\omega eV`$. In the opposite limit in Eq. (57) one should simply substitute $`eV`$ instead of $`\omega `$. Note, however, that in the latter limit the corresponding result yields only one contribution ($`\delta S_\omega ^{(\beta )}`$) to the interaction correction. Another contribution ($`\delta S_\omega ^{(\gamma )}`$) will be found in Sec. 3F.

To complete this subsection let us find the interaction correction in the limit $`\omega ,eV1/R_0C`$. At large voltages the dependence of $`F(t)`$ on $`V`$ should be taken into account. Evaluating the corresponding (linear in $`V`$) correction to $`F(t)`$ (51), we obtain

$$\delta 𝒮_\omega =\frac{e^2R_0^2\beta ^2|eV|}{4\pi R^2\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}\underset{\pm }{}w[(\omega \pm eV)R_0C],$$
(58)
where

$$w(x)=22x\mathrm{arctan}x\mathrm{ln}x^2+\mathrm{ln}(1+x^2)+|x|\pi .$$
(59)
For $`|\omega \pm eV|1/R_0C`$ the asymptotics $`w(x1)1/3x^2`$ should be used. In this case we again recover Eq. (49). If, however, $`|\omega \pm eV|1/R_0C`$, then the interaction correction is governed by another asymptotics $`w(x1)2\mathrm{ln}x^2`$ and, hence, this correction is positive. Such an increase of the noise at $`|\omega \pm eV|<1/R_0C`$ is similar to that found at higher temperatures.

### III.6 Large voltages

Now let us evaluate the remaining correction $`\delta 𝒮^{(\gamma )}`$ (III.2). At high temperatures $`T1/CR_0`$ we obtain

$`\delta 𝒮_\omega ^{(\gamma )}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\gamma }{RC\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{eV}{T}}\right)^2,\text{if}\omega ,eVT,`$ (60)
$`\delta 𝒮_\omega ^{(\gamma )}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\gamma }{RC\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}\theta \left(|eV||\omega |\right)\mathrm{tanh}{\displaystyle \frac{|eV||\omega |}{2T}},`$ (61)
$`\text{if}\omega ,eVT.`$
In the limit $`\omega ,eVT1/CR_0`$ one finds

$$\delta 𝒮_\omega ^{(\gamma )}=\frac{2\gamma (eV)^2}{3Tg_0R\kappa }\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{TR_0C}.$$
(62)
Finally, at higher frequencies and voltages $`\omega ,eVT`$ we derive

$`\delta 𝒮_\omega ^{(\gamma )}={\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma }{g_0R\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}}\theta (|eV||\omega |)\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctan}[(|eV||\omega |)R_0C]}{R_0C}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{|eV||\omega |}{2}}\mathrm{ln}[1+((|eV||\omega |)R_0C)^2]\}.`$ (63)
Note that the correction $`\delta 𝒮_\omega ^{(\gamma )}`$ is positive in all cases. As compared to previously obtained contribution $`\delta S_\omega ^{(\beta )}`$ the correction (63) becomes important in the limit $`eVT,\omega `$. For such voltages both corrections add up, $`\delta 𝒮_\omega =\delta 𝒮_\omega ^{(\beta )}+\delta 𝒮_\omega ^{(\gamma )}`$, and yield

$`\delta 𝒮_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{2(\beta 2\gamma )|eV|}{g_0R\kappa }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|eV|R_0C}},`$ (64)
$`\text{if}T,|\omega ||eV|1/CR_0,`$
$`\delta 𝒮_\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{(\beta 2\gamma )E_C}{R\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }}},\text{if}|eV|T,1/CR_0,|\omega |.`$
These results complete our analysis of current fluctuations in coherent conductors with electron-electron interactions.

## IV Summary

Combining the standard scattering matrix approach with the effective action formalism we have analyzed the effect of electron-electron interactions on current noise in mesoscopic coherent conductors in the metallic limit (7).

We have found that Coulomb interaction always leads to partial suppression of the Nyquist noise. The corresponding interaction term is proportional to the parameter $`\beta `$ (1) similarly to the interaction correction to the conductance GZ00 . Interaction-induced suppression of both conductance and Nyquist noise has the same physical origin, and a direct relation between these two effects can easily be established with the aid of FDT.

The effect of electron-electron interactions on the shot noise is somewhat more complicated. In this case we have recovered two different interaction corrections entering with opposite signs. One of them is negative and it is again governed by the parameter $`\beta `$. Another correction is positive and it is proportional to the parameter $`\gamma `$ (4) which depends on the transmission distribution in a different way. The net interaction correction to the shot noise scales as $`\delta 𝒮_\omega (V)2\gamma \beta `$, i.e. it can be both negative and positive depending on the relation between $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$. The contribution to $`\delta 𝒮_\omega (V)`$ from the $`n`$-th conducting mode is negative provided its transmission $`T_n`$ is smaller than 1/2 and it is positive otherwise. For coherent diffusive conductors $`2\gamma \beta =1/15`$, i.e. in this particular case electron-electron interactions tend to decrease the shot noise.

The presence of two interaction corrections to the shot noise has a transparent physical interpretation. The $`\beta `$-correction is due to Coulomb blockade suppression of the Landauer conductance (2) while the $`\gamma `$-correction originates from the term $`_nT_n^2`$ in the expression for the shot noise Khl ; Les ; Bu1 . The absolute value of this term is also decreased by interactions. But, since it enters with the negative sign, the corresponding contribution to the noise spectrum turns out to be positive. We believe that the effect of electron-electron interactions on higher cumulants of the current operator can be described in a similar manner.

This work is part of the Kompetenznetz “ Funktionelle Nanostructuren” supported by the Landestiftung Baden-Württemberg gGmbH. One of us (A.V.G.) acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung.

## Appendix A Effective action and observables

Following GZ00  let us combine the effective action formalism SZ ; GZ  with the usual Landauer scattering approach. Within the latter approach one introduces a (relatively small) scatterer which connects two bulk reservoirs. The scatterer is described by the scattering matrix. In order to include electron-electron interactions it is necessary to reckon with the many-body Hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=𝑑𝒓\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^+(𝒓)\left[\frac{^2}{2m}+W(𝒓)\right]\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝒓)+\frac{1}{2}𝑑𝒓𝑑𝒓^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^+(𝒓)\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^+(𝒓^{})\frac{e^2}{|𝒓𝒓^{}|}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒓^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒓).$$
(65)
Here the term $`W(𝒓)`$ accounts for boundary and impurity potentials, external fields etc. After the standard Hubbard-Stratonovich decoupling of the interaction term one arrives at the following path integral over an auxiliary field $`V(𝒓,t)`$

$$e^{i\widehat{H}t}=\frac{𝒟V(𝒓,t^{})\left[\widehat{𝐓}e^{i_0^t𝑑t^{}\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}[V(𝒓,t^{})]}\right]e^{i_0^t𝑑t^{}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑𝒓{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{V(𝒓,t^{})^2}{8\pi }}}}}{𝒟V(𝒓,t^{})e^{i_0^t𝑑t^{}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑𝒓{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{V(𝒓,t^{})^2}{8\pi }}}}}.$$
(66)
Here $`\widehat{𝐓}`$ is the time-ordering operator and

$$\widehat{H}_{eff}[V(𝒓,t^{})]=𝑑𝒓\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^+(𝒓)\left[\frac{^2}{2m}+W(𝒓)eV(𝒓,t)\right]\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝒓).$$
(67)
We choose to define the electron charge as $`e`$.

The time dynamics of the density matrix $`\rho `$ is described by means of the evolution operator $`J`$ defined on the Keldysh contour. In what follows we shall denote the field $`V`$ on the upper and lower parts of this contour by $`V_{1,2}`$. The general expression for the density matrix reads

$$\rho (X_{1f},X_{2f},t_f)=𝑑X_{1i}𝑑X_{2i}J(X_{1f},X_{2f};X_{1i},X_{2i};t_f,t_i)\rho (X_{1i},X_{2i},t_i),$$
(68)
where $`X`$ the set of relevant quantum degrees of freedom. We shall assume that interaction with the fluctuating fields $`V_{1,2}`$ is turned on at a time $`t_i=0`$. The time $`t_f`$ is supposed to be large. Making use of (66) and integrating over the fermionic degrees of freedom, we obtain

$$J=𝒟V_1𝒟V_2\mathrm{exp}iS[V_1,V_2],$$
(69)
where $`S`$ is the effective action

$$iS[V_1,V_2]=2\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{G}_V^1+i\frac{C}{2}_0^t𝑑t^{}[V_{LR1}^2V_{LR2}^2],$$
(70)
Here we defined $`V_{LRj}=V_{Lj}V_{Rj}`$ and neglected the spatial dependence of the fields $`V_{L1,2}`$ and $`V_{R1,2}`$ inside both the left (L) and the right (R) reservoirs. The Green-Keldysh matrix $`G_V(X_1,X_2)`$ (here $`X=(𝒓,t)`$) obeys the $`2\times 2`$ matrix equation

$$\left(i\frac{}{t_1}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\widehat{H}_0(𝐫_1)\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+e\widehat{V}(X_1)\right)\widehat{G}_V(X_1,X_2)=\delta (X_1X_2)\widehat{\sigma }_z,$$
(71)
where $`\widehat{H}_0=(^2/2m)+W(𝒓)`$, $`\widehat{V}`$ is a diagonal $`2\times 2`$ matrix with components $`\widehat{V}_{ij}=V_i\delta _{ij}`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ is the Pauli matrix.

The above equation for the Green-Keldysh function should be supplemented by the initial condition for the density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }(t=0)=\widehat{\rho }_0`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }_0`$ is the equilibrium density matrix of noninteracting electrons. In what follows we will need the solution of Eq. (71) in the absence of the fulcutating fields $`V_{1,2},`$ which reads

$`G_{11}(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta (t_1t_2)\widehat{U}_1(t_1,t_2)+i\widehat{U}_1(t_1,0)\widehat{\rho }_0\widehat{U}_1(0,t_2),`$
$`G_{22}(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta (t_2t_1)\widehat{U}_2(t_1,t_2)+i\widehat{U}_2(t_1,0)\widehat{\rho }_0\widehat{U}_2(0,t_2),`$
$`G_{12}(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i\widehat{U}_1(t_1,0)\widehat{\rho }_0\widehat{U}_2(0,t_2),`$
$`G_{21}(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`i\widehat{U}_2(t_1,0)[\widehat{1}\widehat{\rho }_0]\widehat{U}_1(0,t_2),`$ (72)
where $`\widehat{U}_{1,2}(t_1,t_2)`$ are the evolution operators

$$\widehat{U}_{1,2}(t_1,t_2)=\text{T}\mathrm{exp}\left[i_{t_2}^{t_1}𝑑t^{}\left(\widehat{H}_0eV_{1,2}(𝒓,t^{})\right)\right].$$
(73)
One should keep in mind that in the operator products like $`\widehat{U}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{U}`$ integration over intermediate spatial coordinates is implied.

Instead of specifying $`W(𝒓)`$ we will describe electron transfer between the reservoirs by means of the scattering matrix formalism. This procedure is standard and further details are provided in Appendix B. In calculating the trace in Eq.(70), we shall make an explicit integration over the longitudinal coordinates. Integration over the transverse coordinates is replaced by summing over the transmission channels of the scatterer. It is convenient to introduce the phase variables

$`\phi ^+(t)={\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}\left(eV_{LR1}(t^{})+eV_{LR2}(t^{})\right)/2,`$ (74)
$`\phi ^{}(t)={\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}\left(eV_{LR1}(t^{})eV_{LR2}(t^{})\right).`$ (75)
Provided the dimensionless conductance $`g_0`$ is large $`g1`$ fluctuations of $`\phi ^{}(t)`$ are strongly suppressed, so we can expand the exact action $`iS[\phi ^\pm ]`$ in powers of $`\phi ^{}`$ keeping the full nonlinearity in $`\phi ^+`$. Note, that the external voltage enters only in $`\phi ^+`$ but not in $`\phi ^{}`$. Hence, for the system of Fig. 1 we have to impose the constraints $`_j\phi _j^+(t)=eV_xt`$, $`_j\phi _j^{}(t)=0`$. Here and below in this Appendix the summation runs over different elements in our circuit, i.e. the scatterer and the shunt.

Let us define the kernel of the current operator. Consider, e.g., the upper part of the Keldysh contour. The charge is proportional to the derivative of the action with the respect to the external voltage. Due to the property $`\delta S/\delta V_1(𝒓,t)=e_0^t\delta S/\delta \phi _1(𝒓,t)`$ we can relate the difference of the charges of the left and right reservoirs to the integral of $`\delta S/\delta \phi _{LR}(t)`$ over time. Hence, the latter derivative is proportional to the current through the scatterer. Keeping track of proper ordering in the upper part of the Keldysh contour, for $`t>t^{}`$ we obtain

$$\widehat{I}_j(t)\widehat{I}_j(t^{})=e^2𝒟\phi ^\pm \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \phi _{1j}(t)\delta \phi _{1j}(t^{})}e^{iS[\phi ^\pm ]}.$$
(76)
Combining (76) with a similar relation in the lower part of the Keldysh contour we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{I}_j(t)\widehat{I}_j(t^{})+\widehat{I}_j(t^{})\widehat{I}_j(t)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝒟\phi ^\pm \left[\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \phi _{1j}(t)\delta \phi _{1j}(t^{})}+\frac{\delta ^2}{\delta \phi _{2j}(t)\delta \phi _{2j}(t^{})}\right]e^{iS[\phi ^\pm ]}}.`$ (77)
This equation is equivalent to (18).

Below we shall proceed with an explicit calculation of the action by defining the scattering states.

## Appendix B Transmission channels

Following the usual $`\widehat{S}`$-matrix approach Bue  let us introduce the transmission channels. We will assume that far from the scatterer the electron propagation in transverse and longitudinal directions can be described separately. In this case the solution of the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{^2}{2m}\psi (𝒓)+W(𝒓)\psi (𝒓)=E\psi (𝒓)$$
(78)
can be factorized

$$\psi (𝒓)=\underset{n}{}c_n\mathrm{\Phi }_n(𝒓_{})\chi _n(x).$$
(79)
Here $`x`$ is the coordinate along the lead and $`𝒓_{}`$ are the transverse coordinates. The transverse wave functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n(𝒓_{})`$ satisfy the equation

$$\frac{_{}^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Phi }_n(𝒓_{})+W(𝒓_{})\mathrm{\Phi }_n(𝒓_{})=E_n\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒓_{}),$$
(80)
where the subscript $`n`$ enumerates the transmission channels (we are considering only channels with $`E_n<E_F`$). The function $`\chi _n(x)`$ outside the scatterer region is defined from the equation

$$\frac{1}{2m}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\chi _n(x)=(EE_n)\chi _n(x).$$
(81)
Since the electronic states with energies $`E`$ close to the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ mainly contribute, it is sufficient to describe the electron dynamics quasiclassically. We define the energy $`\xi =EE_F`$ and the particle velocity in the $`n`$-th channel $`v_n=\sqrt{2(E_FE_n)/m}.`$ Then the wave function can be expressed as

$`\chi _n(x)=e^{imv_nx}f_n^{in}(x)+e^{imv_nx}f_n^{out}(x),`$ left reservoir. (82)
$`\chi _n(x)=e^{imv_nx}g_n^{out}(x)+e^{imv_nx}g_n^{in}(x),`$ right reservoir.
In this way we have introduced the envelopes of the fast oscillating functions $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm imv_nx)`$. Consider first the left reservoir. The functions $`f_n^{in}(x)`$ and $`f_n^{out}(x)`$ satisfy the following quasiclassical equations

$`iv_n{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}f_n^{in}(x)=\xi f_n^{in}(x),`$
$`iv_n{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}f_n^{out}(x)=\xi f_n^{out}(x)`$ (83)
with the solutions

$$f_n^{in}(x)=\frac{e^{i\xi x/v_n}}{\sqrt{v_n}},f_n^{out}(x)=\frac{e^{i\xi x/v_n}}{\sqrt{v_n}}.$$
(84)
Analogously, for the right reservoir we find

$$g_m^{in}(x)=\frac{e^{i\xi x/v_m}}{\sqrt{v_m}},g_n^{out}(x)=\frac{e^{i\xi x/v_m}}{\sqrt{v_m}}.$$
(85)
The eigenfunction of the whole system with the energy $`\xi `$ in the left reservoir may be expressed as

$$\psi _\xi (𝒓)=\underset{n}{}\left[a_{Ln}e^{imv_nx}f_n^{in}(x)+b_{Ln}e^{imv_nx}f_n^{out}(x)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_n(𝒓_{}),$$
(86)
while in the right reservoir we get

$$\psi _\xi (𝒓)=\underset{k}{}\left[b_{Rk}e^{imv_kx}g_k^{out}(x)+a_{Rk}e^{imv_kx}g_k^{in}(x)\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_k(𝒓_{}).$$
(87)
The amplitudes of the outgoing $`b_{L,R}`$ and incoming $`a_{L,R}`$ states (see the Fig. 2) are related via the scattering matrix $`\widehat{S}(\xi )`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}b_{L1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ b_{LN_L}\\ b_{R1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ b_{RN_R}\end{array}\right)=\widehat{S}(\xi )\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{L1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ a_{LN_L}\\ a_{R1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ a_{RN_R}\end{array}\right).$$
(88)
The unitary matrix $`\widehat{S}`$ with dimensions $`(N_L+N_R)\times (N_L+N_R)`$ has the block structure

$$\widehat{S}(\xi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{r}(\xi )& \widehat{t}^{}(\xi )\\ \widehat{t}(\xi )& \widehat{r}^{}(\xi )\end{array}\right).$$
(89)
The diagonal blocks $`\widehat{r}`$ and $`\widehat{r}^{}`$ describe reflection back to the left and right reservoirs, respectively. The off-diagonal blocks describe transmission through the scatterer. Later we shall neglect the $`\xi `$-dependence of $`\widehat{S}`$.

Let us now combine the incident $`f_n^{in}(x)`$ and outgoing $`f_n^{out}(x)`$ wave functions belonging to the same channel into one wave function $`\psi _n(x)`$. Namely, we assume that the scatterer is located at $`x=0,`$ and for the left reservoir $`(x<0)`$ we put

$$\psi _n(y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_n^{in}(y),\hfill & y<0,\hfill \\ f_n^{out}(y),\hfill & y>0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(90)
Analogously, for the right reservoir $`(x>0)`$ we define

$$\psi _m(y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_m^{in}(y),\hfill & y<0,\hfill \\ f_m^{out}(y),\hfill & y>0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(91)
These new functions are defined in all the range $`y[\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}]`$ and are equal to

$$\psi _j(y)=\frac{e^{i\xi y/v_j}}{\sqrt{v_j}}.$$
(92)
Let us emphasize, that here the index $`j`$ enumerates all conducting channels, both in the left and in the right reservoirs (for convenience, we assume that the left channels are enumerated first).

In the presence of the fluctuating field $`V(t)`$, the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian in the reservoirs take the form

$$\widehat{H}_{ij}=iv_i\delta _{ij}\frac{}{y}eV_i(t)\delta _{ij},$$
(93)
where $`V_i=V_L`$ for all left channels and $`V_i=V_R`$ for the right channels. If at initial time $`t_1`$ the wave function was $`\psi _n(t_1,y),`$ then at the final time $`t_2>t_1`$ it becomes

$`\psi _n(t_2,y)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i[\phi _n(t_2)\phi _n(t_1)]}\psi _n(t_1,yv_n(t_2t_1)),y<0\text{or}y>v_n(t_2t_1);`$ (94)
$`\psi _n(t_2,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}e^{i[\phi _n(t_2)\phi _k(t_1)]i\left[\phi _n\left(t_2\frac{y}{v_n}\right)\phi _k\left(t_2\frac{y}{v_n}\right)\right]}s_{nk}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v_k}{v_n}}}\psi _k(t_1,{\displaystyle \frac{v_k}{v_n}}yv_k(t_2t_1)),\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}<y<v_n(t_2t_1).`$
Here $`s_{nk}`$ are the matrix elements of the $`\widehat{S}`$-matrix and, as before, $`\phi _n(t)=_0^t𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}eV_n(\stackrel{~}{t})`$. On the other hand, by definition of the evolution operator we have

$$\psi _n(t_2,y_2)=\underset{k}{}𝑑y_1U_{nk}(t_2,t_1;y_2,y_1)\psi _k(t_1,y_1).$$

Comparing this expression with (94), we find

$`U_{nk}(t_2,t_1;y_2,y_1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\phi _n(t_2)}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{nk}}{v_n}}\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{y_2y_1}{v_n}}t_2+t_1)+\theta (y_2)\theta (v_n(t_2t_1)y_2)e^{i\phi _n\left(t_2\frac{y_2}{v_n}\right)}[s_{nk}\delta _{nk}]\times `$
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v_k}{v_n}}}e^{i\phi _k\left(t_2\frac{y_2}{v_n}\right)}\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{v_k}{v_n}}y_2y_1v_k(t_2t_1))\}e^{i\phi _k(t_1)}.`$
It is convenient to introduce the new coordinates $`\tau =y/v_n.`$ More precisely, instead of the wave function with the components $`\psi _n(y)`$ we introduce the functions $`\eta _n(\tau )=\sqrt{v_n}\psi _n(y/v_n).`$ The kernels of the operators will also be transformed. If the two functions are related to each other by means of a linear operator

$$\psi _n^{(2)}(y)=\underset{k}{}𝑑y^{}K_{nk}(y,y^{})\psi _k^{(1)}(y^{}),$$
(95)
then the corresponding wave functions $`\eta ^{(2)}`$ and $`\eta ^{(1)}`$ satisfy the following relation:

$$\eta _n^{(2)}(\tau )=\underset{k}{}𝑑\tau ^{}\stackrel{~}{K}_{nk}(\tau ,\tau ^{})\eta _k^{(1)}(\tau ^{}),$$
(96)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_{nk}(\tau ,\tau ^{})=\sqrt{v_n}K_{nk}(v_n\tau ,v_k\tau ^{})\sqrt{v_k}.$$
(97)
In this representation the evolution operator can be simplified. We find

$`\widehat{U}(t_2,t_1;\tau _2,\tau _1)=\delta (\tau _2\tau _1t_2+t_1)e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t_2)}\left\{\widehat{1}+\theta (\tau _2)\theta (\tau _1)e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t_2\tau _2)}[\widehat{S}\widehat{1}]e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t_1\tau _1)}\right\}e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t_1)}.`$ (98)
The matrix $`\widehat{\phi }`$ is diagonal with respect to the channel indices $`\widehat{\phi }_{ik}=\phi _i\delta _{ik}`$. We also obtain an expression for the inverse operator, i.e. the operator defined by $`𝑑\tau _2\widehat{U}(t_2t_1;\tau _3\tau _2)\widehat{U}^1(t_2t_1;\tau _2\tau _1)=\delta (\tau _3\tau _1)`$. It reads

$`\widehat{U}^1(t_2,t_1;\tau _2,\tau _1)=\delta (\tau _1\tau _2t_2+t_1)e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t_1)}\left\{\widehat{1}+\theta (\tau _1)\theta (\tau _2)e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t_1\tau _2)}[\widehat{S}^+\widehat{1}]e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t_2\tau _1)}\right\}e^{i\widehat{\phi }(t_2)}.`$ (99)
Eqs. (98), (99) apply for $`t_2>t_1`$, in order to construct the corresponding expressions in the opposite case one should just use the property $`\widehat{U}(t_2,t_1;\tau _2,\tau _1)=\widehat{U}^1(t_1,t_2;\tau _2,\tau _1)`$.

Finally let us define the equilibrium density matrix for noninteracting electrons. It can be written in the form

$$\rho _{0,nk}(y_1,y_2)=\delta _{nk}\frac{dp}{2\pi }\frac{e^{ip(y_1y_2)}}{1+e^{pv_n/T}}=\frac{\delta _{nk}}{2}\delta (y_1y_2)\frac{\delta _{nk}}{2\pi }\frac{\pi iT}{v_n\mathrm{sinh}\left[\frac{\pi T(y_1y_2)}{v_n}\right]}$$
(100)
Performing the transformation (97) we obtain

$$\widehat{\rho }_0(\tau _1,\tau _2)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\delta (\tau _1\tau _2)\frac{iT}{\mathrm{sinh}\left[\pi T(\tau _1\tau _2)\right]}\right)\widehat{1}.$$
(101)
## Appendix C Expansion in the phase difference

We shall expand the effective action (70) perturbatively in $`\phi ^{}`$. The field $`\phi ^+`$ will be taken into account exactly in each term of this expansion. The expansion starts from the first order in $`\phi ^{}`$, since for $`\phi ^{}=0`$ the contributions from the forward and backward parts of the Keldysh contour cancel each other. We get from Eq. (71)

$$2\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\widehat{G}_V^1=2\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{\widehat{G}_0\widehat{\dot{\phi }}^{}}{2}\right).$$
(102)
The Green-Keldysh matrix $`\widehat{G}_0`$ is evaluated for $`\widehat{\phi }^{}=0`$, i.e. it is defined by Eqs. (72) with the evolution operator (98) taken at $`\widehat{\phi }=\widehat{\phi }^+`$). The fluctuating field $`\widehat{\phi }^{}`$ in (102) is a unity matrix in Keldysh space and a diagonal matrix in the space of conducting channels. Performing the summation over the Keldysh indices we arrive at the first order in $`\phi ^{}`$ contribution to the action $`iS^{(1)}`$

$$iS^{(1)}[\phi ^\pm ]=i𝑑t𝑑s𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{U}(t,0;s,\tau _1)\left\{\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\pi iT}{\mathrm{sinh}[\pi T(\tau _1\tau _2)]}\right\}\widehat{U}^1(t,0;\tau _2,s)\widehat{\dot{\phi }}^{}(t)\right].$$
(103)
For simplicity in Sec. 3 we have set $`t_f\mathrm{}`$. Here we will keep it finite and use the conditions $`\phi ^{}(0)=\phi ^{}(t_f)=0`$. The $`\delta `$-functions contained in $`\widehat{U}`$-matrices of (103) will lead to a singularity of the form $`1/\mathrm{sinh}[\pi T(\tau _1\tau _2)]`$ which is cured as follows. Let us choose close but not exactly equal arguments $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$. Expanding the combination

$$i𝑑t𝑑\tau _1𝑑\tau _2\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{U}(t,0;s_1,\tau _1)\widehat{U}^1(t,0;\tau _2,s_2)\widehat{\dot{\phi }}^{}(t)\right]$$
(104)
to the first order in $`s_1s_2`$ and multiplying the result by $`1/\mathrm{sinh}[\pi T(s_1s_2)]`$, we obtain

$$iS^{(1)}[\phi ^\pm ]=\frac{i}{\pi }_0^{t_f}𝑑s\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{\phi }^{}(s)\left(\widehat{S}\widehat{\dot{\phi }}^+(s)\widehat{S}^+\widehat{\dot{\phi }}^+(s)\right)\right].$$
(105)
Making use of the condition $`\text{Tr}[\widehat{t}^+\widehat{t}]=\text{Tr}[\widehat{t^{}}^+\widehat{t}^{}]`$ we get

$$iS^{(1)}[\phi ^\pm ]=\frac{i}{\pi }\text{Tr}[\widehat{t}^+\widehat{t}]\underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}𝑑\tau \phi ^{}(\tau )\dot{\phi }^+(\tau ),$$
(106)
where $`\phi ^\pm (\tau )=\phi _L^\pm (\tau )\phi _R^\pm (\tau )`$.

Consider now the contribution to the action of the second order in $`\phi ^{}`$. It is defined as

$$iS^{(2)}[\phi ^\pm ]=\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{G}_{12}\widehat{\dot{\phi }}^{}\widehat{G}_{21}\widehat{\dot{\phi }}^{}\right].$$
(107)
After a straightforward algebra one obtains

$`iS^{(2)}[\phi ^\pm ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}}d\tau _1{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}}d\tau _2\rho _0(\tau _2\tau _1)\rho _0^{}(\tau _1\tau _2)\times `$ (108)
$`\text{Tr}\left\{e^{i[\widehat{\phi }^+(\tau _1)\widehat{\phi }^+(\tau _2)]}\left[\widehat{S}^+\widehat{\phi }^{}(\tau _1)\widehat{S}\widehat{\phi }^{}(\tau _1)\right]e^{i[\widehat{\phi }^+(\tau _1)\widehat{\phi }^+(\tau _2)]}\left[\widehat{S}^+\widehat{\phi }^{}(\tau _2)\widehat{S}\widehat{\phi }^{}(\tau _2)\right]\right\}.`$
Taking into account the block structure of the $`\widehat{S}`$-matrix, we find

$`iS^{(2)}[\phi ^\pm ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}}d\tau _1{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}}d\tau _2\alpha (\tau _1\tau _2)\{[\text{Tr}(\widehat{t^{}}^+\widehat{t}^{})^2+\text{Tr}(\widehat{t}^+\widehat{t})^2]\phi ^{}(\tau _1)\phi ^{}(\tau _2)+`$ (109)
$`2\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{r}^{}\widehat{r^{}}^+\widehat{t}\widehat{t}^+\right]\mathrm{cos}(\phi ^+(\tau _1)\phi ^+(\tau _2))\phi ^{}(\tau _1)\phi ^{}(\tau _2)\},`$
where $`\alpha (\tau )`$ is defined in Eq. (21). Introducing the parameter $`\beta =\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{r}^{}\widehat{r^{}}^+\widehat{t}\widehat{t}^+\right]/\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{t}\widehat{t}^+\right]`$ we rewrite Eq. (109) in a more compact form

$$iS^{(2)}[\phi ^\pm ]=\frac{\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{t}^+\widehat{t}\right]}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}𝑑\tau _1\underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}𝑑\tau _2\alpha (\tau _1\tau _2)\phi ^{}(\tau _1)\phi ^{}(\tau _2)\left[1\beta +\beta \mathrm{cos}\left(\phi ^+(\tau _1)\phi ^+(\tau _2)\right)\right].$$
(110)
We now proceed to the third order contribution $`iS^{(3)}`$ to the effective action. It reads

$$iS^{(3)}=\frac{i}{2}\text{Tr}\left[\underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}𝑑t_1\underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}𝑑t_2\underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}𝑑t_3\theta (t_1t_2)\theta (t_3t_2)\widehat{}(t_1)\widehat{}(t_2)\widehat{}(t_3)\widehat{\rho }_0^{as}\right]+\frac{1}{12}\text{Tr}\left[\left(\widehat{G}_{12}\widehat{\dot{\phi }}^{}+\widehat{G}_{21}\widehat{\dot{\phi }}^{}\right)^3\right].$$
(111)
Here we used the notations

$$\widehat{\rho }_0^{as}(\tau _1\tau _2)=\frac{iT}{2\mathrm{sinh}\left[\pi T(\tau _1\tau _2)\right]}\widehat{1},\widehat{}(t)=\widehat{U}^1(t,0)\widehat{\dot{\phi }}^{}(t)\widehat{U}(t,0).$$
(112)
We obtain two terms from Eq. (111). The first one is

$$iS_\beta ^{(3)}[\phi ^\pm ]=\frac{i\beta }{6\pi }\text{Tr}[\widehat{t}^+\widehat{t}]\underset{0}{\overset{t_f}{}}𝑑\tau (\phi ^{}(\tau ))^3\dot{\phi }^+(\tau ).$$
(113)
In deriving this result we employed the same – although somewhat more involved – regularization procedure as for the first order contribution $`S^{(1)}`$. This procedure allows to determine the correct overall prefactor in (113). One can then verify that the resulting effective action satisfies the requirements of FDT.

The second term, coming from Eq. (111), has the form

$`iS_\gamma ^{(3)}[\phi ^\pm ]={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\text{Tr}\left[\left(\widehat{t}\widehat{t}^+\right)^2\widehat{r}^{}\widehat{r^{}}^+\right]{\displaystyle _0^{t_f}}dy_1{\displaystyle _0^{t_f}}dy_2{\displaystyle _0^{t_f}}dy_3\rho _0^{as}(y_2y_1)\rho _0^{as}(y_3y_2)\rho _0^{as}(y_1y_3)\times `$
$`\phi ^{}(y_1)\phi ^{}(y_2)\phi ^{}(y_3)\left\{\mathrm{sin}\left(\phi ^+(y_2)\phi ^+(y_1)\right)+\mathrm{sin}\left(\phi ^+(y_3)\phi ^+(y_2)\right)+\mathrm{sin}\left(\phi ^+(y_1)\phi ^+(y_3)\right)\right\}.`$ (114)
Defining the parameter $`\gamma =\text{Tr}\left[\left(\widehat{t}\widehat{t}^+\right)^2\widehat{r}^{}\widehat{r^{}}^+\right]/\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{t}\widehat{t}^+\right]`$ and shifting the phase $`\phi ^+`$ by $`eV`$ we obtain Eq. (35). Collecting now all four contributions (106), (110), (113) and (114) we arrive at the final result for the effective action

$$S=S^{(1)}+S^{(2)}+S_\beta ^{(3)}+S_\gamma ^{(3)}.$$
(115)
This action is valid up to the third order in $`\phi ^{}`$, and the variable $`\phi ^+`$ is treated exactly in each of the terms in (115).

It is instructive to compare our results with the AES action AES  derived for tunnel junctions ($`\beta 1`$) to all orders in $`\phi ^\pm `$. Rewriting the action AES  in our notations together with the capacitive term one has

$`iS_{AES}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4i}{e^2R}}{\displaystyle _0^{t_f}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{t_f}}𝑑t_2\alpha _I(t_1t_2)\theta (t_1t_2)\mathrm{sin}(\phi ^+(t_1)\phi ^+(t_2))\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}(t_1)}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}(t_2)}{2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{e^2R}}{\displaystyle _0^{t_f}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{t_f}}𝑑t_2\alpha (t_1t_2)\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}(t_1)}{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}(t_2)}{2}}\mathrm{cos}(\phi ^+(t_1)\phi ^+(t_2)){\displaystyle \frac{i}{e^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{t_f}}𝑑tC\ddot{\phi }^+\phi ^{}.`$
Here we denoted $`\alpha _I(t_1t_2)=\delta ^{}(t_1t_2)`$. This $`\delta `$-function should be understood as a smeared one.

Let us expand (C) in $`\phi ^{}`$ and compare with our results order by order. The first order terms are exactly the same for both models. The difference between the models shows up in the second order terms, for our model the parameter $`\beta `$ appears explicitly in the second order contribution (110). In the limit $`\beta 1`$ this expression reduces to that obtained from (C). Expanding the action (C) to the third order in $`\phi ^{}`$ one only recovers the term of the form (113) with $`\beta =1`$, while another term (114) cannot be recovered. Contributions of this nature are not contained in the AES action at all since they are proportional to higher orders of the channel transmission $`T_n`$.

It is worthwhile to point out that a formally exact representation for the effective action of a coherent scatterer (all orders in $`T_n`$ and all orders in $`\phi ^\pm `$) can also be derived SZ ; Z ; Naz ; GZ02 . However, this formal expression turns out to be quite complicated to deal with in the situation addressed here. For $`g=R_q/R1`$ and provided instanton effects Naz ; GZ02  can be neglected all necessary information is equally contained in a much simpler form of the effective action derived in the present paper.

We also note that there exists a simple relation between the action derived here and the cumulant generating function describing the full counting statistics of the charge transport in noninteracting coherent conductors LLL . This relation can be established if one neglects fluctuations of the phase variable, i.e. sets $`\phi ^+=eVt,`$ and chooses $`\phi ^{}`$ to be time independent. By identifying $`\phi ^{}=\lambda `$ and expanding the generating function $`\mathrm{ln}(\chi (\lambda ))`$ (defined in Eq. (37) of Ref. LLL, ) one arrives at the following indentity:

$$\mathrm{ln}(\chi (\lambda ))=\frac{i}{2}S[eVt,\lambda ].$$

Finally, let us use the AES action (C) in order to illustrate the importance of the third order in $`\phi ^{}`$ terms for the calculation of the currect-current correlation functions. Applying Eq. (77) one gets a contribution stemming from the double differentiation of the term with $`\alpha _I`$ in the action (C)

$$\delta 𝒮(t,t^{})=\frac{i}{R}\theta (tt^{})\alpha _I(tt^{})\mathrm{sin}(\phi ^+(t)\phi ^+(t^{}))\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi ^{}(t)\phi ^{}(t^{})}{2}+(tt^{}).$$
(117)
Evaluating this average with the aid of path integrals one has to keep all nonlinear terms in the pre-exponent. However, the dependence of the cosine term on $`\phi ^+`$ in the action in the exponent can be neglected provided $`g1`$. Applying the identity $`\mathrm{sin}(\phi ^+(t)\phi ^+(t^{}))=_{\nu =\pm }e^{i\nu [\phi ^+(t)\phi ^+(t^{})]}/2i`$ we arrive at the following integral

$$𝒟\phi ^+\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\nu (\phi ^+(t)\phi ^+(t^{}))\frac{i}{e^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{t}\phi ^+(\stackrel{~}{t})\left[C\ddot{\phi }^{}(\stackrel{~}{t})\frac{\dot{\phi }^{}(\stackrel{~}{t})}{R}\right]\right\},$$
(118)
which yields the $`\delta `$-function

$$\phi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{t})=\frac{2\pi }{g}\nu \left[\theta (t\stackrel{~}{t})\left(1e^{(t\stackrel{~}{t})/RC}\right)\theta (t^{}\stackrel{~}{t})\left(1e^{(t^{}\stackrel{~}{t})/RC}\right)\right].$$
(119)
As it was expected, $`\phi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{t})`$ is indeed small for $`g1`$. Combining the above expressions we arrive at the contribution

$$\delta 𝒮(t,t^{})=e^2\delta (tt^{})/2RC.$$

The same contribution multiplied by the factor $`\beta `$ was derived in Sec. 3B from the term $`S_\beta ^{(3)}`$ (31). The above analysis makes the significance of the third order in $`\phi ^{}`$ terms in the action particularly transparent: The kernel $`\alpha _I(t)`$ introduces the time-derivative of $`e^{t/RC}`$ which compensates for an extra smallness $`1/g`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been a spectacular progress in the understanding the low-energy dynamics of a large class of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories. Although the proposal of Dijkgraaf and Vafa (DV) linking effective superpotentials to random matrix quantities arose from string theoretic reasonings , its main part has subsequently been proven by purely field theoretic methods in .

There has been much research in extending the DV framework to accommodate matter in the fundamental representation , exhibit Seiberg-Witten curves , calculate gravitational couplings  and various other related developments .

As pointed out in  much of the physics of $`𝒩=2`$ theories deformed by tree-level potentials can be effectively obtained from the knowledge that the appropriate Seiberg-Witten (SW) curve  for the undeformed theory factorizes. This approach has been used in  (see also ), together with the Intriligator-Leigh-Seiberg (ILS) linearity principle  and ‘integrating-in’ techniques to derive the random matrix DV superpotential directly from properties of SW curves for unitary groups.

The object of this paper is to i) calculate the effective glueball superpotentials for orthogonal groups from the SW perspective and then ii) subsequently verify the DV conjecture by deriving the same result from the random matrix perspective using loop equation techniques. This is interesting as these involve nonorientable graphs on the random matrix side and especially as the original proposal of DV  was somewhat ambiguous (and indeed has to be slightly modified). Very recently, as this work was in progress, there appeared papers which addressed the orthogonal groups from different perspectives, namely perturbative methods  and CY/diagrammatic methods . The interesting paper  has some overlap in that the loop equation is also used there. We differ, however, on various aspects of the derivation of the equation as well as the solution of it.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we present the factorization solution for SW curves for orthogonal groups and use this information to construct the effective glueball superpotential by integrating-in $`S`$. Then we discuss in section 3 how this result should be reproduced from a random matrix model following the DV proposal. This implies in particular a non-trivial relation between the spherical and $`^2`$ contribution to the free energy, as was also noted in . Finally, in section 4 we prove for arbitrary tree level potentials the required random matrix identity using loop equation techniques. We close the paper with a discussion.

## 2 Exact $`SO(N)`$ superpotential from factorized SW curve

In this section we give a field-theoretic derivation of the exact superpotential in $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory with gauge group $`SO(N)`$ and arbitrary polynomial superpotential of one adjoint Higgs field.

We thus consider $`𝒩=2`$ $`SO(N)`$ gauge theory broken to $`𝒩=1`$ by a tree-level superpotential

$$W_{\mathrm{tree}}=\underset{p1}{}\frac{g_{2p}}{2p}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{2p}$$
(1)
where the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is in the adjoint. Note that, due to the antisymmetry of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ only even terms in the potential contribute. Following the computation for $`SU(N)`$ in Ref , we compute here the exact superpotential for the $`SO(N)`$ case, in the confining vacuum where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ classically.

To this end we use the ILS linearity principle  which implies that under the addition of (1), the exact effective superpotential is given by

$$W_\mathrm{q}=\sqrt{2}\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}\stackrel{~}{M}_mM_ma_m^D(v_p,\mathrm{\Lambda })+\underset{p1}{}g_pv_p$$
(2)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the scale governing the running of the gauge coupling constant, $`M_m`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_m`$ are the monopole fields, $`a_m^D`$ are the dual $`𝒩=2`$ $`U(1)`$ vector multiplet scalars, $`r=[N/2]`$ is the rank of $`SO(N)`$, and we have defined

$$v_p\frac{1}{2p}\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{2p}$$
(3)
Our aim is to obtain the universal superpotential $`W(S,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ which we achieve by first integrating out the monopole fields and subsequently integrating in the $`S`$ field. Turning to the first step, the equation of motion reads

$$a_m^D(v_p,\mathrm{\Lambda })=0,m=1\mathrm{}r$$
(4)
where we assume that all species of monopoles condense. The $`a_m^D`$ are given by integrals of a meromorphic form over cycles of hyperelliptic curves . In particular, for the case of $`SO(N)`$ these were obtained in  and  for $`N`$ odd and even respectively, and may be summarized according to

$$y^2=P(x)^24x^{2q}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2\stackrel{~}{h}},P(x)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}(x^2e_k^2)$$
(5)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{h}=N2`$ is the dual Coxeter number of $`SO(N)`$ and $`q=2r\stackrel{~}{h}`$ (hence $`q=2`$ for $`SO(2N)`$ and $`q=1`$ for $`SO(2N+1)`$). The relation between the $`v_p`$ in (3) and the moduli $`e_k`$ in (5) is

$$v_p=\frac{1}{p}\underset{k=1}{\overset{r}{}}e_k^{2p}$$
(6)
The vanishing of the $`a_m^D`$ implies a factorization constraint on $`P(x)`$. For $`SU(N)`$ this was solved in , while in the case of $`SO(N)`$ we find a similar solution111See also Refs. .

$$P(x)=2x^q\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\stackrel{~}{h}}T_{\stackrel{~}{h}}\left(\frac{x}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)$$
(7)
where $`T_l(z)=\mathrm{cos}(l\mathrm{arccos}(z))`$ is a Chebyshev polynomial. Indeed, it is easy to check that for this choice the SW curve factorizes

$$y^2=4^{q+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4r}z^{2q}(z^21)[U_{\stackrel{~}{h}1}(z)]^2,z\frac{x}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(8)
For $`SO(2N)`$ this shows one six-fold, two single and $`2N4`$ double zeroes, while for $`SO(2N+1)`$ there are two single and $`2N1`$ double zeroes. Moreover, it is not difficult to check that the corresponding meromorphic one-form is

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{2\pi i}(qP(x)xP^{}(x))\frac{dx}{y}=\frac{x^{q+1}\stackrel{~}{h}}{2\pi }\frac{dz}{\sqrt{1z^2}}$$
(9)
exhibiting singularities at the single zeroes $`z=\pm 1`$ of $`y`$ only.

From the solution (7) we may now read off that at the factorization point, the zeroes of $`P(x)`$ are $`x=0`$ and

$$e_k=2\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{cos}\left(\pi \frac{k1/2}{\stackrel{~}{h}}\right),k=1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{h}$$
(10)
Because of the symmetry $`e_{\stackrel{~}{h}+1k}=e_k`$ this means that the $`r`$ zeroes $`e_k^2`$ in (5) are given by

$$e_k^2=(2\mathrm{\Lambda })^2\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\pi \frac{k1/2}{\stackrel{~}{h}}\right),k=1,\mathrm{},r1,e_r^2=0$$
(11)
Substituting this in (6) then yields after some algebra

$$v_p(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{h}}{2p}\left(\begin{array}{c}2p\\ p\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2p}$$
(12)
which thus specifies the point in the moduli space where the monopoles coupling to each $`U(1)`$ in the Cartan subalgebra of $`SO(N)`$ have become massless. It then follows from (2) that the exact superpotential is

$$W(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,g_{2p})=\underset{p1}{}g_{2p}v_p(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)$$
(13)
We can now integrate in $`S`$ by Legendre transforming (13) using

$$\frac{W}{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{N2}}=S$$
(14)
which fixes the normalization222This choice was also adopted in ref. . of $`S`$.

The final result for the exact $`SO(N)`$ superpotential is then

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,g_{2p})=\frac{N2}{2}[S\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(S)/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2+\underset{p1}{}\frac{g_{2p}}{p}\left(\begin{array}{c}2p\\ p\end{array}\right)[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(S)]^{2p}]$$
(15)
where the function $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(S)`$ is determined by the solution of the equation

$$S=\underset{p1}{}g_{2p}\left(\begin{array}{c}2p\\ p\end{array}\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{2p}$$
(16)
which follows from (14), using (13), (12).

At this point, it is useful to recall the corresponding result for $`SU(N)`$ (or $`U(N)`$ with even potential)

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}^{SU(N)}(S,\mathrm{\Lambda }^2,f_{2p})=N[S\mathrm{ln}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(S)/\mathrm{\Lambda })^2+\underset{p1}{}\frac{f_{2p}}{2p}\left(\begin{array}{c}2p\\ p\end{array}\right)[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(S)]^{2p}]$$
(17)
$$S=\frac{1}{2}\underset{p1}{}f_{2p}\left(\begin{array}{c}2p\\ p\end{array}\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{2p}$$
(18)
where the tree-level potential is as in (1) with coupling constants $`f_{2p}`$. We thus note the simple relation between the two cases

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}^{SO(N)}(g_{2p})=\frac{N2}{2N}W_{\mathrm{eff}}^{SU(N)}(f_{2p}=2g_{2p})$$
(19)
which will be relevant below.

## 3 The Dijkgraaf-Vafa proposal

Following the conjecture of Dijkgraaf and Vafa , we expect to reproduce the exact $`SO(N)`$ superpotential (15) from an appropriate matrix model. In this case we need to consider the partition function of a one-matrix model with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the adjoint representation of $`SO(N)`$, i.e. real antisymmetric matrices333This is quite different from the standard orthogonal ensemble in random matrix theory where the matrices are real symmetric.. We thus consider

$$Z=d\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{g_s}\text{Tr}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\mathrm{\Phi })),S=g_sM$$
(20)
where $`W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is the tree-level superpotential in (1) and $`M`$ is the size of the matrices. Eliminating $`g_s`$, one may rewrite the partition function in the more standard random matrix model form

$$Z=\underset{a>b}{}D\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}e^{M\text{Tr}V(\mathrm{\Phi })}$$
(21)
where $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })=_p\frac{1}{2p}\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}\mathrm{\Phi }^{2p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}`$ is related to the tree level potential coefficients through $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}=g_{2p}/S`$. The corresponding free energy in $`Z=\mathrm{exp}(M^2F)`$ of this random matrix model has a $`1/M`$ expansion

$$F=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{M^n}F_n$$
(22)
For our purposes we will only be concerned with the contributions $`F_0`$, $`F_1`$ arising from the sphere $`S^2`$ ($`\chi =2`$) and the projective plane $`^2`$ ($`\chi =1`$) respectively. In terms of these quantities we extract the free energies from (20) according to

$$_{\chi =2}=S^2F_0,_{\chi =1}=SF_1$$
(23)
where we have expanded $`Z\mathrm{exp}((M^2/S^2)_{\chi =2}(M/S)_{\chi =1})`$. According to the conjecture of  (in the form given in Refs.  for $`SO/Sp`$), the perturbative part of the superpotential is then given by

$$W_{\mathrm{pert}}=N_S_{\chi =2}+4_{\chi =1}$$
(24)
in terms of the free energy contributions $`_{\chi =1,2}`$ defined in (23). Comparing with the exact result (15) obtained from factorization of the SW curve, we thus see that in order for the conjecture to hold for all $`N`$ one needs the relation

$$_S_{\chi =2}=2_{\chi =1}$$
(25)
Moreover, given this relation, one should have that444All quantities $`W`$, $``$, $`F`$ in this paper that do not carry an explicit superscript referring to the group are for $`SO(N)`$.

$$_S_{\chi =2}(g)=\frac{1}{N2}W_{\mathrm{pert}}(g)=\frac{1}{2N}W_{\mathrm{pert}}^{SU(N)}(f=2g)=\frac{1}{2}_S_{\chi =2}^{SU(N)}(f=2g)$$
(26)
where we used the relation (19) in the second step and the last step follows from the DV conjecture for $`SU(N)`$. Here, the arguments $`g`$ and $`f=2g`$ indicate the coupling constant dependence.

In the next section we will use the loop equation to prove the non-trivial identity (25) relating the $`^2`$ free energy to the spherical contribution. We will also derive the relation (26), after which the proof of the $`SO(N)`$ conjecture (24) immediately follows from the one for $`SU(N)`$, which was proven in .

## 4 Loop equation

In this section we will derive the result (25) obtained by factorization of the SW curve for the orthogonal groups555The same result has been recently obtained using other methods . In Ref.  the loop equation was used as well, but we differ considerably on various aspects in the derivation. using the loop equation for the relevant random matrix model. We also prove the relation (26) by comparing the zeroth order loop equation for $`SO(N)`$ and $`SU(N)`$.

The loop equation allows to find recursive relations among the contributions in the $`1/M`$ expansion of the free energy (see (22)) of a random matrix model. In practice the loop equations do not involve the free energy directly but are rather expressed in terms of its derivatives – the resolvents

$`W(z)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\text{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dV(z)}}F`$ (27)
$`W(z,z)`$ $``$ $`M^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}\text{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}}\text{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\text{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }}}^2\right)`$ (28)
where $`d/dV(z)`$ is the loop insertion operator

$$\frac{d}{dV(z)}=\underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2p}{z^{2p+1}}\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}}$$
(29)
The $`1/M`$ expansion of the free energy (22) induces the appropriate expansion of the resolvent $`W(z)=W_0(z)+(1/M)W_1(z)+\mathrm{}`$. The form of the loop insertion operator then determines the asymptotic large $`z`$ behavior of $`W_i(z)`$. In particular we have $`W_0(z)1/z`$ and $`W_i(z)𝒪(1/z^2)`$ for $`i>0`$. These conditions in general ensure the uniqueness of the solution of the loop equations.

The loop equation is derived by requiring the invariance of the partition function (21) under the coordinate reparameterization

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\epsilon \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^{2k+1}}{z^{2k+2}}$$
(30)
The transformation properties of the measure follow from

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}=d\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}^{}\epsilon \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2k}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{ac}^ld\mathrm{\Phi }_{cd}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{db}^{2kl}}{z^{2k+2}}$$
(31)
This is the initial starting point of ref.  but from now on our treatment differs considerably.

The Jacobian matrix for the reparameterization (30) is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}^{}}=\delta _{ai}\delta _{bj}\epsilon \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2k}{}}\frac{1}{z^{2k+2}}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{ai}^l\mathrm{\Phi }_{jb}^{2kl}\mathrm{\Phi }_{aj}^l\mathrm{\Phi }_{ib}^{2kl}\right]$$
(32)
where $`a>b`$ and $`i>j`$. The resulting Jacobian is then obtained from

$$J=1\epsilon \underset{a>b}{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{2k}{}}\frac{1}{z^{2k+2}}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{aa}^l\mathrm{\Phi }_{bb}^{2kl}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}^l\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}^{2kl}\right]$$
(33)
Using the symmetry with respect to the interchange of $`a`$ and $`b`$ we have $`_{a>b}=\frac{1}{2}_{a,b}`$. Furthermore since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}^l=(1)^l\mathrm{\Phi }_{ba}^l`$ we can rewrite $`J`$ in a compact form

$$J=1\frac{\epsilon }{2}\left(\text{Tr}\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}\right)^2+\frac{\epsilon }{2}\text{Tr}\frac{1}{z^2\mathrm{\Phi }^2}1\frac{\epsilon }{2}\left(\text{Tr}\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}\right)^2+\frac{\epsilon }{2}\frac{1}{z}\text{Tr}\frac{1}{z\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}$$
(34)
Combining this with the transformation property of the potential $`\text{Tr}V(\mathrm{\Phi })=\text{Tr}V(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})\epsilon \text{Tr}\frac{V^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})}{z\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}`$ the loop equation follows from the invariance property

$$D\mathrm{\Phi }e^{M\text{Tr}V(\mathrm{\Phi })}D\mathrm{\Phi }^{}J\left(1+M\epsilon \text{Tr}\frac{V^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})}{z\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}\right)e^{M\text{Tr}V(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})}=D\mathrm{\Phi }^{}e^{M\text{Tr}V(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})}$$
(35)
Standard manipulations then yield

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(W(z)^2+\frac{1}{M^2}W(z,z)\right)\frac{1}{M}\frac{1}{2z}W(z)_C\frac{dw}{2\pi i}\frac{V^{}(w)}{zw}W(w)=0$$
(36)
Let us denote by $`\widehat{𝒦}`$ the integral operator

$$\widehat{𝒦}f(z)=_C\frac{dw}{2\pi i}\frac{V^{}(w)}{zw}f(w)$$
(37)
Then it follows from (36) that the equations for the $`S^2`$ and $`^2`$ contributions to the resolvent are respectively

$`\widehat{𝒦}W_0(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_0^2(z)`$ (38)
$`\widehat{𝒦}W_1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`W_0(z)\left(W_1(z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2z}}\right)`$ (39)
These equations should be solved subject to the asymptotic conditions $`W_0(z)1/z`$ for $`z\mathrm{}`$ and $`W_1(z)𝒪(\frac{1}{z^2})`$.

### $`S^2`$ topology

It is convenient to relate the solution of the genus 0 loop equation (38) to the result for matrix models relevant for the unitary case. In that case, the relevant equation is

$$\widehat{𝒦}^{SU}W_0^{SU}(z)=(W_0^{SU}(z))^2$$
(40)
where $`\widehat{𝒦}^{SU}`$ is given by the same formula as (37) but with the coupling constants $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}`$ substituted by coupling constants of the complex matrix model $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{2p}`$. Comparing the two we see that the orthogonal resolvent $`W_0W_0^{SO}`$ is equal to the ‘unitary’ resolvent calculated with the couplings $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{2p}=2\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}`$. Using the defining relation (27) we see that this implies that

$$F_0^{SO}(\stackrel{~}{g})=\frac{1}{2}F_0^{SU}(\stackrel{~}{f}=2\stackrel{~}{g})$$
(41)
### $`^2`$ topology

In order to find the solution for $`W_1(z)`$ it is convenient to introduce the function $`\widehat{𝒟}W_0(z)`$ where $`\widehat{𝒟}`$ is the differential operator

$$\widehat{𝒟}=\underset{p}{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}}=\underset{p}{}g_{2p}\frac{}{g_{2p}}$$
(42)
$$[\widehat{𝒟},\widehat{𝒦}]=\widehat{𝒦},[\widehat{𝒟},\frac{d}{dV}]=\frac{d}{dV}$$
(43)
Note that this differential operator does not depend on whether the couplings $`\{g_{2p}\}`$ are rescaled by $`S`$ or not. Acting with $`\widehat{𝒟}`$ on the genus 0 equation (38) one obtains

$$\widehat{𝒦}(\widehat{𝒟}W_0)=W_0\widehat{𝒟}W_0\frac{1}{2}W_0^2$$
(44)
where we used the first commutator in (43). In terms of these quantities we can find a solution of (39) in the form

$$W_1(z)=\alpha \left(W_0\frac{1}{z}\right)+\beta \widehat{𝒟}W_0$$
(45)
where we recall the condition $`W_1(z)𝒪(\frac{1}{z^2})`$. Substituting this back into (39) yields uniquely $`\alpha =\beta =\frac{1}{2}`$ thus

$$W_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(W_0\frac{1}{z}\widehat{𝒟}W_0\right)\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dV(z)}\left(2F_0\underset{p}{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}}F_0\right)$$
(46)
where we used that $`\widehat{𝒦}\frac{1}{z}=0`$ and the second commutator in (43). Since $`W_1=dF_1/dV(z)`$ we can uniquely reconstruct $`F_1`$ from the above equation up to an inessential coupling constant independent additive constant. This yields finally

$$F_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(2\underset{p}{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}}\right)F_0$$
(47)
### Link with the DV proposal

Let us now reinterpret the matrix model identities obtained in the previous section within the gauge theoretical framework.

We first examine the perturbative expansion of $`F_0`$:

$$F_0=\underset{\{n_{2p}\}}{}a_{\{n_{2p}\}}\underset{p}{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}^{n_{2p}}=\underset{\{n_{2p}\}}{}a_{\{n_{2p}\}}\underset{p}{}g_{2p}^{n_{2p}}S^{{\scriptscriptstyle n_{2p}}}$$
(48)
where the sum runs over the various possible numbers of vertices of different types and $`a_{\{n_{2p}\}}`$ are the relevant combinatorial factors. A crucial property is now that the differential operator $`_S`$ can be directly related to the operator $`\widehat{𝒟}`$ in the matrix model. In particular, using the fact that $`_{\chi =2}=S^2F_0`$ we easily get

$$\frac{_{\chi =2}(S)}{S}=\underset{\{n_{2p}\}}{}\left(2n_{2p}\right)a_{\{n_{2p}\}}\underset{p}{}g_{2p}^{n_{2p}}S^{1{\scriptscriptstyle n_{2p}}}$$
(49)
The above can be rewritten in terms of random matrix quantities as

$$\frac{_{\chi =2}(S)}{S}=S\left(2\underset{p}{}g_{2p}\frac{}{g_{2p}}\right)F_0$$
(50)
Using (42) and the fact that $`_{\chi =1}(S)=SF_1`$, the solution of the loop equation (47) thus implies

$$\frac{_{\chi =2}(S)}{S}=2_{\chi =1}(S)$$
(51)
which verifies the announced identity (25). Turning to the other relation (26), we note that the matrix model couplings for the unitary and orthogonal groups were related to the gauge theoretical couplings via $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{2p}=2\stackrel{~}{g}_{2p}`$ which before the rescaling is equivalent to $`f_{2p}=2g_{2p}`$. In particular it then follows from (41) that $`_{\chi =2}^{SO}(g)=\frac{1}{2}_{\chi =2}^{SU}(f=2g)`$ which proves (26).

The effective potential obtained in section 2 from the Seiberg-Witten curve for orthogonal groups was shown to be equal to

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{N2}{2}\frac{_{\chi =2}^{SU}(f=2g)}{S}$$
(52)
This can be rewritten in terms of the quantities related to the orthogonal matrix model as

$$W_{\mathrm{eff}}=(N2)\frac{_{\chi =2}^{SO}}{S}=N\frac{_{\chi =2}^{SO}}{S}+4_{\chi =1}^{SO}$$
(53)
The multiplicative factor 4 has been first identified in  where it was shown to arise from the fact that the field theoretical determinants gave 1 for graphs with topology of $`S^2`$ and 4 for graphs with the topology of $`^2`$.

## 5 Conclusions

We have performed a field-theoretic computation of the exact superpotential for $`𝒩=1`$ $`SO(N)`$ gauge theory with arbitrary tree-level potential of an adjoint field. Here we used the factorization properties of SW curves for the orthogonal groups together with the ILS linearity principle. Comparison of this result with the matrix model conjecture  (see also ) implied the existence of a non-trivial identity relating the spherical free energy to that of the next contribution on $`^2`$. By explicitly solving the loop equation, we have been able to derive this identity for arbitrary potential. Moreover, the zeroth order loop equation enabled us to relate the spherical part in the $`SO(N)`$ theory to that of the $`SU(N)`$ theory, thereby showing that the validity of the $`SU(N)`$ conjecture directly implies the corresponding one for $`SO(N)`$.

The fact that certain quantities in supersymmetric gauge theories apparently know about information encoded in the loop equation, may be regarded as further evidence for the deep connection between these gauge theories and matrix models. It is also interesting to note that, in the end, the $`SO(N)`$ superpotential can be expressed in terms of the corresponding $`SU(N)`$ planar free energy. Our work also lends further support for the conjecture  that the ILS hypothesis is intimately related to the DV matrix theory proposal.

One obvious generalization is to apply the analysis of this note to the symplectic case. In particular, it would be interesting to use the methods of section 4 to derive from the loop equation the expected relation $`_S_{\chi =2}=2_{\chi =1}`$. Another area that has so far not received much attention is to consider the addition of matter in the fundamental representation to these $`𝒩=1`$ $`SO(N)`$ gauge theories. Here, the appearance of different types of $`\chi =1`$ contributions might give interesting results, while a possible connection to the case of $`SU(N)`$ with fundamental matter might generate further insights as well.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Robbert Dijkgraaf for helpful discussions.
RJ was supported by the EU network on “Discrete Random Geometry” and KBN grant 2P03B09622.