format: text

text:
# Theory of the anomalous Hall effect from the Kubo formula and the Dirac equation

## I Introduction

The Hall resistivity of magnetic materials, in addition to the normal part proportional to the magnetic field, contains a supplementary part proportional to the magnetization, called the anomalous Hall resistivity

$`\rho _H=R_0H+R_SM,`$ (1)
where $`R_0`$ and $`R_S`$ are the normal and anomalous Hall coefficients respectively, $`H`$ the magnetic field and $`M`$ the magnetization. While the normal Hall effect results from the Lorenz force, the anomalous Hall effect is due to the spin-orbit coupling in the presence of spin polarization. Experimentally, the normal and anomalous parts can be extracted by measuring the Hall resistivity as a function of the magnetic field. At high magnetic field, when the magnetic saturation is reached, we get a linear variation of the Hall resistivity with a slope related to $`R_0`$ and an extrapolated value at zero magnetic field related to $`R_S`$. The normal and anomalous Hall coefficients have been determined for a large number of bulk alloys. These studies reveal that the sign of $`R_S`$ can change according to the alloy composition and that $`|R_SM|`$ is generally larger than $`|R_0H|`$ for typical values of the magnetic field.

For different reasons, renewed attention to the anomalous Hall effect is observed quite recently. It is not only due to the increasing interest in spin-dependent transport phenomena but also because of some particular and interesting behaviors of the anomalous Hall resistivity obtained experimentally in granular alloys, in magnetic films and multilayers. In addition, the anomalous Hall effect is increasingly used as a measurement tool to detect for example magnetization, dynamics of magnetic domains or perpendicular anisotropy. Besides, a new effect closely related to the anomalous Hall effect, the “spin Hall effect”, has been recently predicted.

In the sixties, a number of theoretical works attempted to elucidate the physical mechanisms responsible for the anomalous Hall effect and to calculate an explicit expression for the anomalous Hall resistivity. A series of controversies arose from those pioneering works which were solved through detailed calculations and comparisons. It is now accepted that two mechanisms are responsible for the anomalous Hall effect: the skew-scattering proposed by Smit and the side-jump proposed by Berger.

An illustrative picture of these mechanisms is given in Fig. 1. Consider an incident plane-wave characterized by a wave-vector $`𝐤`$ which is scattered by a central potential due, for example, to impurity. In the presence of spin-orbit coupling, the amplitude of the wave-packet becomes anisotropic in the sense that it depends of the relative directions of the scattered and incident waves and of the spin. After a succession of scattering events, the average trajectory of the electron is deflected by a spin-dependent angle, which is typically of order $`10^2`$ rad. This first mechanism, depicted by the diagram (a) in Fig. 1, corresponds to the skew-scattering. The second mechanism corresponds to a lateral displacement, $`\delta 10^{11}`$ m, of the center of the wave-packet during the scattering, which is also spin-dependent. This mechanism, depicted by the diagram (b) in Fig. 1, corresponds to the side-jump. In both cases, due to the spin-orbit coupling, the effect is asymmetrical in respect to the spin state. The spin up and spin down currents are then different. In magnetic materials, this leads to a non-zero spin current and to a transverse component in the charge current, which corresponds to the anomalous Hall effect.

The skew-scattering and the side-jump mechanisms give different contributions to the anomalous Hall resistivity. For bulk material, it has been shown that, in certain limits, the skew-scattering contribution is simply proportional to the resistivity  while the side-jump contribution is proportional to the square of the resistivity . Then, we should have the simple expression

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_H=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{yx}=a\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xx}+b\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xx}^2,`$ (2)
which implies that the relative importance of these two contributions depends both on the temperature and on the impurity concentration. However, we show in this paper that, even if the relation (2) remains correct, the skew-scattering mechanism contributes also to the quadratic term in the case of impurity scattering. Such behaviour was already been shown by Kondorskii et al..

The traditional way to calculate the anomalous Hall resistivity is to include the contribution of spin-orbit coupling in the transition probability (it leads to the skew-scattering provided one goes beyond the Born approximation) and in the velocity (it leads to the so-called anomalous velocity which gives the side-jump). While the skew-scattering can be obtained in a classical approach it is claimed that the side-jump is a pure quantum effect. We shall discuss this point in the Sec. II of this paper. Most of the calculations of the anomalous Hall resistivity are based on the Bolztmann equation and used severe approximations, in particular concerning the side-jump contribution. Some calculations are based on the Kubo formalism, but surprisingly it is claimed that the side-jump contribution vanishes, and only the skew-scattering contribution is calculated.

Although the anomalous Hall effect is an old phenomena which has motivated a lot of experimental and theoretical studies, a unified model, able to calculate the skew-scattering and side-jump contributions on the same footing, was still missing. In this paper, we propose such a model. It is based on the Kubo formalism and has the peculiarity to be built from the Dirac equation. The justification for such an approach is given in Sec. III where we discuss in detail two different approaches for solving the anomalous Hall effect i.e., based on Dirac and Pauli equations, and study the consistency in the weak-relativistic limit of the expressions of the conductivity tensors obtained in these two approaches. In Sec. IV, we calculate the anomalous Hall conductivity of a disordered ferromagnetic bulk compound. The results are discussed in Sec. V.

## II Comments on the physical nature of the side-jump mechanism

It is often believed that the side-jump is a pure quantum effect and has no classical equivalent. The usual description of the side-jump is then based on a quantum picture (see Fig. 1(b)) of a plane-wave transformed by scattering in the presence of spin-orbit coupling into a spherical wave whose center is shifted in a lateral direction (perpendicular to the momentum and to the spin). The sign of the displacement is opposite for spin up ($`s=1`$) and spin down ($`s=1`$). A simple calculation in terms of phase-shift allows to determine this displacement. We start from the Pauli Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}})+W=H_0+W,`$ (3)
where $`𝝈`$ is the Pauli matrix, $`𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ the effective magnetic field due to exchange interactions and $`W`$ the total potential including the spin-orbit coupling

$`W=V+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4m^2c^2}}(𝝈\times \mathbf{}V)𝐩.`$ (4)
The state of the system $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ks}`$ after scattering is given in the Born approximation by the Lippmann-Schwinger equation $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ks}=|k,s+_{k^{}s^{}}|k^{},s^{}G_0(𝐤^{},s^{},\epsilon _k^s)k^{},s^{}|W|k,s`$, where $`\epsilon _k^s`$ and $`G_0`$ are respectively the eigenvalues and the Green’s function associated with $`H_0`$. The matrix elements of the potential are

$`k^{},s^{}|W|k,s=\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}\left(\delta _{ss^{}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}^2}{4m^2c^2}}(𝝈_{s^{}s}\times 𝐤^{})𝐤\right),`$ (5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}`$ is the Fourier transform of $`V`$. As the spin-orbit term is imaginary, it will influence the phase of the spherical wave. Thus, for small spin-orbit coupling, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ks}(𝐫)=r|\mathrm{\Psi }_{ks}`$ which describes the wave after scattering can be expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ks}(𝐫)e^{i𝐫𝐤}+{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}s^{}}{}}\delta _{ss^{}}G_0(𝐤^{}s^{},\epsilon _k^s)\stackrel{~}{V}_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}e^{i𝐫_𝐬^{}𝐤^{}},`$ (6)
where we have assumed that the effective magnetic field is along the z-direction. The center of the wave packet after scattering is given by

$`𝐫_s^{}𝐫+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m^2c^2}}(𝝈_{ss}\times 𝐤),`$ (7)
which is clearly spin dependent and means that the shift of the center of the wave packet is different for spin up and spin down. The lateral displacement, defined as $`𝜹^s𝐫_s^{}𝐫`$, is then equal to

$`𝜹^s={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{4\mathrm{}}}(𝝈_{ss}\times 𝐩),`$ (8)
where we have introduced the length $`\lambda `$ which corresponds to the Compton wave length $`\mathrm{\lambda ̄}_c=\mathrm{}/mc`$ in the case of free electrons. In real materials, Berger has shown that the spin-orbit coupling (i.e., $`\lambda ^2`$) is renormalized by band structure effects by a factor $`\alpha 10^4`$. We then obtain a lateral displacement $`𝜹`$ which is independent of disorder and of order $`\lambda ^2k_F/4\alpha \mathrm{\lambda ̄}_c^2k_F/410^{11}`$ m, in agreement with experimental results. Identical expression for $`𝜹`$ was originally derived by Lyo et al..

In a pure classical picture, such a lateral displacement can be experienced by a particle with spin. As a simple example, consider an electron with a charge $`e`$ ($`e<0`$) subject to a uniform electric field $`𝐄=E𝐮_x`$ ($`E>0`$) in the region $`x>0`$; there is no field in the region $`x<0`$. An incident electron coming from the region $`x<0`$ is reflected by the field as sketched in Fig. 2.

The velocity is given by

$`𝐯={\displaystyle \frac{H}{𝐩}}={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{}}{4m^2c^2}}(𝝈\times 𝐄),`$ (9)
and therefore contains an anomalous contribution $`𝐯_a=e\mathrm{}(𝝈\times 𝐄)/4m^2c^2`$ arising from the spin-orbit interaction. In the field region ($`x>0`$), where the trajectory is parabolic, the electron (we assume the spin to be along the z-axis) has an anomalous velocity along the y-axis, $`v_a^y=e\mathrm{}(\sigma _zE)/4m^2c^2`$. The electron therefore emerges with a shift along y, proportional to its spin $`\sigma _z`$. For an arbitrary electric field, the shift due to the anomalous velocity can be easily calculated

$`𝜹={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝐯_a𝑑t={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{}}{4m^2c^2}}(𝝈\times 𝐄)𝑑t,`$ (10)
with $`e𝐄dt=d𝐩`$, so that

$`𝜹={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}𝝈}{4m^2c^2}}\times {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑𝐩={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2𝝈}{4\mathrm{}}}\times (𝐩𝐩^{}),`$ (11)
In the above derivation, we have assumed that the spin is perpendicular to the scattering plane. The lateral displacement that we obtain is consistent with the one obtained in the quantum picture. Indeed, the parallel can be simply done by replacing in this classical calculation the momentum by a momentum operator and by making the angular average over the final momentum $`𝐩^{}`$: thus (11) coincides with (8).

## III Comparison of the Dirac and Pauli approaches

Generally, the calculations of the anomalous Hall conductivity are based on the Pauli Hamiltonian. However, in our modelization, i.e., within the framework of the Kubo formalism, it appears to be simpler to adopt a relativistic approach based on the Dirac equation. To justify that, let us first remember the derivation of the skew-scattering and the site-jump contributions in the Pauli approach. In presence of an exchange coupling, the Pauli Hamiltonian is $`H=\stackrel{~}{H}+H_{rc}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is the non-relativistic Hamiltonian

$`\stackrel{~}{H}={\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}\mu _B\left(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}\right)+V,`$ (12)
and $`H_{rc}`$ the first relativistic corrections to the Hamiltonian (order $`1/c^2`$)

$`H_{rc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^4}{8m^3c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4m^2c^2}}(𝝈\times \mathbf{}V)𝐩`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8m^2c^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }V+H_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑥𝑐}},`$
which contains the relativistic mass correction, the spin-orbit coupling, the Darwin term and the relativistic correction to the exchange coupling $`H_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑥𝑐}}`$. Since the effect we are interested in results from the spin-orbit coupling, we do not need to give the explicit expression of $`H_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑥𝑐}}`$ (calculations and comments on this term are presented in Ref. ). In this work, we do not consider the contribution of the periodic part of the spin-orbit coupling (i.e., due to the lattice) but only the aperiodic part due to the presence of impurities. In the Pauli approach, the velocity contains two parts. One resulting from the non-relativistic Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{𝐯}=𝐩/m`$ and another one resulting from the relativistic corrections

$`𝐯_{rc}={\displaystyle \frac{p^2𝐩}{2m^3c^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4m^2c^2}}(𝝈\times \mathbf{}V)+𝐯_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑥𝑐}}.`$ (15)
where $`𝐯_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑥𝑐}}`$ is the velocity related to $`H_{\mathrm{𝑟𝑥𝑐}}`$. In this description, the spin-orbit contribution to the velocity (second term in (15)), the so-called anomalous velocity, appears in a natural and transparent way. When we insert this contribution in the Kubo formula, we obtain the side-jump contribution. It is also possible to isolate the spin-orbit contribution in the Green’s function $`G`$ associated with $`H`$ by making the following expansion

$`G=\stackrel{~}{G}+\stackrel{~}{G}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}+\stackrel{~}{G}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}+\mathrm{},`$ (16)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is the non-relativistic Green’s function associated with the non-relativistic Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. When we insert this expression in the Kubo formula and proceed beyond the Born approximation, we obtain the skew-scattering contribution. Therefore, in the Pauli approach we get separately the skew-scattering and the side-jump contributions when the Green’s functions and the velocities are respectively corrected by the spin-orbit coupling.

One important problem in the Pauli approach is to treat disorder. Actually, the spin-orbit coupling introduces two things: off-diagonal disorder (in the tight-binding approximation) and disorder in the velocity through the anomalous velocity. The second consequence is critical because it is then difficult to calculate precisely the vertex corrections and accordingly the anomalous Hall resistivity. To avoid these problems, we have chosen to base our model upon the Dirac equation instead of the Pauli equation. In presence of an exchange coupling, it has the form

$`H=c(𝜶𝐩)+\beta mc^2+V\mu _B\beta \left(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}\right),`$ (17)
where the first term is the kinetic energy, the second term the mass energy, the third term is the potential and the last one the exchange coupling. From (17), we see that the velocity is simply

$`𝐯={\displaystyle \frac{H}{𝐩}}=c𝜶=c\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 𝝈\hfill & & \\ 𝝈& 0\hfill & & \end{array}\right).`$ (20)
At this level, there appears an apparent contradiction between the two approaches since, in the Dirac approach, contrary to the Pauli approach, we do not have any spin-orbit contribution to the velocity (anomalous velocity). It is therefore not clear a priori whether the side-jump mechanism would emerge from the Dirac approach. Actually, in the Dirac approach, the spin-orbit coupling, although it does not appear explicitly, is properly taken into account. Therefore, the conductivity should contain simultaneously the skew-scattering and the side-jump contributions as well as higher order contributions in $`1/c^2`$. However, the expressions of the conductivity obtained in the Dirac and Pauli approaches should coincide in the weak-relativistic limit. To check this, we have calculated, in a formal manner, the weak-relativistic limit up to order $`1/c^2`$ of the conductivity obtained from the Dirac equation and compared it with the conductivity obtained from the Pauli equation. The determination of the conductivity tensor is performed in the Kubo formalism. In certain limits, the conductivity can be expressed as a product of operators, namely Green’s functions and velocities. However, the formulations proposed in the literature are often confused or even wrong concerning the off-diagonal elements of the conductivity tensor due to an abusive generalization of the Kubo-Greenwood formula. In order to clarify the situation, we present in Appendix A the derivation of the conductivity tensor from the original Kubo formula and summarize the different stages and approximations which lead first to the Bastin formula and finally to the Streda formula. We show that the latter is a sum of two terms, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$ respectively given, in the limits of independent electrons approximation, zero temperature and zero frequency, by (A25) and (A27)

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II},`$ (21)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}rv_i(G^+G^{})v_jG^{}v_iG^+v_j(G^+G^{})_c,`$ (22)
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r(G^+G^{})(r_iv_jr_jv_i)_c,`$ (23)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ are the direction indices, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the volume of the sample, $`\mathrm{}_c`$ denotes the configurational average, $`G^+`$ and $`G^{}`$ are the retarded and advanced Green’s functions at the Fermi level: $`G^\pm =G(\epsilon _F\pm i0)=\left(\epsilon _F\pm i0H\right)^1`$. The procedure that we follow is first to insert the Dirac velocity and Dirac Green’s function in (21), next to perform a weak-relativistic expansion of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}`$ and finally to compare it with the expression obtained in the Pauli approach. The Dirac velocity is given by (20) and for the Dirac Green’s function, we have used an exact expression derived from (17) and given in Ref.  by Eq. (A3)

$`G^\pm =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{G}^\pm \stackrel{~}{G}^\pm \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2mc}\left(\epsilon _FV\mu _B\left(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}\right)\right)D^\pm \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2mc}\stackrel{~}{G}^\pm & \stackrel{~}{G}^\pm \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2mc}(Q^\pm )^1D^\pm Q^\pm \\ D^\pm \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2mc}\stackrel{~}{G}^\pm & \frac{1}{2mc^2}D^\pm Q^\pm \end{array}\right),`$ (26)
where the operators $`D^\pm `$ and $`Q^\pm `$ are given by

$`D^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+Q^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\left(\epsilon _FV\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}})\right)}{2mc^2}}\right)^1,`$ (27)
$`Q^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{(𝝈𝐩)\stackrel{~}{G}^\pm (𝝈𝐩)}{2m}}.`$ (28)
The details of the calculations are presented in Appendix B. The determination of the conductivity is done up to order $`1/c^2`$. It is shown that the identification with the Pauli approach is successful only when one considers the total conductivity $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$. Indeed, when we compare the expression of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I`$ obtained in the Dirac approach (see (B11) for order $`1/c^0`$ and (B22) for order $`1/c^2`$) to the one obtained in Pauli approach, we obtained different terms which are exactly canceled by terms in $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$ (see (B12) for order $`1/c^0`$ and (B27) for order $`1/c^2`$). The non-relativistic limit of the total conductivity obtained in the Dirac approach is

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})_c`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})(r_i{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}r_j{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}})_c,`$
which corresponds exactly to the conductivity obtained from (21) when one inserts the non-relativistic velocity $`\stackrel{~}{𝐯}=𝐩/m`$ and the non-relativistic Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. The last term in Eq. (31) is zero in absence of external magnetic field. The fact that a supplementary term in $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{I(0)}`$ is present in the Dirac approch and not in the Pauli approach has serious consequences when one neglects $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II(0)}`$ because it leads to an additional contribution at order $`1/c^0`$ to the off-diagonal conductivity which does not disappear in the non-relativistic limit and thus would give unphysical results. At order $`1/c^2`$, the total conductivity obtained in the Dirac approach is

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{(2)}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{SS}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{SJ}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{or},`$ (32)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{SS}`$ contains the terms which lead to the skew-scattering

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{SS}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$ (36)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{})_c,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{SJ}`$ contains the terms which lead to the side-jump

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{SJ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r(𝐯_{rc})_i(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$ (37)
$``$ $`(𝐯_{rc})_i\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})(𝐯_{rc})_j\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$ (38)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+(𝐯_{rc})_j(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}),`$ (39)
and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{or}`$ is equal to

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{or}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})(r_i(𝐯_{rc})_jr_j(𝐯_{rc})_i)`$ (40)
$`+(\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{})(r_i{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}r_j{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}})_c.`$ (41)
In addition to the skew-scattering and the side-jump contributions to the anomalous Hall effect, we identify a new contribution, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{or}`$, which is related to the orbital momentum $`𝐋=𝐫\times 𝐩`$. The expression (32) of the conductivity corresponds exactly to the one which is obtained from (21) when one inserts the first order corrections to the velocity $`𝐯_{rc}`$ and to the Green function $`\stackrel{~}{G}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}`$ where $`𝐯_{rc}`$ and $`H_{rc}`$ are given respectively by Eqs. (14) and (15). We have then proved in the weak-relativistic limit (up to order $`1/c^2`$) the coincidence of the conductivity in the two approaches.

In summary, from the Pauli Hamiltonian, we get the skew-scattering and the side-jump contributions separately while, from the Dirac Hamiltonian, we get the both contributions and also higher order in $`1/c^2`$ contributions simultaneously. Therefore, in a full relativistic Dirac description, it will be difficult to assess the importance of each contributions. However, this approach has a great advantage over the Pauli approach: it allows a simpler treatment of the disorder because, in contrast to the Pauli approach where both the velocities and the Green’s functions contain disorder, the disorder is only present in the Green’s functions. It is thus possible to take one of the velocity operator outside of the configurational average and to calculate precisely the vertex corrections to the conductivity. For this reason, the Dirac approach should be more efficient to calculate the anomalous Hall resistivity.

In the next section, we present a direct application of our model. In order to perform the analytical calculations, we restrict ourselves to the weak-relativistic limit and to approximate calculations of the vertex corrections; then the results that we obtain can still be compared to the ones obtained from the Pauli approach.

## IV Anomalous Hall conductivity of a ferromagnetic compound

In this section, we present the calculation of the anomalous Hall conductivity of a ferromagnetic bulk compound submitted to a potential. This calculation is done in both Dirac and Pauli approaches in order to show the similarities and the differences between these two approaches. We consider a system with a cubic symmetry and a magnetization along the z-axis. Thus, the conductivity tensor has the form

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (45)
We are only interested in the relativistic corrections to the off-diagonal elements which correspond to the anomalous Hall effect. We do not study the relativistic corrections to the diagonal elements which correspond to the anisotropic magneto-resistance (AMR) and lead to a difference of order $`1/c^4`$ between $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}`$. Thus, in this work, the diagonal elements are calculated at order $`1/c^0`$ and by consequence are all equal, while the off-diagonal elements are calculated at order $`1/c^2`$. To get analytical expressions, we have made several approximations: free-electron approximation, weak-scattering limit and weak-relativistic limit for the Dirac approach. In Sec. III, we have shown that the conductivity is equal to

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}rv_i(G^+G^{})v_jG^{}`$ (48)
$`v_iG^+v_j(G^+G^{})_c`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\left(G^+G^{}\right)(r_iv_jr_jv_i)_c,`$
where the Green’s function $`G^\pm `$ is associated with the total Hamiltonian: $`G^\pm =(\epsilon _F\pm i0H)^1=(\epsilon _F\pm i0H_0W)^1`$ where $`H_0`$ is the non-perturbed Hamiltonian and $`W`$ the perturbation (equal to the potential $`V`$ in the Dirac approach and to $`V+H_{so}`$ in the Pauli approach where $`H_{so}`$ is the spin-orbit coupling). The explicit form of the potential $`V`$ does not enter in the calculations, thus the results obtained below apply for both impurity scattering and phonon scattering in the adiabatic approximation. We modelize the compound in the following way: the total volume of the sample $`\mathrm{\Omega }=L^3`$ is divided into $`N`$ cells of volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=a^3`$. In each cell, the potential takes a constant value $`V`$ with a probability distribution $`P(V)`$ which is characterized by its moments $`V^n_c=P(V)V^n𝑑V`$. A proper choice of the energy origin yields $`V_c=0`$. We assume that there are no correlations in the value of the potential in different cells. In this first approach, we neglect in (48) the contribution of the terms which involves product of two advanced (or retarded) Green’s functions. Such an approximation is justified in the weak-disorder limit. In Appendix B, we have shown that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$, calculated in the Dirac approach, contains two parts, the first one related to the orbital momentum, which is negligible in our model, and the second one which is exactly compensated by terms in $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I`$. Then, we do not need to calculate this contribution. The conductivity reduces to

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}rv_iG^+v_jG^{}_c.`$ (49)
We introduce first the t-matrix $`T=W+WG_0T`$ which allows to write the Green’s function as $`G=G_0+G_0TG_0`$ where $`G_0`$ is the non-perturbed Green’s function. Inserting this in (49), we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}rv_iG_0^+v_jG_0^{}_c`$ (51)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}rv_iG_0^+TG_0^+v_jG_0^{}TG_0^{}_c.`$
This equation can be illustrated with the help of Feynman diagrams as is done in Fig. 3. The conductivity $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}`$, represented by the full diagram, is then express as a sum of an infinite number of diagrams. Only few of them are depicted in Fig. 3: diagram (a) which corresponds to the first term in (51) and diagrams from (b) to (f) which are some representative samples of the kind of diagrams which give the second term in (51). The main approximation done in our calculation is to neglect the crossed diagrams which correspond to weak-localization corrections, i.e., we neglect diagrams such (e) and (f) and we keep only the so-called ladder diagrams. Weak-localization corrections to the anomalous Hall conductivity are discussed in a separate paper. We introduce the configurational average Green’s function $`\underset{¯}{G}=G_c`$ which can be written with the help of the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=WG_0W_c+WG_0WG_0W_c+\mathrm{}`$ since $`\underset{¯}{G}=(\epsilon _FH_0\mathrm{\Sigma })^1`$. When we neglect the crossed diagrams, (51) can be written as

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}rv_i\underset{¯}{G}^+v_j\underset{¯}{G}^{}_c`$ (53)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}rv_i\underset{¯}{G}^+T^{}\underset{¯}{G}^+v_j\underset{¯}{G}^{}T^{}\underset{¯}{G}^{}_c,`$
with $`T^{}`$ solution of $`T^{}=W+W\underset{¯}{G}T^{}`$. The first term in the right side hand is the so-called bubble term ($`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{bubble}`$) and the second one corresponds to the vertex corrections ($`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{vertex}`$). Within this transformation, the calculation of the conductivity is then reduced to two distinct problems: determination of the average Green’s function (i.e., the self-energy) and calculation of the vertex corrections. Because of the weak-scattering limit, we keep in the self-energy and the t-matrix the lowest sufficient orders

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }=WG_0W_c\hfill & \\ T^{}=W+W\underset{¯}{G}W\hfill & \end{array}.`$ (56)
In the t-matrix, we have to keep the terms up to the second order with $`V`$ because it is necessary to go beyond the Born approximation to get the skew-scattering. The explicit calculation of (53) in the approximations (56) for the Dirac and Pauli approaches is presented in the next two sections.

### A Dirac approach

We assume free electrons in a uniform effective magnetic field $`𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ parallel to the z-axis and submitted to a potential. The non-perturbed part of the Hamiltonian is

$`H_0=c\left(𝜶𝐩\right)+(\beta 1)mc^2\mu _B\beta \sigma _zB_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}},`$ (57)
and the perturbation part is simply the potential $`W=V`$. The matrix elements of the average Green’s function are $`k,s|\underset{¯}{G}^\pm |k,s=\left(\epsilon _F\epsilon _k^s\pm i\mathrm{}/2\tau _k^s\right)^1`$ where the eigenvalues $`\epsilon _k^s`$ of (57) are in the weak-relativistic limit equals to

$`\epsilon _k^s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2m}}s\mu _BB_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}+o\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^2}}\right),`$ (58)
for the upper band, and

$`\epsilon _{\underset{¯}{k}}^s=2mc^2+o\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{c^0}}\right),`$ (59)
for the lower band. The $`s`$ index refers to the spin ($`s=1`$ for spin up and $`s=1`$ for spin down), the $`k`$ index refers to the upper band and the $`\underset{¯}{k}`$ to the lower band. The life-time $`\tau _k^s`$ which appears in the expression of the average Green’s function is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\tau _k^s}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{I}mk,s|\mathrm{\Sigma }^+|k,s=\mathrm{I}mk,s|VG_0^+V_c|k,s`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_0𝒩_s(\epsilon _k^s)V^2_c,`$ (61)
where $`𝒩_s`$ is the density of states of spin $`s`$ by unit volume. In the Dirac approach, the velocity $`𝐯`$ is simply equal to $`c𝜶`$. Because we have chosen to work in the basis where the non-perturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ (and by consequence the Green’s function $`G_0`$) is diagonal, we have to calculate the velocity in this basis, we get

$`𝐯=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐮(𝐤)+o\left(\frac{1}{c^2}\right)& c𝝈+o\left(\frac{1}{c}\right)\\ c𝝈+o\left(\frac{1}{c}\right)& o(c^0)\end{array}\right),`$ (64)
where $`𝐮(𝐤)`$ is the $`(2\times 2)`$ matrix

$`𝐮(𝐤)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}𝐤}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (67)
We have now all the ingredients to calculate the bubble term in (53)

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{bubble}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{kss^{}}{}}k,s|v_i|k,s^{}k,s^{}|\underset{¯}{G}^+|k,s^{}`$ (69)
$`\times k,s^{}|v_j|k,sk,s|\underset{¯}{G}^{}|k,s.`$
The configurational average $`\mathrm{}_c`$ has been dropped because in the Dirac approach the velocity is a non-disordered quantity. At order $`1/c^0`$, only the diagonal elements ($`s=s^{}`$, no spin-flip) of the velocity and the particles in the upper band contribute, then we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{bubble}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}^3}{2\pi m^2\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{ks}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ik_j}{\left(\epsilon _F\epsilon _k^s\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4\left(\tau _k^s\right)^2}}}.`$ (70)
The dispersion law $`\epsilon _k^s`$ given by (58) is isotropic at order $`1/c^0`$. Then, the angular dependence is entirely contained in the factor $`k_ik_j`$, which means that only diagonal components of the conductivity are different from zero. To order $`1/c^0`$, the vertex corrections to the diagonal components vanish, so that the total conductivity $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ii}`$ is equal to $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ii}^{bubble}`$. After integration over $`k`$, we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}=e^2𝒩_{}{\displaystyle \frac{l^{}v_F^{}}{3}}+e^2𝒩_{}{\displaystyle \frac{l^{}v_F^{}}{3}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}^{}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}^{},`$ (71)
which corresponds to the Einstein relation with two spin channels where $`l^s=v_F^s\tau _F^s`$ is the mean-free-path, $`v_F^s`$ and $`𝒩_s`$ are the velocity and the density of states by unit volume at the Fermi energy for spin s respectively (identical expressions are obtained for $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{yy}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{zz}`$). The diagram which gives this contribution is depicted on figure 4.

The off-diagonal components of the conductivity arise only when we take the vertex corrections into account. If we expend the t-matrix up to the second order in $`V`$, from (53), we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{vertex}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}rv_i\underset{¯}{G}^+(V+V\underset{¯}{G}^+V)\underset{¯}{G}^+`$ (73)
$`\times v_j\underset{¯}{G}^{}(V+V\underset{¯}{G}^{}V)\underset{¯}{G}^{}_c.`$
We then need the potential in the new basis

$`V=\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤^{}𝐤)\left(\begin{array}{cc}U(𝐤,𝐤^{})+o\left(\frac{1}{c^4}\right)& \frac{\mathrm{}(𝝈𝐤^{})}{2mc}+o\left(\frac{1}{c^3}\right)\\ \frac{\mathrm{}(𝝈𝐤^{})}{2mc}+o\left(\frac{1}{c^3}\right)& o(c^0)\end{array}\right),`$ (76)
where $`U(𝐤,𝐤^{})`$ is the $`(2\times 2)`$ matrix

$`U(𝐤,𝐤^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{\mathrm{}^2((𝐤^{}𝐤)^2+2i(𝐤^{}\times 𝐤)𝐞_z)}{8m^2c^2}& \frac{\mathrm{}^2((k_x^{}ik_y^{})k_z^{}(k_xik_y)k_zi(𝐤^{}\times 𝐤)(𝐞_xi𝐞_y))}{4m^2c^2}\\ \frac{\mathrm{}^2((k_x^{}+ik_y^{})k_z^{}(k_x+ik_y)k_zi(𝐤^{}\times 𝐤)(𝐞_x+i𝐞_y))}{4m^2c^2}& 1\frac{\mathrm{}^2((𝐤^{}𝐤)^22i(𝐤^{}\times 𝐤)𝐞_z)}{8m^2c^2}\end{array}\right),`$ (80)
and $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪)=𝑑𝐫e^{i𝐪𝐫}V(𝐫)/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Fourier transform of the potential. When we study in detail all the diagrams included in (73), we see that only two kind of diagrams contribute to the conductivity at order $`1/c^2`$. These diagrams are depicted on figures 5 and 6 (left column).

The first series of diagrams (see Fig. 5) involves velocities at order $`1/c^0`$, Green’s functions at order $`1/c^0`$, which means that only particles in the upper band contribute, and potential twice at order $`1/c^0`$ and once at order $`1/c^2`$ which ensures a total order of $`1/c^2`$ for the conductivity. The diagrams of this first series correspond to the skew-scattering mechanism. The second series of diagrams (left column in Fig. 6) involves one velocity at order $`1/c^0`$ and one at order $`c`$, three Green’s functions at order $`1/c^0`$ and one at order $`1/c^2`$, which means that we have a transition of particles between the upper and lower bands, and potential one time at order $`1/c^0`$ and one time at order $`1/c`$ which ensures a total order of $`1/c^2`$ for the conductivity. The diagrams of this second series correspond to the side-jump mechanism. In the following, we present the explicit calculation of the conductivity due to these two series. Let us start with the skew-scattering. We present the calculation of the diagram (a) in Fig. 5, which gives

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{(\text{5}a)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{kk^{}k^{\prime \prime }s}{}}k,s|v_x|k,s^{(0)}k,s|\underset{¯}{G}^+|k,s^{(0)}`$ (81)
$`\times k,s|V|k^{},s^{(0)}k^{},s|\underset{¯}{G}^+|k^{},s^{(0)}k^{},s|V|k^{\prime \prime },s^{(0)}`$ (82)
$`\times k^{\prime \prime },s|\underset{¯}{G}^+|k^{\prime \prime },s^{(0)}k^{\prime \prime },s|v_y|k^{\prime \prime },s^{(0)}k^{\prime \prime },s|\underset{¯}{G}^{}|k^{\prime \prime },s^{(0)}`$ (83)
$`\times k^{\prime \prime },s|V|k,s^{(2)}k,s|\underset{¯}{G}^{}|k,s^{(0)}_c.`$ (84)
The number in bracket indicates the order with respect to $`1/c`$ of the matrix elements like in Fig. 5 when the order is different from zero. We remark that for a total order $`1/c^2`$ of the conductivity, the spin is conserved during the process (no spin-flip scattering). We insert in this expression, the matrix elements given by (67) and (80) and perform the integration over $`k`$, $`k^{}`$ and $`k^{\prime \prime }`$. The final contribution to the conductivity corresponding to the diagram (a) is a complex quantity. The calculation of the diagram (b) gives the conjugated expression, then the total contribution due to the skew-scattering mechanism is a real quantity equal to

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SS}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi m^2\lambda ^2}{6\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V^3_c}{V^2_c}}\left(𝒩_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}^{}(v_F^{})^2𝒩_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_0\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}^{}(v_F^{})^2\right)`$ (85)
$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SS}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SS}.`$ (86)
We turn now our attention to the side-jump mechanism. The diagram (a) of Fig. 6 gives

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{(\text{6}a)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{kk^{}s}{}}k,s|v_x|\underset{¯}{k},s^{(1)}\underset{¯}{k},s|\underset{¯}{G}^+|\underset{¯}{k},s^{(2)}`$ (87)
$`\times \underset{¯}{k},s|V|k^{},s^{(1)}k^{},s|\underset{¯}{G}^+|k^{},s^{(0)}k^{},s|v_y|k^{},s^{(0)}`$ (88)
$`\times k^{},s|\underset{¯}{G}^{}|k^{},s^{(0)}k^{},s|V|k,s^{(0)}k,s|\underset{¯}{G}^{}|k,s^{(0)}_c.`$ (89)
In this mechanism, due to the presence of off-diagonal elements in the velocity (64) and the potential (76), a particle of the upper band $`\epsilon _k^s`$ experiences a virtual transition in the lower band $`\epsilon _{\underset{¯}{k}}^s`$ associated to the opposite spin. We perform the integrations over $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$, add the contributions of the four diagrams (6a) to (6d) and finally obtained

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SJ}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2𝒩_{}{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta ^{}v_F^{}}{3}}+e^2𝒩_{}{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta ^{}v_F^{}}{3}}`$ (91)
$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SJ}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SJ},`$ (92)
where $`\delta ^s`$ is the transverse displacement (or side-jump) given by $`\mathrm{}v_F^s/4mc^2=\lambda ^2k_F^s/4`$. The expression of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}`$ for the side-jump is similar to the expression (71) of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}`$ but instead of the mean-free-path $`l`$, we have $`2\delta `$. In contrast to $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SS}`$, the side-jump contribution to the off-diagonal conductivity is independent of disorder.

In the case of a parabolic band, the Einstein relation (71) reduces to the Drude formula with two spin channels

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}=e^2{\displaystyle \frac{n_{}\tau _F^{}}{m}}+e^2{\displaystyle \frac{n_{}\tau _F^{}}{m}},`$ (93)
where $`n_s=m𝒩_s(v_F^s)^2/3`$ is the electron density for spin s. The skew-scattering (85) and side-jump (91) contributions yield

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SS}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\lambda ^2}{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Omega }_0V^3_c}{\mathrm{}V^2_c}}(n_{}^2\tau _F^{}n_{}^2\tau _F^{}),`$ (94)
and,

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SJ}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\lambda ^2}{2\mathrm{}}}(n_{}n_{}).`$ (95)
### B Pauli approach

In the Pauli approach, the Hamiltonian given by (3) is the sum of a non-perturbed part and a perturbation $`W`$ given by (4) which contains the potential and the spin-orbit coupling. The velocity associated with this Hamiltonien consists of a normal part and an anomalous part due to the spin-orbit coupling

$`𝐯={\displaystyle \frac{𝐩}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4m^2c^2}}\left(𝝈\times \mathbf{}V\right).`$ (96)
We neglect the contribution of the spin-orbit coupling in the life-time, then the average Green’s function is $`\underset{¯}{G}^\pm =(\epsilon _FH_0i\mathrm{}/\tau _k^s)^1`$ where $`\tau _k^s`$ is given by (60). Because of this approximation, the derivation of the diagonal conductivity $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}`$ is similar to the one done in the Dirac approach and we obtain the expression (71).

The off-diagonal elements of the conductivity are obtained from the vertex corrections. For the skew-scattering, the diagrams which contribute are exactly the same than in the Dirac approach (see Fig. 5) because the only matrix elements of the potential (80) which contribute in the Dirac approach correspond precisely to the matrix elements of the potential in the Pauli approach (see Eq. (5)). The other terms in (80) are Darwin-like terms and do not contribute to the off-diagonal conductivity. Then, in the Pauli approach, the skew-scattering mechanism corresponds to the same Feynman diagrams and gives the same final expression (85) as the weak-relativistic limit of the Dirac approach.

Concerning the side-jump, the correspondence between the two approaches is not so simple. In the Dirac approach, we have seen that a virtual transition occurs from the upper band to the lower band. In the Pauli approach, no such a transition can take place because there is only one band. However, we have a supplementary part in the velocity, the anomalous velocity which is of order $`1/c^2`$ and leads to the side-jump mechanism. The corresponding diagrams are depicted on the right column of Fig. 6. For each diagram in the left column (i.e., in the Dirac approach), we have an equivalent diagram in the right column (i.e., in the Pauli approach). The change between the left and right column corresponds to a vertex renormalization because the matrix elements of the product $`𝐯GV`$ in the Dirac approach are equal to the matrix elements of $`𝐯`$ in the Pauli approach

$`k,s|𝐯|k^{},s^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}𝐤}{m}}\delta _{kk^{}}\delta _{ss^{}}`$ (97)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤^{}𝐤){\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{4m^2c^2}}𝝈_{ss^{}}\times \left(𝐤𝐤^{}\right).`$ (98)
Thus, when we calculate, for example the diagram (6a’)

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{(\text{6}a^{})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \underset{kk^{}s}{}}k,s|v_x|k^{},s^{(2)}k^{},s|\underset{¯}{G}^+|k^{},s^{(0)}`$ (101)
$`\times k^{},s|v_y|k^{},s^{(0)}k^{},s|\underset{¯}{G}^{}|k^{},s^{(0)}`$
$`\times k^{},s|V|k,s^{(0)}k,s|\underset{¯}{G}^{}|k,s^{(0)}_c,`$
we obtain the same contribution than from the expression (87) of the diagram (6a). The final result, after summation over the four diagrams (6a’) to (6d’), is then identical to (91).

## V Discussion

We now briefly discuss the influence of impurity scattering and phonon scattering on the resistivity and on the anomalous Hall resistivity, which are, in the limit $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}`$ simply given by $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xx}1/\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_H=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xy}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}/\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}^2`$. The only terms which depend on the scattering in the expressions of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}`$ given by (85) and (91) and of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}`$ given by (71), are the moments $`V^2_c`$ and $`V^3_c`$. Indeed, we have

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}\frac{1}{V^2_c}\hfill & & \\ \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SS}\frac{V^3_c}{V^2_c^2}\hfill & & \\ \stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xy}^{SJ}\mathrm{i}ndep.ofV^n_c\hfill & & \end{array}.`$ (105)
Then, the variations with the moments $`V^2_c`$ and $`V^3_c`$ of the resistivity and the anomalous Hall resistivity are like $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xx}V^2_c`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xy}^{SS}V^3_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xy}^{SJ}V^2_c^2`$.

To illustrate the dependence with disorder in the case of impurity scattering, we consider a binary alloy $`A_xB_{1x}`$ for which

$`V^2_c=x(1x)(\epsilon _A\epsilon _B)^2,`$ (106)
and,

$`V^3_c=x(1x)(12x)(\epsilon _A\epsilon _B)^3,`$ (107)
where $`\epsilon _{A(B)}`$ is the value of the potential $`V`$ on site $`A(B`$) and $`x`$ is the concentration of sites $`A`$. Keeping the lowest orders in $`x`$ (weak-disorder limit), we get

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xx}x\hfill & & \\ \stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xy}^{SS}(x3x^2)\hfill & & \\ \stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xy}^{SJ}x^2\hfill & & \end{array},`$ (111)
which is in agreement with the simple relation given by (2) but in contradiction with the common belief that the quadratic term would arise only from the side-jump mechanism. In fact, the skew-scattering mechanism, which is responsible for the linear term, gives also an important contribution to the quadratic term, a result that Kondorskii et al.  have already obtained. In addition, our calculations specify all the approximations which founded the relation (2) and show that it should not be valid in the general case, in particular for high-disordered system, high-relativistic limit, complex band structure or in the case of heterogeneous systems, such as thin films or multilayers.

Something may also be said about phonon scattering. Due to the fluctuating sign of the potential generated by phonons, the third moment $`V_c^3`$ can be expected to be very small and accordingly, the skew-scattering contribution (85) to the conductivity is negligible. We have then

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xx}V^2_c\hfill & & \\ \stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xy}^{SS}0\hfill & & \\ \stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xy}^{SJ}V^2_c^2\hfill & & \end{array},`$ (115)
which yields the simple relation $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xy}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{xx}^2`$, in agreement with experimental results.

The Hall angle, which corresponds to the angle between the electric field and the charge current, is an important quantity. For an applied electric field in the x-direction and an effective magnetic field in the z-direction, we have tg$`(\theta _H)j_y/j_x=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{yx}/\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}`$. The conductivity elements $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{yx}`$ are in a first approximation the sums of contributions due to spins up and down. We can thus define a spin-dependent Hall angle

$`\mathrm{t}g(\theta _H^{()}){\displaystyle \frac{j_y^{()}}{j_x^{()}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{yx}^{()}}{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{xx}^{()}}}.`$ (116)
We insert the expressions (85) and (91) of the skew-scattering and side-jump off-diagonal conductivities as well as the expression (71) of the diagonal conductivity and obtain for spin s

$`\theta _H^ss\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\delta ^s}{l^s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi m^2\lambda ^2}{6\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{V^3_c}{V^2_c}}𝒩_s\mathrm{\Omega }_0(v_F^s)^2\right).`$ (117)
$`\theta _H^{}`$ and $`\theta _H^{}`$ are not only opposite in sign, they take distinct absolute values due to spin polarization. As a consequence, the spin current $`(𝐣^{}𝐣^{})`$ has a longitudinal (i.e., along the x-axis) and a transverse (i.e., along the y-axis) component and the charge current $`(𝐣^{}+𝐣^{})`$ acquires a transverse component which corresponds to the anomalous Hall effect. In a paramagnetic material, Eq. (117) yields $`\theta _H^{}=\theta _H^{}`$ and both the transverse component of the charge current and the longitudinal component of the spin current vanish. However, the transverse component of the spin current remains. It corresponds precisely to the “spin Hall effect” recently proposed.

In the case of impurity scattering and in the weak-disorder limit, the magnitude of the Hall angle is determined mostly by the skew-scattering contribution. Indeed, in this limit we have $`\theta _H^{SJ}2\delta /l10^3`$ rad whereas $`\theta _H^{SS}\pi (12x)(\epsilon _A\epsilon _B)\epsilon _F/3mc^2W5.10^2`$ rad where we have taken $`l200`$ Å, $`x0.2`$, $`\epsilon _A\epsilon _B2`$ eV, $`\epsilon _F10`$ eV, the band width $`W5`$ eV, $`mc^2500`$ keV and a band factor $`\alpha 10^4`$. For simplicity, we have dropped the spin index. This order of magnitude is consistent with experimental results. When the disorder increases, the mean-free-path $`l`$ decreases significantly which means, since the quantity $`\delta `$ is disorder independent, an increase in the side-jump contribution to the Hall angle. However, the skew-scattering contribution to the Hall angle increases in the same way. It is thus not possible to predict in this first approach which contribution is dominant in the high-disorder regime.

In the case of phonon scattering, the Hall angle contains mostly the side-jump contribution $`\theta _H=\theta _H^{SJ}2\delta /l`$ which is of order $`10^2`$ rad where we have used $`\delta 10^{11}`$ m and $`l=\tau v_F`$ with a relaxation time $`\tau 10^{15}`$ s and $`v_F10^6`$ m.s<sup>-1</sup>.

To summarize, we have, in this article, proposed a model based on the Dirac equation and on the Kubo formalism which allows to calculate on the same footing the anomalous Hall conductivity due to both skew-scattering and side-jump mechanisms. The consistency of this approach with the one based on the Pauli equation has been studied in detail in the weak-relativistic limit. In particular, we have shown that in order to calculate the anomalous Hall conductivity one has to consider in the Dirac approach the total conductivity $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$, otherwise unphysical results are obtained. Next, we applied our model to treat a disordered ferromagnetic bulk compound submitted to a potential in the free electron approximation, weak-scattering and weak-relativistic limits. By these means, we have obtained explicit expressions for the anomalous Hall conductivity for both skew-scattering and side-jump mechanisms (given by (85) and (91)). In addition, we have highlighted the difference concerning the Feynman diagrams describing the side-jump mechanism in the Dirac and Pauli approaches and have shown that it corresponds to different vertex renormalizations.

## A From the Kubo formula to the Streda formula

In the linear response approximation, Kubo has shown that the conductivity tensor is related to a two currents correlation function

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}(\omega )=\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{s0^+}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\lambda {\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{\frac{it}{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}\omega +is)}`$ (A1)
$`\times \mathrm{T}r\rho _0J_j(0)J_i(t+i\mathrm{}\lambda )_c,`$ (A2)
where it is assumed that the applied field leads to a time-dependent perturbation of the form: $`H^{}(t)=H_0^{}\mathrm{e}xp(\frac{it}{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}\omega +is))`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume of the sample, $`\beta 1/k_BT`$, $`\rho _0`$ is the density matrix in equilibrium in absence of perturbation, $`J_i`$ is the i-component of the current density operator in the Heisenberg representation and $`\mathrm{}_c`$ denotes the configurational average. Following Luttinger, we obtain in the independent electrons approximation

$`n|J_i(t+i\mathrm{}\lambda )|m=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}(t+i\mathrm{}\lambda )(\epsilon _n\epsilon _m)}n|\stackrel{~}{J}_i|m,`$ (A3)
where we have used $`H=_n\epsilon _na_n^+a_n`$ and defined $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ as the current density operator in the Schrödinger representation. Using the relation Tr$`\left[\rho _0a_m^+a_na_p^+a_q\right]=\delta _{mq}\delta _{np}f(\epsilon _m)(1f(\epsilon _n))`$ where $`f(\epsilon )`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function, we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}(\omega )=\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{s0^+}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\lambda e^{\lambda (\epsilon _n\epsilon _m)}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}f(\epsilon _m)(1f(\epsilon _n))e^{\frac{it}{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{}\omega +is+\epsilon _n\epsilon _m)}m|\stackrel{~}{J}_j|nn|\stackrel{~}{J}_i|m_c.`$ (A4)
The integration over $`\lambda `$ leads to a factor $`(1e^{\beta (\epsilon _n\epsilon _m)})/(\epsilon _n\epsilon _m)`$ which can be simplified with $`f(\epsilon _m)\left(1f(\epsilon _n)\right)`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{\beta (\epsilon _n\epsilon _m)}}{\epsilon _n\epsilon _m}}f(\epsilon _m)\left(1f(\epsilon _n)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{f(\epsilon _m)f(\epsilon _n)}{\epsilon _n\epsilon _m}}.`$ (A5)
Inserting this in (A4) and performing the integration over $`t`$, we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}(\omega )=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{s0^+}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(\epsilon _m)f(\epsilon _n)}{(\epsilon _n\epsilon _m)(\epsilon _n\epsilon _m\mathrm{}\omega +is)}}m|\stackrel{~}{J}_j|nn|\stackrel{~}{J}_i|m_c.`$ (A6)
We shall now make some transformations of this expression in order to get the Bastin formula.

We restrict our derivation to zero frequency (from now, we drop the $`\omega `$ variable). After inserting the identity $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\epsilon \delta (\epsilon H)=1`$ in (A6), we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{s0^+}{lim}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\epsilon {\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{f(\epsilon )\delta (\epsilon \epsilon _m)}{(\epsilon _n\epsilon )(\epsilon _n\epsilon +is)}}`$ (A7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f(\epsilon )\delta (\epsilon \epsilon _n)}{(\epsilon \epsilon _m)(\epsilon \epsilon _m+is)}})m|\stackrel{~}{J}_j|nn|\stackrel{~}{J}_i|m_c.`$ (A8)
We remark that

$`\underset{s0^+}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\epsilon _n\epsilon )(\epsilon _n\epsilon +is)}}=\underset{s0^+}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon _n\epsilon +is}}\right);`$ (A9)
then we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{s0^+}{lim}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon f(\epsilon )`$ (A11)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{nm}{}}m|\stackrel{~}{J}_j|n{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon \epsilon _nis}}\right)n|\stackrel{~}{J}_i|m\delta (\epsilon \epsilon _m)`$ (A12)
$`m|\stackrel{~}{J}_j|n\delta (\epsilon \epsilon _n)n|\stackrel{~}{J}_i|m{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\epsilon }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon \epsilon _m+is}}\right)_c,`$ (A13)
which can be expressed as

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{ie^2\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\epsilon f(\epsilon )\mathrm{T}rv_i{\displaystyle \frac{dG^+(\epsilon )}{d\epsilon }}v_j\delta (\epsilon H)`$ (A14)
$`v_i\delta (\epsilon H)v_j{\displaystyle \frac{dG^{}(\epsilon )}{d\epsilon }}_c,`$ (A15)
where we have introduced the Green’s function $`G^\pm (\epsilon )=lim_{s0^+}(\epsilon H\pm is)^1`$ and the velocity through the relation $`\stackrel{~}{𝐉}=e𝐯/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This expression for the conductivity was first obtained by Bastin et al. but in the particular case of a Schrödinger Hamiltonian and made explicit use of the form taken by the velocity operator in the Schrödinger case. The present derivation is more general in the sense that it is independent of the explicit form of the velocity operator and is therefore valid both for the Schrödinger, Pauli and Dirac cases. The only restriction is the independent electrons approximation. This formula, called Bastin formula, is interesting because it expresses the conductivity as a product of velocities and Green’s functions. However, it is still difficult to calculate because of the integration over the energy $`\epsilon `$. By making an integration by parts, a factor $`df(\epsilon )/d\epsilon `$ appears instead of the factor $`f(\epsilon )`$ and the integration interval will be thus reduced.

In (A14), we express the delta function in terms of Green’s functions using $`\delta (\epsilon H)=(G^+(\epsilon )G^{}(\epsilon ))/2i\pi `$. We keep one half of this expression and make an integration by parts on the second half, then we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{df(\epsilon )}{d\epsilon }}\mathrm{T}rv_i\left(G^+(\epsilon )G^{}(\epsilon )\right)v_jG^{}(\epsilon )v_iG^+(\epsilon )v_j\left(G^+(\epsilon )G^{}(\epsilon )\right)_c`$ (A17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon f(\epsilon )\mathrm{T}rv_i{\displaystyle \frac{dG^{}(\epsilon )}{d\epsilon }}v_jG^{}(\epsilon )v_iG^{}(\epsilon )v_j{\displaystyle \frac{dG^{}(\epsilon )}{d\epsilon }}+v_iG^+(\epsilon )v_j{\displaystyle \frac{dG^+(\epsilon )}{d\epsilon }}v_i{\displaystyle \frac{dG^+(\epsilon )}{d\epsilon }}v_jG^+(\epsilon )_c.`$
The second term in this expression can be simplified by using the relations $`dG^\pm (\epsilon )/d\epsilon =(G^\pm (\epsilon ))^2`$ and $`i\mathrm{}v_i=[r_i,H]=[r_i,G^1]`$ and by performing once more an integration by parts. Finally, the conductivity can be written as a sum of two terms $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$ where

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{df(\epsilon )}{d\epsilon }}`$ (A20)
$`\times \mathrm{T}rv_i(G^+(\epsilon )G^{}(\epsilon ))v_jG^{}(\epsilon )`$
$`v_iG^+(\epsilon )v_j(G^+(\epsilon )G^{}(\epsilon ))_c,`$
and

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{df(\epsilon )}{d\epsilon }}`$ (A22)
$`\times \mathrm{T}r\left(G^+(\epsilon )G^{}(\epsilon )\right)(r_iv_jr_jv_i)_c.`$
(A20) and (A22) correspond to the formula obtained by Streda in the Schrödinger case. The present derivation shows that it holds also in the Pauli and Dirac cases. For the diagonal components of the conductivity tensor, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$ is equal to zero and we obtain the Kubo-Greenwood formula

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ii}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{df(\epsilon )}{d\epsilon }}\mathrm{T}rv_i(G^+(\epsilon )G^{}(\epsilon ))`$ (A23)
$`\times v_i(G^+(\epsilon )G^{}(\epsilon ))_c.`$ (A24)
At zero temperature, the factor $`df(\epsilon )/d\epsilon `$ is equal to $`\delta (\epsilon \epsilon _F)`$, only electrons at the Fermi level contribute to the conductivity (for both diagonal and off-diagonal components). In conclusion, at $`\omega =0`$ and $`T=0`$, the conductivity tensor can be expressed as a sum of two terms $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$ with

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}rv_i(G^+G^{})v_jG^{}`$ (A25)
$`v_iG^+v_j(G^+G^{})_c,`$ (A26)
and,

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\left(G^+G^{}\right)(r_iv_jr_jv_i)_c,`$ (A27)
where we have dropped the energy reference $`\epsilon _F`$ by introducing the Green’s functions at the Fermi level $`G^\pm =G(\epsilon _F\pm i0)=\left(\epsilon _F\pm i0H\right)^1`$.

## B Streda formula in the weak-relativistic limit

In this appendix, we give the detail of the calculation concerning the weak-relativistic expansion of the Streda conductivity starting from the Dirac equation. From (A25), we see that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I`$ is a combination of terms such as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}rv_iG(z_1)v_jG(z_2)_c,`$ (B1)
where $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ are equals to $`\epsilon _F\pm i0`$. When we insert the Dirac velocity (20) and the Dirac Green’s function (26) in (B1), make the explicit product of the 4 operators and take the trace over the lower and upper components of the wave function, we obtain the general form:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\sigma _iD(z_1){\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1)\sigma _jD(z_2){\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)`$ (B5)
$`+\sigma _i\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1){\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}Q^1(z_1)D(z_1)Q(z_1)\sigma _j\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2){\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}Q^1(z_2)D(z_2)Q(z_2)`$
$`+\sigma _iD(z_1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1){\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}\right)\sigma _j\left(\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2){\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2mc}}(z_2V\mu _B(𝝈𝐁\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}))D(z_2){\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2mc}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)\right)`$
$`+\sigma _i(\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1)\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1){\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2mc}}(z_1V\mu _B(𝝈𝐁\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}))D(z_1){\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2mc}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1))\sigma _jD(z_2)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2){\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}})_c.`$
Similarly, when we insert (20) and (26) in (A27), we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}(Q^+)^1D^+Q^++D^+{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}(Q^{})^1D^{}Q^{}D^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈𝐩}{2m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)\left(r_i\sigma _jr_j\sigma _i\right)_c.`$ (B6)
Expressions (B5) and (B6) are exact expressions without any assumption on the value of $`c`$. We will now calculate the weak-relativistic expansion of these expressions at orders $`1/c^0`$ and $`1/c^2`$ in order to compare them with the expression obtained from the Pauli approach.

### 1 Dirac conductivity at order $`1/c^0`$

In the non-relativistic limit, $`D`$ is simply equal to the unit matrix (see (27)), thus (B5) can be rewritten as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^{(0)}(z_1,z_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)`$ (B8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}(\sigma _i\sigma _j\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)+\sigma _j\sigma _i\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1))_c,`$
where we have used the fact that $`\sigma _i\left(𝝈𝐩\right)+\left(𝝈𝐩\right)\sigma _i=2p_i`$. When we insert this expression in (A25), the conductivity $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I`$ at order $`1/c^0`$ is

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{I(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$ (B11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})_c`$
$`+\epsilon _{ijk}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4i\pi m\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\sigma _k\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)_c,`$
where $`\epsilon _{ijk}=1`$ if $`\{i,j,k\}=\{x,y,z\}`$ or cyclic permutations and $`\epsilon _{ijk}=0`$ otherwise. This factor is introduce through the term $`(\sigma _i\sigma _j\sigma _j\sigma _i)=2i\epsilon _{ijk}\sigma _k`$. The first term on the right hand side corresponds exactly to the contribution that we get in a non-relativistic description because in this case the velocity is $`\stackrel{~}{𝐯}=𝐩/m`$ and the Green’s function is simply the non-relativistic Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. In contrast, the second term is not present in the Pauli approach and should not appear when we take the non-relativistic limit in the Dirac approach. In fact, we show below that this term is exactly cancelled by an opposite term in $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II(0)}`$. Replacing $`D`$ by $`1`$ in (B6), we get $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$ at order $`1/c^0`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)\left(r_i{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}r_j{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\right)_c`$ (B12)
$`\epsilon _{ijk}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4i\pi m\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\sigma _k\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)_c.`$ (B13)
where we have used the relations $`\left(𝝈𝐀\right)\left(𝝈𝐁\right)=\left(𝐀𝐁\right)+i𝝈\left(𝐀\times 𝐁\right)`$ and $`[r_i,p_j]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij}`$. The second term in the right hand side cancels the supplementary term in (B11) and we obtain finally for the total Dirac conductivity at order $`1/c^0`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{(0)}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{I(0)}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II(0)}`$ (B14)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})_c`$ (B15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)\left(r_i{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}r_j{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\right)_c,`$ (B16)
which corresponds exactly to the total conductivity obtained from (A25) and (A27) when we insert the non-relativistic Pauli velocity $`\stackrel{~}{𝐯}=𝐩/m`$ and the non-relativistic Pauli Green’s function $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$.

### 2 Dirac conductivity at order $`1/c^2`$

To get $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}`$ at order $`1/c^2`$, it is necessary to take into account the next terms in the expansion of $`D`$ given by (27): $`D(z)1Q(z)(zV\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))/2mc^2`$. Thus, from (B5), we get

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}^{(2)}(z_1,z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1)(𝐯_{rc})_j\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)+(𝐯_{rc})_j\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)`$ (B17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1)H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)`$ (B18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m^3c^2}}\left(\sigma _i\sigma _j\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)𝝈𝐩(z_2V\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))𝝈𝐩\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)+\sigma _j\sigma _i\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1)𝝈𝐩(z_1V\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))𝝈𝐩\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1)\right)`$ (B19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^3c^2}}p_ip_j\left(\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1)+\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m^2c^2}}\left(\sigma _i(z_1V\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))\sigma _j\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)+\sigma _j(z_2V\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))\sigma _i\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1)\right)`$ (B20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4m^3c^2}}(z_1z_2)((𝐩\times 𝝈)_i\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1)p_j\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2)p_i\stackrel{~}{G}(z_1)(𝐩\times 𝝈)_j\stackrel{~}{G}(z_2))_c,`$ (B21)
where $`H_{rc}`$ and $`𝐯_{rc}`$ are the relativistic corrections at order $`1/c^2`$ to the Hamiltonian and the velocity respectively given by (14) and (15). The last term on the right side hand does not contribute because $`(z_1z_2)0`$. Inserting the expression (B17) in the conductivity (A25), we get $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^I`$ at order $`1/c^2`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{I(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r(𝐯_{rc})_i(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}(𝐯_{rc})_i\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})(𝐯_{rc})_j\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$ (B22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+(𝐯_{rc})_j(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$ (B23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{})_c`$ (B24)
$`\epsilon _{ijk}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{16i\pi m^3c^2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+𝝈𝐩(\epsilon _FV\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))𝝈𝐩\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}𝝈𝐩(\epsilon _FV\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))𝝈𝐩\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)\sigma _k_c`$ (B25)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{16\pi m^2c^2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})(\sigma _i(\epsilon _FV\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))\sigma _j\sigma _j(\epsilon _FV\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))\sigma _i)_c.`$ (B26)
The first term corresponds exactly to the relativistic corrections that we get at oder $`1/c^2`$ in the Pauli approch. The two last terms are supplementary terms which should not appear. We show that they are cancelled by terms in $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II(2)}`$. Indeed, when we expand $`D`$ up to the second order in $`1/c`$ in the expression (B6) of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II}`$, we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)\left(r_i{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}r_j{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\right)+\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)\left(r_i(𝐯_{rc})_jr_j(𝐯_{rc})_i\right)_c`$ (B27)
$`+\epsilon _{ijk}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{16i\pi m^3c^2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+𝝈𝐩(\epsilon _FV\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))𝝈𝐩\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}𝝈𝐩(\epsilon _FV\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))𝝈𝐩\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)\sigma _k_c`$ (B28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{16\pi m^2c^2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})(\sigma _i(\epsilon _FV\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))\sigma _j\sigma _j(\epsilon _FV\mu _B(𝝈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}))\sigma _i)_c.`$ (B29)
The two last terms on the right hand side cancel the supplementary terms in (B22) and we obtain finally for the total conductivity at order $`1/c^2`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{(2)}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{I(2)}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^2\mathrm{}}{4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r(𝐯_{rc})_i(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}(𝐯_{rc})_i\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})`$ (B30)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})(𝐯_{rc})_j\stackrel{~}{G}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+(𝐯_{rc})_j(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}`$ (B31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\stackrel{~}{G}^+{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{})_c`$ (B32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4i\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{T}r\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}H_{rc}\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)\left(r_i{\displaystyle \frac{p_j}{m}}r_j{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{m}}\right)+\left(\stackrel{~}{G}^+\stackrel{~}{G}^{}\right)\left(r_i(𝐯_{rc})_jr_j(𝐯_{rc})_i\right)_c.`$ (B33)
This expression corresponds exactly to the one that we get from the Pauli approach when we report the Pauli velocity at order $`1/c^2`$, $`𝐯_{rc}`$, and the Pauli Hamiltonian at order $`1/c^2`$, $`H_{rc}`$, in (A25) and (A27). For higher order terms (say of order $`1/c^{2n}`$ with $`n>1`$), we can predict that similar cancellations occur when we consider the total conductivity $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{I(2n)}+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}^{II(2n)}`$. We have thus proved in this appendix the consistence between the Pauli conductivity and the weak-relativistic limit of the Dirac conductivity.

* Electronic address: crepieux@mpi-halle.mpg.de


text:
# Unitarized ChPT Amplitudes and Crossing Symmetry Violation

###

PACS numbers: 13.75.Lb, 12.39.Fe, 11.55.Bq

## 1 Introduction

Even though Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) has achieved a great success in describing strong interactions, low energy hadron physics must still be modeled phenomenologically. A great theoretical improvement was made by means of the method of ChPT , which is an effective theory derived from the basis of QCD. The method consists of writing down chiral Lagrangians for the physical processes and uses the conventional technique of the field theory for the calculations.

Here we will focus on pion-pion scattering. For this process, the ChPT leading contribution (tree graphs) is of second order in the momenta $`p`$ of the external pions and coincides with Weinberg result from current algebra . The corrections come from loop diagrams whose vertices are of order $`p^2`$ and include a free-parameter polynomial part related to tree diagrams of order $`p^4`$; these parameters have to be obtained phenomenologically. At one-loop level the method yields a total amplitude that respects exact crossing symmetry, however, the corresponding partial-waves satisfy only approximate elastic unitarity.

This violation is more severe at higher energies, so that it is not possible to reproduce resonant states, which are one of the most relevant features of the strong interacting regime. This is not a new issue in literature and many different methods have been proposed to improve this behaviour. Here we consider the inverse amplitude method (IAM) , that allows one to access the resonance region for pion-pion scattering by fixing two parameters, but violates crossing symmetry.

In the present exercise, our goal is to quantify this violation of crossing symmetry, what we do by calculating the deviations from the Roskies relations . Our work is presented as follows. In section 2 we write the ChPT amplitude for pion-pion scattering and we construct IAM partial-waves. We introduce a correction to get rid of sub-threshold poles by slightly shifting the original Adler zeros of the leading amplitudes. In section 3 we display the so called Roskies relations, which follow from the requirement of exact crossing symmetry and involve integrals of the partial-wave amplitudes in the region $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}<s<4m_\pi ^2`$. We measured the crossing symmetry violation of the IAM amplitudes. We obtained that some Roskies relations are violated at 30% level.

The compromise between crossing symmetry violation and approximate unitary amplitudes can be established by computing unitarity violation of the crossing symmetric ChPT amplitude, with parameters fixed in order to reproduce experimental phase-shifts. This is done in section 4 that also presents a summary of the main results.

## 2 Chiral perturbation theory and the IAM

In the case of pion-pion scattering, crossing symmetry implies that there is just one amplitude describing the three total isospin channels of the process. Using ChPT at the one-loop level and considering only the most relevant low energy constants, the amplitude can be decomposed as

$$A(s,t,u)=A^{ca}(s,t,u)+B(s,t,u)+C(s,t,u),\text{where}$$

$`f_\pi ^2A^{ca}(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`sm_\pi ^2,`$
$`f_\pi ^4B(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left(4\left(s1/2m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)^2\left(s2m^2\right)^2\right)\overline{J}(s)`$
$`+`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(3(t2m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2+(su)(t4m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}))\overline{J}(t)+(tu)],`$
$`f_\pi ^4C(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1(s2m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2+\lambda _2[(t2m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2+(tu)].`$
The isospin defined amplitudes $`T_I`$ for $`I=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1\text{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ are

$`T_0(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`3A(s,t,u)+A(t,s,u)+A(u,t,s),`$
$`T_1(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`A(t,s,u)A(u,t,s),`$
$`T_2(s,t)`$ $`=`$ $`A(t,s,u)+A(u,t,s),`$
which are expanded in partial-wave amplitudes, as

$$T_I(s,t)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}(2\mathrm{}+1)t_\mathrm{}I(s)P_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$

where $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the Legendre polynomials. In the following we omit the label $`\mathrm{}`$, because we will just deal with S-wave ($`I=0,2`$) and P-wave ($`I=1`$).

Elastic unitarity implies that, for $`16m_\pi ^2s4m_\pi ^2`$ ,

$$\text{Im}t_I(s)=\rho (s)|t_I(s)|^2,$$

which can be solved yielding

$$t_I(s)=\frac{1}{\rho (s)}e^{i\delta _I(s)}\mathrm{sin}\delta _I(s),$$
(1)
where $`\delta _I(s)`$ are the real phase-shifts and

$$\rho (s)=\frac{1}{16\pi }\sqrt{\frac{s4m_\pi ^2}{s}}$$

is the phase space factor for pion-pion scattering. Even for the ChPT amplitude, that does not respect elastic unitarity constraint, the definition

$$\delta _I(s)=\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\text{Im}t_I(s)}{\text{Re}t_I(s)},$$
(2)
will be used, in section 4.

At one-loop level, that is, up to order $`p^4`$ in the chiral expansion, the resulting ChPT amplitudes for isospin $`I=0,2`$ ($`\mathrm{}=0`$, S-wave) and $`I=1`$ ($`\mathrm{}=1`$, P- wave) can be expanded as

$$t_I(s)=t_I^{ca}(s)+t_I^{ca^2}(s)\overline{J}(s)+t_I^{left}(s)+p_I(s),$$
(3)
where $`t_I^{ca}`$ are the (real) Weinberg amplitudes, namely,

$`f_\pi ^2t_0^{ca}(s)=2sm_\pi ^2,f_\pi ^2t_1^{ca}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(sm_\pi ^2),f_\pi ^2t_2^{ca}(s)=2m_\pi ^2s,`$
$`t_I^{left}`$ are the parts that bear the left-hand cuts, namely,

$`f_\pi ^4\pi ^2t_0^{left}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^4}{s4m_\pi ^2}}(6s25m_\pi ^2)L(s)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72\rho (s)}}(7s^240m_\pi ^2s+75m_\pi ^4)L(s)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{864}}(95s^2658m_\pi ^2s+1454m_\pi ^4),`$
$`f_\pi ^4\pi ^2t_2^{left}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^4}{s4m_\pi ^2}}(3s+m_\pi ^2)L(s)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144\rho (s)}}(11s^232m_\pi ^2s+6m_\pi ^4)L(s)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1728}}(157s^2494m_\pi ^2s+580m_\pi ^4),`$
$`f_\pi ^4\pi ^2(s4m_\pi ^2)t_1^{left}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^4}{s4m_\pi ^2}}(3s^213m_\pi ^2s6m_\pi ^4)L(s)^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144\rho (s)}}(s^316m_\pi ^2s^2+72m_\pi ^4s36m_\pi ^6)L(s)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{864}}(7s^371m_\pi ^2s^2+427m_\pi ^4s840m_\pi ^6),\text{with}`$
$$\overline{J}(s)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\frac{2}{\pi }\rho (s)L(s)+I\rho (s),L(s)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\sqrt{s4m_\pi ^2}+\sqrt{s}}{2m_\pi },$$

and $`p_I(s)`$ are two free parameter polynomials, given by

$`f_\pi ^4p_0(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(11s^240sm_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+44m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\right)\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(14s^240sm_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+56m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\right)\lambda _2,`$
$`f_\pi ^4p_1(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}s\left(s4m_\pi ^2\right)\left(\lambda _2\lambda _1\right),`$
$`f_\pi ^4p_2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(s^22sm_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\right)\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(4s^214sm_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+16m_{\pi }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\right)\lambda _2.`$
If one wants to describe a resonant amplitude, one may wish to use Padé approximants, as e.g. advocated in . It amounts to writing the inverse of the partial-wave. Thus, instead of the exact ChPT result $`t_I`$, we use a modified amplitude

$$\stackrel{~}{t}_I(s)=\frac{t_I^{ca}(s)}{1\left(t_I^{ca^2}(s)\overline{J}(s)+t_I^{left}(s)+p_I(s)\right)/t_I^{ca}(s)},I=0,1\text{and}2.$$
(4)
Our strategy was to choose the parameters $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ in order to fit S- and P-waves above to the experimental phase-shifts, by using the definition (1). We show in Fig. 1 the resulting phase-shifts corresponding to the parameters $`\lambda _1=0.00345`$ and $`\lambda _2=0.01125`$. As mentioned in the introduction, there was a problem concerning S-waves, namely that they were singular at some sub-threshold value for $`s`$, where the correction becomes equal to $`t^{ca}`$. Singularities occur in S-wave sub-threshold amplitudes at $`s_00.64m_\pi ^2`$, for $`I=0`$, and at $`s_21.95m_\pi ^2`$, for $`I=2`$. Those values are close to the ones where $`t_0^{ca}`$ and $`t_2^{ca}`$ actually vanish.

In order to get rid of those singularities, we performed an extra correction, thus obtaining a new partial-wave amplitude, denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{t}_I^{(n)}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{t}_I^{(n)}(s)=\frac{(ss_I)/f_\pi ^2}{1\left(t_I^{ca^2}(s)\overline{J}(s)+t_I^{left}(s)+p_I(s)\right)/t_I^{ca}(s)},I=0\text{and}2.$$
(5)
The new formula slightly violates unitarity as can be measured by evaluating the quantity

$$Y^{IAM}=\frac{\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{t}_I^{(n)1}\rho }{\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{t}_I^{(n)1}+\rho },$$

that is smaller than 2% in the energy range considered. One notices that the fits are not modified due to this correction, according to the phase-shift definition.

## 3 Crossing symmetry violation

As explained in the introduction, IAM allows one to access the resonance region for pion-pion scattering. On the other hand, the corresponding partial-waves do not respect crossing symmetry and we would like to quantify that violation. Crossing symmetry imposes constraints between the integrals of some combinations of partial-wave amplitudes, known as Roskies relations . Let us define

$$\begin{array}{cc}A_1=2_0^{4m_\pi ^2}f_0𝑑s,\hfill & B_1=5_0^{4m_\pi ^2}f_2𝑑s,\hfill \\ A_2=_0^{4m_\pi ^2}(3s4m_\pi ^2)f_0𝑑s,\hfill & B_2=2_0^{4m_\pi ^2}(3s4m_\pi ^2)f_2𝑑s,\hfill \\ A_3=_0^{4m_\pi ^2}(3s4m_\pi ^2)f_0𝑑s,\hfill & B_3=2_0^{4m_\pi ^2}f_1𝑑s,\hfill \\ A_4=_0^{4m_\pi ^2}(3s4m_\pi ^2)(2f_05f_2)𝑑s,\hfill & B_4=9_0^{4m_\pi ^2}f_1𝑑s,\hfill \\ A_5=_0^{4m_\pi ^2}(10s^232sm_\pi ^2+16m_\pi ^4)(2f_05f_2)𝑑s,\hfill & B_5=6_0^{4m_\pi ^2}(5s4m_\pi ^2)f_1𝑑s,\hfill \end{array}$$

$`A_6={\displaystyle _0^{4m_\pi ^2}}(35s^3180s^2m_\pi ^2+240sm_\pi ^464m_\pi ^6)(2f_05f_2)𝑑s,`$
$`B_6=15{\displaystyle _0^{4m_\pi ^2}}(21s^248sm_\pi ^2+16m_\pi ^4)f_1𝑑s,`$
where $`f_{0,2}=(s4m_\pi ^2)t_{0,2}`$ and $`f_1=(s4m_\pi ^2)^2t_1`$. Crossing symmetric amplitudes must satisfy

$$A_i=B_i,$$

for $`i`$ from 1 to 6. In order to quantify the amount of violation of these relations within the IAM, we evaluated the ratio

$$V_i=\frac{A_iB_i}{A_i+B_i}.$$
(7)
We obtained the values shown in the Table.

## 4 Discussion and final remarks

The $`𝒪`$(p4) ChPT pion-pion amplitude is crossing symmetric but does not respect exact elastic unitarity. There are several attempts to extrapolate the domain of validity of ChPT and to access the resonance region for meson-meson scattering. One of these methods uses the inverse of the amplitude and fits the two-parameter amplitude to the experimental data.

In the present exercise we were interested in quantifying the crossing violation that this procedure implies. In order to do that we used the Roskies relations and we arrived to very big violations of crossing symmetry. On the other hand we have shown how to get rid of sub-threshold singularities by constructing a quasi-unitarized singularity corrected IAM amplitude.

For the sake of comparison, we show in Fig. 2 the fits of pure (crossing symmetric) ChPT amplitude to experimental phase-shifts, and evaluate, in turn, its unitarity violation. The fits were done as in Ref. , using definition (2). P-wave fit presents the same quality as the corresponding IAM one, while $`I=0`$ S-wave one is rather improved now. Here the parameters obtained are $`\lambda _1=0.007520`$ and $`\lambda _2=0.00653`$, which have the opposite signs in respect to those compatible with usual phenomenological ones. It happens because, in order to reproduce $`\rho `$-resonance, a complete inversion of the usual behaviour of the polynomial parts is required. It is an illustration of the current understanding of why it is not possible for pure ChPT amplitude to reach the resonance region.

It is thus interesting to evaluate the unitarity violation of that result. It is given, as before, by

$$Y^{UPCA}=\frac{\text{Im}t_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\rho }{\text{Im}t_{I}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+\rho }.$$

The results are shown in Fig. 3. We obtained values that reach more than 90%, for all three partial-waves. On the other hand, all Roskies relations vanish, within the numerical precision, of order $`10^5`$, in this case.

In summary our results show that it is not possible for ChPT to exactly fulfill all symmetry requirements, that is, by introducing elastic unitarity, a lot of crossing symmetry is lost, as well as keeping the latter costs a big amount of the former.