text:
# Interacting Crumpled Manifolds: Exact Results to all Orders of Perturbation Theory

## 1 Introduction

The statistical mechanics of fluctuating lines and surfaces is a subject of great interest, which poses fundamental problems and has remained challenging for more than 20 years. One particular universality class, which has been studied extensively in the past, are polymerized or “tethered” membranes . These are two-dimensional networks, where the bond-length fluctuates, but never breaks up. In the high-temperature regime nearest-neighbor interactions can be modeled by a harmonic potential. Neglecting self-avoidance, the membrane is extremely crumpled and highly folded, a property, which is characterized by the universal radius-of-gyration exponent $`\nu `$, defined as

$$R_gL^\nu ,\nu =0,$$
(1)
where $`R_g`$ denotes the radius of gyration, and $`L`$ is the linear internal size. Physically, $`0\nu 1`$, but in the absence of interactions, the radius of gyration grows only logarithmically with the internal size.

For a more realistic description one has to take into account self-avoidance, whose continuum version can be modeled by the generalized Edwards-Hamiltonian with 2-particle contact interaction

$$[r]=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x}{}\left(r(x)\right)^2+\frac{b_0}{2}\underset{x}{}\underset{y}{}\delta ^d(r(x)r(y)),$$
(2)
where $`x^D`$ labels points in the manifold $``$, while $`r(x)^d`$ points to their position in external space. The Edwards model successfully describes long polymers . Much effort has been spent to extend these results to membranes ($`D=2`$). The problem is, that the usual $`\epsilon `$-expansion about the upper critical dimension is not feasible, since the latter is infinity. An important idea was therefore to generalize (2) to manifolds of arbitrary internal dimension $`D`$. One then studies the $`D`$-dimensional manifold problem, and finally continuous analytically to $`D=2`$. A major breakthrough was the proof of perturbative renormalizability  to all orders in perturbation theory. This procedure was carried out to two loops  resulting in a radius-of-gyration exponent of $`\nu 0.86`$. This is a strong correction over the non-interacting theory with $`\nu =0`$, but may still be in contradiction to Monte-Carlo simulations, which often but not consistently find tethered membranes in a flat phase with $`\nu =1`$ . While simulations are very demanding and therefore not yet conclusive, it is nevertheless compelling to try to identify possible mechanisms, which might render flexible membranes flat at all scales. Such a mechanism has indeed been found for rigid membranes, where fluctuations strongly renormalize rigidity .

Here we study a simplified model, and solve it exactly at $`D=2`$. It corresponds to a gaussian elastic manifold interacting by excluded volume with a single $`\delta `$-like impurity in external space

$$[r]=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x}{}\left(r(x)\right)^2+g_0\underset{x}{}\delta ^d(r(x)).$$
(3)
As a first step to prove renormalizability of the full problem,  analysed (3) and indeed showed renormalizability to all orders in perturbation theory for all dimensions $`0<D<2`$. (3) has essential features in common with SAM: Its critical embedding dimension tends to infinity as the internal dimension approaches $`D=2`$. This can be read off from the dimension of the coupling $`g_0`$, which is

$$[g_0]=:\epsilon =D\frac{2D}{2}d.$$
(4)
Thus, calculating universal quantities within the $`\epsilon `$-expansion necessitates similar techniques as for SAM, and we expect to learn more from the solution of the toy-model (3).

Recently, we have been able  to sum the perturbative expansion exactly in $`D=2`$. The key-idea was, that when approaching $`D=2`$, the correlator which enters all perturbative calculations, becomes essentially flat. In order to check the consistency of the results obtained by that method, one would like to go away from $`D=2`$, and hopefully smoothly connect to polymers in $`D=1`$, which are well enough studied to check almost any quantity. In , we have done a first step in that direction, and obtained quite promising results in first order in $`(2D)`$. However, the expansion in $`(2D)`$ is not a loop-expansion, and at each order in $`(2D)`$, we have to resum an infinite number of diagrams. It turns out, that the results thus become very sensitive to the regularization procedure. In this letter, we pursue this road further, calculating contributions to the partition-function exactly for a manifold of toroidal or spherical shape. We obtain the expansion up to order $`(2D)^4`$. This information can then be used to extrapolate away from $`D=2`$. However, since we find that at $`D=2`$, the fixed point is at infinity, one needs additional constraints, i.e. a scaling function, in order to be able to use this result. We have not been able to settle this question, despite the tremendous information contained in the perturbative result. We thus present our “raw data”, together with some possible scaling-functions, encouraging the reader to think himself about the missing link.

## 2 Perturbation theory

Physical observables are derived from the partition function $`𝒵(g_0)`$. We use it to define the effective coupling of the problem,

$$g(z):=\frac{L^\epsilon }{𝒱_{}}(𝒵(0)𝒵(g_0)),$$
(5)
which only depends on the dimensionless combination $`z:=g_0L^\epsilon `$. $`𝒱_{}`$ denotes the total internal volume of the manifold. Accordingly, the perturbation expansion reads

$$g(z)=\frac{g_0L^\epsilon }{𝒱_{}}\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(g_0)^N}{(N+1)!}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}_{x_i}\stackrel{~}{\delta }^d(r(x_i))_0,$$
(6)
where the normalization of the $`\delta `$-distribution has been chosen to be $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }^d(r(x))=(4\pi )^d\delta (r(x))=_k\mathrm{e}^{ikr(x)}`$ with $`_k:=\pi ^{d/2}\mathrm{d}^dk`$. Performing the averages within the gaussian theory with normalization $`\frac{1}{𝒱_{}}_x\stackrel{~}{\delta }^d\left(r(x)\right)_0=1`$, one arrives at

$$g(z)=\frac{g_0L^\epsilon }{𝒱_{}}\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(g_0)^N}{(N+1)!}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}\underset{k_i}{}\underset{x_i}{}\right)\stackrel{~}{\delta }^d\left(\underset{i}{}k_i\right)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}k_ik_jC(x_ix_j)},$$
(7)
where $`C(x):=\frac{1}{2d}(r(x)r(0))^2_0`$ denotes the correlator, and the $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }^d(_ik_i)`$ stems from the integration over the global translation. Performing the shift $`k_{N+1}k_{N+1}_{i=1}^Nk_i`$ and integrating out the momenta $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_{N+1}`$ one obtains

$$g(z)=z\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(z)^N}{(N+1)!}\left(\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{x_{\mathrm{}}}{}\right)(det𝔇)^{d/2},$$
(8)
where we have factored out $`L^\epsilon `$ from the loop integration (such that the integrals now run over a torus of size 1), and the matrix elements $`𝔇_{ij}`$ are $`𝔇_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}[C(x_{N+1}x_i)+C(x_{N+1}x_j)C(x_ix_j)]`$.

## 3 Complete resummation of the perturbation series in $`D=2`$

Let us compute the $`N`$-loop order of (8): The asymptotic behavior of the propagator $`C(x)`$ for large arguments is of the form

$$C(x)c_0+\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{x}{a},$$
(9)
where $`c_0`$ denotes some positive constant (note $`C(x)0`$), and the logarithmic growth (for large $`x`$) is universal. In $`D=2`$ we need an additional short distance cutoff $`a`$. The loop integrals, denoted by $`I_N`$, only depend on the dimensionless combination $`L/a`$. We can (somehow arbitrary) decompose $`det𝔇=(_{i=1}^N𝔇_{ii})det\stackrel{~}{𝔇}`$ with

$`\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{C(x_{N+1}x_j)C(x_ix_j)}{C(x_{N+1}x_i)}}\right]\stackrel{a0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},ij,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝔇}_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (10)
One has in the limit of $`a0`$

$$\left(\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{x_{\mathrm{}}}{}\right)(det𝔇)^{d/2}=:I_N(L/a)=I_1^N(L/a)(det\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)})^{d/2}.$$
(11)
The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)}`$ denotes the limit $`a0`$ of (3). It can be written as $`\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}(𝕀+N)`$, where $`𝕀`$ denotes the identity and $``$ the projector onto $`(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$, whose image has dimension $`1`$, such that $`det\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)}=\frac{1+N}{2^N}`$. Furthermore, to one loop $`I_1(L/a)\stackrel{a0}{=}c_1(\mathrm{ln}\frac{L}{a})^{d/2}`$, where $`c_1`$ denotes some (finite) constant. One then arrives at

$$g(z)=z\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(z(\mathrm{ln}\frac{L}{a})^{d/2})^N}{N!(1+N)^{d/2+1}}.$$
(12)
A factor $`c_12^{d/2}`$ has been absorbed into a rescaling of both $`z`$ and $`g`$. The above series can be analysed in the strong coupling limit $`z\mathrm{}`$. For this purpose we define functions $`f_k^d(z)`$ together with their integral representation

$`f_k^d(z)`$ $`:=`$ $`z^k{\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(z)^N}{N!(k+N)^{d/2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{z^k}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d}{2})}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}drr^{d/21}\mathrm{e}^{z\mathrm{e}^rkr}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{ln}z)^{d/21}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d}{2})}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{z}{}}}dyy^{k1}\mathrm{e}^y\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}y}{\mathrm{ln}z}}\right)^{d/21}\stackrel{z\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d}{2})}}(\mathrm{ln}z)^{d/21}.`$
Thus in the limit of large $`z`$, the effective coupling (12) approaches the asymptotic form

$$g(z)=\frac{(\mathrm{ln}\frac{L}{a})^{d/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d+2}{2})}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(z\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{L}{a}\right)^{d/2}\right)\right]^{d/2}.$$
(14)
## 4 Observables

It immediately follows from this behavior that the correction-to-scaling exponent $`\omega `$, which is defined as the slope of the RG-$`\beta `$-function at the fixed point, equals zero. Here, it is useful to study the $`\beta `$-function as a function of the bare coupling $`z`$, which reads $`\beta (z)=\epsilon zg(z)/z`$. Then, the correction-to-scaling exponent is obtained from the limit $`z\mathrm{}`$ of

$$\omega (z):=\frac{\epsilon z}{\beta (z)}\frac{\beta (z)}{z}.$$
(15)
The value of $`\omega `$ can be checked in a Monte-Carlo experiment by considering plaquette-density functions on a membrane with self-avoidance in only a single $`\delta `$-like defect. Be the partition function $`𝒵^{}=𝒟[r]\stackrel{~}{\delta }^d(r(y))\mathrm{exp}[[r]]`$, then the plaquette-density at the defect is obtained from $`n_{}=\frac{L^\epsilon }{g/z}\frac{}{z}(\frac{g}{z})`$, where $`\frac{g}{z}=𝒵^{}`$. One furthermore needs the density-density correlation at this point, which is defined as $`n^2_{}=\frac{L^{2\epsilon }}{g/z}\frac{^2}{z^2}(\frac{g}{z})`$. In the limit of strong coupling $`n_{}=\frac{1}{g_0}(1+\frac{\omega }{\epsilon })`$ and $`n^2_{}=\frac{1}{g_0^2}(2+\frac{3\omega }{\epsilon }+\frac{\omega ^2}{\epsilon ^2})`$, such that the ratio

$$\frac{n_{}}{\sqrt{n^2_{}}}\stackrel{z\mathrm{}}{}\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon +\omega }{2\epsilon +\omega }}\stackrel{\omega =0}{}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(16)
becomes universal and should be measurable in simulations.

## 5 $`(2D)`$-expansion

Let us now analyse the theory below $`D=2`$. Due to the renormalizability in $`0<D<2`$ and the existence of an $`\epsilon `$-expansion we expect the renormalized coupling to reach a finite fixed point in the strong coupling limit as soon as $`D<2`$. This approach is characterized by a powerlaw decay of the form

$$g(z)=g^{}+S(\mathrm{ln}z)z^{\omega /\epsilon }+O(z^{\omega _1/\epsilon }),$$
(17)
where $`S`$ is some scaling-function growing at most sub-exponentially and $`\omega _1>\omega >0`$, with $`\omega `$ defined in (15). In order to gain information about $`g`$ below $`D=2`$ one has to expand the loop integrand $`(det𝔇)^{d/2}`$ in powers of $`2D`$. For convenience, we take $`a0`$. The propagator (9) takes in infinite $`D`$-space the form $`C(x)=|x|^{2D}/(S_D(2D))`$, where $`S_D=2\pi ^{D/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{D}{2})`$ denotes the volume of the $`D`$-dimensional unit-sphere. The factor $`(S_D(2D))^1`$ replaces $`\mathrm{ln}(\frac{L}{a})`$ and is absorbed into a rescaling of the field and the coupling according to $`rr(S_D(2D))`$ and $`g_0g_0(S_D(2D))^{d/2}`$, such that the factors of $`(\mathrm{ln}\frac{L}{a})^{d/2}`$ in (12) and (14) are replaced by $`(S_D(2D))^{d/2}`$. The propagator in the rescaled variable can then be written as

$$C(x)=1+(2D)(x).$$
(18)
where for convenience of notation we allow $`(x)`$ to depend itself on $`D`$.

Of course, on a closed manifold of finite size, $`C(x)`$ needs to be modified, but the form (18) is independent of the shape of the manifold. Accordingly, one may expand the matrix $`𝔇`$, which is $`𝔇=\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)}+(2D)𝔻`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)}`$ is defined as before and coincides with the limit $`D2`$ when inserting the above $`C(x)`$ into $`𝔇`$. Moreover, $`𝔻`$ is of the same form as $`𝔇`$, but each $`C(x)`$ has been replaced with $`(x)`$: $`𝔻_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}[(x_{N+1}x_i)+(x_{N+1}x_j)+(x_ix_j)]`$. Then,

$$det𝔇=det\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\mathrm{ln}(1+(2D)[\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)}]^1𝔻)\right]\right\},$$
(19)
where $`[\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)}]^1=2(𝕀\frac{N}{N+1})`$ denotes the inverse matrix of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)}`$. Expanding the integrand (19) in powers of $`(2D)`$ and the coupling $`g_0`$, all orders in $`g_0`$ can again be summed, with the difference that the integrands are no longer constant. Expanding up to the $`n`$th order in $`2D`$ involves $`n`$ powers of $`(x)`$. Introducing the notation $`\overline{f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)}:=_{x_1}\mathrm{}_{x_k}f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ with the integration defined as $`_x:=\mathrm{d}^Dx`$ (on the torus) the overbar can be thought of as an averaging procedure. To first and second order in $`2D`$, the only integrals to be evaluated are $`\overline{(x)}`$ and $`\overline{^2(x)}`$. In order to reveal the structure of the expansion we generated all terms up to fourth order. Generally, the terms are of the following form

$`z{\displaystyle \underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(det\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)})^{d/2}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{_{i=1}^l\left(\mathrm{Tr}([\stackrel{~}{𝔇}^{(0)}]^1𝔻)^{n_i}\right)^{m_i}}(z)^N}{(N+1)!}}`$ $`=:`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=\text{min}}{\overset{\text{max}}{}}}𝕄_{\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_1& m_2& \mathrm{}& m_l\\ n_1& n_2& \mathrm{}& n_l\end{array}\right)}f_1^{d+2j}(z)`$ (22)
$`=:`$ $`𝕄_{\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_1& m_2& \mathrm{}& m_l\\ n_1& n_2& \mathrm{}& n_l\end{array}|\begin{array}{c}\text{max}\\ \text{min}\end{array}\right)}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z),`$ (27)
where max and min are some integers, and summation over the index $`j`$ is implicit. The precise form of the vector entries $`𝕄^j`$ will be reported elsewhere . The renormalized coupling then reads up to fourth order in $`2D`$ (note that we have absorbed a factor of $`2^{d/2}`$ in both $`g`$ and $`z`$):

$`g(z)`$ $`=`$ $`f_1^{d+2}(z)(2D){\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}𝕄_{(_1^1|_0^1)}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z)`$ (28)
$`+(2D)^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{4}}𝕄_{(_2^1|_1^2)}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{8}}𝕄_{(_1^2|_1^2)}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z)\right]`$
$`(2D)^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{4}}𝕄_{(_3^1|_3^2)}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{8}}𝕄_{(_1^1{}_{2}{}^{1}|_{2}^{3})}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{d^3}{48}}𝕄_{(_1^3|_2^3)}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z)\right]`$
$`+(2D)^4[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{8}}𝕄_{(_1^4|_3^4)}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{8}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}𝕄_{(_2^2|_3^4)}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}𝕄_{(_1^1{}_{3}{}^{1}|_{3}^{4})}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{d^3}{32}}𝕄_{(_1^2{}_{2}{}^{1}|_{3}^{4})}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z)+{\displaystyle \frac{d^4}{384}}𝕄_{(_1^4|_3^4)}^jf_1^{d+2j}(z)]+O(2D)^5`$
From the integral representation (13) of $`f_1^{d+j}(z)`$ and the above expansion, it follows immediately that the exact renormalized coupling can be written as

$$g(z)=z_0^{\mathrm{}}dr\stackrel{~}{g}(r)\mathrm{e}^{z\mathrm{e}^rr},$$
(29)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}(r)`$ is of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(r)=r^{d/2}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d+2}{2})}+(2D)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=n_{\mathrm{max}}}{\overset{n}{}}p_{n_j}r^j(2D)^n\right].$$
(30)
Let us try to gain more information about the powerlaw behavior in (17), that is about the expansion in $`2D`$ of the correction-to-scaling exponent $`\omega `$. Powerlaw behavior forces the series (30) to turn into some exponentially decaying function $`\stackrel{~}{g}(r)`$ as can be seen from the asymptotic form of $`g(z)`$

$$g(z)𝒜+z^{\omega /\epsilon }=z\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\text{d}r\mathrm{e}^{z\mathrm{e}^rr}\left(𝒜+\frac{\mathrm{e}^{r\omega /\epsilon }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\frac{\omega }{\epsilon })}\right)+O(\mathrm{e}^z)$$
(31)
Now, we test a possible form of the exact $`\stackrel{~}{g}(r)`$, which is consistent with the expansion (28) and which satisfies the following properties: (i) In the limit of $`D=2`$ the exact form $`r^{d/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d+2}{2})`$ emerges and (ii) for $`D<2`$ the corresponding $`g(z)`$ has a finite fixed-point value together with a strong coupling expansion. The (non-unique) ansatz is

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(r)=𝒞\left(\frac{1𝒮(D,r)\text{e}^{\frac{\omega }{\epsilon }r}}{\omega /\epsilon }\right)^{d/2},$$
(32)
where $`𝒮(D,r)`$ is analytic in $`D=2`$ of the form $`𝒮(D,r)=1+\frac{\omega }{\epsilon }r_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒮_n(r)(2D)^n`$, and each $`𝒮_n(r)`$ has a Laurent expansion $`𝒮_n(r)=_{j=n_{\text{min}}}^{n_{\text{max}}}s_{n,j}r^j`$. Note, that in the limit of $`D2`$, the expression (32) gives $`r^{d/2}`$, while for $`D<2`$ it yields upon integration the form (31), ensuring both properties (i) and (ii). Inserting $`\omega /\epsilon =\omega _2(2D)^2+O(2D)^3`$ (the linear term in $`(2D)`$ has to vanish) into the ansatz (32) and expanding to second order in $`2D`$ provides

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(r)=𝒞r^{d/2}\left[1\frac{d}{2}\left(𝒮_1(r)(2D)+\left(\frac{\omega _2}{2}r\frac{d2}{4}𝒮_1(r)^2+𝒮_2(r)\right)(2D)^2+\mathrm{}\right)\right].$$
(33)
The first coefficients of the $`(2D)`$-expansion of $`\stackrel{~}{g}(r)`$ obtained from (28) read

$`\stackrel{~}{g}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^{d/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d+2}{2})}}\{1+(2D){\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}\overline{}(1{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2r}})(2D)^2[{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}\overline{_c^2}r+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{4}}(\overline{}^24\overline{_c^2}){\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{8}}(2\overline{_c^2}+\overline{}^2)`$ (34)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{8}}(\overline{}^2+3\overline{_c^2})+{\displaystyle \frac{d^3}{8}}\overline{}^2)r^1{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{8}}({\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}1)(\overline{_c^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}\overline{}^2)r^2]\}.`$
Comparing (33) and (34), one identifies $`𝒞=1/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d+2}{2})`$, $`𝒮_1=\overline{}(1\frac{d}{2}\frac{1}{r})`$ and $`\omega _2=2\overline{_c^2}`$, where $`_c(x):=(x)\overline{}`$. Note that the terms proportional to $`\overline{C}^2`$ in $`𝒮_2(r)`$ mostly cancel with $`𝒮_1(r)^2`$, a sign that the ansatz catches some structure.

The diagrams to be calculated at this order are $`\overline{}`$ and $`\overline{_c^2}`$. On a manifold of toroidal shape, which is equivalent to periodic boundary conditions, two discrete sums have to be evaluated:

$`\overline{}`$ $`=`$ $`S_D\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi (2D)}}\right]=0.44956+0.3583(2D)+O(2D)^2`$ (35)
$`\overline{_c^2}`$ $`=`$ $`S_D^2{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^4}}=0.152661+O(2D).`$ (36)
$`k`$ is $`D`$-dimensional with components $`k_i=2\pi /Ln_i`$, and $`n_i`$ integer. With the results given above, this leads to

$$\omega =2\epsilon \overline{_c^2}(2D)^2+O(2D)^3=0.305322\epsilon (2D)^2+O(2D)^3,$$
(37)
which can be compared to the exact result for $`D=1`$ (polymers): $`\omega =\epsilon `$. As a caveat, note that the above scheme is not unambiguous, since different ansätze in (32) are possible. Also the second order term proportional to $`r`$ in (34) could in principle either be attributed to $`\omega _2`$ or $`𝒮_2`$. More constraints are necessary to settle this question.

In summary: We have presented a complementary approach to treat the problem of tethered membranes in interaction. We hope that this approach will prove fruitful for self-avoiding tethered membranes, with eventual applications for polymers.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank H.W. Diehl, A. Ludwig and L. Schäfer for stimulating discussions. This work has been supported by the DFG through the Leibniz program Di 378/2-1, under Heisenberg grant Wi 1932/1-1, and by the NSF under grant PHY99-07949.


format: text

text:
# Size effects on generation-recombination noise

## Abstract

We carry out an analytical theory of generation-recombination noise for a two level resistor model which goes beyond those presently available by including the effects of both space charge fluctuations and diffusion current. Finite size effects are found responsible for the saturation of the low frequency current spectral density at high enough applied voltages. The saturation behaviour is controlled essentially by the correlations coming from the long range Coulomb interaction. It is suggested that the saturation of the current fluctuations for high voltage bias constitutes a general feature of generation-recombination noise.

Generation recombination (GR) noise is due to fluctuations in the number of free carriers inside a device and is associated with random transitions of charge carriers between states in different energy bands. Accordingly, it represents an important noise source in semiconductor devices where carrier concentration can vary over many orders of magnitude. Typical examples of transitions are those between the conduction band and localized levels in the energy gap, conduction and valence bands, etc. GR noise can be detected as an excess noise when measuring current or voltage fluctuations.

The calculation of the number fluctuations, and hence of the current and voltage fluctuations, due to GR processes constitutes in general a rather complicated problem. Usually, one has to resort to simplifying assumptions as for instance the local space charge neutrality approximation and/or the neglect of the diffusion current.The physical implications of these approximations remain still an unsolved problem, since an exact theory including simultaneously both effects is lacking in the current literature.

The aim of the present paper is to address this issue by providing an exact analytical solution of the low frequency GR noise properties of a two-level resistor model within the framework of the drift-diffusion transport theory. The main result of the exact solution is the evidence that size effects on GR noise can lead to the saturation of the associated current spectral density at high enough applied bias. Remarkably, present results confirm unexpected findings of recent numerical studies by Bonani and Ghione concerning uniformly $`n`$doped silicon samples with band-to-band and trap assisted generation-recombination processes, where the low frequency spectral density of the voltage fluctuations was shown to become independent of the applied bias for moderately strong applied bias.

We consider a two terminal structure consisting of a uniformly $`n`$doped semiconductor sample of length $`L`$ terminated by (metallic) ohmic contacts with a single trap (donor) level controlling the electron concentration. We assume that the transversal dimensions of the sample are much greater than the longitudinal dimension, thus allowing for a one dimensional electrostatic treatment. Without loss of generality, only GR noise sources are considered. The physical model necessary to describe the noise properties of this system consists of the continuity equations for the free electrons and the ionized traps, the current equation for the electrons, the Poisson equation and appropriate boundary conditions. The continuity equations for free carriers and ionized traps densities read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n(x,t)}{t}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_n(x,t)}{x}}r_n(x,t)+g_n(x,t)+\gamma (x,t)\text{,}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_t^+(x,t)}{t}}=r_n(x,t)+g_n(x,t)+\gamma (x,t)\text{,}`$ (2)
where $`n(x,t)`$ and $`N_t^+(x,t)`$ refers to the free electron and ionized trap densities at point $`x`$ and time $`t`$, respectively, $`q`$ is the positive electron charge, $`J_n(x,t)`$ the conduction electron current, $`r_n(x,t)`$ the recombination rate and $`g_n(x,t)`$ the generation rate. Furthermore, $`\gamma (x,t)`$ is the Langevin noise source related to GR processes which has zero mean and low frequency spectral density

$$2\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\overline{\gamma (x,t)\gamma (x,t^{})}=\frac{2}{A}\left[\overline{g}_n(x)+\overline{r}_n(x)\right]\delta (xx^{})\text{,}$$
(3)
with $`A`$ being the sample cross-sectional area. The bar denotes average with respect to fluctuations. In the drift-diffusion approach, the conduction current writes:

$$J_n(x,t)=q\mu n(x,t)E(x,t)+qD_n\frac{n(x,t)}{x}\text{,}$$
(4)
where $`\mu `$ is the electron mobility, $`E(x,t)`$ the electric field and $`D_n`$ the diffusion coefficient satisfying Einstein relation, $`D_n=\mu _nk_BT/q`$, with $`k_B`$ being Boltzmann’s constant, $`T`$ the temperature and where non-degenerate statistics is assumed. To perform a self-consistent calculation, we take into account Poisson equation

$$\frac{E(x,t)}{x}=\frac{q}{ϵ}\left[N_t^+(x,t)n(x,t)\right]\text{,}$$
(5)
where $`ϵ`$ is the semiconductor dielectric permittivity. The total electric current is thus given by

$$I(t)=\frac{A}{L}_0^L𝑑x\left[J_n(x,t)+ϵ\frac{E(x,t)}{t}\right]\text{.}$$
(6)
Finally, as appropriate boundary conditions we take ohmic contacts made of ideal metal-semiconductor interfaces in the diffusion approximation, i.e. we assume that the diffusion velocity is much smaller than the contact recombination velocity, thus allowing to neglect any contribution from thermionic emission processes. Accordingly, we take

$$\overline{n}(0)=\overline{n}(L)n_c\text{}\delta n(0,t)=\delta n(0,t)=0\text{,}$$
(7)
where the carrier density at the contact is

$$n_c=N_Ce^{\frac{q\varphi _{bn}}{k_BT}}\text{,}$$
(8)
with $`N_C`$ being the effective density of states in the conduction band and $`\varphi _{bn}`$ the contact barrier height. Here, $`\delta n(x,t)`$ refers to the free electron density fluctuation.

The model presented above admits an homogeneous stationary solution in the form

$$\overline{n}(x)=\overline{N}_t^+(x)=n_c\text{}\overline{E}(x)=\frac{\overline{I}}{qA\mu \overline{n}}\text{ ;}$$
(9)
Note that being the density of traps $`N_t`$ and the contact density $`n_c`$ two independent variables, one can always find for them values which satisfy simultaneously Eq. (9) and $`\overline{g}_n(\overline{n},\overline{N}_t^+)=\overline{r}_n(\overline{n},\overline{N}_t^+)`$. Under these homogeneous conditions the system behaves as a resistor with current-voltage characteristics satisfying Ohm’s law, $`\overline{I}=V/R`$, with resistance $`R=L/(qA\mu \overline{n})`$.

To calculate the low frequency number fluctuations

$$S_N(0)=2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\overline{\delta N(t)\delta N(t^{})}𝑑t^{}\text{,}$$
(10)
we use that

$$\delta N(t)=A_0^L𝑑x\delta n(x,t)\text{,}$$
(11)
where $`\delta n(x,t)`$ for low frequencies satisfies

$$\frac{^2\delta n}{x^2}+\frac{1}{L_E}\frac{\delta n}{x}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{L}_D^2}\delta n=\frac{\tau }{\stackrel{~}{L}_D^2}\gamma \text{.}$$
(12)
Equation (12) can be derived by combining Eqs. (1), (2), (4) and (5) after linearization around the homogeneous stationary state and by neglecting the time derivatives due to the low frequency assumption. The parameters in Eq.(12) are defined as

$$\frac{L_E}{L}=\frac{k_BT}{qV}\text{}\stackrel{~}{L}_D=\sqrt{\frac{k_BTϵ}{q^2\overline{n}(1+\frac{\tau _t}{\tau _n})}}\text{}\frac{1}{\tau }=\frac{1}{\tau _t}+\frac{1}{\tau _n}\text{.}$$
(13)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{L}_D`$ is a renormalized Debye screening length and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_n(n,N_t^+)}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_n(n,N_t^+)}{n}}\text{;}`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_n(n,N_t^+)}{N_t^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_n(n,N_t^+)}{N_t^+}}\text{.}`$ (15)
From the solution of the second order differential equation (12) we calculate $`\delta N(t)`$ through Eq. (11), and after some lenghtly but straightforward algebra we arrive at the following expression for $`S_N(0)`$,

$$S_N(0)=S_N^{\mathrm{}}(0)S_N^{ex}(0)\text{,}$$
(16)
where

$$S_N^{\mathrm{}}(0)=4AL\overline{g}_n\tau ^2=4\mathrm{\Delta }N^2\tau \text{,}$$
(17)
and

$`S_N^{ex}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Delta }N^2\tau {\displaystyle \frac{\left(e^{\lambda _1L}1\right)\left(e^{\lambda _2L}1\right)\left(\lambda _1\lambda _2\right)}{2L\lambda _1\lambda _2\left(\lambda _2+\lambda _1\right)\left(e^{\lambda _2L}e^{\lambda _1L}\right)^2}}\times `$ (20)
$`[\lambda _1(1e^{(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)L}3e^{\lambda _2L}+3e^{\lambda _1L})`$
$`\lambda _2(1e^{(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)L}3e^{\lambda _1L}+3e^{\lambda _2L})]\text{.}`$
In Equation (20) $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ refer to the eigenvalues of the differential operator in Eq. (12) and are given by

$$\lambda _{1,2}=\frac{1}{2L_E}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1+4\frac{L_E^2}{\stackrel{~}{L}_D^2}}\right)\text{;}$$
(21)
According to standard results of GR noise theory, $`S_I(0)`$ is conveniently written as

$$S_I(0)=\left(\frac{\overline{I}}{\overline{N}}\right)^2\left[S_N^{\mathrm{}}(0)S_N^{ex}(0)\right]\text{.}$$
(22)
Equation (22), together with Eqs.(17) and (20), constitutes a fully analytical and exact solution for the low frequency current spectral density of the problem in subject and represents the main result of the present paper. In deriving it we have not made any assumption regarding either the condition for local space charge neutrality or the relevance of the diffusion current. We note, that in spite of the minus sign in Eq. (22), $`S_I(0)`$ is a positive definite quantity, as should be.

To investigate the physical properties of the solution, we note that the term $`S_N^{ex}(0)`$ vanishes for an infinitely long sample thus implying

$$S_I^{\mathrm{}}(0)=4\mathrm{\Delta }N^2\tau \left(\frac{\overline{I}}{\overline{N}}\right)^2\text{,}$$
(23)
as known from simpler theories. Therefore, $`S_N^{ex}(0)`$ constitutes a size effect related to the finite nature of the sample. This size effect is analyzed below by investigating the dependence of the current spectral density upon applied voltage. The results are summarized in Fig. 1 where we find convenient to normalize the current spectral density $`S_I(0)`$ to the spectral density corresponding to an infinite sample with thermal current $`I_T=k_BT/(qR)`$, i.e. $`S_{I_T}=`$ $`4\mathrm{\Delta }N^2\tau \left(I_T/\overline{N}\right)^2`$, and the applied voltage $`V`$ to the thermal voltage $`V_T=k_BT/q`$. With these renormalizing factors, $`S_I(0)/S_{I_T}(0)`$ as a function of $`qV/(k_BT)`$, depends only on the dimensionless length, $`L/\stackrel{~}{L}_D`$.

The essential result we want to stress from Fig. 1 is that the spectral density saturates for high applied voltages to the value

$$S_I^{sat}(0)=\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{L}{\stackrel{~}{L}_D}\right)^44\mathrm{\Delta }N^2\tau \left(\frac{k_BT}{qR\overline{N}}\right)^2\text{.}$$
(24)
The critical voltage for saturation $`V_{sat}`$ satisfies

$$V_{sat}=\{\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{40}\frac{k_BT}{q}\text{;\hspace{1em}\hspace{1em}for }\frac{L}{\stackrel{~}{L}_D}<1\\ \left(\frac{L}{\stackrel{~}{L}_D}\right)^2\frac{k_BT}{q}\text{for }\frac{L}{\stackrel{~}{L}_D}10\end{array}\text{,}$$
(25)
(and an intermediate behavior for $`1<L/\stackrel{~}{L}_D<10`$). The low bias behavior of $`S_I(0)`$ displays also interesting features: it equals $`S_I^{\mathrm{}}(0)`$ for $`L/\stackrel{~}{L}_D>10`$ and $`0<V<\left(L/\stackrel{~}{L}_D\right)^2k_BT/q`$, but it is suppressed to $`1/120\left(L/\stackrel{~}{L}_D\right)^4S_I^{\mathrm{}}(0)`$ for $`L/\stackrel{~}{L}_D<1`$ and $`0<V<\sqrt{40}\frac{k_BT}{q}`$ (and an intermediate behavior in the range $`1<L/\stackrel{~}{L}_D<10`$).

The saturation of $`S_I(0)`$ and the dependence of the results on the ratio $`L/\stackrel{~}{L}_D`$ can be explained under the assumption that both space charge fluctuations and diffusion current play a relevant role. Indeed, although the system is neutral in average, i.e. $`\overline{n}(x)=\overline{N}_t^+(x)`$, instantaneously space charge fluctuations can appear for which $`\delta n(x,t)\delta N_t^+(x,t)`$. The relevance of these fluctuations is determined by their interaction with the rest of charges in the system through the long range Coulomb interaction. In this line of reasoning for $`L<\stackrel{~}{L}_D`$ the long range Coulomb interaction does not play any role at all, and hence, as soon as the applied voltage is higher than the thermal value, the low frequency current spectral density saturates. On the other hand, when $`L>\stackrel{~}{L}_D`$ the long range Coulomb interaction is able to restor space charge neutrality for low applied bias. However, as long as the applied bias is high enough as to make the transit time $`\tau _T=L^2/(\mu V)`$ shorter than the renormalized dielectric relaxation time $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_d=ϵ/[q\mu \overline{n}(1+\tau _t/\tau _n)]`$, the long range Coulomb correlations vanish and the low frequency spectral density saturates. Furthermore, the fact that the diffusion current is playing a relevant role is seen on the fact that no shot noise is obtained in the high bias regime as it is obtained when the diffusion current is neglected.

It is worth noting that the results presented in the present paper are qualitatively similar to the numerical results recently reported by Bonani and Ghione for a more complex GR model. This fact indicates that saturation at high applied bias can be a general feature of GR noise. The present work, then, offers a more complete understanding of the finite size effects on generation-recombination noise in semiconductor devices.

Acknowledgments

Partial support from the MCyT-Spain through the Ramon y Cajal program and project No. BFM2001-2159 and from the MADESS II is gratefully acknowledged. Prof. F. Bonani of Torino University is acknowledged for the stimulating discussions carried out on the subject.