format: text

text:
# A new hard QCD phenomenon - proton diffraction into three jets

## 1 Introduction

During the last ten years a number of new hard small x phenomena have been observed and calculated in QCD based on the QCD factorization theorems for inclusive DIS and hard exclusive processes. This includes (i) the observation at HERA of a fast increase of parton distributions with energy which is reasonably described within the QCD evolution equation approximation. 111A comprehensive review of the HERA data on inclusive and exclusive processes and the relevant theory is given in . (ii)the discovery of the color transparency phenomenon in the pion coherent dissociation into two high $`p_t`$ jets  which is consistent with the predictions of , (iii) the observation of various regularities in the exclusive electroproduction of vector meson at HERA induced by longitudinally polarized photons and photoproduction of mesons with hidden heavy flavor which is consistent with the predictions of . These processes in a wide kinematic range of small x have provided effective ways of studying the interaction of small colorless dipoles with hadrons at high energies and of studying the hadron wave functions in the minimal Fock space configurations. Here we outline new QCD phenomena  which may become important at LHC because their cross sections are rapidly increasing with energy.

Fast increase with energy of cross sections of hard diffractive processes predicted within the leading twist (LT) approximation would be in variance with the unitarity of $`S`$-matrix for the interaction with a hadron target of spatially small wave package of quarks and gluons at given impact parameter. This new phenomenon may reveal itself at sufficiently small x and/or sufficiently heavy nuclei. In the structure functions off a proton this physics is masked by the significant contribution for the hard collisions off nucleon periphery. Thus the unitarity of the S matrix does not preclude fast increase of structure functions of a nucleon as fast as $`\mathrm{ln}(1/x)^3`$ . Hence no dramatic signals for the breakup of DGLAP regime are expected in this case. On the contrary, a breakdown of the LT approximation in the hard diffractive processes off nuclei leads to the drastic changes of the dependence of cross sections on atomic number, the incident energy and the transverse momenta of the jets.

## 2 Diffraction into three jets

A nucleon (meson) has a significant amplitude to be in a configuration where valence partons are localized in a small transverse area together with the rest of the partons. These configurations are usually referred to as minimal Fock space configurations - $`|3q`$ . The significant amplitude of the decay $`\pi leptons`$ as well as the observed significant cross section of the process: $`\pi +A2jet+A`$  is the experimental evidence for the significant probability of such configurations in mesons. In the case of proton the amplitude of the three quark configuration can be estimated within QCD inspired models of proton and in the long run it can be calculated in the lattice QCD. Note that the knowledge of this amplitude is important for the unambiguous calculation of proton decay within the Grand Unification models.

Hadrons, in small size configurations of the transverse size $`d`$, interact with a small cross section $`d^2xG_N(x,Q^2)`$, where $`Q^210/d^2`$. The factor $`xG_N(x,Q^2)`$ leads to a fast increase of the small  cross section with energy. In the case of the ”elastic scattering” of such a proton configuration off another proton, this three-quark system with large relative momenta should preferentially dissociate diffractively into a system of three jets with large transverse momenta $`p_{ti}\pi b^1`$, where $`b`$ is the transverse size of the minimal configuration. The kinematics of this process is presented at the lego plot of Fig.1 for the case of the coherent scattering off nuclei(proton).

The production cross-section for the three jets can be evaluated based on the kind of QCD factorization theorem deduced in . The cross-section is proportional to the square of the gluon density in the nucleon at $`xM_{3jets}^2/s`$, and virtuality $`(12)p_t^2`$. The distribution over the fractions of the longitudinal momentum carried by the jets is proportional to the square of the light cone wave function of the $`|3q`$ configuration, $`\psi (z_1,z_2,z_3,p_{t1},p_{t2},p_{t3})`$ and large transverse momenta where

$$\psi (z_1,z_2,z_3,p_{t1},p_{t2},p_{t3})z_1z_2z_3\underset{ij}{}\frac{1}{p_{ti}^2}\frac{1}{p_{tj}^2}$$
(1)
It is implied that proper renormalization procedure is performed which accounts for cancellation of infrared divergences. Or the light cone gauge $`p_{N,\mu }A_\mu =0`$ should be used to describe diffractive fragmentation region: where there are no infrared divergences. Here $`p_N`$ is the momentum of diffracting proton. Besides summation over collinear radiation is included in the definition of the jets.

Application of the QCD factorization theorem resolves puzzle with the fact that a hadron contains infinite number of partons - other partons are hidden into structure functions of a target. Hence the diffraction of a proton into three jets provides important information about the short-distance quark structure of the proton, and also provides unique information about the longitudinal momentum distribution in the $`|3q`$ configuration at high $`p_t`$. The amplitude of the process can be written as

$$A=\left[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\psi (z_1,z_2,z_3,p_{t1},p_{t2},p_{t3})\right]\left[\frac{2\pi ^2}{3}\alpha _s(xG(x,Q^2,t)_{skewed})\right].$$
(2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_{i=1}^3\frac{^2}{p_i^2}`$. An additional factor of 2 in the numerator as compared to the pion case is due to the possibility for two gluons to be attached to different pairs of quarks. The $`p_t`$ and longitudinal momentum fraction, $`z_i`$ dependence of the cross section is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dz_1dz_2dz_3d^2p_{t1}d^2p_{t2}d^2p_{t3}}}=c_N|\alpha _sxG(x,Q^2)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{|\varphi _N(z_1,z_2,z_3)|^2}{|p_{t1}|^4|p_{t2}|^4|p_{t3}|^4}}F_{2g}^2(t)`$
$`\delta ({\displaystyle p_{ti}}\sqrt{t})\delta ({\displaystyle z_i}1).`$ (3)
The coefficient $`c_N`$ is calculable in QCD, and function $`\varphi _N(z_1,z_2,z_3)=z_1z_2z_3`$. The two-gluon form factor of a nucleon is known to some extent from the hard diffractive processes . The numerical estimate of the cross section of production of three jets with $`p_t`$ of one of the jets larger than a given one and integrated over all other variables gives for $`p_t`$ 10 GeV/c:

$$\sigma (pp3jets+p)\frac{|\alpha _sxG(x,Q^2)|^2}{p_t^8}10^{6÷7}\left(\frac{10GeV}{p_t}\right)^8mb$$
(4)
for LHC energies. A pressing question is whether this cross section will grow up to the LHC energies as it is assumed in this estimate based on extrapolations of $`G_N(x,Q^2)`$ to $`x10^5`$. The probability of the $`|3q`$ configuration is estimated using a phenomenological fit to the probability of configurations of different interaction strengths in a nucleon (cf. ).

A study of the same process in the proton nucleus collisions would provide an unambiguous test of the dominance of hard physics in this process. The cross section of this process should grow with $`A`$ as $`\frac{A^2}{R_A^2}G_A^2(x,Q^2)/A^2G_N^2(x,Q^2)`$. Account of skewedness of gluon distribution will lead to some enhancement of absolute value of cross section but will not influence strongly A-dependence.

Our estimates indicate for the relevant LHC kinematics - $`x10^5,Q_{eff}^2p_T^2`$ nuclear shadowing in the gluon channel is a rather small correction reducing the A-dependence of cross section by a factor $`A^{0.1}`$. The A-dependence of total inelastic cross section is $`A^{0.7}`$. Hence we expect that counting rate per one inelastic interaction will be enhanced in $`pA`$ collisions for heavy nuclear target by a factor $`A^{0.55}`$. At the same time the background from the soft diffraction should be strongly reduced. Indeed, if we estimate the A-dependence of the soft diffraction based on the picture of color fluctuations which provides a good description of the total cross section of the inelastic diffraction off nuclei at fixed target energies  we find $`\sigma _{pA}^{inel.diff.}A^{0.25}`$. Note also that scattering off nuclei has an obvious advantage in terms of selecting coherent processes since practically all inelastic interactions with nuclei would lead to the emission of neutrons at the zero angle.

A competing process is the proton diffraction into 3 jets off the nuclear Coulomb field. It follows from the theorem proved in  that in the LO over $`\alpha _s`$ the dominant contribution is given in the Weizecker-Williams representation by the transverse photon interaction with the external quark lines. The amplitude of the process is

$$\frac{e^2\psi _N(z_i,p_{ti})}{q^2t_{min}}ZF_A(t)\frac{4s}{M^2(3jet)}\underset{i}{}\frac{e_i(\stackrel{}{p}_{ti}\stackrel{}{q_t})}{z_i},$$
(5)
where $`e_i`$ is the electric charge of the quark in the units of the electric charge of the electron, $`q^2`$ is the virtuality of the exchanged photon.

In the kinematics where the LT dominates in the QCD mechanism for production of three jets the e.m. process is a small correction. However if the screening effects (approach to the black body limit) occurs for the discussed $`p_t`$ range the e.m. process may compete with the QCD contribution. At the same time in the case of the nucleus break up the e.m. process has no singularity at $`q^2=0`$ besides the QCD process is $`A`$ and much larger than the e.m. process. Note also that in the case of QCD interactions one can consider the processes with large rapidity gap. They have the same $`z_i,p_{ti}`$ dependence as the coherent process but have significantly larger cross section.

Another interesting group of hard processes is proton diffraction into two high $`p_T`$ jets and one collinear jet. These processes are in general dominated at high energies by collisions of two nucleons at large impact parameters (otherwise multiple soft interactions would destroy the coherence). Hence the A-dependence of the dominant term should be similar to that for $`\sigma _{pA}^{inel.diff.}`$. However already fluctuations with cross section of $`40mb`$ would have much stronger A-dependence $`A^{0.7}`$. Thus the study of the A-dependence of coherent diffraction will allow to filter out the smaller than average components in the nucleons at the LHC energies.

## 3 Violation of LT approximation and new QCD strong interactions

.

Energy dependence of cross section in the LT approximation follows from the properties of gluon distribution within the target. Hence for the virtualities probed in the three jet production the energy dependence is $`x^2G^2(x,Q_{eff}^2)s^{0.8}`$ for $`Q_{eff}^21001000GeV^2`$, and $`10^5x10^2`$. In the black body limit the inelastic diffractive processes are strongly suppressed and hence the energy dependence of cross section the three jet production integrated over $`p_Tp_{T,0}`$ should slow down as only scattering off the grey edge of nucleus (nucleon) will effectively survive. For the $`Q^2`$ relevant for this process the black body limit maybe an interesting hypothesis for the scattering off heavy nuclei only. It would manifest itself in a strong decrease of the $`A`$-dependence of the three jet production at $`p_t`$ corresponding to the black body limit. At sufficiently small $`x`$ for a heavy nuclear target: $`\frac{d\sigma (pA3jet+A)}{dp_t^2}A^{1/3}`$. This is in a striking contrast with the expectations for the A dependence parton distributions : $`A^{\frac{2}{3}}`$.

We thank GIF and DOE for support.


text:
# High cumulants of current fluctuations out of equilibrium

## I INTRODUCTION

The fact that electric current exhibits time dependent fluctuations has been known since the early of $`20^{\mathrm{th}}`$ century. Still it remains an active field of experimental and theoretical research . Among other features, non-equilibrium shot noise can teach us about the rich many-body physics of the electrons, and may serve as a tool to determine the effective charge of the elementary carriers. While the problem of non-interacting electrons is practically resolved by now, the issue of noise in systems of interacting electrons remains largely an open problem. In this paper we focus on two main issues: (1) The role of both inelastic electron-electron and electron-phonon scattering for current correlations. (2) In the absence of interference effects one is tempted to employ the semi-classical kinetic theory of fluctuations , also known as the Boltzmann-Langevin scheme. This approach has been originally developed to study pair correlation functions, hence is not naturally devised for higher order cumulants. A naive application of this approach turns out problematic. To study high order cumulants, we first need a reliable scheme, which is why we resort to a microscopic quantum mechanical approach. The comparison between microscopic calculations and the application of the Boltzmann-Langevin scheme for the study of higher order cumulants is the second objective of this paper.

The outline of this work is the following: Section I addresses a few introductory issues concerning current fluctuations in non-interacting systems. These brief reminders are necessary for the following analysis. In Section I A we consider the two main sources of noise in non-interacting systems: thermal fluctuations in the contact reservoirs and the stochasticity of the elastic scattering process involved. For this purpose a simple stochastic model is studied. In Section I B we explain why the study of high order correlation functions is of interest. In Section I C we recall some elements of the kinetic theory of fluctuations, explaining the difficulty in applying it to high cumulants. Section II is devoted to the analysis of the third order current cumulant. We consider two limiting cases: that of independent electrons (II A), and that of high electron-electron collision rate (II B). In Section III we compare the results of the microscopic quantum mechanical analysis with those of the Boltzmann-Langevin scheme. In Section IV we discuss higher moments of current cumulants the full counting statistics, and comment briefly on the effect of electron-phonon scattering.

### A Noise In Non-Interacting Systems: Probabilistic Scattering And Thermal Fluctuations

Before discussing the problem of interacting electrons we would like to recall some important features of fluctuations in a non-interacting electron gas (for a review see ). One of the issues addressed in the present work is whether what has become to be known as “quantum noise ” can be properly discussed within the (semi)-classical framework of the kinetic theory of fluctuations. Surely, non-equilibrium shot noise depends on the discreteness of the elementary charge carriers (and this charge is quantized). Also, at low temperatures one is required to employ the Fermi-Dirac statistics governing the occupation of the reservoir states. In addition, the channel transmission and reflection probabilities are governed by quantum mechanics. But other than that, interference effects appear to play a very minor role in the formation of current fluctuations. Hence the appeal of a semi-classical approach. To understand the origin of the current fluctuations we consider a simple stochastic model, following earlier works . This model is a caricature of the physics underlying low frequency transport through a quantum point contact (QPC) with a single channel having a transmission probability $`𝒯`$. The QPC is connected to two reservoirs with respective chemical potentials $`\mu _L`$ and $`\mu _R`$ (this model is readily generalized to the multi-channel case).

For our needs electrons occupying (in principle broadened) single particle levels (depicted in a Fig.1) can be perceived as classical particles attempting to pass through the barrier (with transmission probability $`𝒯`$). In principle $`𝒯`$ may be a function of the level’s energy ($`𝒯𝒯_i`$). For the mean level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=h/\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ can be interpreted as a time interval between two consecutive attempts. Since the electron charge is discrete (and is well-localized on either the left or the right side of the barrier) the results of a transmission attempts have a binomial statistics.

Consider the fluctuation in the net charge transmitted through the QPC over the time interval $`\overline{t}\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The number of attempts $`N=\overline{t}/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ occurring within this interval is large. Since the attempts are discrete events, they can be enumerated. To describe the result of the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ attempt of an electron originating from level $`i`$ on the left (right) we define the quantity $`p_i(n)`$ and $`q_i(n)`$ (cf. Fig.1). For an attempt ending up in the transmission of an electron from left to right (from right to left) the quantity $`p_i(n)`$ ($`q_i(n)`$) is assigned the value $`1`$. Otherwise $`p_i(n)`$ ($`q_i(n)`$) are zero. This implies that $`\{p_i(n)\}`$’s and $`\{q_i(n)\}`$’s have each binomial statistics with the expectation value $`p_i(n)=q_i(n)=𝒯_i`$. We also assume that neither different attempts from the same level, nor attempts of the electrons coming from different levels are correlated. In addition to fluctuations in the transmission process, there are also fluctuations of the occupation numbers $`a_i`$ ($`b_i`$) of a single particle level $`i`$. These represent thermal fluctuations in the reservoirs. For fermions they possess a binomial distribution . We end up with

$`P(x)=(1x)\delta (x)+x\delta (1x)`$ (1)
$`\mathrm{for}x=p_i(n),q_i(n),a_i,b_i,`$ (2)
and the correlations

$`p_i(n)p_j(n^{})=\delta (i,j)\delta (n,n^{})𝒯_i;`$ (3)
$`q_i(n)q_j(n^{})=\delta (i,j)\delta (n,n^{})𝒯_i.`$ (4)
Also

$`a_ia_j=\{\begin{array}{c}n_i^L,i=j\hfill \\ 0,ij.\hfill \end{array}b_ib_j=\{\begin{array}{c}n_i^R,i=j\hfill \\ 0,ij.\hfill \end{array}`$ (9)
Here $`n_i^La_i`$ and $`n_i^Rb_i`$. The typical time scale over which the occupation number of a level fluctuates is usually dictated by the interaction among the electrons or with external agents. We assume that at the leads the time fluctuations of the occupation numbers ($`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$) over the interval $`\overline{t}`$ are negligible.

Motivated by this picture, we consider fluctuations in the net number $`Q_{\overline{t}}`$ of electrons transmitted through the constriction within the time interval $`\overline{t}`$. Employing the Pauli exclusion principle one can write

$`Q_{\overline{t}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[p_i(n)a_i(1b_i)q_i(n)b_i(1a_i)]\right].`$ (10)
According to eqs.(4,9 and 10) the expectation value of the transmitted charge is

$`Q_{\overline{t}}=𝒯N{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[n_i^L(1n_i^R)n_i^R(1n_i^L)].`$ (11)
Evidently it is related to the value of the d.c. current through $`Q_{\overline{t}}=\overline{t}I/e`$. We next discuss the higher order moments of current fluctuations. As was shown in Refs. (see also ) the experimentally measured high order current cumulants should be defined in quite a subtle manner. To make contact between the measured observables and theoretically calculated quantities, we recall that within the Keldysh formalism  the time axes is folded. For any given moment of time there are two current operators, one for the upper and another for the lower branch of the contour. The product of the symmetric combination of these two operators, $`I_2`$, time ordered along the Keldysh contour ($`T_c`$) and averaged with respect to the density matrix yields the proper current correlation function. In a stationary situation the pair current correlation function

$`\text{S}_2(tt^{})=T_cI_2(t)I_2(t^{})`$ (12)
depends only on the difference between the time indices. Similarly we define the third order current correlation function

$`\text{S}_3(tt^{};t^{}t^{\prime \prime })=T_cI_2(t)I_2(t^{})I(t^{\prime \prime }).`$ (13)
In Fourier space it can be represented as

$`\text{S}_2(\omega _1)={\displaystyle _c}d(tt^{})e^{i\omega _1(tt^{})}\text{S}_2(tt^{}),`$ (14)
$`\text{S}_3(\omega _1,\omega _2)={\displaystyle _c}d(tt^{})d(t^{}t^{\prime \prime })e^{i\omega _1(tt^{})i\omega _2(t^{}t^{\prime \prime })}\text{S}_3(tt^{},t^{}t^{\prime \prime }).`$ (15)
Usually it is more interesting to consider only the cumulants, i.e. irreducible parts of the correlation functions. For the pair current correlation function we have

$`𝒮_2(\omega =0)=\text{S}_2I^2,`$ (16)
while the third order current cumulant is given by

$`𝒮_3(\omega _1=0,\omega _2=0)=\text{S}_33I\text{S}_2+2I^3,`$ (17)
where $`\text{S}_2,\text{S}_3`$ are taken at zero frequencies. Microscopic calculations of the current cumulants will be performed in the Sections II and IV below. Here we evaluate the cumulants within the stochastic model described above. The results agree with the low frequency current cumulants of the non-interacting electrons in the QPC . The temperature dependence of those cumulants is qualitatively similar to the dependence of the current cumulants in a disordered junction, analyzed below.

To find the variance of the stochastic variable $`Q`$ we employ eqs.(4, 9 and 10)

$`Q_{\overline{t}}^2Q_{\overline{t}}^2=𝒯(1𝒯){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[n_L^2(i)n_R^2(i)]^2+`$ (18)
$`𝒯{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[n_L(i)+n_R(i)n_L^2(i)n_R^2(i)].`$ (19)
The first term on the r.h.s. of eq.(19) vanishes at thermal equilibrium. We associate this part with the shot noise of the electrons. The second term vanishes at zero temperature, and we associate it with the thermal noise. As expected the “shot noise” part vanishes in the limit of perfect conductor ($`𝒯1`$). Going along the same procedure for the third order cumulant one obtains  in the limit of low temperature ($`eVT`$)

$`(Q_{\overline{t}}Q_{\overline{t}})^3=𝒯(1𝒯)(12𝒯)Q_{\overline{t}}`$ (20)
and in the limit of high temperature ($`eVT`$)

$`(Q_{\overline{t}}Q_{\overline{t}})^3=𝒯(1𝒯)Q_{\overline{t}}.`$ (21)
Note that with increasing the temperature the third order cumulant of the transmitted charge approaches a constant. This is a robust feature of all odd order cumulants, which can be understood from quite general arguments. Indeed, since the current operator changes sign under time reversal transformation, any even-order correlation function of the current fluctuations (e.g. $`𝒮_2`$) taken at zero frequency is invariant under this operation. Assuming that current correlators are functions of the average current, $`I`$, it follows that even-order correlation functions depend only on the absolute value of the electric current (and are independent of the direction of the current). In the Ohmic regime this means that even-order current correlation functions (at zero frequency) are even functions of the applied voltage. Evidently, this general observation agrees with the result eq. (19).

By contrast, odd-order current correlation functions change their sign under time reversal transformation. In other words, such correlation functions depend on the direction of the current, and not only on its absolute value. Therefore in the Ohmic regime, odd-order correlation functions of current are odd-order functions of the applied voltage. This condition automatically guarantees that odd-order correlation functions vanish at thermal equilibrium.

One can show that by considering high order moments of the stochastic model one reproduces the correct results for any cumulants of a current noise in a QPC. Of course, the solution of a toy model can not replace the real microscopic calculations. But the fact that the results of the latter and the stochastic model agree suggests that the underlying physics is rather simple (and it is basically captured by such a simple model). It is the combination of thermal fluctuations (in the occupation of the single electron states) and random transmission of particles through the barrier that gives rise to current fluctuations. These two sources of stochasticity remain there when the electron can no longer be considered non-interacting. In that case, though, one cannot consider fluctuations at different energy levels to be independent.

### B Why Are High Order Cumulants Interesting?

Low frequency current fluctuations give rise to a large (in general infinite) number of irreducible correlation functions (cumulants). The pair current correlation function provides us with only partial information about current fluctuations. To obtain the complete picture one should consider high order cumulants as well. As we have explained in Section I A the symmetry-dictated properties of odd and even correlation function are very different from each other; in particular odd order current cumulants are not masked by thermal fluctuations. For this reason they can be used for probing non-equilibrium properties at relatively high temperatures. Shot noise has been used to detect an effective quasi-particle charges in the FQHE regime . Potentially, odd moments can be used to measure the effective quasiparticle charge in other strongly-correlated systems . This may be needed for systems undergoing a transition controlled by temperature (for example normal-super-conductor) and having different fundamental excitations at different temperature regimes. One may hope therefore, that better understanding of current correlations will teach us more about the many-body electron physics. At this moment this remains a challenge. Before trying to reach this goal, we need to understand the genuine properties of the high order cumulant in the relatively simple physical models. This is done next.

### C Background and Issues to Be Discussed

As was mentioned above it is quite appealing to try to discuss current noise in terms of the semi-classical kinetic equation. To be more specific, let us consider a disordered metallic constriction. Its length $`L`$ is much greater than the elastic mean free path $`l`$. The disorder inside the constriction is short-ranged, weak and uncorrelated. Under these conditions the electrons kinetics can be described by the Boltzmann equation:

$`\widehat{}\overline{f}(𝐩,𝐫,t)=\mathrm{Col}\{\overline{\mathrm{f}}\}.`$ (22)
Here $`\mathrm{Col}\{\overline{\mathrm{f}}\}`$ is the collision integral and

$`\widehat{}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+𝐯_𝐫+e𝐄_𝐩\right)`$ (23)
is the Liouville operator of a particle moving in an external electric field $`𝐄`$. The pair correlation function of any macroscopic quantity may be found from the kinetic theory of fluctuations. Within this theory the distribution function ($`f`$) consists of the coarse-grained ($`\overline{f}`$) and fluctuating ( $`\delta f`$) parts

$`f(𝐩,𝐫,t)=\overline{f}(𝐩,𝐫,t)+\delta f(𝐩,𝐫,t).`$ (24)
Since $`f`$ is a macroscopic quantity (a quantity associated with a large number of particles) it must satisfy the Onsager’s regression hypothesis (see Ref. , Section 19).

To sketch this hypothesis for the case of interest we consider a perturbation of the equilibrium distribution function $`\delta \overline{f}(𝐩,𝐫,t)`$, small but substantially larger than the typical fluctuations of the distribution function. It follows then that the distribution function (with a high probability) will evolve toward the equilibrium state. Its relaxation dynamics is governed by the Boltzmann equation and because the perturbation is small, the collision integral can be linearized. According to Onsager the correlation function of any macroscopic quantity, and in particular $`\delta f(𝐩,𝐫,t)f(𝐩^{},𝐫^{},𝐭^{})`$, is governed by the same equation as the one governing its relaxation (i.e. as equation governing the quantity $`\delta \overline{f}(𝐩,𝐫,t)`$)

$`\left(\widehat{}(𝐩,𝐫,t)+(𝐩,𝐫,t)\right)\delta f(𝐩,𝐫,t)\delta f(𝐩^{},𝐫^{},t^{})=0,`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{for}t>t^{}.`$ (26)
Here $``$ is a linearized collision integral. It was later suggested by Lax  (and can be proven within Keldysh formalism) that eq.(25) does hold for any stationary, not necessarily equilibrium, state. However, we need to recall that the Onsager hypothesis was formulated only for a pair correlation function. There is no obvious way to apply this logic for higher cumulants.

An alternative route of describing fluctuations within kinetic theory which is seemingly free of this difficulty had been proposed by Kogan and Shul’man. Their picture is the following. The real space is divided into small volumes (as explained in a Ref.). The function $`\overline{f}(𝐩,𝐫,t)`$ represents the average number of particles in the state $`𝐩`$ of a unit volume element (cell) labeled by index ($`𝐫`$). The total number of the electron in every cell must be large. It was suggested in Ref.  that fluctuations of this number can be taken into account by adding a random (Langevin) source term to the Boltzmann equation. The resulting stochastic equation (including this additive noise) is called the Boltzmann-Langevin equation.

$`\left(\widehat{}(𝐩,𝐫,t)+(𝐩,𝐫,t)\right)\delta f(𝐩,𝐫,t)=\delta J(𝐩,𝐫,t).`$ (27)
The Langevin source $`\delta J(𝐩,𝐫,t)`$ denotes a random number of particles incoming into the given state in some interval (around time $`t`$). Since eq.(27) is a linear one, the statistics of the distribution function is determined by the random source term $`\delta J`$. To establish its properties Kogan and Shul’man had used a rather simple physical picture. To be consistent with the Boltzmann equation they have assumed that interference effects are weak. The collision events are local in space and time. Since the typical number of electrons inside the cell is large one can ignore the correlation between the scattering of different electrons. The electron scattering is a Poissonian process, with the number of scattered particles within any given cell (over a microscopic time interval) being large. While this picture yields a correct result for the pair correlation function, it substantially underestimates all high order correlators (starting from $`𝒮_3`$).

## II THIRD ORDER CURRENT CUMULANT

In this section we use microscopical calculations to evaluate the third order current cumulant for a quasi one-dimensional system of a length $`L`$ with diffusive disorder. We start with the coordinate-dependent correlation function

$`\text{S}_3(x,t;x^{},t^{};x^{\prime \prime },t^{\prime \prime })=T_c\widehat{I}_2(x,t)\widehat{I}_2(x^{},t^{})\widehat{I}_2(x^{\prime \prime },t^{\prime \prime }).`$ (28)
Here $`x`$ is a coordinate measured along a quasi one-dimensional wire ($`0xL`$) of cross-section $`𝒜`$; $`T_c`$ is the time ordering operator along the Keldysh contour. Next we perform the Fourier transform with respect to the time difference as in eq.(LABEL:s3\_fourier). For small values of the frequencies $`\omega _1,\omega _2`$, (small compared with the inverse diffusion time along the wire), the current fluctuations are independent of the spatial coordinate. We next evaluate the expression, eq. (28), for a disordered junction, in the hope that the qualitative properties we are after are not strongly system dependent. In the present section we consider non-interacting electrons in the presence of a short-range, delta correlated and weak disorder potential ($`ϵ_f\tau \mathrm{}`$, where $`\tau `$ is the elastic mean free time and $`ϵ_f`$ is the Fermi energy). To calculate $`\text{S}_3`$ we employ the $`\sigma `$-model formalism, recently put forward for dealing with non-equilibrium diffusive systems (for details see Ref.).

The disorder potential is $`\delta `$-correlated:

$$U_{\mathrm{dis}}(𝐫)U_{\mathrm{dis}}(𝐫^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau }\delta (𝐫𝐫^{}),$$
(29)
where $`\nu `$ is the density of states at the Fermi energy.

The Hamiltonian we are concerned with is:

$`H=H_0+H_{\mathrm{int}}.`$ (30)
The motion of electrons in the disorder potential is described by:

$`H_0={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{Volume}}}𝑑𝐫\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}(i𝐚)^2+U_{\mathrm{dis}}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫).`$ (31)
Here $`c𝐚/e`$ is a vector potential. The Coulomb interaction among the electrons is described by

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫^{})V_0(𝐫𝐫^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{})},`$ (32)
where

$`V_0(𝐫𝐫^{})={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}}.`$ (33)
### A Weak Inelastic Collisions

Following the procedure outlined in Ref. , we introduce a generating functional and average it over disorder. Next we perform a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation, integrating out fermionic degrees of freedom. Employing the diffusive approximation one obtains an effective generating functional expressed as a path integral over a bosonic matrix field $`Q`$

$`Z[𝐚]={\displaystyle 𝒟Q\mathrm{exp}(iS[Q,𝐚])}.`$ (34)
Here the integration is performed over the manifold

$`{\displaystyle Q(x,t,t_1)Q(x,t_1,t^{})𝑑t_1}=\delta (tt^{}),`$ (35)
the effective action is given by

$`iS[Q,𝐚]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}\nu }{4}}\text{Tr}\left\{D\left(Q+i[𝐚_\alpha \gamma ^\alpha ,Q]\right)^2+4i\widehat{ϵ}Q\right\},`$ (36)
and

$`\gamma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\gamma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (37)
Tr represents summation over all spatio-temporal and Keldysh components. Here $`𝐚_1`$ and $`𝐚_2`$ are the Keldysh rotated classical and quantum components of $`𝐚`$. Hereafter we focus our attention on $`𝐚_1`$, $`𝐚_2`$, the components in the direction along the wire. The third order current correlator may now be expressed as functional differentiation of the generating functional $`Z[a]`$ with respect to $`a_2`$

$`\text{S}_3(t_1t_2,t_2t_3)={\displaystyle \frac{ie^3}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^3Z[a]}{\delta a_2(x_1,t_1)\delta a_2(x_2,t_2)\delta a_2(x_3,t_3)}}.`$ (38)
Performing this functional differentiation one obtains the following result

$`\text{S}_3(t_1t_2,t_2t_3)={\displaystyle \frac{e^3𝒜(\pi \mathrm{}\nu D)^2}{16}}\widehat{\text{M}}(x_1,t_1)\widehat{\text{I}}^D(x_2,x_3,t_2,t_3)+`$ (39)
$`(x_1,t_1x_3,t_3)+(x_1,t_1x_2,t_2)+`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}\nu D}{4}}\widehat{\text{M}}(x_1,t_1)\widehat{\text{M}}(x_2,t_2)\widehat{\text{M}}(x_3,t_3).`$ (41)
Here we have defined

$`\widehat{I}^D(x,x^{},t,t^{})=\text{Tr}^K\{Q_{x,t,t^{}}\gamma _2Q_{x^{},t^{},t}\gamma _2\delta _{t,t^{}}\gamma _1\}\delta _{x,x^{}},`$ (42)
$`\widehat{\text{M}}(x,t)=\text{Tr}^K\left\{{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1\left([Q_{x,t,t_1};]Q_{x,t_1,t}\right)\gamma _2}\right\}.`$ (43)
We employ the notations $`Q(x,t,t^{})Q_{x,t,t^{}}`$; $`\text{Tr}^K`$ is the trace taken with respect to the Keldysh indices; $``$ denotes a quantum-mechanical expectation value. The matrix $`Q`$ can be parameterized as

$`Q=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}\left(W\right),\mathrm{where}\mathrm{\Lambda }W+W\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ (44)
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the saddle point of the action (36)

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x,ϵ)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2F(x,ϵ)\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (45)
The function $`F`$ is related to the single particle distribution function $`f`$ through

$`F(x,ϵ)=12f(x,ϵ).`$ (46)
The matrix $`W_{x,ϵ,ϵ^{}}`$, in turn, is parameterized as follows:

$`W_{x,ϵ,ϵ^{}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}F_{x,ϵ}\overline{w}_{x,ϵ,ϵ^{}}& w_{x,ϵ,ϵ^{}}+F_{x,ϵ}\overline{w}_{x,ϵ,ϵ^{}}F_{x,ϵ^{}}\\ \overline{w}_{x,ϵ,ϵ^{}}& \overline{w}_{x,ϵ,ϵ^{}}F_{x,ϵ^{}}\end{array}\right).`$ (47)
It is convenient to introduce the diffusion propagator

$`(i\omega +D^2)\text{D}(x,x^{}\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \mathrm{}\nu }}\delta (xx^{}).`$ (48)
The absence of diffusive motion in clean metallic leads implies that the diffusion propagator must vanish at the end points of the constriction. In addition, there is no current flowing in the transversal direction (hard wall boundary conditions). It follows that the component of the gradient of the diffusion propagator in that direction (calculated at the hard wall edges) must vanish as well. The correlation functions of the fields $`w,\overline{w}`$ are then given by:

$`w(x,ϵ_1,ϵ_2)\overline{w}(x^{},ϵ_3,ϵ_4)=`$ (49)
$`2(2\pi )^2\delta (ϵ_1ϵ_4)\delta (ϵ_2ϵ_3)\text{D}(x,x^{},ϵ_1ϵ_2),`$ (50)
$`w(x,ϵ_1,ϵ_2)w(x^{},ϵ_3,ϵ_4)=g(2\pi )^3\delta (ϵ_1ϵ_4)\delta (ϵ_2ϵ_3)`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1\text{D}_{ϵ_1ϵ_2,x,x_1}F_{ϵ_2,x_1}F_{ϵ_1,x_1}\text{D}_{ϵ_2ϵ_1,x_1,x^{}}},`$ (52)
$`\overline{w}(x,ϵ_1,ϵ_2)\overline{w}(x^{},ϵ_3,ϵ_4)=0.`$ (53)
To evaluate $`𝒮_3`$ one follows steps similar to those that led to the derivation of $`\text{S}_2`$, see Ref. . If all relevant energy scales in the problem are smaller than the transversal Thouless energy ($`E_{Th}=D/L_T^2`$, where $`L_T`$ is a width of a wire), the wire is effectively quasi-one dimensional. In that case only the lowest transversal mode of the diffusive propagator can be taken into account, which yields

$`\text{D}(x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi g}}\left[|x_1x_2|x_1x_2+{\displaystyle \frac{2x_1x_2}{L}}\right].`$ (54)
Here $`g=\mathrm{}\nu D`$. The electron distribution function in this system is equal to

$`F(x,ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{x}{L}}F_{eq}\left(ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2}}\right)+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{x}{L}}\right)F_{eq}\left(ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2}}\right).`$ (55)
The quantities $`F`$ and D determine the correlation functions, eq. (49). We can now begin to evaluate $`\text{S}_3`$, (c.f. eq. (39)), performing a perturbative expansion in the fluctuations around the saddle point solution, eq. (45). After some algebra we find that in the zero frequency limit the third order cumulant is given by

$`𝒮_3(\omega _1=0,\omega _2=0)={\displaystyle \frac{3e^3𝒜\pi g^2}{\mathrm{}L^3}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2`$ (56)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵF(ϵ,x_1)\text{D}[0,x_1,x_2]\left(F^2(ϵ,x_2)\right).`$ (57)
Integrating over energies and coordinates we obtain

$`𝒮_3(\omega _1=0,\omega _2=0)=e^2Iy(p),`$ (58)
$`y(p)={\displaystyle \frac{6(1+e^{4p})+(126e^{2p}+e^{4p})p}{15p(1+e^{2p})^2}},`$ (59)
where $`p=eV/2T`$. The function $`y`$ is depicted in Fig.1, where it is plotted on a logarithmic scale.

Let us now discuss the main features of the function $`𝒮_3`$. In agreement with symmetry requirements $`𝒮_3`$ is an odd function of the voltage (the even correlator $`𝒮_2`$ is proportional to the absolute value of voltage), and vanishes at equilibrium. The zero temperature result (high voltage limit) has already been obtained by means of the scattering states approach for single-channel systems , and later generalized by means of Random Matrix Theory (RMT) to multi-channel systems (chaotic and diffusive) . In our derivation we do not assume the applicability of RMT . Our result covers the whole temperature range. We obtain that at low temperatures the third order cumulant is linear in the voltage

$`𝒮_3={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{15}}I.`$ (60)
At high temperatures the electrons in the reservoirs are not anymore in the ground state, so the correlations are partially washed out by thermal fluctuations. One may then expand $`y(p)`$, eq. (58), in a series of $`eV/2T`$. The leading term in this high temperature expansion is linear in the voltage

$`𝒮_3={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{3}}I.`$ (61)
Note that although thermal fluctuations enhance the noise (compared with the zero temperature limit), eqs.(60) and (61) differ only by a numerical factor. The experimental study of $`𝒮_3`$ (and higher odd cumulants) provides one with a direct probe of non-equilibrium behavior, not masked by equilibrium thermal fluctuations.

### B Strong Inelastic Collisions

In our analysis so far we have completely ignored inelastic collisions among the electrons. This procedure is well justified provided that the inelastic length greatly exceeds the system’s size. However, if this is not the case, different analysis is called for. To understand why inelastic collisions do matter for current fluctuations, we would like to recall the analysis of $`𝒮_2`$ for a similar problem. The latter function is fully determined by the effective electron temperature. Collisions among electrons, which are subject to an external bias, increase the temperature of those electrons. This, in turn, leads to the enhancement of $`𝒮_2`$, cf. Refs. . In the limit of short inelastic length

$$l_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{e}}L,$$
(62)
the zero frequency and zero temperature noise is

$$𝒮_2(0)=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}eI.$$
(63)
In the present section we consider the effect of inelastic electron collisions on $`𝒮_3`$. We assume that the electron-phonon collision length is large, $`l_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{ph}}L`$, hence electron-phonon scattering may be neglected. The Hamiltonian we are concerned with is

$`H=H_0+H_{\mathrm{int}}.`$ (64)
The Coulomb interaction among the electrons is described by

$`H_{\mathrm{int}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫^{})V_0(𝐫𝐫^{})\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{})},`$ (65)
where

$`V_0(𝐫𝐫^{})={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}}.`$ (66)
We need to deal with the effect of electron-electron interactions in the presence of disorder and away from equilibrium. Following Ref.  one may introduce an auxiliary bosonic field

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1\hfill \\ \varphi _2\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (69)
which decouples the interaction in the particle-hole channel. Now the partition function (eq. (34)) is a functional integral over both the bosonic fields $`Q`$ and $`\varphi `$ ,

$`Z={\displaystyle _{Q^2=1}}𝒟Q𝒟\varphi \mathrm{exp}(iS_{total}).`$ (70)
The action is

$`iS_{total}=iS[\mathrm{\Phi }]+iS[\mathrm{\Phi },Q],`$ (71)
$`iS[\mathrm{\Phi }]=i\text{Tr}\{\mathrm{\Phi }^TV_0^1\gamma ^2\mathrm{\Phi }\},`$ (72)
$`iS[\mathrm{\Phi },Q]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \nu }{4\tau }}\text{Tr}\{Q^2\}+\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left[\widehat{G}_0^1+{\displaystyle \frac{iQ}{2\tau }}+\varphi _\alpha \gamma ^\alpha \right].`$ (73)
It is convenient to perform a “gauge transformation”  to a new field $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$

$$Q_{t,t^{}}(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left(ik_\alpha (x,t)\gamma ^\alpha \right)\stackrel{~}{Q}_{t,t^{}}(x)\mathrm{exp}\left(ik_\alpha (x,t^{})\gamma ^\alpha \right).$$
(74)
Introducing the long derivative

$$_x\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{Q}+i[k_\alpha \gamma ^\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{Q}],$$
(75)
one may write the gradient expansion of eq. (73) as

$`iS[\stackrel{~}{Q},\mathrm{\Phi }]=i\nu \text{Tr}\{(\mathrm{\Phi }i\omega K)^T\gamma _2(\mathrm{\Phi }+i\omega K)\}`$ (76)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \nu }{4}}\left[D\text{Tr}\{_x\stackrel{~}{Q}\}^2+4i\text{Tr}\{(ϵ+(\varphi _\alpha +i\omega k_\alpha )\gamma ^\alpha )\stackrel{~}{Q}\}\right].`$ (77)
At this point the vector $`K^T=(k_1,k_2)`$ that determines the transformation (74) is arbitrary. The saddle point equation for $`Q`$ of the action (76) is given by the following equation

$`D_x(\stackrel{~}{Q}_x\stackrel{~}{Q})+i[(ϵ+(\varphi _\alpha +i\omega k_\alpha )\gamma ^\alpha ),\stackrel{~}{Q}]=0.`$ (78)
Let us now choose the parameterization

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{W}),$$
(79)
where $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ represents fluctuation around the saddle-point

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(x,ϵ)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\stackrel{~}{F}[\varphi ](x,ϵ)\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (80)
Eq. (80) implies that the solution of the saddle point equation (78), determines $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ as a functional of $`\varphi `$. We do not know, though, how to solve it. Instead we average over $`\varphi `$ the eq.(78). The solution of this averaged equation, denoted by $`\overline{F}`$, is determined by:

$$D^2\overline{F}(ϵ)=I^{ee}\{F\},$$
(81)
where the r.h.s. is given by

$`I^{ee}\{\overline{F}\}=D{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{\pi }}[k^1(\omega )k^1(\omega )(\overline{F}(ϵ)\overline{F}(ϵ\omega ))+`$ (82)
$`(k^1(\omega )k^2(\omega )k^2(\omega )k^1(\omega ))(\overline{F}(ϵ)\overline{F}(ϵ\omega )1)].`$ (83)
Since ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) is not a genuine saddle point of the action there is coupling between the fields $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ and $`\varphi ,(k)`$ in the quadratic part of the action. However the coupling constant between those fields is proportional to the gradient of the distribution (cf. eq.(112)). Therefore this term can be treated as a small perturbation.

Taking variation of the action with respect to $`w`$, $`\overline{w}`$, we obtain the following gauge, determining $`k[\varphi ]`$:

$`D^2k_2\varphi _2i\omega k_2=0`$ (84)
$`D^2k_1+\varphi _1+i\omega k_1=2\text{B}[\omega ,x]^2k_2,`$ (85)
where

$`\text{B}[\omega ,x]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega }}{\displaystyle 𝑑ϵ[1\overline{F}(ϵ,x)\overline{F}(ϵ\omega ,x)]}.`$ (86)
Though we have failed to find the true saddle point the linear part of the action expanded around ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) is zero. It is remarkable to notice that under conditions (84) eq.(81) becomes a quantum kinetic equation  with the collision integral being $`I^{ee}\{F\}`$. Coming back to our calculations we note that the correlation function of current fluctuations is a gauged invariant quantity (does not depend on the position of the Fermi level). This means that momenta $`q\sqrt{\omega /D}`$ do not contribute to such a quantity . In this case the Coulomb propagator is universal, i.e. does not depend on the electron charge. The fact that we address gauge invariant quantities allows us to represent the generating functional $`Z`$ in terms of the fields $`Q`$ and $`k`$ (rather than $`Q`$ and $`\varphi `$), as in Ref .

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝒟K\mathrm{exp}\left(i\nu D\text{Tr}\{K^T𝒟^1K\}\right)𝒟\stackrel{~}{Q}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{l=0}{\overset{2}{}}iS_l[\stackrel{~}{Q},K]\right)}.`$ (87)
Here we define

$$𝒟^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& D_x^2+i\omega \delta _{x,x^{}}\\ D_x^2i\omega \delta _{x,x^{}}& 2i\omega \delta _{x,x^{}}B_\omega (x)\end{array}\right),$$
(88)
where the expansion $`S=S^0+S^1+S^2`$, is in powers of $`K`$; the $`lth`$ power ($`l=0,1,2`$) is given by

$`iS^0[\stackrel{~}{Q}]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \nu }{4}}\left[D\text{Tr}\{\stackrel{~}{Q}\}^2+4i\text{Tr}\{ϵ\stackrel{~}{Q}\}\right],`$ (89)
$`iS^1[\stackrel{~}{Q},K]=i\pi \nu \left[D\text{Tr}\{k_\alpha \gamma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{Q}\}+\text{Tr}\{(\varphi _\alpha +i\omega k_\alpha )\gamma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{Q}\}\right],`$ (90)
$`iS^2[\stackrel{~}{Q},K]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \nu D}{2}}\left[\text{Tr}\{k_\alpha \gamma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{Q}k_\beta \gamma ^\beta \stackrel{~}{Q}\}\text{Tr}\{k_\alpha \gamma ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}k_\beta \gamma ^\beta \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\}\right].`$ (91)
From eq.(88) we obtain the gauge field correlation function

$`k_\alpha (x,\omega )k_\beta (x^{},\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{i}{D}}Y_{\alpha ,\beta }(\omega ,x,x^{}),`$ (92)
where

$`Y(\omega ,x,x^{})=\left[\begin{array}{cc}2i\pi \nu \omega 𝑑x_1\text{D}[\omega ,x,x_1]\text{B}[\omega ,x_1]\text{D}[\omega ,x_1,x^{}]& \text{D}[\omega ,x,x^{}]\\ \text{D}[\omega ,x,x^{}]& 0\end{array}\right],`$ (95)
Using eqs.(92,95) we rewrite eq.(82) for the quasi-one-dimensional wire as:

$`D^2\overline{F}(ϵ)=I^{ee}\{ϵ,x\},\mathrm{where}`$ (96)
$`I^{ee}(ϵ,x)={\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle }d\omega [2i\omega \pi \nu D[x,x_1,\omega ]B[\omega ,x_1]\text{D}[x_1,x,\omega ](\overline{F}(ϵ)\overline{F}(ϵ\omega ))+`$ (97)
$`(\text{D}[x,x,\omega ]\text{D}[x,x,\omega ])(1\overline{F}(ϵ)\overline{F}(ϵ+\omega ))].`$ (98)
The total number of particles and the total energy of the electrons are both preserved during electron-electron and elastic electron-impurity scattering. The collision integral, eq.(97), satisfies then

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}I^{ee}(ϵ,x)𝑑ϵ=0,`$ (99)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}ϵI^{ee}(ϵ,x)𝑑ϵ=0.`$ (100)
We now consider the limit $`l_{\mathrm{ee}}L`$. The solution of eq.(81) assumes then the form of a quasi-equilibrium single-particle distribution function

$`\overline{F}(ϵ,x)=\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵe\varphi (x)}{2T(x)}}\right).`$ (101)
Here $`ϵ`$ is the total energy of the electron, and $`e\varphi `$ is the electrostatic potential and $`T(x)`$ is the effective local temperature of the electron gas. To find the electrostatic potential $`\varphi `$ we employ eq. (99). To facilitate our calculations we further assume that conductance band is symmetric about the Fermi energy and that the spectral density of single-electron energy levels is constant. Integration over the energy, eq.(99) yields

$$_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\varphi (x)=0.$$
(102)
Solving eq.(102) under the condition that the voltage difference at the edges of a constriction is $`V`$, we find

$$e\varphi (x)=eV\left(\frac{x}{L}\frac{1}{2}\right)+\overline{\mu }.$$
(103)
Multiplying eq. (96) by energy and and employing eq.(100) we obtain an equation

$$_x^2\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{6}(kT(x))^2+\frac{1}{2}(e\varphi (x))^2\right)=0.$$
(104)
The boundary condition of eq.(104) is determined by the temperature of the electrons in the reservoirs. Combining eqs.((103) and (104)) we find the electron temperature in two opposite limits:

$`T(x)=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{\sqrt{3}eV}{\pi L}\sqrt{x(Lx)}eVT,\hfill \\ T,eVT.\hfill \end{array}`$ (107)
Eqs.((101), (103) and (107) determine the function $`\overline{F}`$ uniquely. We now replace the right-corner element of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{F}[\varphi ]`$, cf. eq.(80)) by its average value $`\overline{F}`$.

To calculate $`𝒮_3`$ under conditions of strong electron-electron scattering (eq. (62)) one needs to replace the operators $`\widehat{\text{I}}^D`$ and $`\widehat{\text{M}}`$ in eq. (39) by their gauged values

$`\text{S}_3(t_1t_2,t_2t_3)={\displaystyle \frac{e^3(\pi \mathrm{}\nu D)^2}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\text{M}}}(x_1,t_1)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\text{I}}}^D(x_2,x_3,t_2,t_3)+(x_1,t_1x_3,t_3)+`$ (108)
$`(x_1,t_1x_2,t_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}\nu D}{8}}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\text{M}}}(x_1,t_1)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\text{M}}}(x_2,t_2)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\text{M}}}(x_3,t_3)_{k,\stackrel{~}{Q}},`$ (109)
where the averaging is taken over the entire action $`S`$ and the Gaussian weight function for $`K`$, as in eq. (70). Here we define (cf. eqs.(42), (43) with eqs. (110),(111))

$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\text{I}}}^D(x,x^{},t,t^{})=\text{Tr}\left\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{x,t,t^{}}\gamma _2\stackrel{~}{Q}_{x^{},t^{},t}\gamma _2\delta _{t,t^{}}\gamma _1\right\}\delta _{x,x^{}},`$ (110)
$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\text{M}}}(x,t)=\text{Tr}\left\{{\displaystyle 𝑑t_1\left([\stackrel{~}{Q}_{x,t,t_1};_x]\stackrel{~}{Q}_{x,t_1,t}\right)\gamma _2}\right\},`$ (111)
where the “long derivative”, $`_x`$, is presented in eq.(75). In order to actually perform the functional integration over the matrix field $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ we use the parameterization of eq. (79). We need to find the Gaussian fluctuations around the saddle point of the action (89,90,91). Though we did not find the exact saddle point, the expansion of $`Q`$ around $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ works satisfactorily. The coupling between the fields $`k`$ and $`W`$ which appears already in the Gaussian (quadratic) part is small, since it is proportional to the gradient of the distribution function:

$`iS_1^1=2i\pi g\text{Tr}\{\overline{w}_{x,ϵ,ϵ^{}}[k_{1x,ϵ^{}ϵ}\overline{F}_{x,ϵ}\overline{F}_{x,ϵ^{}}k_{1x,ϵ^{}ϵ}+`$ (112)
$`\overline{F}_{x,ϵ^{}}k_{2x,ϵ^{}ϵ}\overline{F}_{x,ϵ}+\overline{F}_{x,ϵ^{}}k_{2x,ϵ^{}ϵ}\overline{F}_{x,ϵ}]\}.`$ (113)
Here the upper index refers to the power of the $`k`$ fields; the lower refers to the power of $`w,\overline{w}`$ fields in the expansion. Considered as a small perturbation, $`iS_1^1`$ does not affect the results.

The more dramatic effect on the correlation function arises from the non-Gaussian part of the action, eqs. (90,91) (by this we mean non-Gaussian terms in either $`w,\overline{w}`$ or $`K`$). After integrating over the interaction an additional contribution to the Gaussian part (proportional to $`w\overline{w}`$) of the action arises. To find the effective action $`iS^{\mathrm{eff}}[W]`$ we average over the interaction . One notes that

$`iS_0^1=iS_0^2=0,`$ (114)
(where, again, $`S_0^1`$ refers to the component of the action, eq.(90), that has zero power of the $`w,\overline{w}`$ fields and one power of the $`k`$ field). In addition, due to the choice of the gauge, eq.(84), and the condition ($`l_{\mathrm{ee}}L`$), the averaging over $`k`$ does not generate terms linear in $`w,\overline{w}`$ in the effective action:

$`iS_1^2_k=2i\pi \nu {\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }\overline{w}_{ϵ,ϵ}I_{\mathrm{ee}}[F]}=0.`$ (115)
Combining eqs. (114 and 115) we find that the effective action acquires an additional contribution:

$`\mathrm{exp}\left(iS^1+iS^2\right)_k\mathrm{exp}\left(iS_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}iS_1^2iS_1^2\right)`$ (116)
The general form of the effective action is rather complicated, however for the low frequency noise only diagonal part of the action matters:

$`iS_2^{\mathrm{eff}}[w,\overline{w}]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \nu }{2}}\text{Tr}\{\overline{w}_{x,ϵ,ϵ}[D^2+\widehat{}^{ee}]w_{x,ϵ,ϵ}`$ (117)
$`\overline{w}_{x,ϵ,ϵ}D\overline{F}_{x,ϵ}\overline{F}_{x,ϵ}\overline{w}_{x,ϵ,ϵ}\}.`$ (118)
Here the operator

$`\widehat{}^{ee}w_{x,ϵ,ϵ}{\displaystyle }d\omega [Y_{11}(\omega )[w_{ϵ,ϵ}w_{ϵ\omega ,ϵ\omega }]+`$ (119)
$`\left(Y_{12}(\omega )Y_{21}(\omega )\right)[F_ϵw_{ϵ\omega ,ϵ\omega }+F_{ϵ\omega }w_{ϵ,ϵ}]+`$ (120)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{ϵ}\frac{1}{2\omega }\left(F_ϵF_{ϵ\omega }\right)\left(Y_{12}(\omega )Y_{21}(\omega )\right)\left(F_{\overline{ϵ}+\omega }+F_{\overline{ϵ}\omega }\right)w_{\overline{ϵ},\overline{ϵ}}}`$ (121)
is a linearized collision integral, i.e. a variation of the collision integral (97) with respect to the distribution function. Substituting eqs.(110 and 111) into eq.(109) and calculating the Gaussian integrals with the action (117), we find

$`𝒮_3(\omega _1=0,\omega _2=0)={\displaystyle \frac{3e^3𝒜\pi g^2}{\mathrm{}L^3}}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2`$ (122)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑ϵ_2\overline{F}(ϵ_1,x_1)𝒟[x_1,ϵ_1;x_2,ϵ_2]\left(\overline{F}^2(ϵ_2,x_2)\right),`$ (123)
where the “inelastic diffusion” propagator, $`𝒟`$, is the kernel the equation

$`[D^2\widehat{}^{ee}]𝒟[x_1,ϵ_1;x_2,ϵ_2]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \nu }}\delta (ϵ_1ϵ_2)\delta (x_1x_2).`$ (124)
For weak electron-electron scattering the collision integral is small, yielding the standard propagator of the diffusion equation, D (cf. eq. 54). In the presence of strong electron-electron scattering the collision integral dominates eq.(124). In this limit we evaluate the leading asymptotic behavior for ($`l_{\mathrm{in}}/L1`$). On scales longer than the inelastic mean free path the distribution function has a quasi-equilibrium form

$`f(ϵ,x)=f_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ\mu (x)\delta \mu (x)}{T(x)+\delta T(x)}}\right),`$ (125)
where

$`f_0(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(x)}}.`$ (126)
The values of the local temperature and electro-chemical potential can fluctuate. To find the correlations of these fluctuations we consider the equation (with the same Kernel as in eq.(124))

$`[D^2\widehat{}^{ee}]\delta f(ϵ,x)=\delta J(ϵ,x).`$ (127)
Integrating equation (127) with respect to energy and using the particle-conservation property of the collision integral (eqs.(99)) we find:

$`\mu (x)={\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}\text{D}[x,x^{}]_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵJ(ϵ,x^{})}.`$ (128)
Using energy conservation (eq. 100) we find

$`\delta T(x)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T(x)}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}\text{D}[x,x^{}]𝑑ϵ(ϵ\mu (x))\delta J(ϵ,x^{})}.`$ (129)
Combining eqs. (128) and (129) we find:

$`𝒟[x_1,ϵ_1;x_2,ϵ_2]=({\displaystyle \frac{}{ϵ}}f_0({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\mu (x_1)}{T(x_1)}}))`$ (130)
$`\text{D}[x_1,x_2]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1\mu (x_1)}{T(x_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_2\mu (x_1)}{T(x_1)}}\right).`$ (131)
Evaluating $`𝒮_3`$ explicitly we find that the third order current cumulant is

$`𝒮_3(\omega _1=0,\omega _2=0)={\displaystyle \frac{36e^3Ag^2eV}{L^4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2`$ (132)
$`\text{D}[x_1,x_2]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{T(x_1)}{T(x_2)}}+(x_1x_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{T(x_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}T(x_1)\right].`$ (133)
At high temperatures (cf. eq.107) one obtains

$`𝒮_3(\omega _1=0,\omega _2=0)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^2}}e^2I,`$ (134)
while at low temperatures

$`𝒮_3(\omega _1=0,\omega _2=0)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}\right)e^2I.`$ (135)
Our analysis was performed for a simple rectangular constriction. However, our results hold for any shape of the constriction, provided it is quasi-one dimensional (we have considered a single transversal mode only).

## III COMPARISON WITH THE KINETIC THEORY OF FLUCTUATIONS

As was mentioned in Section I C the applications of the kinetic equation in the study of high order cumulants is not straight forward. To compare our microscopic quantum mechanical calculation with the semi-classical Boltzmann-Langevin scheme we consider the diagrams for the pair and third order correlation function, depicted in Fig.(3).

The diagram in Fig. (3-b) corresponds exactly to the results obtained above in the framework of the $`\sigma `$-model formalism. Indeed, evaluating this diagrams, we recover the results (57) and (123). Comparing Fig. (3-b) with diagram (3-a) (the latter determines the correlator $`\delta J\delta J`$ of Langevin sources), we conclude that the third cumulant corresponding to Fig. (3-b) can be expressed in the form

$`\delta J(1)\delta J(2)\delta J(3)=`$ (136)
$`\widehat{p}{\displaystyle d4d4^{}\frac{\delta \delta J(1)\delta J(2)}{\delta f(4)}D(4,4^{})\delta J(4^{})\delta J(3)}.`$ (137)
Indeed, the block on the right hand side of the diagram corresponds to the pair correlation function of random fluxes, while the left part can be obtained by functional differentiation of the diagram (3-a) with respect to the function $`F=12f`$. This justifies the regression scheme proposed recently by Nagaev . Diagram (3-a) for the pair correlation function is local in space; the diagram for the third order correlator is not. Despite this non-locality the use of the Langevin equation (with non-local random flux) remains convenient; in that case the correlation function of the random fluxes needs to be calculated from first principles. This is somewhat analogous to the description of mesoscopic fluctuations through the Langevin equation, proposed by Spivak and Zyuzin .

Following Ref the revisited version of the kinetic theory of fluctuations has been proposed by Nagaev . He has noticed that for a diffusive system there exists a regression scheme of high order cumulants, expressed in terms of pair correlators . However, a truly classical theory addressing high moments of noise needs to be taken on the same footing as the Boltzmann-Langevin theory, i.e. without appealing to quantum mechanical diagrammatics. Close inspection of the diagrams depicted in Fig. 3 and the dimensionless parameter by which corrections are small implies that the regression recipe (eq. 136) has the same range of applicability as the Boltzmann-Langevin scheme itself.

As a simple example of a classical problem for which the regression procedure can be applied, we consider the following simple model. A heavy molecule of mass $`M`$ and cross-section $`𝒜`$ is embedded in a gas of light classical particles. The gas consists of $`N`$ particles of mass $`mM`$, in thermal equilibrium with temperature $`T`$. It is enclosed in a narrow tube of volume $`V`$. The fluctuating velocity $`u`$ of the molecule here is the analogue of the fluctuating electron distribution function $`\delta f`$. The collisions of the molecule with the light particles is the counterpart of the electron’s scattering on the random disorder. The motion of the molecule is governed by Newton law

$`M{\displaystyle \frac{du}{dt}}=F(t).`$ (138)
Here $`u`$ is the velocity and $`F`$ is the force acting on the molecule. The latter can be calculated from

$`F(t)=2m𝒜\left[{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑vv^2P_1(v+u(t),t){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑vv^2P_2(v+u(t),t)\right],`$ (139)
where $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are the fluctuating distribution functions of particles on the left and on the right sides of the system respectively. Since the time between two consecutive collisions is much shorter than the relaxation time of the molecule ($`\tau _m`$) one can average over fast collisions while considering the relaxation dynamics of the heavy molecule:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{u}}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _m}}\overline{u}.`$ (140)
To find the various velocity correlation functions, one needs to know the corresponding correlation functions of the random forces. Using the fact that the equilibrium fluctuations of the distribution function in a Boltzmann gas are Poissonian (, Section 114) and neglecting the small velocity $`u`$ relatively to $`v`$, one finds the pair correlation function

$`\delta F(t)\delta F(t^{})={\displaystyle \frac{16}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{AN}{V}}m^2v^2^{3/2}\delta (tt^{}).`$ (141)
Eq. (141) yields the correct value for the thermal fluctuations $`u^2=T/M`$. To find the higher order correlations of the random force one has to take into account the dependence of the force on the velocity of the molecule. We expand eq.(139) up to second order in $`u`$. After averaging over all possible pair correlations (such as $`u\delta P`$ and $`\delta P\delta P`$) we obtain

$`\delta F(t_1)\delta F(t_2)\delta F(t_3)=`$ (142)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{512}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{AN}{V}}\right)^2m^3u^2v^2\widehat{p}\left\{\delta (t_1t_2)\theta (t_2t_3)\right\}.`$ (143)
Here $`\widehat{p}`$ denotes all permutation over ($`t_1,t_2,t_3`$). The triple force correlator was reduced to pair correlators only. Bearing in mind the analogy between $`u`$ and $`\delta f`$ on one hand, and the scattering of the electrons on the disorder and the scattering of the molecule by light particles on the other hand, we note that the reduction of the third order cumulant of the random forces to the pair correlation functions is similar in both cases.

We finally come back to the question of whether it is possible to calculate high order cumulants employing the classical kinetic equation (Boltzmann-Langevin) rather than resorting to the diagrammatic reduction scheme depicted above. To be able to answer this question we first note that the applicability of the kinetic theory requires that both $`1/g,\mathrm{}/\tau _{\mathrm{corr}}k_BT1`$. Here $`\tau _{\mathrm{cor}}`$ is the correlation time for the current signal and $`g`$ is the dimensionless conductance. For non-interacting electrons Onsager relation and Drude formula yield $`\tau _{\mathrm{cor}}=\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is the transport time. It follows that the condition

$`z{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{g\tau _{\mathrm{cor}}k_BT}}1`$ (144)
must be satisfied. The reason for theses inequalities are first, that $`g`$ needs to be large in order for quantum interference effects to be negligible. Secondly, the value $`\mathrm{}/k_BT\tau `$ needs also to be small; the transport equation is applicable for times longer than the duration time of an individual collision $`\delta \tau `$, ($`\tau \delta \tau `$). For a degenerate electron gas the uncertainty relation requires that $`\delta \tau \mathrm{}/k_BT`$ .

We now evaluate the relative magnitude of, e.g., the fourth and the second cumulants. We consider the ratio

$`\stackrel{~}{z}{\displaystyle \frac{<<I^4(0)>>}{<<I^2(0)>>^2}},`$ (145)
where $`<<>>`$ denotes the irreducible part of the correlator. At equilibrium

$`\stackrel{~}{z}z.`$ (146)
As we see, for the kinetic theory to be valid, the value of the parameter $`z`$ needs to be small. But this is exactly the parameter ($`\stackrel{~}{z}`$) by which the high order correlation functions are smaller than the lower ones (cf. eq.144). In other words, the evaluation of high order cumulants goes beyond the validity of the standard Boltzmann-Langevin equation. This is why we have to resort to the diagrammatic approach: either to justify the reduction of high order cumulants to pair correlators, or, alternatively, to introduce non-local noise correlators in the Boltzmann-Langevin equation.

## IV COUNTING STATISTICS

So far we have studied the second and third order cumulants. In the present section we discuss the whole distribution function of the low frequency electron current (so-called counting statistics). The zero temperature limit had been studied by Levitov et. al. . The full temperature regime was addressed by Nazarov. Here we present a different derivation based on the $`\sigma `$-model approach.

Being a stochastic process, the charge transmission can be characterized by the probability distribution function (PDF) $`P_{\overline{t}}(n)`$ of the probability for $`n`$ electrons to pass through the constriction within the time window $`\overline{t}`$. In practice it is more convenient to work with the Fourier transform of the PDF, the characteristic function

$`\kappa _{\overline{t}}[\lambda ]={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}e^{i\lambda n}P_{\overline{t}}(n).`$ (147)
Below we evaluate $`\kappa _{\overline{t}}[\lambda ]`$ for the case of elastic scattering. By expanding the logarithm of characteristic function over its argument we can find the cumulants (irreducible correlation functions) of a transmitted charge

$`\mathrm{ln}(\kappa _{\overline{t}}[\lambda ])={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(i\lambda )^k}{k!}}𝒮_k.`$ (148)
For the problem of diffusive junction the disorder average characteristic function can be represented as:

$`\overline{\kappa }_{\overline{t}}[\lambda ]={\displaystyle 𝒟Q\mathrm{exp}(iS[Q,𝐚])},`$ (149)
where the external source is given by

$`𝐚_2(t)=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{\lambda }{2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}<t<\overline{t}\hfill \\ 0,\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (152)
The applied bias enters the problem through boundary conditions on $`Q`$ at the edges of the constriction:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(0,ϵ)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2F\left(ϵ+\frac{eV}{2}\right)\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }(L,ϵ)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2F\left(ϵ\frac{eV}{2}\right)\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (153)
and $`F`$ is defined by eq.(46).

Inasmuch as we are not interested in spatial correlations, the external source term is a function of time only. Therefore, by performing the transformation

$`Q(x,t,t^{})=e^{ixa_2(t)\gamma _2}\stackrel{~}{Q}(x,t,t^{})e^{ixa_2(t^{})\gamma _2}.`$ (154)
one gets:

$`iS[\stackrel{~}{Q},𝐚]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \nu }{4\tau }}\text{Tr}\{D(\stackrel{~}{Q})^2({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{t^{}}})\stackrel{~}{Q}(t,t^{})+`$ (155)
$`i\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}a_2(t)\right)\gamma _2\stackrel{~}{Q}(t,t^{})\stackrel{~}{Q}(t,t^{})i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t^{}}}a_2(t^{})\gamma _2\},`$ (156)
and the boundary conditions change correspondingly:

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}(0,t,t^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }(0,tt^{}),`$ (157)
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}(L,t,t^{})=e^{ia_2(t)\gamma _2}\mathrm{\Lambda }(L,tt^{})e^{ia_2(t^{})\gamma _2},`$ (158)
with

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(tt^{})={\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }e^{iϵ(tt^{})}\mathrm{\Lambda }(ϵ)}.`$ (159)
We use the saddle point approximation to calculate the characteristic function, Eq. (149). In the presence of an external potential the minimum of the action, eq. (155), satisfies

$`D(\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{Q})\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{t^{}}}\right)\stackrel{~}{Q}+`$ (160)
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}a_2(t)\gamma _2\stackrel{~}{Q}(t,t^{})\stackrel{~}{Q}(t,t^{})i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t^{}}}a_2(t^{})\gamma _2=0.`$ (161)
Let us define a parameter that can roughly be regarded as “the number of attempts per channel”, $`M=\text{max}\{eV,T\}\overline{t}/\mathrm{}`$. We will focus on the case where the time window is much larger than the Thouless time $`\overline{t}t_{Thouless}`$ and the conductance $`gM1`$. Inside the region $`0<t,t^{}<\overline{t}`$ eq. (160) becomes (up to the corrections $`O(t_{\mathrm{Thouless}}/\overline{t}))`$

$`D(\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{Q})=0.`$ (162)
This can be represented in the form resembling a current conservation law

$`DJ=0,`$ (163)
where the current is defined as

$`J\stackrel{~}{Q}\stackrel{~}{Q}.`$ (164)
The solution of Eq. (163), $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{sp}(x)`$ can be written as

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{sp}=\stackrel{~}{Q}(0)\mathrm{exp}(Jx),`$ (165)
and from the boundary conditions (eq. 157) it follows that

$`J=\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{Q}(0)\stackrel{~}{Q}(L)).`$ (166)
One may show that the anticomutator of the matrix $`Q`$ with $`J`$ vanishes

$`\{\stackrel{~}{Q}(0),J\}_+=0.`$ (167)
Based on this property, we can show that the following statements do hold:
(1) The square of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is still equal to unity

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{sp}^2(x)=1,`$ (168)
(2) The determinant of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ satisfies

$`\text{Det}[\stackrel{~}{Q}_{sp}(x)]=1,`$ (169)
(3) The trace of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is equal to zero

$`\text{Tr}\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{sp}(x)\}=0,`$ (170)
(4) The trace of the matrix $`J`$ is zero

$`\text{Tr}\{J\}=0,`$ (171)
(5) The square of the matrix $`J`$ is proportional to the unit matrix

$`J^2=\delta [ϵ,\lambda ]I,`$ (172)
where $`\delta [ϵ,\lambda ]`$ is given by (there is small discrepancy with the result obtained in Ref.)

$`\delta [ϵ,\lambda ]=\mathrm{ln}[(2f_11)(2f_21)+2f_1(1f_2)e^{i\lambda }+2f_2(1f_1)e^{i\lambda }+`$ (173)
$`2\sqrt{(e^{i\lambda /2}e^{i\lambda /2})(1f_1+f_1e^{i\lambda })(1f_2+f_2e^{i\lambda })(f_2(1f_1)e^{i\lambda /2}f_1(1f_2)e^{i\lambda /2})}].`$ (174)
Using these properties we find the disorder averaged counting statistics

$`\overline{\kappa }[\lambda ]=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{G\overline{t}}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑ϵ\delta ^2[ϵ,\lambda ]}\right).`$ (176)
The zero temperature limit coincides with the results derived previously by Lee et. al..

At finite temperatures we find:

$`𝒮_2=2GT`$ (177)
$`𝒮_3={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{3}}I`$ (178)
$`𝒮_4={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}e^2GT.`$ (179)
It is worthwhile to note that the value of $`𝒮_4`$ agrees with the one obtained in Ref.. As we see the counting statistics of the current in a disordered wire is not Gaussian. Remarkably, all the information contained in the counting statistics can be extracted from the pair correlation function (of the distribution function), eq.(25).

Finally we would like to discuss the role of inelastic electron-phonon scattering. As has been already realized , such an interaction suppresses shot noise. Moreover, based on our approach, one can show that in the limit of $`l_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{ph}}L`$ (macroscopic conductor) the current fluctuations are Gaussian (to leading order in $`L/l_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{ph}}`$). To show this, we repeat our analysis concerning $`𝒮_3`$. We find that eq. (123) still holds, but the distribution function and the inelastic diffusion propagator need to be calculated taking electron-phonon collisions into account. In the presence of both electron-electron and electron-phonon interaction one obtains

$$[D^2\overline{F}+I^{ee}+I^{eph}]\overline{F}=0,$$
(180)
(cf. eq.81) where $`\widehat{}^{eph}`$ is the linearized electron-phonon collision integral. The inelastic diffuson (cf. eq.124) is now determined by

$`[D^2\widehat{}^{ee}\widehat{}^{eph}]𝒟[x_1,ϵ_1;x_2,ϵ_2]=`$ (181)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \nu }}\delta (ϵ_1ϵ_2)\delta (x_1x_2).`$ (182)
In the limit $`L/l_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{ph}}1`$ fluctuations of the chemical potential is the only long-range propagating mode in the problem (no fluctuations of the $`k_BT`$ along the system). Solving eqs.(180, 181 and 123) we find that $`𝒮_3`$ vanishes as $`(l_{eph}/L)^2`$. A conductor longer than the electron-phonon length ($`l_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{ph}}`$) can be viewed as a number ($`L/l_{\mathrm{e}\mathrm{ph}}`$) of resistors connected in series. The current fluctuations of a single resistor are given by eq.(176) and would render the corresponding voltage fluctuations. Since the fluctuations at different resistors are uncorrelated (local fluctuations in the chemical potential do not change the resistance significantly) the large number of the resistors results in Gaussian current fluctuations. By contrast, temperature fluctuations (in the case of solely electron-electron interactions) have long distance correlations, and give rise to non-Gaussian fluctuations.

### Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank M. Reznikov and Y. Levinson for inspiring discussion and A. Kamenev for his critical comments in the earlier stages of this work. This work was supported by GIF foundation, the Minerva Foundation, the European RTN grant on spintronics, by the SFB195 der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, and by RFBR gr. 02-02-17688.


text:
# On the existence of the Møller wave operator for wave equations with small dissipative terms.

## Abstract

The aim of this short note is to reconsider and to extend a former result of K. Mochizuki \[Moc76\], \[MN96\] on the existence of the scattering operator for wave equations with small dissipative terms.

Contrary to the approach used by Mochizuki we construct the wave operator explicitly in terms of the parametrix construction obtained by a (simplified) diagonalization procedure, cf. \[Yag97\]. The method is based on ODE techniques.

These considerations are part of a larger project and the idea is taken from \[Wir\] and generalized to $`x`$-dependent coefficients.

AMS subject classification: 35L15; 35P25
keywords: Cauchy problem, wave equation, scattering operator, dissipative term

We consider the Cauchy problem

$$\mathrm{}u+b(t,x)u_t=0,u(0,)=u_1,\mathrm{D}_tu(0,)=u_2$$
(1)
with $`bL_1(,L_{\mathrm{}}(^n))L_{\mathrm{}}(^{1+n})`$. We restrict our calculations to spaces of dimension $`n2`$. The modification to obtain results also for $`n=1`$ are obvious.

We denote by $`E=\dot{H}^1\times L_2`$ the energy space. We prove that in the energy space $`(u,\mathrm{D}_tu)`$ converges to the local energy of a solution $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ of the free wave equation $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{u}=0`$. As usual we use the representation $`\dot{H}^1=|\mathrm{D}|^1L_2`$, $`|\mathrm{D}|^1`$ beeing the Riesz potential operator of order $`1`$, inverse to the operator $`|\mathrm{D}|=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. In our calculations we use this isomorphism $`\dot{H}^1L_2`$ to restrict ourselves to calculations in $`L_2`$-space.

###### Theorem 1.

Assume $`bL_1(,L_{\mathrm{}}(^n))L_{\mathrm{}}(^{1+n})`$.

There exist isomorphisms $`W_\pm :EE`$ of the energy space such that for $`u=u(t,x)`$ the solution of (1) to data $`(u_1,u_2)E`$ and for $`(\stackrel{~}{u}_1,\stackrel{~}{u}_2)=W_\pm (u_1,u_2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ the solution of the free wave equation $`\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{u}=0`$ to data $`\stackrel{~}{u}(0,)=\stackrel{~}{u}_1`$, $`\mathrm{D}_t\stackrel{~}{u}(0,)=\stackrel{~}{u}_2`$ the asymptotic relation

$$(u,\mathrm{D}_tu)(\stackrel{~}{u},\mathrm{D}_t\stackrel{~}{u})_E0\text{ as }t\pm \mathrm{}$$

holds.

We subdivide the proof in some steps and construct these wave operators explicitly in terms of the solution representation.

Let $`U=(|\mathrm{D}|\widehat{u},\mathrm{D}_t\widehat{u})^T`$. Then $`U`$ satisfies the equation

$$\mathrm{D}_tU=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& |\mathrm{D}|\\ |\mathrm{D}|& \end{array}\right)U+\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ & ib(t,x)\end{array}\right)U.$$

The first matrix operator maps $`\dot{H}^1L_2`$ while due to our assumptions the second one maps $`L_2L_2`$. We will understand the first operator as closed unbounded operator on $`L_2`$ with domain $`\dot{H}^1`$ and solve in a first step the corresponding evolution equation. In a second step we understand the second operator as small perturbation of the first one.

We diagonalize the first matrix operator. Therefore we use

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),M^1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$

and consider $`U^{(0)}=M^1U`$. We get

$$\mathrm{D}_tU^{(0)}=M^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}& |\mathrm{D}|\\ |\mathrm{D}|& \end{array}\right)MU^{(0)}+M^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ & ib(t,x)\end{array}\right)MU^{(0)}=𝒟U^{(0)}+B(t,x)U^{(0)},$$

where $`𝒟`$ is the diagonal operator

$$𝒟=\left(\begin{array}{cc}|\mathrm{D}|& \\ & |\mathrm{D}|\end{array}\right)$$

and $`B(t,x)L_1(,L_{\mathrm{}}(^n))`$ is a matrix. Multiplication by this matrix defines a bounded operator on $`L_2`$ with $`||B(t,x)||_{22}=||B(t,)||_{\mathrm{}}L_1()`$.

We start by solving the operator valued evolution equation

$$\mathrm{D}_t_0(t,s)=𝒟_0(t,s),_0(s,s)=I:L_2L_2.$$

We look for a solution from the evolution space

$$_0(,s)C(,L_2L_2)C^1(,L_2\dot{H}^1).$$

This solution is given by the fundamental solution corresponding to the wave equation

$$_0(t,s)=e^{i(ts)𝒟}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i(ts)|D|}& \\ & e^{i(ts)|D|}\end{array}\right).$$

The operator $`_0`$ is unitary as well as $`U_0(t,s)`$, obtained by a similarity transform of $`M_0(t,s)M^1`$ with the (canonical) isomorphism $`EL_2`$. The operator $`U_0(t)`$ is the unitary solution operator of the homogeneous wave equation in the energy space.

In a second step we construct the solution to $`\mathrm{D}_t𝒟B(t,x)`$. Therefore let

$$(t,s)=_0(s,t)B(t,x)_0(t,s)$$

(as concatenation of (bounded) operators on $`L_2`$) and

$$𝒬(t,s)=I+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^k_s^t(t_1,s)_s^{t_1}(t_2,s)\mathrm{}_s^{t_{k1}}(t_k,s)dt_k\mathrm{}dt_1$$

in the sense of Bochner integrals. The matrix operator $`𝒬(t,s)`$ solves the Cauchy problem

$$\mathrm{D}_t𝒬(t,s)(t,s)𝒬(t,s)=0,𝒬(s,s)=I:L_2L_2.$$

Using $`𝒬(t,s)`$ we can express the fundamental solution to the diagonalized system. Let $`(t,s)=_0(t,s)𝒬(t,s)`$. Then we obtain

$`\mathrm{D}_t(_0𝒬)`$ $`=(\mathrm{D}_t_0)𝒬+_0(\mathrm{D}_t𝒬)=𝒟_0𝒬+_0(t,s)𝒬`$
$`=𝒟_0𝒬+B(t,x)_0𝒬`$
and $`_0(s,s)𝒬(s,s)=I`$. Thus $`(t,s)`$ is the desired fundamental solution.

Hence $`M(t,s)M^1`$ is related to the operator

$$U(t,s):E(u(s),\mathrm{D}_tu(s))(u(t),\mathrm{D}_tu(t))E$$

for solutions $`u`$ to $`\mathrm{}u+b(t,x)u_t=0`$.

We estimate the norm of this operator. We do this step by step. At first we have

$$_0(t,s)=1.$$

The next estimate is

$$(t,s)B(t,)_{\mathrm{}}L_1()$$

which will be used to estimate $`𝒬(t,s)`$. We use the following statement

$$\left|_s^tr(t_1,s)_s^{t_1}r(t_s,s)\mathrm{}_s^{t_{k1}}r(t_k,s)dt_k\mathrm{}dt_1\right|\frac{1}{k!}\left(_s^t|r(\tau ,s)|d\tau \right)^k.$$

This can be proved using induction over $`k`$. Combined with the series representation of $`𝒬`$ we get

$`𝒬(t,s)I`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\left({\displaystyle _s^t}B(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{}}d\tau \right)^k`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _s^t}B(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{}}d\tau \right\}1C`$
and therefore

$$(t,s)C.$$

Integrability of $`B(t,)_{\mathrm{}}`$ implies further $`𝒬(t,s)I`$ as $`t,s\mathrm{}`$.

###### Remark 1.

The constant in this estimate can be larger than $`1`$. This is due to the fact that we have not required the condition $`b(t,x)0`$.

###### Remark 2.

We are interested in the Møller wave operator $`W_+`$. This operator can be understood as a limit in the following sense. We consider data $`(u_1,u_2)`$ from the energy space and apply the solution operator $`U(t,0)`$. Then we go back to the initial line using the solution operator of the homogeneous problem $`U_0(t)`$. This gives data to the homogeneous wave equation which produce a solution coinciding with $`u`$ at the time level $`t`$. Now we let $`t\mathrm{}`$

$$W_+=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}U_0(t)U(t,s).$$

If this limit exists in some sense, we have constructed the first Møller wave operator. The second one, $`W_{}`$ will be obtained by replacing $`t`$ by $`t`$. In our case we will see that these limits exists as strong limits in the operator norm.

From $`_0(0,t)(t,0)=𝒬(t,0)`$ it seems natural to ask whether $`lim_t\mathrm{}𝒬(t,0)`$ exists in $`L_2L_2`$. Therefore we consider the difference

$`𝒬(t,0)𝒬(s,0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}i^k[{\displaystyle _0^t}(t_1,0){\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}(t_2,0)\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{t_{k1}}}(t_k,0)\mathrm{d}t_k\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}t_1`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^s}(t_1,0,\xi ){\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}(t_2,0)\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{t_{k1}}}(t_k,0)\mathrm{d}t_k\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}t_1]`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}i^k{\displaystyle _s^t}(t_1,0){\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}(t_2,0)\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{t_{k1}}}(t_k,0)dt_k\mathrm{}dt_1.`$
If we apply $`||||_{22}`$ on both sides and use the same statement as above to estimate the integrals we get

$`𝒬(t,0,)𝒬(s,0,)_{22}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _s^t}B(t_1,)_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k1)!}}\left({\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}B(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{}}d\tau \right)^{k1}dt_1`$
$`{\displaystyle _s^t}B(t_1,)_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\left({\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}B(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{}}d\tau \right)^k\mathrm{d}t_1`$
$`={\displaystyle _s^t}B(t_1,)_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}B(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{}}d\tau \right\}dt_10`$
as $`t,s\mathrm{}`$ from the integrability of $`B(t,)_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Thus the limit exists in $`L_2L_2`$ and we can define

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_+=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}M𝒬(t,0)M^1.$$

###### Remark 3.

By the construction it follows that

$$W_+=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}U_0(t)U(t,0)$$

is related to $`\stackrel{~}{W}_+`$ via the isomorphism $`EL_2`$.

The transpose111In the usual matrix sense. of the inverse of $`Q(t,s)`$ satisfies the related equation

$$\mathrm{D}_t𝒬^T(t,s)+^T(t,s)𝒬^T(t,s)=0,𝒬^T(s,s)=I.$$

Thus we can estimate $`𝒬^T`$ in a similar style as $`𝒬`$, especially we can prove that

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒬^1(t,s)$$

exists.

The same argumentation is vaild for $`t\mathrm{}`$ and defines the second operator $`W_{}`$. Especially the scattering operator $`S=W_+W_{}^1`$ exists.

###### Corollary 1.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1 exists the scattering operator $`S:EE`$ and is invertible.

We can also estimate the rate of convergence in Theorem 1.

###### Corollary 2.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1 it holds

$$(u,\mathrm{D}_tu)(\stackrel{~}{u},\mathrm{D}_t\stackrel{~}{u})_E(u_1,u_2)_E_t^{\mathrm{}}b(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{}}d\tau .$$

###### Proof.

The statement follows directly from

$$𝒬(\mathrm{},0)𝒬(t,0)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^k_t^{\mathrm{}}(t_1,0)_0^{t_1}(t_2,0)\mathrm{}_0^{t_{k1}}(t_k,0)dt_k\mathrm{}dt_1.$$

and

$`𝒬(\mathrm{},0)𝒬(t,0)_{22}`$ $`{\displaystyle _t^{\mathrm{}}}B(t_1,)_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}B(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{}}d\tau \right\}dt_1`$
$`{\displaystyle _t^{\mathrm{}}}b(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{}}d\tau ,`$
where $`𝒬(\mathrm{},s)=lim_t\mathrm{}𝒬(t,s)`$. ∎

For our considerations it was essential that we had *not* to indroduce a subdivision of the phase space into zones. This enables us to give a definition of the wave operator $`W_+(\xi )`$ globally in the phase variable $`\xi `$.

For a more general treatment including a subdivision of the phase space we refer to \[Wir\] and the modified scattering result discussed there.


text:
# The DØ Detector for Run II

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The Fermilab Tevatron has undergone significant upgrades for Run II. Presently, it is delivering higher instantaneous luminosity than in Run I with a ten-fold decrease in the time between beam crossings. The Run IIa will provide an integrated luminosity of 2 fb<sup>-1</sup>, about 20 times that of Run I. Also the center-of-mass energy of $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions has increased modestly, from 1.8 to 1.96 TeV.

To achieve the physics goals for Run II which include searches for the Higgs boson, supersymmetry, extra dimensions, and other new phenomena, as well as precision studies of weak bosons, top quark, QCD, and $`B`$-physics, the collider detectors at the Tevatron need superb electron, muon, and tau identification, excellent jet and missing transverse energy ($`E\text{/}_T`$) reconstruction, and very good flavor tagging of jets through displaced vertices and leptons.

To meet these challenges in a high event rate environment, the  detector has undergone major upgrades  (Fig. 1a). The central tracking system has been replaced by a silicon microstrip tracker, surrounded by a scintillating fiber tracker, both immersed in a 2T magnetic field from a superconducting solenoid . To provide fast energy and position measurements for the electron trigger and offline electron identification, scintillating fiber preshower detectors have been added in the central and forward regions. Calorimeter trigger and readout electronics have been upgraded and the muon system has been significantly improved. A new forward proton spectrometer (FPD) has been added for the diffractive and elastic physics program. To handle high event rates, an entirely new trigger and data acquisition system has been designed and implemented, see Fig. 1b.

## 2 STATUS AND PERFORMANCE

Calorimeters. The nearly compensating, uniform, and hermetic liquid-argon uranium calorimeters from Run I, with completely upgraded readout and trigger electronics, provide about 50k readout cells of electromagnetic (EM) and fine and coarse hadronic compartments with less than 0.1% dead or noisy channels. About 5k calorimeter towers are also used for fast trigger decisions. The system is fully commissioned.

For an *in situ* calibration of EM calorimeters the $`Zee`$ signal is employed. Fig. 1c shows the $`Z`$ peak in a di-EM invariant mass distribution with close to expected resolution. On the other end of the spectrum, Fig. 1d shows the $`J/\psi `$ resonance. The calorimeter response to jets is calibrated using photon-jet data. Fig. 1e shows the distribution of $`E\text{/}_T`$ in multijet events, spanning several orders of magnitude; the present $`E\text{/}_T`$ resolution is about 7 GeV.

The Muon system consists of central and forward regions providing coverage up to $`|\eta |=2`$ with three layers of scintillators and drift tubes, one inside and two outside the magnetized iron toroids. In the central region, there are over 6k cells of proportional drift tubes and 630 (360) scintillating counters inside (outside) the toroid. In the forward regions, there are about 6k 8-cell mini drift tubes in eight octants per layer and over 4k forward scintillation counters or pixels. The muon system is fully commissioned.

Fig. 2a shows the invariant mass distribution of di-muons from the muon stand-alone system, with the $`J/\psi `$ resonance visible above background. Matching muons with central tracks significantly improves muon transverse momentum resolution and Figs. 2b and 2c show the $`J/\psi `$ and the $`Z`$-boson resonances, respectively. Timing cuts on muons reduce backgrounds from cosmic rays, and could aid in detection of slow moving particles.

The FPD system consists of two arms of 18 Roman pots in four quadrupole and two dipole “castles.” Hits in scintillating fiber detectors installed in the Roman pots will be used for measuring fractional energy lost by the proton and scattering angle, and for triggering on elastic, diffractive, and double pomeron events. Currently the system is in commissioning. Several million elastic events have been recorded by FPD stand-alone system, and integration within  is ongoing.

The  Trigger is a three stage hardware and software system that reduces the raw event rate of about 7 MHz down to under 50 Hz for recording events to tape (Fig. 1b). The hardware triggers in Level 1 (L1) allow triggering on EM and hadronic calorimeter objects, tracks, and muons. In L2 more physics-like objects are used employing correlations and allowing triggering on separated vertices. In L3, physics algorithms are employed after fast event reconstruction.

Fig. 2d shows the efficiency “turn-on” for triggering on EM objects with various transverse energy ($`E_T`$) thresholds using the L1 calorimeter trigger. Similarly, Fig. 2e shows the efficiency for triggering on a L2 “jet” of $`E_T=10`$ GeV. Finally, Fig. 2f shows the performance of L3 software filter to trigger on $`E_T=15`$ GeV EM objects, also indicating that the $`E_T`$ threshold can effectively be lowered by utilizing EM shower shape requirements.

## 3 SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

The  detector for Run II is operating and collecting physics data. There has been enormous progress over the past year in installation, integration, and commissioning of the detector, and understanding the data. Performance of the Run II  detector is very encouraging, all subdetectors are operating well, software and computing systems are working well, we are reconstructing electrons, muons, jets, $`E\text{/}_T`$, $`J/\psi `$’s, $`W`$’s and $`Z`$’s. We are working hard to complete commissioning, improve calibration and alignment, optimize detector, trigger, and DAQ performance, and are on the way to exciting physics, with first physics results now appearing .