text:
# Weak Localization and Integer Quantum Hall Effect in a Periodic Potential

## I Introduction

The problem of electron motion in a disordered conductor in a periodic potential and strong magnetic field displays a rich combination of phenomena of both classical and quantum origin. The complexity arises from the appearance of two independent types of periodicities, of the potential and of the cyclotron orbits, which may interplay in complicated ways. Perhaps the most striking effect is known as Weiss oscillationsWeiss , whereby very large oscillations in the resistivity are induced by even a weak periodic potential at moderate magnetic fields. At different magnetic fields or temperatures, other types of contributions to the resistivity become significant. For example, at very small fields, a positive magnetoresistance results from a classical mechanism of channeling of orbitsBeton ; Streda ; Menne . At larger magnetic fields, the resistivity develops Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations, which originate from the onset of Landau quantization and may still be affected by the periodic potentialWeiss ; GWK ; Winkler ; Z+G ; P+V . At even higher fields, the integer quantum Hall effectKlitzing  (IQHE) becomes operative due to the contribution of quantum interference processes.

Much of the above phenomenology has been thoroughly analyzed theoretically, by a variety of techniques including quantum mechanical approachesGWK ; Winkler  involving diagrammaticsZ+G ; Manolescu ; Gross  or solution of a quantum Boltzmann equationP+V , and quasiclassical approachesBeenakker ; M+Wolf ; Beton ; Streda ; Menne . The experimental realization of these systems is also well advancedWeiss ; GWK ; Winkler ; Beton ; Geim ; Milton  with precise confirmation of the theoretical predictions already possible. So far however a theory for the influence of quantum interference processes in a periodic potential and high magnetic field has been missing. Such processes lead to weak localization corrections to the conductivity which become significant at low temperatures (see e.g. Refs.Altshuler ; Bergmann ; Chakravarty ; Belitz  for reviews). At high magnetic fields, they are also responsible for the operation of the IQHEKlitzing ; Pruisken , whereby the Hall conductivity becomes quantized at low temperatures. At the same time, the observation of the IQHE in systems with a weak potential modulation is well within current experimental capabilityGeim ; Bagwell .

This paper aims to fill this gap by showing how the standard theory for weak localization and the IQHE may be generalized so as to incorporate the presence of a periodic potential. We employ a field-theory approach based on a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ modelWegner ; ELK ; Efe97 ; Pruisken ; Levine  which is well established in the study of mesoscopic disordered conductors. In deriving the appropriate field theory, we are able to show how previous theoretical calculations of the conductivity, within both quasiclassicalBeenakker ; Menne  and quantum mechanical approachesZ+G , may be recovered in a natural way within the field theory formalism. This enables us to extend previous theoretical results in a consistent way so as to include the influence of quantum interference processes.

The experiments of Weiss et al.Weiss  employed weakly modulated two-dimensional (2D) electron systems of high mobility with a well-known period, $`a300\mathrm{nm}`$, much less than the mean free path, $`\mathrm{}10\mu \mathrm{m}`$. Such samples were engineered using a holographic modulation technique, based on the persistent photoconductivity effect in GaAs/AlxGa1-xAs heterostructures at low temperatures $`4.2\mathrm{K}`$. The Weiss oscillations appear in only one component of the resistivity tensor, $`\rho _{xx}`$, when the modulation is in the $`x`$ direction. Furthermore they appear at magnetic fields $`B`$ such that the cyclotron radius $`R_c=v_F/\omega _c`$ (where $`\omega _c=eB/mc`$ is the cyclotron frequency, $`e`$ is the electron charge and $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity) satisfies the commensurability condition $`2R_c=(n1/4)a`$, for integer $`n`$. Hence the oscillations are periodic in $`1/B`$. In addition they are relatively stable with respect to temperature, suggesting a quasiclassical origin.

At even higher magnetic fields, such that the cyclotron radius is much less than the period of modulation ($`R_ca`$), the quasiclassical theory predicts that the $`\rho _{xx}`$ component shows a large, nonoscillatory increase proportional to $`B^2`$, leading to a strong positive magnetoresistance. This result has been confirmed in experimentsGeim  for which the temperature was kept deliberately high so as to avoid the intervention of the IQHE.

A limitation of the quasiclassical approach is that it fails to account for the renormalization of single-particle properties, such as the density of states and scattering lifetime, by the strong magnetic field according to Landau quantization. Even in unmodulated samples, quantization leads to oscillations in the density of states with respect to magnetic fields, and hence to Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations in the resistivity. In samples with the periodic potential, the Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations start to appear at higher magnetic fields than the Weiss oscillations (for $`R_c`$ an integer multiple of the Fermi wavelength $`a`$). A quantum-mechanical approach that does allow for such quantization effects has been provided by Zhang and GerhardtsZ+G  (see also Peeters and VasilopoulosP+V ); it is a diagrammatic treatment that generalizes the approach of Ando and co–workersAndo  to modulated samples. The quantum-mechanical approach is then capable of describing both Weiss oscillations and the Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations (also affected by the modulation) at higher magnetic fields.

In principle, the calculation of weak localization corrections in a strong magnetic field (unitary ensemble) is possible even in the presence of a periodic potential, by a generalization of the diagrammatic approach of Zhang and GerhardtsZ+G , but the procedure would be complicated (although the simpler orthogonal case has been examined diagrammatically for a periodic magnetic fieldShelankov ; Wang ). Instead, the calculation of high-order diagrams is more convenient in the field-theory formalism and, furthermore, with this method the possibility exists of calculating contributions of diagrams to all orders by the renormalization-group technique. We show how the field-theory takes the form of a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model with a topological term Wegner ; ELK ; Efe97 ; Pruisken ; Levine . The effective Lagrangian is slightly nonstandard since it contains an anisotropy in the coefficients, corresponding to the difference between the longitudinal conductivities in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, due to the periodic potential.

The effect of weak localization corrections to the conductivity for unmodulated samples is accounted for by a scaling (one-parameter scaling) of the conductivity with the system size. As a first step we derive the analog of the one-parameter scaling for the conductivityWegner ; ELK ; Hikami ; Efe97  in the modulated system by means of a perturbative RG analysis of the effective Lagrangian. We then turn to the study of the IQHE, implementing a generalization of a two-parameter scaling, which has been conjecturedLevine ; Khmelnitskii ; Pruis2  as a model for the IQHE in unmodulated systems. We examine how the resistivity tensor should be affected at low temperatures by the IQHE in modulated samples for parameters that are realizable in actual experiments. We see, for example, how the Hall conductivity becomes quantized under scaling at low temperatures, while in the regions between the plateaus the longitudinal conductivities develop peaks of differing heights according to the anisotropy in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions.

Model. In the following, we employ the Hamiltonian for the disordered conductor in a magnetic field and periodic potential in two dimensions:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_0V(𝐫),`$
$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left(𝐩{\displaystyle \frac{e𝐀}{c}}\right)^2+U_0\mathrm{cos}(qx),`$ (1)
Here $`𝐀`$ is the vector potential, so that $`\times 𝐀=(0,0,B)`$, where $`B`$ is the perpendicular, uniform magnetic field. Also $`U_0\mathrm{cos}(qx)/(e)`$ is the periodic potential which is taken to be weak ($`U_0ϵ_F`$, where $`ϵ_F`$ is the Fermi energy) and with modulation period $`a=2\pi /q`$. $`V`$ is the disorder potential, which we assume to be $`\delta `$-correlated in space, with the associated scattering time $`\tau `$. We assume that the mean free path $`\mathrm{}=v_F\tau `$ greatly exceeds the modulation period $`a`$.

The plan for the remainder of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II we describe the field theory approach and derive the effective Lagrangian for the system. In Sec. III we show how the field theory provides the scaling of the conductivity tensor under changes of length scale due to the contribution of quantum interference processes, and hence a description of the IQHE in these samples. Section IV concludes with a summary and discussion.

## II Field-Theory Approach

In this section we describe a field-theoretical approach to the description of a disordered conductor in the presence of a periodic potential and a strong magnetic field. The approach is based on a diffusive nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model, which will serve as a tool for the analysis of quantum interference effects in the remainder of this paper. In section II.1 we discuss this model and the relation to previous semiclassicalBeenakker  and quantum mechanicalZ+G  approaches. Technical details of the derivation are presented in section II.2.

### II.1 Description of field theory approach

The field-theory apparatus that we employ is by now well established in the study of spectral and wave-function statistics of disordered conductors. It is based on a functional integral expression of electron Green functions in the presence of disorder, and in the diffusive regime takes the form of a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model in terms of a $`Q`$ matrixWegner ; ELK ; Efe97 . In two dimensions, the field-theory technique provides a convenient means of calculating weak localization corrections to the conductivity, a task that may become very cumbersome by the more conventional technique of diagrammaticsGLK ; Hikami . The field-theory may also provide a resummation of diagrams to all orders by a renormalization-group procedureWegner ; ELK ; Hikami ; Efe97 .

We show below that the effective Lagrangian for the disordered conductor in the presence of a periodic potential and strong magnetic field takes the form

$`[Q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r\mathrm{Str}\left\{\sigma _{xx}^0(_xQ)^2+\sigma _{yy}^0(_yQ)^2\sigma _{xy}^0\tau _3Q[_xQ,_yQ]\right\}},`$ (2)
where $`\sigma _{ij}^0`$ is the classical conductivity tensor of the system, in units of $`e^2/h`$. The 8$`\times `$8 supermatrix field $`Q(𝐫)`$ satisfies the nonlinear constraint $`Q(𝐫)^2=1`$. The supertrace operation is defined in Ref. Efe97 .

In the absence of a strong magnetic field or modulation, a renormalization-group analysis of the first two terms in Eq. (2) leads to the well-known one-parameter scalingWegner ; ELK ; Hikami ; Efe97  of the conductivity with system size due to weak localization.

The final term in Eq. (2) is known as a topological term and appears in the theory of the IQHE proposed by Pruisken and collaboratorsPruisken ; Levine . The influence of the extra term does not appear within perturbation theory, but becomes evident only through a nonperturbative analysis. Such an analysis has been conjecturedLevine ; Khmelnitskii ; Pruis2  in the form of a two-parameter renormalization-group procedure. The two parameters are the longitudinal and Hall conductivities that follow coupled scaling equations with respect to changes of length scale.

While the validity of the two-parameter scaling has been vigorously debated (see, e.g., Refs. Zirnbauer ; Weid+Z ), it has remained a valuable guide to experimentalWei  and numericalHuckestein  data for a number of years. In the following, we take a pragmatic approach by not contesting the validity of the two-parameter scaling and its relation to the proposed field theory. Instead, we assume its validity and explore how it may be generalized to take account of the periodic potential.

The main difference of the Lagrangian (2) from the unmodulated case is the anisotropy in the diffusion coefficients for the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. The Lagrangian, therefore, contains three, rather than two parameters, which scale together under changes of length scale. A simple scale transformation, however, maps the Lagrangian to an isotropic version for which the usual two-parameter scaling may be applied.

This Lagrangian applies in the diffusive limit, that is, to configurations of the $`Q(𝐫)`$ field that vary on scales much longer than the mean free path. This allows the calculation of the contribution of low-momentum relaxational modes to weak localization corrections to the conductivity. Although momentum relaxation is diffusive on large length scales, electron motion on the scale of the periodic potential is ballistic, since the modulation period is much less than the mean free path. To arrive at the above Lagrangian it is therefore necessary to integrate over degrees of freedom corresponding to length much smaller than the mean free path.

One way to do so is to start from a description of ballistic electron motion on length scales much less than the mean free path. Such a description is provided by the ”ballistic $`\sigma `$ model”Muz95 ; Andreev  which, as the name suggests, generalizes the diffusive $`\sigma `$ model to the ballistic regime. Starting from this model we show in Sec. II.2 how the contribution from short length scales may be integrated out. The result is the Lagrangian of a diffusive $`\sigma `$ model that describes the interaction of diffusion modes on scales longer than the mean free path.

When derived in this way, the effective Lagrangian takes the form of Eq. (2), but with the $`\sigma _{ij}^0`$ coefficients replaced by $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{qc}}(h/e^2)`$. Here $`\sigma _{ij}^{qc}`$ correspond precisely to the components of the quasiclassical conductivity tensor as derived from the Boltzmann equation for the modulated system Beenakker . One finds that, in the quasiclassical approach, only the xx component of the quasiclassical resistivity tensor is affected by the modulation, all other components being the same as in the unmodulated case, so that $`\rho _{xx}^{\mathrm{qc}}=\rho _0=(2e^2\nu D)^1`$ and $`\rho _{xy}^{\mathrm{qc}}=\rho _{yx}^{\mathrm{qc}}=\omega _c\tau \rho _0`$ (here $`D=v_F^2\tau /d`$ is the diffusion coefficient in dimension $`d`$). For details of the solution of the Boltzmann equation, we refer the reader to BeenakkerBeenakker . Here we only remark that for moderate magnetic fields, weak enough that the cyclotron radius is much larger than the modulation period ($`R_ca`$), but strong enough that $`\omega _c\tau 1`$, the quasiclassical result simplifies to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{xx}^{\mathrm{qc}}}{\rho _0}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{U_0}{ϵ_F}}\right)^2(\omega _c\tau )^2R_cq\mathrm{cos}^2\left(R_cq{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right),(R_cq1).`$ (3)
Equation. (3) demonstrates the oscillatory dependence of the resistivity known as Weiss oscillations. For strong magnetic fields, such that $`R_ca`$, a very large oscillatory increase in $`\rho _{xx}`$ proportional to $`B^2`$ is predicted and has been observed experimentally in, e.g., Geim et al. Geim .

However, for high magnetic fields ($`\omega _c\tau 1`$), the quasiclassical results are reliable only at sufficiently high temperatures ($`k_BT\mathrm{}/\tau `$), while at lower temperatures the effects of quantization on single-particle properties such as the density of states must be taken into account by a quantum-mechanical approach. These effects are not taken into account in the derivation via the ballistic $`\sigma `$ model, since here the magnetic field is treated only as a weak perturbation. Indeed, once temperatures are low enough for weak localization corrections to be significant ($`k_BT\mathrm{}/\tau `$), then quantization is already well established (as $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega _c`$, since $`\omega _c\tau 1`$). Hence this method of deriving the Lagrangian is unfortunately of no use in describing the effects of quantum interference processes at high magnetic fields.

An improvement on this situation may be found by proceeding instead along a second route to derive the effective Lagrangian, following more closely the original lines of PruiskenPruisken . He showed how to derive a $`\sigma `$ model in the presence of a strong magnetic field, including the effects of quantization. The Lagrangian is applicable at high values of the Landau-level index $`n`$, such that the fluctuations of the density of states may be neglected. We show below in Sec. II.2 how this method may be adapted to describe a disordered conductor in a strong magnetic field and a periodic potential. This route bypasses the intermediate step of a ballistic $`\sigma `$ model, instead computing more directly the final diffusive Lagrangian.

While the resulting Lagrangian takes again the form displayed in Eq. (2), now the $`\sigma _{ij}^0`$ coefficients correspond precisely to $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{qu}}h/e^2`$, where $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{qu}}`$ are the components of the conductivity tensor calculated in the fully quantum-mechanical approach of Ref. Z+G . Since the effects of quantization are included this approach correctly describes certain features that are observed in experiment but are beyond the quasiclassical approach. Some typical results for the resisitivity components ($`\rho _{ij}^{\mathrm{qu}}`$) calculated within the quantum-mechanical approach are shown in Fig. 1.

As well as the appearance of Weiss oscillations in $`\rho _{xx}^{\mathrm{qu}}`$ at moderate magnetic fields (up to $`0.4T`$ in Fig. 1), we see that both $`\rho _{xx}^{\mathrm{qu}}`$ and $`\rho _{yy}^{\mathrm{qu}}`$ show strong, in-phase Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations at higher magnetic fields. These latter oscillations reflect those of the density of states. At weaker fields, for which the Weiss oscillations in $`\rho _{xx}^{\mathrm{qu}}`$ are visible, weaker, out-of-phase oscillations in $`\rho _{yy}^{\mathrm{qu}}`$ also appear. Again, the latter oscillations in $`\rho _{yy}^{\mathrm{qu}}`$ are beyond the quasiclassical approach.

The quasiclassical result (3) for the change in $`\rho _{xx}^{\mathrm{qc}}`$ (for $`\omega _c\tau 1`$ and $`R_cq1`$) may be reproduced by the quantum mechanical approach, as long as the temperature is high enough for the thermal broadening to be greater than the separation of the Landau levels, $`k_BT\mathrm{}\omega _c`$ (see, e.g., Refs.Z+G ; P+V ). As the temperature is lowered, however, the region of applicability of the quasiclassical formula (3) shrinks to progressively lower magnetic fields: The sinusoidal Weiss oscillations start to interfere at low temperatures with the Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations. Indeed, at vanishingly low temperatures, the quasiclassical result becomes unjustified for all magnetic fields.

The Lagrangian (2), supplied with the values of the conductivities determined by the quantum-mechanical approach, may then be used for a reliable description of quantum interference processes at high magnetic fields, and hence the operation of the IQHE.

### II.2 Derivation of the Field Theory

In this section we describe in more detail the derivation of the effective Lagrangian (2). In the field-theory approach, it is necessary to average the functional integral expression for products of Green functions over the disorder configurations. To perform the disorder average, several possible techniques exist, including the use of either supersymmetry or the replica trick. Although we may use either of these two approaches, we choose here the supersymmetry approach, since it is free of certain technical problems regarding nonperturbative calculations that appear for the replica approach. The starting point for both routes is a functional integral representation of the partition function, $`Z`$, in terms of ”superfields” $`\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$:

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D[V]P[V]D[\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}]\mathrm{exp}}(\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }},V),`$ (4)
$``$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle 𝑑r\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(𝐫)(EHi\delta \mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)}.`$ (5)
Here the superfields $`\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ contain eight components, corresponding to fermion/boson, retarded/advanced and time-reversal sectors Efe97 . Also $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$ in advanced-retarded space space, $`\delta `$ is a positive infinitesimal and $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian (1) up to the substitution $`𝐀\tau _3𝐀`$, where $`\tau _3=`$diag$`(1,1)`$ in time-reversal space. The short-range random potential $`V(𝐫)`$ is taken to be Gaussian distributed, according to

$`P[V(𝐫)]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒵}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \nu \tau }{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑rV(𝐫)^2}\right\},`$
where $`𝒵`$ provides the normalization.

Ballistic $`\sigma `$ Model. The first route is to derive a ballistic $`\sigma `$ model from the Lagrangian in Eq. (5). Andreev et alAndreev  have suggested a derivation of the ballistic $`\sigma `$ model by means of an energy averaging procedure, leading to a Lagrangian of the same form as that originally proposed by Muzykantskii and KhmelnitskiiMuz95 . Following the lines of Andreev et al.Andreev , one treats the disorder field $`V`$ as a perturbation in Eq. (5). Performing an energy averaging on the clean Hamiltonian leads to a term in the Lagrangian that is nonlocal and quartic in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ fields. The quartic term is then decoupled by a Hubbard-Stratonovich field, $`Q(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ fields are integrated out.

The resulting Lagrangian is then simplified by subjecting it to a saddle point analysis, and performing a gradient expansion around the saddle point. Note that, since at this stage we are neglecting the effects of quantization on single-particle properties, we do not include the renormalization of this saddle point solution by the magnetic field, instead we treat the magnetic field as a perturbation.

Following a Wigner transform, and after applying a semiclassicalnote:semi  approximation, the $`Q`$ matrix becomes a function of position, $`𝐫`$, and the direction of momentum, $`𝐧`$, where $`𝐧`$ is a unit vector. We do not repeat these steps here but refer to Refs. Andreev ; Muz95  for further details. The resulting Lagrangian (ballistic $`\sigma `$ model) corresponding to the Hamiltonian (1) is

$`[Q_𝐧]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \nu \mathrm{}}{4}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r\mathrm{Str}\left\{\frac{1}{2\tau }\frac{dn}{2\pi }\frac{dn^{}}{2\pi }Q_𝐧(𝐫)Q_𝐧^{}(𝐫)2\frac{dn}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau _3T_𝐧^1^0(𝐧,𝐫)T_𝐧\right\}},`$ (6)
In this equation $`^0`$ is the Louiville operator defined by

$`^0=v(𝐫)𝐧.+\omega _c_\varphi \mathrm{sin}\varphi v^{}(x)_\varphi `$ (7)
where $`\varphi `$ is the polar angle of $`𝐧`$, $`\nu `$ is the density of states per spin direction at the Fermi level, and

$`v(𝐫)=v_F\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{U_0}{E_F}}\mathrm{cos}(qx)\right)^{1/2}`$
is the electron velocity at the Fermi surface. The supermatrix $`Q_𝐧(𝐫)`$ satisfies the nonlinear constraint $`Q_𝐧(𝐫)^2=1`$, as a result of which it may be parametrized by

$`Q_𝐧(𝐫)=T_𝐧(𝐫)\mathrm{\Lambda }T_𝐧^1(𝐫).`$
Due to the presence of the magnetic field, the $`Q_𝐧`$ field satisfies unitary symmetry, that is, $`[Q_𝐧,\tau _3]=0`$. The $`Q_𝐧(𝐫)`$ field also satisfies the further standard symmetries $`\overline{Q}_𝐧=Q_𝐧=KQ_𝐧^{}K`$, where $`\overline{Q}_𝐧CQ_𝐧^TC^T`$. The matrices $`C`$ and $`K`$, as well as supertrace operation, are defined in Ref. Efe97 .

The Lagrangian (6) is in its current form too complicated for our purposes: it describes fluctuations of $`Q_𝐧(𝐫)`$ on length scales smaller than the mean free path (and longer than the Fermi wavelength) and for any dependence on $`𝐧`$. At the same time, electron motion on length scales much longer than the mean free path is diffusive. The strategy therefore is to integrate out the modes corresponding to fluctuations on length scales smaller than the mean free path, to produce a Lagrangian that describes the interaction of diffusion modes on larger length scales.

To perform the integration, we isolate the the fluctuations of lowest mass (termed massless), corresponding to matrices $`Q_𝐧(𝐫)`$ that are independent of $`𝐧`$ and vary more slowly than the mean free path, $`\mathrm{}`$. We then integrate out all other fluctuations that preserve $`Q_𝐧^2=1`$. A similar procedure has been carried out by Wölfle and BhattWoe84  to derive the diffusive Lagrangian for a disordered conductor with anisotropic masses in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions (see also Refs.Aronov ; TE  for further examples).

To perform integration over the weakly massive modes, we write

$`Q_𝐧=U(𝐫)Q_𝐧^0(𝐫)\overline{U}(𝐫).`$
Here the $`U(𝐫)`$ matrix, obeying the symmetries $`\overline{U}U=1`$ and $`\overline{U}=KU^{}K`$, represents the massless fluctuations, while $`Q_𝐧^0(𝐫)`$ contains the weakly massive fluctuations. The matrix $`Q_𝐧(𝐫)`$ may, in turn, be parametrized by its generator $`P_𝐧(𝐫)`$, for example, byEfe97

$`Q_𝐧^0=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+iP_𝐧}{1iP_𝐧}}\right).`$
Here $`P_𝐧`$ is off-diagonal in retarded-advanced space and satisfies the symmetry $`P_𝐧=\overline{P}_𝐧`$. Since the fluctuations represented by the $`Q_𝐧`$ matrix are weakly massive, it is sufficient to treat them within a Gaussian approximation: $`Q_𝐧=\mathrm{\Lambda }(1+2iP_n2P_n^2\mathrm{})`$. Inserting into the Lagrangian (6), we find

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \nu \mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle }dr\mathrm{Str}\{{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau _3P_𝐧^0(𝐫,𝐧)P_𝐧+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{dn^{}}{2\pi }}(P_𝐧^2P_𝐧P_𝐧^{})`$
$`2i{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Lambda }\tau _3P_𝐧v(𝐫)𝐧𝚽^{}\}`$
where $`𝚽\overline{U}U`$, $`𝚽^{}=1/2[𝚽,\mathrm{\Lambda }]\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The next step is to integrate over matrices $`P_𝐧`$. This amounts to a set of Gaussian integrals with a linear term in $`P_𝐧`$, and hence may be performed by means of a shift of $`P_𝐧`$.

The resulting Lagrangian has the form

$`[Q]={\displaystyle \frac{h}{16e^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r\mathrm{Str}\left\{\sigma _{xx}^{\mathrm{qc}}(_xQ)^2+\sigma _{yy}^{\mathrm{qc}}(_yQ)^2\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{qc}}\tau _3Q[_xQ,_yQ]\right\}},`$ (8)
It is written in terms of a matrix $`Q(𝐫)U(𝐫)\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{U}(𝐫)`$ that depends only on position and varies on length scales much longer than the mean free path (and hence the modulation period, $`a`$). The $`Q(𝐫)`$ field also satisfies the nonlinear constraint $`Q(𝐫)^2=1`$, as well as the symmetries $`Q=\overline{Q}=KQ^{}K`$. We see that the Lagrangian takes the usual form of a diffusive $`\sigma `$ model with a topological termPruisken , the only non-standard feature being the anisotropy of $`\sigma _{xx}^{\mathrm{qc}}\sigma _{yy}^{\mathrm{qc}}`$.

The coefficients $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{qc}}`$ are defined by

$`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{qc}}=2e^2\nu {\displaystyle 𝑑r^{}\frac{dn}{2\pi }\frac{dn^{}}{2\pi }v(𝐫)v(𝐫^{})n_in_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧,𝐧^{},𝐫,𝐫^{})},`$ (9)
where the averaging in Eq. (9) is over one period of the modulation $`a`$ (this averaging arises naturally in the Lagrangian (2) since the $`𝚽`$ matrix varies slowly on this scale). Also, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧,𝐧^{},𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is defined by the Boltzmann-like equation

$`\left(^0(𝐫,𝐧)\widehat{C}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐫,𝐫^{},𝐧,𝐧^{})\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})\delta (𝐧𝐧^{}).`$ (10)
Here, the collision operator is given as

$`\widehat{C}\{F(\varphi )\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}\left(F(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi ^{}}{2\pi }F(\varphi ^{})}\right).`$
As we will show now the $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{qc}}`$ coefficients in the Lagrangian (8) are the components of the quasiclassical conductivity tensor as derived by Beenakker Beenakker . In his approach, the Boltzmann equation is expressed Beenakker  (see also Refs.M+Wolf ; Menne ; Streda ; Beton ) in terms of the distribution function F(r,n)

$`\left(^0\widehat{C}\right)F(𝐫,𝐧)=ev(𝐫)𝐄𝐧,`$ (11)
and the current $`𝐉(𝐫)`$ is given by

$`J^i(𝐫)=2e\nu F(𝐫,𝐧)v(𝐫)n^i,`$ (12)
where the averaging is over both the velocity direction $`𝐧`$ and one period of the modulation, $`a`$. The relation $`J^i=\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{qc}}E_j`$ defines the quasiclassical conductivity tensor $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{qc}}`$, whose inversion gives the quasiclassical resistivity tensor $`\rho _{ij}^{\mathrm{qc}}`$.

Comparing Eqs. (10) and (11), we see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐧,𝐧^{},𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is related to the distribution function $`F(𝐫,𝐧)`$ by

$`F(𝐫,𝐧)=e{\displaystyle 𝑑r^{}\frac{dn^{}}{2\pi }v(𝐫^{})𝐄𝐧^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐫,𝐫^{},𝐧,𝐧^{})}.`$
Comparing also Eqs. (9) and (12), we see that the $`\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{qc}}`$ coefficients in the Lagrangian (8) calculated by this method coincide precisely with the components of the quasiclassical conductivity as derivedBeenakker  from the Boltzmann equation (11). In this way we see that we have rederived the quasiclassical results within the field-theory formalism.

As discussed above, the inadequacy of the Lagrangian (8) is that it neglects the renormalization of the single-particle properties by the strong magnetic field. At high magnetic fields ($`\omega _c\tau 1`$), once the temperature is low enough for the weak localization corrections to be significant ($`k_BT\mathrm{}/\tau `$), the quasiclassical results for the conductivityBeenakker  have already become unreliable due to their neglect of quantization. In order to include these effects, and hence account for weak localization effects reliably, we need to follow a different route to derive the Lagrangian. Such a route for unmodulated systems has been provided by PruiskenPruisken , whose method may be adapted (as we show here) to include a periodic potential. This method includes the renormalization of the saddle point equation for the $`Q`$ matrix by the strong magnetic field. It does not require a derivation of a ballistic $`\sigma `$-model as an intermediate step, but provides more directly the final form of the Lagrangian. While the first route contains certain parallels with the quasiclassical approach Beenakker , the second route contains closer parallels with the quantum-mechanical approachZ+G .

Generalization of Pruisken derivation. We now present the second route to the derivation of the effective Lagrangian (2), starting again from form (5) for the Lagrangian. The approach now is to average over the short-range disorder. This produces a term in the Lagrangian that is quartic in the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ fields. The quartic term may then be decoupled by a (now local) Hubbard-Stratonovich field $`Q(𝐫)`$. After integrating out the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ fields, one finds

$`[Q]={\displaystyle 𝑑r\left\{\frac{\mathrm{}\pi \nu }{8\tau }\mathrm{Str}Q^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Str}\mathrm{ln}\left[i\left(\pi _\mu \pi ^\mu E+U_0\mathrm{cos}(qx)\right)+\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{\mathrm{}Q}{2\tau }\right]\right\}}`$ (13)
where $`\pi _\mu i\mathrm{}_\mu e\tau _3A_\mu /c`$. Here Q satisfies the symmetry $`Q=\overline{Q}`$.

The Lagrangian (13), in principle, provides an exact description of the system, although in its current form it is too general to be useful. Instead, one proceeds by finding the saddle point value of $`Q`$ that minimizes the Lagrangian, and by performing a gradient expansion about this minimum. The saddle point equation may be written as

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi \nu }}<𝐫|\left(\pi _\mu \pi ^\mu +U_0\mathrm{cos}(qx)E+i\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}Q}{2\tau }}\right)^1|𝐫>.`$ (14)
In order to find the matrix inverse of the operator in Eq. (14), we make use of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the operator $`H_0=\pi _\mu \pi ^\mu +U_0\mathrm{cos}(qx)`$. Using the Landau gauge $`𝐀=(0,Bx,0)`$, one may write the eigenfunctions of $`H_0`$ in the form $`\psi _{k,n}(x,y)=L_y^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(i\tau _3ky)\varphi _{n,x_0}(x)`$, where $`L_y`$ is a normalization length. The center coordinate $`x_0=l_B^2k`$ remains a good quantum number despite modulation, where $`l_B=(\mathrm{}c/eB)^{1/2}`$ is the magnetic length. The $`\varphi _{n,x_0}(x)`$ are eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian

$`H_{x0}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\omega _c^2(xx_0)^2+U_0\mathrm{cos}(qx).`$ (15)
In the absence of modulation ($`U_0=0`$), Eq. (15) represents the Hamiltonian of a harmonic oscillator. We proceed by a first-order perturbative expansion modulation $`U_0`$. This turns out to be a very good approximation for typical parameters that we consider, such as a weak periodic potential. It is very difficult to improve on this approximation analytically, although exact numerical diagonalizations have been performed for the density of statesGWK ; Z+G . Within the perturbative expansion, the eigenvalues $`ϵ_n(x_0)=ϵ_n(x_0+a)`$ of the Hamiltonian (15) are given by

$`ϵ_n(x_0)E_n(x_0)E_n+u_n\mathrm{cos}(qx_0),`$ (16)
where $`E_n=\mathrm{}\omega _c(n+1/2)`$ are the unperturbed Landau energies, and $`u_n=U_0\mathrm{exp}\left(1/2X\right)L_n(X)`$, where $`X=q^2l_B^2/2`$ and $`L_n`$ are the Laguerre polynomialsAbr72 .

We see that the modulation lifts the degeneracy of the Landau levels and discrete levels are broadened into bands, whose width depends on the band index $`n`$ in an oscillatory manner (due to the behavior of the Laguerre polynomials at large $`n`$). It is this oscillatory dependence that leads to the Weiss oscillations in the resistivity. The validity of the perturbation theory depends only on the smallness of the $`u_n`$ parameter, which is assured for large values of the Landau-level index $`n`$. We refer the reader to, e.g., Refs.GWK ; Winkler ; Z+G ; P+V  for further details of this perturbative expansion.

We also make the assumption that in this basis, the saddle point value of $`Q`$ is independent of the Landau indices and $`x_0`$: this approximation is analogous to the C-number approximation (CNA) introduced by Zhang and Gerhardts Z+G  for the self-energy matrix in the presence of modulation, and is valid as long as the magnetic field is not too high. In order to go beyond the CNA, one would need to generalize the saddle point $`Q`$ to include a matrix structure in the space of Landau indices and a dependence on $`x_0`$: such a task is of interest for future work but beyond the scope of this paper.

The saddle point equation (14) may now be written

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}Q}{2\tau }}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle _0^a}𝑑x_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{EE_n(x_0)i\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{i\mathrm{}Q}{2\tau }}},`$ (17)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is the width of the Landau level in the absence of modulation and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{}\omega _c{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau }}.`$ (18)
The saddle point equation (17) coincides with the self-energy equation derived in the self-consistent Born approximation (SCBA) by Zhang and GerhardtsZ+G , under the replacement $`i\mathrm{}Q^{1,2}/(2\tau )\mathrm{\Sigma }^{R,A}`$, where indices refer to advanced/retarded space and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denotes the self-energy. The solution for $`Q`$ is then of the form $`iQ=e_0+i\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho _0`$, where $`\rho _0`$ is proportional to the density of states. In the absence of modulation, the density of states reduces to that determined by Ando and co-workersAndo  within the SCBA (as shown by PruiskenPruisken ).

Having identified the saddle point value $`Q`$, we proceed by performing a gradient expansion of the Lagrangian (13) around the saddle point. We follow very closely the calculation of PruiskenPruisken , although we use the supersymmetric rather than the replica formulation. We use the representation

$`Q(𝐫)=T(𝐫)P(𝐫)T^1(𝐫),`$
where the $`P`$ fields are diagonal in retarded/advanced space and represent the massive modes. The procedure is to integrate over $`P`$ and $`T`$ separately. To do so, we split the fields of integration,

$`{\displaystyle DQ}={\displaystyle DPDT\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{Str}\mathrm{ln}[I[P]])},`$
in the process acquiring the associated Jacobian $`I[P]`$ (as discussed in Ref .Pruisken ). $``$ becomes

$`[P,T]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dr\{\mathrm{Str}\mathrm{ln}[I[P]]+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\pi \nu }{8\tau }}\mathrm{Str}P^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Str}\mathrm{ln}\left[i(ET^1\pi _\mu \pi ^\mu TU_0\mathrm{cos}(qx){\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}P}{2\tau }})\right]\}.`$
To integrate over the $`P`$ modes, wsplit $``$ into two parts:

$`_0[P]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑r\left\{\mathrm{Str}\mathrm{ln}[I[P]]+\frac{\mathrm{}\pi \nu }{8\tau }\mathrm{Str}P^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Str}\mathrm{ln}\left[E\pi _\mu \pi ^\mu U_0\mathrm{cos}(qx)\frac{i\mathrm{}P}{2\tau }\right]\right\}},`$
$`\delta [P,T]`$ $`=`$ $`[P,T]_0[P].`$
Integration over the $`P`$ fields then proceeds by cumulant-expanding $`\delta [P,T]`$ with respect to $`_0[P]`$. In turn, $`\delta [P,T]`$ is computed by a gradient expansion of the Str ln term up to second order in the combination $`D_\mu T^1_\mu T`$. The propagators for the latter expansion are of the form

$`g(𝐫,𝐫^{})=<𝐫|\left(E\pi _\mu \pi ^\pi U_0\mathrm{cos}(qx){\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}P}{2\tau }}(𝐫)\right)^1|𝐫^{}>,`$
weighted with respect to $`_0[P]`$. A typical second-order term is

$`_{\mathrm{typ}}={\displaystyle 𝑑r𝑑r^{}\mathrm{Str}[D_\mu (𝐫)][D_\nu (𝐫^{})]g(𝐫^{},𝐫)\pi ^\mu g(𝐫,𝐫^{})\pi ^\nu },`$
where the averaging is over $`P`$ with respect to $`_0`$. At this point, we now exploit the assumption that the $`T(𝐫)`$ matrices vary in space more slowly than the modulation. Thus the averages of the products of the Green functions are short ranged with respect to the $`T`$ matrices, and are translationally invariant after averaging over one cycle of the modulation. This allows us to perform a gradient expansion in the propagator averages:

$`g(𝐫^{},𝐫)\pi ^\mu g(𝐫,𝐫^{})\pi ^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`K(𝐫𝐫^{})`$
$`=`$ $`K^{(0)}\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})+K^{(2)}\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})_\mu _\nu +\mathrm{},`$
here the averaging includes that over a cycle of the modulation. A series of Ward identities may now be used as in Ref. Pruisken  to simplify the resulting expressions up to second order in $`D_\mu `$. The final Lagrangian is then of the form displayed in Eq. (2), where $`Q=T\mathrm{\Lambda }T^1`$.

Again, we have the standard form of a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model with a topological term, although with the anisotropy $`\sigma _{xx}^0\sigma _{yy}^0`$. Again, $`Q`$ satisfies $`Q^2=1`$ and the symmetries $`Q=\overline{Q}=KQ^{}K`$. Also the bare coefficients, $`\sigma _{ij}^0`$, are the components of the conductivity tensor at zero temperature in units of $`e^2/h`$, according to the formulas

$`\sigma _{xx,yy}^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r^{}\pi _{x,y}(g^1(𝐫,𝐫^{})g^2(𝐫,𝐫^{}))\pi _{x,y}(g^1(𝐫^{},𝐫)g^2(𝐫^{},𝐫))},`$
$`\sigma _{xy}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{xy}^{0,I}+\sigma _{xy}^{0,II},`$
$`\sigma _{xy}^{0,II}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}c}{e}}\{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^E}dE^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{B^1}}g^1(𝐫,𝐫){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^E}dE^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{B^2}}g^2(𝐫,𝐫))\},`$
$`\sigma _{xy}^{0,I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{m}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r^{}\left\{\pi _xg^1(𝐫,𝐫^{})\pi _yg^2(𝐫^{},𝐫)\pi _yg^1(𝐫,𝐫^{})\pi _xg^2(𝐫^{},𝐫)\right\}},`$ (19)
here the averaging is over $`P`$ as well as over one cycle of the modulation with respect to $`𝐫`$. The propagator averages may now be evaluated by their saddle point values with respect to $`P`$.

The bare coefficients $`\sigma _{ij}^0`$ are the components of the conductivity tensor, in units of $`e^2/h`$, calculated in the SCBA at zero temperature. In the absence of modulation, the expressions (19) for the bare conductivity then reduce to those computed in the SCBA by Ando and co-workers Ando . In the presence of modulation, they reduce to the conductivity tensor computed in the SCBA by Zhang and Gerhardts Z+G : $`\sigma _{ij}^0=\sigma _{ij}^{\mathrm{qu}}`$ (the equivalence of may be seen by following the working of StredaStreda2 ). Therefore, in contrast to those derived via the ballistic $`\sigma `$ model, the bare conductivities in the Lagrangian (2) represent the values calculated by a fully quantum-mechanical approach.

## III Weak localization and Quantum Hall effect

Having derived the final form of the Lagrangian (2), we are now in a position to use it to calculate weak localization corrections to the conductivity tensor. The effect of the corrections may be expressed as a scaling of the conductivity tensor under changes of length scale. A perturbative treatment of the Lagrangian (2) is valid in the limit of large longitudinal conductivity ($`\sigma _{xx}^01`$). Within perturbation theory, however, the Hall conductivity is not renormalized by weak localization corrections. Instead, the effect of the topological term in the Lagrangian may only be made apparent through a nonperturbative analysis. Such an analysis has been conjecturedLevine ; Khmelnitskii ; Pruis2  in the form of a two-parameter renormalization-group procedure. The two parameters are the longitudinal and Hall conductivities which follow coupled scaling equations with respect to changes of length scale. The derivation of the scaling equations presented in Refs. Levine ; Pruis2  is based on approximating configurations of the field-theory parameter as a gas of instantons. While the validity of this derivation is being vigorously debated (see, e.g., Refs. Zirnbauer ; Weid+Z ), it has remained a valuable guide to experimentalWei  and numericalHuckestein  data for a number of years. In the following, we take a pragmatic approach by not contesting the validity of the two-parameter scaling and its relation to the proposed field theory. Instead, we assume its validity and explore how it may be generalized to take account of the periodic potential.

### III.1 Weak localization

First we subject the Lagrangian to a perturbative RG analysis. The perturbation theory is valid in the limit of $`\sigma _{xx}^01`$. The topological term in the Lagrangian does not contribute at any perturbative order and hence $`\sigma _{xy}`$ is unrenormalized. For an unmodulated system, $`\sigma _{xx}=\sigma _{yy}`$ and the perturbative RG procedure has been explained in detail, e.g., in Ref. Efe97 .

In the presence of modulation, the $`\sigma `$ model is slightly nonstandard due to the anisotropy of the longitudinal conductivities, $`\sigma _{xx}\sigma _{yy}`$. However, quantum interference processes in a diffusive, anisotropic conductor have been considered before, for example by Wölfle and BhattWoe84 , where the origin of the anisotropy was envisaged as due to a difference in effective electron masses in the two directions. In the latter paper, a diffusive $`\sigma `$ model was derived with the same form as Eq. (2), although without the topological term.

When $`\sigma _{xx}\sigma _{yy}`$, the two parameters, $`\sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}`$, follow coupled flow equations under changes of length scale. While it is straightforward to derive and solve the two flow equations, it is also instructive to follow a different strategy whereby we perform a scale transformation after which the Lagrangian (2) maps to an isotropic form: we scale

$`x^{}=x(\sigma _{yy}^0/\sigma _{xx}^0)^{1/4},y^{}=y(\sigma _{xx}^0/\sigma _{yy}^0)^{1/4},`$ (20)
under which the Lagrangian (2) transforms to an isotropic $`\sigma `$ model:

$`[Q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle 𝑑r^{}\mathrm{Str}\left\{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^0(Q)^2\sigma _{xy}^0\tau _3Q[_x^{}Q,_y^{}Q]\right\}},`$ (21)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^0\sqrt{\sigma _{xx}^0\sigma _{yy}^0}`$. The perturbative scaling for $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ may now be derived in the standard wayEfe97 : the flow equation is (to leading order)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}{d\mathrm{log}L}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}}.`$
By integrating the flow equation from microscopic to macroscopic length scales (of the order of the system size $`L`$), we find the conductivity

$`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(L)=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^0\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^0)^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (22)
Using the fact that the ratios $`\sigma _{xx,yy}/\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ are invariant under the scaling, we may recover $`\sigma _{xx,yy}(L)`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(L)`$ as follows:

$`\sigma _{xx}(L)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(L)\sqrt{\sigma _{xx}^0/\sigma _{yy}^0},`$
$`\sigma _{yy}(L)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(L)\sqrt{\sigma _{yy}^0/\sigma _{xx}^0}.`$ (23)
We remark that the perturbative scaling derived from a field theory as above in the presence of anistropy in the conductivities in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions (due to an anisotropy in the electron mass) has been confirmed by direct diagrammatics (in the orthogonal ensemble) by Wölfle and BhattWoe84 .

Equation (22) shows how weak localization corrections affect the longitudinal conductivity within perturbation theory. We can see how the conventional scaling applies to $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ in the presence of the periodic potential. By inputting the SCBA values for $`\sigma _{xx}^0`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}^0`$ weak localization corrections are obtained, according to Eq. (22) they depend on both bare values $`\sigma _{xx}^0`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}^0`$. Corrections to $`\sigma _{xx}`$, for example, are influenced by the strong oscillatory behavior of $`\sigma _{yy}^0`$. Upon inverting the conductivity tensor to find the resistivity tensor, the weak localization corrections will therefore give rise to additional oscillatory corrections to the resistivity tensor as a function of the magnetic field. As mentioned earlier, strong Weiss oscillations in $`\rho _{xx}`$ are accompanied by weak out-of-phase oscillations in $`\rho _{yy}`$ as long as quantum interference effects may be neglected. It is interesting to notice that weak localization corrections to $`\rho _{yy}`$ oscillate in phase with the (dominant) oscillations in $`\rho _{xx}`$.

In practiceWei , rather than changing the system size $`L`$, one varies the temperature to change the effective system size, which is given by the diffusion length, $`(\mathrm{}D/(k_BT))^{1/2}`$. The perturbative result (22) is only valid when the corrections are much smaller than the bare conductivities, and hence may be difficult to verify experimentally. A potentially more promising strategy is to illustrate the effect of weak localization corrections when their contribution is relatively large such as is the case for the IQHE.

### III.2 Quantum Hall Effect

We now generalize from the perturbative analysis to discuss the nonperturbative scaling that would follow from the Lagrangian (2). Again, we are able to make the scale transformation (20) as above, which maps the Lagrangian to the isotropic version, Eq. (21). The coupled flow of the two coupling constants, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}`$, may written in a general form,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}{d\mathrm{log}L}}=\stackrel{~}{\beta }(\stackrel{~}{\sigma },\sigma _{xy}){\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{xy}}{d\mathrm{log}L}}=\beta _{xy}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma },\sigma _{xy}).`$ (24)
The above beta functions, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and $`\beta _{xy}`$, would take precisely the same form as the beta-functions that describe the flow of $`\sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}`$ in the equivalent, unmodulated system.

The starting point of the flow is determined by the bare conductivity tensor $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{ij}`$. In general, the coupled flow equations (24) for $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}`$ need to be integrated up to length scales of the system size. The values of $`\sigma _{xx}(L)`$ and $`\sigma _{yy}(L)`$ may then be recovered from $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(L)`$ by Eqs. (23). As a consequence of Eq. (23), we see that the ratio $`\sigma _{xx}(L)/\sigma _{yy}(L)`$ remains constant under the scaling. This conclusion is furthermore independent of the form of the beta-functions, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and $`\beta _{xy}`$, in Eq. (24).

In the absence of modulation, the SCBA valuesAndo  of the bare conductivities correspond to an approximate semicircular dependence of $`\sigma _{xx}^0`$ on $`\sigma _{xy}^0`$. In the presence of modulation, the dependance of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^0`$ on $`\sigma _{xy}^0`$ is modified from the semicircle in a complicated way; a typical dependence, calculated using the scheme proposed in Ref. Z+G , is shown in Fig. 2.

The corresponding dependency of the bare conductivity tensor on magnetic field for the same parameters is part of Fig. 3 below (thick curves). We remark that for the peaks centered around $`B`$=1.5 T one may already expect vertex corrections to become effective, although they are not included in the CNA approach that we have employed. Such corrections have the general tendencyManolescu ; Gross  to enhance $`\sigma _{yy}^0`$ in comparison to $`\sigma _{xx}^0`$.

In order to provide an illustration of the IQHE in the modulated sample, it is necessary to assume a particular form of the scaling equations (24). The following scaling equationsLevine ; Pruis2 ; P+Girvin ; Huckestein  were derived (originally in the replica formulation) within a dilute gas approximation of the instantonic configurations of the $`Q`$ matrix from the Lagrangian (2):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}{d\mathrm{log}L}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^3D_c\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \sigma _{xy})\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \stackrel{~}{\sigma }),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{xy}}{d\mathrm{log}L}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^3D_c\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \sigma _{xy})\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \stackrel{~}{\sigma }).`$ (25)
The dimensionless constant $`D_c`$ is of order unity and is related to the density of instantons. It may be seen immediately from the form of Eq. (25), that along the lines $`\sigma _{xy}=(n+1/2)`$, where $`n`$ is an integer, the Hall conductance is unrenormalized. It may also been seen that the points $`(\sigma _{xy},\stackrel{~}{\sigma })=(n,0)`$, for integer $`n`$, are (attractive) fixed points. Upon scaling the system from microscopic to macroscopic length scales, the coordinates $`(\sigma _{xy},\stackrel{~}{\sigma })`$ scale from the bare nonuniversal values towards the quantized values $`(n,0)`$, for integer $`n`$. This tendency reflects the quantization of the Hall conductivity under scaling at low temperatures.

As mentioned before, the validity of the approximations underlying Eq. (25) has long been the subject of debateWeid+Z ; Zirnbauer . Keeping this in mind we use these equations to provide an illustration of the operation of the IQHE in the modulated system in Figs. 3 and 4.

Fig. 3 shows the evolution of the conductivity for the modulated system under the two-parameter scaling. We see how the Hall conductivity becomes quantized under scaling in the modulated system. Between the plateaus in the Hall conductivity, the longitudinal conductivities develop peaks under scaling of differing heights, due to the anisotropy in the system. Fig. 4 shows in more detail how these peaks in the longitudinal conductivities develop, while the ratio between the two conductivities remains constant under scaling.

We remark that the behavior described above should be within current experimental capabilities: for example, Geim et al.Geim  have studied the high magnetic field ($`R_ca`$) regime, although they kept the temperature high to avoid the effect of quantum interference processes. Bagwell et al.Bagwell  have also studied the IQHE in modulated samples; in their work however they have not focused on the regime of a weak periodic potential or effects that are independent of the device boundaries.

## IV Summary and Discussion

In this paper we have considered transport properties of a disordered conductor in a periodic potential and strong magnetic field. We focused on the contribution of quantum interference processes, whose influence at high fields is missing from previous approaches despite being responsible for a whole class of phenomena. For example, they lead to weak localization corrections to the conductivity and the operation of the IQHE at high magnetic fields. To this end, we introduced a field-theory approach, which is well established in the study of unmodulated disordered conductors.

The effective Lagrangian of the field theory takes the form of a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model, which describes the interaction of diffusion modes on large length scales. The presence of the strong magnetic field leads to an extra, topological term in the Lagrangian. The form of the Lagrangian is the same as for unmodulated systems, except for an anisotropy in the coefficients corresponding to the bare longitudinal conductivities in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions.

We provided two different routes to deriving the Lagrangian. The first route was via a so-called ”ballistic” $`\sigma `$ model, and demonstrated how the results of the quasiclassical approachBeenakker  may be recovered within the field-theory formalism. The drawback of this route, in common with the quasiclassical approximation, is that it neglects the renormalization of single-particle properies by Landau quantization. Consequently the resulting Lagrangian was too approximate to be useful in determining weak localization properties at low temperatures. The second route improved on this situation by including the effects of Landau quantization. It bypasses a derivation of a ballistic $`\sigma `$ model and instead follows more closely the original derivation of PruiskenPruisken  for unmodulated systems. Indeed, while the first route contained more parallels with the quasiclassical approach, the second route contained more parallels with the quantum-mechanical approachZ+G  for the bare conductivity tensor.

Having derived the effective Lagrangian, we showed how it leads to the scaling of the conductivity tensor under changes of length scale (and hence temperature). A perturbative renormalization-group analysis of the free energy leads to a generalization, to modulated systems, of one-parameter scaling for the longitudinal conductivities. Perturbatively, the Hall conductivity is unrenormalized. In the regime of Weiss oscillationsWeiss , weak localization corrections give rise to an additional oscillatory dependence of the longitudinal conductivities as a function of the magnetic field. Due to their smallness, these corrections may, however, be hard to detect experimentally.

In order to describe the IQHE, whereby the Hall conductivity becomes quantized at low temperatures, a nonperturbative analysis of the Lagrangian is necessary. This is provided by the conjecture of the two-parameter scaling for unmodulated systems. Assuming the validity of this conjecture and the underlying instanton gas approximation, we have shown how the two-parameter scaling may be generalized to the case of the modulated system. This has allowed us to illustrate the evolution of the resistivity tensor under the IQHE for parameters that are realistic for experiments. We find, for example, that the ratio of the two longitudinal components of the conductivity remains constant under scaling (an observation that does not itself depend on the assumptions used to derive the flow equations). While the Hall conductivity still becomes quantized under scaling in the modulated system, between the plateaus the longitudinal conductivities develop peaks of differing heights due to the anisotropy in the system.

There are several directions in which our analysis may be generalized. A simple generalization is to consider a periodic magnetic field, rather than potential, a situation which leads to a similar phenomenologyXue ; Menne ; Gerhardts . The derivation of the field theory for this case follows very similar lines to the case of a periodic potential, with similar results.

Another direction in which the analysis may be extended straightforwardly is to the study of the low magnetic field regime, in which a positive magnetoresistance has been observedWeiss ; Beton  and explained within a quasiclassical approachBeton ; Streda ; Menne . As long as $`\omega _c\tau 1`$, one may derive the field theory for this regime according to the first route of Sec. II, neglecting quantization; the coefficients of the field theory then coincide with the components of the conductivity tensor derived within the Boltzmann approach. The weak localization to the conductivity (or related quantities such as the dephasing timeWang ) may then be calculated using the Lagrangian for either the orthogonal or the unitary ensemble, or in the crossover between the pure symmetry classes.

A less straightforward generalization is to improve on the CNA approximation of the quantum-mechanical approach and its analog in the field-theory formalism. According to this approximation, the self-energy matrix (and the saddle point solution of the $`Q`$ matrix) are assumed to have a trivial structure in the space of Landau indices and coordinate $`x_0`$. While this simplifies the analysis considerably, we have seen already how this approximation breaks down for very high magnetic fields, such that the cyclotron radius is much less than the period of modulation, $`R_ca`$. Improvement on the CNA is necessary, not only for such high fields, but also to study models of disorder with long-range correlations, for which vertex corrections are not negligible. Such models have been analyzed in the quasiclassical approachM+Wolf  and shown to represent experimental data more closely in certain respects.

Very recently it has been shown how to improve on the CNAManolescu ; Gross  within the quantum-mechanical approach, so as to analyze models at high magnetic fields or with long-range disorder correlations. In the field theory formalism, improvement on the CNA approximation would require enlarging the space of the $`Q`$ matrix even further to include the additional matrix structure in the space of Landau indices, as well as a dependence on $`x_0`$. Inclusion of such a structure within the $`Q`$ field is to our knowledge a novel direction to pursue, although this task is left as a future project.

A further area to explore is the case of a strong periodic potential, for which the first-order perturbative expansion in the potential that we use is no longer valid. While an analytical approach would be very difficult, a numerical treatment would be better suited to this regime. For a strong enough potential that $`U_0`$ is of the order of $`\omega _c`$, the smearing of the Landau levels is so great that they can no longer be individually resolved even at low temperatures. This leads to a quenching of the Shubnikov–de Haas oscillations (as noted by Beton et al.Beton ) and hence one would expect the quantum Hall effect to be destroyed.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank B. Huckestein and M. Langenbuch for helpful discussions during the course of this work. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Trinity College, Cambridge (D. T.-S.), the Graduiertenkolleg 384 (G.S.), the Schwerpunktprogramm “Quanten Hall Systeme” and the Sonderforschungsbereich 491.