text:
# Light-cone SU(2) Yang-Mills theory and conformal mechanics

## 1 Introduction

Nowadays the correspondence between gauge theories in various dimensions and integrable systems has become a subject of intensive study. After the pioneering work by Seiberg and Witten , demonstrating that $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions is exactly solvable in the low-energy limit, considerable progress in the understanding of these relations has been marked. In scope of the correspondence to the underlying integrable systems several properties of the Seiberg-Witten theory have been investigated using the approach proposed in . In particular, it was shown that the low-energy effective action can be described in terms of different one-dimensional integrable many-body systems ranging from the classical Toda-chain model in the case of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory without matter, to elliptic Calogero-Moser model when adjoint matter is added and to classical spin XXX chain for theory with fundamental matter included (for comprehensive reviews of these studies see e.g. ).

At the same time similar relationships have been observed also for non-supersymmetric gauge theories. It was recognized that the XXX Heisenberg spin chains are related to other physically interesting limits in QCD. Namely, an equivalence was found between the Hamiltonian describing the Regge asymptotic behavior of hadron-hadron scattering amplitudes in QCD and the Hamiltonian of the $`SL(2,)`$ XXX Heisenberg magnet . Furthermore it turns out that the logarithmic evolution of the composite operators in QCD on the light-cone is similar to the dynamics of $`SL(2,)`$ XXX Heisenberg spin chain . Based on this hidden integrability of the effective theories of QCD a kind of stringy/brane picture was developed recently .

There is also a physically very important regime when finite-dimensional system arises in the context of gauge field theory. The long-wavelength approximation in the dynamics of gauge fields effectively leads to the so-called dimensional $`(1+0)`$ reduction of the field theory and at first has been intensively studied for the non-supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, both from physical as well as from a purely mathematical point of view (see e.g - and references therein). In the middle of 1980’s analogous supersymmetric mechanical models with more than four supersymmetries were constructed from the corresponding super Yang-Mills theory . In particular, in  the maximally supersymmetric $`N=16`$ gauge mechanics was considered. The recent renewed interest in the supersymmetric version of Yang-Mills mechanics is motivated by the observation that the Hamiltonian of $`D=1`$ $`SU(n)`$ super Yang-Mills theory in the large $`n`$ limit describes the dynamics of $`D=11`$ supermembrane  (for a review, see, e.g.,  and references therein) and claims to the role of M-theory Hamiltonian . This conjecture and the fact that the low-energy limit of the M-theory is described by eleven-dimensional supergravity pose the important question of existence of zero-energy normalizable eigenfunctions. Using a complete set of gauge invariant variables and generalization of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation the simplest case of $`SU(2)`$ matrix theory has been investigated and an asymptotic form of the ground state was proposed  111 The case of the $`SU(n)`$ group with arbitrary $`n2`$ was considered in .. Even the simplest of these dimensionally reduced models are still rather complicated and possesses non-trivial dynamics. It was found  that the classical non-supersymmetric $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills mechanics exhibits chaotic behavior when the dynamics takes place on a special invariant submanifold. It was proved that on this submanifold there is no analytical integral of motion except the energy integral, and thus the Yang-Mills mechanics represents a non-integrable system . A similar investigation of the classical dynamics of bosonic membrane matrix model yielded again chaotic behavior. However, recently, in  the supersymmetric $`SU(2)\times SO(2)`$ matrix model was investigated in detail and it was demonstrated that there exists a chaos-order transition depending on the value of the angular momentum.

In the present paper we shall continue the study of models obtained from the $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills field theory under the supposition of fields homogeneity. We consider the model of light-cone $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills classical mechanics and address the problem of its complete Hamiltonian reduction and integrability. Analogously to the instant form of Yang-Mills mechanics, the light-cone version follows from the light-cone Yang-Mills field theory when the gauge fields depend on the light-cone time only. Both dynamical systems, obtained under such suppositions, contain a finite number of degrees of freedom and inherit in a specific form the gauge invariance of the original Yang-Mills theory. In a recent article we outlined such a difference of the light-cone version of Yang-Mills mechanics to its instant form counterpart even in the character of the local gauge invariance . Now we present a result of the Hamiltonian reduction of the light-cone $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills mechanics and demonstrate that after elimination of all ignorable coordinates the corresponding unconstrained Hamiltonian system represents a simple integrable system.

We start with the formulation of the $`SU(2)`$ light-cone mechanics as a degenerate Lagrangian model for a matrix valued variable $`A`$, perform the standard Hamiltonian analysis proving that the presence of constraints force the classical dynamics to develop on the subspace of matrices with $`\mathrm{rank}A=1`$. Using the adapted coordinates frame we show that it is equivalent to the dynamics of a free particle in one dimension. We also study the complex solutions to the second class constraints and demonstrate that in this case the reduced system coincides with the well-known model of so-called conformal mechanics, introduced by V. de Alfaro, S. Fubini and G. Furlan .

After Dirac’s famous paper  on different forms of relativistic dynamics it has been recognized that the different choice of the time evolution parameter can drastically change the content and interpretation of the theory. The present study shows that the long-wavelength approximation in instant and light-front formulation leads to the models that differ drastically even in sense of their classical integrability. The question whether models with the higher order gauge groups as well as after inclusion of an additional supersymmetry stay integrable is still open. It is also interesting to study the question of their correspondence to the known superconformal generalizations of conformal mechanics. 222 The $`N=2`$ supersymmetric extension of conformal mechanics was generalized in  to an $`SU(1,11)`$ invariant superconformal mechanics. Soon after, $`N=4`$ extension of conformal mechanics with $`SU(1,11)`$ superconformal symmetry was elaborated  and using the geometric method the superconformal mechanics was formulated in a manifestly invariant manner for an arbitrary even $`N`$ . Here we note, that the quantum mechanical model with periodicity in light-cone time, obtained by the dimensional reduction of the light-cone version of $`N=1`$ super $`SU(n)`$ Yang-Mills theory was studied in . It was shown that this model is integrable in the sense that its partition function is a tau-function of the Toda hierarchy and only in the large $`n`$ limit can be solved exactly.

The fact that a finite dimensional system obtained by dimensional reduction inherits the conformal symmetry of the original field theory is not quite unexpected. One-dimensional conformally invariant systems already appeared in black hole physics  and cosmology . However, to our knowledge, their relation to the light-cone Yang-Mills theory has not been pointed out yet.

The organization of the rest of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we start with the Lagrangian formulation of the light-cone model and give the standard analysis of Hamiltonian constraints including their separation into the first and second class constraints sets. Then in Section 3 the Hamiltonian reduction is performed. First the constraints generating the $`SU(2)`$ gauge transformations are eliminated using the coordinates adapted to the gauge symmetry. Further to this the reduction due to the remaining first and second class constraints is carried out exploiting the new convenient set of coordinates. Section 4 gives our final conclusions and comments. The appendix is devoted to the derivation of the Lagrangian equations of motion of the unconstrained system starting from the Lagrangian equations of motion for the light-cone $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills mechanics by elimination of all Lagrangian constraints.

## 2 Light-cone model and analysis of constraints

In this Section we give the formulation of the $`SU(2)`$ light-cone Yang-Mills mechanics, calculate all constraints and separate them into the first and second class ones.

### 2.1 Model formulation

We start with the action of Yang-Mills field theory in four-dimensional Minkowski space $`M_4`$, endowed with a metric $`\eta `$ and represented in the coordinate free form

$$I:=\frac{1}{g^2}_{M_4}\text{tr}FF,$$
(1)
where $`g`$ is a coupling constant and the $`su(2)`$ algebra valued curvature two-form

$$F:=dA+AA$$
(2)
is constructed from the connection one-form $`A`$. The connection and curvature, as Lie algebra valued quantities, are expressed in terms of the antihermitian $`su(2)`$ algebra basis $`\tau ^a=\sigma ^a/2i`$ with the Pauli matrices $`\sigma ^a,a=1,2,3`$,

$$A=A^a\tau ^a,F=F^a\tau ^a.$$
(3)
The metric $`\eta `$ enters the action through the dual field strength tensor defined in accordance with the Hodge star operation

$$F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\eta }ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(4)
To formulate the light-cone version of the theory let us introduce the basis vectors in the tangent space $`T_P(M_4)`$

$$e_\pm :=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e_0\pm e_3),e_{}:=(e_k,k=1,2).$$
(5)
The first two vectors are tangent to the light-cone and the corresponding coordinates are referred usually as the light-cone coordinates $`x^\mu =(x^+,x^{},x^{})`$

$$x^\pm :=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(x^0\pm x^3\right),x^{}:=x^k,k=1,2.$$
(6)
The non-zero components of the metric $`\eta `$ in the light-cone basis $`(e_+,e_{},e_k)`$ are

$$\eta _+=\eta _+=\eta _{11}=\eta _{22}=1.$$
(7)
The connection one-form in the light-cone basis is given as

$$A=A_+dx^++A_{}dx^{}+A_kdx^k.$$
(8)
By definition the Lagrangian of light-cone Yang-Mills mechanics follows from the corresponding Lagrangian of Yang-Mills theory if one supposes that the components of the connection one-form $`A`$ in (8) depend on the light-cone “time variable” $`x^+`$ alone

$$A_\pm =A_\pm (x^+),A_k=A_k(x^+).$$
(9)
Substitution this ansatz into the classical action (1) defines the Lagrangian of light-cone Yang-Mills mechanics

$$L=\frac{1}{2g^2}\left(F_+^aF_+^a+2F_{+k}^aF_k^aF_{12}^aF_{12}^a\right),$$
(10)
where the light-cone components of the field-strength tensor are given by

$`F_+^a={\displaystyle \frac{A_{}^a}{x^+}}+ϵ^{abc}A_+^bA_{}^c,`$ (11)
$`F_{+k}^a={\displaystyle \frac{A_k^a}{x^+}}+ϵ^{abc}A_+^bA_k^c,`$ (12)
$`F_k^a=ϵ^{abc}A_{}^bA_k^c,`$ (13)
$`F_{ij}^a=ϵ^{abc}A_i^bA_j^c,i,j,k=1,2.`$ (14)
Hence, the Yang-Mills light-cone mechanics is a finite dimensional system with configuration coordinates $`A_\pm ,A_k`$ whose evolution with respect to the time $`\tau `$

$$\tau :=x^+$$
(15)
is determined by the Lagrangian (10).

### 2.2 Generalized Hamiltonian dynamics

Performing the Legendre transformation 333 To simplify the formulas we shall use overdot to denote derivative of a function with respect to light-cone time $`\tau `$. Further, we shall treat in equal footing the up and down isotopic indexes denoted with $`a,b,c,d`$.

$`\pi _a^+={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{A_+^a}}}=0,`$ (16)
$`\pi _a^{}={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{A_{}^a}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}\left(\dot{A_{}^a}+ϵ^{abc}A_+^bA_{}^c\right),`$ (17)
$`\pi _a^k={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{A_k^a}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}ϵ^{abc}A_{}^bA_k^c,`$ (18)
we obtain the canonical Hamiltonian

$$H_C=\frac{g^2}{2}\pi _a^{}\pi _a^{}ϵ^{abc}A_+^b\left(A_{}^c\pi _a^{}+A_k^c\pi _a^k\right)+V(A_k)$$
(19)
with a potential term

$$V(A_k)=\frac{1}{2g^2}\left[\left(A_1^bA_1^b\right)\left(A_2^cA_2^c\right)\left(A_1^bA_2^b\right)\left(A_1^cA_2^c\right)\right].$$
(20)
The non-vanishing Poisson brackets between the fundamental canonical variables are

$`\{A_\pm ^a,\pi _b^\pm \}=\delta _b^a,`$ (21)
$`\{A_k^a,\pi _b^l\}=\delta _k^l\delta _b^a.`$ (22)
The Hessian of the Lagrangian system (10) is degenerate, $`det\frac{^2L}{\dot{A}\dot{A}}=0`$, and as a result there are primary constraints

$`\phi _a^{(1)}:=\pi _a^+=0,`$ (23)
$`\chi _k^a:=g^2\pi _k^a+ϵ^{abc}A_{}^bA_k^c=0,`$ (24)
satisfying the following Poisson brackets relations

$`\{\phi _a^{(1)},\phi _b^{(1)}\}=0,`$ (25)
$`\{\phi _a^{(1)},\chi _k^b\}=0,`$ (26)
$`\{\chi _i^a,\chi _j^b\}=2g^2ϵ^{abc}A_{}^c\eta _{ij}.`$ (27)
According to the Dirac prescription, the presence of primary constraints affects the dynamics of the degenerate system. Now the generic evolution is governed by the total Hamiltonian

$$H_T=H_C+U_a(\tau )\phi _a^{(1)}+V_k^a(\tau )\chi _k^a,$$
(28)
where $`U_a(\tau )`$ and $`V_k^a(\tau )`$ are unspecified functions of the light-cone time $`\tau `$. Using this Hamiltonian the dynamical self-consistence of the primary constraints may be checked. From the requirement of conservation of the primary constraints $`\phi _a^{(1)}`$ it follows

$$0=\dot{\phi }_a^{(1)}=\{\pi _a^+,H_T\}=ϵ^{abc}\left(A_{}^b\pi _c^{}+A_k^b\pi _c^k\right).$$
(29)
Therefore there are three secondary constraints $`\phi _a^{(2)}`$

$$\phi _a^{(2)}:=ϵ_{abc}\left(A_{}^b\pi _c^{}+A_k^b\pi _c^k\right)=0,$$
(30)
which obey the $`so(3,)`$ algebra

$$\{\phi _a^{(2)},\phi _b^{(2)}\}=ϵ_{abc}\phi _c^{(2)}.$$
(31)
The same procedure for the primary constraints $`\chi _k^a`$ gives the following self-consistency conditions

$$0=\dot{\chi }_k^a=\{\chi _k^a,H_C\}2g^2ϵ^{abc}V_k^bA_{}^c.$$
(32)
The analysis of these equations depends on the properties of the matrix $`𝒞_{ab}=ϵ^{abc}A_{}^c`$. This matrix is degenerate with a rank varying from $`0`$ to $`2`$ depending on the point of the configuration space. If its rank is $`2`$ then among the six primary constraints $`\chi _k^a`$ there are two first class constraints and a maximum of four Lagrange multipliers $`V_k^b`$ can be determined from (32). When the rank of the matrix $`𝒞_{ab}`$ is minimal, the locus points are $`A_{}^a=0`$ and all six constraints $`\chi _k^a`$ are Abelian ones. For such an exceptional configuration the constrained system reduces to the dynamically trivial one. Hereinafter we shall consider the subspace of configuration space where $`\mathrm{rank}𝒞=2`$. For those configurations we are able to introduce the unit vector

$$N^a=\frac{A_{}^a}{\sqrt{(A_{}^1)^2+(A_{}^2)^2+(A_{}^3)^2}},$$
(33)
which is a null vector of the matrix $`ϵ^{abc}A_{}^c,`$ and to decompose the set of six primary constraints $`\chi _k^a`$ as

$`\psi _k:=N^a\chi _k^a,`$ (34)
$`\chi _k^a:=\chi _k^a\left(N^b\chi _k^b\right)N^a.`$ (35)
In this decomposition the first two constraints $`\psi _k`$ are functionally independent and satisfy the Abelian algebra

$$\{\psi _i,\psi _j\}=0,$$
(36)
while the constraints $`\chi _k^a`$ are functionally dependent due to the conditions

$$N^a\chi _k^a=0.$$
(37)
Choosing among them any four independent constraints we can determine four Lagrange multipliers $`V_b^k`$.

The Poisson brackets of the constraints $`\psi _k`$ and $`\phi _a^{(2)}`$ with the total Hamiltonian vanish after projection on the constraint surface (CS) defined by equations $`\psi _k=0`$ and $`\phi _a^{(2)}=0`$

$`\{\psi _k,H_T\}|_{CS}=0,`$ (38)
$`\{\phi _a^{(2)},H_T\}|_{CS}=0`$ (39)
and thus there are no ternary constraints.

Summarizing, we arrive at the set of constraints $`\phi _a^{(1)},\psi _k,\phi _a^{(2)},\chi _k^b`$. The Poisson brackets algebra of the first three is

$`\{\phi _a^{(1)},\phi _a^{(1)}\}=0,`$ (40)
$`\{\psi _i,\psi _j\}=0,`$ (41)
$`\{\phi _a^{(2)},\phi _b^{(2)}\}=ϵ_{abc}\phi _c^{(2)},`$ (42)
$`\{\phi _a^{(1)},\psi _k\}=\{\phi _a^{(1)},\phi _b^{(2)}\}=\{\psi _k,\phi _a^{(2)}\}=0.`$ (43)
The constraints $`\chi _k^b`$ satisfy the relations

$$\{\chi _i^a,\chi _j^b\}=2g^2ϵ^{abc}A_{}^c\eta _{ij},$$
(44)
and the Poisson brackets between these two sets of constraints are

$`\{\phi _a^{(2)},\chi _k^b\}=ϵ^{abc}\chi _k^c,`$ (45)
$`\{\phi _a^{(1)},\chi _k^b\}=\{\psi _i,\chi _j^b\}=0.`$ (46)
From these relations we conclude that the model has 8 first-class constraints $`\phi _a^{(1)},\psi _k,\phi _a^{(2)}`$ and 4 second-class constraints $`\chi _k^a`$. Counting the degrees of freedom taking into account all these constraints, we obtain that instead of $`24`$ constrained phase space degrees of freedom there are $`242(5+3)4=4`$ unconstrained degrees of freedom, in contrast to the instant form of Yang-Mills mechanics where the number of the unconstrained canonical variables is $`12`$.

## 3 Unconstrained version of light-cone mechanics

Now we shall perform a Hamiltonian reduction of the degrees of freedom starting with an elimination of the gauge degrees of freedom associated to the $`SU(2)`$ constraints $`\phi _a^{(2)}`$. The purpose of the present part of the paper is to rewrite the theory in terms of special coordinates adapted to the action of this gauge symmetry.

### 3.1 Polar decomposition

Let us organize the configuration variables $`A_i^a`$ and $`A_{}^a`$ in one $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`A_{ab}`$ whose entries of the first two columns are $`A_i^a`$ and third column is composed by the elements $`A_{}^a`$

$$A_{ab}:=A_1^a,A_2^a,A_{}^a,$$
(47)
and the momentum variables similarly

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}:=\pi ^{a1},\pi ^{a2},\pi ^a.$$
(48)
In order to find an explicit parametrization of the orbits with respect to the gauge symmetry action, it is convenient to use a polar decomposition  for the matrix $`A_{ab}`$

$$A=OS,$$
(49)
where $`S`$ is a positive definite $`3\times 3`$ symmetric matrix, $`O(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)=e^{\varphi _1J_3}e^{\varphi _2J_1}e^{\varphi _3J_3}`$ is an orthogonal matrix parameterized by the three Euler angles $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)`$. The matrices $`(J_a)_{ij}=ϵ_{iaj}`$ are the $`SO(3,)`$ generators in adjoint representation.

It is in order to make a few remarks on the change of variables in (49). It is well-known that the polar decomposition is valid for an arbitrary matrix. However, the orthogonal matrix in (49) is uniquely determined only for an invertible matrix $`A`$

$$O=AS^1,S=\sqrt{AA^T}.$$
(50)
The non-degenerate $`3\times 3`$ matrices can be identified with an open set of the $`^9`$ using the entries of the matrix $`A_{ab}`$ as corresponding Cartesian coordinates and in this case the polar decomposition (49) is a uniquely invertible transformation from these Cartesian coordinates to a new set of coordinates, the entries of positive matrix $`S`$ and the angles parameterized the orthogonal matrix $`O`$. For degenerate matrices a more sophisticated analysis is necessary. Here we note only that the set of $`n\times n`$ matrices with rank $`k`$ is a manifold with dimension $`k(2nk)`$, but in contrast the no-degenerate case the manifold atlas now necessarily contains several charts. Hence, for degenerate matrices $`A`$ the representation (49) has to be replaced by a more elaborated construction.

Now we shall limit ourselves to the subspace of non-degenerate matrices and hence one can treat the polar decomposition (49) as a uniquely invertible transformation from the configuration variables $`A_{ab}`$ to a new set of Lagrangian variables: six coordinates $`S_{ij}`$ and three coordinates $`\varphi _i`$. It is worth to note here that in virtue of the constraints (24) the determinant of the matrix $`A`$ is related to the third component of the gauge field spin

$$2detAg^2ϵ_{3ik}A_k^a\pi _i^a=0.$$
(51)
The polar decomposition (49) induces the point canonical transformation from the coordinates $`A_{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ to new canonical pairs $`(S_{ab},P_{ab})`$ and $`(\varphi _a,P_a)`$ with the following non-vanishing Poisson brackets

$`\{S_{ab},P_{cd}\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta _{ac}\delta _{bd}+\delta _{ad}\delta _{bc}\right),`$ (52)
$`\{\varphi _a,P_b\}=\delta _{ab}.`$ (53)
The expression of the old $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ as a function of the new coordinates is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=O\left(Pk_aJ_a\right),$$
(54)
where

$$k_a=\gamma _{ab}^1\left(\eta _b^L\epsilon _{bmn}\left(SP\right)_{mn}\right),$$
(55)
$`\gamma _{ik}=S_{ik}\delta _{ik}\text{tr}S`$ and $`\eta _a^L`$ are three left-invariant vector fields on the $`SO(3,)`$ group

$`\eta _1^L={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3}{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2}}P_1+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3P_2\mathrm{cot}\varphi _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3P_3,`$ (56)
$`\eta _2^L={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3}{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2}}P_1\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3P_2\mathrm{cot}\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3P_3,`$ (57)
$`\eta _3^L=P_3.`$ (58)
In terms of the new variables the constraints take the form

$`\phi _a^{(2)}=O_{ab}\eta _b^L,`$ (59)
$`\chi _{am}=O_{ab}\left(P_{bm}+ϵ_{bmc}k_c+ϵ_{bij}S_{i3}S_{jm}\right).`$ (60)
Thus one can pass to the equivalent set of constraints

$`\eta _a^L=0,`$ (62)
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{ai}=P_{ai}+ϵ_{aij}\gamma _{jk}^1ϵ_{kmn}(SP)_{mn}+ϵ_{amn}S_{m3}S_{ni}=0`$
with vanishing Poisson brackets

$$\{\eta _a^L,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{bi}\}=0.$$
(63)
Using the polar decomposition (49) and (54) we separate the variables $`(S_{ab},P_{ab})`$, invariant under gauge transformations generated by Gauss law constraints $`\phi _a^{(2)}`$, from the gauge variant ones $`(\varphi _a,P_a)`$. Now in order to eliminate all gauge degrees of freedom related to this symmetry it is enough to project to the constraint shell described by condition of nullity of the Killing vector fields $`\eta _a^L`$. After projection the corresponding cyclic degrees of freedom, the angles $`\varphi _a`$, automatically disappear from the projected Hamiltonian.

### 3.2 Main-axes decomposition

In order to proceed further in resolution of the remaining constraints (62) we introduce the main-axes decomposition for the symmetric $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`S`$

$$S=R^T(\chi _1,\chi _2,\chi _3)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}q_1& 0& 0\\ 0& q_2& 0\\ 0& 0& q_3\end{array}\right)R(\chi _1,\chi _2,\chi _3),$$
(64)
with orthogonal matrix $`R(\chi _1,\chi _2,\chi _3)=e^{\chi _1J_3}e^{\chi _2J_1}e^{\chi _3J_3}`$, parameterized by three Euler angles $`(\chi _1,\chi _2,\chi _3)`$. The Jacobian of this transformation is

$$\frac{(S_{i<j})}{(q_a,\chi _b)}\underset{ab}{\overset{3}{}}q_aq_b.$$
(65)
Therefore equation (64) can be used as definition of new configuration variables: three “diagonal” variables $`(q_1,q_2,q_3)`$, eigenvalues of the matrix $`S`$, and three angular variables $`(\chi _1,\chi _2,\chi _3)`$, if and only if all eigenvalues of the matrix $`S`$ are different, $`q_1q_2q_3`$. The eigenvalues $`q_a`$ parameterize the orbits of the adjoint action of $`SO(3,)`$ group in the space of $`3\times 3`$ symmetric matrices and the configurations with $`q_1<q_2<q_3`$ represent the so-called principle orbit. Our consideration given below is correct for this type of orbits whereas the treatment of orbits with coinciding eigenvalues of the matrix $`S`$, the singular orbits , requires different and more elaborated treatment that is beyond the scope of the present paper.

The momenta $`p_a`$ and $`p_{\chi _a}`$, canonically conjugated to the diagonal $`q_a`$ and angular variables $`\chi _a`$, can be found using the canonical invariance of the symplectic one-form

$$\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{3}{}}P_{ab}dS_{ab}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_adq_a+\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_{\chi _a}d\chi _a.$$
(66)
The original momenta $`P_{ab}`$, expressed in terms of the new canonical variables, read

$`P=R^T{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(p_a\overline{\alpha }_a+𝒫_a\alpha _a\right)R.`$ (67)
Here $`\overline{\alpha }_a`$ and $`\alpha _a`$ denote the diagonal and off-diagonal basis elements of the space of symmetric matrices with orthogonality relations

$$\text{tr}(\overline{\alpha }_a\overline{\alpha }_b)=\delta _{ab},\text{tr}(\alpha _a\alpha _b)=2\delta _{ab},\text{tr}(\overline{\alpha }_a\alpha _b)=0$$
(68)
and

$$𝒫_a=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\xi _a^R}{q_bq_c}(\text{cyclic permutations}abc).$$
(69)
The $`\xi _a^R`$ are three $`SO(3,)`$ right-invariant vector fields given in terms of the angles $`\chi _a`$ and their conjugated momenta $`p_{\chi _a}`$ via

$$\xi _a^R=M_{ba}^1p_{\chi _b},$$
(70)
where the matrix $`M`$ is given by

$$M_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\left(J_a\frac{R}{\chi _b}R^T\right).$$
(71)
The explicit form of the three $`SO(3,)`$ right-invariant Killing vector fields is

$`\xi _1^R=\mathrm{sin}\chi _1\mathrm{cot}\chi _2p_{\chi _1}+\mathrm{cos}\chi _1p_{\chi _2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\chi _1}{\mathrm{sin}\chi _2}}p_{\chi _3},`$ (72)
$`\xi _2^R=\mathrm{cos}\chi _1\mathrm{cot}\chi _2p_{\chi _1}+\mathrm{sin}\chi _1p_{\chi _2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\chi _1}{\mathrm{sin}\chi _2}}p_{\chi _3},`$ (73)
$`\xi _3^R=p_{\chi _1}.`$ (74)
Using these formulas the constraints $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ in (62) may be rewritten in terms of the main-axes variables as

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}R^T\left[\pi _a\overline{\alpha }_a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _a^{}\alpha _a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _a^+J_a\right]R,`$ (75)
where

$$\rho _a^\pm =\frac{\xi _a^R}{q_b\pm q_c}\pm \frac{1}{g^2}q_an_a(q_b\pm q_c),$$
(76)
and $`n_a=R_{a3}`$.

Note that the constraint (51) on the determinant of the matrix $`A`$ now takes the form

$$2q_1q_2q_3g^2\xi _3^L=0,$$
(77)
where $`\xi _3^L`$ is the third left-invariant Killing vector field, $`\xi _a^L=R_{ab}\xi _b^R`$

$`\xi _1^L={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\chi _3}{\mathrm{sin}\chi _2}}p_{\chi _1}+\mathrm{cos}\chi _3p_{\chi _2}\mathrm{cot}\chi _2\mathrm{sin}\chi _3p_{\chi _3},`$ (78)
$`\xi _2^L={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\chi _3}{\mathrm{sin}\chi _2}}p_{\chi _1}\mathrm{sin}\chi _3p_{\chi _2}\mathrm{cot}\chi _2\mathrm{cos}\chi _3p_{\chi _3},`$ (79)
$`\xi _3^L=p_{\chi _3}.`$ (80)
As was shown above the constraints $`\chi _i^a`$ represent the mixed system of first and second class constraints $`\psi _i`$ and $`\chi _{i}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}`$. To perform the reduction to the constraint shell it is useful at first to introduce the gauge fixing condition and eliminate the two first class constraints $`\psi _i`$. The expression (34) for the Abelian constraints $`\psi _i`$ dictates the appropriate gauge fixing condition

$$\overline{\psi }_i:=N^aA_i^a=0,$$
(81)
which is the canonical one in the sense that

$$\{\overline{\psi }_i,\psi _j\}=\delta _{ij}.$$
(82)
The constraints $`\psi _i=0`$ rewritten in terms of the main-axes variables may be identified with the nullity of the momenta

$$p_{\chi _1}=0,p_{\chi _2}=0,$$
(83)
while the canonical gauge-fixing condition (81) fixes the corresponding angular variables $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$

$$\chi _1=\frac{\pi }{2},\chi _2=\frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(84)
Introduction of the gauge fixing conditions (84) means that all constraints are now second class ones and therefore the reduction to unconstrained variables can now be achieved by the projection of canonical Hamiltonian onto the constraint shell with simultaneously replacement of the canonical Poisson brackets by the Dirac ones.

Projection of the canonical Hamiltonian (19) to the surface described by constraints (83) and (84) gives

$$H_{LC}:=H_C(\chi _1=\frac{\pi }{2},p_{\chi _1}=0,\chi _2=\frac{\pi }{2},p_{\chi _2}=0)=\frac{g^2}{2}\left(p_1^2+\frac{q_2^2q_3^2}{g^4}\right).$$
(85)
Furthermore, taking into account the constraint (77) the projected Hamiltonian (85) may be rewritten as

$$H_{LC}|_{2q_1q_2q_3g^2\xi _3^L=0}=\frac{g^2}{2}(p_1^2+\left(\frac{\xi _3^L}{2q_1}\right)^2).$$
(86)
But it is not the end of the reduction procedure. Two further steps are required. First, it is necessary to examine all four second class constraints $`\chi _{i}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and to verify whether (86) is indeed the expression for the reduced Hamiltonian describing the dynamics of unconstrained variables. Second, it is necessary to calculate the fundamental Dirac brackets between unconstrained variables in order to determine the correct equation of motion.

It may be checked that the constraints $`\chi _{i}^{a}{}_{}{}^{}`$ lead to the conditions on the “diagonal” canonical pairs $`(q_i,p_i)`$. Namely, the canonical momenta $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ are vanishing

$`p_2=0,p_3=0,`$ (87)
while the corresponding coordinates $`q_2`$ and $`q_3`$ are subject to the constraint

$$q_2^2+q_3^2=0$$
(88)
as well the constraint (77). The real solution of the equation (88) is the trivial one $`q_2=q_3=0`$. For this solution according to the constraint (77) $`\xi _3^L`$ turns to be zero and thus the Hamiltonian (86) reduces further to a Hamiltonian of free one-dimensional particle motion.

Here it is in order to make an explanatory comment, because we arrived at certain contradiction to our initial assumptions. The reduced Hamiltonian system obtained here contains only two degrees of freedom, while according to the counting given at the end of the Section 2, we were expected to obtain a 4-dimensional unconstrained system. In order to explain this contradiction note that this counting was based on the assumption that the configuration space of the initial Lagrangian system is $`12`$-dimensional or in another words the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`A`$ in (47) is non-degenerate. However the constraint (88) states that $`\mathrm{det}A=\mathrm{det}S=0,`$ and rigorously speaking our consideration shows only that the dynamics of the unconstrained system develops on the subspace with $`\mathrm{rank}A2`$. Therefore it is necessary to consider the configuration space of the initial Lagrangian system consisting from the degenerate matrices with rank less than maximal and perform the whole analysis again. 444 For example, the counting of the degrees of freedom is now as follows: the dimension of subspace of $`3\times 3`$ matrices with rank $`k=2`$ is $`2\times (2\times 32)=8`$. So, the configuration space of the initial system is not $`12`$-dimensional, but $`11`$-dimensional and thus the reduced Hamiltonian system contains only $`222(5+3)4=2`$ degrees of freedom.

However instead of an explicit parametrization of the configuration space with $`\mathrm{rank}A=2`$ and $`\mathrm{rank}A=1`$ we use the following trick. 555 As justification, in the appendix we give an alternative derivation directly from the Lagrangian equation of motion by solving the corresponding Lagrangian constraints. Let us consider the analytic continuation of the constraint (88) into a complex domain and explore its complex  solution

$$q_2=\pm iq_3.$$
(89)
Expressing $`q_3`$ from equation (77)

$$q_3=\frac{1i}{2}\sqrt{\frac{g^2\xi _3^L}{q_1}},$$
(90)
we find that $`(q_1,p_1)`$ and $`(\chi _3,p_{\chi _3})`$ remain real unconstrained variables whose Dirac brackets are the canonical ones

$$\{q_1,p_1\}_D=1,\{\chi _3,p_{\chi _2}\}_D=1.$$
(91)
Therefore the dynamics of the unconstrained pairs $`(q_1,p_1)`$ and $`(\chi _3,p_{\chi _3})`$ is given by the standard Hamilton equations with the Hamiltonian (86). Remarking that the $`\xi _3^L`$ is conserved we conclude that (86) coincides with the Hamiltonian of conformal mechanics

$$H=\frac{g^2}{2}\left(p_1^2+\frac{\kappa ^2}{q_1^2}\right),$$
(92)
with “coupling constant” $`\kappa ^2=\left(\xi _3^L/2\right)^2`$ determined by the value of the gauge spin, while the gauge field coupling constant $`g`$ controls the scale for the evolution parameter.

From equation (90) it follows that the quantity $`\kappa `$ is the parameter which measures the deviation from the real classical trajectories. They all are laying in subspace with $`\mathrm{det}A=0`$ and are described as the integral curves of the Hamiltonian (86) with vanishing coupling constant $`\kappa =0,`$ and therefore indeed correspond to a free particle motion.

## 4 Concluding remarks

To conclude, we have considered the light-cone $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills field theory supposing that the gauge potentials in the classical action are functions only of the light-cone time. As we have demonstrated this ansatz effectively reduces the field theory to a degenerate Lagrangian mechanical system whose unconstrained version significantly differs from the corresponding well-known instant time Yang-Mills mechanics. Comparing with the instant form dynamics, the light-cone version of Yang-Mills mechanics has a more complicated description considered as a constrained system. Applying the Dirac Hamiltonian method, we found that now the constraint content of the theory is richer: there is, apart from the expected constraints which are generators of the $`SU(2)`$ gauge transformations, a new set of first and second class constraints. The presence of the new constraints leads to an essential decre of the number of the “true” degrees of freedom and finally to its integrability.

In the present paper we have studied the Hamiltonian reduction of the degenerate light-cone Yang-Mills mechanical system but have left open several related questions such as analysis of the symmetries, both gauge and rigid ones. The knowledge of symmetries allows to understand the roots of the classical integrability of the system and we plan to give the detailed presentation of these investigations elsewhere.

We end this section with a remark about the possible link between the classical integrability of the model obtained in long-wavelength approximation of light-cone theory and the properties of the corresponding vacuum. The nonintegrability and chaotic nature of the instant form Yang-Mills mechanics is usually treated as the manifestation of existence of the non-trivial structure of the physical vacuum of gauge theories (see e.g. ). On the other hand it is well-known that owing to purely kinematical reasons the physical light-cone vacuum of the theory coincides with the free Fock vacuum . Therefore it seems that the integrability of the light-cone Yang-Mills mechanics opposite to its instant counterpart model is in accordance with the different vacuum structures in these two forms of dynamics.

## Acknowledgments

Helpful discussions during the work on the paper with I.Ya. Aref’eva, B. Dimitrov, G. Gabadadze, E.A. Ivanov, A.S. Koshelev, A.N. Kvinikhidze, M.D. Mateev, P.B. Medvedev, A.I. Pashnev, V.P. Pavlov, V.A. Rubakov and O. Schroeder are acknowledged. A.K. would like to thank the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), Trieste, Italy for support and kind hospitality extended to him in 2002 at ICTP High Energy Section, where part of this study has been done.

This work was supported in part by the RFBR Grant No. 04-01-00784. Contribution of V.G. was also partially supported by the grant 2339.2003.2 from the Russian Ministry of Science and Education. A.K. acknowledges INTAS for providing financial support, Grant No. 00-00561.

## Appendix A Appendix: The Euler-Lagrange Equations

The first variation of the Lagrangian (10) with respect to the variables $`A_+^a,A_k^a`$ and $`A_{}^a`$ gives the constraints, equations containing only first order derivatives, and the proper equations of motion. Among the constraints there are the Gauss Law equations (summation over $`k=1,2`$)

$$\dot{𝐀}_{}\times 𝐀_{}+𝐀_{}(𝐀_k𝐀_k)𝐀_k(𝐀_k𝐀_{})𝐀_+(𝐀_{}𝐀_{})+𝐀_{}(𝐀_+𝐀_{})=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(93)
as well as the additional constraints (no summation over $`i,k=1,2`$ and $`ik`$)

$`2\dot{𝐀}_k\times 𝐀_{}`$ $``$ $`\dot{𝐀}_{}\times 𝐀_k𝐀_k(𝐀_i𝐀_i)+𝐀_i(𝐀_i𝐀_k)`$ (94)
$`+`$ $`2𝐀_k(𝐀_+𝐀_{})𝐀_{}(𝐀_+𝐀_k)𝐀_+(𝐀_{}𝐀_k)=0.`$
The true equations of motion, containing second order derivatives of the variables $`𝐀_{}`$ are (summation over $`k=1,2`$)

$`\ddot{𝐀}_{}`$ $`+`$ $`\dot{𝐀}_+\times 𝐀_{}+𝐀_+\times \dot{𝐀}_{}+𝐀_+\times \dot{𝐀}_{}𝐀_k\times \dot{𝐀}_k`$ (95)
$`+`$ $`𝐀_+\left((𝐀_+𝐀_{})(𝐀_k𝐀_k)\right)𝐀_{}(𝐀_+𝐀_+)+𝐀_k(𝐀_+𝐀_k)=0.`$
Here we have introduced the vector notation for the isotopic components of the vector potential $`𝐀_\pm =(A_\pm ^1,A_\pm ^2,A_\pm ^3)`$ and $`𝐀_k=(A_k^1,A_k^2,A_k^3)`$. The standard definitions for dot and cross product of three dimensional isotopic vectors are used as well.

The aim of this Appendix is to show how to pass from this system of nonlinear Euler-Lagrange equations (93)-(95) to the one-dimensional equation of motion of a free particle for em real solutions and to conformal mechanics for the case of complex solution to the Lagrangian constraints.

To be close to the Hamiltonian consideration given in the main text let us introduce in the isotopic space a positively oriented orthonormal frame of unit vectors, $`(𝐥,𝐦,𝐧)`$,

$`𝐥𝐥`$ $`=`$ $`1,𝐥=𝐦\times 𝐧,`$ (96)
$`𝐦𝐦`$ $`=`$ $`1,𝐦=𝐧\times 𝐥,`$ (97)
$`𝐧𝐧`$ $`=`$ $`1,𝐧=𝐥\times 𝐦,`$ (98)
and start with the following ansatz  for the gauge potential

$`𝐀_{}`$ $`=`$ $`x𝐧,`$ (99)
$`𝐀_k`$ $`=`$ $`S_{1k}𝐥+S_{2k}𝐦.`$ (100)
Note that this ansatz corresponds to the polar decomposition (49) when the only nonvanishing element in the third row and the third column of the matrix $`S`$ is $`S_{33}=x`$ and moreover it is supposed in (100) that

$$S_{12}=S_{21}.$$
(101)
By construction the ansatz is such that the potentials (99) and (100) obey four equations

$$𝐥𝐀_{}=0,𝐦𝐀_{}=0,𝐧𝐀_k=0.$$
(102)
Note that these equations are equivalent to the two primary Abelian constraints (34) and to the two gauge-fixing conditions (81) imposed on the gauge potential in the main text.

Now we shall demonstrate that the system of equations (93)-(95) admits a separation into three subsets. The first one establish the connection between $`𝐀_+`$ component of the gauge potential and the frame $`(𝐥,𝐦,𝐧)`$, the second one consists of the equations for the variables $`S_{1k}`$ and $`S_{2k}`$ and the third one represents only one second order differential equation for the variable $`x`$ with a parameter, whose value is the first integral of the equations for the variables $`S_{1k}`$ and $`S_{2k}`$.

Let us start with the Gauss law constraints and try to resolve it against the variable $`𝐀_+`$. But, because the vector $`𝐀_{}`$ is the zero mode of these equations, only two components of $`𝐀_+`$, transverse to $`𝐀_{}`$, can be fixed uniquely. Indeed, in our parametrization (99), (100), when the $`𝐀_{}`$ direction coincides with the $`𝐧`$ direction, projection of the Gauss law equations by the transverse vectors $`(𝐥`$ and $`𝐦)`$ yields

$`x\left[(𝐥𝐡)(𝐥𝐀_+)\right]=0,`$ (103)
$`x\left[(𝐦𝐡)(𝐦𝐀_+)\right]=0,`$ (104)
while its projection to the third $`𝐧`$-component results in constraint on the variables $`S_{ik}`$

$$S_{11}^2+S_{12}^2+S_{21}^2+S_{22}^2=0.$$
(105)
In (103) and (104) the helicity vector $`𝐡=\dot{𝐧}\times 𝐧`$ has been introduced. So, from (103) and (104), supposing $`x0`$, it follows that

$$𝐀_+=𝐡+f𝐧,$$
(106)
with unspecified function $`f`$.

With this $`𝐀_+`$ one can rewrite the equation of motion (95) for the $`𝐀_{}`$ component as (summation over $`k=1,2`$)

$$𝐧\ddot{x}=𝐀_k\times \dot{𝐀}_k𝐀_k(𝐡𝐀_k).$$
(107)
Using (94) the projection of the equation (107) onto the $`𝐧`$ direction looks as

$$\ddot{x}=\frac{1}{x^2}\left((𝐀_1𝐀_1)(𝐀_2𝐀_2)(𝐀_1𝐀_2)(𝐀_2𝐀_1)\right),$$
(108)
while its projections onto $`𝐥`$ and $`𝐦`$ direction give again the constraint (105).

Consider now the equations (95), projection to $`𝐥`$ and $`𝐦`$ directions results in equations (no summation $`ik`$)

$`\dot{x}S_{2k}+2x\dot{S}_{2k}+2x\left[(𝐥\dot{𝐦})f\right]S_{1k}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{1k}(S_{1i}^2+S_{2i}^2)S_{1i}(S_{1i}S_{1k}+S_{2i}S_{2k}),`$ (109)
$`\dot{x}S_{2k}2x\dot{S}_{2k}+2x\left[(𝐥\dot{𝐦})f\right]S_{2k}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{2k}(S_{1i}^2+S_{2i}^2)S_{2i}(S_{1i}S_{1k}+S_{2i}S_{2k}),`$ (110)
while projection onto the third direction $`𝐧`$ gives

$`(𝐧\dot{𝐦})S_{1k}(𝐧\dot{𝐥})S_{2k}`$ $`=`$ $`(𝐡\dot{𝐥})S_{1k}+(𝐡\dot{𝐦})S_{2k}.`$ (111)
The last two equations (111) are identically satisfied when the relations

$$𝐡\dot{𝐥}=𝐧\dot{𝐦},𝐡𝐦=𝐧\dot{𝐥}$$
(112)
are taken into account. One can make the equations (109) and (110) independent of the frame $`(𝐥,𝐦,𝐧)`$ if the function $`f`$ in the $`𝐀_+`$ decomposition is chosen as

$$f=𝐥\dot{𝐦}+\rho ,$$
(113)
where the function $`\rho `$ is still unspecified.

With this identification the following system of differential equations for the unknown functions $`S_{11},S_{12},S_{21},S_{22}`$ arises

$`\dot{x}S_{11}+2x\dot{S}_{11}2x\rho S_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{11}(S_{11}S_{22}S_{12}S_{21}),`$ (114)
$`\dot{x}S_{12}+2x\dot{S}_{12}2x\rho S_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{11}(S_{11}S_{22}S_{12}S_{21}),`$ (115)
$`\dot{x}S_{21}+2x\dot{S}_{21}+2x\rho S_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{22}(S_{11}S_{22}S_{12}S_{21}),`$ (116)
$`\dot{x}S_{22}+2x\dot{S}_{22}+2x\rho S_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{21}(S_{11}S_{22}S_{12}S_{21}).`$ (117)
Introduction of the new functions

$$S_{ij}\sqrt{x}=Y_{ij}$$

removes the derivatives of the function $`x`$

$`\dot{Y}_{11}\rho Y_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{12}}{2x^2}}(Y_{11}Y_{22}Y_{12}Y_{21}),`$ (118)
$`\dot{Y}_{12}\rho Y_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{11}}{2x^2}}(Y_{11}Y_{22}Y_{12}Y_{21}),`$ (119)
$`\dot{Y}_{21}+\rho Y_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{22}}{2x^2}}(Y_{11}Y_{22}Y_{12}Y_{21}),`$ (120)
$`\dot{Y}_{22}+\rho Y_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{21}}{2x^2}}(Y_{11}Y_{22}Y_{12}Y_{21}).`$ (121)
Now one can specify the function $`\rho `$. Due to the symmetry condition (101), $`Y_{12}=Y_{21}`$, this leads to the relation

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2x^2}(Y_{11}Y_{22}Y_{12}Y_{21}).$$
(122)
Moreover, because the system of equations (118)-(121) possesses the following first integral

$$Y_{11}Y_{22}Y_{12}Y_{21}=\mu ,\mu :=\text{constant},$$
(123)
one can express $`\rho `$ solely in terms of the $`x`$ variable

$$\rho =\frac{\mu }{2x^2}.$$
(124)
Therefore, finally the equations (118)-(121) reduce to a system of three differential equations

$`\dot{Y}_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{x^2}}Y_{12},`$ (125)
$`\dot{Y}_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2x^2}}\left(Y_{22}Y_{11}\right),`$
$`\dot{Y}_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{x^2}}Y_{12}.`$
These equations should be solved together with the algebraic constraint (105) which states

$$Y_{11}^2+2Y_{12}^2+Y_{22}^2=0.$$
(126)
The last equation has only trivial real solutions

$$Y_{11}=Y_{12}=Y_{22}=0$$
(127)
that lead to the free equation of motion for the $`x`$ variable.

However, one can consider the analytic continuation of our variables $`Y`$ in a complex domain. So, relaxing the reality conditions, we use the following parametrization for the complex $`Y`$-functions

$`Y_{12}=\nu (i1)\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{cos}\chi ,Y_{11}=\nu (\mathrm{cos}^2\chi +i\mathrm{sin}^2\chi ),`$ (128)
$`Y_{21}=\nu (i1)\mathrm{sin}\chi \mathrm{cos}\chi ,Y_{22}=\nu (\mathrm{sin}^2\chi +i\mathrm{cos}^2\chi ).`$ (129)
Here the parameter $`\nu `$ is expressed through the first integral constant $`\nu ^2=i\mu `$.

Within the parametrization (128) and (129) all equations (125) are satisfied if the angular variable $`\chi `$ obeys the equation

$$\dot{\chi }=\frac{\mu }{2x^2}.$$
(130)
Now in order to insure the self consistency of the solution it may be checked that the right hand side of the equation (108) evaluated with $`Y`$ given in (128) reduces to

$$\ddot{x}=\frac{\mu ^2}{x^3}.$$
(131)
This completes the proof, since (131) is the equation of motion for an one-dimensional system with the Lagrange function

$$L_{CM}:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{x}^2\frac{\mu ^2}{x^2}\right).$$
(132)


format: text

text:
# Unipolar transport and shot noise in metal-semiconductor-metal structures

## I Introduction

Metal-semiconductor-metal structures have been of fundamental and applied interest since the birth of the physics of semiconductor device. Here we concentrate on the relevant case of high resistivity semiconductors where metals usually form Ohmic or injecting contacts. A common feature of these structures is that carrier transport is mainly limited by diffusion, with thermionic emission playing a negligible role. Furthermore, when a bias voltage is applied to these structures, they can behave either as a linear resistor (if carrier injection from the contacts is negligibly small) or as non-linear space charge limited device (if carrier injection from the contacts is extremely high). Therefore, these structures are still offering excellent opportunities to study current noise properties induced by diffusion noise in a variety of transport conditions.

The present knowledge of the noise properties of these structures can be summarized as follows. At thermodynamic equilibrium, the low frequency spectral density of current fluctuations, $`S_I^{eq}(0)`$, is given by

$$S_I^{eq}(0)=\frac{4k_BT}{R^{eq}},$$
(1)
in agreement with Nyquist theorem. Here, $`R^{eq}`$ is the equilibrium device resistance, $`T`$ the bath temperature and $`k_B`$ the Boltzmann constant.

Out of equilibrium, when an external bias (voltage or current) is applied, Nyquist relation no longer holds and deviations from Eq.(1) are expected. These deviations have been studied in detail in two limiting cases, namely: (i) when the structure behaves as a space charge limited diode (with a strong inhomogeneous profile of the free carrier density),  and (ii) when the structure behaves as a linear resistor (with a homogeneous profile of the free carrier density).

In the former case (i) the current $`I`$ displays a quadratic dependence on the applied voltage $`V`$ (Mott-Gurney law) $`I=\beta V^2`$, where $`\beta `$ is a sample dependent parameter. Accordingly, the low frequency spectral density of current fluctuations was found to take the form

$$S_I(0)=\frac{8k_BT}{Z(0)}=16k_BT\beta ^{1/2}I^{1/2},$$
(2)
where $`Z(0)`$ is the low frequency impedance (differential resistance). From the form of the first equality, this type of noise was called double thermal noise. The cross-over between Nyquist noise and high voltage space charge limited conditions is summarized by the formula

$$S_I(0)=4k_BT\frac{V}{I}\left(\frac{dI}{dV}\right)^2.$$
(3)
Highly resistive structures under strong carrier injection conditions have been used to successfully test experimentally this prediction.

In the latter case (ii) the structure behaves as a linear resistor and displays a resistance $`R=L/(qA\mu \overline{n})`$, where $`A`$ is the cross sectional area, $`q`$ the carrier charge, $`\mu `$ the mobility and $`\overline{n}`$ the free carrier density (the bar denotes an average with respect to fluctuations). When the applied bias is high enough as to make the transit time due to drift $`\tau _T=L^2/\mu V`$ significantly shorter than the dielectric relaxation time $`\tau _d=ϵ/q\mu \overline{n}`$, where $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric permittivity, the structure was predicted to exhibit shot noise  with

$$S_I(0)=2q\overline{I}.$$
(4)
The above results show two completely different behaviors for the non-equilibrium current noise properties of metal-semiconductor-metal structures depending on whether the stationary free carrier distribution is strongly inhomogeneous (double thermal noise) or homogeneous (shot noise). The physical reason for such a discrepancy of behavior is an intriguing problem at present. In the authors opinion its origin can be traced back to the theoretical difficulty of accounting for the effects of the diffusion current on the non-equilibrium current fluctuations in the whole range of different carrier injection conditions.

The purpose of the present paper is to overcome such a difficulty by developing an analytical theory for the non-equilibrium current noise properties of metal-semiconductor-metal structures made of highly resistive semiconductors that includes properly the effects of the diffusion current. The theory is valid in the whole range of physical conditions going from homogeneous to highly inhomogeneous free carrier distributions, thus allowing to describe in a continuous manner the current spectral density as a function of the applied bias for different levels of current injection.

The paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the system under study. Section III presents the physical model used to describe the low frequency transport and the non-equilibrium current fluctuation properties. Section IV is devoted to analyze the charge transport properties of the device, while Section V analyzes its non-equilibrium current noise. In particular, we analyze the effects of space charge on the shot noise properties. Section VI draws the main conclusions of our investigation. Two appendices provide the most technical derivations.

## II System under study

The system under study consists of an active region made by a non-degenerate $`n`$-type semiconducting material sandwiched between two metal plates that act as contacts. The semiconductor is assumed to be lightly doped with a donor density $`N_D`$. All donors are assumed to be ionized at the considered temperatures (the case of a $`p`$-type semiconductor can be analogously considered). To justify a one-dimensional electrostatic treatment in the $`x`$ direction and to neglect the effects of the boundaries in the $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions the transversal size of the sample is assumed to be much larger than the characteristic Debye screening length. The metals are assumed to form ohmic injecting contacts so that the voltage drop inside them, or equivalently, the contact resistance, can be neglected to a good approximation. Accordingly, when a voltage is applied to the structure, all the potential drop takes place inside the semiconductor between positions $`x=0`$ and $`x=L`$, and the contacts can be excluded from consideration. Depending on the parameter values of the contacts homogeneous as well as inhomogeneous conditions will be studied.

We assume that inelastic scattering processes with phonons are dominant, so that carrier thermalization at the bath temperature holds at any point. Accordingly, for the applied bias considered here no carrier heating takes place which allows us to use a field independent electron mobility and diffusivity.

## III Physical model

### A Charge transport

The transport approach appropriate to describe the electrical properties of the metal-semiconductor-metal structure under study consists of the standard drift-diffusion current equation self-consistently coupled to the Poisson equation and supplemented by appropriate boundary conditions. The current drift-diffusion equation reads

$$\frac{\overline{I}}{A}=q\overline{n}(x)\mu \overline{E}(x)+qD\frac{d\overline{n}(x)}{dx}\text{,}$$
(5)
where $`A`$ is the cross sectional area, $`\overline{n}(x)`$ the local carrier density, $`\mu `$ the mobility (assumed to be field independent), $`\overline{E}(x)`$ the local electric field and $`D`$ the diffusion coefficient (related to the mobility through Einstein’s relation $`D/\mu =k_BT/q`$, where non-degenerate statistics is assumed). The bar denotes an average with respect to fluctuations. The Poisson equation is as usual

$$\frac{d\overline{E}(x)}{dx}=\frac{q}{ϵ}\left[N_D\overline{n}(x)\right],$$
(6)
with $`ϵ`$ the static dielectric constant of the semiconducting material. The appropriate boundary conditions to describe the ohmic injecting contacts are given by (see appendix A)

$$\overline{n}(0)=\overline{n}(L)=n_c,$$
(7)
where the carrier density at the contacts $`n_c`$ is independent of the applied bias and given by (see appendix A)

$$n_c=N_C\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{q\varphi _{bn}}{k_BT}\right).$$
(8)
Here, $`N_C`$ is the effective density of states in the conduction band and $`\varphi _{bn}`$ the metal-semiconductor barrier height. For values of the contact parameters such as $`n_c=N_D`$ the stationary free carrier distribution is homogeneous, while for values such as $`n_c>N_D`$ there is net carrier injection from the contacts and the stationary carrier distribution is inhomogeneous.

Equations (5) and (6) can be combined into a single equation for the electric field

$$D\frac{d^2\overline{E}(x)}{dx^2}\mu \overline{E}(x)\left[\frac{d\overline{E}(x)}{dx}\frac{qN_D}{ϵ}\right]=\frac{\overline{I}}{A}$$
(9)
subject to the boundary conditions

$$\frac{d\overline{E}(0)}{dx}=\frac{d\overline{E}(L)}{dx}=\frac{q}{ϵ}\left[N_Dn_c\right].$$
(10)
### B Current fluctuations

The only source of fluctuations in the system is related to the diffusion of carriers inside the structure. Accordingly, the low frequency noise properties (beyond $`1/f`$ noise) can be described through a drift-diffusion-Langevin model. It consists of the linearized version of the transport model presented in the previous subsection supplemented by the appropriate Langevin source which describes the diffusion noise. The current equation in explicit form reads,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I(t)}{A}}`$ $`=`$ $`q\mu \overline{E}(x)\delta n_x(t)+q\overline{n}(x)\mu \delta E_x(t)+`$ (12)
$`qD{\displaystyle \frac{d\delta n_x(t)}{dx}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I_x(t)}{A}}\text{,}`$
where $`\delta E_x(t)`$ and $`\delta n_x(t)`$ refer to the fluctuations of electric field and number density at point $`x`$, respectively, and $`\delta I(t)`$ refers to the fluctuations of the total current. In Eq.(12), consistently with the low-frequency limit taken here, the displacement current is neglected. Moreover, $`\delta I_x(t)`$ is a Langevin source associated with the fluctuations of the current induced by the diffusion of carriers inside the sample. It has zero mean and low frequency spectral density,

$$2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑t\delta I_x(t)\delta I_x^{^{}}(t^{})=K(x)\delta (xx^{})\text{,}$$
(13)
with brackets indicating ensemble average, and

$$K(x)=4qAk_BT\mu \overline{n}(x)=4Aq^2D\overline{n}(x),$$
(14)
where in the last equality use is made of the Einstein relation. Finally, the linearized Poisson equation is given by

$$\frac{d\delta E_x(t)}{dx}=\frac{q}{ϵ}\delta n_x(t)\text{,}$$
(15)
and the linearized boundary conditions by (see appendix A)

$$\delta n_L(t)=\delta n_0(t)=0.$$
(16)
In analogy with the case of the transport equations, we can combine Eqs.(12) and (15) into a single equation for the electric field fluctuation of the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I(t)\delta I_x(t)}{A}}`$ $`=`$ $`D{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\delta E_x(t)}{dx^2}}\mu \overline{E}(x){\displaystyle \frac{d\delta E_x(t)}{dx}}`$ (18)
$`\mu \delta E_x(t)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{E}(x)}{dx}}{\displaystyle \frac{qN_D}{ϵ}}\right],`$
with boundary conditions

$$\frac{d\delta E_x(t)}{dx}|_0=\frac{d\delta E_x(t)}{dx}|_L=0.$$
(19)
## IV Stationary spatial profiles and current-voltage characteristics

In this section we present the results concerning the transport properties for the structure under study calculated from the model presented in Sec. III A. In particular we will focus on the transition from homogeneous to inhomogeneous conditions. To this end, for given properties of the semiconductor we will vary the contact density from $`n_c=N_D`$ (corresponding to an homogeneous condition with Ohmic contacts) to values $`n_c>N_D`$ (corresponding to inhomogeneous conditions with injecting contacts). Note, that for given properties of the semiconductor, to vary $`n_c`$ corresponds to vary the contact barrier height $`\varphi _{bn}`$, i.e. to change the material for the metal contact.

In what follows, the results are conveniently discussed in terms of the values of two dimensionless parameters

$$l=L/L_D\text{ and }\alpha =n_c/N_D\text{,}$$
(20)
with $`L_D=\left(k_BTϵ/q^2N_D\right)^{1/2}`$ being the Debye screening length associated with the semiconducting material. The parameter $`l`$ depends only on the properties of the given semiconductor, while $`\alpha `$ depends also on the contact properties, thus being independent variables. Since the non-equilibrium current noise properties of devices with homogeneous stationary free carrier density profiles were shown to change qualitatively when passing from $`l<1`$ to $`l>1`$, in what follows we will treat these two cases separately.

### A Homogeneous solution

For $`\alpha =1`$ ($`n_c=N_D`$), and any value of $`l`$, there exists a trivial homogeneous solution to the model presented in Sec.III A, namely

$$\overline{n}(x)=N_D,\overline{E}(x)=\frac{\overline{I}}{qA\mu N_D}.$$
(21)
Accordingly, the current-voltage ($`IV`$) characteristics is linear and satisfies Ohm’s law $`\overline{I}=V/R_{bulk}`$, with $`R_{bulk}=L/(qA\mu N_D)`$ being the semiconductor resistance.

### B Inhomogeneous solution

For $`\alpha >1`$ ($`n_c>N_D`$) the solution to the model presented in Sec. III A is spatially inhomogeneous and can not be obtained in a closed analytical form. Only under asymptotic conditions it is possible to derive approximate analytical expressions (see also appendix B). In any case, an exact solution of the transport model can be obtained by numerical integration following this procedure. One first solves numerically Eq.(9) subject to the boundary conditions in Eq.(10). Having found the electric field profile $`\overline{E}(x)`$, the carrier density profile $`\overline{n}(x)`$ is obtained from the Poisson equation (6). Furthermore, for a given value of the current $`\overline{I}`$, the applied voltage is found as $`\overline{V}=_0^L𝑑x\overline{E}(x)`$, from where the $`IV`$ characteristic is obtained.

In what follow we discuss the main features of the inhomogeneous solution. To this end we will consider two particular values of $`l`$, namely $`l=0.1`$ and $`l=50`$, as representative examples of the behavior observed for $`l<1`$ and $`l>1`$, respectively. In both cases, the values of $`\alpha `$ will be varied in the range $`1\alpha 10^4`$, thus allowing us to explore both slightly and highly inhomogeneous situations.

Figure 1 displays the stationary free-carrier density profiles for $`l=0.1`$ for several values of the applied bias and for $`\alpha =10`$ (Fig. 1a) and $`\alpha =10^4`$ (Fig. 1b). As can be seen, the stationary free carrier density profiles are inhomogeneous and depend on the applied bias value.

For $`\alpha =10`$ (Fig.1a) the degree of inhomogeneity is rather small being at most of about $`1\%`$, and the free carrier density departs more significantly from $`n_c`$ the lower the value of the applied voltage. The physical reason for this behavior can be found in the fact that the characteristic Debye screening length of the sample, roughly determined by $`n_c`$, i.e. $`L_{Dc}=\left(k_BTϵ/q^2n_c\right)^{1/2}`$, is larger than the sample length $`L`$ ($`l_cL/L_{Dc}=l\alpha ^{1/2}=0.1\times 10^{1/2}0.3`$) thus not allowing the free carrier density to relax from its contact value $`n_c`$ to its bulk value $`N_D`$, i.e. to the local charge neutral state. Similar behaviors appears for other values of $`l<1`$ and $`\alpha >1`$ as long as $`l_c=l\alpha ^{1/2}1`$.

For $`\alpha =10^4`$ (Fig.1b) the degree of inhomogeneity becomes appreciable being up to about a factor of $`10`$. For low applied bias $`\overline{n}(x)`$ is almost symmetric and departs significantly from $`n_c`$. The reason is that the characteristic Debye screening length, which can be roughly approximated by $`L_{Dc}`$, is shorter than the sample length $`L`$ ($`l_c=l\alpha ^{1/2}=0.1\times 10^2=10`$), thus allowing relaxation towards the charge neutral state. However, due to the small value of $`l_c`$, complete relaxation of $`\overline{n}(x)`$ to the value $`N_D`$ is not reached. At increasing applied bias, a net injection of carriers takes place resulting in an increase of the values of $`\overline{n}(x)`$ and in a rather asymmetric profile. Finally, for the highest applied biases carrier injection no longer takes place, and the density distribution is almost homogeneous with a value close to the contact value $`n_c`$. Similar behaviors are observed for other values of $`l<1`$ and $`\alpha >1`$ as long as $`l_c=l\alpha ^{1/2}>1`$.

The current-voltage characteristics for $`l=0.1`$ and for $`\alpha `$ ranging from $`1`$ to $`10^4`$ are displayed in Fig. 2. For $`\alpha 10^2`$, the $`IV`$ characteristics is found to remain linear with a resistance given by $`R_c=L/(qA\mu n_c)`$. This linear behavior can be understood by noting that for these values of $`\alpha `$ the free carrier density profile is quasi-homogeneous with a value approximately equal to $`n_c`$ and almost independent of the applied bias (see Fig. 1a). Similar behaviors are found for other values of $`l<1`$ and $`\alpha >1`$ as long as $`l_c=l\alpha ^{1/2}1`$. For $`\alpha =10^3`$ and $`10^4`$ the $`IV`$ characteristics in Fig. 2 displays a super-linear behavior in an intermediate range of applied voltages, while it is linear at the lowest and highest applied bias. The resistance at the lowest bias, $`R_{low}`$, satisfies $`R_cR_{low}`$ $`R_{bulk}`$, since in this range of bias the free carrier density profile is almost independent of bias and satisfies $`n_c\overline{n}(x)N_D`$ (see Fig.1b). Furthermore, the resistance for high applied bias $`R_{high}`$ is almost equal to $`R_c`$, since in this range of bias the density profiles is almost independent of bias and given by $`\overline{n}(x)n_c`$ (see Fig. 1b). Finally, the superlinear behavior is due to the net injection of carriers taking place in this bias regime (see Fig. 1b) thus resulting in an increase of the conductivity of the sample. Similar behaviors appear for other values of $`l<1`$ and $`\alpha >1`$ as long as $`l_c=l\alpha ^{1/2}>1`$.

Let us now consider the case of $`l=50`$. Figure 3 reports the stationary free carrier density profile for $`\alpha =10^3`$ and several values of the applied bias. The qualitative behavior of the profiles is similar to those observed in Fig. 1b, since both cases correspond to situations in which $`l_c>1`$ (in the present case $`l_c=l\alpha ^{1/2}=50\times 10^{3/2}1581`$). The main difference between these figures is that in Fig. 3 relaxation to the local charge neutral state can take place for low bias, since the value of $`l_c`$ is high enough. Similar behaviors are observed for other values of $`l>1`$ and $`\alpha >1`$.

The current-voltage characteristics for $`l=50`$ and several values of $`\alpha `$ are plotted in Fig. 4. The $`IV`$ characteristics is linear at the lowest bias, super-linear at intermediate bias and again linear at the highest bias. This behavior is similar to that reported in Fig. 2 for the curves with $`\alpha =10^3`$ and $`10^4`$, since both cases correspond to situations where $`l_c>1`$.

In the present case ($`l>1`$) one can reach an asymptotic limit for $`l1`$ and $`\alpha 1`$ in which the following analytical asymptotic expression for the $`IV`$ curve can be derived, (see appendix B)

$$\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{l}\frac{qV}{k_BT}\text{}0\frac{qV}{k_BT}l^2\hfill \\ \frac{9}{8}\frac{1}{l^3}\left(\frac{qV}{k_BT}\right)^2\text{}l^2\frac{qV}{k_BT}\alpha l^2\hfill \\ \frac{\alpha }{l}\frac{qV}{k_BT}\text{}\alpha l^2\frac{qV}{k_BT}\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
where we have defined $`I_{th}=lk_BT/(qR_{bulk})`$. Equation (22) gives a good description of the $`IV`$ curves for $`l10`$ and $`\alpha 100`$, as can be seen in Fig. 4 where the symbols represent Eq. (22). Note that in the asymptotic limit, the low bias resistance is given by $`R_{low}=`$ $`R_{bulk}`$, independent from any contact parameter since at low bias a state of local charge neutrality is achieved in the bulk of the sample (see Fig. 3). Furthermore, in the intermediate bias regime, the $`IV`$ characteristics display a quadratic bias dependence, in agreement with the well-known Mott and Gurney law for space charge transport in diffusive conductors. In this bias range, a strong injection of carriers from the contacts takes place, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Finally, at the highest voltages the resistance is given by $`R_{high}=`$ $`R_c`$, since the density profile is almost homogeneous and equal to $`n_c`$ (see Fig.3).

## V Current noise properties

We characterize the low frequency current fluctuation properties by means of the low frequency current spectral density defined as

$$S_I(0)=2_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\delta I(0)\delta I(t)𝑑t.$$
(23)
For the model presented in Sec. III B, $`S_I(0)`$ can be given a closed analytical expression that takes into account in an exact way the effects of the diffusion current on the non-equilibrium current fluctuations and hence is applicable to the whole range of system parameters. Below we discuss separately the cases corresponding to homogeneous and inhomogeneous stationary density profiles, since they involve rather different mathematics.

### A Homogeneous stationary profiles

When the stationary profiles are homogeneous, Eq.(18) consists of a second order differential equation with constant coefficients. The solution of this equation, as well as an analytical expression for $`S_I(0)`$, has been derived recently:

$`S_I(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4k_BT}{R_{bulk}}}+`$ (27)
$`K{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _2^2\lambda _1^2)}{2L^2\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(e^{\lambda _1L}1\right)\left(e^{\lambda _2L}1\right)}{\left(e^{\lambda _2L}e^{\lambda _1L}\right)^2}}\times `$
$`[\lambda _2(e^{\lambda _2L}+1)(e^{\lambda _1L}1)`$
$`\lambda _1(e^{\lambda _1L}+1)(e^{\lambda _2L}1)]`$
where $`K=4qAk_BT\mu \overline{n}`$, and

$$\lambda _{1,2}=\frac{1}{2L_E}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1+4\frac{L_E^2}{L_D^2}}\right)\text{;}$$
(28)
with $`L_E=k_BTL/(qV)`$. In Eq.(28) the subscript $`1`$ corresponds to the plus term and the subscript $`2`$ to the minus term.

For $`l<1`$, Eq. (27) takes the form

$$S_I(0)=2q\overline{I}\mathrm{coth}(qV/2k_BT).$$
(29)
Equation (29) predicts a standard cross-over between Nyquist noise (Eq.(1)) and shot noise (Eq.(4)) for $`qV/k_BT3`$. The physical reason for the appearance of shot noise is the absence of long range Coulomb correlations due to the fact that the sample length $`L`$ is smaller than the Debye screening length $`L_D`$.

For $`l>1`$ the noise properties change considerably. Accordingly, in the limit $`l1`$ Eq. (27) is well approximated by

$$S_I(0)=S_I^{th}\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{4}{l}\text{ for }0\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}l^{1/3}\\ \frac{2}{l^2}\left(\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\right)^3\text{ for }l^{1/3}\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}l\\ 2\left(\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\right)\text{ for }l\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\end{array}$$
(30)
where $`S_I^{th}=qI_{th}`$. The above expression gives: Nyquist noise at low bias ($`0qV/k_BTl^{4/3}`$), a cubic dependence on current of noise at intermediate bias ($`l^{4/3}qV/k_BTl^2`$) and shot noise at the highest bias ($`qV/k_BTl^2`$). The physical reason for the appearance of shot noise in this case is the vanishing of long range Coulomb correlations because of a drift transit time shorter than both the diffusion transit time and the dielectric relaxation time.

### B Inhomogeneous stationary profiles

When the stationary profile is inhomogeneous, Eq. (18) consists of a second-order stochastic differential equation with non-constant coefficients. To obtain an analytical solution of this equation, we use a method developed in Refs. \[\]. The method is based on the fact that

$$\rho (x)=d\overline{E}(x)/dx,$$
(31)
constitutes a particular solution of Eq. (18). On this basis one can find an analytical expression for the electric field fluctuations $`\delta E_x(t)`$ that solves Eq. (18) and satisfies the boundary condition in Eq. (19). From the expression of the electric field fluctuations we evaluate the voltage fluctuations, $`\delta V(t)=_0^L\delta E_x(t)𝑑x`$. Following a procedure similar to that outlined in Ref. \[\], the voltage fluctuations can be expressed as:

$$\delta V(t)=_0^LZ(x)\delta I_x(t)𝑑x,$$
(32)
with

$`Z(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (x)}{ϵAD}}[{\displaystyle _x^L}{\displaystyle \frac{E(\xi )E_\mathrm{\Delta }}{\rho ^2(\xi )}}e^{\frac{q(\varphi (x)\varphi (\xi ))}{k_BT}}d\xi `$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(E_LE_\mathrm{\Delta })}{\rho _L\rho _L^{}}}e^{\frac{q(V+\varphi (x))}{k_BT}}],`$
and

$$E_\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{_0^L\frac{E(x)}{\rho ^2(x)}e^{\frac{q\varphi (x)}{k_BT}}𝑑x+\frac{E_L}{\rho _L\rho _L^{}}e^{\frac{qV}{k_BT}}\frac{E_0}{\rho _0\rho _0^{}}}{_0^L\frac{1}{\rho ^2(x)}e^{\frac{q\varphi (x)}{k_BT}}𝑑x+\frac{1}{\rho _L\rho _L^{}}e^{\frac{qV}{k_BT}}\frac{1}{\rho _0\rho _0^{}}},$$
(35)
Here, $`\varphi (x)`$ is the electric potential. The function $`Z(x)`$ is referred to as the impedance field, since it satisfies

$$Z(0)=_0^LZ(x)𝑑x=\left(\frac{d\overline{I}}{dV}\right)^1.$$
(36)
From Eq. (32), the low frequency spectral density of the voltage fluctuations is given by

$$S_V(0)=4Aq^2D_0^L[Z(x)]^2\overline{n}(x)𝑑x,$$
(37)
where use is made of Eq. (13) and (14). The low frequency spectral density of current fluctuations is then evaluated from

$$S_I(0)=\frac{S_V(0)}{Z(0)^2},$$
(38)
Equations (34)-(38) constitute an exact solution of the noise model presented in Sec. III for the general case of an inhomogeneous stationary profile. They represent the main result of this paper. Note, that the solution incorporates the effects of the diffusion current without any approximation, thus allowing us to investigate the transition from homogeneous to highly inhomogeneous stationary profiles.

In order to evaluate Eqs. (34)-(38) we will use the steady-state profiles calculated in Sec. IV B. As for the case of transport we will consider the values $`l=0.1`$ and $`l=50`$, as representative examples of the behavior observed for $`l<1`$ and $`l>1`$.

Figure 5 reports the low frequency spectral density of current fluctuations $`S_I(0)`$ as a function of the current as obtained from Eqs. (34)-(38) for $`l=0.1`$ and several values of $`\alpha `$. For comparison the results for the homogeneous case, as calculated from Eq. (27), are also displayed (dashed line). We note that for the lowest degree of inhomogeneity ($`\alpha 10^2`$) the non-equilibrium current noise results can be well approximated by Eq. (29) (symbols in Fig. 5). The reason is that for these values of $`\alpha `$ the profiles are quasi-homogeneous with free carrier density $`n_c`$ and with Debye screening length satisfying $`l_c<1`$, which are the conditions for the validity of Eq.(29). Similar behaviors are observed for other values of $`l<1`$ and $`\alpha >1`$ for which $`l_c<1`$.

By contrast, for a high degree of inhomogeneity ($`\alpha =10^3`$ and $`10^4`$) the results deviate from Eq.(29), and regions where the current noise is suppressed below the shot noise limit are observed at intermediate bias values. The bias values where shot noise suppression takes place are found to correspond to those applied bias for which significant net carrier injection from the contacts takes place (see Fig. 1b). The physical origin of the shot noise suppression should be traced back to the correlations induced by the long range Coulomb interaction which are active in this range of bias. Similar behaviors are observed for other values of $`l<1`$ and $`\alpha >1`$ for which $`l_c>1`$.

Figure 6 reports the low frequency spectral density of current fluctuations $`S_I(0)`$ as a function of the current as obtained from Eqs. (34)-(38) when $`l=50`$ and for several values of $`\alpha `$. For comparison, the results for the homogeneous case, as calculated from Eq.(27), are also displayed (dashed line). As can be seen, a qualitative new behavior at intermediate current values is identified with respect to the homogeneous behavior for all values of $`\alpha `$. The new behavior is found to tend to a square root dependence on the current and to cover broader current intervals as $`\alpha `$ is increased. This fact can be quantitatively evaluated by means of the following explicit expression valid for $`l10`$ and $`\alpha 100`$

$$\frac{S_I(0)}{S_I^{th}}\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{4}{l}\text{}0\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\frac{l}{18}\hfill \\ \frac{12\sqrt{2}}{l^{3/2}}\left(\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\right)^{1/2}\text{,}\frac{l}{18}\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\left(\frac{9}{2}\alpha ^8l\right)^{\frac{1}{5}}\hfill \\ \frac{8}{\alpha ^4l^2}\left(\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\right)^3\text{,}\left(\frac{9}{2}\alpha ^8l\right)^{\frac{1}{5}}\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\frac{\alpha ^2l}{2}\hfill \\ 2\left(\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\right)\text{,}\frac{\alpha ^2l}{2}\frac{\overline{I}}{I_{th}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
(see Fig. 6 where the symbols correspond to the approximate expression). Otherwise, for $`1<l<10`$ and $`1<\alpha <100`$ the exact result should be used.

The dependence of the noise power as the square root of the current corresponds to the well known double thermal noise regime found in space charge limited devices (see Eq.(2)). We note that the double thermal noise behavior is restricted to current values in the range $`l/18\overline{I}/I_{th}\left(4.5\alpha ^8l\right)^{1/5}`$. For higher currents the noise properties deviate from the double thermal noise behavior and start resembling those corresponding to homogeneous conditions (cubic current dependence followed by shot noise). This fact is illustrated in Fig. 7 where we compare the exact results of the present paper (continuous line) with those of existing theories for double thermal noise represented by Eq. (3) (triangles) for $`l=50`$ and $`\alpha =10^3`$. As can be seen, by neglecting the diffusion current, existing theories can only be applied up to bias values below the onset of the cubic region. At applied bias above this onset, the diffusion current plays a relevant role and the exact theory presented here must be used. It is worth remarking that for devices operating under strong current injection conditions ($`\alpha 10^4`$ ) the quasi-homogenous behavior predicted at the highest bias can be hardly observed in practice because of hot-carrier effects. However, in the low current injection regime ($`1<\alpha 10^4`$) this behavior should be experimentally accessible as discussed in the following suggested example.

### C Example

As an example to illustrate the experimental accessibility of the theoretical predictions described above we consider the following particular case. As semiconductor material we consider high resistive $`p`$-type CdTe at room temperature with a free carrier density (holes) $`p=10^8`$cm<sup>-3</sup>. These low values of the free carrier density can be obtained by means of compensation. The hole mobility is taken to be $`\mu 40`$ cm<sup>2</sup>/Vs, the effective hole mass $`m^{}=0.8m_0`$, where $`m_0`$ is the electron mass, and the dielectric constant $`ϵ=10.3ϵ_0`$, with $`ϵ_0`$ being the vacuum permittivity. The sample length is assumed to be $`L=4`$mm and the cross sectional area $`A=40`$ mm<sup>2</sup>. As metal for the contacts we consider gold, which has been reported to form almost ideal metal-semiconductor junctions on CdTe. The value for the Au/CdTe barrier height for holes, deduced from that for electrons, is $`\varphi _{bp}=0.55V`$, where use has been made of the relationship $`\varphi _{bp}=E_g\varphi _{bn}`$ with $`E_g=1.48`$ eV and $`\varphi _{bn}=0.93`$ V. According to the value of $`\varphi _{bp}`$ the contact density for holes is $`p_c=10^{10}`$cm<sup>-3</sup>, where we used that $`p_c=N_V\mathrm{exp}[q\varphi _{bp}/(k_BT)]`$, with $`N_V=1.8`$ $`10^{19}`$cm<sup>-3</sup> being the CdTe effective density of the states in the valence band at room temperature. The metal contact described above forms an ohmic injecting contact in the terms described in the present paper (see also at the end of appendix A.)

For the set of parameters considered above, we have $`L_D=0.4`$ mm and $`L_{Dc}=0.04`$ mm, from where $`l=L/L_D=10`$, $`\alpha =n_c/N_D=100`$ and $`l_c=L/L_{Dc}=100`$. Figure 8 displays the calculated current $`I`$ (right axis) and low frequency current spectral density (left axis) as a function of the applied. According to the calculations, the predicted $`IV`$ characteristic is linear up to bias voltages around $`0.6`$ V. For higher bias it tends to be quadratic, up to $`V300`$ V, from where it returns to linearity. Furthermore, the calculated current spectral density $`S_I(0)`$ displays the Nyquist thermal value up to voltages around $`0.3`$ V. Then, it increases with voltage according to the double thermal noise behavior up to around $`20`$ V. At further increasing voltages, $`S_I(0)`$ increases sharply with voltage according to the cubic dependence with applied current up to $`V1kV`$, where shot noise appears. It is worth noting that the calculated values of the low frequency current spectral density are well inside the range of experimental accessibility (state of the art correlation spectrum analyzers are able to reach noise levels as low as $`10^{29}`$ A<sup>2</sup>/Hz). Moreover, the electric fields reach maximum values up to $`E_{av}=V/L=5`$ kV/cm, which are still below that for the onset of hot electron effects in $`p`$-type CdTe. We conclude that such an example shows that the theoretical predictions presented in this paper are accessible to an experimental confirmation.

## VI Conclusions

We have carried out an analytical theory of transport and current fluctuation properties in metal-semiconductor-metal structures made of highly resistive semiconductors. The theory includes the effects of the diffusion current in an exact way, thus allowing us to study the whole range of physical conditions concerning the strength of the applied bias and the level of carrier injection from the contacts. It is shown that in the low carrier injection limit for which $`l_c=L/L_{Dc}<1`$, where $`L`$ is the sample length and $`L_{Dc}`$ the Debye screening length associated with the free carrier density at the metal-semiconductor interface $`n_c`$, the structure behaves like a linear resistor with low frequency noise properties given by $`S_I(0)=2q\overline{I}\mathrm{coth}[qV/(2k_BT)]`$. In the intermediate carrier injection regime, roughly determined by $`1<l_c100`$, the structure displays a linear-superlinear-linear current-voltage characteristics. In this regime, the current spectral density displays a cross-over from Nyquist noise to shot noise mediated by a region depending first as the square root of the current (double thermal noise) and then as the third power of the current. Finally, under strong carrier injection conditions $`l_c1`$ the standard theory of space charge limited diodes is recovered. In this limit the current-voltage characteristics is first linear and then quadratic. Accordingly, the current spectral density displays Nyquist thermal noise at low bias followed by double thermal noise at higher applied bias. We suggest that high resistive p-type CdTe is one of the best suited materials to provide an experimental test of the theoretical predictions in the small and moderated injection regimes.

## VII Acknowledgments

Partial support from the MCyT-Spain through the Ramon y Cajal program and projects Nos. BFM2000-0624 and BFM2001-2159 and from the Italy-Spain Joint Action of the MIUR-Italy (Ref. IT109) and MCyT-Spain (Ref. HI2000-0138) is gratefully acknowledged. Prof. T. Gonzalez of Salamanca University is acknowledged for the stimulating discussions carried out on the subject.

## A Metal-semiconductor model contact

In this appendix we justify the boundary conditions used along the paper for both the transport, Eq. (7) and the noise properties, Eq. (16). Following Refs. \[\], the general boundary conditions for the transport through a metal-semiconductor contact read

$$\overline{n}(0)=\frac{\overline{I}+I_s^0}{qAv_r^0}\text{}\overline{n}(L)=\frac{\overline{I}+I_s^L}{qAv_r^L},$$
(A1)
with $`v_r^0`$ and $`I_s^0`$ (res. $`v_r^L`$ and $`I_s^L`$) being the recombination velocity and saturation current, respectively, of the contact located at $`x=0`$ (res. $`x=L`$). The currents $`I_s^L`$ and $`I_s^0`$ are given by $`I_s^0=qAv_r^0n_0^{eq}`$ and $`I_s^L=qAv_r^Ln_L^{eq}`$, where

$$n_0^{eq}=N_Ce^{\frac{q\varphi _{bn}^0}{k_BT}}\text{}n_L^{eq}=N_Ce^{\frac{q\varphi _{bn}^L}{k_BT}},$$
(A2)
Here, $`N_C`$ is the effective density of states in the conduction band and $`\varphi _{bn}^0`$ (res. $`\varphi _{bn}^L`$) is the barrier height at contact $`x=0`$ (res. $`x=L`$). For the case of ideal metal-semiconductor junctions, the barrier heights are given by $`\varphi _{bn}^0=\varphi _m^0\chi `$ and $`\varphi _{bn}^L=\varphi _m^L\chi `$, with $`\chi `$ being the semiconductor affinity and $`\varphi _m^0`$ (res. $`\varphi _m^L`$) the work function of the metal located at $`x=0`$ (res. $`x=L`$). For highly resistive materials the diffusion approximation can be applied. In this approximation it is assumed that the current takes values much smaller that the thermionic current, i.e. $`\overline{I}I_s`$. This condition implies  $`\overline{I}/I_{th}\overline{I}_s/I_{th}=\alpha /\beta `$, where

$$\beta =\mu \sqrt{\frac{2\pi N_Dm^{}}{ϵ}};\alpha =\frac{n^{eq}}{N_D}.$$
(A3)
In this limit, one can approximate Eq.(A1) by

$$\overline{n}(0)\frac{I_s^0}{qAv_r^0}=n_0^{eq}\text{}\overline{n}(L)\frac{I_s^L}{qAv_r^L}=n_L^{eq},$$
(A4)
which for the case of a symmetric structure correspond to the boundary conditions in Eq.(7). This result also implies that the resistance of the metal-semiconductor interface is negligible small in comparison to the bulk resistance. As a result, the fluctuations generated at the metal-semiconductor interface can be completely neglected. This is equivalent to approximate

$$\delta n_0(t)0\text{}\delta n_L(t)0,$$
(A5)
in agreement with the boundary conditions used along the paper Eq. (16).

For the concrete example considered in Sec.V C, one has $`\beta =\mathrm{9\; 10}^61`$, which allows us to apply the diffusive approximation up to currents satisfying the condition $`I_s/I_{th}=\alpha /\beta =\mathrm{1.1\; 10}^7`$, well above the current values required to observe the different behaviors here identified.

## B Asymptotic transport theory

In this appendix we derive the asymptotic expression for the $`IV`$ characteristics used in Eq.(22) of Sec. IV B. To this purpose, we start by considering the limit when $`l1`$. In this limit, one can neglect the diffusive contribution in Eq.(9), thus obtaining a first order differential equation for the electric field of the form

$$\overline{E}(x)\left[\frac{d\overline{E}(x)}{dx}1\right]=\overline{I},$$
(B1)
subject to the boundary condition $`E(L)=\overline{I}/\alpha `$. In equation (B1), and along this appendix, we use dimensionless variables to simplify the expressions. Accordingly, we take $`\overline{E}\overline{E}/E_{th}`$, $`\overline{I}\overline{I}/I_{th}`$, $`xx/L_D`$, $`LL/L_D`$, $`\overline{U}(x)\overline{U}(x)/k_BT`$, where $`E_{th}=\left(k_BTN_D/ϵ\right)^{1/2}`$.Equation (B1) can be easily integrate between $`x=0`$ and $`x=L`$ to give the following relation

$$\overline{E}_L+\overline{I}\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{\overline{E}_L}{\overline{I}}\right)\overline{E}_0+\overline{I}\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{\overline{E}_0}{\overline{I}}\right)=L.$$
(B2)
where $`\overline{E}_L=\overline{E}(L)`$ and $`\overline{E}_0=\overline{E}(0)`$. On the other hand, by using again Eq.(B1), one can derive an explicit expression for the potential energy difference $`\overline{U}(x)\overline{U}_L=_L^x\overline{E}(x)𝑑x`$, which once evaluated at $`x=0`$ gives for the applied bias, $`V=U_LU_0`$,

$`\overline{V}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}_L^2}{2}}+\overline{I}\overline{E}_L+\overline{I}^2\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}_L}{\overline{I}}}\right)`$ (B4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}_0^2}{2}}\overline{I}\overline{E}_0\overline{I}^2\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}_0}{\overline{I}}}\right).`$
To end up with an explicit expression for the $`IV`$ characteristics, we impose the boundary condition $`\overline{E}_L=\overline{I}/\alpha `$ in Eqs.(B4) and (B2), thus giving the $`IV`$ characteristics in parametric form

$`\overline{V}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\frac{1}{2\alpha ^2}+\frac{1}{\alpha }+\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)\frac{u_0^2}{2}u_0\mathrm{ln}\left(1u_0\right)\right]}{L^2\left[\frac{1}{\alpha }+\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)u_0\mathrm{ln}\left(1u_0\right)\right]^2}},`$ (B5)
$`\overline{I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\left[\frac{1}{\alpha }+\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{1}{\alpha }\right)u_0\mathrm{ln}\left(1u_0\right)\right]}},`$ (B6)
where the parameter $`u_0=\overline{E}_0/\overline{I}`$ satisfies the condition $`1/\alpha <u_0<1`$. By further expanding the previous expression for $`\alpha 1`$ one then arrives at Eq. (22).