text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The existence of a large extra dimension may provide new insights into problems such as the hierarchy problem . In that scenario , only gravity can propagate in the higher dimensional bulk, and all other fields are confined to a lower dimensional brane. The background solution in Ref. consists of two parallel flat branes - positive tension and negative tension- embedded in a five-dimensional Anti-de Sitter(AdS) bulk. Recently, other scenarios in which additional fields propagate in the bulk have been introduced .

When the fields propagate in the bulk, a Casimir force which appears from vacuum fluctuation between two plates, causes a quantum instability of system . Therefore, the Casimir force makes the size of the extra dimension go to zero or to infinity, thus finding the stability of a two plate system becomes important.

There are some papers which find the stabilization of two branes. Goldberger and Wise  proposed that a radion effective potential may stabilize two branes. Garriga at al.  calculated the radion effective potential $`V_{eff}(\varphi )`$ due to the Kaluza-Klein graviton and other massless bulk fields and found that the radion field $`\varphi `$ could be stabilized through the Casimir force induced by the bulk field. The phenomenological study of the one-loop effect of the radion is in . However, there are some problems in providing a theoretical basis for the origin of the radion effective potential.

Brevik et al. calculated the thermodynamic energy (effective potential) at non-zero temperature. They suggested a new dynamical mechanism to stabilize the thermal brane-world universe in the low energy limit. In that paper, a more natural hierarchy was generated at low temperature compared with that of the hot inflationary universe.

Another candidate to stabilize the size of the extra dimension was suggested in Ref., where the non-commutativity of space time in the extra dimension was considered. In noncommutavive theory, the commutation relations among space-time coordinates are given by

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(1.1)
and from the uncertainty relations,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }x^\nu \frac{1}{2}|\theta ^{\mu \nu }|,$$
(1.2)
we know that $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ introduces a minimum area in the $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ plane. The space-time which satisfies Eq.(1.1) is called the canonical noncommutative space-time. Experimental tests for the noncommutativity of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ from deformed dispersion relations of canonical noncommutative space-time have been proposed in Ref.. From this noncommutativity, Gomis et al. calculated a Kaluza-Klein spectrum in a compact noncommutative extra dimension. The Casimir effect from a one-loop quantum correction in a compact noncommutative extra dimension was obtained in Ref., where the next order correction due to the noncommutativity was found to give either an attractive or a repulsive Casimir force. Also a stabilization of the size of the extra dimension in a gravity field was proposed.

In this paper, we explore another type of deformed Poincaré symmetry. The lesson to be learned in the approach is that a deformation of the Poincaré symmetry can be a source of stability for a two brane world. One example is $`\kappa `$-deformed theory. Using the relativistic harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian in $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time, we will calculate the Casimir force for a two parallel plate system.

## 2 Casimir effect

To set the notation, we briefly review the Casimir effect in ordinary space-time. Consider a massless scalar field $`\varphi `$ confined between two parallel plates separated by a distance $`a`$ . Using the Dirichlet boundary condition

$$\varphi (0)=\varphi (a)=0,$$
(2.1)
the Casimir energy per unit area can be obtained by summing up the zero-point energies:

$$u=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha }{}\omega _\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\sqrt{k^2+\frac{n^2\pi ^2}{a^2}}.$$
(2.2)
We set $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$. The integers $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ label the normal modes between the plates, and $`k`$ is the transverse momenta along the plate. The sum is formally divergent.

If the definition of the Gamma function,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)=p^z_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{pt}t^{z1},$$
(2.3)
is used, the energy per unit area becomes

$`u=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})}}`$ (2.5)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}t^{1/2}e^{t(k^2+n^2\pi ^2/a^2)}.`$
After performing a Gaussian integration and an integration with respect to $`t`$, and using the definition of the Riemann zeta function, we can obtain the energy per unit area:

$$u=\frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}\left(\frac{\pi }{a}\right)^{d+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d+1}{2}\right)\zeta (d1).$$
(2.6)
To avoid infinity when $`z`$ is negative even integer, we use the reflection formula as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)\pi ^{z/2}\zeta z=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1z}{2}\right)\pi ^{(z1)/2}\zeta (1z).$$
(2.7)
The the final result is

$$u=\frac{1}{a^{d+1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{d+2}{2}\right)(4\pi )^{(d+2)/2}\zeta (d+2).$$
(2.8)
The energy is always negative in even dimensions. In the $`d=2`$ case, the Casimir energy per unit area in the transverse direction is

$$u=\frac{\pi ^2}{1440}\frac{1}{a^3}.$$
(2.9)
Then, we can obtain the force per unit area between the plates by taking the negative derivative of the energy per unit area with respect to $`a`$,

$$f=\frac{u}{a}=\frac{3}{1440}\frac{\pi ^2}{a^4}.$$
(2.10)
In even dimensions $`d`$, the Casimir force is always attractive; therefore, the two plate system cannot be stable. This system spontaneously collapses to one plate.

## 3 Casimir effect in $`\kappa `$deformed theory

Since the $`\kappa `$-deformed Poincaré algebra was introduced in Ref. and , it has been widely studied in many papers theoretically, and phenomenologically . In $`\kappa `$-deformed Minkowski space, which is called a Lie-algebra noncommutative space-time, the commutation relations are given by

$`[\widehat{x}_0,\widehat{x}_i]`$ $`=`$ $`i\lambda \widehat{x}_i,`$ (3.1)
$`[\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{x}_j]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.2)
where $`\lambda =1/\kappa `$. Since we set $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$, $`\lambda `$ has the dimension of length.

From the commutation relations in Eq.(3.2), we obtain a $`\kappa `$-deformed Poincaré algebra, written in the bi-cross-product basis  which consists of a classical Lorentz algebra

$`[M_{\mu \nu },M_{\rho \tau }]=`$ $`i(g_{\mu \rho }M_{\nu \tau }+g_{\nu \tau }M_{\mu \rho }g_{\mu \tau }M_{\nu \rho }`$ (3.4)
$`g_{\nu \tau }M_{\mu \tau }),`$
and a deformed commutation relations

$`[M_i,P_j]`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{ijk}P_k,`$ (3.5)
$`[M_i,P_0]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.6)
$`[N_i,P_j]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta _{ij}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda }}(1e^{2\lambda P_0})+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(\stackrel{}{P})^2\right)+i\lambda P_iP_j,`$ (3.7)
$`[N_i,P_0]`$ $`=`$ $`iP_i,`$ (3.8)
where $`M_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}M_{jk},N_i=M_{i0}`$.
In a $`\kappa `$-deformed Poincaré algebra, the mass Casimir takes the form

$$C_2^\lambda =\stackrel{}{P}^2e^{\lambda P_0}\left(\frac{2}{\lambda }\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\lambda P_0}{2}\right)^2=M^2.$$
(3.9)
In the case of a massless scalar field ($`M=0`$) localized between two plates, the dispersion relation can be written as

$$P_0=\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\lambda \sqrt{\stackrel{}{P}^2}\right).$$
(3.10)
Since $`P_0=i\frac{}{t}`$, we can write down the Schrödinger equation for a massless scalar field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and find a relation between the energy in $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time and the energy in ordinary space-time:

$$P_0\mathrm{\Psi }=i\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }=H\mathrm{\Psi }=E^\lambda \mathrm{\Psi },$$
(3.11)
where $`E^\lambda `$ is the $`\kappa `$-deformed energy. By putting $`\sqrt{\stackrel{}{P}^2}`$ into the non-deformed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ and substituting the dispersion relation into the Schrödinger equation, we can relate the $`\kappa `$-deformed energy to the non-deformed energy $`E_0`$ as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda \sqrt{\stackrel{}{P}^2})\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda H_0)\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (3.12)
$`E^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\mathrm{ln}(1+\lambda E_0).`$ (3.13)
To calculate the Casimir effect, we choose a non-deformed Hamiltonian for harmonic oscillator. Then, the harmonic oscillator energy of in $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time is

$$E_n^\lambda =\frac{1}{\lambda }\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\lambda \omega \left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right].$$
(3.14)
It is easy to show for the ordinary space-time that in the limit $`\lambda 0`$, the $`\kappa `$-deformed energy goes to the ordinary harmonic oscillator energy:

$$\underset{\lambda 0}{lim}E_n^\lambda =\omega \left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(3.15)
Because the Casimir effect comes from the zero-mode energy, we expand the zero-mode energy (for very small $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda 1`$):

$`E_0^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega {\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\lambda \omega ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\lambda ^2\omega ^3\mathrm{}`$ (3.16)
$`=`$ $`u_1+u_2+u_3+\mathrm{},`$ (3.17)
where $`\omega =\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$. We divide $`\omega `$ into two parts - one perpendicular to the plates and one along the plates. Since the direction perpendicular to the plates is compactified, the momentum is quantized as follow:

$`\stackrel{}{k}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (3.18)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{n\pi }{a}}\right)^2.`$ (3.19)
Then, we can calculate the Casimir energy by extracting the finite terms.

The first term is the same as the ordinary Casimir energy in the previous section,

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+\left(\frac{n\pi }{a}\right)^2}}`$ (3.20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^{d+1}}}(4\pi )^{\frac{(d+2)}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{d+2}{2}}\right)\zeta (d+2).`$ (3.21)
The second term becomes

$`u_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\left[\stackrel{}{k}^2+\left(\frac{n\pi }{a}\right)^2\right]}`$ (3.22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\stackrel{}{k}^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\pi }{a^2}\zeta (2)}\right].`$ (3.23)
In Eq.(3.23), only the second part depends on $`a`$. We can set this part to zero because the zeta function vanishes. We will apply this result to higher even powers of $`\omega `$. The third term is similar to the first term, but has a different sign

$`u_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{24}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\left[\stackrel{}{k}^2+\left(\frac{n\pi }{a}\right)^2\right]^{\frac{3}{2}}}`$ (3.24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{128}}(4\pi )^{\frac{(d+2)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^{d+3}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{d+4}{2}}\right)\zeta (d+4).`$ (3.25)
Finally, the total Casimir energy is

$`u_{tot}=`$ $``$ $`(4\pi )^{\frac{(d+2)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^{d+1}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{d+2}{2}}\right)\zeta (d+2)`$ (3.26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$ (3.27)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{128}}(4\pi )^{\frac{(d+2)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^{d+3}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{d+4}{2}}\right)\zeta (d+4)`$ (3.28)
$`+`$ $`𝒪(\lambda ^3).`$ (3.29)
The force per unit area between the plates can be obtained by taking the negative derivative of energy respect to $`a`$:

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{a}}`$ (3.30)
$`=`$ $`(4\pi )^{\frac{(d+2)}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d+1}{a^{d+2}}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{d+2}{2}}\right)\zeta (d+2)`$ (3.33)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{128}}(4\pi )^{\frac{(d+2)}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d+3}{a^{d+4}}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{d+4}{2}}\right)\zeta (d+4)`$
$`+𝒪(\lambda ^3).`$
The first term in Eq.(3.30) is the ordinary Casimir force which causes the quantum instability. The second term in Eq.(3.29) is independent of $`a`$, so it does not contribute to the Casimir force. The signature of the last term in Eq.(3.30) is always positive in even dimensions. Therefore, it provides a repulsive force.

In even dimensions, odd power of $`\lambda `$ terms give a repulsive force, and the even power of $`\lambda `$ terms give an attractive force. For small $`\lambda `$, we can ignore the higher order terms in Eq.(3.30). The different parts of the Casimir force in the leading-order term (attractive and repulsive) can provide stability to a two plate system.

From the result of this equation, we can calculate a numerical value of the separation between the two plates. For example, in the case of $`d=2`$, the ratio between $`a`$ and $`\lambda `$, which makes the two-plate system stable, is

$$a0.14\lambda .$$
(3.34)
The value of $`a`$ approaches $`\lambda `$ as $`d`$ increases, but it always smaller than $`\lambda `$. Because the size of noncommutativity of $`\lambda `$ is very small (about the Plank scale), it is convenient to introduce a very small extra dimension.

## 4 Discussion

Here, we calculated the Casimir force in $`\kappa `$-deformed theory and found stability for a small extra dimension. There are several papers which suggest stability for an extra dimension  by using the Kaluza-Klein mode from quantum corrections. However, in this paper, the Casimir effect we derived was from the commutation relation, not from quantum correction. Thus, we can say that it is possible to stabilize an extra dimension on a classical level.

However, some problems exist in $`\kappa `$-deformed theory. The commutation relation in $`\kappa `$-deformed theory is different from the commutation relation of ordinary noncommutative space-time so called a canonical commutation relation. $`\kappa `$-deformed theory has a Lie-algebra-like commutation relation. The physical meaning of this theory needs further study. Another interesting problem is the study of free-field theory in $`\kappa `$-deformed space-time . There are no well-defined $`\kappa `$-deformed second-quantized field theories yet.

## Acknowledgements

SN acknowledges grant R01-2000-000-00021-0 from the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Charge and currents distribution in graphs

## 1 Introduction

Within the field of mesoscopic physics, the interest in graphs is motivated by the fact that they provide simple models for networks of wires, which are most of the time sufficient to describe the effect of interest (such as Aharonov-Bohm oscillations of the conductance of a ring for example). Scattering theory plays a central role in mesoscopic physics : it provides a transparent formalism to study transport properties of phase coherent systems. Moreover, many other physical quantities can be related to scattering properties, like the current noise , the density of states through the Friedel sum rule, mesoscopic capacitance, relaxation resistance . Scattering on graphs has attracted the attention of many authors among which we can quote .

Despite the scattering matrix is a global quantity characterizing the full system, some local information can be extracted from it. This idea has been fruitfully exploited in many works of Büttiker et al (see review articles  and references therein). To understand this point let us first consider the case of an isolated system (an isolated graph for example). In this case, the spectrum of the Schrödinger operator is discrete : $`E_n`$, $`\phi _n(x)`$. Let us consider a physical quantity described by the operator $`\widehat{X}`$, related to a conjugate variable $`f`$ (that is $`\widehat{X}=\frac{}{f}\widehat{H}`$ where $`\widehat{H}`$ is the Hamiltonian). Typical examples are provided by a magnetization $``$, a persistent current $`I`$, or the local density $`\rho (x)`$ , which are conjugated to the magnetic field $``$, a flux111 The variable conjugate to a flux line threading a loop of a planar graph is the current flowing through the semi infinite line issuing from the flux  (see also ). This can also be easily understood in the 2-dimensional plane .  $`\varphi `$ and the potential $`V(x)`$, respectively. As it is well known, a simple way to obtain the expectation value of the physical quantity of interest is to compute the derivative of the eigenenergies with respect to $`f`$ : $`X_n=\phi _n|\widehat{X}|\phi _n=\frac{E_n}{f}`$. This result is known as the Feynman-Hellmann theorem.

A natural question is to extend these relations to open systems that are connected to reservoirs possibly in an out of equilibrium situation. As it is well known, the scattering approach will prove to be relevant for this purpose. The open system of interest in the present article will be a graph connected to some infinite wires. In this case the spectrum is continuous. The stationary scattering states $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ describing the injection of a plane wave at contact $`\alpha `$ provide the convenient basis of states for the discussion. Then we can relate the quantity of interest (that can give a local information) to the scattering matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ through the relation: $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}|\widehat{X}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\beta )}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{f}\right)_{\alpha \beta }`$. In the case of graphs, this idea will be made explicit in three cases: (i) when $`\widehat{X}\widehat{\rho }(x)`$ is the local density of electrons222In this case $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}|\widehat{\rho }(x)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\beta )}=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\beta )}(x)`$ is an off diagonal element of the local DoS   (then $`fV(x)`$ is the local potential), (ii) if $`\widehat{X}\widehat{Q}`$ is the charge of the graph ($`fU`$ is a potential constant inside the graph) and (iii) if $`\widehat{X}\widehat{J}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the current in an arc of the graph ($`f\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the flux along the arc).

The purpose of our article is to study the distribution of charge and current densities in a graph out of equilibrium. The out of equilibrium regime is obtained by imposing different potentials at the external leads. A motivation for this study comes from the recent interest in quantum coherent devices such as Cooper pair boxes used for building charge Qubits (see  for a review). The full spectrum of charge fluctuations is involved in the study of the dephasing in a Qubit perturbed by the charge fluctuations of another conductor capacitively coupled to the first one . In the same way, current density fluctuations are a source of dephasing for Qubits based on flux states. Since the formalism developed in the present paper provides a systematic way for evaluating the charge and current density noise fluctuations in a mesoscopic circuit, it might be useful for estimating the dissipation and decoherence properties of some experimental systems of Qubits. More precisely, it was shown that transition rates of a two level system weakly coupled to a quantum environment are directly related to the unsymmetrized correlator : see for example  where the roles of the negative and the positive part of the spectrum of the unsymmetrized correlator are studied. On the other hand the relaxation and decoherence rates are related to a symmetrized correlator . Correlators are more directly accessible in noise measurements : in a recent work, Gavish et al.  proposed a description of the full measurement chain for the current noise of a mesoscopic sample. In this work, the unsymmetrized correlator is involved in excess noise measurement. Finally one should mention that experimentalists are now able, using photon assisted tunneling in a superconductor-insulator-superconductor tunnel junction, to measure the unsymmetrized current noise correlator in quantum mesoscopic devices . The question of which correlator (symmetrized or not) to consider depends on the question of interest. Therefore we will consider in the following the unsymmetrized correlator as the fundamental object333 There are indeed two unsymmetrized correlators depending on the order chosen. But for a system in a stationary regime, they can be simply related as shown in appendix A. .

In this paper, electron-electron interactions will not be taken into account. However, even if this limits the applicability of our results, we recall that they can be taken into account in a mean field Hartree approximation within the scattering approach, as it has been developed in several papers by Büttiker and collaborators  (see also  for a review). In this framework the charge (or the current) contains two contributions : a bare contribution (injected charge) and a contribution from screening. Screening affects ac transport or finite frequency noise. It is not the purpose of our article to consider such interaction effects; in other terms we will focus on the bare contribution of the charge and its relation to the scattering matrix of a graph.

This paper is organized as follows: first of all, the basic formalism  necessary for the discussion is recalled. Then the charge distribution inside the graph is analyzed in details. The first and second moments of the total charge are related to the scattering matrix. Finally analytic expressions for the full spectrum of charge fluctuations are provided.

In a second part we will show how currents inside the graph can be related to the scattering matrix. It was shown in  that the persistent current can be related to the derivative of the Friedel phase with respect to the magnetic flux. In this work the possible generalization to an out of equilibrium situation was not considered because the authors did not identify the different contributions of the various scattering states associated to the different leads. These contributions were identified later in . Moreover, in Taniguchi’s work, a formula relating the current-current correlations and the scattering matrix was proposed. Despite the contributions of the scattering states to the correlator were given, it is still not sufficient to study current-current correlations in an out-of-equilibrium situation (this point will be made clear later). Our results go beyond this limitation and provide the generalization of Taniguchi’s result.

## 2 Basic formalism : scattering matrix

We consider the Schrödinger operator $`\mathrm{D}_x^2+V(x)`$ on a graph, where $`\mathrm{D}_x=\mathrm{d}_x\mathrm{i}A(x)`$ is the covariant derivative (we choose units : $`\mathrm{}=2m=e=1`$). The graph is made of $`B`$ bonds $`(\alpha \beta )`$, each being identified with an interval $`[0,l_{\alpha \beta }]\mathrm{}`$. We call $`x_{\alpha \beta }`$ the coordinate that measures the distance from the vertex $`\alpha `$. The Schrödinger operator acts on a scalar function $`\phi (x)`$ which is described by $`B`$ components $`\phi _{(\alpha \beta )}(x_{\alpha \beta })`$, one for each bond. The bonds are connected at $`V`$ vertices. The adjacency matrix $`a_{\alpha \beta }`$ encodes the structure of the graph : $`a_{\alpha \beta }=1`$ if $`(\alpha \beta )`$ is a bond and $`a_{\alpha \beta }=0`$ otherwise.

### Vertex formulation

Let us first assume that the wave function is continuous at each vertex. This allows to introduce vertex variables ; we denote $`\phi _\alpha \phi (\alpha )`$ the function at the vertex $`\alpha `$. The continuity condition reads : $`\phi _{(\alpha \beta )}(x_{\alpha \beta }=0)=\phi _\alpha `$ for all vertices $`\beta `$ neighbours of $`\alpha `$. A second condition is added to ensure current conservation at the vertices : $`_\beta a_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{D}_x\phi _{(\alpha \beta )}(x_{\alpha \beta }=0)=\lambda _\alpha \phi _\alpha `$ where the sum over $`\beta `$ runs over all neighbouring vertices of $`\alpha `$ due to the presence of the adjacency matrix. $`\lambda _\alpha `$ is a real parameter. The requirement of continuity of the wave function imposes a special scattering at the vertices : in particular, the transmission amplitudes of a plane wave of energy $`E=k^2`$ between two leads issuing from the same vertex of coordinence $`m_\alpha =_\beta a_{\alpha \beta }`$ are all equal to $`2/(m_\alpha +\mathrm{i}\lambda _\alpha /k)`$.

The wave function on the bond $`(\alpha \beta )`$ is :

$$\phi _{(\alpha \beta )}(x_{\alpha \beta })=\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}x_{\alpha \beta }\theta _{\alpha \beta }/l_{\alpha \beta }}\left(\phi _\alpha f_{\alpha \beta }(x_{\alpha \beta })+\phi _\beta \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\alpha \beta }}f_{\beta \alpha }(x_{\alpha \beta })\right)$$
(1)
where $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }`$ is the magnetic flux along the bond $`(\alpha \beta )`$ (the vector potential is $`A_{\alpha \beta }=\theta _{\alpha \beta }/l_{\alpha \beta }`$). The two real functions $`f_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$, $`f_{\beta \alpha }(x)`$ are the two linearly independent solutions of the Schrödinger equation $`[E+\mathrm{d}_x^2V_{(\alpha \beta )}(x)]f(x)=0`$ on the bond satisfying boundary conditions : $`f_{\alpha \beta }(0)=1`$, $`f_{\alpha \beta }(l_{\alpha \beta })=0`$, $`f_{\beta \alpha }(0)=0`$ and $`f_{\beta \alpha }(l_{\alpha \beta })=1`$. These two functions encode the information about the potential on the bond. For example, in the absence of potential, $`V(x)=0`$, we have $`f_{\alpha \beta }(x_{\alpha \beta })=\frac{\mathrm{sin}k(l_{\alpha \beta }x_{\alpha \beta })}{\mathrm{sin}kl_{\alpha \beta }}`$.

The graph is connected to $`L`$ leads. Each lead is a semi-infinite line plugged at a vertex of the graph, with a coupling parameter $`w_\alpha \mathrm{}`$ (see figure 1). The introduction of these couplings allows to go continuously from an isolated graph to a connected one. The precise physical meaning of these parameters is given in . In particular, the transmission amplitude through the box between the graph and the lead is $`2w_\alpha /(1+w_\alpha ^2)`$. We introduce the $`L\times V`$ matrix $`W`$ :

$$W_{\alpha \beta }=w_\alpha \delta _{\alpha \beta }$$
(2)
where $`\alpha `$ belongs to the set of vertices connected to leads and $`\beta `$ to the set of all vertices of the graph. This matrix encodes the information about the way the graph is connected to the external leads.

The scattering matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a $`L\times L`$ matrix describing how a plane wave of energy $`E`$ entering from a lead is scattered into the other leads by the graph. It is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=1+2W\frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}W^\mathrm{T}$$
(3)
where the matrix $`M`$ is :

$$M_{\alpha \beta }(E)=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{E}}\left(\delta _{\alpha \beta }\left[\lambda _\alpha \underset{\mu }{}a_{\alpha \mu }\frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\alpha \mu }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\alpha \mu }}(\alpha )\right]+a_{\alpha \beta }\frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\alpha \beta }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\alpha \beta }}(\beta )\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\alpha \beta }}\right).$$
(4)
Note that for $`E>0`$, this matrix is antihermitian : $`M^{}=M`$. It can also be related  to reflexion and transmission coefficients describing the potential on each bond :

$`M_{\alpha \beta }(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }\left(\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha }{\sqrt{E}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}a_{\alpha \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{(1r_{\alpha \mu })(1+r_{\mu \alpha })+t_{\alpha \mu }t_{\mu \alpha }}{(1+r_{\alpha \mu })(1+r_{\mu \alpha })t_{\alpha \mu }t_{\mu \alpha }}}\right)`$ (5)
$`a_{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{2t_{\alpha \beta }}{(1+r_{\alpha \beta })(1+r_{\beta \alpha })t_{\alpha \beta }t_{\beta \alpha }}}.`$
The expressions (4,5), together with (3), generalize results known in the absence of the potential .

The vertex formulation that we have just recalled is rather efficient mainly because vertex matrices are rather compact. However, as we have noticed, it corresponds to a particular choice of vertex scattering which does not describe all allowed relevant physical situations. In the most general situation it is not anymore possible to introduce vertex variables and one has to use the arc formulation that will now be briefly described.

### Arc formulation

An arc is an oriented bond. On each arc $`i`$ we introduce an amplitude $`A_i`$ arriving at the vertex from which $`i`$ issues and an amplitude $`B_i`$ departing from it (see figure 2). Equivalently, the wave function $`\psi _i(x)`$ on the bond is matched with $`A_i\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kx}+B_i\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kx}`$ at the extremity of the arc. It is clear than we have to introduce $`L`$ such couples of amplitudes, one for each external lead. These external amplitudes are gathered in $`L`$-column vectors $`A^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ and $`B^{\mathrm{ext}}`$. By definition the scattering matrix relates these amplitudes : $`B^{\mathrm{ext}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }A^{\mathrm{ext}}`$. On the other hand we must introduce two couples of amplitudes $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$ per bond of the graph, i.e. one couple per arc. We gather these $`2B`$ amplitudes into the column vectors $`A^{\mathrm{int}}`$ and $`B^{\mathrm{int}}`$. Finally we group all amplitudes, internal and external, in two $`2B+L`$ column vectors $`A`$ and $`B`$.

The scattering by the bonds is described by a matrix $`R`$ coupling reversed internal arcs : $`A^{\mathrm{int}}=RB^{\mathrm{int}}`$. The matrix element between arc $`i`$ and $`j`$ is given by :

$$R_{ij}=r_i\delta _{i,j}+t_{\overline{i}}\delta _{\overline{i},j}$$
(6)
where $`\overline{i}`$ designate the reversed arc. $`r_i`$ and $`t_i`$ are the reflexion and transmission coefficients describing the scattering of a plane wave by the potential of the bond $`(i)`$. The scattering at the vertices is described by a matrix $`Q`$ coupling arcs issuing from the same vertex : $`B=QA`$. If the basis of arcs is organized as $`\{\text{internal arcs},\text{external arcs}\}`$, the matrix $`Q`$ can be separated into blocks:

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q^{\mathrm{int}}& \stackrel{~}{Q}^\mathrm{T}\\ & \\ \stackrel{~}{Q}& Q^{\mathrm{ext}}\end{array}\right)$$
(7)
The scattering matrix reads :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=Q^{\mathrm{ext}}+\stackrel{~}{Q}(R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})^1\stackrel{~}{Q}^\mathrm{T}.$$
(8)
For more details, see . Historically, the arc approach has been followed in many works, like  since it is the most natural approach. It has been formalized more systematically in  without potential and in  in the most general case.

How can we express the wave function inside the graph within the arc formulation ? In this case, the appropriate basis of solutions of the Schrödinger equation on the bond $`[E+\mathrm{d}_x^2V_{(\alpha \beta )}(x)]f(x)=0`$ is not anymore the functions $`f_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ and $`f_{\beta \alpha }(x)`$ introduced above, but the couple of stationary scattering states $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ and $`\varphi _{\beta \alpha }(x)`$ associated to the potential $`V_{(\alpha \beta )}(x)`$ on the bond $`(\alpha \beta )`$. If we imagine that the potential $`V_{(\alpha \beta )}(x)`$ is embedded in $`\mathrm{}`$, then the function $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ is the scattering state incoming on the potential from the vertex $`\alpha `$ and is matched out of the bond to : $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }(x)=\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kx}+r_{\alpha \beta }\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kx}`$ for $`x<0`$ and $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }(x)=t_{\alpha \beta }\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}k(xl_{\alpha \beta })}`$ for $`x>l_{\alpha \beta }`$ .

Then the component of the wave function $`\phi (x)`$ on the bond $`(\alpha \beta )`$ reads :

$$\phi _{(\alpha \beta )}(x_{\alpha \beta })=B_{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{\alpha \beta }(x_{\alpha \beta })+B_{\beta \alpha }\varphi _{\beta \alpha }(x_{\alpha \beta }).$$
(9)
## 3 Charge of the graph

This section is devoted to the study of the charge distribution in the graph. Our discussion will focus on the average and correlation of the total charge of the graph. The average charge and the zero frequency charge noise can be related to the graph’s scattering matrix. These relations provide an extension of the Feynman-Hellman theorem for open systems in an out of equilibrium situation. Then, we present a detailed study of the charge noise at finite frequency, emphasizing the effect of the non equilibrium regime. For simplicity, we shall work at vanishing temperature.

It is convenient to use the language of “second-quantization” and introduce the field operator :

$$\widehat{\psi }(x,t)=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}dE\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)\widehat{a}_\alpha (E)\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}Et},$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{a}_\alpha (E)`$ is the annihilation operator associated to the stationary scattering state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ corresponding to a plane wave of energy $`E`$ injected from the lead $`\alpha `$. Note that $`\widehat{\psi }(x,0)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)|\mathrm{vacuum}`$.

Studying the charge distribution for graphs with localized states  would require taking into account the contribution of the discrete spectrum in the field operator : $`_n_{j=1}^{g_n}\phi _{n,j}(x)\widehat{a}_{n,j}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}E_nt}`$ (the function $`\phi _{n,j}(x)`$ is an eigenstate of energy $`E_n`$ localized in the graph and thus normalized to unity in the graph, and $`j`$ denotes a degeneracy label). However, such a situation in not generic but arises from symmetries of the graph. For this reason, we shall not discuss it here.

In a non equilibrium situation, the quantum statistical average gives : $`\widehat{a}_\alpha ^{}(E)\widehat{a}_\beta (E^{})=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta (EE^{})f_\alpha (E)`$ where $`f_\alpha (E)`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function giving the occupation of the scattering states coming from the lead $`\alpha `$.

Charge operator. The charge operator is :

$$\widehat{Q}(t)=_{\mathrm{Graph}}dx\widehat{\psi }^{}(x,t)\widehat{\psi }(x,t).$$
(11)
We introduce its matrix elements on the shell of energy $`E`$ :

$$\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}|\widehat{Q}(t)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\beta )}.$$
(12)
Since the spectrum is continuous, these matrix elements have the dimension of a density of states (DoS). They can be related to the scattering matrix :

$$\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}U}\right)_{\alpha \beta },$$
(13)
where $`U`$ is a constant potential added inside the graph only (the variable conjugate to the charge of the graph). Instead of differentiating with respect to some additional background potential $`U`$, it is also possible to relate it to the derivative with respect to the energy :

$$\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=_{\mathrm{Graph}}dx\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\beta )}(x)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}E}+\frac{1}{4E}(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})\right)_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(14)
Note that $`_\alpha \rho ^{(\alpha ,\alpha )}(E)`$ is the DoS of the graph, i.e. the local DoS integrated inside the graph. These relations are proven in appendix C.

Average charge. The average charge :

$$\widehat{Q}(t)=\underset{\alpha }{}_0^{\mathrm{}}dEf_\alpha (E)_{\mathrm{Graph}}dx|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)|^2=\underset{\alpha }{}_0^{\mathrm{}}dEf_\alpha (E)\rho ^{(\alpha ,\alpha )}(E)$$
(15)
involves the injectivities $`\rho (x,\alpha ;E)=|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)|^2`$, which are the contributions to the local density of states (LDoS) coming from the scattering state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)`$. The contribution $`\rho ^{(\alpha ,\alpha )}(E)`$ of the scattering state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}`$ to the DoS of the graph is weighted by the occupation Fermi factor in the lead $`\alpha `$. This illustrates the necessity of the concept of injectivities, emissivities, etc, in the context of out of equilibrium systems  (see also  for a discussion in the context of graphs).

Charge correlation function. The charge correlation function is defined as :

$$S_{QQ}(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}(tt^{})\left(\widehat{Q}(t)\widehat{Q}(t^{})\widehat{Q}(t)\widehat{Q}(t^{})\right)\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega (tt^{})}.$$
(16)
In appendix A, the relation between this unsymmetrized correlator and the other one ($`Q(t)`$ and $`Q(t^{})`$ in reverse order) is clarified. Definition (16) matches with the one used reference  which contains a detailed discussion of the relation between the unsymmetrized correlator and transition rates in a two level system linearily coupled to the charge operator.

Using the relation $`\widehat{a}_\alpha ^{}\widehat{a}_\beta \widehat{a}_\mu ^{}\widehat{a}_\nu \widehat{a}_\alpha ^{}\widehat{a}_\beta \widehat{a}_\mu ^{}\widehat{a}_\nu =\delta _{\alpha \nu }\delta _{\beta \mu }f_\alpha (1f_\beta )`$ we obtain :

$`S_{QQ}(\omega )=2\pi {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dEf_\alpha (E)[1f_\beta (E+\omega )]\left|{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{Graph}}}dx\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{E+\omega }^{(\beta )}(x)\right|^2.`$ (17)
Only the zero frequency correlations involve the $`\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)`$ :

$$S_{QQ}(\omega =0)=2\pi \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}_0^{\mathrm{}}dEf_\alpha (E)[1f_\beta (E)]\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)\rho ^{(\beta ,\alpha )}(E).$$
(18)
Using equation (14) the zero frequency noise of the total charge is related to the scattering matrix of the graph.

Charge fluctuations. The charge fluctuations at a given time involve the integral of the full spectrum :

$$q_2=\widehat{Q}(t)^2\widehat{Q}(t)^2=\frac{1}{2\pi }d\omega S_{QQ}(\omega ).$$
(19)
In terms of the stationary scattering states, we get :

$$q_2=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}_0^{\mathrm{}}dEdE^{}f_\alpha (E)[1f_\beta (E^{})]\left|_{\mathrm{Graph}}dx\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{}^{(\beta )}(x)\right|^2.$$
(20)
### Weakly connected graphs

To go further let us focus on the case of graphs weakly coupled to the leads ($`w_\alpha 0`$). Note that we do not consider charging effect in the following (Coulomb blockade) which is important if the capacitance describing the Coulomb interaction between the leads and the graph is small (see  for a review article). A description of such effects would require a different approach. However, in the neighbourhood of the Coulomb peak, a description within the scattering approach can be sufficient to describe transport, like it has been done very recently in  to analyze Fano profile measurements in a ring with a dot embedded in one of its arm.

If $`w_\alpha 0`$ the decomposition of the scattering states over the resonances (levels of the isolated graph), derived in appendix B, can be used

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{i}E_n^{1/4}w_\alpha \phi _n^{}(\alpha )}{EE_n+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}\phi _n(x).$$
(21)
Here $`\phi _n(x)`$ denotes the wave function of the eigenstate of energy $`E_n`$ of the isolated graph, normalized to unity in the graph. From this expression we get :

$$\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\beta }}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\chi _{\alpha \beta }}}{(EE_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2},$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }=\sqrt{E_n}w_\alpha ^2|\phi _n(\alpha )|^2`$ is the contribution of the contact $`\alpha `$ to the resonance width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }`$. The phase is given by $`\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\chi _{\alpha \beta }}=\frac{\phi _n(\alpha )^{}\phi _n(\beta )}{|\phi _n(\alpha )\phi _n(\beta )|}`$.

#### Average charge

Equation (15) gives :

$$\widehat{Q}(t)\underset{\alpha }{}_0^{\mathrm{}}dEf_\alpha (E)\underset{n}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }/\pi }{(EE_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}=\underset{n}{}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\frac{V_\alpha E_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(23)
where the sum over $`n`$ runs over the energies of the resonances (energies of the isolated graph). $`V_\alpha `$ is the potential at contact $`\alpha `$. This equation was derived in  by tracing out the lead’s degrees of freedom. Since the average charge is the sum of contributions of the various levels, we can consider only one level $`E_n`$. If the level is below the potentials, $`E_n<V_R<V_L`$, the occupation of the level is $`1`$. On the other hand, if the level $`E_n`$ is between the potentials, $`V_R<E_n<V_L`$, and far enough from them (on the scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$), it gives a contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ to the average charge, which simply expresses that only the left scattering state is contributing to the occupation of the resonant level.

#### Charge noise at finite frequency

Let us now discuss the finite frequency structure of the charge noise for weakly connected graphs. Equation (17) requires evaluating

$$\left|_{\mathrm{Graph}}dx\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{E+\omega }^{(\beta )}(x)\right|^2\left|\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\sqrt{E_n}w_\alpha w_\beta \phi _n(\alpha )\phi _n^{}(\beta )}{(EE_n\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n)(E+\omega E_n+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n)}\right|^2.$$
(24)
Let us keep only the diagonal elements in the double sum. This diagonal approximation is valid in the limit of narrow resonances ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n|E_{n+1}E_n|`$) since the energies $`E`$ and $`E+\omega `$ are then compelled to be both in the neighbourhood of the level $`E_n`$. Then the correlation appears as a sum of contributions of the different energy levels :

$$S_{QQ}(\omega )\underset{n}{}S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega ).$$
(25)
The contribution of the level $`E_n`$ reads :

$$S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega )=2\pi \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}dEf_\alpha (E)[1f_\beta (E+\omega )]\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }/\pi }{(EE_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\beta }/\pi }{(E+\omega E_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}.$$
(26)
Performing the integrals leads to

$$S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{1}{1+\omega ^2/4\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\beta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^3}\theta (\omega +V_\alpha V_\beta )A(V_\alpha ,V_\beta ;\omega )$$
(27)
where $`\theta (\omega )`$ is the Heaviside function and

$`A(V_\alpha ,V_\beta ;\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\alpha E_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}\right)\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\beta E_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}\right)`$ (28)
$`+\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\alpha +\omega E_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}\right)\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_\beta \omega E_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{\omega }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{[(V_\alpha +\omega E_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2][(V_\beta \omega E_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2]}{[(V_\alpha E_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2][(V_\beta E_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2]}}.`$
For the particular case of a two terminal geometry the noise reads

$`S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_n^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\omega ^2/4\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}^2\theta (\omega )A(V_L,V_L;\omega )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}^2\theta (\omega )A(V_R,V_R;\omega )`$
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}\theta (\omega +V)A(V_L,V_R;\omega )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}\theta (\omega V)A(V_R,V_L;\omega )],`$ (29)
where $`V=V_LV_R>0`$ is the voltage drop.

$``$ Equilibrium case : $`V_L=V_R=0`$.

$`S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (\omega )}{1+\omega ^2/4\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}}[\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega E_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}\right)+\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega +E_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{\omega }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{[(\omega E_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2][(\omega +E_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2]}{[E_n^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2]^2}}].`$ (30)
We consider the case of narrow resonances where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ is the smallest energy scale, then if the frequency is smaller than $`|E_n|`$, the contribution is zero, but if $`\omega `$ is sufficiently large to excite an energy level $`\omega |E_n|`$, we get a contribution :

$$S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega )\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}\frac{\theta (\omega )}{1+\omega ^2/4\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\times \{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & \omega |E_n|\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & \omega |E_n|.\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
Obviously, the transition between the two results is not sharp but occurs on a scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$. Practically all the noise power is concentrated at low frequencies as shown on figure 3.

Note that this contribution is independent of the fact that the level is occupied ($`E_n<0`$) or empty ($`E_n>0`$) since it is an even function of $`E_n`$. At $`V_L=V_R`$, the low frequency charge noise can be understood using a classical stochastic model describing the relaxation process of an electron (or a hole) with lifetime $`1/2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$.

$``$ Non equilibrium regime : $`V_LV_R`$.

Zero frequency limit. Then only the term with $`A(V_L,V_R;0)`$ contributes :

$`S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega =0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^3}}\{\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_LE_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}\right)+\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_nV_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(V_LE_n)}{(V_LE_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(E_nV_R)}{(E_nV_R)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}}\}.`$ (32)
Each energy level brings a contribution only if it is between the potentials ($`V_R<E_n<V_L`$) and far enough from them (on the scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$). In this case, the zero frequency charge noise is given by :

$$S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega =0)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^3}.$$
(33)
We recognize the factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}`$ characteristic of partition noise : if one of the couplings vanishes ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}=0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}=0`$) the occupation of the level is either $`0`$ or $`1`$ and does not fluctuate. These fluctuations are a signature of the non equilibrium regime of the mesoscopic circuit. The charge fluctuations at fixed time can be obtained by integrating the noise spectrum (19). Using the approximate expression (21) in (20) we obtain

$$q_2\underset{n}{}\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\beta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\frac{V_\alpha E_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\frac{E_nV_\beta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
(34)
In the two leads case, only the levels between the two potentials bring the contribution :

$$q_2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}.$$
(35)
Note that this result cannot be simply infered from the current shot noise. Near a resonance, the transmission probability through the graph is $`T(E)\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}}{(EE_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}`$. The average current in the lead is given by the Landauer formula $`I=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{V_R}^{V_L}dET(E)`$ whereas the current and the shot noise by $`S_{II}(\omega =0)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{V_R}^{V_L}dET(E)(1T(E))`$ . If only one level $`E_n`$ lies between the two potentials, we obtain in this non linear regime  : $`I2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}`$ and $`S_{II}(\omega =0)2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^3}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}^2)`$.

Finite frequency noise. Let us choose the origin of the energies in such a way that : $`V_R=0`$, $`V_L=V>0`$. Four energy scales must be considered : $`E_n`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, $`V`$ and $`\omega `$. Several regimes can be observed according to the frequency. To help the discussion we neglect the smallest scale, supposed to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, as we did above.

(i) Let us first discuss the case of a fully occupied level : $`E_n<V_R=0`$.

At small frequencies, correlations are roughly zero. When $`\omega `$ reaches $`V_RE_n`$, contributions from the second and third terms appear, while all terms contribute for $`\omega `$ larger than $`V_LE_n`$. To summarize these three regimes :

$$S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega )\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}\frac{1}{1+\omega ^2/4\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\times \{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & \omega V_RE_n\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & V_RE_n\omega V_LE_n\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & V_LE_n\omega ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
where we have factorized the equilibrium result.

In the second regime $`V_RE_n\omega V_LE_n`$, the energy $`\omega `$ is sufficient to excite the state originating from the right reservoir but not from the left reservoir. This is the origin of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$. In the third regime, both reservoirs contribute to the noise. At fixed non zero bias voltage, this leads to a double peak structure in terms of the $`\omega `$ which corresponds to the threshold for creating electron-holes pairs involving the left and right leads (see figure 4). At small $`V`$ these two peaks tend to merge into a single more pronounced one. At large $`V`$ the second peak occurs at a larger frequency and is less pronounced because of the Lorentzian factor.

(ii) Let us now discuss the case of an empty level : $`E_n>V_L`$.

The physical picture can be obtained using a hole picture. Three different regimes can also be distinguished :

$$S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega )\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}\frac{1}{1+\omega ^2/4\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\times \{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & \omega E_nV_L\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & E_nV_L\omega E_nV_R\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & E_nV_R\omega .\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
(iii) Finally we consider the case of a level between the two potentials $`V_R<E_n<V_L`$.

Considering the case where the level is closer to $`V_L`$ than to $`V_R`$, we obtain

$$S_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega )\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}\frac{1}{1+\omega ^2/4\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\times \{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & \omega E_n+V_R\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & E_n+V_R\omega V_L+E_n\hfill \\ \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & V_L+E_n\omega V_LE_n\hfill \\ \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & V_LE_n\omega E_nV_R\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & E_nV_R\omega \hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
The fluctuation spectrum is symmetric in the interval centered around $`\omega =0`$ with width of order $`V`$. The main contribution to the noise appears at low frequency as can be seen from figure 5. The multiple plot (figure 6) shows how the low frequency peak develops when $`V_L`$ crosses the energy level.

Interestingly, correlations are proportional to the partition factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}`$ only for small frequencies $`|\omega |V`$ (or large time scales $`t1/V`$). For large frequencies $`|\omega |V`$, the partition factor does not appear. The high frequency part of the charge fluctuation spectrum is insensitive to the fact that the system is out of equilibrium. In this limit, the equilibrium result (31) is recovered.

## 4 Currents inside the graph

A possible way to probe a mesoscopic device is to attach some leads to it, through which some currents are injected. Some information can be extracted from transport or noise properties : average values and correlations of currents in the external leads. All these properties can be related to the scattering matrix (see  for a review). If one is now interested in local information on the system, like the measurement of a persistent current, a natural way would be to introduce some local probe. However, as we have recalled in the introduction, local information can also be extracted from scattering properties. Here, we investigate the currents in the internal wires, and show the relation to the scattering properties. The starting point, exposed in the introduction, is the relation between the current in a wire and the derivative of the scattering matrix with respect to its conjugate variable, the flux in the wire. This idea comes from  and has been elaborated further in  to include derivation of correlations of the current density. Here, we focus on the case of graphs in the context of which we will generalize these previous results to the non equilibrium situation.

### 4.1 Current in a closed graph

First we derive an expression for the current density in a closed graph. It is convenient to introduce the spectral determinant of the Schrödinger operator

$$S(\gamma )=det(\mathrm{\Delta }+V(x)+\gamma )=\underset{n}{}(E_n+\gamma )$$
(39)
where $`\gamma `$ is a spectral parameter. The set of $`E_n`$’s is the spectrum of the Schrödinger operator on the graph. It was shown in  that the spectral determinant, which is the determinant of an unbounded operator, can be related to the determinant of a finite size matrix. In the vertex approach, the formula (100) involves a $`V\times V`$ matrix, whereas in the arc language the spectral determinant involves a $`2B\times 2B`$ matrix : $`S(E)det(1QR)`$ . Note that for a closed graph, the vertex scattering matrix $`Q`$ has the same dimension as the bond scattering matrix. We introduce the current density $`j(E)`$ associated to the states in the interval $`[E,E+\mathrm{d}E[`$. The current density in the arc $`a`$ is :

$$j_a(E)=\underset{n}{}\delta (EE_n)\frac{E_n}{\theta _a}=\frac{1}{\pi }Im\frac{}{\theta _a}\mathrm{ln}S(E+\mathrm{i0}^+),$$
(40)
where $`\theta _a`$ is the magnetic flux along this arc.

Example : Consider a closed ring of perimeter $`l`$ threaded by a flux $`\theta `$. Its spectral determinant is $`S(\gamma )=ch(\sqrt{\gamma }l)\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ . We write : $`\gamma =k^2+\mathrm{i0}^+`$, then $`ch(\sqrt{\gamma }l)=\mathrm{cos}(kl)+\mathrm{i0}^+\mathrm{sin}(kl)`$ and we get for the current density in the ring :

$$j(E)=\mathrm{sin}\theta sign(\mathrm{sin}kl)\delta (\mathrm{cos}kl\mathrm{cos}\theta )=\underset{n}{}\delta (EE_n)I_n,$$
(41)
with $`I_n=_\theta E_n`$ where $`E_n=(2n\pi \theta )^2/l^2`$.

### 4.2 Current in open graphs

Now we consider a graph connected to infinite leads.

The current operator is

$$\widehat{J}(x,t)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}}\left[\widehat{\psi }^{}(x,t)\mathrm{D}_x\widehat{\psi }(x,t)\mathrm{D}_x^{}\widehat{\psi }^{}(x,t)\widehat{\psi }(x,t)\right]$$
(42)
where $`\mathrm{D}_x=\mathrm{d}_x\mathrm{i}A(x)`$ is the covariant derivative.

We introduce the current matrix elements

$$j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}|\widehat{J}(x,t)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\beta )}\text{for }x\mu \nu $$
(43)
which can be shown to be independent of the coordinate $`x`$ along the arc (only if the two states have the same energy). This matrix element can then be computed at the vertex $`\mu `$ ($`x=0`$) :

$$j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu ^{(\alpha )}\mathrm{D}_x\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{(\mu \nu )}^{(\beta )}(\mu )\mathrm{D}_x^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{(\mu \nu )}^{(\alpha )}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu ^{(\beta )}\right).$$
(44)
The quantum and statistical average of the current operator in the arc $`\mu \nu `$ gives :

$$J_{\mu \nu }=\widehat{J}(x\mu \nu ,t)=\underset{\alpha }{}dEf_\alpha (E)j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\alpha )}(E).$$
(45)
The correlations (unsymmetrized in time or frequency) between the currents in the arcs $`\mu \nu `$ and $`\mu ^{}\nu ^{}`$, defined as

$$S_{J_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}}(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}(tt^{})\left(\widehat{J}(x,t)\widehat{J}(x^{},t^{})\widehat{J}(x,t)\widehat{J}(x^{},t^{})\right)\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega (tt^{})},$$
(46)
for $`x\mu \nu `$ and $`x^{}\mu ^{}\nu ^{}`$. They can be rewritten at zero frequency as :

$$S_{J_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}}(\omega =0)=2\pi \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}dEf_\alpha (E)[1f_\beta (E)]j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)j_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^{(\beta ,\alpha )}(E).$$
(47)
#### Vertex formulation

Now we look for a relation between the current density and the scattering matrix. We start from the expression of the scattering state in the arc $`\mu \nu `$ :

$$\psi _{(\mu \nu )}(x)=\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\mu \nu }x/l_{\mu \nu }}\left(\psi _\mu f_{\mu \nu }(x)+\psi _\nu \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\mu \nu }}f_{\nu \mu }(x)\right).$$
(48)
Then :

$$j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu ^{(\alpha )}\frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\mu \nu }}(\nu )\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\nu ^{(\beta )}+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\nu ^{(\alpha )}\frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\nu \mu }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\nu \mu }}(\mu )\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu ^{(\beta )}\right)$$
(49)
where we have used the fact that the Wronskian of $`f_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ and $`f_{\nu \mu }(x)`$ reads : $`\frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\nu \mu }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\mu \nu }}(\mu )=\frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\mu \nu }}(\nu )`$. From the definition of the matrix $`M`$, we see that :

$$j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}=\frac{k}{\mathrm{i}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu ^{(\alpha )}\frac{\mathrm{d}M_{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\nu ^{(\beta )}+\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\nu ^{(\alpha )}\frac{\mathrm{d}M_{\nu \mu }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu ^{(\beta )}\right)$$
(50)
Only the two elements $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`M_{\nu \mu }`$ depend on the flux $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, then :

$$j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}=\frac{k}{\mathrm{i}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)_{\alpha \beta },$$
(51)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is the $`V\times L`$-matrix that gathers the values of the $`L`$ stationary states at the $`V`$ vertices : $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mu \alpha }\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu ^{(\alpha )}`$. This matrix is  :

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi k}}\frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}W^\mathrm{T}.$$
(52)
We can rewrite the current density in terms of matrices $`M`$ and $`W`$ :

$$j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(W\frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}W^\mathrm{T}\right)_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(53)
Our aim is now to find the relation of this expression with the scattering matrix. We use the relation $`\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\eta }A(\eta )^1=A(\eta )^1\frac{\mathrm{d}A(\eta )}{\mathrm{d}\eta }A(\eta )^1`$ that gives the derivative of the inverse of a square matrix $`A(\eta )`$ depending on a parameter $`\eta `$. In the expression (3) only $`M`$ depends on the fluxes, it follows that :

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}=2W\frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}W^\mathrm{T}.$$
(54)
If we multiply this expression by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ from the left, it replaces the $`M`$ in the left fraction by $`M`$. We conclude that the off-diagonal elements of the current density reads :

$$j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\right)_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(55)
Note that this result is reminiscent to the one obtained by Taniguchi in  who derived some relation between the scattering matrix and the “current density”, i.e. the diagonal elements ($`\alpha =\beta `$) of (55).

#### Arc formulation

Let us now reformulate the previous demonstration in the arc language which allows to consider the most general case.

As explained in the introduction, the wave function on the bond $`(\mu \nu )`$ can be expressed as :

$$\psi _{(\mu \nu )}(x_{\mu \nu })=B_{\mu \nu }\varphi _{\mu \nu }(x_{\mu \nu })+B_{\nu \mu }\varphi _{\nu \mu }(x_{\mu \nu })$$
(56)
where $`\varphi _{\mu \nu }(x_{\mu \nu })`$ and $`\varphi _{\nu \mu }(x_{\mu \nu })`$ are the left and right stationary scattering states for the bond potential $`V_{(\mu \nu )}(x_{\mu \nu })`$. Using the expressions of these functions at the extremities of the bond given in the introduction, we get the derivative of the wave function at the vertex $`\mu `$ :

$$\mathrm{D}_x\psi _{(\mu \nu )}(\mu )=\mathrm{i}k\left[B_{\mu \nu }(1r_{\mu \nu })B_{\nu \mu }t_{\nu \mu }\right].$$
(57)
We call $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}`$ the internal amplitude corresponding to the stationary scattering state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)`$. These amplitudes are obtained by solving the equations $`B=QA`$ and $`A^{\mathrm{int}}=RB^{\mathrm{int}}`$ with external amplitudes $`A^{\mathrm{ext}}`$ describing the injection of a plane wave on the lead arriving at vertex $`\alpha `$ : its components are $`\stackrel{~}{A}_i^{(\alpha )\mathrm{ext}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi k}}\delta _{i,\mathrm{arc}\alpha }`$ where “$`\mathrm{arc}\alpha `$” designates the arc related to the lead issuing from $`\alpha `$. Then the amplitude

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi k}}\left[(1Q^{\mathrm{int}}R)^1\stackrel{~}{Q}^\mathrm{T}\right]_{\mu \nu ,\mathrm{arc}\alpha }$$
(58)
is related to the matrix element between the internal arc $`\mu \nu `$ and the external arc “$`\mathrm{arc}\alpha `$”.

After a little bit of algebra, we get for the current density on the arc $`\mu \nu `$ :

$$j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}=2k\left[\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}|t_{\mu \nu }|^2\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }^{(\beta )}+\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha )}t_{\mu \nu }^{}r_{\nu \mu }\stackrel{~}{B}_{\nu \mu }^{(\beta )}\stackrel{~}{B}_{\nu \mu }^{(\alpha )}t_{\nu \mu }^{}r_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }^{(\beta )}\stackrel{~}{B}_{\nu \mu }^{(\alpha )}|t_{\nu \mu }|^2\stackrel{~}{B}_{\nu \mu }^{(\beta )}\right].$$
(59)
We have used $`t_{\mu \nu }^{}r_{\nu \mu }=r_{\mu \nu }^{}t_{\nu \mu }`$ coming from the unitarity of $`R`$. In the bond scattering matrix $`R`$, only the transmissions depend on the magnetic fluxes : $`t_{\mu \nu }\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\mu \nu }}`$. It follows that, in the matrix $`\frac{\mathrm{d}R^{}}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}R`$, only the $`2\times 2`$ block related to the arcs $`\mu \nu `$ and $`\nu \mu `$ is different from zero. It is given by :

$$\mathrm{i}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|t_{\mu \nu }|^2& t_{\mu \nu }^{}r_{\nu \mu }\\ t_{\nu \mu }^{}r_{\mu \nu }& |t_{\nu \mu }|^2\end{array}\right)$$
(60)
Then it is straightforward to see that :

$$j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}=2\mathrm{i}k\underset{i,j}{}\stackrel{~}{B}_i^{(\alpha )}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}R^{}}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}R\right)_{i,j}\stackrel{~}{B}_j^{(\beta )}$$
(61)
where the sum over $`i,j`$ runs over the $`2B`$ internal arcs. Using the expression (58) for the amplitudes, we obtain :

$`j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }}\left(\stackrel{~}{Q}^{}(1R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})^1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}R^{}}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}}R(1Q^{\mathrm{int}}R)^1\stackrel{~}{Q}^\mathrm{T}\right)_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{Q}(R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})^1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}R^{}}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}}(R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})^1\stackrel{~}{Q}^\mathrm{T}\right)_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{Q}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}}(R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})^1\stackrel{~}{Q}^\mathrm{T}\right)_{\alpha ,\beta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}}\right)_{\alpha ,\beta }.`$ (64)
We have recovered the formula (55) within the arc language 444 We have used the relation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{Q}(R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})^1=\stackrel{~}{Q}^{}(1R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})^1`$, coming from the unitarity of the scattering matrices . . This demonstrates that equation (55) applies to the most general situation, as expected.

#### Average current and current correlations in terms of the scattering matrix

The average current can we written, as could have been guessed from the general discussion of the introduction :

$$J_{\mu \nu }=\underset{\alpha }{}dEf_\alpha (E)\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\right)_{\alpha \alpha }.$$
(65)
The correlations of currents at zero frequency rewrite in terms of scattering matrix :

$$S_{J_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}}(\omega =0)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}dEf_\alpha [1f_\beta ]\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\right)_{\alpha \beta }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}}\right)_{\beta \alpha }.$$
(66)
If $`\mu \nu =\mu ^{}\nu ^{}`$ this gives the noise of the persistent current. At equilibrium, all potentials are equal $`f_\alpha (E)=f(E)`$ $`\alpha `$, and we recover an expression reminiscent of the one given in  :

$$S_{J_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}}(\omega =0)=\frac{1}{2\pi }dEf(E)[1f(E)]Tr\left\{\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}}\right\}.$$
(67)
In his work, Taniguchi identifies the contribution $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu \nu }}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{\mathrm{d}\theta _{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}}\right)_{\alpha \alpha }`$ of a given scattering state to this trace. However we see that it is not sufficient to go back to the expression (66) describing the non equilibrium situation.

### 4.3 Gauge invariance

Since many formulae involve the fluxes along the wires, it is important to discuss how a gauge transformation would affect them and to check that all the measurable quantities are indeed gauge invariant. A gauge transformation changes the vector potential according to $`A(x)A(x)+_x\chi (x)`$, where $`\chi (x)`$ is a scalar function. The magnetic flux $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ along the arc $`\mu \nu `$ is then modified according to :

$$\theta _{\mu \nu }\theta _{\mu \nu }^{}=\theta _{\mu \nu }+\chi _\mu \chi _\nu $$
(68)
where $`\chi _\mu \chi (\mu )`$ is the value taken by the function at the vertex $`\mu `$. In the vertex approach, we immediatly see from its defintion that the matrix $`M`$ is changed as :

$$M_{\mu \nu }M_{\mu \nu }^{}=M_{\mu \nu }\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\chi _\mu \mathrm{i}\chi _\nu }.$$
(69)
We can write $`M^{}=𝒰M𝒰^{}`$ where the diagonal unitary matrix reads : $`𝒰_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\chi _\alpha }`$. Since $`W^\mathrm{T}W`$ is also diagonal it is clear that $`(\pm M^{}+W^\mathrm{T}W)^1=𝒰(\pm M+W^\mathrm{T}W)^1𝒰^{}`$. The scattering matrix changes in the same way :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\chi _\alpha \mathrm{i}\chi _\beta }.$$
(70)
From (53) or (55) we see that the matrix elements of the current operator pick up a phase through a gauge transformation

$$j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\chi _\alpha \mathrm{i}\chi _\beta }.$$
(71)
Nevertheless, the average current (45) and the correlations (47) are gauge invariant, as they should.

### 4.4 Weakly connected graphs

As we did for the charge distribution, it is interesting to consider the case of graphs weakly connected to the leads ($`w_\alpha 0`$) for which interesting results can be derived. The starting point is again the expression (21) of the scattering state near a resonance (when $`E`$ is close to an eigenenergy of the isolated graph). Using this relation, the current density matrix element can be expressed as

$`j_{\mu \nu }^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E,E^{})`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}|\widehat{J}(x\mu \nu ,t=0)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{}^{(\beta )}`$ (73)
$`{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{E,E^{}E_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{E_n}}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{w_\alpha \phi _n(\alpha )}{EE_n\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{w_\beta \phi _n^{}(\beta )}{E^{}E_n+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}}I_{\mu \nu }^n,`$
where $`I_{\mu \nu }^n`$ is the current in the arc $`\mu \nu `$ associated to the eigenstate $`\phi _n(x)`$ of the isolated graph :

$$I_{\mu \nu }^n=\mathrm{i}\phi _n^{}(x)\mathrm{D}_x\phi _n(x)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.\text{for }x\mu \nu .$$
(74)
Note that in principle the current matrix element (73) between scattering states of different energies depends on the coordinate $`x`$, however in the weak coupling limit, since the two scattering states are proportional to the same eigenstate $`\phi _n(x)`$, the matrix element becomes $`x`$ independent.

Equation (73) shows that the calculation of the average current is very similar to the calculation of the charge (23) :

$$J_{\mu \nu }\underset{\alpha }{}_0^{\mathrm{}}dEf_\alpha \underset{n}{}\frac{I_{\mu \nu }^n\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }/\pi }{(EE_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}=\underset{n}{}I_{\mu \nu }^n\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\frac{V_\alpha E_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(75)
The contribution of the resonant level can be written :

$$J_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}I_{\mu \nu }^n\widehat{Q}(t)^{(n)}$$
(76)
where $`\mathrm{}^{(n)}`$ designates the contribution of the resonant level $`n`$.

Similarly we obtain for the correlations :

$$S_{J_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}}^{(n)}(\omega )I_{\mu \nu }^nI_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^nS_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega ).$$
(77)
For example, for a situation with two contacts with a potential drop $`V`$ and only one resonant level contributing we get :

$$J_{\mu \nu }I_{\mu \nu }^n\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}$$
(78)
and

$$S_{J_{\mu \nu }J_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}}(0)I_{\mu \nu }^nI_{\mu ^{}\nu ^{}}^n\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,L}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,R}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^3}$$
(79)
### 4.5 Example

Let us focus on the simple example of a ring with two leads (see figure 7).

The scattering matrix of the ring reads :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=1+\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{S}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{i}w_1^2\mathrm{sin}kl+w_1^2w_2^2s_as_b& \mathrm{i}w_1w_2(s_b\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _a}+s_a\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _b})\\ \mathrm{i}w_2w_1(s_b\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _a}+s_a\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _b})& \mathrm{i}w_2^2\mathrm{sin}kl+w_1^2w_2^2s_as_b\end{array}\right)$$
(80)
where $`\theta _a`$ and $`\theta _b`$ are the fluxes of the two arcs and $`\theta =\theta _a+\theta _b`$ the total flux threadening the ring. We have denoted $`s_{a,b}\mathrm{sin}kl_{a,b}`$.

$$\stackrel{~}{S}=s_as_bdet(M+W^\mathrm{T}W)=2(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}kl)+\mathrm{i}(w_1^2+w_2^2)\mathrm{sin}kl+w_1^2w_2^2s_as_b$$
(81)
is the modified spectral determinant. The matrix involved in the current density in the arc $`a`$ is :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _a}=\frac{2\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\stackrel{~}{S}}(1+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})+\frac{2w_1w_2s_b}{\stackrel{~}{S}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{21}^{}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _a}& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^{}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _a}\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_{22}^{}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _a}& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{12}^{}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _a}\end{array}\right)$$
(82)
from which we get the contribution of the scattering state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1)}(x)`$ to the current density in the arc $`a`$ :

$$j_a^{(1,1)}=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _a}\right)_{11}=\frac{2}{\pi |\stackrel{~}{S}|^2}\left[w_1^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}kl+w_1^2w_2^2(s_b^2+s_as_b\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right].$$
(83)
Let us now study the weak coupling limit $`w_{1,2}0`$. Close to a resonance, we obtain :

$$j_a^{(1,1)}(k^2)\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{kk_n^\pm }\frac{1}{l}\frac{w_1^2}{w_1^2+w_2^2}\frac{\gamma /\pi }{(kk_n^\pm )^2+\gamma ^2}$$
(84)
where $`\gamma =\frac{w_1^2+w_2^2}{2l}`$. Integrating the contribution of the resonance peak, we get :

$$_{k_n^\pm \delta K}^{k_n^\pm +\delta K}dk\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}kj_a^{(1,1)}(k^2)\frac{w_1^2}{w_1^2+w_2^2}\frac{4\pi }{l^2}\left(n\frac{\theta }{2\pi }\right).$$
(85)
In the r.h.s we recognize the persitent current of the level of the isolated ring $`\frac{}{\theta }(k_n^\pm )^2=\frac{}{\theta }\left(\frac{2\pi n\pm \theta }{l}\right)^2`$, multiplied by the “relative weight” $`\frac{w_1^2}{w_1^2+w_2^2}`$ of the scattering state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1)}(x)`$, as expected from (76).

### 4.6 Graphs with localized states

In this section we discuss the consequence of the possible existence of localized states in certain graphs. These states are not probed by scattering, consequently their contributions to the current is not given by the expressions derived above.

For the sake of simplicity our discussion will be focused on the example of a ring in the regime of the integer quantum Hall effect, with one edge state. The potential hill at the middle is called an antidot (figure 8, left). This example must be thought more as a toy model to understand the idea of localized states in graphs, than as a reallistic model to describe current distribution in a quantum Hall device where the effect of screening is important (the interested reader will find some discussion on the nature of edge currents and the role of screening in ).

The system can be modeled by a ring with chiral scattering at the vertices (figure 8, right). The ring has two bonds, i.e. four internal arcs : two arcs $`a`$ and $`b`$ carrying fluxes $`\theta _a`$ and $`\theta _b`$ and the two reversed arcs denoted with a bar : $`\overline{a}`$ and $`\overline{b}`$. The two leads are described by arcs 1 and 2.

In the basis of arcs $`\{a,\overline{b},\overline{a},b|1,2\}`$, its vertex scattering matrix and bond scattering matrix are :

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ & & & & & \\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q^{\mathrm{int}}& \stackrel{~}{Q}^\mathrm{T}\\ & \\ \stackrel{~}{Q}& Q^{\mathrm{ext}}\end{array}\right)$$
(86)
The off diagonal blocks are not anymore transposed due to the breaking of the time reversal symmetry at the vertices (chiral scattering), however we keep the same notation as above for simplicity since there is no possible confusion. On the other hand

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kl_a\mathrm{i}\theta _a}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kl_b+\mathrm{i}\theta _b}\\ \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kl_a+\mathrm{i}\theta _a}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kl_b\mathrm{i}\theta _b}& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(87)
We recall that $`Q_{ij}`$ is the transmission amplitude from arc $`j`$ to arc $`i`$ due to vertex scattering, and $`R_{ij}`$ describes bond scattering due to the potential.

Scattering. The scattering matrix can be computed from $`Q`$ and $`R`$ with equation (8), however the result is obvious here, due to the absence of multiple scattering :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kl_b+\mathrm{i}\theta _b}\\ \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kl_a+\mathrm{i}\theta _a}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(88)
The current density in the arc $`a`$ is given by the matrix :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}\theta _a}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{i}& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(89)
From (55) we get the contribution of the scattering state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(1)}(x)`$ to the current density in the arm $`a`$ : $`j_a^{(1,1)}=\frac{1}{2\pi }`$, whereas the contribution of $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(2)}(x)`$ obviously vanishes $`j_a^{(2,2)}=0`$, since this latter scattering state does not send current into the arc $`a`$.

Localized states. We follow the discussion of  : if localized states are present, their discrete spectrum is given by solving $`det(R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})=0`$. Here, we see that the equation indeed possesses a set of solutions since $`det(R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})=\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kl}(\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}kl}\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta })`$ where $`\theta =\theta _a+\theta _b`$. The spectrum of localized states is $`k_n=(2\pi n+\theta )/l`$ for $`n\mathrm{}`$ if $`\theta [0,2\pi [`$, since $`k0`$ by convention. These states describe a clockwise motion of the electron in the loop of the graph (right part of figure 8). In the quantum Hall ring picture, they correspond to states whose wave functions are localized on the edge of the antidot (left part of figure 8). The current associated to the state of energy $`k_n^2`$ in the arc $`a`$ is $`\frac{}{\theta }k_n^2=2(2n\pi +\theta )/l^2`$. Note that if one introduces some scattering on the bonds, the localized states are hybridized with the states of the continuum and the discrete part of the spectrum disappears.

The discrete spectrum also brings some contribution to the current in the arms of the ring, which cannot be obtained from the scattering properties. Since the state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^{(2)}`$ does not contribute, the total average current in arm $`a`$ finally reads :

$$J_a=_0^{\mathrm{}}dEf_1(E)j_a^{(1,1)}(E)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_{\mathrm{int}}(k_n^2)\frac{2}{l^2}(2n\pi +\theta )$$
(90)
where $`f_1(E)`$ is the Fermi distribution for the lead $`1`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{int}}(E)`$ the Fermi distribution for the localized states inside the graph.

Now we can give the general expression for the current in the arc $`a`$ for a graph with localized states. Since the discrete spectrum of localized states $`\{E_n\}`$ is given by the equation

$$0=det(R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})\underset{n}{}(EE_n)$$
(91)
we have

$`J_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}{\displaystyle dEf_\beta (E)\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\theta _a}\right)_{\beta \beta }}`$ (92)
$`+{\displaystyle dEf_{\mathrm{int}}(E)\frac{1}{\pi }Im\frac{}{\theta _a}\mathrm{ln}\left(det(R^{}Q^{\mathrm{int}})|_{EE+\mathrm{i0}^+}\right)},`$
where $`f_{\mathrm{int}}(E)`$ is the Fermi distribution associated to localized states. The first term is the contribution of the scattering states whereas the second is the contribution of the localized states.

## 5 Summary

In this paper we have studied the two first cumulants of the charge of a graph connected to infinite wires, as well as the distribution of currents in the wires inside the graph. In particular, we have shown the relation with the scattering matrix, allowing to study these quantities in an out of equilibrium situation, when the graph is connected to wires put at different potentials. We have obtained a formula for the average current and the current correlations that generalizes previous results known for the equilibrium situation .

We have also emphasized that the scattering matrix contains information only on the continuous part of the spectrum related to scattering states. If some states remain localized in the graph, they give an additional contribution to the current not taken into account by the scattering approach.

We have considered the case of graphs weakly coupled to the leads. It is interesting to remark that the results obtained in this context are expected to be of much more generality than graphs, since the starting point was to use an approximation of the scattering state near a resonant level (21), a form of great generality. In particular, the contribution of the resonant level $`n`$ to the average of some quantity $`X`$ defined inside the graph reads

$$\widehat{X}(t)^{(n)}X_n\widehat{Q}(t)^{(n)},$$
(93)
where $`X_n=\phi _n|\widehat{X}|\phi _n`$ is the expectation of $`X`$ in the eigenstate $`|\phi _n`$ of the isolated system. Similarly the contribution of the $`n`$-th resonant level to the correlations of two observables $`X`$ and $`Y`$ reads :

$$S_{XY}^{(n)}(\omega )X_nY_nS_{QQ}^{(n)}(\omega ).$$
(94)
These results apply to a situation with narrow resonances ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n|E_{n+1}E_n|`$). We repeat that we have not considered the effect of electron electron interactions in this article (weakly connected devices with resonant tunneling present in principle Coulomb blockade). It would be interesting to incorporate some effects of interaction. This could be already done in a mean field approximation to describe the effect of screening in the charge and current distribution following Büttiker’s approach .

## Acknowledgements

C. T. would like to acknowledge fruitful discussions with Markus Büttiker and also interesting remarks of Ken Ichiro Imura.

## Appendix A Relation between the different unsymmetrized correlators

Let us consider $`A`$ and $`B`$ two hermitian operators associated to physical quantities in our system. There are two unsymmetrized correlation functions:

$`S_{A,B}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\tau \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega \tau }\left(A(t+\tau )B(t)A(t+\tau )B(t)\right)`$ (95)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{A,B}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}d\tau \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega \tau }\left(B(t)A(t+\tau )B(t)A(t+\tau )\right).`$ (96)
These correlators do not depend on $`t`$ for a system in a stationary state555Glassy systems are an example for which this is not possible since the system never reaches a stationary state (weak ergodicity breaking).. Note that, even if we consider out of equlibrium situations, only stationary states are considered in the present paper.

In this case, using time translation invariance of one and two point correlation fonctions, we have :

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{A,B}(\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}d\tau \text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega \tau }\left(B(t\tau )A(t)B(t\tau )A(t)\right)$$
(97)
and this gives:

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{A,B}(\omega )=S_{B,A}(\omega ).$$
(98)
When $`A=B`$, it shows that one unsymmetrized correlator determines the other one:

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_{A,A}(\omega )=S_{A,A}(\omega )..$$
(99)
Finally, note that the correlator $`S_{A,A}(\omega )`$ is real since the correlator in time obeys $`S_{A,A}(\tau )^{}=S_{A,A}(\tau )`$.

## Appendix B Structure of the stationary states near a resonance

If we consider a graph weakly coupled to the leads, we expect the stationary scattering states to be closely related to the eigenstates of the isolated graph. The purpose of the appendix is to demonstrate the precise relation. The relations we will obtain are very reminiscent of the Hamiltonian approach of chaotic scattering  (see also ). In this latter case some small couplings are introduced between an isolated system and the leads, whereas we rather start from a situation where the coupling can be arbitrary large and study the weak coupling limit to see how the properties of the isolated graph emerges from its scattering properties.

Let us consider a graph $`𝒢`$, whose spectrum is supposed to be non degenerate for simplicity (the occurence of degeneracies leads to complications related to possible existence of localized states in the graph non probed by scattering ). In a first step we describe how the eigenstates of the Schrödinger operator in the graph are constructed and in a second step we will establish the relation with stationary states in the weak coupling limit.

Isolated graph. The spectrum of the Schrödinger operator in the graph is given by the equation : $`S(\gamma )=0`$, where $`S(\gamma )=_n(\gamma +E_n)`$ is the spectral determinant, whose construction is explained in  for the case of free graphs, in  for graphs with potential and in  for graphs with general boundary conditions (more general than the continuity of the wave function at vertices). If the wave function is continuous at vertices :

$$S(\gamma )=\gamma ^{V/2}\underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\beta \alpha }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\alpha \beta }}(\alpha )\right)^1detM(\gamma ).$$
(100)
The product runs over all the bonds of the graph. We recall that the functions $`f_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ involved in $`M(\gamma )`$ are the solutions of the Schrödinger equation on the bond $`[\gamma \mathrm{d}_x^2+V_{(\alpha \beta )}(x)]f(x)=0`$ for an energy $`E=\gamma `$. In general $`S(\gamma )=0`$ possesses the same set of solutions as

$$detM(\gamma )=0.$$
(101)
We do not discuss here the case where the sets of zeros of both equations do not coincide, which is a little bit pathological and would require to refine the following arguments. Let us however quote few examples of free graphs ($`V(x)=0`$) for which it is the case : the graph made of one line (in this case $`detM=1`$ is independent of $`\gamma `$), the complete graph ,…

The component of the wave function $`\phi _n(x)`$ on the bond $`(\alpha \beta )`$ is :

$$\phi _{n(\alpha \beta )}(x)=\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}A_{\alpha \beta }x}\left(\phi _{n,\alpha }f_{\alpha \beta }(x)+\phi _{n,\beta }\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\alpha \beta }}f_{\beta \alpha }(x)\right)$$
(102)
where $`\phi _{n,\alpha }`$ is the wave function at the vertex $`\alpha `$ and $`A_{\alpha \beta }=\theta _{\alpha \beta }/l_{\alpha \beta }`$ the vector potential. (Do not confuse the label $`n`$ of the eigenstate with the greek labels that designate vertices). If we gather the wave function at the nodes in the $`V`$-dimensional column vector $`\phi _n`$, the eigenstate of energy $`E_n`$ is solution of

$$M(E_n)\phi _n=0.$$
(103)
Normalization. The normalization condition for the eigenstate reads :

$$_{\mathrm{Graph}}dx\left|\phi _n(x)\right|^2=\underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}_0^{l_{\alpha \beta }}dx\left|\phi _{n(\alpha \beta )}(x)\right|^2=1.$$
(104)
If we use the following relations  :

$`{\displaystyle _0^{l_{\alpha \beta }}}dx_{\alpha \beta }f_{\alpha \beta }(x_{\alpha \beta })^2`$ $`=`$ $`_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\alpha \beta }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\alpha \beta }}}(\alpha )`$ (105)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{l_{\alpha \beta }}}dx_{\alpha \beta }f_{\alpha \beta }(x_{\alpha \beta })f_{\beta \alpha }(x_{\alpha \beta })`$ $`=`$ $`_\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\alpha \beta }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\alpha \beta }}}(\beta )`$ (106)
we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{Graph}}}\mathrm{d}x|\phi _n(x)|^2={\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}}[\phi _{n,\alpha }^{}_\gamma ({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\alpha \beta }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\alpha \beta }}}(\alpha ))\phi _{n,\alpha }+\phi _{n,\alpha }^{}_\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\alpha \beta }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\alpha \beta }}}(\beta )\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\alpha \beta }}\right)\phi _{n,\beta }`$
$`+\phi _{n,\beta }^{}_\gamma \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\beta \alpha }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\beta \alpha }}}(\alpha )\text{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta _{\alpha \beta }}\right)\phi _{n,\alpha }+\phi _{n,\beta }^{}_\gamma ({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}f_{\beta \alpha }}{\mathrm{d}x_{\beta \alpha }}}(\beta ))\phi _{n,\beta }]`$ (107)
If we replace the sum over bonds by a sum over vertices, the matrix $`M`$ appears. Finally, the normalization condition reads for the $`V`$-vector $`\phi _n`$ :

$$\phi _n^{}_\gamma [\sqrt{\gamma }M(\gamma )]\phi _n=1,$$
(108)
where the spectral parameter is taken, after derivation, equal to the eigenenergy $`\gamma =E_n\mathrm{i0}^+`$.

Graph weakly connected to leads. When the graph is weakly coupled to leads ($`w_\alpha 0`$) we expect that the stationary state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ is proportional to the wave function of the isolated graph near the resonance $`EE_n`$ : $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)\phi _n(x)`$ for $`x𝒢`$. The question is how to recover precisely this relation from our formalism ?

The resonance width. As a preliminary question, it is instructive to find an expression for the resonance widths. For this purpose, let us consider the determinant of the scattering matrix  :

$$det\mathrm{\Sigma }=(1)^L\frac{det(MW^\mathrm{T}W)}{det(M+W^\mathrm{T}W)}$$
(109)
and find an approximation near a resonance $`E_n`$.

For any fixed energy $`E>0`$, $`M`$ is an antihermitian matrix and can be written in terms of its purely imaginary eigenvalues $`\mathrm{i}\lambda _\alpha (E)`$ and its associate eigenvectors $`v_\alpha (E)`$ :

$$M(E)=\mathrm{i}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{V}{}}\lambda _\alpha (E)v_\alpha (E)v_\alpha ^{}(E).$$
(110)
The eigenvectors are normalized as $`v_\alpha ^{}v_\alpha =1`$. If the energy $`E`$ is equal to the energy $`E_n`$ of an eigenstate of the isolated graph, one of the eigenvalues of $`M`$ is vanishing : $`\lambda _1(E_n)=0`$. We suppose the spectrum of the isolated graph to be non degenerate. The eigenvector $`v_1(E_n)`$ coincides with the eigenstate : $`v_1(E_n)=\nu _n^1\phi _n`$ ; however these vectors are not normalized in the same way and differ in the multiplicative factor $`\nu _n`$.

Since $`detM(E)`$ is proportional to the spectral determinant and the spectrum supposed to be non degenerate, the eigenvalue $`\lambda _1(E)`$ behaves linearly near the energy $`E_n`$ : $`\lambda _1(E)(EE_n)\beta _n`$. The normalization condition (108) reads :

$$\phi _n^{}_E\left(\mathrm{i}\sqrt{E}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{V}{}}\mathrm{i}\lambda _\alpha (E)v_\alpha (E)v_\alpha ^{}(E)\right)|_{E=E_n}\phi _n=1$$
(111)
then

$$\beta _n\sqrt{E_n}\phi _n^{}v_1(E_n)v_1^{}(E_n)\phi _n=1$$
(112)
We obtain the normalization constant : $`\nu _n=1/\sqrt{k_n\beta _n}`$ where $`E_n=k_n^2`$.

We now come back to $`det\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In the weak coupling limit $`w_\alpha 0`$ we can compute perturbatively the eigenvalues of $`M\pm W^\mathrm{T}W`$ to express the determinant :

$`det(M(E)\pm W^\mathrm{T}W)`$ $`{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{EE_n}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{V}{}}}\left(\mathrm{i}\lambda _\alpha (E)\pm v_\alpha ^{}(E)W^\mathrm{T}Wv_\alpha (E)\right)`$ (113)
$``$ $`\left(\mathrm{i}\beta _n(EE_n)\pm v_1^{}(E_n)W^\mathrm{T}Wv_1(E_n)\right){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =2}{\overset{V}{}}}\mathrm{i}\lambda _\alpha (E_n)`$ (114)
We can use the relation $`v_1(E_n)=\sqrt{k_n\beta _n}\phi _n`$ to get :

$$det(M(k^2)\pm W^\mathrm{T}W)\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{kk_n}\left(kk_n\pm \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\phi _n^{}W^\mathrm{T}W\phi _n\right)2\mathrm{i}\beta _nk_n\underset{\alpha =2}{\overset{V}{}}\mathrm{i}\lambda _\alpha (k_n^2).$$
(115)
Then :

$$det\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{kk_n\mathrm{i}\gamma _n}{kk_n+\mathrm{i}\gamma _n}$$
(116)
where the resonance width in $`k`$-scale is : $`\gamma _n=\frac{1}{2}\phi _n^{}W^\mathrm{T}W\phi _n=\frac{1}{2}_{\alpha =1}^Lw_\alpha ^2|\phi _{n,\alpha }|^2`$. This result is very satisfactory since it shows that the lead $`\alpha `$ brings a contribution to the resonance width proportional to the transmission probability $`w_\alpha ^2`$ between the graph and the lead666 the transmission amplitude is $`\frac{2w_\alpha }{1+w_\alpha ^2}`$ for finite $`w_\alpha `$ . and to the probability density $`|\phi _{n,\alpha }|^2|\phi _n(\alpha )|^2`$ associated to the eigenstate of the isolated graph, taken at the vertex $`\alpha `$ where the graph is connected. In energy scale the resonance width reads :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=2k_n\gamma _n=\sqrt{E_n}\phi _n^{}W^\mathrm{T}W\phi _n=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{L}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }$$
(117)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }=\sqrt{E_n}w_\alpha ^2|\phi _n(\alpha )|^2$$
(118)
is the contribution of the lead $`\alpha `$.

The wave function. We recall that the $`V\times L`$-matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ that gathers the values of the $`L`$ scattering states at the $`V`$ vertices is  :

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi k}}\frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}W^\mathrm{T}.$$
(119)
We call $`\psi ^{(\alpha )}`$ the $`V`$-column vector gathering the values of $`\psi ^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ at the $`V`$ vertices : $`\psi ^{(\alpha )}=(\psi _1^{(\alpha )},\mathrm{},\psi _V^{(\alpha )})^\mathrm{T}`$. The matrix $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is obtained by gathering these $`L`$ column vectors : $`\mathrm{\Psi }=(\psi ^{(1)},\mathrm{},\psi ^{(L)})`$. In the weak coupling limit ($`w_\alpha 0`$) and near the resonance $`E_n`$ we can keep only the contribution of the vanishing eigenvalue $`\mathrm{i}\lambda _1(E)`$ of $`M`$ to compute :

$$\frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}\frac{1}{\mathrm{i}\beta _n(EE_n)+v_1^{}(E_n)W^\mathrm{T}Wv_1(E_n)}v_1(E_n)v_1^{}(E_n).$$
(120)
It follows that the scattering state at the vertex $`\mu `$ is :

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu ^{(\alpha )}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\mu \alpha }\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi k}}\frac{\mathrm{i}/2}{kk_n+\mathrm{i}\gamma _n}\phi _{n,\mu }(\phi _n^{}W^\mathrm{T})_\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi k}}\frac{\mathrm{i}w_\alpha \phi _{n,\alpha }^{}}{kk_n+\mathrm{i}\gamma _n}\phi _{n,\mu }.$$
(121)
Since the vertex $`\mu `$ could be any point of the graph because we have always the freedom to introduce an additional vertex of weight $`\lambda =0`$ on any bond without changing the properties of the graph, we can rewrite more elegantly :

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{k^2}^{(\alpha )}(x)\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{kk_n}\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi k_n}}\frac{\mathrm{i}w_\alpha \phi _n^{}(\alpha )}{kk_n+\mathrm{i}\gamma _n}\phi _n(x)$$
(122)
Or using energy scale :

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{EE_n}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{\mathrm{i}E_n^{1/4}w_\alpha \phi _n^{}(\alpha )}{EE_n+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}\phi _n(x).$$
(123)
The local density of states. The contribution of the scattering state $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)`$ to the off-diagonal LDoS $`x|\delta (EH)|x^{}`$ is :

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x^{})\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{EE_n}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n,\alpha }/\pi }{(EE_n)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^2}\phi _n(x)\phi _n^{}(x^{}).$$
(124)
The LDoS is obtained by summing these contributions over $`\alpha `$.

The scattering matrix. The same discussion can be done to find an approximation for the scattering matrix. We obtain the well-known Breit-Wigner structure :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\alpha \beta }(E)\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{EE_n}\delta _{\alpha \beta }+\frac{2\mathrm{i}\sqrt{E_n}w_\alpha \phi _n(\alpha )w_\beta \phi _n^{}(\beta )}{EE_n+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}.$$
(125)
## Appendix C Matrix elements of the charge operator

Our aim is to relate

$$\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=_{\mathrm{Graph}}dx\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)^{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\beta )}(x)=\underset{(\mu \nu )}{}_0^{l_{\mu \nu }}dx\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{(\mu \nu )}^{(\alpha )}(x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{(\mu \nu )}^{(\beta )}(x)$$
(126)
to the scattering matrix. The sum runs over the $`B`$ bonds. The relation (14) was proven for $`\alpha =\beta `$ in  using a different method.

The computation of this integral follows exactly the lines of the one done discussing the normalization of the states in the isolated graph. Then we obtain :

$$\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=\underset{\mu ,\nu }{}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\mu ^{(\alpha )}_E\left(\mathrm{i}\sqrt{E}M_{\mu \nu }\right)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\nu ^{(\beta )},$$
(127)
that is :

$`\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}E}}\left(\mathrm{i}\sqrt{E}M\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)_{\alpha \beta }`$ (128)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }}\left(W{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}M}{\mathrm{d}E}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{E}}M\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}}W^\mathrm{T}\right)_{\alpha \beta }`$ (129)
where we have used (119). From (3) and

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}E}=2W\frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}\frac{\mathrm{d}M}{\mathrm{d}E}\frac{1}{M+W^\mathrm{T}W}W^\mathrm{T}$$
(130)
we finally obtain the desired relation :

$$\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}E}+\frac{1}{4E}(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})\right)_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(131)
An alternative way to relate $`\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)`$ to derivative of the scattering matrix is to introduce the variable conjugate to the charge : a constant potential $`U`$ in the graph. The total potential now reads $`V(x)+U\theta _𝒢(x)`$ where $`\theta _𝒢(x)=1`$ if $`x𝒢`$ and $`\theta _𝒢(x)=0`$ if $`x`$ belongs to the leads. In the presence of $`U`$, the function $`f_{\alpha \beta }(x)`$ involved in $`M`$ is solution of $`[E+\mathrm{d}_x^2V_{(\alpha \beta )}(x)U]f_{\alpha \beta }(x)=0`$. These functions are obtained by a shift of the spectral parameter : $`f_{\alpha \beta }^U(x;E)=f_{\alpha \beta }^0(x;EU)`$. It immediately follows that :

$$\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}U}\left(\mathrm{i}\sqrt{E}M\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(132)
Using the same arguments as above we get :

$$\rho ^{(\alpha ,\beta )}(E)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}U}\right)_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(133)
It is interesting to compare this relation with (131) : it shows that it is not similar to differentiate with respect to a constant potential $`U`$ or with respect to the energy since the potential does not live in the wires. The difference however vanishes at high energy (WKB limit).

A relation between the stationary states and the functional derivative of the scattering matrix

$$\frac{1}{2\mathrm{i}\pi }\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta V(x)}\right)_{\alpha \beta }=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\alpha )}(x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_E^{(\beta )}(x)$$
(134)
was proven for graphs  where it is explained how it can be computed with algebraic calculations only. It follows that we can rewrite the equation (131) :

$$_{\mathrm{Graph}}dx\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{\delta V(x)}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}U}=\frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{d}E}+\frac{1}{4E}\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^21\right).$$
(135)
The first equality, which is obtained by identification of (126,134) with (133), is also a consequence of the definition of the functional derivative.