text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

The theory of classical integrable systems relies on two main ingredients. One is group theory which is used to manufacture Lax matrices as coadjoint orbits of loop groups, and the second one is complex analysis on the spectral curve, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is used to effectively solve the models.

In fact, once $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given to us, we only need $`g=\mathrm{genus}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ points on it to reconstruct everything. The divisor $`𝒟`$ of these $`g`$ points is called the dynamical divisor. Its role is fundamental. For instance, under an integrable flow, the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is fixed but the points of $`𝒟`$ move on it. The main theorem of integrable systems states that the image of $`𝒟`$ by the Abel map, which is a point of the Jacobian of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, moves linearly under such flows. Another very important property, which has emerged gradually, is that the coordinates of the points of $`𝒟`$ form a set separated variables in the sense of the Hamilton-Jacobi theory .

In the quantum theory too, these separated variables known there as Sklyanin’s variables, play an important role . It was observed recently that the quantum commuting Hamiltonians had a simple and general expression in terms of Sklyanin variables . Hence, it becomes natural to try to set up a quantization procedure of a classical integrable system by using these variables systematically.

In this note, as an example, we perform this quantization program in the case of the closed Toda chain. We will be able to reconstruct the original quantum Toda variables in terms of the Sklyanin variables, see eq.(23). So, even in this most studied system, the approach seems powerful enough to provide new results.

But before attacking the specific example of the Toda chain, it is worth recalling a few general facts about the classical theory of integrable systems.

Lax matrices built with the help of coadjoint orbits of loop groups lead to spectral curves of the very special form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }:R(\lambda ,\mu )R_0(\lambda ,\mu )+\underset{j}{}R_j(\lambda ,\mu )H_j=0$$
(1)
where the $`H_j`$ are the Poisson commuting Hamiltonians. The coefficients $`R_j(\lambda ,\mu )`$ have a simple geometrical meaning. It turns out that varying the moduli $`H_i`$ at $`\lambda `$ constant one can show that

$$\delta \mu d\lambda =\underset{j}{}\frac{R_j}{_\mu R}\delta H_j=\mathrm{holomorphic}$$
(2)
hence

$$R_j(\lambda ,\mu )=N_j(\lambda ,\mu )$$

where $`N_j`$ are the numerators of the holomorphic differentials on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$$\omega _j=\frac{N_j(\lambda ,\mu )}{_\mu R(\lambda ,\mu )}d\lambda =\sigma _j(\lambda ,\mu )d\lambda $$

The great virtue of eq.(2) is that it implies that there are exactly $`g`$ independent Hamiltonians because the space of holomorphic differentials is of dimension $`g`$. This is a most welcome fact because the natural candidates for the angles variables are the $`g`$ angle on the (complex) Jacobian torus, and so we need also $`g`$ (complex) action variables. This counting argument still holds if we generalize eq.(2) as follows

$$\frac{\delta \mu d\lambda }{f(\lambda ,\mu )}=\mathrm{holomorphic},\mathrm{then}\frac{R_j(\lambda ,\mu )}{_\mu R(\lambda ,\mu )}=f(\lambda ,\mu )\sigma _j(\lambda ,\mu )$$
(3)
Note that if we consider $`\stackrel{~}{R}(\lambda ,\mu )=h(\lambda ,\mu )R(\lambda ,\mu )`$ where $`h(\lambda ,\mu )`$ does not contain dynamical moduli, we have

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_j}{_\mu \stackrel{~}{R}}=\frac{hR_j}{h_\mu R+R_\mu h}$$

so that on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the factor $`h`$ disappears and the factor $`f`$ above has an intrinsic meaning.

The $`g`$ moduli $`H_i`$ in eq.(1), are completely determined if we require that the curve passes through $`g`$ points $`\gamma _k=(\lambda _k,\mu _k)`$. Indeed we just have to solve the linear system

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{g}{}}R_j(\lambda _k,\mu _k)H_j+R_0(\lambda _k,\mu _k)=0,k=1,\mathrm{},g$$
(4)
whose solution is

$$H=B^1V$$
(5)
where

$$H=\left(\begin{array}{c}H_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ H_i\\ \mathrm{}\\ H_g\end{array}\right),B=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}R_1(\lambda _1,\mu _1)& \mathrm{}& R_g(\lambda _1,\mu _1)\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ R_1(\lambda _i,\mu _i)& \mathrm{}& R_g(\lambda _i,\mu _i)\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ R_1(\lambda _g,\mu _g)& \mathrm{}& R_g(\lambda _g,\mu _g)\end{array}\right),V=\left(\begin{array}{c}R_0(\lambda _1,\mu _1)\\ \mathrm{}\\ R_0(\lambda _i,\mu _i)\\ \mathrm{}\\ R_0(\lambda _g,\mu _g)\end{array}\right)$$

On the $`2g`$ complex numbers $`(\lambda _k,\mu _k)`$, we can introduce a non degenerate Poisson structure

$$\{\lambda _k,\lambda _k^{}\}=0,\{\lambda _k,\mu _k^{}\}=p(\lambda _k,\mu _k)\delta _{kk^{}},\{\mu _k,\mu _k^{}\}=0$$
(6)
We do not need to specify the function $`p(\lambda ,\mu )`$ for the moment. By a simple calculation, we prove the

###### Proposition 1

For any function $`p(\lambda ,\mu )`$ in eq.(6), the Hamiltonians defined by eq.(5) are in involution

$$\{H_i,H_j\}=0$$

The $`H_i`$ therefore define integrable flows on the $`2g`$ dimensional phase space eq.(6).

There is an interesting relation between the functions $`p(\lambda ,\mu )`$ entering the Poisson bracket, eq.(6), and the function $`f(\lambda ,\mu )`$ in eq.(3).

###### Proposition 2

If $`f(\lambda ,\mu )=p(\lambda ,\mu )`$, the flows linearise on the Jacobian.

Proof. Define the angles as the images of the divisor $`\gamma _i`$ by the Abel map:

$$\theta _j=\underset{k}{}^{\lambda _k}\sigma _j(\lambda ,\mu )𝑑\lambda $$

We will show that

$$\{H_i,\theta _j\}=\delta _{ij}\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.\underset{k}{}_{t_i}\lambda _k\sigma _j(\lambda _k,\mu _k)=\delta _{ij}$$

Indeed, we have

$`_{t_i}\lambda _k=\{H_i,\lambda _k\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{B_{il}^1V_l,\lambda _k\}`$
$`=`$ $`B_{ir}^1\{B_{rs},\lambda _k\}B_{sl}^1V_lB_{il}^1\{V_l,\lambda _k\}`$
$`=`$ $`B_{ik}^1\left[\{B_{ks},\lambda _k\}H_s+\{V_k,\lambda _k\}\right]`$
where in the last line, we used the separated structure of the matrix $`B`$ and the vector $`V`$. Explicitly

$`_{t_i}\lambda _kB_{kj}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{ik}^1B_{kj}\left[_\mu R_s(\lambda _k,\mu _k)H_s+_\mu R_0(\lambda _k,\mu _k)\right]p(\lambda _k,\mu _k)`$
$`=`$ $`B_{ik}^1B_{kj}_\mu R(\lambda _k,\mu _k)p(\lambda _k,\mu _k)`$
It follows that

$$_{t_i}\lambda _k\frac{R_j(\lambda _k,\mu _k)}{p(\lambda _k,\mu _k)_\mu R(\lambda _k,\mu _k)}=B_{ik}^1B_{kj}$$

summing over $`k`$ gives

$$\underset{k}{}_{t_i}\lambda _k\frac{f(\lambda _k,\mu _k)}{p(\lambda _k,\mu _k)}\sigma _j(\lambda _k,\mu _k)=\delta _{ij}$$
(7)
which reduces to what we had to prove when $`f(\lambda ,\mu )=p(\lambda ,\mu )`$.

Hence eqs.(1, 3) do provide us with integrable systems and their solution. The main question in this approach is to go back from the separated variables $`(\lambda _k,\mu _k)`$ to the ”original” variables, i.e., the ones entering the Lax matrix elements. A Lax matrix is a matrix $`L(\lambda )`$ depending rationally on $`\lambda `$ such that

$$R(\lambda ,\mu )=det(L(\lambda )\mu )$$

A general strategy to construct it is as follows . First, we determine the size of the matrix $`L(\lambda )`$, by looking at the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a covering of the $`\lambda `$-plane $`(\lambda ,\mu )\lambda `$. The dimension of the matrix is just the number of sheets of this covering. Call $`Q_i(\lambda =\mathrm{},a_i)`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}N`$ the point above $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$. We can normalise $`L(\lambda )=\mathrm{Diag}(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{}a_N)`$ at $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$. To each point $`P(\lambda ,\mu )`$ of the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, not a branch point of the covering $`(\lambda ,\mu )\lambda `$, one can attach the one dimensional eigenspace of $`L(\lambda )`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\mu `$. One can show that this extends to an analytic line bundle on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with Chern class $`g`$. The eigenvector $`\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$ at $`P\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be presented as follows

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(P)=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \psi _2(P)\\ \mathrm{},\\ \psi _N(P)\end{array}\right),[\psi _i]=Q_1Q_i𝒟$$

The function $`\psi _i`$ has a zero at $`Q_1`$, a pole at $`Q_i`$ and $`g`$ poles at a divisor $`𝒟`$ at finite distance. By the Riemann–Roch theorem, this function exists and is unique for $`𝒟`$ generic. We identify $`𝒟`$ to the divisor of the $`g`$ points $`\gamma _k=(\lambda _k,\mu _k)`$ above and construct the corresponding vector $`\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$. Once this is done, we consider the $`N`$ points $`P_i`$ above $`\lambda `$, and build the matrices

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}=(\mathrm{\Psi }(P_1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }(P_N)),\widehat{\mu }=\mathrm{Diag}(\mu (P_1),\mathrm{},\mu (P_N))$$

The matrix $`L(\lambda )`$ is given by

$$L(\lambda )=\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^1$$

This is independent of the order of the points $`P_i`$, and is a rational function of $`\lambda `$.

This method gives a way, in principle, to reconstruct the Lax matrix starting only from the spectral curve and the dynamical divisor on it, hence returning back to the original variables. Of course, in concrete examples, some of the genericity assumptions made here may have to be modified, or shortcuts may be available, but the general ideas remain the same.

## 2 The Classical Toda Chain.

The closed Toda chain is defined by the Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\frac{1}{2}p_i^2+e^{q_{i+1}q_i}$$
(8)
where we assume that $`q_{n+2}q_1`$, and Poisson bracket

$$\{q_i,q_j\}=0,\{p_i,q_j\}=\delta _{ij},\{p_i,p_j\}=0$$

This is an integrable system. We associate to it a Lax matrix as follows. Consider the $`2\times 2`$ matrices

$$T_j(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda +p_j& e^{q_j}\\ e^{q_j}& 0\end{array}\right)$$

and construct

$$T(\lambda )=T_1(\lambda )\mathrm{}T_2(\lambda )T_{n+1}(\lambda )$$
(9)
We can write

$$T(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A(\lambda )& B(\lambda )\\ C(\lambda )& D(\lambda )\end{array}\right);A(\lambda )D(\lambda )B(\lambda )C(\lambda )=1$$
(10)
$`A(\lambda )`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n+1`$, $`D(\lambda )`$ is of degree $`n1`$, and $`B(\lambda )`$, $`C(\lambda )`$ are of degree $`n`$. The spectral curve is defined as usual

$$det(T(\lambda )\mu )=0\mu +\mu ^1t(\lambda )=0$$
(11)
where

$$t(\lambda )=A(\lambda )+D(\lambda )=\lambda ^{n+1}+\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda ^jH_j,H_n=P,H_{n1}=\frac{1}{2}P^2H$$

where $`P=_ip_i`$, and $`H`$ is given by eq.(8). The $`n+1`$ quantities $`H_j`$ are conserved. The curve eq.(11) is hyperelliptic. It can be written as

$`s^2=t^2(\lambda )4,\mathrm{with}s=2\mu t(\lambda )=\mu \mu ^1`$ (12)
The polynomial $`t^2(\lambda )`$ being of degree $`2(n+1)`$, the genus of the curve is $`g=n`$. The number of dynamical moduli is $`g=n`$ in the center of mass frame $`P=0`$. In the following we therefore always consider the system reduced by the translational symmetry. We have

$$\frac{\delta \mu }{\mu }d\lambda =\frac{\delta t(\lambda )}{\mu \mu ^1}d\lambda =\frac{\delta t(\lambda )}{s}d\lambda =\mathrm{holomorphic}$$
(13)
Asking that the curve eq.(11) passes through the $`n`$ points $`(\lambda _i,\mu _i)`$, we get $`n`$ equations

$$t(\lambda _i)=\mu _i+\mu _i^1$$

Their solution for the $`n`$ Hamiltonians $`H_i`$ may be cast conveniently in the from of Lagrange interpolation formula:

$$t(\lambda )=t^{(0)}(\lambda )+t^{(1)}(\lambda )$$
(14)
where

$$t^{(0)}(\lambda )=(\lambda +\underset{i}{}\lambda _i)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\lambda \lambda _i),t^{(1)}(\lambda )=\underset{i}{}\underset{ji}{}\frac{\lambda \lambda _j}{\lambda _i\lambda _j}(\mu _i+\mu _i^1)$$
(15)
The polynomial $`t^{(0)}(\lambda )`$ is of degree $`n+1`$, vanishes for $`\lambda =\lambda _i`$ and has no $`\lambda ^n`$ term.

We define the Poisson bracket of the separated variables as (in agreement with eqs.(6,13)):

$$\{\lambda _k,\lambda _k^{}\}=0,\{\mu _k,\lambda _k^{}\}=\mu _k\delta _{kk^{}},\{\mu _k,\mu _k^{}\}=0$$

By the general result of  the Hamiltonians $`H_i`$ obtained as coefficients of the polynomial $`t(\lambda )`$ in eq.(15) are in involution. Notice that the above Poisson bracket is the one matching the condition (13) and leads to flows linearizing on the Jacobian of the spectral curve eq.(11).

To proceed, we reconstruct the Lax matrix. The curve eq.(11) is a two sheeted cover of the $`\lambda `$-plane. For a $`2\times 2`$ matrix of the form eq.(10) the eigenvector is simple

$$(T(\lambda )\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }=0,\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \psi _2\end{array}\right),\psi _2=\frac{A(\lambda )\mu }{B(\lambda )}$$

The poles of $`\psi _2`$ at finite distance are above the zeroes $`\lambda _i`$ of $`B(\lambda )=0`$ which is a polynomial of degree $`n`$. The two points above $`\lambda _i`$ are $`\mu _i^+=A(\lambda _i)`$, $`\mu _i^{}=D(\lambda _i)`$ so that $`\psi _2`$ has a pole only on the second point. The points of the dynamical divisor are therefore

$$(\lambda _i,D(\lambda _i)),B(\lambda _i)=0$$

Given the points of the dynamical divisor, we reconstruct $`A(\lambda )`$ and $`B(\lambda )`$:

$`B(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`b_0{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(\lambda \lambda _i)`$
$`A(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda +{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _i){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(\lambda \lambda _i)+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{ji}{\overset{n}{}}(\lambda \lambda _j)}{_{ji}^n(\lambda _i\lambda _j)}}`$
Knowing $`A(\lambda )`$ and $`B(\lambda )`$ we reconstruct $`C(\lambda )`$ and $`D(\lambda )`$ by the trace and determinant conditions. These formulae were the basis of Sklyanin’s work , and of Smirnov’s work  and  (with a different Poisson structure).

To reconstruct the original degrees of freedom of the Toda chain, however, is equivalent to reconstructing the $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$ Lax matrix:

$$L(\mu )=\underset{i}{}p_iE_{ii}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}e^{\frac{1}{2}(q_{i+1}q_i)}(E_{i,i+1}+E_{i+1,i})+e^{\frac{1}{2}(q_1q_{n+1})}(\mu E_{n+1,1}+\mu ^1E_{1,n+1})$$

where $`(E_{ij})_{kl}=\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}`$. This matrix is such that

$$det(L(\mu )\lambda )=\mu +\mu ^1A(\lambda )D(\lambda )$$

Since $`L(\mu )`$ is of size $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$, we look at the spectral curve eq.(11) as a $`n+1`$ sheeted cover of the $`\mu `$-plane. When $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$, we have two points $`P^+`$ and $`P^{}`$ corresponding to $`\mu =\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu =0`$ respectively:

$`P^+`$ $`:`$ $`\mu =\lambda ^{n+1}(1+O(\lambda ^2))`$
$`P^{}`$ $`:`$ $`\mu =\lambda ^{n1}(1+O(\lambda ^2))`$
According to e.g. , the eigenvectors of $`L(\mu )`$ are easy to construct. Set

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\\ \psi _2\\ \mathrm{}\\ \mu \end{array}\right)$$

where we have normalised the last component to be $`\mu `$. The meromorphic functions $`\psi _i`$ have poles at the dynamical divisor, moreover

$`\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{q_iq_{n+1}}{2}}\lambda ^i(1+O(\lambda ^1),\mathrm{near}P^+`$
$`\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{q_iq_{n+1}}{2}}\lambda ^i(1+O(\lambda ^1),\mathrm{near}P^{}`$
These properties determine the functions $`\psi _i`$ uniquely. Being meromorphic functions on a hyperelliptic curve, we can write

$$\psi _i=\frac{Q^{(i)}(\lambda )+\mu R^{(i)}(\lambda )}{_{j=1}^n(\lambda \lambda _j)}$$

where $`Q^{(i)}`$ and $`R^{(i)}`$ are polynomials. We want the poles to be at $`(\lambda _j,\mu _j)`$ only so that the numerator should vanish at the points $`(\lambda _j,\mu _j^1)`$. This gives $`n`$ conditions

$$Q^{(i)}(\lambda _j)+\mu _j^1R^{(i)}(\lambda _j)=0,j=1\mathrm{}n$$
(16)
To have a pole of order $`i`$ at $`P^+`$ and a zero of order $`i`$ at $`P^{}`$ we choose

$$\mathrm{degree}Q^{(i)}=ni,\mathrm{degree}R^{(i)}=i1$$

These two polynomials depend altogether on $`n+1`$ coefficients. They are determined by imposing the $`n`$ conditions eq.(16) and requiring that the normalizations coefficients are inverse to each other at $`P^\pm `$. We set

$`Q^{(i)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`Q_0^{(i)}+Q_1^{(i)}\lambda +\mathrm{}Q_{ni}^{(i)}\lambda ^{ni}`$
$`R^{(i)}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`R_0^{(i)}+R_1^{(i)}\lambda +\mathrm{}R_{i1}^{(i)}\lambda ^{i1}`$
Moreover, since $`\psi _{n+1}=\mu `$ we have to define

$$Q^{(n+1)}(\lambda )=0,R^{(n+1)}(\lambda )=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\lambda \lambda _j)$$

then eqs.(16) become

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& \lambda _1& \mathrm{}& \lambda _1^{i1}& \mu _1& \mu _1\lambda _1& \mathrm{}& \mu _1\lambda _1^{ni1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ 1& \lambda _j& \mathrm{}& \lambda _j^{i1}& \mu _j& \mu _j\lambda _j& \mathrm{}& \mu _j\lambda _j^{ni1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ 1& \lambda _n& \mathrm{}& \lambda _n^{i1}& \mu _n& \mu _n\lambda _n& \mathrm{}& \mu _n\lambda _n^{ni1}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}R_0^{(i)}\\ \mathrm{}\\ R_{i1}^{(i)}\\ Q_0^{(i)}\\ \mathrm{}\\ Q_{ni1}^{(i)}\end{array}\right)=Q_{ni}^{(i)}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu _1\lambda _1^{ni}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \mu _j\lambda _j^{ni}\\ \mathrm{}\\ \mu _n\lambda _n^{ni}\end{array}\right)$$

or, with obvious notations $`M^{(i)}X^{(i)}=Q_{ni}^{(i)}V^{(i)}`$ and therefore $`X^{(i)}=Q_{ni}^{(i)}M^{(i)1}V^{(i)}`$. In particular

$$R_{k1}^{(i)}=Q_{ni}^{(i)}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(i)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}=detM^{(i)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^{(i)}`$ is the determinant of the matrix obtained from $`M^{(i)}`$ by replacing column $`k`$ by $`V^{(i)}`$. Finally, one has to impose that the leading coefficients at $`P_\pm `$ are inverse to each other: $`R_{i1}^{(i)}=(Q_{ni}^{(i)})^1`$. This gives

$$(Q_{ni}^{(i)})^2=e^{q_iq_{n+1}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(i)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i)}}$$

To reconstruct the momenta, we follow  again. Expand

$$\psi _i=e^{\frac{q_iq_{n+1}}{2}}\lambda ^i(1\xi _i\lambda ^1+\mathrm{}),\mathrm{near}P^+$$

then $`p_i=\xi _{i+1}\xi _i`$. We find at once

$$\xi _i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _j\frac{R_{i2}^{(i)}}{R_{i1}^{(i)}}$$

hence

$$p_i=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{i1}^{(i)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(i)}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(i+1)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{i+1}^{(i+1)}}$$

which we complement with the boundary terms

$$p_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{(2)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{(2)}},p_n=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}^{(n)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(n)}}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _j,p_{n+1}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}p_j$$

We now give more explicit formulae for the determinants entering the above expressions. We call $`[k]`$ a subset of cardinality $`k`$ of $`(1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$:

$$[k]=(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)$$

We write $`_{[k]}`$ for the sum over all such sets. Define

$$S_{[k]}=\underset{i[k]}{}\underset{j[k]}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _j)}$$
(17)
and

$$\mu _{[k]}=\mu _{i_1}\mu _{i_2}\mathrm{}\mu _{i_k}$$

then, we have

$`X^{(k)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^{(nk)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}}}={\displaystyle \underset{[k]}{}}S_{[k]}\mu _{[k]}`$ (18)
$`Y^{(k)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{nk1}^{(nk)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n)}}}={\displaystyle \underset{[k]}{}}S_{[k]}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i[k]}{}}\lambda _i\right)\mu _{[k]}`$ (19)
We have (note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{(i)}=(1)^{ni}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(i1)}`$)

$$e^{q_iq_{n+1}}=\frac{X^{(ni+1)}}{X^{(ni)}},p_i=\frac{Y^{(ni+1)}}{X^{(ni+1)}}\frac{Y^{(ni)}}{X^{(ni)}}$$
(20)
It remains to check that the Poisson bracket between $`p_i,q_i`$ is canonical. This easily follows from

###### Proposition 3

$`\{X^{(k)},X^{(l)}\}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\{X^{(k)},Y^{(l)}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(kl)\theta (kl)X^{(k)}X^{(l)}`$
$`\{Y^{(k)},Y^{(l)}\}`$ $`=`$ $`(kl)\left(\theta (kl)Y^{(k)}X^{(l)}+\theta (lk)X^{(k)}Y^{(l)}\right)`$
where $`\theta (kl)=1\mathrm{if}k>l,0\mathrm{otherwise}`$.

Instead of proving these relations directly, it is more convenient to use the quantity $`Z^{(k)}`$ defined by

$$Y^{(k)}=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _i\right)X^{(k)}Z^{(k)},Z^{(k)}=\underset{[k]}{}S_{[k]}\left(\underset{i[k]}{}\lambda _i\right)\mu _{[k]}$$
(21)
Since $`\{_{i=1}^n\lambda _i,X^{(k)}\}=kX^{(k)}`$, $`\{_{i=1}^n\lambda _i,Z^{(k)}\}=kZ^{(k)}`$ we have to show that

###### Proposition 4

$`\{X^{(k)},X^{(l)}\}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\{X^{(k)},Z^{(l)}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(l\theta (kl)+k\theta (lk)\right)X^{(k)}X^{(l)}`$
$`\{Z^{(k)},Z^{(l)}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(l\theta (kl)+k\theta (lk)\right)\left(Z^{(k)}X^{(l)}X^{(k)}Z^{(l)}\right)`$
Proof. Take the semiclassical limit of the quantum formulae below.

Eqs.(20) and the above proposition provide a complete solution to the problem of expressing the original Toda variables $`p_i,q_i`$ in terms of the separated variables in the classical case. We now turn to the quantum theory.

## 3 The Quantum Toda chain.

In the quantum case, analysis on Riemann surfaces is not available. So, we try to quantize directly the relevant classical formulae.

Quantum commutation relations are defined directly on the separated variables.

$$[\lambda _k,\lambda _k^{}]=0,\mu _k\lambda _k^{}=(\lambda _k^{}+i\mathrm{}\delta _{kk^{}})\mu _k(t_k\lambda _k^{})\mu _k,[\mu _k,\mu _k^{}]=0$$

As shown in , the formulae (15) for the quantum Hamiltonians remain valid at the quantum level (with the $`\mu _i`$’s written on the right) and they are all commuting.

The new result of this paper concerns the variables $`q_i,p_i`$ of the Toda chain. We show that the classical formulae eqs.(20) can also be straightforwardly quantized.

As a first step, we quantize the operators $`X^{(k)}`$ and $`Z^{(k)}`$. We define them by the same formulae as in the classical case eqs.(18, 21), but now it is important to write the $`\mu _i`$’s to the right. We have

###### Proposition 5

$`[X^{(k)},X^{(l)}]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`[X^{(k)},Z^{(l)}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}(k\theta (lk)+l\theta (kl))X^{(k)}X^{(l)}`$
$`[Z^{(k)},Z^{(l)}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}(k\theta (lk)+l\theta (kl))(Z^{(k)}X^{(l)}Z^{(l)}X^{(k)})`$
Proof. We have

$`[X^{(k)},X^{(l)}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{[k],[l]}{}}\left(S_{[k]}t_{[k]}S_{[l]}S_{[l]}t_{[l]}S_{[k]}\right)\mu _{[k]}\mu _{[l]}`$
$`[X^{(k)},Z^{(l)}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{[k],[l]}{}}(S_{[k]}t_{[k]}(\lambda _{[l]}S_{[l]})\lambda _{[l]}S_{[l]}(t_{[l]}S_{[k]}))\mu _{[k]}\mu _{[l]}`$
$`[Z^{(k)},Z^{(l)}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{[k],[l]}{}}(\lambda _{[k]}S_{[k]}(t_{[k]}\lambda _{[l]}S_{[l]})\lambda _{[l]}S_{[l]}(t_{[l]}\lambda _{[k]}S_{[k]}))\mu _{[k]}\mu _{[l]}`$
where we denoted

$$\lambda _{[k]}=\underset{i[k]}{}\lambda _i$$

We set

$$[k]=[k^{}]+[m^{}],[l]=[l^{}]+[m^{}],[k^{}][l^{}]=\mathrm{}$$
(22)
We have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{[k],[l]}{}}((\lambda _{[k]})^aS_{[k]}(t_{[k]}(\lambda _{[l]})^bS_{[l]})(\lambda _{[l]})^bS_{[l]}(t_{[l]}(\lambda _{[k]})^aS_{[k]})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{[k],[l]}{}}(1)^{\mathrm{\#}k^{}\mathrm{\#}l^{}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k^{}+l^{}+m^{}]}{j[k^{}+l^{}+m^{}]}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _j}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[m^{}]}{j[k^{}+l^{}]}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _j}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[m^{}]}{j[k^{}+l^{}+m^{}]}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _j+i\mathrm{}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k^{}]}{j[l^{}]}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _j}}((\lambda _{[k]})^a(\lambda _{[l]}+i\mathrm{}m^{})^b{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k^{}]}{j[l^{}]}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _j+i\mathrm{}}}(\lambda _{[l]})^b(\lambda _{[k]}+i\mathrm{}m^{})^a{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k^{}]}{j[l^{}]}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _ji\mathrm{}}})`$
The coefficient on the second line only depends on $`[k^{}+l^{}]`$. Hence we can spilt the sum

$$\underset{[k],[l]}{}=\underset{[m^{}],[k^{}+l^{}]}{}\underset{[k^{}],[l^{}]}{}$$

and the last sum goes straight to the last line.

If $`a=0,b=0`$, that is in the calculation of $`[X^{(k)},X^{(l)}]`$, the last sum vanishes by Lemma 2.

If $`a=0,b=1`$, that is in the calculation of $`[X^{(k)},Z^{(l)}]`$, we set

$`\lambda _{[l]}+i\mathrm{}m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{[k^{}+l^{}+m^{}]}\lambda _{[k^{}]}+i\mathrm{}ki\mathrm{}k^{}`$
$`\lambda _{[l]}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{[k^{}+l^{}+m^{}]}(\lambda _{[k^{}]}i\mathrm{}k^{})i\mathrm{}k^{}`$
By Lemma 2 applied with $`a=0,1`$, only the $`i\mathrm{}k`$ term contributes in the last sum. This term is exactly equal to

$$[X^{(k)},Z^{(l)}]=i\mathrm{}kX^{(k)}X^{(l)},k<l$$

If $`k>l`$, we write this time

$`\lambda _{[l]}+i\mathrm{}m^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda _{[l^{}]}i\mathrm{}l^{})+\lambda _{[m^{}]}+i\mathrm{}l`$
$`\lambda _{[l]}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{[l^{}]}+\lambda _{[m^{}]}`$
and this time only the $`i\mathrm{}l`$ term contributes. Hence

$$[X^{(k)},Z^{(l)}]=i\mathrm{}lX^{(k)}X^{(l)}$$

If $`a=1,b=1`$, that is in the calculation of $`[Z^{(k)},Z^{(l)}]`$, we set (assuming $`k<l`$):

$`\lambda _{[k]}(\lambda _{[l]}+m^{}i\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}k\lambda _{[k]}(\lambda _{[k^{}]})^2+(\lambda _{[k^{}+l^{}]}i\mathrm{}k^{})\lambda _{[k^{}]}`$
$`+\lambda _{[m^{}]}(\lambda _{[k^{}+l^{}+m^{}]}i\mathrm{}k^{})`$
$`\lambda _{[l]}(\lambda _{[k]}+m^{}i\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}k\lambda _{[l]}(\lambda _{[k^{}]}i\mathrm{}k^{})^2+(\lambda _{[k^{}+l^{}]}i\mathrm{}k^{})(\lambda _{[k^{}]}i\mathrm{}k^{})`$
$`+\lambda _{[m^{}]}(\lambda _{[k^{}+l^{}+m^{}]}i\mathrm{}k^{})`$
By Lemma 2 only the terms $`i\mathrm{}k\lambda _{[k]}`$ and $`i\mathrm{}k\lambda _{[l]}`$ contribute. Hence

$$[Z^{(k)},Z^{(l)}]=i\mathrm{}k(Z^{(k)}X^{(l)}Z^{(l)}X^{(k)}),k<l$$

It is now simple to write the commutation relations with $`Y^{(k)}`$ defined in eq.(19).

###### Proposition 6

$`[X^{(k)},X^{(l)}]`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`[X^{(k)},Y^{(l)}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}(kl)\theta (kl)X^{(k)}X^{(l)}`$
$`[Y^{(k)},Y^{(l)}]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}(kl)\left[\theta (kl)Y^{(k)}X^{(l)}+\theta (lk)Y^{(l)}X^{(k)}\right]`$
We define the quantum Toda variables as in the classical case:

###### Proposition 7

Let us define the quantum Toda operators as

$$e^{q_iq_{n+1}}=\frac{X^{(ni+1)}}{X^{(ni)}},p_i=\frac{Y^{(ni+1)}}{X^{(ni+1)}}\frac{Y^{(ni)}}{X^{(ni)}}$$
(23)
Then, we have

$$[e^{q_i},e^{q_j}]=0,[e^{q_i},p_j]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij}e^{q_i},[p_i,p_j]=0$$
(24)
Proof. Note that there is no ordering ambiguity in the expressions eq.(23). The proof of the canonical commutation relations relies on

$$[\frac{1}{X^{(k)}},Y^{(l)}]=i\mathrm{}(kl)\theta (kl)\frac{X^{(l)}}{X^{(k)}}$$

which implies in turn

$$[\frac{Y^{(k)}}{X^{(k)}},\frac{Y^{(l)}}{X^{(l)}}]=0$$

Eqs.(23, 24) constitute the main result of this paper. It is important to check the reality of our operators. The conjugation operation on the variables $`\lambda _k,\mu _k`$ was given to us by Sklyanin:

$`\lambda _k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _k`$
$`\mu _k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k\lambda _j+i\mathrm{}}{\lambda _k\lambda _j}}\mu _k`$
This conjugation rule is found by requiring that the Hamiltonians $`H_j`$ be self conjugate. It is a simple exercise to check that the operators $`X^{(k)}`$, $`Y^{(k)}`$ are self conjugate, and therefore so are $`p_i,q_i`$.

## 4 Conclusion.

Eqs.(23) opens up the possibility to compute the matrix elements of these operators between the eigenstates of the Hamiltonians $`H_i`$, see . The existing techniques should be sufficient to handle operators polynomials in $`\mu _i`$, such as

$$e^{q_nq_{n+1}}e^{q_{n1}q_{n+1}}\mathrm{}e^{q_{nk+1}q_{n+1}}=X^{(k)}$$

For the operators $`p_i,e^{q_i}`$ themselves however, we will have to learn how to treat ratios of such polynomial operators. This is an important issue since for non hyperelliptic curves this situation seems unavoidable .

## 5 Appendix.

We prove some combinatorial identities which are used in the computation of the commutators of the operators $`X^{(k)}`$, $`Z^{(k)}`$.

###### Lemma 1

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{ji}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _j)}\left(\lambda _i^a\underset{ji}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _j+i\mathrm{})}(\lambda _ii\mathrm{})^a\underset{ji}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _ji\mathrm{})}\right)=0$$

for $`a2n`$.

Proof. Consider

$$Q(z)=z^a\underset{i}{}\frac{1}{z\lambda _i}\underset{i}{}\frac{1}{z\lambda _i+i\mathrm{}}$$

The residue at the pole $`z=\lambda _i`$ reads

$$\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}\lambda _i^a\underset{ij}{}\frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _j}\underset{ij}{}\frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _j+i\mathrm{}}$$

while the residue at $`z=\lambda _ii\mathrm{}`$ reads

$$\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}(\lambda _ii\mathrm{})^a\underset{ij}{}\frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _ji\mathrm{}}\underset{ij}{}\frac{1}{\lambda _i\lambda _j}$$

Hence our expression is the sum of the residues of $`Q(z)`$ at finite distance, which vanishes if $`a2n`$.

###### Lemma 2

Suppose $`k<n/2`$. Then

$$\underset{[k]}{}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k]}{j[k]}}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _j)}\left((\lambda _{[k]})^a\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k]}{j[k]}}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _j+i\mathrm{})}(\lambda _{[k]}i\mathrm{}k)^a\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k]}{j[k]}}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _ji\mathrm{})}\right)=0$$

for $`0a2(n2k+1)`$. By symmetry, if $`k>n/2`$, we have

$$\underset{[k]}{}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k]}{j[k]}}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _j)}\left((\lambda _{[nk]}i\mathrm{}(nk))^a\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k]}{j[k]}}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _j+i\mathrm{})}(\lambda _{[nk]})^a\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k]}{j[k]}}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _ji\mathrm{})}\right)=0$$

for $`0a2(2kn+1)`$

Proof. Consider this expression as a function of $`\lambda _1`$. It tends to zero at $`\mathrm{}`$, and it has poles at the other $`\lambda _j,\lambda _j\pm i\mathrm{}`$. Consider $`\lambda _2`$. We have two contributions corresponding to $`\lambda _1[k],\lambda _2[k]`$ and $`\lambda _1[k],\lambda _2[k]`$. We denote by $`[n^{}]`$ the subset of $`[n]`$ where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ have been removed, by $`[k^{}]`$ a subset of $`[n^{}]`$ of cardinality $`k1`$, and by $`[l^{}]`$ the complementary subset in $`[n^{}]`$. The two contributions can be written respectively:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _1\lambda _2}}P_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _1)P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _2){\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _1+\lambda _{[k^{}]})^a}{\lambda _1\lambda _2+i\mathrm{}}}P_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _1+i\mathrm{})P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _2i\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \underset{+}{\overset{}{}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _1+\lambda _{[k^{}]}ki\mathrm{})^a}{\lambda _1\lambda _2i\mathrm{}}}P_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _1i\mathrm{})P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _2+i\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \underset{}{\overset{}{}}})`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda _2\lambda _1}}P_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _2)P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _1){\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _2+\lambda _{[k^{}]})^a}{\lambda _2\lambda _1+i\mathrm{}}}P_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _2+i\mathrm{})P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _1i\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \underset{+}{\overset{}{}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _2+\lambda _{[k^{}]}ki\mathrm{})^a}{\lambda _2\lambda _1i\mathrm{}}}P_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _2i\mathrm{})P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _1+i\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \underset{}{\overset{}{}}})`$
where

$$P_{[l^{}]}(\lambda )=\underset{j[l^{}]}{}\frac{1}{\lambda \lambda _j}$$

and

$$\underset{\sigma }{\overset{}{}}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i[k^{}]}{j[l^{}]}}{}\frac{1}{(\lambda _i\lambda _j+\sigma i\mathrm{})},\sigma =0,\pm $$

Consider the pole at $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2`$. Set $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2+ϵ`$.

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}P_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _2)P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _2){\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}(\lambda _2+\lambda _{[k^{}]})^aP_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _2+i\mathrm{})P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _2i\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \underset{+}{\overset{}{}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}(\lambda _2+\lambda _{[k^{}]}ki\mathrm{})^aP_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _2i\mathrm{})P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _2+i\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \underset{}{\overset{}{}}})`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}P_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _2)P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _2){\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}(\lambda _2+\lambda _{[k^{}]})^aP_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _2+i\mathrm{})P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _2i\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \underset{+}{\overset{}{}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}}(\lambda _2+\lambda _{[k^{}]}ki\mathrm{})^aP_{[l^{}]}(\lambda _2i\mathrm{})P_{[k^{}]}(\lambda _2+i\mathrm{}){\displaystyle \underset{}{\overset{}{}}})`$
so that $`A+B`$ is regular.

Consider the pole at $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2i\mathrm{}`$. Set $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2i\mathrm{}+ϵ`$

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}ϵ}}P_{[n^{}]}(\lambda _2i\mathrm{})P_{[n^{}]}(\lambda _2)(\lambda _2i\mathrm{}+\lambda _{[k^{}]})^a{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{+}{\overset{}{}}}`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}ϵ}}P_{[n^{}]}(\lambda _2)P_{[n^{}]}(\lambda _2i\mathrm{})(\lambda _2i\mathrm{}+\lambda _{[k^{}]}(k1)i\mathrm{})^a{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{}{\overset{}{}}}`$
so that $`A+B`$ is proportional to

$$\underset{[k^{}]}{}\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}\left((\lambda _{[k^{}]})^a^{}\underset{+}{\overset{}{}}(\lambda _{[k^{}]}(k1)i\mathrm{})^a^{}\underset{}{\overset{}{}}\right)$$

which is our identity at a lower level.

Consider the pole at $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2+i\mathrm{}`$. Set $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2+i\mathrm{}+ϵ`$.

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}ϵ}}P_{[n^{}]}(\lambda _2+i\mathrm{})P_{[n^{}]}(\lambda _2)(\lambda _2+\lambda _{[k^{}]}(k1)i\mathrm{})^a{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{}{\overset{}{}}}`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}ϵ}}P_{[n^{}]}(\lambda _2)P_{[n^{}]}(\lambda _2+i\mathrm{})(\lambda _2+\lambda _{[k^{}]})^a{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{+}{\overset{}{}}}`$
so that $`A+B`$ is proportional to

$$\underset{[k^{}]}{}\underset{0}{\overset{}{}}\left((\lambda _{[k^{}]})^a^{}\underset{+}{\overset{}{}}(\lambda _{[k^{}]}(k1)i\mathrm{})^a^{}\underset{}{\overset{}{}}\right)$$

which is our identity at a lower level. So, if the identity holds at lower levels, our expression, as a rational function of $`\lambda _1`$, is regular everywhere and tends to zero at $`\mathrm{}`$, hence identically vanishes. Since the identity is true for $`k=1`$ by Lemma 1, it is true as stated.

Acknowledgements. I thank F. Smirnov and D. Talalaev for discussions.


format: text

text:
# S-matrix theory for transmission through billiards in tight-binding approach

## I Introduction

In recent years, the ballistic transport through quantum systems has been studied as a scattering problem on billiards (microwave cavities) with infinitely high potential walls (hard wall approximation). The scattering properties of such billiards are closely related to the spectral properties of the corresponding closed billiards doron ; stockmann . The opening of the billiards is realized by attaching at least one lead to them. However, for the study of the transmission through the billiard two leads are necessary. The fundamental object that characterizes the process of quantum scattering is the unitary S-matrix relating the amplitudes of incoming waves to the amplitudes of outgoing waves. Provided that the properties of the Hamiltonian $`H_B`$ for the closed billiard are known, one can consider its open counterpart and work out the S-matrix formalism by standard methods of the theory of quantum scattering feshbach ; fano ; weidenmuller ; rotter ; fyodorov ; dittes ; rotter1 . As a result, the S-matrix is expressed in terms of both the Hamiltonian $`H_B`$ and the matrix elements describing the coupling of the billiard states to the lead states. The explicit expressions for the coupling matrix elements were formulated at first in 1996 by Šeba et al. seba ; albeveiro  for the case of point contacts of the leads with the billiard. Later, Fyodorov and Sommers fyodorov  developed their theory for the connection of the billiard with one lead of finite width by using Neumann boundary conditions (see also stockmann ). Recently Dittes dittes  considered the same type of an open system and derived the expressions for the coupling matrix with Neumann or Dirichlet boundary conditions both by using the Green function technique.

In the present paper, we consider a d-dimensional billiard connected to leads by using another approach that is based on the tight-binding model. The motivation for this consideration is the following. First of all, the increasing development of fabrication techniques requires the possibility to perform reliable numerous experiments on ballistic transport through devices of atomic size ohnishi ; yanson  and through molecular devices consisting of very few atoms. Secondly, Pichugin et al pichugin  who applied the formula for the coupling matrix derived by Dittes dittes , found that their results do not coincide with those of a direct numerical computation of the S-matrix poles, above all for the Dirichlet boundary conditions. As we will show in the present paper, one of the reasons for this disagreement is that the formal continuum approach used by Dittes dittes  is unbounded in energy and gives zero radiation shifts. In electron transmission through electron wires, however, the energy of the electrons is bounded in energy, at least from below. This fact gives rise to radiation shifts of poles of the S-matrix which can not be neglected in calculations for concrete systems. Thirdly, it is desirable to receive numerical results from an S-matrix computation within the tight-binding model in order to compare them with the results of numerical computation of the transmission through billiards. To this aim we derive, in the present paper, the coupling matrix, the effective Hamiltonian and the poles of the S-matrix within the tight-binding model and present some typical numerical results.

Here, the following remark should be added. The computer simulations solve the Schrödinger equation using finite-difference Hamiltonians, i.e. the tight-binding approximation. After matching the incoming and outgoing waves with the solutions of the Schrödinger equation by implying the boundary conditions at the transverse sections of the leads, the conductance of the billiard as well as the scattering wave function can be computed. Today, the calculations can be performed with a very high accuracy by using large grids and the technique of sparse matrices. The current S-matrix theory is adequate to these computer simulations. It is, however, numerically more time consuming because the effective Hamiltonian is not a sparse matrix. Nonetheless, calculations with the effective Hamiltonian are useful since they provide another view to the results. In this formalism, the resonant peaks of the conductance are related to the poles of the S-matrix that correspond to the eigenvalues of the effective Hamiltonian. It is possible therefore to draw some conclusions on the origin of the resonant peaks and on their possible control by means of external parameters.

In the present paper we will follow, as closely as possible, the Dittes review dittes , even in the notations. In the case of microwave or quantum semiconductor billiards, the waves are incident to the billiard through (infinitely) long straight waveguides (leads) of a certain width. The different channels correspond therefore to different transverse modes of the wave propagation within the leads stockmann . At a given frequency $`E`$ (the Fermi energy), we enumerate the propagating modes by $`p=1,\mathrm{},M`$. Thereby, we associate with the lead region a continuous set of states $`|C,p,E>`$ where $`C`$ specifies the lead number (terminal). In the present paper, we consider mostly two leads, the right lead with incident and reflected waves and the left lead with outgoing waves as shown in Fig. 1. Our approach can, however, be easily generalized to a larger number of leads as done in Sections 4 and 5.

## II One-dimensional tight-binding model of resonant tunneling

A numerical scheme for the computation of quantum transport through billiards with attached leads is mainly based on the finite-difference Schrödinger equation. Implying the Ando procedure ando  for the boundary conditions has enabled us to find the transmission properties of the billiards from the scattering wave function for any geometry of billiards and straight leads. In order to compare the results from such a computation with the S-matrix theory, we consider systems projected on a lattice with finite grid.

As a first example, we consider a simple one-dimensional model for quantum scattering and transport. This model is formulated as the tight-binding model (the Anderson model)

$$H=t_j|j><j+1|+c.c.$$
(1)
where $`t_j=v_L`$ if $`j=0`$, $`t_j=v_R`$ if $`j=N`$ , and $`t_j=1`$ otherwise. This tight-binding model presents the simplest case of a one-dimensional box with $`N`$ sites coupled with left and right semi infinite leads via the corresponding coupling constants $`v_L,v_R`$. For a schematic representation see Fig. 1.

The hopping matrix elements $`t_j`$ in the Hamiltonian (1) are proportional to overlapping integrals of electron wave functions between adjacent atoms. The model being similar to the one-dimensional model with a double barrier structure birula ; azbel , describes resonant tunneling. In this case, the values of the coupling coefficients $`v_L,v_R`$ play the role of the heights of the double barrier structure provided that $`v_L<1,v_R<1`$. The present model gives, however, also the possibility to consider the case of strong coupling, $`v_L>1,v_R>1`$. At the left of the box we present the solution of the Schrödinger equation

$$H|\psi >=E|\psi >$$
(2)
as

$$\psi _j=e^{ikj}+re^{ikj},j<1$$
(3)
where $`r`$ is the reflection coefficient with energy

$$E(k)=2\mathrm{cos}k,\pi k\pi .$$
(4)
As will be seen later, the energy $`E(k)`$ forms the conduction band $`2E2`$ with finite width. At the right of the box we write

$$\psi _j=te^{ikj},j>N.$$
(5)
At last, the solution of (2) inside the box is

$$\psi _j=ae^{ikj}+be^{ikj},j=1,2,\mathrm{},N.$$
(6)
Substituting these functions into (2) we obtain the following linear equations

$`r(e^{ik}E)+v_Le^{ik}a+v_Lbe^{ik}=e^{ik}`$
$`v_Lr+e^{ik}(e^{ik}E)a+e^{ik}(e^{ik}E)b=v_L`$
$`e^{ikN}(e^{ik}E)a+e^{ikN}(e^{ik}E)b+v_Re^{ik(N+1)}t=0`$
$`v_Re^{ikN}a+v_Re^{ikN}b+e^{ik(N+1)}(e^{ik}E)t=0.`$ (7)
The coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be expressed via the transmission coefficient $`t`$ as follows

$`a=t{\displaystyle \frac{v_R\frac{1}{v_R}e^{2ik}}{1e^{2ik}}},`$
$`b=t{\displaystyle \frac{(v_R\frac{1}{v_R})e^{2ikN}}{1e^{2ik}}}.`$ (8)
Finally, one obtains

$`t=4sin^2k/A`$ (9)
$`r={\displaystyle \frac{t}{v_L(1e^{2ik})}}\left[v_R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_R}}e^{2ik}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_R}}v_R)e^{2ikN}\right]1`$
for the solution of the system of equations (II) where

$$A=(v_L\frac{1}{v_L})(v_R\frac{1}{v_R})e^{2ikN}e^{2ik}(v_Le^{2ik}\frac{1}{v_L})(v_Re^{2ik}\frac{1}{v_R}).$$

For the particular case $`v_L=v_R=1`$, we obtain from (9) that $`t=1`$ and $`r=0`$. A typical resonant transmission through a one-dimensional box is shown in Fig. 2.

The tight-binding model (1) demonstrates a few remarkable features. The first one is the symmetry of the resonant transmission relative to $`v_{L,R}1/v_{L,R}`$. This symmetry means the following: for small as well as for large coupling coefficients, the effective coupling of the box to the leads is small. Such a feature was firstly observed in reactions on atomic nuclei, see the review rotter , and analytically derived by Dittes et al for an $`N`$-level system coupled to one open channel dittes1 . With increasing coupling strength, the widths of $`N1`$ resonance states decrease as $`1/v`$ in the single-channel case while only one resonance state accumulates almost the total sum of the widths. In our case, the $`N`$-level system is coupled to two open channels. Correspondingly, with increasing coupling coefficients $`v_L,v_R`$ the widths of $`N2`$ resonance states decrease while the widths of two resonance states increase. We will return to this feature below when the poles of the scattering matrix will be considered. The second feature is that the heights of the resonant peaks are equal to one only when $`v_L=v_R`$, similar to the double barrier resonant structure. This fact was firstly established by Ricco and Azbel azbel . The radiation shifts of the positions of the resonant peaks relative to the eigenvalues of the box

$$E_n=2cosk_n,k_n=\pi n/(N+1),n=1,2,\mathrm{},N,$$
(10)
are the third peculiarity of the tight-binding model. The positions of the eigenvalues (10) are shown in Fig. 2 by stars. The shifts and widths of the resonant peaks are symmetrical relative to $`kk`$, and $`EE`$. The last symmetry follows from the invariance of the solution of the tight-binding model relative to $`t_jt_j`$.

## III The S-matrix for the 1d tight-binding model

The simplicity of the model (1) allows us to establish the explicit correspondence between the analytical results for the transmission amplitudes (9) and the S-matrix approach feshbach ; fano ; weidenmuller ; rotter ; dittes . This 1d model was also used in terraneo  to investigate the width distribution. In this approach the scattering system is decomposed into a closed subsystem described by the internal Hamiltonian $`H_B`$ with discrete bound states $`|\psi _n>,n=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ and the continuum of external scattering states $`|E,L>`$ and $`|E,R>`$ corresponding to the semi infinite left and right leads. The Hamiltonian of the two uncoupled subsystems is

$`H_0=H_B+H_L+H_R,`$
$`H_B={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}E_n|n><n|,`$
$`H_L={\displaystyle _2^2}dEE|E,L><E,L|,H_R={\displaystyle _2^2}dEE|E,R><E,R|],`$ (11)
where $`E_n`$ are the energies of the bound states of the 1d closed billiard, and $`E`$ denotes the energy of the leads. We use the following normalization conditions

$`<n|m>=\delta _{nm}`$
$`<E,L|E^{},L>=<E,R|E^{},R>=\delta (EE^{}).`$ (12)
The couplings between the internal and external subsystems can be incorporated by the coupling operator

$$V=\underset{n}{}\underset{C=L,R}{}_2^2𝑑EV_n(E,C)|E,C><n|+H.C.$$
(13)
As shown in Fig. 1 the closed 1d billiard consists of $`N`$ sites with energies given by Eq. (10) and the corresponding eigenfunctions

$$\psi _n(j)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N+1}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi nj}{N+1}\right),j=1,2,\mathrm{},N.$$
(14)
These eigenfunctions satisfy the Dirichlet boundary conditions $`\psi _n(0)=\psi _n(N+1)=0`$. Since the leads are semi-infinite wires the wave functions of the left and right lead are respectively

$$\psi _{E,L}(j)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi |\mathrm{sin}k|}}\mathrm{sin}k(1j),\psi _{E,R}(j)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi |\mathrm{sin}k|}}\mathrm{sin}k(jN).$$
(15)
The energy in the leads corresponding to a single conductance energy band, is defined by $`E(k)=2\mathrm{cos}k,\pi k\pi `$. It is easy to see that in the continual limit $`k0`$ the functions (15) take the form

$$\psi _{E,L}(x)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi |k|}}\mathrm{sin}kx$$
(16)
given in fyodorov . From (13) we have

$$V_n(E,C)=<E,C|V|n>=<E,C|\underset{j}{}|j><j|V|\underset{j^{}}{}|j^{}><j^{}|n>,C=L,R.$$

Since as shown in Fig. 1 the coupling matrix elements $`<j|V|j^{}>`$ are not equaled to zero if only $`j=0,1,j^{}=1,0`$ or $`j=N,N+1,j^{}=N+1,N`$, we obtain finally, using (14) and (15), the coupling coefficients as

$`V_n(E,L)=v_L\psi _{E,L}(0)\psi _n(1)=v_L\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}k}{\pi (N+1)}}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi n}{N+1}},`$
$`V_n(E,R)=v_R\psi _n(N)\psi _{E,R}(N+1)=v_R\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}k}{\pi (N+1)}}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi nN}{N+1}}.`$ (17)
For the total Hamiltonian

$$H=H_0+V$$
(18)
the stationary Schrödinger equation reads

$$H|\psi (E)>=E(k)|\psi (E)>.$$
(19)
For $`E(k)`$ different from the eigenvalues $`E_n`$ of the box, the operator $`(E+i0H_0)V`$ is well defined and equation (19) is equivalent to the Lippmann-Schwinger equation

$$|\psi >=|\psi _0>+(E+i0H_0)^1V|\psi >$$
(20)
if the boundary condition of outgoing waves is adopted and

$$(EH_0)|\psi _0>=0.$$
(21)
The Lippmann-Schwinger equation (20) also reads

$$|\psi >=[F(E+i0)]^1|\psi _0>,$$
(22)
where

$$F(E+i0)=1(E+i0H_0)^1V$$
(23)
and

$$|\psi _0>=\left(\begin{array}{c}|E,L>\\ 0\\ |E,R>\end{array}\right).$$
(24)
Following to weidenmuller ; dittes  we introduce three projection operators: for the left and right leads

$$P_C=𝑑E|E,C><E,C|$$
(25)
and for the billiard

$$P_B=\underset{n}{}|n><n|$$
(26)
with the help of which we can write the scattering wave function (22) as

$$|\psi >=\left(\begin{array}{c}P_L|\psi >\\ P_B|\psi >\\ P_R|\psi >\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}|\psi _L>\\ |\psi _B>\\ |\psi _R>\end{array}\right).$$
(27)
Then the coupling operator (13) reads

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}P_LVP_L& P_LVP_B& P_LVP_R\\ P_BVP_L& P_BVP_B& P_BVP_R\\ P_RVP_L& P_RVP_B& P_RVP_R\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& V_{LB}& 0\\ V_{BL}& 0& V_{BR}\\ 0& V_{RB}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(28)
where by using (III) we obtain

$`V_{BL}=v_L{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\psi _n(1)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E[1(E/2)^2]^{1/4}|n><E,L|},`$
$`V_{BR}=v_R{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\psi _n(N)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E[1(E/2)^2]^{1/4}|n><E,R|},`$ (29)
and $`V_{BC}=V_{CB}^+`$. Substituting (28) into (23) we have

$$F=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \frac{1}{EH_L}V_{LB}& 0\\ \frac{1}{EH_B}V_{BL}& 1& \frac{1}{EH_B}V_{BR}\\ 0& \frac{1}{EH_R}V_{RB}& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(30)
Using the identity

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& A& 0\\ B& 1& C\\ 0& D& 1\end{array}\right)^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+ATB& AT& ATC\\ TB& T& TC\\ DTB& DT& 1+DTC\end{array}\right)$$
(31)
one obtains for the inverse matrix $`F`$

$$F^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+\frac{1}{EH_L}V_{LB}\frac{1}{D}\frac{1}{EH_B}V_{BL}\hfill & \frac{1}{EH_L}V_{LB}\frac{1}{D}\hfill & \frac{1}{EH_L}V_{LB}\frac{1}{D}\frac{1}{EH_B}V_{BR}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{D}\frac{1}{EH_B}V_{BL}\hfill & \frac{1}{D}\hfill & \frac{1}{D}\frac{1}{EH_B}V_{BR}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{EH_R}V_{RB}\frac{1}{D}\frac{1}{EH_B}V_{BL}\hfill & \frac{1}{EH_R}V_{RB}\frac{1}{D}\hfill & 1+\frac{1}{EH_R}V_{RB}\frac{1}{D}\frac{1}{EH_B}V_{BR}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(32)
where

$$T=\frac{1}{1BACD}$$

and

$$D=1\frac{1}{EH_B}\underset{C=L,R}{}V_{BC}\frac{1}{EH_C}V_{CB}.$$
(33)
From Eqs (22) and (27) it follows that the wave function in the interior of the billiard is

$$|\psi _B>=Q^1\underset{C=L,R}{}V_{BC}|E,C>$$
(34)
where

$$Q=E^+H_B\underset{C=L,R}{}V_{BC}\frac{1}{E^+H_C}V_{CB}.$$
(35)
Here we used the indentity dittes

$$\frac{1}{1AB}A=A\frac{1}{1BA}.$$

If we substitute the coupling constants (III) into formula (35), it follows that the matrix elements of the operator (35) can be presented as matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian fano ; dittes

$$<m|Q|n>=E^+\delta _{mn}<m|H_{eff}|n>$$
(36)
where

$$<m|H_{eff}|n>=E_m\delta _{mn}+\frac{1}{2\pi }V_{mn}_2^2𝑑E_1\frac{\sqrt{1(E_1/2)^2}}{E+i0E_1}=E_m\delta _{mn}V_{mn}e^{ik}.$$
(37)
The last expression was obtained by using the formula

$$\frac{1}{x+i0}=i\pi \delta (x)+P\frac{1}{x}$$

where $`P`$ denotes the principal value integral and

$$V_{mn}=v_L^2\psi _m(1)\psi _n(1)+v_R^2\psi _m(N)\psi _n(N).$$
(38)
As can be seen from (37), the lattice approach gives rise to a finite shift of the resonant energies

$$F_{mn}(E)=\frac{1}{2N}V_{mn}E$$
(39)
which is of the same order of magnitude as the width of the resonant peak of the transmission

$$\gamma _{mn}(E)=\frac{1}{N}V_{mn}\sqrt{1(E/2)^2}.$$
(40)
This energy shift is the main difference between the present tight-binding (lattice) approach and the continuum approach by Dittes dittes  where the shifts are equal to zero. The reason for this difference is that the energy is restricted to the conductance band $`E=2\mathrm{cos}k`$.

The S-matrix is weidenmuller ; dittes

$$S_{CC^{}}=\delta _{CC^{}}2\pi i<E,C|V_{CB}Q^1V_{BC^{}}|E,C^{}>=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r& t^{}\\ t& r^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(41)
where $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ are the reflection coefficients from left to left and from right to right, respectively, and $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ are the transmission coefficients from left to right and from right to left. Using the definition of the coupling operator (III) we can write the transmission coefficient of the S-matrix (41) as follows

$$t=2\pi i\underset{mn}{}V_m(E,L)<m|Q^1|n>V_n^{}(E,R).$$
(42)
A concrete calculation of the transmission coefficient needs the procedure of inversion of the matrix (36). It is therefore more convenient to use a representation by means of the set of eigenstates of the effective Hamiltonian (37) rotter ; rotter1 . Using the biorthogonal basis of the effective Hamiltonian

$$H_{eff}|\lambda )=z_\lambda |\lambda ),(\lambda |\lambda ^{})=\delta _{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}},|\lambda )=|\lambda >,(\lambda |=<\lambda |^{},$$
(43)
and the projection operator

$$P_{eff}=\underset{\lambda }{}|\lambda )(\lambda |$$
(44)
we obtain

$$t=2\pi i\underset{\lambda }{}\frac{<E,L|V|\lambda )(\lambda |V|E,R>}{Ez_\lambda }.$$
(45)
Eq. (45) shows immediately that the eigenvalues of the effective Hamiltonian $`z_\lambda `$ define the poles of the scattering matrix. We underline that the coupling coefficients in the pole representation (45) have to be calculated by means of the eigenstates $`|\lambda )`$ of the effective Hamiltonian but not with the eigenstates $`|b>`$ of the closed billiard. The importance of this difference is presented in persson .

Let us consider for illustration the limiting case $`N=1`$, the one-sided Anderson model terraneo , which corresponds to the 1d box with a single eigenstate. For simplicity we take $`v_L=v_R=v`$. Then the formula for the transmission coefficient (9) reduces to

$$t=\frac{iv^2\mathrm{sin}k}{\mathrm{cos}kv^2e^{ik}}.$$
(46)
On the other hand, from (37) and (38) we have the effective Hamiltonian as the c-number $`H_{eff}=z_1=E_12v^2e^{ik}`$ where for the one-sided dot $`E_1=0`$. Moreover $`V_1(E,L)=\stackrel{~}{V}_1(E,R)=v\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{sin}k}{2\pi }}`$. Substituting these formulas into (45) we obtain the same formula as (46) with account that $`E=2\mathrm{cos}k`$. An analysis of the S-matrix for the transmission through the $`N`$-sided 1d box is given in Section 5.

## IV S-matrix theory for the transmission through billiards

Let us consider a d-dimensional billiard specified by the internal eigenstates $`|b>`$ and eigenvalues $`E_b`$,

$$H_B|b>=E_b|b>.$$
(47)
The shape of the billiard is given by the $`d1`$ surface $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which encloses the internal region of the billiard $`D`$ with the points $`𝐱D`$. The eigenfunctions are $`<𝐱|b>=\psi _b(𝐱)`$. We assume that $`M`$ leads are attached to the billiard. Each lead is a d-dimensional tube with arbitrary transverse section $`\omega _C,C=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$ and is semi-infinite along the direction $`z\omega _C`$. The geometry of the system is illustrated in Fig. 3 for the two-dimensional case and $`M=3`$. It allows a separation of variables $`𝐱_{}\omega _C`$ and $`z`$.

Assuming that the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions for the transverse section of the C-th lead are known and denoted by $`E_{p_C},\varphi _{p_C}(𝐱_{})`$, we can write the Schrödinger equation for the leads in the following manner

$$H_C|E,C,p_C>=E|E,C,p_C>.$$
(48)
Here

$$E=2\mathrm{cos}(k_{p_C})+E_{p_C},$$
(49)
$$\psi _{p_C}(𝐱)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi |\mathrm{sin}k_{p_C}|}}\mathrm{sin}k__C(j_zj_C)\varphi _{p_C}(𝐱_{}),$$
(50)
and $`j_C`$ is the longitudinal position of the attachment of the C-th lead to the billiard. Then the Hamiltonian of the uncoupled system consisting of the billiard and the $`M`$ leads is

$$H_0=\underset{b}{}E_b|b><b|+\underset{C=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{p_C}{}_{2+E_{p_C}}^{2+E_{p_C}}dEE[|E,C,p_C><E,C,p_C|+H.C.$$
(51)
Similar to (13) let us write the coupling operator as

$$V=\underset{b}{}\underset{C}{}\underset{p_C}{}_{2+E_{p_C}}^{2+E_{p_C}}𝑑EV_b(E,C,p_C)|E,C,p_C><b|+H.C.,$$
(52)
where

$$V_b(E,C,p_C)=<E,C,p_C|V|b>.$$
(53)
Let be $`A_C\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the areas at which the leads are attached to the billiard. They terminate the semi-infinite leads at $`j_z=j_C`$. The shape of $`A_C`$ is $`\omega _C`$, the transverse section of the lead. The C-th lead is connected to the billiard through the hopping matrix elements $`v_C`$, as shown in Fig. 3 by wave lines. Substituting (50) into (53), we obtain for the coupling matrix elements

$$V_b(E,C,p_C)=\underset{𝐱,𝐲}{}\psi _{p_C}(𝐱)<𝐱|V|𝐲>\psi _b(𝐲)=v_C\sqrt{\frac{|\mathrm{sin}k_{p_C}|}{2\pi }}\underset{𝐱_{}A_C}{}\varphi _p(𝐲_{})\psi _b(𝐲_{}).$$
(54)
It is justified to generalize the one-dimensional case presented in Section 2 to the general case with $`d>1`$. In the following, we present some formulas that follow in a straightforward manner. Formulas (36) and (37) read now

$$<b|Q|b^{}>=E^+\delta _{bb^{}}<b|H_{eff}|b^{}>$$
(55)
where

$$<b|H_{eff}|b^{}>=E_b\delta _{bb^{}}\underset{C}{}\underset{p_C}{}W_C(b,p_C)W_C(b^{},p_C)e^{ik_{p_C}}$$
(56)
and

$$W_C(b,p)=v_C\underset{𝐱_{}A_C}{}\psi _b(𝐱_{})\varphi _p(𝐱_{}).$$
(57)
The number of channels in each lead is defined by the condition $`E_{p_C}<E`$. In the continual case the energy is much less than the width of the energy propagation band equaled to 4. Therefore we can approximate $`e^{ik}E/2+i`$. As a result the effective Hamiltonian (56) takes the standard form

$$H_{eff}=\stackrel{~}{H}_BiWW^+,$$
(58)
where $`\stackrel{~}{H}_B`$ is the billiard Hamiltonian the eigenenergies of which are corrected by the radiation shifts, and $`W`$ is the matrix whose elements are given by (57). The dimension of the matrix $`W`$ is $`N\times K`$ where $`N`$ is the number of states in the billiard, $`K=_C\mathrm{max}(p_C)`$.

Finally, the S-matrix elements (41) are characterized by the channel numbers and read

$$<C,p_C|S|C^{},p_C^{}^{}>=\delta _{CC^{}}\delta _{pp^{}}2\pi i<E,C,p_C|V_{CB}Q^1V_{BC^{}}|E,C^{},p_C^{}^{}>.$$
(59)
For calculation of the S-matrix we can use the set of the eigenstates $`\psi _b`$ of the billiard (42) or the biorthogonal set of eigenstates $`\psi _\lambda `$ of the effective Hamiltonian (45). In the last case one can see immediately that the poles of the S-matrix correspond to the eigenvalues of the effective Hamiltonian (56).

## V Some applications of the general theory

### V.1 Transmission through a 2d rectangular billiard

The typical features of the quantum mechanical transmission through a billiard can be described by means of a two-dimensional billiard with two attached leads of equal widths (Fig. 4).

In the tight-binding formulation $`𝐱=a_0(i,j)`$ where $`a_0`$ is the lattice unit. The eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the rectangular billiard are

$`\psi _{m,n}(i,j)=\psi _m(i)\psi _n(j)`$ (60)
$`E_{m,n}=E_m+E_n`$ (61)
where $`E_m`$ and $`\psi _m`$ are defined by equations (10), (14) for the corresponding numerical size of the box $`N_x,N_y`$. Further, the wave functions (50) of the leads and their energy (49) are

$`\psi _{E,L,p}(i,j)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi |\mathrm{sin}k_p|}}}\mathrm{sin}k_p(1i)\varphi _p(j),`$
$`\psi _{E,R,p}(i,j)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi |\mathrm{sin}k_p|}}}\mathrm{sin}k_p(iN_x)\varphi _p(j),`$ (62)
$$E=2\mathrm{cos}k_p+E_p,E_p=2\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi p}{N_L+1}\right)$$
(63)
where $`p=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ enumerates the channel number and $`N_L`$ is the numerical width of the leads. We denote the numerical positions of the lead’s walls by $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ so that $`N_L=N_2N1`$. It follows from the geometry of the system that $`1N_1N_2N_y`$. Therefore, the area of intersection between leads and billiard $`A_C`$ is a straight line of length $`N_L`$. The eigenfunctions in the transverse sections of the leads have the following form

$$\varphi _p(j)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N_L+1}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi p(jN_1)}{N_L+1}\right).$$
(64)
Substituting (60) and (64) into (54) we have for the elements of the coupling matrix

$`V_{m,n}(E,L,p)=v_L\psi _m(1)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{sin}k_p|}{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=N_1}{\overset{N_2}{}}}\varphi _p(j)\psi _n(j),`$
$`V_{m,n}(E,R,p)=v_R\psi _m(N_x)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{sin}k_p|}{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=N_1}{\overset{N_2}{}}}\varphi _p(j)\psi _n(j).`$ (65)
Here the Latin indexes $`L,R`$ denote the left and right leads, respectively, as shown in Fig. 4. The formulas for the effective Hamiltonian (56) with (57) read

$`<m,n|H_{eff}|m^{^{}},n^{^{}}>=E_{m,n}\delta _{mm^{^{}}}\delta _{nn^{^{}}}v_L^2\psi _m(1)\psi _m^{}(1){\displaystyle \underset{p}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}}W_L(n,p)W_L(n^{^{}},p)e^{ik_p}`$
$`v_R^2\psi _m(N_x)\psi _m^{}(N_x){\displaystyle \underset{p}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}}W_R(n,p)W_R(n^{^{}},p)e^{ik_p},`$ (66)
with

$$W_C(n,p)=\underset{j=N_1}{\overset{N_2}{}}\psi _n(j)\varphi _p(j).$$
(67)
The number of channels $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is defined by the condition $`ϵ_p<E`$.

Let us now consider the correspondence of the formulas obtained to those received in the continuum approach by Dittes dittes . First it is necessary to choose, in the last case, some characteristic space length. This may be the width of the lead or the size of the billiard. Here we choose, as usually in the literature, the former and denote it by $`d`$. In the continuum approach, the eigenfunctions and the eigenvalues of the rectangular billiard (60) take the following form

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{m,n}(x,y)=\stackrel{~}{\psi }_m(x)\stackrel{~}{\psi }_n(y),\stackrel{~}{\psi }_m(x)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a}}}\mathrm{sin}(mx/a)`$ (68)
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{m,n}=E_0\pi ^2\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{(a/d)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{(b/d)^2}}\right\}`$ (69)
for Diriclet boundary conditions, where $`a`$ and $`b`$ characterize the size of the billiard and $`E_0=\mathrm{}^2/2md^2`$. The eigenfunctions and eigenenergies of the leads are

$$\psi _{E,L,p}(x,y)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{\pi d|k|}}\mathrm{sin}kx\mathrm{sin}\pi py/d$$
(70)
$$\stackrel{~}{E}=E_0\left[(\stackrel{~}{k}d)^2+(\pi p)^2\right].$$
(71)
With $`x=a_0i,y=a_0j`$ we find the following relations

$$1+N_x=a/a_0,1+N_y=b/a_0,1+N_L=d/a_0$$
(72)
from the comparison of (60) and (V.1) with (68) and (70). In the discrete case $`\psi _m(j=0)=0`$. Therefore, it holds approximately

$$\psi _m(1)=a_0\frac{\psi _m(1)\psi _m(0)}{a_0}=a_0\psi _m^{}(0)$$

for the continuum case, and the coupling matrix elements (53) are

$$V_{m,n}(E,L,p)=V_0\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,n,p}^{^{}}(0)$$
(73)
where

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha ,p}(x,y)=_{y_1}^{y_2}𝑑y\varphi _p(y)\psi _{m,n}(x,y),V_0=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi k_p}},$$

and $`y_1,y_2`$ are the positions of the lead walls along the y-axis, so that $`d=y_2y_1`$. The same expressions were derived in dittes ; seba .

It might seem that, for the continuum limit $`a_00`$, the radiation shifts go to zero and we can use the Weidenmüller-Dittes approach directly. However as can be seen from (71), the energy is bounded from below. As a consequence, the principal value integral in the matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian does not vanish. This is in difference to the assumption in dittes  that $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ has no limits.

### V.2 Transmission through a two-sided quantum dot

A box consisting of a single atom (site) coupled to a left lead and a right one (L and R continuous) is the most simple case that gives rise to the Breit-Wigner type formula for the transmission amplitude (46) shown in Fig. 2 (a). Let us now consider a two sites box that gives rise to a $`2\times 2`$ effective Hamiltonian. The properties of such Hamiltonians are studied in literature rotter1  by focusing onto double poles of the S-matrix (branch points in the complex energy plane) without relation to a realistic system as well as in relation to laser induced structures in atoms magunov . In our present study, we have the possibility to specify the effective $`2\times 2`$ Hamiltonian for another specific system to study its properties and to compare the results with those of the general study.

There are different ways to connect the two cite box with the leads as shown in Fig. 5. The cases (a) and (b) are identical, but differ from (c).

For the case (a) we obtain from (V.1)

$$H_{eff}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\lambda & \mu \\ \mu & 1+\lambda \end{array}\right),$$
(74)
where

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{2}(v_L^2+v_R^2)e^{ik},\mu =\frac{1}{2}(v_L^2v_R^2)e^{ik}.$$
(75)
The eigenvalues are:

$$z_{1,2}=\lambda \pm \sqrt{1+\mu ^2}.$$
(76)
They define the poles of the S-matrix as shown in Sections 3 and 4. Since the effective Hamiltonian is symmetric but not Hermitian we use the biorthogonal basis moiseyev ; rotter  normalized by the condition $`(m|n)=\delta _{mn},m=1,2,n=1,2`$ where $`(m|<m|^{}`$. The right eigenstates of (74) are:

$$|1>=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1\\ a_2\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\eta (\eta +1)}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu \\ 1+\eta \end{array}\right),|2>=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_2\\ a_1\end{array}\right).$$
(77)
With the formulas (56), (57) the transmission amplitude takes the form

$$t=\frac{2iv_Lv_R\sqrt{1(E/2)^2}}{(Ez_1)(Ez_2)}.$$
(78)
The S-matrix has a double pole when two of the eigenvalues (76) coincide, i.e. when

$$E=0,|\mu |=1.$$
(79)
The energy behavior of the poles (76) is shown in Fig. 6. Such a kind of pole behaviour was shown in many works based on the general presentation of the effective Hamiltonian as a $`2\times 2`$ matrix (see, for example, review rotter1 ). The cases (a) and (b) in fig. 6 ($`|\mu |>1`$) correspond to a free crossing of energy levels in the complex plane, while the cases (c) and (d) (dashed curves) correspond to the self-avoided crossing.

The case (c) in Fig. 5 gives

$$H_{eff}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\lambda & \lambda \\ \lambda & 1+\lambda \end{array}\right),$$
(80)
where $`\lambda `$ is given by (75). The poles of the scattering matrix are

$$z_{1,2}=\lambda \pm \sqrt{1+\lambda ^2}$$
(81)
and the transmission amplitude is given by

$$t=\frac{2iv_Lv_RE\sqrt{1(E/2)^2}}{(Ez_1)(Ez_2)}.$$
(82)
A double pole of the S-matrix can be found at

$$E=0,|\lambda |=1.$$
(83)
The comparison of (82) with (78) shows that the way the leads are connected with the box, plays an important role for the conductance. In particular, the connection (a) gives rise to a transmission zero only at the edges of the energy band $`E=\pm 2`$ while the connection (c) leads to $`t=0`$ at $`E=0`$. The energy behavior of the poles (81) is, however, similar to that of the poles (76) and a double pole of the S-matrix appears at $`E=0`$ in both cases. Therefore, the transmission is equal to zero in case (c) at the energy where the S-matrix has a double pole while this is not so in the cases (a) and (b). This shows clearly that the transmission zero for the case (c) is an interference effect.

### V.3 Transmission through the N-sided 1d box

As a next application, we consider the 1d model with $`N`$ sites presented in Fig. 1 in order to understand the reduction of the number of transmission peaks by enlarging the coupling coefficients. In Fig. 2, the resonant transmission has $`N=5`$ peaks at small coupling coefficients $`v_L,v_R`$ but $`N2`$ peaks for large coupling coefficients.

Using formulas (37) and (38), the eigenvalues $`z_k,k=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ of the effective Hamiltonian can be found numerically. In Fig. 7, the real and imaginary parts of the five eigenvalues of the effective Hamiltonian (poles of the S-matrix) are shown versus the coupling constants $`v_L,v_R`$ for $`N=5`$ and $`E=1`$. In Fig. 7(a, b), the right coupling coefficient $`v_R`$ is chosen to be small. In this case, one of the resonance states is broadened with increasing $`v_L`$ and becomes shifted beyond the energy band. The incident energy $`E`$ is tuned to the second energy level $`E_2=1`$ of the box. As a result, this resonance state is broadened. Fig. 7 (c, d) demonstrates that two resonance states are broadened when both coupling constants are increased. Also in this case, the two resonance states are shifted beyond the energy band. Such a nonuniform level broadening in the resonance overlapping regime is studied in many different cases by using different approaches, see rotter1 . It is called resonance trapping rotter . The accompanying shift in energy appears only when the principal value integral of the matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian is non-vanishing. This is the case in most realistic systems including atomic nuclei and atoms rotter1  and also those considered in the present paper (Fig. 7 (a, c)).

Thus, the two resonance states do not vanish at strong coupling strength between box and leads as it might be concluded from Fig. 2. The two resonance states go beyond the energy band and can therefore contribute to the transmission only via interference with the remaining narrow resonant states. This example clearly demonstrates the advantage of the effective Hamiltonian approach to the description of transmission.

### V.4 Transmission through a 2d billiard connected to 1d leads

Let two 1d leads be coupled to a 2d billiard at the points $`𝐣_L`$ (input lead) where $`𝐣_R`$ (output lead) and $`𝐣=(j_x,j_y)`$, $`N_z=1`$ as shown in Fig. 8 (a).

Substituting the wave functions of the 1d leads (15) we obtain from Eq. (56)

$$<b|H_{eff}|b^{}>=E_b\delta _{bb^{}}+[v_L^2\psi _b(𝐣_L)\psi _b^{}(𝐣_L)+v_L^2\psi _b(𝐣_R)\psi _b^{}(𝐣_R)]e^{ik}.$$
(84)
For $`𝐣_L=𝐣_R`$, the equation that defines the poles of the scattering matrix, can be found analytically. From (84) it follows

$$\left|\begin{array}{cccc}E_1+\omega \psi _1^2(𝐣_0)E\hfill & \omega \psi _1(𝐣_0)\psi _2(𝐣_0)\hfill & \omega \psi _1(𝐣_0)\psi _3(𝐣_0)\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \omega \psi _1(𝐣_0)\psi _2(𝐣_0)\hfill & E_2+\omega \psi _2^2(𝐣_0)E\hfill & \omega \psi _1(𝐣_0)\psi _3(𝐣_0)\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \omega \psi _1(𝐣_0)\psi _3(𝐣_0)\hfill & \omega \psi _2(𝐣_0)\psi _2(𝐣_0)\hfill & E_3+\omega \psi _3^2(𝐣_0)E\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}\right|=0,$$
(85)
where $`\omega =(v_L^2+v_R^2]e^{ik}`$ is the effective coupling constant. The particular case of a $`4\times 4`$ effective Hamiltonian (85) was considered in rotter2 . This determinant can easily be transformed to sadreev

$$\underset{b}{}\omega \psi _b^2(𝐣_0)\left|\begin{array}{cccc}x_1+1& 1& 1& \mathrm{}\\ 1& x_2+1& 1& \mathrm{}\\ 1& 1& x_3+1& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right|=\underset{b}{}\omega \psi _b^2(𝐣_0)\left\{1+\underset{b}{}\frac{1}{x_b}\right\}=0,$$
(86)
where

$$x_b=\frac{E_bE}{\omega \psi _b^2(𝐣_0)}.$$

As a result, the equation for the poles of the S-matrix reads

$$\underset{b}{}\frac{(v_L^2+v_R^2)e^{ik}\psi _b^2(𝐣_0)}{EE_b}=0.$$
(87)
### V.5 A 3d billiard connected to a 3d lead

Consider a 3d billiard that has an arbitrary shape in the $`x,y`$ plane but is restricted in the z-direction by two parallel planes separated by a distance $`d`$. In the tight-binding approximation, the height of the 3d billiard can be specified by the number $`N_z`$ being equal to $`1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. This billiard allows to separate the variables, and it is characterized by the eigenvalues and eigenstates of the 3d box Hamiltonian $`H_B`$

$$H_B|b_{},n_z>=(E_b_{}+E_{n_z})|b_{},n_z>,$$
(88)
where $`E_b_{}`$ are the transverse eigenenergies of the billiard and

$$E_{n_z}=2\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi n_z}{N_z+1}\right)n_z=1,2,\mathrm{},N_z$$
(89)
are the longitudinal eigenenergies of the box in $`z`$-direction. The eigenfunctions in the $`z`$-direction are

$$\psi _{n_z}(z)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{N_z+1}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi n_zz_j}{N_z+1}\right),j_z=1,2,\mathrm{},N_z.$$
(90)
We consider two different types of the connection between the billiard and the leads that both are shown in Fig. 9. In the first case, (a), the 1d leads are coupled to the billiard at every point $`𝐣,j_z=1`$ of the billiard. In the second case, (b), the billiard is coupled to the 3d lead the transverse section of which coincides with the shape of the billiard in 2d.

For the case (a) formula (35) reads

$$Q=E^+H_B\underset{C=1}{\overset{N_b}{}}V_{BC}\frac{1}{E^+H_C}V_{CB},$$
(91)
where $`N_b`$ is the total number of cites of the billiard in the x, y plane. This number is equal to the total number of states $`|b>`$. The coupling matrix elements are

$$<b,n_z|V_{BL}|C>=\underset{𝐣_1}{}\underset{𝐣_2}{}<b|𝐣_1><𝐣_1|V_{BC}|𝐣_2><𝐣_2|C>=v\psi _b(𝐣_C)\sqrt{\frac{|\mathrm{sin}k|}{2\pi }},$$
(92)
where we assume that the coupling between the billiard and each 1d lead (with the eigenfunction (15)) is equaled to $`v`$. Substituting (92) into (91) we obtain, similar to (37),

$$<b|H_{eff}|b^{}>=E_b\delta _{bb^{}}+\underset{C=1}{\overset{N_b}{}}𝑑E_1<b|V_{BC}|C>\frac{1}{E+i0E_1}<C|V_{CB}|b^{}>=(E_b+v^2e^{ik})\delta _{bb^{}}.$$
(93)
That means, for the case (a) in Fig. 9 the effective Hamiltonian is diagonal with isolated poles $`z_b=E_b+v^2e^{ik},k=a\mathrm{cos}(E/2)`$.

In the case (b) of Fig. 9, the billiard is coupled to one 3d lead, and the total Hamiltonian is

$`H=H_0+V,`$
$`H_0={\displaystyle \underset{b,n_z}{}}(E_b+E_{n_z})|b,n_z><b,n_z|+{\displaystyle \underset{b}{}}{\displaystyle _{2+E_b}^{2+E_b}}{\displaystyle 𝑑EE[|E,b><E,b|+|b,R><E,b|]},`$
$`V={\displaystyle \underset{bb^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{nn_z^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _{2+E_b^{}}^{2+E_b^{}}}𝑑EV_{b,n_z,b^{}}(E)|E,b^{}><b,n_z|+H.C.,`$ (94)
where the eigenfunctions of the lead are

$$<𝐣,j_z|E,b>=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi |\mathrm{sin}k_b|}}\mathrm{sin}k_b(1j_z)\psi _b(𝐣).$$
(95)
Here, $`j_z`$ runs along the lead and $`𝐣`$ runs over the sites in the transverse section of the lead. Since the transverse section eigenfunctions of the 3d lead coincide with those of the 2d billiard, similar to (63), we have

$$E=2\mathrm{cos}k_b+E_b.$$
(96)
The coupling matrix elements in (V.5) are

$$V_{b,n_z,b^{}}(E)=<b,n_z|V|E,b^{}>=\underset{𝐣,j_z}{}\underset{𝐥,l_z}{}<b|𝐣><n_z|j_z><𝐣,j_z|V|𝐥,l_z><𝐥,l_z|E,b^{}>.$$
(97)
As can be seen from Fig. 9

$$<b|𝐣,j_z><𝐣|V|𝐥,l_z>=v\delta _{𝐣,𝐥}\delta _{j_z,N_z}\delta _{l_z,1}.$$

Substituting (95) into (97), we get

$$V_{b,n_z,b^{}}(E)=v\sqrt{\frac{|\mathrm{sin}k_b^{}|}{2\pi }}\underset{𝐣}{}<b|𝐣><𝐣|b^{}><N_z|n_z>=v\sqrt{\frac{|\mathrm{sin}k_b^{}|}{2\pi }}\delta _{bb^{}}\psi _{n_z}(N_z).$$
(98)
For the continual case the last expression has to be substituted by $`\psi ^{}(z=d)`$ dittes . Therefore the matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian are

$`<b|H_{eff}|b^{}>=\left\{(E_b+E_{n_z})\delta _{n_zn_z^{}}+v^2\psi _{n_z}(N_z)\psi _{n_z^{}}(N_z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{2+E_b}^{2+E_b}}𝑑E^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}k_b}{E+i0E^{}}}\right\}\delta _{bb^{}}`$
$`=[(E_b+E_{n_z})\delta _{n_zn_z^{}}+v^2e^{ik_b}\psi _{n_z}(N_z)\psi _{n_z^{}}(N_z)]\delta _{bb^{}}.`$ (99)
If $`N_z=1`$, we obtain an effective Hamiltonian for the case (b) in Fig. 9, that is diagonal in the eigen basis of the billiard. This result is similar to that of the case (a). For $`N_z>1`$, the effective Hamiltonian is also diagonal, however with blocks $`N_z\times N_z`$ at each diagonal place. For $`N_z=2`$, with account of (89) and (90), the matrix block takes the following form

$$H_{eff}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}E_b+1+\frac{v^2}{2}e^{ik_b}& \frac{v^2}{2}e^{ik_b}\\ \frac{v^2}{2}e^{ik_b}& E_b1+\frac{v^2}{2}e^{ik_b}\end{array}\right).$$
(100)
Correspondingly, the poles of the S-matrix are

$$z_{n_z,b}=E_b+\frac{v^2}{2}e^{ik_b}\pm \sqrt{1+\frac{v^4}{4}e^{2ik_b}}.$$
(101)
Using (96), the condition for the double pole can be written down,

$$v^2=2,E=E_b.$$
(102)
## VI Wave function in the interior of the billiard

The wave function in the interior of the billiard is given by the expression (34). Using the projection operator for the billiard, $`P_B=_b|b><b|`$ where $`|b>`$ are the eigenstates of the (closed) billiard, we can rewrite this expression as follows

$$\psi _B(𝐱)=\underset{C,p_C}{}\underset{bb^{}}{}Q_{bb^{}}^1V_b^{}(E,C,p_C)\psi _b(𝐱)=\underset{b}{}f_b\psi _b(𝐱).$$
(103)
The scattering wave function in the interior of the billiard can therefore be expanded in the set of eigenfunctions $`\psi _b(𝐱)`$ of the Hamiltonian of the closed billiard. The expansion coefficients are

$$f_b=\underset{C,p_C}{}\underset{b^{}}{}Q_{bb^{}}^1V_b^{}(E,C,p_C).$$
(104)
The drawback of this representation consists in the fact that the expansion (103) includes the procedure of inversion of the matrix (55). Similar to (45) we can use the set of eigenfunctions of the effective Hamiltonian for the expansion of the scattering wave function. Using relations (43) and (44) we can write (34) as follows

$$\psi _B(𝐱)=\underset{\lambda }{}f_\lambda \psi _\lambda (𝐱),$$
(105)
where the expansion coefficients are

$$f_\lambda =\underset{C,p_C}{}\frac{V_\lambda (E,C,p_C)}{E^+z_\lambda }.$$
(106)
## VII Summary

In this paper we derived the coupling matrix between a closed billiard and leads attached. The knowledge of the coupling matrix gives the explicit expression for the effective Hamiltonian, the S-matrix and the scattering wave function in the interior of the billiard . The non hermitian effective Hamiltonian reflects the spectral properties of the closed billiard. The eigenvalues of the effective Hamiltonian however are shifted in energy and are complex because of the openness of the billiard.

The theory presented is based on the tight-binding approach. That allows us to establish the exact correspondence between the S-matrix theory and numerical calculation of the transmission through the billiard that is based on a finite-difference Hamiltonian. The present approach can be easily applied to the continual case. The advantage of the effective Hamiltonian consists above all in the possibility to interpret numerical results for the transmission (Fig. 2) by means of the poles of the S-matrix (Fig. 7). The last are the eigenvalues of the effective Hamiltonian. It allows us therefore to systematically control the transmission through billiards. We presented a few specific examples for which the effective Hamiltonian reduces to a complex two by two matrix.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Konstantin Pichugin for discussions. This work has been partially by RFBR Grant 01-02-16077, 03-02-17039 and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. A.F.S thanks also Max-Planck-Institute für Physik Komplexer Systeme for hospitality.
e-mails:almsa$`\mathrm{@}`$ifm.liu.se, almas$`\mathrm{@}`$tnp.krasn.ru, rotter$`\mathrm{@}`$mpipks-dresden.mpg.de