text:
# ABSTRACT

### ABSTRACT

Spin photocurrents generated by homogeneous optical excitation with circularly polarized radiation in quantum wells (QWs) are reviewed. The absorption of circularly polarized light results in optical spin orientation due to the transfer of the angular momentum of photons to electrons of a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG). It is shown that in quantum wells belonging to one of the gyrotropic crystal classes a non-equilibrium spin polarization of uniformly distributed electrons causes a directed motion of electron in the plane of the QW. A characteristic feature of this electric current, which occurs in unbiased samples, is that it reverses its direction upon changing the radiation helicity from left-handed to right-handed and vice versa.

Two microscopic mechanisms are responsible for the occurrence of an electric current linked to a uniform spin polarization in a QW: the spin polarization induced circular photogalvanic effect and the spin-galvanic effect. In both effects the current flow is driven by an asymmetric distribution of spin polarized carriers in $`𝒌`$-space of systems with lifted spin degeneracy due to $`𝒌`$-linear terms in the Hamiltonian. Spin photocurrents provide methods to investigate spin relaxation and to conclude on the in-plane symmetry of QWs. The effect can also be utilized to develop fast detectors to determine the degree of circular polarization of a radiation beam. Furthermore spin photocurrents at infrared excitation were used to demonstrate and investigate monopolar spin orientation of free carriers.

### 4.2 Spin-galvanic effect

#### 4.2.1 Spin galvanic effect in the presence of external magnetic field

The spin photocurrent due to the spin-galvanic effect has been experimentally investigated by the method described in section 2.3.5 and depicted in Fig. 7 . A homogeneous non-equilibrium spin polarization perpendicular to the plane of (001)-grown QWs has been prepared by absorption of circularly polarized radiation at normal incidence. The measurements were carried out on $`n`$-type GaAs and InAs samples. In this experimental configuration the spin polarization does not yield an electric current. However, applying an in-plane magnetic field a spin-galvanic current has been observed in $`n`$-type materials for both visible and infrared radiation (Figs. 16-20).

For low magnetic fields $`B`$ where $`\omega _L\tau _s<1`$ holds, the photocurrent increases linearly as expected from Eqs. (25) and (30). This is seen in the room temperature data of Figs. 16 and 17 as well as in the 4.2 K data in Fig. 18 for $`B1`$ T. The polarity of the current depends on the direction of the excited spins (see Figs. 17 and 18, $`\pm `$ $`z`$-direction for right or left circularly polarized light, respectively) and on the direction of the applied magnetic field (see Figs. 16-19, $`\pm `$ $`B_x`$-direction). For magnetic field applied along $`110`$ the current is parallel (anti-parallel) to the magnetic field vector. For $`B100`$ both the transverse and the longitudinal effects are observed . This observation as well as helicity dependence of the photocurrent current shown in Fig. 19 are in good agreement to the phenomenological relation (see Eqs. (32).

Comparing the power sensitivity for visible and infrared excitation we find them to be of the same order of magnitude as seen in Fig. 16. However, we note that the current contribution $`per`$ $`photon`$ is by two orders of magnitude larger for inter-band excitation compared to intra-subband absorption. This is due to a more effective spin generation rate by inter-band transitions. It may be even larger since the current gets partially shortened by photogenerated carriers in the semi-insulating substrate. For higher magnetic fields the current assumes a maximum and decreases upon further increase of $`B`$, as shown in Fig. 18. This drop of the current is ascribed to the Hanle effect . The experimental data are well described by Eqs. (25) and (30). The observation of the Hanle effect demonstrates that free carrier intra-subband transitions can polarize the spins of electron systems. The measurements allow to obtain the spin relaxation time $`\tau _s`$ from the peak position of the photocurrent where $`\omega _L\tau _s=1`$ holds .

In $`p`$-GaAs QWs at infrared excitation causing spin polarization of holes only, no spin-galvanic effect could be detected . In contrast to infrared experiments a current signal has been detected in $`p`$-type samples for visible excitation which polarize both electrons and holes (see Fig. 16). This current is due to the spin polarization of electrons only, which are in this case the minority carriers generated by inter-band excitation. The spin-galvanic effect in $`p`$-type material at inter- or intra-subband excitation could not be observed because of the experimental procedure which makes use of the Larmor precession to obtain an in-plane spin polarization. It is due to the fact that the in-plane $`g`$-factor for heavy holes is very small  which makes the effect of the magnetic field negligible . This result does not exclude the spin-galvanic effect in $`p`$-type materials which might be observable by hole injection with spins in the plane of the QW.

Spin photocurrents due to the spin-galvanic effect have been recorded for inter-band, inter-subband, as well as for intra-subband transitions .

Inter-band transitions have been investigated in $`n`$\- and $`p`$-type GaAs using circularly polarized light of a Ti:sapphire laser at $`\lambda =0.777\mu `$m. In this experiment electrons are excited from the valence band to the conduction band yielding a spin polarization in the conduction band due to selection rules.

Direct inter-subband transitions have been achieved in GaAs QWs of 8.2 nm and 8.6 nm widths at absorption of radiation in the range of 9 $`\mu `$m to 11 $`\mu `$m wavelength . Applying MIR radiation of the CO2 laser the spin-galvanic current at normal incidence of radiation has been observed. In contrast to spin orientation induced CPGE the wavelength dependence of the spin-galvanic effect obtained between 9.2 $`\mu `$m and 10.6 $`\mu `$m repeats the spectral behaviour of direct inter-subband absorption (see Fig. 20). This observation is in agreement with the mechanism of the spin-galvanic effect and the microscopic theory presented in section 2.3.3. The occurrence of a spin-galvanic current requires only a spin polarization in the lower subband and asymmetric spin relaxation. In the present case the spin orientation is generated by resonant spin-selective optical excitation followed by spin-non-specific thermalization. Therefore the magnitude of the spin polarization and hence the current depends on the absorption strength but not on the momentum $`𝒌`$ of optical transition as in the case of CPGE described in section 2.2.1.

We would like to emphasize that spin sensitive $`e`$1-$`e`$2 inter-subband transitions in $`n`$-type QWs have been observed at normal incidence when there is no component of the electric field of the radiation normal to the plane of the QWs. Generally it is believed that inter-subband transitions in $`n`$-type QWs can only be excited by infrared light polarized in the growth direction $`z`$ of the QWs . Furthermore such transitions are spin insensitive and, hence, do not lead to optical orientation. Since the argument, leading to these selection rules, is based on the effective mass approximation in a single band model, the selection rules are not rigorous. The mechanism which leads to spin orientation in this geometry will be discussed in the section 4.3.1.

At indirect transitions the spin-galvanic effect as in the case of spin orientation induced CPGE has been obtained in $`n`$-type GaAs and InAs QWs using FIR radiation (see Figs. 16-19). The presence of the spin-galvanic effect which is due to spin orientation excitable at MIR and FIR wavelengths gives clear evidence that direct inter-subband and Drude absorption of circularly polarized radiations results in spin orientation. The mechanism of this spin orientation is not obvious and will be introduced in section 4.3.2.

#### 4.2.2 Spin-galvanic effect at optical excitation without external fields

In the experiments described above an external magnetic field was used for re-orientation of an optically generated spin polarization. The spin-galvanic effect can also be observed at optical excitation only, without application of an external magnetic field. The necessary in-plane component of the spin polarization is obtained by oblique incidence of the exciting circular polarized radiation. In this case, however, a spin orientation induced CPGE may also occur interfering with the spin-galvanic effect. Nevertheless, a pure spin-galvanic current may be obtained at inter-subband transitions in $`n`$-type GaAs QWs . As shown above the spectrum of CPGE changes sign and vanishes in the center of resonance  (see section 4.1.2 and Eqs. (22) - (23)). In contrast, the optically induced spin-galvanic current is proportional to the absorbance (Eqs. (29)) and, hence, assumes a maximum at the center of the resonance  (see section 4.2.1). Thus, if a measurable helicity dependent current is present in the center of the resonance it must be attributed to the spin-galvanic effect.

These experiments have been carried out making use of the spectral tunability of the free electron laser ”FELIX” . The photon energy dependence of the current was measured for incidence in two different planes with components of propagation along the $`x`$\- and $`y`$-directions. In Fig. 21 the observed current for both directions is plotted as a function of photon energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ for $`\sigma _+`$ radiation together with the absorption spectrum. It can be seen that for a current along $`x`$ $``$ \[1$`\overline{1}`$0\] the spectral shape is similar to the derivative of the absorption spectrum, and in particular there is a change of sign which occurs at the line center of the absorption. When the sample was rotated by 90 about $`z`$ the sign change in the current, now along $`y`$ $``$ , disappears and its spectral shape follows more closely the absorption spectrum.

The spectral inversion of sign of the photocurrent in $`x`$ direction indicates the CPGE which is proportional to the derivative of the absorption spectrum (see Eqs. (22) and (23)). In contrast with the CPGE the sign of the spin-galvanic current does not depend on the wavelength (see section 4.2.1 and ). This can be seen from Fig. 5b which illustrates the origin of the spin-galvanic effect. All that is required is a spin orientation of the lower subband, and asymmetrical spin relaxation then drives a current . In our case the spin orientation is generated by resonant spin-selective optical excitation followed by spin-non-specific thermalization. The magnitude of the spin polarization and hence the current depends on the initial absorption strength but not on the momentum $`𝒌`$ of transition. Therefore there is no sign change and the shape of the spectrum follows the absorption (see Eqs. (29) and ). The lack of a sign change for current along $`y`$ $``$  in the experiment shows that the spin-galvanic dominates for this orientation.

The non-equivalence of the two orientations  and \[1$`\overline{1}`$0\] is caused by the interplay of BIA and SIA terms in the Hamiltonian when rotating the wavevector in the QW plane. Both currents, CPGE and the spin-galvanic current, are due to spin splitting of subbands in $`𝒌`$-space described by Eq. (1). The pseudo-tensors $`𝜸`$ and $`𝑸`$ determining the current are related to the transposed pseudo-tensor $`𝜷`$. They are subjected to the same symmetry restrictions so that their irreducible components differ only by scalar factors. In $`C_{2v}`$ symmetry usually $`\beta _{yx}\beta _{xy}`$ and it is reasonable to introduce symmetric and anti-symmetric tensor components $`\beta _{BIA}^{(\nu )}=1/2(\beta _{xy}^{(\nu )}+\beta _{yx}^{(\nu )})`$ and $`\beta _{SIA}^{(\nu )}=1/2(\beta _{xy}^{(\nu )}\beta _{yx}^{(\nu )})`$, where $`\nu `$=1,2 indicates the $`e`$1 and $`e`$2 subbands respectively. $`\beta _{BIA}^{(\nu )}`$ and $`\beta _{SIA}^{(\nu )}`$ result from bulk inversion asymmetry (BIA) and from structural inversion asymmetry (SIA), respectively.

As discussed above and sketched in Fig. 5 both CPGE and spin-galvanic currents, say in $`x`$ direction, are caused by the band splitting in $`k_x`$ direction and therefore are proportional to $`\beta _{yx}`$ (for current in $`y`$-direction one should interchange the indices $`x`$ and $`y`$ ). Then the currents in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions read

$$j_x=A_{CPGE}[(\beta _{BIA}^{(1)}\beta _{SIA}^{(1)})(\beta _{BIA}^{(2)}\beta _{SIA}^{(2)})]P_{circ}\widehat{e}_y+A_{SGE}(\beta _{BIA}^{(1)}\beta _{SIA}^{(1)})S_y$$
(33)
and

$$j_y=A_{CPGE}[(\beta _{BIA}^{(1)}+\beta _{SIA}^{(1)})(\beta _{BIA}^{(2)}+\beta _{SIA}^{(2)})]P_{circ}\widehat{e}_x+A_{SGE}(\beta _{BIA}^{(1)}+\beta _{SIA}^{(1)})S_x,$$
(34)
where $`A_{CPGE}`$ and $`A_{SGE}`$ are factors related to $`𝜸`$ and $`𝑸`$, respectively, and a subscript SGE indicates the spin-galvanic effect.

In the present case $`𝑺`$ is obtained by optical orientation, its sign and magnitude are proportional to $`P_{circ}`$ and it is oriented along the in-plane component of $`\widehat{𝒆}`$. The magnitude of CPGE is determined by the values of $`𝒌`$ in the initial and final states, and hence depends on the spin splitting $`\beta _{BIA}`$ and $`\beta _{SIA}`$ of both $`e`$1 and $`e`$2 subbands. In contrast, the spin-galvanic effect is due to relaxation between the spin states of the lowest subband and hence depends only on $`\beta _{BIA}`$ and $`\beta _{SIA}`$ of $`e`$1.

The equations above show that in directions $`y`$ and $`x`$ the spin-galvanic effect and the CPGE are proportional to terms with the sum and the difference respectively of BIA and SIA terms. For our sample it appears that in the case where they add, the spin-galvanic effect dominates over CPGE consistent with the lack of sign change for the current along the $`y`$-direction in Fig. 21. Conversely when BIA and SIA terms subtract the spin-galvanic effect is suppressed and CPGE dominates. We emphasize that at the maximum of absorption, where spin orientation induced CPGE is equal to zero for both directions, the current obtained is caused solely by the spin-galvanic effect.

### 4.3 Monopolar spin orientation

Absorption of circularly polarized light in semiconductors may result in spin polarization of photoexcited carriers. While this phenomenon of optical orientation caused by inter-band transitions in semiconductors is known since a long time  and has been widely studied , it is not obvious that free carrier absorption due to inter-subband and intra-subband transitions can also result in a spin polarization. Observation of a spin-polarization induced CPGE and the spin-galvanic effect in the MIR and FIR spectral range unambiguously demonstrates that spin orientation may be achieved due to free carrier absorption. This optical orientation may be referred to as ‘monopolar’  because photon energies are much less than the fundamental energy gap and only one type of carriers, electrons or holes, is excited. Here we consider mechanisms of monopolar optical orientation due to direct inter-subband transitions as well as by Drude-like intra-subband absorption for $`n`$\- and $`p`$-type QWs based on zinc-blende structure semiconductors.

Monopolar spin orientation in $`n`$-type QWs becomes possible if an admixture of valence band states to the conduction band wave function and the spin-orbit splitting of the valence band are taken into account . We emphasize that the spin generation rate under monopolar optical orientation depends strongly on the energy of spin-orbit splitting of the valence band, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{so}`$. It is due to the fact that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$ valence band and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7`$ spin-orbit split-off band contribute to the matrix element of spin-flip transitions with opposite signs. In $`p`$-type QWs analogous mechanisms are responsible for spin orientation.

The generation rate of the electron spin polarization $`𝑺`$ due to optical excitation can be written as

$$\dot{S}=s(\eta I/\mathrm{}\omega )P_{circ},$$
(35)
where $`s`$ is the average electron spin generated per one absorbed photon of circularly polarized radiation, and $`\eta `$ is the fraction of the energy flux absorbed in the QW.

#### 4.3.1 Direct transitions between size-quantized subbands

As Eq. (35) shows the spin generation rate $`\dot{S}`$ is proportional to the absorbance $`\eta _{12}`$. In order to explain the observed spin orientation at inter-subband transitions between $`e`$1 and $`e`$2 subbands in $`n`$-type QWs and, in particular, the absorption of light polarized in the plane of a QW the $`𝒌𝒑`$ admixture of valence band states to the conduction band wave functions has to be taken into account . Calculations yield that inter-subband absorption of circularly polarized light propagating along $`z`$ induces only spin-flip transitions resulting in 100 % optical orientation of photoexcited carriers, i.e. $`s=1`$. In this geometry the fraction of the energy flux absorbed in the QW by transitions from the first subband $`e`$1 to the second subband $`e`$2 has the form

$$\eta _{12}=\frac{128\alpha ^{}}{9n}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{so}^2(2E_g+\mathrm{\Delta }_{so})^2(\epsilon _{e\mathit{2}}\epsilon _{e\mathit{1}})\epsilon _{e\mathit{1}}}{E_g^2(E_g+\mathrm{\Delta }_{so})^2(3E_g+2\mathrm{\Delta }_{so})^2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2n_s}{m_{e\mathit{1}}^{}}\delta (\mathrm{}\omega \epsilon _{e\mathit{1}}+\epsilon _{e\mathit{2}}),$$
(36)
where $`\alpha ^{}`$ is the fine structure constant, $`n`$ is a refraction index, $`n_s`$ is a free carrier density, and $`\epsilon _{e\mathit{1}}`$ and $`\epsilon _{e\mathit{2}}`$ are the energies of the size-quantized subbands $`e`$1 and $`e`$2, respectively. The $`\delta `$-function describes the resonant behaviour of the inter-subband transitions.

In $`p`$-type QWs, optical orientation is caused by heavy-hole to light-hole absorption of circularly polarized radiation and occurs for transitions at in-plane wavevector $`𝒌0`$ due to the mixing of heavy-hole and light-hole subbands .

#### 4.3.2 Drude absorption due to indirect intra-subband transitions

In the far-infrared range where the photon energy is not enough for direct inter-subband transition in $`n`$\- or in $`p`$-type samples, the absorption of light by free carriers is caused by indirect intra-subband transitions where the momentum conservation law is satisfied due to emission or absorption of acoustic or optical phonons, static defects etc. (Drude-like absorption). We assume that the carriers occupy the $`e`$1-subband. The intra-subband optical transitions in QWs involving both the electron-photon interaction and momentum scattering are described by second-order processes with virtual transitions via intermediate states. The compound matrix elements for such kind of transitions with the initial and final states in the same band has the standard form

$$M_{cm_s^{}k^{}cm_sk}=\underset{\nu }{}\left(\frac{V_{cm_s^{}k^{},\nu k}R_{\nu k,cm_sk}}{\epsilon _{\nu k}\epsilon _{ck}\mathrm{}\omega }+\frac{R_{cm_s^{}k^{},\nu k^{}}V_{\nu k^{},cm_sk}}{\epsilon _{\nu k^{}}\epsilon _{ck}\pm \mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{kk^{}}}\right).$$
(37)
Here $`\epsilon _{ck}`$, $`\epsilon _{ck^{}}`$ and $`\epsilon _\nu `$ are the electron energies in the initial $`|c,m_s,k`$, final $`|c,m_s^{},k^{}`$ and intermediate $`|\nu `$ states, respectively, $`m_s`$ is the spin index, $`R`$ is the matrix element of electron interaction with the electromagnetic wave, $`V`$ is the matrix element of electron-phonon or electron-defect interaction, and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{kk^{}}`$ is the energy of the involved phonon. The sign $`\pm `$ in Eq. (37) correspond to emission and absorption of phonons. A dominant contribution to the optical absorption is caused by processes with intermediate states in the same subband. This is the channel that determines the coefficient of intra-subband absorbance, $`\eta `$. However such transitions conserve the electronic spin and, hence, do not lead to an optical orientation.

In order to obtain optical orientation due to intra-subband transitions at normal incidence we consider virtual inter-band transitions with intermediate states in the valence band . Fig. 22 demonstrates schematically the spin orientation at intra-band absorption of right handed circularly polarized light ($`\sigma ^+`$) at normal incidence. Because of the dipole selection rules for inter-band optical transitions, the electron transitions with spin reversal from $`m_s=1/2`$ to $`m_s=+1/2`$ are possible via intermediate states in the light-hole and spin-orbit split subbands, while the opposite processes, $`+1/21/2`$ are forbidden. As a result spin orientation of electrons occurs. At oblique incidence, the transitions via heavy-hole subbands also contribute to optical orientation.

For this particular mechanism of monopolar optical orientation one can derive the following expression for the spin generated per one absorbed photon of e.g. right-handed circularly polarized radiation

$$s\frac{V_{cv}^2}{V_c^2}\frac{\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{\Delta }_{so}^2}{E_g(E_g+\mathrm{\Delta }_{so})(3E_g+2\mathrm{\Delta }_{so})}.$$
(38)
Here $`V_c`$ and $`V_{cv}`$ are the intra-subband and inter-band matrix elements, respectively, and depend on the mechanism of momentum scattering. Acoustical-phonon-assisted and static impurities processes are considered in .

### 4.4 Spin controlled nonlinearity of spin orientation induced CPGE

Here we discuss the nonlinear behaviour of the spin polarization induced CPGE. It was observed in  that the photocurrent saturates with increasing of the light intensity. In fact, in this case, the photogalvanic current normalized by the radiation intensity $`I`$ is proportional to the absorbance  and reflects the power dependence of the absorption coefficient.

The saturation effect was investigated on $`p`$-doped QW structures at direct inter-subband optical transitions. The basic physics of spin sensitive bleaching of absorption is sketched in Fig. 23. Excitation with FIR radiation results in direct transitions between heavy-hole $`hh`$1 and light-hole $`lh`$1 subbands. This process depopulates and populates selectively spin states in $`hh`$1 and $`lh`$1 subbands. The absorption is proportional to the difference of populations of the initial and final states. At high intensities the absorption decreases since the photoexcitation rate becomes comparable to the non-radiative relaxation rate to the initial state. Due to selection rules only one type of spins is involved in the absorption of circularly polarized light. Thus the absorption bleaching of circularly polarized radiation is governed by energy relaxation of photoexcited carriers and spin relaxation in the initial state (see Fig. 23b). These processes are characterized by energy and spin relaxation times $`\tau _e`$ and $`\tau _s`$, respectively. We note, that during energy relaxation to the initial state in $`hh\mathit{1}`$ the holes lose their photoinduced orientation due to rapid relaxation . Thus, spin orientation occurs in the initial subband $`hh\mathit{1}`$, only. In contrast to circularly polarized light, absorption of linearly polarized light is not spin selective and the saturation is controlled by the energy relaxation only (see Fig. 23c). If $`\tau _s`$ is larger than $`\tau _e`$ bleaching of absorption becomes spin sensitive and the saturation intensity of circularly polarized radiation drops below the value of linear polarization.

The difference in absorption bleaching for circularly and linearly polarized radiation has been observed experimentally employing the spin orientation induced CPGE (see section 2.2) and the linear photogalvanic effect (see section 5.1. Fig. 24 shows that the photocurrent $`j_x`$ measured on $`p`$-type GaAs QWs depends on the intensity $`I`$ as $`j_xI/(1+I/I_s)`$, where $`I_s`$ is the saturation intensity. It has been shown that saturation intensities $`I_s`$ for circularly polarized radiation are generally smaller than that for linearly polarized radiation (Fig. 25). The non-linear behaviour of photogalvanic current has been analyzed in terms of excitation-relaxation kinetics taking into account both optical excitation and non-radiative relaxation processes. It has been shown that the photocurrent $`j_{LPGE}`$ induced by linearly polarized radiation is described by $`j_{LPGE}/I(1+I/I_{se})^1`$, where $`I_{se}`$ is the saturation intensity controlled by energy relaxation of the hole gas. The photocurrent $`j_{CPGE}`$ induced by circularly polarized radiation is proportional to $`(1+I\left(\frac{1}{I_{se}}+\frac{1}{I_{ss}}\right))^1`$ where $`I_{ss}=\mathrm{}\omega p_s/(\alpha _0d\tau _s)`$ is the saturation intensity controlled by hole spin relaxation and $`\alpha _0`$ is the absorption coefficient at low intensities. Using experimentally obtained $`I_{ss}`$ together with the absorption coefficient $`\alpha _0`$, calculated after , spin relaxation times $`\tau _s`$ have been derived (see Fig. 26. We note that in the definition of $`I_{ss}`$ it was assumed that the spin selection rule are fully satisfied at the transition energy. This is the case for optical transitions occurring close to $`𝒌`$ = 0  being realized in the above experiment. If this is not the case the mixture of heavy-hole and light-hole subbands reduces the strength of the selection rules  and therefore reduces the efficiency of spin orientation. The mixing yields a multiplicative factor in $`I_{ss}`$ increasing the saturation intensity at constant spin relaxation time . In  a substantial lowering of $`I_{ss}`$ with decreasing QW width was observed. This observation may indicate much slower spin relaxation times for holes in narrow QWs as obtained theoretically in .

This result shows that spin relaxation of holes may be obtained by investigation of the circular photogalvanic effect as a function of radiation intensity. A substantial portion of investigations of the spin lifetime in semiconductor devices are based on optical spin orientation by inter-band excitation and further tracing the kinetics of polarized photoluminescence (for review see ). These studies give important insights into the mechanisms of spin relaxation of photoexcited free carriers. In contrast to these methods of optical spin orientation, monopolar spin orientation allows to study spin relaxation without electron-hole interaction and exciton formation in the conditions close to the case of electric spin injection . Spin photocurrents provide an experimental access to such investigations.

## 5 Spin-independent photocurrents at homogeneous excitation

Investigating spin photocurrents one should take into account that optical excitation may generate other currents which are not the result of spin orientation. Spin photocurrents can be recognized by their dependence on the helicity of the exciting radiation. Indeed, only spin photocurrents change their direction when the state of polarization of radiation is switched from right- to left-handed or vice versa. This allows to extract the spin photocurrent contribution from total photocurrents at visible excitation when spin-independent photocurrents, like in the case of Dember-effect or photo-voltaic effect at contacts etc., may occur, being substantially larger than spin photocurrents. In this situation the periodic modulation of the state of polarization and synchronous detection of the current is a convenient technique to measure spin photocurrents by itself. In the infrared spectral range these strong spin-independent photocurrents do not occur. However, there are two other sources of photocurrents at homogeneous excitation which occur simultaneously and may be of the same order of magnitude as spin photocurrents but again do not require spin orientation. These are the linear photogalvanic effect (LPGE)  and the photon drag effect . These photocurrents are not changed in sign or amplitude if the polarization is switched from $`\sigma _+`$ to $`\sigma _{}`$. Furthermore both effects, LPGE and photon drag effect, depend on the symmetry of the material in a different way than spin photocurrents. Therefore in most cases it is possible to choose a crystallographic orientation and an experimental geometry where only spin photocurrents occur. In other cases the helicity dependence of photocurrents allows to distinguish between spin photocurrents and spin-independent photocurrents. Based on phenomenology we discuss spin-independent photocurrents in the following and present some experimental examples.

By general symmetry arguments it can be shown that these spin-independent photocurrents are given by

$$j_\lambda =\underset{\mu \nu }{}\chi _{\lambda \mu \nu }(E_\mu E_\nu ^{}+E_\nu E_\mu ^{})/2+\underset{\delta \mu \nu }{}T_{\lambda \delta \mu \nu }q_\delta E_\mu E_\nu ^{}.$$
(39)
where $`\chi _{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ and $`T_{\lambda \delta \mu \nu }`$ are components of a third rank and a fourth rank tensor, respectively, and $`q_\delta `$ is the wavevector of the radiation in the sample.

The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (39) is called LPGE because it is independent on the sign of circular polarization and is usually measured by linearly polarized radiation. The second term represents the photon drag effect which yields a current due to momentum transfer from photons to electrons.

### 5.1 Linear photogalvanic effect

LPGE arises in homogeneous samples under homogeneous excitation due to an asymmetry of the scattering of free carriers on phonons, static defects, or other carriers in non-centrosymmetric media (for review see ). The linear photogalvanic effect was observed in some insulators as early as the 1950th, but was correctly identified as a new phenomenon only in  and theoretically treated in . In bulk materials like GaAs LPGE was studied in great detailed (for review see ). It has also been considered and observed in low dimensional structures like MOSFET Si-structures , III-V QWs  and asymmetric SiGe QWs . Microscopically, the LPGE current consists of a so-called ballistic and a shift contribution . The LPGE was successfully applied as a fast detector of the degree of circular polarization .

As shown in Eq. (39) the linear photogalvanic current is linked to the symmetrized product $`E_\mu E_\nu ^{}`$ by a third rank tensor $`\chi _{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ which in turn is symmetric in the last two indices. Therefore $`\chi _{\lambda \mu \nu }`$ is isomorphic to the piezoelectric tensor and may have non-zero components in media lacking a center of symmetry. Note that in contrast to spin photocurrents gyrotropy is not necessary. In zinc-blende structure based QWs of $`C_{2v}`$ symmetry taking into account only the LPGE term of Eq. (39) we get

$$j_{LPGE,x}=\chi _{xxz}\left(E_xE_z^{}+E_zE_x^{}\right),j_{LPGE,y}=\chi _{yyz}\left(E_yE_z^{}+E_zE_y^{}\right).$$
(40)
In higher symmetry QWs of point-group $`D_{2d}`$ the coefficients are linearly dependent and $`\chi _{xxz}=\chi _{yyz}`$. Eqs. (40) shows that the LPGE occurs only at oblique incidence of radiation because a component of the electric field, $`E_z`$, along the $`z`$-axis is required.

We assume now irradiation of a QW of the $`C_{2v}`$ symmetry with the plane of incidence parallel to ($`yz`$). For linearly polarized light with an angle $`\alpha `$ between the plane of polarization defined by the electric field vector and the $`x`$-coordinate parallel to $`[1\overline{1}0]`$ the LPGE current is given by:

$$j_{LPGE,x}=\chi _{xxz}\widehat{e}_yE_0^2\mathrm{sin}2\alpha ,j_{LPGE,y}=\left(\chi _++\chi _{}\mathrm{cos}2\alpha \right)\widehat{e}_yE_0^2,$$
(41)
where $`\chi _\pm =(\chi _{xxz}\pm \chi _{yyz})/2`$. In the experimental setup used for the measurement of the helicity dependence of spin photocurrents the laser light is linearly polarized along $`x`$ and a $`\lambda /4`$ plate is placed between the laser and the sample, Eqs. (40) take the form

$$j_{LPGE,x}=\chi _{xxz}\widehat{e}_yE_0^2\mathrm{cos}2\phi \mathrm{sin}2\phi ,j_{LPGE,y}=\left(\chi _++\chi _{}\mathrm{cos}2\phi \right)\widehat{e}_yE_0^2,$$
(42)
In addition to Eqs. (40) the point group $`C_s`$ allows an LPGE current at normal incidence of the radiation because in this case the tensor $`𝝌`$ has the additional non-zero components $`\chi _{xxy^{}}=\chi _{xy^{}x}`$, $`\chi _{y^{}xx}`$ and $`\chi _{y^{}y^{}y^{}}`$. This current is given by

$$j_{LPGE,x}=\chi _{xxy^{}}\left(E_xE_y^{}^{}+E_y^{}E_x^{}\right),j_{LPGE,y^{}}=\left(\chi _{y^{}xx}|E_x|^2+\chi _{y^{}y^{}y^{}}|E_y^{}|^2\right)$$
(43)
yielding for linearly polarized light

$$j_{LPGE,x}=\chi _{xxy^{}}\widehat{e}_z^{}E_0^2\mathrm{sin}2\alpha ,j_{LPGE,y^{}}=\left(\chi _+^{}+\chi _{}^{}\mathrm{cos}2\alpha \right)\widehat{e}_z^{}E_0^2,$$
(44)
where $`\chi _\pm ^{}=(\chi _{xxx}\pm \chi _{xy^{}y^{}})/2`$ and for the experimental arrangement of helicity dependence measurements

$$j_{LPGE,x}=\chi _{xxy^{}}\widehat{e}_z^{}E_0^2\mathrm{cos}2\phi \mathrm{sin}2\phi ,j_{LPGE,y^{}}=\left(\chi _+^{}+\chi _{}^{}\mathrm{cos}2\phi \right)\widehat{e}_z^{}E_0^2,$$
(45)
The dependence of the LPGE current on the angle of incidence $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ is determined by the projections of the unit vector $`\widehat{𝒆}`$ which, as in the case of CPGE, have the form of Eqs. (16)- (18).

Eqs. (42) and (45) for LPGE at excitation with elliptically polarized radiation show that it may occur simultaneously with spin orientation induced CPGE (see Eqs. (14) and (15)). However, in this case LPGE is equal to zero for circularly polarized radiation for all considered symmetries. Indeed, light is circularly polarized at $`2\phi =\pi /2,3\pi /2\mathrm{}`$ therefore for $`\sigma _\pm `$ radiation $`\mathrm{cos}2\phi `$ in Eqs. (42) and (45) is equal to zero and the LPGE current vanishes. For $`P_{circ}`$ between -1 and +1, as in the measurements of helicity dependence of the photocurrent both, spin orientation induced CPGE and LPGE can be simultaneously present. However, measurements carried out on GaAs , InAs , and ZnSeMnTe  QWs in the whole wavelength range as well as on SiGe QWs in the mid infrared  have shown that the contribution of the LPGE is negligible (see Figs. 10 and 13).

The situation is different for SiGe QWs at the FIR excitation where spin orientation induced CPGE and LPGE with comparable strength have been detected . Fig. 15 exhibits experimental data obtained on $`p`$-type SiGe (113)-grown QW structure. Broken and dotted lines show contributions of the circular photocurrent, $`j_x\mathrm{sin}2\phi `$, and the linear photocurrent, $`j_x\mathrm{sin}2\phi \mathrm{cos}2\phi `$, respectively. The tensors $`𝜸`$ and $`𝝌`$ describe different physical mechanisms and, therefore, may depend differently on the material parameters, excitation wavelength, and temperature. Obviously in most cases the contribution of $`𝜸`$ to the photocurrent is larger than that of $`𝝌`$.

The occurrence of LPGE without CPGE is demonstrated by measurements at linear polarization at which CPGE is zero, depicted in Fig. 27 for GaAs QWs and in Fig. 28 for SiGe QWs. It was also observed at the excitation by elliptical polarized radiation with $`P_{circ}`$ varying from -1 to +1 in a geometrical direction where CPGE is forbidden by symmetry. This is demonstrated in Fig. 29 where a longitudinal current generated by oblique incidence along  direction is shown.

### 5.2 Photon drag effect

The photon drag effect arises due to a momentum transfer from photons to free carriers. This effect was first observed in bulk semiconductors  and has been investigated in various materials like Ge, Si and GaP in a wide range of optical excitation mechanisms as inter-band transitions, direct and indirect transitions at free carrier absorption, at impurity ionization etc. (for review see ). It was also intensively studied in GaAs and InAs QWs . The photon drag is of great technical importance for fast infrared and far-infrared detection of short laser pulses .

The photon drag current described by the second term of the right hand side of Eq. (39) is mediated by a fourth rank tensor $`𝑻`$. Therefore there is no symmetry restriction for this effect. In $`T_{\lambda \delta \mu \nu }`$ the first index $`\lambda `$ runs over $`x`$ and $`y`$ only because the current must be confined in the plane of the QW.

For QWs of $`C_{2v}`$ symmetry the photon drag effect yields the current

$`j_{PD,x}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu =x,y,z}{}}T_{xx\mu \mu }q_x|E_\mu |^2+T_{xyxy}q_y\left(E_xE_y^{}+E_yE_x^{}\right),`$ (46)
$`j_{PD,y}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu =x,y,z}{}}T_{yy\mu \mu }q_y|E_\mu |^2+T_{yxyx}q_x\left(E_xE_y^{}+E_yE_x^{}\right).`$
For $`C_s`$ symmetry this equation has the same form if $`y`$ and $`z`$ are replaced by the primed coordinates. In higher symmetric QWs of the point group $`D_{2d}`$ the number of independent non-zero tensor components is reduced by

$$T_{xxxx}=T_{yyyy},T_{xxyy}=T_{yyxx},T_{xxzz}=T_{yyzz},T_{xyxy}=T_{yxyx}.$$
(47)
The above equations show that the photon drag effect occurs in QWs of all symmetries at oblique incidence of radiation only. The longitudinal effect, first term on the right hand side of Eqs. (46), is usually much stronger than the transverse effect described by the second term. This is the reason that in the transverse geometry of spin orientation induced CPGE no influence of the photon drag effect could be detected as yet. However, in the longitudinal geometry the photon drag effect yields a measurable current. Again helicity dependence can help to distinguish spin photocurrents from the photon drag effect. On the other hand the separation of LPGE and photon drag effect is not so obvious. The usual method to identify photon drag effect is based on the sign inversion of the current by reversing the wavevector of light in the plane of the sample. The same sign inversion occurs also for LPGE (see Eqs. (16), (18), (41), and (42)).

Both effects may be distinguished from polarization dependencies. The situation is simple for transversal currents. Indeed, LPGE vanishes for linearly polarized radiation with the radiation electric field normal or parallel to the current flow (see left equation of Eqs. (41),(44)) or for circularly polarized radiation (see left equation of Eqs. (42),(45)) whereas a photon drag effect may be present (see Eqs. (46)). However, for longitudinal currents the photon drag effect and the LPGE may be present at the same time with comparable strength for any polarization. In contrast to the transverse effect, longitudinal LPGE has a polarization independent term $`\chi _+`$ in the right equation of Eqs. (41),(42) and $`\chi _+^{}`$ in the right equation of Eqs. (44),(45). Thus, a longitudinal current in non-centrosymmetric QWs which changes sign at reversal of light propagation need not to be the photon drag current. The characteristic polarization dependencies as well as the helicity dependence may help to identify the underlying microscopic mechanisms. We note that by investigation of the photon drag effect in QWs without inversion center one should $`always`$ take into account the LPGE contribution and vice versa. For elliptical polarization the spin orientation induced CPGE may also contribute in the total current.

As a concluding remark, spin photocurrents in any case can be distinguished from helicity independent currents by switching the helicity from right to left or the other way round. The fraction of spin photocurrents in the total current can quantitatively be extracted by modulation methods.

## 6 Spin photocurrents caused by inhomogeneities

One of the essential features of spin photocurrents reviewed here is the homogeneity of both the optical excitation and the distribution of spin polarization in a two-dimensional electron gas of gyrotropic QWs. However, spin photocurrents may occur due to an inhomogeneous spin distribution obtained by inhomogeneous optical excitation or in bulk inhomogeneities like $`pn`$ junctions.

As it was already introduced a surface current $`𝒋`$ $`=e\zeta rot`$$`𝑺`$ due to inhomogeneity of spin polarization $`𝑺`$ of electrons at a semiconductor surface layer proposed in  was observed in bulk AlGaAs samples . Here $`\zeta `$ is a coefficient proportional to the energy of the spin-orbit splitting of the valence band $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{so}`$. The inhomogeneous spin polarization was obtained by the strong absorption of circularly polarized radiation at the band edge of AlGaAs mixed crystals (HeNe-laser excitation). The radiation was of normal incidence on the sample resulting in a gradient of the spin density into the material due to surface generation and diffusion into the bulk. Spin-orbit interaction at the surface yields asymmetric electron scattering which gives rise to a current in the direction perpendicular to the gradient of spin density and the average electron spin. An external magnetic field oriented in the surface plane was used to optimize the current by rotating the spin polarization into the surface plane (see Fig. 30a) . The surface current shows the Hanle-effect as a function of the magnetic field strength. The geometry and the experimental procedure are very similar to that used to demonstrate the spin-galvanic effect (see Fig. 7). The crucial difference to the spin-galvanic effect is that in this case of surface photocurrent caused by optical orientation a gradient of spin density is needed. Naturally this gradient is absent in QWs where the spin-galvanic effect has been investigated because QWs are two-dimensional (no ‘thickness’).

Another type of spin photocurrents recently was proposed in analogy to the photo-voltaic effect in $`pn`$ junctions . This spin-voltaic effect occurs due to uniform illumination of a $`pn`$ junction with circularly polarized inter-band light resulting in spin polarization of a charge current. Circular polarization generates spin polarized electrons and holes. Due to the fast relaxation of hole spin polarization in the bulk and the long spin lifetime of electrons, the photocurrent becomes spin polarized. Indeed by the built-in electric field $`E_{bi}`$ spin polarized electrons are swept to the $`n`$-side and the unpolarized holes drift to the $`p`$-side of the junction (see Fig. 30b).

## 7 Summary

A non-equilibrium uniform spin polarization obtained by optical orientation drives an electric current in QWs if they belong to a gyrotropic crystal class. In QWs prepared from zinc-blende structure materials gyrotropy is naturally given due to the lack of inversion symmetry in the basic material which itself is not gyrotropic. In QWs based on diamond structure materials, like Si and Ge which possess a center of inversion, gyrotropy may be introduced by artificially growing of asymmetric structures. In gyrotropic QWs spin-orbit interaction results in a spin splitting in $`𝒌`$-space of subbands yielding the basis of spin photocurrents. Two different microscopic mechanisms of spin photocurrents can be distinguished, spin orientation induced circular photogalvanic effect and spin-galvanic effect. In the first effect the coupling of the helicity of light to spin polarized final states with a net linear momentum is caused by angular momentum selection rules together with band splitting in $`𝒌`$-space due to $`𝒌`$-linear terms in the Hamiltonian. The current flow in the second effect is driven by asymmetric spin relaxation of a homogeneous non-equilibrium spin polarization. The current is present even if the initial electron distribution in each spin-split subband is uniform.

The experimental results on spin photocurrents due to homogeneous spin polarization are in good agreement to the phenomenological theory. Both mechanisms of spin photocurrents as well as the removal of spin degeneracy in $`𝒌`$-space are described by second rank pseudo-tensors. Because of tensor equivalence in each symmetry the irreducible components of these tensors differ by scalar factors only. Therefore macroscopic measurements of photocurrents in different geometric configurations of experiments allow to conclude on details of the microscopic tensorial spin orbit interaction. In particular the relation between the symmetric and anti-symmetric part of the spin-orbit interaction representing Dresselhaus like terms (including interface inversion asymmetry) and the Rashba term, respectively, may be obtained. Furthermore the macroscopic symmetry of QWs may easily be determined.

Spin photocurrents are obtained by circularly polarized radiation. The most important feature of spin photocurrents is their helicity dependence. The current is proportional to helicity and reverses its direction upon changing the handedness of radiation. The effect is a quite general property of QWs and has already been observed in many different $`n`$\- and $`p`$-type semiconductor structures at various kinds of optical excitation like inter-band and free carrier absorption. It is present in materials of different mobilities, also at very low mobility, in a wide range of carrier densities and can be detected even at room temperature. Spin photocurrents are not limited to 2D structures. Most recently they have been predicted for gyrotropic 1D systems like carbon nanotubes of spiral symmetry . The effect is caused by coupling between the electron wavevector along the tube principal axis and the orbital momentum around the tube circumference.

Spin photocurrents were applied to investigate the mechanism of spin relaxation at monopolar spin orientation where only one type of charge carriers is involved in the excitation-relaxation process. This condition is close to that of electrical spin injection in semiconductors. Two methods were applied to determine spin relaxation times: the Hanle effect in the spin-galvanic current and spin sensitive bleaching of photogalvanic currents. The spin orientation induced CPGE has also been applied to detect the state of polarization of terahertz radiation . The rapid momentum relaxation at room temperature in quantum well yields picosecond time resolution.

## Acknowledgement

The authors thank E.L. Ivchenko, V.V. Bel’kov, L.E. Golub, S.N. Danilov and Petra Schneider for many discussions and helpful comments on the present manuscript. We are also indebted to G. Abstreiter, V.V. Bel’kov, M. Bichler, J. DeBoeck, G. Borghs, K. Brunner, S.N. Danilov, J. Eroms, E.L. Ivchenko, S. Giglberger, P. Grabs, L.E. Golub, T. Humbs, J. Kainz, H. Ketterl, B.N. Murdin, Petra Schneider, D. Schuh, M. Sollinger, S.A. Tarasenko, L. Molenkamp, R. Newmann, V.I. Perel, C.R. Pidgeon, P.J. Phillips, U. Rössler, W. Schoepe, D. Schowalter, G. Schmidt, V.M. Ustinov, L.E. Vorobjev, D. Weiss, W. Wegscheider, D.R. Yakovlev, I.N. Yassievich, and A.E. Zhukov, for long standing cooperation during the work on spin photocurrents. We gratefully acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the NATO Linkage Grant which made this work possible.


format: text

text:
# Induced vs Spontaneous Breakdown of S-matrix Unitarity: Probability of No Return in Quantum Chaotic and Disordered Systems

## Abstract

We investigate systematically sample-to sample fluctuations of the probability $`\tau `$ of no return into a given entrance channel for wave scattering from disordered systems. For zero-dimensional (”quantum chaotic”) and quasi one-dimensional systems with broken time-reversal invariance we derive explicit formulas for the distribution of $`\tau `$, and investigate particular cases. Finally, relating $`\tau `$ to violation of S-matrix unitarity induced by internal dissipation, we use the same quantity to identify the Anderson delocalisation transition as the phenomenon of spontaneous breakdown of S-matrix unitarity.

Various aspects of chaotic wave scattering in the presence of absorption or internal losses attracted a considerable attention in recent years-. In the general case a convenient framework for extracting universal properties of the corresponding S-matrix is provided by the method of effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $`=Hi\pi _{a=1}^MW_aW_a^{},`$ in terms of which the energy-dependent element $`S_{ab}`$ of the $`M\times M`$ scattering matrix $`\widehat{S}`$ is expressed as:

$$S_{ab}=\delta _{ab}2i\pi W_a^{}\frac{1}{}W_b,$$
(1)
see , and references therein. Here $`H`$ stands for a self-adjoint Hamiltonian describing the closed counterpart of the disordered or chaotic system under consideration, $``$ stands for the energy of incoming waves and the (energy-independent) vectors $`W_a`$, $`a=1,2,\mathrm{}M`$ contain matrix elements coupling the internal motion to one of open $`M`$ channels. As is easy to verify such a construction ensures the unitarity of the scattering matrix: $`S^{}S=\mathrm{𝟏}_M`$, provided the energy $``$ takes only real values. When one allows for energy parameter to have nonzero imaginary part $`ϵ=\text{Im}>0`$, the $`S`$matrix unitarity is immediately lost: $`S^{}S<\mathrm{𝟏}_M`$. Physically the parameter $`ϵ`$ stands for a uniform damping inside the system, and is responsible for the fact of losses of the outgoing flux of the particles as compared to the incoming flux. The balance between the two fluxes is precisely the physical mechanism standing behind the $`S`$ matrix unitarity.

In the present paper we concentrate on the ”probability of no return” (PNR), which is defined as the quantum-mechanical probability for a particle entering the system via a given channel $`a`$ never exit through the same channel. This quantity is well-defined for a given realization of disorder and will show sample-to-sample fluctuations whose statistics we are going to study. In the case of no internal dissipation PNR is the same as the probability to exit via any of the remaining channels, known as the transmission probability $`_{ba}|S_{ab}|^21|S_{aa}|^2`$. For a system with absorption the last equality is violated, and we keep the notation $`\tau _a=1|S_{aa}|^2`$ for the PNR related to the reflection probability $`R_a`$ in the same channel as $`\tau _a=1R_a`$. In particular, if only a single open channel is attached to our disordered system and the boundaries are purely reflecting, then neglecting dissipation trivially results in $`\tau 0`$. The nontrivial statistics of $`\tau `$ then arises solely due to an absorption, and for small absorption the PNR value $`\tau 2ϵ\tau _W`$, where $`\tau _W`$ is the so-called Wigner delay time intensively studied in recent years, see ,,- and references therein.

It is convenient to write explicitly the normalisation of the channel vectors as $`W_a^{}W_a=\gamma _a/\pi `$, and assume that different channel vectors are orthogonal: $`W_a^{}W_b=0`$ for $`ab`$. In fact, one should remember that the effective strength of every open channel is more appropriately characterised by the so-called ”transmission coefficients”  (also known as the ”sticking probabilities”): $`T_a=1|S_{aa}|^2`$, related to bare couplings $`\gamma _a`$ by

$$\frac{1}{T_a}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+g_a\right),g_a=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu }(\gamma _a+\gamma _a^1),$$
(2)
where $`\nu `$ stands for the mean spectral density. Here and afterwards the angular brackets stand for the disorder-averaged value of the quantities. Two limiting cases $`T_a=1`$ and $`T_a=0`$ correspond to situations of perfectly coupled and decoupled (closed) channel $`a`$, respectively.

The starting point of our analysis is based on the following convenient representation for the diagonal elements of the scattering matrix:

$$S_{aa}=\frac{1iG_a}{1+iG_a},G_a=\pi W_a^{}\frac{1}{_a}W_a,$$
(3)
where $`_a=Hi\pi _{ba}^MW_bW_b^{}`$. In this way we reduce our problem to investigating statistics of the diagonal entries of the resolvent $`G_a`$ of the ”reduced-rank” non-Hermitian operator $`_a`$ independent of the vector $`W_a`$. In particular, for the single-channel case $`M=1`$ the operator $`_a`$ will not contain the channel vector $`W`$ at all, and will be therefore a self-adjoint one: $`=H`$.

The statistics of the diagonal entries of the resolvent of a random self-adjoint Hamiltonian $`H`$ describing the motion of a quantum particle in a static disorder was discussed in much detail by Mirlin and Fyodorov in the framework of the supermatrix nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model. In particular, for the case of systems with broken time reversal invariance they were able to find a very compact representation for the joint probability density $`𝒫(u,v)`$ of the real $`u=\text{Re}G_a`$ and imaginary $`v=\text{Im}G_a`$ parts of the quantity $`G_a`$, assuming normalisation $`W_a^{}W_a=1/\pi `$. Physically the variable $`v`$ is the most important and being the local density of states enjoyed thorough investigations, see, and references therein.

In fact, it is quite straightforward to incorporate non-Hermitian part of the Hamiltonian $`_a`$ into the method, as was already partly done in  where statistics of $`\text{Im}G_a`$ was addressed as describing fluctuations of the photodissociation cross-section.

According to  the function $`𝒫(u,v)`$ is given, for the centre of spectrum $`\text{Re}=0`$, by $`𝒫(u,v)=\frac{1}{4\pi v^2}P(x)`$, where $`x`$ stands for the combination $`x=(u^2+v^2+1)/2v`$, and the function $`P(x)`$ is given by

$$P(x)=\widehat{𝐋}F(x),F(x)=_1^1\frac{d\lambda }{x\lambda }(x,\lambda ),$$
(4)
where we introduced the (Legendre) operator $`\widehat{𝐋}=\frac{d}{dx}(x^21)\frac{d}{dx}`$. The particular form of the function $`(x,\lambda )`$ depends crucially on the effective spatial dimension of the underlying disordered system, and is, for example, quite different for zero-dimensional systems (”quantum chaos”) and for ”diffusive” extended quasi-one dimensional, or higher dimensional systems. We will give explicit analysis of several physical possibilities later on in the paper.

Having at our disposal the expression for $`𝒫(u,v)`$ we can relate the PNR distribution $`𝒫(\tau _a)`$ to the function $`P(x)`$. After a set of algebraic transformations we find the following attractively simple formula:

$$𝒫(\tau _a)=\frac{1}{\pi \tau _a^2}_0^\pi P[x(\tau _a,\theta )]𝑑\theta $$
(5)
$`x(\tau _a,\theta )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\tau _a}}1\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{T_a}}1\right)+4\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(1\tau _a)(1T_a)}}{\tau _aT_a}}.`$

Now we proceed with a separate analysis of a few physical situations possible in disordered systems. In all cases we assume time reversal symmetry to be broken.

I. ”Zero-dimensional” quantum chaotic system.
We assume that the disordered region is coupled to $`M`$ scattering channels characterized by effective coupling constants $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_M`$, see eq.(2), with $`g_1`$ corresponding to the chosen entrance channel. The strength of uniform damping will be characterized by the parameter $`\eta =2\pi ϵ/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ stands for the mean level spacing generated by the Hermitian Hamiltonian $`H`$. According to the standard argumentation, $`H`$ can be effectively replaced by a large $`N\times N`$ random Hermitian matrix taken from the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble, see e.g.. Then in the limit of large enough $`NM`$ the function $`(x,\lambda )`$ depends on the remaining $`M1`$ coupling constants, as well as on the effective damping $`\eta `$ as :

$$(x,\lambda )=\underset{a=2}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{g_a+\lambda }{g_a+x}e^{\eta (x\lambda )}.$$
(6)
The function $`F(x)`$ in Eq.(4) can be found in a closed form for any $`M`$ as one gets, in fact, a simple recursion relating $`F_M(x)`$ to $`F_{M1}(x)`$. Here we restrict ourself mainly to the cases of one and two open channels $`M=1,2`$:

$$F_1(x)=_{x1}^{x+1}\frac{du}{u}e^{\eta u},F_2(x)=F_1(x)2\frac{e^{\eta x}}{g_2+x}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\eta }{\eta }.$$
(7)
The distribution $`𝒫(\tau )`$ for $`M=1`$ is then equal to (cf. )

$`𝒫(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\tau ^2}}e^{\eta A}\{I_0(\eta B)[\mathrm{sinh}\eta (\eta A1)+\eta \mathrm{cosh}\eta ]`$ (8)
$``$ $`\eta B\mathrm{sinh}\eta I_1(\eta B)\},A=({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\tau }}1\left)\right({\displaystyle \frac{2}{T_1}}1),`$ (10)
$`B=4{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(1\tau )(1T_1)}}{\tau T_1}},`$
where $`I_0(z),I_1(z)`$ stand for the modified Bessel functions of the respective order. For particular case of perfectly coupled channel $`T_1=1`$ Eq.(8) reduces to the formula

$$𝒫_1(\tau )=\frac{1}{\tau ^3}e^{2\eta /\tau }\left[\tau \left(1+2\eta e^{2\eta }\right)+2\eta \left(e^{2\eta }1\right)\right]$$
(11)
derived earlier  with a very different method.

The function $`𝒫(\tau )`$ for $`M=2`$ can be obtained straightforwardly, but the general formula is too long, and we restrict our discussion by a few particular cases. First of all, when dissipation is absent ($`\eta =0`$) we recover the exact distribution of the transmission probability found earlier in  by rather different methods. Next case to be considered is that of a lossy system coupled to two perfectly open channels $`g_1=g_2=1`$:

$$𝒫_2(\tau )=𝒫_1(\tau )+\frac{1e^{2\eta /\tau }}{\eta }\left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\eta }{\tau }+\frac{2\eta ^2}{\tau ^2}\frac{2\eta ^2}{\tau ^3}\right]$$
(12)
where $`𝒫_1(\tau )`$ is given in Eq.(11). In fact, it is not difficult to find a similar recursive formula relating $`𝒫(\tau )`$ for $`M`$ perfectly coupled channels to the same function for $`M1`$ perfect channels. We do not give that formula, apart from the simplest case of no dissipation:

$`𝒫_M(\tau )=𝒫_{M1}(\tau )+\left[(M1)\tau ^{M2}(M2)\tau ^{M3}\right],`$

which immediately yields $`𝒫_M(\tau )=(M1)\tau ^{M2},M1`$. This formula (as well as its counterpart $`𝒫(\tau )\tau ^{\frac{M3}{2}}`$ for preserved time reversal invariance), in fact, follows from the known distribution of $`1\times 1`$ subunitary block of random unitary scattering matrices, see .

II. Quasi-1D systems. Consider a single channel attached to one edge of a piece of quasi one-dimensional disordered metal of length $`L`$, with the opposite edge being in contact with perfectly conducting lead of very many channels. When the internal dissipation is absent, the function $`F(x)`$ was found by Mirlin :

$`F(x)=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x+1}{x1}}`$ (13)
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dkk}{1+k^2}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi k}{2}}\right)P_{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{ik}{2}}(x)e^{t(k^2+1)/4},`$ (14)
where the dimensionless parameter $`t=L/\xi `$ is the sample length $`L`$ measured in units of the localisation lengths $`\xi `$. The (real) functions $`P_\nu (x),\nu =1/2+ik/2`$ are known as conical functions, and represent a special case of Legendre functions. As such they satisfy: $`\widehat{𝐋}P_\nu (x)=\nu (\nu +1)P_\nu (x)`$. This observation immediately yields the following expression for the PNR distribution:

$`𝒫(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\tau ^2}}I(t;{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\tau }}1),`$ (15)
$`I(t;x)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑kk\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi k}{2}}\right)P_{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{ik}{2}}(x)e^{t(k^2+1)/4},`$ (16)
where we assumed, for simplicity, that the selected single channel is perfectly coupled to the scattering medium. Surprisingly, this distribution is practically the same as the distribution of the reflection coefficient from a piece of strictly one-dimensional medium obtained long ago in the framework of the Berezinskii technique . In particular, for any value of the parameter $`t`$ the distribution displays a log-normal far tail corresponding to very small PNR values $`\tau 0`$. To find it for $`t1`$ one needs an asymptotic of the conical functions for large arguments $`x1`$ which we borrow from Eq.(50) of the paper. A calculation very similar to that presented in  yields:

$$𝒫(\tau 1)\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}t}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}\tau }}{\tau }\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{4t}\mathrm{ln}^2\tau \right\},t|\mathrm{ln}\tau |$$
(17)
This log-normal tail is related to the presence of the anomalously localised states. In the opposite case of very long samples $`t1`$ the PNR values are exponentially small due to localisation phenomenon and the distribution is purely log-normal:

$$𝒫(\tau )\frac{1}{2\tau }\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi t}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{4t}\left(t+\mathrm{ln}\tau \right)^2\right\},t|\mathrm{ln}\tau |1$$
(18)
Let us turn our attention now to the case of a quasi-1D disordered sample with a nonvanishing internal dissipation $`ϵ>0`$, assuming second edge of the sample to be impenetrable for waves. The scaling physical parameter controlling the role of dissipation is then given by $`\delta =\pi \rho ϵ\xi `$, with $`\rho `$ standing for the mean spectral density. This is just the dissipation $`ϵ`$ measured in units of the mean level spacing for a sample whose length is $`\xi `$. The most interesting regime is that of small $`\delta 1`$. In that limit the function $`(x,\lambda )`$ turned out to be independent of $`\lambda `$, whereas the $`x`$ dependence persists in a form of the scaling combination $`y=2\delta x`$, i.e. $`(x,\lambda )\stackrel{~}{F}(2\delta x)`$. This implies that the relevant values of parameters are $`2/\tau x\delta ^11`$. The latter condition immediately results in the formula $`F(x)4\delta \stackrel{~}{F}(y)/y`$, and also converts the Legendre operator $`\widehat{𝐋}`$ to $`\widehat{𝐋}_y=\frac{d}{dy}y^2\frac{d}{dy}`$. Let us note that the emerging PNR distribution yields, in fact, the distribution of the Wigner delay time via the relation $`\tau _W=2\pi \rho \xi /y`$.

The expression for the function $`\stackrel{~}{F}(y)`$ is known explicitly: $`\stackrel{~}{F}(y)=\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mathrm{}}(y)+\stackrel{~}{F}_t(y)`$, where

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_t(y)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}y^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dkk}{1+k^2}}\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi k}{2}}K_{ik}\left(2y^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)e^{t(k^2+1)/4}`$ (19)
and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mathrm{}}(y)=2y^{\frac{1}{2}}K_1\left(2y^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)`$, with $`K_\nu (u)`$ standing for the Macdonald function.

For the case of very short $`(t1)`$ sample the function $`\stackrel{~}{F}(y)`$ is known to be approximated by $`\mathrm{exp}(ty)`$. A simple calculation then yields the distribution $`𝒫(\tau )=\left[(4t\delta )^2/\tau ^3\right]\mathrm{exp}\left\{4t\delta /\tau \right\}`$. Realising that $`2t\delta \eta `$ we see that the distribution coincides with the weak absorption limit of Eq.(11). As expected, the same distribution follows from that of the Wigner delay time.

In the opposite limit of very long samples $`t\mathrm{}`$ only first term survives, and by noticing that $`\widehat{𝐋}_y\left[\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mathrm{}}(y)/y\right]=\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mathrm{}}(y)`$, we find the corresponding PNR distribution:

$$𝒫(\tau )=\frac{16}{\delta }\left(\frac{\delta }{\tau }\right)^{5/2}K_1\left(4\sqrt{\delta /\tau }\right).$$
(20)
Although the typical value of $`\tau `$ is of the order of $`\delta `$, the moments $`\tau ^m`$ do not exist for $`m1`$ because of the powerlaw tail $`𝒫(\tau \delta )\tau ^2`$. A similar tail was found in the distribution of the total reflection coefficient from multichannel long disordered 1D sample in , and is also typical for the Wigner delay time distribution in purely 1D system. Negative moments of $`\tau `$ are equal to $`\tau ^k=(4\delta )^kk!(k+1)!`$. Note that they differ from the corresponding moments in purely 1D system by extra factorial factor $`(k+1)!`$, reminiscent of similar relations between other quantities in $`1D`$ and quasi $`1D`$ .

Finally, in the case of strong absorption $`\delta 1`$ in a long wire $`t\mathrm{}`$ the function $`(x,\lambda )=\mathrm{exp}\{\sqrt{\delta }(x\lambda )\}`$ and the resulting distribution $`𝒫(\tau )`$ coincides with that given by Eq.(11), with $`\eta `$ replaced by $`\sqrt{\delta }`$.

III. Behaviour at the Anderson transition.

Lets us shortly discuss a possible qualitative behaviour of the PNR $`\tau `$ in a scattering system formed by a single perfect channel attached to a $`d`$ dimensional disordered sample at the vicinity of the point of the Anderson delocalisation transition $`\alpha _c`$ (the mobility edge). Here we denote by $`\alpha `$ an effective parameter which controls the transition in the infinite sample, with states being localised (extended) for $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$ (respectively, $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$).

Our arguments are based on a picture of the transition as described in terms of a functional order parameter developed in detail in , see also earlier results in and . For a sample of finite size $`L`$ the PNR is a function of three parameters: $`ϵ,L,\alpha `$. According to the suggested scenario, the behaviour of the function $`(x,\lambda )`$ in the insulating phase in the weak absorption limit $`\delta ϵ\xi ^d0`$ is expected to be reminiscent of that described above for the one-dimensional case, i.e. $`(x,\lambda )\stackrel{~}{F}(2\delta x)`$, and the function $`\stackrel{~}{F}(y)`$ decays to zero for $`y1`$. Then it is natural to expect that all negative PNR moments in the infinite volume limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ are to scale as $`\tau ^kϵ^k\xi ^{dk}`$, where $`\xi `$ is the localisation length diverging in the vicinity of the mobility edge.

In contrast, in the delocalized phase the function $`(x,\lambda )`$ is expected to remain a non-trivial function of both $`x`$ and $`\lambda `$ even when $`ϵ0`$, provided the latter limit is taken after the infinite volume limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. This should immediately result in a finite-width distribution $`𝒫(\tau )`$ of the PNR. From this point of view the Anderson transition acquires a natural interpretation as the phenomenon of spontaneous breakdown of S-matrix unitarity. As long as $`\alpha \alpha _c`$, the widths of the distribution and properly defined (negative) PNR moments should vanish, with some set of critical exponents.

If, however, we take limit $`ϵ0`$ first, then for $`\alpha <\alpha _c`$ PNR in large but finite sample should scale with the system size $`L`$ as $`\tau ^kC(\alpha )ϵ^kL^{dk}`$, where $`C(\alpha )`$ is expected to diverge when $`\alpha \alpha _c`$. In some sense the behaviour of the negative moments of the Wigner delay time defined as $`\tau _W=lim_{ϵ0}\tau (ϵ,L,\alpha )/2ϵ`$ is reminiscent of that for the inverse participation ratio. This analogy suggests a possibility for anomalous scaling $`\tau _W^kL^{dr_k}`$ with $`r_kk`$ at the mobility edge $`\alpha =\alpha _c`$, which would then reflect the underlying multifractality of the wavefunctions.

It will be very interesting to perform a detailed numerical analysis of PNR and Wigner delay times for realistic and well-controlled models of scattering from disordered systems, e.g. quantum graphs or models used in  and to verify the suggested picture qualitatively and quantitatively in various regimes. The statistics of PNR should be also of experimental accessibility in microwave resonators type of experiments, see e.g  and references therein.

The author is obliged to Y.Imry and U.Kuhl for useful discussions and to T. Kottos, A.Mirlin and D.Savin for valuable comments. Financial support by Brunel University VC grant is gratefully acknowledged.