# Two-scale localization in disordered wires in a magnetic field.

## Abstract

Calculating the density-density correlation function for disordered wires, we study localization properties of wave functions in a magnetic field. The supersymmetry technique combined with the transfer matrix method is used. It is demonstrated that at arbitrarily weak magnetic field the far tail of the wave functions decays with the length $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}=2L_{\mathrm{co}}`$, where $`L_{\mathrm{co}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}`$ are the localization lengths in the absence of a magnetic field and in a strong magnetic field, respectively. At shorter distances, the decay of the wave functions is characterized by the length $`L_{\mathrm{co}}`$. Increasing the magnetic field broadens the region of the decay with the length $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}`$, leading finally to the decay with $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}`$ at all distances. In other words, the crossover between the orthogonal and unitary ensembles in disordered wires is characterized by two localization lengths. This peculiar behavior must result in two different temperature regimes in the hopping conductivity with the boundary between them depending on the magnetic field.

Disordered systems have been under intensive study for several decades but only recently strong localization at moderate disorder in 1D wires has become the subject of a systematic experimental investigation . The authors of Ref. studied electron transport in submicrometer-wide wires fabricated from Si $`\delta `$-doped GaAs. A large number of the wires were connected in parallel and the conductivity of the entire system was measured as a function of temperature $`T`$ and magnetic field $`H`$ applied perpendicular to the wires. The activation temperature dependence observed allowed to demonstrate the exponential localization and extract the dependence of the localization length $`L_c`$ on the magnetic field. It was found that in a strong magnetic field the localization length is twice as large as in the absence of the magnetic field.

Localization due to quantum interference is a fundamental property of disordered one-dimensional (1D) systems. Mott and Twose  predicted that at arbitrary weak disorder all states of a disordered chain had to become localized, which has been proven later . Thouless  realized that all wave functions had to be localized also in thick wires. Such wires are more interesting because electrons can diffuse at distances exceeding the mean free path $`l`$ but get localized on the localization length $`L_\mathrm{c}=l\left(p_0^2S\right)`$, where $`p_0`$ is the Fermi-momentum and $`S`$ is the cross-section of the wire. Explicit calculations confirmed this picture for thick wires  as well as for systems of coupled chains . In contrast to the chains, the electron motion in thick wires is sensitive to an external magnetic field. A remarkable effect, namely, doubling of the localization length when applying a strong magnetic field $`H`$ was predicted for such systems . It is this doubling that has been observed in Ref.. Different aspects of the localization in wires as well as connections to random matrix theories were discussed later.

Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to the crossover between the limits of zero and strong magnetic fields $`H`$ (between the orthogonal and unitary ensembles). Study of this crossover is important, however, because the localization length can be measured experimentally. Except for an interpolation formula for the localization length suggested in Ref.  and a numerical study of Ref. , practically no attempt has been made to describe the crossover. Apparently, the absence of attention has been due to a common belief that the crossover is simple and the only thing that can happen is that the localization length changes smoothly between its value $`L_{\mathrm{co}}`$ at zero field and $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}=2L_{\mathrm{co}}`$ at a strong magnetic field. Such a scenario was used, for example, by the authors of Ref.  in their attempt to fit the data on the interpolation curve of Ref. , suggested basically to describe the smooth change of the localization length.

In this Letter we present results of an analytical study of a correlation function describing the decay of wave functions in disordered quantum wires. In contrast to the one-scale picture, the behavior of the wave functions at finite magnetic fields turns out to be more complicated. The most striking picture of this decay is that, even at very weak magnetic fields, the far tail of the wave functions falls off with the length $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}`$, whereas at smaller distances the decay is governed by the length $`L_{\mathrm{co}}`$. The larger length $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}`$ does not depend on the strength of the magnetic field. Increasing the magnetic field results in a broadening of the asymptotic region until the entire wave function starts decaying with the length $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}`$.

The behavior of localized wave functions can be well described by the correlation function $`p_{\mathrm{}}\left(r\right)`$

$$p_{\mathrm{}}\left(r\right)=\underset{\alpha }{}\left|\psi _\alpha \left(0\right)\right|^2\left|\psi _\alpha \left(r\right)\right|^2\delta \left(\epsilon \epsilon _\alpha \right),$$
(1)   
where $`\psi _\alpha \left(r\right)`$ and $`\epsilon _\alpha `$ are the eigenfunction and eigenenergy of a state $`\alpha `$, $`r>0`$ is the coordinate along the wire, and the angle brackets stay for averaging over disorder.

The function $`p_{\mathrm{}}\left(r\right)`$ is important not only for a theoretical description of localized wave functions but it also determines directly the hopping conductivity at low temperature. According to results obtained quite long ago , the hopping conductivity of one-dimensional chains and wires is described by a simple formula

$$\sigma =\sigma _0\mathrm{exp}\left(T_0/T\right)\text{}T_0\left(\nu _1L_\mathrm{c}\right)^1\text{}\nu _1=\nu S,$$
(2)   
where $`\nu `$ is the density of states, $`\nu _1`$ is the one-dimensional density of states, $`S`$ is the cross-section of the wire and $`L_\mathrm{c}`$ is a localization length that can be extracted from the function $`p_{\mathrm{}}\left(r\right)`$, Eq. (1). The pre-factor $`\sigma _0`$ depends on parameters of the model. Remarkably, even the Coulomb interaction does not change the temperature dependence, Eq. (2), entering $`\sigma _0`$ only . Equation (2) was used in Ref.  for extracting the localization length from the temperature dependence of the conductivity.

The correlation function $`p_{\mathrm{}}\left(r\right)`$ can be found using the supersymmetry technique . Let us first discuss the final result in a weak field which reads 

$`p_{\mathrm{}}(r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi }L_{\mathrm{co}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4L_{\mathrm{co}}}{r}}\right)^{3/2}`$ (3)   
$`\times \left[\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{4L_{\mathrm{co}}}}\right)+\alpha X^2\mathrm{ln}^2X\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{4L_{\mathrm{cu}}}}\right)\right]`$ (4)   
where $`L_{\mathrm{co}}=\pi \nu _1D_0`$ is the localization length for the orthogonal ensemble, $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}=2L_{\mathrm{co}}`$ is the localization length for the unitary ensemble, $`D_0`$ is the classical diffusion coefficient, and $`\alpha `$ is a positive constant of order unity. The parameter $`X=2\pi \varphi /\varphi _0`$ describes the crossover between the orthogonal and unitary ensemble, $`\varphi _0=hc/e`$ is the flux quantum, and $`\varphi =2HL_{\mathrm{co}}y^2_{\mathrm{sec}}^{1/2}`$ is a characteristic magnetic flux through an area limited by the localization length. The coordinate $`y`$ is perpendicular to the direction of the wire and the magnetic field. The symbol $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{sec}}`$ stands for the averaging across the wire. For the “flat” wires made on the basis of a 2D gas as in Ref. , one has $`y^2^{1/2}=d/\sqrt{12}`$, where $`d`$ is the width of the wire. For wires with a circular cross-section $`y^2^{1/2}=d/4`$, where $`d`$ is the diameter. Equation (4) is written in the limit $`X1`$ and $`rL_{\mathrm{co}}`$. At $`X=0,`$ Eq. (4) reduces to the well known result for the wire without a magnetic field . At small but finite $`X1`$, the second term in Eq. (4) is small for not very large $`r`$ but in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$ it is always larger than the first one.

Equation (4) shows that a weak magnetic field changes drastically the tail of wave functions leaving their main body almost unchanged. Even if there is a correction to the localization length $`L_{\mathrm{co}}`$, the second term in Eq. (4) is more important in the limit of large $`r`$. In other words, the characteristic behavior of wave functions at distances $`rr_X`$ is described by formulae of the orthogonal ensemble, while the tail $`rr_X`$ corresponds to the unitary one. Comparing the first and the second term in Eq. (4) one estimates the characteristic distance $`r_X`$

$$r_XL_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{ln}X.$$
(5)   
The fact that any weak magnetic field changes the tail of the wave function looks quite natural because regions where the amplitude of the wave function is very small must be very sensitive to external perturbations. The localization of the wave functions is a result of multiple interference of waves scattered by impurities. The tails are formed by a coherent propagation of waves along very long paths, which makes the influence of any weak magnetic field on the interference extremely important. The separation into the “orthogonal” and “unitary” parts loses its sense at $`X1`$ corresponding to characteristic magnetic fields determining the crossover between the orthogonal and unitary ensembles.

Analogous changing of the asymptotic behavior in a magnetic field occurs in 0D (see, e.g.). The level-level correlation function for the orthogonal ensemble is proportional to the energy $`\omega `$ in the limit $`\omega 0`$ but any weak magnetic field changes this behavior to an $`\omega ^2`$ -dependence, which is characteristic for the unitary ensemble. Of course, the region of the $`\omega ^2`$\- dependence is very narrow at weak magnetic fields.

The factor $`X^2\mathrm{ln}^2X`$ in Eq. (4) is proportional to the square of the flux through a segment of the wire limited by $`r_X,`$ Eq. (5) and resembles the Mott law  for the ac conductivity, $`\sigma (\omega )\omega ^2\mathrm{ln}^2\omega `$. Using the standard perturbation theory one can understand that $`r_X`$ is the length at which the magnetic field considerably changes correlations and so, its presence in Eq. (8) is natural.

The final result, Eq. (4), is essentially non-perturbative and its derivation is not simple. Let us present now the scheme of the computation.

The correlation function $`p_{\mathrm{}}\left(r\right)`$ is extracted from the low-frequency limit of the density-density correlation function which, in its turn, is presented as a functional integral over $`8\times 8`$ supermatrices $`Q`$ 

$$p_{\mathrm{}}\left(r\right)=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\left(i\omega Y_\omega \left(r\right)\right)$$
(6)   
$`Y_\omega \left(r\right)=2\pi ^2\nu ^2{\displaystyle Q_{24}^{12}\left(0\right)Q_{42}^{21}\left(r\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(F\left[Q\right]\right)DQ}`$where $`Q_{42}^{12}`$ and $`Q_{24}^{21}`$ are the matrix elements of supermatrices $`Q`$. The free energy functional $`F\left[Q\right]`$ is written in 1D in the presence of a magnetic field as

$$F[Q]=\frac{\pi \nu _1}{8}\mathrm{Str}\left[D_0\left(Q(x)\right)^2+2i\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }Q(x)\right]dx.$$
(7)   
In equation (7), we introduced the operator $`Q=_xQ(ie/\mathrm{}c)𝐀[Q,\tau _3],`$ the coordinate $`x`$ is chosen along the wire, and the standard notations for the supertrace $`\mathrm{Str}`$ and matrices $`\tau _3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are used . Choosing the gauge $`𝐀=(Hy,0,0)`$ and using the notations introduced below Eq. (4) one rewrites the functional $`F`$ as

$$F\left[Q\right]=F\left[Q\right]_{H=0}+X^2\left(32L_{\mathrm{co}}\right)^1\mathrm{Str}[Q,\tau _3]^2dx.$$
(8)   
Calculation of the one-dimensional functional integral in Eq. (6) is performed using the transfer matrix technique. The Fourier transform of the correlator $`Y_\omega `$ is written as the integral 

$$Y_\omega \left(k\right)=2\pi ^2\nu _1\nu \mathrm{\Psi }Q_{24}^{12}(P_{k42}+P_{k42})dQ$$
(9)   
of the product of the scalar and the matrix functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(Q)`$ and $`P(Q)`$, representing the partition functions of the segments $`x<0`$ and $`x>0`$, respectively. Due to the supersymmetry one has $`\mathrm{\Psi }(Q)dQ=1`$.

Discretizing the wire and using Eqs. (7, 8) one derives recurrence relations for the functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`P`$ on neighboring sites. In the continuum limit, these relations yield effective “Schrödinger equations.” The corresponding Hamiltonian contains the Laplacian $`\mathrm{}_Q`$ acting in the space of matrix elements . The functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`P`$ have the symmetry of the states with the zero and the first “angular momentum,” respectively. In a schematic form, one has

$`\left[\mathrm{}_{0Q}+X^2(\lambda _{1c}^2\lambda _c^2)\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{Str}(\mathrm{\Lambda }Q)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (10)   
$`\left[2ikL_{\mathrm{co}}\mathrm{}_{1Q}+X^2(\lambda _{1c}^2\lambda _c^2)\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{Str}(\mathrm{\Lambda }Q)\right]P_k`$ $`=`$ $`Q\mathrm{\Psi },`$ (11)   
where $`\mathrm{}_{0Q}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{1Q}`$ are the projections of the Laplacian $`\mathrm{}_Q`$ on the states with the zero and first angular momentum, and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=i\omega L_{\mathrm{co}}^2/2D_0`$.

Equations (9, 10) solving the problem are rather general. A certain parametrization of $`Q`$-matrices should be chosen to perform explicit calculations. As soon as $`H0`$, the standard parametrization used in Refs.  is not convenient, so that we use the “magnetic parametrization” of Refs.  constructed for studying the crossover between the orthogonal and unitary ensembles in 0D. However, even this parametrization, when applied to Eqs. (10) leads to extremely complicated partial differential equations.

Instead of trying to solve these equations exactly, we concentrate on a study of the limit of weak magnetic fields. The localization length is determined by the poles of the function $`P`$ in the $`k`$-plane  in the region of “free motion”, faraway from the “barrier” given by the last term in Eq. (10). The position of the poles $`k_n`$ are determined by the equation $`_n(k_n)=0`$, where $`_n(k)`$ are eigenvalues of the operator entering the LHS of Eq. (10) corresponding to the eigenfunctions $`\phi _n(Q)`$. According to the general procedure developed in Ref. , one has no need to consider solutions at arbitrary $`\omega `$. Although the dependence on $`\omega `$ is necessary for computing different matrix elements, the poles can be found just by putting $`\omega =0`$. This is natural because the localization properties are determined for finite samples at $`\omega =0`$ . Even then, we cannot find all solutions $`P_k\left(Q\right)`$ and corresponding poles $`k`$. However, in order to determine the function $`Y_\omega \left(r\right)`$ at large distances, we need only one state with the smallest non-zero $`k_0\left(X\right)`$. At zero magnetic field, such a state $`\phi _0\left(Q\right)`$ is well known  to have a pole at $`k_0\left(0\right)=\pm i\left(4L_{\mathrm{co}}\right)`$ <sup>-1</sup>. This corresponds to the first term in Eq. (4). As soon as one applies a weak magnetic field, the state is distorted. This effect is not crucial: We find no corrections in the lowest order either to the localization length or to the pre-exponential.

The main result of the present work, namely, the second term in Eq. (4), can be obtained without complicated calculations. It turns out that, at arbitrarily weak magnetic field, an additional state $`\phi _1\left(Q\right)`$ with a smaller value $`k_1=\pm i\left(8L_{\mathrm{co}}\right)^1`$ appears. It is this state that determines the behavior of $`p_{\mathrm{}}\left(r\right)`$ in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$. Remarkably, the value $`k_1`$ does not depend on the magnetic field even in the limit $`X\mathrm{}`$, when the state $`\phi _1`$ gives the main contribution at all distances.

The origin of the states, $`\phi _0`$ and $`\phi _1`$, is apparent. An essential feature of the magnetic parametrization is a finite contribution arising due to the singularity of the Jacobian at $`\lambda _{1c}`$, $`\lambda _c1`$, where $`\lambda _{1c}`$ and $`\lambda _c`$ are “eigenvalues” corresponding to the cooperon degrees of freedom. This singularity is of the type $`\left(\lambda _{1c}\lambda _c\right)^2`$ and is usual in the supersymmetry technique. The procedure of regularization of the singularity has been developed for the 0D cases in Refs. . In the 1D case, the contribution from the singular term gives the correlator for the unitary ensemble (in the limit $`\lambda _{1c}`$, $`\lambda _c1`$ the cooperon degrees of freedom are frozen). In order to compensate this part at moderate fields, the regular contribution should contain both the solutions $`\phi _0`$ and $`\phi _1`$. At $`X0`$, the solution $`\phi _1`$ exactly compensates the singular term, so that the orthogonal part is given by $`\phi _0`$ only.

Having disregarded the term with the external frequency $`\omega `$, we arrive at a Hamiltonian with separated cooperon and diffuson variables. However, it is still too complicated since essential values of $`\lambda _c`$ and $`\lambda _{1c}`$ are such that $`\lambda _{1c}`$, $`\lambda _c1`$. This difficulty is avoided by considering the derivative over the magnetic field, $`Y_X^{}`$. For the quantity $`Y_X^{}`$, in contrast, large $`\lambda _{1c}`$ and $`\lambda _{1d}`$ become important, which substantially simplifies the “Hamiltonian”

$`=\lambda _{1d}^2_{\lambda _{1d}}^2\lambda _{1c}^2_{\lambda _{1c}}^2+2\lambda _{1c}_{\lambda _{1c}}+X^2\lambda _{1c}^2.`$

The solution $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decaying at $`\lambda _{1c}\mathrm{}`$ equals

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=(1+X\lambda _{1c})\mathrm{exp}(X\lambda _{1c}),$$
(12)   
and satisfies the boundary condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=1`$. The main contribution to the correlator $`Y_X^{}`$ comes from the region $`1\lambda _{1c}1/X`$ within logarithmic accuracy and the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, Eq. (12), takes the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }=1X^2\lambda _{1c}^2/2`$.

There are two terms in the expression for $`Y^{}dQQ_{24}^{12}(\mathrm{\Psi }_X^{}P+\mathrm{\Psi }P_X^{})`$, each of them having a different localization length. The function $`P`$ determined from

$$(\lambda _{1d}^2_{\lambda _{1d}}^2\lambda _{1c}^2_{\lambda _{1c}}^2+2\lambda _{1c}_{\lambda _{1c}}+2ikL_{\mathrm{co}})P=Q$$
(13)   
is given by $`P=\frac{1}{2}Q/(1+ikL_{\mathrm{co}})`$. This leads to a fast decaying contribution to the function $`Y`$. The main contribution at large distances comes from the function $`P_X^{}`$ satisfying the equation

$$(+2ikL_{\mathrm{co}})P_X^{}X\lambda _{1c}^2Q.$$
(14)   
Recalling that $`Q\lambda _{1c}\lambda _{1d}`$, we represent $`P_X^{}`$ in the form $`P_X^{}=XQ\lambda _{1c}^2f(\lambda _{1d})`$ and obtain

$$(\lambda _{1d}^2_{\lambda _{1d}}^22\lambda _{1d}_{\lambda _{1d}}+2ikL_{\mathrm{co}})f1.$$
(15)   
This expression is essentially the same as the one for the unitary ensemble, yielding the localization length $`L_{cu}`$. The pre-exponential of the correlator $`Y_X^{}`$ is most easily estimated for $`k=0`$ when $`f=\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{1d}`$. Estimating the derivative of Eq. (9)

$$Y_X^{}X^{1/X}d\lambda _{1c}^{1/\lambda _{1c}}d\lambda _{1d}\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{1d}X\mathrm{ln}^2X,$$
(16)   
we integrate the result over $`X`$ and use the fact that the correlator $`p_{\mathrm{}}(r)`$ at vanishing magnetic field must coincide with the one of the orthogonal ensemble. This leads us finally to Eq. (4).

It is relevant to note that in our analysis we considered the limit when $`\omega 0`$ but the magnetic field $`H`$ remains finite. In principle, this limit differs from the limit $`H=0`$, $`\omega 0`$ considered in Refs. . However, for the correlation function $`p_{\mathrm{}}\left(r\right)`$, Eq. (1), the limit $`H0`$ must give the same results as those obtained for $`H=0`$.

Although our analysis was performed for very large distances $`r`$, it allows us to believe that the entire range of fields between the orthogonal and unitary ensembles is governed by an interplay between the two localization lengths. On the other hand, one should keep in mind that Eq. (4) is not exact in the sense that it remains to be seen how the localization lengths and the pre-exponentials change at arbitrary $`X`$.

The localization length $`L_c`$ enters directly such a physical observable as the hopping conductivity . However, previous theories as well as the interpretation of the experiment of Ref.  assumed the presence of only one characteristic length. For the hopping conductivity in quasi-1D samples, the accounting for the two localization lengths can be performed using Eqs. (2, 5). It is not difficult to understand that the activation law, Eq. (2), with $`L_c=L_{\mathrm{co}}`$, holds for temperatures $`\left(\nu _1r_X\right)^1<T<\left(\nu _1L_c\right)^1`$. In this regime, the change of the asymptotic behavior of wave functions at very large distances is not essential. Nevertheless, the far asymptotics is extremely important for calculation of the conductivity at lower temperatures $`T<\left(\nu _1r_X\right)^1`$. Repeating arguments of Refs.  one comes to the conclusion that Eqs. (2) can be used also for the description of the latter regime provided the temperature $`T_0`$ is replaced by $`T_0/2`$. This means that, experimentally, decreasing temperature should lead to a crossover from the activation behavior, Eq. (2), to another activation behavior with the characteristic temperature $`T_0/2`$. Measurements at lower temperatures than those used in Ref.  might help to check our predictions.

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the far tail of the density-density correlator in disordered wires at arbitrary weak magnetic field decays with the localization length of the unitary ensemble $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}`$, which is double as large as the length $`L_{\mathrm{co}}`$ of the main part. This means that there is no one-scale crossover between the limits $`H=0`$ and $`H=\mathrm{}`$. An arbitrary weak magnetic field drastically changes the decay of wave functions: the initial decrease with the localization length $`L_{\mathrm{co}}`$ persists only up to the distances $`r_XL_c\mathrm{ln}X`$ but then it is followed by the decay with the length $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}`$. An increase of the magnetic field leads to a respective decrease of $`r_X`$ so that finally, at $`X1`$, wave functions decay everywhere with the length $`L_{\mathrm{cu}}`$. The behavior found can manifest itself in the hopping conductivity, which might be the simplest way to test our predictions experimentally.