# Coulomb Charging Effects for Finite Channel Number

## Abstract

We consider quantum fluctuations of the charge on a small metallic grain caused by virtual electron tunneling to a nearby electrode. The average electron number and the effective charging energy are determined by means of perturbation theory in the tunneling Hamiltonian. In particular we discuss the dependence of charging effects on the number $`N`$ of tunneling channels. Earlier results for $`N1`$ are found to be approached rather rapidly with increasing $`N`$.

Single electron effects are well studied for metallic junctions in the region of weak tunneling . In the case of a large tunneling conductance $`G_T`$ comparable or even larger than the conductance quantum $`G_K=e^2/h`$, it is necessary to go beyond lowest order perturbation theory in the tunneling Hamiltonian  \- . In this case the theory involves contributions of order $`1/N`$ where $`N`$ is the number of transport channels. Since the junction area is typically much larger than $`\lambda _F^2`$, where $`\lambda _F`$ is the Fermi wavelength, the number of tunneling channels $`N`$ is often very large for metallic junctions, typically about $`10^4`$. Terms of order $`1/N`$ are thus dropped in most former approaches. In contrast to lithographically fabricated metallic junctions, in break junctions  only a small number of channels may be available and terms proportional to $`1/N`$ cannot be neglected. Also for tunnel barriers  in a two-dimensional electron gas there are typically only $`2`$ spin degenerate transport channels contributing to the tunneling current. Thus, it is interesting to investigate how Coulomb blockade effects are modified by such $`1/N`$ corrections. Here we focus on systems where the dimensionless conductance per channel, $`g_0=G_T/4\pi ^2NG_K`$, remains small, that is to cases where the channels contributing to charge transfer are weakly transmitting. Further we restrict ourselves to the zero temperature case. This covers only partly the range of experimental interest but the results indicate how relevant $`1/N`$ corrections are.

Specifically, we consider a small metallic grain in between two bulk electrodes biased by a voltage source $`U_{\mathrm{ex}}`$. The circuit diagram of the system is depicted in Fig. 1a). Between the grain and the left bulk electrode electrons can tunnel while the right electrode couples purely capacitively. Thus no dc-current flows through the system. Due to the discreteness of the tunneling process, the excess charge of the grain can be shifted only by multiples of the elementary charge $`e`$, and we introduce an excess charge number $`n`$ which characterizes the island charge $`q=ne`$. As far as the tunneling conductance per channel is small compared to the conductance quantum $`G_K`$, electron tunneling can be described in terms of a tunneling Hamiltonian which will be treated as a perturbation. The unperturbed Hamiltonian for the Fermi liquids and the Coulomb energy reads

$$H_0=E_c(nn_{\mathrm{ex}})^2+\underset{k\sigma }{}ϵ_{k\sigma }a_{k\sigma }^{}a_{k\sigma }+\underset{q\sigma }{}ϵ_{q\sigma }a_{q\sigma }^{}a_{q\sigma },$$
(1)   
where $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}=C_GU_{\mathrm{ex}}/e`$ is a dimensionless voltage and

$$E_c=\frac{e^2}{2(C_T+C_G)}$$
(2)   
is the charging energy needed to transfer one electron to the uncharged island at $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}=0`$. $`ϵ_{k\sigma }`$ and $`ϵ_{q\sigma }`$ are one-particle-energies for channel index $`\sigma `$ and longitudinal quantum number $`k`$ and $`q`$, respectively. The operator $`a_{k\sigma }^{}`$ ($`a_{k\sigma }`$) describes creation (annihilation) of a quasiparticle with quantum numbers $`k\sigma `$, and $`a_{q\sigma }^{}`$, $`a_{q\sigma }`$ are defined likewise. With these operators the tunneling Hamiltonian may be written as

$$H_T=\underset{kq\sigma }{}\left(t_\sigma a_{k\sigma }^{}a_{q\sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }+\text{h.c.}\right)$$
(3)   
where $`t_\sigma `$ is the tunneling matrix element and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ shifts the island charge number $`n`$ thereby changing the Coulomb energy.

At zero temperature the system is described by the ground state energy $``$ and in view of eq. $`(\text{1})`$ the expectation value of the island charge may be written

$$n=n_{\mathrm{ex}}\frac{1}{2E_c}\frac{}{n_{\mathrm{ex}}}.$$
(4)   
To calculate $``$ we make use of Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory. The perturbation $`(\text{3})`$ contains products of one creation and one annihilation operator, thus only even powers in $`t_\sigma `$ contribute to $``$, and it may be written

$$=^{(0)}+^{(2)}+^{(4)}+𝒪(t_\sigma ^6).$$
(5)   
The zeroth order term $`^{(0)}`$ without tunneling is given by the minimum of the electrostatic energy and reads $`E_c(n_0n_{\mathrm{ex}})^2`$ where $`n_0`$ is the integer closest to $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}`$. Hence, the averaged island charge in zeroth order perturbation theory is given by the well known Coulomb staircase. $``$ depends on $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ only via the electrostatic energy. It is thus an antisymmetric and quasiperiodic function of $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ which allows us to confine ourselves to $`0n_{\mathrm{ex}}<{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$. For the second order term we get formally

$$^{(2)}=0|H_TQH_T|0$$
(6)   
with the auxiliary operator

$$Q=\frac{1|00|}{_0H_0}.$$
(7)   
In the same way the fourth order term reads

$$^{(4)}=0|H_TQH_TQH_TQH_T|00|H_TQ^2H_T|00|H_TQH_T|0$$
(8)   
where terms with the energy denominator squared arise from the normalization of the ground state wave function. Inserting the tunneling Hamiltonian $`(\text{3})`$ into the second order contribution $`(\text{6})`$ one gets

$$^{(2)}=\underset{kq\sigma }{}t_\sigma ^2\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵ_{q\sigma })\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵ_{k\sigma })}{\delta E_1+ϵ_{k\sigma }ϵ_{q\sigma }}+\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵ_{q\sigma })\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵ_{k\sigma })}{\delta E_1ϵ_{k\sigma }+ϵ_{q\sigma }}\right]$$
(9)   
with the Coulomb energy differences $`\delta E_n=E_c(n^22nn_{\mathrm{ex}})`$. Both summands correspond to the virtual creation of an electron-hole pair with electron and hole sitting on different electrodes, cf. Fig. 1b). This can be represented in terms of Goldstone graphs depicted in Fig. 2. The contributions of second order correspond to the diagrams in Fig. 2a) where the upper arc with an arrow to the right (left) electrode represents the creation of an electron-hole pair with the electron sitting on the right (left) and the hole sitting on the other electrode of the junction. The lower arc destroys this pair and we may omit the arrow since the process is uniquely determined by the upper one.

If we assume that the one particle energy is separable into a longitudinal and channel part, the summand in eq. $`(\text{9})`$ is independent of the channel $`\sigma `$ apart from the factor $`t_\sigma ^2`$. The sum over the transversal and spin quantum numbers leads to an overall factor $`N`$ multiplied by the average $`t^2=_\sigma t_\sigma ^2/N`$ of the tunneling matrix elements. We assume the bandwidth $`D`$ to be large compared to $`E_c`$ and take the limit $`D/E_c\mathrm{}`$ at the end of the calculation. To keep the finite bandwidth in intermediate formulas, we introduce an exponential cutoff and replace the sum over the longitudinal quantum numbers by

$$\underset{k}{}F(ϵ_{k\sigma })\rho _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dϵe^{|ϵ|/D}F(ϵ)$$
(10)   
where $`\rho `$ is the density of states at the Fermi level. Analogously, we introduce an integral with $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`D`$ for the $`q`$ sum. Formula $`(\text{9})`$ then takes the form

$$^{(2)}=t^2\rho \rho ^{}N_0^{\mathrm{}}dϵϵe^{|ϵ|/D}\left(\frac{1}{\delta E_1+ϵ}+\frac{1}{\delta E_1+ϵ}\right).$$
(11)   
We now define the dimensionless tunneling conductance per channel by $`g_0=t^2\rho \rho ^{}`$. Whereas the integral $`(\text{11})`$ is divergent for $`D\mathrm{}`$, the average island charge to first order in $`g_0`$ remains finite leading to

$$n=g_0N\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+2n_{\mathrm{ex}}}{12n_{\mathrm{ex}}}\right)+𝒪(g^2)$$
(12)   
in accordance with previous results .

Along these lines the fourth order term $`(\text{8})`$ is given in terms of double sums over $`kq\sigma `$. These contributions can also be represented graphically as twofold virtual electron-hole pair creation and annihilation. We distinguish three groups of graphs depicted in Figs. 2b), c) and d). The first set of the graphs represents virtual electron hole pair creation and annihilation in two distinct channels $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ which are only coupled by the energy denominator. Fig. 2c) represents graphs arising from the normalization of the wave function where the dash signs that the energy denominator is squared, cf. eq. $`(\text{8})`$. If there were no Coulomb interaction, i.e. $`E_c=0`$, the graphs b) and c) would cancel in accordance with the linked cluster theorem for uncorrelated fermions. Here we have to take these terms into account since the Coulomb energy correlates the electrons in the two electrodes. The channels of the graphs in b) and c) are not restricted and we get by summation over the transversal quantum numbers a factor $`N^2`$. On the other hand, the graphs in Fig 2d) describe processes within one channel because the electron created recombines not with the hole created at the same time but with a different one which has to have the same channel number. Thus we get by summation over the channels only a factor $`N`$. Therefore, we write the average island charge in the form

$$n=g_0N\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+2n_{\mathrm{ex}}}{12n_{\mathrm{ex}}}\right)+(g_0N)^2[c(n_{\mathrm{ex}})c(n_{\mathrm{ex}})]+g_0^2N[d(n_{\mathrm{ex}})d(n_{\mathrm{ex}})]+𝒪(g_0^3).$$
(13)   
Previous theories for $`N1`$ introduce the dimensionless conductance $`g=g_0N`$ of the junction and the terms proportional to $`g_0^2N=g/N`$ are dropped.

The graphs in Fig. 2 b) and c) do not include $`1/N`$-corrections and they lead to the known second order result for the island charge 

$`c(u)`$ $`=`$ $`u\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{3}}+\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{12u}{1+2u}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{16(1+2u2u^2)}{(32u)(1+2u)}}\mathrm{ln}(12u)`$ (15)   
$`2(1u)\left\{\mathrm{ln}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{12u}{4(1u)}}\right]+2\text{Li}_2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{32u}{4(1u)}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{8(1u)}{(12u)(32u)}}\mathrm{ln}[4(1u)]\right\}.`$   
The graphs in Fig. 2 d) can also be integrated out analytically leading to a new contribution of order $`1/N`$. We find

$`d(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{44u}{12u}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{26}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^3(12u)+15\mathrm{ln}^3(32u)`$ (20)   
$`+[15\mathrm{ln}(2)+16\mathrm{ln}(44u)]\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{12u}{32u}}\right)+[2\mathrm{ln}(1+2u)7\mathrm{ln}(32u)]\mathrm{ln}^2(12u)`$   
$`+\left[10\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{44u}{12u}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{10\pi ^2}{3}}+38\mathrm{ln}^2(32u)\right]\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{12u}{32u}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{32u}{44u}}\right)`$   
$`+4\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{12u}{32u}}\right)\left\{3\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{12u}{32u}}\right)+3\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{32u}{44u}}\right)+2\mathrm{Li}_2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8(1u)}{(32u)^2}}\right]\right\}`$   
$`+6\mathrm{Li}_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{12u}{32u}}\right)8\mathrm{Li}_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{32u}{44u}}\right)8\mathrm{Li}_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{12u}{44u}}\right)`$   
where $`\mathrm{Li}_2(z)`$ is the dilogarithm and $`\mathrm{Li}_3(z)`$ the trilogarithm function . Within second order perturbation theory the result (13) is valid for arbitrary channel numbers including $`N=1`$.

We now compare our result to earlier findings. One of the mostly frequently discussed quantities is the effective charging energy  $`E_c^{}`$ characterizing the effective strength of the Coulomb blockade effect. This quantity is defined by

$$E_c^{}/E_c=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{n_{\mathrm{ex}}^2}|_{n_{\mathrm{ex}}=0}.$$
(21)   
For small tunneling conductance, $`g_00`$, the effective charging energy approaches the bare charging energy $`E_c`$ whereas for strong electron tunneling $`E_c^{}`$ vanishes. Our analytic expression leads to

$$E_c^{}/E_c=14g+5.066\mathrm{}g^27.167\mathrm{}g^2/N$$
(22)   
where the constants are analytically known but too lengthy to present here. In Fig. 3 we show the normalized effective charging energy in first and second order perturbation theory without $`1/N`$ corrections compared to the complete second order result as a function of the dimensionless conductance $`G_T/G_K`$. We see that the $`1/N`$ corrections become more significant for larger tunneling conductance.

In Fig. 4 the average island charge $`n`$ in first and second order in $`g_0`$ with and without the $`1/N`$ corrections is depicted for the case $`N=5`$ and $`G_T/G_K=5`$. We see that the $`1/N`$ corrections become significant especially for larger external voltages. From a comparison with Monte Carlo data  one estimates that results of second order perturbation theory are reliable for $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ up to $`0.3`$. In the vicinity of the step, i.e., for $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$, finite order perturbation theory diverges and one has to sum diagrams of all order . From our eq$`(\text{20})`$ one sees that the $`1/N`$-corrections become relevant near $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ even for large $`N`$ since the qualitative behavior is changed. For $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$, the leading $`N`$ terms of second order show the logarithmic divergence  $`2(g_0N)^2\mathrm{ln}^2\delta `$ where $`\delta ={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{\mathrm{ex}}`$, whereas the $`1/N`$ corrections lead to $`\frac{4}{3}g_0^2N\mathrm{ln}^3\delta `$ which eventually dominates the asymptotic behavior. For the special case $`N=1`$, this divergence is in accordance with earlier findings by Matveev . In general, for the finite $`N`$ corrections of order $`g_0^k`$ we get the leading asymptotic behavior

$$ng_0^kN\mathrm{ln}^{2k1}\delta +𝒪(g^{k+1})$$
(23)   
arising from the diagram depicted in Fig. 5. These terms dominate the asymptotics for $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$, even for large $`N`$.

In summary, we have studied the influence of finite channel numbers on the Coulomb staircase. We found that for small voltages, $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}0`$, the $`1/N`$ corrections are significant up to $`N6`$ and become increasingly important as $`n_{\mathrm{ex}}={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ is approached. While near the step finite order perturbative results as derived here are not sufficient, the expression obtained for the effective charging energy is valid within an experimentally relevant range of parameters.

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Bonn) and the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD).