36

I'm trying to understand the Kubo Formula for the electrical conductivity in the context of the Quantum Hall Effect.

My problem is that several papers, for instance the famous TKNN (1982) paper, or an elaboration by Kohmoto (1984), write the diagonal entries of the conductivity tensor in the form

$$ \sigma_{xy}(\omega \to 0) = \frac{ie^2}{\hbar} \sum_{E^a < E_F < E^b} \frac{\langle a|v_x|b \rangle \langle b|v_y|a \rangle - \langle a|v_y|b \rangle \langle b|v_x|a \rangle}{(E^a - E^b)^2} .$$

This is the static limit $\omega\to 0$ and low temperature $T\to 0$. The sum goes over all eigenstates $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$ of the single-particle Hamiltonian. $E_F$ is the Fermi energy. $v_x$ and $v_y$ are the single-particle velocity operators.

However, these papers don't derive this equation, which is unfortunate because the Kubo formula is usually not presented in this form. I have found (and succeeded in rederiving) the following variation instead

$$ \sigma_{xy}(\omega+i\eta) = \frac{-ie^2}{V(\omega + i\eta)} \sum_{a,b} f(E^a) \left( \frac{\langle a|v_x|b \rangle \langle b|v_y|a \rangle}{\hbar\omega + i\eta + E^a - E^b} + \frac{\langle a|v_y|b \rangle \langle b|v_x|a \rangle}{-\hbar\omega - i\eta + E^a - E^b} \right).$$

This is formula (13.37) from Ashcroft, Mermin, though they don't actually prove it. $f(E)$ is the Fermi distribution. A nice derivation is given in Czycholl (german).

Now, my question is, obviously

How to derive the first formula from the second?

I can see that the first equation arises as the linear term when writing the sum as a power series in $\omega$, but why doesn't the constant term diverge?

  • 1
    I'm not at all sure of this, but: I think the issue may be that the Hall conductivity is defined as an antisymmetrized component of the conductivity tensor, i.e. the quantity that the first formula applies to may actually be $\sigma_{xy} - \sigma_{yx}$. Does this sound plausible? – Matt Reece Dec 15 '10 at 06:45
  • I'm not sure, but a related observation is that the conductivity tensor should probably be antisymmetric in the first place. – Greg Graviton Dec 15 '10 at 08:49
  • 1
    That doesn't sound right to me; there should be ordinary (non-Hall) conductivities on the diagonal. – Matt Reece Dec 15 '10 at 15:03
  • I have no clue. Could you give an example of a material with diagonal conductivities? Or any general pointers on this stuff? After all, diagonal conductivities are strange because the current flows perpendicular to the applied electric field. – Greg Graviton Dec 15 '10 at 21:08
  • Found it! A slight variation of an argument by Czycholl can be used to show that the diverging term actually vanishes. I'll write it up soon. – Greg Graviton Jan 13 '11 at 10:58
  • Do you apply the kubo formula you derived above to the Numerical calculations together with the tight binding method? –  Dec 13 '11 at 02:51
  • Another source for this is Chakraborty's textbook on the Quantum Hall Effect in Appendix B. – PPR Oct 26 '14 at 23:13

2 Answers2

34

The first formula indeed follows from the second formula if we let $\omega\to0$. To see that, expand the fractions as

$$ \frac1{\pm\hbar\omega + E^a - E^b} = \frac1{E^a-E^b}\left(1 \mp \frac{\hbar\omega}{E^a-E^b}\right) + \mathcal O(\omega^2)$$

to obtain $\sigma_{xy} = \sigma^1 + \sigma^2$ as the sum of a potentially divergent term

$$ \sigma^1 = \frac{-ie^2}{V\omega} \sum_{a,b} f(E^a) \frac{\langle a|v_x|b \rangle \langle b|v_y|a \rangle + \langle a|v_y|b \rangle \langle b|v_x|a \rangle}{E^a - E^b} $$

and a term that looks like the first formula

$$ \sigma^2 = \frac{-ie^2\hbar}{V} \sum_{a,b} f(E^a) \frac{- \langle a|v_x|b \rangle \langle b|v_y|a \rangle + \langle a|v_y|b \rangle \langle b|v_x|a \rangle}{(E^a - E^b)^2} .$$


To see that the first term vanishes instead of diverging, we have to use the Heisenberg equation of motion $v_x = \frac{d}{dt}x = [H_0,x]$ which gives

$$ \langle a | v_x | b \rangle = \langle a | H_0 x - x H_0 | b \rangle = (E^a-E^b) \langle a | x | b \rangle $$

and thus

$$ \langle a|v_x|b \rangle \langle b|v_y|a \rangle + \langle a|v_y|b \rangle \langle b|v_x|a \rangle = (E^a-E^b) (\langle a|x|b \rangle \langle b|v_y|a \rangle - \langle a|v_y|b \rangle \langle b|x|a \rangle) .$$

The factors $(E^b-E^b)$ cancel and the remaining sum over $b$ becomes a sum over the identity $\sum_b |b\rangle\langle b| = 1$. Thus, we arrive at

$$ \sigma^1 = \frac{-ie^2}{V\omega} \sum_{a,b} f(E^a) \left(\langle a|xv_y - v_yx |a \rangle \right) = 0 .$$

since the commutator $[x,v_y]$ vanishes.


To see that the second term is correct, we have to get the summation indices right. To do that, we have to rearrange the summation to obtain

$$ \sigma^2 = \frac{ie^2\hbar}{V} \sum_{a,b} (f(E^a)-f(E^b))\frac{\langle a|v_x|b \rangle \langle b|v_y|a \rangle}{(E^a - E^b)^2} .$$

In the limit $T\to0$, the difference of Fermi-Dirac distributions $f(E^a)-f(E^b)$ will be equal to

  • $1$ if $E^a < E_F < E^b$
  • $-1$ if $E^b < E_F < E^a$
  • $0$ otherwise

Using this and rearranging the summation again gives the Kubo formula in the first form.

  • 1
    Hi, I think your proof of the vanishing of the first term is incorrect. For example, if we have a Fermi surface, then the first term is apparently non-zero--it is physically sensible for a conductivity to have 1/omega divergence in a metal. – Xu Yang May 07 '19 at 22:44
  • @XuYang Which term do you think is apparently non-zero? Note that this calculation applies only to the transverse conductivity, not the longitudinal conductivity, which may indeed diverge. – Greg Graviton May 09 '19 at 10:39
  • @GregGraviton For example, the anomalous Hall effect in a metal is non-zero. And in fact it can be captured by the Kubo formula, which turns out to be the first term you wrote down. – Xu Yang May 09 '19 at 20:25
  • 1
    See equation 1.12 in the following paper and the derivation thereafter : https://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.48.11705 In this paper it is actually shown that the first term only vanishes for an insulator, not for a metal. – Xu Yang May 09 '19 at 20:28
  • Above Eq. (2.12) of Tong's notes on the QHE, he states that the vanishing of the divergent term can be seen from gauge invariance / conservation of the current. Do you know how that'd be shown? – Dwagg May 14 '20 at 14:25
  • 1
    @Dwagg No idea. In fact, I don't buy it: A general argument based on gauge invariance would likely also apply to the longitudinal conductivity. But it is known that in a clean metal without disorder, the longitudinal conductivity is actually infinite in the limit $\omega\to 0$. Either the argument you mention contains another ingredient that makes it inapplicable to the longitudinal conductivity, or it's likely not valid. – Greg Graviton May 15 '20 at 15:39
  • There is no reason for the commutator $[x,v_y]~[x,[H,y]]$ to vanish. For instance if you have a term like $p^4$ in the Hamiltonian. It contains cross terms of the form $p_x^2 p_y^2$. Wouldn't $[x,[H,y]]$ be non zero in this case. Your proof seems to work only for systems with no such cross terms. – symanzik138 Feb 23 '21 at 04:41
  • 1
    @symanzik138 Oh my, that's a good point. In a tight-binding model, the Hamiltonian is a sum of exponentials of the form $\exp(ik_x n + ik_y m)$, and $v_x = ∂H/∂k_x$, so your argument stands. I need to think about this, the real reason is probably that the system is insulating, i.e. the distribution function $f(E^a)$ contains only full bands. – Greg Graviton Feb 24 '21 at 22:07
  • I have been trying to find the correct argument in the literature for a while. So far no success. I suspect that the in general the Hall resistance has to be defined as the anitsymmetric part of $\sigma_{xy}$. But the proof in appendix B of Tapash Chakraborty's review of QHE seems okay at a first glance. It uses a different starting point. So its a bit difficult to compare with this. – symanzik138 Feb 25 '21 at 08:21
  • I think from a more microscopic point of view: $H = \frac{1}{2m}(\hat{P}-e A)^2 + V(\hat{r})$, so the commutator between $\hat{r}x$ ($\hat{r}_y$) and $\hat{v}_y$ ($\hat{v}_x$) should be 0. As for the case of a lattice, although it may not be precisely 0, it seems to be very small. Moreover, if I remember correctly, people usually define the Hall conductance as $\sigma_H =\frac{1}{2} ( \sigma{x,y} - \sigma_{y,x} )$, so the first seemingly divergent term (which is odd under $x \leftrightarrow y$) is also canceled. – Ogawa Chen Oct 19 '23 at 03:36
2

A nice derivation of the second formula is given in http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/kintheory/four.pdf

  • 1
    Welcome to the Physics.Stackexchange. Please note that for this site it is better to avoid link-only answers. Please try to include the essential part of the linked text into your answer. The goal is to make SE a sourse of information and not just a list of links. – mpv Dec 29 '15 at 22:48