text:
# SATEN: An Object-Oriented Web-Based Revision and Extraction Engine

## General Information

SATEN111SATEN a Sagacious Agent for Theory Extraction and revisioN is available at http://cafe.newcastle.edu.au/saten is an object-oriented web-based extraction and belief revision engine. It runs on any computer via a Java 1.1 enabled browser such as Netscape 4. SATEN performs belief revision based on the AGM approach (?). The extraction and belief revision reasoning engines operate on a user specified ranking of information. One of the features of SATEN is that it can be used to integrate mutually inconsistent commensuate rankings into a consistent ranking.

## General Description of the System

SATEN has two reasoning engines: a revision engine and an extraction engine. Both engines operate on a user-specified ranking of information.

The process of extraction involves the recovery of a consistent ranking from an inconsistent ranking. Several strategies are available for this process. Extraction can be seen as a generalisation of Brewka’s work on subtheories (?). It is also related to Poole’s work (??).

Revision models the incorporation of new information (a belief) into a knowledge base. The main difficulty in modeling this process is that the incoming information may be inconsistent with the agent’s knowledge base. Consequently, the agent must determine the information to be relinquished before the new information can be accepted, if the agent is to maintain a consistent knowledge base. There are several constructive definitions of belief revision based on various preference relations over the agents knowledge. These preference relations attempt to capture the relative importance of information with respect to change. When an agent is forced to give up beliefs in order to accept some new information then, if presented with a choice, a response would be to choose to retain more important information, like system laws and integrity constraints, rather than contingent facts and default facts.

SATEN is capable of:

* Theory Extraction
* Iterated Belief Revision
* Nonmonotonic Reasoning
* Possibilistic Reasoning
* Hypothetical Reasoning

Using combinations of these capabilities SATEN can perform information integration/fusion on mutually inconsistent commensurate knowledge bases and can calculate Spohnian reasons (?).

SATEN currently implements the reasoning strategies below based on a user specified ranking of beliefs (logical formulae). A ranking can be specified as mapping from beliefs to \[1,2,3,…\] in which case the most important information is given the lowest rank, i.e. rank is inversely proportional to importance. Alternatively, beliefs can be ranked using degrees of belief between 0 and 1 - the higher the degree the more important the information, in particular tautologies are assigned 1, whilst inconsistencies and nonbeliefs are given 0. SATEN can derive an ordinal ranking from a set of specified degrees automatically, by toggling one of the menu settings.

* Standard Adjustment (???) is based on the standard epistemic entrenchment construction (?) for Belief Revision.
* Maxi-Adjustment is based on maximal inertia (?). Maxi-adjustment proceeds from the top of the ranking and moves down it rank by rank. At each rank it deletes all the beliefs that are inconsistent with other beliefs at that rank and above.
* Hybrid Adjustment is a combination of standard adjustment and maxi-adjustment (?). Adjustment is computationally “easier” than maxi-adjustment, however the main shortcoming of adjustment is that it maintains beliefs only if there is an *explicit reason to keep them*, whilst maxi-adjustment removes beliefs only if there is an *explicit reason to remove them*. Hybrid adjustment performs an adjustment which computes the core beliefs to be retained, and then it performs a maxi-adjustment which is used to regather as many beliefs as possible that were discarded during the adjustment phase.
* Global Adjustment is similar to a maxi-adjustment except that it takes all beliefs in the ranking into consideration when computing the minimally inconsistent subsets, instead of proceeding rank by rank. It removes the least ranked beliefs ”causing” the inconsistency.
* Linear Adjustment is similar to maxi-adjustment except that it removes all the beliefs at ranks which contain incosisitencies with beliefs above them (?). IF there is only one belief at each rank, then linear and maxi-adjustment are identical.
* Quick Adjustment is identical to maxi-adjustment except that rather than removing all beliefs it randomly chooses a minimal number of beliefs from each set of inconsistent beliefs in this way the inconsistency is removed.

A number of examples are available via a dropdown menu which highlight the different behaviour of the strategies.

## Methodology

An inherent difficulty that arises when trying to model world states using the predicate calculus is that of consistency. Under the rules of formal logic, anything is derivable from a contradiction, hence it is imperative that consistency of the model be maintained at all times so that the agent acting on that model is able to make sound decisions. However, it is not uncommon in the realm of belief-based reasoning for newly acquired information to be inconsistent with the current set of beliefs. For instance, suppose that an agent believes that Tweety is a bird, and that all birds can fly. This agent subsequently discovers that, Tweety is a penguin, and knowing that penguins can’t fly, will now have to deal with the fact that this new information is inconsistent with what it already believes.

It is clear that when this sort of situation arises, the agent will need to select a set of beliefs to be removed from its knowledge base in order to maintain consistency in its knowledge base when the new belief is inserted, thus allowing it to continue to reason on the basis of its revised knowledge base. However, the question arises: which beliefs should be removed? Even in the above example, the removal of any subset of the beliefs listed will make the new information that Tweety is a penguin consistent, so the question of which belief or set of beliefs to remove has no clear answer.

Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson (???) investigated a set of rationality postulates regarding theory change operators. These postulates appear to capture much of what is required of an ideal rational system of theory change. In particular, they developed three primary classes of theory change operators: expansion, contraction and revision. Expansions are deterministic, and can be expressed set-theoretically, but it is well known that the logical properties of a body of information are not strong enough to uniquely determine a revision or contraction operator. Consequently, some sort of preference order needs to be imposed on the beliefs in the agent’s knowledge base. This approach to Belief Revision has come to be known as the AGM paradigm.

Two common models used to impose the preference order required by the AGM paradigm on systems of beliefs are epistemic entrenchment orderings (?) and systems of spheres (?). An epistemic entrenchment ordering ranks the sentences in the knowledge base, whereas a system of spheres is a total preorder of the set of possible world states. SATEN uses the epistemic entrenchment representation and uses the services of a full first order theorem prover implemented in Java (?). Revision of a system of spheres can be implemented via a standard Database Management System (?).

The implementation of revision in SATEN is steeped in the AGM paradigm (?). Gärdenfors and Makinson’s (?) showed that an epistemic entrenchment can uniquely determine how an agent will react to the pressures of impinging information. Their construction is an elegant theoretical result, and to use it as the foundation for a computer-based implementation of belief revision the following problems need to be addressed.

* Epistemic entrenchments order all the beliefs in the underlying language. The underlying language may be infinite in size, therefore a finite representation for an epistemic entrenchment is required.
* A new knowledge base, rather than a new epistemic entrenchment ordering is constructed. However from a practical point of view developing a new entrenchment ranking is imperative because an implementation must have the capacity to perform iterated revision.

An implementation of belief revision must propagate an epistemic entrenchment ordering (or more precisely its finite representation). SATEN overcomes the first problem using a finite partial entrenchment ranking (??) as the underlying representation scheme, and it overcomes the second problem using transmutations (???).

## Applying the System

The user specifies a prioritised knowledge base. We have found that for most applications the user-specified ranking can be otained in a natural way during the analysis and design phase (?).

The following guidelines for designing a ranking were developed in (?):

* Important information should be made explicit in the ranking
* Information should be represented in its simplest logical form
* Maximize the number of ranks, and minimise the number of beliefs at each rank for better performance
* Rankings should be as irredundant as possible
* Subsumption at the same rank should be avoided
* User specifies reasons
* Check the contraposition of reasons does not lead to undesired behaviour

SATEN can revise first order theory bases. It uses the services a Java first order theorem prover VADER (?) to determine consequence relations, and hence takes worst-case exponential time in the number of formulae in the knowledge base to compute even propositional revision. However, given Horn input clauses, the system will use a Linear Descent algorithm for its deductions, resulting in linear time efficiency. A number of strategies have been implemented in this system : standard adjustment, maxi-adjustment, hybrid adjustment, global adjustment, linear adjustment, and quick adjustment.

Theory extraction is related to belief revision and uses an extraction operator is a map between epistemic entrenchment orderings which, given an inconsistent ranking, extracts from it some (in some sense) maximal consistent ranking/theory base. Whilst every extraction operator gives rise rather naturally to a corresponding revision operator, it remains unknown whether the converse is true. When SATEN performs a revision, the internal behaviour is to add the new belief to the base at an appropriate rank, and then to perform a Theory Extraction, before normalising the beliefs to achieve the revised theory base. The process of normalisation converts any ranking into a partial entrenchment ranking.

SATEN is capable of performing both Belief Revision and Theory Extraction on theory bases, and of determining the degree of an arbitrary wff in it’s theory base, and can normalize a ranked theory base. It is also capable of automatically ranking the beliefs in the theory base — the user has the option to view the total order as a ranking (with the (0,1)-values of the entrenchments suppressed) although the rankings are always represented internally with (0,1)-values. Finally, the user may specify whether new beliefs added to the base without a rank should, by default, be placed at the top of the ranking, or at the bottom. This feature can be used when the rank of new information is unknown. The most conservative approach would place the new information without rank at the both of the ranking.

### Input Format

SATEN accepts any Predicate Calculus wff’s as input. Variables in the predicate calculus must begin with a capital letter, and contain only alphanumeric symbols and underscores (\_). Constants have the same format as variables, but must begin with a lower case letter. Predicate and function names must comply with the same format as variables and constants respectively, but must be followed by a parenthesized list of arguments separated by commas.

Input should be in fully parenthesised logic syntax and should not contain spaces:

* Negation is a minus sign (-).
* Implication is an arrow composed of a minus sign and a greater than sign ($`>`$). Note no space between the two symbols.
* Conjunction is an ampersand (&).
* Disjunction is a pipe ($`|`$).
* The universal quantifier is an asterisk (\*).
* The existential quantifier is an exclamation mark (!).
* Constants must begin with lower-case letters.
* Variables with upper-case letters.
* Functions start with lower-case.
* Propositional statements start with lower-case.
* First Order Predicates begin with upper-case.

Expression grouping is with parentheses, as is function (and predicate) argument list demarkation. User input should not include any double underscores (\__) as these are used by the program to tag system-generated variables and skolem functions.

Example input format: \*X(Psychopathic(X)$`|`$ Emotional(X))

-null

hopes&dreams

\*X(!Y(Mother(X,Y)))

!Z(EatsChocolate(Z)$`>`$Happy(Z))

\*Y(-Income(Y)$`>`$-Loan(Y))

We can encode ” “For all $`X`$ there exists a $`Y`$ such that $`Y`$ is the mother of $`X`$, and for all $`Y`$, if $`Y`$ is the daughter of Ben’s maternal grandmother, then $`Y`$ is Ben’s mother, or $`Y`$ is Ben’s aunt.” using the following sentence:

$$(X(!Y(M(X,Y)))\&(Y(D(MGM(ben),Y)>$$

$$(M(ben,Y)|A(ben,Y)))$$

where $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are variables, $`M(X,Y)`$ is a predicate of two variables with name $`M`$, $`MGM(X)`$ is a function of one variable with name $`MGM`$, and $`ben`$ is a constant.

### Strategies

The standard adjustment strategy finds the largest cut of the inputs to SATEN that is consistent with the incomming information, and keeps this as the result of the revision. This is quite fast, but removes alot of beliefs from the theory base in comparison to the other strategies because as shown in (?) the independence of beliefs must be explicitly specified in the ranking.

The maxi-adjustment strategy looks at each individual rank in the belief set, and removes the union of all subsets $`S`$ of the beliefs on that rank having the properties

1. $`S`$ is inconsistent with the union of the incomming information and all the information ranked higher in the base than $`S`$; and
2. no proper subset of $`S`$ satisfies $`1`$.

This strategy keeps many of the beliefs in the theory base, but is also quite slow as it has to examine all subsets of each rank. Performance is improved if the agent is more discerning. our algorithm is anytime (?) so the longer the agent has to revise the better the result.

The hybrid adjustment strategy represents a combination of the standard adjustment and maxi-adjustment strategies. When revising with $`a`$, hybrid adjustment first finds every belief $`b`$ in the base such that $`a|b`$ is in the base, and is at the same rank as $`a`$ (this is the adjustment step — it is removing every belief that “explicitly” fails to be a consequence of the cut above $`a`$), and then performs a maxi-adjustment on what is left. So in other words maxi-adjustment is used to recoup as much of the ranking as the time set aside for the revision permits.

This strategy is comparable to maxi-adjustment with regard to the number of beliefs retained, and though somewhat faster on average, has the same worst-case time expenditure as the maxi-adjustment procedure.

The global adjustment strategy behaves exactly as maxi-adjustment does, but acting under the assumption that all beliefs have the same rank. This strategy is quite slow, and is not as parsimonious in what it removes as maxi-adjustment, but is highly intuitive with respect to the set of beliefs removed (without reference to their ranks). It comes as close as possible to eliminating the need for a ranking.

The linear adjustment strategy (?)looks at the successive cuts of the theory-base and, at every rank at which the cut is inconsistent, removes the entire rank from the base. This is quite time-efficient, and keeps more beliefs in the base than standard adjustment, but, unlike hybrid adjustment and maxi-adjustment, is fairly ad-hoc about the beliefs to be kept in the theory base.

The quick adjustment strategy is an attempt to capture the judiciousness of maxi-adjustment without the associated time expenditure. Once a given rank of beliefs is discovered to cause a contradiction, quick adjustment begins adding beliefs from the left end of that rank until a contradiction is discovered. It then removes these beliefs, one at a time, keeping track of which ones eliminate the contradiction when they are removed. It is these “culprit” beliefs that are then removed from the theory base. This process is then iterated. This strategy has the advantage of improving performance by reducing the amount of processing at each rank, and also emulates the output of maxi-adjustment much of the time. However, its behaviour depends upon the order of the inputs on a given level of the theory base, and hence is somewhat ad hoc. The system could be easily extended to generate more than one ranking and used to perform credulous reasoning. Instead of randomly choosing an alternative, all alternative revised rankings could be created.

### Other Options

SATEN implements three additional (optional) strategies that interact with the various Belief Revision strategies outlined above. These strategies are subsumption removal, recovery, and nuclear revision. Of these three, the second two are appropriate with any belief revision strategy, but subsumption removal cannot be used in conjunction with the standard adjustment strategy. This is the only type of nuclear revision currently implemented. Other approaches like attributing half-lifes to individual beliefs will be available in the next version of SATEN.

Using subsumption removal ensures that any strategy which must choose from a set of beliefs to remove will preferrentially remove beliefs that are subsumed by the incomming belief. For example, maxi-adjustment will look amongst the set of beliefs it was going to remove for the subset that are subsumed by the incomming belief. If there are none, it will proceed as before, but if there are some, it will throw them away first, and then check again for consistency. If the result is still not consistent, the maxi-adjustment algorithm is run again on the remaining beliefs.

The recovery option ensures that the recovery postulate is satisfied by the revisions. This is achieved by, rather than removing a belief $`b`$, replacing it with the disjunction $`b|a`$ where $`a`$ is the new belief. The only time we do not do this is if $`b|a`$ is a tautology.

The concept of nuclear revision models the fact that beliefs that are not constantly reinforced tend to become less substantial to an intelligent agent. When nuclear revision is enabled, the user will be asked for a half-life. This is the constant factor by which the entrenchment of every belief in the base drops after each operation on the theory base. Thus, if the half-life were set at $`05`$, then the entrenchment of each belief in the theory base would be halved after each operation.

### Examples

SATEN has a substantial example menu intended to indicate the correct input form for SATEN, and demonstrate SATEN’s capabilities, but also to illustrate the differences between the various belief revision strategies that SATEN implements. These examples are broken into three categories: propositional, predicate, and contrast of strategies.

The first of these indicates the correct input and behaviour of SATEN when presented with propositional inputs only. Under these conditions, SATEN tends to be somewhat more efficient than in the predicate case for the reasons outlined in the VADER hyperbook in the section on performance issues.

The second set of examples indicate SATEN’s behaviour with the more general input form of the Predicate Calculus, specifically, its behaviour when quantifiers and variables are involved. The differences are essentially at the theorem prover level, and are opaque to SATEN itself.

The third set of examples are designed to indicate differences in behaviour between the different revision strategies. This is done for two reasons: the first is to highlight the salient points that make each strategy desirable or undesirable in comparison to the others; the second, which is, to some degree subsumed by the first, is to demonstrate that there actually is a difference between each pair of strategies, and that these differences do not require overly sophisticated examples to demonstrate — in particular, propositional calculus is sufficient, and it is possible to get pairwise distinct behaviour from the strategies on an example with just nine beliefs and four distinct ranks.


format: text

text:
# Low field negative magnetoresistance in double layer structures

## I Introduction

Transitions between 2D layers is one of fundamental features of double layer structures. It changes the quantum corrections to the conductivity, especially in a magnetic field parallel to the layers.

It is well known  that the interference of electron waves scattered along closed trajectories in opposite directions (time-reversed paths) produces a negative quantum correction to the conductivity. An external magnetic field ($`𝐁`$) gives the phase difference between pairs of time-reversed paths $`\phi =2\pi (\mathrm{𝐁𝐒})/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the quantum of magnetic flux, $`𝐒`$ is the area enclosed, and thus destroys the interference and results in negative magnetoresistance.

In case of a single 2D layer the influence of a magnetic field is strongly anisotropic because all the paths lie in one plane. The magnetoresistance is maximal for $`𝐁𝐧`$, where $`𝐧`$ is the normal to 2D layer. When a magnetic field lies in the 2D layer plane, $`𝐁𝐧`$, the scalar product $`(\mathrm{𝐁𝐒})`$ is zero, i.e. the magnetic field does not destroy the interference, and the negative magnetoresistance is absent in this magnetic field orientation.

In coupled double layer structures, the tunneling between layers gives rise to the closed paths where an electron moves initially over one layer then over another one and returns to the first layer. For this paths the product ($`\mathrm{𝐁𝐒}`$) is non-zero for any magnetic field orientation and hence the negative magnetoresistance has to appear for $`𝐁𝐧`$ as well.

The magnetic field dependence of the negative magnetoresistance is determined by the statistics of closed paths, namely, by the area distribution function, $`W(𝐒)`$, and area dependence of the average length of closed paths, $`\overline{L}(𝐒)`$.  Just these statistic dependencies have been studied in single 2D layer structures by analysis of negative magnetoresistance measured at $`𝐁𝐧`$.

The role of inter-layers transitions in weak localization and negative magnetoresistance for $`𝐁𝐧`$ for multilayer structures (superlattices) was discussed in Ref. . The closely related problem concerning the role of inter-subbands transitions in quasi-two dimensional structures with several subbands occupied was theoretically studied in Ref. .

In this paper we present the results of investigations of the negative magnetoresistance in double layer GaAs/InGaAs structure for different magnetic field orientations. We obtain the area distribution functions and area dependencies of the average lengths of the closed paths using the approach developed in Refs. . These functions are compared with those obtained from the computer simulation of carrier motion when inter-layers transitions are accounted for. Close agreement shows that just the inter-layers transitions determine the negative magnetoresistance in coupled double layer structures.

## II experimental results

The double well heterostructure GaAs/InxGa1-xAs was grown by Metal-Organic Vapor Phase Epitaxy (MOVPE) on semi-insulator GaAs substrate. The heterostructure consists of a 0.5 $`\mu `$m-thick undoped GaAs epilayer, a Si $`\delta `$-layer, a 75 Å spacer of undoped GaAs, a 100 Å In0.08Ga0.92As well, a 100 Å barrier of undoped GaAs, a 100 Å In0.08Ga0.92As well, a 75 Å spacer of undoped GaAs, a Si $`\delta `$-layer and 1000 Å cap layer of undoped GaAs. The samples were mesa etched (cut??) into standard Hall bridges. The measurements were performed in the temperature range $`1.54.2`$ K at low magnetic field up to $`0.4`$ T with discrete $`10^4`$ T for two orientations: the magnetic field was perpendicular ($`𝐁𝐳`$) and parallel ($`𝐁𝐱`$) to the structure plane (see insert in Fig. 1). Additional high field measurements were also made to characterize the structure. It has been found that in the structure investigated the conductivity is determined by the electrons in the wells. Their densities have been determined from the Fourier analysis of the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations and consist of $`4.5\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 and $`5.5\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 in different wells. The Hall mobility was about $`\mu 4200`$ cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}/`$ (V $`\times `$ sec).

The magnetic field dependencies of in-plane magnetoconductance

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)=\sigma (B)\sigma (0)=1/\rho (B)1/\rho (0)$$
(1)
at magnetic field perpendicular ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B_z)`$) and parallel ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B_x)`$) to the structure plane are presented in Fig. 1. One can see that the negative magnetoresistance is observed for both magnetic field orientations and, in contrast to the case of single layer structures, the effects are comparable in magnitude. Analysis of behaviour of the conductivity in a wide range of temperatures ($`1.5<T<20`$ K) and magnetic fields ($`B<6`$ T) shows that at $`B<0.40.5`$ T the main contribution to the negative magnetoresistance comes from the interference correction. In this case the magnetic field dependence of the negative magnetoresistance is determined by the statistics of the closed paths.

Let us apply the method proposed in Refs.  to analysis of negative magnetoresistance in the double layer structure. Using formalism presented in Section II of Ref.  one can write the expression for conductivity of double layer structure with identical layers for two magnetic field orientations as follows

$`\sigma (B_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _0+\delta \sigma (B_i)`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`\sigma _04\pi l^2G_0{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dS_i\{W(S_i)`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{L}(S_i)}{l_\phi }})\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi B_iS_i}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}\right)\},i=x,z.`$
Here, $`G_0=e^2/(2\pi ^2\mathrm{})`$, $`\sigma _0`$ is the classical Drude conductivity, $`l=v_F\tau `$, $`l_\phi =v_F\tau _\phi `$, $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`\tau `$ and $`\tau _\phi `$ are the momentum relaxation and phase breaking time, respectively. The value of $`\overline{L}`$ is the function not only of $`S`$ but $`l_\phi `$ as well. It was defined in Ref.  by Eq.(6). It should be mentioned that Eq. (2) is valid at low enough probability of inter-layers transitions.

Thus, for the magnetic field perpendicular to the structure plane ($`𝐁=(0,0,B_z)`$) the magnetoresistance is determined by $`z`$-component of $`𝐒`$ only and for parallel magnetic field ($`𝐁=(B_x,0,0)`$) it is determined by $`x`$-component of $`𝐒`$.

One can see from Eq. (2) that the Fourier transform of $`\delta \sigma (B)/G_0`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(S_i,l_\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑B_i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \sigma (B_i)}{G_0}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi B_iS_i}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}}\right)=`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`4\pi l^2W(S_i)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{L}(S_i)}{l_\phi }}\right),`$ (6)
carriers an information on $`W(S_i)`$ and $`\overline{L}(S_i)`$. Because the value of $`l_\phi `$ tends to infinity when temperature tends to zero,  the extrapolation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(S_i,l_\phi )`$-vs-$`T`$ curve to $`T=0`$ gives the value of $`4\pi l^2W(S_i)`$. The ratio $`\overline{L}(S_i)/l_\phi `$ for given $`S_i`$ can be then obtained as $`\mathrm{ln}(4\pi l^2W(S_i))\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Phi }(S_i,l_\phi ))`$.

The value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)=\sigma (B)\sigma (0)`$, not $`\delta \sigma (B)`$, is experimentally measured. It is clear from Eqs. (1) and (2) that $`\delta \sigma (B)=\sigma (0)\sigma _0\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)`$. To obtain $`\delta \sigma (B)`$, we assume that the Drude conductivity $`\sigma _0`$ is equal to the conductivity at T=20 K, when the quantum corrections are small. Notice that the final results are not sensitive to the value of $`\sigma _0`$ practically. Obtaining of the distribution function $`W(S_x)`$ from the experimental $`\delta \sigma (B_z)`$ dependencies for the structure investigated is illustrated by Fig. 2. In left panel the Fourier transforms of $`\delta \sigma (B_x)`$ measured at different temperatures are presented. Right panel shows how the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-vs-$`T`$ data have been extrapolated to $`T=0`$. The area distribution function $`W(S_z)`$ has been obtained from the analysis of $`\delta \sigma (B_z)`$ curves in a similar way.

The results of data processing described above are presented in Fig. 3a. As is seen the $`4\pi l^2W(S_z)`$ dependence is close to $`(2S_z)^1`$ for $`S(0.35)\times 10^{10}`$ cm2. The analogous behaviour of the area distribution function was obtained for single 2D layer in Ref. . The behaviour of $`W(S_x)`$ significantly differs from that of $`W(S_z)`$. In particular, the $`W(S_x)`$ curve shows a much steeper decline for $`S>0.8\times 10^{10}`$ cm2 . Other feature of the statistics of the closed paths in double layer structure is the fact that for given $`S`$ the values of $`\overline{L}(S_x)`$ are significantly larger than $`\overline{L}(S_z)`$ (Fig. 3b).

Qualitatively these peculiarities of the statistics of closed paths in double layer structures can be understood if one considers how trajectories with large enough length, $`Ll/t`$, look. They are isotropically smeared over $`xy`$-plane for the distance $`\sqrt{Ll}`$, their extended area in this plane is $`s_zLl`$. In $`yz`$-plane they have size $`\sqrt{Ll}`$ in $`y`$-direction and $`Z_0`$ (where $`Z_0`$ is inter-layer distance) in $`z`$-direction. So, the extended area in $`yz`$-plane is $`s_xZ_0\sqrt{Ll}`$. Thus, closed trajectories have significantly larger $`s_z`$ than $`s_x`$, and the $`s_z/s_x`$ ratio increases with increasing $`s`$. It is clear that the behaviour of enclosed areas $`S_z`$, $`S_x`$ is analogous. Therefore, for $`S_x=S_z`$ the inequality $`W(S_z)>W(S_x)`$ is valid. The average length of the trajectories $`\overline{L}(S_x)`$ therewith is greater than $`\overline{L}(S_z)`$.

As was shown in Ref.  the distribution function of closed paths, the area dependence of average length of closed paths and weak localization magnetoresistance can be obtained by computer simulation of a carrier motion over 2D plane.

## III Computer simulation

The model double layer system is conceived as two identical plains with randomly distributed scattering centers with a given total cross-section. Every plane is represented as a lattice $`M\times M`$ with lattice parameter $`a`$. The scatterers are placed in a part of the lattice sites with the use of a random number generator. We assume that a particle moves with a constant velocity along straight lines which happen to be terminated by collisions with the scatterers. After every collision the particle has two possibilities: it passes from one plane to another with a probability $`t`$ and moves over the second plane or it remains in the plane with probability $`(1t)`$, changing the motion direction only. If the trajectory of the particle passes near the start point at the distance less than $`d/2`$ (where $`d`$ is a prescribed value, which is small enough), it is perceived as being closed. The projections of enclosed algebraic area is calculated according to

$`S_z={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_{j+1}+y_j}{2}}(x_{j+1}`$ $``$ $`x_j)+`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{y_N+y_1}{2}}(x_N`$ $``$ $`x_1),`$ (8)
$`S_x={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_{j+1}+y_j}{2}}(z_{j+1}`$ $``$ $`z_j)+`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{y_N+y_1}{2}}(z_N`$ $``$ $`z_1),`$ (10)
where $`N`$ is number of collisions for given trajectory, $`x_j`$, $`y_j`$, $`z_j`$ stand for coordinates of $`j`$-th collision, $`z_j`$ takes the value $`0`$ or $`Z_0`$. Otherwise the simulation details are analogous to them described in Ref.  for the case of single 2D layer system.

All the results presented here have been obtained using the parameters: lattice dimension is $`6800\times 6800`$; the number of starts, $`I_s`$, is $`10^6`$; the total number of scatterers is about $`1.6\times 10^5`$; the scattering cross section is $`7`$; $`d=1`$; $`Z_0=18`$. The value of mean free path computed for such a system is about $`43\times a`$. If we suppose the value of $`a`$ equal to $`11`$ Å, this model double layer system corresponds to the heterostructure investigated. Namely, the mean free path is equal to the value of $`l480`$ Å, and the value of $`Z_0`$ is close to the distance between the centers of the quantum wells, $`200`$ Å.

The area distribution functions obtained as the result of simulation with different inter-layers transition probabilities are presented in Fig. 4. Let us discuss at first the behaviour of $`W(S_z)`$ (Fig. 4a). For $`t=0`$, the $`4\pi l^2W(S_z)`$ curve corresponds to the area distribution function for single layer. For large $`S`$ this curve goes close to the $`S^1`$-dependence, which corresponds to the ideal 2D system in the diffusion regime.  The deviation, which is evident for $`S_z<10^3a^2`$, is just due to the transition to the ballistic regime. It is obviously that for sufficiently large values of $`t`$, the probability of return to the start point has to be twice smaller than that for $`t=0`$. As is seen from Fig. 4a even the value $`t=0.1`$ is large enough in this sense: the corresponding curve is close to the $`(2S)^1`$-dependence practically in whole area range. This is because the long trajectories with large number of passes between layers give significant contribution to $`W(S_z)`$ starting from small areas, $`S_z>0.1l^2`$. For the intermediate value of $`t`$ ($`t=0.002,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.01}`$) the area distribution function is close to the $`S^1`$ function for small areas and tends to the $`(2S)^1`$ dependence for large ones.

The behaviour of $`W(S_x)`$ contrasts with that of $`W(S_z)`$ (Fig. 4b). At small $`S_x`$, $`W(S_x)`$ depends only weekly on $`S_x`$, whereas at large $`S_x`$ it decreases sharply when $`S_x`$ increases. Sensitivity of $`W(S_x)`$ to inter-layers transition probability depends on $`S_x`$ value. For small $`S_x`$ values, when the area distribution function is mainly determined by short closed paths with small number of inter-layers transitions, the value of $`W(S_x)`$ considerably increases with increasing $`t`$. For large $`S_x`$, i.e. for paths with large number of inter-layer transitions, $`W(S_x)`$ weakly depends on the transition probability.

Let us demonstrate how the magnetoresistance of our model 2D system changes with changing of the inter-layers transition probability. The theoretical $`\delta \sigma (B)`$ dependencies have been calculated by summing over the contributions of every closed path to the conductivity in accordance with following expression

$$\frac{\delta \sigma (B_i)}{G_0}=\frac{2\pi l}{I_sd}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi B_iS_i}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{l_i}{l_\phi }\right),$$
(11)
where $`l_i`$ is the length of $`i`$-th closed path. The results of calculation are presented in Fig. 5, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B_i)=\delta \sigma (B_i)\delta \sigma (0)`$ is plotted against $`B/B_t`$, $`B_t=\mathrm{}c/(2el^2)`$. As is seen the changes in magnetic field dependencies of negative magnetoresistance with change of inter-layers transition probability reflect the variation of area distribution functions. Indeed, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B_z)`$ depends on $`t`$ slightly: maximal change is less than two times for decreasing $`t`$ up to zero, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B_x)`$ changes drastically. It decreases about hundred times, when the value of $`t`$ decreases from 0.1 to 0.002.

## IV Discussion

Let us compare the calculated area distributions with experimental data. One can see from Figs. 3a and 4, that the behaviour of calculated and experimental $`W(S_z)`$ and $`W(S_x)`$ dependencies is close qualitatively. As mentioned above, $`W(S_x)`$ depends on inter-layers transition probability significantly stronger than $`W(S_z)`$. Therefore we have estimated the transition probability comparing the calculated and experimental $`W(S_x)`$ curves. The most accordance has been obtained with $`t0.1`$ (see Fig. 3a). As seen from the figure, with this value of $`t`$ the calculated $`W(S_z)`$ dependence describes the experimental data well. Some quantitative inconsistency, especially for $`W(S_x)`$, is evident in Fig. 3a. We believe, this is result of crudity of model used. In particular, we supposed the identity of both 2D layers.

Let us turn now to magnetic field dependencies of negative magnetoresistance. To calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)`$, in addition to the inter-layers transition probability it is necessary to know the phase breaking length. Using the value of $`t=0.1`$ estimated above, we have found that the best agreement between theoretical and experimental $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B_i)`$ dependencies is obtained with $`l_\phi 3.4`$ and $`1.4`$ $`\mu `$m for T=1.5 and 4.2 K, respectively. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B_z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B_x)`$ dependencies calculated with these $`l_\phi `$ values practically coincide with those measured experimentally (see Fig. 1). It should be noted that these values of $`l_\phi `$ some differ from those obtained by fitting of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B_z)`$ curves to the Hikami expression: the fit gives $`l_\phi 4.8`$ and $`1.7`$ $`\mu `$m for T=1.5 and 4.2 K, respectively. The reason of this difference is that the Hikami formula was obtained for single 2D layer, and it is not suitable for analysis of negative magnetoresistance in coupled double layers structures.

Finally, knowing the values of $`t`$ and $`l_\phi `$ we are able to compare the calculated and experimental area dependencies of $`\overline{L}(S_x)`$ to $`\overline{L}(S_z)`$ ratio (Fig. 3b). It is seen that the experimental ratio is significantly larger than unity as well as calculated one. However, the experimental points lie somewhat below than calculated curve. We suppose that the main reason of such disagreement is dissimilarity of the layers in structure investigated.

After this paper has been prepared for publication, the paper by Raichev and Vasilopoulos on the theory of weak localization in double quantum wells is appeared in Condensed Matter e-Print archive. Let us apply this theory to our case. Using the formulae derived in Ref. , we have calculated $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B_i)`$ dependencies for our structure. These dependencies are represented in Fig. 1 by dashed curves. As is clearly seen, theory developed in Ref.  describes our experimental results only in low magnetic fields. The reason is that the calculations in Ref.  were carried out in the framework of diffusion approximation. It means that two conditions are met. The first condition is $`\tau \tau _\phi `$. For the structure investigated $`\tau /\tau _\phi =0.0140.035`$ for different temperatures, and this condition may be considered as fulfilled. According to the second condition, the magnetic field has to be low enough: $`BB_t`$ when $`𝐁𝐳`$, or $`BB_tl/Z_0`$ when $`𝐁𝐱`$. In our case $`B_t0.14`$ T, $`l/Z_02.5`$ and hence the diffusion approximation is applicable, when $`B0.14`$ or $`0.35`$ T depending on the magnetic field orientation. It is in this range of magnetic field that the results of Ref.  are close to our experimental data.

Our calculations are valid beyond the diffusion approximation and therefore they better describe the experimental results in whole magnetic field range, where weak localization correction to the conductivity is dominant.

## V conclusion

We have investigated the negative magnetoresistance in double layer heterostructures for different magnetic field orientations. The information about statistics of closed paths has been extracted from the analysis of temperature and magnetic field dependencies of conductivity. Significant difference in area distribution functions, $`W(S_x)`$, $`W(S_z)`$, and in average lengths of closed paths, $`\overline{L}(S_x)`$, $`\overline{L}(S_z)`$, has been found. In order to interpret the experimental results, we have investigated the statistics of closed paths and negative magnetoresistance using the computer simulation of the carrier motion with scattering over two 2D layers. Analysis of experimental and theoretical results unambiguously shows that in parallel magnetic field the negative magnetoresistance in double layer structures is determined by inter-layers transitions.

### Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the RFBR through Grant 00-02-16215, and the Program University of Russia through Grants 990409 and 990425.