text:
# Statistical Properties of Eigenstates in three-dimensional Mesoscopic Systems with Off-diagonal or Diagonal Disorder

## Abstract

The statistics of eigenfunction amplitudes are studied in mesoscopic disordered electron systems of finite size. The exact eigenspectrum and eigenstates are obtained by solving numerically Anderson Hamiltonian on a three-dimensional lattice for different strengths of disorder introduced either in the potential on-site energy (“diagonal”) or in the hopping integral (“off-diagonal”). The samples are characterized by the exact zero-temperature conductance computed using real-space Green function technique and related Landauer-type formula. The comparison of eigenstate statistics in two models of disorder shows sample-specific details which are not fully taken into account by the conductance, shape of the sample and dimensionality. The wave function amplitude distributions for the states belonging to different transport regimes within the same model are contrasted with each other as well as with universal predictions of random matrix theory valid in the infinite conductance limit.

The disorder induced localization-delocalization (LD) transition in solids has been one of the most vigorously pursued problems in condensed matter physics since the seminal work of Anderson.  In thermodynamic limit, strong enough disorder generates a zero-temperature critical point in $`d>2`$ dimensions  as a result of quantum interference effects (in $`d2`$ even weakly disordered metal turns into an Anderson insulator for sufficiently large sample size). Thus, research in the “pre-mesoscopic” era  was mostly directed toward the viewpoint provided by the theory of critical phenomena.  The advent of mesoscopic quantum physics  has unearthed large fluctuations, induced by quantum coherence and randomness of disorder,  of various physical quantities  (e.g., conductance, local density of states, current relaxation times, etc.), even well into the delocalized phase. Thus, complete understanding of the LD transition requires to examine full distribution functions of relevant quantities.  Especially interesting are the deviations of their asymptotic tails, a putative signature of incipient localization,  from the (usually) Gaussian distributions expected in the limit of infinite dimensionless conductance $`g=G/G_Q`$ ($`G_Q=2e^2/h`$ is the conductance quantum).

This paper presents the study of such type—numerical computation of the statistics of eigenfunction amplitudes in finite-size three-dimensional (3D) nanoscale (composed of $`1000`$ atoms) mesoscopic disordered conductors. The 3D conductors are often “neglected” in favor of the more popular and tractable playgrounds—two-dimensional systems (2D), where one can study states resembling 3D critical wave functions in a wide range of systems sizes and disorder strengths,  or quasi one-dimensional systems  where analytical techniques  can handle even non-perturbative phenomena  (like the ones at small $`g`$). For example, in $`d=2+ϵ`$ dimensions LD transition occurs at weak disorder (weak-coupling regime of the corresponding field-theoretical description ), while in $`d3`$ small parameter needed for analytical treatment is lacking. In 3D systems critical eigenfunctions, exhibiting multifractal scaling,  are expected only at the mobility edge $`E_c`$ which separates extended and localized states inside the energy band.

The essential physics of disordered conductors is captured by studying the quantum dynamics of a non-interacting (quasi)particle in a random potential. This problem is classically non-integrable, thereby exhibiting quantum chaos. The concepts unifying disordered electron physics with the standard ‘clean’ (i.e., without stochastic disorder) examples of quantum chaos  come from statistical approaches to the properties of energy spectrum and corresponding eigenstates, which cannot be computed analytically. While level statistics of disordered systems have been explored to a great extent,  investigation of the statistics of eigenfunctions has been initiated only recently.  These studies are not only revealing peculiar spectral properties of random Hamiltonians, but are relevant for the thorough understanding of various unusual features of quantum transport in diffusive metallic conductors (including the ones which are proximity coupled to a superconductor ). The standard examples are long-time tails in the relaxation of current  or log-normal tails (in $`d=2+ϵ`$) of the distribution function of mesoscopic conductances.  Distribution of eigenfunction amplitudes is found to be relevant for tunneling measurements on quantum dots probing the coupling to external leads, which depends sensitively on the local properties of wave functions.

Experiments which are the closest to directly delving into the microscopic structure of quantum chaotic or disordered wave functions exploit the correspondence between the Schrödinger and Maxwell equations in microwave cavities.

The study of fluctuations and correlations of eigenfunction amplitudes  in mesoscopic systems has led to a concept of the so-called “pre-localized” states.  In 3D delocalized phase, this notion refers to the states which have sharp amplitude peaks on the top of an extended background.  These kind of states appear even in the diffusive, $`\mathrm{}L<\xi `$, metallic ($`g1`$) regime, but are anomalously rare in such samples (here $`\mathrm{}`$ is the elastic mean free path and $`\xi `$ is the localization length). In order to get “experimental” feeling for the structure of states with unusually high amplitude spikes, an example is given in Fig. 1; this state is found in a special realization of quenched disorder (out of many randomly generated impurity configurations) inside the sample characterized by large average conductance. Thus, pre-localized states are putative precursors of LD transition and determine asymptotics of some of the distribution functions  studied in open or closed mesoscopic systems. In $`d2`$, where all states are considered to be localized,  pre-localized states have anomalously short localization radius  when compared to “ordinary” localized states in low-dimensional systems. They underlie  the multifractal scaling in weakly localized ($`g1`$) 2D conductors of size $`L`$ smaller than exponentially large $`\xi `$ (which plays the role of a phase transition correlation length  $`\xi _c=\xi `$ in $`d2`$). In 3D, the correlation length $`\xi _c`$ (defined as the size of a hypercube for which  $`g(\xi _c)=𝒪(1)`$) is always microscopic ($`\xi _c\lambda _F`$) in good metallic samples, and no multifractal scaling is expected. The appearance of small regions inside disordered solids where eigenstates can have large amplitudes seems to be a “strongly pronounced” analog  of the phenomenon of scarring  (anomalous enhancement or suppression of quantum chaotic wave function intensity on the unstable periodic orbits in the corresponding classical system) introduced in the guise of generic quantum chaos.

In general, the study of properties of wave functions on a scale smaller than $`\xi `$ should probe quantum effects causing evolution of extended into localized states upon approaching the LD critical point. In the marginal two-dimensional case, the divergent (in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$) weak localization (WL) correction  to the semiclassical Boltzmann conductivity provides an explanation of localization in terms of the interference between two amplitudes to return to initial point along the same classical path in the opposite directions.  This simple quantum interference effect leads to a coherent backscattering (i.e., suppression of conductivity) in a time-reversal invariant systems without spin-orbit interaction. However, in 3D systems WL correction is not “strong” enough to provide a full microscopic picture of complicated quantum interference processes which are responsible for LD transition, and facilitate the expansion of quantum intuition.

The paper presents the statistics of eigenfunction intensities $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (𝐫)|^2`$ in isolated 3D mesoscopic conductors characterized by two different types of microscopic disorder. Numerical methods employed here make it possible to treat phenomena in both semiclassical (described by Bloch-Boltzmann formalism and perturbative quantum corrections ) and fully quantum transport regime (dominated by non-perturbative effects, where semiclassical concepts, like $`\mathrm{}`$, loose their meaning ), as well as in the crossover realm. Since mesoscopic physics has provided efficient techniques  for “measuring” exactly the transport properties of finite-size samples on the computer, this study connects the eigenstates statistics of a closed sample to its zero-temperature conductance. The statistical properties of eigenstates are described by the disorder-averaged distribution function

$$f(t)=\frac{1}{\rho (E)N}\underset{𝐫,\alpha }{}\delta (t|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (𝐫)|^2V)\delta (EE_\alpha ),$$
(1)
on $`N`$ discrete points $`𝐫`$ inside a sample of volume $`V`$. Here $`\rho (E)=_\alpha \delta (EE_\alpha )`$ is the mean level density at energy $`E`$. Averaging over disorder is denoted by $`\mathrm{}`$. Normalization of eigenstates gives $`\overline{t}=𝑑ttf(t)=1`$. A finite-size disordered sample is modeled by a tight-binding Hamiltonian (TBH) with nearest neighbor hopping integral $`t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}`$

$$\widehat{H}=\underset{𝐦}{}\epsilon _𝐦|𝐦𝐦|+\underset{𝐦,𝐧}{}t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}|𝐦𝐧|,$$
(2)
on a simple cubic lattice $`16\times 16\times 16`$ of lattice constant $`a`$. Each site $`𝐦`$ contains a single $`s`$-orbital $`𝐫|𝐦=\psi (𝐫𝐦)`$. Periodic boundary conditions are chosen in all directions. In a random hopping (RH) model the disorder is introduced by taking the off-diagonal matrix elements to be a uniformly distributed random variable,  $`12W_{\text{RH}}<t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}<1`$, while diagonal elements are zero $`\epsilon _𝐦=0`$. The strength of the disorder is measured by $`W_{\text{RH}}`$. The other system studied is described by a diagonally disordered (DD) Anderson model with potential energy $`\epsilon _𝐦`$ on site $`𝐦`$ drawn from the uniform distribution, $`W_{\text{DD}}/2<\epsilon _𝐦<W_{\text{DD}}/2`$, and $`t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}=1`$ is the unit of energy. The Hamiltonian (2) is a real symmetric matrix because time-reversal symmetry is assumed. The results for $`f(t)`$ in the samples described by the RH and DD Anderson models are shown on Figs. 23 and Fig. 4, respectively. Although some of the samples are characterized by similar values of conductance, the eigenstates in the two models show different statistical behavior.

In what follows the meaning of these findings is explained in the context of statistical approach to quantum systems with non-integrable classical dynamics. In particular, the results are compared to the universal predictions of random matrix theory (RMT).

In the statistical approach  of RMT, the Hamiltonian of a quantum chaotic system is replaced  by a random matrix drawn from an ensemble defined by the symmetries under time-reversal and spin-rotation. This leads to the Wigner-Dyson (WD) statistics for eigenvalues and Porter-Thomas (PT) distribution for eigenfunction intensities. For the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE), relevant for studies of time-reversal-invariant Hamiltonians like (2), the PT distribution is given by

$$f_{\text{PT}}(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}\mathrm{exp}(t/2).$$
(3)
The function $`f_{\text{PT}}(t)`$ is plotted as a reference in Figs. 23 and Fig. 4. The predictions of RMT are universal, depending only on the symmetry properties of the relevant ensemble. They apply to the statistics of real disordered systems  in the limit $`g\mathrm{}`$ ($`g=\pi E_{\text{Th}}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1/\rho (E)`$ is the mean energy level spacing and $`E_{\text{Th}}=\mathrm{}𝒟/L^2`$ is the Thouless energy, set by the classical diffusion across a sample of size $`L`$ with diffusion constant $`𝒟`$). The spectral correlations in RMT are determined by logarithmic level repulsion which is independent of true dynamics.

All sample-specific details are absorbed into the mean level spacing  $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Also, the level correlations are independent of the eigenstate correlations. The RMT answer (3) for the distribution function (1) was derived by Porter and Thomas  by assuming that the coordinate-representation eigenstate $`𝐫|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ in a disordered (or classically chaotic system) is a Gaussian random variable. The behavior of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (𝐫)`$, even within the framework of RMT, is simple only in the systems with unbroken or completely broken time-reversal symmetry \[the only difference between the two limiting ensembles is the functional form of $`f(t)`$\].  Thus, RMT implies statistical equivalence of eigenstates which equally test the random potential all over the sample—typical wave function has more or less uniform amplitude $`1/\sqrt{V}`$, up to inevitable Gaussian fluctuations.

Microscopic theory brings corrections to the RMT results in the

case of samples with finite $`g`$. In the finite-size systems level statistics follow RMT predictions in the ergodic regime, i.e., on the energy separation scale smaller than $`E_{\text{Th}}`$. Non-universal corrections to the spectral statistics  or eigenfunction statistics  (which describe the long-range correlations of wave functions) depend on dimensionality, shape of the sample, and conductance $`g`$. These deviations from RMT predictions grow with increasing disorder (i.e., lowering of $`g`$). At the LD transition wave functions acquire multifractal properties, while the critical level statistics become scale-independent.  For strong disorder or, at fixed disorder, for energies $`|E|`$ above the mobility edge $`|E_c|`$, wave functions are exponentially localized. The simple (and usually invoked) picture is that of a wave function which decays as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r)=p(r)\mathrm{exp}(r/\xi )`$ from its maximum centered at some point inside the sample of size $`L>\xi `$. Here $`p(r)`$ is a random function and approximately spherical symmetry of decay is assumed. Since two states close in energy are localized at different points in space, there is almost no overlap between them. Therefore, the levels become uncorrelated and obey Poisson statistics. If $`p(r)=c`$ is simplified to a normalization constant, the distribution function of intensities is given by

$`f_\xi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{L/2}{}}}𝑑rr^2\delta (t|\mathrm{\Psi }(r)|^2V)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \xi ^3}{4V}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(c^2V/t)}{t}},`$ (4)
$`c^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi \xi ^3}}\left[1\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2\xi ^2}}\right)e^{L/\xi }\right]^1,`$ (5)
where a spherically symmetric sample of radius $`L/2`$ is assumed. In the localized phase $`\xi L`$, $`f_\xi (t)`$ is expected to be insensitive to the assumed shape of the sample, and is determined by the ratio of these two relevant length scales.

The distribution function $`f(t)`$ is equivalently given in term of its moments $`b_q=𝑑tt^qf(t)`$ (this statement is not rigorous since examples of different distribution functions which possess exactly the same sets of moments are encountered in various statistical problems ). For GOE, the PT distribution (3) has moments $`b_q^{\text{PT}}=2^qV^{q+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(q+1/2)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)`$. They are related to the moments $`I_\alpha (q)=𝑑𝐫|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (𝐫)|^{2q}`$ of the wave function intensity.

In the universal regime $`g\mathrm{}`$ wave functions cover the whole volume with only short-range correlations (on the scale $`|𝐫_1𝐫_2|\mathrm{}`$) persisting between $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (𝐫_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (𝐫_2)`$. This means that integration in the definition of $`I_\alpha (q)`$ provides self-averaging, and $`I_\alpha (q)`$ does not fluctuate in the universal limit,  i.e., $`I_\alpha (q)=b_q^{\text{PT}}`$. On the other hand, at finite $`g`$ spatial correlations of wave function amplitudes at distances comparable to the system size are non-negligible. Therefore, $`I_\alpha (q)`$ fluctuates from state to state and from sample to sample.  Although these long-range spatial correlations necessitate to study the full distribution function  of $`I_\alpha (q)`$, for the subsequent analysis in this study it is enough to use an ensemble average of $`I_\alpha (q)`$, i.e., following Wegner

$$I(q)=\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{𝐫,\alpha }{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (𝐫)|^{2q}\delta (EE_\alpha ).$$
(6)
The moment $`I_\alpha (2)`$ is usually called inverse participation ratio (IPR). It is a one-number measure of the degree of localization (i.e., it measures the portion of space where the amplitude of the wave function differs markedly from zero). This becomes obvious from the scaling properties of the average moments $`I(q)`$ with respect to the system size

$$I(q)\{\begin{array}{cc}L^{d(q1)}\text{ metal},\hfill & \\ L^0\text{insulator},\hfill & \\ L^{d^{}(q)(q1)}\text{critical}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(7)
Here $`d^{}(q)<d`$ is the fractal dimension. Its dependence on $`q`$ is the hallmark of multifractality of wave functions. The multifractal wave functions are delocalized, but extremely inhomogeneous occupying only an infinitesimal fraction of the sample volume in thermodynamic limit. The IPR is affected by mesoscopic fluctuations which scale in metallic samples as  $`\delta I_\alpha (2)1/g^2L^{42d}`$. In the critical region ($`g1`$) fluctuations  are of the same order as the average value, which is then not enough to characterize the critical eigenstates (even though multifractal wave function extend throughout the whole sample, their IPR is not self-averaging ).

I use $`I(2)`$ as a rough guide in selecting eigenstates with different properties in the delocalized phase (Fig. 5). The second parameter used in the selection procedure is the conductance $`g(E_F)`$ computed for a band filled up to the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ equal to the state eigenenergy (see Fig. 6). The conductance as a function of band filling allows one to delineate delocalized from localized phase as well as to narrow down the critical region around LD transition point (which is defined by $`g(E_c)1`$). Upon inspection of these two parameters, a small window is placed around chosen energy, and $`f(t)`$ is computed for all eigenenergies whose eigenvalues fall inside the window. This provides more detailed information on the structure of eigenstates than is encoded in IPR.

The average IPR for both RH and DD Anderson model is shown in Fig. 5. The models with random hopping have been around for a long time,  but have attracted considerable attention only recently, inasmuch as they show a disorder induced quantum critical point in less than three dimensions,  where delocalization occurs in the band center. Furthermore, several models used for strongly correlated electron systems share similar mathematical structure with the random hopping 2D models formulated in the framework of (non-interacting) disorder electron physics.  Real solids which could be described by TBH (2) with off-diagonal disorder include doped semiconductors,  such as P-doped Si, where hopping integrals $`t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}`$ vary exponentially with the distances between the orbitals they connect, while diagonal on-site energies $`\epsilon _𝐦`$ are nearly constant. The behavior of low-dimensional RH Anderson model goes against the standard mantra of the scaling theory of localization for non-interacting systems  that all electron states are localized in $`d2`$ for arbitrarily weak disorder. The possibility of delocalization transition in one dimension  goes back to the work of Dyson  on glasses. Also, the scaling theory for quantum wires with off-diagonal disorder requires two parameters  which depend on the microscopic model, thus breaking the celebrated universality in disordered electron problems. In 3D case explored here, the states in the band center are less extended than other delocalized states inside the band (Fig. 5). However, the off-diagonal disorder is not strong enough  to localize all states in the band, in contrast to the usual case of diagonal disorder where whole band becomes localized  for $`W_{\text{DD}}^c16.5`$.

The mobility edge for the strongest RH disorder $`W_{\text{RH}}=1`$, as well as for DD models, is found by looking at an exact zero-temperature static conductance. This quantity (which is a Fermi surface property) is computed from the Landauer-type formula

$$g(E_F)=\text{Tr}[𝐭(E_F)𝐭^{}(E_F)],$$
(8)
where transmission matrix $`𝐭(E_F)`$ is expressed in terms of the real-space (lattice) Green functions  for the sample attached to two clean semi-infinite leads. To study the conductance in the whole band of the DD model, $`t_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}}=1.5`$ is used  for the hopping integral in the leads. This mesoscopic computational technique “opens” the sample, thereby smearing the discrete levels of an initially isolated system. Thus, the spectrum of sample+leads=infinite system becomes continues and conductance can be calculated at any $`E_F`$ inside the band. However, the computed conductance, for not too small disorder  or coupling to the leads  (which are of the same transverse width as the sample ) is practically equal to the “intrinsic” conductance $`g=\pi E_{\mathrm{Th}}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ determined by the spectral properties of a closed sample.

The conductance and density of states (DoS)

$$N(E)=2\frac{\rho (E)}{V},$$
(9)
are plotted in Fig. 6 for the samples whose eigenstates are investigated (the factor of two is for spin degeneracy). The DoS is obtained from the histogram of the number of eigenvalues which fall into equally spaced energy bins along the band. The conductance and DoS of the RH model have a peak at $`E=0`$, which becomes a logarithmic singularity in the limit of infinite system size.  To get an insight into the “general weakness” of the off-diagonal disorder, Fig. 7 plots $`g(E_F)`$ and $`N(E)`$ for the low $`W_{\text{RH}}=0.25`$. In this case $`N(E)`$ still resembles the DoS of a clean system, even after ensemble averaging. On the other hand, the conductance is a smooth function of energy since discrete levels of an isolated sample are broadened by the coupling to leads. The same is true for the DoS computed from the imaginary part of the Green function for an open system. The mobility edge is absent at low RH disorder ($`W_{\mathrm{RH}}=0.25`$ and $`W_{\mathrm{RH}}=0.375`$) for system sizes $`L16a`$. This means that localization length $`\xi `$ is greater than $`16a`$ for all energies inside the band of these systems. For other samples on Fig. 6 the mobility edge appears inside the band. This is clearly shown for $`W_{\mathrm{RH}}=1`$ case where band edge $`E_b`$ ($`N(E_b)=0`$) differs from $`E_c`$. The mobility edge is located at the minimum energy $`|E_c|`$ for which $`g(E_c)`$ is still different from zero. The conductance of finite samples is always finite, although exponentially small at $`|E_F|>|E_c|`$. The approximate values of $`|E_c|`$ listed in Fig. 6 are such that conductance satisfies: $`g(E_F)<0.1`$, for $`|E_F|>|E_c|`$; typically $`g(E_c)(0.2,0.5)`$ is obtained, like in the recent detailed studies  of conductance properties at $`E_c`$. Thus found $`E_c`$ is virtually equal to the true mobility edge, which is properly defined only in thermodynamic limit (and usually obtained from some numerical finite-size scaling procedure ). Namely, the position of mobility edge extracted in this way will not change  when going to larger system sizes if $`\xi <L`$ for all energies $`|E|>|E_c|`$.

The distribution $`f(t)`$ of eigenfunction intensities has been studied analytically for diffusive conductors close to the universal RMT limit (where conductance is large and localization effects are small) in Refs.  using the supermatrix $`\sigma `$-model (NLSM),  or by means of a “direct optimal fluctuations method” of Ref. . Numerical studies of statistics of eigenstates in DD Anderson model were conducted in 2D for all disorder strengths,  while in 3D the focus has been on the states appearing in the semiclassical transport regime where comparison with analytical predictions (parameterized by semiclassical quantities, like $`k_F\mathrm{}`$) can be made in the regions of small  and large  deviations of $`f(t)`$ from PT distribution. Here I show how $`f(t)`$ evolves with the strength of (different types of) disorder in 3D samples, where genuine LD transition occurs in the strong coupling regime of the corresponding field-theoretical formulation.

In the weakly disordered ($`k_F\mathrm{}1`$) metallic ($`g1`$) conductors pre-localized states are extremely rare. For example, in an ensemble of 20 000 samples ($`W_{\mathrm{DD}}=4`$), whose typical transport properties are well-described by semiclassical theories, only four states would show up in the band center which exhibit similar amplitude splashes like the one in Fig. 1. Thus, to get a far tail (where deviations from PT distribution are large) of $`f(t)`$ in such conductors one has to search through enormous ensemble and locate special configurations of a random potential.  The maximum wave function amplitudes which can be observed in this pursuit are, plausibly, determined by the strength of disorder, i.e., conductance $`g`$. It is, however, interesting that tails at small but finite $`g`$ in the strong disorder (like $`W_{\mathrm{DD}}=10`$) can be longer than the tails of states in the localized phase, where $`g`$ is vanishingly small, for $`|E|>|E_c|`$ at some smaller fixed disorder (like in the case of $`W_{\mathrm{DD}}=6`$; compare the two panels in Fig. 4 using respective conductances from Fig. 6). For strong enough disorder long tails of $`f(t)`$ are found, even by investigating small ensembles of disordered conductors (as shown below), since the frequency of appearance of pre-localized states is greatly enhanced (while system is still on the delocalized side of LD transition).

The complete eigenproblem of a single particle random Hamiltonian is solved exactly by numerical diagonalization. Then, $`f(t)`$ is computed as a histogram of intensities for the chosen eigenstates in: delocalized ($`|E|<|E_c|`$), localized phase ($`|E|>|E_c|`$), and critical region around the mobility edge $`|E_c|`$. The two delta functions in Eq. (1) are approximated by a box function $`\overline{\delta }(x)`$. The width of $`\overline{\delta }(EE_\alpha )`$ is small enough at a specific energy that $`\rho (E)`$ is constant inside that interval. For each sample, 5–10 states are picked by the energy bin, which effectively provides additional averaging over the disorder (according to ergodicity  in RMT). The amplitudes of wave functions are sorted in the bins defined by $`\overline{\delta }(t|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (𝐫)|^2V)`$ whose width is constant on a logarithmic scale. The function $`f(t)`$ is computed at all points inside the sample, i.e., $`N=16^3`$ in Eq. (1).

The evolution of $`f(t)`$, when sweeping the band through the interesting states, is plotted in Figs. 23 for the RH disordered sample. Since pre-localized states generate slow decay of $`f(t)`$ at high wave function intensities (where PT distribution is negligible),  this region is enlarged on Fig. 3. This is obvious from the pre-localized example in Fig. 1 where state with large amplitude spikes, highly unlikely in the framework of RMT, was found in a very good metal. The same is trivially true for the localized states which determine extremely long tails of $`f_\xi (t)`$. Thus, the long asymptotic tails of $`f(t)`$, appreciably deviating from PT distribution, are signaling the onset of localization. It is interesting that states in the band center of RH model, which define the largest zero-temperature conductance $`[g(E_F=0)10.2`$, Var $`g(E_F=0)0.63]`$, are in fact mostly pre-localized. Moreover, both the frequency of their appearance and high amplitude splashes resemble the situation at criticality (NLSM-type calculation  shows that 3D wave functions, sufficiently close to the band center, are always extended for any disorder strength). It might be conjectured that these pre-localized states would generate multifractal scaling of IPR in the band center. This result, together with the DoS and conductance from Figs. 67, shows that phenomena in the band center of 3D conductors with off-diagonal disorder are as intriguing as their much studied counterparts in low-dimensional systems.  The origin of these phenomena can be traced back to a special sublattice, or “chiral”,  symmetry obeyed by TBH (2) with random hopping and constant on-site energy (leading to an eigenspectrum which for $`E_\alpha `$ contains $`E_\alpha `$, with a special role played by $`E=0`$). In the $`W_{\text{RH}}=0.25`$ and $`W_{\text{RH}}=0.375`$ cases all states are extended. Their $`f(t)`$ looks similar to the distribution function for the delocalized states at $`E=1.5`$ in the sample characterized by $`W_{\text{RH}}=1`$. The distribution function $`f_\xi (t)`$ defined in Eq. (4) fits reasonably well the numerical $`f(t)`$ generated by the states around $`E=2.75`$, where $`\xi 1.2a`$ is extracted for the localization length. Thus, one can measure approximately $`\xi `$ in this way  even though the structure of localized eigenstates can be more complicated  than the simple radially symmetric exponential decay used to derive $`f_\xi (t)`$ \[e.g., in the case of DD disorder $`\xi 1.3a`$ is obtained for examined localized states in Fig. 4 for $`W_{\mathrm{DD}}=10`$ ensemble, while corresponding states in $`W_{\mathrm{DD}}=6`$ ensemble seem to be too close to the mobility edge to follow $`f_\xi (t)`$\].

The same statistical analysis is performed for the eigenstates of DD Anderson model—a “standard model” in the localization theory. Figure 4 plots $`f(t)`$ at specific energies $`E_i`$ in samples characterized by different conductances $`g(E_F=E_i)`$. The conductance $`g(E=0)`$ of TBH with $`W_{\text{DD}}=6`$ is numerically close to the conductance of RH disordered samples with $`W_{\text{RH}}=1`$. Nevertheless, comparison of the corresponding distribution functions reveals disorder-dependent features  which are beyond universal corrections (i.e., independent of the details of random potential) accounted by the properties of a classical diffusion operator  (the spectrum of $`𝒟^2`$, with appropriate boundary conditions, depends on $`g`$, shape of the sample and dimensionality; note that conductors at $`W6`$ with half-filled band lie on the boundary of applicability of such semiclassical concepts ). To get the far tail of the eigenstate statistics in the band center a much larger statistics is needed than used here.  This then makes the observed $`f(t)`$ in a special case of the band center of $`W_{\text{RH}}=1`$ disordered conductor even more spectacular because of very large amplitudes found in the small ensemble of conductors. Thus, the strong dependence on the microscopic details of random potential demonstrated in this study is somewhat different from the disorder-specific short length scale (“ballistic” ) contributions  to the standard picture of diffusive NLSM. Namely, here it seems that special features of off-diagonal disorder in the band center generate completely different functional form of the far tail, and not just some disorder-specific values of the parameters  in the exp-log-cube asymptotics. .

In both models, all computed $`f(t)`$ intersect PT distribution (from below) around $`6t10`$, and then develop tails far above PT values. The length of the tails is defined by the largest amplitude exhibited in the pre-localized state (like that in Fig. 1). For strong DD, $`W_{\text{DD}}=10`$, the conductance $`g(E_F)`$ is smaller than $`3.5`$. In this regime transport becomes “intrinsically diffusive”,  but one can still extract resistivity from the approximate Ohmic scaling of disorder-averaged resistance  (for those fillings where  $`g(E_F)>2`$). However, the close proximity to the critical region $`g1`$ induces long tails of $`f(t)`$ at all energies throughout the band—a sign of increased frequency of appearance of highly inhomogeneous states. This provides an insight into the microscopic structure of eigenstates which carry the current in a non-semiclassical transport regime  (characterized by the lack of simple intuitive concepts, like mean free path $`\mathrm{}`$, since unwarranted use of the Boltzmann theory would give  $`\mathrm{}<a`$ in this transport regime although the sample is still far away from the LD transition).

In conclusion, the statistics of eigenstates in 3D mesoscopic conductors, modeled by the tight-binding Hamiltonian on the finite-size simple cubic lattice, have been studied. The disorder is introduced either in the potential energy (diagonal) or in the hopping integrals (off-diagonal). Also calculated are the average inverse participation ratio of eigenfunctions and the exact zero-temperature conductance as a function of Fermi energy. This comprehensive set of parameters makes it possible to compare the eigenstates in nanoscale samples with different types of disorder, but characterized by similar values of conductance. Disorder-specific details, which are not parameterized by the conductance alone, are found. This is in spite of the fact that dimensionality, shape of the sample, and conductance are expected to determine the finite-size corrections to the universal predictions of random matrix theory, at least in the samples which are in the semiclassical transport regime. The appearance of states with large amplitude spikes on the of top of RMT like background is clearly demonstrated even in good metals. At criticality, the proliferation of such “pre-localized” states is directly related to the extensively studied multifractal scaling of IPR. However, even in the delocalized phase with good metallic properties ($`g1`$), where the correlation length  $`\xi _c\lambda _F`$ defined by the sample conductance $`g(\xi _c)1`$ is microscopic ($`L<\xi _c`$ would naturally account for the multifractal scaling,  like in 2D), pre-localized state with unexpectedly high amplitudes are found in the band center of random hopping disordered systems. They are inhomogeneous enough to generate extremely long tails of the distribution of eigenfunction amplitudes, akin to the ones observed at criticality.

Inspiring discussions with V. Z. Cerovski are acknowledged. Valuable guidance have been provided by P. B. Allen. The important improvements of the initial cond-mat preprint have resulted from criticism provided by B. Shapiro and I. E. Smolyarenko. This work was supported in part by NSF grant no. DMR 9725037.

$``$ Present address: Department of Physics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057-0995.


format: text

text:
# Simple Proof of Security of the BB84 Quantum Key Distribution Protocol

## Abstract

We prove that the 1984 protocol of Bennett and Brassard (BB84) for quantum key distribution is secure. We first give a key distribution protocol based on entanglement purification, which can be proven secure using methods from Lo and Chau’s proof of security for a similar protocol. We then show that the security of this protocol implies the security of BB84. The entanglement-purification based protocol uses Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) codes, and properties of these codes are used to remove the use of quantum computation from the Lo-Chau protocol.

Quantum cryptography differs from conventional cryptography in that the data are kept secret by the properties of quantum mechanics, rather than the conjectured difficulty of computing certain functions. The first quantum key distribution protocol, proposed in 1984 , is called BB84 after its inventors (C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard). In this protocol, the participants (Alice and Bob) wish to agree on a secret key about which no eavesdropper (Eve) can obtain significant information. Alice sends each bit of the secret key in one of a set of conjugate bases which Eve does not know, and this key is protected by the impossibility of measuring the state of a quantum system simultaneously in two conjugate bases. The original papers proposing quantum key distribution  proved it secure against certain attacks, including those feasible using current experimental techniques. However, for many years, it was not rigorously proven secure against an adversary able to perform any physical operation permitted by quantum mechanics.

Recently, three proofs of the security of quantum key distribution protocols have been discovered; however, none is entirely satisfactory. One proof , although easy to understand, has the drawback that the protocol requires a quantum computer. The other two  prove the security of a protocol based on BB84, and so are applicable to near-practical settings. However, both proofs are quite complicated. We give a simpler proof by relating the security of BB84 to entanglement purification protocols  and quantum error correcting codes . This new proof also may illuminate some properties of previous proofs , and thus give insight into them. For example, it elucidates why the rates obtainable from these proofs are related to rates for CSS codes. The proof was in fact inspired by the observation that CSS codes are hidden in the inner workings of the proof given in .

We first review CSS codes and associated entanglement purification protocols. Quantum error-correcting codes are subspaces of the Hilbert space $`^{2^n}`$ which are protected from errors in a small number of these qubits, so that any such error can be measured and subsequently corrected without disturbing the encoded state. A quantum CSS code $`Q`$ on $`n`$ qubits comes from two binary codes on $`n`$ bits, $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, one contained in the other:

$`\{0\}C_2C_1𝐅_2^n,`$

where $`𝐅_2^n`$ is the binary vector space on $`n`$ bits .

A set of basis states (which we call codewords) for the CSS code subspace can be obtained from vectors $`vC_1`$ as follows:

$$v\frac{1}{|C_2|^{1/2}}\underset{wC_2}{}|v+w.$$
(1)
If $`v_1v_2C_2`$, then the codewords corresponding to $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are the same. Hence these codewords correspond to cosets of $`C_2`$ in $`C_1`$, and this code protects a Hilbert space of dimension $`2^{dimC_1dimC_2}`$.

The above quantum code is equivalent to the dual code $`Q^{}`$ obtained from the two binary codes

$`\{0\}C_1^{}C_2^{}𝐅_2^n.`$

This equivalence can be demonstrated by applying the Hadamard transform

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right)`$

to each encoding qubit. This transformation interchanges the bases $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and $`|+`$, $`|`$, where $`|+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$ and $`|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1})`$. It also interchanges the two subspaces corresponding to the codes $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$, although the codewords (given by Eq. 1) of $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$ are not likewise interchanged.

We now make a brief technical detour to define some terms. The three Pauli matrices are:

$`\sigma _x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill i\\ \hfill i& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right).`$

The matrix $`\sigma _x`$ applies a bit flip error to a qubit, while $`\sigma _z`$ applies a phase flip error. We denote the Pauli matrix $`\sigma _a`$ acting on the $`k`$’th bit of the CSS code by $`\sigma _{a(k)}`$ for $`a\{x,y,z\}`$. For a binary vector $`s`$, we let

$`\sigma _a^{[s]}=\sigma _{a(1)}^{s_1}\sigma _{a(2)}^{s_2}\sigma _{a(3)}^{s_3}\mathrm{}\sigma _{a(n)}^{s_n}`$

where $`\sigma _a^0`$ is the identity matrix and $`s_i`$ is the $`i`$’th bit of $`s`$. The matrices $`\sigma _x^{[s]}`$ ($`\sigma _z^{[s]}`$) have all eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$.

In a classical error correcting code, correction proceeds by measuring the syndrome, which is done as follows. A parity check matrix $`H`$ of a code $`C`$ is a basis of the dual vector space $`C^{}`$. Suppose that we transmit a codeword $`v`$, which acquires errors to become $`w=v+ϵ`$. The $`k`$’th row $`r_k`$ of the matrix $`H`$ determines the $`k`$’th bit of the syndrome for $`w`$, namely $`r_kw\text{ (mod 2)}`$. The full syndrome is thus $`Hw`$. If the syndrome is $`0`$, then $`wC`$. Otherwise, the most likely value of the error $`ϵ`$ can be calculated from the syndrome . In our quantum CSS code, we need to correct both bit and phase errors. Let $`H_1`$ be a parity check matrix for the code $`C_1`$, and $`H_2`$ one for the code $`C_2^{}`$. To calculate the syndrome for bit flips, we measure the eigenvalue of $`\sigma _z^{[r]}`$ for each row $`rH_1`$ ($`1`$’s and $`1`$’s of the eigenvalue correspond to 1’s and 0’s of the syndrome). To calculate the syndrome for phase flips, we measure the eigenvalue of $`\sigma _x^{[r]}`$ for each row $`rH_2`$. This lets us correct both bit and phase flips, and if we can correct up to $`t`$ of each of these types of errors, we can also correct arbitrary errors on up to $`t`$ qubits .

The useful property of CSS codes for demonstrating the security of BB84 is that the error correction for the phases is decoupled from that for the bit values, as shown above. General quantum stabilizer codes can similarly be turned into key distribution protocols, but these appear to require a quantum computer to implement.

If one requires that a CSS code correct all errors on at most $`t=\delta n`$ qubits, the best codes that we know exist satisfy the quantum Gilbert-Varshamov bound. As the block length $`n`$ goes to infinity, these codes asymptotically protect against $`\delta n`$ bit errors and $`\delta n`$ phase errors, and encode $`[12H(2\delta )]n`$ qubits, where $`H`$ is the binary Shannon entropy $`H(p)=p\mathrm{log}_2(p)(1p)\mathrm{log}_2(1p)`$. In practice, it is better to only require that random errors are corrected with high probability. In this case, codes exist that correct $`\delta n`$ random phase errors and $`\delta n`$ random bit errors, and which encode $`[12H(\delta )]n`$ qubits.

We also need a description of the Bell basis. These are the four maximally entangled states

$`\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}\pm |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}),\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}00}\pm |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}11}),`$

which form an orthogonal basis for the quantum state space of two qubits.

Finally, we introduce a class of quantum error correcting codes equivalent to $`Q`$, and parameterized by two $`n`$-bit binary vectors $`x`$ and $`z`$. Suppose that $`Q`$ is determined as above by $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. Then $`Q_{x,z}`$ has basis vectors indexed by cosets of $`C_2`$ in $`C_1`$, and for $`vC_1`$, the corresponding codeword is

$$v\frac{1}{|C_2|^{1/2}}\underset{wC_2}{}(1)^{zw}|x+v+w.$$
(2)
Quantum error correcting codes and entanglement purification protocols are closely connected ; we now describe the entanglement purification protocol corresponding to the CSS code $`Q`$. For now, we assume that the codes $`C_1`$ and $`C_2^{}`$ correct up to $`t`$ errors and that $`Q`$ encodes $`m`$ qubits in $`n`$ qubits. Suppose Alice and Bob share $`n`$ pairs of qubits in a state close to $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^n`$. For the entanglement purification protocol, Alice and Bob separately measure the eigenvalues of $`\sigma _z^{[r]}`$ for each row $`rH_1`$ and $`\sigma _x^{[r^{}]}`$ for each row $`r^{}H_2`$. Note that for these measurements to be performable simultaneously, they must all commute; $`\sigma _z^{[r]}`$ and $`\sigma _x^{[r^{}]}`$ commute because the vector spaces $`C_1^{}`$ and $`C_2`$ are orthogonal.

If Alice and Bob start with $`n`$ perfect EPR pairs, measuring $`\sigma _z^{[r]}`$ for $`rH_1`$ and $`\sigma _x^{[r^{}]}`$ for $`r^{}H_2`$ projects each of their states onto the code subspace $`Q_{x,z}`$, where $`x`$ and $`z`$ are any binary vectors with $`H_1x`$ and $`H_2z`$ equal to the measured bit and phase syndromes, respectively. After projection, the state is $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^m`$ encoded by $`Q_{x,z}`$.

Now, suppose that Alice and Bob start with a state close to $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^n`$. To be specific, suppose that all their EPR pairs are in the Bell basis, with $`t`$ or fewer bit flips ($`\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ pairs) and $`t`$ or fewer phase flips ($`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ pairs). If Alice and Bob compare their measurements of $`\sigma _z^{[r]}`$ ($`\sigma _x^{[r]}`$), the rows $`r`$ for which these measurements disagree give the bits which are $`1`$ in the bit (phase) syndromes. From these syndromes, Alice and Bob can compute the locations of the bit and the phase flips, can correct these errors, and can then decode $`Q_{x,z}`$ to obtain $`m`$ perfect EPR pairs.

We will show that the following is a secure quantum key distribution protocol.

Protocol 1: Modified Lo-Chau

* Alice creates $`2n`$ EPR pairs in the state $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^n`$.
* Alice selects a random $`2n`$ bit string $`b`$, and performs a Hadamard transform on the second half of each EPR pair for which $`b`$ is 1.
* Alice sends the second half of each EPR pair to Bob.
* Bob receives the qubits and publicly announces this fact.
* Alice selects $`n`$ of the $`2n`$ encoded EPR pairs to serve as check bits to test for Eve’s interference.
* Alice announces the bit string $`b`$, and which $`n`$ EPR pairs are to be check bits.
* Bob performs Hadamards on the qubits where $`b`$ is $`1`$.
* Alice and Bob each measure their halves of the $`n`$ check EPR pairs in the $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ basis and share the results. If too many of these measurements disagree, they abort the protocol.
* Alice and Bob make the measurements on their code qubits of $`\sigma _z^{[r]}`$ for each row $`rH_1`$ and $`\sigma _x^{[r]}`$ for each row $`rH_2`$. Alice and Bob share the results, compute the syndromes for bit and phase flips, and then transform their state so as to obtain $`m`$ nearly perfect EPR pairs.
* Alice and Bob measure the EPR pairs in the $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ basis to obtain a shared secret key.

We now show that this protocol works. Namely, we show that the probability is exponentially small that Alice and Bob agree on a key about which Eve can obtain more than an exponentially small amount of information. We need a result of Lo and Chau  that if Alice and Bob share a state having fidelity $`12^s`$ with $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^m`$, then Eve’s mutual information with the key is at most $`2^c+2^{O(2s)}`$ where $`c=s\mathrm{log}_2(2m+s+1/\mathrm{log}_e2)`$.

For the proof, we use an argument based on one from Lo and Chau . Let us calculate the probability that the test on the check bits succeeds while the entanglement purification on the code bits fails. We do this by considering the measurement that projects each of the EPR pairs onto the Bell basis.

We first consider the check bits. Note that for the EPR pairs where $`b=1`$, Alice and Bob are effectively measuring them in the $`|+`$, $`|`$ basis rather than the $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ basis. Now, observe that

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+|+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}01}|+|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}|,`$
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|`$ $`=`$ $`|++|+|++|.`$
These relations show that the rates of bit flip errors and of phase flip errors that Alice and Bob estimate from their measurements on check bits are the same as they would have estimated using the Bell basis measurement.

We next consider the measurements on the code bits. We want to show that the purification protocol applied to $`n`$ pairs produces a state that is close to the encoded $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^m`$. The purification protocol succeeds perfectly acting on the space spanned by Bell pairs that differ from $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^n`$ by $`t`$ or fewer bit flip errors and by $`t`$ or fewer phase flips errors. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ denote the projection onto this space. Then if the protocol is applied to an initial density operator $`\rho `$ of the $`n`$ pairs, it can be shown that the final density operator $`\rho ^{}`$ approximates $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^m`$ with fidelity

$$F(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^m|\rho ^{}|(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^m\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }\rho \right).$$
(3)
Hence the fidelity is at least as large as the probability that $`t`$ or fewer bit flip errors and $`t`$ or fewer phase flip errors would have been found, if the Bell measurement had been performed on all $`n`$ pairs.

Now, when Eve has access to the qubits, she does not yet know which qubits are check qubits and which are code qubits, so she cannot treat them differently. The check qubits that Alice and Bob measure thus behave like a classical random sample of the qubits. We are then able to use the measured error rates in a classical probability estimate; we find that probability of obtaining more than $`\delta n`$ bit (phase) errors on the code bits and fewer than $`(\delta ϵ)n`$ errors on the check bits is asymptotically less than $`\mathrm{exp}[\frac{1}{4}ϵ^2n/(\delta \delta ^2)]`$. We conclude that if Alice and Bob have greater than an exponentially small probability of passing the test, then the fidelity of Alice and Bob’s state with $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^m`$ is exponentially close to 1.

We now show how to turn this Lo-Chau type protocol into a quantum error-correcting code protocol. Observe first that it does not matter whether Alice measures her check bits before or after she transmits half of each EPR pair to Bob, and similarly that it does not matter whether she measures the syndrome before or after this transmission. If she measures the check bits first, this is the same as choosing a random one of $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. If she also measures the syndrome first, this is equivalent to transmitting $`m`$ halves of EPR pairs encoded by the CSS code $`Q_{x,z}`$ for two random vectors $`x`$, $`z𝐅_2^n`$. The vector $`x`$ is determined by the syndrome measurements $`\sigma _z^{[r]}`$ for rows $`rH_1`$, and similarly for $`z`$. Alice can also measure her half of the encoded EPR pairs before or after transmission. If she measures them first, this is the same as choosing a random key $`k`$ and encoding $`k`$ using $`Q_{x,z}`$. We thus obtain the following equivalent protocol.

Protocol 2: CSS Codes

* Alice creates $`n`$ random check bits, a random $`m`$-bit key $`k`$, and a random $`2n`$-bit string $`b`$.
* Alice chooses $`n`$-bit strings $`x`$ and $`z`$ at random.
* Alice encodes her key $`|k`$ using the CSS code $`Q_{x,z}`$
* Alice chooses $`n`$ positions (out of $`2n`$) and puts the check bits in these positions and the code bits in the remaining positions.
* Alice applies a Hadamard transform to those qubits in the positions having 1 in $`b`$.
* Alice sends the resulting state to Bob. Bob acknowledges receipt of the qubits.
* Alice announces $`b`$, the positions of the check bits, the values of the check bits, and the $`x`$ and $`z`$ determining the code $`Q_{x,z}`$.
* Bob performs Hadamards on the qubits where $`b`$ is $`1`$.
* Bob checks whether too many of the check bits have been corrupted, and aborts the protocol if so.
* Bob decodes the key bits and uses them for the key.

Intuitively, the security of the protocol depends on the fact that for a sufficiently low error rate, a CSS code transmits the information encoded by it with very high fidelity, so that by the no-cloning principle very little information can leak to Eve.

We now give the final argument that turns the above protocol into BB84. First note that, since all Bob cares about are the bit values of the encoded key, and the string $`z`$ is only used to correct the phase of the encoded qubits, Bob does not need $`z`$. This is why we use CSS codes: they decouple the phase correction from the bit correction. Let $`k^{}C_1`$ be a binary vector that is mapped by Eq. (2) to the encoded key. Since Bob never uses $`z`$, we can assume that Alice does not send it. Averaging over $`z`$, we see that Alice effectively sends the mixed state

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n|C_2|}}{\displaystyle \underset{z}{}}[{\displaystyle \underset{w_1,w_2C_2}{}}(1)^{(w_1+w_2)z}`$ (4)
$`\times |k^{}+w_1+xk^{}+w_2+x|]`$ (5)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|C_2|}}{\displaystyle \underset{wC_2}{}}|k^{}+w+xk^{}+w+x|,`$ (6)
which is equivalently the mixture of states $`|k^{}+x+w`$ with $`w`$ chosen randomly in $`C_2`$. Let us now look at the protocol as a whole. The error correction information Alice gives Bob is $`x`$, and Alice sends $`|k^{}+x+w`$ over the quantum channel. Over many iterations of the algorithm, these are random variables chosen uniformly in $`𝐅_2^n`$ with the constraint that their difference $`k^{}+w`$ is in $`C_1`$. After Bob receives $`k^{}+w+x+ϵ`$, he subtracts $`x`$, and corrects the result to a codeword in $`C_1`$, which is almost certain to be $`k^{}+w`$. The key is the coset of $`k^{}+w`$ over $`C_2`$.

In the BB84 protocol given below, Alice sends $`|v`$ to Bob, with error correction information $`u+v`$. These are again two random variables uniform in $`𝐅_2^n`$, with the constraint that $`uC_1`$. Bob obtains $`v+ϵ`$, subtracts $`u+v`$, and corrects the result to a codeword in $`C_1`$, which with high probability is $`u`$. The key is then the coset $`u+C_2`$. Thus, the two protocols are completely equivalent.

Protocol 3: BB84

* Alice creates $`(4+\delta )n`$ random bits.
* Alice chooses a random $`(4+\delta )n`$-bit string $`b`$. For each bit, she creates a state in the $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ basis (if the corresponding bit of $`b`$ is $`0`$) or the $`|+`$, $`|`$ basis (if the bit of $`b`$ is $`1`$).
* Alice sends the resulting qubits to Bob.
* Bob receives the $`(4+\delta )n`$ qubits, measuring each in the $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$,$`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ or the $`|+`$,$`|`$ basis at random.
* Alice announces $`b`$.
* Bob discards any results where he measured a different basis than Alice prepared. With high probability, there are at least $`2n`$ bits left (if not, abort the protocol). Alice decides randomly on a set of $`2n`$ bits to use for the protocol, and chooses at random $`n`$ of these to be check bits.
* Alice and Bob announce the values of their check bits. If too few of these values agree, they abort the protocol.
* Alice announces $`u+v`$, where $`v`$ is the string consisting of the remaining non-check bits, and $`u`$ is a random codeword in $`C_1`$.
* Bob subtracts $`u+v`$ from his code qubits, $`v+ϵ`$, and corrects the result, $`u+ϵ`$, to a codeword in $`C_1`$.
* Alice and Bob use the coset of $`u+C_2`$ as the key.

There are a few loose ends that need to be tied up. The protocol given above uses binary codes $`C_1`$ and $`C_2^{}`$ with large minimum distance, and thus can obtain rates given by the quantum Gilbert-Varshamov bound for CSS codes . To reach the better Shannon bound for CSS codes, we need to use codes for which a random small set of phase errors and bit errors can almost always be corrected. To prove that the protocol works in this case, we need to ensure that the errors are indeed random. We do this by adding a step where Alice scrambles the qubits using a random permutation $`\pi `$ before sending them to Bob, and a step after Bob acknowledges receiving the qubits where Alice sends $`\pi `$ to Bob and he unscrambles the qubits. This can work as long as the measured bit and phase error rates are less than 11%, the point at which the Shannon rate $`12H(\delta )`$ hits $`0`$.

For a practical key distribution protocol we need the classical code $`C_1`$ to be efficiently decodeable. As is shown in , we can let $`C_2`$ be a random subcode of an efficiently decodeable code $`C_1`$, and with high probability obtain a good code $`C_2^{}`$. While known efficiently decodeable codes do not meet the Shannon bound, they come fairly close.

A weakness in both the proof given in this paper and the proofs in  is that they do not apply to imperfect sources; the sources must be perfect single-photon sources. A proof avoiding this difficulty was recently discovered by Michael Ben-Or ; it shows that any source sufficiently close to a single-photon source is still secure. However, most experimental quantum key distribution systems use weak coherent sources, and no currently known proof covers this case.

The authors thank Michael Ben-Or, Eli Biham, Hoi-Kwong Lo, Dominic Mayers and Tal Mor for explanations of and informative discussions about their security proofs. We also thank Ike Chuang, Dan Gottesman, Alexei Kitaev and Mike Nielsen for their discussions and suggestions, which greatly improved this paper. Part of this research was done while PWS was visiting Caltech. This work has been supported in part by the Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-92-ER40701, and by DARPA through Caltech’s Quantum Information and Computation (QUIC) project administered by the Army Research Office.


text:
# Magnetic field strength from peaked synchrotron spectra

## 1 Introduction

The evaluation of the magnetic field strength of radio sources may in principle be based on the fact that their synchrotron spectra exhibit a maximum, which arises due to self absorption in the emitting plasma (Rybicki & Lightman 1979). This necessitates the full knowledge of the electron111Although not stated explicitly, all results of this paper are valid for electron and electron-positron plasmas alike. distribution. However, whereas the distribution in the optically thin regime can be inferred from the spectrum and is known to be of power law form, it remains uncertain in the optically thick regime, so that for the latter some assumption is needed. Obviously, the simplest alternative would be to assume an unbroken power law (cf. Pacholczyk 1970).

In this article, the differences between an unbroken power law and some other physically more realistic distributions are investigated. Throughout, apart from the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy, the discussion will be kept as independent as possible from specific source parameters. In Section 2 the kinetic equations governing emission and absorption in a synchrotron plasma are reviewed, and two simple steady state solutions are given. They motivate the use of either a power law with index -3 or a thermal electron distribution in the optically thick regime. Section 3 deals with the magnetic field strengths one obtains under the assumption that the transition from the optically thick to the optically thin regime corresponds to the turnover energy in the electron distribution. Piecewise power laws and thermal distributions for low energies are discussed. In Section 4 the determination of the magnetic field strength from the maximum intensity of the spectrum is investigated. The uncertainty in the limiting brightness temperature is discussed briefly in Section 5.

## 2 Kinetic equations

Treating synchrotron radiation as a special case of bremsstrahlung, we can see that synchrotron emission as a spontaneous process must be accompanied by the corresponding induced processes. Accordingly, it may be described by means of the Einstein coefficients, so that the Einstein relations $`A_{21}=\frac{2h\nu ^3}{c^2}B_{21}`$ and $`B_{12}=B_{21}`$ may be applied. In order to simplify, in the following we assume the electron energies $`ϵ`$ are highly relativistic with $`ϵ\mathrm{}\omega `$ ($`\omega `$ being the angular frequency of an emitted photon) and that both the magnetic field and the electron distribution may be treated as isotropic. Replacing $`A_{21}`$ by the power spectrum $`P(ϵ,\omega )`$ and employing the Einstein relations then yields the kinetic equations describing a synchrotron emitting plasma (McCray 1969, Norman & ter Haar 1974):

$$\frac{W(\omega )}{t}=dϵ\overline{P}(ϵ,\omega )\left\{\frac{}{}f(ϵ)+\frac{\pi ^2c^3}{\omega ^2}ϵ^2\frac{}{ϵ}\left(\frac{f(ϵ)}{ϵ^2}\right)W(\omega )\right\}$$

$$\frac{f(ϵ)}{t}=\frac{}{ϵ}\left(d\omega \overline{P}(ϵ,\omega )\left\{f(ϵ)+\frac{\pi ^2c^3}{\omega ^2}ϵ^2\frac{}{ϵ}\left(\frac{f(ϵ)}{ϵ^2}\right)W(\omega )\right\}\right)$$

In these formulae, $`f`$ stands for the electron density per energy $`ϵ`$, $`W`$ for the photon energy density per angular frequency $`\omega `$. $`\overline{P}`$ is the angular average of $`P`$, i.e. $`\overline{P}=_{4\pi }Pd\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The kinetic equations obtained in this manner remain valid in case of a homogeneous magnetic field and an isotropic photon distribution. In the stationary case comparison of the kinetic equations and the transfer equation $`\frac{\mathrm{d}I_\nu }{\mathrm{d}s}=j_\nu \alpha _\nu I_\nu `$ with emission coefficient $`j_\nu `$, absorption coefficient $`\alpha _\nu `$, and path length $`s`$ yields an expression for $`\alpha _\nu `$:

$$\alpha _\nu =dϵ\overline{P}(ϵ,\omega )\frac{\pi ^2c^2}{\omega ^2}ϵ^2\frac{}{ϵ}\left(\frac{f(ϵ)}{ϵ^2}\right)$$
(1)
Turning now from these rather general considerations to the specific example of synchrotron radiation, one starts by defining $`x\omega /\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ and $`F(x)x_x^{\mathrm{}}K_{5/3}(\xi )d\xi `$, where $`\omega _\mathrm{c}3ϵ^2eB\mathrm{sin}\alpha /2m_\mathrm{e}^3c^5`$ with the elementary charge $`e`$, the electron mass $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ and the pitch angle $`\alpha `$ between magnetic field and electron velocity. $`K_{5/3}`$ constitutes the modified Bessel function of order 5/3. Using these definitions, one may express the synchrotron power spectrum as $`P(ϵ,\omega )=(\sqrt{3}e^3B\mathrm{sin}\alpha /2\pi m_\mathrm{e}c^2)^{1/2}F(x)`$ (Ginzburg & Syrovatskii 1965). Its angular average is given by $`\overline{P}(ϵ,\omega )=Q(\stackrel{~}{x})P(ϵ,\omega )|_{\mathrm{sin}\alpha =1}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{x}x|_{\mathrm{sin}\alpha =1}`$, where for

$$Q(\stackrel{~}{x})=\frac{1}{2F(\stackrel{~}{x})}_1^{+1}d\mu \sqrt{1\mu ^2}F\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}}{\sqrt{1\mu ^2}}\right)$$

the approximation $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x})_{n=0}^3Q_n\stackrel{~}{x}^n0.8225330.181121\stackrel{~}{x}+0.0370118\stackrel{~}{x}^20.00316623\stackrel{~}{x}^3`$ can be used. (Because of $`\overline{P}(ϵ,\omega )P(ϵ,\omega )|_{\mathrm{sin}\alpha =1}`$, $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x})1`$, so that for $`\stackrel{~}{x}\mathrm{}`$ the approximation becomes arbitrarily inaccurate. However, $`Q(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ will always be part of an integrand containing $`\mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$, which renders this inaccuracy irrelevant.) Concerning stationary distributions, two important solutions of the kinetic equations can be stated (Norman & ter Haar 1974). Firstly, the distributions may be those of thermal equilibrium in the Rayleigh-Jeans limit, i.e. $`f(ϵ)=f_0\mathrm{exp}\left(ϵ/\pi ^2c^3\mathrm{\Omega }_0\right)`$, $`W(\omega )=\mathrm{\Omega }_0\omega ^2`$, where $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ are arbitrary positive constants. Secondly, the only viable power law for the electron distribution has the index -3, so that $`f(ϵ)=f_0ϵ^3`$. The corresponding photon distribution has the form $`W(\omega )=\frac{1}{5\pi ^2}\sqrt{\frac{2m_\mathrm{e}^3}{3ceB}}\omega ^{5/2}`$. Finally, one may note that the form of the kinetic equations precludes the use of the delta approximation $`\overline{P}(ϵ,\omega )=C_1ϵ^2\delta (\omega C_2ϵ^2)`$ ($`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ being constants) for the power spectrum, as, despite of yielding the correct photon distributions, this approximation allows any electron distribution, which contradicts the fact that only one power law index is allowed.

## 3 Magnetic field strength

A typical synchrotron spectrum contains a turnover, marking the transition from optically thick to optically thin emission. Whereas, from observation, the optically thin emission (and thus the electron spectrum for sufficiently high energies) can generally be taken to be a power law with some index $`p_2`$, the precise form of the optically thick spectrum is hard to detect. Therefore the electron spectrum is taken to be of the form

$$f(ϵ)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}F(ϵ)\hfill & ,& ϵ<ϵ_\mathrm{T}\hfill \\ f_0ϵ^{p_2}\hfill & ,& ϵϵ_\mathrm{T}\hfill \end{array}$$

where various functions $`F`$ will be discussed. The simplest choice is to assume an unbroken power law spectrum, i.e. $`F(ϵ)=f_0ϵ^{p_2}`$. Quantities relating to this choice are denoted by the index a. Inserting $`f_\mathrm{a}(ϵ)`$ and the (averaged) synchrotron power spectrum $`\overline{P}(ϵ,\omega )`$ into equation (1), one obtains, using the relation $`x^\mu F(x)dx=\frac{2^{\mu +1}}{\mu +2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{7}{3}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\mu }{2}+\frac{2}{3}\right)`$ with $`\mu >\frac{4}{3}`$ (Westfold 1959),

$$\alpha _\nu =\underset{n=0}{\overset{3}{}}\alpha _0f_0R_\mathrm{a}^{\frac{p_2}{2}}\nu ^{\frac{p_2}{2}2}h(p_2,n),$$
(2)
where $`\alpha _0\frac{\sqrt{3}e^3B}{8\pi m_\mathrm{e}}`$, $`R\frac{3eB}{4\pi m_\mathrm{e}^3c^5}`$ and

$$h(p,n)Q_n\left(1\frac{p}{2}\right)\frac{2^{n\frac{p}{2}}}{n+1\frac{p}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\xi _1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\xi _2\right),$$

where the $`\xi _i`$ are defined as $`\xi _1(6n+223p)/12`$ and $`\xi _2(6n+23p)/12`$. Note that equation (2) can easily be solved for the magnetic field strength $`B`$. A second, slightly more general choice for $`f`$, which will be indicated by the index b, is a piecewise power law, so that $`F(ϵ)=f_0ϵ_\mathrm{T}^{p_2p_1}ϵ^{p_1}`$. Here the constant $`ϵ_\mathrm{T}^{p_2p_1}`$ is implied by demanding continuity in $`ϵ_\mathrm{T}`$. Using the approximation $`F(x)F_0\stackrel{~}{x}^\varphi \mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{x}}=1.8\stackrel{~}{x}^{0.3}\mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$ (Melrose 1980) together with $`\stackrel{~}{x}(ϵ,\nu )x|_{\mathrm{sin}\alpha =1}=\nu /Rϵ^2`$ and

$$g(p,n,\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_2)F_0Q_n\left\{\zeta _3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{x}_1}^{\stackrel{~}{x}_2}\left(\zeta _1\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{x}_1}^{\stackrel{~}{x}_2}\left(\zeta _2\right)\right\}$$

(where $`\zeta _1n+\varphi p/2`$, $`\zeta _2n+\varphi p/2+1`$ and $`\zeta _3n+\varphi 1`$) one gets for the ratio $`\alpha _{\nu _1,\mathrm{b}}/\alpha _{\nu _2,\mathrm{a}}`$ of the absorption coefficients computed with $`f_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`f_\mathrm{b}`$

$$\frac{\alpha _{\nu _1,\mathrm{b}}}{\alpha _{\nu _2,\mathrm{a}}}=\frac{_{n=0}^3\left\{\alpha _{\mathrm{den}}(\nu _1,ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{b}},p_1,p_2,n)\right\}}{_{n=0}^3\alpha _{0,\mathrm{a}}f_0R_\mathrm{a}^{\frac{p_2}{2}}\nu _2^{\frac{p_2}{2}2}h(p_2,n)}$$
(3)
where

$`\alpha _{\mathrm{den}}(\nu _1,ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{b}},p_1,p_2,n)`$
$`=\alpha _{0,\mathrm{b}}f_0R_\mathrm{b}^{\frac{p_2}{2}}\nu _1^{\frac{p_2}{2}2}g(p_2,n,0,\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu _1,ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{b}}))`$
$`+\alpha _{0,\mathrm{b}}f_0ϵ^{p_2p_1}R_\mathrm{b}^{\frac{p_1}{2}}\nu _1^{\frac{p_1}{2}2}g(p_1,n,\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu _1,ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{b}}),\mathrm{}).`$
Now the synchrotron power spectrum takes its maximum at the frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ)=0.29\frac{\pi }{4}Rϵ^2`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_\mathrm{T}),ϵ_\mathrm{T})=0.29\frac{\pi }{4}Rϵ_\mathrm{T}^2/Rϵ_\mathrm{T}^2=0.29\frac{\pi }{4}`$. As $`ϵ_\mathrm{T}`$ constitutes the transition between the parts of the electron spectrum yielding optically thin and optically thick radiation, it is reasonable to assume that the optical depth corresponding to $`\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_\mathrm{T})`$ is approximately 1, i.e. that for a homogeneous plasma $`\alpha _{\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_\mathrm{T})}L1`$, where $`L`$ denotes the spatial extension of the plasma. (In the case of an unbroken power law, this condition is used to define $`ϵ_\mathrm{T}`$.) Hence $`1\alpha _{\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_\mathrm{T}),\mathrm{b}}/\alpha _{\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_\mathrm{T}),\mathrm{a}}`$. If one allows for different turnover energies, this may be generalized to $`1\alpha _{\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{b}}),\mathrm{b}}/\alpha _{\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{a}}),\mathrm{a}}`$, and using equation (3) and $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_\mathrm{T}),ϵ_\mathrm{T})=0.29\frac{\pi }{4}`$ together with the ratio $`r_\mathrm{b}ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{b}}/ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{a}}`$ one can obtain the ratio $`b_\mathrm{b}=B_\mathrm{b}/B_\mathrm{a}`$ of the magnetic field strengths for $`f_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`f_\mathrm{b}`$, respectively:

$$b_\mathrm{b}=r_\mathrm{b}^{p_24}\frac{_{n=0}^3\left\{\gamma _1+\left(\frac{0.29\pi }{4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}(p_1p_2)}\gamma _2\right\}}{_{n=0}^3h(p_2,n)}$$

Here the $`\gamma _i`$ denote $`\gamma _1=g(p_2,n,0,\frac{0.29}{4}\pi )`$ and $`\gamma _2=g(p_1,n,\frac{0.29}{4}\pi ,\mathrm{})`$. If the turnover frequency is independent of the electron spectrum (i.e. if $`\nu _{\mathrm{mp},\mathrm{a}}(ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{a}})=\nu _{\mathrm{mp},\mathrm{b}}(ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{b}})`$), the relation $`br_\mathrm{b}^2=1`$ holds valid. Hence we assume that $`br_\mathrm{b}^2=N`$ with some arbitrary, but constant $`N`$. In view of the discussion at the end of the previous section, one should take $`p_1=3`$. For $`N`$=0.25, 1, and 2, the plots of $`b_\mathrm{b}`$ versus $`p_2`$ corresponding to this choice of $`p_1`$ are shown in Fig. 1. Note that $`b_\mathrm{b}(p_2=3)1`$ for $`N=1`$ results from the use of the approximation $`F(x)1.8x^{0.3}e^x`$ in computing $`\alpha _{\nu ,\mathrm{b}}`$. A simple generalization of $`f_\mathrm{b}`$ is achieved by dropping the assumption that the electron spectrum extends down to zero energy (which, due to the finite electron rest energy, is questionable anyway), i.e. by taking a spectrum $`f_\mathrm{b}^{}(ϵ)f_\mathrm{b}(ϵ)\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵϵ_0)`$ rather than $`f_\mathrm{b}(ϵ)`$, where $`ϵ_0>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes the Heaviside function. This merely involves replacing $`\stackrel{~}{x}_2=\mathrm{}`$ in the argument of $`g(p,n,\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_2=\mathrm{})`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu ,ϵ_0)`$ with the cutoff energy $`ϵ_0`$. If one introduces the ratio $`eϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{b}}/ϵ_0`$, one obtains $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{b}}),ϵ_0)=0.29\frac{\pi }{4}e^2`$ and thus for the ratio $`b_\mathrm{b}^{}=B_\mathrm{b}^{}/B_\mathrm{a}`$

$$b_\mathrm{b}^{}=r_\mathrm{b}^{p_24}\frac{_{n=0}^3\left\{\gamma _1+\left(\frac{0.29\pi }{4}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}(p_1p_2)}\overline{\gamma }_2\right\}}{_{n=0}^3h(p_2,n)},$$

where $`\overline{\gamma }_2g(p_1,n,\frac{0.29}{4}\pi ,0.29\frac{\pi }{4}e^2)`$ and $`\gamma _1`$ is defined as above. Again, $`p_1`$ should be set to -3. The plots of $`b_\mathrm{b}^{}`$ as a function of $`e`$ resulting from this formula are given in Fig. 2 for several values of $`p_2`$ and $`N=1`$. As expected, in the limit of $`e\mathrm{}`$ (no energy cutoff) $`b_\mathrm{b}^{}`$ approaches $`b_\mathrm{b}`$; for values of $`e`$ exceeding 10, the two are essentially indistinguishable. Referring to the examples in the previous section, it is tempting to assume, as a further possibility for the electron spectrum, a thermal distribution for low energies, i.e. to choose $`F(ϵ)=f_0\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ_\mathrm{T}}ϵ_\mathrm{T}^{p_22}ϵ^2\mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ}`$, where $`\beta 1/k_\mathrm{B}T`$ with the Boltzmann constant $`k_\mathrm{B}`$ and the temperature $`T`$. One can see easily that continuity in $`ϵ_\mathrm{T}`$ is ensured. The quantities relating to this choice of $`f(ϵ)`$ are marked by the index c. Inserting $`f_\mathrm{c}(ϵ)`$ into equation (1) and using $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{c}}),ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{c}})=0.29\frac{\pi }{4}`$ yields

$`\alpha _{\nu ,\mathrm{c}}(\overline{\nu })={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{3}{}}}\{\alpha _{0,c}f_0R_\mathrm{c}^{\frac{p_2}{2}}\overline{\nu }^{\frac{p_2}{2}2}\gamma _1`$
$`+\alpha _{0,\mathrm{c}}f_0\mathrm{\Delta }(p_1,p_2)\beta \mathrm{e}^{\beta ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{c}}}\stackrel{~}{g}(\beta ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{c}},n)\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_1,p_2)\left(\frac{0.29\pi }{4}\right)^{\frac{p_2}{2}+1}R_\mathrm{c}^{\frac{p_2}{2}\frac{1}{2}}\overline{\nu }^{\frac{p_1}{2}\frac{3}{2}}`$, $`\overline{\nu }\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{c}})`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(u,n)=\frac{1}{2}F_0Q_n_{\frac{0.29}{4}\pi }^{\mathrm{}}d\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}^{n+\varphi \frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{x}}\mathrm{e}^{\sqrt{\frac{0.29}{4}\pi }u\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}}.$$

Now in order to simplify the discussion, we assume $`N_{\mathrm{th}}`$ to be minimized. This assumption is motivated by the low photon density in the optically thin part of jet spectra, as implied by polarisation measurements (Jones 1988). Hence one demands $`\frac{\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{th}}}{\mathrm{d}ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{c}}}=0`$, which together with $`u\beta ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{c}}`$ leads to

$`0=2(p_22)(\mathrm{e}^u1)u^3+2(\mathrm{e}^u(p_21))u^2p_2u^1.`$
Let $`u_{\mathrm{min}}=u_{\mathrm{min}}(p_2)`$ be the solution of this implicit equation. Then using Eqs. 2 and 3 and defining $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{g}(u_{\mathrm{min}},n)`$, one obtains for the ratio $`b_\mathrm{c}B_\mathrm{c}/B_\mathrm{a}`$

$$b_\mathrm{c}=r_\mathrm{c}^{p_24}\frac{_{n=0}^3\left\{\gamma _1+\left(\frac{0.29\pi }{4}\right)^{\frac{p_2}{2}+\frac{3}{2}}u_{\mathrm{min}}\mathrm{e}^{u_{\mathrm{min}}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\right\}}{_{n=0}^3h(p_2,n)},$$

where $`r_\mathrm{c}=ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{c}}/ϵ_{\mathrm{T},\mathrm{a}}`$, the analogue of $`r_\mathrm{b}`$, is assumed to be given by $`br_\mathrm{c}^2=N`$ with some constant $`N`$. The plots of $`b_\mathrm{c}`$ versus $`p_2`$ for several values of $`N`$ are shown in Fig. 3. Note that the restriction to values of $`p_2`$ less than -1 is necessitated by the demand that $`u_{\mathrm{min}}`$ be positive.

## 4 Maximum intensity

So far, it has been assumed that the optical depth of the frequency corresponding to the turnover energy is equal to 1. However, from an observational point of view, it is clearly more desirable to deduce the magnetic field from the position of the maximum intensity. In order to achieve this aim, one assumes the radiative transfer to be one-dimensional and starts from the general formula for the intensity $`I_\nu `$ of a homogeneous source (Pacholczyk 1970),

$$I_\nu =\frac{j_\nu }{\alpha _\nu }(1\mathrm{e}^{\alpha _\nu L}).$$
(4)
Now for a piecewise power law with a lower cutoff energy $`e^1ϵ_\mathrm{T}`$, using the notations introduced in the previous section, one may write the absorption coefficient as $`\alpha _\nu =_{i=1}^2_{n=0}^3\alpha _0A_iR^{\frac{p_i}{2}}\nu ^{\frac{p_i}{2}2}g(p_i,n,\stackrel{~}{x}_{1i},\stackrel{~}{x}_{2i})`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{11}=\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu ,e^1ϵ_\mathrm{T})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{12}=\stackrel{~}{x}_{21}=\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu ,ϵ_\mathrm{T})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{22}=\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu ,\mathrm{})=0`$, $`A_1=f_0ϵ_\mathrm{T}^{p_2p_1}`$, and $`A_2=f_0`$. If one introduces the turnover frequency $`\nu _0\nu _{\mathrm{mp}}(ϵ_\mathrm{T})`$, the $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{ik}`$ become functions of this frequency only, i.e. they may be considered to be independent of the magnetic field. Accordingly, $`\alpha _\nu `$ takes the form $`\alpha _{\nu ,\nu _0}=_{i=1}^2f_0F_{\alpha i}(\nu ,\nu _0)G_{\alpha i}(B)`$ with polynomial functions $`G_{\alpha i}(B)=B^{\kappa _i}`$. However, from $`\alpha _0RB`$ and $`A_1ϵ_\mathrm{T}^{p_2p_1}\nu _0^{1/2}B^{(p_2p_1)/2}`$ it follows that $`\kappa _1=\kappa _2=1\frac{p_2}{2}\kappa `$, yielding $`\alpha _\nu =G_\alpha (\nu ,\nu _0)B^\kappa `$ and hence $`\frac{}{\nu }\alpha _\nu =f_0F_\alpha (\nu ,\nu _0)B^\kappa `$. Similarly one obtains $`j_\nu =f_0F_j(\nu ,\nu _0)B^\lambda `$ and $`\frac{}{\nu }j_\nu =f_0F_j(\nu ,\nu _0)B^\lambda `$ (with $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}(1p_2`$)) for the emissivity and its derivative.

The intensity takes its maximum when its derivative vanishes. Therefore, by differentiating equation (4) one obtains the condition

$`0=C_1(\nu _{\mathrm{max}},\nu _0)(1\mathrm{e}^{C_2(\nu _{\mathrm{max}},\nu _0)x})`$ (5)
$`+C_3((\nu _{\mathrm{max}},\nu _0))x\mathrm{e}^{C_2(\nu _{\mathrm{max}},\nu _0)x},`$
where $`xf_0LB^\kappa `$, $`C_1=F_j/F_\alpha (F_j/F_\alpha ^2)F_\alpha `$, $`C_2=F_\alpha `$, and $`C_3=(F_j/F_\alpha )F_\alpha `$. Note that this equation is formally independent of both the source extension and the overall electron density (i.e. of $`f_0`$). Only when computing the magnetic field strength by means of $`B=(x/L)^{1/\kappa }`$ these parameters reenter. Clearly, for two models with the same values of $`Lf_0`$, $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$, and $`\nu _0`$, the ratio of the magnetic field strengths to the power of $`\kappa `$ equals that of the $`x`$ obtained from equation (5). Hence, it is straightforward to use the ratios $`b_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`b_\mathrm{b}^{}`$ as defined in the previous section. Incidentally, this leads to a further simplification: Due to the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{x}(\nu ,e^1ϵ_\mathrm{T})`$ is a function of $`y\nu /\nu _0`$ and that $`A_1ϵ_\mathrm{T}^{(p_2p_1)}\nu _0^{\frac{1}{2}(p_2p_1)}`$, the functions $`G`$ defined above may be written as $`G_\alpha (\nu ,\nu _0)=\nu _0^{\frac{p_2}{2}2}\overline{G}_\alpha (y)`$, $`G_\alpha (\nu ,\nu _0)=\nu _0^{\frac{p_2}{2}3}\overline{G}_\alpha (y)`$, $`G_j(\nu ,\nu _0)=\nu _0^{\frac{p_2}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}\overline{G}_j(y)`$, and $`G_j(\nu ,\nu _0)=\nu _0^{\frac{p_2}{2}\frac{1}{2}}\overline{G}_j(y)`$, which implies $`C_1(\nu ,\nu _0)=\nu _0^{\frac{3}{2}}\overline{C}_1(y)`$, $`C_2(\nu ,\nu _0)=\nu _0^{\frac{p_2}{2}2}\overline{C}_2(y)`$, and $`C_3(\nu ,\nu _0)=\nu _0^{\frac{p_2}{2}\frac{1}{2}}\overline{C}(y)`$. Defining $`\overline{x}(y)`$ as the solution of

$$\overline{C}_1(y)(1\mathrm{e}^{\overline{C}_2(y)\overline{x}(y)})+\overline{C}_3(y)\overline{x}(y)\mathrm{e}^{\overline{C}_2(y)\overline{x}(y)}=0$$

and multiplying both sides of this equation by $`\nu _0^{3/2}`$, one can see easily that equation (5) is solved by $`x(\nu _{\mathrm{max}},\nu _0)=\nu _0^{\frac{p_2}{2}+2}\overline{x}(y_{\mathrm{max}})`$, where $`y_{\mathrm{max}}\nu _{\mathrm{max}}/\nu _0`$. Accordingly, the ratios $`x_\mathrm{b}/x_\mathrm{a}`$ and $`x_\mathrm{b}^{}/x_\mathrm{a}`$ of the $`x`$ computed for the electron distributions a, b and $`\mathrm{b}^{}`$ of the previous section depend on $`y_{\mathrm{max}}`$ only. However, (assuming $`L`$ and $`f_0`$ are the same for all distributions) these ratios clearly constitute the ratios of the respective magnetic field strengths to the power of $`\kappa `$, so that $`b_\mathrm{b}b_\mathrm{b}(y_{\mathrm{max}})=(x_\mathrm{b}/x_\mathrm{a})^{1/\kappa }`$, $`b_\mathrm{b}^{}b_\mathrm{b}^{}(y_{\mathrm{max}})=(x_\mathrm{b}^{}/x_\mathrm{a})^{1/\kappa }`$. Hence the magnetic field ratios can be computed by means of solving equation (5) for the distributions involved. For several values of $`p_2`$ and $`e`$ the results obtained numerically in this way are plotted in Figs. 4 to 6.

Now although this choice is not motivated by the discussion of Section 2, it is instructive to examine an electron distribution with a positive power law index $`p_1`$ in the low energy regime. For the sake of definiteness, $`p_1=2`$ is taken as an example, which may be regarded as a crude approximation of the thermal distribution. One then obtains the ratios $`b_\mathrm{b}`$ plotted in Fig. 7. Clearly, the result resembles that for $`p_1=3`$ and $`e=2`$, which implies that the contribution of the low energy part of the electron distribution is rather small.

$`x_\mathrm{a}`$ and thus $`B_\mathrm{a}`$ do not depend on $`\nu _0`$ (see equation (6) below). Hence, assuming some specific value for $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$, the ratios $`b_i`$ are given by $`b_i(\nu _{\mathrm{max}}/\nu _0)=CB_i(\nu _{\mathrm{max}}/\nu _0)`$, where the constant $`C`$ is independent of the spectrum $`i`$. Therefore $`B_i(z_1)/B_j(z_2)=b_i(z_1)/b_j(z_2)`$ (where $`z\nu _{\mathrm{max}}/\nu _0)`$, which allows a direct comparison of Figs. 4 to 7. This clearly shows that the magnetic fields obtained for the various electron spectra discussed in these figures are of the same order of magnitude.222Obviously, this is not true, if, in Figs. 5 to 7, $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}/\nu _0`$ happens to be smaller than the value corresponding to the maximum of the relevant curve. In that case, however, due to the steepness of the curve, one should distrust the magnetic field determination anyway.

Obviously, in order to get $`x_\mathrm{b}`$ (or $`x_\mathrm{b}^{}`$) instead of the ratio $`x_\mathrm{b}/x_\mathrm{a}`$ (or $`x_\mathrm{b}^{}/x_\mathrm{a}`$, respectively), one needs to know the value of $`x_\mathrm{a}`$. Now, as is evident from the above discussion, $`x_\mathrm{a}`$ must be of the form $`x_\mathrm{a}(\nu _{\mathrm{max}},\nu _0)=\nu _0^{\frac{p_2}{2}+2}\overline{x}(y_{\mathrm{max}})`$. However, concerning an unbroken power law, the turnover frequency has no physical meaning, as there is no turnover at all. Still, it may be retained as a formal parameter, so that the distribution is viewed as a piecewise power law, where the power happens to be the same for all pieces. This implies that for $`\nu _0`$ any value may be assumed. Choosing $`\nu _0=\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$, one obtains $`y_{\mathrm{max}}=1`$ and thus

$$x_\mathrm{a}=\overline{x}(1)\nu _{\mathrm{max}}^{\frac{p_2}{2}+2}.$$
(6)
Finally, an important technical remark should be made: The aim of the foregoing discussion was to gain results depending on as few parameters as possible. In order to achieve this, the turnover frequency rather than energy was employed. However, in a given model, the latter rather than the former will be given. In this case the magnetic field ratio cannot simply be read off, and the field strength has to be inferred from demanding self-consistency: Assuming some specific values of $`L`$, $`f_0`$ and the magnetic field $`B`$, one can compute the turnover frequency from the corresponding energy and thus obtain the ratio $`x_\mathrm{b}/x_\mathrm{a}`$ (or $`x_\mathrm{b}^{}/x_\mathrm{a}`$). Together with the value of $`x_\mathrm{a}`$ taken from equation (6) one gets the value of $`x_\mathrm{b}`$ (or $`x_\mathrm{b}^{}`$), leading to the magnetic field strength, which obviously should equal the one originally assumed.

## 5 An example: peak brightness temperature

As a straightforward example of using the results obtained so far, we discuss the maximum brightness temperature of a (synchrotron) source with an isotropic magnetic field (cf. Kellermann 1974). To do so, one starts by noting that the ratio of the synchrotron and (to first order) inverse Compton losses is given by

$$\frac{P_\mathrm{c}}{P_{\mathrm{syn}}}=\frac{u_{\mathrm{rad}}}{u_B}=\frac{L/(\pi \rho ^2c)}{B^2/(8\pi )}=\frac{32\pi \xi _{\mathrm{geom}}R^2F_{\mathrm{max}}\nu _\mathrm{c}}{\rho ^2cB^2}.$$

Here, $`u_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ and $`u_B`$ denote the energy density of the radiation and the magnetic field, respectively, $`\rho `$ the radius of the source, $`R`$ its distance from the observer, and $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$ the upper cut-off frequency. Clearly, $`\rho =R\theta /2`$ with the angular size $`\theta `$. The luminosity $`L`$ is approximated as $`L\xi _{\mathrm{geom}}4\pi R^2F_\mathrm{m}\nu _\mathrm{c}`$, where $`F_\mathrm{m}`$ is the observed maximum flux density and $`\xi _{\mathrm{geom}}`$ takes into account any deviation from isotropic radiation.

The solid angle of the source (as seen from the observer) is given by $`\pi \theta ^2/4`$. Hence, assuming that the one-dimensional transfer equation (equation (4)) may be applied, one can show from the formulae for the absorption and emission coefficient that for an unbroken power law electron distribution with index $`p`$ the magnetic field strength may be expressed as

$`B_{\mathrm{pl}}=2.488\times 10^{62}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a(p)}{b(p)}}\right)^2(1\mathrm{e}^{\tau _{\mathrm{max}}})`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4F_{\mathrm{max}}/(\pi \theta ^2)}{1\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{cm}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{\mathrm{max}}}{1\mathrm{Hz}}}\right)^5\mathrm{G}.`$
$`\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$ constitutes the optical density corresponding to the frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ of the maximum intensity. The functions $`a(p)`$ and $`b(p)`$ are of the order 1 and can be found in Longair (1994). The magnetic field actually present can be written as

$$B=bB_{\mathrm{pl}},$$

where the factor $`b`$ is dependent on the electron spectrum (cf. Sections 3 and 4). In addition, the peak brightness temperature of the source is defined as

$$T_{\mathrm{max}}\frac{c^2}{2k_\mathrm{B}\nu _{\mathrm{max}}^2}\frac{F_{\mathrm{max}}}{\pi \theta ^2/4}.$$

We now investigate the influence of the low energy electron spectrum on the limiting brightness temperature $`T_{\mathrm{max}}^\mathrm{c}10^{12}\mathrm{K}`$ for the onset of the inverse Compton catastrophe, i.e. the temperature $`T_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for which $`P_\mathrm{c}/P_{\mathrm{syn}}=1`$. Combining the formulae obtained so far, including second order inverse Compton losses, and choosing the power law index $`p=3`$ yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_\mathrm{c}}{P_{\mathrm{syn}}}}=0.52{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{\mathrm{geom}}}{b^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{max}}}{10^{12}\mathrm{K}}}\right)^5\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _\mathrm{c}}{1\mathrm{MHz}}}\right)`$
$`\left[1+0.52{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{\mathrm{geom}}}{b^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{max}}}{10^{12}\mathrm{K}}}\right)^5\left({\displaystyle \frac{\nu _\mathrm{c}}{1\mathrm{MHz}}}\right)\right].`$
If we assume that $`0.3<b=B/B_{\mathrm{pl}}<3`$, we see that the values of $`T_{\mathrm{max}}^\mathrm{c}`$ corresponding to $`B_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ and $`B`$ differ by a factor less than approximately $`3^{2/5}1.6`$. Hence, the uncertainty in the magnetic field determination due to the unknown optically thick electron spectrum has a rather small impact on the limiting brightness temperature. Indeed, the uncertainty in the source geometry (i.e. in $`\xi _{\mathrm{geom}}`$) may be considerably more important.

## 6 Conclusions

Based on the discussion of stationary solutions to the kinetic equations in a homogeneous and isotropic synchrotron plasma, the influence of the optically thick part of the electron spectrum on the magnetic field determination from the position of the turnover in the photon spectrum has been investigated. By employing the assumption that the optical depth equals unity at the turnover frequency it was shown that the error made by choosing some specific form for the low energy electron spectrum can be estimated to be within one order of magnitude. For power law distributions this result was corroborated by a more rigorous treatment. All results obtained are independent from the spatial extension of the source and the overall number of electrons. They show, for example, that the limiting brightness temperature is influenced to a small extent only.

Thus we have seen that that determining a magnetic field strength from the turnover of a synchrotron spectrum yields a value that is of the correct order of magnitude. Of course, in actual computations other uncertainties such as in the source geometry must also be taken into account.

## Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Klaus Beuermann and Frank Rieger for many helpful discussions. Part of this work has been supported by the Graduiertenkolleg “Strömungsinstabilitäten und Turbulenz” of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

## Bibliography

Ginzburg, V.L., Syrovatskii, S.I., 1965, ARA&A 3, 297
Jones, T.W., 1988, ApJ 332, 678
Kellermann, K.I., 1974, in Verschuur, G.L., Kellermann, K.I., eds, Galactic and
Extra-Galactic Radio Astronomy. Springer, New York, p. 320
Longair, M.S., 1994, High energy astrophysics (Volume 2), Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge
McCray, R., 1969, ApJ 156, 329
Melrose, D.B., 1980, Plasma Astrophysics (Volume 1), Gordon and Breach, New
York
Norman, C.A., ter Haar, D., 1974, Phys. Rep. 17, 307
Pacholczyk, A.G., 1970, Radio Astrophysics, W. H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco
Rybicki, G.B., Lightman, A.P., 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics,Wiley,
New York
Westfold, K.C., 1959, ApJ 130, 241