format: text

text:
# Effects of Electron-Electron and Electron-Phonon Interactions in Weakly Disordered Conductors and Heterostructures

## I INTRODUCTION

Interference of electron scattering mechanisms changes drastically transport properties of disordered conductors. It violates the Mathiessen rule, according to which the contributions to conductivity due to random potential and electron-electron (electron-phonon) interactions are additive. Additional interference terms in conductivity have various temperature dependencies. In the diffusion limit, $`T\tau <<1`$ ($`\tau `$ is the elastic mean free time), Altshuler-Aronov corrections to conductivity have been intensively studied in three-dimensional conductors ($`T^{1/2}`$-term) and in two-dimensional structures ($`\mathrm{ln}T`$-term). AA

Interference of electron-electron (electron-phonon) scattering and elastic scattering from random potential also modifies significantly the electron transport in the quasi-ballistic limit: $`T\tau 1`$ for electron-electron interaction and $`q_Tl1`$ for electron-phonon interaction ($`q_T`$ is the momentum of a thermal phonon, $`l=v_F\tau `$ is the electron-mean free path. In weakly disordered conductors the interference corrections are always proportional to the Drude conductivity. Electron-phonon-impurity interference in metals was theoretically studied in our paper. RS1  In the quasi-ballistic limit, $`T>u/l`$ ($`u`$ is the sound velocity), the interference correction to conductivity is quadratic in the electron temperature,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{eph}\sigma }{\sigma _3}}=[1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{16}}2\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_l}{u_t}}\right)^3]{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\beta _lT^2}{3ϵ_Fp_Fu_l}},`$ (1)
where $`\sigma _n=e^2v_F^2\tau \nu _n/n`$ is the Drude conductivity in corresponding dimensionality $`n`$, $`ϵ_F`$ and $`p_F`$ are the Fermi energy and momentum, $`u_l`$ and $`u_t`$ are the longitudinal and transverse sound velocities, $`\beta _l`$ is the constant of the electron-phonon interaction (see Sec. IV), and $`\nu _n`$ is the electron density of states. It is interesting that the longitudinal phonons give rise to a positive correction to conductivity, while transverse phonons result in a negative correction, which dominates in the temperature-dependent conductivity due to stronger coupling of transverse phonons. This $`T^2`$-term proportional to the Drude conductivity have been observed in a wide temperature range, from 20K up to 200K, in Nb, Al, Be Pt , NbC Il , NbN Se1 , and W W  films.

Electron-phonon interaction via the piezoelectric potential in weakly disordered heterostructures was considered in the paper. R1  It has been found that at low temperatures, T$``$ 0.5K, where the piezoelectric potential is strongly screened, the interference correction is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{pz}\sigma }{\sigma _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(eh_{14})^2}{4\rho u^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{(\kappa _2v_F)^2}},`$ (2)
where $`h_{14}`$ is piezoelectric constant, $`\kappa _2^1`$ is the screening length, and $`\rho `$ is the density.

Investigation of the electron-electron interaction in weakly disordered 2D electron systems has a long story. Gold ; R1 ; Sarma ; R2 ; Al  After series of improvements, all exchange (Fock) and direct (Hartree) processes have been taken into account in the frame of the Landau Fermi-liquid theory in the paper. Al  In the quasiballistic limit, $`T\tau >1`$, the correction to conductivity is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}\sigma }{\sigma _2}}=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3F_0^\sigma }{1+F_0^\sigma }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{T}{ϵ_F}},`$ (3)
where $`F_0^\sigma `$ is the Fermi-liquid parameter describing interaction in the triplet channel. Results of recent measurements in GaAs/GaAsAl heterostructures Sav ; Sarma2  and Si MOSFETs Ger ; Vit  have shown good agreement with the theory Al  at subkelvin (GaAs/GaAlAs) and helium (Si) temperatures. At higher temperatures, the electron-phonon interaction dominates over electron-electron scattering. While electron-phonon processes are also very sensitive to disorder, the deformation electron-phonon interaction in quasi-ballistic regime has not been studied to date.

We would like to stress, that the interference corrections due to the electron-phonon or electron-electron interactions always originate from the elastic part of the corresponding collision integral.AA ; RS1 ; Al  Therefore, the interference corrections depend on the electron temperature only. Early theoretical papers on the electron-phonon-impurity interference considered inelastic scattering from vibrating impurities and extracted the $`T^2`$-correction to conductivity from the inelastic part of the collision integral. T2  However, as it is shown in our previous work, RS1  such terms cancel out and this is a reason why the $`T^2`$-term is independent on the phonon temperature.

In the current paper we continue studying weakly disordered conductors. We calculate various interference corrections not considered before. In Sec. II we start with the basic equations describing interference phenomena in the electron transport. In Sec. III we calculate the electron-electron corrections to the conductivity in various dimensions with respect to the effective interaction. The cross-over to the lower dimensionality occurs when one of the conductor dimensions becomes smaller than $`q_c^1`$, where $`q_c`$ is the characteristic value of the transferred electron momentum. For the electron-electron interaction in weakly disordered conductors, $`q_c^1`$ is of the order of $`L_T=v_F/T`$. At sub-Kelvin and helium temperatures, $`L_T110\mu m`$, and the transition to the quasi-two-dimensional case happens in relatively thick films with the three-dimensional electron spectra and electron screening. The transition to the quasi-one-dimensional case occurs in wires of radius $`rL_T`$ and in 2D conducting channels of width $`bL_T`$. We will show that the interference corrections to the conductivity is mainly determined by the sample dimensionality with respect to the effective interaction. Dimensionality of the electron spectrum just slightly changes numerical coefficients of the interference corrections.

In Sec. IV we calculate corrections to conductivity due to the electron-phonon interaction. We study interaction of electrons by means of virtual phonons and interaction of electrons with thermal phonons in bulk semiconductors and low-dimensional structures. Considering the electron-phonon scattering, we will assume good matching between the conducting and buffer layers and limit our consideration to three-dimensional phonons. In Conclusions, we summarize our main results, compare different terms, and discuss experimental identification of interference contributions to conductivity.

## II  BASIC EQUATIONS

Effects of interference between scattering mechanisms on the electron transport can be studied by the linear response method as well as by the quantum transport equation. Both methods are based on the digrammatic technique. The linear response method requires many diagrams to be considered, while the transport equation deals only with the electron self-energy diagrams but includes specific terms in the form of Poisson brackets. RS1 ; R1

In this paper we investigate the interference electron processes, which are characterized by the momentum transfer much smaller than the Fermi momentum. These processes can be described in the frame of the Landau Fermi-liquid theory. The corresponding self-energy diagrams for weakly disordered systems are shown in Fig. 1 and the diagrams of the linear response method are presented in Fig. 2. Results of the papers, RS1 ; R1 ; Al  which are briefly reproduced in Appendix, show that in the quasiballistic limit the correction to conductivity may be presented as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{int}\sigma ^{(k)}}{\sigma _n}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{d^kq}{(2\pi )^k}\frac{f(\omega )}{\omega ^2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_n^{(k)}(q,\omega )},`$ (4)
where $`k`$ is the dimensionality of the conductor with respect to the interaction and $`n`$ is used for the dimensionality of the electron spectrum. As we discussed in Introduction, the dimensionality with respect to the effective electron-electron interaction is determined by the characteristic length $`L_T=v_F/T`$.

The function $`f(\omega )`$ is given by

$`f(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{}{\omega }}\left[\omega \mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2T}}\right)\right].`$ (5)
The function $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(q,\omega )`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_n^{(k)}(q,\omega )=(\omega \tau )^2V_n^R(𝐪,\omega )\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(k)}(q,\omega ),`$ (6)
where $`V_n^R(𝐪,\omega )`$ is the retarded propagator describing electron-electron or electron-phonon interaction, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(q,\omega )`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(k)}(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{n}{v_F^2\tau ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2(𝐯_F𝐞)^2}{(\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i0)^2}}_𝐯_𝐪`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (𝐯_F𝐞)^2}{\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i/\tau }}_𝐯_𝐪{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i0}}_𝐯`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 𝐯_F𝐞}{\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i0}}_𝐯^2_𝐪].`$ (7)
In Eq. II, $`\gamma `$ is the vertex of the electron-electron or electron-phonons interaction, $`𝐞=𝐄/E`$ is the unit vector in the direction of the electric field, and $`_{𝐯(𝐪)}`$ stands for the averaging over the directions of $`𝐯_F`$ and $`𝐪`$.

For isotropic conductors (n=k), the averaging over the $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$ directions is reduced to the averaging over the angle $`\varphi `$, the angle between $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐪`$. In this case, Eq. II can be simplified,

$`\tau ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_n^{(n)}(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2}{(\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i0)^2}}_\varphi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i0}}_\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F}{qv_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i0}}_\varphi ^2.`$ (8)
Note, that in this form Eq. II is applicable to any dimensionality of the electron system,

$`\psi (\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F)_\varphi =\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle _1^1}\psi (qv_Fx){\displaystyle \frac{dx}{2}},\hfill & \text{ 3D;}\hfill \\ {\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\psi (qv_F\mathrm{cos}\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{2\pi }}\hfill & \text{ 2D;}\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{x=\pm 1}{}}\psi (qv_Fx)\hfill & \text{ 1D,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (9)
where $`x=\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$.

In the next sections we use equation derived in this section to calculate the quantum corrections to conductivity due to electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions in weakly disordered conductors of various dimensionality with respect to the electron spectrum ($`n`$) and with respect to the interaction ($`k`$).

## III  ELECTRON-ELECTRON INTERACTION

As we discussed in the introduction, the effective electron-electron interaction in weakly disordered conductors is characterized by the momentum transfer of the order of $`T/v_F`$, which is much smaller than the Fermi momentum (see also calculations below). Therefore, the electron transport can be described in the frame of the Landau Fermi-liquid theory.Al  In the singlet channel the bare interaction is given the sum of the Coulomb potential,

$`V_0(q)=\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2}{q^2}},\hfill & \text{ 3D;}\hfill \\ {\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2}{|q|}},\hfill & \text{ 2D;}\hfill \\ e^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2r^2}},\hfill & \text{ 1D,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
and the Fermi-liquid interaction,

$`V_FF_0^p/\nu _n.`$ (11)
The screened interaction in the random phase approximation, which is justified for small momentum transfers, is given by

$`V_n^{R(A)}(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\nu _nV_0(q)F_0^p}{\nu _n[\nu _nV_0(q)F_0^p]P_n^{R(A)}(q,\omega )}},`$ (12)
where $`P^{R(A)}(q,\omega )`$ is the polarization operator.

In the absence of the magnetic field and spin-orbit scattering the screened propagator in the triplet-channel may be taken in the form Al

$`V_n^{R(A)}(𝐪,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{3F_0^\sigma }{\nu _nF_0^\sigma P_n^{R(A)}(𝐪,\omega )}},`$ (13)
where $`F_0^\sigma `$ is the Fermi-liquid constant. The above equation assumes that the Fermi-liquid coupling is independent on electron momenta. Restrictions of this approximation were discussed in the paperAl .

In the Subsecs. A and B we calculate the conductivity corrections in the singlet channel, the triplet-channel corrections will be studied in Subsec. C.

### III.1 Systems with three-dimensional spectrum

First we consider a conductor with three-dimensional electron spectrum. For $`1/\tau \omega qv_Fϵ_F`$, the polarization operator is given by

$`P_3^R(q,\omega )=\nu _3\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{qv_F}}\mathrm{arctanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{qv_F}{\omega +i0}}\right)\right],`$ (14)
where the branch of $`\mathrm{arctanh}(y)`$ is chosen as

$`\mathrm{arctanh}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{y+1}{y1}},y>1.`$ (15)
Thus, the screened Coulomb potential may be presented as

$`V_3^R(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _3}}(1F_0^p{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\kappa _3^2}})}{{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\kappa _3^2}}+(1F_0^p{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{\kappa _3^2}}\left)\right[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}(qv_F/\omega )}{qv_F/\omega }}]}}`$
(16)
where $`\kappa _3^2=4\pi e^2\nu _3`$, and $`\nu _3=mp_F/\pi ^2`$. In the limit of strong screening, $`\kappa _3q`$, the screened potential is independent on the form of the bare potential (the unitary limit).

Taking into account that for the electron-electron interaction $`\gamma =1`$ and calculating integrals in Eq. II, we find

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{(3)}(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(qv_F)^2(\omega )^2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}(qv_F/\omega )}{qv_F}}\right)^2`$ (17)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(qv_F)^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}(qv_F/\omega )}{qv_F/\omega }})^2].`$
Substituting $`\mathrm{\Phi }(q,\omega )`$ and $`V^R(q,\omega )`$ into Eq. 4, we get the correction to the conductivity in the singlet channel. For simplicity we present further results in the limit $`\kappa _3q`$. Then,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^s\sigma }{\sigma _3}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{f(\omega )}{\omega ^2}_{|\omega |/v_F}^{2p_F}\frac{q^2dq}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3^{(3)}\left(\frac{qv}{\omega }\right)},`$ (18)
where

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3^{(3)}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\mathrm{arctanh}(y)/y}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^21}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}y}{y}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}y}{y^2}}\right)^2\right].`$
Note, the low limit in the integral in Eq. 18 is chosen taking into account that the imaginary part of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(qv/\omega )`$ exists only at $`y=qv_F/\omega 1`$.

The function $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3(qv_F/\omega )`$ has the following asymptotes

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3^{(3)}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _3}}\{\begin{array}{cc}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{8}}2\pi \right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^3}},y\mathrm{},\hfill & \\ {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{(\mathrm{ln}(y1))^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(y1)}},y1.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (20)
Therefore, with logarithmic accuracy we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_F^3\nu _3}{\omega ^3}}{\displaystyle _{|\omega |/v_F}^{2p_F}}𝑑qq^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3^{(3)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{qv_F}{\omega }}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3}{8}}2\pi \right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4ϵ_F}{\omega }}.`$
As seen from Eqs. III.1, the integral over $`q`$ covers the interval from $`\omega /v_FT/v_F`$ to $`2p_F`$, but the temperature dependence arises only from the low limit, $`q=T/v_F`$. Therefore, the approximation, $`q<<p_F`$, which we made for the polarization operator (Eq. 14) is justified by the logarithmic accuracy of the integral in Eq. III.1.

Finally, taking into account that

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \omega f(\omega )\mathrm{ln}\frac{ϵ_F}{\omega }}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2T^2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4ϵ_F}{T}},`$ (22)
we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^s\sigma ^{(3)}}{\sigma _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`C_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{ϵ_F}}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4ϵ_F}{T}},`$ (23)
$`C_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{16}}\right).`$ (24)
We would like to remind that this result has been obtained in the limit of strong screening, $`\kappa _32p_F`$, where the screened potential does not depend on the bare potential. Our calculations show that in the general case, $`\kappa _32p_F`$, the leading term, $`T^2\mathrm{ln}T`$, is also given by Eq. 23, while additional terms are proportional to $`T^2`$.

Next we consider a quasi-two-dimensional conductor with 3D electron spectrum. For a film or conducting layer of finite thickness $`d`$, integration over the transverse component of the wavevector $`q`$ in Eq. 4 is replaced by summation over eigenstates in the film. As seen from Eqs. III.1 and 22, the characteristic value of $`\omega `$ is of the order of $`T`$ and the characteristic values of the momentum $`q`$ is $`\omega /v_F`$. Therefore, a transition to quasi-two-dimensional case occurs, if the thickness of a conducting layer , $`d`$, is of the order of the characteristic length $`L_T=v_F/T`$. For a quasi-two-dimensional conductor, $`d<<L_T`$, the electron transitions with $`q_{}=0`$ should be retained,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}}\delta _{q_{},0}.`$ (25)
Averaging Eq. II over the directions of vectors $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐯_F`$, one should take into account that vectors $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐞`$ lie in the plane of the conductor, while the vector $`𝐯_F`$ has an arbitrary direction. In this geometry we get

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{(2)}(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\tau ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+x^2)}{(qv_Fx\omega i0)^2}}_\varphi `$ (26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+x^2)}{qv_Fx\omega i/\tau }}_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{qv_Fx\omega i0}}_\varphi `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{qv_Fx\omega i0}}_\varphi ^2],`$
where $`x=\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ and the averaging over the angle $`\varphi `$ is given by Eq. 9.

Calculating $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{(2)}(q,\omega )`$, in the limit of strong screening we get the function $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(qv_F/\omega )`$ defined by Eq. 6,

$`\nu _3\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3^{(2)}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4y^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}y}{y}}\right)^1`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{42y^2}{y^21}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{h}y}{y}}+(y^21)({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}y}{y}})^2].`$
Thus, the correction to the conductivity (Eq. 4) is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^s\sigma ^{(2)}}{\sigma _3}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2dv_F^2\nu _3}}C_2{\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_F}}𝑑\omega f(\omega ),`$ (28)
where

$`C_2={\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑yy\nu _3\mathrm{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3^{(2)}(y)5.3`$ (29)
Here the integral over $`q`$ can be extended to infinity, because only processes with small momentum transfer, $`q\omega /v_F`$, are important. Taking into account that

$`{\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_F}}𝑑\omega f(\omega )=2T+ϵ_F\mathrm{coth}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_F}{2T}}\right),`$ (30)
we see that the temperature dependent correction to the conductivity is determined by the first term in Eq. 30. From Eq. 28 we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^s\sigma ^{(2)}}{\sigma _3}}={\displaystyle \frac{C_2}{p_Fd}}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{ϵ_F}}.`$ (31)
In Eq. 31 we omit additional term proportional to $`(T/ϵ_F)^2\mathrm{ln}(p_Fd)`$. It originates from the interval $`1/dq2p_F`$ and it is small compared with the linear term.

Now we consider quasi-one-dimensional conductors, such as wires with radius $`r`$, which is much smaller than $`L_T`$. In this case the integration over the transfer momentum in Eq. 4 is replaced by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{2\pi }}\delta _{q_{},0}.`$ (32)
In the quasi-one-dimensional case the vectors $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐞`$ are parallel. Averaging Eq. II over the angles of $`𝐪`$ we get

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{(1)}(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\tau ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{(qv_Fx\omega i0)^2}}_\varphi `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{qv_Fx\omega i/\tau }}_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{qv_Fx\omega i0}}_\varphi ].`$ (33)
In the limit of strong screening, the function $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(qv_F/\omega )`$ (Eq. 6), is given by

$`\nu _3\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3^{(1)}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{y^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}y}{y}}\right)^1`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \frac{22y^2}{y^21}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}y}{y}}+({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}y}{y}})^2].`$ (34)
Then, the correction to the conductivity (Eq. 4) is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^s\sigma ^{(1)}}{\sigma _3}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^3r^2v_F\nu _3}}C_1{\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_F}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{f(\omega )}{\omega }},`$ (35)
where

$`C_1={\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑yy\nu _3\mathrm{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3^{(1)}(y)4.3`$ (36)
Taking into account that

$`{\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_F}}d\omega {\displaystyle \frac{f(\omega )}{\omega }}=\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_F}{2T}}),`$ (37)
finally we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^s\sigma ^{(1)}}{\sigma _3}}={\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{\pi (rp_F)^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2T}{ϵ_F}}\right).`$ (38)
### III.2 Two-dimensional electron spectrum

Next we calculate the interference correction in conductors with two-dimensional electron spectra. For 2D electron gas the polarization operator in the quasi-ballistic limit is

$`P_2^R(q,\omega )=\nu _2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\sqrt{(\omega +i0)^2(qv_F)^2}}}\right),`$ (39)
where $`\nu _2=m/\pi `$. Using Eq. II, in the limit of strong screening, $`V^R(q,\omega )=1/P_2^R(q,\omega )`$, we getAl

$`\nu _2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2^{(2)}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1(yi0)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^2\sqrt{1(yi0)^2}}},`$ (40)
and the corresponding correction to the conductivity (Eq. 4) is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^s\sigma ^{(2)}}{\sigma _2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi v_F^2\nu _2}}{\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_F}}𝑑\omega f(\omega ).`$ (41)
The integral over $`\omega `$ in Eq. 41 is exactly the same as in the case of quasi-two-dimensional conductor (Eq. 30). Finally, we get the correction to conductivity given by Eq. 3. As seen, in the quasi-ballistic limit the polarization operator (Eqs. 14 and 39) and the function $`F(y)`$ (Eqs. III.1 and 40) has different forms for quasi-two-dimensional and two-dimensional conductors. Therefore, the final results (Eqs. 3 and 31) differ by a numerical factor.

Next we consider conductivity in the quasi-one-dimensional conductor, such as a narrow channel with width $`b<L_T`$. Taking into account that in the quasi-one-dimensional case the vectors $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐄`$ are parallel and averaging Eq. II over the angles of $`𝐪`$, we get

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\tau ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{cos}\varphi )^2}{(qv_F\mathrm{cos}\varphi \omega i0)^2}}_\varphi `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{cos}\varphi )^2}{qv_F\mathrm{cos}\varphi \omega i/\tau }}_\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{qv_F\mathrm{cos}\varphi \omega i0}}_\varphi ].`$
After averaging over the angle $`\varphi `$, we find

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(1)}(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\tau ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega +i0)^2(qv)^2}}`$ (43)
$`\times `$ $`[1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\sqrt{(\omega +i0)^2(qv)^2}}}].`$
Therefore, in the unitary limit, the function $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(qv_F/\omega )`$ (Eq. 6), is given by

$`\nu _2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2^{(1)}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{1(yi0)^2}}.`$ (44)
Calculating the correction to the conductivity in the singlet channel,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^s\sigma ^{(1)}}{\sigma _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2\nu _2v_Fb}}{\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_F}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle \frac{f(\omega )}{\omega }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\mathrm{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2^{(1)}(y),`$ (45)
we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^s\sigma ^{(1)}}{\sigma _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_Fb}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2T}{ϵ_F}}\right).`$ (46)
Thus, in quasi-one-dimensional conductors with 3D electron spectra (Eq. 38) and 2D spectra (Eq. 46) the corrections have the logarithmic temperature dependence.

The main results of Subsecs. A and B are summarized in Tab. 1. In these subsections we have considered the singlet-channel interaction in the limit of strong screening (the unitary limit), which gives the upper bound for the strength of the interelectron interaction. As it follows from calculations above, the characteristic value of the electron momentum transferred is of the order of $`T/v_F`$. Thus, the leading corrections to conductivity are accumulated at large distances, $`L_T\mathrm{}v_F/k_BT`$, where the electron-electron interaction is strongly screened. In the unitary limit the interaction has an universal form, which is independent of the original interaction and its renormalization by the Fermi liquid parameters.

### III.3 Triplet channel interaction

Conductivity corrections in the triplet channel are calculated in the same way as the singlet-channel corrections. Substituting the triplet-channel propagator (Eq. 13) and the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{(3)}`$ (Eq. 17 in Eq. 6) in to Eq. 6, we find the function $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(y)`$ for a bulk conductor,

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_3^{(3)}(y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3F_0^\sigma }{1+F_0^\sigma \left(1\mathrm{arctanh}(y)/y\right)}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y^21}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}y}{y}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctanh}y}{y^2}}\right)^2\right].`$
Finally, integrating Eq. 18, with logarithmic accuracy we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^t\sigma ^{(3)}}{\sigma _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3F_0^\sigma }{1+F_0^\sigma }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_0^\sigma }{1+F_0^\sigma }}\right)`$ (48)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{ϵ_F}}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{4ϵ_F}{T}}.`$
Results for the quasi-two and quasi-one-dimensional conductors with 3D spectrum cannot be presented in analytical form and will not be considered here.

In the case of the quasi-one-dimensional conductor carved from the two-dimensional structure (see Subsec. B), the function $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(y)`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}_2^{(1)}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\nu _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3F_0^\sigma }{1+F_0^\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1(yi0)^2}}`$ (49)
$`\times `$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+F_0^\sigma )\sqrt{1y^2}F_0^\sigma }}\right).`$
Finally, integrating Eq. 45, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ee}^t\sigma ^{(1)}}{\sigma _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{3(F_0^\sigma +\pi G(F_0^\sigma ))}{1+F_0^\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_Fb}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2T}{ϵ_F}}\right),`$
where

$`G(F_0^\sigma )=1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1+F_0^\sigma }{\sqrt{1+2F_0^\sigma }}}`$
$`\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{arctanh}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{12F_0^\sigma }}{F_0^\sigma }},\hfill & F_0^\sigma <\frac{1}{2}\text{,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+2F_0^\sigma }}{F_0^\sigma }},\hfill & \frac{1}{2}<F_0^\sigma <0\text{,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{arctan}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+2F_0^\sigma }}{F_0^\sigma }}\pi ,\hfill & F_0^\sigma >0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$ (51)
Thus, the temperature dependence of the conductivity corrections in the triplet channel (Eqs. 48 and III.3) is the same as in the singlet channel, but the value and sign depend on the parameter $`F_0^\sigma `$.

## IV ELECTRON-PHONON INTERACTION

To apply Eqs. 4 and II to the electron-phonon interaction one should specify the phonon propagator and electron phonon vertex. The retarded phonon Green function is given by

$`D^R(𝐪,\omega )=(\omega \omega _𝐪+i0)^1(\omega +\omega _𝐪+i0)^1.`$ (52)
The unscreened vertex of the electron-phonon scattering due to the deformation potential is

$`\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{D𝐪𝐞_n}{(2\rho \omega _q)^{1/2}}},`$ (53)
where $`𝐞_n`$ is the phonon polarization vector.

In the isotropic model, for longitudinal phonons the deformation potential is described by two constants $`D_0`$ and $`G`$, Gant

$`D=D_03G(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2.`$ (54)
Screening of the bare electron-phonon vertex presented in Fig. 3 leads to

$`\gamma _{sc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{(2\rho \omega _q)^{1/2}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{D_0}{1V_0(q)P^R(q,\omega )}}`$ (55)
$``$ $`3G((cos\theta )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{V_0(q)P_2^R(q,\omega )}{1V_0(q)P(q,\omega )}})],`$
where $`P(q,\omega )`$ is given by Eq. 14, and $`P_2(q,\omega )`$ is the electron polarization operator with the vertex $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2`$.

In a semiconductor, the deformation potential constant $`D_0`$ is much larger then the constant $`G`$, which has strong concentration dependence (see below). For this reason, the first term in the square brackets in Eq. 55 is only taken into account. For thermal phonons $`qv_F`$ is much larger than $`\omega `$, and, therefore, the dynamic part of $`P(q,\omega )`$ proportional to $`\omega `$ may be neglected. Therefore, in a semiconductor interaction between electrons and real phonons is described by the vertex

$`\gamma _{sem}={\displaystyle \frac{q}{(2\rho \omega _q)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_0}{1+\kappa _3^2/q^2}}.`$ (56)
In a metal two constants of the deformation potential $`D_0`$ and $`G`$ are of the same order. However, due to the strong screening ($`V_0(q)P^R(q,\omega )>>1`$), the term with the constant $`D_0`$ in Eq. 55 becomes negligible Gant . Thus, for a metal we get

$`\gamma _{met}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Gq}{(2\rho \omega _q)^{1/2}}}[(1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \tau }{ql}}\mathrm{arctanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ql}{\omega \tau }}\right))^1`$ (57)
$`+`$ $`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{qv}}\right)^23(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2],`$
In the static limit, $`ql>>\omega \tau `$, which is applicable to the thermal phonons, the last equation reduces to

$`\gamma _{met}=[1(3\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2]{\displaystyle \frac{Gq}{(2\rho \omega _q)^{1/2}}},`$ (58)
where $`G=(2/3)ϵ_F`$ RS1 ; Gant .

Vertices obtained in this section will be used to calculate interference correction to conductivity due to virtual phonons (Sec. V) and thermal phonons (Sec. VI).

### IV.1  Virtual phonons

Besides the Coulomb potential, the electron-electron interaction may be realized via intermediate electron-ion interaction, i.e. via virtual phonons. If $`\omega _q=qu\omega T`$, according to Eq. 52, the phonon propagator $`D^R`$ is real and equal to $`2/\omega _q`$. Then, from Eq. 4 we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ev.ph}\sigma }{\sigma _3}}=4\tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{q^2dq}{2\pi ^2}f(\omega )\omega _q^1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(q,\omega )}.`$ (59)
We start with the electron-phonon interaction due to the deformation potential ($`D_0`$) in a bulk semiconductor. In this case the square of the electron-phonon vertex does not have an imaginary part, and the function $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(q,\omega )`$ is given by Eq. 17. Integrating Eq. 59 over $`q`$, one should take into account the characteristic interval $`T/u<q<2p_F`$. Therefore, with logarithmic accuracy we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ev.ph}^{sem}\sigma }{\sigma _3}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_0^2T^2}{\rho v_F^3u^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_Fu}{T}}\right).`$ (60)
In metals the deformation potential is effectively screened, and in $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(q,\omega )`$ one should take into account the imaginary part of the electron-phonon vertex (Eq. 57). Calculating the integrals in Eq. II with the vertex $`\gamma _{met}`$ (Eq. 57) we find

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(q,\omega )=2\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{\omega \tau }{ql}}.`$ (61)
Substituting this result into Eq. 59 we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ev.ph}^{met}\sigma }{\sigma _3}}={\displaystyle \frac{8}{27}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_F^2T^2}{\rho v_F^3u^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_Fu}{T}}\right).`$ (62)
Note, that large electron momentum is transferred via exchange of virtual phonons. According to Sec. III, such processes are important only in conductors with 3D electron spectrum. In 2D structures, the electron-electron correction is associated with processes of small momentum transfer, therefore, the contribution of virtual phonons is absent.

### IV.2 Thermal Phonons

For thermal phonons, the imaginary part of the phonon propagator (Eq. 52) is only important,

$`\mathrm{}D^R(q,\omega )=i\pi [\delta (\omega \omega _q)\delta (\omega +\omega _q)].`$ (63)
Taking into account that $`\omega `$ is of the order of $`T`$ and much smaller than $`qv_F`$, we can put $`\omega =0`$ in the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(q,\omega )`$ (Eq. II). After integrating over $`\omega `$, Eq. 4 takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{eph}\sigma }{\sigma _3}}=2\tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2dq}{2\pi ^2}f(\omega _q)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(q)},`$ (64)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(q)=\mathrm{\Phi }(q,\omega =0)`$.

In metals, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(q)`$ is calculated with the electron-phonon vertex $`\gamma _{met}`$ in the static limit (Eq. 58). From Eq. II, we get

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(q)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{16}{\pi ^2}}1\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2ql}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}ϵ_F\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\rho \omega _q}}.`$ (65)
Substituting this result into Eq. 64, we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{eph}^{met}\sigma }{\sigma _3}}=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{16}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2\beta _lT^2}{ϵ_Fp_Fu_l}},`$ (66)
where the electron-phonon interaction constant is

$`\beta _l=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}ϵ_F\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\nu }{2\rho u_l^2}}.`$ (67)
Note, that in the isotropic model the deformation potential for transverse phonons is $`(3/2)G\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )`$. Taking into account the interaction with transverse phonons, we will get Eq. 1 obtained in the paper RS1 .

For a bulk semiconductor, Eq. II with the vertex $`\gamma _{sem}`$ (Eq. 56) results in

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(q)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2ql}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{q^2+\kappa _3^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{D_0^2q^2}{2\rho \omega _q}}.`$ (68)
At low temperatures, $`T<\kappa _3u`$, the deformation potential is strongly screened. In this limit, the interference correction to the conductivity is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{eph}^{sem}\sigma }{\sigma _3}}={\displaystyle \frac{10\pi ^6}{63}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_0^2T^6}{\rho v_F^2u^7\kappa _3^4}}.`$ (69)
At higher temperatures, $`T>\kappa _3u`$, the deformation potential is not screened. In this limit Eqs. 64 and 68 result in

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{eph}^{sem}\sigma }{\sigma _3}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_0^2T^2}{\rho v_F^2u^3}}.`$ (70)
For a two-dimensional electron gas in heterostructures interacting with three-dimensional phonons, Eq. II takes the form

$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(q)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{(q_{}l)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q_{}}{q_{}+\kappa _2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{D_0^2q^2}{2\rho \omega _q}},`$ (71)
where $`q_{}`$ is the wavevector component along the conducting plane, $`\kappa _2=2\pi e^2\nu _2,\nu _2=m/\pi .`$

Therefore, at low temperatures, $`T<\kappa _2u`$, the correction to conductivity is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{eph}^{sem}\sigma }{\sigma _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2D_0^2}{5\rho v_F^2u^5\kappa _2^2}}T^4,`$ (72)
and, in the opposite limit,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{eph}^{sem}\sigma }{\sigma _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{D_0^2}{3\rho v_F^2u^3}}T^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_1}},`$ (73)
where $`T_1=\mathrm{max}\{u\kappa _2,u/l\}`$.

In semiconductors the constant $`D_0`$ is much larger than $`G`$, therefore, in isotropic semiconductors interaction with longitudinal phonons plays a key role. The interference correction to conductivity is negative (Eqs. 69, 70, 72, and 73) and results in the resistivity increases with temperature.

Results obtained in this section have simple physical interpretation. In the limit of weak disorder, $`ql>1`$, the interference can be described by effective large-angle electron scattering process with square of the matrix element $`a_{eph}^2/(ql)`$, where $`a_{eph}`$ is the matrix element of the ’pure’ electron-phonon scattering. Therefore, in the Bloch-Gruneisen regime, the interference contribution to the conductivity turns out to be $`(p_F/q)^2/(ql)`$ times larger than the contribution of pure electron-phonon scattering. In the case of the Debye phonon spectrum, the corresponding temperature dependence of conductivity is modified by $`T^3`$ factor.

As it follows from the interpretation above, the interference corrections due to the electron-phonon interaction critically depend on the dimension of phonons and phonon spectrum. For example, flexural modes with dispersion $`\omega _qq^2`$ dominate in the electron scattering in free standing thin films at low temperatures. In the Bloch-Gruneisen regime, the conductivity of pure films Glav  is proportional to $`T^{7/2}`$, then in weakly disordered films this dependence is proportional to $`T^2`$.

## V CONCLUSIONS

In this work we investigated the interference of electron-electron (electron-phonon) scattering and elastic electron scattering from impurities and defects in weakly disordered conductors and heterostructures. We have calculated the interference corrections to the conductivity and demonstrated that even weak disorder significantly modifies its temperature dependence.

In weakly disordered conductors, characteristic momentum transfers are of the order of $`T/v_F`$, which is significantly smaller than the Fermi momentum. Therefore, the Landau Fermi-liquid theory is applicable and all processes with the large momentum transfer are taken into account by the effective Fermi-liquid constants. Both singlet and triplet channels of the electron-electron interaction give interference corrections to conductivity,

$`\delta _{ee}\sigma =\delta _{ee}^s\sigma +\delta _{ee}^t\sigma .`$ (74)
Due to the Coulomb potential divergence at small momenta, the singlet-channel interaction corresponds to the unitary limit and corresponding corrections are independent on the Fermi-liquid parameters (see Tab. 1). The triplet-channel corrections (Eqs. 48 and III.3) have the same temperature dependence as the singlet-channel corrections. Contrary to the singlet channel, the triplet channel corrections are not universal. Therefore, the value and sign of the total correction depend on the Fermi-liquid parameter $`F_0^\sigma `$ in the triplet channel. In the weak coupling limit, $`|F_0^\sigma |<<1`$, the singlet-channel dominates over the triplet one and the corrections to conductivity are positive. Negative values of $`F_0^\sigma `$ may result in the negative total correction, which is observed in heterostructures.Ger

Our main results for the singlet channel are summarized in Tab. I. We found that in weakly disordered bulk conductors the electron-electron interaction results in $`T^2\mathrm{ln}T`$ \- term in conductivity (Eq. 23). In a quasi-two-dimensional conductor, $`d<v_F/T`$, with 3D electron spectrum, $`p_Fd1`$, the electron-electron interaction results in $`T`$-term (Eq. 31), which is the leading temperature-dependent term at subkelvin temperatures. Our result differs from that for 2D electrons Al  by a numerical factor. In the quasi-ballistic case, integrals of electron Green functions for quasi-two-dimensional conductors with 3D and 2D spectra (Eqs. III.1 and 44 ) are significantly different and result in different coefficients.

In quasi-one-dimensional conductors with 3D and 2D spectra (wires and channels), the interference corrections are proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(T)`$ (Eqs. 38 and 46). Note, that at sub-Kelvin temperatures the characteristic length, $`d_c=v_F/T`$, is of the order of 1 - 10 $`\mu `$m. Therefore, experiments with wires and channels of $`\mu `$m-sizes would allow to observe crossovers to lower dimensions. Note, that the logarithmic term has been recently observed in arrays of open quantum dots of $`\mu `$m-sizes at sub-Kelvin temperatures. Bird  This observation may be relevant to the quasi-one-dimensional interference corrections calculated in this paper.

We considered the electron-electron interaction via virtual phonons and found that this interaction results in $`T^2\mathrm{ln}T`$-term (Eq. 60). The interference corrections due to interaction of electrons with thermal phonons are summarized in Tab. II. In bulk semiconductors at low temperatures, $`T<\kappa _3u`$, the contribution of thermal phonons interacting with electrons via the screened deformation potential results in $`T^6`$-term (Eq. 69). At higher temperatures the interaction via unscreened deformation potential results in $`T^2`$-term (Eq. 70). In two-dimensional heterostructures the screened deformation potential leads to $`T^4`$-term (Eq. 72) and the unscreened deformation potential results in $`T^2\mathrm{ln}T`$-term (Eq. 69).

The effects of the electron-electron interaction dominate in conductivity of weakly disordered conductors at low temperatures. At higher temperatures, conductivity is determined by the electron-phonon-impurity interference and then the pure electron-phonon scattering prevails over the interference mechanisms. Relative values of interference terms and characteristic crossover temperatures depend on many parameters. The effects of the electron-electron interaction are enhanced in low-dimensional conductors. As we discussed in Sec. IV, at low temperatures the contribution of the electron-phonon-impurity interference turns out to be $`(p_F/q_T)^2/(q_Tl)`$ times larger than the contribution of pure electron-phonon scattering. Therefore, the interference contributions dominate over pure electron-phonon scattering at $`Tup_F(p_Fl)^{1/3}`$. It is important, that all interference corrections are proportional to the Drude conductivity, and this characteristic feature may be used for their experimental identification, as it has been done for metallic films. Pt

Note, that the $`T^2`$-term has been actually widely observed in conductivity of doped semiconductors. It was associated with strongly anisotropic Fermi surfaces and electron-electron scattering (for a review see the book Gant ). In our opinion, the electron-phonon-impurity interference correction is a more plausible reason for such term.

###### Acknowledgements.

The research was supported by the ONR grant. We would like to thank I. Aleiner, J. Bird, M. Gershenson, B. Narozhny, and D. Maslov for useful discussions.

*

## Appendix A Quantum Transport Equation

The goal of this section is to show how the basic equations discussed in Sec. II are obtained in the formalism of the quantum transport equation. This method is based on the Keldysh diagrammatic technique, where the electric current is expressed through the kinetic (Keldysh) component of electron Green function, $`G^C(𝐩,ϵ)`$, in the following way

$$𝐉_e=\sigma 𝐄=e\frac{d𝐩dϵ}{(2\pi )^4}𝐯\mathrm{Im}G^C(𝐩,ϵ).$$
(75)
Without interaction effects, the expressions for electron Green functions in disordered conductors are well known. The retarded (R) and advanced (A) electron Green functions are

$`G_0^R(𝐩,ϵ)=[G_0^A(𝐩,ϵ)]^{}=(ϵ\xi _p+i/2\tau )^1,`$ (76)
and $`\xi _p=(p^2p_F^2)/2m`$. The kinetic component of the electron Green function is given by

$`G_0^C(𝐩,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`2iS(𝐩,ϵ)\mathrm{}[G_0^A(𝐩,ϵ)]+\delta G_0^C,`$ (77)
$`\delta G_0^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{S_0(ϵ),G_0^A+G_0^R\}.`$ (78)
where the electron distribution function is given by

$`S(𝐩,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`S_0(ϵ)+\varphi (𝐩,ϵ),`$ (79)
$`S_0(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tanh}(ϵ/2T),`$ (80)
$`\varphi (𝐩,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`e\tau (𝐯𝐄){\displaystyle \frac{S_0(ϵ)}{ϵ}}.`$ (81)
The nonlocal correction $`\delta G_0^C(𝐩,ϵ)`$ has a form of the Poisson bracket,

$`\{A,B\}=e𝐄({\displaystyle \frac{A}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{𝐩}}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{A}{𝐩}}).`$ (82)
The kinetic Green function $`G_0^C`$(Eq. 77) with the distribution function $`S(𝐩,ϵ)`$ (Eq. 79) takes into account only elastic electron scattering from impurities. Substituting $`G_0^C`$ in Eq. 75, one could get the Drude conductivity. The nonlocal correction $`\delta G_0^C(𝐩,ϵ)`$ is required to satisfy the unitary condition for the matrix Keldysh function, LO  it removes divergence in Eq. 75 far from the Fermi surface.

Assuming that the elastic electron scattering from impurities and defects dominates in the electron momentum relaxation, one can apply the iteration procedure to the Dyson equation. Then the many-body correction to the kinetic Green function is expressed through the electron self-energy in the following way RSLW ,

$`\delta _{int}G^C`$ $`=`$ $`2\tau [\mathrm{\Sigma }_{int}^C2iS\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{int}^A]\mathrm{}G_0^A`$ (83)
$`+`$ $`2\tau \{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{int}^A,S_0\}\mathrm{}G_0^A+S\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{int}^A(G_0^A)^2.`$
Note, that the electric field enters Eq. 83 through the nonequilibium distribution function $`\varphi (𝐩,ϵ)`$ (Eq. 79) and the electric Poisson bracket (Eq. 82), the interaction is included in components of the electron self-energy.

For weakly disordered conductor we should consider three electron self-energy diagrams shown in Fig. 1. The first diagram does not consists of dotted lines corresponding to the electron-impurity interaction. Electron-impurity scattering is included only in the electron Green functions (Eq. 76). Therefore, without nonlocal quantum corrections in the form of the Poisson brackets (Eq. 82), the first diagram results in the Bloch-Gruneisen term. Interference effects are taken into account by the Poisson bracket terms. Namely, $`\delta C_0^C`$ (Eq. 77) has to be taken into consideration in all self-energy components (A,R,C) in the first term in Eq. 83. The second term has the Poisson bracket form and, therefore, it is directly calculated with the equilibrium distribution functions. Substituting $`\delta _{int}C^C`$ in Eq. 75, we get the correction to the conductivity in the form of Eqs. 4 and 6 with the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(q,\omega )`$ given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(q,\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{in}{4\pi l^2}}{\displaystyle }d\xi _p\gamma ^2(𝐯𝐞)^2[G^R(𝐪+𝐩,ϵ+\omega )]^2`$
$`\times G^A(𝐩,ϵ)_𝐯_𝐪={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\tau ^2v_F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2(𝐯_F𝐞)^2}{(\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i0)^2}}_𝐯_𝐪.`$
In the second and third diagrams the electron-impurity and electron-electron (electron-phonon) interactions are directly presented. Therefore, interference contributions of these diagrams originate from the first term in Eq. 83 without any Poisson bracket corrections. Calculations show that the contribution of the second diagram is exactly the same as the first one,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(q,\omega )=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(q,\omega ).`$ (85)
The third diagram with the vertex $`\gamma `$ renormalized by elastic electron-impurity scattering gives

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_3(q,\omega )=K(q,\omega )L(𝐪,\omega )_𝐪[M(𝐪,\omega )]^2_𝐪.`$
The first term in Eq. A corresponds to the third diagram with the equilibrium vertex, which is given by

$`K(q,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \nu _n\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^n}\gamma G^A(𝐩,ϵ)G^R(𝐩+𝐪,ϵ+\omega )}`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i0}}_𝐯,`$
and the rest of the diagram is described by the function

$`L(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \nu _n\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^n}G^A(𝐩,ϵ)G^R(𝐩+𝐪,ϵ+\omega )}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (𝐯𝐞)^2}{v^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\tau v_F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (𝐯_F𝐞)^2}{\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i0}}_𝐯.`$ (88)
The nonequilibrium vertex calculated with the distribution function $`\varphi (𝐩,ϵ)`$ leads to

$`M(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \nu _n\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐩}{(2\pi )^n}G^A(𝐩,ϵ)G^R(𝐩+𝐪,ϵ+\omega )}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 𝐯𝐞}{v}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\tau v_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma 𝐯_F𝐞}{\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_F\omega i0}}_𝐯.`$ (89)
Finally, summarizing $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(q,\omega )`$ (Eqs. A, 85, and A), we get Eq. II.

As we already mentioned, Eqs. 4 and II can be also derived in the linear response formalism. RS1 ; Al  The corresponding diagrams are shown in Fig. 2. Here, the diagrams 1 and 2 corresponds to the first diagram of the transport equation method (Eq. A), the diagrams 3 corresponds to the second diagram (Eq. 85), the diagrams 4 and 5 are equivalent to the third diagram with the equilibrium vertex (Eqs A and 87), and the diagrams 6 and 7 are equivalent to the third diagram with the nonequilibrium vertex (Eqs A and A).


text:
# Soliton generation by local resonance interaction 11footnote 1This work was supported by RFBR grant (00-15-96038)

## 1 Introduction

A wide class of the mathematical physics problems is connected with forced nonlinear Schrodinger equation (NLSE). Usually authors consider either the small amplitude solutions  or the asymptotics for perturbed soliton solutions . The problems on soliton generation usually are not discussed or solved numerically .

In this paper we show a mechanism of the soliton generation in nonlinear Schrodinger equation due to a small fast oscillating driving force:

$$i_\theta \mathrm{\Psi }+_{\xi \xi }\mathrm{\Psi }+|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2\mathrm{\Psi }=\epsilon ^2fe^{iS/\epsilon ^2},0<\epsilon 1.$$
(1)
We investigate formal asymptotic solutions with a small amplitude of the order of $`𝒪(\epsilon ^2)`$. The leading-order term is the solution of linear nonhomogeneous equation. We consider the one phase asymptotic solution with the phase function $`S/\epsilon ^2`$. Other terms of the order of $`𝒪(\epsilon ^2)`$ do not play any role in investigated phenomenon.

The specific of the problem consists in existence of a local resonance. The resonance curve is defined by equation:

$$_\theta S+(_\xi S)^2=0,$$
(2)
where $`S`$ is the phase function of the driving force. The amplitude of forced oscillations increases from $`𝒪(\epsilon ^2)`$ up to $`𝒪(\epsilon )`$ in the neighborhood of this curve.

The increase of the amplitude is similar to a phenomenon of a local resonance in the linear nonhomogeneous ordinary differential equation of the second order with the constant coefficients . The amplitude increases linearly. The domain of this increase usually is called a resonance layer. The additional term of the order of the layer width will appear in the asymptotic solution after passage of the resonance layer. The order $`𝒪(\epsilon ^2)`$ of residual part of the solution does not change.

After resonance the leading-order term of the asymptotic solution has the order of $`𝒪(\epsilon )`$. The spatial variable $`\epsilon \xi `$ is defined by amplitude of the driving force. The relation between the order of the solution amplitude and typical scale of the independent variables is such that the leading-order term of the asymptotics is defined from NLSE. So specific relations usually appear due to specific asymptotic representation of the solution as was shown in well known works on asymptotic transfer to NLSE , -. In this work we show that such kind relation can be obtained due to resonance with driving force.

Thus after resonance layer the leading-order term of the asymptotics has the order $`𝒪(\epsilon )`$ and is defined from the Cauchy problem. The initial data are equal to the value of the amplitude $`f`$ of driving force on the resonance curve. The further evolution of the leading term of the asymptotics does not depend on driving force.

The effect of the solution increase after local resonance is well known in the ordinary differential equations  and partial differential equations . Also it is well known the effect of appearance of NLSE in asymptotic constructions for the problems with strong dispersion, cubic nonlinearity and the appropriate relation between scales. This problem contains both of these effects. The passage through the local resonance leads to the increase of the amplitude. The modulation of the amplitude of the driving force and scales of the variables lead to NLSE behind the resonance curve. The similar results can be obtained for other problems on the resonance passage by driving force in systems with the cubic nonlinearity and strong dispersion.

The considered problem is the model problem for the wide class problems on the local resonance passage by driving force. In order to show essence of this phenomenon we assume that the amplitude $`f`$ of perturbation is a smooth function with respect to variable $`\epsilon \xi `$ and phase function is $`S=(\epsilon ^2\theta )^2/2`$.

The result of this work is the following proposition

Proposition. One phase asymptotic solution of the order of $`𝒪(\epsilon ^2)`$ in the domain $`\theta \epsilon ^1`$ will have the order of $`𝒪(\epsilon )`$ in the domain $`\epsilon ^1\theta K\epsilon ^2,K=const>0`$. The leading-order term of the asymptotics

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\epsilon \stackrel{0}{u}+𝒪(\epsilon ^2)$$

is determined from the Cauchy problem for NLSE

$`i\underset{t}{\overset{0}{u}}+\underset{xx}{\overset{0}{u}}+|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\stackrel{0}{u}=0,`$
$`\stackrel{0}{u}|_{t=0}=(1i)\sqrt{\pi }f(x).`$
In particular, if the amplitude of the perturbation force has the form

$$f(x)=\frac{1}{(1i)\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{2\eta \mathrm{exp}(i\mu (x+y_0))}{\mathrm{cosh}(2\eta (xx_0))},$$

then the leading-order term $`\stackrel{0}{u}`$ of postresonance expansion is a soliton of NLSE, where $`x_0,y_0,\mu ,\eta `$ are soliton parameters.

## 2 Forced oscillations

In this section we construct the formal asymptotic solution for equation (1) in preresonance domain.

Lemma 1. In the domain $`\theta \epsilon ^1`$ the formal asymptotic solution for equation (1) with respect to base $`𝒪(\epsilon ^8)`$ has a form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\xi ,\theta ,\epsilon )=[\epsilon ^2\stackrel{1}{A}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )+\epsilon ^4\stackrel{2}{A}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )+`$ (3)
$`\epsilon ^6\stackrel{3}{A}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )]\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2),\epsilon 0,`$
the coefficients $`\stackrel{m}{A}`$ of the asymptotics are determined from algebraic equations (4).

Equation (1) is written in terms of fast variables $`\xi `$ $`\theta `$ but further for convenience we also use slow variables $`x=\epsilon \xi `$ and $`t=\epsilon ^2\theta `$.

The substitution (3) into equation (1) gives a recurrent sequence of equations for coefficients of asymptotics:

$`S^{}\stackrel{1}{A}=f,`$
$`S^{}\stackrel{2}{A}=i\underset{t}{\overset{1}{A}}_{xx}\stackrel{1}{A},`$ (4)
$`S^{}\stackrel{3}{A}=i\underset{t}{\overset{2}{A}}_{xx}\stackrel{2}{A}|\stackrel{1}{A}|^2\stackrel{1}{A}.`$
The solutions of this systems have singularities at $`t=0`$. The constructed asymptotic solution can be represented as $`t0`$ in the form:

$$\psi (\epsilon \xi ,t,\epsilon )=[\epsilon ^2\left(\frac{f}{t}\right)+\epsilon ^4(\frac{if}{t^3}\frac{f_{xx}}{t^2})+$$

$$\epsilon ^6(\frac{3if_{xx}}{t^4}\frac{f_{xxxx}}{t^3}\frac{|f|^2f}{t^4}+\frac{3f}{t^5})]\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2).$$

The structure of singularities as $`t0`$ of coefficients in asymptotic representation (3) allows us to determine the domain of validity for external asymptotics:

$$\theta \epsilon ^1.$$

Lemma 1 is proved.

## 3 Internal solution

In this section we construct the formal asymptotic solution for equation (1) into resonance layer. The asymptotics of these type are usually called by internal asymptotics .

Lemma 2. In the domain $`\epsilon ^2\theta \epsilon ^2`$ the formal asymptotic solution for equation (1) with respect to base $`𝒪(\epsilon ^4)`$ has a form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\xi ,\tau ,\epsilon )=\epsilon \stackrel{0}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\tau )+\epsilon ^2\stackrel{1}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\tau )+\epsilon ^3\stackrel{2}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\tau )\epsilon 0,$$
(5)
where $`\tau =\epsilon \theta `$. The coefficients $`\stackrel{m}{w}`$ of the asymptotics are determined from ordinary differential equations (9), (11), (12).

The structure of singularities for coefficients in (3) as $`t0`$ allows us to determine internal scaled variable $`\tau =t/\epsilon =\epsilon \theta `$.

The internal asymptotic solution is constructed in form (5). The behaviour of coefficients can be obtained by matching:

$$\stackrel{0}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\tau )\left[\frac{f}{\tau }+\frac{if}{\tau ^3}+\frac{3f}{\tau ^5}\right]\mathrm{exp}\{i\tau ^2/2\},\tau \mathrm{}.$$
(6)
$$\stackrel{1}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\tau )\left[\frac{f_{xx}}{\tau ^2}+\frac{3if_{xx}}{\tau ^4}\frac{|f|^2f}{\tau ^4}\right]\mathrm{exp}\{i\tau ^2/2\},\tau \mathrm{}.$$
(7)
$$\stackrel{2}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\tau )\left[\frac{f_{xxxx}}{\tau ^3}\right]\mathrm{exp}\{i\tau ^2/2\},\tau \mathrm{}.$$
(8)
The leading-order term of (5) is determined from equation:

$`i\underset{\tau }{\overset{0}{w}}=f\mathrm{exp}(i\tau ^2/2).`$ (9)
The solution of this equation can be written out in terms of Fresnel integral:

$$\stackrel{0}{w}=if(\epsilon \xi )_{\mathrm{}}^\tau \mathrm{exp}(i\theta ^2/2)d\theta .$$
(10)
The first order correction $`\stackrel{1}{w}`$ is determined by equation:

$$i\underset{\tau }{\overset{1}{w}}+\underset{xx}{\overset{0}{w}}+|\stackrel{0}{w}|^2\stackrel{0}{w}=0,$$
(11)
the second order correction is determined by equation:

$$i\underset{\tau }{\overset{2}{w}}+\underset{xx}{\overset{1}{w}}+2|\stackrel{0}{w}|^2\stackrel{1}{w}+\stackrel{0}{w}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{1}{w}{}_{}{}^{}=0.$$
(12)
In order to determine the behaviour of the asymptotic solution after resonance passage we need to know the asymptotics of the coefficients of (5) as $`\tau +\mathrm{}`$. Direct calculations lead us to formulas

$$\stackrel{0}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\tau )=if(\epsilon \xi )\left[ic_1+\frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\tau ^2/2)}{i\tau }+𝒪(\tau ^3)\right],$$

where $`c_1=(1i)\sqrt{\pi }`$;

$$\stackrel{1}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\tau )=\tau \stackrel{1}{w}{}_{1}{}^{}(\epsilon \xi )+\stackrel{1}{w}{}_{0}{}^{}(\epsilon \xi )+g_1(\epsilon \xi )\frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\tau ^2/2)}{i\tau ^2}+𝒪(\tau ^4),$$

where

$$\stackrel{1}{w}{}_{1}{}^{}=c_1f_{xx}+|c_1f|^2c_1f,$$

$$\stackrel{1}{w}{}_{0}{}^{}(\epsilon \xi )=\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}(_{\mathrm{}}^\tau [\stackrel{0}{w}{}_{xx}{}^{}(\epsilon \xi ,\theta )+|\stackrel{0}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\theta )|^2\stackrel{0}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\theta )]d\theta (c_1f_{xx}+|c_1f|^2c_1f)),$$

$`g_1(\epsilon \xi )=k_1f_{xx}+k_2|f|^2f`$, $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are constants;

$$\stackrel{2}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\tau )=\tau ^2\stackrel{2}{w}{}_{2}{}^{}(\epsilon \xi )+\tau \stackrel{2}{w}{}_{1}{}^{}(\epsilon \xi )+\stackrel{2}{w}{}_{0}{}^{}(\epsilon \xi )+g_2(\epsilon \xi )\frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\tau ^2/2)}{i\tau }+𝒪(\tau ^2),$$

where

$$\stackrel{2}{w}{}_{2}{}^{}(\epsilon \xi )=i((\underset{1}{\overset{1}{w}})_{xx}+2|\underset{0}{\overset{0}{w}}|^2\underset{1}{\overset{1}{w}}+\stackrel{0}{w}{}_{0}{}^{2}\stackrel{1}{w}{}_{1}{}^{}),$$

$`\stackrel{2}{w}{}_{1}{}^{}(\epsilon \xi )=i((\stackrel{1}{w}{}_{0}{}^{})_{xx}+2|\underset{0}{\overset{0}{w}}|^2\underset{0}{\overset{1}{w}}+2\stackrel{0}{w}{}_{0}{}^{}\stackrel{0}{w}{}_{1}{}^{}\underset{1}{\overset{1}{w}}`$
$`2\underset{1}{\overset{0}{w}}\stackrel{0}{w}{}_{0}{}^{}\underset{1}{\overset{1}{w}}+2\stackrel{0}{w}{}_{0}{}^{}\stackrel{0}{w}{}_{1}{}^{}\stackrel{1}{w}{}_{1}{}^{}+\stackrel{0}{w}{}_{0}{}^{2}\stackrel{1}{w}{}_{0}{}^{}),`$
$`\stackrel{2}{w}{}_{0}{}^{}=\underset{\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}(i{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\tau }[\stackrel{1}{w}{}_{xx}{}^{}(\epsilon \xi ,\theta )+2|\stackrel{0}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\theta )|^2\stackrel{1}{w}(\epsilon \xi ,\theta )+\stackrel{0}{w}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{1}{w}}]d\theta `$
$`\tau ^2\underset{2}{\overset{2}{w}}\tau \underset{1}{\overset{2}{w}})`$
and the function $`g_2(\epsilon \xi )`$ is smooth and expressed by $`f(\epsilon \xi )`$.

The asymptotic behaviour of the coefficients in (5) gives us the domain of validity for this solution:

$$|\tau |\epsilon ^1\text{or}|\theta |\epsilon ^2$$

Lemma 2 is proved.

## 4 Postresonance solution

In this section we construct the formal asymptotic solution for equation (1) in postresonance domain.

Lemma 3. In the domain $`\epsilon ^1\theta K\epsilon ^2`$ the formal asymptotic solution for equation (1) with respect to base $`𝒪(\epsilon ^4)`$ has a form

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(\xi ,\theta ,\epsilon )=\epsilon \stackrel{0}{u}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )+\epsilon ^2(\stackrel{1}{u}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )+\stackrel{1}{B}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2))+`$
$`\epsilon ^3(\stackrel{2}{u}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )+\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2))+`$ (13)
$`+\epsilon ^4(\underset{1}{\overset{3}{B}}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+\underset{2}{\overset{3}{B}}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )\mathrm{exp}(2iS/\epsilon ^2)+`$
$`+\underset{1}{\overset{3}{B}}(\epsilon \xi ,\epsilon ^2\theta )\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)),`$
the coefficients $`\underset{k}{\overset{m}{B}}`$ of the asymptotics are determined from algebraic equations (14) and the coefficients $`\stackrel{m}{u}`$ are solutions of the Cauchy problems for either NLSE or linearized NLSE (15)-(17).

The substitution of (13) in equation (1) gives:

$`\epsilon (S^{}\stackrel{1}{B}f)\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+\epsilon ^2(i\underset{t}{\overset{0}{u}}+\underset{xx}{\overset{0}{u}}+|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\stackrel{0}{u})`$
$`+\epsilon ^3(i\underset{t}{\overset{1}{u}}+\underset{xx}{\overset{1}{u}}+2|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\stackrel{1}{u}+\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{1}{u}{}_{}{}^{}+`$
$`+i\underset{t}{\overset{1}{B}}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+\underset{xx}{\overset{1}{B}}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+`$
$`+2|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\stackrel{1}{B}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{1}{B}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)`$
$`S^{}\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+S^{}\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2))`$
$`+\epsilon ^4(i\underset{t}{\overset{2}{u}}+\underset{xx}{\overset{2}{u}}+2|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\stackrel{2}{u}+\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{2}{u}{}_{}{}^{}+2|\stackrel{1}{u}|^2\stackrel{0}{u}+\stackrel{1}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{}+2\stackrel{0}{u}|\stackrel{1}{B}|^2+`$
$`+\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{1}{B}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{exp}(2iS/\epsilon ^2)+2\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{1}{u}\stackrel{1}{B}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+`$
$`+2\stackrel{0}{u}\stackrel{1}{u}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{1}{B}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+2\stackrel{0}{u}\stackrel{1}{u}\stackrel{1}{B}{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+`$
$`+2|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+2|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+`$
$`+\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{2}{B}{}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{2}{B}{}_{1}{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+`$
$`+i\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}{}_{t}{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}{}_{xx}{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)`$
$`i\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}{}_{t}{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}{}_{xx}{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+`$
$`S^{}\underset{1}{\overset{3}{B}}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+S^{}\underset{1}{\overset{3}{B}}\mathrm{exp}(iS/\epsilon ^2)+2S^{}\underset{2}{\overset{3}{B}}\mathrm{exp}(2iS/\epsilon ^2))=𝒪(\epsilon ^5)`$
Functions $`\stackrel{1}{B}`$, $`\underset{\pm }{\overset{2}{B}}`$ are determined from algebraic equation:

$`S^{}\stackrel{1}{B}=f,`$
$`S^{}\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}=i\underset{t}{\overset{1}{B}}+\underset{xx}{\overset{1}{B}}+|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\stackrel{1}{B},`$
$`S^{}\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}=\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{1}{B}^{}`$
$`S^{}\underset{1}{\overset{3}{B}}=i\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}{}_{t}{}^{}+\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}{}_{xx}{}^{}+|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\stackrel{1}{B}+2\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{1}{u}\stackrel{1}{B}+\stackrel{0}{u}\stackrel{1}{u}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{1}{B}+\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{2}{B}{}_{1}{}^{},`$ (14)
$`S^{}\underset{1}{\overset{3}{B}}=i\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}{}_{t}{}^{}\underset{1}{\overset{2}{B}}{}_{xx}{}^{}\stackrel{0}{u}\stackrel{1}{u}\stackrel{1}{B}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{2}{B}{}_{1}{}^{},`$
$`2S^{}\underset{2}{\overset{3}{B}}=\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{1}{B}{}_{}{}^{2},`$
The matching with internal solutions give us the recurrent system of the Cauchy problems for coefficients $`\stackrel{0}{u},\stackrel{1}{u},\stackrel{2}{u}`$:

$`i\underset{t}{\overset{0}{u}}+\underset{xx}{\overset{0}{u}}+|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\stackrel{0}{u}=0,`$
$`\stackrel{0}{u}|_{t=0}=c_1f(x);`$ (15)
$`i\underset{t}{\overset{1}{u}}+\underset{xx}{\overset{1}{u}}+2|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\stackrel{1}{u}+\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{1}{u}{}_{}{}^{}=0,`$
$`\stackrel{1}{u}|_{t=0}=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{w}}(x);`$ (16)
$`i\underset{t}{\overset{2}{u}}+\underset{xx}{\overset{2}{u}}+2|\stackrel{0}{u}|^2\stackrel{2}{u}+\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{2}{u}{}_{}{}^{}=|\stackrel{1}{B}|^2\stackrel{0}{u}|\stackrel{1}{u}|^2\stackrel{0}{u}\stackrel{1}{u}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{0}{u}{}_{}{}^{},`$
$`\stackrel{2}{u}|_{t=0}=\underset{0}{\overset{2}{w}}(x).`$ (17)
Coefficients $`\underset{k}{\overset{j}{B}}`$ have singularities at $`t=0`$. The domain of validity for solution (13) is determined by inequalities:

$$t\epsilon \text{or}\theta \epsilon ^1.$$

Lemma 3 is proved.

In order to determine the behaviour of solution (13) for large $`t>0`$ it is necessary to know the structure of the leading-order term $`\stackrel{0}{u}`$. It is easy to see that the behaviour of $`\stackrel{0}{u}`$ is determined by amplitude of the perturbation force in original equation (1). In particular, if the function $`f(\epsilon \xi )`$ has the form:

$$f(\epsilon \xi )=\frac{1}{(1i)\sqrt{\pi }}\frac{2\eta \mathrm{exp}(i\mu (\epsilon \xi +y_0))}{\mathrm{cosh}(2\eta (\epsilon \xi \xi _0))},\text{where}\xi _0,y_0,\mu ,\eta =\text{const},$$

then to determine the leading-order term of asymptotics (13) it is necessary to solve the Cauchy problem for NLSE with initial data of the soliton type.

We are grateful to L.A. Kalyakin and B.I. Suleimanov for stimulating discussions and for help in improving of the mathematical presentation of the results.


text:
# First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: On-Orbit Radiometer Characterization

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched 2001 June 30, is a Medium-class Explorer (MIDEX) mission designed to produce full sky maps of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. The WMAP instrument is comprised of a dual set off-axis Gregorian telescopes (Page et al., 2003b) coupled to 20 differential radiometers (Jarosik et al., 2003). WMAP scans the sky from near the second Earth-Sun Lagrange point with a 129 s spin period and a 1 hour precession period (Bennett et al., 2003a). The resulting scan pattern is highly interconnected, minimizing systematic errors in the reconstructed maps. WMAP utilizes high electron mobility transistor (HEMT) based amplifiers (Pospieszalski et al., 2000) with cooled input stages to reduce the noise of the radiometers. This paper describes the on-orbit performance of the radiometers with emphasis on those characteristics which determine the quality of the sky maps. Design details and terminology used for the optics, radiometers and overall mission can be found in Page et al. (2003b), Jarosik et al. (2003) and Bennett et al. (2003a) respectively.

Detailed knowledge of the performance of the WMAP optics and radiometers is essential in order to convert the raw time ordered data (TOD) into accurate maps of the microwave sky. (Hinshaw et al., 2003) Characterization of both the optics and radiometers employ a combination of pre-launch ground based measurements and on-orbit data. Characterizations of the main beam and sidelobe response of the optics are presented in Page et al. (2003a) and Barnes et al. (2003).

The key radiometer performance parameters are the frequency bandpasses, data collection system responses, and radiometer noise and gain characteristics. The frequency bandpasses and data collection system were fully characterized in pre-launch ground tests and are described in Jarosik et al. (2003). Figure 1 summarizes the audio frequency response of the data collection system together with the frequency roll-offs associated with the beam sizes and the angular spectrum of a typical CMB signal. The radiometer gain and noise properties were also characterized during ground tests, but the final precise measurement of these quantities is done while on orbit since they depend on details of the thermal environment of the radiometers which could not be predicted precisely before launch.

## 2 THE RADIOMETER THERMAL ENVIRONMENT

Approximately 2 hours after launch, power was applied to the WMAP radiometers while the Focal Plane Assembly (FPA) components were at approximately 265 K; all 20 radiometers were observed to be operational. (The FPA comprises the input stages of the radiometers and feed horns and is designed to passively cool to $`90`$ K.) Over the next 2 days all the major radiometer assemblies, the FPA, the Receiver Box (RXB), the Analog Electronics Unit (AEU) and the Power Distribution Unit (PDU) quickly approached nominal operating temperatures and radiometer performance improved as expected. (See Figure 7 of Bennett et al. (2003a) for an block diagram containing details of these units.) Infrared irradiation from the Earth and Moon during the first month of the mission, the trajectory phasing loops, induced thermal fluctuations in the instrument components, limiting the utility of radiometer performance analyses which could be performed. During this period, however, valuable measurements of beam sidelobe pattern were obtained. These large thermal perturbations ended after the lunar encounter on 2001 July 30, allowing the temperatures of the instrument components to approach their final steady state values. All performance data presented here were taken after 2001 August 10, by which time the satellite temperatures had stabilized and data for the first year sky maps were being taken.

WMAP is outfitted with 57 high resolution platinum resistance thermometers that monitor the temperature of representative instrument components. Each thermometer is read out every 23 seconds, has $`0.5\text{mK}`$ resolution, $`\pm 1`$ K accuracy, and $`1`$ least significant bit of readout noise to allow averaging of multiple samples. There are 17 such thermometers on FPA components, 12 on RXB components, 13 on the optics111One of the thermometers attached to the top of a radiator panel is non-functional. See Limon et al. (2003) for details., 9 in the AEU and 6 in the PDU.

Table 1 lists the 12-month mean temperatures, peak-to-peak temperature variations, and limits on the measured spin synchronous temperature variations of the AEU, FPA, PDU and RXB. The total variation also contains a slow annual term arising from the ellipticity of the Earth’s orbit modulating the level of insolation on the spacecraft plus a contribution from the initial thermal transient associated with phasing loops and the final lunar encounter. Details of the thermal history of each component are presented in Limon et al. (2003). Future total variations are predicted to be $`1/31/2`$ the values given in the Table since the transient effects will not be repeated. The spin synchronous term was measured by removing a slowly varying baseline from the temperature data and binning the residual temperature fluctuations synchronously with the spacecraft spin relative to the Sun direction. Keeping the spin synchronous temperature fluctuations at or below the design requirement values is essential in order to meet the systematic error requirements (Jarosik et al., 2003). The measured spin synchronous temperature variations of all the instrument components are at least a factor of *50 smaller* than the maximum allowed values specified in the systematic error budget, the values of which are also presented in Table 1.

## 3 RADIOMETER PERFORMANCE

### 3.1 Sensitivity

The radiometers must be calibrated using known input signals to determine their sensitivities. During ground testing at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), calibrations were performed with thermally regulated full aperture loads attached to the feed horn inputs. On-orbit, the $`3\text{mK}`$ CMB dipole signal, coupled into the radiometer through the full optical system, provides a stable calibration signal and is used to track calibration drifts. Absolute calibration is provided by the annual modulation of the dipole signal arising from the known orbital velocity of the Earth about the Sun, and the CMB monopole temperature as determined by Mather et al. (1999). The conversion factors presented in Jarosik et al. (2003) are used to convert the dipole calibrations into Rayleigh-Jeans units.

Table 2 contains the radiometer sensitivities measured at GSFC and on-orbit. The GSFC sensitivities have been scaled to compensate for the difference between the radiometer environments during the ground and on-orbit measurements. The sensitivity values measured during the GSFC test agree fairly well with the values measured on-orbit. The K (23 GHz ), Ka (33 GHz ), Q (41 GHz ), and V (61 GHz ) band radiometers seem to have slightly lower noise on-orbit than predicted from the scaled GSFC results. This is thought to be the result of small reflections in the feed horn loads used during the ground test, the effects of which were not included in the analysis. The W (94 GHz ) band radiometers appear slightly noisier than predicted. In this case it is thought that the simple power law scaling used to predict the cryogenic HEMT noise temperature based on its physical temperature is inaccurate. Table 2 also contains the estimated mean pixel noise values ($`3.2\times 10^5`$ sr/pixel), derived from the measured on-orbit noise levels, for maps created by combining all the radiometer channels in each frequency band for the originally approved 2 year mission and the currently approved extension to a 4 year mission.

### 3.2  Stability

Ideally the radiometer noise has a flat (white) power spectrum over the audio bandwidth of the signal being measured. Given the WMAP beam sizes and scan rates, the signal bandwidth extends from $`0.0088\text{Hz}`$. Figure 2 shows a power spectrum of the V12 radiometer noise obtained on-orbit. (See Jarosik et al. (2003) for an explanation of the radiometer labeling conventions.) The noise power spectrum is very flat and only turns up at very low frequencies. The increase in noise at low frequency is characterized by a “1/f knee frequency”, $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}`$, taken to be the value at which the noise power spectral density increases to $`\sqrt{2}`$ times its high frequency value, in this case $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}=1.12`$ mHz. Table 2 contains the values of $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}`$ measure on-orbit for all the radiometers. Most of the radiometers have $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}`$ values below $`8\text{mHz}`$, the low frequency end of the signal bandwidth, but a few are problematic, particularly W41 and W42.

The radiometer offset temperatures, $`T_{\mathrm{off}}`$, measured at GSFC and on-orbit are also presented in Table 2. These values correspond to the size of the radiometer output signal when both inputs are observing regions with the same antenna temperatures. (See Jarosik et al. (2003) for the precise definition of $`T_{\mathrm{off}}`$ used for WMAP.) A significant correlation between the magnitude of the radiometer offset, $`T_{\mathrm{off}}`$, and value of $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}`$ is expected for differential radiometers; this correlation arises from radiometer gain fluctuations modulating the radiometer offset signal. If it is assumed that all the amplification chains in the radiometers have power gain fluctuations of the same fractional amplitude and frequency spectra proportional to $`f^\alpha `$, then the $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}`$ is expected to scale as $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}(|T_{\mathrm{off}}|\mathrm{\Delta }\nu ^{1/2}/T_{\mathrm{sys}})^{2/\alpha }`$. Here $`T_{\mathrm{sys}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ are the radiometer system noise temperatures and noise equivalent bandwidths. Figure 3 shows on-orbit data for the 20 WMAP radiometers. The value of the exponent $`\alpha `$ measured from these data is $`1.70`$, somewhat larger that the value of $`0.96`$ reported by Wollack & Pospieszalski (1998). Direct comparison of these values of $`\alpha `$ is complicated by the fact that the data contained in Figure 3 comes from 20 different radiometers fabricated from HEMT devices with three different geometries, while the Wollack & Pospieszalski (1998) results were obtained from measurements on a single amplification chain. The difference between the measured values of $`\alpha `$ may therefore not be significant.

The source of the high value of $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}`$ in the W41 and W42 radiometers is the large $`|T_{\mathrm{off}}|`$ for these radiometers. The on-orbit values of $`|T_{\mathrm{off}}|`$ are significantly larger than the values measured during the GSFC tests for the W21, W22, W41 and W42 radiometers. The fact that the radiometer $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}`$ values track the measured values of $`|T_{\mathrm{off}}|`$, as shown in Figure 3, indicates the radiometers are operating as expected. The exact source of the larger $`|T_{\mathrm{off}}|`$ values is not known.

Even with the relatively low values of $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}`$ for the majority of the radiometers, noise correlations are not negligible. Maps produced directly from radiometer data for radiometers with $`f_{\mathrm{knee}}f_{\mathrm{spin}}=7.75\text{mHz}`$ exhibited small but detectable pixel noise correlations (“stripes”) which could corrupt power spectrum determinations. In order to minimize these effects in the final sky maps, a pre-whitening procedure has been adopted which fits a baseline to the TOD after removal of an estimated sky signal obtained from the sky maps. Details of the pre-whitening process are presented in Hinshaw et al. (2003).

The last column in Table 2 presents limits to spin synchronous artifacts in the TOD for each of the radiometers. These values were determined by multiplying the limits on the spin synchronous temperature fluctuations of each radiometer section (AEU, PDU, FPA and RXB) by the appropriate susceptibility coefficient determined during ground testing, and summing values in quadrature. Hinshaw et al. (2003) obtain similar results using susceptibility coefficients derived from on-orbit data. In all cases the limits on spin synchronous artifacts are much smaller than the $`2.8\mu \text{K}`$ allocated to the radiometers and data collection system in the systematic error budget (Jarosik et al., 2003).

It is possible to obtain an estimate of spin synchronous artifacts directly from the TOD independent of any model of its source. This was accomplished by binning 40 days of TOD (after removal of the CMB dipole signal) in an azimuthal coordinate about the spin axis of the spacecraft. (Recall the Sun’s elevation is fixed during observations by the WMAP scan pattern.) Each TOD point was binned according to the Sun’s location at the time of the observation, and bin averages calculated. TOD from all of the V and W band radiometers was used and a $`10^{}`$ Galactic cut applied. The limit obtained by this technique is $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{ss}}<0.14\mu \text{K}`$ rms, well below the $`9\mu \text{K}`$ value allowed in the systematic error budget (Jarosik et al., 2003). Note that this limit includes any artifacts which originate in the radiometers, data collection system or optical system. Since both the estimated and measured systematic error limits are so small, *no corrections arising from spin synchronous radiometric artifacts are applied to the TOD in the production of the one year sky maps.*

During the data period incorporated in the 1 year maps a total of 21 sudden jumps (“glitches”) have occurred in the outputs of the radiometers. Jumps were exhibited by the Ka11, Ka12, Q11, Q12 and W12 radiometers. Of these events, 19 involved single radiometers, one simultaneously affected two radiometers and one affected three. Similar artifacts were observed during ground testing and have been identified as small parameter shifts in the properties of several microwave components resulting from sudden releases of internal mechanical stresses. The most common events involve the phase switches and filters, which are constructed with suspended stripline elements, but events have also been observed involving waveguide components connecting the orthomode transducers to the inputs of the radiometers. These events result in a negligible change in radiometer performance, but must be identified and excised from the TOD in production of the maps. Although the duration of each event is short, $`<1`$ s, the data processing pipeline (Hinshaw et al., 2003) requires removal of several hours of data surrounding each event resulting in a data loss of $`0.13\%`$. A complete tabulation of these events can be found in Limon et al. (2003).

### 3.3  Input Transmission Imbalance

Ideally the output of each WMAP radiometer would exhibit a purely differential response to sky signals, rejecting any common mode component. This is not true if the power transmission coefficients, $`\alpha _\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{B}`$, of the optics and waveguide components, which couple the sky signals from the A and B side beams to the radiometer, are not equal. In this case the output of a radiometer, $`S`$, when the beams observe regions of sky with antenna temperatures $`T_A`$ and $`T_B`$ will be

$$S=G(\alpha _\mathrm{A}T_A\alpha _\mathrm{B}T_B),$$
(1)
where $`G`$ is the gain of the radiometer.

Using the CMB dipole signal it is possible to measure the common mode response of a radiometer to sky signals and therefore infer the value of $`\alpha _\mathrm{A}\alpha _\mathrm{B}`$. Figure 4 shows the pure predicted differential and common mode CMB dipole signals, $`T_d=T_AT_B`$ and $`T_c=T_A+T_B`$, for a typical 2 hour period of WMAP observations. Note that $`T_d`$ and $`T_c`$ are very nearly orthogonal when averaged over a precession period due to the symmetry of WMAP’s scan pattern. (Bennett et al., 2003a) The common mode signal is comprised of three terms. The first appears as the $`1.8\text{mK}`$ offset in the figure and is modulated on the one year timescale as WMAP’s precession axis changes orientation with respect to the CMB dipole axis. This signal component is at such a low frequency and amplitude that it cannot be distinguished from long term drifts in the radiometer offsets. The other two terms vary on the timescale of the precession (1 h) and the spin (129 s), with most of the power being in the lower frequency component. The amplitude of these two signals combined is $`0.5\text{mK}`$, so a 1% common mode response corresponds to a signal amplitude of $`5\mu \text{K}`$.

The common mode radiometric response was measured by fitting the raw radiometer TOD to a function of the form

$$S(t_j)=\underset{\mathrm{i}=0}{\overset{3}{}}c_i(t_jt_0)^i+\beta _cT_c(t_j)+\beta _dT_d(t_j),$$
(2)
where $`t_j`$ is the time of the observations, $`c_i`$ are polynomial coefficients used to remove a baseline, $`T_c`$ and $`T_d`$ are the common mode and differential CMB dipole signal templates and $`\beta _C`$ and $`\beta _S`$ are the coefficients to be fit. Raw data must be used since the calibration and baseline fitting procedures (Hinshaw et al., 2003) remove most of the very low frequency ($`0.3\text{mHz}`$) signal we are attempting to measure. The measured values of $`\beta _c`$ and $`\beta _d`$ are related to the transmission coefficients $`\alpha _\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{B}`$ by

$`\beta _c={\displaystyle \frac{G}{2}}(\alpha _\mathrm{A}\alpha _\mathrm{B})`$ (3)
$`\beta _d={\displaystyle \frac{G}{2}}(\alpha _\mathrm{A}+\alpha _\mathrm{B}).`$ (4)
The TOD is divided into segments containing an integral number of precession periods, $`n_{\mathrm{prec}}`$, and a function of the form given by Equation 2 fit to each segment. Observations at Galactic latitude $`|b|<b_{\mathrm{min}}`$ are excluded from the fits. Values of the fractional transmission imbalance, $`x_{\mathrm{im}}`$, defined as

$$x_{\mathrm{im}}\frac{\beta _c}{\beta _d}=\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{A}\alpha _\mathrm{B}}{\alpha _\mathrm{A}+\alpha _\mathrm{B}}\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{A}\alpha _\mathrm{B}}{2},$$
(5)
are presented in Table 3. The braces indicate a weighted average of the measured coefficients, $`\beta _c`$ and $`\beta _d`$, over the 232 day period used in the analysis. The results of the fits are insensitive to the values of $`n_{\mathrm{prec}}`$ chosen in the range of 4-10, indicating that the baseline removal polynomial is not removing a significant amount of common mode signal. The fit values are also insensitive to the value of $`b_{\mathrm{min}}`$ used provided $`b_{\mathrm{min}}>10^{}`$, indicating that Galactic signals are not biasing the results.

A differential loss in the input waveguides and optics should also contribute to radiometric offsets, since the lossy components will also emit radiation. The contribution to the radiometer offsets arising from such a differential loss can be estimated as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{off}}`$ $`=`$ $`[(\alpha _\mathrm{A}T_{\mathrm{CMB}}+(1\alpha _\mathrm{A})T_{\mathrm{FPA}})(\alpha _\mathrm{B}T_{\mathrm{CMB}}+(1\alpha _\mathrm{B})T_{\mathrm{FPA}})`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`(\alpha _\mathrm{A}\alpha _\mathrm{B})(T_{\mathrm{CMB}}T_{\mathrm{FPA}})`$ (7)
$``$ $`2x_{\mathrm{im}}(T_{\mathrm{CMB}}T_{\mathrm{FPA}}),`$ (8)
where it has been assumed that all the loss occurs at physical temperature $`T_{\mathrm{FPA}}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{A}\alpha _\mathrm{B}1`$. This effect is expected to have a significant contribution to the total $`T_{\mathrm{off}}`$ of each radiometer. Figure 5 displays the values of $`T_{\mathrm{off}}`$ measured in flight and those predicted from Equation 8, assuming $`T_{\mathrm{FPA}}T_{\mathrm{CMB}}=86`$ K. A significant correlation is evident between the values predicted by this model and the observed values, supporting the validity of the technique.

The model of the radiometer response to sky signals used in the map making procedure (Hinshaw et al., 2003) is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`G\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{A}\alpha _\mathrm{B}}{2}}T_\mathrm{c}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{A}+\alpha _\mathrm{B}}{2}}T_\mathrm{d}\right]`$ (9)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`G^{}[(1+x_{\mathrm{im}})T_\mathrm{A}(1x_{\mathrm{im}})T_\mathrm{B}],`$ (10)
where the mean of the input transmission coefficients, $`(\alpha _\mathrm{A}+\alpha _\mathrm{B})/2`$, has been absorbed in the measured gain, $`G^{}`$, determined by fitting the differential CMB dipole signal.

### 3.4  Noise Statistics

The intrinsic radiometer noise is expected to exhibit a Gaussian distribution. A plot of the V12 radiometer noise distribution obtained from 10 days of data is presented in Figure 6. This data period was chosen to be free of disturbances (such as orbital station keeping maneuvers) and its duration short enough so that the slow variations in system noise, driven by the annual temperature variation of the FPA, could be ignored. The noise signal was obtained by removing the CMB dipole and an estimated sky signal (obtained from the final maps) from the pre-whitened TOD. Data when either of the beams was in a region of high Galactic emission (as determined by the Kp4 mask (Bennett et al., 2003b)) or near a planet were cut. No other cuts were made. The distributions for all 20 radiometers exhibited similar behavior, following Gaussian distributions over at least 5 decades. No statistically significant skewness or kurtosis is observed in the noise distributions of any of the radiometers.

Given the Gaussian noise distribution, the noise variance in a given pixel of the final sky maps should scale inversely with the number of observations of each pixel, $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$. This is tested by measuring the variance of each set of map pixels with a given value of $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ and plotting it against $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}^1`$, as in Figure 7. Pixels with large Galactic signals and point sources have been excluded based on the Kp4 mask. (The values of $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ have been corrected to account for small variations in the radiometer noise levels resulting from changes in the radiometers physical temperatures. Values of $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ are therefore not integers, but are scaled to correspond to a mean noise value.) Since the CMB fluctuations are uncorrelated with the instrument noise, they add a constant variance to each bin. The slope of the line fit to the data is a measure of the noise per observation, while the y-intercept is the variance arising from the CMB fluctuations. The noise variance clearly scales as predicted, indicating that $`N_{\mathrm{obs}}^1`$ is a good predictor of the pixel noise.

## 4 RADIOMETER GAIN MODEL

The primary gain calibration of WMAP is derived from observations of the CMB dipole. Although quite stable, small changes in the radiometer thermal environment produce measurable changes in the radiometer gains. Gain measurements with errors of $`1\%`$ are obtained from each hour of observations. A gain model, relating instrument housekeeping data to the observed radiometric gain, has been developed to aid in smoothing and interpolating the hourly gain measurements. This model also reduces the uncertainty in gain determination when the dipole derived gain measurements degrade as a result adverse alignment of the scan pattern with the dipole orientation or the Galactic plane.

Following the notation of Jarosik et al. (2003), the modulated microwave power incident on a detector, $`v_{\mathrm{in}}^2`$, arising from an antenna temperature difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=(A^2B^2)`$, may be written as

$$v_{\mathrm{in}}^2=\frac{1}{2}(A^2B^2)g_1g_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta ).$$
(11)
where $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are the voltage gains of the two amplification chains in the radiometer and $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )`$ is a term that accounts for phase mismatches in the radiometer.

The output voltage from the detector with input power $`v_{\mathrm{in}}^2`$ is described by a response function $`s(v_{\mathrm{in}}^2)`$. (This treatment differs from that given in Jarosik et al. (2003) in that the response of the detector to the input power is described by a non-linear response function, $`s(v_{\mathrm{in}}^2)`$, to allow for deviations from square law response and gain compression which can occur in the warm HEMT amplifiers.) For the small ($`<2\%`$) changes in detector input power it suffices to linearize this response about the nominal operating point,

$$s(v_{\mathrm{in}}^2)=V_0+\stackrel{~}{s}v_{\mathrm{in}}^2.$$
(12)
where $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ is the differential responsivity of the detector and $`V_0`$ is a parameter to be fit. The *modulated* voltage output from the detector is then

$$S=\stackrel{~}{s}(v_{\mathrm{in}}^2)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{s}}{2}(A^2B^2)g_1g_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta ).$$
(13)
The DC (unmodulated) power out of the same detector, $`\overline{V}`$, is given by

$$\overline{V}=V_0+\frac{\stackrel{~}{s}}{2}\left\{\left(\frac{A^2+B^2}{2}+n_1^2\right)g_1^2+\left(\frac{A^2+B^2}{2}+n_2^2\right)g_2^2\right\}$$
(14)
where $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are the instantaneous noise voltages added by the HEMT amplifiers and the overbar indicates an average on time scales long compared to the period of the microwave signal. The idea is to use the values of $`\overline{V}`$, measured to $`0.1\%`$ every 23.6 s, to estimate the value of $`g_1g_2`$, which, according to equation 13, determines the signal gain of the radiometer. Using the approximation

$$\frac{(A^2+B^2)}{2}+n_1^2\frac{(A^2+B^2)}{2}+n_2^2n_0^2$$
(15)
Equation 14 can be rewritten as

$$\frac{\overline{V}V_0}{n_0^2}=\stackrel{~}{s}\frac{\overline{g_1^2}+\overline{g_2^2}}{2}\stackrel{~}{s}\overline{g_1g_2}$$
(16)
provided that

$$\frac{|g_1g_2|}{|g_1+g_2|}1.$$
(17)
The term $`n_0^2`$ corresponds to the average system noise temperature, which is dominated by the input voltage noise of the cryogenic HEMT amplifiers and as such is a slowly varying function of the physical temperature of the HEMT amplifiers, $`T_{\mathrm{FPA}}`$. Again, since the fractional temperature variations are small, it suffices to describe small changes in noise temperature using the relation

$$n_0^2(T_{\mathrm{FPA}})=\alpha ^1(T_{\mathrm{FPA}}T_0).$$
(18)
Combining equations 13, 16, and 18 yields

$$S=\alpha \frac{\overline{V}V_0}{T_{\mathrm{FPA}}T_0}(A^2B^2).$$
(19)
Using measured values of the radiometer response, $`S`$, $`T_{\mathrm{FPA}}`$, and $`\overline{V}`$, and the known differential dipole signal, $`A^2B^2`$, it is possible to determine the parameters $`V_0`$, $`T_0`$ and $`\alpha `$. Once these parameters are determined the radiometer gain can be estimated using the measured values of $`T_{\mathrm{FPA}}`$ and $`\overline{V}`$. Figure 8 shows the gain measured daily using the CMB dipole, and the result from fitting the gain model for the V11 radiometer. The model clearly tracks the dipole derived gain measurements well, and has substantially less scatter. Values of the gain model parameters for all the detectors are presented in Limon et al. (2003).

Since the gain model depends only on the measured RF bias and temperature of the FPA amplifiers, the fact that it fits the measured dipole gains well over such a long period (1 year for this data set) indicates that radiometer characteristics are stable. Had some secular degradation occurred, for example a slowly increasing amplifier noise temperature or phase mismatch, constant values of the fit parameters, $`\alpha `$, $`T_0`$ and $`V_0`$ would not provide a good fit to the measured values for the entire time period. Based on the accuracy of the fits there is no significant degradation in performance of any of the radiometer channels at the 1% level.

## 5 SUMMARY

All 20 differential radiometers aboard the WMAP satellite are functional with close to nominal performance. On-orbit values of the radiometer offset temperatures are slightly higher than expected, leading to higher than expected $`1/f`$ knee frequencies in two of the radiometers. Spin synchronous systematic errors from the radiometers and data collections system are expected to be $`<0.17`$ $`\mu `$K for all radiometers, and the radiometer noise distributions for all channels are well described by Gaussians. A gain model based on instrument housekeeping data has been developed to aid in interpolating and smoothing the hourly gain calibrations derived from the CMB dipole signal. No significant degradation in radiometer performance has been observed during the first year of observations.

The WMAP mission is made possible by the support of the Office of Space Sciences at NASA Headquarters and the efforts of numerous scientists, engineers, machinists, managers, and office and administrative staffs at participating institutions.