7

I want to find a way to dress free Keldysh Green functions with the simplest level broadening. But there seems to be some quite unexpected result.

Let's consider free Keldysh Green functions in textbooks for a single-level with time-translation symmetry \begin{equation}\label{eq:simpleGs} \begin{split} G^{\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{A})}(t) = \mp i \theta(\pm t) e^{- i \varepsilon_0 t} &\longleftrightarrow \frac{1}{\varepsilon - \varepsilon_0 \pm i 0} \\ G^\mathrm{K}(t) = - i (1-2n_F) e^{- i \varepsilon_0 t} &\longleftrightarrow -2\pi i (1-2n_F)\delta(\varepsilon - \varepsilon_0) \\ G^<(t) = i n_F e^{- i \varepsilon_0 t} &\longleftrightarrow 2\pi i n_F \delta(\varepsilon - \varepsilon_0), \end{split} \end{equation} where the right hand side shows the energy space expression and $n_F$ is the Fermi distribution valued at $\varepsilon_0$. My expectation of the simplest possible level broadening is just a constant $\gamma$ as follows \begin{equation} \begin{split} \tilde{G}^{\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{A})}(t) = \mp i \theta(\pm t) e^{- i \varepsilon_0 t} e^{\mp \gamma t} &\longleftrightarrow \frac{1}{\varepsilon - \varepsilon_0 \pm i \gamma} \\ \tilde{G}^\mathrm{K}(t) = - i (1-2n_F) e^{- i \varepsilon_0 t} e^{-\gamma |t|} &\longleftrightarrow -2 i (1-2n_F) \frac{\gamma}{(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_0)^2+\gamma^2} \\ \tilde{G}^<(t) = i n_F e^{- i \varepsilon_0 t} e^{-\gamma |t|} &\longleftrightarrow 2 i n_F \frac{\gamma}{(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_0)^2+\gamma^2}, \end{split}\tag{1}\label{dressedGs} \end{equation} which are consistent with the general relation $$G^< = \frac{1}{2}(G^\mathrm{K}-G^\mathrm{R}+G^\mathrm{A}).\tag{2}\label{G^<}$$ $\tilde{G}^{\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{A})}$ looks very natural as we just replace the infinitesimal imaginary number by a finite linewidth $\gamma$. The other two, $\tilde{G}^\mathrm{K}$ and $\tilde{G}^<$, are not really weird if one recalls the approximated $\delta$-function $\delta(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_0)=\lim_{\gamma\rightarrow0}\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\gamma}{(\varepsilon-\varepsilon_0)^2+\gamma^2}$.

In order to get this, I tried adding the self-energy $\Sigma^<(\varepsilon)= i \gamma$ and hence $\Sigma^<(t) = \frac{i\gamma}{2\pi} \int d\omega e^{-i\omega(t)} = i\gamma\delta(t)$.
With the general relation $\Sigma^{\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{A})} = \mp \Sigma^<$ valid when we only have $\Sigma^<$, we can apply this to the Dyson equation $$\tilde{G}^{\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{A})}(\varepsilon) = [1 - G^{\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{A})}\Sigma^{\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{A})}]^{-1} G^{\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{A})},$$ which exactly gives our expected $\tilde{G}^{\mathrm{R}(\mathrm{A})}$ in Eq. \eqref{dressedGs}.
Then let's apply the textbook formula [see Eq. (39) in this note] $$\tilde{G}^< = (1+\tilde{G}^\mathrm{R}\Sigma^\mathrm{R}) G^< (1+\Sigma^\mathrm{A}\tilde{G}^\mathrm{A}) + \tilde{G}^\mathrm{R} \Sigma^< \tilde{G}^\mathrm{A}\tag{3}\label{G^<formula}$$ and Eq. \eqref{G^<}. To my surprise, it gives the $\tilde{G}^\mathrm{K}$ and $\tilde{G}^<$ expressions in Eq. \eqref{dressedGs} with $n_F=\frac{1}{2}$, which is quite weird, i.e., the $n_F$ dependence is completely lost and actually $\tilde{G}^\mathrm{K}=0$. (BTW, it's straightforward to see this result. Here the whole first part before the last '+' in Eq. \eqref{G^<formula} vanishes as I've checked, which is indeed what happens for steady states as mentioned below Eq. (39) in that note. Then the remaining part $\tilde{G}^\mathrm{R} \Sigma^< \tilde{G}^\mathrm{A}$ obviously is missing $n_F$.)

Am I doing anything wrong here? Or how should one correctly get the simple level broadening to those Green functions?

xiaohuamao
  • 3,621

1 Answers1

1

The simplest case where such a constant broadening arises naturally is a level coupled to a Fermi sea, in a broadband limit (i.e., with the constant density in the Fermi sea), with Hamiltonian: $$ H=\epsilon_0 d^\dagger d + \sum_k\epsilon_k c_k^\dagger c_k + \sum_k\left(Vd^\dagger c_k + V^*c_k^\dagger d\right), $$ The broadening in this case is given by $$\gamma = 2\pi|V|^2\rho,$$ where $$\rho(\epsilon) = \sum_k\delta(\epsilon - \epsilon_k)$$ is the density of states, which is assumed constant (the broad-band limit). The self-energies are then given by $$ \Sigma^{r,a} = \mp\frac{i\Gamma}{2},\\ \Sigma^<(\omega)= i\Gamma n(\omega),\\ \Sigma^>(\omega)= -i\Gamma \left[1-n(\omega)\right], $$ which satisfy the basic relation $$ \Sigma^>-\Sigma^<=\Sigma^r-\Sigma^a. $$

Caution: I am relying on my memory here, so some factors may be incorrect. The problem is solved in some details in Jauho, Meir, and Wingreen's paper, but I am not necessarily following their notations. Another useful reference is the Rammer&Smith's review... everything else is math :)

Derivations
We separate the Hamilronian into a non-interacting part and the "interaction" (tuneling): $$ H = H_0 + H_T,\\ H_0=\epsilon_0 d^\dagger d + \sum_k\epsilon_k c_k^\dagger c_k,\\ H_T = \sum_k\left(Vd^\dagger c_k + V^*c_k^\dagger d\right). $$ The Keldysh Green's function for the level is: $$ G_{dd}(t,t') = \left\langle T_K\left[Sd(t)d^\dagger(t')\right]\right\rangle, $$ where $T_K$ is ordering along the Keldysh contour, whereas the scattering matrix is given by $$ S=T_K\exp\left[-i\int_{C_K}d\tau H_T(\tau)\right], $$ and all the operators are in the interaction representation (i.e. their evolution is determined by $H_0$).

We can now use Feynmann-Dyson expansion or another method to write down the Feynmann-Dyson equation as: $$ G_{dd}(t,t') = g_{dd}(t,t') + \int_{C_K}d\tau_1d\tau_2g_{dd}(t,\tau_1)\Sigma(\tau_1,\tau_2)G_{dd}(\tau_2,t'),\\ \Sigma(\tau_1,\tau_2)=|V|^2\sum_k g_k(\tau_1,\tau_2). $$ The non-interacting Green's functions are given by $$ g_{dd}(t,t')=\left\langle T_K\left[d(t)d^\dagger(t')\right]\right\rangle,\\ g_{k,k'}(t,t')=\delta_{k,k'}g_k(t,t')=\delta_{k,k'}\left\langle T_K\left[c_k(t)c_k^\dagger(t')\right]\right\rangle. $$ This allows us to write right away: $$ \Sigma^{r,a}(\omega)=|V|^2\sum_{k}\frac{1}{\omega -\epsilon_k\pm i\eta} =\rho|V|^2\int d\epsilon \left[ \mathcal{P}\frac{1}{\omega-\epsilon} \mp\pi\delta(\omega-\epsilon)\right] = \mp\frac{i\Gamma}{2},\\ \Sigma^<(\Omega)=|V|^2\sum_k i2\pi n(\epsilon_k)\delta(\omega-\epsilon_k) = 2\pi i\rho|V|^2 \int d\epsilon n(\epsilon)\delta(\omega-\epsilon) =i\Gamma n(\omega),\\ \Sigma^<(\Omega)=-|V|^2\sum_k i2\pi \left[1-n(\epsilon_k)\right]\delta(\omega-\epsilon_k) = -2\pi i\rho|V|^2 \int d\epsilon \left[1-n(\epsilon)\right]\delta(\omega-\epsilon) =-i\Gamma \left[1-n(\omega)\right]. $$

Using the Langreth algebra and switching to Fourier space the Dyson equation can be written as: $$ G_{dd}^{r,a}(\omega)=g_{dd}^{r,a}(\omega) + g_{dd}^{r,a}(\omega)\Sigma^{r,a}(\omega)G_{dd}^{r,a}(\omega),\\ G_{dd}^{>,<}(\omega)=g_{dd}^{>,<}(\omega) + g_{dd}^{>,<}(\omega)\Sigma^{a}(\omega)G_{dd}^{a}(\omega) + g_{dd}^{r}(\omega)\Sigma^{>,<}(\omega)G_{dd}^{a}(\omega) + g_{dd}^{r}(\omega)\Sigma^{r}(\omega)G_{dd}^{>,<}(\omega). $$ The first equation can be recast as $$ \left\{\left[g_{dd}^{r,a}(\omega)\right]^{-1} - \Sigma^{r,a}(\omega)\right\}G_{dd}^{r,a}(\omega)=\left[G_{dd}^{r,a}(\omega)\right]^{-1}G_{dd}^{r,a}(\omega)=1\\ \Longrightarrow G_{dd}^{r,a}(\omega) = \frac{1}{\left[g_{dd}^{r,a}(\omega)\right]^{-1} - \Sigma^{r,a}(\omega)} = \frac{1}{\omega-\epsilon_d\pm\frac{i\Gamma}{2}} $$ The equation for the greater and the lesser functions can be written as (taking into account that $\left[g_{dd}^{r}(\omega)\right]^{-1}g_{dd}^{>,<}(\omega)=0$): $$ \left\{\left[g_{dd}^{r}(\omega)\right]^{-1} - \Sigma^{r}(\omega)\right\}G_{dd}^{>,<}(\omega) =\left[G_{dd}^{r}(\omega)\right]^{-1}G_{dd}^{>,<}(\omega)=\Sigma^{>,<}(\omega)G_{dd}^{a}(\omega)\\ \Longrightarrow G_{dd}^{>,<}(\omega) = G_{dd}^{r}(\omega)\Sigma^{>,<}(\omega)G_{dd}^{a}(\omega) = \frac{\Sigma^{>,<}(\omega)}{(\omega-\epsilon_d)^2+\frac{\Gamma^2}{4}} $$

Roger V.
  • 58,522
  • Thank you for your answer. Is there an $\epsilon_k$ missing in the second term of $H$? It seems to give the desired result. But could you please elaborate on how to get these self-energies from $H$? – xiaohuamao Jan 06 '21 at 12:53
  • Indeed, I have missed $\epsilon_k$. I will try to sketch the derivation when I have a bit more time. – Roger V. Jan 06 '21 at 14:43
  • I have added the derivations. – Roger V. Jan 08 '21 at 10:26
  • This is really a nice answer! Only one question left. Your last expression $\frac{\Sigma^{>,<}(\omega)}{(\omega-\epsilon_d)^2+\frac{\Gamma^2}{4}}$ has a complex form transformed to time. To get what I wrote in Eq.(1), one needs $\frac{\Sigma^{>,<}(\epsilon_d)}{(\omega-\epsilon_d)^2+\frac{\Gamma^2}{4}}$ instead. Any way to justify this? – xiaohuamao Jan 09 '21 at 00:33
  • You can use $\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\lambda}{\omega^2+\lambda^2}\longrightarrow \delta(\omega)$ as $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ to recover the expressions for the infinitesimally small broadening. – Roger V. Jan 09 '21 at 08:49
  • Also, $f(\omega)\delta(\omega-\epsilon_d)=f(\epsilon_d)\delta(\omega-\epsilon_d)$, it is a property of teh delta-function. – Roger V. Jan 09 '21 at 08:50
  • I know what you mean. But all we do is trying to replace $\delta(\omega)$ by $\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\lambda}{\omega^2+\lambda^2}$. This very step, however, seemingly goes back and forth a little arbitrarily. So I was wondering if any physical justification. – xiaohuamao Jan 09 '21 at 11:15
  • Physical justification depends on the specific situation. Whay I described is used in the context of tunneling through quantum dots. Note that in case of only one Fermi sea one does not really need Keldysh - it is en equilibrium problem. But my solution is easily generalizable to several Fermi seas - as described in the paper that I cited. – Roger V. Jan 09 '21 at 11:45
  • Thanks. So in the context you mentioned like tunneling through quantum dots, why can we do that? – xiaohuamao Jan 09 '21 at 12:06
  • Typically variation of the density of states on the scale of applied bias and frequencies is small, so it can be considered constant. Moreover, for nanostructures fabricated on the basis of 2d electrin gas -the 2d density of states is constant. But in principle, applicability of every approximation depends on the problem at hand. There are no approximations that always work. – Roger V. Jan 10 '21 at 20:09
  • Sorry, I don't get it. Why does a constant DOS justify the intermediate step $\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\lambda}{\omega^2+\lambda^2}\rightarrow\delta(\omega)$? – xiaohuamao Jan 11 '21 at 02:28
  • Sorry, I misunderstood your question. This is one of the representations of the delta-function. – Roger V. Jan 11 '21 at 06:19
  • Sorry, I misunderstood your question. This is one of the representations of the delta-function - as a Lorentz function of infinitesimal width. – Roger V. Jan 11 '21 at 06:20
  • I know what you mean - this is indeed a representation of delta-function. Let me repeat my concern: all we want to do in this whole post is just like trying to replace $\delta(\omega)$ by $\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\lambda}{\omega^2+\lambda^2}$ as shown in Eq.(1) and above in my original question. This intermediate step, however, uses the reverse, $\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\lambda}{\omega^2+\lambda^2}\rightarrow \delta(\omega)$ in order to get a final result in the form $\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\lambda}{\omega^2+\lambda^2}$. This looks quite suspicious. I was wondering if any physical justification of this. – xiaohuamao Jan 11 '21 at 10:16
  • I am still not sure what you mean: from the point where I assumed the constant Gamma, my derivations are mathematically exact. – Roger V. Jan 11 '21 at 10:23
  • $\lambda$ (or $\Gamma$) is a constant in the final result in the form $\frac{\lambda}{\omega^2+\lambda^2}$. But you already have used $\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\lambda}{\omega^2+\lambda^2}\rightarrow \delta(\omega)$ in an intermediate step, which is not exact and is just an approximation when $\lambda\rightarrow0$. I mean this looks suspicious. Sorry if I didn't express my question clearly in the previous comments. – xiaohuamao Jan 11 '21 at 10:40
  • Could you indicate more precisely which step you are talking about? Note also that $g_{dd}$ and $g_k$ are undressed/non-interacting Green's functions, so they have zero broadening (I use $\eta$ instead of writing $0^+$). – Roger V. Jan 11 '21 at 11:20
  • Just the 4th, 5th, and 6th comments here. – xiaohuamao Jan 11 '21 at 12:20
  • 5th and 6th comments indicate how one can restore the known result in case of zero broadening ($\Gamma \rightarrow 0^+$), which is your first set of equations. Your second set of equations is indeed different from mine (if by $n_F$ you mean the value of the distribution function at Fermi energy) - my understanding is that this was a guess, and as you see that guess is not quite correct for finite broadening. – Roger V. Jan 11 '21 at 12:34
  • The physical intuition here is that when a level has a finite width, one has a finite probability that it is occupied or empty, i.e., one cannot say unambiguously that it is below/above the Fermi level. – Roger V. Jan 11 '21 at 12:36
  • 1
    OK, we are on the same page and I don't object to any of the math. So you think the guess is actually wrong for $G^<$ and we just don't have a simple enough real-time form? I presume adding broadening like this is computationally convenient common practice to avoid singular $\delta$-functions or so. This is a bit surprising to me. – xiaohuamao Jan 11 '21 at 12:52