Skip to main content

Full text of "Exact analytic solution for the generalized Lyapunov exponent of the 2-dimensional Anderson localization"

See other formats


Exact analytic solution for the generalized Lyapunov 
exponent of the 2-dimensional Anderson localization 



V N KuzovkovfJ, W von Niessen$, V Kashcheyevsf and 
O Hein $ 

f Institute of Solid State Physics, University of Latvia, 8 Kengaraga Street, LV - 
1063 RIGA, Latvia 

| Institut fur Physikalische und Theoretische Chemie, Technische Universitat 
Braunschweig, Hans-Sommer-StraBe 10, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany 

E-mail: kuzovkovOlatnet . lv 

Abstract. The Anderson localization problem in one and two dimensions is solved 
analytically via the calculation of the generalized Lyapunov exponents. This is achieved 
by making use of signal theory. The phase diagram can be analyzed in this way. 
In the one dimensional case all states are localized for arbitrarily small disorder in 
agreement with existing theories. In the two dimensional case for larger energies 
and large disorder all states are localized but for certain energies and small disorder 
extended and localized states coexist. The phase of delocalized states is marginally 
stable. We demonstrate that the metal-insulator transition should be interpreted as a 
first-order phase transition. Consequences for perturbation approaches, the problem 
of self-averaging quantities and numerical scaling are discussed. 



Submitted to: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 

PACS numbers: 72.15.Rn, 71.30.+h 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



2 



1. Introduction 

Frequently problems arise in science which involve both additive and multiplicative 
noise. The first type is relatively easy to handle with the help of the central limit 
theorem. The situation changes dramatically with the appearance of multiplicative 
noise. Famous examples are the Anderson localization, turbulence, and the kicked 
quantum rotator among others. In this field results of an importance comparable to 
the central limit theorem are still lacking. Moreover, the approaches are in general 
numerical ones and analytical tools are the rare exception. 

We present such an analytic approach which permits to deal in great generality 
with processes involving multiplicative and additive noise even in the limit of strong 
disorder. In this paper we apply the formalism to the famous Anderson localization in 
a two-dimensional (2-D) disordered system which is one of the paradigms of solid state 
theory. 

The quantum mechanical consequences of disorder in solids have first been revealed 
by Anderson Jl|. The Anderson model provides a standard framework for discussing 
the electronic properties of disordered systems, see reviews 0, |4j]. The nature of 
electronic states in the Anderson model depends strongly on the spatial dimension D. 
It has been shown rigorously that in one dimension (1-D) all states are localized at any 
level of disorder ][| ||. The shape of these localized wave functions is characterized by 
an asymptotic exponential decay described by the Lyapunov exponent 7. The most 
important results for dimensions higher than one follow from the famous scaling theory 
of localization || [7|, which assumes a single scaling parameter for the dimensionless 
conductance g or, equivalently, the localization length £ = I/7. The conclusion of the 
scaling theory is that for D < 2 all states are localized at any level of disorder, while a 
derealization (metal-insulator) transition occurs for D > 2 if the disorder is sufficiently 
strong. A detailed review of the scaling theory for disordered systems can be found in 

The 2-D case still presents a problem, since there is no exact analytical solution 
to the Anderson problem, and all numerical results published so far rely on finite- 
size scaling j3], ||. Recent studies || have questioned the validity of the single 
parameter scaling theory, including the existence of a finite asymptotic localization 
length for D = 2. Additional boost of interest in the 2D Anderson model has been 



triggered by experimental observations of Kravchenko et al. [pi], 1 I ] of a metal- 



insulator transition in thin semiconductor films, which contradicts the conventional 



scaling theory. Moreover, recent experiments of Hani et al. [12. 13] can be interpreted 
in terms of the coexistence of localized and delocalized states. These experiments 
are still being discussed controversially. The experimental reality is certainly more 
complex than the simple tight-binding schemes used in the theoretical treatment so far 
and in particular the electronic iteractions could play a role in the above mentioned 
experimental situations. But nevertheless these results add doubts to the status of 
the localization theory in 2-D. Before embarking on computational schemes beyond 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



3 



the tight-binding approach, which necessarily lead to more restricted system sizes and 
other approximations, it appears advisable to try to solve as rigourously as possible the 
problem in the tight-binding scheme. In the present controversial situation the first step 
in resolving the conflict is thus in our opinion to consider exact results that do not rely 
on the scaling theory or small parameter expansions. 

The starting point for the method presented in this paper is found in the work 
of Molinari fl4[], in which the Anderson problem for the 1-D system is dealt with as a 
statistical stability problem for the solutions ip n of the tight binding Hamiltonian in a 
semi-infinite system, n > 0. It was shown in ref. [14[] that the equations for the statistical 
moments of the type (ip^) can be obtained analytically (explicit solutions are given for 
j = 1,2), which enabled the author to derive exact generalized Lyapunov exponents. 
We will show in the following that this approach can be further generalized for systems 
of higher spatial dimensions. But it turns out to be unavoidable to change again the 
mathematical tools for the treatment. In the present investigation we use both for the 1- 
D and the 2-D case the tool of signal theory abundantly used in electrical engineering, see 
e.g. |15] . The basic idea in applying signal theory to the problem of Anderson localization 
is to interpret certain moments of the wave function as signals. There is then in signal 
theory a qualitative difference between localized and extended states: The first ones 
correspond to unbounded signals and the latter ones to bounded signals. In the case of 
a metal-insulator transition extended states (bounded signals) transform into localized 
states (unbounded signals). Signal theory shows that it is possible in this case to find a 
function (the system function or filter), which is responsible for this transformation. The 
advantage of working with filters instead of the signals themselves lies in the fact that 
the filters do not depend on initial conditions in contrast to the signals. The existence 
of this transformation in a certain region of disorder and energy simply means that the 
filter looses its stability in this region. The meaning of an unstable filter is defined by 
a specific pole diagram in the complex plane. These poles also define a quantitative 
measure of localization. Thus it is possible here to determine the socalled generalized 
Lyapunov exponents as a function of disorder and energy. 

The outline of the present article is as follows. In chapter 2 we treat the 1-D case in 
detail describing also essential elements of signal theory. The theory for the 2-D problem 
is presented in chapter 3 and the results are given in chapter 4. In the latter chapter also 
the implications of the present approach for perturbation theory, the order of the phase 
transition and the problem of self-averaging is discussed as well as numerical scaling. 



2. 1-D case 



2.1. Recursion relation 

We start for pedagogical and methodical reasons with the treatment of the 1-D case. 
The aim of this section is to apply mathematical tools which are new in the field of 
Anderson localization but well-known from other fields and which may and do in fact 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



4 



prove useful also for the higher dimensional cases. 

We start from the Hamiltonian of the standard 1-D Anderson model in the tight- 
binding representation 

U = $»)(n| +tJ2 [\n)(n + 1| + |n)(n - 1|] , (1) 

n n 

where t is the hopping matrix element (units with t=l are used below) and the e n are 
the on-site potentials which are random variables to simulate the disorder. The e n are 
independently and identically distributed with existing first two moments, (e n ) = and 
(e^) = cr 2 . This model is well investigated ||, [H| and it is known that for any degree 
of disorder the eigenfunctions become localized. This in turn means that \ip n \ S with 
5 > is growing exponentially in the mean on a semi-infinite chain where the rate of 
growth is described by the Lyapunov exponent. 

In the one-dimensional case one can compute the Lyapunov exponent by different 
methods and under different assumptions [17 or numerically by means of the transfer 



matrix method which results in solving a recurrence equation [|18| . The disadvantage 
of these analytical methods is that they cannot be easily extended to the 2-D and 3-D 
cases. In this paper we want to show that one can construct an approach which is able 
to handle all cases from a universal point of view. 

It is well-known that the two-point boundary problem for a finite difference analog 
to the stationary Schrodinger equation with homogeneous boundary conditions can be 
reduced to a Cauchy problem with the one-side (initial) condition fl~9[| 

^o = 0,^i = «. (2) 

Due to the linearity of the equation the non-zero value of a serves only as a normalization 
parameter. The asymptotic behaviour of the solution is completely determined by the 
energy E and the level of disorder a. The presence of a boundary permits one to rewrite 
the Schrodinger equation 

Vv+i + ipn-i = {E- e n )i) n (3) 
in the form of a recursion relation for the grid amplitude of the wave function {i/j n } 
(n = l,2,...): 

ip n+1 = (E- e n )tp n - Vv-i- (4) 

Statistical correlations in this equation are separated: it is easy to see that in a formal 
solution of the recursion relation the amplitude ip n +i depends only on the random 
variables e n i with n' < n, which is the causality principle. This observation has been 
extensively used by Molinari[T^] in the solution for the 1-D case. We emphasize that 
this property is fundamental as a key for obtaining an exact solution to the Anderson 
problem for all dimensions. Note that both amplitudes ip n and ip n -i on the r.h.s. of eq. 
(|) are statistically independent of e n . 

The equation for the first moment of the random variable ip n does not include the 
parameter a: 

(lP n+1 ) = E (Vn> - (Vn-l) • (5) 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



5 



The ansatz (ip n ) = X n results in the A1.2 which satisfy the equation A + A -1 = E. 
Energies with \E\ < 2, where |Ai )2 | = 1 and lim n ^ 00 (^ n ) < 00, obviously coincide with 
the band of delocalized states in a perfect chain (er = 0). 



2.2. Lyapunov exponents as order parameter 

A bounded asymptotical behaviour of the first moment at any level of disorder indicates 
that there are always physical solutions inside the band \E\ < 2. Further information 
about the character of these states (localized / delocalized) can be gained by considering 
the other moments. For one- dimensional models with random potential the eigenstates 
are always exponentially localized |J. The natural quantities to investigate is therefore 
the Lyapunov exponent 70 

70 = lim - (ln|V>n|) (6) 

n— >oo Tt 



or its generalization [|14], 



75 = lim i-hiOVnl' 5 ). (7) 



71 -^OO 



nS 

The generalized exponents have been studied extensively by Pendry et al. (see ref. 
and references given there), in a systematic approach based on the symmetric group. 
The method involves the construction of a generalized transfer matrix by means of 
direct products of the transfer matrices, followed by a reduction of the matrix size. This 
generalized transfer matrix produces the average values of the required power of the 
quantity under consideration. 

The concept of Lyapunov exponent 7 and the corresponding localization length £ 
describe a statistical stability of solutions of the tight-binding equations. Anderson 
localization as a metal-insulator transition is a typical critical phenomenon. To 
determine the phase-diagram of the system we need only make use of the qualitative 
aspect of the Lyapunov exponent. Two phases differ qualitatively: 7 = for conducting 
states (metallic phase) and 7 7^ for localized states (insulating phase). 

The Lyapunov exponent 7 is a typical order parameter f20fl . It is useful to check 
whether this kind of relation is valid for other systems like ferromagnets and ferroelectrics 
too. Here the order parameters are the magnetization M and the polarization P, 
respectively. At high temperatures and zero external field these values are M, P = 
(paramagnetic or paraelectric phase). At lower temperatures, however, spontaneous 
magnetization and polarization arise, M, P 7^ 0. The order parameter is zero for one 
phase and becomes nonzero for the other phase. It is well-known that there is no 
unambiguous definition of an order parameter |p0|| . This holds also in our case, many 
different definitions are possible (see e.g. ref. [II and literature cited there). Every 



exact Lyapunov exponent either via the log-definition (70) or via the (^-definition (75) 
gives this property. This permits us to consider a transition from the quality 7 = to 
the quality 7 7^ as a critical point, where all moments (jip n \ S ^ diverge for n —> 00 
simultaneously. If on the other hand we are interested in the values themselves of the 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



6 



Lyapunov exponents 7 7^ 0, they always depend on the definition. If one prefers a 
particular definition, this can only be by agreement and always remains quite arbitrary. 

In the 1-D case we find the metallic phase (7 = 0) only for a = 0; even for 
infinitesimally small disorder one has 7 7^ and only the insulating phase exists. The 
critical point is therefore a = o~o = independently of the value of the energy E, and 
the phase-diagram is trivial. This situation is typical for a critical phenomenon in a 1-D 
system with short range interaction p0|: all 1-D systems (e.g. 1-D Ising-model) do not 



possess a true phase transition at a finite value of the parameter (temperature in the 
Ising model or disorder a in the Anderson model); one of the phases exists only at a 
point. One also says ||20|| , that 1-D systems do not possess a phase transition. 

The advantage of the new 5-definition rests in the possibility to play with the 
parameter S which gives a new degree of freedom. In quantum theory there are many 
examples, where a problem is insoluble in the Schrodinger picture, but looks rather 
simple in the Heisenberg picture. The same holds for representations in coordinate or 
momentum space. It is always useful to transform the mathematics in such a way that 
the problem becomes soluble. And nothing else is done here. For 70 (log-definition) the 



problem remains analytically insoluble. Molinari |T4j was the first to show that with a 
generalisation of the definition, and for special values of 5 = 2,4, a simple analytical 
(algebraic) investigation becomes possible. 



Molinari |H] has not only considered a standard definition via "the log of the wave 
function" i.e. 70, but also a set of so-called generalized Lyapunov exponents 
j = 1,2,... (72 for the square of the wave function). In general all the 72^ are quite 
different parameters. However, it is important that a transition from the quality 7 = 
to the quality 7 7^ is simultaneous, all 72, = for a = and 72^ 7^ for a disordered 



system. As has already been established 0, IT7J, in the limit of small disorder different 



definitions of the Lyapunov exponent or localization length give values differing only by 
an integer factor. This property is again a signature for a critical phenomenon. In the 
vicinity of the critical point a = cr = as common for all critical phenomena and only 
one scale dominates. Thus Molinari has shown that for the 1-D Anderson problem all 
l2j ~ (l+.7')7o for a —> (this is proven for j = 1, 2, 3), where 70 = a 2 /2(4 — E 2 ) is taken 
from other investigations [§, [17|, [HJ, the only difference being the numerical cofactor. 



This means that even in 1-D there are other quantities besides the logarithm of the 
wave function which can be used for the analysis. 

2.3. Equations for second moments 

In order to obtain the phase diagram it is (based on the above discussion) sufficient to 
choose a particular and convenient value of the parameter 5, e.g. 5 = 2, the second 
moments. 

It is shown in ref. [14| that the calculation of the higher moments, with j > 1, 



is important for determining the shape of the distribution of \ip n \, but at the same time 
the higher moments of the on-site potentials beyond the second one must be considered. 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



7 



We will restrict ourselves here to the pair moments only. Then the initial full stochastic 
problem eq. (f|) can be mapped onto an exactly solvable algebraic problem, in which 
the random potentials are characterized by a single parameter a. 

Two points should be mentioned: (i) We are at present not interested in the shape of 
the distribution which is influenced by the higher moments of the on-site potentials but 
in the problem of localization (phase-diagram); (ii) In the analysis of the moments of the 
amplitudes the localization of states finds its expression in the simultaneous divergence 
of the even moments for n — > oo. Because the second moment depends only on the 
parameter a this means that the critical properties are completely determined by a. 

We are interested in the mean behavior of tp 2 which follows from eq. (|J) as: 

= {[(E- e n )Vn " ^n-l] 2 ) 
= + ^)<€> - mMn-l) + (8) 

In the derivation of eq. (|8|) the mean of the product of uncorrelated quantities was 
replaced by the product of the means. The resulting equation is open ended, but the 
new type of the means (i/j n i[>n-i) can be easily calculated: 

(^„V>n-l) = ([(E - e n _i)V>n-l - ^n-2]lpn-l) 

= E{lft_l) ~ (V-n-l^n-2). (9) 

Let us rewrite these equations using x n = (i/; 2 ) and y n = (ipnipn-i)'- 

x n +i = {E 2 + a 2 ) x n — 2Ey n + x„_i, (10) 
y n = Ex n -\ - y n -i. (11) 

The initial conditions are: 

x = 0,x 1 = a 2 ,y = 0. (12) 

Let us summarize the intermediate results up to this point. The causality principle 
has led to a set of linear algebraic equations for the second moments of the random 
field instead of an infinite hierarchy of equations that couple the second moments with 
the third ones etc. The set of equations is closed, but it does not include all possible 
second moments of the type (f/ViVv) (this fact is irrelevant in the search for localization 
criteria). At this level the on-site potentials are also characterized by a single second 
moment a 2 only, which implies that the shape of the distribution does not matter for 
localization. Information on higher moments is a crucial step for other models, e.g., in 
turbulence and econophysics because the third and the fourth moments are linked to 
skewness and kurtosis of the distribution which are interesting features in these fields. 
Equations for the higher moments can be easily constructed using the same causality 
property[14], but in the treatment of the Anderson problem we restrict ourselves to 
the second moment only. The set of equations is exact in the sense that no additional 
approximations were made in its derivation. Therefore, we conclude that at the given 
point the stochastic part of the solution to the Anderson problem is completed and one 
has to deal further only with a purely algebraic problem. 

The set of equations fllOD , ([LTD can be solved by different methods of linear algebra. 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



8 



2.4- Transfer matrix 



We employ first a simple matrix technique. The eqs. (|10|), flTT| ) can be rewritten in the 
form 



w 



n+l 



Tw r , 



where the vector w n and the transfer matrix T are respectively 





' Xn+1 \ 




f E 2 


+ o- 2 


1 


-2E \ 


w n = 




,T = 




1 










V Vn+1 J 




{ 


E 





- 1 / 



(13) 



(14) 



Initial conditions transform into Wq = {a 2 , 0, 0}. 

An explicit formula for w n is derived by diagonalizing the transfer matrix T. The 
characteristic equation of the eigenvalue problem for the T matrix is 

£>(A)=0 (15) 

with function V(z) = z 3 - (E 2 + a 2 - l)z 2 + (E 2 - a 2 - l)z - 1. 

The solution of the cubic characteristic equation flT5| ) can be given explicitly in 
radicals (Cardan's formula). Corresponding expressions are known and not presented 
here. It is significant that one of the eigenvalues (let it be Ai) is always real and Ai > 1. 
Other solutions, A 2 and A 3 , are either complex conjugate to each other or both real and 
satisfy [ A2,s| < 1- These properties result from the fact that the coefficients E 2 and a 2 
are non-negative. 

The solution of eq. (|T3|) reads as follows: 

w n = U ■ A(n) • U^wo, (16) 

where A(n) is a diagonal matrix containing the n-th power of A, and U is the eigenvector 
matrix. The resulting exact formula for x n is 



+ 



A?(l + Ai) 


(A 2 


-Ai)(A 3 - 


Ai) 




A?(l + A 2 ) 




(Ai 


-A 2 )(A 3 - 


A 2 ) 




A^l + A 3 ) 




(Ai 


-A 3 )(A 2 - 


A 3 ) 



+ 



+ 



;i7) 



Thus we have the full algebraic solution for any energy E and any degree of disorder 
a. From the functional form of the eq. ( PT) one can see that the roots of eq. flT5|) , Ai, 
give us the Lyapunov exponents 7 of the problem, A = exp(27), so the judgement on 
a localization transition can be done immediately after arriving at eq. (|i~5"D. Electronic 



states satisfying the inequality max |A,| = Ai > 1 correspond to localization. 



2.5. Z-transform 

An alternative solution makes use of the so-called Z-transform. This is used mainly 
in Electrical Engineering for discrete-time systems and we suggest as publicly available 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 9 

source ||15|| . The Z-transform of the quantities x n and y n to functions X(z) , Y(z) is 
defined by 

XW = t%>Y(*) = t% ( 18 ) 

n=0 * n=0 * 

The inverse Z-transform is quite generally defined via countour integrals in the complex 
plane 

Xn = -Ljx(z)z n -. (19) 
2m J z 

We further on need the following properties: for the Z-transform 

x n+no => z n °X(z), (20) 

and for the inverse Z-transform 

-At A n . (21) 
z — A 

In this way eqs. (fHf ) and (p0|) translate eqs. (|T0|) , (pi]) into a system of two coupled 
linear equations for the two unknowns X and Y 

zX = (E 2 + a 2 )X - 2EY + z~ x X + a 2 (22) 
Y =Ez- 1 X-z- 1 Y (23) 

This is easily solved for X(z) 

X(z) = a ^t 1} (24) 
where the function T>(z) is defined above. The inverse Z-transform gives us again 



eq.([17D. It is easy to see that the solution of the characteristic equation ([Lq) for the 
transfer matrix is equivalent to the determination of the poles of the X(z) function. The 
eigenvalues Aj, i.e. the poles, determine according to eq. (pi]) the asymptotic behaviour 
of the solution x n for n — > oo. (This is a simplified example for the general relation). 

2.6. Signal Theory 

Let us start with the following definitions. Let 

Xi0) ^ = ^ + lw p5 ( 25 ) 

(2; — 1) (z + lj 2 — zi*/ 

describe an ideal system (X^°\z) = X(z) for a = 0). This function is independent of 
the parameter a. For o ^ 

X(z)=tf(z)X(°)(z), (26) 

with 

. . (z- + l) 2 -zE 2 \ . . 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



10 



Note that the boundary conditions (parameter a) influence only the function X^°\z). 
The function H(z) = 1 for a = 0. 

Eq. (pH) possesses quite a remarkable structure which is better interpreted in the 



context of signal theory [|15[], which makes intensive use of the Z-transform. Let us define 
the system input as X^(z) (it characterizes the ideal system), the system output as 
X(z) (the disordered system), then the function H(z) is the system function or filter. 
The inverse Z-transform gives [If 



x n = Y,x? ) K-i- (28) 



1=0 



Signal theory is not very crucial for the D = 1 case, because the solution, eq.(24), 
looks very simple and the inverse Z-transform is always possible. For D > 1, however, 
the use of signal theory is exceedingly important because the corresponding solution 
X(z) can be a very complicated function and an inverse transform may be impossible to 
find. In the present case it is, however, completely sufficient to investigate the analytic 
properties of the filter function H(z), i.e. the poles z = Aj, because the poles determine 
uniquely the properties of the system. The essential idea is very simple. In the band 
\E\ < 2 all wave amplitudes (and input signals xffl) are bounded. Output signals x n are 
unbounded only under the condition that the filter h n is unbounded for n — > oo. This 
property depends on the position of the poles A, in the function H(z). 

It is known ]15|| that the filter H(z) can be characterized by a pole-zero diagram 
which is a plot of the locations of the poles Aj and zeros in the complex z-plane. Since 
the signals xffl and x n are real, H(z) will have poles and zeros that are either on the 
real axis, or come in conjugate pairs. For the inverse Z-transform H(z) =>- h n one 
has to know the region of convergence (ROC). As follows from physical reasons we are 
interested only in causal filters (h n = for n < 0) that have always ROCs outside a 
circle that intersects the pole with max\\i\. A causal filter is stable (bounded input 
yields a bounded output) if the unit circle \z\ = 1 is in the ROC. 

To give an example. We start the analysis of the solution with the case of the ideal 
system, a = 0. All solutions in the band \E\ < 2 (defined as a region with asymptotically 
finite first moment) are delocalized with Ai = 1, A2,3 = e ±t2v , where <p = arccos(|i?|/2). 
The inverse Z-transform gives us x n = a 2 sin 2 (<pn)/ sin 2 (<£>). In this case the filter 
H(z) = 1 and the ROC of this filter is the full commplex z-plane. The ROC includes 
the unit circle, the filter H(z) is thus stable, which means the derealization of all states. 

For a / Owe always have Ai > 1. The ROC corresponds to the region \z\ > Ai, and 
the unit circle \z\ = 1 lies outside the ROC. A filter H(z) is unstable, in other words, 
this is simply the localization of all states. 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



11 



3. 2-D case 

3.1. Recursion relation 

Consider a 2-D lattice with one boundary. The layers of this system are enumerated 
by an index n = 0, 1, . . . starting from the boundary, and the position of an arbitrary 
lattice site in a particular layer is characterized by an integer m G (— oo,+oo). The 
presence of a boundary permits one to rewrite the Schrodinger equation 

+ 1p n ,m-l = {E- S n ,m)^n,m (29) 

in the form of a recursion relation for the grid amplitude of the wave function {ip n>m \ 
(n = 2,3,...): 

1pn,m = £ti-l,mfn-l,m ^Pn—2,ra ~\~ £'1pn—\,rn- (30) 

For the sake of a compact notation an operator L is introduced which acts on the index 
m according to the equation 

(31) 

,u=±l 

The lattice constant and the hopping matrix element are set equal to unity. The on- 
site potentials e n ^ m are independently and identically distributed with existing first two 
moments, (e n ,m) = and (e^m) = 0-2 ■ Eq-(j30l) is solved with an initial condition 

^0,m = O,-01,m = OL m . (32) 

It turns out to be convenient to consider the index n not as a spatial coordinate, but as 



discrete time. Then eq. (30) describes the time evolution of a D — 1 = 1 dimensional 
system. It is easy to see that in a formal solution of this recursion relation the amplitude 
ipn,m depends only on the random variables £ n ',m' with n' < n (causality). We encounter 
a very important feature in eq. (|30|): grid amplitudes on the r.h.s. are statistically 
independent with respect to e n ,m- 

3.2. Implications of signal theory 



We are going to generalize further the result of ref. [14J] that the set of equations for a 
certain combination of pair moments is self-contained and can be solved analytically. 

The divergence of the moments, which is caused by the localization, is the basis for 
the existence of Lyapunov exponents for the n-direction, which is generally a functional 
7[a m ] of the field a m . The well-known idea to define the fundamental Lyapunov 
exponent for the problem of Anderson localization as a minimal one 7 = min{7[a; m ]}, is 
an algorithm but not a general definition, because a fundamental quantity is independent 
of the initial condition. The proper definition is possible in the framework of signal 
theory Hl5| . 

We define the solutions of the equations for the second moments with disorder 
(a > 0) and without it (er = 0) as x (system output) and x^ (system input). Because 
these equations are linear, there exist an abstract linear operator h (system function 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



12 



or filter), which transforms one solution into the other one, x = hx^°\ It is important 
that the initial conditions a m only determine the signals, the filter on the other hand 
is a function of the disorder a only. Divergence of the moments (unbounded output for 



bounded input) simply means that the filter is unstable |T5[ . 

This approach utilizing the concept of the system function is a general and abstract 
description of the problem of localization. Instead of analyzing the signals x which have 
restricted physical meaning in the present context because of the chosen normalization 
we study the filter h with properties described by generalized Lyapunov exponents. 
Then e.g. delocalized states (bounded output) are obtained by transforming the physical 
solutions inside the band \E\ < 4 (bounded input) provided that the filter h is stable. 

The transformation x = hx^ is not only valid for individual signals, but also for 
linear combinations of these signals. Let us regard an ensemble of initial conditions in 
eq. ( p2|) which is obtained by trivial translation in m-space, a' m = a m+mo . Translation 
generates physically equivalent signals with identical Lyapunov exponents 7[a m ]. A 
linear combination of these signals also has this same value 7[a m ]. We construct a 
linear combination from all such signals with equal weights (this corresponds simply to 
an average (...)o over all possible translations m G (— oo, +oo)). 

We here start from the basic fact that the determination of the phase-diagram (the 
fundamental topic of the paper) requires only the Lyapunov exponents. Signals x are 
only a means to arrive there. Consequently it is possible to make certain operations 
with the signals, but under the strict condition that these operations have no influence 
on the Lyapunov exponents 7[a m ]. 

Next we define a full averaging over random potentials and over the ensemble 
of translations in m-space. This latter averaging correponds to the construction of 
the linear combinations discussed above. Full averaging restores the translational 
invariance along the m— axis, which appears e.g. in m— independent diagonal elements, 
(n, m) = (n',m'), in the set of the second moments of the type (ipn',m'ipn,m) and 
(ipnm) = x n- We further on regard x n as a one- dimensional signal. If we succeed 
to solve the equations for x n then we also find not only the Lyapunov exponent 7[a m ] 
but simultaneously the projection of the abstract operator on the one-dimensional space, 



h — > h n , because for one-dimensional signals the convolution property eq. (|28|) exists [15 



The filter h n possesses the same fundamental information as the abstract filter h and 
can easily be analyzed, because signal theory provides a definite mathematical language 
for this aim (see above). We emphasize here that we do not reduce the problem to 
a one-dimensional one; it remains two-dimensional. This is quite apparent from the 
equations below which contain two spatial variables, n and s = m — ml ', the distance 
along the m-axis. 

3.3. Second moments 

After the full averaging as defined above the moment (V'l.m'V'i.m) = (awctm)o = T s 
(where s = m — m!) transforms the initial condition by replacing the field a m by its 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



13 



property correlation function T s (it is assumed that the field itself and its correlation 
function are finite). The initial condition for x n reads as Xq — 0, X\ — r . 

Non-diagonal elements, (n,m) ^ (n',m f ), depend on the difference s = m — m' . In 
the following we will need only three types of moments f£ B with n' = n — v, u = 0,1,2. 
Let us denote them by a„ iS = 6„ >s = f^ s , and c n , s = f^ s : 

>, (33) 

b n ,s = ^ {< ll>n-l,m'i>n,m > + < 1pn-l,mi>n,m> >} , (34) 

>}. (35) 

The corresponding initial conditions are a , s = 0, a 1)S = T s ; 6 ,s — &i,s — 0; and 
co, s = ci )S = 0. Since the definition of a n s for s = coincides with x n , we have 
the boundary condition 

a n ,o = %n- (36) 
The moments f% a can be calculated directly from the definition, eqs.(|33|)- (|35|) . Let us 
consider e.g. b HtS . In order to calculate the average, the first factor, ipn,m or ijj n ,m'-, is 
expressed from the main relation eq. (p0|), while the second factor, ^ n -i, m or ip n -i,m', is 
left unchanged. Analogously, the equation for the moments a UtS and c„ jS are obtained. 
We have (n = 2, 3, . . .) 

a n ,s = -Cn,s + £h,s, s ^ 0, (37) 
b n ,s — —b n -i,s + C- a n-i,si (38) 

C n ,s — ~ a n-2,s + £frn-l,s- (39) 

The operator C is introduced in eq. (|3T|) which acts on the index s according to the 
equation 

£fn,s = ^fn,s ~ fn,s+n- (40) 

In the derivation of eqs. (0)-([39|) the mean of the product of uncorrelated quantities 
was replaced by the product of the means. 

The basic equation for the variable x n is obtained by squaring both sides of eq. 
( |3"0D and averaging over the ensemble. One gets 

X n = (J 2 X n _i +X n _ 2 + Xn-l, (41) 

Xn = £ 2 a n ,o - 2Cb nfi . (42) 

The expression for \n includes the seconds moments of the type a niS ,6„ iS introduced 
earlier (moments c„ iS are obviously absent). 

3.4- Z-transform and Fourier transform 

In the following derivations we utilize two types of algebraic transforms: the Z-transform 




* = £^> ^ = £% (43) 



n=0 Z n=0 Z 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 14 

and the discrete Fourier transform 

F; = T F u {k)e iks dk. (44) 

27T J -it 

Z-transform of the eqs. fl3"7|)-(|3"9"|) gives 

A 8 = -C s + CB S + z^Ts, s ^ 0, (45) 
B s = -z~ x B s + z^CAs, (46) 
C s = -z~ 2 A s + Z - l CB s . (47) 

For boundary condition, eq. P6J) , we have 

A = X. (48) 

After simplification of the equation for the moment C s we have eq.([RJ) and new equation 
for moment A s : 

A s (l - z~ 2 ) = (1 - z- l )CB s + z-'Ts, s ^ 0. (49) 

It turns out to be convenient to lift the constraint s ^ in the form: 

A s (l - z- 2 ) = (1 - z~ x )LB s + ^ 1 r s + R8 S , . (50) 

This equation requires expressing the parameter R in a self-consistent way via the 
boundary condition, eq . fl48|) . 

After an additional Fourier transform one gets 

A(k)(l - z' 2 ) = (1 - z- l )S {k)B{k) + R + z- l T{k), (51) 

B(k)(l + z- 1 ) = z- l S(k)A(k), (52) 

Here 

£(k) = E — 2 cos(k) (53) 

is the Fourier transform of the operator C 

Z-transform of the basic equation (|4l|) gives 

X = z~ l a 2 X + z~ 2 X + z~ l Xi (54) 

X = C 2 A - 2CB + r . (55) 
The function \ can be represented with the help of the Fourier transform 

X = —J* {s(k) 2 A(k) - 2£(k)B(k) + T(k))dk. (56) 
After simplification of eq. (|56[) (we use here eqs.(|5l|),(^)) one gets 

X = z(l-z- 2 )— T A(k)dk-zR, (57) 

2lT J-n 

or 

X = z(l- z~ 2 )X - zR, (58) 
because for the boundary condition, eq.(^), we have 

A =— r A(k)dk = X. (59) 

Z7T J-tt 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



15 



^From eq.(|54|) together with eq.(^) we obtain 

R = z- X (j 2 X. (60) 

It is apparent, that the moment A{k) as a solution of the eqs. (|5TD,(|52D depends on 
the parameter R. The parameter R in turn is determined by X according to eq. (|6Q|) . 
One gets 

A(k) {w 2 - S\k)} = |iii> |r(t) + ff 2 A'} , (61) 

*-<Z±V. 2 (62) 

z 

The equation for the signal X is obtained in a self-consistent way from eq. (|59|) . Then 
we finally obtain eq.(E6f), where 



x®(z\ - {z+1) 1 r T[k)dk (a-* 
x {z) - (j3i)2^y_ ffW 2_ 5 2 (fc) . ( 63 ) 

H^iz) = 1 - g2( * +1) f - (64) 

Note that the boundary conditions (field a m or correlation function T s ) influence only 
the function X^{z) which is independent of the parameter a and describes an ideal 
system, H(z) = 1 for o = 0. 

This point needs some comments. We have already stated that the initial conditions 
a m only determine the signals, the filter is a fundamental function of the disorder a only. 
This fact has a very simple and important logical consequence. A filter H(z) is defined 
via the relation between input and output signals, eq.( p6|) . It is therefore completely 
sufficient to determine only once this relation e.g. for a particular boundary condition, 
a m , where the calculation of input and output signals is trivial. The simplest case 

IS CX 'YY1 

= const. For this condition our system has (after averaging over random 
potentials) the translational invariance along the m— axis and we need not do a further 
averaging over the ensemble of translations in m-space. For a m = a we get back to 
eq. (|64D . The corresponding input signal X^(z) follows from eq. (|63|) , if one makes use 
of the simple relation T s = a 2 . 

It is appropriate to return to the topic of averaging over the ensemble of translations 
in m-space and the full averaging, section |3]2|. We clearly see now that this procedure 
is not at all obligatory. One could avoid it altogether. We have, however, used this 
procedure for pedagogical reasons to demonstrate clearly that the mentioned property 
of the filter (the filter is a function of the disorder a only) really exists and is independent 
of the initial conditions. 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



16 



4. Results 

4.1. CaseE = 

For the sake of illustration we restrict ourselves first to the case of the band center 
E = 0. Evaluating integrals by standard methods (contour integrals) one gets: 

J_ /■* dk = 1 , . 

2irJ-irW 2 -E 2 (k) wy/w^l' 1 ' 

where generally the complex parameter w = u + iv is defined in the upper half-plane, 
v = Im(w) > 0. Changing the complex variable z to the parameter w corresponds 
to the conformal mapping of the inner part (\z\ < 1, transform w = — (z 1 ^ 2 + z~ l l 2 )) 
or the outer part {\z\ > 1, transform w = [z 1 ! 2 + z~ l l 2 )) of the circle onto the upper 
half-plane, the circle itself maps onto the interval [—2,2]. Note also that if H(z) has 
complex conjugate poles, then on the upper w half-plane they differ only by the sign of 
u = Re{w). To avoid complicated notations, we seek for poles in the sector u > 0, v > 
and double their number if we find any The inverse function 

2 

z = -l + ^-±^Vw 2 -A (66) 

is double-valued, it has two single-valued branches that map the selected w sector onto 
either the inner part of the half-circle (\z\ < 1, (— ) sign in the formula) or the half-plane 
with the half-circle excluded (\z\ > 1, (+) sign in the formula). It is also easy to derive 
that 

(z + 1) w 



Substituting ( |55D and flBTD into ( |5^ ) gives the system function 



(67) 



a 2 



H ± \w) = l T - T ^ l , (68) 
or 

*i x W = 1 * (T^V (69) 

We see that the filter H(z) is a non-analytic function of the complex variable z. The 
unit circle \z\ — 1 divides the complex plane into two analytic domains: the interior 
and exterior of the unit circle. The inverse Z-transform is quite generally defined via 
countour integrals in the complex plane, eq. flT§|) , and this definition is only possible in 
an analytic domain. In this way in the formal analysis of the problem multiple solutions 
result. 

Let us consider first the solution H + (z) which is formally defined in the region 
\z\ > 1. The function H+(z) has two poles Ai = A and A2 = A -1 , where A = exp(27), 
2 sinh(7) = a and 

7 = sinh- 1 (|). (70) 

The first pole lies inside the region of definition and the second one is located outside of 
it (virtual pole). However, for the inverse Z-transform this fact is irrelevant. Note also 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



17 



that in the case of general E the pole Ax which lies on the real axis and which can be 
found from the parametric representation, eq. fl66|) , in the w sector defined earlier, has 
its virtual counterpart A2 = Af 1 . For a > the ROC for a causal filter is given by the 
inequality \z\ > A > 1. Hence, the unit circle does not belong to the ROC, and therefore 
the filter H + (z) is unstable. The inverse Z-transform gives 

h+ = 5 nfi + 2 tanh(7) sinh^n), (71) 

which is an exponentially growing function. This result can be generalized for all E 
values, however the expression for the function H + (z) will be more complex. 

Therefore, the solution given by the system function H + (z) always gives unbounded 



sequences x n , in full analogy with the solution of the one-dimensional problem fl4 



The natural interpretation of this result is that states are localized. The parameter 7 is 



nothing else but the generalized Lyapunov exponent [14] , defined for the second moment 
of the random amplitudes. Therefore, the localization length is £ = 7 _1 . 

The case of the filter H-(z) is a little more complicated. The filter is formally 
defined in the region \z\ < 1. For E = and o > 2 the poles are found at Ai = — A -1 
and A2 = —A (virtual pole) with A = exp(27'), 2cosh(7') = a. A ROC which is 
consistent with the causality restriction corresponds to the inequality \z\ > A > 1 and 
this lies outside the region of definition of the solution \z\ < 1. Therefore, any physically 
feasible solution is absent. 

However, for o < a = 2 the poles lie on the unit circle Ai 2 = exp(±2zyj), 
2 sin(<£>) = er. The critical value cxq = 2 corresponds to the equation 

Hz\w = 0) = 0. (72) 

Let us consider this problem as a limiting case of a modified problem in which the 
poles are shifted into the unit circle, X[ 2 = Ai j2 exp(— r/) and r\ — ► +0 . The casual 
filter has ROC 1 > \z\ > exp(—i])) (taking into account the region of definition). The 
ROC includes the unit circle, the filter is thus stable. In the limit rj — > +0, however, 



the poles move onto the unit circle. In the literature on electrical engineering |15j the 
filter that has a pole on the unit circle, but none outside it is called marginally stable. 
Marginally stable means there is a bounded input signal that will cause the output 
x n to oscillate forever. The oscillations will not grow or decrease in amplitude. The 
inverse Z-transform gives 

h~ = 5 n fi + 2 tan(<£>) sin(2<£>n), (73) 

i.e. a bounded oscillating function. 

4.2. CaseE^O 

Evaluating the required integrals one gets 

2 

H ± \w) = lT „ ° x (74) 
2vw — 4 

1 1 

+ 



{w + E) 2 -A J(w-E) 2 -A 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



18 



A similar analysis as above shows that the marginally stable filter exists for a < a (E), 
where 

a (E) = 2(1 - E 2 /4) 1/4 , (75) 

and the value of the energy is limited by \E\ < 2. For either \E\ > 2 (a ^ 0) or 
a > ao(E) (\E\ < 2) a physical solution of this filter is absent. The critical value of 
o"o(-E) follows again from eq.(|72|). 

We conclude that the system function H„(z) exists in a well-defined region of 
energies E and disorder a. It always gives bounded sequences x n which can be naturally 
interpreted as delocalized states. Marginal stability corresponds to the existence of quite 
irregular wave functions. 

The first solution H + (z) is defined outside the unit circle and always exists. The 
filter H + (z) describes localized states and it is possible to connect its properties with 
the notion of the localization length. In the energy range < \E\ < 4 the Lyapunov 
exponent is a non-analytical function at zero disorder: lim^+o 7(0") 7^ 7(0), because 
without disorder all states here are extended ones, 7(0) = 0. The second solution H^(z) 
is defined inside the unit circle and does not always represent a solution which can be 
physically interpreted (this is the mathematical consequence that the filter be causal). 
The filter H_(z) describes delocalized states. 

We also note that if both solutions h+ and h~ for the system function exist 
simultaneously, they both give solutions x n of the initial problem that satisfy all 
boundary conditions. In this sense, a general solution of the problem is h n = 
ujhn + (l—uj)h~, where the parameter uj is left undefined by the averaging procedure (this 
is natural for the problem with particular solutions of different asymptotic behavior). 
Such a solution h n may be interpreted as representing two phases, considering that h+ 
determines the properties of the insulating state, but h~ the metallic state. Therefore 
the metal-insulator transition should be looked at from the basis of first-order phase 
transition theory. This opinion differs from the traditional point of view, which 
considers this transition as continuous (second-order). For first order phase transitions 
the coexistence of phases is a general property. There exists for the present case an 
experimental result which is at least consistent with the present non-trivial result. 
Hani et al.|T2], [Tj| have studied the spatial structure at the metal-insulator transition 
in two dimensions. They found [^]: 'The measurement show that as we approach 
the transition from the metallic side, a new phase emerges that consists of weakly 
coupled fragments of the two-dimensional system. These fragments consist of localized 
charge that coexists with the surrounding metallic phase. As the density is lowered into 
the insulating phase, the number of fragments increases on account of the disapearing 
metallic phase.' 

4-3. Perturbation theory 

The results of the present investigation - if it proves to be correct - have certain 
consequences for the validity of many theoretical tools used for the investigation of 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



19 



Anderson localization in the past. Our comments do not exclude the possibility that 
better theroretical tools in the traditional approaches can be found, which may better 
master the situation. Our comments in the subsequent paragraphs are intended to 
highlight the differences between the present and previous approaches and the basic 
problems encountered by previous approaches - all this under the premise that the 
present analytical theory is proven to be correct. Our first comment refers to the 
Anderson localization as a critical phenomenon. One has always believed that all states 
in a 1-D and 2-D systems are localized for infinitesimal disorder, whereas in 3-D a metal- 
insulator transition occurs. From our studies it, however, emerges that a metal- insulator 
transition occurs in 2-D system. 

Because localization as a metal-insulator transition is a typical critical phenomenon, 
the parameters 7 and £ are quite generally not analytical functions neither in the energy 
nor in the disorder parameter. It is well-known that perturbation theory is not a suitable 
method for describing critical phenomena. 

E.g. for E = and a —>■ one has from eq.(^) 7 oc o. From this follows that 
the function 7 cannot be represented as a series in powers of a 2 . I.e. perturbation 
theory is not applicable to the Anderson problem in 2-D (as it is neither for other 
critical phenomena 123): the corresponding series expansions tend to diverge. This 



should be quite generally valid; that is why all estimations which result from first order 
perturbation theory (e.g. for the mean free path) are physically extremely doubtful, 
because they are the first term of a divergent series. 

In the case of 1-D systems it is known |3], [T7|, [nj that in the limit of small disorder 
all Lyapunov exponents 7 oc a 2 . Here perturbation theory is completely acceptable, 
because 1-D systems do not show a phase transition |2D) . These results of perturbation 
theory tend, however, to become inapplicable for higher spatial dimensions. In a similar 
vein it can be stated that results for the 1-D Ising-model have no relevance for the 2-D 
model (Onsager solution) pOL pi . 



4-4- Order of phase transition and self-averaging 

Physics of disorder associates experimental quantities with quantities obtained by 
averaging over random potentials (statistical ensemble of macroscopically different 
systems). This approach is well-known ||. One expects that, although the results of 
measurement of this physical quantity are dependent on the realization of disorder, the 
statistical fluctuations of the result are small. One assumes that physical quantities are 
only those which do not fluctuate within the statistical ensemble in the thermodynamic 
limit (length of system L — > 00). One defines these as self-averaging quantities. It 
is also known that in connection with localization this self-averaging property is not 
trivially fulfilled, e.g. the transport properties of the disordered systems are in general 
not self- averaging 0. Here the fluctuations are much larger than expected or they even 
diverge in the thermodynamic limit. 

Even though the existence of non-self- averaging quantities is known, the theory 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



20 



of the physics of disorder starts from the assumption that certain quantities will still 
be self-averaging and physical. However, one has to the authors' knowledge never 
analyzed the conditions for the validity of this statement from the point of view of phase 
transition theory In a system without phase transitions one can prove the existence 
of certain self-averaging quantities. Their existence is also possible if there is a second 
order phase transition. Here in the thermodynamic limit there exists only one or the 
other phase, a coexistence of phases is impossible by principle. In each phase there 
do exist certain average values which have physical relevance. Strong fluctuations are 
observed only as usual in the vicinity of a critical point. In a system with a first order 
phase transition one finds certain parameter values for which two phases do coexist; i.e. 
a macroscopic system is heterogeneous and consists of macroscopically homogeneous 
domains of the two phases. In this case a formal averaging over the statistical ensemble 
takes into consideration also an averaging over the phases, and the resulting averages 
have no physical meaning. Physically meaningful are only the properties of the pure 
homogeneous phases. The trivial example in this respect is the coexistence of water and 
ice. An average density of this system has no sense and depends on the relative fraction 
of the phases, whereas the density of pure water and pure ice are meaningful quantities. 

Formally systems with a first order phase transition do not possess self-averaging 
quantities. The well-known idea ||, to analyze such non-self-averaging quantities via 
probability distribution functions or all of its moments, cannot be realized in practice. In 
the theory of phase transitions |2D| one has a general idea to treat such mult i- component 
systems, but these exist only as approximations. One writes down the equations for 
certain averages. If these equations possess a multiplicity of solutions one interprets 
the corresponding solutions as phases. Let us now consider the present solution of the 
Anderson problem from this point of view. 

It is well-known that the exact equations of statistical physics are always linear 
but form an infinite chain (e.g. see the equations which form the basis of the 
BBGKY theory (Bogoliubov, Born, Green, Kirkwood, Yvonne) |[22|| . Via decoupling 
approximations which use multiplicative forms of distribution functions (see e.g. the 
Kirkwood approximation [p2[ ) one derives from the insoluble infinite chain a finite set 
of equations which, however, are now nonlinear. This latter property leads to the 
multiplicity of solutions and the possibility to describe the phase transition. It remains, 
however, unclear in which way the original linear equations describe mathematically the 
phase transition. The Anderson localization problem is the extremely rare case where 
an analytic solution was found for the chain of equations. As a result one can clearly see 
how mathematics produces a multiplicity of solutions in the form of non-analytic filter 
functions H(z). The Z-transform lifts the phase degeneracy allowing one to study the 
properties of each phase independently. Particular solutions h+ and h~ can be naturally 
interpreted not as the result of full averaging over all realizations of random potentials, 
but as averaged over one of the two classes of filtered realizations. If a particular 
realization of random potentials for a given energy E leads to unbounded sequences for 
all boundary conditions, we classify it as belonging to the first class. Otherwise the 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



21 



realization of random potentials belongs to the second class. Sorting of the realizations 
into two classes corresponds mathematically to an infinitely weak constraint on the on- 
site potentials, which are still characterized in the equations by a single parameter a. 
Therefore the equations for the second moments given above will describe both one- 
phase solutions with full averaging (if the metallic phase is impossible) and each phase 
of the two-phase solution separately with partial averaging. 

4-5. Numerical scaling 

For known technical reasons one treats D-dimensional systems as quasi-one-dimensional 
ones ||; this is e.g. done for the recursive calculation of the Lyapunov exponents. 
One starts with a system of the size oo x L D_1 : It is infinite in the n— direction and the 
length L in the other directions is finite. Numerical scaling studies || assume the scaling 
variable to be self-averaging. A further crucial assumption is that there is one-parameter 
scale function. 

One calculates the localization length as the average of the logarithm of the 
quantum mechanical transmission probability ||, and assumes that this quantity is 
self-averaging. For any finite length L the localization length £x is finite too. This fact 
is rather trivial. Every quasi-one-dimensional system is qualitatively similar to a true 
one-dimensional one. Because in the 1-D Anderson model all states are localized, the 
same will hold for quasi-one- dimension systems. It is known that a rigorous theoretical 
definition of the phases requires the investigation of the thermodynamic limit L —>■ oo. 
One assumes that in order to be extrapolate to infinite system size it is necessary to 
investigate the scaling behaviour of £lB- It is possible to establish a scaling function 



that does not depend on the disorder. The scaling parameter ^ is a function of disorder. 
This method yields complete localization in 2-D dimension, and an Anderson transition 
in 3-D case. 

One notices that the idea of numerical scaling has a weak point; one starts from 
the assumption that self-averaging quantities exist. The analytic solution presented in 
the present paper, section |3|, offers in principle the possibility to clarify the problems 
connected with the numerical scaling procedure. The analytic equations treat from 
the very start a system in the thermodynamic limit {L = oo), because the integer 
m G (— oo, +oo) in eq. ([29|) . A transition to a finite system (L < oo) in this context is 
rather trivial and corresponds simply to the transition from the Fourier integral, eq. flli]) 
to the Fourier series. Thus we arrive from the filter-function in the form of eq.(^) at 
another equation: 




(76) 




(77) 



2nj 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



22 




Figure 1. Scaling function (for the second moment) for the 2-D Anderson model. 
£ = £(<t) = £oo is the scaling parameter necessary to scale numerical data onto the 
same curve. Values of the disorder a are indicated. 



The difference is large. The filter fl64|) has a multiplicity of solutions: the unit circle 
\z\ = 1 divides the complex plane into two analytic domains. For a finite system one has 
only one solution, the unit circle \z\ = 1 does not play a role anymore. The filter ([T7j) 
corresponds to only one phase, where all states are localized. Mathematically this means 
that between the possible poles z = Aj of the function ( |77|) there always exist the pole 
Amaz > 1, and the filter is unstable. If one defines the localization length as £l = 
where according to the definition by using the second moments \ m ax = exp(27i), then 
this length is always finite. 

The physical reason for this result is rather clear: in the n-direction the system 
remains infinite since the Z-transform always "feels" the true asymptotic behavior. 
Fixing a finite size L in the m-direction effectively renders the system a one- dimensional 
one at large scales, hence the corresponding behaviour (full localization). From this point 
of view, £l is essentially the crossover length form 2-D to 1-D behavior. 

Let us do now a typical scaling study for the localization length £l at the band 
centre, E — 0. We have found that the scaling parameter ^ is identical with the 
value £, where £ = 1/7 and 7 is defined in eq . (|70|) . Disregarding for the moment the 
fact that one commonly uses a different definition of the localization length £1 via the 
log- definition, we arrive qualitatively at the same results as numerical scaling|fj]. There 
exists a scaling function, Fig.l, which is typical for 2-D systems and whose behaviour 
one commonly interprets as complete localization in 2-D dimensions. The corresponding 
scaling parameter is, however, identical with the localization length £ in the insulating 
phase. I.e. numerical scaling is not capable to analyze a system consisting of two 
phases. This approach to the problem with particular solutions of different asymptotic 
behaviour, 7 = or 7 7^ 0, always sees only one diverging solution (7 7^ 0). 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



23 



5. Conclusion 

The basic idea of the present work is to apply signal theory to the Anderson localization 
problem. We interpret certain moments of the wave function as signals. There is then 
in signal theory a qualitative difference between localized and extended states: The 
first ones correspond to unbounded signals and the latter ones to bounded signals. In 
the case of a metal-insulator transition extended states (bounded signals) transform 
into localized states (unbounded signals). Signal theory shows that it is possible in 
this case to find a function (the system function or filter), which is responsible for this 
transformation. The existence of this transformation in a certain region of disorder and 
energy simply means that the filter looses its stability in this region. The meaning of an 
unstable filter is defined by a specific pole diagram in the complex plane. These poles 
also define a quantitative measure of localization. Thus it is possible here to determine 
the socalled generalized Lyapunov exponents as a function of disorder and energy. 

For pedagogical reasons we have analyzed in this paper first the 1-D case. Here 
no new results are obtained. All states are localized for arbitrary disorder. The aim of 
this section consists in showing to the uninitiated reader a possible alternative to the 
traditional mathematical tools of dealing with Anderson localization and to interpret 
its content. The power of the approach comes only to its full bearing when it proves 
possible to find analytically the filter function also for the 2-D case. Although the filter 
is quite in general defined by an integral, it is possible to give a representation in terms of 
radicals. As a consequence we have been able to find an exact analytical solution for the 
generalized Lyapunov exponents for the well-known and notorious Anderson problem in 
2-D. In this way the phase diagram is obtained. 

The approach suggested in the present paper does not in any way represent the 
complete solution to the problem of Anderson localization in 2-D. The very important 
topic of the transport properties of disordered systems lies outside the presumed region 
of applicability of the method. The results of the studies give us a few answers to 
existing questions but open up even more questions. We have only considered the phase 
diagram of the system. The theory permits us to ascertain to which class of problems 
Anderson localization belongs. 

In the 1-D case all states are localized for infinitesimally small disorder in complete 
agreement with the theoretical treatment of Molinari [14]. In the 2-D case we have 



shown that in principle there is the possibility that the phase of delocalized states exists 
for a non-interacting electron system. This phase has its proper existence region and it 
belongs to the marginal type of stability. All states with energies \E\ > 2 are localized 
at arbitrarily weak disorder. For energies and disorder, where extended states may 
exist we find a coexistence of these localized and extended states. Thus the Anderson 
transition should be regarded as a first order phase transition. The argument of Mott 
that extended and localized states cannot be found at the same energy is probably not 
applicable in our case as the solutions for the two relevant filter functions do not mix. 
This has to be worked out in detail in the future. Also the role of different disorder 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



24 



realizations has to be elaborated, which could be a source of the observed phenomena. 

Our findings can in principle explain the experimental results of Kravchenko et al. 
T0|1 on films of a-Si. They are also in agreement with the experimental findings of Hani 



et al JT2), [13] which showed the coexistence of phases. Although one has to be cautious 
in concluding from our results directly onto specific experimental situations our theory 
is the first one to be in accord with experiment for 2-D systems. 

We hope that the presented results contribute to the solution of the existing 
contradictions between theory and experiment, and also between different experimental 
results. 

The qualitative diagnosis which we propose here is in several aspects different from 
the predictions of prevailing theories, scaling theory, mean field and perturbation theory. 
It has to be stated here that much work still remains to be done both via the present 
approach as via other established approaches. 

(i) The Anderson problem belongs to the class of critical phenomena. It is known 
from the scientific literature that in such a case one encounters in general a poor 



convergence behaviour of approximations [21]], which in their basis contain a 
mean field approach. To cite an example: the exact solution of Onsager for the 2-D 
Ising model is in complete disagreement with the Landau theory of phase transitions 



mean field theory) pD |. All critical exponents differ in the two approaches. Yet 



there is at least a qualitative agreement between the two theories: the Landau 
theory describes second order phase transitions and the exact Onsager theory 
confirms this aspect. 

(ii) For the Anderson problem the outlook on the theories might also be far reaching, if 
our approach should prove to be correct. All presently accepted theories derive 
here from the scaling idea which is in turn based on the assumption that the 
Anderson transition belongs to the class of second order phase transitions. This 
basic idea is up to now a hypothesis which cannot be proved in the absence of 
the exact solution. One has assumed that averaged or self-averaging quantities are 
always physical quantities. And every theory had the direct aim to calculate such 
quantities. Our exact solution for the phase diagram, however, indicates that in 
this system the coexistence of phases is possible, i.e. that the Anderson transition 
should be regarded as a phase transition of first order. 

(iii) For a phase transition of first order with a coexistence of phases there surely 
also exist self-averaging quantities, whose fluctuations are small. The quantities, 
however, tend to be unphysical because the average over an ensemble includes an 
average over the phases. Physically meaningful in this case are only the properties 
of the pure phases. Consequently one requires a new idea to calculate the transport 
properties of the disordered systems. We can at the present time only surmise that 
this future theory of transport properties will calculate the transport properties 
with the help of equations which have the property of a multiplicity of solutions. 
This theory should also formulate in a new way the average over the ensemble of 



Exact solution for the 2- dimensional Anderson localization 



25 



random potentials in order to arrive at the properties of the pure phases. 
Acknowledgments 

V.N.K. gratefully acknowledges the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. 

This work was partly supported by the EC Excellence Centre of Advanced Material 

Research and Technology (contract N 1CA1-CT-2080-7007) and the Fonds der 

Chemischen Industrie. We thank Dr. L. Schweitzer and colleagues very much for 

illuminating discussions. 
[1] P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 109, 1492 (1958). 

[2] P.A. Lcc and T.V. Ramakrishnan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 57, 287 (1985). 
[3] B. Kramer and A. MacKinnon, Rep. Prog. Phys. 56, 1469 (1993). 
[4] M. Jansscn, Phys. Rep. 295, 2 (1998). 
[5] N.F. Mott and W.D. Twose, Adv. Phys. 10, 107 (1961). 

[6] E. Abrahams, P.W. Anderson, D.C. Licciardcllo, and T.V. Ramakrishnan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 
673 (1979). 

[7] P.W. Anderson, D.J. Thouless, E. Abrahams, and D.S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 22, 3519 (1980). 
[8] I.Kh. Zharekeshev, M. Batsch, and B. Kramer, Europhys. Lett. 34, 587 (1996). 
[9] J.W. Kantelhardt and A. Bundc, Phys. Rev. B, 66, 035118 (2002). 
[10] S.V. Kravchenko, D. Simonian, M.P. Sarachik, W. Mason, and J.E. Furneaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. 
77, 4938 (1996). 

[11] E. Abrahams, S.V. Kravchenko, M.P. Sarachik, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 251 (2001). 
[12] S. Hani, A. Yacoby, D. Mahalu and Hadas Shtrikman. Science 292, 1354 (2001) 
[13] S. Hani, A. Yacoby, D. Mahalu and H. Shtrikman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3133 (2000) 
[14] L. Molinari. J.Phys.A: Math. Gen. 25, 513 (1992). 

[15] T.F. Weiss. Signals and systems. Lecture notes, http:// umech.mit.edu/ weiss/ lectures.html; 

K.L. Kosbar. Digital signal processing, http:// www.siglab.ee.umr.edu/ ee341/ index.html 
[16] K. Ishii, Suppl. Prog. Theor. Phys. 53, 77 (1973). 

[17] M. Kappus and F. Wegner, Z. Phys. B Condensed Matter 45, 15 (1981). 
[18] J. B. Pendry and E. Castano, J. Phys. C: Solit State Phys. 21, 4333 (1988). 

[19] D.J. Thouless, in: Ill-condensed Matter, Eds. R. Balian, R. Maynard, G. Toulouse, Amsterdam, 

New York: Nort-Holland,1979, p.l. 
[20] H.E. Stanley, Introduction to Phase Transition and Critical Phenomena (Oxford Univ. Press, New 

York, 1971). 

[21] R.J.Baxter, Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics (Academic Press, London, New York, 
1982). 

[22] R.Balescu. Equilibrium and Non-equilibrium Statistic Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1975).