PHYSICAL REVIEW B 78, 033103 共2008兲

Time-loop formalism for irreversible quantum problems: Steady-state transport in junctions

with asymmetric dynamics
P. Kakashvili and C. J. Bolech
Physics & Astronomy Department, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA
共Received 27 May 2008; published 7 July 2008兲
Nonunitary quantum mechanics has been used in the past to study irreversibility, dissipation, and decay in a
variety of physical systems. In this work, we employ a general scheme to deal with systems governed by
non-Hermitian Hamiltonians. We argue that the Schwinger-Keldysh formalism gives a natural description for
those problems. To elucidate the method, we study a simple model inspired by mesoscopic physics—an
asymmetric junction. The system is governed by a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, which captures essential
aspects of irreversibility.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.033103 PACS number共s兲: 72.10.Bg, 73.23.⫺b, 03.65.Yz, 05.70.Ln

Non-Hermitian formulations of quantum-mechanical evolution operators for each direction. One could argue that
problems have attracted substantial interest in almost all ar- the time evolution operator is the same along the full path, as
in the Hermitian case, ÛK共t , t0兲 = Û+Û− = TKe−i兰t0dt⬘H共t⬘兲 共where
eas of physics. In most cases, nonunitary approaches are uti- t ˆ

lized to describe irreversible processes—such as decay and
dissipation—in open quantum systems. This kind of prob-
lems has been addressed since the early days of quantum
mechanics when the complex eigenvalue method was pio-
neered to describe the ␣ decay of nuclei.1,2 Since then, non-
unitary approaches have been applied to theories of K and B
meson decay,3,4 scattering and absorption of particles by
nuclei,5 nuclear reactions,6,7 multiphoton ionization of
atoms,8,9 optical resonators,10 and free-electron lasers.11
Growth models have been investigated by mapping a master
equation into a Shrödinger equation with a non-Hermitian
Hamiltonian.12 In the last decade, non-Hermitian theories
were also applied to condensed-matter systems with
localization-delocalization transitions. Pinning/depinning of
flux lines from columnar defects was studied13 in type-II
superconductors, and the effects of a single columnar defect
on fluctuating flux lines was considered by mapping to a
non-Hermitian Luttinger liquid model and using the density-
matrix renormalization group 共DMRG兲.14 Generalized
DMRG has been applied also to a one-dimensional reaction-
diffusion model with nonunitary time evolution15 and a non-
Hermitian spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain.16 The closing of the
Mott gap has been investigated in the non-Hermitian Hub-
bard model17 and evaporatively cooled Bose-Einstein con-
densates 共BECs兲 have been studied by a nonunitary quantum
dynamics approach.18 All of the above studies use a variety
of case-specific methods and are mainly concerned with ei-
ther time-independent or transient behaviors. In addition,
usually a particular class of non-Hermitian problems is dis-
cussed, a case when the energy eigenstates have only nega-
tive imaginary parts 共thus describing only decay or dissipa-
tion兲. In this paper we present a framework that we apply to
a steady-state formulation of an irreversible system.
To define our approach we start with the Schwinger-
Keldysh 共SK兲 formalism,19,20 which turns out to be very
natural in the non-Hermitian case. In the SK formulation, the
evolution of a system is described on a time loop 共Keldysh
contour, K兲 with “forward” 共“−”兲 and “backward” 共“+”兲 di-
rections 共see Fig. 1兲, thus defining two distinct branches for
time evolution. Special care should be taken to define proper
TK is the time-ordering operator along the Keldysh contour兲,
which preserves the normalization along the contour,
ÛK共t+0 , t−0 兲 = 1. This would mean that the time evolution would
be governed by Ĥ on both branches. Even though this choice
ensures that the backward evolution is the algebraic inverse
of the forward one and it may seem a good choice, we should
emphasize that it does not describe the physical process
faithfully. Physically, in the backward branch, the system
should rewind its forward evolution and therefore Ĥ† should
be the operator that dictates the dynamics. Then the back-
ward time evolution operator is given by Û+共t0 , t兲 = Û−†共t , t0兲
= T̃ei兰t0dt⬘H 共t⬘兲 ⫽ Û−−1共t , t0兲, which is automatically antitime
t ˆ†
ordered 共with T̃ representing the antitime-ordering
operator兲.32 Of course, one recovers the familiar result in the
Hermitian case. We see that a double-time approach is essen-
tial and rather natural for non-Hermitian problems. Thus, the
+ branch is governed by the Hermitian conjugate theory and
the time-ordered Green’s function 共G−−兲 is mapped into the
antitime-ordered one 共G++兲 by Hermitian conjugation, which
is all natural and unambiguous in a time-loop formalism.
This makes an extended SK method an appealing choice.33
To illustrate the formalism, we shall study a simple model
of a single-mode asymmetric tunneling junction 共see inset of
Fig. 2兲, which captures essential aspects of irreversibility. A
similar model has been studied in connection with spin-valve
devices.21 We shall study the steady-state transport of the
Û− G−− G+−
−
+ t
++ −+
†
Û+ = Û− G G
FIG. 1. 共Color online兲 Sketch of the Keldysh contour. The ar-
rows show the direction of the time evolution. Here G−− is the
time-ordered Green’s function, G++ is the antitime-ordered Green’s
function, G+− is the “greater” Green’s function, and G−+ is the
“lesser” Green’s function.

1098-0121/2008/78共3兲/033103共4兲 033103-1 ©2008 The American Physical Society

BRIEF REPORTS
0.04
0.02
I
GQ
0.00

0.02

0.04

6
4
2 0 2 4 6
V nature of the tunneling dynamics.
FIG. 2. 共Color online兲 Current, I, as a function of voltage, V, for
different temperatures 共in arbitrary units兲. The current is shown for
tR = tL = 0.05 and tR = tL = 0.03 共SJ case, dotted lines兲, for tR = 0.05 and
tL = 0.03 共dashed lines兲, and for tR = 0.05 and tL = 0 共solid lines兲. The
temperature increases from bottom to top and GQ indicates the
quantum of conductance. Inset: Sketch of the tunneling setup.
system. The Hamiltonian of the model is given by Ĥ = Ĥ0
+ Ĥt, where
冕
Ĥ0 = 兺
r=R,L
Ĥ0,r = − iv 兺
r=R,L
dx␺ˆ r†共x兲⳵x␺ˆ r共x兲
describes noninteracting left 共L兲 and right 共R兲 leads in a one-
dimensional formulation.22 ␺ˆ r†共x兲 关␺ˆ r共x兲兴 represent electron
creation 关annihilation兴 operators in the corresponding lead
and v is the Fermi velocity, which is taken to be the same for
both leads.
The irreversible nature of the problem is given by
Ĥt = 2v 兺 tr␺ˆ r†共x = 0兲␺ˆ r⬘共x = 0兲,
r⫽r⬘
which describes the tunneling with rates tL ⫽ tRⴱ in the asym-
metric junction 共AJ兲 case.34 共In this paper, kB = ប = e = 1.兲
Let us derive a local theory that captures the essential
physics of the junction. After integrating out the leads ex-
actly for x ⫽ 0 in a path-integral formulation 共dropping the
coordinate dependence of the electron creation and annihila-
tion operators兲, the local action reads22,23
冕 ⬁
A= ⌿̄共t兲G−1共t − t⬘兲⌿共t⬘兲dtdt⬘ ,
−⬁
where ⌿ = 共␺L− ␺R− ␺L+ ␺R+ 兲T. We have doubled the basis of
the problem, which is customary in the SK formulation, and
assigned extra indices − and + to the fields according to the
particular branch of the Keldysh contour they belong to. In
Eq. 共3兲, we explicitly imposed the steady-state constraint by
specifying the time dependence of the inverse Green’s func-
tion G−1. In the steady state, the Green’s function depends
only on the time difference, t − t⬘, and not on the “center-of-
mass” time 共t + t⬘兲 / 2. Thus, the Fourier transform 共with re-
spect to the time difference兲 is given by
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 78, 033103 共2008兲
冢 冣
− sL − itL sL − 1 0
G−1共␻兲 − itR − sR 0 sR − 1
= , 共4兲
− 2vi sL + 1 0 − sL itRⴱ
0 sR + 1 itLⴱ − sR
␻−␮
where sr = tanh 2Tr r . Here, we assumed that the leads are in
equilibrium at their respective chemical potentials 共␮L and
␮R兲 and temperatures 共TL and TR兲.
Using Green’s functions, we can calculate the transport
properties of a generic AJ. By comparing to the symmetric
junction 共SJ兲 case, one sees the effects due to the nonunitary
Current—We first describe a current flowing across the
junction. We expect that there should be an asymmetry be-
tween positive and negative voltage bias. We define the cur-
rent operator in the usual way by Î = 21 ⳵t⌬N̂, where ⌬N̂ = N̂R
− N̂L, and N̂L and N̂R are the particle number operators for the
left and right leads, respectively. While the current operator
is defined by the above formula, for an AJ the definition
needs to be supplemented by specifying on which branch ⌬N̂
resides. On the − branch, the current operator is given by
Î− = 21 ⳵t⌬N̂− = 2i 关Ĥ , ⌬N̂−兴, since Ĥ governs the time evolution
on this branch. This prompts us to use the time-ordered
共1兲 共“−−” component兲 Green’s functions for calculations. The
current is thus given by 共cf. Ref. 24兲
I− = 2v 冕
−⬁
⬁
d␻
2␲
关tLGRL
−−
共␻兲 − tRGLR
−−
共␻兲兴. 共5兲
Of course, we get the same final results if we do calculations
on the + branch. In this case, the current operator reads Î+
= 21 ⳵t⌬N̂+ = 2i 关Ĥ† , ⌬N̂+兴, in analogy with the − branch. Here
共2兲 Ĥ† defines the time evolution and we should use the
antitime-ordered 共“++” component兲 Green’s functions. Now
the current has the same form as in Eq. 共5兲 but with time-
ordered Green’s functions replaced by antitime-ordered ones
ⴱ
and tL/R → tR/L . Direct calculations indeed show that I− = I+
= I.
In the SJ limit, calculations can be done analytically and
2兩t兩2
the current is given by I = GV, where G = ␲共1+兩t兩 2兲2 共Ref. 25兲
and V = ␮L − ␮R. The well-known symmetry of the conduc-
tance in the SJ case, 兩t兩 → 1 / 兩t兩, is generalized to tR/L
ⴱ
→ 1 / tL/R
for the AJ one. The results for the current in the
共3兲 weak tunneling limit are shown on Fig. 2, where we see the
anticipated asymmetric behavior for unequal tunneling
strengths. For large voltages the behavior is similar to the SJ
case with the corresponding tunneling rate 共t = tR , tL for posi-
tive or negative bias, respectively兲. In the extreme limit when
tL = 0, we see a clear diodelike behavior. The results also
show temperature dependence 共that disappears in the SJ
limit兲, in particular, the current is nonzero for zero voltage
due to finite temperature effects 共I0 ⬀ T兲. For intermediate
and large tunneling strengths, the current is significantly dif-
ferent from the SJ value even for large voltages. This can be
seen on Fig. 3, which shows the conductance as a function of
tunneling rate.
033103-2
BRIEF REPORTS PHYSICAL REVIEW B 78, 033103 共2008兲

1.0 0.10

0.8 0.08

0.6 0.06

S
2GQ
G
GQ

0.4 0.04

0.2 0.02

0.0 0.00
0 0.5 1 0.5 0
10
5 0 5 10

tR tR
1 V
FIG. 4. 共Color online兲 Current noise power, S共␻ = 0兲, as a func-
FIG. 3. 共Color online兲 Large-voltage conductance as a function
tion of voltage, V, for different temperatures 共in arbitrary units兲. The
of tunneling strength 共tR兲 for a SJ, t = tR 共dotted line兲, and in the
line styles and parameters are the same as in Fig. 2.
extreme AJ case, tL = 0 共solid line兲.

ogy with the behavior of the current兲. In the limiting case

The behavior of the conductance can be understood in
with tL = 0, we see the suppression of the noise for negative
terms of a perturbative expansion. For weak tunneling 共t , tR
voltage bias, which is consistent with the diodelike behavior
Ⰶ 1兲, the expansions for the symmetric and asymmetric cases
and is due to the reduction of the current in this regime 共see
are identical 共i.e., the leading orders coincide兲. While for
Fig. 2兲. In the shot-noise limit 共V Ⰷ T兲, the Fano factor F
intermediate tunneling 共t , tR ⬃ 1兲, many processes that are al-
⬅ S共␻ = 0兲 / 共2I兲 = 1 for weak tunneling, as in the SJ case.
lowed for the SJ are not allowed for the extreme asymmetric
Heat current—Now we shall turn to the thermal conduc-
one; hence the reduction of the conductance. For large tun-
tivity, calculate the heat current, IQ, and check the
neling strengths 共t , tR Ⰷ 1兲, the conductance decreases in the
Wiedemann-Franz law. To define the heat current, we use the
SJ case due to a resonance developing at the junction. In the
first law of thermodynamics to write
AJ case, this resonance is suppressed and, therefore, the con-
ductance increases and saturates at the quantum of conduc-
⌬Q = d⌬E + ␮LdNL − ␮RdNR , 共8兲
tance in the limiting case 共tR → ⬁兲.
Noise—Now we turn to the noise, which is a ␻-dependent where ⌬Q = QR − QL and ⌬E = 具Ĥ0,R − Ĥ0,L典. By using the
response.25,26 Bearing in mind the SK formalism, we define usual definitions for the currents, choosing a particular
the current-current correlation function as branch 共−兲 on the Keldysh contour, and defining the average
chemical potential ␮
¯ = 共␮L + ␮R兲 / 2, we get IQ
−
= IE− − ␮
¯ I−. Us-
S共t,t⬘兲 = 兺 具TK:Î␩共t兲::Î␩⬘共t⬘兲:典, 共6兲 ing the equations of motion for the electron creation and
␩⫽␩⬘ annihilation operators, and performing some algebra, the
heat current reads
where :: denotes normal ordering and is equivalent to the
standard definition given in the literature.25
From the definitions of the current operators on the cor-
responding branches, using Wick’s theorem27 and Fourier
−
IQ = 2v 冕 d␻
2␲
共␻ − ␮
¯ 兲关tLGRL
−−
共␻兲 − tRGLR
−−
共␻兲兴. 共9兲

transforming, we get the current noise power
S共␻兲
2 = 兺 trtr 关共Grr ⴰ Gr⬘r⬘兲 + 共Gr⬘r⬘ ⴰ Grr 兲兴
ⴱ +− −+ −+ +−
4v
r⫽r ⬘
− 兺 trtrⴱ⬘关共Gr+−⬘r ⴰ Gr−+⬘r兲 + 共Gr−+⬘r ⴰ Gr+−⬘r兲兴,
r⫽r⬘
where the correlation product 共G1 ⴰ G2兲共␻兲 is defined as
usual.26 In the SJ limit, we get the well established result25
V
S共␻ = 0兲 = 8␲G2T + 2G共1 − 2␲G兲V coth .
2T
The dependence of S共␻ = 0兲 on bias voltage and temperature
for weak tunneling is shown in Fig. 4. The results show
similar asymmetric behavior as for the current. For large
voltages, the behavior of the noise power is similar to that of
the SJ with the corresponding tunneling rate 共in exact anal-
+ −
Our calculations on the backward branch yield IQ = IQ = IQ, in
exact analogy with the result for the electric current. In the
SJ case, we obtain the well-known result28 IQ = K⌬T with
2␲T̄兩t兩2
K = 3共1+兩t兩 2兲 2 , where ⌬T = TL − TR and T̄ = 共TR + TL兲 / 2. The
Wiedemann-Franz law holds and is given by K / 共GT̄兲
= ␲2 / 3 ⬅ L0, the Lorentz number.
In general, if bias voltages and temperature gradients are
applied, the electric and heat currents are given by
I = L11V + L12⌬T + I0 ,
共7兲
IQ = L21V + L22⌬T. 共10兲
For the SJ case, L11 = G, L22 = K, and L12 = L21 = 0, so no ther-
moelectric effects are observed. For the AJ case, expanding
the result to linear order in V and ⌬T, we see that still L12
= L21 = 0. 共Notice that thermoelectric effects are observed in
this case but not at the linear order.兲 In terms of the transport

033103-3
BRIEF REPORTS
coefficients, the Lorentz number is defined as L22 / 共L11T̄兲.
Our calculations show deviations from the Wiedemann-Franz
law. This behavior is due to the same effects as in the case of
the conductance and the presence of the nonzero I0 for the AJ
case; L0 ⯝ ␲2 / 3 for small tunneling strengths, but it increases
as the strength increases.
We have presented a minimal extension of the Schwinger-
Keldysh formalism to systems with non-Hermitian Hamilto-
nians and have shown that it is a natural choice for such
applications. As an example, we have studied a simple model
of an asymmetric tunneling junction where irreversibility is
explicitly encoded into the Hamiltonian; hence making it
non-Hermitian. We have calculated the steady-state transport
properties of the junction and seen that the behavior of the
1 G. Gamow, Z. Phys. 51, 204 共1928兲.
2 R. W. Gurney and E. U. Condon, Nature 共London兲 122, 439
共1928兲.
3 T. D. Lee, R. Oehme, and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 106, 340
共1957兲.
4
B. Winstein and L. Wolfenstein, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 1113
共1993兲.
5 H. Feshbach, D. C. Peaslee, and V. F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. 71,
145 共1947兲.
6 H. Feshbach, C. E. Porter, and V. F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. 96,
448 共1954兲.
7 H. Feshbach, Ann. Phys. 共N.Y.兲 5, 357 共1958兲.
8
H. C. Baker, Phys. Rev. A 30, 773 共1984兲.
9 F. H. M. Faisal, Theory of Multiphoton Processes, in Physics of
Atoms and Molecules 共Plenum, New York, 1987兲.
10
A. E. Siegman, Opt. Commun. 31, 369 共1979兲.
11 G. Dattoli, T. Hermsen, A. Renieri, A. Torre, and J. C. Gallardo,
Phys. Rev. A 37, 4326 共1988兲.
12
L.-H. Gwa and H. Spohn, Phys. Rev. A 46, 844 共1992兲.
13
N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 570 共1996兲;
Phys. Rev. B 56, 8651 共1997兲.
14 I. Affleck, W. Hofstetter, D. R. Nelson, and U. Schollwöck, J.
Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2004, P10003.
15
E. Carlon, M. Henkel, and U. Schollwöck, Eur. Phys. J. B 12, 99
共1999兲.
16
M. Kaulke and I. Peschel, Eur. Phys. J. B 5, 727 共1998兲.
17 T. Fukui and N. Kawakami, Phys. Rev. B 58, 16051 共1998兲.
18 P. D. Drummond and J. F. Corney, Phys. Rev. A 60, R2661
共1999兲.
19 J. Schwinger, J. Math. Phys. 2, 407 共1961兲.
20 L. V. Keldysh, Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 1018 共1965兲.
21 S. Datta, in Nanoscale Phenomena: Basic Science to Device Ap-
033103-4
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 78, 033103 共2008兲
observables goes along with our physical expectations for
the model. The approach is not limited to systems with
steady states and can be used to address general nonequilib-
rium situations. We intend to apply it, for instance, to study
the formation and evaporation dynamics of interacting
BECs, where a steady state is not achieved, and explore re-
gimes 共e.g., the unitary limit兲 that are not accessible with
present methods.
We would like to acknowledge discussions with J. Kono
and A. Srivastava, which inspired this work. This work was
partly supported by the W. M. Keck Foundation, Welch
Foundation and DARPA/ARO 共Grant No. W911NF-07-1-
0464兲.
plications, Lecture Notes in Nanoscale Science and Technology
Vol. 2, edited by Z. K. Tang and P. Sheng 共Springer, New York,
2008兲; Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 013115 共2005兲
22 A. O. Gogolin, A. A. Nersesyan, and A. M. Tsvelik, Bosoniza-
tion and Strongly Correlated Electrons 共Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2004兲.
23 C. J. Bolech and T. Giamarchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 127001
共2004兲; Phys. Rev. B 71, 024517 共2005兲.
24
A.-P. Jauho, N. S. Wingreen, and Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. B 50, 5528
共1994兲.
25
Y. M. Blanter and M. Buttiker, Phys. Rep. 336, 1 共2000兲.
26 C. J. Bolech and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 237002 共2007兲.
27
G. C. Wick, Phys. Rev. 80, 268 共1950兲.
28 U. Sivan and Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. B 33, 551 共1986兲.
29
T. Enss and U. Schollwöck, J. Phys. A 34, 7769 共2001兲.
30
A. Bohm, Phys. Rev. A 51, 1758 共1995兲.
31 E. Wigner, in Group Theoretical Concepts and Methods in El-
ementary Particle Physics, edited by F. Gürsey 共Gordon and
Breach, New York, 1964兲.
32
The described ambiguity in the definition of the evolution opera-
tor stems form the convention arbitrariness of the time-
independent density matrix for non-Hermitian problems 共Refs.
14 and 29兲. Our identification singles out a particular choice,
which describes the correct time evolution within the SK for-
malism.
33
We would like to point out another formalism with a doubled
time basis that has been applied to transients in irreversible
quantum dynamics 共Ref. 30兲, in which the doubling of the states
is related to the time-reversal invariance properties and the state-
space doubling described by Wigner 共Ref. 31兲.
34 The asymmetry described here refers to the non-Hermitian dy-
namics of the junction.