Goal:  the goal of this set of problems is to derive a criterion for localization on a peculiar lattice, the Bethe lattice. 
Techniques:   green functions, recursion relations, cavity method.
A criterion for localization
-   Green functions and self-energies.  Given a lattice with  sites sites , we call , we call the wave function completely localised in site the wave function completely localised in site . The Anderson model has Hamiltonian . The Anderson model has Hamiltonian  
 where the local fields  are random variables, independent and distributed according to some distribution are random variables, independent and distributed according to some distribution .
We introduce the Green functions .
We introduce the Green functions and the local self-energies and the local self-energies these are functions of a complex variable belonging to the upper half of the complex plane, these are functions of a complex variable belonging to the upper half of the complex plane,
   
 and are defined by 
   
 It is clear that when the kinetic term  in the Hamiltonian vanishes, the local self-energies vanish: they encode how much the energy levels in the Hamiltonian vanishes, the local self-energies vanish: they encode how much the energy levels (that are the eigenvalues when (that are the eigenvalues when ) are shifted by the presence of the kinetic term ) are shifted by the presence of the kinetic term . They are random functions, because the Hamiltonian contains randomness. The Green functions and the self-energies encode properties on the spectrum of the Hamiltonian; the  local density of eigenvalues . They are random functions, because the Hamiltonian contains randomness. The Green functions and the self-energies encode properties on the spectrum of the Hamiltonian; the  local density of eigenvalues for an Hamiltonian on a lattice of size for an Hamiltonian on a lattice of size is indeed given by is indeed given by
   where  are the eigenvalues of the full Hamiltonian are the eigenvalues of the full Hamiltonian and and the corresponding eigenstates. the corresponding eigenstates.
 
-   Self-energies and return probabilities.  The local self-energies encode some information on the system’s dynamics, and thus on whether localization occurs. Consider a quantum particle initialised on the site  at at . The return probability amplitude , i.e. the probability amplitude to find the particle on the same site at later time, is . The return probability amplitude , i.e. the probability amplitude to find the particle on the same site at later time, is  
 If the self-energy has a non-zero imaginary part:
   
 then one can easily show (Residue theorem) that the return probability amplitude  decays exponentially decays exponentially
   
 Therefore, the system is not localized, since the probability to find it, at  , in the same configuration where it was at , in the same configuration where it was at decays very fast. decays very fast.
 
 
 
-   A criterion for localization.  Motivated by the reasoning above, one can claim that localization occurs whenever the imaginary part of  goes to zero when goes to zero when . Given the randomness, this criterion should however be formulated probabilistically, as . Given the randomness, this criterion should however be formulated probabilistically, as  
 
Showing that at strong enough disorder this condition is satisfied is the core of Anderson’s 1958 work [1]. Notice that in this criterion, the probability plays the role of an order parameter (like the magnetization in ferromagnets, or the overlap in spin glasses), and the  imaginary part plays the role of a symmetry breaking field (like the magnetic field in the ferromagnet, or the coupling between replicas in spin glasses). However, the localization transition has nothing to do with equilibrium, i.e., it is not related to a change of structure of the Gibbs Boltzmann measure; rather, it is a dynamical transition (like depinning!). Pushing the analogy with equilibrium phase transitions, one can say that the localised phase corresponds to the disordered phase (the one in which symmetry is not broken, like the paramagnetic phase).
 plays the role of a symmetry breaking field (like the magnetic field in the ferromagnet, or the coupling between replicas in spin glasses). However, the localization transition has nothing to do with equilibrium, i.e., it is not related to a change of structure of the Gibbs Boltzmann measure; rather, it is a dynamical transition (like depinning!). Pushing the analogy with equilibrium phase transitions, one can say that the localised phase corresponds to the disordered phase (the one in which symmetry is not broken, like the paramagnetic phase). 
Problems
Problem 8: the Bethe lattice, recursion relations and cavity
 
  A Bethe lattice with 

.
The Bethe lattice is a lattice with a regular tree structure: each node has a fixed number of neighbours  , where
, where  is the branching number, and there are no loops (see sketch). In these problems we consider the Anderson model on such lattice.
 is the branching number, and there are no loops (see sketch). In these problems we consider the Anderson model on such lattice. 
-  Green functions identities.  Consider an Hamiltonian split into two parts,  . Show that the following general relation for the Green functions holds (Hint: perturbation theory!) . Show that the following general relation for the Green functions holds (Hint: perturbation theory!)  
 
-  Cavity equations. We now apply this to a specific example: we consider a Bethe lattice, and choose one site 0 as the root. We then choose  to be the kinetic terms connecting the root to its to be the kinetic terms connecting the root to its neighbours neighbours , ,  
 For all the  with with we introduce the notation we introduce the notation
   
 where  is the self energy associated to is the self energy associated to . Show that, due to the geometry of the lattice, with this choice of . Show that, due to the geometry of the lattice, with this choice of the Hamiltonian the Hamiltonian is decoupled and is decoupled and is the local Green function that one would have obtained removing the root 0 from the lattice, i.e., creating a “cavity” (hence the suffix). Moreover, using the relation above show that is the local Green function that one would have obtained removing the root 0 from the lattice, i.e., creating a “cavity” (hence the suffix). Moreover, using the relation above show that
   
 Iterating this argument, show that if  denotes the collection of “descendants" of denotes the collection of “descendants" of , i.e. sites that are nearest neighbours of , i.e. sites that are nearest neighbours of except the root, then except the root, then
   
 
-  Equations for the distribution.   Justify why the cavity functions appearing in the denominators in the last equations above are independent and identically distributed random variables, and therefore the cavity equations can be interpreted as self-consistent equations for the distribution of the cavity functions.
Check out: key concepts of this TD
Green functions, self-energies, return probability amplitude, decay rates, trees and cavity method, the criterion for localization.
References
- The Anderson model was formulated by P. W. Anderson in 1958, in the paper  Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices , Phys. Rev. 109, 1492.