ARTICLE IN PRESS

Physica E 27 (2005) 262–269

www.elsevier.com/locate/physe

Scattering by one-dimensional smooth potentials: between

WKB and Born approximation
K.Yu. Bliokha,b,, V.D. Freilikherb, N.M. Makarovc
a
Department of Space Radiophysics, Institute of Radio Astronomy, 4 Krasnoznamyonnaya st., Kharkov 61002, Ukraine
b
Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel
c
Instituto de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma dePuebla, Puebla, Pue. 72050, México
Received 6 October 2004; received in revised form 14 November 2004; accepted 26 November 2004
Available online 25 January 2005

Abstract

The paper discusses the applicability of WKB and Born (small perturbations) approximations in the problem of the
backscattering of quantum particles and classical waves by one-dimensional smooth potentials with small amplitudes
compared to the energy of the incident particle (above-barrier scattering). Both deterministic and random potentials are
considered. The dependence of the reflection coefficient and localization length on the amplitude and the longitudinal
scale of the scattering potential is investigated. It is shown that perturbation and WKB theories are inconsistent in the
above-barrier backscattering problem. Not only the solutions but the regions of validity of both methods as well depend
strongly on the details of the potential profile, and are individual for each potential. For deterministic potentials, a
simple criterion that allows determining the boundary between the applicability domains of WKB and Born
approximations is found.
r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PACS: 03.65.Nk; 03.65.Sq; 42.25.Fx; 72.15.Rn

Keywords: Above-barrier back scattering; WKB approximation; Born approximation

1. Introduction dynamical scattering problems. First one, the

perturbation theory [1], is valid when the ampli-
Two approximate methods are most often tude, V0, of the scattering potential is small as
used in solving quantum mechanical and electro- compared to the energy, E, of the particle, so that
a solution is sought as a series in powers of the
Corresponding author. Department of Space Radiophysics,
small parameter
Institute of Radio Astronomy, 4 Krasnoznamyonnaya st.,
Kharkov 61002, Ukraine. Tel.: +38 057 2321630; fax: V0
+38 057 7061415. d¼ 51: (1)
E-mail address: k_bliokh@mail.ru (K.Yu. Bliokh). E

1386-9477/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.physe.2004.11.008
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

K.Yu. Bliokh et al. / Physica E 27 (2005) 262–269 263

The first term of this series is known as Born case of tunnelling ðd41Þ; when WKB approxima-
approximation. tion is robust in the sense that the transmission
The second method is WKB (quasiclassical) and reflection coefficients are determined by the
approximation [1–4], which is applied when the characteristic height and width of the barrier and
potential is a smooth function of coordinates, i.e. practically independent of the details of its shape.
when the characteristic longitudinal scale of its The surprising thing is that in the case of the
variation, L, is large as compared to the char- above-barrier scattering even the regions of
acteristic wavelength 2pk1
0 ¼ 2pE
1=2
; and the validity of WKB theory and Born approximation
solution can be presented as an asymptotic are essentially different for different potentials, so
expansion in powers of the small parameter that universal inequalities restricting the applic-
ability of the methods do not exist.
1
¼ 51: (2)
k0 L
It may appear from Eqs. (1) and (2) that the
2. Basic equations
perturbation theory does not impose any restric-
tions on the dimensionless inverse scale ; while
We consider the stationary one-dimensional
WKB method is applicable for any small values of
Schrödinger equation:
the dimensionless amplitude d and, therefore,
when simultaneously d51 and 51; both approx- d2 c
imations should be valid and give the same result. þ ½E  V ðxÞc ¼ 0; (3)
dx2
It is known, however [1,5–7], that if the long-
itudinal scale of the potential variations increases where E40 is the energy (units _ ¼ 2m ¼ 1 are
ð ! 0Þ the convergence condition of the pertur- used), potential V ðxÞ is an analytical bounded
bation theory series is violated, no matter how function with a characteristic amplitude V 0 ¼
small the fixed amplitude d is. On the other hand, jV ðxÞjmax and a single characteristic longitudinal
if parameter  is fixed ð51Þ and the amplitude scale L ðL1
jV 0 j=V 0 Þ: By introducing variable
tends to zero ðd ! 0Þ; the WKB approximation z ¼ k0 x and function Uðx=LÞ ¼ UðzÞ  V ðxÞ=V 0 ;
breaks down [1,5–7]. (Note that in papers [8–11] we reduce Eq. (3) to the dimensionless form
attempts have been made to construct the approx- c00 þ ½1  dUðzÞc ¼ 0; (4)
imate theory including both Born and WKB
theories. As shown in Refs. [5–7] they are actually where primes stand for derivatives with respect to
incorrect in the WKB region.) This brings up the z: Clearly, UðzÞ is of the order of unity, while its
question: What are the regions of validity of WKB derivative with respect to z is of the order of : In
and small perturbation approximations when the what follows we consider the above-barrier scat-
scattering on a smooth ð51Þ potential with small tering in the sense that do1 (more precisely, the
amplitude ðd51Þ is concerned? inequality d=ð1  dÞ51 is necessary for WKB
In the present paper we discuss the applicability approximation to be valid for all real z [5]).
of WKB and Born approximations for one- In the Born approximation, the reflection
dimensional above-barrier scattering problems coefficient for a quantum particle (or classical
with different types of potentials, both determi- wave) is given by [1]
nistic and random, in the ballistic and localized  1 2
2  Z 

regimes. It is shown that in the quasiclassical d
RBorn ¼  UðzÞe2iz dz : (5)
region, Eq. (2), the reflection coefficient, R, is 4 
1
extremely sensitive to the exact shape of the
potential profile. When simultaneously 51 and Eq. (5) represents the first term of the perturbation
d51 there is no universal characteristic depen- series. When the amplitude of 2k0 -harmonic
dence Rðd; Þ; and this function is quite individual (corresponding to the first resonant Bragg back-
for each given potential. This is in contrast to the scattering) in the power spectrum of the potential
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

264 K.Yu. Bliokh et al. / Physica E 27 (2005) 262–269

is zero, higher terms of the perturbation expansion with simple examples of the analytical potential
should be calculated. UðzÞ:
In the quasiclassical limit, Eq. (2), the reflection
Example I. (Fig. 1a):
coefficient can be calculated by means of the
standard WKB procedure. Taking into account 1
UðzÞ ¼ : (8)
that in the case under consideration ðdo1Þ all 1 þ ez
turning points, i.e. the solutions of the equation
1  dUðzÞ ¼ 0; are located in the complex z-plane, When the energy of the particle is larger than the
and main contribution to the reflection coefficient maximum height of the potential (do1; above-
is given by the closest to the real axis complex barrier scattering) the exact solution for the
turning point z0 in the upper half-plane, one reflection coefficient is given by [1]
obtains [1–4] " pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
#2
1
shp 1  1d
0 1 RðIÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
: (9)
Zz0 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1
shp 1 þ 1  d
RWKB ¼ exp@4 Im 1  dUðzÞ dzA; (6)
zr If condition (1) holds, the Taylor expansion of
Eq. (9) in powers of d51 gives
where zr is an arbitrary point on the real z-axis. 2
Regions of applicability of Eqs. (5) and (6) are ðIÞ pd d
R  e4p= at 51; (10a)
well established when only one of the parameters,  
 or d; is small, and can be written, respectively,
[1] as that exactly corresponds to the Born approxima-
tion Eq. (5). In the limit Eq. (2) the expansion of
d Eq. (9) yields
51; ðX1Þ; (7a)

d
RðIÞ  e4p= at b1; (10b)
51; ðd
1Þ: (7b) 

When d51 and 51 simultaneously the situation is that coincides precisely with the WKB asymptotic
much more complicated, Eqs. (7) are irrelevant, given by Eq. (6) after the integral there is
and, moreover, universal conditions for the applic- calculated.
ability of both perturbation theory and WKB Thus, for the given potential, Eq. (8), the
approximation do not exist. Below this problem is boundary between the domains of applicability
investigated for the deterministic (Section 3) and of WKB and Born approximations lies at d=
1;
random scattering potentials (Section 4). where both results have the same order of
Note that smallness of the amplitude d gives rise magnitude.
to violation of the WKB approximation Eq. (6), Since Eq. (6) takes into account only the
since in this case the turning point z0 is located far contribution of the simple complex turning point
from the real axis and, as can be seen, it nears the z0 ¼ ip þ lnð1  dÞ1 and neglects the effect of the
singular point z1 of the potential: Uðz1 Þ ¼ 1: first-order pole z1 ¼ ip; the region of validity of
Indeed, dUðz0 Þ ¼ 1; and Uðz0 Þ ! 1 at d ! 0: the WKB approximation is restricted by the
Therefore, the singularity can make a comparable condition that these points should not be too
contribution to the backscattering [1,5–7]. close to each other
jz0  z1 jb1: (11)
Easy to show, Eq. (11) coincides with the
3. Backscattering by deterministic barriers estimation in Eq. (10b). The transition between
WKB and Born asymptotics for the case of simple
We consider the applicability domains of WKB turning point and the first-order pole was dis-
and Born approximations, and dependences Rðd; Þ cussed in Refs. [5–7].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

K.Yu. Bliokh et al. / Physica E 27 (2005) 262–269 265

1 For this potential the exact expression for the

above-barrier reflection coefficient can also be
obtained analytically [1]
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ch2 p=2 ð8d=2 Þ  1
U (
z)

RðIIÞ ¼  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : (13)

sh2 p= þ ch2 p=2 ð8d=2 Þ  1

The expansion of this expression in powers of d51

yields
4p2 d2 2p= d
0 RðIIÞ  e at 2 51; (14a)
-4 -2 0 2 4 4 
(a) εz that coincides with the Born approximation given
1 by the general Eq. (5). The expansion of Eq. (13)
with 51 gives
d
RðIIÞ  e2p= at b1: (14b)
2
U (
z)

The identical formula is given by the WKB

expression Eq. (6).
In distinction to Example I, the dividing line
between the applicability domains of Born and
WKB approximations, on which two asymptotics
(14) are of the same order of magnitude, lies at
0
-4 -2 0 2 4
d=2
1:
(b) εz Eq. (4) with the potentialpEq. ffiffiffi (12) has two
turning points, z0 ¼ iðp=2  dÞ; and the closest
1
to them second-order pole z1 ¼ ip=2: The con-
tribution of the singularity is negligible, i.e. Eq. (6)
is valid, if jz0  z1 jb1; which gives the condition
of Eq. (14b).
U (
z)

Example III. (Fig. 1c):

2
UðzÞ ¼ eðzÞ : (15)
In this case explicit analytical formula for the
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 reflection coefficient is unknown, and the asymp-
(c) εz totics for d51; 51 and the corresponding
correction terms cannot be obtained as limiting
Fig. 1. Potentials UðzÞ: Figs. (a)–(c) depict the potentials of
cases of an exact analytical result, as it was done in
the examples I–III, Section 3, respectively.
previous examples. However, general formulas for
Born (Eq. (5)) and WKB (Eq. (6)) approximations
are valid, and upon substitution Eq. (15) yields,
Example II. (Fig. 1b): respectively,
1 pd2 2=2
UðzÞ ¼ : (12) RIII
Born ¼ e ; (16a)
ch2 z 2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

266 K.Yu. Bliokh et al. / Physica E 27 (2005) 262–269

2 3
Zz0 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi examples (and in Refs. [5–7]) follows from Eq. (17)
¼ exp44 1  deðzÞ dz5
2
RIII
WKB as a particular case. Actually, this condition can be
0
regarded as a simple criterion that allows deter-
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi mining the boundary between the applicability
1

e1= ln d ; ð16bÞ domains of WKB and Born approximations.
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
where z0 ¼ i ln d is a simple turning point. The foregoing examples clearly demonstrate
Let us find the applicability conditions for Eqs. that when the scattering potential is weak and
(16a) and (16b). Straightforward evaluation of the smooth ðd51 and 51Þ; regions of applicability of
region of applicability of Eq. (16a) by calculating WKB and Born approximations do not overlap
the second-order term in the Born series is a rather and are separated by a certain line aðd; Þ ¼ 1 in
stubborn and cumbersome procedure. The condi- ðd; Þ plane. At this line both approximations result
tion (11) used in Examples I and II is not in the reflection coefficient of the same order. A
applicable now, since the singularity of the universal function aðd; Þ does not exist and the
potential Eq. (15) lies at infinity: z1 ¼ i1: But explicit form of aðd; Þ (as well as of the depen-
one can find the limits of validity of WKB result dences Rðd; Þ) is crucially determined by the
Eq. (16b) in a relatively simple way. Indeed, WKB explicit form of the potential.
method is based on the assumption that the
characteristic scale of the spatial variations of the
solution for Eq. (4) (i.e. the wavelength that is of 4. Localization in smooth random potentials
the order of one in our dimensionless units) is
much smaller than that of the scattering potential. It is known (see, for example, Ref. [12]) that
As complex variable z approaches a singularity of weak (above-barrier) scattering by a one-dimen-
the potential, the scale of potential variation sional random potential of a length L0 (as
decreases. In the contour of integration in Eq. previously, all lengths are dimensionless and
(6) the turning point z0 is the closest to the measured in the units of the wavelength k1 0 ) leads
singularity z1 : Then the condition of WKB to localization effects if L0 is sufficiently large.
approximation applicability can be formulated as It means that the transmission coefficient at
a requirement of smoothness of the potential at the typical (most probable) realizations is exponen-
turning point tially small: T typ
e2L0 =l loc ; ðL0 bl loc Þ: Here l loc is
  the so-called localization length defined as l 1 loc ¼
UðzÞ  1 ð2L0 Þ1 hln Ti (/?S means averaging over the
 0  ¼  0 
U ðzÞ d U ðzÞz¼z
b1: (17)
ensemble of random realizations of the potential
z¼z0 0
UðzÞ). In the weak scattering limit it can be
For the potential Eq. (15), this condition takes the calculated in the small perturbation approxima-
form tion and has the form [12]
2
de b1: (18) d2 wð2Þ
l 1
loc ¼ ; (19)
One can see that both results, Eqs. (16), are 4
R 2iz
of the same order (with accuracy of estimate where wð2Þ ¼ wðzÞe ~ ~
dz; and wðzÞ is the binary
2
(16b)) when de
1: This fact, together with correlation function of the potential UðzÞ: From
Eq. (18), leads to conclude that the validity of Eq. (19) it follows that in the weak scattering
2
small perturbation approximation, Eq. (16a), is approximation l 1 loc is always proportional to d
restricted by the inverse to Eq. (18) inequality (compare with Eq. (5)), whereas its dependence on
2
de 51: parameter  essentially determined by the form of
The inequality Eq. (17) is a rather general binary correlation function wðzÞ ~ can be different
condition of the applicability of WKB approxima- for different potentials UðzÞ:
tion in above-barrier scattering problems. It is easy As it was shown above, at  ! 0 (and fixed
to show that Eq. (11) derived in two previous d51) the perturbation theory ceases to be true,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

K.Yu. Bliokh et al. / Physica E 27 (2005) 262–269 267

and the problem can be solved in WKB approx- shapes (like those considered in Section 3). Each
imation. Backscattering on smooth random poten- elementary reflection coefficient should be calcu-
tials in WKB limit was examined in Refs. [4,13,14]. lated with Eq. (5) or Eq. (6), depending on which
It was shown that the above-barrier scattering side of the dividing line, ai ðd; Þ ¼ 1; parameters d
effectively occurs in the vicinity of the complex and  are located. Obviously, all these lines will fill
turning points, which in the case of random out a certain area in ðd; Þ plane (see Fig. 2) where
potential is randomly distributed in complex z- both approximations are inapplicable, and there-
plane. Typical distance (along Re z-axis) between fore Eqs. (20), (21) are invalid.
turning points is of the order of 1 b1; and As an example of unjustified use of WKB
therefore single scattering acts at different turning approximation that may produce a questionable
points can be considered as statistically indepen- result, we cite the formula for the inverse localiza-
dent. Thus, the problem reduces to the statistical tion length obtained in Ref. [14] for the potential
averaging of the reflection coefficient of a single UðzÞ ¼ m2 ðzÞ and small amplitude d; where mðzÞ
turning point, Eq. (6), over the distribution of all is the Gaussian process with zero average:
(random) turning points, which yields [14]
Z1 l 1
loc

1=3 1=6
d expð2=3 d1=3 Þ: (22)
l 1
loc
MðxÞe4x dx: (20) Note that the fractional dependence on the inverse
0 scale  in Eq. (22) is rather unusual for the WKB
Here, MðgÞ is the distribution function of the theory. It may be connected with following
R z pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
random exponent g ¼ Im zr0 1  dUðzÞ dz in circumstances. First, only the contribution of the
Eq. (6), or in other words, is the average number closest to real axis turning points with maximum
of turning points in the range ðg; g þ dgÞ and in the derivates m0 (minimal g) was taken into account
unit interval Re z. in Eq. (20). However, maximum values of the
If the distribution function MðgÞ has a suffi-
ciently sharp maximum at certain g ¼ gmax ; the
integral Eq. (20) can be roughly estimated as
4
l 1 1 gmax
loc
l e ; (21a)
where l is an average distance along axis Re z
ln -1

between turning points with g

gmax : A similar
a
formula was derived in Refs. [4,13]. Since we 2 b
consider potentials with a single longitudinal c
characteristic scale, it is natural to assume that l

1 : Besides, if d
1; then gmax
1 ; and Eq.
(21a) leads to 0
1 0 2 4
l 1
loc
e : (21b)
ln
-1
Eqs. (20), (21) can, in principle, be used to
Fig. 2. Dividing lines separating the domains of applicability of
calculate (or at least to estimate) the localization WKB and perturbation theories, for different deterministic
length, provided the parameters of the system potentials on ðln 1 ; ln d1 Þ plane. Curves (a)–(c) correspond
under consideration are in the range of validity of to the potentials of examples I–III, Section 3. They are
WKB approximation. However, as it follows from determined by the conditions from Eqs. (10), (14) and (18),
the results of Section 3, finding of this range when and satisfy the equations ln d1 ¼ ln 1 ; ln d1 ¼ 2 ln 1 and
1
ln d1 ¼ e2 ln  ; respectively. The domains of applicability of
d51 and 51 presents substantial difficulties. Born approximation lie on the left from the corresponding
Indeed, propagation over any random realiza- curves, while that of WKB approximation lie on the right. For
tion of potential may be conceived as successive random potentials in the area between the lines neither
scatterings on elementary barriers of different perturbation nor WKB theory is applicable.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

268 K.Yu. Bliokh et al. / Physica E 27 (2005) 262–269

Gaussian random quantity m0 can be (with finite reflection as a series of multiple resonant Bragg
probability) large and violate the condition of scatterings by different Fourier harmonics of the
applicability of WKB approximation Eq. (17) at potential. This series converges, and Born approx-
any finite : Second, main contribution to the imation gives a correct result when the reflection is
integral Eq. (20) can be made not by the turning determined by single resonant backscattering (first
points with minimal g: Indeed, if there exists a Bragg resonance) from the 2k0 spectral Fourier
sharp enough maximum MðgÞ; the integral Eq. component of the potential (see Eq. (5)). In this
(20) gives the estimates of Eqs. (21). And finally, it case contributions of multiple scatterings by
can be said with confidence that Eq. (22) is harmonics with larger periods (higher resonances)
incorrect at sufficiently small d; where the pertur- are not essential. However, if the potential is
2
bation theory is applicable and l 1
loc / d : smooth ( ! 0) so that WKB theory applies,
large-scale harmonics corresponding to the high-
er-order resonances are predominant in the
5. Discussion spectrum of the potential, and determine the
scattering pattern.
Comparison analysis of WKB and perturbation Thus, small perturbation and quasiclassical
methods carried out in Section 3 has demonstrated methods are related to two limiting cases when
that, as applied to the calculation of the reflection the reflection coefficient is determined by the first
coefficient for weak (d51) and smooth (51) and high-order Bragg resonances, respectively,
potential barriers, the regions of validity of these and therefore have different (non-overlapping)
approximations do not overlap. In ðd; Þ plane they regions of applicability. In examples of regular
are separated by a line, aðd; Þ ¼ 1; on which both deterministic potentials considered in Section 3
approximations match, i.e. give the same order of these regions match at a dividing line in ðd; Þ
magnitude of the reflection coefficient. The explicit plane. If a random potential is concerned, the line
shape and location of this dividing line, as well as turns into an area in ðd; Þ domain where neither of
the explicit form of the function Rðd; Þ; depends two approximations is valid. But even within the
drastically on the shape of the scattering potential range of applicability of WKB approach, practical
(Fig. 2). Recall that when only one of parameters d utilization of the seemingly simple formula Eq.
or  is small the conditions of applicability are (20) is rather problematic because it contains the
insensitive to the details of the potential: if X1 distribution function of the turning points, MðgÞ;
perturbation theory is valid for d=51; in the case which is usually unknown. Moreover, it is unclear
d
1 WKB approximation applies when 51: whether an unambiguous correspondence between
From the mathematical point of view, WKB statistics of the potential and that of its turning
and perturbation approximations do not overlap points exists in principle. In any case, the statistics
when d51 and 51 since the first one describes of turning points of the random potential (and
the asymptotic behavior of the reflection coeffi- therefore the localization length in the quasiclassi-
cient at  ! 0; while the second one presents the cal regime) is substantially determined by all
series of Taylor type. Indeed, the perturbation higher moments, unlike the Born approximation
series has a finite convergence radius d0 40: This for which the knowledge of the binary correlation
radius is a function of the inverse scale  : d0 ¼ function is sufficient.
d0 ðÞ; and d0 ðÞ ! 0 at  ! 0 (see Eqs. (7a), (10a), Demonstrated above the high sensitivity of the
(14a), (18)). Since at  ! 0 the convergence radius quasiclassical reflection coefficient to the details of
of the perturbation series vanishes, WKB theory the scattering potential is not of theoretical interest
for above-barrier backscattering is never consis- only. It must be taken into account in processing
tent with Born approximation. of scattering data, if one wants to compare them
To get a physical insight into the incompatibility with the corresponding theoretical results. In real
of two methods, let us recall that the small experiments, the shape of the scattering potential
perturbation theory describes the above-barrier (which is an input in the WKB calculations) is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

K.Yu. Bliokh et al. / Physica E 27 (2005) 262–269 269

known, at best, in a set of discrete points, but most the size of this region in (d; ) plane depends on the
commonly only the characteristic scales, d and  statistics of the potential.
are available. While it is sufficient to estimate the
tunnelling transmission coefficient (if d41), when
the above-barrier reflection is concerned, a small
difference in the shape of the fitting function can Acknowledgment
lead to a dramatic difference in the predicted value
of R. A vivid example is furnished by Fig. 2. The work was partially supported by INTAS
Profiles Fig. 1b and c are practically undistinguish- (Grant 03-55-1921) and by Ukranian President
able; nonetheless, the corresponding reflection Grant for Young Scientists GP/F8/51.
coefficients have little in common.
To conclude, a general criterion of the applic-
ability of WKB approximation (Eq. (17)) has been References
formulated. Applicability of perturbation and WKB
approximations to calculations of the reflection [1] L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshiz, Course of Theoretical Physics,
vol. 3; Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory,
coefficient from deterministic and random potential Fizmatgiz, Moscow, 1963, Pergamon, New York, 1977.
profiles has been studied. When only the dimension- [2] J. Heading, An Introduction to Phase-integral Methods,
less amplitude of the potential is small (d51; 41), Methuen, London, 1962.
perturbation theory is valid, and the reflection [3] M.V. Berry, K.E. Mount, Rep. Prog. Phys. 35 (1972) 315.
coefficient (in the ballistic regime) and the inverse [4] G.M. Zaslavskiy, V.P. Meytlis, N.N. Filonenko, Wave
Interaction in Inhomogeneous Media, Nauka, Novosi-
localization length (in the localization regime) are birsk, 1982 (in Russian).
universally proportional to d2 ; while the dependence [5] V.L. Pokrovskii, S.K. Savvinykh, F.R. Ulinich, Zh ETF 34
on inverse scale  is individual for each potential. If (1958) 1272 [Sov. Phys.-JETP 34, 879].
only the inverse scale of the potential is small (51; [6] V.L. Pokrovskii, S.K. Savvinykh, F.R. Ulinich, Zh ETF 34
(1958) 1629 [Sov. Phys.-JETP 34, 1119].
d
1) WKB theory applies predicting universal
[7] V.L. Pokrovskii, I.M. Khalatnikov, Zh ETF 40 (1961)
-dependences RðÞ
e1= and l 1 loc ðÞ
e
1=
: 1713 [Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 1207].
There are no universal dependences of R and lloc [8] I.I. Gol’dman, A.B. Migdal, Zh ETF 28 (1955) 394 [Sov.
upon amplitude d in this case. In the event of the Phys. JETP 1, 304].
above-barrier scattering by smooth potential pro- [9] L.I. Schiff, Phys. Rev. 103 (1956) 443.
files, when d51 and 51 simultaneously, the [10] D.S. Saxon, L.I. Schiff, Nuovo Cim 6 (1957) 614.
[11] R.A. Egorchenkov, Yu.A. Kravtsov, Izv. Vuzov:: Radio-
regions of validity of two theories do not overlap. fizika 43 (2000) 106 [Radiophysics and Quantum Electro-
Not only the explicit form of function Rðd; Þ but nics 43, 95].
also the location and the shape of the line that [12] I.M. Lifshits, S.A. Gredeskul, L.A. Pastur, Introduction to
separates (in (d; ) plane) the applicability domains of the Theory of Disordered Systems, Wiley, New York,
two theories depend drastically on the explicit form 1988;
V.D. Freilikher, S.A. Gredeskul, Prog. Opt. 30 (1992) 137.
of the potential. When it comes to calculating the [13] G.M. Zaslavskiy, Zh. Prikl. Mat. i Teor. Fiz. (6) (1966) 76
localization length, the line turns into a finite area (in Russian).
where both approaches can be invalid. Apparently, [14] U. Frisch, J.-L. Gautero, J. Math. Phys. 25 (1984) 1378.