---
abstract: 'The Hall conductivity and resistivity of strongly localized electrons at low temperatures and at small magnetic fields are obtained. It is found that the results depend on whether the conductivity or the resistivity tensors are averaged to obtain the macroscopic Hall resistivity. In the second case the Hall resistivity always <span>*diverges*</span> exponentially as the temperature tends to zero. But when the Hall resistivity is derived from the averaged conductivity, the resulting temperature dependence is sensitive to the disorder configuration. Then the Hall resistivity may approach a constant value as $T\rightarrow 0$. This is the Hall insulating behavior. It is argued that for strictly dc conditions, the transport quantity that should be averaged is the resistivity.'
address:
- |
    School of Physics and Astronomy, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences\
    Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
- |
    Condensed Matter Department, The Weizmann Institute of Science\
    Rehovot 76100, Israel
author:
- 'O. Entin-Wohlman'
- 'A. G. Aronov@AGA, Y. Levinson, and Y. Imry'
title: 'Hall resistance in the hopping regime, a "Hall Insulator"?'
---

Recently it has been stated @zhang [@viehweger; @imry] that the zero-temperature Hall resistivity $\rho_{xy}(\omega )$ of noninteracting electrons in the insulating regime remains finite as the frequency $\omega\rightarrow 0$. This result was derived from the Kubo formula for the frequency-dependent conductivity. It was found that at zero temperature the disorder-averaged $\sigma_{xy}(\omega )$ of the Anderson insulator vanishes at low frequencies proportionally to $\omega ^{2}$. Since to leading order in $\omega $ the longitudinal conductivity $\sigma_{xx}\sim
i\omega\varepsilon_{0}$, where $\varepsilon_{0}$ is the dielectric constant, this yielded that the Hall resistivity $\rho_{xy}\sim\sigma_{xy}/(\sigma_{xx}^{2}+\sigma_{xy}^{2})$ approaches a constant in the small-frequency, zero-temperature limit.

Obviously one would like to examine the Hall resistance at finite temperatures. Here we address this question for strongly localized electrons. We consider the problem using the Holstein model @holstein for the Hall effect in a system with localized states. The conductivity tensor for a triangle of three sites is obtained first. To get the macroscopic Hall resistivity one may attempt to apply two averaging procedures. We find that the result strongly depends on whether the conductivity tensor is averaged before inverting it or <span>*vice versa*</span>. In the first case a Hall insulator behavior is possible, while in the second the macroscopic Hall resistivity increases with decreasing temperature. The latter is similar to the finding of Friedman and Pollak @friedman. The two behaviors are argued to be related with "ac" and "dc" conditions.

The previous @zhang [@viehweger; @imry] discussions of the zero-temperature Hall resistivity were all based on the ensemble averaged Kubo formula, which yields that ${\bar\sigma}_{xx}={\bar\sigma}_{yy}$ and that ${\bar\sigma}_{xy}$ vanishes proportionally to the magnetic field (the bar above the quantity indicates ensemble averaging). However, before averaging, $\sigma_{xy}$ includes a field-independent term. We show that in the strongly localized regime this term is comparable in magnitude to $\sigma_{xx}$ and $\sigma_{yy}$. This leads to delicate cancellations when the local (unaveraged) conductivity tensor is inverted to obtain the resistivity, and consequently to the very different temperature dependences described above.

It is convenient to investigate the transport properties of electrons in the hopping regime by constructing the rate equations for the electron distributions, utilizing the electronic transition probabilities between localized states. One has $$\frac{dn_{i}}{dt}=\sum_{j}(P_{ji}-P_{ij}),\label{1}$$ in which $n_{i}$ is the electronic population of site $i$ (the term 'site' is used for a localized state) and $P_{ij}$ is the rate of the population decay by phonon-assisted hopping into site $j$. A delicate point is the dependence of the rate on the magnetic field, $H$. As was shown by Holstein @holstein, this is due to interference of the "direct" amplitude to hop from $i$ to $j$, with the indirect amplitude via a third site $\ell$, $i\rightarrow \ell\rightarrow j$. The magnetic field dependence of $P_{ij}$ then necessitates the consideration of at least three sites. To write this rate explicitly, we employ the Holstein model @polaron for the electron-phonon interaction, in which the ion displacements are coupled to the local (site) density of the electrons, and denote by $\epsilon_{i}$ the single-particle energies of the localized states, which are assumed to be randomly distributed, and by $J_{ij}$ the overlap of two wave functions localized at sites $i$ and $j$. The strong localization regime is characterized by @holstein [@ambegaokar] $\mid J_{ij}\mid\ll
\mid\epsilon_{ij}\mid ,\epsilon_{ij}=\epsilon_{i}-\epsilon_{j}$. One finds $$P_{12}=P_{12}^{dir}+P_{12}^{indir}.\label{2}$$ Here $P_{12}^{dir}$ arises from the direct amplitude alone and is independent of the magnetic field, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{12}^{dir}&=&n_{1}(1-n_{2})\mid J_{12}\mid^{2}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\ e^{i\epsilon_{12}t}\ e^{2(g(t)-g(0))},\nonumber\\
g(t)&=&\sum_{q}\frac{\mid v_{q}\mid^{2}}{\omega_{q}^{2}}[(1+N_{q})\
e^{-i\omega_{q}t}+N_{q} \ e^{i\omega_{q}t}],
\label{3}\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_{q}$ is the phonon frequency, $v_{q}$ is the interaction matrix element and $N_{q}=1/(e^{\beta\omega_{q}}-1)$ ($\hbar =1$). $P_{12}^{indir}$ comes from the interference between the direct ($1\rightarrow 2$) and the indirect ($1\rightarrow 3\rightarrow 2$) amplitudes $$\begin{aligned}
&\ &P_{12}^{indir}=n_{1}(1-n_{2})\mid J_{12}J_{23}J_{31}\mid
 2\Im\ e^{i\phi_{132}}\nonumber\\
&\ &\int_{0}^{\infty}dt_{2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
dt_{1}\ e^{g(t_{1})+g(t_{2})+g(t_{1}+t_{2})-3g(0)}\nonumber\\
&\ &\Bigl[(1-n_{3})e^{i\epsilon_{12}t_{1}+i\epsilon_{13}t_{2}}
-n_{3}\ e^{i\epsilon_{12}t_{1}+i\epsilon_{32}t_{2}}\Bigr],\label{4}\end{aligned}$$ and contains the occupation of site $3$, $n_{3}$, and the magnetic phase, $\phi_{132}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{132}&=&\frac{e}{c}\vec{H}\cdot\vec{S},\nonumber\\
\vec{S}&=&(\vec{R}_{1}\times\vec{R}_{3}+\vec{R}_{3}\times
\vec{R}_{2}+\vec{R}_{2}\times\vec{R}_{1})/2.\label{5}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\vec{R}_{i}$ is the radius vector of site $i$ and $\vec{S}$ is the vectorial area of the triangle. The field-dependent part of $P_{12}$ includes a term even in the field (proportional to $\cos\phi_{132}$) and a term odd in it (proportional to $\sin\phi_{132}$). The first gives a correction to the direct rate and will be discarded henceforth. Obviously it is the term odd in the field which is capable of producing the Hall resistance.

We now apply the rate equation (\[1\]) to a group of three sites, $1$, $2$ and $3$, to obtain the current driven by an external ac electric field $\vec{E}$ of small frequency $\omega $. In the presence of an electric field the occupations $n_{i}$ will be modified in a way that can be expressed by changes $\delta\mu_{i}$ in the local chemical potentials @ambegaokar $$n_{i}=n_{i}^{0}-\beta n_{i}^{0}(1-n_{i}^{0})\delta\mu_{i},\label{6}$$ where $n_{i}^{0}$ is the Fermi distribution. Also, the rate $P_{ij}$ which depends on $\epsilon_{i}-\epsilon_{j}$ is changed to depend on $\epsilon_{i}-\epsilon_{j}+e\vec{E}\cdot(\vec{R}_{i}-\vec{R}_{j})$. This way one obtains the response of the system to the local electrochemical potential differences @ambegaokar $$\zeta_{ij}=\frac{\delta\mu_{i}-\delta\mu_{j}}{e}-\vec{E}\cdot\vec{R}_{ij},
\
\vec{R}_{ij}=\vec{R}_{i}-\vec{R}_{j}.\label{7}$$ Explicit calculations of Eqs. (\[3\]) and (\[4\]) yield $$\begin{aligned}
e\frac{dn_{1}}{dt}&=&e(P_{21}-P_{12}+P_{31}-P_{13})\nonumber\\
&=&G_{12}\zeta_{12}+G_{31}\zeta_{13}+\sin\phi\Gamma\zeta_{23},\label{8}\end{aligned}$$ with analogous expressions for the other two sites, where $\phi $ is the magnetic flux enclosed in the triangle. These equations determine the electrochemical potential differences, $\zeta_{ij}$. However, in practice one does not have to solve for the $\zeta_{ij}'s$ since Eq. (\[8\]) gives the current @ambegaokar (see Eq. (\[13\]) below.) In (\[8\]), $G_{ij}$ is the conductance of the bond $ij$, arising from the direct rate, $$\begin{aligned}
&\ &G_{ij}=G_{ji}=\nonumber\\
&\ &e^{2}\beta n_{i}^{0}(1-n_{j}^{0})\mid J_{ij}\mid^{2}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\
e^{i\epsilon_{ij}t}\ e^{2(g(t)-g(0))}.\label{9}\end{aligned}$$ At low temperatures @ambegaokar and for weak electron-phonon coupling, the bond conductance becomes $$G_{ij}=e^{2}\beta\mid J_{ij}\mid^{2}\frac{v^{2}{\cal
N}(\mid\epsilon_{ij}\mid )}{\mid\epsilon_{ij}\mid^{2}}
e^{-\frac{\beta
}{2}(\mid\epsilon_{i}\mid+\mid\epsilon_{j}\mid+\mid\epsilon_{i}-\epsilon_{j}
\mid )},\label{10}$$ where ${\cal N}$ is the phonon density of states. (Energies are measured from the Fermi energy.) The interference process leads to the phase-dependent term, with $$\begin{aligned}
&\ &\Gamma =e^{2}\beta n_{1}^{0}(1-n_{2}^{0})
\mid J_{12}J_{23}J_{31}\mid \nonumber\\
&\ &\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt_{1}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt_{2}\
e^{g(t_{1})+g(t_{2})+g(t_{1}+t_{2})-3g(0)}\nonumber\\
&\ &e^{i\epsilon_{12}t_{1}}\Bigl((1-n_{3}^{0})e^{i
\epsilon_{13}t_{2}}+n_{3}^{0}e^{i\epsilon_{32}t_{2}}\Bigr).\label{11}\end{aligned}$$ Expanding this expression for weak electron-phonon interaction and using (\[10\]) we find that $\Gamma$ can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
&\ &\Gamma =\frac{\mid
J_{12}J_{23}J_{31}\mid}{4e^{2}\beta}\Bigl(\frac{G_{31}G_{12}}{\mid
J_{31}J_{12}\mid^{2}n_{1}^{0}(1-n_{1}^{0})}
\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{G_{12}G_{23}}{\mid J_{12}J_{23}\mid^{2}n_{2}^{0}(1-n_{2}^{0})}+
\frac{G_{23}G_{31}}{\mid
J_{23}J_{31}\mid^{2}n_{3}^{0}(1-n_{3}^{0})}\Bigr).\label{12}\end{aligned}$$ This expresses the fact that the indirect rate involves <span>*two*</span> scattering events by the phonons @holstein [@we]. The temperature dependence of $\Gamma $, at low temperatures, can be obtained from (\[10\]), using $n_{i}^{0}(1-n_{i}^{0})\sim\exp[-\beta\mid\epsilon_{i}\mid]$.

The current density is given by $$\vec{j}=e\sum_{i}\frac{dn_{i}}{dt}\vec{R}_{i}.\label{13}$$ If one now introduces the effective field $\vec{E}_{eff}$ which produces the electrochemical potential, $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{ij}&=&-\vec{E}_{eff}\cdot\vec{R}_{ij}, \nonumber\\
\vec{E}_{eff}&=&\frac{1}{2 S_{z}}
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
[\zeta_{23}\vec{R}_{1}+\zeta_{31}\vec{R}_{2}+\zeta_{12}\vec{R}_{3}]\times\hat{z},
\label{14}\end{aligned}$$ the current density becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{j}&=&\tensor{\sigma}\vec{E}_{eff}\nonumber\\
\tensor{\sigma}&=&\vec{R}_{12}\vec{R}_{12}G_{12}+
\vec{R}_{23}\vec{R}_{23}G_{23}+\vec{R}_{31}\vec{R}_{31}G_{31}\nonumber\\
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
&+&\Gamma\sin\phi(\vec{R}_{23}\vec{R}_{1}+\vec{R}_{31}\vec{R}_{2}+\vec{R}_{12}\vec{R}_{3}).\label{15}\end{aligned}$$ A remarkable observation is that the part of $\vec{j}$ which is proportional to the magnetic field is perpendicular to the effective electric field. In deriving the expression for $\tensor{\sigma}$ it was assumed that the triangle lies in the $x-y$ plane, perpendicular to $\hat{z}$. Note that $\vec{E}_{eff}$, Eq. (\[14\]), is invariant to the choice of the coordinate origin.

The current response to the electrochemical potential difference is our central result. From (\[15\]) one finds for the conductivity tensor $$%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\sigma_{xx}=(R_{12}^{x})^{2}G_{12}+(R_{23}^{x})^{2}G_{23}+(R_{31}^{x})^{2}G_{31},\label{16}$$ ($\sigma_{yy}$ is given upon replacing $R_{ij}^{x}$ by $R_{ij}^{y}$), and $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\stackrel{xy}{yx}}
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
&=&R_{12}^{x}R_{12}^{y}G_{12}+R_{23}^{x}R_{23}^{y}G_{23}+R_{31}^{x}R_{31}^{y}G_{31}\nonumber\\
&\pm & 2 S_{z}\Gamma\sin\phi.\label{17}\end{aligned}$$

It is straightforward to check that these results follow very simply also from the Kubo formulation, with the understanding that it yields the response to the <span>*effective field*</span>, $\vec{E}_{eff}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{ij}(\omega)&=&\frac {ie^2\omega}{ Vol} \sum_{m,n}
\Big[ \frac{<m|x_i|n><n|x_j|m>}{\omega-\epsilon_{nm}+i\eta}\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{<m|x_j|n><n|x_i|m>}{\omega+\epsilon_{nm}+i\eta}
\Big] (f_m-f_n),\label{18}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is a positive infinitesimal, $|m>$ and $|n>$ are eigenstates and $f_n$, $f_m$ their populations. We generalize the derivation of @imry to include electron-phonon coupling and consider the $\omega>0$, $\omega \rightarrow 0$ limit. For example, to get the leading, (1,2)-type terms, in (16) and in the first line of (17), the two relevant states are: $|1>$: electron in site 1 with a phonon bath in equilibrium and $|2,q>$: electron in site 2, with the same minus one phonon in state $q$, where $\omega_q \cong \epsilon_{21}$. Thus, the approximate eigenstates are: $$|m> =|1> + \sum_q \frac{J_{12}\nu_q}{\epsilon_{12}+\omega_q} |2,q> ,\label{19}$$ $$|n> = |2,q> + \frac {J_{21}\nu^*_q}{\epsilon_{21}-\omega_q} |1>,
\label{20}$$ where $\nu_q = v_q \sqrt{N_q}/\omega_q$, and $$<n|x|m> \cong \frac{J_{12}|\nu_q|^2R^x_{12}}{\omega}.\label{21}$$ Using Eq. (\[18\]), this produces the first term in (\[16\]): $$\begin{aligned}
&\ &\frac{1}{Vol}(R^x_{12})^2 e^2\beta J^2_{12}\sum_q
\frac{|v_q|^2}{\omega_q^2}
N_{q}\pi\delta(\omega-\epsilon_{21}-\omega_q) =\nonumber \\
&\pi &\beta e^2 J^2_{12}(R^x_{12})^2
\frac{|v_q|^2}{\omega_q^2}N_{q}{\cal
N}(\epsilon_{21})\mid_{\omega_{q}=\epsilon_{21}}.\label{22}\end{aligned}$$ Using the expression similar to (\[20\]) for the matrix elements of $y$, yields the first term in (\[17\]). The (2,3) and (1,3) terms in Eqs. (\[16\]) and (\[17\]) are similarly obtained. To get the $\Gamma$ term in (\[17\]), one has to mix in Eq. (\[19\]) also the state $|3,q,q'>$ (i.e. $|3>$ minus the phonons $q$ and $q')$ in two ways:

\(a) A straightforward correction $\sum_{q'}
[J_{13}\nu_q\nu_{q'}/(\epsilon_{13}+\omega_{q}+\omega_{q'})]|3,q,q'>$, which is first order in $J$ but second order in the electron-phonon interaction. It will be dominated by the "resonant" contribution ($q'$ such that $\omega_q+\omega_{q'} =
\epsilon_{31}$) and by the nonresonant contribution given by $q' = q"$ such that $\omega_{q"} = \epsilon_{32}$.

\(b) The Holstein contribution,the mixing of $\mid 2,q>$ via the intermediate state $\mid 3,q,q'>:$ $\sum_{q'}[J_{13}J_{32}\nu_{q}\mid \nu_{q'}\mid^{2}/
(\epsilon_{13}+\omega_{q}+\omega_{q'})(\epsilon_{12}+\omega_{q})]\mid 2,q>.$ Here, as found by Holstein, the resonant contribution with $\epsilon_{31} =
\omega_{q}+\omega_{q'}$ will yield the needed phase to have a term odd in the magnetic field (the $\Gamma$ term) in (\[17\]). Putting all the above together we find within the required accuracy $$\begin{aligned}
\langle n|x|m\rangle &\cong &
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\frac{J_{12}\nu_{q}}{\omega}R^{x}_{12}-2i\pi\delta(\epsilon_{31}-\omega_{q}-\omega_{q'})\nonumber\\
&\ &J_{13}J_{32}\nu_{q}\mid\nu_{q'}\mid^{2}
\Big[R^{x}_{3}-\frac{R^{x}_{1}+R^{x}_{2}}{2}\Big].\label{23}\end{aligned}$$ Using this in Eq. (\[18\]) produces the additional $\Gamma$ term in Eq. (\[17\]).

The result of the above calculations is the conductivity tensor $\tensor{\sigma}$ of a single triangle. We would like to have macroscopic quantities like the Hall resistivity $\rho_{xy}$. For that purpose one might average $\tensor{\sigma}$ over the orientations and sizes of the triangles and also over the on-site energies. <span>*A priori*</span> two averaging procedures exist. One can average $\tensor{\sigma}$, resulting in $\bar \sigma$, and then calculate $\rho_{xy} \equiv (\bar \sigma^{-1})_{xy}.$ One can also average the resistivity tensor of a triangle $\tensor{\sigma}^{-1}$ resulting in $\overline {\sigma^{-1}}$ and then calculate $\rho_{xy} \equiv ( \overline {\sigma^{-1}})_{xy}$. As we will see these two procedures lead to qualitatively different results.

We note that $\sigma_{xy}$ includes a term independent of the magnetic field, which is of the same order of magnitude as $\sigma_{xx}$. Were we to average $\tensor{\sigma}$ over directions <span>*before* </span> inverting it, then this term would have disappeared. However, if $\tensor{\rho}$ is to be averaged, then this term remains, and leads to delicate cancellations in the denominator of $\tensor{\rho}$. This, in turn, is the cause of the two different temperature dependences of the Hall resistivity.

We first average the conductivity tensor over directions and then invert it. In that case, $$%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\rho_{xy}^{(1)}=\frac{2S_{z}\Gamma\sin\phi}{(R_{12}^{x})^{4}G_{12}^{2}},\label{24}$$ where we have assumed for simplicity that $G_{12}$ is the largest conductance. To obtain the temperature dependence we consider the situation in which the magnetic field-free hopping conduction takes place along the bond $12$ and site $3$ supplies the interference path. Thus we imagine $\epsilon_{1}$ and $\epsilon_{2}$ to be below and above the Fermi level, but close to it, while $\epsilon_{3}$ is away from the Fermi energy. Then \[<span>*cf.*</span> Eqs. (\[10\]) and (\[12\])\] $$\rho_{xy}^{(1)}\sim\frac{\Gamma}{G_{12}^{2}}\sim\exp[-\beta(
\epsilon_{3}-2\epsilon_{2}+\epsilon_{1
})],\label{25}$$ and is sensitive to the averaging procedure over the on-site energy distribution. One may imagine that the energy $\epsilon_{2}$ is mostly in-between the energies $\epsilon_{1}$ and $\epsilon_{3}$, in which case the log-average of $\rho_{xy}^{(1)}$ will lead to a constant value for the Hall resistivity at very low temperatures - i.e. a "Hall-insulating behavior".

We next consider the transverse resistivity obtained by inverting the full conductivity tensor and then averaging over directions to restore rotational invariance. The result is $$\rho_{xy}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2S_{z}}\frac{\Gamma\sin\phi}{G_{12}G_{23}+G_{23}G_{
31}+G_{31}G_{12}}.\label{26}$$ Due to the cancellations occuring when $\tensor{\sigma}$ of Eqs. (\[16\]) and (\[17\]) is inverted, the denominator here includes $G_{12}G_{23}$, <span>*etc.*</span>, but not the (larger) term $G_{12}^{2}$, as in (\[24\]). Consequently, $\rho_{xy}^{(2)}$ increases exponentially as the temperature tends to zero, independent of the specific configuration of the single-particle energies. This is because of the factors $n_{i}^{0}(1-n_{i}^{0})$ in Eq. (\[12\]). Consider for example the energy configuration specified above. In that case the leading term in $\Gamma $ is of order $\exp[-\beta (\epsilon_{3}-\epsilon_{1})]$ while $G_{12}G_{23}$ ($G_{12}\sim\exp[-\beta(\epsilon_{2}-\epsilon_{1})]$, $G_{23}\sim\exp[-\beta\epsilon_{3}]$) dominates the denominator in Eq. (\[26\]), leading to $\rho_{xy}^{(2)}\sim\exp[\beta\epsilon_{2}]$.

Both $\rho_{xy}^{(1)}$ and $\rho_{xy}^{(2)}$ are <span>*independent*</span> of the strength of the coupling to the phonons. This is in analogy with the "classical" (Boltzmann equation) result for the Hall coefficient, which does not contain the mean free path.

The physically correct way of averaging may depend on whether the experiment is a dc one or an ac one. We consider a measurement to be an ac one if the frequency is such that the electron cannot traverse the sample from one current contact to the other during one field period. In this case the current contacts are irrelevant, the current is inside the sample, and the macroscopic current density is obtained by summing the contributions from all triangles within a unit volume. This summation is equivalent to the averaging of the conductivity tensor of a single triangle.

We define a measurement as a dc one when the electron traverses the sample during a time short compared to the period of the field. The current is therefore flowing from one current contact to the other through a percolation chain of bonds. This means that the direction of the current in each bond is defined. To find the elementary Hall voltage created at this bond we have to invert the conductivity tensor of the triangle attached to this bond and express this elementary Hall voltage in terms of the resistivity tensor of a single triangle. The total Hall voltage is obtained in this case by summing over the bonds along the percolation chain. This summation is equivalent to the averaging of the resistivity tensor of a single triangle.

To summarize: Two independent derivations of $\tensor\sigma$ at zero frequency but finite temperatures, were given for the Holstein model. Here the Hall conductivity too has a finite dc value when real, phonon-mediated, transitions are allowed. Surprisingly enough, we find that the answer depends on which transport quantity is averaged over directions. It was shown that the ensemble averaging needed to get the macroscopic Hall resistivity is subtle and the result depends on whether $\tensor\sigma$ is averaged before or after having been inverted. The former procedure leads to a possible "Hall insulating" behavior. The latter leads to a $\rho_{xy}$ which grows exponentially when the temperature is lowered. Using the percolating path picture of @ambegaokar, one might speculate that the latter is the proper averaging procedure for the dc limit.

The research was partially supported by the fund for basic research administered by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, the German-Israel Fund and by the United States-Israel binational science foundation (BSF). O. E. W. is grateful to the Einstein Center for Theoretical Physics of the Weizmann Institute of Science for partial support.

Deceased. S-C Zhang, S. Kivelson, and D-H Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**69**</span>, 1252 (1992). O. Viehweger and K. B. Efetov, Phys. Rev. <span>**B44**</span>, 1168 (1991). Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**71**</span>, 1868 (1993). T. Holstein, Phys. Rev. <span>**124**</span>, 1329 (1961). L. Friedman and M. Pollak, Phil. Mag. <span>**B44**</span>, 487 (1981). T. Holstein, Annals of Phys. (NY) <span>**8**</span>, 343 (1959). V. Ambegaokar, B. I. Halperin, and J. S. Langer, Phys. Rev. <span>**B4**</span>, 2612 (1971). O. Entin-Wohlman, Y. Imry, A. G. Aronov, and Y. Levinson, Phys. Rev. <span>**B**</span>, in press.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/cond-mat9504005'}