Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Quantum transport in Cooper pair splitters using hierarchical equations of motion

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Hierarchical equations of motion can capture finite-bias and non-Markovian transport in Cooper pair splitters, reproducing measured currents and a thermoelectric effect.

desk verdict Competent HEOM application to Cooper pair splitters with useful new finite-bias results, but the advertised quantitative agreement with experiment is a one-point fit, not a demonstrated match. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22235 v1 pith:RMZIANVA submitted 2026-07-24 cond-mat.mes-hall

Riya Baruah , Neill Lambert , Franco Nori , Christian Flindt This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords Cooperpairsplitterhierarchicalequationsofmotionnon-Markoviantransportfinitebiasthermoelectriceffectquantumdotsuperconductinghybriddeviceelasticcotunneling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM) can describe charge transport in Cooper pair splitters when the coupling to the leads is not weak and the bias or temperature differences are finite—conditions under which Markovian master equations are expected to fail. The authors compute the electric current through a double quantum dot coupled to a superconductor and two normal leads, resolving the resonances of elastic cotunneling and Cooper pair splitting as functions of the dot level positions. They show that in the large-bias limit the HEOM results reduce to known analytic Lindblad formulas, while at finite bias or temperature they reproduce the measured currents from recent experiments and capture a thermoelectric current generated by a temperature difference. If correct, HEOM becomes a reliable nonperturbative framework for transport in interacting superconducting hybrid devices beyond the wide-band, weak-coupling regime.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fermionic influence superoperator, which expresses the reduced density matrix of the two quantum dots as a time-ordered exponential of lead correlation functions. A Padé decomposition of the correlation functions into sums of exponentials converts the exact integro-differential equation into a closed hierarchy of auxiliary density operators (the HEOM), terminated in practice at a finite depth; the particle current into a lead is extracted from the first-tier auxiliary operators. The effective system Hamiltonian assumes a large superconducting gap and keeps only a cotunneling amplitude κ, local pair-transfer amplitudes γℓ, and a nonlocal splitting amplitude γ that cr

What would settle it

Repeat the same HEOM calculation with a substantially deeper hierarchy and a higher-resolution Padé fit of the lead correlation functions: if the computed current changes by more than the experimental error bars, the reported agreement is a truncation artifact. Alternatively, measure the same splitter with the dot levels tuned close to the superconducting gap, where quasiparticle tunneling excluded from the effective Hamiltonian should produce features the model cannot reproduce.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that HEOM yield quantitative agreement with the measured electric currents in Cooper pair splitters operated at finite voltage or temperature differences, a regime where the Markovian and weak-coupling descriptions are insufficient. The superconductor is integrated out into an effective double-dot Hamiltonian with local and nonlocal pair tunneling amplitudes, and the normal leads are treated through an exact fermionic influence functional whose memory is retained by a hierarchy of auxiliary density operators. With large bias voltages, the hierarchy collapses to analytic Lindblad results: a resonance along the diagonal ε_L=ε_R for elastic cotunneling and along the anti-di

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative agreement with experiment rests on the effective Hamiltonian that integrates out the superconductor under the assumption of a large superconducting gap, together with an assumed-converged truncation of the HEOM hierarchy; if the devices are not deep in the large-gap regime or the hierarchy is under-converged, the computed currents would differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the large-bias limit, HEOM reproduces the analytic Lindblad expressions for the elastic-cotunneling and Cooper-pair-splitting currents, validating the numerical implementation.
  • At finite bias, the computed current vanishes when the dot levels leave the transport window set by the lead chemical potentials, matching the suppression seen in measurements but absent from large-bias formulas.
  • The comparison yields concrete device parameters (tunnel rate around 6 GHz, temperature around 50 mK for the reported current scale), which can be used for quantitative predictions.
  • The same calculation reproduces a thermally induced current and the stopping voltage that compensates it, giving a handle on particle–hole asymmetry in the device.
  • Finite Coulomb interactions and non-flat lead spectral densities can be included, so the framework extends beyond the Coulomb-blockade, wide-band approximations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the extracted coupling parameters should predict other observables in the same device, such as current noise, full counting statistics, or spin correlations; testing those predictions would strengthen the claimed quantitative agreement beyond the mean current.
  • Because the hierarchy retains memory, it is natural to apply the same machinery to time-dependent driving (gate pulses, pumping), where non-Markovian effects should be most visible; the authors list this direction but do not carry it out.
  • The effective-Hamiltonian starting point assumes the experimental devices sit deep in the large-gap regime; if a device is operated near the gap, quasiparticle tunneling omitted here should produce transport features the model cannot account for, marking the boundary of the method's validity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a hierarchical-equations-of-motion (HEOM) treatment of charge transport in a Cooper pair splitter with two quantum dots coupled to a superconductor and normal leads. It derives analytic large-bias Lindblad limits for elastic cotunneling and Cooper pair splitting, then uses HEOM to compute currents for finite voltage and temperature biases. The paper claims quantitative agreement with recent transport experiments and an account of an experimentally observed thermoelectric effect.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper would establish HEOM as a practical non-Markovian, strong-coupling framework for superconducting hybrid devices. The analytic large-bias reduction provides a useful internal benchmark, and the open-source code is a valuable resource. However, the headline quantitative comparison rests on a one-point calibration, and the thermoelectric section does not compare directly with experimental data. The paper's contribution is therefore methodologically useful, but the evidence presented does not support the abstract's 'quantitative agreement' claim as currently stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI, Fig. 2] The text states that the maximum calculated current I=0.4Γe is matched to the measured 0.4 nA by choosing Γ≈6 GHz. This is a single-point scale calibration, not a quantitative test. No measured current map or line trace is overlaid, and no residual or goodness-of-fit statistic is provided. Because Γ is a free parameter, matching one extremum only converts units. Supporting 'quantitative agreement' requires comparing the level-position dependence, resonance width, and off-resonant tails with the experimental data of Refs. [22–24].
  2. [Sec. VII, Figs. 7–9] The thermoelectric section compares HEOM results with the weak-coupling theory of Ref. [59] and reports qualitative agreement. It does not overlay or quantitatively compare with the experimental data of Ref. [16]. The conclusion that the calculations 'reproduce key features observed in recent experiments' and the abstract's claim to 'account for an experimentally observed thermoelectric effect' are therefore not supported by the presented evidence. A direct comparison of current maps, cuts, or stopping voltages with the experimental data, or a clear weakening of the claim, is required.
  3. [Appendix A and Sec. V] The HEOM results are used for quantitative statements, but the manuscript does not report the truncation order of the hierarchy, the number of Padé terms N in Eq. (35), or any convergence tests. Without this information the reader cannot judge whether the finite-bias currents are numerically converged. Please report the hierarchy depth, the number of exponentials used, and a convergence check (e.g., results versus increasing truncation order).
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (1)] The effective Hamiltonian integrates out the superconductor under the assumption of a large superconducting gap. The quantitative comparison with experiments of Refs. [22–24] presumes that those devices are in this regime. Please state the relevant gap values and justify the approximation for those experiments, or discuss how omitted quasiparticle and higher-order Andreev processes could affect the currents. Otherwise the agreement, even if obtained, does not test the model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II] Typo: 'superconductcor' should be 'superconductor'. Also 'which each are tunnel coupled' should be 'which are each tunnel coupled'.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption refers to 'Fig. 8(a)' and 'Fig. 8(b)' when it should refer to Fig. 7(a) and Fig. 7(b).
  3. [Figs. 2–6] The parameter sets differ between Figs. 1–2 (γ=0.4ℏΓ, κ=2ℏΓ) and Figs. 3–6 (γ=2ℏΓ, κ=3ℏΓ). The choice is not explained; please clarify why different parameters are used.
  4. [Eq. (29) and Fig. 1(b)] The sign convention for particle currents in the leads is not consistent between Eq. (29) and the caption description for Fig. 1(b); please clarify the convention.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Claimed "quantitative agreement" with measured currents rests on choosing Γ to match the measured current maximum; no measured curves are overlaid.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI (Finite voltages), paragraph following Fig. 2]
    "Indeed, the numerical results in Fig. 2 agree well with the measurements from Ref. [22]. Moreover, we can extract realistic parameter values corresponding to our calculations: The maximum values in Fig. 2(a) correspond to electric currents of about I = 0.4Γe, while the measured currents were about I = 0.4 nA. The tunnel coupling must then be about Γ = 6 GHz (or ℏΓ = 4 μeV) with a temperature of T = 50 mK for kBT = 1ℏΓ."

    The evidence for "quantitative agreement" is a single-point calibration: the dimensionless HEOM maximum I_max ≈ 0.4Γe is converted to the measured 0.4 nA by choosing Γ = 6 GHz. Since the HEOM currents in this wide-band calculation are proportional to Γ, the equality at the maximum is enforced by the fit, not predicted. No measured current map, line trace, or residual statistic is shown, so the stated agreement rests on this calibrated scale; the peak agreement is an identity by construction.

full rationale

The HEOM derivation chain itself is self-contained: the fermionic influence functional (Eqs. 6–18) and the hierarchy (Eqs. 39–44, A1–A9) are derived in the paper, the large-bias Lindblad limit is obtained analytically, and the numerics use the standard QuTiP implementation. Citations to prior work, including self-citations for the Lindblad large-bias results [49,52], are not load-bearing because the equations are re-derived here. The circularity is confined to the experimental comparison in Sec. VI. The only quantitative bridge to the measured current is the statement that the dimensionless maximum I ≈ 0.4Γe corresponds to the measured 0.4 nA, which fixes Γ ≈ 6 GHz. Because the current is proportional to Γ, this makes the maximum agree exactly by construction; no overlay of Ref. [22] data or line traces is shown, so the "quantitative agreement" claim is not an independent test of the HEOM level-position dependence. The thermoelectric discussion in Sec. VII compares with the weak-coupling theory of Ref. [59] rather than with the experimental data of Ref. [16], so the abstract's claim to "account for an experimentally observed thermoelectric effect" is unsupported, though not circular. Overall, the method's internal derivation is non-circular; the fitted-scale comparison makes the headline agreement claim partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on standard open-quantum-system machinery plus several modeling choices: large-gap integration of the superconductor, Lorentzian/Padé bath parametrization, symmetric couplings, and an unstated HEOM truncation. The only parameter fitted to the experimental data is Gamma, which is the key scale in the claimed quantitative comparison. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Gamma (dot-lead tunnel rate) = about 6 GHz (hbar Gamma = 4 micro-eV)
    Set by matching the computed maximum current I=0.4 Gamma e to the measured I=0.4 nA from Ref. [22]; this fitted scale is then used to claim quantitative agreement.
  • gamma (Cooper-pair splitting amplitude) = 0.4 hbar Gamma, 2 hbar Gamma, or 3 hbar Gamma depending on figure
    Chosen by hand for the displayed calculations; the paper says such ratios can be extracted from experiments but does not extract them from the data.
  • kappa (elastic cotunneling amplitude) = 2 hbar Gamma or 3 hbar Gamma depending on figure
    Chosen by hand; central to the resonance positions and current magnitudes in the model.
  • W (Lorentzian spectral width) = 25, 10, or 5 hbar Gamma in Fig. 6
    Scanned by hand to study finite-bandwidth effects; not fitted to experiment.
  • U (Coulomb interaction) = infinity (constrained fermions) or 1, 5, 10 hbar Gamma
    Chosen to interpolate between strong and finite Coulomb blockade; not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The superconductor can be integrated out into an effective dot Hamiltonian with local and nonlocal pair amplitudes, assuming a large superconducting gap.
    Sec. II, Eq. (1): 'With a large superconducting gap, the superconductor can be integrated out'. This omits quasiparticle and higher-order Andreev processes that may matter at finite bias.
  • domain assumption Symmetric couplings gamma_L = gamma_R are used for the local Cooper-pair transfer amplitudes.
    Sec. II: 'To keep the discussion simple, we take gamma_l = gamma_L = gamma_R'. Experimental devices are not necessarily symmetric.
  • domain assumption The lead spectral densities are Lorentzian, and the bath correlation functions are approximated by a finite sum of exponentials via Padé decomposition.
    Sec. V, Eqs. (34)-(35): this is a controlled but finite approximation; the paper does not state the number of Padé terms used.
  • domain assumption For the large-bias analytic limit, the spectral densities are taken flat: J_l(omega) = Gamma_l.
    Sec. IV, Eq. (19): used to derive the Markovian Lindblad dissipators and the closed-form currents.
  • domain assumption Strong Coulomb interactions are implemented by constrained fermions excluding double occupation in the main finite-bias calculations.
    Secs. IV and VI: the core results assume U=infinity; finite-U results are shown only in Fig. 5.
  • ad hoc to paper The HEOM hierarchy is truncated at a finite order and the results are assumed converged.
    Appendix A gives the hierarchy equations but no truncation level, convergence criterion, or numerical tolerance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum transport in Cooper pair splitters using hierarchical equations of motion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMZIANVA

@misc{pith2026260722235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum transport in Cooper pair splitters using hierarchical equations of motion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMZIANVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22235}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate charge transport in Cooper pair splitters beyond the weak-coupling and Markovian limits. To this end, we employ hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM), which can capture the combined effects of strong coupling to the leads, nonperturbative interactions, and finite voltage and temperature differences. Within this framework, we compute the electric currents as functions of the level positions of a Cooper pair splitter for various voltage and temperature configurations. In the large-bias regime, our results reduce to analytical expressions obtained from a Markovian Lindblad equation. However, recent experiments were conducted with finite voltage or temperature differences, where a Markovian description may not suffice. In this regime, HEOM yield quantitative agreement with the measured currents. We can also account for an experimentally observed thermoelectric effect in Cooper pair splitters. Our results show that HEOM provide a useful framework for describing nonequilibrium quantum transport in Cooper pair splitters and related hybrid devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22235 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Quantum transport in a Cooper pair splitter. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Charge transport with finite voltages. (a) A fi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Finite voltages. (a) Particle current in the right lead [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Finite Coulomb interactions. (a) Particle current in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Thermoelectric effect. (a) Particle current induced by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Stopping voltage. (a) Particle current in the right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references

  1. [59]

    S´ anchez, P

    R. S´ anchez, P. Burset, and A. L. Yeyati, Cooling by Cooper pair splitting, Phys. Rev. B98, 241414 (2018)

    2018

  2. [16]

    Z. B. Tan, A. Laitinen, N. S. Kirsanov, A. Galda, V. M. Vinokur, M. Haque, A. Savin, D. S. Golubev, G. B. Lesovik, and P. J. Hakonen, Thermoelectric current in a graphene Cooper pair splitter, Nat. Commun.12, 138 11 (2021)

    2021

  3. [1]

    De Franceschi, L

    S. De Franceschi, L. Kouwenhoven, C. Sch¨ onenberger, and W. Wernsdorfer, Hybrid superconductor–quantum dot devices, Nat. Nanotech.5, 703 (2010)

    2010

  4. [2]

    Recher, E

    P. Recher, E. V. Sukhorukov, and D. Loss, Andreev tun- neling, Coulomb blockade, and resonant transport of non- local spin-entangled electrons, Phys. Rev. B63, 165314 (2001)

    2001

  5. [3]

    G. B. Lesovik, T. Martin, and G. Blatter, Electronic entanglement in the vicinity of a superconductor, Eur. Phys. J. B24, 287 (2001)

    2001

  6. [4]

    Hofstetter, S

    L. Hofstetter, S. Csonka, J. Nyg ˚ ard, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Cooper pair splitter realized in a two-quantum-dot Y-junction, Nature461, 960 (2009)

    2009

  7. [5]

    L. G. Herrmann, F. Portier, P. Roche, A. L. Yeyati, T. Kontos, and C. Strunk, Carbon Nanotubes as Cooper- Pair Beam Splitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 026801 (2010)

    2010

  8. [6]

    Hofstetter, S

    L. Hofstetter, S. Csonka, A. Baumgartner, G. F¨ ul¨ op, S. d’Hollosy, J. Nyg ˚ ard, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Finite- Bias Cooper Pair Splitting, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 136801 (2011)

    2011

Show all 73 references
  1. [7]

    Schindele, A

    J. Schindele, A. Baumgartner, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Near-Unity Cooper Pair Splitting Efficiency, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 157002 (2012)

    2012

  2. [8]

    A. Das, R. Ronen, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, A. V. Kre- tinin, and H. Shtrikman, High-efficiency Cooper pair splitting demonstrated by two-particle conductance reso- nance and positive noise cross-correlation, Nat. Commun. 3, 1165 (2012)

    2012

  3. [9]

    F¨ ul¨ op, S

    G. F¨ ul¨ op, S. d’Hollosy, A. Baumgartner, P. Makk, V. A. Guzenko, M. H. Madsen, J. Nyg ˚ ard, C. Sch¨ onenberger, and S. Csonka, Local electrical tuning of the nonlocal signals in a Cooper pair splitter, Phys. Rev. B90, 235412 (2014)

    2014

  4. [10]

    F¨ ul¨ op, F

    G. F¨ ul¨ op, F. Dom ´ ınguez, S. d’Hollosy, A. Baumgartner, P. Makk, M. H. Madsen, V. A. Guzenko, J. Nyg ˚ ard, C. Sch¨ onenberger, A. Levy Yeyati, and S. Csonka, Mag- netic Field Tuning and Quantum Interference in a Cooper Pair Splitter, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 227003 (2015)

    2015

  5. [11]

    Z. B. Tan, D. Cox, T. Nieminen, P. Lahteenmaki, D. Gol- ubev, G. B. Lesovik, and P. J. Hakonen, Cooper Pair Splitting by Means of Graphene Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 096602 (2015)

    2015

  6. [12]

    R. S. Deacon, A. Oiwa, J. Sailer, S. Baba, Y. Kanai, K. Shibata, K. Hirakawa, and S. Tarucha, Cooper pair splitting in parallel quantum dot Josephson junctions, Nat. Commun.6, 7446 (2015)

    2015

  7. [13]

    I. V. Borzenets, Y. Shimazaki, G. F. Jones, M. F. Craciun, S. Russo, M. Yamamoto, and S. Tarucha, High Efficiency CVD Graphene-lead (Pb) Cooper Pair Split- ter, Sci. Rep.6, 23051 (2016)

    2016

  8. [14]

    L. E. Bruhat, T. Cubaynes, J. J. Viennot, M. C. Darti- ailh, M. M. Desjardins, A. Cottet, and T. Kontos, Cir- cuit QED with a quantum-dot charge qubit dressed by Cooper pairs, Phys. Rev. B98, 155313 (2018)

    2018

  9. [15]

    S. Baba, C. J¨ unger, S. Matsuo, A. Baumgartner, Y. Sato, H. Kamata, K. Li, S. Jeppesen, L. Samuelson, H. Q. Xu, C. Sch¨ onenberger, and S. Tarucha, Cooper-pair splitting in two parallel InAs nanowires, New J. Phys.20, 063021 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Ranni, F

    A. Ranni, F. Brange, E. T. Mannila, C. Flindt, and V. F. Maisi, Real-time observation of Cooper pair split- ting showing strong non-local correlations, Nat. Com- mun.12, 6358 (2021)

    2021

  11. [18]

    Pandey, R

    P. Pandey, R. Danneau, and D. Beckmann, Ballistic Graphene Cooper Pair Splitter, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 147701 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    K¨ urt¨ ossy, Z

    O. K¨ urt¨ ossy, Z. Scher¨ ubl, G. F¨ ul¨ op, I. E. Luk´ acs, T. Kanne, J. Nyg ˚ ard, P. Makk, and S. Csonka, Parallel InAs nanowires for Cooper pair splitters with Coulomb repulsion, npj Quantum Mater.7, 88 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Ranni, E

    A. Ranni, E. T. Mannila, A. Eriksson, D. S. Golubev, J. P. Pekola, and V. F. Maisi, Local and Nonlocal Two- Electron Tunneling Processes in a Cooper Pair Splitter, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 207703 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    Bordoloi, V

    A. Bordoloi, V. Zannier, L. Sorba, C. Sch¨ onenberger, and A. Baumgartner, Spin cross-correlation experiments in an electron entangler, Nature612, 454 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    G. Wang, T. Dvir, G. P. Mazur, C.-X. Liu, N. van Loo, S. L. D. ten Haaf, A. Bordin, S. Gazibegovic, G. Badawy, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, M. Wimmer, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Singlet and triplet Cooper pair splitting in hybrid superconducting nanowires, Nature612, 448 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    Q. Wang, S. L. D. ten Haaf, I. Kulesh, D. Xiao, C. Thomas, M. J. Manfra, and S. Goswami, Triplet correlations in Cooper pair splitters realized in a two- dimensional electron gas, Nat. Commun.14, 4876 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Bordin, G

    A. Bordin, G. Wang, C.-X. Liu, S. L. D. ten Haaf, N. van Loo, G. P. Mazur, D. Xu, D. van Driel, F. Zatelli, S. Gaz- ibegovic, G. Badawy, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, M. Wim- mer, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and T. Dvir, Tunable Crossed Andreev Reflection and Elastic Cotunneling in Hybrid Nanow...

    2023

  18. [25]

    de Jong, C

    D. de Jong, C. G. Prosko, L. Han, F. K. Malinowski, Y. Liu, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and W. Pfaff, Controllable Single Cooper Pair Splitting in Hybrid Quantum Dot Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 157001 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    T. Dvir, G. Wang, N. van Loo, C.-X. Liu, G. P. Mazur, A. Bordin, S. L. ten Haaf, J.-Y. Wang, D. van Driel, F. Zatelli, X. Li, F. K. Malinowski, S. Gazibegovic, G. H. Badawy, E. P. Bakkers, M. Wimmer, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Realization of a minimal Kitaev chain in coupled qua...

    2023

  20. [27]

    S. L. ten Haaf, Q. Wang, A. M. Bozkurt, C.-X. Liu, I. Kulesh, P. Kim, D. Xiao, C. Thomas, M. J. Manfra, T. Dvir, M. Wimmer, and S. Goswami, A two-site Kitaev chain in a two-dimensional electron gas, Nature630, 329 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    S. L. D. ten Haaf, Y. Zhang, Q. Wang, A. Bordin, C.-X. Liu, I. Kulesh, V. P. M. Sietses, C. G. Prosko, D. Xiao, C. Thomas, M. J. Manfra, M. Wimmer, and S. Goswami, Observation of edge and bulk states in a three-site Kitaev chain, Nature641, 890 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    Bordin, C.-X

    A. Bordin, C.-X. Liu, T. Dvir, F. Zatelli, S. L. D. ten Haaf, D. van Driel, G. Wang, N. van Loo, Y. Zhang, J. C. Wolff, T. Van Caekenberghe, G. Badawy, S. Gazibegovic, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, M. Wimmer, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and G. P. Mazur, Enhanced Majorana stability in a three- s...

    2025

  23. [30]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Parity qubits and poor man’s Majorana bound states in double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B86, 134528 (2012)

    2012

  24. [31]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Introduction to topologi- cal superconductivity and Majorana fermions, Semicond. Sci. Technol.27, 124003 (2012)

    2012

  25. [32]

    Aguado, Majorana quasiparticles in condensed mat- ter, Riv

    R. Aguado, Majorana quasiparticles in condensed mat- ter, Riv. Nuovo Cimento40, 523 (2017)

    2017

  26. [33]

    G. E. Blonder, M. Tinkham, and T. M. Klapwijk, Tran- sition from metallic to tunneling regimes in supercon- ducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge im- balance, and supercurrent conversion, Phys. Rev. B25, 4515 (1982)

    1982

  27. [34]

    M´ elin, C

    R. M´ elin, C. Benjamin, and T. Martin, Positive cross cor- relations of noise in superconducting hybrid structures: Roles of interfaces and interactions, Phys. Rev. B77, 094512 (2008)

    2008

  28. [35]

    Chevallier, J

    D. Chevallier, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere, and T. Martin, Current and noise correlations in a double-dot Cooper- pair beam splitter, Phys. Rev. B83, 125421 (2011)

    2011

  29. [36]

    Jacquet, A

    R. Jacquet, A. Popoff, K.-I. Imura, J. Rech, T. Jonck- heere, L. Raymond, A. Zazunov, and T. Martin, The- ory of nonequilibrium noise in general multiterminal superconducting hybrid devices: Application to multi- ple Cooper pair resonances, Phys. Rev. B102, 064510 (2020)

    2020

  30. [37]

    J. Rech, D. Chevallier, T. Jonckheere, and T. Martin, Current correlations in an interacting Cooper-pair beam splitter, Phys. Rev. B85, 035419 (2012)

    2012

  31. [38]

    S. A. Gurvitz and Y. S. Prager, Microscopic derivation of rate equations for quantum transport, Phys. Rev. B 53, 15932 (1996)

    1996

  32. [39]

    Sauret, D

    O. Sauret, D. Feinberg, and T. Martin, Quantum master equations for the superconductor-quantum dot entangler, Phys. Rev. B70, 245313 (2004)

    2004

  33. [40]

    Sauret, T

    O. Sauret, T. Martin, and D. Feinberg, Spin-current noise and Bell inequalities in a realistic superconductor- quantum dot entangler, Phys. Rev. B72, 024544 (2005)

    2005

  34. [41]

    Governale, M

    M. Governale, M. G. Pala, and J. K¨ onig, Real-time di- agrammatic approach to transport through interacting quantum dots with normal and superconducting leads, Phys. Rev. B77, 134513 (2008)

    2008

  35. [42]

    Futterer, M

    D. Futterer, M. Governale, M. G. Pala, and J. K¨ onig, Nonlocal Andreev transport through an interacting quan- tum dot, Phys. Rev. B79, 054505 (2009)

    2009

  36. [43]

    Eldridge, M

    J. Eldridge, M. G. Pala, M. Governale, and J. K¨ onig, Superconducting proximity effect in interacting double- dot systems, Phys. Rev. B82, 184507 (2010)

    2010

  37. [44]

    Hiltscher, M

    B. Hiltscher, M. Governale, J. Splettstoesser, and J. K¨ onig, Adiabatic pumping in a double-dot Cooper- pair beam splitter, Phys. Rev. B84, 155403 (2011)

    2011

  38. [45]

    Hussein, L

    R. Hussein, L. Jaurigue, M. Governale, and A. Braggio, Double quantum dot Cooper-pair splitter at finite cou- plings, Phys. Rev. B94, 235134 (2016)

    2016

  39. [46]

    Hussein, A

    R. Hussein, A. Braggio, and M. Governale, Entanglement-symmetry control in a quantum-dot Cooper-pair splitter, Phys. Status Solidi B254, 1600603 (2017)

    2017

  40. [47]

    Trocha and K

    P. Trocha and K. Wrze´ sniewski, Cross-correlations in a quantum dot Cooper pair splitter with ferromagnetic leads, J. Phys. Conden. Mat.30, 305303 (2018)

    2018

  41. [48]

    Walldorf, C

    N. Walldorf, C. Padurariu, A.-P. Jauho, and C. Flindt, Electron Waiting Times of a Cooper Pair Splitter, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 087701 (2018)

    2018

  42. [49]

    Walldorf, F

    N. Walldorf, F. Brange, C. Padurariu, and C. Flindt, Noise and full counting statistics of a Cooper pair splitter, Phys. Rev. B101, 205422 (2020)

    2020

  43. [50]

    M. Tam, C. Flindt, and F. Brange, Optimal entangle- 12 ment witness for Cooper pair splitters, Phys. Rev. B104, 245425 (2021)

    2021

  44. [51]

    Brange, K

    F. Brange, K. Prech, and C. Flindt, Dynamic Cooper Pair Splitter, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 237701 (2021)

    2021

  45. [52]

    Brange, R

    F. Brange, R. Baruah, and C. Flindt, Adiabatic Cooper pair splitter, Phys. Rev. B109, L081402 (2024)

    2024

  46. [53]

    J. Jin, X. Zheng, and Y. Yan, Exact dynamics of dissi- pative electronic systems and quantum transport: Hier- archical equations of motion approach, J. Chem. Phys. 128, 234703 (2008)

    2008

  47. [54]

    Zheng, R

    X. Zheng, R. Xu, J. Jin, and Y. Yan, Hierarchical equa- tions of motion for quantum dissipation and quantum transport, Prog. Chem.24, 1129 (2012)

    2012

  48. [55]

    S. Wang, X. Zheng, J. Jin, and Y. Yan, Hierarchical Liouville-space approach to nonequilibrium dynamical properties of quantum impurity systems, J. Chem. Phys. 139, 044110 (2013)

    2013

  49. [56]

    Song and Q

    L. Song and Q. Shi, Hierarchical equations of motion method applied to nonequilibrium heat transport in model molecular junctions: Transient heat current and high-order moments, Phys. Rev. B95, 064308 (2017)

    2017

  50. [57]

    R. Xu, S. Wang, and Y. Yan, Hierarchical dynamics ap- proach to quantum impurity systems with strong corre- lations: Application to Kondo transport, J. Phys.: Con- dens. Matter29, 453003 (2017)

    2017

  51. [58]

    Cao, T.-F

    Z. Cao, T.-F. Fang, L. Li, and H.-G. Luo, Thermoelectric- induced unitary Cooper pair splitting efficiency, Appl. Phys. Lett.107, 212601 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Hussein, M

    R. Hussein, M. Governale, S. Kohler, W. Belzig, F. Gi- azotto, and A. Braggio, Nonlocal thermoelectricity in a Cooper-pair splitter, Phys. Rev. B99, 075429 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    N. S. Kirsanov, Z. B. Tan, D. S. Golubev, P. J. Hakonen, and G. B. Lesovik, Heat switch and thermoelectric effects based on Cooper-pair splitting and elastic cotunneling, Phys. Rev. B99, 115127 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Arora, S

    A. Arora, S. Midha, A. Zyuzin, P. Hakonen, and B. Mu- ralidharan, Steady-state dynamics and nonlocal correla- tions in thermoelectric Cooper pair splitters, npj Quan- tum Inf.11, 40 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Arrachea, A

    L. Arrachea, A. Braggio, P. Burset, E. J. H. Lee, A. Levy Yeyati, and R. S´ anchez, Thermoelectric Pro- cesses of Quantum Normal-Superconductor Interfaces, Ann. Phys.537, e00197 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    Cirio, P.-C

    M. Cirio, P.-C. Kuo, Y.-N. Chen, F. Nori, and N. Lam- bert, Canonical derivation of the fermionic influence su- peroperator, Phys. Rev. B105, 035121 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    A. M. Bozkurt, S. Miles, S. L. D. ten Haaf, C.-X. Liu, F. Hassler, and M. Wimmer, Interaction-induced strong zero modes in short quantum dot chains with time- reversal symmetry, SciPost Phys.18, 206 (2025)

    2025

  58. [66]

    Tanimura and R

    Y. Tanimura and R. Kubo, Time Evolution of a Quantum System in Contact with a Nearly Gaussian-Markoffian Noise Bath, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.58, 101 (1989)

    1989

  59. [67]

    Tanimura, Nonperturbative expansion method for a quantum system coupled to a harmonic-oscillator bath, Phys

    Y. Tanimura, Nonperturbative expansion method for a quantum system coupled to a harmonic-oscillator bath, Phys. Rev. A41, 6676 (1990)

    1990

  60. [68]

    J. Hu, M. Luo, F. Jiang, R.-X. Xu, and Y. Yan, Pad´ e spectrum decompositions of quantum distribution func- tions and optimal hierarchical equations of motion con- struction for quantum open systems, J. Chem. Phys.134, 244106 (2011)

    2011

  61. [69]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comp. Phys. Commun.183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  62. [70]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comp. Phys. Commun.184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  63. [71]

    Lambert, T

    N. Lambert, T. Raheja, S. Cross, P. Menczel, S. Ahmed, A. Pitchford, D. Burgarth, and F. Nori, QuTiP-BoFiN: A bosonic and fermionic numerical hierarchical-equations- of-motion library with applications in light-harvesting, quantum control, and single-molecule electronics, Phys...

    2023

  64. [72]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Gigu` ere, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Su´ arez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agar- wal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, QuTiP 5: The Quantum Toolbox in Python, Phys. Rep.1153, 1 (2026)

    2026

  65. [73]

    Baruah, N

    R. Baruah, N. Lambert, F. Nori, and C. Flindt, https://github.com/RiyaBaruah/HEOMCooperPairSplitter

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.