Counting statistics of dark-state transport through a carbon nanotube quantum dot

Clive Emary; Nathan Ho

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Counting statistics of dark-state transport through a carbon nanotube quantum dot

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dark-state-limited transport through a carbon nanotube quantum dot should show enormous current-noise fluctuations: the Fano factor diverges to +∞ and the skewness to −∞ as the tunneling phase difference $\Delta\varphi$ vanishes, and…

desk verdict Solid, useful dark-state FCS paper with a messy appendix; the experimental predictions are worth taking seriously, but the printed F3 derivation needs correction before I trust the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02026 v2 pith:GHZ4CIIX submitted 2019-08-06 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Nathan Ho , Clive Emary This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph

keywords carbonnanotubequantumdotdarkstatecountingstatisticssuper-PoissoniannoiseFanofactorwaiting-timedistributionelectronbunchingtransportbistability

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

The paper sets out to show that transport suppressed by a quantum-coherent dark state in a carbon nanotube quantum dot carries an extreme statistical fingerprint. Because electrons can enter a dark state that is decoupled from the drain lead, the dot switches between a conducting branch and a long-lived trap, and the authors compute the resulting current cumulants and waiting-time distribution from a Markovian master equation. They find that the second Fano factor diverges to positive infinity and the third to negative infinity as the tunneling phase difference $\Delta\varphi$ goes to zero with weak relaxation, and that with the parameters of the CNT-QD experiment the reverse-bias values reach $F_2\approx16$ and $F_3\approx275$. The same bistability produces waiting-time distributions with very long tails. A sympathetic reader should care because these are measurable signatures that can confirm the dark-state mechanism and pin down the parameter $\Delta\varphi$ far better than mean-current measurements alone.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the five-element Liouvillian $W(\chi)$ of the CNT-QD model: the density matrix contains the empty state $|0\rangle$, the two orbital-momentum states $|\pm l\rangle$, and their coherences, with source tunneling at rate $4\Gamma_L$ into the coupled/dark superposition and drain tunneling at rate $\Gamma_R$ from the coupled state only. The phase difference $\Delta\varphi=\varphi_L-\varphi_R$ sets the probability that source electrons enter the dark state. Unblocking comes from relaxation $\Gamma_{\mathrm{Rel}}$ and Lamb-shift precession $\omega_L$. Cumulants are computed from the $\chi$-resolved master equation, and the waiting-time distribution is $\omega(\tau)=\langle\langle J e^{W_0\tau} J\rangle\rangle/\langle\langle J\rangle\rangle$. The explanatory heart is a reduced three-state rate model $(|0\rangle,|\mathrm{CS}\rangle,|\mathrm{DS}\rangle)$ that gives exact formulas for the current and the first two Fano factors, together with a Bernoulli-bistability caricature $P(n,t)=(1-p)\delta_{n,0}+p\delta_{n,n_0}$ that directly produces $F_k\sim t^{k-1}$, positive $F_2$, and a skewness that changes sign with $p$.

What would settle it

Measure the second and third current cumulants and the waiting-time distribution of a carbon nanotube dot in reverse bias near $V_G=0$ using the experimental parameters quoted in the paper. The model predicts $F_2\approx16$ and $F_3\approx275$ plus a waiting-time tail out to roughly $10^3\Gamma_R^{-1}$; observing Poisson-like noise close to $F_2=1$, a small positive $F_3$, or a single fast exponential waiting-time decay under these conditions would rule out the dark-state mechanism as the source of the current suppression.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dark-state-limited transport through the CNT-QD is a bistable switching process, and that the switching statistics are what one actually measures. For $\Delta\varphi\neq0$, electrons tunnel into both the coupled state $|\mathrm{CS}\rangle$ and the dark state $|\mathrm{DS}\rangle$; with vanishing relaxation $\Gamma_{\mathrm{Rel}}\to0$ or precession $\omega_L\to0$, the dark state traps electrons for very long times, so the system alternates between blocked and conducting periods. The transferred-charge distribution is then close to a Bernoulli mixture, which yields $F_k\sim t^{k-1}$: $F_2\to+\infty$ and $F_3\to-\infty$, with the skewness sign fixed by whether the conducting branch is more or less probable than the blocking branch. With the parameters of the CNT-QD experiment, reverse bias at $V_G=0$ gives $F_2\approx15.5$ and $F_3\approx275$, while forward bias gives much weaker statistics and negative skewness over much of the gate-voltage range. The waiting-time distribution is a short-time peak followed by an extremely long tail, and oscillations are imprinted in the tail when Lamb-shift precession dominates the unblocking.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation assumes the weak-coupling Markovian master equation in the $N=0,1$ Coulomb-blockade sector, with spin entering only as a degeneracy factor of four; if the real carbon nanotube device involves cotunneling, multielectron states, or non-Markovian lead coupling, the predicted giant Fano factors and long tails would not appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Near $\Delta\varphi=0$ with weak relaxation or precession, the current noise Fano factor diverges to $+\infty$ and the skewness to $-\infty$, so even a small phase mismatch between source and drain tunneling should be visible as enormous current fluctuations.
Using the CNT-QD experiment's own parameters, reverse-bias transport at $V_G=0$ should show $F_2\approx16$ and $F_3\approx275$, while forward bias should show much smaller, partly negative skewness; the bias asymmetry is itself a signature of dark-state trapping.
Because $F_2$ is far more sensitive to $\Delta\varphi$ than the mean current, adding shot-noise measurements should let experimenters determine $\Delta\varphi$ much more accurately than current measurements alone.
Waiting-time distributions should have a short-time peak and a tail reaching roughly $\tau\approx10^3\Gamma_R^{-1}$; an oscillating tail would indicate that Lamb-shift precession, not relaxation, unblocks the dark state.
At $\Delta\varphi=\pi/4$ with $\Gamma_{\mathrm{Rel}}=0$ and $\omega_L\to0$, the statistics collapse to $F_2=3$, corresponding to bunches of three electrons per burst, matching earlier channel-blockade models.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper itself, the same Bernoulli-bistability logic should apply to any transport setup with a decoupled dark subspace and slow repopulation, so the divergent Fano factors and the negative-skewness window should appear in triple-dot or other coherent nanostructures, not only carbon nanotubes.
Also extending the paper's logic, the long tail of the waiting-time distribution directly encodes the dark-state lifetime, so fitting the tail could extract $\Gamma_{\mathrm{Rel}}$ without measuring third cumulants.
A third extension not pursued in the paper: since spin enters only as a degeneracy factor, a magnetic field that splits the $\pm l$ states should destroy the dark-state coherence; the predicted collapse of $F_2$ toward $1$ under an applied field would cleanly test whether the giant noise comes from the dark state.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Net take: this deserves a proper referee, but the quantitative F3 claims cannot be checked from the text as printed, because the FCS expansion in Appendix B is garbled. The underlying physics is probably right.

What is new: the authors take the Donarini CNT-QD dark-state model and compute current cumulants and waiting times. The specific predictions -- F2 near 16 and F3 near 275 at VG=0, diverging Fano factors as Δφ→0 with F2>0 and F3<0, and Lamb-shift oscillations in the waiting-time distribution -- are not in the earlier dark-state FCS papers. That is a real addition. The effective three-state model in Section V is a genuinely useful reduction, and the agreement with full numerics in the stated regime is credible. The Bernoulli-bistability argument is a clean way to see why the Fano factors diverge and why the skewness flips sign. Connecting the Δφ=π/4 limit to Belzig's F2=3 is correct and appropriately cited. The experimental section is not circular: the parameters come from Ref. 5, but the noise curves are calculated predictions, not fits.

Soft spots: the printed expansion (B3) has problems. Standard stationary perturbation gives C2 = ⟨J⟩ − 2⟨J R J⟩; the paper prints a plus sign in the second line. The third line is garbled and includes a repeated J R J term with no J R J R J term. As printed, nothing in the text lets a reader verify the F3 curves in Figs. 5 and 10. This may be a typesetting issue and the numerics could be fine, but it is exactly the load-bearing quantity for the headline F3≈275. The absence of code or a reproducible script makes this worse. The Appendix C single-level formulas also have suspicious fraction formatting; I would not base a rejection on that, but it should be cleaned. Minor: the Liouvillian is imported from Ref. 5 without re-derivation; acceptable in a follow-up paper.

If the authors fix the FCS appendix and ideally release a small script for the cumulants, this is a solid contribution. As it stands, I would still send it to a serious referee, because the qualitative physics and the effective model are sound and the experimental falsifiability is valuable. The referee should ask for the corrected formulas and an independent check of F3, not a redo of the whole paper.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the full counting statistics and waiting-time distributions of a carbon-notube quantum-dot model with a coherent dark state, previously introduced by Donarini et al. It computes the first three current cumulants from a five-element Markovian Liouvillian, reports giant super-Poissonian Fano factors (F2 diverging to +∞ and F3 to −∞ as Δφ→0 with vanishing relaxation), introduces a three-state effective model that reproduces F2 in the relaxation-dominated regime, and predicts experimental signatures using parameters from Ref. 5: F2≈16 and F3≈275 at VG=0 under reverse bias. It also calculates waiting-time distributions with long tails and, when Lamb-shift precession is the unblocking mechanism, oscillations. The central claims are that these statistics are signatures of dark-state-induced bistability and extreme electron bunching, and that noise measurements could determine the critical phase difference Δφ more robustly than current measurements alone.

Significance. If the calculations are correct, the paper provides concrete, falsifiable experimental signatures of dark-state transport: strongly super-Poissonian noise and skewness, extreme sensitivity to the phase difference Δφ, and long-tailed waiting-time distributions. The effective three-state model and the Bernoulli-bistability argument give a simple physical explanation of the bunching and of the divergence signs, and the F2→3 limit connects naturally to the channel-blockade results of Belzig and to the triple-dot literature. A further strength is that the predictions are made with experimental parameters from Ref. 5 without fitting to the transport data. The main obstruction is that the printed full-counting-statistics formulas on which the third-cumulant results rest contain an apparent sign error and a garbled third-order line; the specific F3 values and the F3 sign change are therefore not verifiable from the manuscript as submitted.

major comments (2)

[Appendix B, Eq. (B3)] With R defined as the pseudo-inverse of W, the second-cumulant formula as printed, ⟨⟨J+2JRJ⟩⟩, has the wrong sign; stationary perturbation theory gives ⟨I²⟩_c = ⟨⟨J⟩⟩−2⟨⟨JRJ⟩⟩. The inconsistency is visible in the exactly solvable two-state limit Δφ=0, Γ_Rel=0: the paper's own generating function (C2) gives F2=(1+a²)/2, whereas the printed sign gives F2=(3−a²)/2 (F2=3/2 for a=0), so the sign error is not innocuous. The third-cumulant line in (B3) is also garbled as printed: 'J+3JRJ+3JRJ+6JR[JR−RJP]J' contains a repeated '3JRJ' and no 'JRJRJ' term, so no correct third-order expression can be recovered from the text. Since the F3 curves in Figs. 5 and 10 and the headline values F3≈275 and F3→−∞ are computed from this expansion, those results are not verifiable without a corrected derivation or machine-checkable code.
[Section V, Figs. 5 and 10] The effective three-state model of Section V provides closed-form expressions only for the mean current and F2 (Eqs. (3)-(4)); the manuscript states that the skewness expression is 'cumbersome' and does not give it. Consequently the specific F3 predictions—the sign change as a function of Δφ, the divergence F3→−∞, and the experimental value F3≈275 at VG=0—are supported neither by an analytic formula nor by released code or data. The Bernoulli bistability argument at the end of Section V explains the sign and the qualitative divergence, but it does not fix the numerical magnitude or the gate-voltage dependence in Fig. 10. Please supply a corrected third-cumulant expression, a reproducibility script, or both.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 10 caption] The caption reads 'With reverse bias, large positive values of F3 are observed whereas at reverse bias, the skewness is negative across large portions on the gate-voltage range'; the second 'at reverse bias' should presumably be 'at forward bias', since the text in Section VII states that the forward-bias skewness is negative.
[Section VIII] The phrase 'the the Aharonov-Bohm interferometer models' contains a duplicated 'the', and 'similar to that reported Urban and König (see also Li et al.)' is missing 'by' before the author names.
[Section VI] The waiting-time distribution is denoted ω(τ) in the text but w(τ) in the figures and in equation (B4); please unify the notation.
[Appendix A and B] The counting-field factors e^{iχ} are introduced in the Liouvillian (A1) without an explicit statement that the jump operator J consists of all terms carrying this factor; a one-sentence clarification would help the reader connect (A1) to the cumulant expressions (B3).
[Reference 21] The author name in Ref. 21 appears garbled as 'Bu/suppress lka'; this is likely a LaTeX rendering error that should be corrected (the author is B. Bułka).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor non-load-bearing self-citations; central FCS/WTD results are self-contained model outputs, not circular.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: adopt the Donarini et al. model (Section II, Eq. A1) as an input, compute the first three current cumulants and waiting-time distributions from the chi-resolved Liouvillian via the standard FCS expansion of Appendix B, and then evaluate at the experimental parameters of Ref. 5 (Delta_phi_exp = 0.11 pi, Gamma_L = 4 micro-eV, Gamma_R = 10 micro-eV, Gamma_rel = 0.1 micro-eV, U = 20 meV, J = 10 micro-eV, k_B T = 50 micro-eV, eta = 0.55). The reported Fano factors (F2 about 15.5-16, F3 about 275) and long WTD tails are model outputs, not quantities fitted to the target predictions; the experimental parameters are inputs, not fitting targets. The effective models in Section V are post-hoc explanations (the bistable Bernoulli picture and the three-state rate model) and are checked against the full numerics and against the external F2 = 3 result of Belzig, so they do not smuggle the conclusion in. The self-citations (Refs. 4, 19, 20, 24, 36) are contextual or motivational; no load-bearing step relies on an unverified claim from the authors' own prior work, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. I therefore find no circular reduction. One non-circularity concern: Eq. (B3) appears to have a sign error in the C2 term and a garbled C3 expression; this affects verifiability of the printed F3 values but is a correctness issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The dark state, Lamb shifts, and relaxation are carried over from the Donarini model; the paper contributes calculations of statistics, not new degrees of freedom. The free parameters listed are scanned or imported from the experiment, not fitted to the paper's own target observables.

free parameters (3)

Δφ (phase difference between left and right tunnel bases) = 0.11π (experimental estimate from Ref. 5)
Central control parameter. The limit Δφ→0 drives the diverging Fano factors; in Sec. VII, Δφ is swept around the experimental value.
ΓRel (relaxation rate from dark state to coupled state) = 0.1 μeV (experimental estimate from Ref. 5)
Controls dark-state unblocking; the limit ΓRel→0 drives F2 and F3 divergence and lengthens the waiting-time tails.
ωL (Lamb-shift precession frequency)
Treated as a free scan parameter in Secs. III-V with ωR=ωL; its voltage dependence from Ref. 5 is used in Sec. VII. Oscillations in the waiting-time distribution appear when this precession dominates.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Weak-coupling Born-Markov quantum master equation (2) with Liouvillian (A1) describes the CNT-QD transport.
Adopted from Ref. 5 without re-derivation. All counting statistics and waiting-time results rest on this Liouvillian.
domain assumption The transport sector is restricted to N=0,1 excess electrons; spin enters only via degeneracy factors of 4.
Section II states the Coulomb blockade prevents more than one excess electron; this truncation is imported from the Donarini model.
standard math The cumulant formulas (B3) and waiting-time formula (B4) for Markovian single-reset processes are valid.
Standard full-counting-statistics results from Refs. 8, 33-36; the paper applies them without re-derivation.
standard math The stationary state of W is unique and the pseudo-inverse R exists for the cumulant expansion.
Assumed in Appendix B; required for the expressions in Eq. (B3).
domain assumption The Lamb shifts obey the voltage dependence of Eqs. (5)-(6) with digamma functions.
Taken from Ref. 5; used in Sec. VII to make experimental predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Counting statistics of dark-state transport through a carbon nanotube quantum dot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GHZ4CIIX

@misc{pith2026190802026,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Counting statistics of dark-state transport through a carbon nanotube quantum dot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GHZ4CIIX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02026}
}

read the original abstract

In a recent experiment [A. Donarini et al., Nat Comms 10, 381 (2019)], electronic transport through a carbon nanotube quantum dot was observed to be suppressed by the formation of a quantum-coherent ``dark state''. In this paper we consider theoretically the counting statistics and waiting-time distribution of this dark-state-limited transport. We show that the statistics are characterised by giant super-Poissonian Fano factors and long-tailed waiting-time distributions, both of which are signatures of the bistability and extreme electron bunching caused by the dark state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02026 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Mean current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** shows the (shotnoise) Fano factor F2 as a function of the phase difference for a range of relaxation rates and precession frequencies. Fig. 3a shows that F2 increases as relaxation decreases for all values of phase difference. The most striking thing about this plot is that, provided ΓRel . ΓR and the phase different is not near ±π/2, the Fano factor assumes a value way in excess of the Poisson value F2 = 1. And, in… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The shotnoise Fano factor of the CNT-QD as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Waiting time distributions for Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: a shows the mean current through the CNTQD as a function of gate voltage for both forward and reverse bias configurations. We plot results for a typical value of VB = ±3 mV, and for three different phase differences: ∆φ = (0.5, 1, 2) × ∆φexp, where ∆φexp = 0.11π is t…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. The same as Fig. 8 but here we plot results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Skewness Fano factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Alzetta , author A

author author G. Alzetta , author A. Gozzini , author L. Moi , \ and\ author G. Orriols ,\ @noop journal journal Nuovo Cimento B \ volume 36 ,\ pages 5 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

work page 1976
[2]

Arimondo \ and\ author G

author author E. Arimondo \ and\ author G. Orriols ,\ @noop journal journal Lett.\ al Nuovo Cim. \ volume 17 ,\ pages 333 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

work page 1976
[3]

author author R. M. \ Whitley \ and\ author C. R. \ Stroud ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. A. \ volume 14 ,\ pages 1498 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

work page 1976
[4]

Michaelis , author C

author author B. Michaelis , author C. Emary , \ and\ author C. Beenakker ,\ @noop journal journal Europhys.\ Lett. \ volume 73 ,\ pages 677 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

work page 2006
[5]

Donarini , author M

author author A. Donarini , author M. Niklas , author M. Schafberger , author N. Paradiso , author C. Strunk , \ and\ author M. Grifoni ,\ @noop journal journal Nat.\ Comms \ volume 10 ,\ pages 381 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

work page 2019
[6]

author author L. S. \ Levitov \ and\ author G. B. \ Lesovik ,\ @noop journal journal JETP.\ Lett. \ volume 55 ,\ pages 555 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

work page 1992
[7]

author author L. S. \ Levitov , author H. Lee , \ and\ author G. B. \ Lesovik ,\ @noop journal journal J. Math. Phys. \ volume 37 ,\ pages 4845 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

work page 1996
[8]

author author D. A. \ Bagrets \ and\ author Y. V. \ Nazarov ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B \ volume 67 ,\ pages 085316 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

work page 2003

Show all 36 references

[9]

Gustavsson , author R

author author S. Gustavsson , author R. Leturcq , author R. S. \ B. Simovic , author T. Ihn , author P. Studerus , author K. Ensslin , author D. C. \ Driscoll , \ and\ author A. C. \ Gossard ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. Lett. \ volume 96 ,\ pages 076605 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

2006
[10]

Gustavsson , author R

author author S. Gustavsson , author R. Leturcq , \ and\ author K. T.Ihin ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B \ volume 75 ,\ pages 075314 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

2007
[11]

Fujisawa , author T

author author T. Fujisawa , author T. Hayashi , \ and\ author Y. R. Tomita ,\ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 312 (5780) ,\ pages 1634 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

2006
[12]

Kurzmann , author P

author author A. Kurzmann , author P. Stegmann , author J. Kerski , author R. Schott , author A. Ludwig , author A. D. \ Wieck , author J. K\"onig , author A. Lorke , \ and\ author M. Geller ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.247403 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 122 ,\ pag...

doi
[13]

Brandes ,\ @noop journal journal Ann

author author T. Brandes ,\ @noop journal journal Ann. Phys. (Berlin) \ volume 17 ,\ pages 477 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

2008
[14]

author author L. S. \ Levitov \ and\ author M. Reznikov ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B \ volume 70 ,\ pages 115305 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

2004
[15]

Loss \ and\ author E

author author D. Loss \ and\ author E. V. \ Sukhorukov ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. Lett. \ volume 84 ,\ pages 1035 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

2000
[16]

Kiesslich , author E

author author G. Kiesslich , author E. Schoell , author T. Brandes , author F. Hohls , \ and\ author R. J. \ Haug ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. Lett. \ volume 99 ,\ pages 206602 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

2007
[17]

Emary , author C

author author C. Emary , author C. P \"o ltl , author A. Carmele , author J. Kabuss , author A. Knorr , \ and\ author T. Brandes ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B \ volume 85 ,\ pages 165417 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

2012
[18]

author author C. W. \ Groth , author B. Michaelis , \ and\ author C. W. J. \ Beenakker ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B. \ volume 74 ,\ pages 125315 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

2006
[19]

Emary ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev

author author C. Emary ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B. \ volume 76 ,\ pages 245319 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

2007
[20]

P \"o ltl , author C

author author C. P \"o ltl , author C. Emary , \ and\ author T. Brandes ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B. \ volume 80 ,\ pages 115313 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

2009
[21]

Weymann , author B

author author I. Weymann , author B. R. \ Bu ka , \ and\ author J. Barna s \' s ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 83 ,\ pages 195302 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

2011
[22]

Domínguez , author G

author author F. Domínguez , author G. Platero , \ and\ author S. Kohler ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemphys.2010.06.017 journal journal Chem. Phys. \ volume 375 ,\ pages 284 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

2010 doi
[23]

Dom\'inguez , author S

author author F. Dom\'inguez , author S. Kohler , \ and\ author G. Platero ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B \ volume 83 ,\ pages 235319 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

2011
[24]

P \"o ltl , author C

author author C. P \"o ltl , author C. Emary , \ and\ author T. Brandes ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B. \ volume 87 ,\ pages 045416 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

2013
[25]

\ Zhao , author J

author author H.-K. \ Zhao , author J. Wang , \ and\ author Q. Wang ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Lett. A \ volume 378 ,\ pages 1553–1560 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

2014
[26]

Urban \ and\ author J

author author D. Urban \ and\ author J. K \"o nig ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B. \ volume 79 ,\ pages 165319 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

2009
[27]

Li , author H

author author F. Li , author H. J. \ Jiao , author J. Y. \ Luo , author X.-Q. \ Li , \ and\ author S. A. \ Gurvitz ,\ @noop journal journal Physica E \ volume 41 ,\ pages 1707 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

2009
[28]

author author D. V. \ Averin \ and\ author K. K. \ Likharev ,\ @noop journal journal J Low Temp Phys \ volume 62 ,\ pages 345 ( year 1986 ) NoStop

1986
[29]

Cottet , author W

author author A. Cottet , author W. Belzig , \ and\ author C. Bruder ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.70.115315 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 70 ,\ pages 115315 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

2004 doi
[30]

Belzig ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev

author author W. Belzig ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B. \ volume 71 ,\ pages 161301 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

2005
[31]

Schaller , author G

author author G. Schaller , author G. Kieblich , \ and\ author T. Brandes ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B. \ volume 81 ,\ pages 205305 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

2010
[32]

Kie lich , author E

author author G. Kie lich , author E. Sch\"oll , author T. Brandes , author F. Hohls , \ and\ author R. J. \ Haug ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.206602 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 99 ,\ pages 206602 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

2007 doi
[33]

Flindt , author T

author author C. Flindt , author T. Novotn\'y , \ and\ author A.-P. \ Jauho ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 70 ,\ pages 205334 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

2004
[34]

\ Jauho , author C

author author A.-P. \ Jauho , author C. Flindt , author T. Novotn\'y , \ and\ author A. Donarini ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Fluids \ volume 17 ,\ pages 100613 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

2005
[35]

Flindt , author T

author author C. Flindt , author T. Novotn\'y , author A. Braggio , author M. Sassetti , \ and\ author A.-P. \ Jauho ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 100 ,\ pages 150601 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

2008
[36]

Marcos , author C

author author D. Marcos , author C. Emary , author T. Brandes , \ and\ author R. Aguado ,\ @noop journal journal New J.\ Phys. \ volume 12 ,\ pages 123009 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alzetta , author A

author author G. Alzetta , author A. Gozzini , author L. Moi , \ and\ author G. Orriols ,\ @noop journal journal Nuovo Cimento B \ volume 36 ,\ pages 5 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

work page 1976

[2] [2]

Arimondo \ and\ author G

author author E. Arimondo \ and\ author G. Orriols ,\ @noop journal journal Lett.\ al Nuovo Cim. \ volume 17 ,\ pages 333 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

work page 1976

[3] [3]

author author R. M. \ Whitley \ and\ author C. R. \ Stroud ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. A. \ volume 14 ,\ pages 1498 ( year 1976 ) NoStop

work page 1976

[4] [4]

Michaelis , author C

author author B. Michaelis , author C. Emary , \ and\ author C. Beenakker ,\ @noop journal journal Europhys.\ Lett. \ volume 73 ,\ pages 677 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

work page 2006

[5] [5]

Donarini , author M

author author A. Donarini , author M. Niklas , author M. Schafberger , author N. Paradiso , author C. Strunk , \ and\ author M. Grifoni ,\ @noop journal journal Nat.\ Comms \ volume 10 ,\ pages 381 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

work page 2019

[6] [6]

author author L. S. \ Levitov \ and\ author G. B. \ Lesovik ,\ @noop journal journal JETP.\ Lett. \ volume 55 ,\ pages 555 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

work page 1992

[7] [7]

author author L. S. \ Levitov , author H. Lee , \ and\ author G. B. \ Lesovik ,\ @noop journal journal J. Math. Phys. \ volume 37 ,\ pages 4845 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

work page 1996

[8] [8]

author author D. A. \ Bagrets \ and\ author Y. V. \ Nazarov ,\ @noop journal journal Phys.\ Rev. B \ volume 67 ,\ pages 085316 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

work page 2003