Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

SYK non Fermi Liquid Correlations in Nanoscopic Quantum Transport

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Nanoscopic quantum dots with narrow bands and strong interactions can host a non-Fermi liquid in the SYK universality class, with T^(3/2) cotunneling conductance replacing the Fermi-liquid T^2.

desk verdict New SYK cotunneling law T^{3/2} and a modified AES action, but the Gaussian-random-coupling assumption and a parameter inconsistency in the text need to be addressed before the claims hold. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11351 v2 pith:LZKNPSWC submitted 2019-08-29 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hallhep-th

Alexander Altland , Dmitry Bagrets , Alex Kamenev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hallhep-th
keywords SYKmodelnon-FermiliquidquantumdotconductancecotunnelingCoulombblockadeSchwarzianactionuniversalHamiltoniantransport
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 a term usually thrown away in the "universal Hamiltonian" description of small quantum devices—the random all-to-all four-fermion interaction—is actually the seed of a non-Fermi liquid. When the single-particle bandwidth $W$ is smaller than the interaction strength $J$, the low-temperature physics of a chaotic quantum dot falls into the SYK universality class, and the paper derives what that means for transport. Its two main quantitative claims are the conductance laws of Eqs. (7) and (8): direct tunneling scales as $(J/T)^{1/2}$ in the window $E_C

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the complex SYK interaction term, $\hat H_{\rm SYK}=\sum_{ijkl} J_{ijkl}c_i^\dagger c_j^\dagger c_k c_l$, with independent zero-mean Gaussian couplings of variance $J^2/N^3$, added to the charging-energy term $\frac{1}{2}E_C\hat n^2$. The low-energy action built from it is controlled by two collective modes: the charge phase $\varphi(\tau)$, canonically conjugate to the dot charge, with action contribution $\frac{1}{2}E_C^{-1}\dot\varphi^2$, and the reparameterization mode $h(\tau)$ with Schwarzian action $-m\{h,\tau\}$, where $m\propto N/J$. The fermion Green function transforms as $G_{\tau_1,\tau_2}=e^{-i\varphi(\tau_1)}(\dot h(\tau_1)\dot h(\tau_2)/(h(\tau_1)-h(\tau_2))^2)^{1/4}e^{i\varphi(\tau_2)}$, so the SYK mean field gives $|\tau|^{-1/2}$ decay, while strong $h$-fluctuations at long times change the effective dimension to give $|\tau|^{-3/2}$. That crossover, combined with the Coulomb-blockade phase factor, produces the anomalous power laws in Eqs. (7) and (8).

What would settle it

Measure the inelastic cotunneling conductance of a narrow-band quantum dot below its charging energy down to $T<J/N$: if it follows $T^2$ rather than $T^{3/2}$, the SYK fixed point is not controlling that dot. A complementary check is to compute the joint distribution of interaction matrix elements $J_{ijkl}$ from a realistic microscopic Coulomb model for a chaotic few-orbital dot and test whether it matches the independent zero-mean Gaussian ensemble; a clear mismatch would falsify the premise before transport is measured.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the SYK interaction term $\hat H_{\rm SYK}=\sum_{ijkl} J_{ijkl} c_i^\dagger c_j^\dagger c_k c_l$ with zero-mean random couplings is not an innocuous correction to the universal Hamiltonian of a quantum dot: it generates a distinct low-energy theory with two soft modes, a U(1) charge phase and a time-reparameterization mode. On that basis the paper derives the two main transport results: for direct tunneling, $g_{\rm dt}\propto g_0\,e^{-E_C/T}$ for $T<E_C$ and $g_{\rm dt}\propto g_0\sqrt{J/T}$ for $E_C<T<J$; for inelastic cotunneling, $g_{\rm it}=(g_0^2/E_C^2)\sqrt{NJ}\,T^{3/2}$ for $T<J/N$ and $g_{\rm it}=(g_0^2/E_C^2)JT$ for $J/N<T<E_C$. The $T^{3/2}$ law comes from the long-time $|\tau|^{-3/2}$ decay of the reparameterization-fluctuation-dressed particle-hole propagator, in contrast to the $T^2$ of a Fermi liquid. The paper further claims that a quantum phase transition at bandwidth $W_c\propto J/N$ separates the SYK non-Fermi liquid from a Fermi liquid, and that the SYK universality class may therefore be realized in generic narrow-band chaotic quantum dots, not only in specially designed SYK systems.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the random four-fermion couplings $J_{ijkl}$ in a real chaotic quantum dot are effectively independent, zero-mean, and Gaussian, as in the SYK model; the paper's footnote [13] states that wave-function chaos makes this difference inessential, but no microscopic derivation is given, and if the real couplings are correlated or non-Gaussian the SYK fixed point and every transport power law derived from it fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Below the charging energy, the inelastic cotunneling conductance of an SYK dot grows as $T^{3/2}$ (for $T<J/N$) instead of the Fermi-liquid $T^2$, an unambiguous qualitative difference.
  • Above the charging energy, direct tunneling gives $g_{\rm dt}\sim(J/T)^{1/2}$, so the conductance is non-monotonic: exponential Coulomb blockade at low $T$ turns into a square-root power law at higher $T$.
  • A quantum critical point at bandwidth $W_c\propto J/N$ separates the non-Fermi-liquid phase from a Fermi-liquid phase; on the SYK side the single-particle term is irrelevant, on the other side it is relevant.
  • The physical requirements—narrow band, strong interactions, chaotic single-particle states—are expected to be met by complex molecules, semiconductor artificial atoms, and exfoliated 2D flakes.
  • The intrinsic charging energy from the SYK action is $K^{-1}\sim J/N$, which implies the observable regime requires $E_C>J/N$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Unstated corollary: the same two-mode action should generate anomalous power laws in shot noise and thermopower, so a $T^{3/2}$ conductance could be cross-checked with noise measurements.
  • Testable check: compute the joint distribution of Coulomb matrix elements $J_{ijkl}$ in a realistic chaotic few-orbital dot and compare it with the independent zero-mean Gaussian SYK ensemble; deviations would shift or destroy the predicted exponents.
  • Experimental targeting: since $W_c\propto J/N$, the largest non-Fermi-liquid windows should appear in the smallest systems—single molecules or few-electron artificial atoms—rather than large-area flakes.
  • Diagnostic distinction: the separation of the $\varphi$ (charge) and $h$ (reparameterization) modes implies the $T^{3/2}$ exponent specifically tracks $h$-fluctuations, which may distinguish SYK correlations from other non-Fermi-liquid mechanisms with different exponents.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that in nanoscopic quantum dots with a narrow band of single-particle orbitals, the residual off-diagonal four-fermion interaction, normally discarded in the universal Hamiltonian approach, generically has the form of a complex SYK interaction. Starting from this premise, the authors derive an effective low-energy action for the U(1) phase mode φ and the reparametrization mode h, and use it to predict transport power laws: the direct tunneling conductance scales as gdt ~ g0 (J/T)^{1/2} for EC < T < J, while the inelastic cotunneling conductance scales as git ~ (g0^2/E_C^2) sqrt(NJ) T^{3/2} for T < J/N, replacing the Fermi-liquid T^2 law. The paper also presents an RG argument, following Ref. [27], for a quantum phase transition at Wc ~ J/N between an SYK non-Fermi-liquid phase and a Fermi-liquid phase.

Significance. If the random-coupling premise is granted, the transport predictions are concrete, falsifiable, and parameter-free in the sense that no quantity is fitted to transport data. The derivation of the cotunneling kernel (26) and the resulting T^{3/2} power law is a genuine calculation that goes beyond a scaling argument, and the extension of the Ambegaokar-Eckern-Schön action to SYK dots is a useful conceptual step. The main significance is the proposal that SYK non-Fermi-liquid physics could be diagnosed in transport through relatively ordinary nanoscopic devices. However, this significance is conditional on the Gaussian random-coupling assumption for the residual interaction and on parameter hierarchies that are internally inconsistent under the paper's own estimates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Introduction, after Eq. (1), footnote [13]] The claim that the residual couplings J_ijkl are effectively independent zero-mean Gaussian variables is load-bearing but is asserted rather than derived. Coulomb interaction matrix elements are bilinear in single-particle wavefunctions, so even if the wavefunctions are Gaussian-distributed, the matrix elements have symmetries, connected correlations, and non-Gaussian cumulants that need not vanish. The SYK fixed point and the transport power laws in Eqs. (7) and (8) follow only if the four-fermion vertex has the SYK distribution. The paper should either derive this distribution from a microscopic model or provide a random-matrix argument showing why the offending cumulants are suppressed. Footnote [13] does not provide such an argument.
  2. [After Eq. (3), footnote [32], and Eq. (7)] The parameter estimates are internally inconsistent. Footnote [32] estimates J ≈ N^{3/2} E_C. Then J/N ≈ sqrt(N) E_C > E_C for any N > 1, so the hierarchy E_C > J/N stated after Eq. (3) and used to justify the second line of Eq. (7) cannot hold. In addition, Supplemental Eq. (13) gives m = N ln N / (64 J) sqrt(cos 2θ / (2π)), which with the same estimate yields m^{-1} ≈ 64 sqrt(N) E_C / ln N ≫ E_C, contradicting the hierarchy m^{-1} ≪ E_C stated after Eq. (3) and the condition T > m^{-1} used in Eq. (36). Under the paper's own estimates, the temperature windows in which Eqs. (7) and (8) are derived are empty. The authors should reconcile the estimate of J with the required hierarchies, or identify a concrete microscopic regime in which both hierarchies hold.
  3. [RG analysis, Eq. (10) and Eq. (43)] The RG flow leading to the critical value λc = 12 is derived only to lowest order in w and uses the asymptotic expressions in Eq. (41) taken from Refs. [36,37]. Since the quantum phase transition at Wc ~ J/N is a central part of the stability claim, the truncation should be justified. In particular, the paper should indicate whether higher-order terms in w or finite-N corrections can shift the critical point, or should state explicitly the accuracy of the one-loop, asymptotic calculation. As written, the conclusion Wc ~ J/N rests on an uncontrolled truncation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (7) and Fig. 1] The text before Eq. (7) describes the high-temperature regime as T > E_C > J/N, while Eq. (7) states the window as E_C < T < J. Please make the regime boundaries consistent throughout the paper and in the figure caption.
  2. [Eq. (8) and Supplemental Eq. (13)] The crossover scale J/N in Eq. (8) differs from the supplemental scale m^{-1} = 64 J / (N ln N) (up to O(1) factors). The main text drops logarithmic factors when quoting J/N and sqrt(NJ). Please clarify whether these logarithms are intentionally omitted and whether they affect the comparison with experiment.
  3. [Section 'Stability of the NFL phase'] There are small editorial errors: 'NLF' should be 'NFL', 'such as such as' is duplicated, and 'the Existence' should be lowercased. These do not affect the physics but should be corrected.
  4. [Eq. (6) and footnote [39]] The notation g0 is used as a dimensionless tunneling coupling in Eq. (6), but the text says g0 ∝ ν v^2 N / J. Please define the proportionality constant and state the weak-tunneling condition g0 ≪ 1 precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the transport power laws are obtained by substituting an assumed SYK interaction into genuine linear-response kernels; the questionable input is an unproved physical assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is conditional on an assumed microscopic input: Eq. (1) includes the random four-fermion term H_SYK with zero-mean Gaussian couplings, and footnote [13] asserts without proof that the Gaussian ensemble is inessential. That is a physical modeling assumption, not a circular step; the paper never claims to derive that term from transport data or to fit it to the conductance it later predicts. Given that input, Eqs. (7) and (8) follow from well-defined calculations: the tunneling action (6) is expanded to first or second order, and the conductance is obtained by linear response from the kernel (26)/(33) with the SYK/Schwarzian Green functions. The low-temperature T^{3/2} law inherits the long-time tau^{-3/2} behavior of the squared Green function cited from Refs. [36,37,43]; those are independent prior calculations of SYK/Schwarzian correlators and are not used as a uniqueness theorem, as fitted parameters, or as a definition of the transport observable. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing in the circularity sense. The paper's own footnote [32] and Eq. (13) may be internally inconsistent with the stated hierarchy m^{-1}<<E_C, and the Gaussian-randomness claim for the residual interaction is not microscopically established; both are correctness risks, not instances of prediction-by-construction. No parameter is fitted to the target conductance data, and no equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data. The model parameters (J, N, Ec, W, g0, theta) are physical inputs. The paper relies on several externally established results from SYK literature and on one unproven domain mapping (Gaussian random couplings in real dots). No new particles or fields are introduced; the h(tau) reparametrization mode and the U(1) phase phi(tau) are the standard collective modes of the complex SYK model.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The four-fermion residual interaction in a chaotic quantum dot is an effectively Gaussian, independent, zero-mean random ensemble with variance J^2/N^3.
    Invoked immediately after Eq. (1) and in footnote [13] to identify H_SYK with the dot's interaction; no microscopic derivation is given.
  • domain assumption The low-energy action of the complex SYK dot is the U(1) phase action plus the Schwarzian action (3), with hierarchy m^{-1} << Ec << J.
    Imported from Refs. [12,30,31]; all transport results in Eqs. (7)-(8) are computed from this action.
  • domain assumption The exact long-time asymptotics of the Schwarzian propagators, including <(G(h))^2> ~ tau^{-3/2} and the piecewise form (41), are correct.
    Used in Eqs. (26), (31), (41) to produce the T^{3/2} law and the RG flow; the predictions inherit the validity of these input correlators.
  • domain assumption The perturbative RG flow (10) with SL(2,R) symmetry protection captures the quantum phase transition at lambda_c = 12.
    Derived in the supplementary following Ref. [27]; it is truncated at lowest order in w and sets the critical bandwidth Wc ~ J/N.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SYK non Fermi Liquid Correlations in Nanoscopic Quantum Transport." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LZKNPSWC

@misc{pith2026190811351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SYK non Fermi Liquid Correlations in Nanoscopic Quantum Transport},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LZKNPSWC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11351}
}
abstract

Electronic transport in nano-structures, such as long molecules or 2D exfoliated flakes, often goes through a nearly degenerate set of single-particle orbitals. Here we show that in such cases a conspiracy of the narrow band and strong e-e interactions may stabilize a non Fermi liquid phase in the universality class of the complex Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev (SYK) model. Focusing on signatures in quantum transport, we demonstrate the existence of anomalous power laws in the temperature dependent conductance, including algebraic scaling $T^{3/2}$ in the inelastic cotunneling channel, separated from the conventional Fermi liquid $T^2$ scaling via a quantum phase transition. The relatively robust conditions under which these results are obtained indicate that the SYK non Fermi liquid universality class might be not as exotic as previously thought.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11351 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Main Panel: temperature dependence of the direct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Main Panel: schematic temperature dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Summary of the different regimes characterized by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    However, in view of the effectively Gaussian distribution of chaotic single particle wave functions, this difference is inessential

    The difference is that in the standard SYK-Hamiltonian the couplings are drawn from a Gaussian distribution. However, in view of the effectively Gaussian distribution of chaotic single particle wave functions, this difference is inessential

    work page

  2. [32]

    Sachdev, Phys

    S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041025 (2015), arXiv:1506.05111

    arXiv 2015

  3. [27]

    Altland, D

    A. Altland, D. Bagrets, and A. Kamenev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 106601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [1]

    Vilan, D

    A. Vilan, D. Aswal, and D. Cahen, Chemi- cal Reviews 117, 4248 (2017), pMID: 28177226, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00595

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00595 2017

  5. [2]

    This indicates a critical value λc = 12, separating a NFL phase at smallerλ from FL phase at largerλ

    (10) These equations are best analyzed by defining λ≡ wm, which leads to the closed equationd lnλ/dl =λ/24−1/2. This indicates a critical value λc = 12, separating a NFL phase at smallerλ from FL phase at largerλ. In terms of the bare parameters λ∝ (NW/J )2 and thus Wc∝J/N. Phase diagram: A summary of the regimes with differ- ent algebraic or exponential te...

    work page

  6. [3]

    T. A. Su, M. Neupane, M. L. Steigerwald, L. Venkatara- man, and C. Nuckolls, Nature Reviews Materials 1, 16002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [4]

    Merces, R

    L. Merces, R. F. de Oliveira, D. H. S. de Ca- margo, and C. C. B. Bufon, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 121, 16673 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b02528

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b02528 2017

  8. [5]

    W. G. van der Wiel, S. De Franceschi, J. M. Elzerman, T. Fujisawa, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 45 references
  1. [6]

    Charge transport in dna-based devices,

    D. Porath, N. Lapidot, and J. Gomez-Herrero, “Charge transport in dna-based devices,” in Introducing Molecu- lar Electronics, edited by G. Cuniberti, K. Richter, and G. Fagas (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,

  2. [7]

    I. L. Kurland, I. L. Aleiner, and B. L. Altshuler, Phys. Rev. B 62, 14886 (2000)

    2000

  3. [8]

    Y. V. Nazarov and Y. M. Blanter, Quantum Trans- port: Introduction to Nanoscience (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2009)

    2009

  4. [9]

    Alhassid, Reviews of Modern Physics 72, 895 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0102268 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Y. Alhassid, Reviews of Modern Physics 72, 895 (2000), arXiv:cond-mat/0102268 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2000 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Aleiner, P

    I. Aleiner, P. Brouwer, and L. Glazman, Physics Reports 358, 309 (2002)

    2002

  6. [11]

    Sachdev and J

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3339 (1993), arXiv:cond-mat/9212030

    1993 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Urbina and K

    J.-D. Urbina and K. Richter, Advances in Physics62, 363 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732.2013.860277

    2013

  8. [14]

    A simple model of quantum holography,

    A. Kitaev, “A simple model of quantum holography,” http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/ kitaev/ and http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/ entangled15/kitaev2/ (7 April 2015 and 27 May 2015)

    2015

  9. [15]

    Fu and S

    W. Fu and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 94, 035135 (2016), arXiv:1603.05246

    2016 arXiv

  10. [16]

    R. A. Davison, W. Fu, A. Georges, Y. Gu, K. Jensen, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B 95, 155131 (2017), arXiv:1612.00849

    2017 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Sonner and M

    J. Sonner and M. Vielma, JHEP 11, 149 (2017), arXiv:1707.08013

    2017 arXiv

  12. [18]

    A. M. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. D 94, 126010 (2016), arXiv:1610.03816

    2016 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Altland and D

    A. Altland and D. Bagrets, Nucl. Phys. B 930, 45 (2018), arXiv:1712.05073

    2018 arXiv

  14. [20]

    A. M. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa and J. J. M. Verbaarschot, Phys. Rev. D 96, 066012 (2017), arXiv:1701.06593

    2017 arXiv

  15. [21]

    J. S. Cotler, G. Gur-Ari, M. Hanada, J. Polchinski, P. Saad, S. H. Shenker, D. Stanford, A. Streicher, and M. Tezuka, JHEP 05, 118 (2017), arXiv:1611.04650

    2017 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Maldacena and D

    J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, Phys. Rev. D 94, 106002 (2016), arXiv:1604.07818

    2016 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Song, C.-M

    X.-Y. Song, C.-M. Jian, and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 216601 (2017)

    2017

  18. [24]

    Engels¨ oy, T

    J. Engels¨ oy, T. G. Mertens, and H. Verlinde, JHEP 07, 139 (2016), arXiv:1606.03438

    2016 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Bi, C.-M

    Z. Bi, C.-M. Jian, Y.-Z. You, K. A. Pawlak, and C. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 95, 205105 (2017), arXiv:1701.07081

    2017 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Berkooz, P

    M. Berkooz, P. Narayan, M. Rozali, and J. Sim´ on, JHEP 01, 138 (2017), arXiv:1610.02422

    2017 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Gu, X.-L

    Y. Gu, X.-L. Qi, and D. Stanford, JHEP 05, 125 (2017), arXiv:1609.07832

    2017 arXiv

  22. [29]

    A. V. Lunkin, K. S. Tikhonov, and M. V. Feigel’man, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 236601 (2018), arXiv:1806.11211

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    O. Can, E. M. Nica, and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. B 99, 9 045419 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Maldacena, D

    J. Maldacena, D. Stanford, and Z. Yang, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2016, 12C104 (2016), arXiv:1606.01857

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kitaev and S

    A. Kitaev and S. J. Suh, JHEP 05, 183 (2018), arXiv:1711.08467

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Assuming all matrix elements being comparable, Jijkl≈ Ec, one finds J≈N 3/2Ec≫Ec

  27. [35]

    Wang and H

    X. Wang and H. Grabert, Phys. Rev. B 53, 12621 (1996)

    1996

  28. [36]

    Kamenev and Y

    A. Kamenev and Y. Gefen, Phys. Rev. B 54, 5428 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    T. G. Mertens, G. J. Turiaci, and H. L. Verlinde, JHEP 08, 136 (2017), arXiv:1705.08408

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bagrets, A

    D. Bagrets, A. Altland, and A. Kamenev, Nucl. Phys. B 911, 191 (2016), arXiv:1607.00694

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    the calculation of g(T ) reduces to that of the Green function, ⟨G[φ,h ]⟩φ,h, of the isolated dot. In this ap- proximation, the conductance g≃ gdt probes the direct tunneling processes amplitude converting a lead quasi- particle into a single-particle excitation of the dot (se...

  32. [40]

    Ambegaokar, U

    V. Ambegaokar, U. Eckern, and G. Sch¨ on, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1745 (1982)

    1982

  33. [41]

    Since g0∝ v2N, in the limit of large number of chan- nels, N, the matrix elements, v, should decrease to keep g0 ≪ 1

  34. [42]

    N. V. Gnezdilov, J. A. Hutasoit, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B 98, 081413(R) (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    D. V. Averin and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2446 (1990)

    1990

  36. [44]

    See Supplemental Material for the technical derivations of the results presented in the main text

  37. [45]

    Bagrets, A

    D. Bagrets, A. Altland, and A. Kamenev, Nucl. Phys. B 921, 727 (2017), arXiv:1702.08902

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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