Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Few-fermion resonant tunneling and underbarrier trapping in asymmetric potentials

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For noninteracting fermions, tunneling through an asymmetric barrier is exactly symmetric; adding interactions breaks that symmetry, with spin-singlet pairs tunneling asymmetrically while spin-triplet pairs remain symmetric.

desk verdict Solid exact theorem plus convincing numerics, but the broad claims about interaction-induced asymmetry rest on a single barrier shape and a narrow parameter window. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03495 v2 pith:5AEXAPL5 submitted 2024-12-04 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Elvira Bilokon , Valeriia Bilokon , Dusty R. Lindberg , Lev Kaplan , Andrii Sotnikov , Denys I. Bondar This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el PACS 71.10.Fd73.40.Gk67.85.-d
keywords Fermi-Hubbardmodelquantumtunnelingasymmetricbarrierspinsingletandtripletresonantunderbarriertrappingfew-fermiondynamicscold-atomlattices
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 asks whether tunneling through an asymmetric potential barrier can be directional in a few-fermion lattice system. It proves that for noninteracting particles the tunneling probability is exactly the same from either side of any barrier, even on a finite chain, extending the established continuum result. It then argues that on-site interactions break this left-right symmetry, with the effect depending on the pair's spin state: triplet pairs tunnel symmetrically, singlet pairs do not. At an interaction strength equal to half the barrier height, the same Hamiltonian produces underbarrier resonant trapping and many-body resonant tunneling through a single barrier. If these findings hold, interactions give a new control knob for directional transport in nanoscale and cold-atom devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-dimensional Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian with nearest-neighbor hopping $J$, on-site interaction $U$, and an asymmetric two-site barrier potential with heights $h$ and $h/2$; this model generates all the reported tunneling dynamics. The noninteracting symmetry theorem is carried by a discrete path-sum (time-slicing) argument in which each contributing sequence of sites has a reversed twin with identical amplitude, using the reality and symmetry of the single-particle Hamiltonian. The spin dichotomy is carried by expanding the time-evolution operator: for the triplet state, terms that place two fermions on one site cancel at every order, so the dynamics never feels $U$, while for the singlet state they do not. The trapping and resonant tunneling regimes are carried by energy conservation at the resonance $U = h/2$, where a particle parked on the half-height site has energy equal to the initial doublon energy.

What would settle it

Run exact-diagonalization dynamics for two interacting spin-singlet fermions on a lattice with an asymmetric barrier of a different shape, such as a single-site delta barrier or a smooth ramp, and compare left-to-right and right-to-left tunneling probabilities; if the asymmetry or the $U = h/2$ trapping peak disappears for some barrier shape, the general claim fails. A direct cold-atom experiment with ultracold fermions could test whether singlet pairs tunnel preferentially from one side at $U = h/2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the left-right symmetry of single-particle tunneling, known to be exact in one-dimensional continuous systems, survives on finite discrete lattices but is destroyed by interactions. The proof of the noninteracting theorem uses a path-reversal argument: every Feynman path that carries a particle from left to right through an arbitrary barrier has a mirror 'twin' path of equal amplitude from right to left. For two spin-$1/2$ fermions, the triplet initial state retains this symmetry because no doubly occupied site is ever created, so interaction terms cancel term by term in the time-evolution expansion; the singlet state does create doublons and shows pronounced asymmetry. At $U = h/2$, energy conservation confines one fermion at the barrier site with potential energy $h/2$, producing underbarrier resonant trapping, and in a three-particle setup the same resonance enables many-body resonant tunneling through a single barrier.

Load-bearing premise

The broad claim rests on numerical simulations of one sawtooth barrier shape at selected heights and interaction strengths, plus an energy-conservation argument that assumes the non-trapped fermion carries negligible kinetic energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Noninteracting fermions on a finite lattice tunnel through any potential barrier with equal left-to-right and right-to-left probabilities, so the symmetry theorem is not limited to continuous infinite systems.
  • For two spin-$1/2$ fermions, triplet states preserve tunneling symmetry while singlet states show strong interaction-induced asymmetry.
  • At $U = h/2$, the system exhibits underbarrier resonant trapping: a fermion dwells on the half-height barrier site, suppressing tunneling, and this persists as the system size grows.
  • With an additional particle beyond the barrier, the $U = h/2$ resonance produces many-body resonant tunneling through a single barrier, an order-of-magnitude enhancement of tunneling from the steep side.
  • These effects arise solely from inter-particle interactions and have no single-particle resonant-tunneling analogue, which requires two or more barriers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is a systematic scan over barrier shapes (single-site delta, smooth Gaussian ramps, wider barriers) to see whether the singlet asymmetry and the $U = h/2$ resonance survive outside the sawtooth geometry; the paper reports only one shape.
  • If the spin dichotomy extends to larger systems, preparing spin-polarized versus spin-singlet pairs could act as an interaction-tunable direction selector for cold-atom transport experiments.
  • The near-linear growth of trapping time with lattice size shown in the supplementary material suggests a practical timescale metric for designing delay or memory elements based on underbarrier trapping.
  • The localized-itinerant limit described in the supplement shows that the interaction effectively reshapes the barrier felt by the moving fermion, suggesting the asymmetry mechanism could be reformulated as interaction-induced barrier reshaping in other lattice models.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies two spin-1/2 fermions on a one-dimensional Fermi-Hubbard chain with a two-site asymmetric barrier. It proves that for noninteracting fermions the tunneling probability is symmetric in finite discrete systems, shows that spin-triplet initial states preserve this symmetry while spin-singlet states break it, and identifies a regime U=h/2 where the authors report underbarrier resonant trapping and enhanced many-body resonant tunneling. The evidence is exact diagonalization for L=4,6,20 with the sawtooth potential of Eq. (2), supplemented by a rigorous path-based theorem for U=0 and a Falicov-Kimball limit for an immobile particle.

Significance. The noninteracting symmetry theorem in Supplementary Note 2 and the exact cancellation argument for triplet states are genuine and clean contributions, and the numerical code is publicly available. If the interaction-induced asymmetry and the U=h/2 phenomena are robust beyond the single sawtooth potential studied, the results would be interesting for few-fermion transport and possible device applications. The main weakness is that the broad claims in the abstract and introduction are supported by a narrow set of numerical examples rather than by a theorem or a systematic parameter scan.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. II.C; Eq. (2)] The abstract states that inter-particle interactions break tunneling symmetry and create pronounced asymmetric tunneling behavior as a general property, but the supporting evidence is exact diagonalization for one specific two-site sawtooth potential at selected parameters (h=10J,20J; U=0.5J,10J; L=4,6,20). The noninteracting theorem applies to arbitrary barriers, but no analogous theorem or systematic scan over barrier shapes, heights, interaction strengths, or system sizes is given for the interacting case. Please either restrict the claims to the studied potential or add evidence, such as scans over h, U, and L and tests with other asymmetric potentials, that the asymmetry is generic.
  2. [Sec. III.A and Fig. 5] The label resonant in underbarrier resonant trapping is not demonstrated. The explanation equates the initial doublon energy U with the potential energy h/2 at site j*, but no spectral, scattering, or avoided-crossing analysis is presented, and the energy-conservation argument assumes that both the trapped particle and its partner carry negligible kinetic energy. A peak in trapping probability as a function of U with a resolvable width, or an analysis of the relevant eigenstates, would justify the term resonant; otherwise the phenomenon is better described as energy-matched trapping.
  3. [Sec. III, Figs. 4 and 6] The asymmetry is quantified by time averages over a fixed interval T=100/J in a closed finite lattice. The statement that the results are largely unaffected by increasing the final time T is not supported by any shown data. Since finite-system recurrences can make such time averages strongly T-dependent, the paper should include a convergence check, such as a T-scan or long-time average, before interpreting these averages as tunneling probabilities.
  4. [Sec. II.C and Eq. (5)] The triplet symmetry argument is exact for the specific initial state |↑1↓2⟩+|↓1↑2⟩, where the double-occupancy terms cancel, but the text generalizes to spin-triplet states preserve tunneling symmetry without proving the statement for arbitrary triplet superpositions or other triplet components. Please make the claim precise by specifying the class of triplet initial states covered and, if necessary, extend the proof beyond the nearest-neighbor example shown.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary Note 1] The Falicov-Kimball limit treats an immobile particle, so it cannot certify the mobile two-particle case; this limitation should be acknowledged where this limit is used as intuition in the main text.
  2. [Code Availability] The statement The code is available on GitHub provides no repository identifier or persistent version; please add a link or DOI so the exact code version can be retrieved for reproducibility.
  3. [Fig. 2] The claim that the two curves overlap perfectly would be more convincing with a difference plot or a numerical estimate of the maximum deviation between the two curves.
  4. [Figs. 4 and 6] The time-averaged data would benefit from a discussion of numerical precision of the QuSpin time-evolution method, including any truncation error tolerance used in the Taylor-series expansion.
  5. [Sec. II.C] The phrase treasure chest in the Introduction is informal and could be replaced with a more neutral description of the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the noninteracting symmetry theorem is proven from the Hamiltonian, the triplet symmetry follows from an explicit cancellation, and the interacting effects are verified by independent exact diagonalization.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The noninteracting symmetry result is not imported from a citation: Supplementary Note 2 proves Theorem 1 directly from the single-particle Hamiltonian matrix H_{i,j}=V_i δ_{i,j}-J δ_{i,j+1}-J δ_{i,j-1} by time-slicing and pairing each Feynman path with a reflected twin path, yielding ⟨c|e^{-iHt}|a⟩=⟨L+1-c|e^{-iHt}|L+1-a⟩; the U=0 many-body case reduces to this single-particle problem. The triplet-sector statement is also derived in the text: Eqs. (4)-(5) show the doublon-producing terms cancel at first order, and the paper argues the cancellation persists to all orders because Pauli exclusion forbids doublons in the triplet sector; this is an explicit argument from the Hamiltonian, not a citation. The singlet asymmetry and the U=h/2 trapping/enhanced-tunneling regimes are numerical observations from exact diagonalization (QuSpin), with post hoc energy-conservation explanations; choosing U=h/2 from the energy-matching condition and then observing enhanced occupation of site j* is a parameter choice followed by an independent numerical test, not a fit disguised as a prediction. The Falicov-Kimball illustration in Supplementary Note 1 reduces the interacting two-particle problem with an immobile particle to an effective single-particle Hamiltonian and shows the two barrier orientations give different effective potentials; this is an explanatory model, not circular. The only self-citations (e.g., [43], [47], [48]) are used as background for previously known symmetry breaking or tunneling asymmetry and are not load-bearing for the present derivations. Broader concerns about generalization beyond L=4/6 and the chosen barrier shape are soundness/generality issues, not circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the three entries are hand-chosen simulation controls that the central demonstrations depend on. The paper introduces no invented entities. The main axioms are the Hubbard model, the representative barrier shape, the spin-sector decoupling, the standard path-expansion argument, and the qualitative energy-conservation picture used to label the effects as resonant.

free parameters (3)
  • Interaction-to-barrier ratio U/h = 1/2 = U = 10J, h = 20J in Figs. 4-6; U = 0.5J, h = 10J in Fig. 3
    The resonant trapping and enhanced tunneling are demonstrated at this hand-picked ratio. The value is not derived or scanned in detail, so the resonant character of the effects depends on this choice.
  • Barrier height h = 20J in Figs. 4-6, 10J in Fig. 3
    Chosen to put the system deep in the tunneling regime; the paper does not scan h, so the pronounced asymmetry and trapping magnitudes are tied to these values.
  • Time-averaging window T = 100/J
    Time-averaged observables in Figs. 4 and 6d use this window. The text asserts larger T does not change the conclusions, but no supporting scan is shown.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian with nearest-neighbor hopping and on-site U captures the relevant few-fermion tunneling physics.
    Eq. (1); standard model for ultracold fermions in optical lattices, but the paper does not test other interaction forms or longer-range couplings.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-site asymmetric potential with heights h and h/2 is a representative generic asymmetric barrier.
    Eq. (2); all interacting numerical demonstrations use this shape, so the general claims of interaction-induced asymmetry rest on this specific barrier.
  • standard math Total spin S^2 is conserved and the singlet and triplet sectors decouple under the dynamics.
    Sec. II A; follows from SU(2) invariance of H and is used to explain why triplet initial states never activate the interaction term.
  • standard math The time-sliced path expansion and twin-path construction converge to the exact single-particle propagator.
    Supplementary Note 2; relies on a real symmetric Hamiltonian, nearest-neighbor hopping, and the Euler or Trotter limit, a standard argument.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy-conservation picture for underbarrier trapping assumes the trapped fermion and its partner have negligible kinetic energy.
    Sec. III A; this qualitative argument is used to explain the U = h/2 trapping and is not tested against the full energy spectrum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Few-fermion resonant tunneling and underbarrier trapping in asymmetric potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5AEXAPL5

@misc{pith2026241203495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Few-fermion resonant tunneling and underbarrier trapping in asymmetric potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5AEXAPL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03495}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding quantum tunneling in many-body systems is crucial for advancing quantum technologies and nanoscale device design. Despite extensive studies of quantum tunneling, the role of interactions in determining directional transport through asymmetric barriers in discrete quantum systems remains unclear. Here we show that noninteracting fermions exhibit symmetric tunneling probabilities regardless of barrier orientation, while inter-particle interactions break this symmetry and create pronounced asymmetric tunneling behavior. We explore the dependence of tunneling behavior on the initial spin configurations of two spin-1/2 fermions: spin-triplet states preserve tunneling symmetry, while spin-singlet states show strong asymmetry. We identify regimes where interactions mediate tunneling through under-barrier resonant trapping and enhance tunneling via many-body resonant tunneling -- a phenomenon arising solely from inter-particle interactions and being fundamentally different from traditional single-particle resonant tunneling. Our results may be applied to the design of nanoscale devices with tailored transport properties, such as diodes and memristors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03495 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a), ⟨nˆh/2⟩ is larger in the case of tunneling from the angled side of the barrier. This can be explained by the fact that particles placed on this side require fewer evolution steps to reach the lattice site j ∗ . The results shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. B. Balantekin and N. Takigawa, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 77 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    Amini, J

    K. Amini, J. Biegert, F. Calegari, A. Chac´ on, M. F. Ciap- pina, A. Dauphin, D. K. Efimov, C. F. de Morisson Faria, K. Giergiel, P. Gniewek, A. S. Landsman, M. Lesiuk, M. Mandrysz, A. S. Maxwell, R. Moszy´ nski, L. Ortmann, J. A. P´ erez-Hern´ andez, A. Pic´ on, E. Pisanty, J. Prauzner- Bechcicki, K. Sacha, N. Su´ arez, A. Za ¨ ır, J. Zakrzewski, and M. ...

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Liang, Quantum Tunneling and Field Electron Emis- sion Theories (World Scientific, Singapore, 2014)

    S.-D. Liang, Quantum Tunneling and Field Electron Emis- sion Theories (World Scientific, Singapore, 2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Guzun, Y

    D. Guzun, Y. I. Mazur, V. G. Dorogan, M. E. Ware, J. Marega, E., G. G. Tarasov, C. Lienau, and G. J. Salamo, J. Appl. Phys. 113, 154304 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Albiez, R

    M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. F¨ olling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cristiani, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 010402 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Bai, Scanning Tunneling Microscopy and Its Applica- tion, Springer Series in Surface Sciences (Springer, Heidel- berg, 2000)

    C. Bai, Scanning Tunneling Microscopy and Its Applica- tion, Springer Series in Surface Sciences (Springer, Heidel- berg, 2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Arzano, A

    M. Arzano, A. J. M. Medved, and E. C. Vagenas, Journal of High Energy Physics 2005, 037 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Atkatz, Am

    D. Atkatz, Am. J. Phys. 62, 619 (1994)

    work page 1994

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    M. C. Gordillo, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.51, 155301 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    E. J. Lindgren, J. Rotureau, C. Forss´ en, A. G. Volosniev, and N. T. Zinner, New J. Phys. 16, 063003 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    M. C. Gordillo and F. De Soto, Phys. Rev. A 96, 013614 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Erdmann, S

    J. Erdmann, S. I. Mistakidis, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053614 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Sowi´ nski, T

    T. Sowi´ nski, T. Grass, O. Dutta, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. A 88, 033607 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Ishmukhamedov and A

    I. Ishmukhamedov and A. Ishmukhamedov, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 109, 24 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Z¨ ollner, H.-D

    S. Z¨ ollner, H.-D. Meyer, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 040401 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Z¨ ollner, H.-D

    S. Z¨ ollner, H.-D. Meyer, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A 78, 013621 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    D. K. Nandy and T. Sowi´ nski, Scientific Reports 12, 19710 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    G. M. Koutentakis, S. I. Mistakidis, and P. Schmelcher, New Journal of Physics 22, 063058 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    W lodzy´ nski and T

    D. W lodzy´ nski and T. Sowi´ nski, Phys. Rev. A 104, 053317 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Moritz, T

    H. Moritz, T. St¨ oferle, K. G¨ unter, M. K¨ ohl, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 210401 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Rontani, Phys

    M. Rontani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 115302 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Brugger, C

    J. Brugger, C. Dittel, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rev. A 111, 033308 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    J. M. Becker, G. M. Koutentakis, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043039 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    F¨ olling, S

    S. F¨ olling, S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, M. Feld, R. Saers, A. Widera, T. M¨ uller, and I. Bloch, Nature 448, 1029 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Trotzky, P

    S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, S. F¨ olling, M. Feld, U. Schnor- rberger, A. M. Rey, A. Polkovnikov, E. A. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and I. Bloch, Science 319, 295 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    I. B. Spielman, W. D. Phillips, and J. V. Porto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 080404 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, A. J. Kerman, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120403 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    G. B. Partridge, W. Li, Y. A. Liao, R. G. Hulet, M. Haque, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 190407 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Y. Shin, M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030401 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Serwane, G

    F. Serwane, G. Z¨ urn, T. Lompe, T. B. Ottenstein, A. N. Wenz, and S. Jochim, Science 332, 336 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Murmann, A

    S. Murmann, A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, G. Z¨ urn, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 080402 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Mukherjee, M

    S. Mukherjee, M. Valiente, N. Goldman, A. Spracklen, E. Andersson, P. ¨Ohberg, and R. R. Thomson, Phys. Rev. A 94, 053853 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Z¨ urn, F

    G. Z¨ urn, F. Serwane, T. Lompe, A. N. Wenz, M. G. Ries, J. E. Bohn, and S. Jochim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 075303 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Z¨ urn, A

    G. Z¨ urn, A. N. Wenz, S. Murmann, A. Bergschneider, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 175302 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    A. N. Wenz, G. Z¨ urn, S. Murmann, I. Brouzos, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, Science 342, 457 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Zhang, Z.-C

    W.-H. Zhang, Z.-C. Li, Y.-H. Guan, and Y.-F. Zhang, Chinese Physics B 26, 078502 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    H. Liu, X. Zhou, Y. Li, P. Li, L. Pan, and P. Wang, Phys. Scr. 100, 015023 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Nadeem, I

    M. Nadeem, I. Di Bernardo, X. Wang, M. S. Fuhrer, and D. Culcer, Nano Letters 21, 3155 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Chuang, S.-C

    P. Chuang, S.-C. Ho, L. W. Smith, F. Sfigakis, M. Pep- per, C.-H. Chen, J.-C. Fan, J. P. Griffiths, I. Farrer, H. E. Beere, G. A. C. Jones, D. A. Ritchie, and T.-M. Chen, Nature Nanotech. 10, 35 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    R. Lin, G. Shi, F. Qiao, C. Wang, and S. Wu, Microelec- tronics Journal 133, 105702 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum mechanics: non-relativistic theory, Vol. 3 (Elsevier, 1981)

    1981

  34. [42]

    M. R. A. Shegelski and C. Sample, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 035405 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Lindberg, N

    D. Lindberg, N. Gaaloul, L. Kaplan, J. Williams, D. Schlippert, P. Boegel, E.-M. Rasel, and D. Bondar, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 56 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    A. R. Kolovsky, J. Link, and S. Wimberger, New Journal of Physics 14, 075002 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Razavy, Quantum Theory of Tunneling(World Sci- entific, Singapore, 2013)

    M. Razavy, Quantum Theory of Tunneling(World Sci- entific, Singapore, 2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    Dragoman and M

    D. Dragoman and M. Dragoman, Quantum-classical analogies, The frontiers collection (Springer, Berlin, 2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Amirkhanov and B

    I. Amirkhanov and B. N. Zakhariev, Sov. Phys. JETP 22, 764 (1966)

    1966

  40. [48]

    D. I. Bondar, W.-K. Liu, and M. Y. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052112 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Jotzu, M

    G. Jotzu, M. Messer, F. G¨ org, D. Greif, R. Desbuquois, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 073002 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Jim´ enez-Garc ´ ıa, L

    K. Jim´ enez-Garc ´ ıa, L. J. LeBlanc, R. A. Williams, M. C. Beeler, A. R. Perry, and I. B. Spielman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 225303 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010). 8

    2010

  44. [52]

    C. H. Schunck, M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, S. M. F. Raupach, W. Ketterle, A. Simoni, E. Tiesinga, C. J. Williams, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A 71, 045601 (2005)

    2005

  45. [53]

    T. G. Tiecke, M. R. Goosen, A. Ludewig, S. D. Gense- mer, S. Kraft, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 053202 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Soave, A

    E. Soave, A. Canali, Z.-X. Ye, M. Kreyer, E. Kirilov, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033117 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, SciPost Phys. 2, 003 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Weinberg and M

    P. Weinberg and M. Bukov, SciPost Phys. 7, 020 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    M. F. Parsons, A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Science 353, 1253 (2016)

    2016

  50. [58]

    P. T. Brown, D. Mitra, E. Guardado-Sanchez, R. Nourafkan, A. Reymbaut, C.-D. H´ ebert, S. Bergeron, A.-M. S. Tremblay, J. Kokalj, D. A. Huse, P. Schauß, and W. S. Bakr, Science 363, 379 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Few-fermion resonant tunneling and underbarrier trapping in asymmetric potentials

    M. A. Nichols, L. W. Cheuk, M. Okan, T. R. Hartke, E. Mendez, T. Senthil, E. Khatami, H. Zhang, and M. W. Zwierlein, Science 363, 383 (2019). Supplementary Information for “Few-fermion resonant tunneling and underbarrier trapping in asymmetric potentials” Supplementary Note 1:...

    2019

  52. [60]

    The Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian ˆH from Supple- mentary Equation (1) with no interaction U = 0 with the external potential V ex j schematically de- picted in Supplementary Figure 2; V ex j = 0 for j in regions A and C, whereas V ex j is arbitrary in region B

  53. [61]

    The probability of a particle tunneling into region C is ⟨ˆnC(t)⟩ = ⟨Ψ(t)| ˆnC |Ψ(t)⟩ , ˆnC = LX c=LA+LB +1 ˆnc, (6) where the wavefunction |Ψ(t)⟩ = e−it ˆH |Ψ(0)⟩ de- scribes evolution of the initial state |Ψ(0)⟩ of a sin- gle particle positioned in region A, i.e., |Ψ(0)⟩ = L...

  54. [62]

    (9) While |Ψ(0)⟩ is localized in region A, the initial state eΨ(0) E is localized in region C

    The probability of a particle tunneling into region A is ⟨ˆnA(t)⟩ = D eΨ(t) ˆnA eΨ(t) E , ˆnA = LAX a=1 ˆna, (8) where the wavefunction eΨ(t) E = e−it ˆH eΨ(0) E de- scribes evolution of the initial state eΨ(0) E which is the mirror reflection of |Ψ(0)⟩, i.e., eΨ(0) E = LAX a=...

  55. [63]

    L. M. Falicov and J. C. Kimball, Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 997 (1969)

    1969

  56. [64]

    J. K. Freericks and V. Zlati´ c, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 1333 (2003)

    2003

  57. [65]

    Lema´ nski, K

    R. Lema´ nski, K. J. Kapcia, and S. Robaszkiewicz, Phys. Rev. B 96, 205102 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    K. J. Kapcia, R. Lema´ nski, and S. Robaszkiewicz, Phys. Rev. B 99, 245143 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics (3rd Edition)(Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.