Pith. sign in

REVIEW 88 references

Current cross-correlations can tell true poor man's Majorana modes from false ones in a three-dot Kitaev chain, where conductance cannot.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Cross-correlation noise remains stable under outer-dot detuning only for true poor-man's Majorana sweet spots, distinguishing them from false ones where conductance fails.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-30 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid noise calculation that cleanly separates two known PMM parameter sets under outer-dot detuning; the general true/false diagnostic claim is still only a two-point demonstration.

arxiv 2607.23498 v1 pith:SWGE2WFJ submitted 2026-07-26 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.otherquant-ph

Current cross-correlations as probes for poor man's Majorana states

Saatwik Patnaik , Aditya Saran , Himadri S Dhar , Pertti Hakonen , Thierry Martin , Bhaskaran Muralidharan This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.otherquant-ph PACS 73.23.-b74.45.+c72.70.+m73.63.Kv
keywords poor man's MajoranaKitaev chaincurrent cross-correlationscrossed Andreev reflectionelastic cotunnelingquantum dotsnon-localitynoise spectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

A three-quantum-dot Kitaev chain can host zero-energy states that look like Majorana modes, called poor man's Majoranas, but only at fine-tuned sweet spots—and some of those spots are false look-alikes. Differential conductance cannot separate the true cases from the false ones. This paper shows that the true modes stay non-local when an outer dot is detuned, while false modes hybridize, and that this difference is carried by the balance between crossed Andreev reflection and elastic cotunneling. Current cross-correlations between the two leads read that balance directly: their pattern stays stable under outer-dot detuning only for true sweet spots and becomes clearer as bias is raised. Local noise and local conductance remain nearly identical for both classes. The claim is that cross-correlation measurements therefore give a practical, short-chain diagnostic of true non-locality without needing an infinite device.

Core claim

In the minimal three-site Kitaev chain, zero-frequency current cross-correlations encode the relative weights of crossed Andreev reflection and elastic cotunneling. Around a true poor man's Majorana sweet spot those cross-correlation features remain stable when an outer quantum dot is detuned; around a false sweet spot they change rapidly and form a diagonal sign-flip pattern. Local conductance and local current noise do not distinguish the two cases. Cross-correlation spectroscopy therefore diagnoses true non-locality even in the short-chain limit.

What carries the argument

The zero-frequency cross-correlator S_LR, whose integrand is proportional to (R_N - R_A)(T_ECT - T_CAR); its sign change and stability under outer-dot detuning track whether the nonlocal processes stay balanced as a true PMM would require.

Load-bearing premise

The paper accepts the true-versus-false labels from whether the same microscopic parameters would produce a topological phase if the chain were extended to infinite length; if that infinite-chain test mislabels the short-chain states, the noise map no longer certifies true non-locality.

What would settle it

At a candidate sweet spot, map S_LR versus Zeeman field and outer-dot detuning: true-labeled parameters must show a narrow, vertically confined sign change that survives modest detuning, while false-labeled parameters must show a diagonal, volatile pattern; if both classes look the same, the diagnostic fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Cross-correlation noise becomes a lab-accessible check for PMM candidates in three-dot devices.
  • Conductance spectroscopy alone is insufficient to certify non-locality of zero-bias states in short chains.
  • Raising bias strengthens the cross-correlation contrast while washing out conductance features.
  • The same CAR-versus-ECT balance read by S_LR also probes non-local entanglement in Cooper-pair splitter geometries.
  • True PMM robustness under detuning can be read without building a long topological chain.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same detuning-plus-cross-correlation protocol could help separate trivial Andreev bound states from Majorana candidates in longer hybrid nanowires.
  • Independent measurement of the ECT/CAR transmission ratio, once calibrated to these S_LR maps, would give a cheaper day-to-day proxy.
  • Larger-gap superconductors would raise the predicted cross-correlation signal above present noise floors and ease the measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: true/false labels are external inputs; S_LR is an independent scattering-matrix calculation, not forced by those labels.

full rationale

The paper imports two sweet-spot parameter sets and their true/false labels from Luethi et al., Ref. [37] (different authors), then independently evaluates reflection/transmission operators and zero-frequency noise from the BdG scattering matrix / NEGF (Eqs. 6–13, Apps. A–C). S_LR is controlled by Tr[(R_N−R_A)(T_ECT−T_CAR)] and is not algebraically identical to the infinite-chain topological criterion used in [37]. Stability of the CAR/ECT balance under outer-dot detuning is a computed outcome for those fixed Hamiltonians (Figs. 4–6), not a quantity fitted from the same noise data or defined in terms of S_LR. Self-citations ([19],[20],[47],[72]) supply standard transport methodology and are not load-bearing uniqueness claims. Dependence on an external classification is a scope/generality limitation, not circularity by construction. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or ansatz smuggling is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard mesoscopic superconducting transport plus two externally fixed sweet-spot parameter sets and the non-interacting three-site BdG model. No new particles or forces are introduced. Free parameters are the device numbers taken from prior work and the numerical cutoffs of the transport calculation.

free parameters (4)
  • True/false PMM sweet-spot set (t, Φ_SOI, ε_L,R, ε_M, Δ_Z^sw) = True: t=0.42Δ, Φ_SOI=0.26π, ε_L,R=0.884Δ, ε_M=1.275Δ; False: t=0.99Δ, Φ_SOI=0.44π, ε_L,R=0.593Δ, ε_M=-3.836Δ; Δ_Z^sw=0.8
    Taken from Luethi et al. [37] Table I and held fixed; the diagnostic comparison is defined on these two points.
  • Lead–dot coupling Γ = 5×10^{-3} Δ
    Sets tunnel broadening in Σ_L,R; chosen small compared with Δ for spectroscopy.
  • Bias points eV for noise integrals = 0.002Δ and 0.02Δ
    Finite-bias windows used for S_ij maps in Figs. 3, 5, 6; chosen by hand inside the gap.
  • NEGF regularization η = 10^{-8} Δ
    Numerical imaginary part in G^r; must be ≪Γ,Δ.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Non-interacting BdG description with U=0 on all dots is sufficient to capture PMM transport signatures.
    Stated in Table I caption and Sec. IIA; interactions could renormalize sweet spots and noise.
  • domain assumption Zero-frequency, zero-temperature scattering-matrix noise formulas (Büttiker/Anantram–Datta type) correctly give S_LL and S_LR for the hybrid multi-terminal setup.
    Derived in App. B from A-matrices; standard but assumes no interaction-induced inelastic noise.
  • domain assumption Wide-band, energy-independent lead self-energies Σ=-iΓ/2.
    App. C; justified when gap and bias ≪ lead bandwidth.
  • ad hoc to paper True versus false PMM identity is correctly assigned by the infinite-chain topological criterion of Ref. [37] at the same microscopic parameters.
    Sec. IIA and Introduction; load-bearing for interpreting which short-chain noise pattern is 'true'.
  • standard math Particle-hole symmetry of the BdG S-matrix folds the negative-bias noise window onto the positive one.
    App. B Eqs. (B9)–(B15).

reviewed 2026-07-30 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Current cross-correlations as probes for poor man's Majorana states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SWGE2WFJ

@misc{pith2026260723498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Current cross-correlations as probes for poor man's Majorana states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SWGE2WFJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23498}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The minimal Kitaev chain that emulates a topological superconductor with three quantum dots offers a tunable platform for potentially hosting poor man's Majorana (PMM) modes. Asserting the need to go beyond differential conductance spectroscopy, we introduce current-current correlations as a viable framework for verifying their true non-locality. The robustness of the PMM modes, specifically with respect to delocalization as the system is tuned away from sweet spots, we show, is embedded in the relative magnitudes of the nonlocal transport processes. This aspect is adeptly captured by current cross-correlations, whose features show remarkable stability around the PMM sweet spot, specifically with respect to the detuning of an outer dot. We establish this as a prominent feature and a diagnostic for true PMMs even in the short chain limit. Our results accentuate the need for current cross-correlation measurements as a diagnostic framework for unambiguously verifying true non-locality of entangled states as well as topologically protected states.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Simplifying current correlations Using row orthonormality, corresponding to the left lead, of the scattering matrix: X all(l,δ) sLl αδ sLl† βδ =δ αβ 12.(B18) Along similar lines as the calculation in the last section, X (l,δ)∈{(L,h),(R,e),(R,h)} T r h sLL† αe sLl αδ sLl† βδ sLL βe i =δ αβ T r sLL† αe sLL βe −T r h sLL† αe sLL αe sLL† βe sLL βe i (B19) Aga...

  2. [2]

    Simplifying current cross-correlations Writing out the full sum over the trace, X all(l,δ) T r h sLL† αe sLl αδ sRl† βδ sRL βe i =T r  sLL† αe   X all(l,δ) sLl αδ sRl† βδ   sRL βe   (B21) Now using row orthogonality of the scattering matrix: X all(l,δ) sLl αδ sRl† βδ = 0∀α, β.(B22) We can write the partial sum as X (l,δ)∈{(L,h),(R,e),(R,h)} T r h ...

  3. [3]

    E. J. Lee, X. Jiang, R. Aguado, G. Katsaros, C. M. Lieber, and S. De Franceschi, Physical review letters 109, 186802 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    M. Deng, S. Vaitiek˙ enas, E. B. Hansen, J. Danon, M. Lei- jnse, K. Flensberg, J. Nygård, P. Krogstrup, and C. M. Marcus, Science354, 1557 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Physics-uspekhi44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    D. E. Liu, M. Cheng, and R. M. Lutchyn, Physical Re- view B91, 081405 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    B. D. Woods, J. Chen, S. M. Frolov, and T. D. Stanescu, Physical Review B100, 125407 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Prada, P

    E. Prada, P. San-Jose, M. W. de Moor, A. Geresdi, E. J. Lee, J. Klinovaja, D. Loss, J. Nygård, R. Aguado, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Nature Reviews Physics2, 575 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    C.-X. Liu, J. D. Sau, T. D. Stanescu, and S. Das Sarma, Physical Review B96, 075161 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Moore, C

    C. Moore, C. Zeng, T. D. Stanescu, and S. Tewari, Phys- ical Review B98, 155314 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1083 (2008)

    2008

  12. [12]

    Marra, Journal of Applied Physics132, 231101 (2022)

    P. Marra, Journal of Applied Physics132, 231101 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    P. Yu, J. Chen, M. Gomanko, G. Badawy, E. Bakkers, K. Zuo, V. Mourik, and S. Frolov, Nature Physics17, 482 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    Q. Wang, S. L. Ten Haaf, I. Kulesh, D. Xiao, C. Thomas, M. J. Manfra, and S. Goswami, Nature Communications 14, 4876 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    van Loo, F

    N. van Loo, F. Zatelli, G. O. Steffensen, B. Roovers, G. Wang, T. Van Caekenberghe, A. Bordin, D. van Driel, Y.Zhang, W.D.Huisman,et al.,Nature650,334(2026)

    2026

  16. [16]

    Walldorf, F

    N. Walldorf, F. Brange, C. Padurariu, and C. Flindt, Phys. Rev. B101, 205422 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 077001 (2010)

    2010

  18. [18]

    R. M. Lutchyn, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, P. Krogstrup, C. M. Marcus, and Y. Oreg, Nature Re- views Materials3, 52 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Kejriwal and B

    A. Kejriwal and B. Muralidharan, Phys. Rev. B105, L161403 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Arora, A

    A. Arora, A. Kejriwal, and B. Muralidharan, New Jour- nal of Physics26, 023038 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Mondal, A

    D. Mondal, A. Pal, A. Saha, and T. Nag, Phys. Rev. B 111, L121401 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Smirnov, Phys

    S. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. B113, 165404 (2026)

    2026

  23. [23]

    J. D. Sau and S. D. Sarma, Nature communications3, 964 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Sauret, D

    O. Sauret, D. Feinberg, and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 69, 035332 (2004)

    2004

  25. [25]

    Głodzik, A

    S. Głodzik, A. G. Moghaddam, K. Pöyhönen, and T. Ojanen, Phys. Rev. B112, L081103 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics86, 134528 (2012)

    2012

  27. [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,et al., Nature630, 329 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    I. C. Fulga, A. Haim, A. R. Akhmerov, and Y. Oreg, New journal of physics15, 045020 (2013)

    2013

  29. [29]

    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,et al., Nature614, 445 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Tsintzis, R

    A. Tsintzis, R. S. Souto, and M. Leijnse, Physical Review B106, L201404 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    R. S. Souto, A. Tsintzis, M. Leijnse, and J. Danon, Phys- ical Review Research5, 043182 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    Samuelson, V

    W. Samuelson, V. Svensson, and M. Leijnse, Physical Review B109, 035415 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Y. Li, A. Kundu, F. Zhong, and B. Seradjeh, Physical Review B90, 121401 (2014)

    2014

  34. [34]

    C.-X. Liu, H. Pan, F. Setiawan, M. Wimmer, and J. D. Sau, Physical Review B108, 085437 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    S. L. Ten Haaf, Y. Zhang, Q. Wang, A. Bordin, C.-X. Liu, I. Kulesh, V. P. Sietses, C. G. Prosko, D. Xiao, C. Thomas,et al., Nature641, 890 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Luethi, H

    M. Luethi, H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys. Rev. B110, 245412 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Bordin, X

    A. Bordin, X. Li, D. Van Driel, J. C. Wolff, Q. Wang, S. L. Ten Haaf, G. Wang, N. Van Loo, L. P. Kouwen- hoven, and T. Dvir, Physical review letters132, 056602 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Zatelli, D

    F. Zatelli, D. Van Driel, D. Xu, G. Wang, C.-X. Liu, A. Bordin, B. Roovers, G. P. Mazur, N. Van Loo, J. C. Wolff,et al., Nature Communications15, 7933 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Zhang, I

    Y. Zhang, I. Kulesh, S. L. ten Haaf, N. van Loo, F. Za- telli, T. Degroote, C. G. Prosko, and S. Goswami, PRX Quantum7, 020317 (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    Bordin, C.-X

    A. Bordin, C.-X. Liu, T. Dvir, F. Zatelli, S. L. ten Haaf, D.vanDriel, G.Wang, N.vanLoo, T.vanCaekenberghe, J. C. Wolff,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19382 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Luethi, H

    M. Luethi, H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Phys- ical Review B111, 115419 (2025). 13

    2025

  42. [42]

    Bordin, C.-X

    A. Bordin, C.-X. Liu, T. Dvir, F. Zatelli, S. L. Ten Haaf, D. Van Driel, G. Wang, N. Van Loo, Y. Zhang, J. C. Wolff,et al., Nature Nanotechnology20, 726 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    G. B. Lesovik, T. Martin, and G. Blatter, The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Sys- tems24, 287 (2001)

    2001

  44. [44]

    Recher, E

    P. Recher, E. V. Sukhorukov, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B63, 165314 (2001)

    2001

  45. [45]

    van Driel, R

    D. van Driel, R. Koch, V. P. Sietses, S. L. ten Haaf, C.-X. Liu, F. Zatelli, B. Roovers, A. Bordin, N. van Loo, G. Wang,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04596 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Alvarado, A

    M. Alvarado, A. L. Yeyati, R. Aguado, and R. S. Souto, Phys. Rev. B110, 245144 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Arora, S

    A. Arora, S. Midha, A. Zyuzin, P. Hakonen, and B. Mu- ralidharan, npj Quantum Information11, 40 (2025)

    2025

  48. [48]

    Z. B. Tan, A. Laitinen, N. S. Kirsanov, A. Galda, V. M. Vinokur, M. Haque, A. Savin, D. S. Golubev, G. B. Leso- vik, and P. J. Hakonen, Nature Communications12, 138 (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    Chevallier, J

    D. Chevallier, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere, and T. Martin, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics83, 125421 (2011)

    2011

  50. [50]

    Brange, R

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

    2024

  51. [51]

    Tsintzis, R

    A. Tsintzis, R. S. Souto, K. Flensberg, J. Danon, and M. Leijnse, PRX Quantum5, 010323 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    J. M. Byers and M. E. Flatté, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 306 (1995)

    1995

  53. [53]

    Z. B. Tan, D. Cox, T. Nieminen, P. Lähteenmäki, D. Gol- ubev, G. B. Lesovik, and P. J. Hakonen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 096602 (2015)

    2015

  54. [54]

    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, Nature612, 448 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    J. M. Byers and M. E. Flatté, Eur. Phys. J. B24, 287 (2001)

    2001

  56. [56]

    N. M. Chtchelkatchev, G. Blatter, G. B. Lesovik, and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. B66, 161320 (2002)

    2002

  57. [57]

    Anantram and S

    M. Anantram and S. Datta, Physical Review B53, 16390 (1996)

    1996

  58. [58]

    Martin, Physics Letters A220, 137 (1996)

    T. Martin, Physics Letters A220, 137 (1996)

    1996

  59. [59]

    Zou, N.-W

    W.-K. Zou, N.-W. Li, and F.-L. Chong, physica status solidi (b)263, e202500525 (2026)

    2026

  60. [60]

    [65] to distinguish true sig- natures of topological superconductivity from other sys- tems with similar differential conductance features

    was discovered, efforts were made to develop quan- tum noise based detection protocols [61–64], using the low energy theory of Ref. [65] to distinguish true sig- natures of topological superconductivity from other sys- tems with similar differential conductance features. A critical signature of nonlocal spin-singlet-type quantum correlations present in su...

  61. [61]

    Seoane Souto and R

    R. Seoane Souto and R. Aguado, inNew Trends and Plat- forms for Quantum Technologies, edited by R. Aguado, R. Citro, M. Lewenstein, and M. Stern (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024) pp. 133–223

    2024

  62. [62]

    van Loo, F

    N. van Loo, F. Zatelli, G. O. Steffensen, B. Roovers, G. Wang, T. Van Caekenberghe, A. Bordin, D. van Driel, Y. Zhang, W. D. Huisman, G. Badawy, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, G. P. Mazur, R. Aguado, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Nature650, 334 (2026)

    2026

  63. [63]

    Bathellier, L

    D. Bathellier, L. Raymond, T. Jonckheere, J. Rech, A. Zazunov, and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. B99, 104502 (2019)

    2019

  64. [64]

    Mourik, K

    V. Mourik, K. Zuo, S. M. Frolov, S. R. Plissard, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Science336, 1003 (2012), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1222360

    doi:10.1126/science.1222360 2012

  65. [65]

    Jonckheere, J

    T. Jonckheere, J. Rech, A. Zazunov, R. Egger, and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. B95, 054514 (2017)

    2017

  66. [66]

    Jacquet, J

    R. Jacquet, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere, A. Zazunov, and T. Martin, The European Physical Journal B92, 59 (2018)

    2018

  67. [67]

    Burkard, D

    G. Burkard, D. Loss, and E. V. Sukhorukov, Phys. Rev. B61, R16303(R) (2000)

    2000

  68. [68]

    Jonckheere, J

    T. Jonckheere, J. Rech, A. Zazunov, R. Egger, A. L. Yeyati, and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 097003 (2019)

    2019

  69. [69]

    Zazunov, R

    A. Zazunov, R. Egger, and A. Levy Yeyati, Phys. Rev. B94, 014502 (2016)

    2016

  70. [70]

    J. Rech, D. Chevallier, T. Jonckheere, and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. B85, 035419 (2012)

    2012

  71. [71]

    Torrès, T

    J. Torrès, T. Martin, and G. B. Lesovik, Phys. Rev. B 63, 134517 (2001)

    2001

  72. [72]

    Samuelsson and M

    P. Samuelsson and M. Büttiker, Journal of Low Temper- ature Physics146, 115 (2007)

    2007

  73. [73]

    Büttiker, Physical Review B46, 12485 (1992)

    M. Büttiker, Physical Review B46, 12485 (1992)

    1992

  74. [74]

    Martin, inNanophysics: Coherence and Transport, Les Houches, Session LXXXI, edited by H

    T. Martin, inNanophysics: Coherence and Transport, Les Houches, Session LXXXI, edited by H. Bouchiat, Y. Gefen, S. Guéron, G. Montambaux, and J. Dalibard (Elsevier, 2005) p. 283

    2005

  75. [75]

    Pierattelli, F

    L. Pierattelli, F. Taddei, and A. Braggio, Physical Re- view Research7, 023321 (2025)

    2025

  76. [76]

    Muralidharan and S

    B. Muralidharan and S. Datta, inLow-Dimensional Ma- terials, Systems and Applications, Volume 1, Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials, Vol. 1, edited byP. Chakraborty and D.Mohanta (Wood- head Publishing, 2026) pp. 61–87

    2026

  77. [77]

    J. C. Cuevas, A. Martín-Rodero, and A. L. Yeyati, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4086 (1999)

    1999

  78. [78]

    Golub and B

    A. Golub and B. Horovitz, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics83, 153415 (2011)

    2011

  79. [79]

    ANY-HALL

    or utilizing interferometric methods at microwave frequencies [80]. Sometimes cross-correlation of noise is detected at microwave frequencies [81]. Low-frequency noise cross-correlation measurements are made with tuned circuits which effectively convert current fluctua- tions to voltage noise, yielding a sensitivity of∼1×10−30 A2/ √ Hz[82, 83]. Microwave ...

    2024

  80. [80]

    Ostrove and L

    C. Ostrove and L. Reichl, Physical Review B103, 224518 (2021)

    2021

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 30, 2026.