Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 46 references

A three-path average-current interferometer can separately read quasiparticle charge, scaling dimension, and exchange angle from fractional quantum Hall edges.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 14:33 UTC pith:O5KZWSGF

load-bearing objection Solid theory proposal: cubic three-path AB currents can separate charge, scaling dimension, and exchange angle if the same vertex stays unresolved. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24451 v1 pith:O5KZWSGF submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Testing edge chirality with a three-path fractional quantum Hall interferometer

Eugene V. Sukhorukov This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords fractional quantum Halledge chiralityAharonov-Bohm interferometerquantum point contactsanyonic exchange anglescaling dimensionLaughlin edgeAbelian anyons
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.

Fractional quantum Hall edges carry fractional charge and anyonic statistics, but chirality—the one-way causal response along the edge—is a separate property that is hard to isolate in ordinary current measurements. This paper proposes a concrete device: three coherent quantum point contacts arranged so that the shortest flux-sensitive current is cubic in tunneling and arises from interference between a direct hop and a two-step path through an intermediate edge segment. Opposite voltage orderings make that intermediate segment sample either downstream or upstream propagation, turning direction into a measurable Aharonov–Bohm coefficient. On an ideal local Laughlin edge the upstream coefficient is exactly zero and the downstream amplitude scales as a known power of bias; a weak nonlocal density bridge can turn the upstream channel on without adding a counter-propagating mode, with a predicted power and fractional phase. For a general Abelian tunneling vertex the same protocol extracts charge from the flux period, scaling dimension from the common bias exponent or aligned phase, and exchange angle from the ratio of the two directional amplitudes—provided the same vertex tunnels at all three contacts and flight times stay unresolved.

Core claim

In the same-vertex, coherent, unresolved-flight regime, the fundamental Aharonov–Bohm harmonic of a three-path interferometer separately yields quasiparticle charge from the flux frequency, scaling dimension from the shared bias scaling E^{3Δ_ℓ−2} or the positive-flux-aligned phase πΔ_ℓ, and exchange angle from that dimension together with the directional amplitude ratio |sin(πδ_−)/sin(πδ_+)|. For a local Laughlin edge the upstream kernel vanishes exactly while the downstream amplitude scales as E^{3ν−2}.

What carries the argument

The cubic directional kernel: interference between a direct one-QPC transfer and a coherent two-QPC path reduces, after contour completion, to two external spectral weights joined by a single retarded pair line on the intermediate segment; opposite cyclic voltage orderings isolate downstream versus upstream support of that line inside the same fundamental flux harmonic.

Load-bearing premise

All three contacts must tunnel the same fixed-point vertex, and every charge and neutral mode that participates must cross the segments faster than the experiment can resolve; if a slow mode is resolved or several vertices mix at the same flux frequency, the single-vertex readout of the exchange angle fails.

What would settle it

On a clean Laughlin edge at fixed voltage ratios and unresolved flight, the middle-terminal upstream projector must vanish while the downstream projector scales as E^{3ν−2}; a calibrated weak bridge should then produce an upstream signal scaling as E^{2ν−1} with aligned phase −π(1−ν)/2 plus a discrete sign, and reversing the bridge sign should reverse that upstream harmonic.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Terminal-current flux sweeps with opposite cyclic bias orderings become a direct null test of local edge chirality without needing higher-order noise or collider setups.
  • At the disorder-dominated 2/3 fixed point the device distinguishes the e/3 doublet (directional ratio 2, exchange −π/3) from the neutral-free 2e/3 composite (ratio 0, exchange 2π/3) even though both share scaling dimension 1/3.
  • A folded same-filling Laughlin weak link supplies a sign-tunable, charge-neutral bridge so that an activated upstream signal can be turned on and off on chip.
  • Charge, scaling dimension, and Abelian exchange angle of the selected tunneling vertex become three separately readable quantities from one average-current experiment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the unresolved-flight window can be maintained in graphene or GaAs multipath devices already used for anyon interferometry, the protocol offers a current-only complement to collider and noise-based exchange-phase proposals.
  • Resolved neutral modes would convert the constant directional ratio into a voltage- and temperature-dependent visibility envelope, turning the same geometry into a flight-time spectrometer rather than a fixed-point angle meter.
  • Extending the conserving bridge calculation beyond Laughlin edges would let the same cubic harmonic diagnose engineered nonlocal interactions on nonchiral multicomponent edges.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an average-current interferometer in which three coherent quantum point contacts form a flux-enclosing tunneling loop on fractional quantum Hall edges. The leading Aharonov–Bohm (AB) harmonic is then cubic in the tunneling amplitudes and results from interference between a direct one-QPC transfer and a coherent two-QPC alternative through an intermediate edge segment; resolving that segment separates downstream from upstream retarded propagation. For a local Laughlin edge at ν=1/m the upstream coefficient vanishes exactly while the downstream amplitude scales as E^{3ν−2}. A weak static nonlocal density interaction spanning the two QPCs activates the upstream coefficient without introducing a counterpropagating mode, with amplitude E^{2ν−1} and aligned phase −π(1−ν)/2 + χ_a (χ_a = 0, π). A folded same-filling auxiliary edge with a neutral weak link realizes a calibrated, sign-tunable bridge. For a general Abelian vertex with directional weights δ_±, both directional amplitudes scale as E^{3Δ_ℓ−2} (Δ_ℓ = δ_+ + δ_-), and after positive-flux harmonic alignment the relative phase is πΔ_ℓ = 2πh_ℓ while the magnitude ratio is |sin(πδ_-)/sin(πδ_+)|; together with the charge from the AB frequency this reconstructs q_ℓ, h_ℓ, and the exchange angle θ_ℓ = π(δ_+ − δ_-). The ν=2/3 Kane–Fisher–Polchinski fixed point is worked out as a discriminating example.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper delivers a current-only protocol that (i) converts the causal one-sidedness of a chiral edge into a flux-sensitive, direction-resolved null; (ii) gives a sign-sensitive probe of nonlocal interactions through the bridge-activated upstream channel; and (iii) separately extracts quasiparticle charge, scaling dimension, and Abelian exchange angle — quantities whose independent measurement is a recognized open problem, particularly at ν=2/3 where the e/3 doublet and the 2e/3 composite share h_ℓ = 1/3 but differ in θ_ℓ. The derivations are carried through explicitly: the cubic Keldysh contour completion (App. A, including the ν=1 Landauer check against Eq. (A10)), the conserving first-order bridge insertion with an explicit FDT verification (App. B, Eqs. (B1)–(B2)), the auxiliary-edge square completion with both weak-link and pinched-off limits (App. C), and the multicomponent branch coefficients with harmonic alignment (App. D). I verified the key algebraic identities: the inversion Eq. (92) follows exactly from δ_± = (Δ_ℓ ± θ_ℓ/π)/2 and the sine ratio; the ν=2/3 entries in Table I reproduce q, θ, Δ, and r from the stated K-matrix; and the phase −π(1−ν)/2+

major comments (2)
  1. [§VI.C–D, Eq. (94) and Table I] The separate extraction of h_ℓ and θ_ℓ rests on the reduction of both directional kernels to the common factor −iF_ℓα_σ (Eqs. (80)–(81)), which Appendix D derives from the local boundary values G_ℓ^>,<(0,t) and is therefore legitimate only when every mode delay in the vertex is unresolved (Eq. (94)). The paper states this condition honestly, but its flagship application — distinguishing the e/3 doublet from the 2e/3 composite at the ν=2/3 KFP fixed point — is precisely where it is least secure: the upstream neutral mode is generically slower than the charge mode, and experiments the paper itself cites (Refs. [40, 41]) indicate that neutral-mode flight times are resolved at realistic interferometer sizes and biases. If v_+ and |v_-| differ appreciably, the two endpoint orderings no longer share one g_{Δℓ}(t,T): F_ℓ ceases to be common, the aligned phase deviates from πΔ_ℓ, and r_ℓ acquire
  2. [§VI.D, Table I and Eq. (90)] For both vertices in Table I, 3Δ_ℓ − 2 = 0, so along a fixed bias ray every nonzero cubic directional coefficient is formally energy-independent. Two consequences deserve explicit treatment. First, the bias-exponent route to h_ℓ (Eq. (90)) is vacuous in exactly the showcased example: the discrimination between the two vertices rests entirely on r_ℓ (and, where measurable, the aligned phase), not on scaling. Second, a constant-in-E signal is harder to separate from energy-independent backgrounds (e.g., flux-dependent pickup or residual second-order harmonics leaking into the fundamental fit), and for an intrinsic nonchiral vertex there is no auxiliary-phase-odd subtraction (Eq. (68)) available. The manuscript notes the constant exponent but does not discuss how the r_ℓ = 2 vs 0 discrimination would be stabilized against such backgrounds, or whether an auxiliary filling/vertex with nonzero
minor comments (7)
  1. [App. A, after Eq. (A9)] Incomplete sentence: 'The tilde emphasizes that these coefficients retain their natural.' — presumably 'natural loop orientations.'
  2. [Throughout] Several spacing/formatting artifacts, e.g. 'filling factorν = 1/m' (abstract and §I), 'At ν = 1the two leading powers coincide' (§VII.A), 'a = 0, 1, 2gives' (§VII.A), and missing spaces around ℓ in the abstract; please proofread.
  3. [§VI.A, Eq. (69)] The interaction matrix V_{IJ} collides notationally with the terminal voltages V_a used throughout; the text acknowledges this, but renaming (e.g. W_{IJ}) would remove a recurring source of confusion, especially in Eq. (76).
  4. [§II.B, Eq. (6) vs Eq. (2)] The deliberately reversed index order between the amplitude Γ_{cb} and the energy release ε_{bc} is error-prone for the reader; a compact convention table (transfer direction, amplitude, energy, terminal-current sign) would help, particularly before Eqs. (27)–(28).
  5. [§VII.C] The operating-window hierarchy (Eq. (100)) is stated parametrically. Order-of-magnitude numbers for one realistic platform (v ~ 10^4–10^5 m/s, D_a, T, E_0) — showing that x_fl ≪ 1 is compatible with a measurable cubic signal |Γ_{02}Γ_{21}Γ_{10}| — would substantially help experimental readers assess feasibility.
  6. [Fig. 1] It would help to mark the positive loop orientation 0→1→2→0 and the two interfering histories (direct vs two-step) directly on Fig. 1; at present this information is split between the caption and Fig. 2.
  7. [§VI.C, Eq. (90)] Please add that η_ℓ must be extracted at fixed bias ratio ρ and within the weak-tunneling window above the QPC strong-coupling crossover; the condition is stated for the ν=2/3 example but applies generally to the scaling-based determination of h_ℓ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: directional nulls, bias exponents, and (q,h,θ) extraction are forward consequences of standard edge correlators and weak-tunneling Keldysh perturbation theory.

full rationale

The paper is a self-contained theoretical proposal. The Laughlin upstream null follows from the one-sided support of the retarded pair line on a local chiral edge (Eqs. 35–37), not from a fitted or redefined observable. The downstream homogeneity E^{3ν−2} is obtained by convolving three one-sided spectral factors with one energy integral (Eqs. 38–40); the bridge-activated E^{2ν−1} and phase −π(1−ν)/2+χ_a likewise follow from a first-order conserving insertion of a static nonlocal density kernel (Appendix B). For general Abelian vertices, Appendix D derives the directional branch coefficients α_{d,u} from the endpoint-ordered multi-mode correlator and the exchange algebra; positive-flux alignment then converts the natural ratio carrying e^{−iθ_ℓ} into the measurable pair (πΔ_ℓ, |sin(πδ−)/sin(πδ+)|), which is inverted for θ_ℓ. Charge is read from the AB period. None of these steps defines the output in terms of itself, fits a parameter and re-predicts a forced correlate, or rests on a load-bearing self-cited uniqueness theorem. Self-citations (e.g. prior interferometry methods) supply background technique only. The unresolved-flight assumption (Eqs. 17, 94) is an explicit regime condition, not a circular reduction. Score 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The proposal rests on standard Abelian FQH edge field theory, weak quasiparticle tunneling, and an unresolved-flight working window. No empirical constants are fitted. The engineered auxiliary bridge and the three-path geometry are design elements, not new particles or forces.

free parameters (3)
  • QPC amplitudes |Γ_{02}Γ_{21}Γ_{10}| and short-time cutoffs τ_c
    Nonuniversal prefactors absorbed into overall AB amplitude; cancel from directional ratios and phases in the stated regime.
  • Bridge strength λ_a Q_{ν,a}[U_a] (or auxiliary E_B, κ_B, envelope f)
    Sets magnitude and discrete sign χ_a of the activated upstream coefficient; nonuniversal and not needed for the ideal null or for the general-vertex ratio inversion.
  • Fixed bias ratios ρ, c1, c2 and common scale E
    Experimental control parameters held fixed while sweeping E; enter universal functions F_ν(ρ) but are not fitted to claim the exponents or θ_ℓ.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Abelian FQH edges are described by a K-matrix chiral boson theory with local vertex operators V_ℓ and standard exchange algebra θ_ℓ=π ℓ^T K^{-1} ℓ.
    Sec. II and VI; used for correlators, charge, and directional weights δ_±.
  • domain assumption All three QPCs remain in the weak-quasiparticle-tunneling regime so the leading flux-sensitive current is the connected cubic AB harmonic.
    Sec. II.B–III.B; higher harmonics appear only at higher tunneling order.
  • domain assumption On an open strictly local edge with only copropagating modes, upstream retarded support cannot be generated at any tunneling order.
    Sec. I and III.C, citing fluctuation-response literature; underpins the ideal null beyond cubic order.
  • domain assumption Unresolved flight: max(2πT D_a/ℏv, |ϵ|D_a/ℏv) ≪ 1 for every mode in the vertex, so directional kernels share one spectral convolution.
    Eqs. (17), (94); required for universal ratio r_ℓ and single-vertex θ_ℓ inversion.
  • ad hoc to paper The same fixed-point vertex tunnels at all three QPCs and the closed cubic string is charge-neutral on each segment.
    Sec. VI.A; if different vertices mix, vector neutrality and the common F_ℓ factor need not hold.
  • domain assumption A weak static density bridge spanning the QPC pair activates an upstream coefficient without adding a propagating upstream mode.
    Sec. IV–V; standard capacitive/weak-link construction, with conserving insertion in App. B.
invented entities (2)
  • Three-path cubic AB interferometer with directional voltage projection no independent evidence
    purpose: Convert intermediate-segment retarded support into flux-tagged average-current downstream/upstream kernels.
    Central device geometry of the paper; built from standard QPCs and reservoirs, not a new physical field.
  • Flux-controlled same-filling Laughlin auxiliary weak-link bridge no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide a sign-tunable (0↔π) nonlocal density interaction that activates the upstream coefficient on demand.
    Sec. V engineering module; falsifiable via auxiliary-phase-odd current reversal if fabricated.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 30360 in / 3536 out tokens · 59028 ms · 2026-07-31T14:33:46.676287+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing edge chirality with a three-path fractional quantum Hall interferometer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5KZWSGF

@misc{pith2026260724451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing edge chirality with a three-path fractional quantum Hall interferometer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5KZWSGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24451}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We propose an average-current interferometer for the directional causal response of fractional quantum Hall edges. Three coherent quantum point contacts (QPCs) form a flux-enclosing loop, so the leading Aharonov-Bohm harmonic is cubic in tunneling. Interference between a direct transfer and a coherent two-step path resolves downstream and upstream propagation. For a local Laughlin edge at $\nu=1/m$, the upstream coefficient vanishes exactly, while the downstream amplitude scales as $E^{3\nu-2}$. A weak finite-range nonlocal density interaction spanning the tunneling points activates the upstream coefficient without creating an upstream mode. At low temperature and unresolved delay, its amplitude scales as $E^{2\nu-1}$ and its aligned phase relative to the downstream reference is $-\pi(1-\nu)/2+\chi_a$ modulo $2\pi$, with $\chi_a=0$ or $\pi$. Opposite cyclic voltage orderings isolate the two directions, while a folded same-filling Laughlin edge with a neutral weak link realizes a sign-tunable bridge. For a general Abelian edge, the device probes the directional content of the selected tunneling vertex. If $\delta_\pm$ are its downstream and upstream weights, its nonzero directional amplitudes scale as $E^{3\Delta_\ell-2}$, with $\Delta_\ell=\delta_++\delta_-$, and obey $A^u_\ell/A^d_\ell=|\sin(\pi\delta_-)/\sin(\pi\delta_+)|$. When both are nonzero, positive-flux alignment gives, after removal of a known fixed sign, the relative phase $\pi\Delta_\ell=2\pi h_\ell$. In the same-vertex coherent unresolved-flight regime, the scaling dimension and directional ratio determine the exchange angle $\theta_\ell=\pi(\delta_+-\delta_-)$ modulo $2\pi$. The Aharonov-Bohm flux frequency additionally gives the charge, enabling separate extraction of quasiparticle charge, scaling dimension, and exchange angle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24451 by Eugene V. Sukhorukov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Cyclic three-path interferometer. The coherent seg [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Directional contributions to the same fundamental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Static interaction bridge on one coherent segment. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Flux-controlled auxiliary bridge. The upper curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

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

46 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. B. Laughlin, Physical Review Letters50, 1395 (1983)

    1983

  2. [2]

    Arovas, J

    D. Arovas, J. R. Schrieffer, and F. Wilczek, Physical Review Letters53, 722 (1984)

    1984

  3. [3]

    X. G. Wen, Physical Review B41, 12838 (1990)

    1990

  4. [4]

    Wen, International Journal of Modern Physics B6, 1711 (1992)

    X.-G. Wen, International Journal of Modern Physics B6, 1711 (1992)

    1992

  5. [5]

    D. E. Feldman and B. I. Halperin, Reports on Progress in Physics84, 076501 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Carrega, L

    M. Carrega, L. Chirolli, S. Heun, and L. Sorba, Nature Reviews Physics3, 698 (2021), arXiv:2109.13427 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Saminadayar, D

    L. Saminadayar, D. C. Glattli, Y. Jin, and B. Etienne, Physical Review Letters79, 2526 (1997)

    1997

  8. [8]

    de Picciotto, M

    R. de Picciotto, M. Reznikov, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, G. Bunin, and D. Mahalu, Nature389, 162 (1997)

    1997

  9. [9]

    Nakamura, S

    J. Nakamura, S. Liang, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Manfra, Nature Physics16, 931 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Nakamura, S

    J. Nakamura, S. Liang, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Manfra, Nature Communications13, 344 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    Nakamura, S

    J. Nakamura, S. Liang, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Manfra, Physical Review X13, 041012 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    H. K. Kundu, S. Biswas, N. Ofek, V. Umansky, and M. Heiblum, Nature Physics19, 515 (2023), arXiv:2203.04205 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Bartolomei, M

    H. Bartolomei, M. Kumar, R. Bisognin, A. Marguerite, J.-M. Berroir, E. Bocquillon, B. Plaçais, A. Cavanna, Q. Dong, U. Gennser, Y. Jin, and G. Fève, Science368, 173 (2020), arXiv:2006.13157 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    J.-Y. M. Lee, C. Hong, T. Alkalay, N. Schiller, V. Uman- sky, M. Heiblum, Y. Oreg, and H.-S. Sim, Nature617, 277 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Glidic, O

    P. Glidic, O. Maillet, A. Aassime, C. Piquard, A. Cavanna, U. Gennser, Y. Jin, A. Anthore, and F. Pierre, Physical Review X13, 011030 (2023), arXiv:2210.01054 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Ruelle, E

    M. Ruelle, E. Frigerio, J.-M. Berroir, B. Plaçais, J. Rech, A. Cavanna, U. Gennser, Y. Jin, and G. Fève, Physical Review X13, 011031 (2023), arXiv:2210.01066 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Veillon, C

    A. Veillon, C. Piquard, P. Glidic, Y. Sato, A. Aassime, A.Cavanna, Y.Jin, U.Gennser, A.Anthore,andF.Pierre, Nature632, 517 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Schiller, Y

    N. Schiller, Y. Shapira, A. Stern, and Y. Oreg, Physical Review Letters131, 186601 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Ronetti, N

    F. Ronetti, N. Demazure, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere, B. Gré- maud, L. Raymond, M. Hashisaka, T. Kato, and T. Mar- tin, Physical Review B112, 125166 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Puster, M

    F. Puster, M. Thamm, and B. Rosenow, Extracting the anyonic exchange phase from hanbury brown–twiss corre- lations (2026), arXiv:2603.13898 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    C. L. Kane, M. P. A. Fisher, and J. Polchinski, Physical Review Letters72, 4129 (1994)

    1994

  22. [22]

    C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Physical Review B51, 13449 (1995)

    1995

  23. [23]

    A. Bid, N. Ofek, H. Inoue, M. Heiblum, C. L. Kane, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Nature466, 585 (2010), arXiv:1005.5724 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    Kumar, S

    R. Kumar, S. K. Srivastav, C. Spånslätt, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, Y. Gefen, A. D. Mirlin, and A. Das, Nature Communications13, 213 (2022), arXiv:2107.12616 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Wang and D

    C. Wang and D. E. Feldman, Physical Review B84, 235315 (2011), arXiv:1104.2878 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    Wang and D

    C. Wang and D. E. Feldman, Physical Review Letters110, 030602 (2013), arXiv:1205.3749 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  27. [27]

    C. d. C. Chamon, D. E. Freed, S. A. Kivelson, S. L. Sondhi, and X. G. Wen, Physical Review B55, 2331 (1997)

    1997

  28. [28]

    K. T. Law, D. E. Feldman, and Y. Gefen, Physical Review B74, 045319 (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0506302

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  29. [29]

    V. V. Ponomarenko and D. V. Averin, Physical Review Letters99, 066803 (2007), arXiv:cond-mat/0612607

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  30. [30]

    I. P. Levkivskyi, A. Boyarsky, J. Fröhlich, and E. V. Sukhorukov, Physical Review B80, 045319 (2009), arXiv:0903.3221 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    I. P. Levkivskyi, J. Fröhlich, and E. V. Sukhorukov, Phys- ical Review B86, 245105 (2012), arXiv:1005.5703 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Cano and C

    J. Cano and C. Nayak, Physical Review B90, 235109 (2014), arXiv:1408.0802 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    Guyon, P

    R. Guyon, P. Devillard, T. Martin, and I. Safi, Physical Review B65, 153304 (2002), arXiv:cond-mat/0109340

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    B. Lee, C. Han, and H.-S. Sim, Physical Review Let- ters123, 016803 (2019), arXiv:1907.00532 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Physical Review Letters74, 2090 (1995), arXiv:cond-mat/9501007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2090

  36. [36]

    C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 724 (1994)

    1994

  37. [37]

    C. d. C. Chamon, D. E. Freed, and X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B51, 2363 (1995)

    1995

  38. [38]

    Fendley, A

    P. Fendley, A. W. W. Ludwig, and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. B52, 8934 (1995)

    1995

  39. [39]

    Fröhlich and A

    J. Fröhlich and A. Zee, Nuclear Physics B364, 517 (1991)

    1991

  40. [40]

    Goldstein and Y

    M. Goldstein and Y. Gefen, Physical Review Letters117, 276804 (2016)

    2016

  41. [41]

    Bhattacharyya, M

    R. Bhattacharyya, M. Banerjee, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Physical Review Letters122, 246801 (2019). Appendix A: Cubic Keldysh completion This appendix derives one representative contribution to the cubic Aharonov–Bohm current. The purpose is to show how the normalized contour expansion converts the two vertices on the intermediate segment int...

    2019

  42. [42]

    The same static interaction must be inserted in every contour com- ponent

    Conserving contour insertion Let Dbc a be the contour propagator of√νϕa. The same static interaction must be inserted in every contour com- ponent. In the retarded, advanced, and Keldysh basis, δDR a =D R a0 bUaDR a0, δD A a =D A a0 bUaDA a0, δDK a =D R a0 bUaDK a0 +D K a0 bUaDA a0.(B1) Here bUa contains the density derivatives and spatial inte- grations ...

  43. [43]

    During the propagation timet, the left and right density vertices lie at y = xa,u −v a(t−τ )and z = xa,d + vaτ

    General finite bridge and short-delay limit At zero temperature, setgν(t) = [τc/(τc + it)]ν. During the propagation timet, the left and right density vertices lie at y = xa,u −v a(t−τ )and z = xa,d + vaτ. Changing variables from(t, τ)to(y, z)gives δRu a,ν(ω) =− λaν2 ℏv2a Z xa,u −∞ dy Z ∞ xa,d dz Ua(y, z) ×g ν z−y va eiω(z−y−D a)/ℏva .(B4) This is Eq.(43)....

  44. [44]

    The remaining external lines form the QPC spectrum, giving the leading factorization in Eq.(48) and hence Au,(U) a ∝E 2ν−1 U

    Directed current and phase In the upstream same-side setting, the correlation func- tion contribution has no zero-temperature spectral sup- port and is thermally suppressed at low temperature. The remaining external lines form the QPC spectrum, giving the leading factorization in Eq.(48) and hence Au,(U) a ∝E 2ν−1 U . The particle-hole-conjugate setting f...

  45. [45]

    Using Eq

    Weak-link phase and static response Write the localized capacitive coupling as Hc =R ds µB(s)nB(s). Using Eq. (52), H (0) B +H c = ℏuB 4π Z ds ∂sϕB + √ν µB ℏuB 2 − ν 4πℏuB Z ds[µ B(s)]2.(C1) The corresponding field shift changes the neutral weak- link operator according to OB = eOB exp − iν ℏuB Z sR sL ds µB(s) = eOBeiΘB [n]. (C2) Here the signed phase-re...

  46. [46]

    Fully pinched-off endpoint At full pinch-off, minimize( πℏuB/ν) R ℓB 0 ds n2 B +R ℓB 0 ds µBnB at fixed NB = R ℓB 0 ds nB. With ¯µB = ℓ−1 B R ℓB 0 ds µB(s), one finds nB(s) = NB ℓB − ν 2πℏuB [µB(s)−¯µB], F nl B,closed = ν 4πℏuBℓB "Z ℓB 0 ds µB(s) #2 .(C4) Equation (C4) displays only the nonlocal quadratic part. The constant charging energy, the fixed-bran...