Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Temperature-driven transition between momentum-resolved and disordered averaged Coulomb drag in 1D systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coulomb drag in 1D quantum wires yields a quantitative Luttinger parameter K ≈ 0.5, with a disorder-driven temperature crossover.

desk verdict A real experimental step for 1D Coulomb drag, but the headline K≈0.5 is a consistency check between two fits, not an out-of-sample confirmation of FKS theory. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29630 v1 pith:5CSY2EOP submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.mes-hall

Mingyang Zheng , Rebika Makaju , Rasul Gazizulin , Alex Levchenko , Sadhvikas J. Addamane , Dominique Laroche This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 73.21.Hb73.23.-b71.10.Pm
keywords CoulombdragLuttingerliquidquantumwiresinteractionparametermagneticdepopulationdisordercrossoverdensitymismatchresistivity
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 reports that Coulomb drag between two closely spaced quantum wires can be measured with enough precision to extract the Luttinger liquid interaction parameter K quantitatively, finding K ≈ 0.5 at the main drag peak. It identifies two temperature regimes—a power-law regime at intermediate temperatures and an Arrhenius regime at high temperatures—separated by a crossover temperature T1 that decreases with magnetic field. The authors attribute T1 to disorder: below T1 disorder relaxes momentum conservation and restores drag, while above T1 drag is suppressed by Fermi-momentum mismatch. The result matters because it brings 1D Coulomb drag experiments into quantitative agreement with theory and explains why earlier extractions of K were unphysical in low fields.

What carries the argument

The central object is the relative Luttinger liquid charge interaction parameter K ≡ K_c^(-), which encodes the strength of electron-electron repulsion in a one-dimensional Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid (a model where low-energy electron excitations are collective bosonic modes rather than individual quasiparticles). The argument runs through the drag resistivity formula ρD = ρ0 (T/E0)^(4K−3) f(Q/T, K), where Q is the Fermi-momentum mismatch between the two wires: when Q = 0 the drag shows a power law in T whose exponent directly reads out K, and when Q ≫ T it becomes exponentially suppressed, giving an Arrhenius form. The paper uses magnetic depopulation of hybrid electro-magnetic subbands to m

What would settle it

Measure the Mid-T drag exponent in a device where spin polarization is established independently (e.g., from resolved spin-split conductance plateaus at the same field). If the extracted K does not match a K determined by another method, or if the exponent switches between 2K−1 and 4K−3 within the same field range without a known spin transition, the central interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On this paper's own terms, the central discovery is that in a magnetic field beyond about 1.7 T, the drag resistivity of vertically coupled quantum wires follows the predicted power law ρD ∝ T^(4K−3) in the intermediate-temperature regime with K ≈ 0.5, and an exponential Arrhenius form ρD ∝ T^(−1) exp(−Q/T) at high temperatures, from which a density mismatch of about 1.93×10^5 m^(−1) is extracted. The same magnetic field depopulates subbands, letting the authors independently measure wire widths and densities. The crossover between the two regimes, T1, decreases linearly with field and is interpreted as a disorder-driven transition: at low T, disorder-induced backscattering relaxes momentum

Load-bearing premise

The extraction of K from the Mid-T power-law exponent assumes the wires are fully spin-polarized for fields above about 1.7 T, so the exponent is 4K−3 rather than 2K−1; this spin polarization is not independently confirmed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If K ≈ 0.5 is correct, the strength of electron-electron repulsion in these wires is pinned by a transport measurement rather than inferred from tunneling, enabling quantitative tests of Luttinger liquid theory.
  • The two-regime structure means that measurements of 1D drag must identify which regime they are in before extracting K; low-field data yielding unphysical K should be interpreted as disorder-dominated rather than as failures of the theory.
  • The linear decrease of T1 with magnetic field suggests that magnetic confinement tunes disorder effects away, offering a control knob for interaction-driven transport in quantum wires.
  • The quantitative agreement between drag oscillation positions and the magnetic depopulation model provides a method to characterize wire parameters in any vertically coupled device.
  • The nonlinear I–V predictions for specific K values provide a separate consistency check; the observed transition current near the drag peak matches the predicted scale, strengthening the extracted parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the disorder-crossover interpretation is right, wires with fewer impurities should show T1 shifted to lower temperatures, making the momentum-resolved regime accessible at lower T; this is directly testable in cleaner heterostructures.
  • The unexplained K ≈ 0.75 near pinchoff, where screening is weak, might reflect a regime where disorder and momentum mismatch cooperate; a theoretical treatment combining both effects could be tested against the observed gate dependence.
  • The same experimental pipeline—magnetic depopulation plus temperature-dependent drag—could be applied to other 1D platforms such as semiconductor nanowires, though the longer mean free paths required may be challenging.
  • A single temperature crossover implies that at very low temperatures (millikelvin) the momentum-resolved regime may be entirely absent in disordered wires, potentially reconciling the discrepancy with theories that predict Wigner-crystal drag only below about 10 mK.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports Coulomb drag measurements on vertically coupled GaAs/AlGaAs quantum wires with 33 nm interwire separation, across magnetic field, gate voltages, temperature, and drive current. The drag signal is identified as momentum-transfer-dominated by current-reversal reciprocity and by the suppression of tunneling leakage. Magnetic-depopulation oscillations are used to extract wire widths and 1D densities. The temperature dependence at the first-subband drag peak shows a power-law regime at intermediate temperatures and an Arrhenius regime at high temperatures, separated by a crossover T1. For fields above about 1.7 T the authors assume full spin polarization and fit the power-law slope to Eq. (1), obtaining K≈0.5; from the Arrhenius slope they derive δn1D=1.93×10^5 m^-1. They claim this constitutes the first self-consistent quantitative determination of the relative Luttinger parameter and quantitative agreement with the FKS density-mismatch theory [21].

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this is a substantial experimental advance: it would provide a direct drag-based measurement of the relative TLL interaction parameter in 1D and a quantitative test of the FKS theory, enabled by careful device engineering (15 nm barrier, magnetic-depopulation calibration, reciprocity checks, tunneling exclusion, and nonlinear drag decomposition). The manuscript also contains genuine technical strengths: the magnetodepopulation characterization, the systematic control of density mismatch, and the separation of reciprocal/nonreciprocal nonlinear contributions. However, the quantitative headline is not yet secured because the spin-polarized regime is asserted on the basis of the same fits that are meant to validate the theory, and because the extracted K is a fit parameter of Eq. (1). The agreement presented is therefore a consistency check between two fits rather than an out-of-sample prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main, 'Temperature dependence' (Eq. 1)] The quantitative determination of K rests on the assertion that the wires become spin polarized for B > ~1.7 T. The only evidence given is that fits using the spin-polarized exponent 4K−3 become 'reasonable' in this range, while fits using the spinfull exponent 2K−1 give null or negative K. Because the same observed Mid-T slope (≈−1) yields K=0 in the spinfull formula and K=0.5 in the spin-polarized formula, the choice of formula is effectively made to produce a physical K. This is circular. No independent spin-population diagnostic is shown for the fields and densities used in the fits (e.g., conductance quantization at e^2/h, spin-resolved magnetic depopulation, or Zeeman-resolved measurements). Without such evidence, K≈0.5 is not securely established as a Luttinger-liquid parameter.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract states a 'self-consistent experimental determination' of the relative Luttinger parameters and 'quantitative agreement with theoretical predictions.' In the current analysis, however, K is obtained by fitting the measured power-law slope to Eq. (1); the agreement with FKS theory is therefore a consistency check between the observed slope and the assumed theoretical form, not an independent test. Likewise, the reported δn1D = 1.93×10^5 m^-1 is derived from the Arrhenius slope using the same assumed K=0.5 and the same theory, and is not an independent verification. To support the headline claim, the authors should either provide an independent observable (e.g., Q extracted without using K, or a direct comparison with the magnetodepopulation densities) or explicitly reframe the conclusion as a conditional consistency result.
  3. [Main, 'Temperature dependence' and Fig. 2g,h] The text says the 'independently characterized density mismatch between the two wires' motivates comparison with FKS theory, but the paper does not show how the Arrhenius-derived δn1D compares with the densities extracted from magnetic depopulation. In the relevant gate range (V_TPL ≈ −1.3 V), the top and bottom wire densities from Fig. 2g differ by roughly 10^8 m^-1, whereas the drag fit yields δn1D ≈ 2×10^5 m^-1. The authors should define precisely what density mismatch enters Q in Eq. (1), how it relates to the measured first-subband densities, and provide an explicit comparison at the drag-peak position. Without this, the quantitative agreement with FKS theory is incomplete.
  4. [Main, 'Temperature dependence' and Fig. 4b] The crossover temperature T1 is attributed to disorder-induced backscattering, but no quantitative disorder model or independent disorder characterization is presented. Because the Mid-T and High-T fitting windows are defined by T1, the extracted exponents and K depend on this assumption. The linear decrease of T1 with B is offered as support, but it is not a microscopic test. The authors should either provide an estimate of T1(B) from a disorder model or identify an independent experimental measure of disorder that tracks T1, before using T1 to partition the data into the two regimes that underlie the fits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The definition of Q is garbled ('Q≡ℏv_F δkF /kbK'). Please define Q unambiguously, state its units, and specify the argument of f(Q/T,K).
  2. [Throughout] The spelling is inconsistent: 'spinfull' and 'spin-full' are both used. Please unify.
  3. [Fig. 4c,d] The text states that T1 exceeds the measurement limit of 3.2 K at 0 T, yet Fig. 4c,d includes a '0T Mid-T' fit over the full temperature range. Clarify which points enter the fit and how the regime boundary is set at 0 T.
  4. [Main, 'Magnetic depopulation' and Fig. 4a] The phrase 'single subband limit' is used for all fields in Fig. 4a, but at 0 T multiple subbands may be occupied in the broad gate range. Specify the subband occupancy at each field used in the temperature fits.
  5. [References] Reference [37] appears to duplicate [35]; verify the intended citations.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'theory-predicted' density mismatch is computed by inverting the fitted drag formula with a K obtained from the same temperature traces, and the spin-polarized branch is selected because it yields physical K; the headline quantitative agreement is partly a consistency check between fits.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Temperature dependence, paragraph beginning 'In the High-T regime...' (near Eq. (1), Fig. 4 caption)]
    "In the High-T regime, the temperature dependence is governed by exponential suppression arising from density mismatch, ρ_D ∝ T^{-1}e^{-Q/T}. For an Arrhenius exponent of approximately −2 and K= 0.5, theory predicts a 1D density mismatch δn1D = 1.93×10^5 m^-1 for a drag-wire single-subband density n1D = 1.6×10^8 m^-1."

    The high-temperature slope is fitted from R_Drag(T); K=0.5 is fitted from the Mid-T power-law slope of the same curves using Eq. (1). The paper then inverts Eq. (1) to compute δn1D from these two fitted quantities and calls the result 'theory predicts'. No independent measurement of δn1D from magnetic depopulation is quoted; the value is a fit output relabeled as a prediction, so the stated agreement is a consistency check between two fits, not an out-of-sample test.

  2. other [Temperature dependence, paragraph beginning 'As the magnetic field increases beyond ∼1.7 T...']
    "As the magnetic field increases beyond ∼1.7 T, the system transitions from the spinfull regime to the spin polarized regime. In the Mid-T spinfull regime, the majority of the extracted power-law exponents yield unphysical null or negative Kvalues. ... In the spin-polarized regime, power-law exponents compatible with conventional theories for 1D Coulomb drag are obtained."

    The spin-polarized regime is asserted because it yields physical K values under Eq. (1); no independent spin-population measurement (e.g., conductance plateau height or Zeeman-resolved depopulation) is provided for B>1.7 T. For a Mid-T slope of approximately −1, the spinfull exponent 2K−1 gives K=0 while the spin-polarized exponent 4K−3 gives K=0.5. The choice of branch therefore determines the reported K≈0.5, and the 1.7 T transition is inferred from the fits it is used to validate rather than from an external observable.

full rationale

The device characterization via magnetic depopulation is independent and provides wire widths and total densities, and the comparisons of drag-peak broadening and nonlinear I-V with the external FKS theory [21] are additional falsifiable checks. However, the headline numerical claims are partially circular: K≈0.5 is extracted from the Mid-T power-law slope, and the cited 'theory predicts' δn1D is obtained by inverting the same theoretical formula using that fitted K and the fitted Arrhenius slope. The spin-polarized branch selection at B>1.7 T is justified mainly by producing physical K, which is a model-selection step rather than an independent determination. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present—Eq. (1) is taken from the external theory of Fuchs, Klesse, and Stern [21], and previous works [27,28,30] are used for context. Overall, the central quantitative agreement is partly a consistency of fits, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the FKS drag formula and the spin-polarization assumption; the K and δn1D values are fit outputs rather than pre-registered predictions. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Luttinger interaction parameter K = ≈0.5 at drag peak; ≈0.75 near pinchoff
    Extracted from the Mid-T power-law slope using Eq. (1) with 4K−3; this is the headline result.
  • 1D density mismatch δn1D = 1.93×10^5 m^-1 (for K=0.5, Arrhenius slope -2)
    Derived from the High-T Arrhenius slope and K; not independently compared with the depopulation-derived densities.
  • Crossover temperature T1 = ≈3 K at 0 T; decreases approximately linearly to ≈1 K at 7.2 T
    Extracted from the intersection of the Mid-T and High-T fits; attributed to disorder.
  • Nonlinear drag coefficient c = ≈ -0.02 nA^-1
    Fitted from the high-bias linear dependence R_Drag = R0(1 + c I_Drive); claimed independent of V_TPL.
  • Parabolic confinement parameters (ω0, wire width W) = W ≈ 120–220 nm depending on V_TPL; ω0 not quoted
    Used in magnetic depopulation fits to extract densities and widths that anchor the comparison with theory.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The electrostatically defined wire potential is parabolic, V0(x)=m*ω0^2 x^2/2, so magnetic depopulation can be fit to extract ω0, width, and density.
    Used in the magnetic depopulation fits (Methods, Eq. 2); if the actual confinement is not parabolic, the extracted densities and widths are biased.
  • domain assumption The drag resistance of density-mismatched TLL wires is given by FKS Eq. (1), ρD ∝ (T/E0)^{4K−3} f(Q/T,K), with exponent 4K−3 in the spin-polarized regime and 2K−1 in the spinfull regime.
    This is the central theoretical formula used to convert measured slopes to K (Fig. 4c,e).
  • ad hoc to paper For B > ~1.7 T the wires are in the spin-polarized regime, so 4K−3 applies.
    No independent spin-polarization measurement is provided; the transition is inferred from the appearance of 'reasonable' K values.
  • domain assumption At the first-subband drag peak, the momentum mismatch Q≈0, so the Mid-T power law is ρD ∝ T^{4K−3}.
    Used to assign the slope −1 to K≈0.5; away from the peak the rising exponents are interpreted through increasing Q.
  • domain assumption The High-T drag is dominated by momentum-mismatch suppression ρD ∝ T^{-1} e^{-Q/T}, with Q/T≫1 in the fit window.
    Used for the Arrhenius fit and δn1D extraction; the Q/T≫1 condition is only marginally satisfied near T∼2 K.
  • ad hoc to paper The crossover T1 is caused by disorder-induced backscattering that relaxes momentum conservation below T1.
    This is an interpretation, not derived in the paper; no disorder model is fitted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Temperature-driven transition between momentum-resolved and disordered averaged Coulomb drag in 1D systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5CSY2EOP

@misc{pith2026260729630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Temperature-driven transition between momentum-resolved and disordered averaged Coulomb drag in 1D systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5CSY2EOP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29630}
}
read the original abstract

Advancing the understanding of electron-electron interactions in one-dimensional systems remains one of the central challenges in low-dimensional physics, especially for Coulomb-coupled Tomonaga-Luttinger liquids. Notably, the difficulty of reliably extracting one-dimensional system parameters, combined with the presence of disorder, has hindered the interpretation of 1D Coulomb drag experiments. Here, we present a self-consistent experimental determination of the relative Luttinger liquid interaction parameters through 1D Coulomb drag measurements, and achieve quantitative agreement with theoretical predictions. Utilizing vertically coupled GaAs-AlGaAs quantum wires, we fully characterize the one-dimensional parameters through magnetic depopulation. Coulomb drag exhibits a systematic evolution with magnetic field, reflecting the successive depopulation of 1D subbands and the suppression of disorder effects. Two distinct temperature regimes are identified, marking the boundary between momentum-resolved and disordered-averaged Coulomb drag. The observed scaling, peak broadening, and nonlinear current-voltage characteristics establish a unified and quantitative framework for probing electron-electron interactions in 1D systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Magneto-oscillations, nonlinearity, and nonreciprocity of Coulomb drag in quantum circuits

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Coulomb drag between two quantum constrictions in a magnetic field shows oscillations tied to subband depopulation, with closed-form predictions for nonlinear and nonreciprocal regimes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [21]

    Physical Review B71(4), 045321 (2005) https://doi

    Fuchs, T., Klesse, R., Stern, A.: Coulomb drag between quantum wires with different electron densities. Physical Review B71(4), 045321 (2005) https://doi. 13 org/10.1103/PhysRevB.71.045321

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.71.045321 2005

  2. [1]

    Nature Physics15(3), 237–241 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0387-2

    Chen, G., Jiang, L., Wu, S., Lyu, B., Li, H., Chittari, B.L., Watanabe, K., Taniguchi, T., Shi, Z., Jung, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, F.: Evidence of a gate-tunable Mott insulator in a trilayer graphene moir´ e superlattice. Nature Physics15(3), 237–241 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0387-2

    doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0387-2 2019

  3. [2]

    Nature Physics16(3), 295–300 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-019-0740-0

    Guo, J., Zhou, Y., Huang, C., Cai, S., Sheng, Y., Gu, G., Yang, C., Lin, G., Yang, K., Li, A., Wu, Q., Xiang, T., Sun, L.: Crossover from two-dimensional to three-dimensional superconducting states in bismuth-based cuprate super- conductor. Nature Physics16(3), 295–300 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-019-0740-0

    2020

  4. [3]

    Science385(6704), 86–91 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk1348

    Li, H., Xiang, Z., Reddy, A.P., Devakul, T., Sailus, R., Banerjee, R., Taniguchi, T., Watanabe, K., Tongay, S., Zettl, A., Fu, L., Crommie, M.F., Wang, F.: Wigner molecular crystals from multielectron moir´ e artificial atoms. Science385(6704), 86–91 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk1348

    work page doi:10.1126/science.adk1348 2024

  5. [4]

    Progress of Theoretical Physics5, 544–569 (1950) https://doi

    Tomonaga, S.: Remarks on Bloch’s method of sound waves applied to many- fermion problems. Progress of Theoretical Physics5, 544–569 (1950) https://doi. org/10.1143/ptp/5.4.544

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp/5.4.544 1950

  6. [5]

    Journal of Mathematical Physics4, 1154–1162 (1963) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1704046

    Luttinger, J.M.: An exactly soluble model of a many-fermion system. Journal of Mathematical Physics4, 1154–1162 (1963) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1704046

    doi:10.1063/1.1704046 1963

  7. [6]

    Physical Review Letters47(25), 1840 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.1840

    Haldane, F.D.M.: Effective harmonic-fluid approach to low-energy properties of one-dimensional quantum fluids. Physical Review Letters47(25), 1840 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.1840

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.47.1840 1981

  8. [7]

    Nature 397(6720), 598–601 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1038/17569

    Bockrath, M., Cobden, D.H., Lu, J., Rinzler, A.G., Smalley, R.E., Balents, L., McEuen, P.L.: Luttinger-liquid behaviour in carbon nanotubes. Nature 397(6720), 598–601 (1999) https://doi.org/10.1038/17569

    work page doi:10.1038/17569 1999

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Science308(5718), 88–92 (2005) https://doi.org/10

    Auslaender, O.M., Steinberg, H., Yacoby, A., Tserkovnyak, Y., Halperin, B.I., Baldwin, K.W., Pfeiffer, L.N., West, K.W.: Spin-Charge Separation and Local- ization in One Dimension. Science308(5718), 88–92 (2005) https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.1107821

    2005

  2. [9]

    Nature Communications10(1), 2821 (2019) https://doi.org/10

    Jin, Y., Tsyplyatyev, O., Moreno, M., Anthore, A., Tan, W.K., Griffiths, J.P., Farrer, I., Ritchie, D.A., Glazman, L.I., Schofield, A.J., Ford, C.J.B.: Momentum- dependent power law measured in an interacting quantum wire beyond the Luttinger limit. Nature Communications10(1),...

    2019

  3. [10]

    Nature Communications16(1), 6997 (2025)

    Weldeyesus, H., Vianez, P.M., Sharifi Sedeh, O., Tan, W.K., Jin, Y., Moreno, M., Scheller, C.P., Griffiths, J.P., Farrer, I., Ritchie, D.A.,et al.: Dominant end- tunneling effect in two distinct luttinger liquids coexisting in one quantum wire. Nature Communications16(1), 6997 (2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    Reviews of Modern Physics88(2), 025003 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.025003

    Narozhny, B.N., Levchenko, A.: Coulomb drag. Reviews of Modern Physics88(2), 025003 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.025003

    2016 doi

  5. [12]

    Physical Review Letters90(24), 246801 (2003) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.246801

    Kellogg, M., Eisenstein, J.P., Pfeiffer, L.N., West, K.W.: Bilayer quantum Hall systems atνt= 1: Coulomb drag and the transition from weak to strong inter- layer coupling. Physical Review Letters90(24), 246801 (2003) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.246801

    2003 doi

  6. [13]

    Nature432(7018), 691–694 (2004)

    Eisenstein, J., MacDonald, A.H.: Bose–einstein condensation of excitons in bilayer electron systems. Nature432(7018), 691–694 (2004)

    2004

  7. [14]

    Nature Physics13(8), 746–750 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4116

    Liu, X., Watanabe, K., Taniguchi, T., Halperin, B.I., Kim, P.: Quantum Hall drag of exciton condensate in graphene. Nature Physics13(8), 746–750 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4116

    2017 doi

  8. [15]

    Science388(6744), 278–283 (2025) https://doi.org/10

    Qi, R., Joe, A.Y., Zhang, Z., Xie, J., Feng, Q., Lu, Z., Wang, Z., Taniguchi, T., Watanabe, K., Tongay, S.,et al.: Perfect coulomb drag and exciton transport in an excitonic insulator. Science388(6744), 278–283 (2025) https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.adl1839

    2025

  9. [16]

    Science 388(6744), 274–278 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl1829

    Nguyen, P.X., Ma, L., Chaturvedi, R., Watanabe, K., Taniguchi, T., Shan, J., Mak, K.F.: Perfect coulomb drag in a dipolar excitonic insulator. Science 388(6744), 274–278 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl1829

    2025 doi

  10. [17]

    Physical Review Letters81(1), 184–187 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.81.184

    Flensberg, K.: Coulomb Drag of Luttinger Liquids and Quantum Hall Edges. Physical Review Letters81(1), 184–187 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.81.184

    1998

  11. [18]

    Physical Review B 62(24), 16912–16925 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.62.16912

    Klesse, R., Stern, A.: Coulomb drag between quantum wires. Physical Review B 62(24), 16912–16925 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.62.16912

    2000 doi

  12. [19]

    Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter13(14), 3389–3402 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-8984/13/14/312

    Debray, P., Zverev, V., Raichev, O., Klesse, R., Vasilopoulos, P., Newrock, R.S.: Experimental studies of Coulomb drag between ballistic quantum wires. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter13(14), 3389–3402 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-8984/13/14/312

    2001

  13. [20]

    Physical Review Letters 91(12), 126805 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.126805

    Pustilnik, M., Mishchenko, E.G., Glazman, L.I., Andreev, A.V.: Coulomb Drag by Small Momentum Transfer between Quantum Wires. Physical Review Letters 91(12), 126805 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.126805

    2003 doi

  14. [22]

    Physical Review Letters99(8), 086404 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.086404

    Peguiron, J., Bruder, C., Trauzettel, B.: Temperature Dependence of Coulomb Drag Between Finite-Length Quantum Wires. Physical Review Letters99(8), 086404 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.086404

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    Physical Review Letters101(21), 216806 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett

    Levchenko, A., Kamenev, A.: Coulomb drag in quantum circuits. Physical Review Letters101(21), 216806 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 101.216806

    2008 doi

  16. [24]

    Physical Review B86(24), 245402 (2012) https://doi.org/10

    Dmitriev, A.P., Gornyi, I.V., Polyakov, D.G.: Coulomb drag between ballistic quantum wires. Physical Review B86(24), 245402 (2012) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevB.86.245402

    2012

  17. [25]

    Nature Nanotech- nology6(12), 793–797 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2011.182

    Laroche, D., Gervais, G., Lilly, M.P., Reno, J.L.: Positive and negative Coulomb drag in vertically integrated one-dimensional quantum wires. Nature Nanotech- nology6(12), 793–797 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2011.182

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    Science343(6171), 631–634 (2014) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1244152

    Laroche, D., Gervais, G., Lilly, M.P., Reno, J.L.: 1D-1D Coulomb Drag Signa- ture of a Luttinger Liquid. Science343(6171), 631–634 (2014) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1244152

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Makaju, R., Kassar, H., Daloglu, S.M., Huynh, A., Laroche, D., Levchenko, A., Addamane, S.J.: Nonreciprocal coulomb drag between quantum wires in the quasi-one-dimensional regime. Phys. Rev. B109, 085101 (2024) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.085101

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Nature Commu- nications16(1), 6963 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-62324-6

    Zheng, M., Makaju, R., Gazizulin, R., Addamane, S.J., Laroche, D.: Tunable reciprocal and nonreciprocal contributions to 1d coulomb drag. Nature Commu- nications16(1), 6963 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-62324-6

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Zheng, M., Makaju, R., Gazizulin, R., Levchenko, A., Addamane, S.J., Laroche, D.: Quasi-1d coulomb drag in the nonlinear regime. Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 236301 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/v3dn-bnrp

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Zheng, M., Makaju, R., Gazizulin, R., Levchenko, A., Addamane, S.J., Laroche, D.: Quasi-one-dimensional coulomb drag between spin-polarized quantum wires. Phys. Rev. B113, 121408 (2026) https://doi.org/10.1103/5yqq-cw73

    2026 doi

  23. [31]

    Nature Communications16(1), 3058 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-025-58401-5

    Fu, Y., Huang, Y., He, Q.L.: Non-reciprocal coulomb drag between chern insu- lators. Nature Communications16(1), 3058 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-025-58401-5

    2025

  24. [32]

    Onsager, L.: Reciprocal relations in irreversible processes. i. Physical review 37(4), 405 (1931) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.37.405

    1931 doi

  25. [33]

    Physical review letters117(6), 066602 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.117.066602

    Keller, A., Lim, J.-S., S´ anchez, D., L´ opez, R., Amasha, S., Katine, J., Shtrikman, 14 H., Goldhaber-Gordon, D.: Cotunneling drag effect in coulomb-coupled quan- tum dots. Physical review letters117(6), 066602 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.117.066602

    2016

  26. [34]

    Sierra, M.A., S´ anchez, D., Jauho, A.-P., Kaasbjerg, K.: Fluctuation-driven coulomb drag in interacting quantum dot systems. Phys. Rev. B100, 081404 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.081404

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    Superlattices and Microstructures 3(5), 497–501 (1987) https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-6036(87)90231-X

    van Houten, H., van Wees, B.J., Mooij, J.E., Roos, G., Berggren, K.-F.: Magnetic depopulation of subbands and universal conductance fluctuations in quasi- one dimensional gaas–algaas heterostructures. Superlattices and Microstructures 3(5), 497–501 (1987) https://doi.org/10.10...

    1987 doi

  28. [37]

    Physical review letters57(14), 1769 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.1769

    Berggren, K.-F., Thornton, T., Newson, D., Pepper, M.: Magnetic depopulation of 1d subbands in a narrow 2d electron gas in a gaas: Algaas heterojunction. Physical review letters57(14), 1769 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.1769

    1986 doi

  29. [38]

    Semiconductor Science and Technology1(5), 327–337 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1088/0268-1242/1/5/008

    Berggren, K.-F., Newson, D.J.: Magnetic depopulation of electronic subbands in low-dimensional semiconductor systems and their influence on the electrical resistivity and Hall effect. Semiconductor Science and Technology1(5), 327–337 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1088/0268-1242/1/5/008

    1986 doi

  30. [39]

    Berggren, K.-F., Roos, G., Houten, H.: Characterization of very narrow quasi- one-dimensional quantum channels. Phys. Rev. B37, 10118–10124 (1988) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.37.10118

    1988 doi

  31. [40]

    https://arxiv

    Cai, S., Zheng, M., Rao, N., Gillia, G., Makaju, R., Addamane, S.J., Laroche, D.: Non-reciprocal Coulomb drag in a ballistic quantum wire (2026). https://arxiv. org/abs/2605.22945

    2026 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Physical Review B73(16), 165104 (2006) https://doi.org/10

    Fiete, G.A., Le Hur, K., Balents, L.: Coulomb drag between two spin-incoherent Luttinger liquids. Physical Review B73(16), 165104 (2006) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevB.73.165104

    2006

  33. [42]

    Solid State Communi- cations94(6), 413–418 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(95)00102-6

    Tarucha, S., Honda, T., Saku, T.: Reduction of quantized conductance at low temperatures observed in 2 to 10µm-long quantum wires. Solid State Communi- cations94(6), 413–418 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(95)00102-6

    1995 doi

  34. [43]

    Nikoli´ c, K., MacKinnon, A.: Conductance and conductance fluctuations of narrow disordered quantum wires. Phys. Rev. B50, 11008–11017 (1994) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.11008 15

    1994 doi

  35. [44]

    Physical Review B96, 035306 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.035306

    Schrade, C., Thakurathi, M., Reeg, C., Hoffman, S., Klinovaja, J., Loss, D.: Low- field topological threshold in Majorana double nanowires. Physical Review B96, 035306 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.035306

    2017 doi

  36. [45]

    Science advances5(10), 2194 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2194

    Ueda, K., Matsuo, S., Kamata, H., Baba, S., Sato, Y., Takeshige, Y., Li, K., Jeppesen, S., Samuelson, L., Xu, H.,et al.: Dominant nonlocal superconducting proximity effect due to electron-electron interaction in a ballistic double nanowire. Science advances5(10), 2194 (2019) h...

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    Nature Communications6(1), 6738 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7738

    Roche, B., Roulleau, P., Jullien, T., Jompol, Y., Farrer, I., Ritchie, D.A., Glattli, D.C.: Harvesting dissipated energy with a mesoscopic ratchet. Nature Communications6(1), 6738 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7738

    2015 doi

  38. [47]

    Superlattices and Microstruc- tures20(4), 561–567 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1006/spmi.1996.0115

    Weckwerth, M.V., Simmons, J.A., Harff, N.E., Sherwin, M.E., Blount, M.A., Baca, W.E., Chui, H.C.: Epoxy bond and stop-etch (EBASE) technique enabling backside processing of (Al)GaAs heterostructures. Superlattices and Microstruc- tures20(4), 561–567 (1996) https://doi.org/10.1...

    1996

  39. [48]

    Houten, H., Beenakker, C.W.J., Loosdrecht, P.H.M., Thornton, T.J., Ahmed, H., Pepper, M., Foxon, C.T., Harris, J.J.: Four-terminal magnetoresistance of a two- dimensional electron-gas constriction in the ballistic regime. Phys. Rev. B37, 8534–8536 (1988) https://doi.org/10.110...

    1988 doi

  40. [49]

    Fertig, H.A., Halperin, B.I.: Transmission coefficient of an electron through a saddle-point potential in a magnetic field. Phys. Rev. B36, 7969–7976 (1987) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.36.7969

    1987 doi

  41. [50]

    B¨ uttiker, M.: Quantized transmission of a saddle-point constriction. Phys. Rev. B41, 7906–7909 (1990) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.41.7906 Acknowledgments We acknowledge the helpful discussions with Z. Lu. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation throug...

    1990 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.