Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 51 references

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

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coulomb drag between two adiabatic quantum-wire constrictions reduces to a product of resonance combs locked to magnetic subband depopulation, and nonlinear drag becomes the drive channel's transconductance.

desk verdict A sharp, mostly correct theory of drag oscillations in constriction circuits, with a missing validity condition that changes the low-T law in a regime the text claims to cover. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02812 v1 pith:MZOZNHIM submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Alex Levchenko , Mingyang Zheng , Dominique Laroche This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords Coulombdragquantumpointcontactadiabaticconstrictionmagneto-oscillationsmagneticdepopulationnonlineartransportnonreciprocityLuttingerliquid
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 aims to show that the oscillatory, nonlinear, and nonreciprocal drag signals seen in coupled quantum-wire circuits are not separate phenomena but one rectification effect. It models each wire as an adiabatic saddle-point constriction with an exactly known transmission, couples two such constrictions by the Coulomb interaction, and derives a closed expression for the linear drag conductance. In the experimentally relevant limit, the drag becomes the product of two resonance combs, one per wire, whose teeth are centered on magnetic-depopulation fields and whose width is set by whichever is broader, temperature or the field-sharpened tunneling width. In the nonlinear regime the same theory makes a sharper statement: the drag current is the drive channel's transconductance at any magnetic field. If correct, this turns recent double-wire drag maps into parameter-free tests of a single mechanism, and it explains the small-bias nonlinear onset and part of the observed nonreciprocity as consequences of dissipation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are (i) the saddle-point transmission formula T_n(E)=1/[1+exp(-pi epsilon_n)], a Fermi-Dirac-shaped step in gate voltage of width Delta1(B)/pi and spacing Delta2(B), with Delta1 and Delta2 the magnetic-field-renormalized tunneling width and subband spacing of the constriction; and (ii) the exact factorization of the four-dimensional interaction kernel J(k)=sum_{s,s'} s s' |V_{ss'}(k)|^2 into half-line Fourier transforms of the interwire interaction. This factorization makes the spatial structure of the drag exact, and in the experimentally relevant limit of a long thermal length compared with the coupling range, the kernel collapses to Vhat(0)^2/k^2, turning the freq

What would settle it

Measure the drag map g_D(B,V_g) on a double-wire device at dilution temperatures: if the ridges fail to follow the condition v_g = Delta2(B)(n+1/2)/omega_x and to become periodic in 1/B at high field, or if at bias eV with T^2/Delta1 << eV << Delta1 the nonlinear drag map differs from (eV^2/R_Q) alpha_-(0) dG1/d(eV_g) by more than a global constant, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Eq. (9): in the long-thermal-length limit, the linear drag conductance is a prefactor times a product over the two wires of cosh^-2 resonance combs, with teeth centered on the magnetic-depopulation fields v_{g,i} = Delta2(B)(n+1/2)/omega_x and width max(Delta1(B)/pi, T). Each wire contributes one comb, so the drag is exponentially small between peaks and peaks occur whenever a magnetoelectric subband of either wire crosses its Fermi level, i.e., at the field values where that wire's conductance loses one quantum. At high field the comb becomes periodic in 1/B. In the nonlinear regime Eq. (12) states that the drag current equals (eV^2/R_Q) alpha_-(0) times the derivative

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the rapidly oscillating 2k_F components of the charge density average out and that the interaction range is short compared with the thermal length (L_T >> d); if either fails, the simplified kernel and the 1/B-periodic peak positions do not give the full response.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A gate-and-field map of the linear drag should show ridges following the subband-riser fan Delta2(B)(n+1/2), becoming periodic in 1/B at high field; overlaying the separately measured transconductance of each wire tests Eq. (9) with no adjustable parameters beyond one overall amplitude.
  • At bias voltages satisfying T^2/Delta1 << eV << Delta1, the nonlinear drag map must reproduce the drive channel's dG/dVg up to a global constant, with oscillation envelopes growing as 1/Delta1(B), opposite to the linear-regime envelope.
  • The field-odd nonreciprocal drag component should oscillate in phase with the reciprocal drag, with amplitude ratio set by the separately measured conductance nonreciprocities of the two wires (Eq. 15); the drive-polarity asymmetry should cross zero at every conductance step and be odd in field (Eq. 16).
  • Strict linear response forbids a zero-field wire-exchange asymmetry of the drag; an observed zero-field asymmetry implies the measurement is at finite bias, and its magnitude should extrapolate to zero as the bias is reduced.
  • With spin splitting included, each drag peak becomes a resolved doublet above a field threshold set by the riser width; resolving doublets at accessible fields implies an exchange-enhanced g-factor, making drag a spin spectrometer for the constriction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the linear drag depends on the interwire interaction only through its zero-momentum component in the long-thermal-length limit, rectification drag should depend only logarithmically on wire separation, whereas backscattering drag falls exponentially; measuring the same double-wire geometry at different separations would isolate the two channels directly.
  • The transconductance identity is temperature-independent and parameter-free in its bias window, so it can serve as an in-situ calibration: any discrepancy between the nonlinear drag map and the separately measured dG1/dVg on the same device would expose heating, circuit filtering, or other non-rectification physics.
  • The predicted field-tunable drag exponent for interacting wires suggests that sweeping magnetic field at fixed temperature can probe Luttinger parameters without changing gates, and combining that exponent measurement with the T^1 circuit-filter law and the sawtooth-versus-symmetric lineshape test can assign any anomalous temperature dependence to a specific mechanism.
  • Since the exact kernel J(k) is not sign-definite, the sign of the drag is a geometric property of the coupling; engineering left/right coupling asymmetries could deliberately produce negative or sign-tunable drag without invoking correlated-electron physics.
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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a theory of Coulomb drag between two adiabatic constrictions (quantum point contacts/wires) in a magnetic field. It derives a linear drag formula (Eq. (7)) whose four-dimensional interaction kernel factorizes exactly (Eq. (8)); in the 'long thermal length' limit L_T >> d the kernel is claimed to collapse to Vhat(0)^2/k^2, yielding a closed-form product of resonance combs (Eq. (9)) whose peaks track magnetic-depopulation fields and whose temperature dependence is T^2 (or T-independent in the smeared regime). The paper further derives a nonlinear shot-noise regime in which the drag equals the drive-wire transconductance (Eq. (12)), a dissipation-induced nonreciprocal channel with field-odd signatures (Eqs. (15)-(16)), and extensions including Zeeman splitting, Luttinger renormalization, high-field backscattering, and circuit-frequency filtering.

Significance. If the central simplification holds, the paper provides a compact, essentially parameter-free explanation of drag magneto-oscillations in double-wire circuits and makes sharp falsifiable predictions: the transconductance identity for nonlinear drag, the ratio relation Eq. (15), the Zeeman doublet threshold, and the T^2->T^1 circuit-filter conversion. The exact factorization of the spatial kernel and the numerical checks (sub-percent agreement for Eq. (9) against quadrature) are genuine strengths. However, the key simplification is shown below to require an additional length-scale condition that is not stated; as a result, the universal low-temperature form of the linear drag is not established in part of the claimed experimental regime.

major comments (1)
  1. [Appendix B / Eq. (B3) / Sec. III A] The simplification of the interaction kernel to Vhat(0)^2/k^2 is obtained by 'averaging over the fast phase 2kL' in Eq. (B2). This operation requires kL >> 1, i.e. L_T << L, where L is the coupled-window length. The main text states only the condition L_T >> d (Sec. III A and Appendix B). For GaAs devices (L ~ 1 micron, d ~ 0.2 micron, hbar v_F/L ~ 0.8 K), the claimed experimental window includes T/omega_x ~ 0.01 with omega_x ~ 1-2 meV, for which L_T >> L and kL << 1. In that regime, expanding Eq. (B2) gives J ~ 2 L^2 Vhat(0)^2 instead of Vhat(0)^2/k^2. Inserting this into Eq. (7) with A_i ~ omega^2 yields an integrand proportional to omega^4 instead of omega^2, converting the T^2 law of Eq. (9) into T^4 and replacing the universal prefactor by an L-dependent amplitude. The numerical validation reported in Fig. 10 appears to use the phase-averaged kernel, so it does not test this point.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (12)] The identity preceding Eq. (12) should read T_n(1-T_n) = -(e Delta_1/pi) partial T_n/partial(eV_g) if V_g is a gate voltage; as written the prefactor and sign are inconsistent with Eq. (11). Since the prefactor is absorbed into alpha_- for shape comparisons, this is a typo, but it should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. VI C, Eq. (20)] The dimensionless coupling 'u' in Eq. (20) is not defined. Also, the statement that rectification 'increasingly dominates' with B rests on the unknown prefactor of the backscattering term; please state explicitly that this is an estimate.
  3. [Appendix B, Fig. 10] State explicitly which kernel (phase-averaged vs. exact finite-L) is used in the 'full numerics' panels, since the validity of the phase average is the central point at issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central drag formulas are derived from independent saddle-point input and a re-derived Keldysh kernel; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing unverified self-citation is used.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The magnetic-field dependence enters through the exactly known Fertig-Halperin/Buttiker saddle-point transmission, Eqs. (2)-(3), which is benchmarked, not fitted. Equation (7) is re-derived in Appendix A from Keldysh scattering states, with the rectification vertex spelled out in Eq. (A2); the citation to the author's earlier quantum-circuit drag paper [26] supplies method and context, not the load-bearing result. Equation (8) is an exact factorization identity, and the wire-limit collapse to Vhat(0)^2/k^2 in Eq. (B3) is a stated approximation with explicit limits (kd<<1 and phase averaging over 2kL), numerically checked against the full expression. Equation (9)'s T^2 law, ch^-2 combs, and peak positions follow algebraically from the small-omega form of A_i(omega) and the collapsed kernel, with no adjustable parameter except the overall interaction amplitude. Equation (12) follows from the exact identity T_n(1-T_n) = (Delta_1/pi) partial T_n/partial(eV_g) for a Fermi-step transmission, not from a fit. The nonreciprocity relations use the external weak-dissipation result of Ref. [28] and the paper's own computed asymmetry factors. Self-citations to the authors' experiments motivate the questions and set the parameter regime but do not enter as fitted inputs. The skeptical concern about kL>>1 versus L_T<<L is a possible validity-domain or correctness issue for the phase-averaged kernel, not a circular reduction of a prediction to its own input; the paper explicitly labels the long-window collapse as an approximation and numerically validates it where applied. Acknowledged limitations in Appendix B, Sec. VI C, and Sec. VII are honest caveats, not disguised inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The grounded bath, asymmetry scale delta, and coupling asymmetry eta_c are modeling parameters, not invented entities. The ledger's main entries are physical assumptions about the constriction geometry and the external weak-dissipation formula.

free parameters (4)
  • zero-momentum interaction Vhat(0) (overall drag amplitude)
    The closed-form Eq. (9) contains Fhat^2(0)/r_s^2 as an overall prefactor. The paper calls the test parameter-free beyond one overall amplitude; that amplitude is not computed from first principles here, so an experimental comparison would treat it as a global scale.
  • Luttinger interaction strength alpha = 0, 0.075, 0.15 in Fig. 7
    Chosen as representative values for the renormalization of the constriction transmission in Sec. VI B. It is physically tied to wire Luttinger parameters, not fitted to drag data.
  • bandwidth cutoff D = D = 20 omega_x
    Hand-chosen cutoff for the numerics in Fig. 7. It affects slow logarithmic corrections but not the central power laws.
  • lumped nonreciprocity strength 2 gamma delta eta_c = 10^-2 in Fig. 5b
    Illustrative lumped parameter for the nonreciprocity plots. No experimental fit is provided.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Constriction is described by the adiabatic saddle-point potential V(x,y) = V_g - (1/2)m omega_x^2 x^2 + (1/2)m omega_y^2 y^2
    Sec. II Eq. (1). Standard QPC model, but it restricts the geometry to a quadratic bottleneck and treats omega_x, omega_y, V_g as independent coordinates.
  • standard math Single-particle transmission in a perpendicular magnetic field is the Fertig-Halperin/Buttiker result, Eqs. (2)-(3)
    Sec. II, quoted from Refs. [24,25]. All drag energy scales in the paper are expressed through this result.
  • domain assumption Keldysh second-order perturbation theory in the static interwire interaction, keeping only smooth (non-2k_F) density components
    Appendix A. The Friedel terms are dropped and the backscattering channel is only estimated in Sec. VI C.
  • domain assumption Interwire coupling is translationally invariant over a window with d << L and thermal length L_T >> d, so the kernel collapses to Vhat(0)^2/k^2
    Appendix B, Eq. (B3). The closed form Eq. (9) is derived only in this long-window limit.
  • domain assumption Weak-dissipation nonreciprocity formula Delta T(epsilon) approx -2 gamma Tbar(epsilon) Delta tau(epsilon) of Ref. [28]
    Sec. V Eq. (13), imported from an unreviewed preprint. All field-odd drag relations in Sec. V depend on it.
  • domain assumption Renormalized transmission Eq. (18) from Refs. [46-48] applies to the constriction as a pointlike scatterer embedded in a long interacting wire
    Sec. VI B, relying on the stated separation of scales l_c << L.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magneto-oscillations, nonlinearity, and nonreciprocity of Coulomb drag in quantum circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZOZNHIM

@misc{pith2026260802812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magneto-oscillations, nonlinearity, and nonreciprocity of Coulomb drag in quantum circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZOZNHIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02812}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the problem of Coulomb drag in interactively coupled quantum circuits built of adiabatic constrictions: quantum point contacts and short quantum-wire channels. The interplay of spatial confinement and magnetic field leads to a rich oscillatory response of the drag current as a function of gate voltage and magnetic field: drag peaks track the depopulation of magnetoelectric subbands, are asymptotically periodic in inverse field, and their visibility is controlled by the competition of temperature with the field-sharpened tunneling width of the constriction. We derive a closed expression for the linear drag conductance whose interaction kernel simplifies dramatically in the experimentally relevant limit of a long thermal length compared with the range of the interwire coupling, investigate the drag in the nonlinear regime, where the drag current measures the transconductance of the drive channel at any field, and discuss physically motivated models of dissipation-induced nonreciprocity of the drag signal. Extensions accounting for Zeeman splitting, interaction renormalization of the barrier transmission, backscattering at high field, and the frequency structure of the circuit coupling delineate how each mechanism imprints itself on the temperature dependence and lineshapes of the drag oscillations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02812 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Magnetoconductance of the saddle-point constriction, Eqs. (2)–(5), for confinement ratios (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Magneto-oscillations of the linear drag. (a) Normalized drag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Parameter dependence of the drag magneto-oscillations, Eq. (9). (a) Confinement-ratio dependence at fixed gates ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Nonlinear drag in a magnetic field, Eq. (12), in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dissipation-induced nonreciprocity of drag. (a) Lineshapes of the field-odd component of the linear drag at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Zeeman splitting of the drag oscillations, Eq. (17). (a) Gate sweeps at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Luttinger renormalization combined with magnetic field. (a) Drag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Backscattering versus rectification drag at high field ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Effect of the frequency structure of the circuit kernel. (a) Drag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Numerical validation of the exact kernel. (a) The phase-averaged wire kernel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Nonreciprocal conductance in uniformly dissipative devices

    O. Solow, E. J. Bergholtz, and K. Flensberg, “Nonrecipro- cal conductance in uniformly dissipative devices, ” (2026), arXiv:2605.23725

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    Coulomb drag,

    B. N. Narozhny and A. Levchenko, “Coulomb drag, ” Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 025003 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Mutual friction between parallel two- dimensional electron systems,

    T. J. Gramila, J. P. Eisenstein, A. H. MacDonald, L. N. Pfeif- fer, and K. W. West, “Mutual friction between parallel two- dimensional electron systems, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 1216–1219 (1991)

    work page 1991

  4. [3]

    Coulomb drag between dis- ordered two-dimensional electron-gas layers,

    L. Zheng and A. H. MacDonald, “Coulomb drag between dis- ordered two-dimensional electron-gas layers, ” Phys. Rev. B48, 8203 (1993)

    work page 1993

  5. [4]

    Coulomb drag between paral- lel two-dimensional electron systems,

    A.-P. Jauho and H. Smith, “Coulomb drag between paral- lel two-dimensional electron systems, ” Phys. Rev. B47, 4420 (1993). 13 (a) 10−1 100 101 kd = ωd/vF 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 |⟨⟩| k2/ ̂2(0) exact 1 (kd ≪ 1) 22(0)/k2 ̂2(0) (kd ≫ 1) (b) 10−2 10−1 T/Δ 100 101 102 103 gD(T)/gD(Tmin) vF/d = 50 Δ vF/d = 0.5 Δ T2 (c) −4 −2 0 2 4 Vg/Δ 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0g...

    work page 1993

  6. [5]

    Coulomb drag in normal metals and superconductors: Diagrammatic approach,

    A. Kamenev and Y. Oreg, “Coulomb drag in normal metals and superconductors: Diagrammatic approach, ” Phys. Rev. B52, 7516 (1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [6]

    Linear-response theory of Coulomb drag in coupled electron systems,

    K. Flensberg, B. Y.-K. Hu, A.-P. Jauho, and J. M. Kinaret, “Linear-response theory of Coulomb drag in coupled electron systems, ” Phys. Rev. B52, 14761 (1995)

    work page 1995

  8. [7]

    Coulomb drag of massless fermions in graphene,

    S. Kim, I. Jo, J. Nah, Z. Yao, S. K. Banerjee, and E. Tutuc, “Coulomb drag of massless fermions in graphene, ” Phys. Rev. B83, 161401 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Strong Coulomb drag and broken symmetry in double-layer graphene,

    R. V. Gorbachev, A. K. Geim, M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, T. Tudorovskiy, I. V. Grigorieva, A. H. MacDonald, S. V. Mo- rozov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and L. A. Ponomarenko, “Strong Coulomb drag and broken symmetry in double-layer graphene, ” Nat. Phys.8, 896 (2012)

    2012

  2. [9]

    Exciton condensation and perfect Coulomb drag,

    D. Nandi, A. D. K. Finck, J. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, “Exciton condensation and perfect Coulomb drag, ” Nature488, 481 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    Quantum Hall drag of exciton condensate in graphene,

    X. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. I. Halperin, and P. Kim, “Quantum Hall drag of exciton condensate in graphene, ” Nat. Phys.13, 746 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    Excitonic superfluid phase in double bilayer graphene,

    J. I. A. Li, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Hone, and C. R. Dean, “Excitonic superfluid phase in double bilayer graphene, ” Nat. Phys.13, 751 (2017)

    2017

  5. [12]

    Non-reciprocal Coulomb drag between Chern insulators,

    Yu Fu, Yu Huang, and Qing Lin He, “Non-reciprocal Coulomb drag between Chern insulators, ” Nature Communications16, 3058 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    Coulomb drag in topological wires separated by an air gap,

    Lingjie Du, Jianmin Zheng, Yang-Zhi Chou, Jie Zhang, Xingjun Wu, Gerard Sullivan, Amal Ikhlassi, and Rui-Rui Du, “Coulomb drag in topological wires separated by an air gap, ” Nature Electronics4, 573–578 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    Experimental studies of Coulomb drag be- tween ballistic quantum wires,

    P. Debray, V. Zverev, O. Raichev, R. Klesse, P. Vasilopoulos, and R. S. Newrock, “Experimental studies of Coulomb drag be- tween ballistic quantum wires, ” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter13, 3389 (2001)

    2001

  8. [15]

    Negative Coulomb drag in a one-dimensional wire,

    M. Yamamoto, M. Stopa, Y. Tokura, Y. Hirayama, and S. Tarucha, “Negative Coulomb drag in a one-dimensional wire, ” Science313, 204 (2006)

    2006

  9. [16]

    Posi- tive and negative Coulomb drag in vertically integrated one- dimensional quantum wires,

    D. Laroche, G. Gervais, M. P. Lilly, and J. L. Reno, “Posi- tive and negative Coulomb drag in vertically integrated one- dimensional quantum wires, ” Nat. Nanotechnol.6, 793 (2011)

    2011

  10. [17]

    1D-1D Coulomb drag signature of a Luttinger liquid,

    D. Laroche, G. Gervais, M. P. Lilly, and J. L. Reno, “1D-1D Coulomb drag signature of a Luttinger liquid, ” Science343, 631 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    Nonreciprocal Coulomb drag between quantum wires in the quasi-one-dimensional regime,

    R. Makaju, H. Kassar, S. M. Daloglu, A. Huynh, and D. Laroche, “Nonreciprocal Coulomb drag between quantum wires in the quasi-one-dimensional regime, ” Phys. Rev. B109, 085101 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    Quasi-1D Coulomb drag in the nonlinear regime,

    Mingyang Zheng, Rebika Makaju, Rasul Gazizulin, Alex Levchenko, Sadhvikas J. Addamane, and Dominique Laroche, “Quasi-1D Coulomb drag in the nonlinear regime, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 236301 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    Tunable reciprocal and nonreciprocal contribu- tions to 1D Coulomb drag,

    M. Zheng, R. Makaju, R. Gazizulin, S. J. Addamane, and D. Laroche, “Tunable reciprocal and nonreciprocal contribu- tions to 1D Coulomb drag, ” Nat. Commun.16, 6963 (2025)

    2025

  14. [21]

    Quasi-one-dimensional Coulomb drag between spin-polarized quantum wires,

    Mingyang Zheng, Rebika Makaju, Rasul Gazizulin, Alex Levchenko, Sadhvikas J. Addamane, and Dominique Laroche, “Quasi-one-dimensional Coulomb drag between spin-polarized quantum wires, ” Phys. Rev. B113, L121408 (2026)

    2026

  15. [22]

    Non-reciprocal Coulomb drag in a ballistic quantum wire,

    S. Cai, M. Zheng, N. Rao, G. Gillia, R. Makaju, S. J. Addamane, and D. Laroche, “Non-reciprocal Coulomb drag in a ballistic quantum wire, ” (2026), arXiv:2605.22945

    2026 arXiv

  16. [23]

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

    Mingyang Zheng, Rebika Makaju, Rasul Gazizulin, Alex Levchenko, Sadhvikas J. Addamane, and Dominique Laroche, “Temperature-driven transition between momentum-resolved and disordered averaged Coulomb drag in 1D systems, ” (2026), arXiv:2607.29630 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Transmission coefficient of an electron through a saddle-point potential in a magnetic field,

    H. A. Fertig and B. I. Halperin, “Transmission coefficient of an electron through a saddle-point potential in a magnetic field, ” Phys. Rev. B36, 7969 (1987)

    1987

  18. [25]

    Quantized transmission of a saddle-point con- striction,

    M. B ¨uttiker, “Quantized transmission of a saddle-point con- striction, ” Phys. Rev. B41, 7906 (1990)

    1990

  19. [26]

    Coulomb drag in quantum cir- cuits,

    A. Levchenko and A. Kamenev, “Coulomb drag in quantum cir- cuits, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 216806 (2008)

    2008

  20. [27]

    Double quantum dot as a probe of nonequilibrium charge fluctuations at the quantum point con- tact,

    A. L. Chudnovskiy, “Double quantum dot as a probe of nonequilibrium charge fluctuations at the quantum point con- tact, ” Phys. Rev. B80, 081309(R) (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    A contribution to the theory of the B. W. K. method,

    E. C. Kemble, “A contribution to the theory of the B. W. K. method, ” Phys. Rev.48, 549 (1935)

    1935

  22. [30]

    On the analytical description of resonance tunnelling reactions,

    J. N. L. Connor, “On the analytical description of resonance tunnelling reactions, ” Mol. Phys.15, 37 (1968). 14

    1968

  23. [31]

    Reflectionless quantum transport and fundamen- tal ballistic-resistance steps in microscopic constrictions,

    L. I. Glazman, G. B. Lesovik, D. E. Khmel’nitskii, and R. I. Shekhter, “Reflectionless quantum transport and fundamen- tal ballistic-resistance steps in microscopic constrictions, ” JETP Lett.48, 238 (1988)

    1988

  24. [32]

    Magnetic depopulation of 1D subbands in a narrow 2D elec- tron gas in a GaAs:AlGaAs heterojunction,

    K.-F. Berggren, T. J. Thornton, D. J. Newson, and M. Pepper, “Magnetic depopulation of 1D subbands in a narrow 2D elec- tron gas in a GaAs:AlGaAs heterojunction, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1769 (1986)

    1986

  25. [33]

    Quantized conductance of magnetoelectric subbands in ballistic point contacts,

    B. J. van Wees, L. P. Kouwenhoven, H. van Houten, C. W. J. Beenakker, J. E. Mooij, C. T. Foxon, and J. J. Harris, “Quantized conductance of magnetoelectric subbands in ballistic point contacts, ” Phys. Rev. B38, 3625 (1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    Counterflow of electrons in two isolated quantum point contacts,

    V. S. Khrapai, S. Ludwig, J. P. Kotthaus, H. P. Tranitz, and W. Wegscheider, “Counterflow of electrons in two isolated quantum point contacts, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 096803 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    For compactness we introducesh(x)≡sinh(x)andch(x)≡ cosh(x)

  28. [36]

    Excess quantum noise in 2d ballistic point con- tacts,

    G. B. Lesovik, “Excess quantum noise in 2d ballistic point con- tacts, ” JETP Lett.49, 592 (1989)

    1989

  29. [37]

    Tem- poral correlation of electrons: Suppression of shot noise in a ballistic quantum point contact,

    M. Reznikov, M. Heiblum, H. Shtrikman, and D. Mahalu, “Tem- poral correlation of electrons: Suppression of shot noise in a ballistic quantum point contact, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3340 (1995)

    1995

  30. [38]

    Shot noise in mesoscopic con- ductors,

    Ya. M. Blanter and M. B ¨uttiker, “Shot noise in mesoscopic con- ductors, ” Phys. Rep.336, 1 (2000)

    2000

  31. [39]

    Double quantum dots as detectors of high-frequency quantum noise in mesoscopic con- ductors,

    R. Aguado and L. P. Kouwenhoven, “Double quantum dots as detectors of high-frequency quantum noise in mesoscopic con- ductors, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1986 (2000)

    1986

  32. [40]

    Using a quantum dot as a high-frequency shot noise detector,

    E. Onac, F. Balestro, L. H. Willems van Beveren, U. Hartmann, Y. V. Nazarov, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, “Using a quantum dot as a high-frequency shot noise detector, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 176601 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Role of quantum coherence in series resistors,

    M. B ¨uttiker, “Role of quantum coherence in series resistors, ” Phys. Rev. B33, 3020 (1986)

    1986

  34. [42]

    Voltage-probe and imaginary-potential models for dephasing in a chaotic quan- tum dot,

    P. W. Brouwer and C. W. J. Beenakker, “Voltage-probe and imaginary-potential models for dephasing in a chaotic quan- tum dot, ” Phys. Rev. B55, 4695 (1997)

    1997

  35. [43]

    Barrier interaction time in tun- neling,

    R. Landauer and Th. Martin, “Barrier interaction time in tun- neling, ” Rev. Mod. Phys.66, 217 (1994)

    1994

  36. [44]

    Distribution of the reflection eigenvalues of a weakly absorbing chaotic cavity,

    C. W. J. Beenakker and P. W. Brouwer, “Distribution of the reflection eigenvalues of a weakly absorbing chaotic cavity, ” Physica E9, 463 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    Possible spin polarization in a one- dimensional electron gas,

    K. J. Thomas, J. T. Nicholls, M. Y. Simmons, M. Pepper, D. R. Mace, and D. A. Ritchie, “Possible spin polarization in a one- dimensional electron gas, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 135 (1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    Tunneling in one-dimensional non-Luttinger electron liquid,

    K. A. Matveev, Dongxiao Yue, and L. I. Glazman, “Tunneling in one-dimensional non-Luttinger electron liquid, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 3351 (1993)

    1993

  39. [47]

    Conduction of a weakly interacting one-dimensional electron gas through a single barrier,

    Dongxiao Yue, L. I. Glazman, and K. A. Matveev, “Conduction of a weakly interacting one-dimensional electron gas through a single barrier, ” Phys. Rev. B49, 1966 (1994)

    1966

  40. [48]

    Transport in a one-channel Luttinger liquid,

    C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, “Transport in a one-channel Luttinger liquid, ” Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 1220 (1992)

    1992

  41. [49]

    Coulomb drag between quantum wires,

    R. Klesse and A. Stern, “Coulomb drag between quantum wires, ” Phys. Rev. B62, 16912 (2000)

    2000

  42. [50]

    Coulomb drag between ballistic quantum wires,

    A. P. Dmitriev, I. V. Gornyi, and D. G. Polyakov, “Coulomb drag between ballistic quantum wires, ” Phys. Rev. B86, 245402 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    Claude [large language model],

    Anthropic, “Claude [large language model], ”https:// claude.ai(2026), version: Claude Fable 5; used June–July 2026

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.