pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19187 · v1 · pith:4XLWKVQInew · submitted 2026-06-17 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

Constriction-induced modulation of charging energy in a quantum Hall cavity

Emily Hajigeorgiou , Arup Kumar Paul , Mario Di Luca , Vladimir Umansky , Moty Heiblum , Mitali Banerjee This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 19:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantum Hall cavitycharging energyFabry-Perot interferometerquantum point contactsfractional quantum Hall effectelectrostatic screeningCoulomb blockade
0
0 comments X

The pith

Charging energy in a quantum Hall cavity is strongly modulated by magnetic field through its constrictions.

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

The paper demonstrates that the charging energy in a gate-defined quantum Hall cavity is not static but changes by as much as 60 percent over magnetic field ranges of just 100 millitesla. This non-monotonic variation appears only when the quantum point contacts that define the cavity are weakly pinched, placing the system in the strong coupling regime. Correlation with the conductance of these constrictions points to the formation of incompressible fractional quantum Hall states inside them as the cause of altered screening. A sympathetic reader would care because this challenges the standard assumption that charging effects in Fabry-Perot interferometers are fixed by geometry alone, with implications for anyonic statistics measurements.

Core claim

Using a gate-defined quantum Hall cavity in the Coulomb-dominated regime, the charging energy is shown to be strongly and non-monotonically modulated by the magnetic field, varying by up to 60% over 100 mT exclusively when the quantum point contacts are weakly pinched off. The modulation is attributed to field-dependent changes in local compressibility and electrostatic screening driven by incompressible fractional quantum Hall states within the constrictions, establishing the constrictions as active electrostatic elements.

What carries the argument

The quantum point contact constrictions that form the cavity boundaries, which become active modulators of screening when fractional quantum Hall states form inside them.

Load-bearing premise

Changes in the magneto-conductance of the quantum point contacts directly reflect the formation of incompressible states that alter screening to the cavity.

What would settle it

Observation of charging energy modulation in the absence of any fractional quantum Hall features in the QPC conductance traces, or persistence of the effect when the QPCs are fully pinched off.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19187 by Arup Kumar Paul, Emily Hajigeorgiou, Mario Di Luca, Mitali Banerjee, Moty Heiblum, Vladimir Umansky.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Electronic Fabry-P\'erot interferometers (FPIs) operating in the fractional quantum Hall regime are a key platform for probing anyonic braiding statistics, yet interpreting their interference signals is complicated by Coulomb charging effects, which are commonly treated as parasitic, static properties governed by the cavity's geometry and electrostatics. Here, using a gate-defined quantum Hall cavity tuned to the Coulomb-dominated regime, we demonstrate that the charging energy is in fact strongly and non-monotonically modulated by the magnetic field, varying by up to 60% over a range of only 100 mT. The effect appears exclusively when the quantum point contacts (QPCs) forming the cavity are weakly pinched off, i.e., in the strong cavity-to-lead coupling regime. By correlating the charging energy modulation with the QPC magneto-conductance, we attribute this behavior to field-dependent changes in local compressibility and electrostatic screening between the cavity and the leads, driven by the formation of incompressible fractional quantum Hall states within the constrictions. This result establishes QPC constrictions of quantum Hall cavities as active electrostatic elements rather than passive boundaries, revealing a dynamic screening mechanism, with direct consequences for the interpretation of interference measurements and the extraction of anyonic statistics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of a gate-defined quantum Hall cavity operated in the Coulomb-dominated regime. It claims that the charging energy exhibits strong, non-monotonic modulation by magnetic field (up to 60% variation over ~100 mT) exclusively when the defining QPCs are weakly pinched off, and attributes the effect to B-dependent changes in local compressibility and electrostatic screening arising from incompressible fractional quantum Hall states forming inside the constrictions.

Significance. If substantiated by the data and controls, the result would establish that QPC constrictions function as active electrostatic elements whose screening properties vary with field, rather than passive boundaries. This has direct consequences for the analysis of Fabry-Pérot interferometers in the fractional regime and for the reliable extraction of anyonic statistics from interference signals.

major comments (2)
  1. [mechanism attribution / discussion of QPC conductance correlation] The central mechanistic claim—that the observed charging-energy modulation is caused by FQHS-induced screening changes inside the constrictions—rests on correlation between the charging-energy variation and features in the QPC magneto-conductance. No quantitative electrostatic model relating conductance features to cavity-lead potential shifts, nor any direct local probe of compressibility, is presented; alternative explanations (density inhomogeneity, backscattering) therefore remain viable. This correlation is load-bearing for the interpretation advanced in the abstract and discussion.
  2. [results / data analysis] The extraction of charging energy (presumably from Coulomb-blockade periodicity or interference) and the quoted 60% variation lack reported details on fitting procedures, error bars, background subtraction, or how the non-monotonic dependence is distinguished from other field-dependent effects. Without these, it is not possible to assess whether the data robustly support the stated magnitude and exclusivity to the weakly pinched regime.
minor comments (2)
  1. [figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the range of gate voltages or QPC transmissions corresponding to the 'weakly pinched' regime.
  2. [abstract / experimental methods] The abstract states the effect 'appears exclusively' when QPCs are weakly pinched; the main text should quantify the transmission or conductance threshold used to define this regime.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments highlight important points regarding the strength of the mechanistic interpretation and the transparency of the data analysis. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details and discussion where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [mechanism attribution / discussion of QPC conductance correlation] The central mechanistic claim—that the observed charging-energy modulation is caused by FQHS-induced screening changes inside the constrictions—rests on correlation between the charging-energy variation and features in the QPC magneto-conductance. No quantitative electrostatic model relating conductance features to cavity-lead potential shifts, nor any direct local probe of compressibility, is presented; alternative explanations (density inhomogeneity, backscattering) therefore remain viable. This correlation is load-bearing for the interpretation advanced in the abstract and discussion.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of a quantitative electrostatic model leaves room for alternative interpretations and that the correlation is central to our claim. In the revised manuscript we have added an expanded discussion section that presents a qualitative electrostatic model linking the formation of incompressible states in the QPC constrictions to changes in local screening and the resulting shift in the cavity-lead potential. We explicitly address why density inhomogeneity is unlikely to produce the observed non-monotonic field dependence that tracks specific fractional filling factors, and why backscattering contributions are inconsistent with the Coulomb-dominated regime data. While a direct local compressibility probe is not available in this device geometry, the QPC conductance serves as a direct experimental proxy for the local state within the constriction. We have also clarified that the effect is absent when the QPCs are fully open, further supporting the constriction-specific mechanism. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [results / data analysis] The extraction of charging energy (presumably from Coulomb-blockade periodicity or interference) and the quoted 60% variation lack reported details on fitting procedures, error bars, background subtraction, or how the non-monotonic dependence is distinguished from other field-dependent effects. Without these, it is not possible to assess whether the data robustly support the stated magnitude and exclusivity to the weakly pinched regime.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript did not provide sufficient detail on the analysis procedures. In the revised version we have added a new subsection (and corresponding supplementary material) that fully describes: (i) the fitting procedure used to extract charging energy from the periodicity of Coulomb-blockade oscillations in gate voltage, (ii) the method for background subtraction, (iii) how error bars were determined from repeated measurements and fit uncertainties, and (iv) the criteria used to identify and isolate the non-monotonic field dependence from other monotonic or slowly varying effects. The 60% variation is now reported with explicit error bounds and is shown to occur exclusively in the weakly pinched QPC regime; the revised figures include these error bars and the relevant raw data traces. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental report with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The manuscript is an experimental study reporting measurements of charging energy modulation in a gate-defined quantum Hall cavity. No equations, derivations, ansatzes, or model fits are presented that reduce a claimed prediction or result to an input parameter by construction. The central observations (60% variation in charging energy, correlation with QPC conductance) are direct experimental findings; attribution to FQHS in constrictions is an interpretation based on correlation, not a mathematical reduction. No self-citations are load-bearing for any derivation. This matches the default case of a self-contained experimental paper (score 0-2).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard quantum Hall physics and electrostatic screening in 2D electron gases
    The work operates inside the established fractional quantum Hall framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5766 in / 1093 out tokens · 39198 ms · 2026-06-26T19:57:21.410408+00:00 · methodology

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

43 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. Kim, H. Dev, R. Kumar, A. Ilin, A. Haug, V. Bhard- waj, C. Hong, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Stern, and Y. Ronen, Nat. Nanotechnol.19, 1619 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    thesis, ETH (2021)

    Roosli, Marc Philippe,Quasiparticle tunneling between edge channels in quantum dots in the integer and frac- tional quantum Hall regimes, Ph.D. thesis, ETH (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    B. I. Halperin, A. Stern, I. Neder, and B. Rosenow, Phys. Rev. B83, 155440 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    Stern, B

    A. Stern, B. Rosenow, R. Ilan, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B82, 085321 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B25, 2185 (1982)

    1982

  6. [6]

    Sivan, H

    I. Sivan, H. K. Choi, J. Park, A. Rosenblatt, Y. Gefen, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Nature Communications7, 10.1038/ncomms12184 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms12184 2016

  7. [7]

    Zhang, D

    Y. Zhang, D. T. McClure, E. M. Levenson-Falk, C. M. Marcus, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. B 79, 241304(R) (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    N. Ofek, A. Bid, M. Heiblum, A. Stern, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.107, 5276 (2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    Rosenow and B

    B. Rosenow and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 106801 (2007)

    2007

  10. [10]

    C. W. von Keyserlingk, S. H. Simon, and B. Rosenow, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 126807 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    Nakamura, S

    J. Nakamura, S. Liang, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Manfra, Nat. Commun.13, 1 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    D. T. McClure, Y. Zhang, B. Rosenow, E. M. Levenson- Falk, C. M. Marcus, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 206806 (2009)

    2009

  13. [13]

    H. K. Choi, I. Sivan, A. Rosenblatt, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Nat. Commun.6, 1 (2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    Sivan, R

    I. Sivan, R. Bhattacharyya, H. K. Choi, M. Heiblum, D. E. Feldman, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Phys. Rev. B97, 125405 (2018). 7

    2018

  15. [15]

    Nakamura, S

    J. Nakamura, S. Fallahi, H. Sahasrabudhe, R. Rahman, S. Liang, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Manfra, Nat. Phys. 15, 563 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Nakamura, S

    J. Nakamura, S. Liang, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Manfra, Nat. Phys.16, 931 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    Ronen, T

    Y. Ronen, T. Werkmeister, D. Haie Najafabadi, A. T. Pierce, L. E. Anderson, Y. J. Shin, S. Y. Lee, Y. H. Lee, B. Johnson, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Yacoby, and P. Kim, Nat. Nanotechnol.16, 563 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    D´ eprez, L

    C. D´ eprez, L. Veyrat, H. Vignaud, G. Nayak, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, F. Gay, H. Sellier, and B. Sac´ ep´ e, Nat. Nanotechnol.16, 555 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    L. Zhao, E. G. Arnault, T. F. Q. Larson, Z. Iftikhar, A. Seredinski, T. Fleming, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Amet, and G. Finkelstein, Nano Letters22, 9645–9651 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    H. Fu, K. Huang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Kayyalha, and J. Zhu, Nano Letters23, 718–725 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Werkmeister, J

    T. Werkmeister, J. R. Ehrets, Y. Ronen, M. E. Wesson, D. Najafabadi, Z. Wei, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. E. Feldman, B. I. Halperin, A. Yacoby, and P. Kim, Nat. Commun.15, 1 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    N. L. Samuelson, L. A. Cohen, W. Wang, S. Blanch, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. P. Zaletel, and A. F. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 256301 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    J. Kim, H. Dev, A. Shaer, R. Kumar, A. Ilin, A. Haug, S. Iskoz, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. F. Mross, A. Stern, and Y. Ronen, Nature649, 323–329 (2026)

    2026

  24. [24]

    N. L. Samuelson, L. A. Cohen, W. Wang, S. Blanch, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. P. Zaletel, and A. F. Young, Phys. Rev. X16, 011062 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    C. E. Henzinger, J. R. Ehrets, R. Fushio, J. Dong, T. Werkmeister, M. E. Wesson, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Vishwanath, B. I. Halperin, A. Ya- coby, and P. Kim, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11182 10.48550/ARXIV.2603.11182 (2026)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.11182 2026

  26. [26]

    J. Kim, A. Shaer, R. Kumar, A. Ilin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Stern, D. F. Mross, and Y. Ronen, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11162 10.48550/ARXIV.2603.11162 (2026)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.11162 2026

  27. [27]

    D. B. Chklovskii, B. I. Shklovskii, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B46, 4026 (1992)

    1992

  28. [28]

    M. P. R¨ o¨ osli, L. Brem, B. Kratochwil, G. Nicol´ ı, B. A. Braem, S. Hennel, P. M¨ arki, M. Berl, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, K. Ensslin, T. Ihn, and B. Rosenow, Phys. Rev. B101, 125302 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    M. P. R¨ o¨ osli, M. Hug, G. Nicol´ ı, P. M¨ arki, C. Reichl, B. Rosenow, W. Wegscheider, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Sci. Adv.7, 10.1126/sciadv.abf5547 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abf5547 2021

  30. [30]

    C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Physical Review B51, 13449–13466 (1995)

    1995

  31. [31]

    A. Bid, N. Ofek, H. Inoue, M. Heiblum, C. L. Kane, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Nature466, 585–590 (2010)

    2010

  32. [32]

    R. Sabo, I. Gurman, A. Rosenblatt, F. Lafont, D. Banitt, J. Park, M. Heiblum, Y. Gefen, V. Umansky, and D. Ma- halu, Nat. Phys.13, 491 (2017)

    2017

  33. [33]

    J. Wang, Y. Meir, and Y. Gefen, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 246803 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Bhattacharyya, M

    R. Bhattacharyya, M. Banerjee, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 246801 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    Inoue, A

    H. Inoue, A. Grivnin, Y. Ronen, M. Heiblum, V. Uman- sky, and D. Mahalu, Nature Communications5, 10.1038/ncomms5067 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms5067 2014

  36. [36]

    Fractional charges in emergent neutral modes at the integer quantum Hall effect

    H. Inoue, A. Grivnin, N. Ofek, I. Neder, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.1310.0691 (2013), 1310.0691

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.0691 2013

  37. [37]

    Goldstein and Y

    M. Goldstein and Y. Gefen, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 276804 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    Rosenblatt, F

    A. Rosenblatt, F. Lafont, I. Levkivskyi, R. Sabo, I. Gur- man, D. Banitt, M. Heiblum, and V. Umansky, Nature Communications8, 10.1038/s41467-017-02433-z (2017)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02433-z 2017

  39. [39]

    S. Baer, C. R¨ ossler, E. C. de Wiljes, P.-L. Ardelt, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, C. Reichl, and W. Wegscheider, Physical Re- view B89, 10.1103/physrevb.89.085424 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.89.085424 2014

  40. [40]

    Duprez,Helical edge transport and Fabry-P´ erot inter- ferometry in graphene quantum Hall effect — hal.science, Ph.D

    C. Duprez,Helical edge transport and Fabry-P´ erot inter- ferometry in graphene quantum Hall effect — hal.science, Ph.D. thesis, Universite Grenoble Alpes (2021), [Ac- cessed 12-05-2026]

    2021

  41. [41]

    Ihn,Semiconductor Nanostructures(Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2009)

    T. Ihn,Semiconductor Nanostructures(Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2009)

    2009

  42. [42]

    Hanson, L

    R. Hanson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Reviews of Modern Physics 79, 1217–1265 (2007)

    2007

  43. [43]

    Coulomb-Blockade Oscillations in Semiconductor Nanostructures

    H. van Houten, C. W. J. Beenakker, and A. A. M. Star- ing, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/0508454 (2005), cond-mat/0508454. 8 SUPPLEMENTARY SECTION SAMPLE FABRICATION The devices are fabricated from a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure with a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) located 138 nm below the top surface. The 2DEG electron densityn e = 1.05×10 11 cm−2 a...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.cond-mat/0508454 2005