Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Driven quantum dot coupled to a fractional quantum Hall edge

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One formula captures the early edge current of a driven quantum dot.

desk verdict A genuinely useful perturbative calculation of driven current in a dot–FQH-edge system, with two printed prefactor typos that a referee should catch before the formulas are used. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05658 v2 pith:EDOW24DA submitted 2019-08-15 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hallhep-th

Glenn Wagner , Dung X. Nguyen , Dmitry L. Kovrizhin , Steven H. Simon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hallhep-th
keywords fractionalquantumHalledgedotspin-bosonmodelnon-interactingblipapproximationKuboformulabosonizationchargequantizationsingle-electronsource
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

The paper studies a single-level quantum dot tunnel-coupled to a chiral fractional quantum Hall edge and driven by a time-dependent bias voltage, the kind of device used as a single-electron source in electron quantum optics. It claims that the current emitted onto the edge at early times is described by one closed formula, Eq. (25), and that this formula can be derived in two apparently different ways that turn out to be identical: Kubo perturbation theory applied to the bosonized edge and the non-interacting blip approximation applied to a mapped spin-boson model. Because the mapping absorbs the dot-edge Coulomb interaction into a renormalized charge $\tilde{q} = q(1 - g/(2\pi v))$, the paper also concludes that the charge integrated over a long current pulse is not quantized to the electron charge. The formula is benchmarked against exact solutions in special limits, giving confidence that it captures the essential physics of the first instants after tunneling is switched on.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the spin-boson mapping: a unitary transformation absorbs the dot-edge density-density interaction into a renormalized vertex exponent $\tilde{\gamma} = \gamma(1 - g/(2\pi v))$, leaving a two-level system ('spin') coupled to an Ohmic bosonic bath with spectral function $J(\omega) = 2\pi\alpha\omega e^{-a\omega/v}$, where $\alpha = \tilde{\gamma}^2/2$. In this picture the dot occupation is the spin polarization and the edge current is the spin current. The paper computes this current to second order in tunneling by two routes, vertex-operator propagators in bosonization and NIBA path integrals for the spin, proves the two expressions identical, and packages the result as Eq. (25), a single time integral over the bias phase and bath correlation functions.

What would settle it

On a $\nu = 1/3$ Laughlin edge, drive one quantum dot with a sinusoidal bias $\epsilon(t) = \epsilon_0 \cos\Omega t$ with $\epsilon_0 \ll \Omega$ and measure the downstream current at early times. The paper predicts an amplitude and phase given by Eq. (29); a measured phase shift or amplitude that disagrees with it, or an integrated pulse charge equal to exactly one electron charge rather than $\tilde{q} = q(1 - g/(2\pi v))$, would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a driven dot on a Laughlin edge is a physical realization of the spin-boson model, and that the edge current is the same observable as the spin current of that model. The paper shows, to second order in tunneling, that the current obtained from vertex-operator correlation functions in the bosonized description equals the current obtained from the NIBA path-integral solution of the spin-boson model; both collapse into the single integral formula Eq. (25). This formula is proposed as an experimentally usable description of the early-time current for any filling fraction and any value of the dimensionless dissipation $\alpha = \tilde{\gamma}^2/2$. The same analysis carries the conclusion that interactions renormalize the emitted charge to $\tilde{q} = q(1 - g/(2\pi v))$, so a full current pulse transfers less than one electron (or quasiparticle) charge; the paper notes that the existing integer-Hall experiment cannot yet resolve this deviation.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the edge is one chiral Luttinger mode with linear dispersion, coupled point-like to a single dot level through short-range density-density interactions, so all interaction effects are contained in the Ohmic spectral function $J(\omega)=2\pi\alpha\omega e^{-a\omega/v}$; if the real edge carries extra modes, non-linear dispersion, or longer-range interactions, the central prediction changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Experimental current traces from a time-driven dot on a Laughlin edge can be compared directly with Eq. (25), giving access to the renormalized coupling $\tilde{\gamma}$ and the edge temperature.
  • For a sinusoidal bias with $\epsilon_0 \ll \Omega$, the current is periodic with a phase shift relative to the bias, Eq. (29), and that phase shift is an experimentally verifiable signature.
  • The integrated charge of a current pulse is $\tilde{q}$ rather than $q$, so single-electron source pulses on interacting edges are not charge-quantized even though the early-time current looks like a clean pulse.
  • At $\alpha = 1/2$ (an integer Hall edge) the perturbative result agrees with an exact free-fermion solution at short times, and at small $\alpha$ it agrees with the generalized master equation, establishing a wide regime of validity for the formula.
  • Because the Kubo and NIBA derivations coincide, techniques developed for the spin-boson model can be imported into the quantum-dot-on-edge setting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same spin-boson dictionary holds beyond weak tunneling, the broader set of numerical methods developed for the spin-boson model (stochastic Schrodinger equations, tensor networks, Bethe ansatz) could supply full-time predictions for the quantum Hall emitter in regimes where perturbation theory breaks down; the paper flags this as future work.
  • Because the central formula assumes exactly one chiral Luttinger mode with linear dispersion, a precise comparison with experiment on a $\nu = 1/3$ edge would also test whether the real edge behaves as an ideal Luttinger liquid at the driving energy scale.
  • The logarithmic cutoff dependence of the sinusoidal-drive current for $\alpha > 1/2$ means a measurement of the phase-shift amplitude could constrain the microscopic edge length scale $a$, which is otherwise hard to access experimentally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a single-level quantum dot coupled to a chiral Luttinger edge of a Laughlin fractional quantum Hall state, with a short-range density-density interaction between the dot and the edge. The authors map the model to the spin-boson model with an Ohmic spectral function, then compute the time-dependent current on the edge by two second-order perturbative methods: the Kubo formula in the bosonized representation and the non-interacting blip approximation (NIBA) in the spin-boson representation. They claim that the two current formulas, Eq. (17) and Eq. (23), are equivalent, and they present benchmarks against two non-perturbative approaches: an exact solution for the integer quantum Hall case (Appendix D) and a generalized master equation valid for small coupling. The paper also derives analytical limiting forms for the current, including a zero-bias result and a sinusoidal-drive result, and discusses the implications for charge quantization in current pulses.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper provides a simple and experimentally usable formula for the time-dependent current in a driven quantum-dot--FQHE-edge device, including a predicted phase shift relative to the driving bias. The controlled second-order perturbative derivation, the explicit mapping to the spin-boson model, the exact IQH solution in Appendix D, and the numerical comparisons to the generalized master equation are genuine strengths and provide independent checks of the main formula. The paper does not claim machine-checked proofs or released code, but the analytical derivations are sufficiently detailed for the central steps to be verified. The main quantitative claims are conditional on correcting the prefactor and consistency errors discussed below.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III.C, Eq. (24) and Appendix C (Eqs. (C2)–(C3))] The displayed identity (24) has the wrong prefactor. At τ=0, Eq. (18) gives Φ(0) = (2π)^{-1} a^{-γ̃²}, while the right-hand side of Eq. (24) as printed evaluates to a^{γ̃²}/(2π). The correct identity is Φ(t) = (a^{-γ̃²}/(2π)) e^{-Q'(t)-iQ''(t)}. With the printed prefactor, substitution into Eq. (C2) followed by Δ² = 2λ̃² a^{-γ̃²}/π produces an extra factor a^{2γ̃²}/4, so Eq. (C3) does not follow as written. After correcting the prefactor, the algebra leading to Eq. (25) goes through; the final formula is independently supported by the benchmarks in Fig. 3, so I regard this as a fixable error rather than an irreparable one, but it must be corrected for the displayed proof of equivalence to be valid.
  2. [§V.B, Eq. (29) and Appendix E] The analytical small-amplitude result in Eq. (29) is not consistent with the derivation in Appendix E. Substituting γ̃²=3, so that Δ²=2λ̃²a^{-3}/π, and ω_c=v/a into Eq. (E12) gives a sin Ωt coefficient proportional to λ̃² ε0 Ω (ln(aΩ/v)+γ_E)/(4π v³), whereas Eq. (29) as printed contains λ̃² Ω/(2π ε0 v³), i.e. it has ε0 in the denominator rather than the numerator. In addition, the exponential in the cos Ωt term appears as e^{+aΩ/v} if Eq. (29) is read in the natural way, while Appendix E gives e^{-aΩ/v} (equivalently π/(2e^{aΩ/v})). Since Fig. 4 claims excellent agreement between Eq. (29) and the full expression Eq. (25), the authors must reconcile Eq. (29), Appendix E, and the plotting convention used in Fig. 4.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.C, Eq. (24) and Appendix C] The notation 1/(2πa^{-γ̃²}) is ambiguous and is the source of the prefactor error; the correct expression should be written explicitly as (a^{-γ̃²}/(2π)) e^{-Q'(t)-iQ''(t)}.
  2. [§V.B, Eq. (29)] The cos Ωt term should be typeset unambiguously as π/(2e^{aΩ/v}) (or equivalently (π/2)e^{-aΩ/v}) to match the exponential factor derived in Appendix E.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption and §IV] The caption states that the plotted quantity is -dN/d(tΔ), while the text refers to the current; please clarify the relation to the current operator in Eq. (14), including the charge prefactor q̃.
  4. [§III.C] The claim that Eq. (24) follows by checking the two overlapping limits t≫a/v and t≪β is plausible, but the actual limiting forms are not displayed; once the prefactor is fixed, it would be helpful to show the two limits explicitly.
  5. [§V.A] The sentence after Eq. (27) explaining why α<1/2 requires a finite temperature as an infrared cutoff could be expanded for clarity, since the zero-bias integral is otherwise convergent for α<1/2 only because of the temperature-dependent term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the current formulas are derived from the model Hamiltonian by two independent perturbative methods and benchmarked against exact and master-equation results, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (17) is obtained from the Kubo formula applied to the bosonized Hamiltonian, with the vertex correlator (18) taken from standard bosonization results (Ref. [44]), while Eq. (23) is the standard NIBA expression from Refs. [14,51]. The claimed equivalence of (17) and (23) is presented as a cross-check of two independent second-order perturbative calculations, and neither formula is fitted to the other. The parameters entering the result, including the renormalized coupling tilde gamma and charge tilde q, are fixed by the original Hamiltonian through the unitary transformation in Sec. IIB, not by matching the predicted current. The benchmarks in Fig. 3 compare the perturbative expression against an exact IQH solution derived independently in Appendix D and against the GME taken from Ref. [2]; these are external checks rather than inputs to the derivation. Self-citations to Ref. [2] concern the interaction rescaling and the GME benchmark, but the rescaling is also justified within this paper, and the GME comparison is an independent benchmark, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. Even if the printed prefactor in Eq. (24) is algebraically incorrect, as a skeptical reader might note, that is a correctness issue internal to an equivalence proof, not a case of a prediction reducing to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard bosonization, the Furusaki-Matveev spin-boson mapping, a short-range interaction model, and the Kubo linear-response assumption. No new particles or entities are introduced; the only chosen-by-hand parameter is the UV cutoff a, which affects quantitative predictions in the α > 1/2 regime.

free parameters (1)
  • short-distance cutoff a
    Introduced in Eq. (3) as a UV regulator. The central current formula (25) and especially the analytical limit (29) depend on it through ln(aΩ/v) and e^{-aΩ/v}; the paper does not specify a physical value for a.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Chiral Laughlin edge is described by a free boson field with vertex operators of the form (4)-(5) and the two-point correlator (A7) from bosonization (Ref. [44]).
    Used throughout Section III A and Appendix A to derive the current formula; standard CFT and bosonization result.
  • domain assumption The spin-boson mapping of Furusaki and Matveev (Ref. [3]) applies, with Ohmic spectral function J(ω)=2παω e^{-aω/v} in Eq. (11).
    Underlies the NIBA calculation in Section II B; assumes a single chiral mode, linear dispersion, and point-like coupling.
  • domain assumption The dot-edge Coulomb interaction has the short-range form (7) and is fully eliminated by renormalizing γ to γ̃ (Eq. 8).
    Central modeling assumption for interactions; any additional interaction structure would alter the spectral function and the current.
  • domain assumption The quantum dot is a single-level system represented by spin operators, with Klein factors canceling in the current (Appendix B).
    Justified by the statistical phase cancellation argument in Appendix B; needed for the spin-boson mapping.
  • domain assumption The Kubo formula (16) with the perturbation switched on at t=0 gives the leading-order current.
    Standard linear-response assumption; valid when the dot occupation changes little over the integration time.
  • standard math The identity (24) relating Φ(t) to Q'(t) and Q''(t) holds for all times, as it is equivalent to Eq. (78) of Ref. [44].
    Used to prove equivalence between the bosonized and NIBA results; the paper also gives a two-limit consistency check.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Driven quantum dot coupled to a fractional quantum Hall edge." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EDOW24DA

@misc{pith2026190805658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Driven quantum dot coupled to a fractional quantum Hall edge},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EDOW24DA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05658}
}
read the original abstract

We study a model of a quantum dot coupled to a quantum Hall edge of the Laughlin state, taking into account short-range interactions between the dot and the edge. This system has been studied experimentally in electron quantum optics in the context of single particle sources. We consider driving the dot out of equilibrium by a time-dependent bias voltage. We calculate the resulting current on the edge by applying the Kubo formula to the bosonized Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian of this system can also be mapped to the spin-boson model and in this picture, the current can be perturbatively calculated using the non-interacting blip approximation (NIBA). We show that both methods of solution are in fact equivalent. We present numerics demonstrating that the perturbative approaches capture the essential physics at early times, although they fail to capture the charge quantization (or lack thereof) in the current pulses integrated over long times.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05658 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic model of the experimental setup showing a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sketch showing that the whole of t-space can be divided into two regimes which overlap: the t a v regime and the t β regime due to the fact that a v β. Since we prove the identity (24) in both limits, we have proven it for all t. One can then show that (17) and (23) are identical. We prove this in Appendix C. We also prove that the current can be written in the more useful form I(t) = q˜ 2 ∆(t) Z t 0 dτ∆(t − τ ) × c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the perturbative solution Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the full solution Eq. (25) with the analytical expression Eq. (29), which is valid in the limit ε0 Ω. We show the time evolution of the current when the dot is driven with a bias ε(t) = ε0 cos Ωt. We use the parameters Ω = 5∆, a = 0.01v∆−1 and ε0 = 0.1∆. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B\"auerle , author D

    author author C. B\"auerle , author D. C. \ Glattli , author T. Meunier , author F. Portier , author P. Roche , author P. Roulleau , author S. Takada , \ and\ author X. Waintal ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088\ journal Reports on Progress in Physics \ volume 81 ,\ pages 056503 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page

  2. [2]

    Wagner , author D

    author author G. Wagner , author D. X. \ Nguyen , author D. L. \ Kovrizhin , \ and\ author S. H. \ Simon ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.127701 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 122 ,\ pages 127701 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.127701 2019

  3. [3]

    Occupation of a resonant level coupled to a chiral Luttinger liquid

    author author A. Furusaki \ and\ author K. A. \ Matveev ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.226404 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 88 ,\ eid 226404 ( year 2002 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0112426 cond-mat/0112426 NoStop

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  4. [4]

    Weiss ,\ @noop title Quantum dissipative systems ,\ Vol

    author author U. Weiss ,\ @noop title Quantum dissipative systems ,\ Vol. volume 13 \ ( publisher World scientific ,\ year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  5. [5]

    author author A. J. \ Leggett , author S. Chakravarty , author A. T. \ Dorsey , author M. P. A. \ Fisher , author A. Garg , \ and\ author W. Zwerger ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.59.1 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 59 ,\ pages 1 ( year 1987 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.59.1

  6. [6]

    author author P. P. \ Orth , author A. Imambekov , \ and\ author K. Le Hur ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.014305 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 87 ,\ pages 014305 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.87.014305 2013

  7. [7]

    Quantum Phase Transitions in Spin-Boson Systems: Dissipation and Light Phenomena

    author author K. Le Hur ,\ @noop journal journal ArXiv e-prints \ ( year 2009 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.4822 arXiv:0909.4822 [cond-mat.other] NoStop

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    author author K. L. \ Hur , author L. Henriet , author L. Herviou , author K. Plekhanov , author A. Petrescu , author T. Goren , author M. Schiro , author C. Mora , \ and\ author P. P. \ Orth ,\ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070518300355 journal journal Comptes Rendus Physique \ ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page 2018

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Sassetti \ and\ author U

    author author M. Sassetti \ and\ author U. Weiss ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.2262 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 65 ,\ pages 2262 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    1990 doi

  2. [10]

    Bulla , author H.-J

    author author R. Bulla , author H.-J. \ Lee , author N.-H. \ Tong , \ and\ author M. Vojta ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.71.045122 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 71 ,\ pages 045122 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  3. [11]

    Le Hur \ and\ author M.-R

    author author K. Le Hur \ and\ author M.-R. \ Li ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.073305 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 72 ,\ pages 073305 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    Schoelkopf , author A

    author author R. Schoelkopf , author A. Clerk , author S. Girvin , author K. Lehnert , \ and\ author M. Devoret ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Quantum noise in mesoscopic physics \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2003 )\ pp.\ pages 175--203 NoStop

    2003

  5. [13]

    Makhlin , author G

    author author Y. Makhlin , author G. Sch \"o n , \ and\ author A. Shnirman ,\ in\ @noop booktitle New Directions in Mesoscopic Physics (Towards Nanoscience) \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2003 )\ pp.\ pages 197--224 NoStop

    2003

  6. [14]

    Grifoni , author E

    author author M. Grifoni , author E. Paladino , \ and\ author U. Weiss ,\ 10.1007/s100510050903 journal journal The European Physical Journal B \ volume 10 ,\ pages 719 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999 doi

  7. [15]

    Hartmann , author I

    author author L. Hartmann , author I. Goychuk , author M. Grifoni , \ and\ author P. H \"a nggi ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.R4687 journal journal Phys. Rev. E \ volume 61 ,\ pages R4687 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    doi

  8. [16]

    Cedraschi \ and\ author M

    author author P. Cedraschi \ and\ author M. Buttiker ,\ https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.2001.6116 journal journal Annals of Physics \ volume 289 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001

  9. [17]

    author author F. B. \ Anders \ and\ author A. Schiller ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.196801 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 95 ,\ pages 196801 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    author author M. L. \ Wall , author A. Safavi-Naini , \ and\ author A. M. \ Rey ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.053637 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 94 ,\ pages 053637 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  11. [19]

    Strathearn , author P

    author author A. Strathearn , author P. Kirton , author D. Kilda , author J. Keeling , \ and\ author B. W. \ Lovett ,\ 10.1038/s41467-018-05617-3 journal journal Nature Communications \ volume 9 ,\ pages 3322 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    author author K. H. \ Yang , author Y. Chen , author H. Y. \ Wang , \ and\ author B. Y. \ Liu ,\ 10.1016/j.physleta.2013.01.020 journal journal Phys. Lett. A \ volume 377 ,\ pages 687 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Galda , author I

    author author A. Galda , author I. V. \ Yurkevich , \ and\ author I. V. \ Lerner ,\ 10.1209/0295-5075/93/17009 journal journal EPL \ volume 93 ,\ pages 17009 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  14. [22]

    Rylands , author N

    author author C. Rylands , author N. Andrei , author M. Goldstein , author Y. Weiss , \ and\ author R. Berkovits ,\ 10.1209/0295-5075/86/67012 journal journal EPL \ volume 86 ,\ pages 67012 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    Goldstein , author Y

    author author M. Goldstein , author Y. Weiss , \ and\ author R. Berkovits ,\ 10.1016/j.physe.2009.06.064 journal journal Physica E \ volume 42 ,\ pages 610 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  16. [24]

    Komnik \ and\ author A

    author author A. Komnik \ and\ author A. O. \ Gogolin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.68.235323 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 68 ,\ pages 235323 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    a chter , author V. Meden , \ and\ author K. Sch \

    author author P. W \" a chter , author V. Meden , \ and\ author K. Sch \" o nhammer ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.125316 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 76 ,\ pages 125316 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  18. [26]

    Goldstein , author Y

    author author M. Goldstein , author Y. Gefen , \ and\ author R. Berkovits ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.245112 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 83 ,\ pages 245112 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  19. [27]

    Goldstein \ and\ author R

    author author M. Goldstein \ and\ author R. Berkovits ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.106403 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 104 ,\ pages 106403 ( year 2010 a ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0424 arXiv:0907.0424 NoStop

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Goldstein \ and\ author R

    author author M. Goldstein \ and\ author R. Berkovits ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.235315 journal journal Phys. Rev. B. \ volume 82 ,\ pages 235315 ( year 2010 b ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    Goldstein \ and\ author R

    author author M. Goldstein \ and\ author R. Berkovits ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.161307 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 82 ,\ pages 161307 ( year 2010 c ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3723 arXiv:1101.3723 NoStop

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    author author G. A. \ Fiete , author W. Bishara , \ and\ author C. Nayak ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.035301 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 82 ,\ pages 035301 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  23. [31]

    Yang , author C.-H

    author author G. Yang , author C.-H. \ Hsu , author P. Stano , author J. Klinovaja , \ and\ author D. Loss ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.075301 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 93 ,\ pages 075301 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Vannucci , author F

    author author L. Vannucci , author F. Ronetti , author D. Ferraro , author J. Rech , author T. Jonckheere , author T. Martin , \ and\ author M. Sassetti ,\ http://stacks.iop.org/1742-6596/969/i=1/a=012143 journal journal Journal of Physics: Conference Series \ volume 969 ,\ pa...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Vannucci , author F

    author author L. Vannucci , author F. Ronetti , author J. Rech , author D. Ferraro , author T. Jonckheere , author T. Martin , \ and\ author M. Sassetti ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.245415 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 95 ,\ pages 245415 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi

  26. [34]

    Chevallier , author J

    author author D. Chevallier , author J. Rech , author T. Jonckheere , author C. Wahl , \ and\ author T. Martin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.155318 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 82 ,\ pages 155318 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    Ronetti , author L

    author author F. Ronetti , author L. Vannucci , author D. Ferraro , author T. Jonckheere , author J. Rech , author T. Martin , \ and\ author M. Sassetti ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.075401 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 98 ,\ pages 075401 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    doi

  28. [36]

    Litinski , author P

    author author D. Litinski , author P. W. \ Brouwer , \ and\ author M. Filippone ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.085429 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 96 ,\ pages 085429 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    F \`e ve , author A

    author author G. F \`e ve , author A. Mah \'e , author J.-M. \ Berroir , author T. Kontos , author B. Placais , author D. Glattli , author A. Cavanna , author B. Etienne , \ and\ author Y. Jin ,\ 10.1126/science.1141243 journal journal Science \ volume 316 ,\ pages 1169 ( year...

    doi

  30. [38]

    Hermelin , author S

    author author S. Hermelin , author S. Takada , author M. Yamamoto , author S. Tarucha , author A. D. \ Wieck , author L. Saminadayar , author C. B \" a uerle , \ and\ author T. Meunier ,\ 10.1038/nature10416 journal journal Nature \ volume 477 ,\ pages 435 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    doi

  31. [39]

    author author R. P. \ McNeil , author M. Kataoka , author C. J. \ Ford , author C. H. \ Barnes , author D. Anderson , author G. A. \ Jones , author I. Farrer , \ and\ author D. A. \ Ritchie ,\ 10.1038/nature10444 journal journal Nature \ volume 477 ,\ pages 439 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    doi

  32. [40]

    Dubois , author T

    author author J. Dubois , author T. Jullien , author F. Portier , author P. Roche , author A. Cavanna , author Y. Jin , author W. Wegscheider , author P. Roulleau , \ and\ author D. C. \ Glattli ,\ 10.1038/nature12713 journal journal Nature \ volume 502 ,\ pages 659 ( year 201...

    doi

  33. [41]

    Bocquillon , author V

    author author E. Bocquillon , author V. Freulon , author F. D. \ Parmentier , author J.-M. \ Berroir , author B. Placais , author C. Wahl , author J. Rech , author T. Jonckheere , author T. Martin , author C. Grenier , author D. Ferraro , author P. Degiovanni , \ and\ author G...

    doi

  34. [42]

    Grenier , author R

    author author C. Grenier , author R. Herv\'e , author G. F\`eve , \ and\ author P. Degiovanni ,\ 10.1142/S0217984911026772 journal journal Modern Physics Letters B \ volume 25 ,\ pages 1053 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    \ Wen ,\ 10.1142/s0217979292000840 journal journal Int

    author author X.-G. \ Wen ,\ 10.1142/s0217979292000840 journal journal Int. J. Mod. Phys. B \ volume 06 ,\ pages 1711 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992 doi

  36. [44]

    von Delft \ and\ author H

    author author J. von Delft \ and\ author H. Schoeller ,\ 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3889(199811)7:4<225::AID-ANDP225>3.0.CO;2-L journal journal Annalen der Physik \ volume 7 ,\ pages 225 ( year 1998 ) NoStop

    1998 doi

  37. [45]

    Porras , author F

    author author D. Porras , author F. Marquardt , author J. von Delft , \ and\ author J. I. \ Cirac ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.010101 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 78 ,\ pages 010101 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  38. [46]

    Lemmer , author C

    author author A. Lemmer , author C. Cormick , author D. Tamascelli , author T. Schaetz , author S. F. \ Huelga , \ and\ author M. B. \ Plenio ,\ http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/20/i=7/a=073002 journal journal New Journal of Physics \ volume 20 ,\ pages 073002 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  39. [47]

    akangas , author J. Braum\

    author author J. Lepp\"akangas , author J. Braum\"uller , author M. Hauck , author J.-M. \ Reiner , author I. Schwenk , author S. Zanker , author L. Fritz , author A. V. \ Ustinov , author M. Weides , \ and\ author M. Marthaler ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.052321 journal journal Phy...

    doi

  40. [48]

    Magazz \`u , author P

    author author L. Magazz \`u , author P. Forn-D \'i az , author R. Belyansky , author J.-L. \ Orgiazzi , author M. A. \ Yurtalan , author M. R. \ Otto , author A. Lupascu , author C. M. \ Wilson , \ and\ author M. Grifoni ,\ 10.1038/s41467-018-04348-9 journal journal Nature Com...

    doi

  41. [49]

    author author R. P. \ Feynman \ and\ author F. Vernon Jr ,\ 10.1016/0003-4916(63)90068-X journal journal Annals of physics \ volume 281 ,\ pages 547 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000 doi

  42. [50]

    note Our Hamiltonian differs from that in [ @citealpnum Grifoni1999 ] by a minus sign in the definition of (t) and (t) , hence the expressions below differ in the sign of (t) from the results in that paper. Stop

  43. [51]

    Grifoni , author M

    author author M. Grifoni , author M. Winterstetter , \ and\ author U. Weiss ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevE.56.334 journal journal Phys. Rev. E \ volume 56 ,\ pages 334 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    1997 doi

  44. [52]

    note We did not consider the =1/2 case in our previous work OurLetter , since that paper was focussed on the effect of Coulomb interactions on the current and these would renormalize away from 1/2 for an integer quantum Hall edge. Ref. OurLetter studied the generalized master ...

  45. [53]

    Iwahori \ and\ author N

    author author K. Iwahori \ and\ author N. Kawakami ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.063647 journal journal Phys. Rev. A \ volume 94 ,\ pages 063647 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  46. [54]

    Keeling , author A

    author author J. Keeling , author A. Shytov , \ and\ author L. Levitov ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.196404 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 101 ,\ pages 196404 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  47. [55]

    note We always consider a v as our shortest time scale. Stop

  48. [56]

    author author V. S. \ Khrapai , author A. A. \ Shashkin , author M. G. \ Trokina , author V. T. \ Dolgopolov , author V. Pellegrini , author F. Beltram , author G. Biasiol , \ and\ author L. Sorba ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.086802 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 99 ,\ ...

    doi

  49. [57]

    note The term o cos (2 o arctan (v /a)) vanishes in this limit for = 1 2 = 2n+1 2 NoStop

  50. [58]

    note G. Fux, J. Keeling and L. Brendon, Private communication. Stop

  51. [59]

    Moskalets , author G

    author author M. Moskalets , author G. Haack , \ and\ author M. B \"u ttiker ,\ Single-electron source: Adiabatic versus nonadiabatic emission journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 87 ,\ pages 125429 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  52. [60]

    [ @citealpnum vonDelft1998 ]

    note It can be derived easily from equation (87) of Ref. [ @citealpnum vonDelft1998 ]. Stop

  53. [61]

    note We explicitly set the chemical potential of the IQH edge to =0 . Stop

  54. [62]

    note The LHS is O ( ) and thus can be neglected. Stop

  55. [63]

    note The situation is much more complicated if the fermion hat 05E is neither chiral nor free. Stop

  56. [64]

    note In this section, we omit all the (x,t) arguments for simplicity. Stop

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.