Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Reservoir engineering of Cooper-pair-assisted transport with cold atoms

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 Coupling a single-site cold-atom junction to a molecular BEC produces Cooper-pair-assisted transport peaks at \Delta\mu = |U|/(2k+1).

desk verdict Careful, honest proposal for Andreev-like atomic transport in cold atoms; the central peak prediction is leading-order and needs a serious check of the neglected Lamb shift. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02061 v2 pith:ERXBGRQ3 submitted 2019-08-06 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gas

François Damanet , Eduardo Mascarenhas , David Pekker , Andrew J. Daley This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords Cooper-pair-assistedtransportAndreevreflectioncoldatomsFloquet-RedfieldmasterequationmolecularBose-Einsteincondensatereservoirengineeringquantumfermionicjunction
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 proposes a cold-atom analogue of Cooper-pair-assisted (Andreev) transport: two non-interacting Fermi gases connected by a single-site junction that is coupled to a molecular Bose-Einstein condensate by two radio-frequency fields. Using a Floquet-Redfield master equation that treats the on-site interaction exactly, the authors predict a steady-state atomic current whose bias dependence develops resolved peaks at \$\Delta$\mu = |U|/(2k+1) for k = 0,1,2,\dots, a signature of transport assisted by k molecular conversions. The mechanism works without pairing or interactions in the reservoirs themselves, so it isolates Andreev-reflection physics in a regime that is hard to reach in solids. The paper also shows how finite temperature, the local interaction strength, and particle losses modify the peaks, and argues the parameters are within reach of \textsuperscript{6}Li experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Floquet-Redfield master equation, a Born-Markov Redfield equation for the driven junction written in the basis of its Floquet modes. It keeps the on-site Hubbard interaction U exact and avoids the secular approximation, so it captures coherences between Floquet states. The molecular BEC enters as a periodic drive H_{\rm BEC}(t)=\sum_l(g_l $e^{{i\delta_l t}}$ c_\downarrow c_\uparrow + \mathrm{h.c.}) with detunings \delta_L=2\mu_L and \delta_R=2\mu_R, whose period T=2\pi/\$\Delta$\mu sets the Floquet ladder; tunnelling rates are evaluated at quasienergy differences E_a-E_b+k\$\Delta$\mu, which is how k molecular conversions become resonant. The resonant condition \mu_L+k\$\Delta$\mu=|U|/2 then yields the peak positions.

What would settle it

Measure the steady-state current-bias curve of a single-site junction with local interaction U and molecular-BEC coupling g, at temperature small compared with the junction frequency and with tunnelling rates small compared with the reservoir chemical potentials. The claim predicts resolved peaks at \$\Delta$\mu=|U|, |U|/3, |U|/5, \dots; if no peaks appear at those positions, or an exact non-Markovian calculation of the same model shifts them, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the steady-state particle current through a driven single-site junction connecting two normal, non-interacting Fermi reservoirs develops sharp resonances at chemical-potential bias \$\Delta$\mu = |U|/(2k+1), with k\in\mathbb{N}, where U<0 is the attractive on-site interaction. These peaks follow from the resonant condition \mu_L + k\$\Delta$\mu = |U|/2, which matches the energy of an incoming atom plus k times the energy supplied by converting a BEC molecule into a pair and back; each peak corresponds to a k-th-order multiple Andreev reflection. Because the reservoirs contain neither pairs nor interactions, the assisted current is generated entirely by the molecular BEC and the two radio-frequency drives, so the setup demonstrates that Cooper-pair-assisted transport can be engineered from scratch in cold atoms. The authors further find an optimal interaction strength |U|/3 \approx g for maximal, well-resolved peaks, that finite reservoir temperature broadens and eventually erases the peaks, and that the assisted current is comparatively insensitive to local particle losses.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on assuming the junction forgets its past quickly enough that a memory-free master equation gives the correct steady state; the paper offers this as an expectation rather than a quantitative check, so significant non-Markovian corrections would shift or blur the predicted current peaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At zero temperature the current-bias curve changes from a single step at \Delta\mu=|U| into a peak structure at \Delta\mu=|U|/(2k+1), so the junction conducts at biases well below the bare interaction threshold.
  • Each peak can be labelled by the order k of multiple Andreev reflection, and increasing the BEC coupling strength g increases the peak amplitudes.
  • Finite reservoir temperature broadens the peaks, and at high temperature the driven and undriven currents become indistinguishable, so the effect requires temperatures small compared with the junction frequency.
  • There is an optimal interaction strength |U|/3 \approx g where the Andreev peaks are largest and best resolved; for larger |U| the assisted current is suppressed back toward the undriven value, modifying the common assumption that interaction always harms Andreev transport.
  • The assisted current is comparatively insensitive to local particle loss even when the loss rate is comparable to the tunnelling rate, while the ordinary sequential-tunnelling current is reduced.
  • The assisted current is comparatively insensitive to local particle loss even when the loss rate is comparable to the tunnelling rate, while the ordinary sequential-tunnelling current is reduced.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue is to read the peak spacing as a direct in-situ measurement of the local interaction U: the k=0 peak sits at |U| and the higher peaks at |U|/3, |U|/5, so observing several peaks fixes both U and the bias scale without separate calibration.
  • Because the assisted current survives particle loss that suppresses the sequential current, one could intentionally engineer losses to create a dissipative switch that passes only Andreev-assisted atoms; the paper models losses as a diagnostic but stops short of proposing this use.
  • The bath correlation functions decay only algebraically at zero temperature, so non-Markovian corrections, if present, should show up first at the lowest-bias high-order peaks where \mu_L is small; a direct comparison with an exact memory-kernel calculation would test the authors' steady-state Redfield assumption.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cold-atom realization of Cooper-pair-assisted transport. The model consists of two non-interacting fermionic reservoirs connected by a single-site junction that is also coupled to a molecular BEC via two radio-frequency drives tuned to twice the reservoir chemical potentials. The authors derive a Floquet-Redfield master equation for the junction, treating the on-site interaction exactly, and use it to compute the steady-state atomic current into the right reservoir. The central prediction is a series of current peaks at chemical-potential biases Δμ = |U|/(2k+1), which they interpret as multiple Andreev reflections assisted by molecular conversion. The paper also studies the effects of finite temperature, on-site interaction strength, and additional particle losses, and gives an experimental implementation estimate for 6Li.

Significance. If the central prediction holds, the paper is significant: it offers a concrete, falsifiable cold-atom analogue of Andreev transport without requiring pairing correlations in the reservoirs, and it provides a detailed open-quantum-system derivation with an exact treatment of the junction interaction. The explicit benchmark against the analytic undriven limit (Eq. 15), the convergence checks in Appendix B.4, and the concrete experimental parameters in Sec. 4 are notable strengths. The main quantitative claim, however, rests on approximations in the master equation that are acknowledged but not quantitatively controlled, so the paper as written does not yet fully establish Eq. (17).

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A.4, Eq. (A.24)] The Lamb shifts Ω_{l±}(E) are omitted with the argument that they are proportional to γ and therefore small. This is not quantitatively controlled near the higher-order peaks of Eq. (17). For the parameters of Fig. 2 (γ=0.01, |U|=2), the spacing between the k=3 and k=4 peaks is about 0.064, i.e., about 6.4γ, while the logarithmic Fermi-edge contribution (γ/π) ln(W/|E+μ_l|) can reach values of order 0.02 for a wide-band cutoff W≈100|U|. That is a non-negligible fraction of the inter-peak spacing. Since Eq. (17) is a quantitative prediction of peak positions, the authors should either include the imaginary parts in the rates or provide a numerical comparison of the current with and without Ω for the plotted parameters. As it stands, the central claim is not fully demonstrated.
  2. [Appendix A.4] The statement that non-Markovian memory effects are not expected to affect the steady state is an assertion rather than a demonstrated result. The Markov condition γ ≪ μ_l derived in Appendix A.2 becomes marginal at the low-bias peaks: for the k=5 peak in the Fig. 2 setup, μ_l = |U|/[2(2k+1)] ≈ 0.09 with γ=0.01, giving γ/μ_l ≈ 0.11. A quantitative check, for example a comparison with a time-nonlocal master equation or an explicit perturbative estimate of the memory correction for the parameters of Fig. 2, is needed to support the use of Eq. (8) for the peak positions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] The sentence 'In that case, the current (15) becomes' should reference Eq. (14), since Eq. (15) is the displayed result that follows from it.
  2. [Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 3] The notation '|U|/3g' is ambiguous; it should be written as |U|/(3g) consistently, both in the text and in the figure caption.
  3. [Eq. (17)] The index set in 'k ∈ N' should be clarified: for k=0 the feature at Δμ=|U| is a step in the undriven limit rather than a peak, so the authors should specify whether k=0 is included or restrict to k≥1.
  4. [Appendix A.2, Eq. (A.12)] The notation B_z(a,b) for the incomplete beta function should be defined explicitly or the expression corrected, since the argument structure is not standard.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'different driving amplitudes g' but does not list the numerical values; specifying the values would make the figure reproducible from the text alone.
  6. [Sec. 3.3] The claim that the optimal interaction regime |U|/3 ∼ g was confirmed for other values of g is supported only by 'not shown' data; this statement should either be removed or backed by a supplementary plot.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the Andreev-peak positions are derived from the Floquet-Redfield solution of the model Hamiltonian, not fitted; the cited formalism [30] is re-derived in the appendix and is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Eq. (17), predicts current peaks at Δμ = |U|/(2k+1). These peak positions are not taken as inputs; they are derived by solving the periodically driven Anderson-impurity model. Appendix A contains a self-contained derivation of the Floquet-Redfield master equation from the Born-Markov approximation, the bath correlation functions of Eqs. (A.9), and the numerically computed Floquet quasienergies of Eqs. (A.13)-(A.16). The resonance condition of Eq. (18), μ_L + kΔμ = |U|/2, follows algebraically from the choice μ_L = -μ_R = Δμ/2 together with the Floquet sideband resonance condition, not from fitting the computed current. The undriven limit of Eq. (15) provides an independent analytic check against sequential tunneling. The self-citation to [30] for the Floquet-Redfield formalism is non-load-bearing because the formalism is re-derived in Appendix A, and the BEC-coupling term is motivated by [21] rather than assumed as an unexplained input. The appendix explicitly notes two limitations: the principal-value shifts Ω_{l±}(E) are neglected ('we anyway neglected these shifts'), and non-Markovian memory effects are dismissed as not significant in the steady state ('we do not expect significant memory effects in its steady state properties'). These are unquantified accuracy risks that could shift or broaden the predicted peaks, but they do not make the prediction equivalent to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no ansatz is smuggled in solely through citation. The derivation is therefore self-contained for the purposes of the paper's central transport predictions, with the caveat about Markovian and Lamb-shift corrections noted as a correctness risk rather than a circular step.

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

The central predictions rest on four physical parameters (U, g, γ, T) chosen by hand, and on six modeling assumptions, the most fragile being the Born-Markov approximation and the undepleted BEC treatment. No new entities are introduced; the molecular BEC and Floquet sidebands are standard physical concepts.

free parameters (4)
  • U (interaction strength) = -2 (with ω=-U/2)
    Interaction energy of the single-site junction; central to the resonance condition Δμ=|U|/(2k+1). Chosen in the particle-hole symmetric case; not derived.
  • g (BEC pair-tunneling amplitude) = 0.5 (and varied 0.1-0.9 elsewhere)
    Coupling strength of the junction to the molecular BEC; controls peak amplitudes and the optimal interaction regime |U|/3~g. Chosen by hand as a tunable parameter.
  • γ (reservoir tunnelling rate) = 1e-2 or 1e-3
    Rate for atoms tunneling between the junction and reservoirs; sets the weak-coupling scale and the Markov condition γ≪Δμ,T. Fixed in simulations.
  • T (reservoir temperature) = varied, with k_B T from 0 to values smearing peaks
    Temperature of the two reservoirs, varied to study smearing of Andreev peaks. An input parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation: total density matrix factorizes and memory effects are negligible
    Used to derive the Floquet-Redfield master equation (Eq. 8) from Eq. (7); justified in Sec. 2.2.1 and Appendix A.2 by the condition τ_R≫τ_B, with τ_B~1/μ or 1/T. This is the weakest premise for the low-bias predictions.
  • domain assumption Weak coupling to reservoirs: expansion to second order in H_I
    The master equation is derived to order κ^2; requires γ≪ω,Δμ. Standard for sequential tunneling.
  • domain assumption Molecular BEC is treated as an undepleted classical field with macroscopic occupation ⟨S⟩
    The BEC coupling HBEC(t)=∑_l(g_l e^{iδ_l t} c_↓ c_↑ + h.c.) assumes the BEC is large and not depleted by molecule-to-pair conversions, giving a time-dependent classical drive. This is standard in cold-atom analogies to superconductivity.
  • ad hoc to paper Particle-hole symmetry: 2ω+U=0
    Chosen in Sec. 3.1 'for the sake of simplicity' to make the double-occupied and empty states degenerate; the resonance condition Δμ=|U|/(2k+1) and Figs. 2-4 rely on this choice.
  • domain assumption Reservoirs are non-interacting, normal Fermi gases in thermal states (Eq. 5)
    The proof that Cooper-pair-assisted transport occurs without pairs in the reservoirs depends on this normal, non-superfluid bath model.
  • ad hoc to paper Lamb shifts (principal-value integrals Ω) are negligible and omitted
    Stated in Appendix A.4: 'we anyway neglected these shifts that are small compared to system energies – since proportional to γ'. This approximation is not independently verified in the numerics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reservoir engineering of Cooper-pair-assisted transport with cold atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ERXBGRQ3

@misc{pith2026190802061,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reservoir engineering of Cooper-pair-assisted transport with cold atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ERXBGRQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02061}
}
read the original abstract

We show how Cooper-pair-assisted transport, which describes the stimulated transport of electrons in the presence of Cooper-pairs, can be engineered and controlled with cold atoms, in regimes that are difficult to access for condensed matter systems. Our model is a channel connecting two cold atomic gases, and the mechanism to generate such a transport relies on the coupling of the channel to a molecular BEC, with diatomic molecules of fermionic atoms. Our results are obtained using a Floquet-Redfield master equation that accounts for an exact treatment of the interaction between atoms in the channel. We explore, in particular, the impact of the coupling to the BEC and the interaction between atoms in the junction on its transport properties, revealing non-trivial dependence of the produced particle current. We also study the effects of finite temperatures of the reservoirs and the robustness of the current against additional dissipation acting on the junction. Our work is experimentally relevant and has potential applications to dissipation engineering of transport with cold atoms, studies of thermoelectric effects, quantum heat engines, or Floquet Majorana fermions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02061 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A: Two ultracold fermionic gases connected together by a junction immersed into a molecular BEC. B: Energy diagram of the bare junction and occupation n(E) of the reservoirs as a function of chemical potential bias ∆µ. C: Atom-molecular conversions in the junction induced by two fields of radiofrequencies ωL and ωR and detunings δL = ωL −  > 0 and δR = ωR −  < 0, where  is the frequency of the transition |BECi ↔ … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Current-bias characteristics of the junction for different driving amplitudes g at zero temperature T = 0 (A) and for different temperatures T for fixed driving amplitude g = 0.5 (solid lines) and g = 0 (dashed lines) (B). Other parameters are ω = −U/2 and U = −2, in units chosen so that γ = 10−2 . A: For g = 0, the current exhibits a step at ∆µ = |U| (dashed black line). When g increases, current peaks appear at ∆µ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Current-bias characteristics of the junction for different interaction strengths in the regime |U|/3g < 1 (A) and |U|/3g > 1 (B). Other parameters are g = 0.5, and T = 0, in units chosen so that γ = 10−3 . A: When the driving dominates, the currents is characterized by fragmented oscillations. B: By contrast, when the interaction starts to dominate, clear Andreev peaks appear. However, for strong interactions, i.e.,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Current-bias characteristics of the junction for different particle loss rates γI of spin down (s =↓) atom only (A) and both spin up (s =↑) and down (s =↓) atoms (B). Other parameters are ω = −U/2, U = −2, T = 0, in units chosen so that γ = 10−2 . In both cases, the cu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reservoir engineering of Cooper-pair-assisted transport with cold atoms

    Introduction Transport measurements between reservoirs connected by a channel are well-known tools to understand and study the static and dynamical properties of condensed matter systems. In this context, the development of cold atom platforms has offered possibilities to explore phenomena with strongly-interacting particles in transport setups. A key feat...

    work page Pith review arXiv 1908

  2. [2]

    system-bath

    Model In this section, we summarise our model for a tunnel junction connecting two cold atom reservoirs. Figure 1 (A) shows a setup where two ultracold fermionic gases are connected together by a small junction. We consider two different spin states, labelled with s∈{↓ ,↑}. Transport of atoms through the junction is generated by preparing an initial chemic...

    work page

  3. [3]

    current-voltage

    Transport properties Solving the master equation (8) allows us to compute the transport properties of the driven junction. We focus here on the steady state current of atoms leaving the junction to reach the right reservoir, which is defined as ⟨IR⟩ =− ∑ s=↑,↓ Tr [ c† scsLR [ρSS] ] , (13) whereLR[·] is the Liouvillian (9) for the right reservoir and ρSS th...

    work page

  4. [4]

    We give examples of parameters currently available in experiments, basing values on 6Li atoms following [21, 1, 34, 4], and retain ℏ and kB in our expressions within this section

    Proposed experimental implementation Here we address the details of the proposed experimental implementation and observation of the phenomena we discuss in this manuscript. We give examples of parameters currently available in experiments, basing values on 6Li atoms following [21, 1, 34, 4], and retain ℏ and kB in our expressions within this section. The ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Conclusion We showed how transport of fermionic atoms through a junction connecting two cold gases can be assisted by molecular conversion with a BEC. We described such reservoir engineering using an open-system framework that we recently derived, which is able to capture the effects of finite temperature of the reservoirs, strong interaction and presence o...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Krinner, T

    S. Krinner, T. Esslinger, and J.-P. Brantut. Two-terminal transport measurements with cold atoms. Journal of Physics Condensed Matter , 29(34):343003, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Krinner, D

    S. Krinner, D. Stadler, D. Husmann, J.-P. Brantut, and T. Esslinger. Observation of quantized conductance in neutral matter. Nature, 517(7532):64–67, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Husmann, S

    D. Husmann, S. Uchino, S. Krinner, M. Lebrat, T. Giamarchi, T. Esslinger, and J.-P. Brantut. Connecting strongly correlated superfluids by a quantum point contact. Science, 350(6267):1498–1501, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Lebrat, P

    L. Lebrat, P. Griˇ sins, D. Husmann, S. H¨ ausler, L. Corman, T. Giamarchi, J.-P. Brantut, and T. Esslinger. Band and correlated insulators of cold fermions in a mesoscopic lattice. Phys. Rev. X, 8:011053, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Uchino, M

    S. Uchino, M. Ueda, and J.-P. Brantut. Universal noise in continuous transport measurements of interacting fermions. Phys. Rev. A , 98:063619, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Wiseman and Gerard J

    Howard M. Wiseman and Gerard J. Milburn. Quantum Measurement and Control . Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller. The Quantum World of Ultra-Cold Atoms and Light Book II: The Physics of Quantum-Optical Devices . Imperial College Press, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    H. J. Metcalf and P. van der Straten. Laser Cooling and Trapping . Springer, Berlin, 1999

    1999

  6. [14]

    Gericke, P

    T. Gericke, P. Wurtz, D. Reitz, T. Langen, and H. Ott. High-resolution scanning electron microscopy of an ultra- cold quantum gas. Nat. Phys. , 4:949, 2008

    2008

  7. [15]

    Weitenberg, M

    C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. Sherson, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr. Single-spin addressing in an atomic mott insulator. Nature, 471:319–24, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner. A quantum gas microscope for detecting single atoms in a hubbard-regime optical lattice. Nature, 462:74–7, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Sherson, C

    J. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr. Single-atom resolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic mott insulator. Nature, 467:68–72, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    A. J. Daley. Quantum trajectories and open many-body quantum systems. Advances in Physics , 63(2):77–149, 2014

    2014

  11. [19]

    H. P. L¨ uschen, P. Bordia, S. S. Hodgman, M. Schreiber, S. Sarkar, A. J. Daley, M. H. Fischer, E. Altman, I. Bloch, and U. Schneider. Signatures of Many-Body Localization in a Controlled Open Quantum System. Physical Review X , 7(1):011034, 2017. Reservoir engineering of Coop...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Sarkar, S

    S. Sarkar, S. Langer, J. Schachenmayer, and A. J. Daley. Light scattering and dissipative dynamics of many fermionic atoms in an optical lattice. Phys. Rev. A , 90(2):023618, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Pichler, A

    H. Pichler, A. J. Daley, and P. Zoller. Nonequilibrium dynamics of bosonic atoms in optical lattices: Decoherence of many-body states due to spontaneous emission. Phys. Rev. A , 82(6):063605, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, J. Yago Malo, A. J. Daley, and M. H. Fischer. Dynamics of many-body localization in the presence of particle loss. Quantum Science and Technology , 3(1):01LT02, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    A. Andreev. Sov. Phys. JETP , 19:1228, 1964

    1964

  16. [24]

    C. W. J. Beenakker. Random-matrix theory of quantum transport. Rev. Mod. Phys., 69:731–808, 1997

    1997

  17. [25]

    Mart´ ın-Rodero and A

    A. Mart´ ın-Rodero and A. Levy Yeyati. Josephson and andreev transport through quantum dots. Advances in Physics , 60(6):899–958, 2011

    2011

  18. [26]

    Jiang, T

    L. Jiang, T. Kitagawa, J. Alicea, A. R. Akhmerov, D. Pekker, G. Refael, J. I. Cirac, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and P. Zoller. Majorana fermions in equilibrium and in driven cold-atom quantum wires. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 106:220402, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Y. Yan, Z. L¨ u, and H. Zheng. Resonance fluorescence of strongly driven two-level system coupled to multiple dissipative reservoirs. Annals of Physics , 371:159–182, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Kohler, T

    S. Kohler, T. Dittrich, and P. H¨ anggi. Floquet-Markovian description of the parametrically driven, dissipative harmonic quantum oscillator. Phys. Rev. E , 55(1):300–313, 1997

    1997

  21. [29]

    Graham and R

    R. Graham and R. Hubner. Generalized quasi-energies and floquet states for a dissipative system. Annals of Physics , 234(2):300 – 315, 1994

    1994

  22. [30]

    Driven quantum tunneling

    Milena Grifoni and Peter H¨ anggi. Driven quantum tunneling. Physics Reports, 304(5):229 – 354, 1998

    1998

  23. [31]

    Lindblad

    G. Lindblad. On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups. Commun. Math. Phys. , 48(2):119–130, 1976

    1976

  24. [32]

    Gorini, A

    V. Gorini, A. Kossakowski, and E. C. G. Sudarshan. Completely positive dynamical semigroups of N-level systems. J. Math. Phys. , 17:821, 1976

    1976

  25. [33]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione. The Theory of Open Quantum Systems . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Blattmann, P

    R. Blattmann, P. H¨ anggi, and S. Kohler. Qubit interference at avoided crossings: The role of driving shape and bath coupling. Phys. Rev. A , 91:042109, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Fran¸ cois Damanet, Eduardo Mascarenhas, David Pekker, and Andrew J. Daley. Controlling quantum transport via dissipation engineering. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 123:180402, Oct 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Bruderer and W

    M. Bruderer and W. Belzig. Mesoscopic transport of fermions through an engineered optical lattice connecting two reservoirs. Phys. Rev. A , 85:013623, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    von der Linden, I

    W. von der Linden, I. Morgenstern, and H. de Raedt. Quantum monte carlo study of quasiparticles in the hubbard model. Phys. Rev. B , 41:4669–4673, 1990

    1990

  30. [38]

    Pasienski and B

    M. Pasienski and B. DeMarco. A high-accuracy algorithm for designing arbitrary holographic atom traps. Opt. Express, 16(3):2176–2190, 2008

    2008

  31. [39]

    Arunkumar, A

    N. Arunkumar, A. Jagannathan, and J. E. Thomas. Designer Spatial Control of Interactions in Ultracold Gases. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 122:040405, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Jochim, M

    S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, S. Riedl, C. Chin, J. Hecker Denschlag, and R. Grimm. Bose-einstein condensation of molecules. Science, 302(5653):2101–2103, 2003

    2003

  33. [41]

    Greiner, C

    M. Greiner, C. A. Regal, and D. S. Jin. Emergence of a molecular bose-einstein condensate from a fermi gas. Nature, 426:537–40, 2004

    2004

  34. [42]

    M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, and W. Ketterle. Observation of bose-einstein condensation of molecules. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 91:250401, 2003

    2003

  35. [43]

    Holland, S

    M. Holland, S. Kokkelmans, M. L. Chiofalo, and R. Walser. Resonance superfluidity in a quantum degenerate fermi gas. Physical review letters , 87:120406, 2001. Reservoir engineering of Cooper-pair-assisted transport with cold atoms 23

    2001

  36. [44]

    This is in contrast with the solid-state where the bias between the leads that act as reservoirs can easily be conserved through the use of bias voltages

    In cold atom experiments, the initial imbalance between the reservoirs is usually not maintained during the transport measurements. This is in contrast with the solid-state where the bias between the leads that act as reservoirs can easily be conserved through the use of bias voltages

  37. [45]

    The condition τR≫τB can also be fulfilled for single-mode environment that are damped by other means, as it is the case for an atomic system trapped in a single-mode lossy cavity [41]

  38. [46]

    Damanet, A

    F. Damanet, A. J. Daley, and J. Keeling. Atom-only descriptions of the driven-dissipative dicke model. Phys. Rev. A , 99:033845, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    C. Timm. Tunneling through molecules and quantum dots: Master-equation approaches. Phys. Rev. B, 77:195416, 2008

    2008

  40. [48]

    Note that we observed a slower numerical convergence of the transport properties of the junction when decreasing the interaction strength|U|, in the sense that a higher cutoffkmax of the Fourier series appearing in (9) was required in this regime. This can be understood by the ...

  41. [49]

    We emphasise again that these effects can be directly modelled within the present framework, as done for the few examples presented in Sec. 3.4

  42. [50]

    Lebrat, S

    M. Lebrat, S. H¨ ausler, P. Fabritius, D. Husmann, L. Corman, and T. Esslinger. Local spin manipulation of quantized atomic currents. arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:1902.05516, 2019

    1902 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Grenier, C

    C. Grenier, C. Kollath, and A. Georges. Thermoelectric transport and peltier cooling of cold atomic gases. Comptes Rendus Physique , 17(10):1161 – 1174, 2016

    2016

  44. [52]

    Brantut, C

    J.-P. Brantut, C. Grenier, J. Meineke, D. Stadler, S. Krinner, C. Kollath, T. Esslinger, and A. Georges. A thermoelectric heat engine with ultracold atoms. Science, 342(6159):713–715, 2013

    2013

  45. [53]

    Sekera, C

    T. Sekera, C. Bruder, and W. Belzig. Thermoelectricity in a junction between interacting cold atomic Fermi gases. Phys. Rev. A , 94:033618, 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    Benito and G

    M. Benito and G. Platero. Floquet majorana fermions in superconducting quantum dots. Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures , 74:608 – 613, 2015

    2015

  47. [55]

    Y. Li, A. Kundu, F. Zhong, and B. Seradjeh. Tunable Floquet Majorana fermions in driven coupled quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B , 90(12):121401, 2014

    2014

  48. [56]

    V. I. Yudin, A. V. Taichenachev, and M. Yu. Basalaev. Dynamic steady state of periodically driven quantum systems. Phys. Rev. A , 93:013820, 2016

    2016

Pith tools

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