Anderson Orthogonality as Measurement Backaction in Coupled Quantum Dots

Elena Cornick; Eran Sela; Geoffrey C. Gardner; Johann Drayne; Joshua Folk; Michael J. Manfra; Saeed Fallahi; Sarath Sankar; Silvia L\"uscher; Vahid Movahed

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Anderson Orthogonality as Measurement Backaction in Coupled Quantum Dots

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A near-equilibrium charge detector perturbs the dot it measures through Anderson orthogonality rather than classical noise.

desk verdict A credible experimental isolation of tunable Anderson orthogonality backaction, with a quantitative alpha extraction that is suggestive but needs error bars and a test of the single-level detector model. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06550 v1 pith:SRSXNBMJ submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.mes-hall

Will Grant , Sarath Sankar , Elena Cornick , Vahid Movahed , Johann Drayne , Silvia Lüscher , Saeed Fallahi , Geoffrey C. Gardner

show 4 more authors

Michael J. Manfra Eran Sela Yigal Meir Joshua Folk

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 73.23.Hk73.63.Kv

keywords Andersonorthogonalitycatastrophemeasurementbackactionquantumdotchargesensortunnellingdynamicsnear-equilibriumdetectorFermiedgesingularitymany-bodycorrelationsmesoscopictransport

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a solid-state experiment in which a quantum-dot charge sensor held near equilibrium is shown to perturb the dot it measures through the Anderson orthogonality catastrophe (AOC), rather than through classical noise. The authors claim that tuning the detector's energy level across its resonance continuously changes the measured dot's tunnelling dynamics, from flat, energy-independent occupation plateaus to strongly energy-dependent traces, and that this evolution is quantitatively reproduced by AOC theory using only independently measured parameters. If correct, the result means a near-equilibrium measuring device can disturb a quantum system through intrinsic many-body correlations of the measurement process, a backaction mechanism distinct from shot noise and dephasing, and one that can be controlled by gate voltage.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Anderson orthogonality catastrophe exponent $\alpha=(\delta/\pi)^2$, where $\delta$ is the detector scattering phase-shift difference between the two dot charge states (Eq. 1). The argument is carried by the single resonant level model of the detector: the dot charge shifts the detector level by $\lambda$, the detector-lead coupling broadens it by $\Gamma_m$, and the phase shift follows from the resulting change in the resonant scattering phase; energy exchange with the detector during tunnelling is encoded in the spectral functions $A_\pm(E)$, which at low energy behave as power laws with exponent $\alpha$. This object converts a purely capacitive coupling into a tunable many-body backaction strength, and it is what lets the authors predict the occupation, dwell times, and transport line shapes from independently measured device parameters.

What would settle it

Engineer the same dot-detector pair with a detector whose Coulomb peak is visibly non-Lorentzian, for example by placing a second level within $\lambda$ of the first, while keeping $\lambda/\Gamma_m$ similar; Eq. 1 would then predict a different phase-shift contribution, and the plateau-to-diagonal evolution of $\langle N_d\rangle(\varepsilon_d)$ should fail to follow the single-level $\alpha$. Alternatively, measure $\alpha$ from $dI_d/dV_d$ at bias voltages well above $\Gamma_m$, where the theory regime $k_B T \ll eV_d < \Gamma_m$ is violated; if the extracted $\alpha$ diverges from Eq. 1 with independently measured $\lambda$ and $\Gamma_m$, the quantitative AOC model is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the tunnelling of an electron onto and off a quantum dot is governed not only by the dot's coupling to its leads, but by the collective response of a capacitively coupled detector's Fermi sea to the abrupt change in scattering potential. The detector's level shift $\lambda$ between the dot-empty and dot-occupied configurations produces a scattering phase-shift difference $\delta = \arctan((\varepsilon_m+\lambda/2)/\Gamma_m) - \arctan((\varepsilon_m-\lambda/2)/\Gamma_m)$, and the AOC exponent $\alpha=(\delta/\pi)^2$ controls the power-law spectral functions $A_\pm(E)$ that enter the tunnel rates. As $\varepsilon_m$ is varied, $\alpha$ changes from about 0.002 to about 0.55 in the main configuration; correspondingly, the average dot occupation $\langle N_d\rangle(\varepsilon_d)$ evolves from a flat plateau near 0.5 to an almost diagonal ramp across the bias window, the dwell times $\tau_0$ and $\tau_1$ become strongly energy dependent, and the dot current $I_d(V_d)$ loses its flat plateau. The same $\lambda$ and $\Gamma_m$ values, taken from the charge stability diagram, reproduce all three signatures in the theory of Ref. [15], giving an account of the data with only the Fermi edge singularity strength adjusted on the outer traces.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation stands on treating the detector as a single resonant level that responds to a dot-charge change only by a rigid energy shift $\lambda$, with Lorentzian broadening $\Gamma_m$; if the detector has extra levels, or its response is renormalized or non-Lorentzian, the extracted AOC exponent loses quantitative force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Near-equilibrium charge sensing in quantum-dot devices carries an intrinsic, gate-tunable backaction that must be accounted for in any measurement of tunnel rates or occupations.
The AOC exponent can be dialed from negligible to dominant simply by tuning the detector level $\varepsilon_m$, so the same device can operate as a nearly ideal spectator or as a strong many-body environment.
Inelastic transport through the dot becomes the dominant channel when $\alpha$ is large, so dot current and occupation become sensitive to the detector's spectral response rather than only to the dot's own level structure.
The consistency of $\alpha$ extracted from occupation slopes and from transport spectroscopy supports using either observable as a quantitative probe of detector-induced many-body correlations.
The observation sets up detector-induced many-body correlations as a resource for studying monitored quantum systems, including measurement-induced phase transitions.

Reading between the lines

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

In semiconductor spin-qubit readout, where the charge sensor is often biased only weakly, the same effect may already limit readout fidelity; detuning the sensor level from resonance should reduce AOC backaction at a modest cost in sensitivity.
If the single-level phase-shift picture holds, the AOC exponent should change systematically when the detector's number of transverse channels or its density of states is altered, offering a clean experimental test beyond this device.
The asymmetry between $A_+$ and $A_-$ away from $\varepsilon_m=0$ implies the detector acts as a directional energy source or sink for the dot; a similar configuration might be used to pump heat or particles between the dot's reservoirs without changing the tunnel barriers.
The Fermi edge singularity contribution, adjusted only on the outer traces, suggests an independent route to measure the dot-lead interaction strength in the same device by comparing weak-AOC plateaus at different $\Gamma_m$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this paper makes a credible experimental case that Anderson orthogonality can act as tunable measurement backaction in a coupled quantum-dot charge sensor. The central observation—the dot's occupation plateau turning into a nearly diagonal line as the detector is tuned to resonance—is clear by eye and is corroborated by dwell-time measurements and Id(Vd) spectroscopy. Second, the quantitative extraction of the AOC exponent alpha is the weak link. The derivation assumes the detector is a single, spinless, Lorentzian-broadened resonant level, and the same group's theory (Ref. [15]) supplies both the model and the extraction formulas. The paper provides no error bars on the alpha estimates or the underlying slopes, and no public data or code.

What the paper does well: the experiment is careful. The virtual-gate calibration is spelled out, and the supplementary robustness checks across detector bias, temperature, and Vd are exactly what a skeptical reader wants. The fact that the plateau-to-diagonal evolution appears at two different values of lambda/Gamma_m, and that the dwell times track the same trend, makes the qualitative conclusion solid. The theory comparison uses lambda and Gamma_m read from the charge stability diagram rather than fitted to the target lineshapes, so the agreement is not a free fit—except for one adjustable Fermi-edge-singularity strength, which is confined to the weak-AOC traces and disclosed.

Soft spots, in order of importance. (1) No error bars on the key quantitative markers: the alpha values in Fig. 4d, the occupation slopes in Fig. 2d, and the dwell times in Fig. 2f. Without uncertainties, the claimed agreement between data and theory is hard to assess. (2) The single-level detector model is asserted, not tested. Gamma_m is taken as half the FWHM of the Coulomb peak, but no high-resolution fit to a Lorentzian is shown. If the detector has additional levels or non-Lorentzian broadening, the extracted alpha numbers lose quantitative force even though the qualitative picture survives. (3) The theory for prediction and extraction comes from the same group; that is not disqualifying, but an independent calculation or a different detector geometry would bring the quantitative claim much closer to airtight. (4) Data availability 'upon request' is weaker than public deposition.

Bottom line: this is a solid experimental paper with a clean qualitative message and a plausible quantitative interpretation. A serious referee should engage with it. I would ask for error bars, a lineshape test of the detector resonance, and ideally public data. Without those, the alpha numbers should be treated as estimates; with them, this is a strong result in mesoscopic measurement physics. Recommend peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment on two capacitively coupled GaAs quantum dots in which a near-equilibrium quantum-dot charge sensor is shown to induce Anderson orthogonality catastrophe (AOC) backaction on a nearby system dot. The central claim is that tuning the detector energy level epsilon_m tunes the AOC strength, quantified by the exponent alpha = (delta/pi)^2 from Eq. (1), from negligible (alpha ~ 0.002) to dominant (alpha ~ 0.55). The evidence is the evolution of the system-dot occupation from a flat plateau to a diagonal profile across the bias window, the corresponding energy dependence of dwell times, and the rounding of Id(Vd) characteristics. The theoretical curves are based on the model of Ref. [15] with lambda and Gamma_m extracted from the charge stability diagram, plus one FES strength adjusted to match the weak-AOC traces. The paper claims the theory reproduces the full parameter space of the data.

Significance. If correct, this is a significant advance: it demonstrates a controllable many-body backaction mechanism intrinsic to measurement, distinct from classical shot-noise backaction, and provides a new experimental platform for studying detector-induced correlations. The time-resolved charge sensing yields direct access to tunnel-in and tunnel-out rates, and the use of independent parameters (lambda, Gamma_m) from the stability diagram is a strength. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction for the dependence of alpha on detector detuning. The main limitations are the reliance on a single-level detector model, one free FES parameter, and the absence of reported uncertainties, which weaken the quantitative force of the comparison but do not undermine the clear qualitative plateau-to-diagonal evolution.

major comments (3)

[Fig. 3c and accompanying text] The statement that the FES strength was 'adjusted to match the data in the weak-AOC cases at large |epsilon_m|' means the calculation is not parameter-free. The claim that 'the calculation matches the data across the full parameter space' is therefore weakened: the match in the AOC-dominated traces could be partly influenced by the FES fit. Please quantify the sensitivity of the extracted alpha to the FES strength, or show that the AOC-dominated traces are insensitive to this adjustment.
[Eq. (1) and Sec. S2.3.3] The quantitative interpretation rests on the detector being a single, spinless resonant level whose response to dot charge is a rigid level shift lambda and whose width Gamma_m is the half-width of a Lorentzian Coulomb peak. The paper does not show a high-resolution Lorentzian fit to the detector resonance or an independent check of the single-level assumption. If the detector line shape is non-Lorentzian (e.g., from energy-dependent coupling, background transmission, or additional levels), the extracted alpha values from Eqs. S25 and S26 lose quantitative force. Please provide a Lorentzian fit with residuals or otherwise justify the single-level model.
[Figs. 2d, 2f, 4d and Sec. S5] The markers in the key quantitative figures lack error bars, and the reported values of lambda, Gamma_m, and extracted alpha are given without uncertainties. Since the central quantitative claim is the evolution of alpha (from ~0.002 to ~0.55), the absence of uncertainty estimates makes it difficult to assess whether the deviation of the data from the analytic line near resonance is significant. Please provide error bars or a systematic uncertainty analysis, including the uncertainty in Gamma_m from the FWHM extraction.

minor comments (5)

[Author affiliations and references] There are several typographical errors: 'V ancouver' in the affiliation should be 'Vancouver', and Ref. [14] lists 'Dd Dominicis' which should be 'de Dominicis'.
[Fig. 2d inset] The labels 'alpha_est' and 'alpha_tr' are not defined in the caption; please clarify what each marker type represents.
[Sec. S2.3.3] The extraction of Gamma_m from the FWHM of the detector Coulomb peak is stated but no representative trace or fit is shown; consider adding a figure to demonstrate the Lorentzian fit and its quality.
[Notation] The text uses both 'V_d' and 'eV_d' for the same quantity; please ensure consistent notation throughout.
[Ref. [15]] Since the theoretical model and the extraction formulas (Eqs. S25 and S26) come from a preprint by the same group, please cite a published version if available, or provide more details in the supplement to allow independent verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the raw lineshape evolution is an independent observable, and lambda and Gamma_m are extracted from the stability diagram rather than from the AOC-sensitive fits; the only fitted strength (FES) is anchored in the weak-AOC regime.

full rationale

The central claim is tested by a comparison that is not forced by construction. The raw observable is the evolution of the average dot occupation from a flat plateau to a diagonal trace as the detector detuning crosses resonance (Figs. 2d and 3b); this is a direct experimental fact that does not presuppose the AOC model. The AOC parameters lambda and Gamma_m are obtained from the charge stability diagram (Sec. S2.3.3: 'Gamma_m is determined from the full width at half maximum ... explicitly as Gamma_m = FWHM/2'), not by fitting the occupation or current lineshapes that constitute the AOC signal. Equation (1) then gives a predicted alpha(epsilon_m) that is not adjusted to the strong-AOC data. The theoretical curves following Ref. [15] use the same independently determined lambda and Gamma_m, and the only fitted quantity is the Fermi-edge-singularity strength, which is 'adjusted to match the data in the weak-AOC cases at large |epsilon_m|' where AOC is negligible (alpha ~ 0.002); hence that fit cannot manufacture the strong-AOC diagonal slope. The alpha values extracted from data via Eqs. (S25)-(S26) are theory-laden because those relations come from Ref. [15], but they are applied to measured slopes and can disagree with Eq. (1), as the paper reports 'apparent negative values obtained when the detector is far detuned' that reflect the competing FES contribution, so the comparison is falsifiable rather than tautological. The transport-based alpha in Fig. 4d is obtained by fitting I_d(V_d) to the Ref. [15] model, but the comparison target is Eq. (1) computed from independently measured lambda and Gamma_m, so the fit does not enforce the agreement. The self-citation of Ref. [15] is real and load-bearing for the quantitative model, but the present experiment provides an external, falsifiable test of that model, and the agreement is not enforced by construction. Concerns about the single-level/Lorentzian detector model are correctness assumptions, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new particles or new conserved quantities. The main free parameter is the FES strength, fitted to the weak-AOC traces. The other central inputs, lambda and Gamma_m, are measured from the charge stability diagram rather than fitted to the target signal. The theoretical framework is borrowed from Ref. [15] by the same group, which is an axiom-like reliance for the quantitative analysis.

free parameters (1)

Fermi edge singularity interaction strength (u or FES exponent alpha') = not stated explicitly; adjusted to match weak-AOC traces
In the Fig. 3c discussion, 'the strength of the FES was adjusted to match the data in the weak-AOC cases at large |epsilon_m|'. This is a parameter fitted to the same dataset, not independently determined.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The detector spectral functions A_plus/minus(E) have the x-ray-edge power-law form of Eq. S10 with exponent alpha = (delta/pi)^2.
Invoked in Methods S1 and after Eq. 1. The paper relies on Refs. [13-15] for this established AOC result rather than rederiving it.
domain assumption The detector is a single spinless resonant level with level broadening Gamma_m and energy shift lambda, giving Eq. 1 for the phase shift difference.
Used to convert measured lambda and Gamma_m into the predicted alpha. Multi-level structure or interaction corrections would change the phase shift and the extracted exponent.
domain assumption Each dot tunneling event is an instantaneous quench of the detector potential, and events are well separated so the detector equilibrates between events.
Required for the AOC overlap calculation and for the Markovian sequential-tunneling rates in Eqs. S5-S6. It also underlies the average-current proxy that the dot is always in N_d = 0 or 1.
domain assumption At detector bias V_m = 5 microvolt the detector is near equilibrium and classical shot-noise dephasing is negligible.
The claim of AOC backaction 'even without shot noise' depends on this. Fig. S3a supports it by showing no change at V_m = 10 microvolt and visible changes at V_m = 25 microvolt.
domain assumption The 3 T in-plane magnetic field Zeeman-splits the dot states so that only one spin direction participates in transport.
Used to justify the spinless single-level dot model and to identify the Zeeman-split excited-state step at large bias in Fig. 4c.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anderson Orthogonality as Measurement Backaction in Coupled Quantum Dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRSXNBMJ

@misc{pith2026260806550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anderson Orthogonality as Measurement Backaction in Coupled Quantum Dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRSXNBMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06550}
}

read the original abstract

Measurement perturbs a quantum system by coupling it to external degrees of freedom, but detector backaction depends on the physical mechanism of measurement itself. In solid-state devices, detectors driven far from equilibrium to enable faster measurements produce backaction that can often be understood as classical noise. However, a strong measurement can also induce backaction from quantum many-body correlations in the detector that are intrinsic to the measurement, even without shot noise. Here, we probe this near-equilibrium backaction through the effect of a quantum-dot charge sensor on tunnelling between a second quantum dot and its reservoirs. The measurement realizes the Anderson Orthogonality Catastrophe (AOC): electrons in the detector leads reorganize in response to an abrupt change in local scattering potential, suppressing resonant tunnelling while enabling inelastic processes that exchange energy with the detector. Changing the detector energy level tunes the AOC backaction from negligible to dominant in the tunnelling dynamics. More broadly, these results establish detector-induced many-body correlations as a controllable influence on quantum dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06550 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** b shows the mesoscopic implementation: a pair of capacitively-coupled quantum dots defined in a GaAs twodimensional electron gas. Each dot is coupled to independent source and drain leads and tuned into the few-electron regime using electrostatic gates. The experiment is carried out in a large in-plane magnetic field such that the Zeeman splitting, gµBB, exceeds the applied bias and only one spin direction particip… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** shows a direct measurement of AOC-modified tunnelling rates and their effect on the average occupation, ⟨Nd⟩(εd). A large bias is applied across the dot to expose a wide energy window over which tunnelling processes can be monitored, while Γd is made small enough that individual tunnelling events are resolved within the ≈ 1 kHz bandwidth of the charge-sensing circuit. The result is the detector current map in Fig. … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** shows the result of such a measurement. Discrete dot tunnel events are no longer visible in the raw Im maps (Figs. 3a,d), but each line trace Im(εd) corresponding to a fixed value of εm can be rescaled with respect to the values at large negative and positive εd. The resulting normalized signal provides a proxy for ⟨Nd⟩(εd). Panels a-c represent a setting of λ/Γm similar to that in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: c provides a complementary view of the same physics through tunnelling spectroscopy. Here Id is measured as a function of source-drain bias Vd, with the dot level fixed in the middle of the bias window, directly probing the energydependent transmission for several det…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[15]

Direct signatures of Anderson orthogonality catastrophe in nonequilibrium quantum dots

S. Sankar, J. Folk, Y . Meir, and E. Sela, (2025), arXiv:2507.03763 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[1]

Nagourney, J

W. Nagourney, J. Sandberg, and H. Dehmelt, Physical Review Letters56, 2797 (1986)

work page 1986
[2]

J. C. Bergquist, R. G. Hulet, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Physical review letters57, 1699 (1986)

work page 1986
[3]

W. M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland, Physical Review A41, 2295 (1990)

work page 1990
[4]

I. L. Aleiner, N. S. Wingreen, and Y . Meir, Physical Review Letters79, 3740 (1997)

work page 1997
[5]

E. Buks, R. Schuster, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and V . Uman- sky, Nature391, 871 (1998)

work page 1998
[6]

Y . Ji, Y . Chung, D. Sprinzak, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and H. Shtrikman, Nature422, 415 (2003)

work page 2003
[7]

Avinun-Kalish, M

M. Avinun-Kalish, M. Heiblum, A. Silva, D. Mahalu, and V . Umansky, Physical Review Letters92, 156801 (2004)

work page 2004

Show all 23 references

[8]

K ¨ung, S

B. K ¨ung, S. Gustavsson, T. Choi, I. Shorubalko, T. Ihn, S. Sch ¨on, F. Hassler, G. Blatter, and K. Ensslin, Physical Re- view B80, 115315 (2009)

2009
[9]

Bischoff, M

D. Bischoff, M. Eich, O. Zilberberg, C. R ¨ossler, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Nano Letters15, 6003 (2015)

2015
[10]

M. S. Ferguson, L. C. Camenzind, C. M¨uller, D. E. F. Biesinger, C. P. Scheller, B. Braunecker, D. M. Zumb ¨uhl, and O. Zilber- berg, Physical Review Research5, 023028 (2023)

2023
[11]

Sankar, C

S. Sankar, C. Bertrand, A. Georges, E. Sela, and Y . Meir, Phys- ical Review B110, 085133 (2024)

2024
[12]

Sankar, M

S. Sankar, M. Lotem, J. Folk, E. Sela, and Y . Meir, Physical Review B112, 075151 (2025)

2025
[13]

P. W. Anderson, Physical Review Letters18, 1049 (1967)

1967
[14]

Nozi `eres and C

P. Nozi `eres and C. T. Dd Dominicis, Phys. Rev.178, 1097 (1969)

1969
[16]

See Supplemental Materials
[17]

Mahan, Physical Review153, 882 (1967)

G. Mahan, Physical Review153, 882 (1967)

1967
[18]

A. Geim, P. Main, N. La Scala Jr, L. Eaves, T. Foster, P. Beton, J. Sakai, F. Sheard, M. Henini, G. Hill,et al., Physical review letters72, 2061 (1994). 7

1994
[19]

Abanin and L

D. Abanin and L. Levitov, Physical review letters93, 126802 (2004)

2004
[20]

Frahm, C

H. Frahm, C. von Zobeltitz, N. Maire, and R. J. Haug, Phys- ical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics74, 035329 (2006)

2006
[21]

Kr ¨ahenmann, L

T. Kr ¨ahenmann, L. Ciorciaro, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, L. Glazman, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, New Journal of Physics 19, 023009 (2017)

2017
[22]

Goldstein, R

M. Goldstein, R. Berkovits, and Y . Gefen, Physical Review Letters104(2010), 10.1103/physrevlett.104.226805

2010 doi
[23]

Z. Ma, C. Han, Y . Meir, and E. Sela, Physical Review Letters 131, 126502 (2023). 8 Methods: Anderson Orthogonality as Measurement Backaction in Coupled Quantum Dots S1. THEORETICAL MODEL The theoretical calculations presented in the paper are based on Ref. 15. Here, for the s...

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

Direct signatures of Anderson orthogonality catastrophe in nonequilibrium quantum dots

S. Sankar, J. Folk, Y . Meir, and E. Sela, (2025), arXiv:2507.03763 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Nagourney, J

W. Nagourney, J. Sandberg, and H. Dehmelt, Physical Review Letters56, 2797 (1986)

work page 1986

[3] [2]

J. C. Bergquist, R. G. Hulet, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Physical review letters57, 1699 (1986)

work page 1986

[4] [3]

W. M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland, Physical Review A41, 2295 (1990)

work page 1990

[5] [4]

I. L. Aleiner, N. S. Wingreen, and Y . Meir, Physical Review Letters79, 3740 (1997)

work page 1997

[6] [5]

E. Buks, R. Schuster, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and V . Uman- sky, Nature391, 871 (1998)

work page 1998

[7] [6]

Y . Ji, Y . Chung, D. Sprinzak, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and H. Shtrikman, Nature422, 415 (2003)

work page 2003

[8] [7]

Avinun-Kalish, M

M. Avinun-Kalish, M. Heiblum, A. Silva, D. Mahalu, and V . Umansky, Physical Review Letters92, 156801 (2004)

work page 2004