AC driven fractional quantum Hall systems: Uncovering unexpected features

Imen Taktak; Ines Safi

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 90 references

AC driven fractional quantum Hall systems: Uncovering unexpected features

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in AC-driven fractional quantum Hall edges, backscattering noise is bounded below by the absolute photo-assisted current, superseding Levitov's DC-noise bound and forbidding the zero-temperature limit at resonant…

desk verdict The zero-temperature critique is plausible but hinges on an unproven replica identity from the authors' own unpublished work; worth refereeing seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07622 v2 pith:QWTNNNYP submitted 2025-02-11 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el

Imen Taktak , Ines Safi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el PACS 3.67.Lx72.70.+m73.50.Td3.65.Bz73.50.-h3.67.Hk71.10.Pm72.10.-d

keywords fractionalquantumHalleffectphoto-assistednoiseLevitovtheoremTomonaga-Luttingerliquidweakbackscatteringpointcontactminimalexcitationssuper-Poissonian

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 argues that photo-assisted backscattering through a quantum point contact in the fractional quantum Hall effect is governed by a super-Poissonian inequality, $S_{\rm ph} \geq e^* |I_{\rm ph}|$, rather than by Levitov's theorem $S_{\rm ph} \geq S(\omega_J)$. Within the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid description of the edge, the DC backscattering noise already exceeds the Poissonian value, and the sum over AC sidebands carries that excess into the photo-assisted noise. The authors show that the zero-temperature limit cannot be taken when the DC voltage is resonant with the AC drive, because one sideband falls into the equilibrium strong-backscattering regime and its conductance diverges. This invalidates earlier zero-temperature analyses and redirects attention to the differential photo-conductance, whose resonant peaks offer a reliable probe of fractional charge.

What carries the argument

Equation (3), the UNEP replica relation $O_{\rm ph}(\omega_J) = \sum_l P_l O(\omega_J + l\omega_{\rm ph})$, is the load-bearing identity: it expresses each period-averaged photo-assisted observable as a probability-weighted sum of the corresponding DC observable evaluated at shifted voltages, with $P_l = |p_l|^2$. It turns the DC inequality into the photo-assisted bound and controls which sideband falls into equilibrium at a resonance. The accompanying infrared bound $\omega_{\rm min}$, obtained by requiring the weak-backscattering conductance to stay below one tenth of the perfect conductance, determines whether the quantum regime $\omega_{\rm ph} \gg \omega_T$ is reachable.

What would settle it

Measure the photo-assisted backscattering noise and current in a two-terminal fractional quantum Hall QPC with $\nu = 1/3$, $\delta = 2/3$, and $R = 0.01$ while cooling through the infrared bound at $\omega_J = \omega_{\rm ph}$. The paper predicts that the noise grows as $P_{-1} S_{\rm eq}(\omega_T) \propto \omega_T^{2\delta-1}$ and diverges as $T \to 0$; observing instead a finite, saturating noise or a value below $e^* |I_{\rm ph}|$ would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the weak-backscattering regime of a Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid, the relevant lower bound on photo-assisted backscattering noise is $S_{\rm ph}(\omega_J, \omega_T) \geq e^* |I_{\rm ph}(\omega_J, \omega_T)|$, and not the inequality $S_{\rm ph} \geq S(\omega_J, \omega_T)$ that holds for linear conductors. Because the DC noise obeys $S(\omega_J, \omega_T) \geq e^* |I(\omega_J, \omega_T)|$ and the period-averaged AC observables are weighted sums of DC observables over sidebands, the super-Poissonian character survives driving. At resonant DC voltages $\omega_J = n\omega_{\rm ph}$, the sideband with $l = -n$ sees zero effective bias and enters the equilibrium regime, in which the linear backscattering conductance diverges as $T \to 0$; therefore a finite temperature above an infrared bound must be kept, and a thermal equilibrium contribution to the photo-assisted noise persists. The same reasoning makes Lorentzian pulses unable to produce Poissonian backscattering noise. In the anyon collider configuration, an additional frequency scale $\omega_+$ replaces temperature and permits the zero-temperature limit.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the UNEP replica relation, taken from the authors' earlier work without independent derivation here, which assumes each AC sideband behaves as an independent DC observable; if the drive mixes sidebands or reshapes the distribution, the super-Poissonian bound and the zero-temperature critique collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Prior zero-temperature calculations of photo-assisted current and noise in fractional quantum Hall weak backscattering, including foundational early works, are not valid at resonant DC voltages; those evaluations require a finite temperature above the renormalized infrared bound.
Resonant peaks in the differential photo-conductance at $\omega_J = 0, \pm\omega_{\rm ph}$ provide a practical method for extracting the fractional charge $e^*$, one that is more reliable than the photo-assisted noise spikes.
For a low scaling dimension $\delta = 1/3$, the quantum AC regime and the expected DC power laws are largely inaccessible for realistic reflection coefficients, while $\delta = 2/3$ with a small reflection coefficient opens a workable window.
Lorentzian voltage pulses do not make the backscattering photo-assisted noise Poissonian in this regime; it remains super-Poissonian because of an irreducible equilibrium noise term.
The super-Poissonian photo-assisted bound and the zero-temperature obstruction extend to Josephson junctions, phase-slip junctions, and coherent conductors coupled to an ohmic environment under AC bias.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if the replica relation holds, the predicted growth of the equilibrium noise term as $T \to 0$ near $\omega_J = n\omega_{\rm ph}$ should be observable as an increasing photo-assisted noise when the temperature is lowered below the infrared bound; a saturation would point to sideband mixing outside the UNEP description.
Editorial inference: the resonance-avoidance strategy of fixing an integer number of fractional charges per cycle suggests a practical recipe for minimal-excitation experiments, namely choosing $\omega_J/\omega_{\rm ph} = N e^*/(\nu e)$ rather than an integer $n$.
Editorial inference: the same reasoning applied to dynamical Coulomb blockade circuits, where the scaling dimension is tunable through the environmental resistance, offers a cleaner test of the super-Poissonian photo-assisted bound than the less-controlled fractional quantum Hall edges.
Editorial inference: if the zero-temperature critique is correct, existing Hong-Ou-Mandel-type experiments at fractional fillings that rely on zero-temperature Tomonaga-Luttinger formulas should be re-examined with finite-temperature corrections.

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

The short version: this paper has a real result and a real soft spot. The real result is a careful validity-domain analysis for weak backscattering in a TLL QPC under AC drive, leading to the claim that the zero-temperature limit is illegitimate at resonant DC voltages (omega_J = n omega_ph) and that the photoconductance, not the noise, is the clean probe of fractional charge. The soft spot is that the super-Poissonian inequality, Eq. (6), which carries the zero-temperature critique, rests on the replica identity Eq. (3), and that identity is taken from the authors' own prior work—including an unpublished preprint—rather than derived here. If the sidebands are not independent, the bound and the critique of Wen do not follow.

What the paper does well: it applies the UNEP framework to the TLL weak backscattering problem and works out the parameter regime honestly. The IR bounds in Table I are concrete, the choice delta=2/3 and R=0.01 is justified, and the plots of photoconductance and noise are internally consistent. The explicit check of Eq. (6) against standard TLL formulas at non-resonant values gives the reader something to grab onto. The point that the equilibrium term P_{-n} S_eq(omega_T) cannot be neglected near resonance is a legitimate and underappreciated observation.

Now the soft spots, in order of size. First, Eq. (3) is the load-bearing assumption. In an interacting TLL, the tunneling operator is an exponential of chiral bosons; whether the four-point correlator factorizes into independent sideband contributions with weights P_l at zero frequency is not obvious. The paper asserts that the sideband picture must be reinterpreted in terms of many-body correlated states, but doesn't show the cross-sideband terms vanish. That's exactly the place a referee should push. Second, the 10% threshold for weak-backscattering validity is a hand-chosen cutoff; it's transparent, but one could question whether the conclusions are robust to it. Third, the criticism of prior works—Wen, Crepieux, Rech, Ronetti—is asserted more than demonstrated. The check regarding Ref. 61 is mentioned but not shown; for a claim that other papers are wrong, the reader deserves to see the calculation.

Bottom line: this is a serious paper for the FQHE and AC-driven transport community. It deserves a serious referee. The referee should ask for a derivation of Eq. (3) within the TLL model, or at least a concrete argument that cross-sideband terms vanish. If that step holds, the zero-temperature critique is a meaningful correction.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the unifying non-equilibrium perturbative (UNEP) approach to AC-driven weak backscattering in fractional quantum Hall edges modeled as a Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid. It claims that the photo-assisted backscattering noise obeys S_ph(ω_J,ω_T) ≥ e*|I_ph(ω_J,ω_T)| (Eq. (6)), rather than Levitov's inequality S_ph ≥ S(ω_J,ω_T) (Eq. (7)), and that the zero-temperature limit cannot be taken at resonant DC voltages ω_J = nω_ph. The authors analyze the validity domain of the weak-backscattering regime, propose the differential photo-conductance as a robust probe of fractional charge, and argue that several prior works, including X.-G. Wen's, are invalid because they assumed a forbidden zero-temperature limit. The paper also discusses the anyon collider configuration and extensions to coherent conductors and Josephson junctions.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper would overturn standard zero-temperature treatments of photo-assisted transport in the FQHE weak-backscattering regime and would introduce a new experimental probe (photoconductance spikes). The manuscript contains explicit numerical checks of the proposed inequality, a careful analysis of infrared bounds, and a useful comparison of parameter windows for different scaling dimensions. However, the main theoretical engine—the replica identity of Eq. (3) applied to noise—is not derived in this paper and is cited to an unpublished preprint. The validity of the super-Poissonian bound and of the zero-temperature critique therefore rests on an unverified assumption. The paper also makes strong quantitative claims about prior publications without showing the underlying checks. These issues make the paper's significance conditional on a derivation that is not provided here.

major comments (2)

[Section II, Eq. (3)] The replica identity for the zero-frequency noise, O=S, is the load-bearing relation from which Eq. (6) and all subsequent zero-temperature conclusions follow. The paper neither proves this identity for the TLL nor cites a published proof; Ref. 21 is an unpublished preprint. In the interacting TLL, the tunneling operator B is an exponential of chiral boson fields, and the four-point correlator that defines S(ω_J) need not factorize into independent sideband contributions with weights P_l for arbitrary drive amplitude and non-equilibrium initial state. Cross-sideband terms, if present at zero frequency, would invalidate Eq. (6) and the critique of prior zero-temperature studies. The sentence after Eq. (3) about reinterpretation in terms of many-body correlated states does not fill this gap. Please provide a direct derivation, at least to first order in Γ_B, showing factorization of the relevant correlators, or cite a published reference that contains such a derivation.
[Section V.D, discussion of Ref. 61] The statement 'We have explicitly checked that we could obtain the same curve only if we tolerate excessively high arguments in the sum of replicas for which the TLL expression is not anymore justified' is a quantitative claim about a published work (Crépieux et al., 2005). No calculation, plot, or parameter set is shown, so the reader cannot verify this check. Given that the paper uses this as evidence for the incorrectness of a prior result, the check should be reproduced in an appendix or in supplemental material, or the claim should be softened to a qualitative remark.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (27)] The formula for ω̃_min(−n) is typeset in a jumbled manner; it should read ω̃_min(−n) = P_{−n}^{1/[2(1−δ)]} ω̃_min, assuming that is the intended expression.
[Section III] The sentence beginning 'If the dimensions δ_g of these processes...' is grammatically incomplete ("it seems difficult to use this superposition still allows for the extraction...") and should be rewritten.
[Table I caption] The caption references 'Eq. (22) is imposed in both the equilibrium and non-equilibrium regimes,' but Eq. (22) is a window condition; the actual IR bound is defined in Eq. (21). Please correct the cross-reference.
[Eq. (21) and Sec. IV] The 10% threshold used to define ω_min in Eq. (21) is an ad hoc validity criterion. The qualitative conclusion that the zero-temperature limit is inaccessible at resonances is robust, but statements such as 'nearly unreachable' depend on this specific number. State explicitly that the 10% is a convention and comment on the sensitivity of the resulting windows, e.g., by comparing with a 1% or 30% threshold.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Headline super-Poissonian bound and zero-temperature critique reduce to the self-cited UNEP replica identity Eq. (3); TLL-specific calculations give partial independent content.

self citation load bearing [Section II (Eqs. 3, 5, 6) and Section V.B (Fig. 4)]
"A crucial consequence of the UNEP approach is that for arbitrary p(t) and ρneq, both the average and fluctuations of I(t) at arbitrary frequencies are fully determined by two DC non-equilibrium observables ... Oph(ωJ) = Σ_l P_l O(ωJ + lωph) (3) ... the universality of the super-Poissonian dc noise has been established in Ref. 21,24: S(ωJ) ≥ e∗|I(ωJ)| (5). Consequently, from Eq. (3), one can deduce the universal nature of the super-Poissonian photo-assisted noise21,25: Sph(ωJ) ≥ e∗|Iph(ωJ)| (6)."

Eq. (6), the central replacement for Levitov's theorem, is not derived from the TLL Hamiltonian in this paper; it is obtained by substituting the UNEP replica identity Eq. (3) into the DC inequality Eq. (5), and both are imported from the authors' own prior work (Refs. 20-22, 24-25; Ref. 21 is explicitly an unpublished preprint). The zero-temperature critique at resonances (Eqs. 28, 33) is likewise Eq. (3) applied to the standard TLL DC conductance. The plots advertised as a 'solid verification' of Eq. (6) construct S_ph from Eq. (3) itself, so they do not independently test the replica identity. Thus the step that invalidates Wen's zero-T result rests on a self-citation chain; only the TLL evaluation using standard DC formulas (Wen, Eq. 15) is new.

full rationale

The paper contains no parameter fitting, no definitional identification of a predicted quantity with an input, and no renaming of a known result; once Eq. (3) is accepted, the internal algebra from Eqs. (3) and (5) to Eq. (6) is valid, and the TLL curves are computed from standard DC expressions. The circularity is in the chain of support: the universal super-Poissonian bound, the violation of Levitov's theorem, and the claim that the zero-temperature limit is forbidden at resonances are corollaries of a replica identity and a DC inequality taken from the same authors' earlier papers, including an unpublished preprint, rather than re-derived here. Partial independent grounding exists: Ref. 46 (external) is said to recover the TLL inequality, and prior external works encountered the zero-temperature divergence, so the conclusions have some support beyond the self-citation. For these reasons the paper is not fully circular, but the framework used to overturn prior zero-temperature analyses is load-bearing and self-cited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper's free parameters are the scaling dimension, reflection coefficient, and a hand-chosen validity threshold; the axioms are the self-cited UNEP relations plus standard TLL results.

free parameters (3)

Effective scaling dimension delta = 2/3 (main plots; 1/3 also analyzed)
The paper assumes a single dominant backscattering process with scaling dimension delta (Eq. 13). Curves and the central photo-conductance claim use delta=2/3 because delta=1/3 fails the imposed weak-backscattering and quantum-regime validity bounds (Section V).
Reflection coefficient R = 0.01 (used for plots)
R=0.01 is selected as the lowest realistic value to open the validity window; R=0.1 makes the quantum regime nearly unreachable. The existence of spikes in G_ph is demonstrated only at R=0.01.
Weak-backscattering validity threshold = 0.1 (conductance ratio G <= nu e^2/10h)
The infrared bound omega_min is defined by setting the equilibrium backscattering conductance to one tenth of the no-backscattering conductance (Eq. 21). This 10% criterion is chosen by hand and controls whether power laws or quantum regimes are deemed accessible.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption UNEP replica relation (Eq. 3): O_ph(omega_J) = sum_l P_l O(omega_J + l omega_ph)
This is the central relation that connects AC photo-assisted observables to DC observables. It is taken from Refs. 20-22 (mostly authored/co-authored by I. Safi), including an unpublished preprint (Ref. 21). The paper does not rederive it here.
domain assumption Non-equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation relation (Eq. 8): S = e* coth(omega_J/2 omega_T) I
Used to express DC noise in terms of DC current for a thermal initial distribution. Provided by the UNEP approach from prior work; the paper states it but does not prove it in this manuscript.
standard math TLL expression for DC backscattering current (Eqs. 15-16)
The power-law I-V characteristic F(y) = sinh(y)/y |Gamma(delta + iy/pi)|^2 / Gamma(delta)^2 is taken from Wen (Ref. 40) and is standard for chiral Luttinger edges.
ad hoc to paper Single-channel weak-backscattering assumption (Eq. 13)
The paper regroups all backscattering processes into one effective amplitude Gamma_B and the lowest scaling dimension delta, which may differ from e*/e and nu. This is an assumption specific to the present analysis and is acknowledged in Section III.
domain assumption Low-energy TLL validity: all relevant frequencies below UV cutoff and conductance below 10% of open-channel conductance (Eqs. 21-26)
The paper imposes omega_tilde << 1 and G <= nu e^2/10h to justify weak backscattering and the low-energy effective model; these cutoffs are choices rather than derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AC driven fractional quantum Hall systems: Uncovering unexpected features." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QWTNNNYP

@misc{pith2026250207622,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AC driven fractional quantum Hall systems: Uncovering unexpected features},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QWTNNNYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07622}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate the challenges of reaching the quantum regime and generating minimal excitations in the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) under AC driving. Using the unifying non-equilibrium perturbative (UNEP) approach, we analyze weak backscattering through a quantum point contact (QPC). In both two-terminal geometries and the "anyon collider" setup, the lower bound on photoassisted backscattering noise is set by the photoassisted current rather than the DC noise predicted by Levitov's theorem. This super-Poissonian character is confirmed within the Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid (TLL) framework, where Levitov's theorem is violated, challenging the conventional interpretation of "photoassisted" noise. In the two-terminal geometry, we show that when the QPC has a low scaling dimension, two challenges arise: first, achieving the expected power-law behavior in the DC regime, and second, maintaining the AC quantum regime, where the drive frequency exceeds the temperature, when the DC voltage component is resonant with that drive frequency. The validity of the UNEP relations imposes a lower bound on temperature and a persisting equilibrium contribution to backscattering noise. This forces us to choose a high enough scaling dimension, for which we find that it is rather the photoconductance, often overlooked, that might exhibit spikes at resonant DC voltages, providing a reliable probe of fractional charge. Moreover, we highlight that the zero-temperature limit, frequently assumed in prior studies, including X. G. Wen's foundational work, is inappropriate in this context. Our findings extend beyond the FQHE to coherent conductors and Josephson or phase-slip junctions strongly coupled to an ohmic environment under AC bias, with broader implications for quantum transport and minimal excitation engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07622 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The differential photo-conductance given by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Same parameters as in Fig.2. The blue curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: The photo-assisted backscattering current and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: The photo-conductance in Eq. (23), using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

[1]

H. J. Schulz, in Les Houches Summer School LXI-Mesoscopic Quantum Physics , edited by E. Akkermans, G. Montambaux, J. Pichard, and J. Zinn-Justin (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1995), p.\ 533

1995
[2]

Wen, Int

X.-G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 06 , 1711 (1992)

1992
[3]

Grabert and G.-L

H. Grabert and G.-L. Ingold, Europhys. Lett. 58 , 429 (2002)

2002
[4]

Safi and H

I. Safi and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 , 126602 (2004)

2004
[5]

Zamoum, A

R. Zamoum, A. Cr\'epieux, and I.Safi , Phys. Rev. B 85 , 125421 (2012)

2012
[6]

Anthore , D.M

A. Anthore , D.M. Kennes , E. Boulat , S. Andergassen , F. Pierre , and V. Meden , Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 229 , 663 (2020)

2020
[7]

Fendley, A

P. Fendley, A. W. W. Ludwig, and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 3005 (1995)

1995
[8]

, Albert, M

Jezouin, S. , Albert, M. , Parmentier, F. D. , Anthore, A. , Gennser, U. , Cavanna, A. , I. Safi , and Pierre, F. , Nat Commun 4 , 1802 (2013)

2013

Show all 90 references

[9]

Anthore, Z

A. Anthore, Z. Iftikhar, E. Boulat, F. D. Parmentier, A. Cavanna, A. Ouerghi, U. Gennser, and F. Pierre, Phys. Rev. X 8 , 031075 (2018)

2018
[10]

H. T. Mebrahtu , I. V. Borzenets , D. E. Liu , H. Zheng , Y. V. Bomze , A. I. Smirnov , H. U. Baranger , and G. Finkelstein , Nature 488 , 61 (2012)

2012
[11]

Blok and X

B. Blok and X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 42 , 8133 (1990)

1990
[12]

J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 , 199 (1989)

1989
[13]

For a review, see D. E. Feldman and B. I.Halperin, Rep. Prog. Phys. 84 , 076501 (2021)

2021
[14]

Saminadayar, D

L. Saminadayar, D. C. Glattli, Y. Jin, and B. Etienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 , 2526 (1997)

1997
[15]

Charge Fractionalization in the Integer Quantum Hall Effect , Hiroyuki Inoue et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 , 166801 (2014)

2014
[16]

We also refer to a detailed analysis of the experimental results for the dc shot noise, concluding that the TLL breaks down in the NEQ regime, but seems to be valid in the equilibrium limit kyrylo_FQHE_2024
[17]

C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 , 724 (1994)

1994
[18]

Safi, Phys

I. Safi, Phys. Rev. B 55 , R 12 691 (1997-II)

1997
[19]

L. S. Levitov and M. Reznikov, Phys. Rev. B 70 , 115305 (2004)

2004
[20]

Safi and E

I. Safi and E. V. Sukhorukov, Eur. Phys. Lett. 91 , 67008 (2010)

2010
[21]

Safi , arxiv:1401.5950 (unpublished)

I. Safi , arxiv:1401.5950 (unpublished)

arXiv
[22]

Safi , Phys

I. Safi , Phys. Rev. B 99 , 045101 (2019)

2019
[23]

Safi and H

I. Safi and H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B 59 , 3040 (1999)

1999
[24]

Safi , Phys

I. Safi , Phys. Rev. B 102 , 041113 (2020)

2020
[25]

Safi, Phys

I. Safi, Phys. Rev. B 106 , 205130 (2022)

2022
[26]

Bartolomei, M

H. Bartolomei, M. Kumar, R. Bisognin, A. Marguerite, J.-M. Berroir, E. Bocquillon, B. Pla c ais, A. Cavanna, Q. Dong, U. Gennser, Y. Jin, and G. F \`e ve, Science 368 , 173 (2020)

2020
[27]

Roussel, P

B. Roussel, P. Degiovanni, and I. Safi , Phys. Rev. B 93 , 045102 (2016)

2016
[28]

Kapfer, P

M. Kapfer, P. Roulleau, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and D. C. Glattli, Science 363 , 846 (2019)

2019
[29]

Bisognin, H

R. Bisognin, H. Bartolomei, M. Kumar, I. Safi , J.-M. Berroir, E. Bocquillon, B. Pla c ais, A. Cavanna, U. Gennser, Y. Jin, and G. F \`e ve, Nature Communications 10 , 1708 (2019)

2019
[30]

B\" u ttiker , Phys

M. B\" u ttiker , Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 , 2901 (1990)

1990
[31]

Bocquillon, V

E. Bocquillon, V. Freulon, J.-M. Berroir, P. Degiovanni, B. Pla c ais, A. Cavanna, Y. Jin, and G. F\`eve, Science 339 , 1054 (2013)

2013
[32]

C. D. Glattli and P. S. Roulleau, Phys. Status Solidi 254 , 1600650 (2017)

2017
[33]

Hanbury-Brown and Q. R. Twiss, Nature 177 , 27 (1956)

1956
[34]

Campagnano, P

G. Campagnano, P. Lucignano, and D. Giuliano, Phys. Rev. B 93 , 075441 (2016)

2016
[35]

Safi, Eur

I. Safi, Eur. Phys. J. B 12 , 451 (1999)

1999
[36]

Freulon, A

V. Freulon, A. Marguerite, J. M. Berroir, B. Placais, A. Cavanna, Y. Jin, and G. F\`eve, Nat. Commun. 6 , 6854 EP (2015)

2015
[37]

Rebora, M

G. Rebora, M. Acciai, D. Ferraro, and M. Sassetti, Phys. Rev. B 101 , 245310 (2020)

2020
[38]

Phd thesis

Imen Taktak. Phd thesis. University Paris-Saclay (2021). https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-03342117

2021
[39]

Taktak, M

I. Taktak, M. Kapfer, J. Nath, P. Roulleau, M. Acciai, J. Splettstoesser, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and D. C. Glattli, Nat Commun 13 , 5863 (2022)

2022
[40]

Wen, Phys

X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 44 , 5708 (1991)

1991
[41]

C. de C. Chamon, D. E. Freed, and X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 51 , 2363 ( 1995-II )

1995
[42]

Cr\'epieux, P

A. Cr\'epieux, P. Devillard, and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 69 , 205302 (2004)

2004
[43]

Cuniberti, A

G. Cuniberti, A. Fechner, M. Sassetti, and B. Kramer, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 48 , 66 (1999)

1999
[44]

Klich and L

I. Klich and L. Levitov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 , 100502 (2009)

2009
[45]

Dubois, T

J. Dubois, T. Jullien, F. Portier, P. Roche, A. Cavanna, Y. Jin, W. Wegscheider, P. Roulleau, and D. C. Glattli, Nature 502 , 659 (2013)

2013
[46]

J. Rech, D. Ferraro, T. Jonckheere, L. Vannucci, M. Sassetti, and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 , 076801 (2017)

2017
[47]

D. C. W. Glattli and P. Roulleau, Phys. Status Solidi B 254 , 1600650 (2017)

2017
[48]

Rosenow, I

B. Rosenow, I. P. Levkivskyi, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 , 156802 (2016)

2016
[49]

Glidic, O

P. Glidic, O. Maillet, A. Aassime, C. Piquard, A. Cavanna, U. Gennser, Y. Jin, A. Anthore, and F. Pierre, Phys. Rev. X 13 , 011030 (2023)

2023
[50]

Ruelle, E

M. Ruelle, E. Frigerio, J.-M. Berroir, B. Pla c c ais, J. Rech, A. Cavanna, U. Gennser, Y. Jin, and G. F\`eve, Phys. Rev. X 13 , 011031 (2023)

2023
[51]

heiblum_pairing,ines_benjamin_tripling_2025

The charge e^* could also refer to multiples of e , which might be relevant to Fabry-P\'erot interferometers in the integer regime. heiblum_pairing,ines_benjamin_tripling_2025
[52]

P. K. Tien and J. R. Gordon, Phys. Rev. 129 , 647 (1961)

1961
[53]

J. R. Tucker and M. J. Feldman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 57 , 1055 (1985)

1985
[54]

Vanevi\'c, J

M. Vanevi\'c, J. Gabelli, W. Belzig, and B. Reulet, Phys. Rev. B 93 , 041416 (2016)

2016
[55]

Mora, Anyonic exchange in a beam splitter, 2022

C. Mora, Anyonic exchange in a beam splitter, 2022

2022
[56]

Reydellet, P

L.-H. Reydellet, P. Roche, D. C. Glattli, B. Etienne, and Y. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 , 176803 (2003)

2003
[57]

Schiller, T

N. Schiller, T. Alkalay, C. Hong, V. Umansky, M. Heiblum, Y. Oreg, and K. Snizhko, Scaling tunnelling noise in the fractional quantum Hall effect tells about renormalization and breakdown of chiral Luttinger liquid, 2024

2024
[58]

eq:V_lorentzian with a width $ W $ large enough, such as $ W _ ph = 0.25 $, lead to rapidly decreasing $ P_l $ with $ l $

For instance, if we fix $ _J = _ ph $, Lorentzian pulses in Eq. eq:V_lorentzian with a width $ W $ large enough, such as $ W _ ph = 0.25 $, lead to rapidly decreasing $ P_l $ with $ l $. For a sine voltage with $ e^*V_ ac / = _ ph $ and $ | _J| 3 _ ph $ (our choi...
[59]

D. S. Golubev and A. D. Zaikin, Phys. Rev. B 46 , 10903 (1992)

1992
[60]

Notice that in case the complex function p(t) is not known, one could access to its partial spectroscopy by varying q , as (S_ ph ^ lor -e^*| I_ ph ^ lor ( _J, _T=0)|)/S_ eq ( _T)=P_ -q
[61]

Cr\'epieux , P

A. Cr\'epieux , P. Devillard, and T. Martin, in NOISE AND FLUCTUATIONS: 18th International Conference on Noise and Fluctuations - ICNF 2005 , tom\'as gonz\'lez and javier mateos and daniel pardo ed. (American Inst. of Physics, Spain, 2005)

2005
[62]

Vannucci, F

L. Vannucci, F. Ronetti, J. Rech, D. Ferraro, T. Jonckheere, T. Martin, and M. Sassetti, Phys. Rev. B 95 , 245415 (2017)

2017
[63]

Bertin-Johannet, A

B. Bertin-Johannet, A. Popoff, F. Ronetti, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere, L. Raymond, B. Gr\'emaud, and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 109 , 035436 (2024)

2024
[64]

Mazzella, M

L. Mazzella, M. S. Ouacel and I. Safi, unpublished
[65]

Ronetti, L

F. Ronetti, L. Vannucci, D. Ferraro, T. Jonckheere, J. Rech, T. Martin, and M. Sassetti, Phys. Rev. B 99 , 205406 (2019)

2019
[66]

Ronetti, L

F. Ronetti, L. Vannucci, D. Ferraro, T. Jonckheere, J. Rech, T. Martin, and M. Sassetti, Phys. Rev. B 98 , 075401 (2018)

2018
[67]

Ferraro, F

D. Ferraro, F. Ronetti, L. Vannucci, M. Acciai, J. Rech, T. Jonckheere, T. Martin, and M. Sassetti, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 227 , 1345 (2018)

2018
[68]

Dolcini, B

F. Dolcini, B. Trauzettel, I. Safi , and H. Grabert, Phys. Rev. B 75 , 45332 (2007)

2007
[69]

Bhattacharyya, M

R. Bhattacharyya, M. Banerjee, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Melting of interference in the fractional quantum Hall effect: Appearance of neutral modes , arXiv:1812.06717

arXiv
[70]

Privitera, N

L. Privitera, N. T. Ziani, I. Safi , and B. Trauzettel, Phys. Rev. B 102 , 195413 (2020)

2020
[71]

D. C. Glattli and P. Roulleau, Phys. Rev. B, 97 12 (2018)

2018
[72]

A. G. Semenov and A. D. Zaikin, Fortschr. Phys. 65 , 1600043 (2017)

2017
[73]

V. D. Kurilovich, B. Remez, and L. I. Glazman, arXiv/2403.04624 (unpublished)

arXiv
[74]

Forgues, C

J.-C. Forgues, C. Lupien, and B. Reulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 , 130403 (2015)

2015
[75]

Rebora, D

G. Rebora, D. Ferraro, and M. Sassetti, New Journal of Physics 23 , 063018 (2021)

2021
[76]

Bartolomei, R

H. Bartolomei, R. Bisognin, H. Kamata, J.-M. Berroir, E. Bocquillon, G. M\'enard, B. Pla c c ais, A. Cavanna, U. Gennser, Y. Jin, P. Degiovanni, C. Mora, and G. F\`eve, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 , 106201 (2023)

2023
[77]

C. de C. Chamon , D. E. Freed, S. A. Kivelson, S. L. Sondhi, and X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 55 , 2331 (1997)

1997
[78]

I. P. Levkivskyi, J. Fr\"ohlich, and E. V. Sukhorukov, Phys. Rev. B 86 , 245105 (2012)

2012
[79]

D. E. Feldman and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B 105 , 165310 (2022)

2022
[80]

Nakamura, J., Liang, S., Gardner, G.C. et al. Direct observation of anyonic braiding statistics. Nat. Phys. 16, 931–936 (2020)

2020
[81]

Bartolomei et al , arXiv:2408.12903

H. Bartolomei et al , arXiv:2408.12903

arXiv
[82]

Ouacel et al , arXiv:2408.13025

S. Ouacel et al , arXiv:2408.13025

arXiv
[83]

Cano et al . Phys. Rev. B 88, 165305 (2013). See also: Frigerio et al Commun Phys 7, 314 (2024)

2013
[84]

Zhang, D

G. Zhang, D. Giuliano, I. V. Gornyi, and G. Campagnano, Phys. Rev. B 110 , 195102 (2024)

2024
[85]

A. V. Galaktionov, D. S. Golubev, and A. D. Zaikin, Phys. Rev. B 68 , 085317 (2003)

2003
[86]

Safi and H

I. Safi and H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B 52 , 17040 (1995)

1995
[87]

Levkivskyi and E.V

I.P. Levkivskyi and E.V. Sukhorukov , Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 , 036801 (2009)

2009
[88]

Safi, Ann

I. Safi, Ann. Phys. (Paris) 22 , 463 (1997)

1997
[89]

H. K. Choi, I. Sivan, A. Rosenblatt, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, and M. D., Nature Comm. 6 , 7435 (2015)

2015
[90]

W. Yang, D. Perconte, C. Déprez, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Dumont, E. Wagner, F. Gay, I. Safi, H. Sellier, and B. Sac\'ep\'e, Nat Comm 15 , 10064 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

H. J. Schulz, in Les Houches Summer School LXI-Mesoscopic Quantum Physics , edited by E. Akkermans, G. Montambaux, J. Pichard, and J. Zinn-Justin (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1995), p.\ 533

1995

[2] [2]

Wen, Int

X.-G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 06 , 1711 (1992)

1992

[3] [3]

Grabert and G.-L

H. Grabert and G.-L. Ingold, Europhys. Lett. 58 , 429 (2002)

2002

[4] [4]

Safi and H

I. Safi and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 , 126602 (2004)

2004

[5] [5]

Zamoum, A

R. Zamoum, A. Cr\'epieux, and I.Safi , Phys. Rev. B 85 , 125421 (2012)

2012

[6] [6]

Anthore , D.M

A. Anthore , D.M. Kennes , E. Boulat , S. Andergassen , F. Pierre , and V. Meden , Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 229 , 663 (2020)

2020

[7] [7]

Fendley, A

P. Fendley, A. W. W. Ludwig, and H. Saleur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 3005 (1995)

1995

[8] [8]

, Albert, M

Jezouin, S. , Albert, M. , Parmentier, F. D. , Anthore, A. , Gennser, U. , Cavanna, A. , I. Safi , and Pierre, F. , Nat Commun 4 , 1802 (2013)

2013