Quantum Divergence and Topological Edge Diagnostics via Levitov Full Counting Statistics

Chuang Yao; Han Lu; Maolin Bo; Siyu Liu; Xiang Chen; Yunhu Zhu; Zhongkai Huang

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 17 references

Quantum Divergence and Topological Edge Diagnostics via Levitov Full Counting Statistics

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that comparing terminal Fano factors and cumulants between gate configurations at matched $\kappa_1$ isolates the hidden transport channel as a subtracted Levitov factor, without requiring a bulk divergence measurement.

desk verdict A plausibly useful differential FCS protocol, honestly labeled as bookkeeping, but the key operational assumption (fixed reference closure across configurations) is untested and the Kumar benchmark is partly circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12726 v1 pith:JLYVWA5A submitted 2026-08-13 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Maolin Bo , Xiang Chen , Siyu Liu , Han Lu , Yunhu Zhu , Zhongkai Huang , Chuang Yao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords fullcountingstatisticsquantumdivergenceidentityFanofactorshotnoiseLevitov–Lesovikformulatopologicaledgemodesmesoscopictransportpointcontact

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

Full counting statistics describes a conductor through the generating function of transferred charge, and the Fano factor is the ratio of shot noise to $2e\langle I\rangle$. The paper proposes that instead of trying to read a bulk 'divergence sensor' from one absolute Fano factor, one should compare terminal Fano factors and cumulants between gate configurations that have the same first cumulant $\kappa_1$. In that differential setting, the hidden, unmonitored channel appears as a subtracted Levitov factor, and the relative change of the Fano factor tracks the hidden second cumulant without any direct bulk measurement. If correct, this gives a practical noise-only route to probing edge-mode structure in quantum Hall and Chern-insulator devices.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three parts: the operator Gauss divergence theorem, whose uniform-counting-field identity $\chi_{\partial V}=\chi_{\mathrm{div}}$ defines the closed-boundary reference; the Levitov–Lesovik generating function $\chi(\lambda)=\sum_n \ln(1+T_n(e^{i\lambda}-1))$ applied on a fixed mode set; and the bookkeeping excess $\Delta\chi_{\mathrm{hidden}}=\chi_\Gamma-\chi_{\mathrm{ref}}$ that compares an open terminal to a chosen closed reference closure on the same backbone. The two-channel subtraction identity carries the argument: when terminal $\Gamma$ resolves only channel 1, channel 2 contributes exactly $\Delta\chi_{\mathrm{hidden}}=-\ln(1+T_2(e^{i\lambda}-1))$, so a matched-$\kappa_1$ scan of Fano factors isolates the hidden second cumulant without direct bulk access. A lattice non-equilibrium Green's function backend supplies the energy-resolved transmission eigenvalues $T_n(\epsilon)$ that enter the cumulant integrals.

What would settle it

On a two-channel quantum point contact with independent control of $T_1$ and $T_2$, hold $T_1$ fixed, change $T_2$ between two gate settings while matching $\kappa_1$, and measure the relative Fano change; the prediction is $\Delta F_\alpha\approx \Delta\kappa_2/(2\kappa_1)$ with $\Delta\chi_{\mathrm{hidden}}=-\ln(1+T_2(e^{i\lambda}-1))$. If the measured change departs from this subtracted-Levitov dependence at fixed $\kappa_1$, the reference closure is not gate-independent and the protocol fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a measurement-domain separation. On the same Levitov–Lesovik backbone, open-terminal counting $\chi_\Gamma$, closed-boundary flux $\chi_{\partial V}$, and its bulk Gaussian form $\chi_{\mathrm{div}}$ are not interchangeable sensors; the equality $\chi_{\partial V}=\chi_{\mathrm{div}}$ for a uniform counting field is a Gauss-law consistency check, not a dynamical theorem. The paper defines the bookkeeping excess $\Delta\chi_{\mathrm{hidden}}=\chi_\Gamma-\chi_{\mathrm{ref}}$ and shows analytically for two independent channels with transmissions $T_1,T_2$ that monitoring channel 1 only gives $\Delta\chi_{\mathrm{hidden}}=-\ln(1+T_2(e^{i\lambda}-1))$: the hidden channel enters as a subtracted Levitov factor. From this, the operational protocol follows: compare terminal Fano factors and cumulants across gate configurations at matched $\kappa_1$ so that the differential $\Delta F_\alpha$ tracks $\Delta\kappa_2/(2\kappa_1)$, isolating the hidden sector while treating $\chi_{\mathrm{ref}}$ as a fixed analysis convention rather than a measured bulk quantity.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that the reference closure $\chi_{\mathrm{ref}}$ can be fixed by the analysis code for each geometry and that gate tuning changes only the transmission spectrum $T_n(\epsilon)$ and the monitored cross-section; if a gate sweep also shifts the reference closure or injects correlated noise that the Levitov backbone does not describe, the differential Fano change will not isolate the hidden channel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A noise experiment on a multiterminal quantum Hall or Chern-insulator device can be designed to track the hidden mode count through the cumulant deficit, without ever measuring a bulk quantity.
Absolute Fano-factor matching to a bulk $\chi_{\mathrm{div}}$ is not a standalone diagnostic; within this framework only differential comparisons across configurations carry transport information.
At matched $\kappa_1$, the relative Fano change $\Delta F_\alpha$ approximates $\Delta\kappa_2/(2\kappa_1)$, so terminal noise measurements become a direct proxy for the hidden second cumulant.
The reference closure $\chi_{\mathrm{ref}}$ becomes an analysis convention, so reproducibility of the protocol requires fixing that closure per geometry rather than per sample.

Reading between the lines

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

If the paper's framework is right, the same matched-$\kappa_1$ subtraction should transfer to finite-frequency noise or higher cumulants, where it could isolate dephasing or interaction-induced contributions that share the bookkeeping structure of a hidden channel.
For a topological edge, the cumulant deficit becomes a non-invasive edge-mode counter; a $\nu=2$ Hall bar with two splitters and long lock-in averaging is a natural place to look for that scaling.
A controlled sweep of $T_2$ at fixed $T_1$ and matched $\kappa_1$ would locate the failure point: any departure from the subtracted-Levitov prediction marks where the reference closure becomes gate-dependent.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the differential protocol: compare terminal Fano factors across gate configurations at matched kappa_1 rather than fitting one absolute F to a bulk divergence sensor. That is a practical and sensible idea for IQHE or helical-edge experiments, and the paper is admirably explicit that the open-terminal excess is a bookkeeping definition, not a new dynamical theorem. The two-channel subtraction (Eq. 15) is correct and cleanly illustrates the logic. The paper also deserves credit for flagging its own limitations—Eq. (9), the factorization defect bounds, and the note that the Pauli demonstration is not edge-physics validation.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the numerical benchmark against Kumar's QPC data is partially circular: the P1 NEGF barrier is tuned to reproduce the experimental transmissions, so calling it a validation overstates what is shown. Second, and more important for the headline claim, the stress-test note lands: the protocol isolates Delta_kappa_2 only if the reference closure's kappa_2 is identical across the compared gate configurations. The paper says the reference is fixed by the analysis code for each geometry, but changing the mode partition (by QPC reflectivity or magnetic field) changes the resolved mode set, so kappa_2^ref can shift between configurations. The matched-kappa_1 condition constrains only the monitored sector's first cumulant, not the reference's second. So the differential Delta_F can track the reference change instead of the hidden sector. This is an unjustified assumption in the operational inference, not a mathematical soundness error—the paper is honest that chi_ref is a modeling input—but it is exactly where the claim needs support.

The paper would be significantly stronger with one independent prediction: a computed noise spectrum for a not-yet-measured geometry, or a worked example where the reference is varied to show the differential signal separates from the reference drift. Without that, the central protocol is plausible but unproven.

Who is this for? Experimentalists working on mesoscopic noise who want a concrete alternative to absolute Fano-factor fitting, and theorists who want a clean statement of the bookkeeping distinctions. The math is standard but the operational framing is useful. The citation pattern is fine—self-citation is not a problem here since the underlying FCS/NEGF formalism is properly attributed.

My call: this deserves a serious referee. It is not a desk reject, but a referee should push on the reference-closure constancy assumption and ask for a testable prediction. I would read it, discuss it, and cite the differential protocol if it survives that push.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a differential full-counting-statistics (FCS) protocol for mesoscopic transport. It defines three counting objects—open-terminal χ_Γ, closed-boundary χ_∂V, and bulk-divergence χ_div—and shows that for a uniform counting field they coincide under current conservation (Eq. (8)). A bookkeeping 'hidden excess' Δχ_hidden = χ_Γ − χ_ref is introduced (Eq. (12)), expanded into cumulants (Eq. (13)), and illustrated analytically for two channels (Eq. (15)). The protocol compares terminal Fano factors and second cumulants across gate configurations at matched κ_1, claiming that the differential signal tracks the hidden-sector second cumulant without a direct bulk measurement. Secondary content includes NEGF-based transmission calculations, a lattice IQHE benchmark against Kumar QPC noise data, and several extension schemes (P1–P5) including dephasing and Butler–Volmer coupling.

Significance. The framework's basic identities are sound: Eq. (8) is a direct consequence of current conservation with a uniform counting field, and Eq. (15) is a correct algebraic factorization for two independent channels. The paper is explicit about what is and is not a theorem—it labels χ∂V = χ_div a consistency verification rather than an open-system theorem, and it properly describes Δχ_hidden as a bookkeeping quantity. It also ships a code repository and states limitations of the Pauli demonstration. If the differential protocol can be made to isolate the hidden-sector cumulant without unverified assumptions on the reference closure, it would provide a practical route to probe edge-mode sectors in IQHE and Chern-insulator devices using only terminal noise, which would be a useful contribution to mesoscopic FCS diagnostics.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, Eqs. (12)–(13)] The central claim that the differential Fano-factor change ΔF_α tracks Δκ_2 requires the reference closure cumulant κ_2^ref to be identical across the compared configurations. From the expansion in Eq. (13), with matched κ_1, one obtains ΔF = (Δκ_2,B − Δκ_2,A + κ_2^ref,B − κ_2^ref,A)/(2κ_1), so a change in the reference between configurations contributes directly to the measured signal. The protocol in Section 3.2 explicitly varies the effective mode partition by adjusting QPC reflectivities or the magnetic field, which changes the resolved mode set and therefore changes χ_ref and its second cumulant. The statement that 'the reference closure χ_ref is fixed by the analysis code for each geometry' fixes a convention for each geometry but does not make κ_2^ref configuration-independent; the matched-κ_1 condition constrains only the first cumulant of χ_Γ. The two-channel illustration (Eq. (15)) does not resolve this, because it compares χ_Γ and χ_ref within a single configuration with T_2 held fixed. The protocol must either restrict to configurations with the same Γ-mode set and only a changing hidden sector, or provide a separate measurement or control of κ_2^ref.
[Section 3.3, P1 benchmark] The numerical validation against Kumar's data is partly circular. The text reports that the P1 multichannel NEGF calculation at η_phi = 0.1 uses the strengthened-barrier model of Section 2.3 to calibrate all four anchors of Fig. 3, i.e., the barrier strength and constriction geometry are tuned to reproduce F = 1 − T_1 for T_1 ∈ {3/4, 1/2, 1/4, 1/6}. The resulting median |ΔF| ≈ 0.01 is therefore a measure of the calibration quality, not an independent check of the NEGF+Lesovik implementation. A genuine benchmark would predict a noise or conductance relation that was not used in the calibration, or compare against an exactly solvable geometry with known transmission eigenvalues.
[Section 2.2, Eq. (15)] The analytical two-channel example does not demonstrate the differential protocol, because it evaluates χ_Γ and χ_ref in a single configuration rather than comparing two configurations at matched κ_1. Since the hidden-channel transmission T_2 is held fixed in this illustration, the example reduces to an algebraic identity for Δχ_hidden and says nothing about whether the across-configuration difference isolates Δκ_2 in the presence of a changing reference closure. A worked two-configuration example with matched κ_1 and an explicit reference convention would close this gap.

minor comments (3)

[Throughout] Equation numbering is internally inconsistent: Section 2.2 refers to 'Expanding Eq. (21)' for the Levitov formula, although the Levitov–Lesovik formula is labeled Eq. (11), and the chain in Eq. (20) contains 'Eq. (28)' as a displayed element of the arrow. Please renumber and cross-check all equation references.
[Equations (2), (16), (33)] Several equations are garbled by OCR artifacts (e.g., Eqs. (2), (16), and (33)), making it impossible to verify the exact operator order and prefactors; a clean typeset version is needed.
[Section 3.3] The text refers to 'digitized slope anchors from Fig. 3 of Kumar et al.' but does not state the digitization procedure or uncertainty; this should be documented for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Kumar QPC validation is circular: P1 is calibrated to the experimental T1 anchors, so the reported F ≈ 1 − T1 agreement is forced by the single-channel partition formula.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3 (Kumar benchmark) and Sec. 2.3, Eq. (33)]
"For a single dominant channel with T1 ≪ 1, Eq. (33) yields F → 1 − T1, which corresponds to Kumar noise-temperature slopes F → 1 − T1 at T1 ∈ {3/4,1/2,1/4,1/6}. ... The P1 multichannel NEGF calculation at ?? = 0.1—using the strengthened barrier model of Sec. 2.3—calibrates all four anchors of Fig. 3; the mesoscopic summary reports a median |ΔF|≈0.01 on the slope rows, with no chiral QPC fallback employed."

The P1 barrier model is calibrated so that the NEGF transmissions reproduce the four experimental target transmission values T1 = 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, 1/6. Once those T1 values are inputs, Eq. (33), which is the zero-temperature Blanter–Büttiker limit of the same Levitov generating function used throughout the paper, analytically gives F = 1 − T1. The reported agreement |ΔF| ≈ 0.01 therefore only confirms that the calibration reproduced its own target transmissions; it does not independently validate the Fano-factor prediction. Calling this 'validates the numerical implementation' treats the fitted input as an independent confirmation.

full rationale

The central differential FCS proposal is largely self-contained: Δχ_hidden = χΓ − χref is explicitly introduced as a bookkeeping definition on the Levitov backbone (Eq. 12), and the two-channel illustration (Eq. 15) follows exactly from χΓ = ln(1 + T1(e^{iλ} − 1)) and χref = ln(1 + T1(e^{iλ} − 1)) + ln(1 + T2(e^{iλ} − 1)). No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is involved. The quantum-divergence identity (Eq. 8) is a direct operator-level consequence of current conservation for a uniform counting field, not a result derived from its own conclusion. The significant circularity is the Kumar QPC 'validation': the NEGF barrier is calibrated to the same T1 anchors that enter the analytic formula F = 1 − T1, so the agreement is guaranteed by construction. A separate correctness caveat, not counted as circularity, is that the protocol's claim that ΔFα directly tracks Δκ2 requires the reference cumulant κ2^ref to be constant across the compared geometries; the paper fixes χref per geometry, so this cancellation condition is asserted rather than derived. Overall score 6 because one secondary numerical validation reduces by construction, while the main differential-protocol derivation retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central differential protocol rests only on standard quantum mechanics, current conservation, the Levitov-Lesovik formula, and NEGF scattering theory. No new physical entities are introduced. The main parameter burden is in the numerical benchmarks, where several model parameters (QPC barrier, dephasing, Butler-Volmer, disorder) are tuned or scanned to match experimental targets, so those benchmarks do not constitute independent validation.

free parameters (5)

P1 QPC barrier strength and constriction geometry = Tuned to reproduce Kumar T1 values in {3/4, 1/2, 1/4, 1/6}
The P1 multichannel NEGF is adjusted until it reaches the experimental target transmissions; this makes the subsequent F = 1 - T1 agreement a consistency check of the formula, not an independent validation.
Dephasing strength eta (or eta_phi in P3) = eta = 0.4026; calibrated eta_phi ~ 0.053 for P3+P5
Eq. (30) supplies the dephased transmission T_eff ~ 0.18; the value is not derived from a separate independent measurement in the paper.
Butler-Volmer operating potential Vop and exchange current i0 = Vop ~ 0.18 V; i0 anchored to baseline bias
P5 self-consistency determines Vop from electrochemical parameters, but those parameters are inputs or anchors rather than ab initio predictions.
P4 disorder strength W and CNP barrier height = Grid-scanned to match experimental conductance
The model is matched to experiment by scanning; the resulting noise numbers are not independent predictions.
Legacy phenomenological preset T0 = 0.88 (F = 0.4128, comparison only)
Used only for comparison in Fig. 1, but included as a preset parameter that affects the displayed benchmark values.

assumptions (6)

standard math Continuity equation d_t rho + div J = 0 holds at the operator level for the Dirac field with global U(1) symmetry (Sec. 2.1, Eq. 4).
Standard Noether current conservation; core of the quantum divergence identity.
domain assumption Levitov-Lesovik formula chi(lambda) = Sum_n ln[1 + T_n(e^{i lambda} - 1)] for noninteracting electrons (Sec. 2.2, Eq. 11).
Assumes non-interacting, coherent transport and energy-independent transmissions in the zero-temperature limit.
domain assumption Non-equilibrium Green's function scattering formalism (Sec. 2.3, Eqs. 22-24).
The numerical benchmarks assume the device is described by a noninteracting lattice Hamiltonian with lead self-energies.
standard math Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff expansion for noncommuting counting fields (Sec. 2.2, Eq. 16).
Used for the factorization defect estimate.
domain assumption White-noise readout S_I = F * 2e|I| (Sec. 3.2, Eq. 29).
The experimental protocol assumes low-frequency noise is white and shot-noise dominated.
domain assumption Uniform counting field lambda on a closed boundary for chi_dV = chi_div (Sec. 2.1, Eq. 8).
The identity holds only for uniform lambda, and the paper restricts to that case.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Divergence and Topological Edge Diagnostics via Levitov Full Counting Statistics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JLYVWA5A

@misc{pith2026260812726,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Divergence and Topological Edge Diagnostics via Levitov Full Counting Statistics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JLYVWA5A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12726}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a differential full counting statistics protocol for mesoscopic transport. Additionally, we compare terminal Fano factors and noise cumulants between gate configurations at matched k1, instead of inferring a bulk divergence sensor from a single absolute F. it is illustrated analytically for a two channel factorization via a zero temperature geometry scan. Secondary benchmarks show that a two dimensional lattice non equilibrium Greens function calculation yields sub Poissonian Fano factors, whereas Kumars low temperature quantum point contact calibration validates the numerical implementation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Physical Review B 2014, 90(19),195422

Tang,G.-M.;Wang,J.,Full-countingstatisticsofchargeandspintransportinthetransientregime: AnonequilibriumGreen'sfunctionapproach. Physical Review B 2014, 90(19),195422

work page 2014
[2]

Physical Review B 2007, 75(20),205329

Schönhammer, K., Full counting statistics for noninteracting fermions: Exact results and the Levitov-Lesovikformula. Physical Review B 2007, 75(20),205329

work page 2007
[3]

S.; Lesovik, G

Levitov,L. S.; Lesovik, G. B.,Charge distribution in quantum shot noise. JETP Letters 1993, 58, 230–233

work page 1993
[4]

Physical Review Letters 1996, 76(15),2778-2781

Kumar,A.;Saminadayar,L.;Glattli,D.C.;Jin,Y.;Etienne,B.,ExperimentalTestoftheQuantum ShotNoiseReductionTheory. Physical Review Letters 1996, 76(15),2778-2781

work page 1996
[5]

Physics Reports 2000, 336(1), 1-166

Blanter,Y.M.;Büttiker,M.,Shotnoise in mesoscopicconductors. Physics Reports 2000, 336(1), 1-166

work page 2000
[6]

Nature Physics 2010, 6(1),34-39

Altimiras,C.;leSueur,H.;Gennser,U.;Cavanna,A.;Mailly,D.;Pierre,F.,Non-equilibriumedge- channelspectroscopyintheintegerquantumHallregime. Nature Physics 2010, 6(1),34-39

work page 2010
[7]

C.; Nicholls, J

Roche, P.; Ségala, J.; Glattli, D. C.; Nicholls, J. T.; Pepper, M.; Graham, A. C.; Thomas, K. J.; Simmons,M.Y.;Ritchie,D.A.,Fano FactorReductionon the0.7ConductanceStructureofaBallistic One-DimensionalWire. Physical Review Letters 2004, 93(11),116602

work page 2004
[8]

D.;Mikhailov,N.N.;Dvoretsky,S.A., ShotnoiseoftheedgetransportintheinvertedbandHgTequantumwells

Tikhonov,E.S.;Shovkun, D.V.;Khrapai,V.S.; Kvon,Z. D.;Mikhailov,N.N.;Dvoretsky,S.A., ShotnoiseoftheedgetransportintheinvertedbandHgTequantumwells. JETP Letters 2015, 101(10), 708-713

work page 2015

Show all 17 references

[9]

Nano Letters 2010, 10(4),1287-1292

Wheeler,P.J.;Russom,J.N.;Evans,K.;King,N.S.;Natelson,D.,ShotNoiseSuppressionatRoom TemperatureinAtomic-ScaleAuJunctions. Nano Letters 2010, 10(4),1287-1292

2010
[10]

Physical Review B 2019, 100(23),235414

Sahu,M.R.;Paul,A.K.;Soori,A.;Watanabe,K.;Taniguchi,T.;Mukerjee,S.;Das,A.,Enhanced shotnoiseatbilayergraphene--superconductorjunction. Physical Review B 2019, 100(23),235414

2019
[11]

D.; Hibino, H.; Glattli, D

Kumada, N.; Parmentier, F. D.; Hibino, H.; Glattli, D. C.; Roulleau, P., Shot noise generated by graphenep–njunctionsinthequantumHalleffectregime. Nature Communications 2015, 6(1),8068

2015
[12]

P.; Sukhorukov,E

Levkivskyi, I. P.; Sukhorukov,E. V., Shot-Noise Thermometry of the Quantum Hall Edge States. Physical Review Letters 2012, 109(24),246806

2012
[13]

H.; Chovin,A.; Demaille, C.; Clément, N., Electrochemical ShotNoiseofaRedoxMonolayer

Grall, S.; Li, S.; Jalabert, L.; Kim, S. H.; Chovin,A.; Demaille, C.; Clément, N., Electrochemical ShotNoiseofaRedoxMonolayer. Physical Review Letters 2023, 130(21),218001

2023
[14]

Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2020, 22,170-177

Gao,R.; Edwards, M.A.; Harris,J.M.;White, H.S.,Shotnoise sets thelimit of quantification in electrochemicalmeasurements. Current Opinion in Electrochemistry 2020, 22,170-177

2020
[15]

F.; Luo, J.-L.; Huet, F., Review— Electrochemical Noise Applied in Corrosion Science: Theoretical and Mathematical Models towards QuantitativeAnalysis

Xia, D.-H.; Song, S.; Behnamian, Y.; Hu, W.; Cheng, Y. F.; Luo, J.-L.; Huet, F., Review— Electrochemical Noise Applied in Corrosion Science: Theoretical and Mathematical Models towards QuantitativeAnalysis. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 2020, 167(8),081507

2020
[16]

M.; Kvon, Z

Gusev, G. M.; Kvon, Z. D.; Shegai, O. A.; Mikhailov, N. N.; Dvoretsky, S. A.; Portal, J. C., Transportindisorderedtwo-dimensionaltopologicalinsulators. Physical Review B 2011, 84(12),121302

2011
[17]

R.; Paul, A

Sahu, M. R.; Paul, A. K.; Sutradhar, J.; Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Singh, V.; Mukerjee, S.; Banerjee, S.; Das,A., Quantized conductance with nonzero shot noise as a signature ofAndreev edge state. Physical Review B 2021, 104(8),L081404

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Physical Review B 2014, 90(19),195422

Tang,G.-M.;Wang,J.,Full-countingstatisticsofchargeandspintransportinthetransientregime: AnonequilibriumGreen'sfunctionapproach. Physical Review B 2014, 90(19),195422

work page 2014

[2] [2]

Physical Review B 2007, 75(20),205329

Schönhammer, K., Full counting statistics for noninteracting fermions: Exact results and the Levitov-Lesovikformula. Physical Review B 2007, 75(20),205329

work page 2007

[3] [3]

S.; Lesovik, G

Levitov,L. S.; Lesovik, G. B.,Charge distribution in quantum shot noise. JETP Letters 1993, 58, 230–233

work page 1993

[4] [4]

Physical Review Letters 1996, 76(15),2778-2781

Kumar,A.;Saminadayar,L.;Glattli,D.C.;Jin,Y.;Etienne,B.,ExperimentalTestoftheQuantum ShotNoiseReductionTheory. Physical Review Letters 1996, 76(15),2778-2781

work page 1996

[5] [5]

Physics Reports 2000, 336(1), 1-166

Blanter,Y.M.;Büttiker,M.,Shotnoise in mesoscopicconductors. Physics Reports 2000, 336(1), 1-166

work page 2000

[6] [6]

Nature Physics 2010, 6(1),34-39

Altimiras,C.;leSueur,H.;Gennser,U.;Cavanna,A.;Mailly,D.;Pierre,F.,Non-equilibriumedge- channelspectroscopyintheintegerquantumHallregime. Nature Physics 2010, 6(1),34-39

work page 2010

[7] [7]

C.; Nicholls, J

Roche, P.; Ségala, J.; Glattli, D. C.; Nicholls, J. T.; Pepper, M.; Graham, A. C.; Thomas, K. J.; Simmons,M.Y.;Ritchie,D.A.,Fano FactorReductionon the0.7ConductanceStructureofaBallistic One-DimensionalWire. Physical Review Letters 2004, 93(11),116602

work page 2004

[8] [8]

D.;Mikhailov,N.N.;Dvoretsky,S.A., ShotnoiseoftheedgetransportintheinvertedbandHgTequantumwells

Tikhonov,E.S.;Shovkun, D.V.;Khrapai,V.S.; Kvon,Z. D.;Mikhailov,N.N.;Dvoretsky,S.A., ShotnoiseoftheedgetransportintheinvertedbandHgTequantumwells. JETP Letters 2015, 101(10), 708-713

work page 2015