text:
# Anomalous quantum states in finite macroscopic systems

## I Introduction

In quantum information theory, one is usually interested in the asymptotic behaviors of quantities of interest as the size $`N`$ of the data is increased. To study the asymptotic behavior, one must take the data size large but finite. Therefore, quantum information theory treats quantum systems that have large but finite degrees of freedom, $`1N<+\mathrm{}`$. In quantum computers, in particular, the large degrees of freedom extend spatially over regions whose sizes $`N`$. In quantum-information-theoretical terms, such a system may be called a many-partite system, whereas in many-body-theoretical terms it is called a finite macroscopic system.

Finite macroscopic systems are poorly understood as compared with small systems and infinite systems. In particular, there exist anomalous pure states that do not exist in infinite systems. Namely, in finite systems there exist pure states that do not approach any pure states of infinite systems as $`N\mathrm{}`$ SM02 . It is interesting to explore properties of such anomalous states as well as their roles in quantum information theory.

In this short review, we point out that such states are macroscopically entangled. Two measures of the macroscopic entanglement are described. They are shown to be related directly to stabilities of quantum states. These general results are applied to analyses of quantum computers and of the mechanism of emergence of thermodynamical world from quantum theory.

Throughout this review, we assume that the number of qubits $`N`$ is large but finite. Hence, theories of infinite systems are not directly applicable. Since we focus on asymptotic behaviors of physical properties for huge $`N`$, prefactors are not important. Furthermore, only pure states are considered, although the result of section III.2 is applicable to mixed states as well.

## II Proposed measures of macroscopic entanglement

In an previous paper SM02 , we proposed two measures of macroscopic entanglement, which are closely related to each other, for quantum states in finite macroscopic systems, or, equivalently, in many-partite systems. We here summarize them and explain their physical meanings.

### II.1 Cluster property

The first measure is the ‘cluster property’ in finite systems. We recall that in infinite systems it is defined as follows haag : A quantum state is said to have the cluster property if

$$\delta \widehat{a}(x)\delta \widehat{b}(y)0\text{ as }|xy|\mathrm{}$$
(1)
for any local operators $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{b}(y)`$ at positions $`x`$ and $`y`$, respectively, where $`\delta \widehat{a}(x)\widehat{a}(x)\widehat{a}(x)`$ and $`\delta \widehat{b}(y)\widehat{b}(y)\widehat{b}(y)`$ confuse . Here, by an local operator at $`x`$ we mean a operator on a local Hilbert space at $`x`$ cp .

Since we are interested in finite macroscopic systems, for which $`1N<+\mathrm{}`$, we generalized the concept of the cluster property to the case of finite systems. It reads roughly as follows: (The precise definition is described in Ref. SM02 .) Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ)`$ be the size of the region outside which correlations of fluctuations of any local operators become smaller than a small positive number $`ϵ`$. We consider a sequence of systems with various values of $`N`$ and associated states, where the states with different values of $`N`$ are similar to each other similar . We say that the states (for large $`N`$) of the sequence have the cluster property if for any $`ϵ>0`$ one can make $`\mathrm{\Omega }(ϵ)`$ to be independent of $`N`$ by taking $`N`$ large enough.

The lack of the cluster property means the existence of a long-range correlation(s). Therefore, for a pure state, it means an entanglement. Since a small number of Bell pairs do not destroy the cluster property (see below), the lack of the cluster property means a macroscopic entanglement. Such a macroscopically entangled state (i.e., a pure state without the cluster property) is quite anomalous in the sense that it does not approach any pure state as $`N\mathrm{}`$. This can be seen from a fundamental theorem haag : For infinite quantum systems, any pure state has the cluster property.

### II.2 Fluctuations of additive operators

The second, probably more practical, measure of macroscopic entanglement which we proposed in Ref. SM02  is fluctuations of additive operators. An operator $`\widehat{A}`$ is called additive if it is the sum of local operators;

$$\widehat{A}=\underset{x}{}\widehat{a}(x).$$
(2)
Here, $`\widehat{a}(x^{})`$ ($`x^{}x`$) is not necessarily a spatially translated one of $`\widehat{a}(x)`$: e.g., $`\widehat{a}(x)=\widehat{\sigma }_y(x)`$ whereas $`\widehat{a}(x^{})=\widehat{\sigma }_z(x^{})`$. We note that the fluctuation of $`\widehat{A}`$ is the sum of two-point correlations;

$$\psi |(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{A})^2|\psi =\underset{x}{}\underset{y}{}\psi |\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{a}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{a}(y)|\psi ,$$
(3)
whose value depends on the choices of $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ and of the state $`|\psi `$. Assuming that $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ is bounded, we normalize $`\widehat{a}(x)`$ as $`\widehat{a}(x)=1`$ norm . For a given $`|\psi `$, we consider the supreme value

$$\underset{\{\widehat{a}(x)\}}{sup}\psi |(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{A})^2|\psi $$

under this normalization condition. Since it is proportional to the number of correlated pairs of points in $`|\psi `$, and since we are interested in asymptotic behaviors for large $`N`$, we define an index $`p`$ by

$$\underset{\{\widehat{a}(x)\}}{sup}\psi |(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{A})^2|\psi =O(N^p).$$
(4)
If $`p=1`$ we call $`|\psi `$ a normally-fluctuating state (NFS), whereas if $`p`$ takes the maximum value $`p=2`$ we call $`|\psi `$ an anomalously-fluctuating state (AFS). It can be shown that a NFS has the cluster property, whereas an AFS does not. Therefore, AFSs are quite anomalous states which are entangled macroscopically.

We can easily show that $`p=1`$ for any separable states. Hence, all separable states are NFSs. Note however that the inverse is not necessarily true. For example, a many-body state with a single Bell pair, $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|100\mathrm{}00+|000\mathrm{}01\right)`$, and the ‘W state,’

$$|\mathrm{W}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\left[|100\mathrm{}0+|010\mathrm{}0+|001\mathrm{}0+\mathrm{}+|000\mathrm{}1\right],$$
(5)
are non-separable, but are NFSs having the cluster property because $`\underset{\{\widehat{a}(x)\}}{sup}\psi |(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{A})^2|\psi =\text{constant}\times N+O(1)`$ hence $`p=1`$. These states are entangled, but not macroscopically.

‘Vacuum states’ with a broken continuous symmetry are generally more entangled, for which $`1<p<2`$ due to fluctuations through Nambu-Goldstone modes.

The simplest example of an AFS ($`p=2`$) is a ‘cat state,’ $`|\mathrm{C}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|000\mathrm{}0+|111\mathrm{}1\right)`$. This state is macroscopically entangled: In fact, $`|\mathrm{C}`$ violates Bell’s inequality by a macroscopic factor $`2^{(N1)/2}`$ mermin . Although the macroscopic entanglement of this state may be obvious (because it has a very simple form), we can investigate whether more complicated pure states are macroscopically entangled by calculating $`p`$.

We can thus use the cluster property and the value of $`p`$ as measures of macroscopic entanglement for pure states.

### II.3 Advantages of the proposed measures

As compared with other measures or definitions of many-partite entanglement, the proposed measures of macroscopic entanglement are related most directly to many-body physics. Since many-body physics has been developed along with many experiments, the proposed measures are also related directly to properties of real systems. For example, some other definitions of entanglement classify the state $`|\mathrm{W}`$ as more entangled than $`|\mathrm{C}`$. However, $`|\mathrm{W}`$ is quite a normal state in many-body physics and experiments: It represents, e.g., a low-lying excited state of an insulating solid, in which a single Frenkel exciton is excited on the ground state. Such a state can be easily generated experimentally. It is therefore more reasonable to classify $`|\mathrm{W}`$ as a normal state whose entanglement is negligible for macroscopic properties. This is in accordance with the proposed measures: $`|\mathrm{W}`$ is an NFS ($`p=1`$) having the cluster property, hence is not entangled macroscopically.

Furthermore, an efficient method of computing $`p`$ for general states has been developed in Ref. SS03 . In contrast, some other measures of entanglement are hard to compute for general systems. On the other hand, a disadvantage of the present measures is that they can be used for pure states only.

## III Physical properties of macroscopically entangled states

When studying finite macroscopic systems, we often encounter AFSs. For example, consider a finite system which will exhibit symmetry breaking as $`N\mathrm{}`$. It is known that when the order parameter does not commute with the Hamiltonian of the system the exact ground state for finite $`N`$ is not a symmetry-breaking state but the symmetric ground state that possesses all the symmetries of the Hamiltonian HL ; KT ; pre01 . The well-known diagram, in which symmetry-breaking states have the lowest energy, is a misleading result of a mean-field approximation. Anomalous states, such as AFSs, cannot be obtained by the mean-field approximation. AFSs appear also in quantum computers us , as will be described briefly in section IV.1. Therefore, it is important to explore properties of anomalous states, such as AFSs, of finite macroscopic systems.

For this purpose, we studied the stability of quantum states of general macroscopic systems of finite sizes, against weak classical noises, weak perturbations from environments, and local measurements SM02 . In contrast to the previous works on similar subjects, we obtained general and universal results which are independent of details of models, by making full use of the locality of the theory.

### III.1 Decoherence by noises or environments

We say that a pure state is ‘fragile’ if its decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is anomalously great in the sense that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }KN^{1+\delta },$$
(6)
where $`K`$ is a function of microscopic parameters, and $`\delta `$ is a positive constant. This is an anomalous situation in which the decoherence rate per qubit, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/N`$, grows with increasing $`N`$ as $`KN^\delta `$. In contrast, $`\delta =0`$ is a normal situation. We showed that NFSs never become fragile in weak perturbations from any noises or environments SM02 . Hence, the non-fragility of NFSs, which are typical normal states normal , against decoherence was shown most generally, independently of details of models, for the first time.

Regarding fragility of AFSs, on the other hand, we found that an AFS becomes either fragile or non-fragile depending on the spectral intensities of the noises or correlation functions in the environments SM02 . Although one might expect that anomalous states such as AFSs would always be fragile, our general result is against such naive expectations. This indicates that we must go beyond the decoherence rate in order to study the stability of anomalous states. For this purpose, we proposed the new criterion of stability, which will be explained in the following section.

### III.2 Stability against local measurements

We say a quantum state is ‘stable against local measurements’ if the result of any local measurement is not affected by any local measurement at a distant point. (The precise definition is described in Ref. SM02 .) According to experiences, macroscopic states seem to have this stability, i.e., they do not change significantly by measurement of only a tiny part of a macroscopic system. Indeed, we successfully proved the following theorem SM02 : If a quantum state has the cluster property, then it is stable against local measurements, and vice versa.

Namely, changes induced by any local measurements are small for normal states that have the cluster property. In contrast, anomalous states that do not have the cluster property, such as AFSs, are changed drastically by measurements of some relevant local observables. Such drastic changes continue by repeating measurements of relevant local observables, until the state becomes a state with the cluster property. We conjectured (and confirmed in several examples) that the number of local measurements necessary for reducing an AFS to a state with the cluster property would be much less than $`N`$.

## IV Applications

We have successfully clarified what stabilities are related to what anomalies of quantum states of general systems. Using these general results, we can discuss the origin of symmetry-breaking in finite systems SM02 , properties of quantum chaotic systems with large degrees of freedom SS03 , and so on. Among such many applications, we here describe roles of anomalous states in quantum computers, and the mechanism of emergence of a classical macroscopic world from quantum theory.

### IV.1 Application to quantum computers

In Ref. us , we analyzed quantum computers which perform Shor’s factoring algorithm, paying attention to asymptotic properties as the number $`L`$ of qubits is increased. Using numerical simulations and the general theory described above, we showed the following: AFSs appear in various stages of the computation. For large $`L`$, they decohere at anomalously great rates by weak noises that simulate some noises in real systems. Decoherence of some of the AFSs is fatal to the results of the computation, whereas decoherence of another some of the AFSs does not have strong influence on the results of the computation.

Therefore, there are three classes of states in Shor’s factoring algorithm: (i) NFSs, such as the state after the Hadamard transformation $`|\psi _{\mathrm{HT}}`$, for which the reduction of fidelity $`F`$ behaves as $`1F`$ $`L`$, and the reduction of the success probability $`T`$ behaves as $`T_{\mathrm{clean}}T`$ $`L`$. Here, the success probability $`T`$ means the probability of getting a successful result by a single computation, and $`T_{\mathrm{clean}}`$ denotes its value when the noises are absent us . (ii) Non-crucial AFSs, such as the final state (before the measurement to obtain a computational result) $`|\psi _{\mathrm{final}}`$, for which $`1F`$ $`L^2`$ whereas $`T_{\mathrm{clean}}TL`$. (iii) Crucial AFSs, such as the state after the modular exponentiation $`|\psi _{\mathrm{ME}}`$, for which $`1F`$ $`L^2`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{clean}}TL^2`$.

We consider that the exponential speedup over classical computers is achieved by the use of macroscopic entanglement of the crucial AFSs.

When a crucial AFS decoheres, the probability of getting a correct computational result is reduced in approximately proportional to $`L^2`$. The reduction thus becomes anomalously large with increasing $`L`$, even when the coupling constant to the noise is rather small. Since error correcting codes and decoherence-free subspaces are not almighty in real physical systems, it is desirable that quantum computers should be improved in such a way that all AFSs appearing in the algorithms do not decohere at such great rates in the presence of realistic noises.

### IV.2 Emergence of a classical world

Thermodynamics assumes that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }A)^2=o(N^2)`$ for all additive quantities, in any pure thermodynamical phase. (Otherwise, predictions about averages $`A`$ would have no meaning.) In quantum theory, however, there exist pure states, which we call AFSs, that do not satisfy this assumption because by definition $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{A})^2=O(N^2)`$ for some additive operator(s). Hence, questions arise: Why is thermodynamics applicable so universally to macroscopic systems? How a thermodynamical world, in which $`(\mathrm{\Delta }A)^2=o(N^2)`$ for all additive quantities, emerges from quantum theory? We can answer these questions using the theorem of section III.2.

Suppose that an AFS happens to be realized in a laboratory. An experimentalist will be pleased to have such an anomalous state, and he will decide to perform experiments on it. He will cautiously start with local measurements on some tiny parts of the system to obtain some preliminary informations on the state, expecting that such local perturbations would not alter the state of the macroscopic system significantly. But, according to the theorem of section III.2, measurements even on tiny parts of the system will alter the state drastically if the state is an AFS. As a result, the state after not so many ($`N`$) local measurements would become a state with the cluster property, for which $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{A})^2=o(N^2)`$ in consistency with thermodynamics. Thus, a thermodynamical world almost always emerges.


format: text

text:
# K+N scattering data and exotic Z+ resonances

## I A BRIEF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Twenty years ago, many groups were involved in the study of unconventional states. The 1984 edition of the PDG review contains sections discussing Z0 and Z1 (I = 0, 1) K+N resonances, as well as dibaryons (B=2). The reported states had widths of 100 MeV or more and came to be understood as ‘pseudo-resonances’, structures arising from the coupling to inelastic channels (N$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the case of dibaryons, KN and K$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the case of Z-resonances).

Search the 2002 edition of the Review and you will only see mention of exotic baryonic states in an obscure Non-qqq section of the Note on N and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonances. In the area of dibaryons, most recent studies have focused on narrow states, as these cannot be so easily discounted as the broad states. The recently discovered Z resonance (now almost universally called the $`\mathrm{\Theta }(1540)`$) has generated great interest as it too is narrow, and the first determination of its mass and width (limit) agreed with a prediction of Diakonov, Petrov, and Polyakov dpp .

## II EVIDENCE FOR AN S=+1 STATE

Two types of experiments now exist. Those (recent) measurements claiming structures in their K+n or K0p mass distributions, and the (much older) experiments, mainly K+p and K+d, which existed prior to these measurements. Both may be valuable in understanding the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

### II.1 Recent experiments

Mass determinations for the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ have been very consistent, falling in the range 1540$`\pm `$10 MeV. Width determinations so far have given just upper limits, based on the experimental resolution. For the photon and neutrino induced results, the width limit exp  has been roughly $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`<`$ 20 MeV, while for the ITEP K+Xe$``$K0pXe’ experiment, a limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`<`$ 9 MeV was given itep .

### II.2 Hints from the K+p and K+d database

The K+ scattering database shows remarkably little evidence for a structure near 1540 MeV (corresponding to a lab momentum of 440 MeV/c). An examination of the K+d total cross sections led Nussinov to place a limit nus  of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`<`$ 6 MeV on the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ width. By re-analyzing the database, using the VPI KN PWA code, a tighter limit of 1-2 MeV has been claimed gw . Haidenbauer and Krein have added a narrow I=0 $`J^P`$ = $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(1540)`$ to their KN meson-exchange model and conclude hk  that either the width must be considerably less than 5 MeV, or the resonance must lie much closer to threshold. All of these estimates are based on a general lack of structure at energies corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

These remarks also apply to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{++}`$ which has been predicted to exist in order to have an isotensor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ cpr  and an isospin-violating decay to KN, thus explaining the narrow width. No evidence is seen in the I=1 total cross sections in the neighborhood of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ energy.

### II.3 The Nussinov estimate reexamined

Somewhat tighter limits on the width can be obtained if the estimate of Nussinov is carefully examined. The limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`<`$ 6 MeV is based on there being 2-4 mb fluctuations in the K+d total cross sections for energies corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }(1540)`$ mass. The measurements of Carroll and Bowen cover this region, and both have data near 440 MeV/c. Although there are normalization issues, the deviations from a linear behavior are certainly less than 1 mb in both cases. This alone reduces the Nussinov estimate to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`<`$ 1.5 MeV. \[Deviations of 2-4 mb are visible near 600 MeV/c\].

Further corrections to the Nussinov estimate have been made by Cahn and Trilling ct . These include the use of proper kinematic relations and a more realistic treatment of the deuteron. These modifications, together with an even more conservative limit on fluctuations (1.5 mb) lead to a width limit of less than an MeV.

### II.4 The Haidenbauer-Krein estimate

A simple consideration of Clebsch-Gordon coefficients shows that the effect of a narrow I=0 resonance should be twice as large in the I=0 total cross section, as compared to the K+d total cross section. This is evident in the Haidenbauer-Krein plot of their model versus experimental data.

To be more realistic, however, the comparison between models and I=0 data, extracted from K+d scattering measurements, should be modified. The extraction process implicitly assumes there are no sharp structures in the underlying KN interactions. To compensate, it is therefore more reasonable to apply the broadening due to Fermi motion to the model result. This still allows a strong limit.

## III KN PARTIAL-WAVE ANALYSIS

Our 1992 KN PWA analyzed both K+p and K+d data vpi , finding broad counterclockwise motion in the $`P_{01}`$, $`D_{03}`$, $`P_{11}`$, and $`D_{15}`$ Argand diagrams. No narrow structures were reported. In order to search for missing states, resonances with varying masses and widths were inserted into the S-, P-, and D-waves. These waves were then refitted to data, in order to see whether an improved description was possible.

For widths of 10 MeV or more, values in line with the resolution-limited estimates, the fit $`\chi ^2`$ in some cases doubled, even though the effect was localized and the fit extended to 1.1 GeV or 2.65 GeV, depending on the isospin. The fit remained worse until widths were reduced below the few MeV level, at which point a narrow structure could fall into data gaps, having little influence.

We also examined the $`\chi ^2`$ contributions due to experiments closest to the resonance position, as these values become more suspect for very narrow widths. Discounting these points, we continued to see no improvement in the fit to the remaining database.

One should note that this test would not be possible for a missing state above the inelastic threshold. In that case, as in the $`\pi `$N elastic scattering analysis, a missing state could be understood in terms of a small branching fraction to the elastic channel.

## IV FUTURE WORK

If the $`\mathrm{\Theta }(1540)`$ exists and has a width of an MeV or less, future measurements will have to carefully address the problems associated with beam momentum uncertainty and spread, as well as Fermi motion if deuteron targets are used. The loss of meson beam facilities (including the associated manpower, expertise, and infrastructure) will make this task more difficult.

It must be emphasized that we have only given upper limits to the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ width. It is not reasonable to calculate coupling constants and make predictions based on a fixed width of O(10 MeV).


text:
# Empirical basis for car-following theory development

## I Introduction

To understand traffic flow, it is mandatory to analyze the interaction between the cars. The simplest of these interactions is car-following, where a car with speed $`v`$ follows a lead car with speed $`V`$ in a certain distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$. Although a lot of theoretical work has been undertaken to describe this process (see Chowdhury ; Helbing ; OR-review  for reviews), these models have a weak empirical basis. Often, calibration and validation is done only qualitatively, or by comparing the model’s output with macroscopic data like counts and average speeds from induction loop detectors.

The models introduced so far may be classified according to the update scheme of the underlying dynamic as cellular automata, differential equations and their time-discretization, and as so called action-point models Todosiev1963 ; Michaels1963 . All models describe the car-following process by an equation for the acceleration $`a`$ of the following car, $`a=a(\mathrm{\Delta }x,v,V)`$. In case of a stochastic model, the (white) noise is added to the acceleration, making $`a(t)`$ discontinuous in time. Only the action-point models differ from that, they claim the acceleration more or less constant until a certain action-point is reached where the acceleration changes within a short amount of time.

In the following, a new data-set will be analyzed that allows a detailed analysis of the car-following process. This gives important hints how the car-following description can be improved at least on the microscopic level.

## II Results of data analysis

The data to be analyzed have been described in DGPS-RTK : a platoon of ten cars, each equipped with differential GPS, drove along a test track and recorded some hours of car-following data. The time resolution of the data is 0.1 s, while the accuracy in position of 0.1 m. For each car $`n`$, its position $`x_n(t)`$ and speed $`v_n(t)`$ along the test track is recorded. The driver of the lead car was instructed to drive certain speed patterns to estimate the reaction of the following cars. All drivers were fully informed about the experiment.

Note, that the data contain only the gross headway $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_n=x_{n1}x_n`$, i.e. the distance from GPS-receiver to GPS-receiver, but not the car lengths. From the speed data, the acceleration has been computed by applying a symmetric Savitzky-Golay filter Press\_NR .

### II.1 Distribution of speed differences

The trajectories of the cars in the phase-space $`(\mathrm{\Delta }v,\mathrm{\Delta }x)`$ display an oscillatory behavior, see Todosiev1963 ; Brackstone2002  (and references therein) for similar observations.

However, these oscillations cannot be understood as a noisy limit-cycle, as can be seen by analyzing the frequency distribution of the velocity difference $`p_{\mathrm{\Delta }x}(\mathrm{\Delta }v)`$. This distribution is non-analytic for small distances $`\mathrm{\Delta }x<30`$ m (for the test track data, for data from the highway this behavior can be observed for even bigger distances), while there is a cross-over to a more Gaussian behavior for larger distances, see Fig. 1. Most car-following models claim that there is a fixed-point $`g^{}`$ of the car-following dynamics where $`a=0,\mathrm{\Delta }v=0`$ and the distance to the car ahead is given by some function $`g^{}(v)`$. This idea can be tested easily with the data at hand, and it is wrong. Although the cars “like” $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=0`$, they don’t get stuck there. The data-points where $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ and $`a`$ are small (the classical hallmark of a fixed point) are just part of a very short sequence of one or two data-points of the time-series of $`\mathrm{\Delta }v(t)`$ and $`a(t)`$, respectively. The reason for this can be inferred from the time-series of the acceleration $`a(t)`$, see Fig. 2.

This time-series can be understood as a sequence of pieces where acceleration is essentially constant (or a linear function of time) and fast transitions between these pieces. Since this phenomenon has been described already in Todosiev1963 ; Michaels1963 , who named these points “action-points”, this name will be used in the following.

The pieces where acceleration is not constant, but a linear function of time can be understood as episodes where the driver does not change the amount of gas or brake. Because of friction, the acceleration (positive acceleration increases speed and this increases friction, lowering acceleration) will change then over time. However, not all possible values of acceleration are equally likely, e.g. a small negative value (increasing as a function of speed $`a_0c_1v`$) is chosen much more often. It can be speculated, that these values belong to a state where the driver is doing nothing, neither touching gas nor brake.

### II.2 Waiting times

The times $`T_i`$ between subsequent decisions to change acceleration have been obtained by the algorithm described in Fig. 2. In Fig. 3, the corresponding frequency distribution is displayed. The exponential tail of this distribution indicates that any decision is independent from the proceeding one, with one exception: the probability for making a new decision right after an action-point is reduced.

More detailed inspections show that the mean-value averaged over all the drivers is $`T=2.5s`$, with large differences between drivers ranging from $`T=1.8\mathrm{}4s`$. Interestingly, the waiting time between action-points seems to be independent of distance or speed difference.

### II.3 Acceleration

The acceleration data are consistent with a simple linear relationship

$$a(\mathrm{\Delta }x,\mathrm{\Delta }v)a_g(g^{}(v)\mathrm{\Delta }x)+a_{\mathrm{\Delta }v}\mathrm{\Delta }v.$$
(1)
However, this is only the average behavior, the corresponding standard deviation $`\sigma _a`$ of the estimated acceleration values is usually fairly big. This indicates once more that the whole car-following process can be described as a stochastic process.

The analysis of the jumps in $`a(t)`$ lends further support to this claim. The jumps are scattered (see Fig. 5) in the whole $`(\mathrm{\Delta }v,\mathrm{\Delta }x)`$-space. Fig. 4 displays the distribution of the jump-sizes. Also in this figure is a comparison to a Gaussian distribution which indicates that the jump-size distribution is not Gaussian.

## III Reflections on modeling

The results above are inconsistent with most existing microscopic car-following models. The models claim that the car-following process tends to converge to some preferred distance $`g^{}(v)`$ which depends on speed. In some models, and for some ranges of speed, this fixed-point is unstable, giving rise to an instability which may finally be responsible for jam formation. Other models have more than one fixed point, which has been hypothesized K2 ; K2W  as the reason for the widely scattered states commonly known as synchronized flow. Since the data above show that there is no such fixed point, on a microscopic level all these models are inconsistent with the data. Of course, under a certain amount of course graining a region $`[g_{\text{min}}^{},g_{\text{max}}^{}]`$ may serve as a substitute for a fixed point. However, definitive conclusions concerning the macroscopic consequences of the microscopic behavior found here can be drawn only after suitable models have been constructed that embed the behavior above in their dynamics.

As mentioned already, the so-called action-point models Todosiev1963 ; Michaels1963  behave indeed differently. They are built around the idea of a constant acceleration between the action-points, which seems to be in line with the observations above. Usually, the action-point models include the idea of so-called perception thresholds in human perception. The most important threshold $`\theta _{\mathrm{\Delta }v}`$ is the one for determining small changes in speed difference. It is defined by the equation $`\theta _{\mathrm{\Delta }v}\mathrm{\Delta }v/(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2`$. Although this sounds like a firm psycho-physical basis, the data above and the data of others Brackstone2002  do not support the idea of those thresholds. Note, however, that the analysis in Brackstone2002  claims to have found empirical evidence for those thresholds, however from inspecting their results different conclusions may be drawn as well. In Fig. 5, all the action-points have been drawn in $`(\mathrm{\Delta }v,\mathrm{\Delta }x)`$-space. Their distribution coincides with the one of all the data-points. Even more, the action-points for increasing acceleration and the ones for decreasing acceleration cover almost the same area. Only when action-points with large absolute values of acceleration are plotted, then some clustering of the points can be seen.

A more likely interpretation is the idea that the thresholds are in the space of driving strategies, of which the chosen acceleration may be a proxy. If the chosen strategy becomes too uncomfortable, then a new one is chosen. First ideas in this direction have been put forward already BRDM ; RDM .

From the findings above, more realistic car-following models can be constructed. They consist of an acceleration law that determines the optimal or desired acceleration as function of speed, speed difference, and distance. Based on the analyses performed so far, no definitive acceleration model could be favored or ruled out.

So, any of the previously invented car-following models could be used here, too. What has to be added, is a specific noise-term that acts not on acceleration directly, but works on the basis of events: after a certain randomly chosen time $`T`$, a new desired acceleration is set. This desired acceleration has a strong stochastic part, from the data no unique average (optimal) acceleration could be determined so far.

After setting the acceleration to its new value, it remains constant until the next decision has to be made. The relaxation between two subsequent values is compatible with a simple relaxation $`\dot{a}=(a_{\text{des}}a)/\tau _a`$, since the time $`\tau _a`$ is of the order of 0.5 s, even the usage of time-discrete models can justified. Results based on these ideas will be presented in future work.

## IV Conclusions

This work has analyzed experimental car-following data that were obtained under idealized conditions. Wherever possible, the results found have been tried to back up by using similar data that have been obtained from other sources such as highway data. Additional data have been considered as well, but were not reported here, since they confirm the analysis done here. Anything taken together, the results obtained are sufficiently general to support the following conclusions. The process of car-following can be described by a relatively simple dynamical process that controls the acceleration. From time to time, the driver computes a new desired acceleration (which of course refers to a specific configuration of the gas and brake pedal) which consists of a deterministic and a random part. The times between subsequent decisions are randomly distributed, too. The deterministic part is responsible for the presence of the car near $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=0`$ which is a very prominent feature in the data. The random part competes with this approach to $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=0`$. It works that strong, that in fact no fixed point of the car following dynamics can be established, because acceleration only by chance becomes zero, and this does not last for a long time.

The consequences for microscopic modeling have been derived, indications how to construct models that comply with these data have been given. A much more difficult task for future research is to find out how exactly the choice of strategies is being performed, and how big the stochastic component of this choice is.

Finally, the findings presented here may shed a new light on the discussion about widely scattered states in traffic flow. Simulations based on a simple model consistent with the findings above display widely scattered states. We hope to report on this work in future contributions. However, the question about stability of traffic flow has to be answered, and it cannot be discussed simply by a linear stability analysis. The action-point dynamic of human driving on one hand has a tendency to produce fluctuations that might destroy homogeneous traffic flow. On the other hand, since the car-following dynamic converges to a small region in phase-space, at least small perturbations can heal out. So, the idea that traffic flow is just at the border of instability got a new meaning.

## Acknowledgments

We are deeply indebted to T. Nakatsuji and his Hokkaido group for sharing their data. Those data improved our work and provided valuable insights because of the ease and elegance to work with them. Other donations of data came from the Duisburg group of Michael Schreckenberg, which we acknowledge here as well. These investigations were supported in part by RFBR Grants 01-01-00389 and 00439. Furthermore, discussions with Boris Kerner, Kai Nagel, and Andreas Schadschneider helped to clarify the ideas presented here.


text:
# A rigorous bound on quark distributions in the nucleon

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The leading twist distributions of quarks and antiquarks inside the nucleon are not completely known. Indeed, the longitudinally polarized sea distributions are only poorly known, while the transversely polarized densities are unknown at all. In this situation it is quite important to establish rigorous inequalities, which are very useful in best fits to data. As an example, I recall the famous Soffer inequality, which is a consequence of the positivity constraint. Here I deduce, as an application of that inequality, a rigorous bound concerning unpolarized and longitudinally polarized valence quark distributions. The talk is organized as follows. First of all (sect. 2), starting from the Soffer inequality, from the Melosh-Wigner rotation and from general considerations on evolution equations, I prove bound (17) for any $`Q^2`$-value, $`Q^2`$ being the modulus square of the four-momentum of the probe (e. g., a virtual photon). Secondly (sect. 3), I consider applications to down quark distributions and to the first moments of polarized sea distributions. Lastly, in sect. 4, I draw a short conclusion.

## 2 A RIGOROUS BOUND

### 2.1 The Melosh-Wigner rotation

First of all, I deduce, for very small values of $`Q^2`$, an inequality between the helicity and the transversity distributions, for which I adopt the notations by Mulders and Tangerman.

In the nucleon rest frame, let $`q_0^\pm (𝐩)`$ be the probability density for a quark of momentum $`𝐩`$ to have spin parallel (+) or antiparallel (-) to the proton spin. A boost parallel to the nucleon spin, and such that the nucleon momentum becomes much greater than the nucleon rest mass $`M`$, produces a spin dilution in the transverse momentum (t.m.) polarized density, which turns out to coincide with the longitudinally polarized t.m. distribution, i. e.,

$$g_1(x,𝐩_{})=\left[q_0^+(𝐩)q_0^{}(𝐩)\right]cos\theta _M.$$
(1)
Here $`x`$ = $`(p_0+p_3)/\sqrt{2}M`$, $`𝐩_{}`$ = $`𝐩p_3𝐤`$, $`𝐤`$ is a unit vector in the direction of the boost, $`p_3`$ = $`𝐩𝐤`$, $`p_0^2`$ = $`m^2+p_3^2+𝐩_{}^2`$ and $`m`$ is the quark rest mass. Lastly $`\theta _M`$ is the Melosh-Wigner rotation angle, i. e.,

$$\theta _M=arccos\left[\frac{(m+\sqrt{2}xM)^2𝐩_{}^2}{(m+\sqrt{2}xM)^2+𝐩_{}^2}\right].$$
(2)
On the other hand, a boost from the nucleon rest system, similar to the previous one, but in a direction perpendicular to its spin, produces a less drastic spin dilution. Indeed, in this case the distribution results in the t.m. transversity, the Melosh-Wigner rotation giving

$$h_1(x,𝐩_{})=\left[q_0^+(𝐩)q_0^{}(𝐩)\right]D_{}(\theta _M,\varphi ).$$
(3)
Here

$$D_{}(\theta _M,\varphi )=cos^2\frac{\theta _M}{2}+sin^2\frac{\theta _M}{2}(2sin^2\varphi 1)$$
(4)
and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle of $`𝐩_{}`$ with respect to the plane perpendicular to the nucleon spin vector. Eqs. (1) to (4) imply

$$\frac{h_1(x)}{g_1(x)}1,$$
(5)
where $`g_1(x)=d^2p_{}g_1(x,𝐩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ and $`h_1(x)`$ is defined analogously. This inequality - which reduces to equality for a nonrelativistic bound state - holds at the starting point for QCD evolution, i. e., for very small values of $`Q^2`$ ($`<<1`$ $`GeV^2`$). This is confirmed by previous calculations, based on the constituent quark model, on the bag model, on light cone models or on the chiral quark model (see also ref. 12 for a review).

### 2.2 The Soffer inequality

At increasing $`Q^2`$, $`h_1`$ decreases much more rapidly than $`g_1`$, owing to a different evolution kernel. Therefore inequality (5) no longer holds true for sufficiently large values of $`Q^2`$. However, as I shall show in the next subsection, relation (5), together with the Soffer inequality, i.e.,

$$2|h_1(x)|f_1(x)+g_1(x),$$
(6)
implies an inequality which holds for any $`Q^2`$.

Indeed, (5) and (6) yield

$$2|g_1(x)|f_1(x)+g_1(x),$$
(7)
which is nontrivial for negative values of $`g_1(x)`$; in this case one has

$$3g_1(x)f_1(x).$$
(8)
Since $`f_1(x)`$ is nonnegative, inequality (8) holds true for any value of $`x`$. It is interesting to compare this inequality with a result of the nonrelativistic SU(6) quark model. For a valence $`d`$-quark in the nucleon, this model predicts

$$g_{1v}^d(x)=\frac{1}{3}f_{1v}^d(x).$$
(9)
As I have shown above, in a relativistic bound state with spinning constituents one has to take into account the Melosh-Wigner rotation, which produces a spin dilution (see also). Therefore eq. (9) is to be replaced by

$$0<g_{1v}^d(x)\frac{1}{3}f_{1v}^d(x),$$
(10)
whose upper bound is a particular case of (8).

### 2.3 Evolution equations

Now I show that, under rather general assumptions, inequality (8), if referred to valence quarks, holds true for any $`Q^2`$ $`>`$ $`Q_0^2`$, with $`Q_0^2`$ $``$ 1 $`GeV^2`$. To this end, define the function

$$\varphi (x,t)=f_{1v}(x,t)+3g_{1v}(x,t),t=ln\frac{Q^2}{Q_0^2},$$
(11)
and set $`\varphi (x,0)>0`$. For $`Q_0^2`$ $``$ 1 $`GeV^2`$, it looks reasonable to assume, like Bourrely et al., that $`f_{1v}(x,t)`$ and $`g_{1v}(x,t)`$ evolve according to the DGLAP equations at least for $`Q^2Q_0^2`$. Then, for $`t`$ $``$ $`0`$, the leading order (LO) QCD evolution equation reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\varphi (x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(t)}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}\varphi (y,t)P({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}),`$ (12)
$`P(z)`$ $`=`$ $`C_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+z^2}{1z^2}}\right)_+.`$ (13)
This is a consequence of the fact that at LO $`f_{1v}(x,t)`$ and $`g_{1v}(x,t)`$ have the same evolution kernel. Since eq. (12) preserves positivity, at LO $`\varphi (x,t)`$ is positive for any positive value of $`t`$. The effects of the next-to-leading order (NLO) approximation - which makes the quark densities scheme dependent and introduces a complication in the evolution of $`\varphi `$ \- are completely screened by the LO term and therefore do not affect the result.

Now, if I push $`Q_0^2`$ down to very small values ($`<<1GeV^2`$), a nonperturbative evolution of the type described in refs. \- based essentially on the chiral quark model \- could be assumed. In this case the elementary process determining the evolution is

$$q\pi q^{},$$
(14)
where $`q`$ is a quark and $`\pi `$ a pion. Considerations analogous to the DGLAP equation can be done in the framework of this model. In fact the LO evolution is described by an equation similar to (12), i. e.,

$$\frac{d}{dt}\varphi (x,t)=\frac{g_\pi ^2}{8\pi ^2}_x^1\frac{dy}{y}\varphi (y,t)P^{}(\frac{x}{y}).$$
(15)
Here $`g_\pi `$ is the pion-quark coupling constant and $`P^{}(z)`$ the splitting function for the process (14). Since $`P^{}(z)`$ again preserves positivity, and $`g_\pi `$ is small enough to assure the screening of NLO effects by the LO term, the model leads to conclusions similar to those drawn in the framework of perturbative QCD.

It is important to realize that, in the case of nonperturbative evolution, the result we have found does not depend on the specific model assumed. Indeed, the same reasoning holds equally true for any evolution mechanism of the type

$$qBq^{},$$
(16)
where $`q`$ is a quark and $`B`$ a boson - not necessarily a gluon or a pion -, provided the probability of such an elementary process

i) is sufficiently small,

ii) preserves positivity,

iii) is helicity independent at LO.

But the third requirement is a necessary consequence of helicity conservation and implies that $`f_{1v}(x,t)`$ and $`g_{1v}(x,t)`$ have the same LO evolution kernel. On the other hand, any realistic process of the type (16) satisfies conditions i) and ii). Therefore I conclude that inequality (8) is true under quite general assumptions, and practically for any $`Q^2`$, since $`Q_0^2`$ may assume very small values. This constitutes a nontrivial bound to the parametrizations of the quark distribution functions. In fact, it implies, together with the positivity constraint,

$$1/3f_{1v}(x)g_{1v}(x)f_{1v}(x),$$
(17)
which is stronger than the inequality

$$|g_1(x)|f_1(x),$$
(18)
usually taken into account in the fits to data of polarized deep inelastic scattering.

## 3 APPLICATIONS

Now I compare bound (17) with models and parametrizations of quark distributions, especially as to the down flavor. For example, the predictions of some models, like the constituent quark model and the Carlitz-Kaur model, fulfil inequality (17). On the contrary, in a best fit to semi-inclusive data, the ratio $`g_1^d(x)/f_1^d(x)`$ does not satisfy this inequality for $`x>0.1`$; this casts some doubts on that fit, since for sufficiently large $`x`$ ($`x`$ $`>`$ $`x_0`$, with $`x_0`$ $``$ $`0.2`$) the quark distributions derive their contributions essentially from valence quarks.

Integrating over $`x`$ from 0 to 1 all the terms which appear in the inequality (17) yields

$$n_q/3<\mathrm{\Delta }q_vn_q.$$
(19)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_v`$ is the first moment of $`g_{1v}(x)`$ and $`n_q`$ the valence number, $`n_q`$ = 2 for $`u`$-quarks and 1 for $`d`$-quarks. The lower bound (19) is not respected by the $`d`$-quark parametrizations deduced from the best fits in the literature. Leader, Sidorov and Stamenov, who assume an $`SU(3)`$-symmetric polarized sea, find, at $`Q^2`$ = 1 $`GeV^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }d_v`$ = 0.339-0.341. On the other hand, the best fits by Bartelski and Tatur, who do not assume any constraint for the sea, result, at the same $`Q^2`$-value, in $`\mathrm{\Delta }d_v`$ = 0.60-0.68. Therefore I conclude that, although SU(3) symmetry is probably violated by polarized sea quark distributions, a fit without contraints is quite unreliable. As I shall show in a moment, some bounds on polarized sea distributions must be taken into account.

Indeed, (17), together with the well-known relations

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}\mathrm{\Delta }d\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}=\stackrel{~}{a}_3,`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}+\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}2\mathrm{\Delta }s2\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{s}=\stackrel{~}{a}_8,`$ (21)
allows to deduce an important inequality about longitudinally polarized sea distributions. In eqs. (20) and (21) $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}`$ denote the first moments of the quark and antiquark polarized distributions, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_3`$ = $`(1.2670\pm 0.0035)\alpha _s/\pi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_8`$ = $`(0.585\pm 0.025)\alpha _s/\pi `$. Considering the splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ = $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_v+\mathrm{\Delta }q_s`$ into valence and sea contributions, eqs. (20) and (21) yield

$$\mathrm{\Delta }d_v=0.341\pm 0.014+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{s}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{d},$$
(22)
having set $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{q}`$ = $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_s+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}`$. Therefore the first inequality (19) implies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{s}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{d}>0.008\pm 0.014,$$
(23)
indicating that the SU(3) flavor symmetry for the longitudinally polarized sea distributions is very unlikely, although it cannot be completely excluded. This result confirms the analysis by other authors.

Lastly, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{s}`$ is negative, inequality (23) implies

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{d}<\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{s}<0,$$
(24)
i. e., a negatively polarized sea. This confirms the result that can be inferred from data of polarized deep inelastic scattering. Vice versa, inequality (24) contradicts the interpretation in terms of a positive sea polarization of recent data of semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering.

## 4 CONCLUSION

Here I recall the main results illustrated in my talk.

1. I have proved bound (17) for any $`Q^2`$-value.

2. This bound is especially important in setting limits to fit parameters and in discriminating between correct and wrong models. In particular, I find that the predictions of some models agree with that bound; on the contrary, recent distributions, resulting from best fits, violate it.

3. A bound on the polarized sea distributions is deduced, which turns out to agree with some analyses of the EMC effect, also known as ”spin crisis”.


text:
# A Millikelvin Scanned Probe for Measurement of Nanostructures

## I Introduction

A variety of scanned probe techniques has been adapted or developed to study nanostructures and transport at cryogenic temperatures, including atomic force microscopy,Pelekhov et al. (1999); Rychen et al. (1999) scanned gate microscopy,Eriksson et al. (1996) scanning capacitance microscopy,Tessmer et al. (1998) and Kelvin probe microscopy.Vančura et al. (2003) Crook et al. recently even reported a technique for nanolithography using a scanned probe at dilution refrigerator temperatures.Crook et al. (2003) Here we describe a cryogenic scanning force microscope (SFM) operating at millikelvin temperatures and in high magnetic fields. The SFM was motivated by a desire to locate and probe large numbers of single electron transistors (SET’s), in order to measure single donors in silicon and to observe single charge motion.Kane et al. (2000) SET’s and quantum point contacts are the most sensitive devices yet discovered for measuring electric charge, with a sensitivity near the theoretical quantum limit of $`10^6`$ e$`/\sqrt{Hz}`$. Nevertheless, the high impedance of these devices and their required operating temperature in the millikelvin regime has generally restricted their use to low frequencies in a dilution refrigerator. One solution to this bandwidth problem is the RF-SET.Schoelkopf et al. (1998) Another solution is a preamplifier close to the SET or point contact that minimizes parasitic capacitances.Visscher et al. (1996); Pohlen et al. (1999) Although frequency domain multiplexing RF-SET’s can be used with small numbers of devices,Stevenson et al. (2002) in general both of these solutions suffer from the limitation that measuring a new device requires a full warmup and cooldown cycle of the refrigerator. Our millikelvin scanned probe circumvents this problem, effectively acting as a multiplexer. The imaging capability of the SFM locates a particular SET within an array, and a conducting probe tip provides an electrical connection between that SET and a cryogenic preamplifier for measurements.

## II Experimental Setup

Fig. 1 shows the physical layout of the microscope.

The force sensor is a quartz tuning fork (Raltron R38-32.768-12.5) with a sharpened W tip glued to one of its tines.ral  The sub-pW power dissipation of the fork has no measureable effect on the base temperature of our refrigerator, and the laser-free piezoelectric detection scheme avoids problems with light sensitive samples. The scanner is a commercial cryogenic STM scan head (Omicron’s CryoSXMcry ) modified for SFM and mounted on the baseplate of an Oxford Kelvinox 100 dilution refrigerator. The microscope incorporates a cryogenic amplifier for maximum sensitivity and bandwidth. We use a phase-locked loop (Nanosurf easyPLLeas ) to excite the fork.

Piezoelectric quartz tuning forks have been used as force sensors in scanning probe microscopy for several years now. Mechanical and electrical modelsGrober et al. (2000); Karrai and Grober (1995); Rychen et al. (2000a, b) predict that forces acting on a fork change its resonant frequency and Q. Frictional forces change Q while conservative forces change the frequency. Our microscope uses the frequency shift as the force dependent signal, varying the tip height to maintain a constant shift while rastering over the sample surface.

Fig. 2 shows a block diagram of the microscope’s operation.

The tuning fork is excited with an AC potential applied to one of its electrodes. The other electrode is held at virtual ground by the input of a cryogenic transimpedance amplifier, discussed below. We use a bridge circuitGrober et al. (2000) to eliminate the effects of stray capacitance between the two electrodes. The current flowing between the two electrodes, as measured by the transimpedance amplifier, is a simple but effective way to measure the motion of the fork.

We use a phase-locked loop to monitor the frequency of the fork and to insure that it is always driven on resonance.Albrecht et al. (1991) This PLL has a nominal sensitivity of 5 mHz in a 1 kHz bandwidth, but we obtain a sensitivity less than this in practice, typically a few tens of mHz. This sensitivity is limited primarily by white noise from the cryogenic amplifier near the resonant frequency.

The scanner was originally designed designed for STM at 4.2 K in a helium exchange gas environment. We have detached the scan head from its original mounting rod and attached it to the base plate of the dilution refrigerator. The high-voltage signals for piezo control are carried on twisted pairs from room temperature to 4.2 K and on superconducting twisted pairs from 4.2 K to the mixing chamber, thereby minimizing Johnson heating of the refrigerator while scanning. In contrast with Omicron’s intended configuration, we scan the tuning fork with the sample fixed. This allows us to connect multiple leads to the sample and to control its temperature more easily.

The maximum $`\pm `$135 V scan voltage provided by the Omicron electronics gives a range of 35 $`\mu `$m x 35 $`\mu `$m at room temperature. This decreases to 7 $`\mu `$m x 7 $`\mu `$m at 4.2 K and below, a range that is frequently too small to be useful. The z-range similarly decreases from 2.7 $`\mu `$m to 0.5 $`\mu `$m. To increase the scan range at low temperatures we have added an additional high-voltage amplifier (RHK HVA-900rhk ) that provides scan voltages up to $`\pm `$450 V, yielding a maximum scan range of 22 $`\mu `$m x 22 $`\mu `$m and a maximum z-range of 1.8 $`\mu `$m below 4.2 K. The scanner also provides a slip-stick based coarse motion both in the x-y plane and in the z-direction. Motions of a few mm in x and y and up to a few cm in z is possible. However, we have at times found coarse motion in the x-y plane to be unreliable.

## III Cryogenic Amplifier Electronics

The microscope requires a transimpedance amplifier to measure the current through the tuning fork while scanning. The same amplifier measures the current through an SET while probing. To decrease the unavoidable parasitic capacitances in these measurements we have constructed a cryogenic amplifier and placed it near the sample on a copper rod heat sunk to 4.2 K. As an added benefit the cryogenically cooled current-sensing resistor has significantly lower Johnson noise than it has at room temperature. The amplifier is based upon a low-noise silicon JFET (Moxtek MX120,mox  input-referred voltage noise $``$ 3 nV$`/\sqrt{Hz}`$, 1/f knee below 1 kHz) that stops working below $`60`$ K. In order to maintain most of the circuit at 4.2 K while allowing the JFET to heat above 60 K we have designed the circuit with two printed circuit boards. The lower board contains most of the circuit elements and is held at 4.2 K. The upper board containing the JFET is mounted to the lower one with $`1/16`$” diameter nylon standoffs. All connections between the two boards are made with 25 $`\mu `$m diameter stainless steel wire to minimize thermal loading. The amplifier dissipates $``$ 20 mW during operation and raises the base temperature of the refrigerator by less than 0.5 mK to about 15 mK. To achieve such a small thermal load on the mixing chamber it is crucial that the copper box enclosing the amplifier is leak-tight, light-tight, and well heat sunk to the 4.2 K bath. A charcoal sorb inside the box captures residual gas that otherwise would prevent the JFET from heating properly.

The input to the amplifier is capacitively coupled via a 4.7 nF capacitor and a coaxial cable to one of the tuning fork electrodes, and via the metallization on the tuning fork to the conducting probe tip. We capacitively couple the signal to avoid problems with DC offsets. For thermalization at the mixing chamber the coax has a 2 cm length of Stycast 2850FT as its dielectric, which contributes $``$ 18 pF stray capacitance to ground. The remainder of the coax has a vacuum dielectric to minimize its capacitance, so that the total stray input capacitance, including the gate capacitance of the JFET, is only $``$ 35 pF. This means that for a 50 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ SET the bandwidth of measurement is limited to $`100`$ kHz. Higher speeds are possible only at the expense of further noise.

## IV Scan Modes

For the purposes of locating micron-sized pads and contacting a large number of them in a reasonable period of time, scan speed rather than scan resolution is the critical factor. We would ideally like to scan the entire 22 $`\mu `$m range of the scanner in a few minutes. We have investigated three different force regimes or scan modes: a short-range repulsive force mode, a weaker attractive force mode, and a long-range electrostatic force mode. The repulsive mode, corresponding to positive frequency shifts of a few Hz, yields the highest resolution images but is the least useful for our purposes. The very small tip-sample separation and highly nonlinear frequency vs. separation dependence make optimization of the feedback loop difficult and leads to frequent tip crashes at reasonable speeds. Faster scanning is possible with a weaker attractive force, corresponding to negative frequency shifts of a few hundred mHz. However, with this scan mode we were only successful using smaller, more sensitive forks that have other disadvantages as explained below in Section VII. The fastest scanning is obtained by charging up the tip through a diode, so that it feels a strong attractive force from the image charges in the sample.Seo et al. (2002) The resulting force is of sufficient range to have easily measured effects even with tip-sample separations greater than 50 nm. This scan mode even works on insulating substrates (e.g. SiO2) provided that the dielectric constant of the substrate differs from that of the vacuum, and yields scanning speeds of 20 $`\mu `$m/s or more.

## V Samples

Our samples consist of a 100 $`\mu `$m x 100 $`\mu `$m array of Al-AlO2-Al SET’s fabricated with standard e-beam lithography and double-angle evaporation.Dolan (1977) Each SET has a small island weakly coupled to source and drain leads via oxide tunnel barriers and capacitively coupled to a gate. The drain-source current is strongly dependent on gate voltage, provided that the resistance of the tunnel junctions is $`h/e^225.9`$ k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.Fulton and Dolan (1987) A schematic of the sample layout is shown in Fig. 3.

Within the array, all of the SET gate terminals are wired to a single coaxial lead, and all of the drain terminals to another. The source terminal of each SET is connected to its own 3 $`\mu `$m x 3 $`\mu `$m Pt contact pad.

Sample fabrication proceeds through three layers of lithography. First the common gate and drain leads as well as the source contact pads are patterned with photolithography. A trilayer consisting of 30 Å Ti, 120 Å Pt, and 2500 Å Au is deposited. Second, we mask the Au bond pads with another layer of photolithography and etch the Au away near the sample center to expose the Pt layer. This leaves a thick Au layer for the bond pads but a thin Pt layer for the SET array. The array metallization needs to be both thin and oxide free. Thin metallization allows us to increase the scan speed of the microscope. The metal surface must be oxide free to insure low resistance contact between it and the Al SET lithography, as well as to insure low resistance contact between the contact pads and the microscope tip during probing. Third, we use standard e-beam lithography to write the SET’s and ash the sample to remove any organics. The sample is attached with a spring clip to a printed circuit board, and Au wires are attached to the lithographically defined leads. It is important that the wires all come off the sample in a single direction, away from where the scanned probe will be, so as not to obstruct its motion.

Typical measurements proceed in two sequential steps. First we scan the surface of the sample until we find an SET of interest. Then we turn off the tip-sample feedback loop and establish electrical contact between the probe tip and the Pt contact pad (lightly crash the tip). An AC voltage (50 - 100 kHz) is applied to the drain lead, and the current through the SET is monitored with the cryogenic amplifier and a lock-in.

The only topographic information required for this measurement is the location of the contact pads. These are large and separated from the surrounding lithography by 2 $`\mu `$m on all sides. Therefore the required resolution of the SFM is only about 1 $`\mu `$m. This fact is important as the probe resolution tends to deteriorate over time with repeated probing and cleaning.

## VI Results and Discussion

Fig. 4 is an image taken at millikelvin temperature showing part of an SET array.

The image clearly demonstrates resolution well below 1 $`\mu `$m at a scan speed of 15 $`\mu `$m/s and a scan range of 22 $`\mu `$m. Although we observe no extra heating of the refrigerator while the scan piezo is held motionless, there was enough heating during scanning to raise the temperature of the sample from 15 mK to 190 mK. The amount of heating depends strongly on the scan size and speed. In practice this heating should not cause problems because the piezo is held motionless while probing an SET.

We have electrically probed several SET’s on multiple samples. Fig. 5 shows characteristic coulomb blockade oscillations.

A 100 kHz, 100 $`\mu `$V rms voltage was applied to the drain lead, and the in-phase component of the resulting AC current was measured by a lock-in. The SET was kept in the normal state by a 1 T magnetic field. The current never drops all the way to zero on the modulation curve because the 100 $`\mu `$V rms drain-source voltage is larger than the coulomb blockade plateau. We observed flicker noise in these measurements far in excess of what we would expect and are conducting further experiments to determine the source.

We also made measurements of the charge sensitivity of the SET/amplifier configuration. Applying a known amount of charge to the gate of the SET and measuring the response at the output of the lock-in calibrates the gain. Comparing this gain with the noise measured at the output of the lock-in gives the charge sensitivity. For our most recent devices with resistance $``$ 80 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we have measured a charge sensitivity of $`2.610^5`$ $`e/\sqrt{Hz}`$. This sensitivity is limited by the Johnson noise of our feedback resistor (20 $`nV/\sqrt{Hz}`$) and by the input-referred voltage noise of our amplifier. The equivalent current noise values are 20 $`fA/\sqrt{Hz}`$ and 38 $`fA/\sqrt{Hz}`$, comparable to the intrinsic $`10`$ $`fA/\sqrt{Hz}`$ shot noise of the SET.

## VII Experimental Challenges

Following the advice of Giessibl,Giessibl (1998) we at one point tried to use smaller forks with an entire prong glued down. A smaller spring constant should yield higher force sensitivity, and gluing down an entire prong should give a Q independent of the mass of the tip, while for a fork glued only at its base the tip mass breaks the symmetry of the tines and leads to dissipation. However, we found that tuning forks with an entire prong glued down exhibit a strong coupling with the piezo scan tube. This manifests itself as seemingly random shifts in the fork resonant frequency when the scan tube expands or contracts, making scanning difficult or impossible. We observed no similar shifts using forks glued only at the base, presumably because in this case the vibration is decoupled from its support. In constrast, a fork with its entire prong glued down incorporates its support structure into the system, and we might expect that small changes in the support structure could strongly affect its vibrations. One way to avoid this problem would be to scan the sample instead of the fork.

Another challenge is to establish low-resistance contacts reliably and repeatably between the Pt contact pads and the probe tip. We have had success with both PtIr and W tips and repeatably get contact resistances less than 1 k$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, although to date we have been most successful using W tips. We expected to have no difficulties with PtIr tips due to the lack of native oxide but found that they were contaminated easily. Therefore we inevitably need to clean the tip with field-emission into the sample before making the first contact after cooldown. With the tip only $``$ 1 nm away from the sample surface we apply successively more negative voltages until we see an abrupt increase in the tip-sample current, indicating a clean tip. To maintain a clean sample surface while cooling we take care to maintain its temperature above that of the walls of the vacuum space, insuring that any contaminants condense on the walls instead.Rychen et al. (1999)

## VIII Conclusions and Prospects

We have successfully demonstrated a scanning force microscope with sub-micron resolution at dilution refrigerator temperatures and in high magnetic fields. By imaging the sample to locate individual SET’s within a large array and making electrical contact to each SET in turn with the conducting probe tip, we can measure large numbers of SET’s with low noise and high bandwidth during a single cooldown. While our application is to arrays of SET’s, the cryogenic scanned probe could be applied to many other situations where it is necessary to measure large numbers of high-impedance nanostructures.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Thomas Ihn, Barry Barker, and Ray Phaneuf for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Advanced Research and Development Activity and the National Security Agency.


text:
# Single-electron charging and detection in a laterally-coupled quantum dot circuit in the few-electron regime

## I Introduction

Lateral GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dots (QD’s) are now routinely fabricated with planar technology.Kastner  Three-dimensional (3D) quantum confinement is achieved, in part, by using the GaAs/AlGaAs semiconductor heterostructures to confine the conduction electrons into a two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) at the interface between the two materials. By placing metal gates on top of such a structure, carrier confinement in other in-plane directions can be realized by energizing the gates that create lateral energy barriers to electrons in the 2DEG. Design of these QD’s, which previously contained tens of electrons, has been improved to operate them in a few-electron regime where the charging of the very first electrons can be observed experimentally.Ciorga  Two quantum dots can be placed adjacent to each other to form a laterally coupled device with both electrostatic and quantum-mechanical coupling between them.Waugh ; Elzerman  Fine variations of the top gate biases change the confinement of each dot, while precise coupling between them through the central gates leads to a fully tunable two-qubit quantum system, which can be used as a building block for quantum computing.Loss

Recently, it has been shown that laterally-coupled quantum dots (LCQD) containing a few conduction electrons could be coupled to single charge detectors to form an integrated quantum circuit.Elzerman  The read-out of the charge state in the LCQD is realized by integrating monolithically quantum point contacts (QPC’s) adjacent to each of the QD’s. Each QPC can be calibrated through electrostatic coupling with the dots so that its conductivity changes abruptly once a single-electron charging event occurs in one of the dots.Field ; Sprinzak  With this sensitive detector, it is then possible to obtain the “stability diagram” that describes the stable charge regimes of the LCQD as a function of the tuning (plunger) gate biases.Pothier ; Wiel

This quantum dot circuit has a two-fold advantage: it is possible (i) to scale it to a quantum dot array, (ii) to perform single-quantum sensitivity measurements, both of which are favorable features of a realizable quantum computer.Bennett

In this paper we study the properties of the above circuit via numerical simulation that involves the self-consistent solution of coupled Poisson and Kohn-Sham equations discretized on a 3D mesh.Mat1 ; Mat2  In Sec. II we describe the LCQD structure and in Sec. III we present the approach for solving the Kohn-Sham equations in the device environment within the local spin density approximation (LSDA) and express the criterion used to determine the charging events as a function of the applied gate biases. In Sec. IV we present our simulation results of the circuit, including both electrostatic and quantum-mechanical features, the functionality of the QPC’s, and the stability diagram in the few-electron charging regime. Finally, we summarize our work in Sec. V.

## II Dot Structures

Figure 1(a) shows the top view of the LCQD and QPC gates in the $`xy`$-plane.Elzerman  Top L-, R-, T- and M-gates are used to define the two coupled-dot region. Among them, the T- and M-gates can also control the coupling between the two dots. The PL- and PR-gates, called the “plungers,” have smaller feature sizes than the other gates and are used for fine tuning the confinement of each dot. The QPC-L and QPC-R gates are associated with the L- and R-gates (via the tips) to form the QPC detectors. Charging paths into the dots (shown by the ovals) from external reservoirs are shown by curved arrows, whereas the QPC currents are shown by straight arrows. Figure 1(b) shows a cross-sectional view of the layer structure in the $`z`$-direction. Our model involves four different layers of semiconductor materials (from top to bottom): a 50-Å thick $`n`$-type ($`N_D=1.5\times 10^{18}`$ cm-3) GaAs layer, a 650-Å thick $`n`$-type ($`N_D=0.31\times 10^{18}`$ cm-3) Al0.27Ga0.73As layer, a 200-Å thick undoped Al0.27Ga0.73As layer, and a 1610-nm thick $`p`$-type ($`N_A=1.0\times 10^{15}`$ cm-3) GaAs layer. The 2DEG is formed at the interface between the undoped AlGaAs layer and the lightly $`p`$-type doped GaAs layer (900 Å below the top surface).

## III Numerical Model

The electron density in the LCQD region is obtained by describing the charge carriers within the density functional theory (DFT) that incorporates many-body effects among particles.Jones  In order to take into account the spin dependence of the electron-electron interaction, the Kohn-Sham equationsKohn  for spin-up ($``$) and spin-down ($``$) are solved simultaneously:

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{}\psi _i^{}(𝐫)=\epsilon _i^{}\psi _i^{}(𝐫),\\ H^{}\psi _i^{}(𝐫)=\epsilon _i^{}\psi _i^{}(𝐫).\end{array}$$
$`(1)`$
Here $`\epsilon _i^{()}`$ and $`\psi _i^{()}`$ are the corresponding eigenenergies and eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $`H^{()}`$:

$$H^{()}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}\left[\frac{1}{m^{}(𝐫)}\right]q\varphi (𝐫)+\mathrm{\Delta }E_c+\varphi _{xc}^{()}(n),$$
$`(2)`$
where $`m^{}(𝐫)`$ is the position dependent effective mass. $`\varphi (𝐫)=\varphi _{ext}+\varphi _{ion}+\varphi _H`$ is the electrostatic potential which consists three parts: $`\varphi _{ext}`$ is the potential due to external gate biases, $`\varphi _{ion}`$ is the potential resulting from ionized donors and acceptors, and $`\varphi _H`$ is the Hartree potential accounting for repulsive electron-electron interactions. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_c`$ is the conduction-band offset between different materials, and $`\varphi _{xc}^{()}(𝐫)`$ is the exchange-correlation potential energy for spin-up ($``$) and spin-down ($``$) computed within the local spin density approximation (LSDA) according to Perdew and Wang’s formulation.Perdew  Hence our approach is spin unrestricted by allowing for different orbitals with different spins.

The electron density $`n(𝐫)`$ in the LCQD region is

$$n(𝐫)=n^{}(𝐫)+n^{}(𝐫)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{}}{}}\left|\psi _i^{}(𝐫)\right|^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{}}{}}\left|\psi _i^{}(𝐫)\right|^2,$$
$`(3)`$
where $`N_{}+N_{}=N`$ is the total number of electrons in the dots.

The electrostatic potential $`\varphi (𝐫)`$ is computed by solving Poisson’s equation

$$\left[ϵ(𝐫)\varphi (𝐫)\right]=\rho (𝐫),$$
$`(4)`$
where $`ϵ(𝐫)`$ is the position-dependent permittivity and $`\rho (𝐫)`$ is the total charge density given by

$$\rho (𝐫)=q\left[N_D^+(𝐫)N_A^{}(𝐫)+p(𝐫)n(𝐫)\right].$$
$`(5)`$
Here $`N_D^+(𝐫)`$ and $`N_A^{}(𝐫)`$ are the ionized donor and acceptor concentrations in the relevant device layers, $`p(𝐫)`$ is the hole concentration, and $`n(𝐫)`$ is the total electron concentration given by Eq. (3) in the QD region, while outside this region the free electron charge is entirely determined by using the semi-classical Thomas-Fermi approximation.Mat2

We solve Kohn-Sham and Poisson equations self-consistently by finite element method.Mat1 ; Mat2  Zero normal electric field on lateral and bottom surfaces and Schottky barrier values on the top surface are imposed as boundary conditions for the solution of Poisson equation. Since the quantum dots are much smaller than the physical dimensions of the device, the wavefunctions actually vanish long before reaching the device boundaries. This allows us to embed a local region in the global mesh for solving the Kohn-Sham equations. This local region is chosen large enough to ensure vanishing wavefunctions on its boundaries. A non-uniform 3D grid of 141, 52 and 71 mesh points in the $`x`$-, $`y`$\- and $`z`$-directions respectively, is used for solving Poisson equation, while $`71\times 45\times 19`$ grid points are used to discretize the local region where Kohn-Sham wavefunctions are evaluated.

Because the LCQD are weakly coupled to the external reservoirs, we assume that electrons in the dots are completely localized in that region. At equilibrium, and for a given bias, an integer number of electrons $`N`$ minimizes the total energy $`E_T`$ of the dots. In order to determine $`N`$, we use the Slater formula:Slater

$$E_T(N+1)E_T(N)=_0^1\epsilon _{LUO}(n)𝑑n\epsilon _{LUO}(1/2)E_F,$$
$`(6)`$
where $`E_T(N+1)`$, $`E_T(N)`$ are the total energies for $`N+1`$, $`N`$ electrons in the dots, and $`\epsilon _{LUO}(1/2)`$ is the eigenenergy of “the lowest unoccupied orbital” with half occupancy. The sign change of the right-hand side of Eq. (6), as a function of the tuning gate voltage, determines the electron occupation in the LCQD. In our simulation, we use a variation of the above rule where charging occurs when $`\epsilon _{LUO}(1)E_F=E_F\epsilon _{LUO}(0)`$, which was justified in Ref. 12.

## IV Results and Discussions

Figures 2 shows the conduction band edge profiles in the $`xy`$-plane at the 2DEG interface (contour plot, Fig. 2(a)) and in the $`z`$-direction (Fig. 2(b)) under the condition $`V_L=V_R=V_{QPCL}=V_{QPCR}=V_M=0.585`$ V, $`V_T=0.9`$ V, $`V_{PL}=V_{PR}=0.15`$ V (These voltages correspond to point A in Fig. 8.) and zero electrons in the dots. The Fermi level is set at zero throughout the device at the temperature $`T=4`$ K. The LCQD region and the QPC region with low equipotential-line density are clearly visible in Fig. 2(a). The outer energy barrier for the LCQD is $`110`$ meV whereas the energy barrier between the dots is $`9`$ meV. A large negative T gate bias is used to prevent the wavefunctions from leaking into the external reservoirs, which clearly defines the LCQD region. The confinement along the $`z`$-direction is achieved by a quasi-triangular shaped well shown in Fig. 2(b), for which the relaxation of the potential to zero-field is not shown at the far end (substrate) of the device. Due to the strong confinement in the triangular well, only the ground state along the $`z`$-direction is occupied (the shape of the ground state wavefunction along the $`z`$-direction is shown in the inset in Fig. 2(b).). Under the above condition, the wavefunction contour plots in the $`xy`$-plane at the 2DEG interface are shown in ascending energies for the first eight spin-up ($``$) eigenstates in Fig. 3. A similar set of wavefunctions is obtained for the spin-down ($``$) eigenstates (not shown). They are similar to orbitals observed in diatomic molecules: the two columns represent the familiar bonding and anti-bonding state pairs. Notice that the shape of the wavefunctions reflects the shape of the confinement seen in the local minima of the conduction band edge in Fig. 2(a).

In Figure 4(a), we show the variation of the first eight spin-up ($``$) eigenenergies when the plunger gate bias configuration is changed from the values $`V_{PL}=V_{PR}=0.15`$ V to the new values $`V_{PL}=0.15`$ V, $`V_{PR}=0.06`$ V. The first eight eigenenergies are separated into two groups, one for the right dot (solid lines) and one for the left dot (dashed lines), which are lowered simultaneously as the right plunger gate bias increases. However, the eigenenergies of the right dot decrease more rapidly than those of the left dot because of the proximity of the former to the varying plunger. At $`V_{PR}=0.074`$ V, the charging of the first electron (spin-up ($``$)) occurs in the right dot, which is indicated by a discontinuity of $`8.2\times 10^4`$ eV in the variation of the ground state energy level with respect to the right plunger gate bias. At the same gate bias, we also observe a jump of the conduction band edge in the constriction of the two QPC’s, i.e., $`2.6\times 10^6`$ eV for the left QPC and $`5.4\times 10^6`$ eV for the right QPC (see Fig. 4(b), where the vertical axis is shifted up by 0.0201 eV for clarity). The up-shift of the conduction band edge in the QPC constriction results from the Coulomb interaction between the electrons in the LCQD and electrons in the QPC’s, which reduces the total charge number in the conduction channel and leads to a discontinuity in the QPC current observed in experiments.Elzerman  Obviously, the right QPC is more sensitive to the single-electron charging because of its proximity with the right dot. On the stability diagram (Fig. 8), this transition is represented by the vertical A to B line with the diamond indicating the charging point for the first electron.

From the eigenenergies variation vs. $`V_{PR}`$ diagram (Fig. 4(a)), we also observe three “anti-crossing” points between the two different sets of eigenenergy levels, each arising from the distinct QD’s as mentioned above and indicated by arrows in Fig. 4(a), i.e., ($`\alpha `$) at $`V_{PR}0.09`$ V, between the 3rd and 4th excited states; ($`\beta `$) at $`V_{PR}0.07`$ V, between the 3rd and 4th excited states; and ($`\gamma `$) at $`V_{PR}0.11`$ V, between the 5th and 6th excited states. The behavior of the system near the “anti-crossing” points can be further illustrated by examining the evolution of the wavefunctions for the “anti-crossing” levels. “Interchange” of the wavefunctions is clearly observed before and after these points. In Fig. 5, contour plots of the wavefunctions in the $`xy`$-plane at the 2DEG interface are shown for the three “anti-crossing” points: the 3rd and 4th excited states labeled $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$ at $`V_{PR}=0.10`$ V and $`\alpha _1^{}`$, $`\alpha _2^{}`$ at $`V_{PR}=0.08`$ V, respectively; the 3rd and 4th excited states labeled $`\beta _1`$, $`\beta _2`$ at $`V_{PR}=0.074`$ V and $`\beta _1^{}`$, $`\beta _2^{}`$ at $`V_{PR}=0.06`$ V; and the 5th and 6th excited states labeled $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _2`$ at $`V_{PR}=0.12`$ V and $`\gamma _1^{}`$, $`\gamma _2^{}`$ at $`V_{PR}=0.10`$ V.

The detection of single-electron charging events can also be carried out for the B to C transition in Fig. 8, in which the right plunger gate bias $`V_{PR}`$ is fixed to be $`0.06`$ V while the left plunger gate bias is changed from $`V_{PL}=0.15`$ V to $`V_{PL}=0.06`$ V. The variation of the spin-up ($``$) eigenenergies with respect to the Fermi level and the conduction band edge in the constriction of the two QPC’s are shown in Figs. 6(a) and (b), respectively. In this case, the transition of the charging state is from one electron in the right dot to two electrons, one in each dot occupying an individual $`1S`$-like orbital,Nagaraja  and occurs when the left plunger gate bias $`V_{PL}`$ is at $`0.097`$ V. The charging of the second electron into the system is localized in the left dot and is indicated by the jump of the first excited state energy level. Note that in this case, the variation of eigenenergies in the left QD (dashed lines) is larger than those in the right dot (solid lines). In our LSDA approach, the second electron has the same spin (spin-up ($``$)) as the first one as they are uncorrelated by the height of the coupling barrier. The corresponding jump of the conduction band edge is $`5.6\times 10^6`$ eV for the left QPC and $`2.8\times 10^6`$ eV for the right one. The left QPC is more sensitive to the second electron charging because it occurs in the left dot. Fig. 7 shows the spin-up ($``$) wavefunctions in ascending energies (from top to bottom) after the charging of the second electron for two bias conditions, 1) $`V_{PL}=0.08`$ V and 2) $`V_{PL}=0.06`$ V (for both cases, $`V_{PR}=0.06`$ V). It demonstrates the evolution of the wavefunctions from an asymmetric configuration with different eigenenergy levels for two electrons in the system to a symmetric one where eigenenergy levels are fully degenerate.

Following the same procedure as described above, we can find another charging path for the first electron charging, i.e., from point E to F in Fig. 8, and for the charging from one to two electrons, F to G in Fig. 8, for distinct stable charge regimes of electrons in the two dots. On the path E to F ($`V_{PL}`$ is fixed to $`0.125`$ V, $`V_{PR}`$ is changed from $`0.125`$ V to $`0.07`$ V), charging happens for the first electron (spin-up ($``$)) in the right dot at $`V_{PR}=0.082`$ V; on the path F to G ($`V_{PR}`$ is fixed to $`0.07`$ V, $`V_{PL}`$ is changed from $`0.125`$ V to $`0.07`$ V), charging happens for the second electron (spin-up ($``$)) in the left dot at $`V_{PL}=0.092`$ V.

We can further interchange the plunger gate biases and obtain different transitions, i.e., from A to D to C and E to H to G, as shown in Fig. 8 to realize closed cycles of charging and discharging paths. These two closed paths (dashed and dotted lines) are shown in Fig. 8. Each corner of the two squares is in a different stable charge state with numbers in the parentheses showing the electron number in the left and right dots, respectively, e.g., (0,1) means zero electron in the left dot and one in the right dot. On each path, we record the charging points (diamonds in Fig. 8) and make linear extrapolations between the two charging points on each two parallel paths, which leads to four lines crossing at two points (circles in Fig. 8).

The two crossing points are linked afterwards. Now, five segments (solid lines in Fig. 8) separate the diagram into four regions to define the stability diagram for the LCQD system in the few-electron charging regime. Each region, separated by the solid lines, indicates a stable charge configuration assumed by the LCQD under a particular range of plunger gate biases. More interesting are the two crossing points (circles), called the double-triple point,Wiel  occurring at $`V_{PL}=V_{PR}=0.0924`$ V for the three charging states (0,0), (0,1) and (1,0) and at $`V_{PL}=V_{PR}=0.0847`$ V for (0,1), (1,0) and (1,1) states. We then determine the voltage range of the right plunger that spans the distance between the double-triple point to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_{PR}=7.7`$ mV, which is comparable to the experimental result $`7.4`$ mV.Elzerman

Finally, from the charging diagrams in the few-electron regime we extract the addition energy for the second electron charging in the right dot: we determine the $`V_{PR}`$-voltage interval on the stability diagram for the (0,1) configuration (i.e., between the (0,0) configuration and the (0,2) configuration in the singlet state) to be $`0.1`$ V, which is in excellent agreement with the experimental result $`0.1`$ V.Elzerman  By linear projection of this $`V_{PR}`$ interval to the energy scale,Mat2  we obtain then the addition energy for charging the second electron, which is $`2.5`$ meV. By comparing this value to the experimental result of $`3.7`$ meV,Elzerman  we attribute the difference to the fact that our simulation is performed on a coupled-dot system, while the experimental result is obtained by grounding one of the dots where the confinement is stronger in an individual dot compared to our simulation case.

## V Conclusion

We performed numerical simulations of the electrostatic and quantum-mechanical characteristics of a novel laterally-coupled quantum dot circuit with integrated quantum point contact read-out. We were able to reproduce detailed single-electron charging behavior of the elementary quantum circuit and demonstrate the functionality of the QPC’s as single-electron charging detectors. In particular, we obtained excellent agreement with the experiment for the voltage range of the extension of the double-triple point at the (0,0) to (1,1) transition and the addition energy for single-electron charging in the dots, which validates our quantum device modeling approach for simulating efficiently nanoscale qubit circuits.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by DARPA QUIST program through ARO Grant DAAD 19-01-1-0659. The authors thank D. Melnikov for constructive discussions. L.-X. Zhang thanks R. Ravishankar, S. Barraza-Lopez for their technical assistance.