text:
# Transport and triplet superconducting condensate in mesoscopic ferromagnet-superconductor structures.

## 1 Introduction

In the last decade transport properties of mesoscopic superconductor/normal metal (S/N) structures were intensively studied (see for example the review articles  and references therein). It was established that in these nano-structures, i.e. in structures whose dimensions are less than the phase coherence length $`L_\phi `$ and the inelastic scattering length $`l_\epsilon `$, the conductance changes when decreasing the temperature below the critical temperature $`T_c`$ of the superconducting transition and this variation may be both positive ($`\delta G>0`$) and negative ($`\delta G<0`$) . The increase or decrease of the conductance $`G`$ depends, in particular, on the interface resistances and is determined by a competition between two contributions caused by the proximity effect. One of them is due to the suppression of the density-of-state (DOS) and leads to a decrease of the conductance. The second one results in increasing $`G`$ and is similar to the Maki-Thompson term .

These studies apparently were stimulated by the theoretical work  in which a weak-localization correction to the conductance of a S/N/S mesoscopic structure was calculated and an oscillatory dependence of this correction on the phase difference $`\phi `$ between the superconductors S was predicted. These oscillations have been indeed observed  but their amplitude turned out to be two orders of magnitude larger than the predicted one. In order to overcome this discrepancy between theory and experiment one should take into account the proximity effect. It was shown that the latter leads to much larger amplitudes of the conductance oscillations than the weak-localization corrections .

The proximity effect manifests itself also in other interesting peculiarities of the transport properties of S/N structures. One of them is an interesting dependence of the Josephson current $`I_c`$ on an additional dissipative current $`I_{ad}`$ through a N wire in a 4-terminal S/N/S structure similar to the one shown in the inset of Fig.4. According to theoretical predictions the current $`I_c`$ changes sign if the current $`I_{ad}`$ is large enough . This behavior of the Josephson current ($`\pi `$-contact) was later experimentally confirmed. Another interesting effect is a non-monotonic temperature $`T`$ (or voltage $`V`$) dependence of the correction to the conductance $`\delta G`$ . When decreasing the temperature, $`\delta G`$ increases, reaches a maximum and with further decrease of the temperature drops to zero. This behavior has been explained theoretically for the case of a short S/N contact ($`E_{Th}>>\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and a ”long” S/N structure ($`E_{Th}<<\mathrm{\Delta }`$) , here $`E_{Th}=\mathrm{}D/L^2`$ is the Thouless energy, $`D`$ is the diffusion constant, $`L`$ is the length of the N wire (film). The reason for this behavior is the competition between two contributions to the conductance mentioned above.

It is interesting to note that low-energy states play an important role in transport properties of S/N structures. The reason is that the condensate penetrates into the N wire over a length $`\xi _\epsilon =\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/\epsilon }`$ which may be much larger than the thermodynamic correlation length $`\xi _T=\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/2\pi T}`$ provided the characteristic energy $`\epsilon E_{Th}<<T.`$ Therefore, in the limit of low (compared to $`T`$) Thouless energy $`E_{Th},`$ the phase coherence is maintained over distances $`\xi _\epsilon =\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/E_{Th}}`$ of the order of the length $`L`$ of the N wire. These long-range phase-coherent effects have been predicted in  and observed on a 4-terminal S/N/S structure . In Ref. the conductance oscillations related to the phase coherence were observed in a S/N/S mesoscopic structure. It was established for the first time that these oscillations survive in a temperature range where the Josephson coupling between the superconductors becomes negligible. The authors of Ref. observed an increase in the Josephson critical current when an additional dissipative current was injected into the N region in a 4-terminal S/N/S structure. This current leads to long-range effects affecting the critical current.

Recently, similar investigations have been carried out on mesoscopic F/S structures in which ferromagnets (F) are used instead of normal (nonmagnetic) metals. It is well known that in the dirty limit, when the relaxation momentum time $`\tau `$ is very small ($`\tau <<\mathrm{}/h_{ex}`$, where $`h_{ex}`$ is the exchange energy), the condensate penetrates into a ferromagnet over a length $`\xi _F=\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/h_{ex}}`$. The latter is extremely short (5-50 Å) for strong ferromagnets like Fe or Ni. Therefore one might expect that the influence of the proximity effect on transport properties of such structures should be negligibly small. Experiments carried out recently on F/S structures showed however that the conductance variation $`\delta G`$ is quite visible (varying from about 1 to 10%) when the temperature decreases below $`T_c`$ . It is worth mentioning that the conduction variation was both positive and negative. In some experiments the variation $`\delta G`$ was related to a variation of the interface conductance (resistance) , whereas in others  to the conduction variation of the ferromagnetic wire $`\delta G_F`$. The theory also predicts both an increase  and decrease of the conductance.

In Refs.  a ballistic contact was analyzed. It was shown that at $`h_{ex}=0`$ the contact conductance $`G_{F/S}`$ is twice as large as its conductance $`G_{F/N}`$ in the normal state (above $`T_c`$), which agrees with a theoretical prediction for a N/S ballistic contact, and drops to zero at $`h_{ex}=E_F,`$ where $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy. The conductance of a diffusive point contact $`G_{F/S}`$ has been calculated by Golubov  who showed that $`G_{F/S}`$ is always smaller than the conductance $`G_{F/N}`$ in the normal state. In the case of a mixed conductivity mechanism (partly diffusive and partly ballistic) $`G_{F/S}`$ has been calculated in Ref.  and it may be both larger or smaller than the conductance in the normal state $`G_{F/N}`$.

In order to obtain the resistance of the system shown in Fig.4 one should add the interface resistances $`R_b`$ and the resistance of the F wire $`R_F`$. The conductance of the F wire $`G_F=R_F^1`$ under the assumption that $`R_b`$ is sufficiently small has been calculated in Refs. . As in Ref., the proximity effect was neglected. It turned out that the conductance of the F wire in the normal state was $`G_{Fn}=G_{}+G_{}`$ and was equal to $`G_{Fs}=4G_{}G_{}/(G_{}+G_{})`$ in the superconducting state (these formulas are valid for a F wire shorter than the spin relaxation length, see ). Thus, the conductance of the F wire decreases below $`T_c`$. The mechanism responsible for this behavior is in this case purely kinetic, since the form of the distribution function depends only on the boundary conditions at the interfaces: if the interface transparencies are perfect the distribution function is continuous in the normal state, while in the superconducting state the boundary condition is changed providing the spinless current through the F/S interface. These two different boundary conditions for the distribution function lead to the different values of the conductance above and below $`T_c`$. In the present paper we analyze the conductivity of a F/S structure in the dirty limit when the condition $`\tau <<\mathrm{}/h_{ex}`$ is satisfied.

In the next section we study the kinetic mechanism of the conductance variation in a F/S mesoscopic structure neglecting the proximity effect. The diffusion coefficients and the interface transparencies are assumed to be different for each spin direction. It will be shown that in this case the conductance variation is always negative, i.e. the conductance decreases with decreasing temperature below $`T_c`$.

In the third section we take into account the proximity effect (the condensate penetration into the ferromagnetic wire) and present the results for the conductance on the basis of exact calculations assuming equal diffusion constants and interface transparencies for spin up and down. We will see that for a strong exchange field $`E_{exc}>>T_c`$, the resistance variation $`\delta R`$ is positive at any temperature and interface resistance.

Finally, in section 4 we calculate the conductance variation assuming that the magnetization near the F/S interface has a local inhomogeneity. It will be shown that not only a singlet component arises in the F wire in this case but also a triplet one which penetrates into the F wire over a long distance of the order of $`\xi _m=\sqrt{D/ϵ_m}`$, where $`ϵ_m=\mathrm{min}\{T,E_{Th}\}`$. The penetration of the triplet component leads to a positive $`\delta G`$ which may be comparable with the conductance variation observed in N/S structures. The singlet component exists only in a very short region near the F/S interface and leads to a negligible contribution to the conductance.

## 2  Kinetic mechanism of the conductance variation

In this section, we calculate the conductance of the system shown in Fig.1. We neglect influence of the proximity effect on the conductance assuming that the penetration length of the condensate is very small in comparison with the length of the F wire. The penetration length of the condensate is equal to $`\xi _F=\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/h_{ex}}`$ in the dirty limit and to the mean free path $`l=v_F\tau `$ in the ”clean” limit (to be more exact, in the limit of a strong ferromagnet, when the condition $`\tau >>\mathrm{}/h_{ex}`$ is satisfied) . The conduction variation is related in this case to different forms of the distribution function in the normal and superconducting states. The form of the distribution function is determined by boundary conditions at the interfaces F/N ($`T>T_c`$) or F/S ($`T<T_c`$). In the normal state the spin current is finite, whereas in the superconducting one it is equal to zero. In the superconducting state at low temperatures, charge is transferred via Andreev reflections, i.e. an incident electron is reflected from the F/S boundary and moving back as a hole with the opposite spin direction (in the S region the charge is carried by singlet Cooper pairs with zero total spin). In order to find the charge or spin current we need to calculate the distribution function $`N_\alpha =n_\alpha (ϵ)p_\alpha (ϵ)`$ obeying the diffusion equation

$$D_\alpha _{xx}^2N_\alpha =I_{in}(N_\alpha ).$$
(1)
Here $`n_\alpha (ϵ)`$ is the distribution function of electrons for a given spin direction $`\alpha `$, $`p_\alpha (ϵ)=1n_\alpha (ϵ)`$ is the distribution function of holes, $`D_\alpha `$ is the diffusion coefficient which depends on the spin index $`\alpha ,`$ $`I_{in}(N_\alpha )`$ is the inelastic collision integral. The inelastic collision integral is of the order of $`N_\alpha /\tau _{in}`$, where $`\tau _{in}`$ is the inelastic scattering time. We ignore spin relaxation processes in the F wire assuming that the spin relaxation length exceeds the length $`L`$. It will be seen that the conductance in the superconducting state is always larger than in the normal one. The simplest formulas are obtained in the case of a perfect F/S interface. Therefore, we assume that there is no barrier at the F/S interface and the F’/F interface transparency is arbitrary (F’ is the ferromagnetic or normal reservoir). In the next section we will show that the non-zero reflection coefficient at the F/S interface leads also to an increase of the resistance when temperature is lowered below $`T_c.`$

The boundary conditions at the F’/F interface have the same form in the normal and superconducting states (see Appendix)

$$D_\alpha _xN_\alpha =(\gamma R_b)__\alpha ^1(N_\alpha (0)F_V);x=0$$
(2)
Here $`N_\alpha (0)=N_\alpha (x=0),`$ $`R_{b\alpha }`$ is the barrier resistance per unit area for a given spin direction $`\alpha `$, $`\gamma =e^2\nu ,`$ $`\nu `$ is the density-of-states (DOS). The function $`F_V=[\mathrm{tanh}((ϵ+eV)/2T)\mathrm{tanh}((ϵeV)/2T)]/2`$ is the distribution function in the F’ reservoir. At the F/S interface the boundary conditions are different in the normal and superconducting case. Above $`T_c`$ they are

$$N_\alpha =0;x=L$$
(3)
Below $`T_c`$ they have the form (see Appendix)

$$N_\alpha =N_{\overline{\alpha }};x=L$$
(4)
$$\nu _\alpha D_\alpha _xN_\alpha =\nu _{\overline{\alpha }}D_{\overline{\alpha }}_xN_{\overline{\alpha }};x=L,|ϵ|<\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(5)
Physically, Eqs.(3) and (4) mean that the electric potential at the perfect F/N(S) interface is chosen to be zero. The potential $`V(x)`$ is expressed in terms of $`N_\alpha `$ as  $`eV(x)=(1/4)dϵ[N_{}+N_{}]`$. The condition (4) implies that the spin current is zero. This fact is a result of the Andreev reflections. It is worth mentioning that, in the model under consideration, the conductance related to the Andreev reflections differs from zero only if the amplitude of the condensate function at the F/S interface is not equal to zero. Therefore, strictly speaking, we neglect the proximity effect everywhere in the F wire except the nearest neighborhood of the F/S interface. The electrical current is given by the formula

$$I_Q=(1/4e)dϵ[(\gamma D)_\alpha _xN_\alpha +(\gamma D)_{\overline{\alpha }}_xN_{\overline{\alpha }}]$$
(6)
The spin current $`I_M`$ is given by the same formula with sign “-” instead of “+” in the brackets and a factor of $`g\mu /e`$ in front of the integral ($`\mu `$ is the Bohr magneton). The problem is reduced to finding a solution for Eq.(2) with the boundary conditions (3-5). The inelastic collision integral has a complicated form and finding a solution is in general an unrealistic task. Therefore, we consider limiting cases only.

### 2.1  Mesoscopic limit ($`L<<l_{in}`$)

In this case of a long inelastic relaxation length $`l_{in}=\sqrt{D\tau _{in}}`$, we can neglect the inelastic collision integral and seek a solution in the form

$$N_\alpha (x)=N_\alpha (0)J_\alpha x/L.$$
(7)
where $`J_\alpha =N_\alpha (L)N_\alpha (0)`$ is a constant that determines the current and, hence, the conductance. The constants $`N_\alpha (0)`$ and $`J__\alpha `$ can be determined from the boundary conditions (3-5) and are equal to

$$J_\alpha =F_V\left(\frac{G_b}{G_L+G_b}\right)_\alpha ,N_\alpha (0)=J_\alpha L.$$
(8)
in the normal case, and

$$J_\alpha =F_V\frac{2G_{L\overline{\alpha }}}{G_{L\alpha }G_{L\overline{\alpha }}(R_{b\alpha }+R_{b\overline{\alpha }})+G_{L\alpha }+G_{L\overline{\alpha }}},N_\alpha (0)=F_V\frac{G_{L\alpha }G_{L\overline{\alpha }}(R_{b\overline{\alpha }}R_{b\alpha })}{G_{L\alpha }G_{L\overline{\alpha }}(R_{b\alpha }+R_{b\overline{\alpha }})+(G_{L\alpha }+G_{L\overline{\alpha }})}.$$
(9)
in the superconducting case, where $`R_{L\alpha }=\rho _\alpha L`$ is the resistance of the F wire in the normal state. Knowing the distribution function we can compute the conductances and the spin current $`I_M`$. In the normal state, we obtain

$$G_n=\left(\frac{G_bG_L}{G_b+G_L}\right)_{}+\left(\frac{G_bG_L}{G_b+G_L}\right)_{},I_M=(g\mu /e)V\left[\left(\frac{G_bG_L}{G_b+G_L}\right)_{}\left(\frac{G_bG_L}{G_b+G_L}\right)_{}\right].$$
(10)
whereas the result for the superconducting state reads

$$G_s=\frac{4G_LG_LG_bG_L}{G_LG_L(G_b+G_b)+(G_L+G_L)G_bG_b},I_M=0.$$
(11)
As follows from Eqs.(10-11), the spin current in the normal state is absent only if the conductances in each spin band $`G_{b\alpha }`$ and $`G_{L\alpha }`$ are the same. In the superconducting state this current is always zero. The conductances $`G_{b\alpha }`$ and $`G_{L\alpha }`$ enter the formulas for $`G_n`$ and $`G_s`$ (10-11) symmetrically. In the case of a small F’/F interface resistance, we obtain for $`G_n`$ and $`G_s`$ the formulas presented in and in the introduction. The conductance in the normal state $`G_n`$ is always larger than or equal to (if conductances in each spin channel are the same) the conductance in superconducting state $`G_s`$. Indeed, the difference between $`G_n`$ and $`G_s`$ can be written in the form

$$G_nG_s=\left[G_LG_L(G_bG_b)+G_bG_b(G_LG_L)\right]^2/𝒟_{F/N}𝒟_{F/S},.$$
(12)
where $`𝒟_n`$ and $`𝒟_s`$ are the denominators in the expressions (10-11). Therefore, in the model under consideration (dirty limit, no condensate penetration, zero F/S interface resistance) the conductance decreases with decreasing temperature below $`T_c`$.

Note that the formula for the conductance Eq.(11) is valid at low temperatures ($`T<<\mathrm{\Delta }`$) when the contribution of the states with $`|`$$`ϵ`$$`|`$$`>`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the conductance can be neglected. At arbitrary temperatures the conductance can be easily found with the help of Eq.(6) and has the form

$$G_s(T)=G_s(0)\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{\Delta }/2T)+G_n(1\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{\Delta }/2T))$$
(13)
where $`G_s(0)`$ is the conductance of the F/S structure at zero temperature determined by Eq.(11). We took into account that at $`|`$$`ϵ|>\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the boundary conditions for the distribution function are given by Eq.(3).

### 2.2  Semi-mesoscopic limit ($`L>>l_{in}`$)

Let us consider another limiting case when the length $`L`$ of the F-wire exceeds the energy relaxation length $`l_{in}.`$ In this case the inelastic scattering term in Eq.(1) dominates. It turns to zero provided the distribution function has the equilibrium form

$$N_\alpha (x)=[\mathrm{tanh}((ϵ+eV_\alpha (x))/2T)\mathrm{tanh}((ϵeV_\alpha (x))/2T)]/2.$$
(14)
where the potential $`V_\alpha `$ depends on the spin index $`\alpha `$ and is linear as a function of the coordinate $`x`$ : $`V_\alpha (x)=V_\alpha (0)E_\alpha x`$. Integrating Eq. (2) over the energies we obtain a relation between the current in the $`\alpha `$ spin band and $`V_\alpha (0)`$

$$I_\alpha =G_{b\alpha }(VV_\alpha (0)).$$
(15)
Let us consider first the normal case. In the F wire we have

$$I_\alpha =G_{L\alpha }V_\alpha (0)/L.$$
(16)
From the last two equations we find $`V_\alpha (0)`$

$$V_\alpha (0)=V\frac{G_{b\alpha }}{G_{b\alpha }+G_{L\alpha }}.$$
(17)
The electric field and the total current are equal to the sum of $`E_\alpha `$ and $`I_\alpha `$ over spin indices respectively. We easily obtain an expression for the conductance $`G_n`$, which is identical to Eq. (10). In the superconducting case the current $`I_\alpha `$ is given by

$$I_\alpha =G_{L\alpha }(V_\alpha (0)V_\alpha (L))/L.$$
(18)
The potentials $`V_{}(L)`$ and $`V_{}(L)`$ are related to each other by Eq. (4): $`V_{}(L)=V_{}(L)`$. Although the form of the distribution function differs from Eqs.(7-8), the conductance $`G_s`$ below $`T_c`$ remains unchanged with respect to the previous case (see Eq. (11)). Thus, regardless of the relationship between the lengths $`L`$ and $`l_{in}`$, the conductance of the structure under consideration is given by Eqs. (10-11), i.e it decreases with decreasing temperature below $`T_c`$.

## 3 Singlet component and proximity effect

In the preceding section we neglected the proximity effect and assumed that the F/S interface resistance was equal to zero. We have shown that the conductance decreases with decreasing temperature provided the conductivities of the ferromagnetic wire or the F’/F interface for spin up and down differ from each other. In the present section we calculate the conductance for an arbitrary F/S interface resistance taking into account the proximity effect (the penetration of the superconducting condensate into the F wire). In this case the problem becomes more complicated and, for simplicity, we assume that conductivities for the both spin directions are the same. An equation for the distribution function can be solved exactly and this allows one to present the normalized zero-bias conductance $`S=R_{F/N}(I/V)`$ in the form

$$S=(1/2)𝑑ϵ\frac{(1+r_L+r_0)F_V/V}{1/M+r_0/\nu (0)+r_L/(g_{QP}+g_A)}.$$
(19)
where $`r_{L,0}=R_b(L,0)/R_L`$ are the normalized resistances of the F/S and F’/F interfaces respectively (in the normal state), $`2M(x)=1+|f^R(x)|^2+|g^R(x)|^2,\nu (0)=Reg^R(0),`$ $`\nu _S=Reg_S^R,g_S^R=ϵ/\sqrt{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$ is the retarded Green’s function in the superconductor, $`g_{QP}=\nu (L)\nu _S`$ is the quasiparticle normalized conductance at a given energy, $`g_A=Imf^R(L)Imf_S^R`$ is the normalized subgap conductance (the conductance related to Andreev reflections), $`f_S^R=\mathrm{\Delta }/\sqrt{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$. The angle brackets mean the averaging over the length: $`\mathrm{}=_0^1𝑑x/L(\mathrm{}).`$ The physical meaning of the denominator is simple: the first term in the angle brackets is the normalized resistance of the F wire in the presence of the condensate, the second and third terms are the resistances of the F’/F and F/S interfaces below $`T_c`$ respectively. One can see that the ”Andreev” conductance $`g_A`$ is not zero only if the condensate function at the interface (from the ferromagnetic side) $`F^R(L)`$ differs from zero. The factor $`(1+r_L+r_0)`$ in the numerator arises from the normalization of the conductance. In order to calculate the normalized conductance $`S`$, we have to find the Green functions $`f^R(x)`$ and $`g^R(x)`$ in the ferromagnetic wire. These functions obey the Usadel equation which upon the substitution $`g^R(x)=\mathrm{cosh}u(x)`$ and $`f^R(x)=\mathrm{sinh}u(x)`$ acquires the well known form

$$D_{xx}^2u+2i(h_{ex}+ϵ)\mathrm{sinh}u=0.$$
(20)
This equation is complemented by the boundary conditions

$$r_0L_𝐫u=\mathrm{sinh}u,x=0$$
(21)
$$r_LL_𝐫u=F_S^R\mathrm{cosh}uG_S^R\mathrm{sinh}u,x=L$$
(22)
The solution for Eq.(20) can be found analytically in some limiting cases . It has an especially simple form in the case of a weak proximity effect when $`r_L1`$ and Eq.(19) may be linearized (numerical calculations show that the linearized solution differs from the exact solution by less than 10% for $`r_L1`$). Here we present the results of a numerical solution of the Usadel equation Eq.(20) and of the calculation of the conductance $`S.`$ In Fig.2 the temperature dependence of the conductance variation $`\delta S=S1`$ is presented for a structure with good interface transparencies at various exchange energies $`h`$ (normalized to the Thouless energy $`\mathrm{}D/L^2`$).

It is seen from this figure that $`\delta S`$ is positive only if $`h_{ex}`$ is not too large compared to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or $`T_c`$. A small positive value $`\delta S`$ is observed near $`T_c`$ for $`h_{ex}/\mathrm{\Delta }=5`$ and $`10.`$ For $`h_{ex}/\mathrm{\Delta }20`$ the conductance variation is negative and decreases with decreasing $`T.`$ For example, in the case of F/Al structure the threshold exchange energy $`h=20\mathrm{\Delta }`$ above which the conductance deviation is negative for all temperatures, is equal to $`h_{ex}=44`$ $`K`$, that is, this value is much less than the characteristic magnitudes of $`h_{ex}`$ for ferromagnets as Fe, Ni,Co etc.

A slight increase of $`G_s`$ above $`G_n`$ is related to the condensate penetration into the F wire. This increase occurs only near $`T_c`$ because in this temperature range the conductance $`G_s`$ is close to the conductance $`G_{F/N}`$ in the normal state due to a large contribution of the quasiparticle current. When the temperature decreases, the quasiparticle contribution also decreases and the weak (at large $`h`$) proximity effect can not overcome this decrease of the conductance. The contribution to the conductance due to proximity effect is suppressed even stronger if the F/S interface resistance is not small compared to $`R_L`$. In Fig. 3 we plot the temperature dependence of $`\delta S`$ for the case when the F/S interface resistance (in the normal state) is two times larger than the conductance of the F wire. One can see that the normalized conductance decreases with decreasing temperature and becomes very small at low $`T.`$ The reason for this behavior of the conductance is quite clear. At high enough temperatures the main contribution to the conductivity is due to quasiparticles with energies $`ϵ>\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ With lowering the temperature, this contribution decreases. The contribution caused by Andreev reflections (the term $`g_A`$ in Eq.(19)) at large $`h`$ and not small $`r_L`$ is very small as the condensate amplitude is small. Indeed, in this case one can linearize the Usadel equation (20) and obtain for $`f^R`$

$$f^R(x)=f_S^R/(r_L\sqrt{2ih})\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2ih}(1x/L))$$
(23)
It follows from this equation that at $`h_{ex}/E_{Th}=h>>(2r_L)^2`$ the amplitude of $`f^R(L)`$ is small (we consider low energies $`ϵ<<\mathrm{\Delta }).`$ Therefore the ”Andreev conductance” $`g_A`$ is also small. The suppression of the Andreev reflections in the model considered follows directly from the Usadel equation and the widely used boundary conditions of Ref. . It is worth mentioning that the Andreev reflections are responsible for a subgap conductance in N/I/S junctions, which was observed in Ref.. The suppression of the Andreev conductance by the exchange field is analogous to the suppression of the subgap conductance by an external magnetic field.

## 4 Triplet component and long-range proximity effect

In this section, we consider again a ferromagnetic wire with a metallic contact with a superconductor. In the previous sections we have shown that the proximity effect in the presence of a strong exchange field $`h_{ex}`$ could be neglected, since the superconducting condensate penetrates into the F wire only over a short distance ($`\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/h_{ex}}`$ in the dirty limit). At the same time, the interface resistance $`R_{bs}`$ increases when the normal reservoir becomes superconducting. In short, the total conductance decreases with decreasing temperature below the superconducting critical temperature $`T_c`$.

However, in recent experiments on S/F structures a considerable increase of the conductance below $`T_C`$ was observed . The measurements also demonstrate that the entire change of the conductance is due to an increase of the conductivity of the ferromagnetic wire as if the superconducting condensate penetrated into the ferromagnet. A question arises: how can the condensate function penetrate into the F wire over large distances? We understand that the Cooper pairs must be destroyed by the strong exchange field because the electrons of the pairs can no longer have opposite spins

To answer this question we notice that such a simple argument about the destruction of the condensate is based on the assumption that only the singlet pairing exists in the sample. This argument cannot be correct if a triplet component of the superconducting condensate penetrates the ferromagnet. An arbitrary exchange field cannot destroy the triplet superconducting component since both the electrons of the Cooper pair are in the same spin band. In this section, we suggest a mechanism of formation of the triplet pairing, which is due to a local inhomogeneity of the magnetization in the vicinity of the S/F interface. We will show that the penetration length of the triplet component into the ferromagnet is of the order $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/ϵ}`$, where the energy $`ϵ`$ is of the order of the temperature $`T`$ or the Thouless energy $`E_{Th}`$, and therefore the increase of the conductance due to the proximity effect may be comparable with that in a S/N structure. We consider the system shown in Fig.4 and assume that there is a domain wall in the region $`0<x<w`$ described by the angle $`\alpha (x)`$ between the magnetization $`M`$ and the $`z`$-axis. In this region the magnetization is given by

$$𝐌=h_{ex}(0,\mathrm{sin}\alpha (x),\mathrm{cos}\alpha (x)).$$
(24)
For simplicity we assume that $`\alpha (x)`$ varies linearly according to $`\alpha (x)=Qx`$. We consider again the diffusive limit corresponding to a short mean free path and to the condition $`h_{ex}\tau 1`$, which allows us to describe the system using the Usadel equation. We assume that the resistance of the F/S interface is not too small and therefore the condensate amplitude $`|\widehat{f}|`$ is small. We use the linearized Usadel equation for the retarded matrix (in spin space) Green function $`\widehat{f}^R`$, which has the form (the index $`R`$ is dropped)

$$iD_𝐫^2\widehat{f}+2ϵ\widehat{f}2\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\sigma }_3+\left(\widehat{f}\widehat{V}^{}+\widehat{V}\widehat{f}\right)=0.$$
(25)
Here the matrix $`\widehat{V}`$ is defined as $`\widehat{V}=h_{ex}\left(\widehat{\sigma }_3\mathrm{cos}\alpha (x)+\widehat{\sigma }_2\mathrm{sin}\alpha (x)\right)`$. We also assume that the diffusion coefficient is the same for the both spin bands. This equation is supplemented by the boundary condition at the S/F interface, which after linearization takes the form

$$_x\widehat{f}|_{x=0}=\left(\rho /R_b\right)F_S,$$
(26)
where $`\rho `$ is the resistivity of the ferromagnet, $`R_b`$ is the S/F interface resistance per unit area in the normal state, and $`F_S=\widehat{\sigma }_3\mathrm{\Delta }/\sqrt{ϵ^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$. We have assumed that there are no spin-flip processes at the S/F interface.

The solution of Eq. (25) in the region $`0<x<w`$ can be sought in the form

$$\widehat{f}=\widehat{U}\left(x\right)\widehat{f}_n\widehat{U}\left(x\right),$$
(27)
where $`\widehat{U}`$ is an unitary transformation given by $`\widehat{U}\left(x\right)=\widehat{\sigma }_0\mathrm{cos}\left(Qx/2\right)+i\widehat{\sigma }_1\mathrm{sin}\left(Qx/2\right)`$.

Substituting Eq. (27) into Eq. (25) we obtain the following equation for $`\widehat{f}_n`$

$$iD_{xx}^2\widehat{f}_n+i\left(DQ^2/2\right)(\widehat{f}_n+\widehat{\sigma }_1\widehat{f}_n\widehat{\sigma }_1)+DQ\{_x\widehat{f}_n,\widehat{\sigma }_1\}+2ϵ\widehat{f}_n+h_{ex}\{\widehat{\sigma }_3,\widehat{f}_n\}=0.$$
(28)
where $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ is the anticommutator.

In the region $`x>w`$ the magnetization is homogeneous and $`\widehat{f}_n`$ satisfies Eq. (28) with $`Q=0`$. We see from Eq. (28) that the singlet and triplet component of the condensate function are mixed by the rotating exchange field $`h_{ex}`$. In the region $`x>w`$ these components decouple and they should be found by matching the solutions at $`x=w`$ ( the function $`\widehat{f}`$ is continuous in the entire F wire). The solution of Eq. (28) can be written in the form

$$\widehat{f}_n=\widehat{\sigma }_0A\left(x\right)+\widehat{\sigma }_3B\left(x\right)+i\widehat{\sigma }_1C\left(x\right).$$
(29)
Here the function $`C(x)`$ is the amplitude of the triplet component, whereas $`A(x)`$ and $`B(x)`$ describe the singlet pairing. The structure of Eq. (28) allows to seek these amplitudes in the form

$$A\left(x\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(A_i\mathrm{exp}\left(\kappa _ix\right)+\overline{A}_i\mathrm{exp}\left(\kappa _ix\right)\right)$$
(30)
The functions $`B(x)`$ and $`C(x)`$ can be written in a similar way. The coefficients $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$ and $`C_i`$ obey the algebraic equations

$`\left(\kappa ^2\kappa _ϵ^2Q^2\right)C2\left(Q\kappa \right)A`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\left(\kappa ^2\kappa _ϵ^2\right)B\kappa _h^2A`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (31)
$`\left(\kappa ^2\kappa _ϵ^2Q^2\right)A\kappa _h^2B+2\left(Q\kappa \right)C`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
where $`\kappa _ϵ^2=2iϵ/D`$ and $`\kappa _h^2=2ih_{ex}/D`$ (indices $`i`$ were dropped). The eigenvalues $`\kappa _i`$ are the values at which the determinant of Eqs. (31) turns to zero. In the case of a strong exchange field $`h_{ex}`$, $`\kappa _h`$ is large ($`\kappa _h\kappa _ϵ,Q`$) and the eigenvalues $`\kappa _i`$ are given by

$`\kappa _{1,2}`$ $``$ $`(1\pm i)/\xi _F,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}<x<L`$ (32)
$`\kappa _3`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sqrt{\kappa _ϵ^2+Q^2}\mathrm{for}& 0<x<w\hfill \\ \hfill \kappa _ϵ\mathrm{for}& w<x<L\hfill \end{array}.`$ (35)
The eigenvalues $`\kappa _{1,2}`$ correspond to a sharp decay of the condensate in the ferromagnet, while $`\kappa _3`$ is associated with the slowly varying part. With the boundary condition, Eq. (26), we see that in a homogeneous case ($`Q=0)`$ the amplitude of the triplet component $`C(x)`$ is zero. If $`Q0,`$ the function $`C(x)`$ is coupled to the singlet components $`A(x)`$ and $`B(x),`$ and we consider this case.

If the width $`w`$ is small, the triplet component changes only a little in the region $`(0,w)`$ and spreads over a large distance of the order $`\left|\kappa _ϵ^1\right|`$ in the region $`(0,L)`$. In the case of a strong exchange field $`h_{ex}`$, $`\xi _F`$ is very short ($`\xi _Fw,\xi _T`$), the singlet component decays very fast over the length $`\xi _F`$, and its slowly varying part $`B_3`$ is $`B_3=2\left(Q\kappa _3/\kappa _h^2\right)C_3C_3`$. In order to obtain the expression for the triplet component $`C(x),`$ we use Eq. (26) at $`x=0`$ and assume that the solution vanishes at $`x=L.`$ Then, we find

$$C^{R(A)}(x)=i\left\{QB(0)\mathrm{sinh}\left(\kappa _ϵ(Lx)\right)\left[\kappa _ϵ\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Theta }_3+\kappa _3\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ\mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Theta }_3\right]^1\right\}^{R(A)},$$
(36)
where $`w<x<L`$, $`B^{R(A)}(0)=\left(\rho \xi _h/2R_b\right)f_S^{R(A)}`$ is the amplitude of the singlet component at the S/F interface, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_ϵ=\kappa _ϵL`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_3=\kappa _3w`$, and $`\kappa _ϵ^{R(A)}=\sqrt{2iϵ/D}`$.

It is clear from Eq.(36) that, at the interface, the triplet component is of the same order of magnitude as the singlet one. Indeed, for the case $`wL`$ we obtain from Eq. (36) $`\left|C(0)\right|B(0)/\mathrm{sinh}\alpha _w`$, where $`\alpha _w=Qw`$ is the angle characterizing the rotation of the magnetization. Therefore, provided the angle $`\alpha _w1`$ and the S/F interface transparency is not too small, the singlet and triplet components are not small. They are of the same order in the vicinity of the S/F interface but, while the singlet component decays fast over a short distance ($`\xi _F`$), the triplet one varies smoothly along the ferromagnet turning to zero at the F reservoir (see Fig.5). One can see also that the singlet component oscillates, which is well known .

The penetration of the triplet component into the ferromagnet is similar to the penetration of the superconducting condensate into a normal metal. The presence of the condensate function (triplet component) in the ferromagnet can lead to long-range effects and therefore to a significant change of the conductance of a ferromagnetic wire in a S/F structure (see inset in Fig.4) when the temperature decreases below $`T_c`$. The normalized conductance variation $`\delta S=\left(G_sG_n\right)/G_n`$ is given by the expression :

$$\delta S=\frac{1}{32T}\mathrm{Tr}dϵF_V^{}\left[\widehat{f}^R(x)\widehat{f}^A(x)\right]^2.$$
(37)
Here $`G_n`$ is the conductance in the normal state, $`<..>`$ denotes the average over the length of the ferromagnetic wire between the F reservoirs, and $`F_V^{}`$ is given by the expression

$$F_V^{}=1/2\left[\mathrm{cosh}^2((ϵ+eV)/2T)+\mathrm{cosh}^2((ϵeV)/2T)\right].$$
(38)
Substituting Eqs. (29, 36) into Eq. (37) one can determine the temperature dependence $`\delta S\left(T\right)`$ shown in Fig.6. We see that $`\delta S`$ increases with decreasing temperature and saturates at $`T=0`$. In order to explain the reentrant behavior of $`\delta S(T)`$ observed in Refs. , one should take into account other mechanisms as those analyzed in Refs.  and in section 2. However, this question is beyond the scope of the present analysis.

It is also interesting to note that a triplet component of the condensate function with the same symmetry (odd in frequency $`\omega `$ and even in momentum $`p`$) has been suggested long ago by Berezinskii  as a possible phase in superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ (this, so called “odd superconductivity”, was discussed in a subsequent paper ). Being symmetric in space, this component is not affected by potential impurities, in contrast to the case analyzed in Ref. , where the triplet component of the condensate was odd in space. While this hypothetical condensate function is not realized in $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ (in $`{}_{}{}^{3}He`$ it is odd in $`p`$ but not in frequency), this odd (in $`\omega `$) triplet component does exist in the system considered here, although under special conditions described above.

As it was mentioned in the introduction, experimental data are still controversial. It has been established in an experiment  that the conductance of the ferromagnet does not change below $`T_c`$ and all changes in $`\delta S`$ are due to changes of the S/F interface resistance $`R_b`$. However, in other experiments $`R_b`$ was negligibly small . The mechanism suggested in our work may explain the long-range effects observed in the experiments . At the same time, the result of the experiment  is not necessarily at odds with our findings. The inhomogeneity of the magnetic moment at the interface, which is the crucial ingredient of our theory, is not a phenomenon under control in these experiments. One can easily imagine that such inhomogeneity existed in the structures studied in Refs.  but was absent in those of Ref. . The magnetic inhomogeneity near the interface may have different origins. Anyway, a more careful study of the possibility of a rotating magnetic moment should be performed to clarify this question.

## 5 Conclusion

We have analyzed the conductance variation $`\delta G_sG_sG_n`$ of the F/S mesoscopic structure in the dirty limit when the condition $`h_{ex}<\mathrm{}/\tau `$ is satisfied. First, neglecting the proximity effect we have shown that below $`T_c`$ the conductance variation $`\delta G_s`$ is negative and its magnitude increases with increasing the difference between the conductances for spin up and down. The change of the conductance is related to changes in the boundary conditions at the F/S interface. Below $`T_c`$ one of the boundary conditions requires the spin current to be zero. The formulas for the conductance remain valid even if inelastic scattering (not spin flip) processes are taken into account.

We also studied how the proximity effect affects the conductance for an arbitrary transparency of the F/S interface. The account for the condensate penetration (the proximity effect) leads to an increase of the conductance near $`T_c`$. This is possible, however, only if the exchange energy $`h_{ex}`$ is not too large: the parameter $`hr_L^2`$ should not be large, where $`h`$ is the exchange energy in units of the Thouless energy $`ϵ_{Th}=\mathrm{}D/L^2`$ and $`r_L`$ is the ratio of the F/S interface resistance in the normal state to the resistance of the F wire. If the parameter $`hr_L^2`$ is large, the conductance $`G_s`$ decreases with decreasing temperature and becomes very small at low $`T.`$ This behavior is related to a strong suppression of the Andreev reflection processes that determine the conductance at low $`T`$ by the exchange field.

It is important to note that we neglected the inverse proximity effect, that is, suppression of superconductivity in S. In the case of large $`h`$ one has to take into account this effect and calculate a deviation of the Green’s functions in the superconductor from their bulk values. It turns out that in the case of a large exchange energy $`h,`$ the energy gap in the superconductor may be suppressed and the DOS $`\nu _S`$ is not zero even at $`|`$$`ϵ`$$`|`$$`<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this case the quasiparticle conductance is not zero and the charge transfer is possible through the F/S interface at low energies $`ϵ.`$ The conversion of the quasiparticle current into the current of Cooper pairs is realized in the superconductor over the coherence length $`\xi _S`$ (at low energies).

At last, we have calculated the conductance of a F/S structure in which the magnetization is non-homogeneous near the F/S interface. It was shown that, in this case, a triplet component arises alongside with the singlet one. This triplet component in another systems (He<sup>3</sup>, high $`T_c`$ superconductors etc) was studied in several papers ; it is odd in Matsubara frequencies (the so called odd superconductivity) and even in momentum space (in the main approximation in the parameter ($`\mathrm{}/h_{ex}\tau `$)). The triplet component penetrates into the F wire over a large distance of the order $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/T}`$ and leads to a positive conductance variation. The singlet component penetrates over much shorter length of the order $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}D/h_{ex}}`$ and leads to a negligible contribution to the conductance. It would be interesting to realize experimentally the situation that we analyzed in the last section and to observe the triplet component not in an exotic system but in an ordinary F/S structure.

We would like to thank SFB 491 for financial support.

## Appendix A

Here we show how the boundary conditions for the distribution functions $`N_\alpha =n_\alpha p_\alpha `$ can be derived from matching conditions for the quasiclassical Green functions, where $`n_\alpha `$ is the distribution function of electrons and $`p_\alpha =1n_\alpha (ϵ)`$ is the distribution functions of holes (having in mind a superconductor, it is better to speak about electron- and hole-like excitations). We use the boundary conditions for the quasiclassical matrix Green functions $`g`$ the matrix elements of which consist of the retarded (advanced) Green’s functions $`\widehat{g}^{R(A)}`$ and the Keldysh Green’s function $`\widehat{g}^K.`$ The last matrix is expressed in terms of the matrix distribution function $`\widehat{f}:`$ $`\widehat{g}^K=\widehat{g}^R\widehat{f}\widehat{f}\widehat{g}^A`$, where the matrix $`\widehat{f}`$ can be represented in the form: $`\widehat{f}=f_1\widehat{1}+\widehat{f}_3\widehat{\sigma }_3.`$ The first function $`f_1`$ determines the order parameter in the superconductor and is equal $`f_{1\alpha }=1(n_\alpha +p_{\overline{\alpha }}).`$ The second function $`f_3`$ determines the electrical or spin current and equals $`f_{3\alpha }=(n_\alpha p_{\overline{\alpha }}).`$ The matching condition at the F(N)/S interface for the 4$`\times `$4 matrix Green function has the form

$$L\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_x\stackrel{ˇ}{g}=(1/2r_L)[\stackrel{ˇ}{g},\stackrel{ˇ}{g}_S].$$
(39)
where $`r_L=R_b/\rho L`$ is the F/S interface resistance (in the normal state) normalized to the resistance of the F wire $`\rho L.`$ The physical meaning of Eq.(A1) is simple. If we take the Keldysh (the element (12)) of Eq.(A1), multiply it by $`\widehat{\sigma }_3`$ and calculate the trace, we obtain the current at a given energy $`ϵ`$. If we integrate over energies, we obtain on the left side the usual expression for the current

$$I_Q=(1/4)e\nu _nD\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{\sigma }_3dϵ[\widehat{g}^R_x\widehat{g}^K+\widehat{g}^K_x\widehat{g}^A]$$
(40)
where $`\nu _n`$ is the DOS in the normal state. On the right hand side we obtain the current at a given energy which is well known in the tunnel Hamiltonian method. We take the Keldysh component of Eq. (A1), multiply it by $`\widehat{\sigma }_3`$ and $`\widehat{1}`$ and calculate the trace. We obtain thus the equations

$$M_3_xf_3=(1/r_L)\left[\left(\nu \nu _s+g_a\right)f_3\left(g_{}f_{eq}+g_+f_1\right)\right]$$
(41)
$$M_1_xf_1=(1/r_L)\left[\left(\nu \nu _s+g_1\right)\left(f_1f_{eq}\right)g_{}f_3\right]$$
(42)
where $`\nu =Reg^R`$, $`\nu _S=ReG_S^R`$ is the DOS in the ferromagnet and superconductor, respectively and

$`M_3=(1/2)[1g^Rg^Af^Rf^A]`$

$`M_1=(1/2)[1g^Rg^A+f^Rf^A]`$

$`g_1=(1/4)(f^Rf^A)(F_s^RF_s^A)`$

$`g_\pm =+(1/4)\{(\widehat{f}^R\widehat{f}^A)(\widehat{F}_s^R\pm \widehat{F}_s^A)\}_3`$

$`g_A=(1/4)(f^R+f^A)(F_s^R+F_s^A)`$

The symbol {…}<sub>3</sub> stands for $`\{\mathrm{}\}_3=(1/2)Tr\widehat{\sigma }_3\{\mathrm{}\}`$. In the case under consideration $`f^{R(A)}i`$ $`\widehat{\sigma }_2`$ and $`F_S^{R(A)}i`$ $`\widehat{\sigma }_2,`$so that $`g_\pm =0`$. We are interested in the states with subgap energies (low temperatures) $`|ϵ|<\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ For these states one has $`F_S^R=F_S^A=\mathrm{\Delta }/i\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2ϵ^2}`$ and $`G_S^R=G_S^A=ϵ/i\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2ϵ^2}.`$ Therefore we obtain that $`g_1=0,`$ and $`\nu _S=0,`$ but $`g_A0.`$ One can show that at any non-zero $`r_L`$ the functions $`M_3`$ and $`M_1`$ are not zero and we find from Eqs.(A3-A4)

$$_xf_1=0\{\begin{array}{c}_x(n_{}+p_{})=0\hfill \\ _x(n_{}+p_{})=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
From Eq.(A5) we find the boundary condition

$$_xN_{}_xN_{}=0$$
(44)
This condition means the absence of the spin current. It may be easily generalized to the case of different diffusion coefficients

$$D_{}_xN_{}D_{}_xN_{}=0$$
(45)
At small $`r_L`$ (a good F/S contact) the condition (A3) yields

$$f_3=0\{\begin{array}{c}n_{}p_{}=0\hfill \\ n_{}p_{}=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
We took into account that in the sub-gap region the ”Andreev” conductance $`g_A`$ is not zero. From Eq.(A8) we get

$$N_{}=N_{}$$
(47)
In the normal state the distribution function is continuous across a good F/S interface. Hence we get $`n_\alpha =p_{\overline{\alpha }}N_\alpha =0.`$ We use these boundary conditions in section 2.

Figure Captions

Fig.1: S/F system.

Fig.2: The dependence of the conductance variation $`\delta S(T)=S(T)1`$, for different values of the exchange field $`h=h_{ex}/E_{Th}`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_{Th}=10`$, $`r_0=1.10^3`$ and $`r_L=0.1`$.

Fig.3: The dependence of the conductance variation $`\delta S(T)=S(T)1`$, for different values of the exchange field $`h=h_{ex}/E_{Th}`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_{Th}=10`$, $`r_0=1.10^3`$ and $`r_L=2`$. The solid, dashed and dotted lines correspond to $`h=50`$, $`h=100`$ and $`h=500`$ respectively.

Fig.4: Schematic view of the structures under consideration.

Fig.5: Spatial dependence of the singlet (dashed line) and the triplet (solid line) components of $`|\widehat{f}|`$ in the F wire for different values of $`\alpha _w`$. Here $`w=L/5`$, $`ϵ=E_T`$ and $`h/E_T=400`$. $`E_T=D/L^2`$ is the Thouless energy.

Fig.6: The $`\delta S(T)`$ dependence. Here $`\gamma =\rho \xi _h/R_b`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_T1`$ and $`w/L=0.05`$.


format: text

text:
# Spectrum of qubit oscillations from Bloch equations

## I  Introduction

Quantum coherent (Rabi) oscillations in a two-level system represent a simple and fundamental example of a nontrivial quantum behavior. Recently increased interest in this subject is obviously related to the use of two-level systems (qubits) as building blocks of a prospective quantum computer. The emphasis has naturally shifted from traditional observations of Rabi oscillations in ensembles of two-level atoms to the studies of single qubits. Concentrating in this paper on solid-state qubits, let us mention recent demonstrations of single-qubit quantum coherent oscillations in both time and frequency domains. (Rabi oscillations in individual quantum dots have been also demonstrated by traditional optical means; however, we will discuss only solid-state qubits with electronic readout.)

Even though experiments of Refs.  have been done with single qubits, their results are essentially ensemble-averaged, and as a consequence, the problem of a quantum state collapse due to measurement is not very important. Another possible experimental setup (for which the collapse is of the major importance) is a continuous monitoring of single-qubit quantum oscillations (Fig. 1). Such setup is similar to that used in experiments , with the difference that the detector output signal $`I(t)`$ was actually not studied experimentally.

The basic questions in prospective experiments of the type shown in Fig. 1 are the following: 1) what is the effect of continuous quantum measurement on the qubit evolution, 2) how the detector output $`I(t)`$ looks like, and 3) what is the relation between detector output and qubit evolution? Some answers to these questions have been obtained recently (see, e.g., Ref.  and references therein); however, the subject is still active and quite controversial. (The main reason of controversy is the necessity to go beyond the Schrödinger equation to describe continuous collapse due to measurement.)

In this paper we will consider a relatively simple question: what is the spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ of the detector output $`I(t)`$ and how high is the spectral peak corresponding to quantum oscillations of the qubit state? (Notice that we assume detector output $`I(t)`$ to be a classical magnitude, so $`S_I(\omega )`$ does not depend on a particular method of further signal processing.) This question has been addressed already in a number of papers (see, e.g., Refs. ) using various techniques.

Spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ has been calculated using Bayesian formalism  in Ref.  for the case of a weakly responding (linear) detector. In particular, it has been shown that the spectral peak $`S_I(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ at the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of quantum oscillations cannot be higher than $`4S_0`$ where $`S_0`$ is the noise pedestal due to intrinsic detector noise. It has been also shown that the results of the Bayesian formalism for $`S_I(\omega )`$ exactly coincide with the results  obtained using the standard master equation formalism. In spite of the same results, the interpretations are quite different since the Bayesian formalism describes individual monitoring of quantum evolution in time and treats $`I(t)`$ as a classical measurement result, while the master equation formalism can describe only ensemble-averaged magnitudes and in some sense should treat $`I(t)`$ as a quantum operator. (The results of two formalisms coincide because $`S_I(\omega )`$ is essentially an average quantity. In more general situations, for example, for a quantum feedback analysis the results are not the same since the master equation formalism fails.)

The results for $`S_I(\omega )`$ have been confirmed in Ref.  using a somewhat different approach based on the general theory of linear detectors. In Ref.  the results have been confirmed using the approach of quantum trajectories adopted from quantum optics (this approach is similar to the Bayesian formalism). It has been also shown  that the same formulas for $`S_I(\omega )`$ remain valid even when the condition of weakly responding detector is not satisfied (the detector response $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ to the change of the qubit state is comparable to the average current $`I_0`$).

A different result for $`S_I(\omega )`$ has been obtained in Ref.  (the studied system is slightly different from the type shown in Fig. 1; however, it is essentially similar). In particular, the calculated ratio $`[S_I(\mathrm{\Omega })S_0]/S_0`$ can be arbitrary large (not limited by 4). In our opinion, this is because the result of Ref.  includes the contribution from zero-point oscillations which are not measurable in a straightforward way. In principle, zero-point oscillations can be sensed in an experiment; however, it would necessarily require quantum (non-classical) interaction between the detector \[which outputs $`I(t)`$\] and the next stage. In other words, it would require measurement of $`S_I(\omega )`$ without ever measuring $`I(t)`$. A simple example of such setup is the absorption/emission of photons at resonant frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. A more sophisticated example of such measurement of qubit oscillations has been considered in Ref. . The idea is to use rotating measurement basis, in which there are essentially no oscillations, but rather jumps between two stationary states due to external noise. Formally shifting the zero-frequency spectrum of such continuous measurement to the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, one can obtain arbitrary high spectral peak. (There is no restriction on the ratio $`S_I(\omega =0)/S_0`$ in a strong dephasing case.) Such setups, however, are not the subject of the present paper since we limit ourselves to the straightforward case of Fig. 1 with $`I(t)`$ being usual classical signal which can be amplified further by any good amplifier. Also, we do not consider here the quantum feedback setups, which can provide arbitrary high spectral peak of the detector current at the oscillation frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The main result $`[S_I(\mathrm{\Omega })S_0]/S_04`$ for a simple setup seems to contradict the experimental results of Ref.  which claim the measurement of $`S_I(\omega )`$ from a single spin precession in an STM-based setup (a significantly different, but still an analogous experiment). In a similar recent experiment  the maximum observed peak-to-pedestal ratio for a measurement of a single spin precession was a little less than 4. We cannot explain the disagreement between the theory and experiment of Ref. ; however, we note that in the recent theoretical paper  which considers a somewhat similar setup, the possibility of a relatively high spectral peak has not been confirmed. The spectral peak of $`S_I(\omega )`$ due to qubit oscillations has been also considered theoretically in Ref. ; however, the peak magnitude has not been calculated.

Let us finally mention one more theoretical approach (developed by S. A. Gurvitz) to the analysis of detector output $`I(t)`$ based on Bloch equations which describe the evolution of the coupled “qubit+detector” density matrix. The advantage of this approach is the straightforward microscopic derivation of Bloch equations from the Schrödinger equation, while in the approaches mentioned above (Bayesian, master equation, quantum trajectory) the collapse ansatz is either explicitly or implicitly used. The Bloch equation approach has been used to calculate some statistical characteristics of $`I(t)`$ in Ref. ; however, the spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ has been obtained only at the frequencies lower than the ensemble dephasing rate and so the spectral peak due to quantum oscillations has been out of scope of Ref. .

In this paper we show how the Bloch equations can be used to calculate the detector output spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ for a particular measurement setup (Fig. 2). The case of an arbitrary qubit coupling with detector and finite detector temperature is considered. We prove that the results for $`S_I(\omega )`$ coincide with that obtained previously (in a narrower validity range) by the master equation and Bayesian approaches. The Bayesian results are generalized to the case of arbitrary response factor and finite detector temperature; it is shown that the equivalence of results of the three approaches still holds in this case.

## II  The system and Bloch equations

We consider the system (Fig. 2) introduced in Ref.  and studied extensively after that.  The qubit is represented by a single electron in a double quantum dot. The detector is a quantum point contact (QPC) whose barrier height depends on the electron position, so the current $`I`$ through QPC measures the qubit state in the basis of localized states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$. We will limit ourselves by the case of small transparency QPC which is equivalent to a simple tunnel junction. The Hamiltonian of the system,

$$=_{QB}+_{DET}+_{INT},$$
(1)
describes the qubit, detector, and their interaction:

$`_{QB}={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}(c_1^{}c_1c_2^{}c_2)+H(c_1^{}c_2+c_2^{}c_1),`$ (2)
$`_{DET}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}E_la_l^{}a_l+{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}E_ra_r^{}a_r`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{l,r}{}}Ma_l^{}a_r+\text{H.c.},`$ (4)
$`_{INT}={\displaystyle \underset{l,r}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{2}}(c_1^{}c_1c_2^{}c_2)a_l^{}a_r+\text{H.c.}`$ (5)
(for simplicity $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ are assumed to be real and energy-independent). The average detector currents corresponding to the qubit states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ are equal to $`I_1=2\pi (M+\mathrm{\Delta }M/2)^2\rho _l\rho _re^2V/\mathrm{}`$ and $`I_2=2\pi (M\mathrm{\Delta }M/2)^2\rho _l\rho _re^2V/\mathrm{}`$, correspondingly ($`V`$ is the voltage across the tunnel junction, $`e`$ is the electron charge, and $`\rho _{l,r}`$ are the densities of states in the electrodes), while the corresponding detector noises have white spectrum and are given by the Schottky formula:

$$S_{1,2}=2eI_{1,2}.$$
(6)
Note that the detector voltage $`V`$ is assumed to be large enough, so that the typical quantum noise frequency $`eV/\mathrm{}`$ is much higher than all relevant frequencies.

In the following we will distinguish the weakly-responding limit, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|I_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }II_1I_2`$ is the detector response and $`I_0(I_1+I_2)/2`$, and the finite response case, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|I_0`$. Notice that the word “coupling” is reserved for a different combination of parameters: $`𝒞\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/S_0H`$ \[here $`S_0(S_1+S_2)/2`$\], which affects the quality factor of quantum oscillations of the qubit. The frequency of unperturbed oscillations (without detector) is equal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{4H^2+\epsilon ^2}/\mathrm{}`$, where $`H`$ is the qubit tunneling matrix element (assumed to be real) and $`\epsilon `$ is the qubit energy asymmetry.

Our starting point is the Bloch equations describing the ensemble averaged evolution of the density matrix $`\rho _{ij}^n`$ in which the subscripts ($`i,j=1,2`$) label the qubit state while $`n`$ is the number of electrons passed through the detector (only diagonal in $`n`$ matrix elements are considered because the nondiagonal elements decay very fast). For our system the Bloch equations are the following:

$`\dot{\rho }_{11}^n=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_1^++I_1^{}}{e}}\rho _{11}^n+{\displaystyle \frac{I_1^+}{e}}\rho _{11}^{n1}+{\displaystyle \frac{I_1^{}}{e}}\rho _{11}^{n+1}`$ (8)
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}\text{Im}\rho _{12}^n,`$
$`\dot{\rho }_{22}^n=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_2^++I_2^{}}{e}}\rho _{22}^n+{\displaystyle \frac{I_2^+}{e}}\rho _{22}^{n1}+{\displaystyle \frac{I_2^{}}{e}}\rho _{22}^{n+1}`$ (10)
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}\text{Im}\rho _{12}^n,`$
$`\dot{\rho }_{12}^n=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_1^++I_1^{}+I_2^++I_2^{}}{2e}}\rho _{12}^n+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{I_1^+I_2^+}}{e}}\rho _{12}^{n1}`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{I_1^{}I_2^{}}}{e}}\rho _{12}^{n+1}+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{12}^n+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{11}^n\rho _{22}^n).`$
Here

$$I_i^+=\frac{I_i}{1\mathrm{exp}(eV/T)},I_i^{}=I_i^+\mathrm{exp}(eV/T)$$
(13)
are the partial currents in two directions ($`I_i=I_i^+I_i^{}`$) and $`T`$ is the detector electron temperature. Notice that this temperature is different from what was considered in Refs. . In those papers the effect of nonzero temperature of a passive environment coupled to the qubit was studied, so the important parameter was $`T/\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In this paper (similar to Ref. ) we consider the effective detector temperature and the important parameter is $`T/eV`$, while a finite temperature $`T`$ always implies $`T\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. (The phonon temperature in the vicinity of the qubit may still be low, since $`T`$ is only the electron temperature.) The density matrix $`\rho _{ij}^n`$ obeys the natural normalization condition $`_n(\rho _{11}^n+\rho _{22}^n)=1`$.

Notice that tracing Bloch equations (8)–(12) over the detector degree of freedom $`n`$, one obtains a conventional master equation for the qubit:

$`\dot{\rho }_{11}=2{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}\text{Im}\rho _{12},\rho _{11}+\rho _{22}=1,`$ (14)
$`\dot{\rho }_{12}=\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{12}+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho _{12},`$ (15)
where $`\rho _{ij}=_n\rho _{ij}^n`$ and the ensemble decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equal to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sqrt{I_1^+}\sqrt{I_2^+}\right)^2}{2e}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sqrt{I_1^{}}\sqrt{I_2^{}}\right)^2}{2e}}`$ (17)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{I_1}\sqrt{I_2})^2}{2e}}\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T).`$
(The decoherence rate $`\gamma `$ for a single system without ensemble averaging is different – see Section V.)

## III Spectral density via MacDonald’s formula

The Bloch equations couple the qubit evolution and the number $`n`$ of electrons passed through the detector. So, to calculate the spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ of the detector current, we need to express $`S_I(\omega )`$ in terms of $`n`$. This can be easily done for the classical random process $`I(t)`$ using the MacDonald’s formula

$$S_I(\omega )=2\omega _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dQ^2(\tau )}{d\tau }\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau ,$$
(18)
where $`Q^2(\tau )=\left(_t^{t+\tau }I(t^{})𝑑t^{}I\tau \right)^2`$ and averaging is over time $`t`$ (MacDonald’s formula have been also used in Ref. ). In our case the average current is equal to $`I_0`$ (see below) for a non-zero qubit tunneling $`H`$, so

$$Q^2(\tau )=e^2n^2(\tau )(I_0\tau )^2,$$
(19)
where $`n^2(\tau )`$ is the average square of the number of electrons passed through the detector during time interval $`\tau `$.

To calculate $`n^2(\tau )`$ we can use the Bloch equations and the obvious relation

$$n^2(\tau )=\underset{n}{}n^2[\rho _{11}^n(\tau )+\rho _{22}^n(\tau )].$$
(20)
However, the situation is not too simple because the left hand side contains the averaging over time while the right hand side is essentially ensemble averaging which depends on the initial condition $`\rho _{ij}^n(0)`$. Quite naturally we should assume $`n=0`$ at $`\tau =0`$, so that $`\rho _{ij}^n(0)=\delta _{n0}\rho _{ij}(0)`$, but the question about the choice of $`\rho _{ij}(0)`$ remains unclear because the qubit state actually oscillates in time (for a nonzero $`H`$, which case we always assume below). A natural choice is to use the stationary value: $`\rho _{ij,st}=lim_t\mathrm{}_n[\rho _{ij}^n(t)+\rho _{ij}^n(t)]`$, and it is possible to prove that this choice is really correct in the following way.

As we know from the Bayesian formalism, we can monitor the oscillating evolution of the qubit density matrix $`\rho _{ij}(t)`$ in an individual realization of the experiment using the detector output $`I(t)`$. This at least means that $`\rho _{ij}(t)`$ exists (even though it cannot be obtained using Bloch equations because they imply ensemble averaging). So, the correct procedure of calculating $`n^2(\tau )`$ would be the following. The right hand side of Eq. (20) should be calculated for various initial values $`\rho _{ij}(\tau =0)`$ corresponding to values $`\rho _{ij}(t)`$ in a sufficiently long realization of a process, and then the result should be averaged over the time $`t`$ \[i.e. weighted proportionally to the occurrence frequency of various $`\rho _{ij}`$\]. Now it is very important that the Bloch equations (8)–(12) are linear in respect to the initial condition. This means that instead of averaging the result for $`n^2(\tau )`$ over initial condition $`\rho _{ij}(\tau =0)`$, we can use the initial condition which is itself the value averaged over time, i.e. stationary value $`\rho _{ij,st}`$ discussed above (of course, we implicitly use the process ergodicity). This ends the proof.

Thus, to calculate $`S_I(\omega )`$ we should solve the Bloch equations starting from the stationary initial condition $`\rho _{ij}^n(0)=\delta _{n0}\rho _{ij,st}`$, then calculate $`n^2(\tau )`$ using Eq. (20), and then use MacDonald’s formula (18) to obtain $`S_I(\omega )`$. Notice that the stationary state $`\rho _{ij,st}`$ can be easily obtained from the master equations (14)–(15) and the condition $`\dot{\rho }_{ij}=0`$, that gives (at $`H0`$)

$$\rho _{11,st}=\rho _{22,st}=1/2,\rho _{12,st}=0.$$
(21)
(The stationary state would be different if the qubit had an extra coupling to a passive environment; however, we do not consider such case.)

One can use this method to calculate $`S_I(\omega )`$ in a straightforward way (we have done it numerically); however, it is better to use an analytical simplification calculating directly $`dn^2(\tau )/d\tau =_nn^2[\dot{\rho }_{11}^n(\tau )+\dot{\rho }_{22}^n(\tau )]`$. Using Eqs. (8) and (10) and shifting summation over $`n`$ in terms containing $`\rho _{ii}^{n\pm 1}`$, one gets the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn^2(\tau )}{d\tau }}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_0}{e}}\left(2n(\tau )+\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2T}}\right)`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{e}}\left(𝒜(\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{z(\tau )}{2}}\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2T}}\right),`$ (23)
where

$`𝒜(\tau ){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n[\rho _{11}^n(\tau )\rho _{22}^n(\tau )],`$ (24)
$`n(\tau ){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n[\rho _{11}^n(\tau )+\rho _{22}^n(\tau )],`$ (25)
$`z(\tau ){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}[\rho _{11}^n(\tau )\rho _{22}^n(\tau )].`$ (26)
Notice that $`z(\tau )=0`$ since the evolution starts from the stationary state, $`\rho _{ij}^n(0)=\delta _{n0}\rho _{ij,st}`$, so the corresponding term in Eq. (23) vanishes.

To calculate $`n(\tau )`$, we again use Eqs. (8) and (10), shift summation over $`n`$, and obtain the equation

$$dn(\tau )/d\tau =I_0+z(\tau )\mathrm{\Delta }I/2.$$
(27)
Since the last term vanishes because of $`z(\tau )=0`$ and since $`n(0)=0`$, we obtain a simple result $`n(\tau )=I_0\tau `$. In particular, this means that the average detector current is equal to $`I_0`$ (we have used this result above).

One can see that the term $`2I_0n(\tau )/e=2I_0^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\tau `$ from Eq. (23) exactly cancels the contribution from the derivative of the last term of Eq. (19). The term $`(I_0/e)\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)`$ from Eq. (23) after being plugged into MacDonald’s formula (18) gives the constant noise pedestal $`2eI_0\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)`$ (as usual, we should use a smooth integral cutoff at high frequencies). In this way we get equations

$`S_I(\omega )=S_0\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2T}}+2\omega e\mathrm{\Delta }I{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝒜(\tau )\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau `$ (28)
$`=S_0\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2T}}+2e\mathrm{\Delta }I{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒜(\tau )}{d\tau }}\mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau ,`$ (29)
which express $`S_I(\omega )`$ via $`𝒜(\tau )`$ or $`\dot{𝒜}(\tau )`$ \[the last equation is obtained using integration by parts and taking into account $`𝒜(0)=0`$\].

To calculate $`𝒜(\tau )`$ (or $`\dot{𝒜}`$), we notice that the Bloch equations (8)–(12) couple the dynamics of $`𝒜(\tau )`$ with two more magnitudes

$`𝒴(\tau )`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n\text{Im}\rho _{12}^n(\tau ),`$ (30)
$`𝒳(\tau )`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n\text{Re}\rho _{12}^n(\tau ),`$ (31)
via equations

$`\dot{𝒜}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{2e}}4{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}𝒴+{\displaystyle \frac{I_0}{e}}z,`$ (32)
$`\dot{𝒴}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}𝒜+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{}}}𝒳\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒴+b\text{Im}\rho _{12},`$ (33)
$`\dot{𝒳}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{}}}𝒴\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒳+b\text{Re}\rho _{12},`$ (34)
where $`b=[(I_1^+I_2^+)^{1/2}(I_1^{}I_2^{})^{1/2}]/e`$. Because of the stationary initial conditions $`z(\tau )=\rho _{12}(\tau )=0`$, so the equations are further simplified and become a closed system:

$`\dot{𝒜}=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I/2e)4(H/\mathrm{})𝒴,`$ (35)
$`\dot{𝒴}=`$ $`(H/\mathrm{})𝒜+(\epsilon /\mathrm{})𝒳\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒴,`$ (36)
$`\dot{𝒳}=`$ $`(\epsilon /\mathrm{})𝒴\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒳.`$ (37)
Solving these equations with the initial condition $`𝒜(0)=𝒳(0)=𝒴(0)=0`$, one can obtain $`𝒜(\tau )`$ and therefore $`S_I(\omega )`$.

In the case of a symmetric qubit, $`\epsilon =0`$, the evolution of $`𝒳`$ is decoupled and one can find the analytical solution

$$\frac{d𝒜(\tau )}{d\tau }=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{2e}\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau /2]\left[\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\tau +\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\tau \right],$$
(38)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4}`$. Substituting this expression into Eq. (29) we finally obtain

$$S_I(\omega )=S_0\mathrm{coth}\frac{eV}{2T}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\omega ^2}.$$
(39)
It is easy to check that at zero temperature this result coincides with the results of Refs. . Notice, however, that it does not assume weakly responding detector ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|I`$) as in Refs. . On the other hand, the derivation of Eq. (39) assumes low-transparency QPC as a detector, while a much broader class of linear detectors was considered in Refs. .

With the temperature $`T`$ increase the noise pedestal $`S_0\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)`$ increases while the spectral peak around $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ becomes lower and wider \[Fig. 3(a)\] because of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ increase \[see Eq. (17)\]. The integral over the peak,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}[S_I(\omega )S_0\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)]\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }=\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2}{4},$$
(40)
does not depend on the temperature. (As will be seen later, this formula remains valid for $`\epsilon 0`$ as well.)

The peak-to-pedestal (“signal-to-noise”) ratio

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_I(\mathrm{\Omega })S_0\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)}{S_0\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)}}={\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }S_0\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)}}`$ (41)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{[\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)]^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\sqrt{I_1}+\sqrt{I_2}\right)^2}{2(I_1+I_2)}}`$ (42)
has an upper bound equal to 4 and decreases with temperature as well as due to finite response ratio $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|/I_0`$. In particular, in the case of very strong response, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|=2I_0`$ ($`I_2=0`$), the upper bound for the peak-to-pedestal ratio is 2 instead of 4 \[see Fig. 3(b)\]. Overall, the effect of the finite response on the spectral peak shape is similar to the effect of detector nonideality.

Let us emphasize that the derivation of Eq. (39) did not use any assumption about the magnitude of the coupling $`𝒞\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/S_0H`$ between the qubit and detector, so Eq. (39) remains valid even when the oscillations are destroyed due to strong coupling (“quantum Zeno” effect) and replaced by a telegraph noise. The analysis of the finite coupling effect is completely similar to that of Refs. . In particular, the quality factor of oscillations (disregarding the noise pedestal) is equal to

$$𝒬=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{8}{𝒞}\frac{\left(\sqrt{I_1}+\sqrt{I_2}\right)^2}{4I_0}\frac{1}{\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)},$$
(43)
and the transition into overdamped regime occurs at $`𝒬<1/2`$.

For an asymmetric qubit, $`\epsilon 0`$, the analytical solution of Eqs. (35)–(37) is too lengthy, so it is easier to use numerical calculations and then calculate the Fourier transform (29) also numerically \[Figs. 3(a) and 3(c)\]. In the next Section we will show that the result is still equivalent to the results of Refs.  (within the common validity range).

## IV Equivalence to the master equation approach

Let us remind that the master equation approach assumes no correlation between the detector noise and qubit evolution and treats the oscillating part of the current $`I(t)`$ as being proportional to the quantum operator $`\widehat{z}(t)`$, so the spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ should be calculated as

$$S_I(\omega )=S_{det}+\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2}{4}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}_0^{\mathrm{}}K_{\widehat{z}}(\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau ,$$
(44)
where $`S_{det}`$ is the detector noise and $`K_{\widehat{z}}(\tau )\widehat{z}(t+\tau )\widehat{z}(t)`$ is the correlation function of $`\widehat{z}`$. In the case of a weakly responding detector the detector noise level does not depend on the qubit state and $`S_{det}=S_0\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)`$. The same formula remains valid in the case of moderate or strong response because at high frequency $`S_I(\mathrm{})=2e(I^++I^{}=2eI\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)`$ and the average current $`I`$ remains to be equal to $`I_0`$. As shown in Refs. , the correlation function $`K_{\widehat{z}}`$ is equal to the value of $`z(\tau )=\rho _{11}(\tau )\rho _{22}(\tau )`$ obtained from the master equation (14)–(15) with initial condition $`\rho _{11}(0)=1`$, $`\rho _{22}(0)=\rho _{12}(0)=0`$. (Actually, in those papers only the case of a weakly responding detector at zero temperature has been considered; however, the method can be easily generalized, since formally the only change in the master equation is a different $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.)

Let us show that $`S_I(\omega )`$ calculated in this way coincides with the result obtained from Eq. (29) at arbitrary qubit asymmetry $`\epsilon `$. For this purpose we introduce the new variable $`a(2e/\mathrm{\Delta }I)\dot{𝒜}`$ \[so that we need to prove $`a(\tau )=K_{\widehat{z}}(\tau )`$\] and from Eqs. (35)–(37) derive a new system of equations

$`\dot{a}=4(H/\mathrm{})y,`$ (45)
$`\dot{y}=(\epsilon /\mathrm{})x+(H/\mathrm{})a\mathrm{\Gamma }y,`$ (46)
$`\dot{x}=(\epsilon /\mathrm{})y\mathrm{\Gamma }x,`$ (47)
where $`y(2e/\mathrm{\Delta }I)\dot{𝒴}`$ and $`x(2e/\mathrm{\Delta }I)\dot{𝒳}`$. It is easy to see that these equations coincide with the master equations (14)–(15) for $`z`$, $`\text{Im}\rho _{12}`$, and $`\text{Re}\rho _{12}`$, respectively. Since $`𝒜(0)=𝒳(0)=𝒴(0)=0`$, the initial conditions for new variables are $`a(0)=1`$ and $`x(0)=y(0)=0`$, i.e. exactly the initial conditions for $`K_{\widehat{z}}`$ calculation. Therefore $`a(\tau )=K_{\widehat{z}}(\tau )`$ and the spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ calculated using the Bloch equations coincides with the result of the master equation approach.

Hence, the analysis of $`S_I(\omega )`$ at finite qubit asymmetry $`\epsilon `$ is completely similar to that of Refs. . In particular, finite $`\epsilon `$ leads to a decrease of the spectral peak around frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and origination of an extra peak around zero frequency (Fig. 3), while the integral (40) does not change \[this is a consequence of $`K_{\widehat{z}}(0)=1`$\]. An analytical expression

$`S_I(\omega )`$ $`=S_0\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2T}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/(4H^2\mathrm{\Gamma })}{1+(\omega \mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2/4H^2\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}}`$ (49)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon ^2/2H^2)]}{1+\left[(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}/[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon ^2/\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)]\right]^2}}`$
can be obtained in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Notice that for both Bloch and master equation approaches the case of a finite detector response does not formally differ from the case of a weakly responding detector (only the value of the ensemble decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ changes). For the Bayesian approach these two cases are significantly different, so the generalization of the results for $`S_I(\omega )`$ to a finite detector response (considered in the next Section) is not trivial.

## V Generalization of the Bayesian results for $`S_I(\omega )`$

The Bayesian results for $`S_I(\omega )`$ have been derived in Ref.  only for the case of a weakly responding detector, in which the detector current $`I(t)`$ can be considered as continuous and the qubit evolution is described by the equations

$`\dot{\rho }_{11}=`$ $`\dot{\rho }_{22}=\rho _{11}\rho _{22}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }I}{S_0}}[I(t)I_0]2{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}\text{Im}\rho _{12},`$ (50)
$`\dot{\rho }_{12}=`$ $`(\rho _{11}\rho _{22}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{S_0}}[I(t)I_0]\rho _{12}\gamma \rho _{12}`$ (52)
$`+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{12}+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{11}\rho _{22}),`$
where $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/4S_0`$ is the qubit decoherence rate without ensemble averaging \[for our model $`\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{cosh}^2(eV/2T)`$, so that $`\gamma =0`$ at $`T=0`$\] and the statistics of $`I(t)`$ can be modeled as

$$I(t)I_0=[\rho _{11}(t)\rho _{22}(t)]\mathrm{\Delta }I/2+\xi (t),$$
(53)
where $`\xi (t)`$ is the white noise with the spectral density $`S_\xi =S_0`$. Notice the significant difference in the meaning of $`\rho _{ij}`$ in the Bayesian equations and in the master equation since Eqs. (50)–(52) describe individual qubit evolution without ensemble averaging. Also notice that the detector noise $`\xi (t)`$ is now significantly correlated with the qubit evolution $`\rho _{ij}(t)`$.

To consider the case of a detector with finite response factor $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|/I_0`$, we necessarily need to take into account individual tunnel events in the detector because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes comparable to $`I_0/e`$. Hence, the current is not continuous any more and we have to use generalized Bayesian equations (which are essentially similar to the equations of the quantum jumps formalism). Then the qubit evolution during the time intervals between tunnel events in the detector is continuous and given by the small-time Bloch equations for $`\rho _{ij}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ with the restored normalization:

$`\dot{\rho }_{11}=`$ $`\dot{\rho }_{22}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{e}}\mathrm{coth}({\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2T}})\rho _{11}\rho _{22}2{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}\text{Im}\rho _{12},`$ (54)
$`\dot{\rho }_{12}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{2e}}\mathrm{coth}({\displaystyle \frac{eV}{2T}})(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})\rho _{12}`$ (56)
$`+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{12}+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{11}\rho _{22}),`$
while each tunnel event in the detector (at time $`t=t_k`$) causes abrupt change (collapse) of the qubit state:

$`\rho _{11}(t_k+0)={\displaystyle \frac{I_1\rho _{11}(t_k0)}{I_1\rho _{11}(t_k0)+I_2\rho _{22}(t_k0)}},`$ (57)
$`\rho _{22}(t_k+0)=1\rho _{11}(t_k+0),`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{12}(t_k+0)}{\rho _{12}(t_k0)}}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{11}(t_k+0)\rho _{22}(t_k+0)}{\rho _{11}(t_k0)\rho _{22}(t_k0)}}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (59)
\[Actually, in Eq. (57) instead of $`I_i`$ it is better to write $`I_i^+`$ if the tunneling is in the positive direction and $`I_i^{}`$ if it is in the negative direction; however, the corresponding temperature factors cancel each other.\] It is interesting to note that the generalized Bayesian equations do not contain any decoherence term even at finite temperature. This is because our model of the low-transparency QPC describes an ideal detector and counting tunnel events in both directions gives more information than measurement of only total current ($`I^+I^{}`$) assumed in Eqs. (50)–(53).

For the evolution simulation Eqs. (54)–(59) should be complemented by the statistics of tunnel events in the detector. This statistics is described by the (varying) rates $`p^+`$ and $`p^{}`$ of tunneling events in the positive and negative directions, respectively:

$`p^+(t)=(I_1^+/e)\rho _{11}(t)+(I_2^+/e)\rho _{22}(t),`$ (60)
$`p^{}(t)=(I_1^{}/e)\rho _{11}(t)+(I_2^{}/e)\rho _{22}(t).`$ (61)
It is important to notice that ensemble averaging of evolution equations (54)–(59) over random moments of tunneling events described by Eqs. (60)–(61) leads to the conventional master equation (14)–(15) with the ensemble decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by Eq. (17).

To calculate $`S_I(\omega )`$ we will use the method developed in Ref.  and write the current correlation function $`K_I(\tau )I(t+\tau )I(t)=K_I(\tau )`$ at $`\tau 0`$ as

$`K_I(\tau )=`$ $`s\delta (\tau )+I^+e[p^+(\tau |+)p^{}(\tau |+)]`$ (63)
$`I^{}e[p^+(\tau |)p^{}(\tau |)],`$
where $`s=S_I(\mathrm{})/2`$ determines the pedestal of $`S_I(\omega )`$ and $`p^\pm (\tau |\pm )`$ is the average rate of tunneling in the positive ($`p^+`$) or negative ($`p^{}`$) direction at time $`t+\tau `$, for the condition that at time $`t`$ a tunneling in the positive ($`|+`$) or negative ($`|`$) direction has occurred.

The value of $`s`$ should be chosen in a way to provide the correct value of $`S_I(\mathrm{})=S_0\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)`$ which can be calculated in the same manner as in the previous Section. For the calculation of $`p^\pm (\tau |+)`$ let us notice that as seen from Eq. (57), after the positive tunneling (at $`\tau =0`$) the value of $`z=\rho _{11}\rho _{22}`$ is equal to

$$z(t+0|+)=\frac{I_1\rho _{11}I_2\rho _{22}}{I_1\rho _{11}+I_2\rho _{22}},$$
(64)
where $`\rho _{ii}`$ are taken before the tunneling. Averaging $`z(t+0|+)`$ over the positive tunneling events \[or, equivalently, over time with the weight factor $`p^+(t)`$, which is proportional to the denominator of Eq. (64)\], we get $`z(t+0|+)=I_1\rho _{11}I_2\rho _{22}/I`$, expressed via simple averaging over time. Since $`\rho _{11}=\rho _{22}=1/2`$, the expression can be further simplified: $`z(t+0|+)=\mathrm{\Delta }I/2I`$. Similar calculation shows that $`\rho _{12}(t+0|+)=\rho _{12}(I_1I_2)^{1/2}/I=0`$.

It is sufficient to know $`z(t+0|+)`$ and $`\rho _{12}(t+0|+)`$ to calculate $`p^\pm (\tau |+)`$ because of the linearity of the averaged evolution equations (14)–(15) in terms of $`z`$ and $`\rho _{12}`$ and linearity of Eqs. (60)–(61). Using Eqs. (14)–(15) with averaged initial conditions at $`\tau =0`$, we can show

$$p^\pm (\tau |+)\frac{I^\pm }{e}=\frac{I_1^\pm I_2^\pm }{2e}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{2I}z(\tau ),$$
(65)
where $`z(\tau )`$ is calculated from Eqs. (14)–(15) starting from initial condition $`\rho _{11}=1`$, $`\rho _{22}=\rho _{12}=0`$. Finally noticing that the expressions do not depend on the direction of tunneling at $`\tau =0`$ and combining the terms in Eq. (63) we obtain

$$K_I(\tau >0)=I^2+\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2}{4}z(\tau )$$
(66)
with the same $`z(\tau )`$ as above. The constant term $`I^2`$ does not contribute to the Fourier transform $`S_I(\omega )=2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}K_I(\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau `$ (formally it leads to a $`\delta `$-function at $`\omega =0`$), while the second term of Eq. (66) gives the same contribution as the second term of Eq. (44). Consequently, the calculation of $`S_I(\omega )`$ using the generalized Bayesian approach leads to the same result as the master equation approach.

## VI Conclusion

The main result of this paper is the development of a method of $`S_I(\omega )`$ calculation for a detector measuring quantum coherent oscillations of a qubit, based on the microscopic Bloch equations, which couple the qubit and detector degrees of freedom. As the detector we assumed a low-transparency QPC (tunnel junction). We have shown that $`S_I(\omega )`$ calculated in this way formally coincides with the results obtained previously  by the Bayesian, master equation, and quantum jumps methods, though in this paper we have considered a wider validity range. In particular, our formalism takes into account finite detector temperature $`T`$ and assumes arbitrary detector response $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|/I_0`$.

Besides that, we have generalized the Bayesian method of $`S_I(\omega )`$ calculation to the case of arbitrary detector response and temperature. (The generalization of the master equation method is formally trivial.) We have proven that the results of all three methods still coincide in such generalized case.

The model we have considered describes essentially an ideal detector. The detector nonideality can be phenomenologically taken into account by introducing an extra dephasing term into the Bloch, master, and Bayesian equations, containing $`\dot{\rho }_{12}`$. This will lead to an increase of the ensemble decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and, therefore, to a wider and lower peak of $`S_I(\omega )`$, corresponding to the qubit oscillations. Similar procedure can be done to take into account a qubit-controlled change of the detector tunneling phase \[then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(2I_0\sqrt{4I_0^2(\mathrm{\Delta }I/\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2})(2e)^1\mathrm{coth}(eV/2T)`$ where $`\theta =\mathrm{arg}(M^{}\mathrm{\Delta }M)`$\] even though such detector is still ideal in the generalized sense. The effect of a weak extra coupling between the qubit and a passive finite-temperature environment (with temperature different from $`T`$) can be taken into account in a way similar to Refs. . We did not consider these effects in the present paper because their treatment is exactly the same as in previous papers.

An experimental measurement of $`S_I(\omega )`$ and verification of the upper bound ($`4S_0`$) for the spectral peak corresponding to qubit oscillations seems to be the easiest experiment related to a continuous monitoring of a nontrivial single qubit evolution. This makes it preferable for sooner realization in comparison with more interesting but more difficult proposed experiments on monitoring and continuous collapse of a solid-state qubit.

The authors thank L. Fedichkin for useful discussions. The work was supported by NSA and ARDA under ARO grant DAAD19-01-1-0491.