Single-dot spectroscopy via elastic single-electron tunneling through a pair of coupled quantum dots

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 93, Issue 6, 2004, Pages

  Ota, T ^a,d   Ono, K ^b   Stopa, M ^a   Hatano, T ^a   Tarucha, S ^a,b   Song, H Z ^c   Nakata, Y ^c   Miyazawa, T ^c   Ohshima, T ^c   Yokoyama, N ^c  

^a JAPAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGENCY   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^c FUJITSU LABORATORIES LTD   (Japan)

^d Kashino Diverse Brain Research Laboratory of NTT Communication Science Laboratories   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL POTENTIAL; CONSTANT INTERACTION (CI) MODEL; ELECTRON-HOLE PAIRS; FOCK-DARWIN SPECTRA;

CAPACITANCE; COULOMB BLOCKADE; ELASTICITY; ELECTRIC CURRENTS; ELECTRON TUNNELING; ELECTRONIC STRUCTURE; FERMI LEVEL; GROUND STATE; HETEROJUNCTIONS; MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS; SELF ASSEMBLY; SEMICONDUCTING GALLIUM ARSENIDE; SEMICONDUCTING INDIUM COMPOUNDS; SEMICONDUCTOR DOPING; SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSIS; THRESHOLD VOLTAGE;

SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM DOTS;

EID: 69649108795     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.066801     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. S. Tarucha et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3613 (1996), S. Amaha et al., Solid State Commun. 119, 183 (2001).
2. S. Tarucha et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3613 (1996), S. Amaha et al., Solid State Commun. 119, 183 (2001).
3. M. R. Deshpande et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1328 (1996).
4. L. Langer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 479 (1996).
5. J. Chen et al., Science 286, 1550 (1999).
6. For example, Y. Arakawa et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 40, 939 (1982); J. -Y. Marzin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 716 (1994).
7. For example, Y. Arakawa et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 40, 939 (1982); J. -Y. Marzin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 716 (1994).
8. M. Bayer et al., Nature (London) 405, 923 (2000); M. Bayer et al., Science 291, 451 (2001).
9. M. Bayer et al., Nature (London) 405, 923 (2000); M. Bayer et al., Science 291, 451 (2001).
10. M. Fricke et al., Europhys. Lett. 36, 197 (1996); B. T. Miller et al., Phys. Rev. B 56, 6764 (1997); H. Drexler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2252 (1994).
11. M. Fricke et al., Europhys. Lett. 36, 197 (1996); B. T. Miller et al., Phys. Rev. B 56, 6764 (1997); H. Drexler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2252 (1994).
12. M. Fricke et al., Europhys. Lett. 36, 197 (1996); B. T. Miller et al., Phys. Rev. B 56, 6764 (1997); H. Drexler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2252 (1994).
13. D. G. Austing et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 671 (1999).
14. K. H. Schmidt et al., Phys. Rev. B 62, 15879 (2000).
15. The size between the upper and lower dots is well known to be different due to self-assembly process. See Q. Xie et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2542 (1995).
16. T. Ota et al., Physica (Amsterdam) E19, 210 (2003).
17. K. Ono et al., Physica (Amsterdam) B314, 450 (2002).
18. G < -0.77 V in Fig. 2, see T. Ota et al., Physica (Amsterdam) 22, 510 (2004).
19. K. Ono et al., Science 297, 1313 (2002).
20. The energy offset between the lowest states of the two dots, which arises from the size difference, is included. See Ref. [14].
21. P. L. McEuen, Phys. Rev. B 45, 11419 (1992).
22. V. Fock, Z. Phys. 47, 446 (1928).
23. Our choice of quantum numbers for the F-D states follows that employed in the theoretical analysis given by Ref. [19].
24. A. Wojs et al., Phys. Rev. B 53, 10841 (1996).
25. 0, respectively.
26. D. G. Austing et al., Phys. Rev. B 60, 11 514 (1999).