Content uploaded by Haroon Saifi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Haroon Saifi on Aug 09, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright ©2014 American Scientific Publishers
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
AMERICAN
SCIENTIFIC
PUBLISHERS
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Advanced Science Letters
Vot. 20, 12811286, 2014
Electron Transport in TShaped
Double Quantum Dot System Using
NonEquilibrium Green's Function
Haroorr and M. A. H. Ahsan
Department of Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi 110025, India
Electron transport at zero temperature through Tshaped double quantum dot attached to the noninteracting
leads is studied using Keldysh nonequilibrium Green's function technique. Linear conductance profile and dot
occupancies are calculated for various parameters corresponding to noninteracting as well as interacting elec
trons on the dots. In case of noninteracting electrons, we observe Fanoantiresonance wherein the linear
conductance vanishes (despite occupancies on the dots being finite) whenever the energy level of the quantum
dot not directly attached to the leads, aligns with the Fermi energy of the electrons in the leads at zerobias.
This is understood in terms of destructive interference between several possible Feynman paths between the
source and the drain. Electronelectron correlation on the dots incorporated via intra dot and interdot interaction
is investigated in HartreeFock as well as beyond HartreeFock approximation. Results obtained using present
decoupling scheme for Green's functions shows that the intradot interaction on the quantum dot not directly
connected to the leads removes the antiresonance point and leads to splitting into two dips in the linear con
ductance profile. Results are compared with the one obtained using HarteeFock approximation.
Keywords:
Double Quantum Dot, Linear Conductance, AntiResonance, NonEquilibrium Green's Function.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Semiconductor quantum dots are tunable structures characterized
by their discrete energy levels and electronelectron interactions.
It has become possible to control the number of electrons in a
quantum dot precisely down to one. I 1.12 Thus one can use quan
tum dot as a single electron transistor (SET) where one can mon
itor and control the dynamics of individual electrons with the
help of gate operations. From fundamental physics point of view
electronic structures involving quantum dots arranged in some
geometry between metallic leads which act as electron source
and drain have become testing bed to investigate the many
body effects and related phenomena such as Kondo effect, Fano
effect,
I.
14 Antiresonance effect,S.16 Coulomb Blockade, etc. in
a controlled manner. Quantum dot structures are thus promis
ing candidate for future wideranging nanotechnological appli
cations such as quantum
cornputation.s?
quantum logic gate.?
The occurrence of zero point in the linear conductance is
called antiresonance.P'!" The phenomenon is belived to be a
consequence of destructive interference between several possi
ble Feynman paths." It has been demonstrated in earlier studies
that antiresonance effect can clearly be understood in non
interacting electron picture.P'? This, however, does not mean
•Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adv. SeL Lett. Vol. 20, No.
7/8/9, 2014
that mere presence of interactions would washs it away. The elec
tronic transport features at zero temperature survive qualitatively
over a wide range of temperature.
J3
We, therefore, study zero
temperature linear conductance of the system which is the equi
librium properties of the double quantum dot system arranged
in such a way that only one of the quantum dot is directly
attached to the leads and the other dot is tunnel coupled to the
first dot (Tshaped arrangement). Double quantum dot (DQD) in
Tshaped geometry can be regarded as a single electron transis
tor (SET) with one of the dot attached directly to the leads and
the other dot considered as an impurity dot which may arise in
practice due to defect in fabrication.!? In this system we exam
ine the effect of electron interactions on the linear conductance
profile of the system and on the antiresonance point.
2.
THE MODEL AND COMPUTATIONAL
SCHEME
2.1. The Model
Our model for the double quantum dot connected to the leads
in Tshaped geometry as shown in Figure I is given by
the Hamiltonian consisting three parts H
=
HDQD
+
H
lcads
+
Htunncl'
where the isolated tunnelcoupled quantum dots are
described by HDQD and the noninteracting leads by
Hleads'
and
19366612/2014/20/1281/006
doi: I0.1 I66/asl.20 14.5528
1281
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Adv. Sci. Lett. 20, 12811286,2014
Source
Drain
Dot2
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram showing double quantum dot attached to the
leads in
T
shaped geometry.
electron tunnelling between the leads and the quantum dots is
described by
Htunnel
"DOD
=
L L L E;C:uC;"+L
u.n,»,
,~1. 2
u~j .•
aes,
d;~1. 2
+gLnlun2u,+1 L (C;"c2"+C;,,Clu)
(Hr' cr=t.!
"tunnel=
L L(V;C:auClu+V;'C;uCkaU)
(I)
k.u= .
a=sd
Here the first term in HDOD describe energy of an electron on
spin degenerate level
E;
of ith dot. Second and third term con
tainig
V
and
g
are manybody terms due to Coulomb interaction
between two electrons of opposite spin on the same dot and inter
dot Coulomb interaction between two electron on different dots
respectively, and last terms describe and interdot tunnel coupling.
The
H
lcads
describes the noninteracting electrons in the source
and drain leads. And finally,
Htunncl
describes coupling of dotI
with the source and drain leads.
2.2.
Computational Scheme
In steady state, we can express current through the quantum dot
system as"
J
=
L!!.
f
dw[Js(w)  !d(w)lTr[G~(w)rsG~(w)rdl
(2)
u
h
Where !s(w) and !d(W) are Fermi distribution functions in the
source and the drain respectively. From Eq. (2) we can obtain
expression for linear conductance, at zero temperature as
17.20
with the transmission function is given as
here P
=
21TIVSI
2
p(w)
and
I'",
defined similarly, are the cou
pling matrices between the dots and the source and drain leads,
respectively. In steady state G~(w)
=
G~'(w) and taking cou
pling to the leads symmetric with
I"
=
r
=
I',
Eq. (4) can be
written as
In wideband limit couplings
p(d)
can be taken as energy inde
pendent." Since transport is dominated by states which lying
1282
close to the Fermi level, the density of states in the leadscan be
taken as constant
p(
w)
=
1/2D,
where
D
is half bandwidth.
To calculate the linear conductance from Eq. (3), we need to
calculate the retarded Green's function for the dot
G~"
(w)
=«
clu
I
c;u
»~,
where subscript wdenotes its Fourier transform.
The retarded Green's function defined as
(6)
can be calculated using equation of motion method.i' And its
Fourier transform performed as
(7)
In Keldysh's nonequilibrium Green's function formalism, the
equation of motion is developed by differentiating Eq. (6) which
generates higher order Green's functions due manybody terms
present in the Hamiltonian. On writing the equation of motion
of the new Green's functions further generates hierarchy of new
Green's functions. At some stage higher order Green's functions
are approximated in order to close the set of equations for the
Green's functions. In our calculation, we have kept all Green's
functions containing upto four fermionic operators as they are
and the higher order Green's functions in the meanfield approxi
mation. We obtain a closed set of eight equations for G~u
(w)
and
similar eight equations for G
2u
(w).
The e sixteen equations are
calculated in a selfconsistent way to obtain linear conductance
and dot occupancies.
If manybody term are not present in the Hamiltonian, then
G~u
(w)
can be obtained exactly as
(8)
(3)
where, w+
=
w+
io.
The Green's function for dotZ G
2u
(w)
can be obtained similarly. Within the HartreeFock approxirna
tion and in the absence of interdot interaction
g
=
0, the form
of the Green's function Eq. (8) remains structurally same with
dot energies are renormalized to
<
+
E, +V;(n;u)' For finite
g, the form of Green's function again remains the sameexcept
dot energies are replaced by effective dot energies as El
+
E;
=
El +VI (nlu)+g«n2u) +(n2u» and E2
+
E;
=
E2 +V2(n2u)
+
g«nlu)+(nlu»'
We now explain our decoupling scheme beyond the Hartree
Fock approximation. To calculate G~u(w), we differentiate
Eq. (6) and obtain
(4)
(w El +ir)G~u(W)
=
1+1 «C2u
I
c:u»w +VI «nluclu
I
c;"
»,
+g L «n2u'clu
I
ci"
»,
a'
(w  E2)« c2u
I
c~u» w= IG~u( w) +V2« n2Uc2u
le;"
»w
+gL«nlu,c2ulc;u»w (9)
o'
(5)
There are four terms appearing in the above two equations involv
ing VI' V2and g, multiplying two panicle Green's functions
on the righthand side. Oecoupling twopanicle Green's function
at this stage, corresponds to HartreeFock approximation. To go
beyond HarteeFock approximation, we further write equations
of motion for all the two panicle Green's functions and then
Adv. Sci. Lett. 20, 12811286, 2014
decouple higher order Green's functions effectively closing the
system of equation with eight equations for each dot. For the
special case where manybody interactions are present only on
dotZ i.e., V
2
i 0, VI
=
0,
g
=
0, the Green's function for dotI
e;,,(w)
takes the form.
e;,,(w)
= (
?
I .
w+ 1'1 (t/(w+ 1'2))+1r)
IV
2
X
I
+w+1'2 x (w+I'I(12/(W+1'2))+if) (10)
Where
l(n2iT)
X
= ::,..,.:,.::::..:....
(w+  1'2 V2)(w+  1'1+ if)
X[I
12
_]1
(w+  1'2
V
2)(w+  1'1+if)
3. NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We can calculate linear conductance of the system using Eq. (3)
as a function of quantum dot levels. Experimentally it is pos
sible to tune the quantum dot levels separately by applying a
gate voltage to each of the quantum dots. In this present work
we, therefore, investigate how the linear conductance varies when
one or both of the quantum dot levels are individually or simul
taneously tuned. Our purpose is to explore how the quantum
mechanical tunnelling and the manybody interaction change the
linear conductance profile of the double quantum dot system. We
therefore consider both the noninteracting and the interacting
cases separately. Numerical calculations are carried out for the
paramagnetic case implying (n )
=
(n) and er
=
G';
If the
system is in equilibrium i.e., :hen th~"transpo~" prop~~ies are
calculated in zerobias limit, occupancies of the quantum dots
can be calculated at zero temperature using the relation
In the results presented below we choose the tunnelling strength
1 as our unit of energy and take
I'
=
21 in the strong coupling
regime. In contrast to the weak coupling regime where sharp res
onant peak features of the conductance profile coincide with the
eigenenergies of the isolated double quantum dot
10.13
in strong
coupling regime resonant peak features disappear because cou
pling to the leads causes dotlevel broadening. Since the linear
conductance is related to the equilibrium properties of the sys
tern," we take the Fermi energies of the source and the drain
leads to be the same and all energies in the system are mea
sured with reference to the Fermi energy set to zero. In present
calculation we consider various cases as follows.
3.1. NonInteracting Case,
U
1
=
U
2
=
0, 9
=
0
For the sake of reference we begin our analysis by considering
the noninteracting case i.e., when there is no interdot or intradot
Coulomb interactions on either of the dot. The Green's func
tion for the system is then exactly known as given in Eq. (8).
In Figure 2 we observe that when the energy level of dot2 is
varied the linear conductance vanishes at 1'2
=
I'F
O
called the anti
resonance point.
15•16
It is due the fact that the transmission func
tion in Eq. (5) defined in terms of
e;,,(w)
vanishes at
w
=
I'F'
RESEARCH ARTICLE
U,=U,=O.O, g = 0.0
1.0
0.8
:2
~
.,
0.6
o
c
~
:l
u
0.4
c
0
U
0.2
0.0
3
,,={).2
   " =
O.O!
........ ',=+0.2
2
1
o
2
3
Fig. 2. Noninteracting case with
V,
=
V
2
=
9
=
0: Linear conductance (in
units of 2e
2
/h) versus dot2 energy level
'2
(in units of I). The dot1 energy
level has been fixed at "
=
0.21,0, +0.21 corresponding to below Fermi
energy, at Fermi level and above Fermi energy respectively.
The antiresonance point does not change as the dotI level 1'1
is varied. The linear conductance profile is observed to be sym
metric about the antiresonance point when dotI level is fixed
at the Fermilevel 1'1=0.
In Figure 3 dotI and dot2 occupancies are plotted at three
different values of dotI energies 1'1
=
0.21,0,0.21
correspond
ing to below Fermi energy at Fermi level and above Fermi
energy. It is observed that when dot2 energy level 1'2 lies below
the Fermi energy
I'F
=
0, the occupancy of dot2 is more than
the occupancy of dotI. even though dotI is directly connected
to the leads whereas dot2 is tunnel coupled to dotI. One would
classically expect that the occupancy of dotI be more than that
of dotZ. This apparent anomaly is due to the quantum mechani
cal tunnelling which is contrary to the classical picture. It is also
observed that occupancy of dotI increases slightly about zero
point whereas the occupancy of dot2 exhibits a sharp decreases
with increasing dot2 energy 1'2' The fact that the dot occupancies
U,=U,=O.O, g=O.O ', =0.21
., = 0.01
" = +0.21
1.0
0.8
'"
o
c
0.6
'"
a.
:l
o
U
0
0.4
(5
0
0.2
0.0
3
2
1
o
',It
2
3
Fig. 3. Noninteracting case with V,
=
V
2
=
9
=
0: Average occupancy of
dot1 and dotZ versus dot2 energy level
'2
(in units of I). The dot1 energy
level has been fixed at "
=
0.21,0, +0.21 corresponding to below Fermi
energy, at Fermi level and above Fermi energy respectively.
1283
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Adv. Sei. Lett. 20, 12811286,2014
1.0
U,=O.O
.U,=0.5
U,=1.0
·U,=1.5
U,=O.O,g=o.o, E,=O.O
0.2
0.8
:2
N;
'"
~ 0.6
c:
ca
'0
:::l
"C 0.4
e
o
U
0.0+~,~r'"'.'......:.!.;L~.~,~
3
2
1
Fig. 4. Linear conductance (in units of 2e2/h) versus dot2 energy level
'2
(in units of
f),
at four different values of intradot Coulomb interaction U
2
=
0,0.5f, 1.0f, 1.5f. HartreeFock approximation with
U,
=
O,g
=
0 and dot1
energy level fixed at "
=
'F
=
O.
are nonzero at antiresonance point but linear conductance van
ishes, reflects that the antiresonance is caused by the destructive
interference between the two paths electrons can take through
from source to drain either via dotI without visiting dot2 or via
dot2 through tunneling." We now consider various situations in
the interacting case.
3.2.
HartreeFock Approximation with
U,
=
0,
1:,
=
0
Figure 4, shows the linear conductance calculated by incorporat
ing manybody interaction within HartreeFock approximation.
We observe that the intradot Coulomb interaction on dot2 does
not remove occurrence of antiresonance point in the linear con
ductance and resembles qualitatively with the noninteracting
case as shown in Figure 2. This is due to the fact that within
HartreeFock approx.imation the Hamiltonian is effectively non
interacting with singleparticle energy levels renormalised as
E
j~
<
=
E
j
+
Vj(njir)'
The zero point in the linear conductance
occurs at (w 
E;)lw='F
=
0.
Figure 5, shows the effect of interdot interaction incorporated
within HartreeFock approximation. We observe that with inter
dot interaction the antiresonance point survivs though it shifts to
lower values of dot2 energy level below the Fermi energy. This
due to the fact that the interdot interaction incorporated within
the HartreeFock approximation leaves the form of Green's func
tion invariant as noninteracting case in Eq. (8). The zero point in
the linear conductance would occur at
(w 
E;) IW='F
=
0, where
E; ~ E2
+
V2(n2ir)
+
g(
(nlir)
+
(nl(T»'
3.3.
Beyond HartreeFock with
U,
=
0,
U
2
=
t,
9
=
0
In Figure 6 we have plotted linear conductance as a function of
dot2 energy level
E2
for three different values of dotI energy
level and for finite intradot Coulomb interaction on dot2. It is
observed that the intradot Coulomb interaction on dot2 removes
the antiresonance point observed in the noninteracting case
as shown in Figure 2 Section (3.1). We observe that the anti
resonance valley splits into two dips one of them occur at
E2
=
EF
=
°
and the other at
E2
=
I.
From the ex.plicit form of the
Green's function obtained for the case VI
=
0, g
=
0, V
2
i
°
in
1284
g=O.OI
·g=O.lI
 g=0.21
 g=0.31
U,=U
2
=1.01, E,=O.O
1.0
2
0.8
~
CD
0.6
o
c:
U
:::l
"C 0.4
c
o
U
'.
,
,
,
"
,
"
'
.',
,
,
, v',
\\
'.
\\",
',.
"1"
\\',
v..
\\',
',1',
\\.
0.0+~''r''>':2i'
::.:,L+'r~'~
3
0.2
3
2 1
Fig. 5. Linear conductance (in units of 2e2/h) versus dot2 energy level
E2
(in units of
f),
at four different values of interdot Coulomb interaction 9
=
0,0.11, 0.2f, 0.3f. HartreeFock approximation with U,
=
U
2
=
1.0f,
E,
=
0 and
dot1 energy level fixed at
E,
=
EF
=
O.
Eq. (10), it can be infered that the transmission function in Eq. (5)
does not vanish at w
=
EF'
The first term in Eq. (10) vanishes
at w
=
EF
but the second term, which appears due to manybody
interaction
V
2
present in the Hamiltonian contributes finitely and
also causes the split in the dips. Hence it is the manybody inter
action which causes removal of antiresonance point in the linear
conductance profile of the double quantum dot system.
The intradot interaction on dot2 mainly affects linear con
ductance when dot2 level lies below Fermi energy. The linear
conductance profile remains qualitatively unaffected when dot2
level is tuned above the Fermi energy. The dotI energy level
does not affect the position of dips as shown for three values of
dotI energy level, regardless of whether it is set above or below
the Fermi energy. This is in contrast with the results obtained by
incorporating manybody interaction at HartreeFock level shown
\l\
F\gure 1\.
'.0
U,=O.O, U2=1.01, g=O.O
0.8
~
N~
CD
0.6
o
c:
U
:::l
"C
0.4
c:
0
U
0.2
0.0
3
2
1
0
Ejl
£,=O.2t
 E,
= 0.01
........ E,
=
+0.21
2
Fig. 6. Linear conductance (in units of 2e2/h) versus dot2 energy level
'2
(in units of
f),
at three different values of ootj energy level
E,
=
0.2f, 0, +0.2f corresponding to below Fermi energy, at Fermi level and
above Fermi energy respectively. Beyond HartreeFock approximation with
U,
=
0,
U2
=
1.0f, g
=
O.
Adv. Sci. Lett. 20, 12811286, 2014
RESEARCH ARTICLE
1.0
EF EF
1.0
0.9
U,= U2=1.01, 9=0.0 U,=U2=1.Ot, E,=O.O
.:


~
....••. _
..
.'
,
.,.,;::
::.::
.;...:;~
...

.
0.8
,
0.8
:"'''
0.7
9=0.01
:2
E,=0.21 ~9 =0.11
~
0.6
     £,
=
0.01
N~
0.6
,
 9 =0.21
,
. 9=0.31
(I)
........ E1
=
0.21
(I)
,
0
0.5
c
0
,
~
c
,
~
,
:J
0.4 0.4
'.
"0
:J
,
C
"0
'.
0
0.3 c:
,
o
0
o
0.2 0.2
0.1
0.0 0.0
3 2 1 0 2 33 2 1 0 2 3
E,It E/I
Fig. 7. Linear conductance (in units of 2e2/h) versus dot2 energy level
E2 (in units of I), at three different values of dot1 energy level E,
=
0.21,0, +0.21 corresponding to below Fermi energy, at Fermi level and
above Fermi energy respectively. Beyond HartreeFock approximation with
U,
=
I, U2
=
1.01,9
=
O.
3.4. Beyond HartreeFock with
U
1
=
U
2
=
t,
9
=
0
In Figure 7, we have plotted linear conductance of double quan
tum dot system as a function of dot2 energy level E2 for the
case when intradot Coulomb interaction is present on both the
dots keeping other parameters same as in the Section (3.3) when
Coulomb interaction was present only on dot2. We observe
that though the conductance profile changes slightly, the posi
tion of two dips and the peak remain unaffected as for the case
when Coulomb interaction was present only on dot2 shown in
Figure 6. The intradot Coulomb interactions enhances the depth
of the two dips and height of the peak. The linear conductance
reduce when dot2 level lies far below the Fermi level. The
linear conductance profile of the system remains qualitatively
1.0
0.8
>
0
0.6
c
••
Co
:J
0
0
0
0.4
0
Cl
0.2
U,=U2=1.0t, g=O.O £,=O.2t
   . E,
= O.Ot
&,=+0.21
<n>
t
0.0
i~r~...~i.":~~~==::;:=~
3
2
o
Ei
t
2
1
Fig. 8. Average occupancy of dot1 and dot2 versus dot2 energy level E2
(in units of I). The dot1 energy level has been fixed at
E,
=
0.21,0, +0.21
corresponding to below Fermi energy, at Fermi level and above Fermi energy
respectively. Beyond HartreeFock approximation with U,
=
U2
=
1.01,9
=
O.
Fig. 9. Linear conductance (in units of 2e2/h) versus dot2 energy level E2
(in units of I), at four different values of interdot Coulomb interaction 9
=
0,0.11,0.21,0.31. Beyond HartreeFock approximation with U,
=
U2
=
1.01
and dot1 energy level fixed at
E,
=
EF
=
O.
unaffected when the energy level of dot2 is set above the Fermi
level. In Figure 8 corresponding occupancies of the dots are plot
ted showing stairecase nature due to Coulomb blockade.
3.5. The Effect of Interdot Interaction
In Figure 9, we plot linear conductance of the double quan
tum dot system as a function of dot2 energy level E2 for the
case when both interdot and intradot interactions are present. We
observe that the interdot interaction, unlike intradot interaction
on dot2
U
2
causes no further split in the dips, but enhances the
peak height between the two dips. It is interesting to note that
the position of one of the dips lying about E2
=
EF
=
0 remains
unchanged as was in the case when the interdot interaction was
not present given in Section (3.3). The interdot interaction causes
a significant shift in the position of the other dip towards the
lower values of dot2 energy level below the Fermi energy. This
is due to the fact that the intradot interaction on dot2 gets renor
malized in the presence of interdot interaction.!" Interdot inter
action also causes the downward shift in the linear conductance
profile when dot2 level lies below the Fermi level. The interdot
interaction causes no significant change in the linear conductance
profile when dot2 level is tuned above the Fermi level.
3
4.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The effect of electronelectron interaction on the linear con
ductance profile of double quantum dot system in
T
shaped
geometry is studied employing nonequilibrium Green's func
tion in Keldysh formalism in a situation with strong coupling
with the leads. In the noninteracting case the linear conduc
tance vanishes at a point called antiresonance point which is
the consequence of desctructive interference between different
Feynman paths electron can take between source and drain.
It is shown that the intradot and interdot interactions incorpo
rated within HartreeFock approximation, do not cause removal
of antiresonance point present in the linear conductance pro
file of the noninteracting system but only causes shifting of
1285
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Adv. SeL
Lett.
20, 12811286,2014
antiresonance point to lower energies below the Fermi energy.
The manybody interaction incorporated beyond HartreeFock
approximation reveals that the intradot interaction on the dot2
causes removal of antiresonance point and also the splitting
of antiresonance valley into two Coulomb dips occuring due
to destructive interference separated by ondot Coulomb strength
U
2
on dot2 due to Coulomb blockade. The interdot interac
tion causes shifting of only one of the two dips lying below
the Fermi energy. The manybody interactions causes significant
variation in the linear conductance profile, necessitating higher
order approximations to incorporate when the electronelectron
interaction becomes strong.
Acknowledgments: Haroon is thankful to Jawaharlal
ehru Memorial Fund (J MF) for providing fellowship for a
part of the work. The authors thank Professor S. K. Joshi for
useful comments and discussion.
References and Notes
1. U. Fano.
Phys. Rev.
124. 1866 (1961).
2. L. V. Keldish.
Zh. Eksp.
teo«
Fiz.
47. 1515 (1964).
1286
3. D. N. Zubarev,
Sov. Phys. Usp.
3, 320 (1960).
4. V Meir and N. S. Wingreen,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
68, 2512 (1992).
5. A.P' Jauho, N. S. Wingreen, and V Meir,
Phys. Rev. B
50, 5528 (1994).
6. D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo,
Phys. Rev. A
57. 120 (1998).
7. G. Burkard. D. Loss, and D. P. DiVincenzo,
Phys. Rev. B
59, 2070 (1999).
8. A. E. Miroshnichenko, S. Flach, and V. S. Kivshar,
Rev. Mod. Phys.
82, 2257
(2010).
9. I. Amlani. A. O. Ortov, G. Toth, G. H. Bernstein, C. S. Lent, and G. L. Sinder,
Science
284, 289 (1999).
10. K. P.Singh, S. Lamba, and S. K. Joshi,
Journal of Applied Physics
99,124503
(2006).
11. L. P. Kouwenhoven, D. G. Austing, and S. Traucha,
Rep. Prog. Phys.
64, 701
(2001).
12. W. G. Van der Weil, S. De Franceschi, J. M. Elzerman, T. Fujisawa,
S. Traucha, and L. P.Kouwenhoven.
Rev. Mod. Phys.
75, 1 (2003).
13. B. R. Bulka and T. Kostyrko,
Phys. Rev. B
70, 205333 (2004).
14. P.Trocha and J. Barnas,
Phys. Rev. B
76, 165432 (2007).
15. W. Gong, V. Zheng, V liu, and T. Lu,
Phys. Rev. B
73, 245329 (2006).
16. W. Gong, V Han, and G. Wei,
J.
Phys.: Condens. Matter
21, 175801
(2009).
17. V liu, V Zheng, W. Gong, W. Gao, and T. Lu,
Physics Letters A
365. 495
(2007).
18. K. Kobayashi, H. Aikawa, A. Sano, S. Katsumoto, and V lye,
Phys. Rev. B
70, 035319 (2004).
19. M. Sato, H. Aikawa, K. Kobayashi, S. Katsumoto. and V lye,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
95, 066801 (2005).
20. G. Vi, G. Wei, S. Wang. and A. Du,
Physics Letters A
372, 4092 (2008).
Received: 12 June 2014. Accepted: 10 July 2014.