text:
# A quantum coherent approach to transport and noise in double barrier resonant diodes: shot noise a way to distinguish coherent from sequential tunneling

## I Introduction

Since its realization tsu73 , the double barrier resonant diode (DBRD) proved to be an electron device of broad physical interest because of its peculiar non Ohmic current voltage (I-V) characteristic. Indeed, after a strong superOhmic increase of current it exhibits a negative differential conductance and eventually histeresis effects. goldman87  Even the shot noise characteristics of DBRDs are of relevant interest in the sense that suppressed as well as enhanced shot noise with respect to the full Poissonian value has been observed (see Ref. \[blanter00, \] for a review on the subject). These electrical and noise features are controlled by the mechanism of carrier tunneling through the double potential barriers. The microscopic interpretation of these features is found to admit a coherent or a sequential tunneling approach blanter00 . The coherent approach chang74  consists in considering the whole device as a single quantum system characterized by a transmission coefficient describing carrier transport from one contact to the other. By contrast, the sequential approach luryi85  consists in considering tunneling through the diode as a two step process where carriers first transit from one contact into the well, then from the well to the other contact. The intriguing feature of these two approaches is that from the existing literature it emerges that both of them are capable to explain the I-V experimental data as well as most of the shot noise characteristics. Therefore, to our knowledge there is no way to distinguish between these two transport regimes and the natural question whether the tunnelling transport is coherent or sequential remains an unsolved one.

The coherent approach to shot noise in DBRD has received wide attention since the first experimental evidence by Li et al li90  of shot noise suppression with a minimum value of the Fano factor $`\gamma =S_I/(2qI)=0.5`$, here $`S_I`$ is the low frequency spectral density of current fluctuations and $`q`$ the absolute value of the unit charge responsible of current. Remarkably, most of the coherent approaches developed so far chen91 ; brown92 ; hershfield92 ; runge93 ; iannaccone97 ; sun99  predict a maximum suppression $`\gamma =0.5`$ even if there is clear experimental evidence of suppression below this value brown92 ; prazadka97 ; kuznetsov98  down to values of $`\gamma =0.25`$.prazadka97 ; kuznetsov98  To this purpose, some authors obtained theoretical values of the Fano factor just below the value of 0.5, Ref. \[euges94, \] found 0.45 and Ref. \[jahan95, \] 0.38, respectively. However, the physical interpretation of these results remains mostly qualitative and quoting Ref. \[blanter00, \] this direction of research looks promising but certainly requires more efforts. We remark that the theory of shot noise in DBRDs under the sequential approach chen92 ; davies92 ; chen93 ; hung93 ; hershfield93 ; euges94 ; iannaccone97 ; blanter99 ; aleshkin01a ; aleshkin01  provides a Fano factor of $`0.5`$ as the minimum value of shot noise suppression.

The aim of this paper is to develop a coherent theoretical approach for current voltage and electronic noise in DBRDs accounting for Pauli principle and long range Coulomb interaction going beyond existing models. To this purpose, we implement the quantum approach proposed in Ref. \[averin93, ; blanter99, ; wei99, \]. We anticipate that the main result of the present theoretical approach concerns with the prediction that suppression of shot noise with a Fano factor below 0.5 is a signature of coherent tunneling against sequential tunneling.

The content of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical model. Section 3 provides the analytical expressions for the calculation of the current voltage characteristics in the low voltage region limited to the first peak of the current. Section 4 provides the analytical expression for the electron noise corresponding to the current voltage characteristics of Sect. 3. Here, the Nyquist expression is recovered at vanishing applied voltage. At increasing voltages suppressed shot noise is found in the region preceding the current peak and enhanced shot noise at voltages just above the current peak. Section 5 reports a comparison between theory and existing experiments. Major conclusions are drawn in Sect. 6.

## II Model

The typical diode investigated here is the standard double well structure depicted in Fig. 1. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)`$ the resonant states width, by $`\epsilon _r`$ the energy of the resonant level as measured from the center of the potential well and by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}`$ the partial widths due to the tunnelling through the left and the right barrier, respectively. We consider the case of coherent tunnelling in the presence of only one resonant state and we assume that the diode has contacts with unit square surfaces. For convenience, calculations are carried out using the cgs system.

The kinetic model is developed by assuming that the electron distribution functions in the emitter and in the collector, $`f_\alpha `$, are equilibrium-like, but with different electro-chemical potentials $`F_\alpha `$:

$$f_\alpha (\epsilon ,F_\alpha )=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\epsilon F_\alpha }{k_BT}\right)},$$
(1)
here $`\alpha =L`$ stands for the left contact (the emitter), $`\alpha =R`$ for the right contact (the collector), $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, $`T`$ the bath temperature and $`\epsilon `$ the carrier energy.

The full Hamiltonian of the structure is

$$H=H_L+H_R+H_{res}+H_{tun}$$
(2)
here

$$H_\alpha =\underset{p_{}}{}\underset{p_\alpha }{}(E(p_\alpha )+p_{}^2/2m)c_\alpha ^+(p_\alpha ,p_{})c_\alpha (p_\alpha ,p_{})$$

are the Hamiltonians of the right and left contacts, $`c_\alpha ^+`$ and $`c_\alpha `$ the creation and annihilation operators of electrons in contact $`\alpha `$, $`p_{}`$ and $`p_\alpha `$ the momentum components perpendicular and parallel to the direction of the current, respectively, $`m`$ is the effective electron mass in the conduction band, $`E(p_\alpha )+p_{}^2/2m`$ the electron energy in the $`\alpha `$ contact,

$$H_{res}=\underset{p_{}}{}(E_r+p_{}^2/2m)a^+(p_{})a(p_{})$$

is the Hamiltonian of the resonant states, $`E_r=\epsilon _rqu`$ with $`u`$ the voltage drop between the emitter and center of the quantum well, $`q`$ the electron charge, $`a^+`$ and $`a`$ the creation and annihilation operators of electrons in the resonant level, and

$$H_{tun}=\underset{p_{},\alpha }{}\left(T_\alpha a^+(p_{})\underset{p_\alpha }{}c_\alpha (p_\alpha ,p_{})+hc\right)$$

the part of the Hamiltonian describing the electron tunneling, $`T_\alpha `$ the amplitude of tunneling between the resonant state and the $`\alpha `$th contact.

Following Ref. \[averin93, \], the relation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$ and $`T_\alpha `$ is: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =2\pi |T_\alpha |^2\rho _\alpha `$ where $`\rho _\alpha `$ is the one dimensional density of states, and the electron operators $`a`$ and $`c`$ in the Heisenberg representation are given by:

$$a(t,p_{})=\underset{\alpha ,p_\alpha }{}T_\alpha \frac{\mathrm{exp}(i[E(p_\alpha )+p_{}^2/2m]t/\mathrm{})}{E(p_\alpha )E_r+i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}c_\alpha (p_\alpha ,p_{})$$
(3)
$$c_\alpha (t,p_\alpha ,p_{})=c_\alpha (p_\alpha ,p_{})\mathrm{exp}\left(i[E(p_\alpha )+p_{}^2/2m]t/\mathrm{}\right)$$

$$\frac{iT_\alpha ^{}}{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑\tau a(\tau ,p_{})\mathrm{exp}\left(i[E(p_\alpha )+p_{}^2/2m](t\tau )/\mathrm{}\right)$$
(4)
The current operators for the left and right contacts $`I_{L,R}`$ and for the total current $`I`$ areaverin93 :

$$I_\alpha (t)=\frac{iq}{\mathrm{}}\underset{p_\alpha ,p_{}}{}\left(T_\alpha a^+(t,p_{})c_\alpha (t,p_\alpha ,p_{})hc\right)$$
(5)
$$I=\eta I_L(1\eta )I_R$$
(6)
where $`\eta =u/V`$, $`V`$ being the total applied voltage (see Fig. 1).

From Eqs. (3) to (5) we obtain the expressions for current operators similar to that obtained in Ref. \[blanter99, \]

$$I_\alpha (t)=\frac{q}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\underset{p_{}}{}\underset{\beta ,p_\beta }{}\underset{\gamma ,p_\gamma }{}\mathrm{exp}(i(E_\beta E_\gamma )t/\mathrm{})\times $$

$$A_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (E_\beta ,E_\gamma )c_\beta ^+(p_\beta ,p_{})c_\gamma (p_\gamma ,p_{})$$
(7)
where $`E_\alpha =E(p_\alpha )`$ and the full expression for $`A_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (E_\beta ,E_\gamma )`$ is reported in the Appendix. From Eqs. (6) and (7) and the expression of $`A_{\beta ,\gamma }^\alpha (E_\beta ,E_\gamma )`$ from the Appendix, we find the usual expression for the average current

$$<I>=<I_L>=<I_R>=$$

$$=\frac{qm}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}_{g_L}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _zD(\epsilon _z)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _{}[f_L(\epsilon ,F_L)f_R(\epsilon ,F_R)]$$
(8)
where $`\epsilon _{}=p_{}^2/2m`$ is the kinetic energy of the transverse motion, $`\epsilon =(\epsilon _z+\epsilon _{})`$, $`g_L\left(u_L\right)`$ the energy gap between the bottom of the conduction band and the first quantized level in the well before the left barrier (see Fig. 1), $`D(\epsilon _z)`$ the transparency of the double barrier given by:

$$D(\epsilon _z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{(\epsilon _z\epsilon _r+qu)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4}}$$

In our model, we suppose that in the emitter there are no electron states with energy below $`g_L`$ and that electron states with energy higher than this value are three dimensional.

To take into account Coulomb effects, we introduce the expression for the operator of the electron charge in the quantum well, that from Eq. (3) is found to be given by:

$$Q_{QW}(t)=q\underset{p_{}}{}a^+(t,p_{})a(t,p_{})=$$

$$=q\underset{p_{}}{}\underset{\alpha ,p_\alpha }{}\underset{\beta ,p_\beta }{}\frac{T_\alpha ^{}T_\beta \mathrm{exp}(i(E_\alpha E_\beta )t/\mathrm{})}{(E_\alpha E_ri\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)(E_\beta E_r+i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)}\times $$

$$\times c_\alpha ^+(p_\alpha ,p_{})c_\beta (p_\beta ,p_{})$$
(9)
From Eq. (9) the average electron charge in the quantum well is found to be:

$$<Q_{QW}>=\frac{qm}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}[_{g_L}^{\mathrm{}}d\epsilon _zD(\epsilon _z)_0^{\mathrm{}}d\epsilon _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^1f_L(\epsilon ,F_L)$$

$$+_{qV}^{\mathrm{}}d\epsilon _zD(\epsilon _z)_0^{\mathrm{}}d\epsilon _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^1f_R(\epsilon ,F_R)].$$
(10)
## III Current voltage characteristics

The current voltage characteristic is determined from Eq. (8) once the dependence of $`D(\epsilon _z)`$ and $`g_L`$ on the applied voltage is given. To calculate the transparency explicitly, we must find $`u_L(V)`$ and $`u(V)`$ as functions of $`V`$. To this purpose, we consider the Poisson equation for the electrical potential $`\phi `$ in the structure of Fig. 1. In the emitter, the Poisson equation can be written in the form

$$\phi ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{4\pi q}{\kappa }\left[N_cF_{1/2}\left(\frac{F_L+q\phi }{k_BT}\right)n\right]$$
(11)
with

$$n=N_cF_{1/2}\left(\frac{F_L}{k_BT}\right)$$

the electron concentration in the emitter, $`N_c`$ the effective density of states of the conduction band, $`F_{1/2}(x)`$ the Fermi-Dirac integral of index 1/2 ashcroft76 , $`\kappa `$ the static dielectric constant of the material. We note that the effect of size quantization on the electron distribution in the emitter is neglected. By integrating Eq. (11) and taking into account that $`\phi \left(\mathrm{}\right)=\phi ^{}\left(\mathrm{}\right)=0`$, we find the relation between $`\phi _L^{}`$ and $`u_L`$ on the left border of the left barrier

$$\phi _L^{}=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi k_BT}{\kappa }\times }$$

$$\left[N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_L+qu_L}{k_BT}\right)N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_L}{k_BT}\right)\frac{q}{k_BT}nu_L\right]^{1/2}$$
(12)
Here $`F_{3/2}`$ is the Fermi-Dirac integral of index 3/2.ashcroft76  To simplify the task, we suppose that the barriers are undoped and that the charge in the quantum well is placed at its middle plane, so that we can write

$$u=u_L+\phi _L^{}\left(d_L+d_{QW}/2\right)$$
(13)
and

$$u_R=u+\left(\phi _L^{}\frac{4\pi }{\kappa }Q\right)\left(d_R+d_{QW}/2\right)$$
(14)
with $`d_L`$, $`d_R`$, $`d_{QW}`$ the widths of, respectively, the left battier, the right barrier, and the quantum well; $`Q=(qN_{QW}^+Q_{QW})`$ the charge in the quantum well; $`N_{QW}^+`$ the number of charged donors in the quantum well. Furthermore, we suppose that the electron concentration in the collector is the same of that in the emitter, hence $`F_R=(F_LqV)`$ and the Poisson equation in the collector takes the form given by Eq. (11) with the change $`F_LF_R`$. By integrating this new equation with the condition $`\phi \left(\mathrm{}\right)=V`$, $`\phi ^{}\left(\mathrm{}\right)=0`$, in analogy with Eq. (12) we obtain

$$\frac{k}{4\pi }\phi _L^{}+Q+\frac{k}{4\pi }\sqrt{\frac{8\pi k_BT}{\kappa }}[N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_L+qu_RqV}{k_BT}\right)$$

$$N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_LqV}{k_BT}\right)\frac{qn}{k_BT}(u_RV)]^{1/2}=0$$
(15)
Equation (15) relates $`u_R`$ to $`V`$. We remark that it is more convenient to consider $`V`$ and $`<I>`$ as functions of $`u`$ because in this case they are single valued functions even for I-V characteristics of Z-type. Since the first and the third term in the left hand side of Eq. (15) are the charge of the emitter $`Q_L`$ and of the collector $`Q_R`$, respectively, Eq. (15) expresses the electroneutrality condition of the device. We note, that to derive Eq. (15) we have assumed that the width of the depletion region in the collector region (see Fig. 1) is smaller than that between the right barrier and the highly doped region in the collector. As typical in DBRDs, from both sides of the barriers there are spacers with doping level of the order of $`10^{16}÷10^{17}cm^3`$ and with widths in the range between $`10÷500nm`$ brown92 ; figueiredo99 . If the low doped region in the collector is fully depleted, then Eq. (13) must be substituted with

$$V=u_R+\phi _R^{}L\frac{2\pi qnL^2}{\kappa }$$
(16)
where $`L`$ is the width of the spacer in the collector, and $`\phi _R^{}=(\phi _L^{}4\pi Q_{QW}/\kappa `$). In the derivation of Eq. (16), the voltage drop in the highly doped collector region is neglected.

## IV Noise

To calculate the spectral density of current fluctuations at zero frequency under fixed voltage we use the expressionaverin93 :

$$S_I(0)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t<\delta I(0)\delta I(t)+\delta I(t)\delta I(0)>$$
(17)
We anticipate that the total current fluctuation consists of two sources. The first comes from the fluctuation of population states in the contacts and the second from the fluctuation of the electron charge in the quantum well blanter99 . This last leads to fluctuations of the voltage drop between the emitter and the quantum well, $`\delta u`$. Accordingly, the operator of current fluctuations is given by:blanter99

$$\delta I(t)=\delta I_2(t)+\frac{<I>}{u}\delta u(t)$$
(18)
where $`\delta I_2(t)`$ is the current fluctuation operator under fixed $`u`$ due to the population fluctuations in the contacts. Analogously we can introduce the operator of charge fluctuation

$$\delta Q_{QW}(t)=\delta Q_{QW2}(t)C_{QW}\delta u(t)$$
(19)
where $`C_{QW}`$ is the differential capacitance of the quantum well

$$C_{QW}=\frac{<Q_{QW}>}{u}.$$

From the condition of charge neutrality, the charge fluctuations in the emitter $`\delta Q_e`$, in the collector $`\delta Q_c`$, and in the quantum well $`\delta Q_{QW}`$ satisfy:

$$\delta Q_e+\delta Q_c+\delta Q_{QW}=0$$
(20)
The charge fluctuation in the emitter and collector can be expressed through $`\delta u_{L,R}`$ as:

$$\delta Q_e=C_e\delta u_L,\delta Q_c=C_c\delta u_R$$
(21)
where $`C_{e,c}=Q_{e,c}/u_{L,R}`$ ($`V=const`$) are, respectively, the differential capacitance of the charge in the accumulation region of the emitter and in the depletion region of the collector whose expressions are detailed in the Appendix (we note that when Eq. (16) is valid $`C_c=\kappa /(4\pi L)`$). By taking in account that $`\phi _L^{}=4\pi Q_e/\kappa `$, from Eq. (13) we find:

$$\delta u=\delta u_L(1+C_e/C_1),C_1=\frac{\kappa }{4\pi (d_L+d_{QW}/2)}$$
(22)
Analogously, by taking into account that $`\phi _L^{}4\pi Q/\kappa =4\pi Q_c/\kappa `$, from Eq. (14) the relation between $`\delta u`$ and $`\delta u_R`$ is found to be:

$$\delta u=\delta u_R(1+C_c/C_2),C_2=\frac{\kappa }{4\pi (d_R+d_{QW}/2)}$$
(23)
From Eqs. (21) to (23), Eq. (20) is rewritten in the form

$$\delta Q_{QW}=\delta u(C_L+C_R),C_{L,R}=\frac{C_{e,c}C_{1,2}}{(C_{e,c}+C_{1,2})}$$
(24)
where $`C_L`$, ($`C_R`$) is the capacitance between the emitter (collector) and the center of the quantum well, respectively. From Eq. (24) it is clear that $`C_{L,R}`$ can be considered as two capacitances in series $`C_{1,2}`$ and $`C_{e,c}`$. If we neglect the accumulation and depletion regions (i.e. $`C_{e,c}\mathrm{}`$) and neglect the quantum well width (i.e. $`d_{QW}0`$) then $`C_{L,R}`$ coincide with those used in Ref. \[blanter99, \]. From Eqs. (19) and (24), the relation between $`\delta u`$ and $`\delta Q_{QW2}`$ is found to be:

$$\delta u(t)=\frac{\delta Q_{QW2}(t)}{C_L+C_R+C_{QW}}$$
(25)
From Eqs. (17), (18) and (25), $`S_I(0)`$ is found to be given by the sum of three terms as:

$$S_I(0)=S_1+S_2+S_3$$

The first, $`S_1`$, is the correlator of $`\delta I_2`$; the second, $`S_2`$, is proportional to the cross correlator between $`\delta I_2`$ and $`\delta Q_{QW2}`$; the third, $`S_3`$, is proportional to the correlator of $`\delta Q_{QW2}`$. They are given explicitely by:

$$S_1=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t<\delta I_2(0)\delta I_2(t)+\delta I_2(t)\delta I_2(0)>$$
(26)
$$S_2=J_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t<\delta I_2(0)\delta Q_{QW2}(t)+\delta I_2(t)\delta Q_{QW2}(0)+$$

$$+\delta Q_{QW2}(0)\delta I_2(t)+\delta Q_{QW2}(t)\delta I_2(0)>$$
(27)
$$S_3=J^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t<\delta Q_{QW2}(0)\delta Q_{QW2}(t)+$$

$$+\delta Q_{QW2}(t)\delta Q_{QW2}(0)>$$
(28)
where

$$J=\frac{1}{C_L+C_R+C_{QW}}\frac{<I>}{u}$$

plays the role of a differential RC rate.

By using the definitions for $`\delta I_{\alpha 2}(t)`$

$$\delta I_{\alpha 2}(t)=\frac{q}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\underset{p_{}}{}\underset{\beta ,p_\beta }{}\underset{\gamma ,p_\gamma }{}\mathrm{exp}(i(E_\beta E_\gamma )t/\mathrm{})A_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (E_\beta ,E_\gamma )\times $$

$$\left(c_\beta ^+(p_\beta ,p_{})c_\gamma (p_\gamma ,p_{})<c_\beta ^+(p_\beta ,p_{})c_\gamma (p_\gamma ,p_{})>\right)$$
(29)
for $`\delta Q_{QW2}(t)`$

$$\delta Q_{QW2}(t)=q\underset{p_{}}{}\underset{\alpha ,p_\alpha }{}\underset{\beta ,p_\beta }{}(c_\alpha ^+(p_\alpha ,p_{})c_\beta (p_\beta ,p_{})$$

$$<c_\alpha ^+(p_\alpha ,p_{})c_\beta (p_\beta ,p_{})>)\times $$

$$\times \frac{T_\alpha ^{}T_\beta \mathrm{exp}(i(E_\alpha E_\beta )t/\mathrm{})}{(E_\alpha E_ri\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)(E_\beta E_r+i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)}$$
(30)
and the property blanter99

$$<c_\alpha ^+(p_\alpha ,p_{})c_\beta (p_\beta ,p_{})c_\gamma ^+(p_\gamma ,p_{}^{})c_\delta (p_\delta ,p_{}^{})>$$

$$<c_\alpha ^+(p_\alpha ,p_{})c_\beta (p_\beta ,p_{})><c_\gamma ^+(p_\gamma ,p_{}^{})c_\delta (p_\delta ,p_{}^{})>=$$

$$=\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{p_\alpha p_\delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }\delta _{p_\beta p_\gamma }\delta _{p_{}p_{}^{}}f_\alpha (E_\alpha +p_{}^2/2m,F_\alpha )\times $$

$$\times \left(1f_\beta (E_\beta +p_{}^2/2m,F_\beta )\right)$$
(31)
it is possible to find for $`S_i`$ $`i=1,2,3`$ the expressions

$$S_1=\frac{q^2m}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}_{g_L}^{\mathrm{}}d\epsilon _z_0^{\mathrm{}}d\epsilon _{}\{D[f_L(1f_R)+$$

$$+f_R(1f_L)]D^2(f_Lf_R)^2\}$$
(32)
$$S_2=\lambda \frac{q^2m}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}_{g_L}^{\mathrm{}}d\epsilon _z_0^{\mathrm{}}d\epsilon _{}D^2\{\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}f_L(1f_L)$$

$$\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}f_R(1f_R)+\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}[f_L(1f_R)+f_R(1f_L)]\}$$
(33)
$$S_3=\lambda ^2\frac{q^2m}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}_{g_L}^{\mathrm{}}d\epsilon _z_0^{\mathrm{}}d\epsilon _{}D^2\times $$

$$\times \left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}f_L(1f_L)+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}[f_L(1f_R)+f_R(1f_L)]\right\}+$$

$$+\lambda ^2\frac{q^2m}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}_{qV}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _z_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _{}D^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}f_R(1f_R)$$
(34)
Here we used the notation $`f_{L,R}=f_{L,R}(\epsilon ,F_{L,R})`$ and

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}\frac{1}{(C_L+C_R+C_{QW})}\frac{<I>}{u}.$$

where $`\mathrm{}<\lambda <\mathrm{}`$ is a dimensionless parameter describing Coulomb interaction

Equations (32)-(34) are the central result of this paper. We note that $`S_I(0)`$ does not depend on $`\eta `$. When the $`\lambda =0`$, i.e. Coulomb interaction is negligible, $`S_I(0)=S_1`$ and the result of Ref. \[martin92, \] is recovered.

As an internal check we prove that $`S_I(0)`$ satisfies Nyquist theoremnyquist25 . Indeed, at zero applied voltage $`f_L=f_R`$, from the expression (8) for the total current it follows that $`<I>/u=0`$, and therefore, $`\lambda =0`$. Accordingly, the differential conductance $`G`$ at zero voltage is

$$G=\frac{q^2m}{2\pi \mathrm{}^3k_BT}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _zD_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _{}f_L(1f_L)$$
(35)
We here used the property that for $`V=0`$ $`f_R/qV=f_L(1f_L)/(k_BT)`$. According to Eq. (32), $`S_I`$ at zero voltage is

$$S_I(0)=\frac{2q^2m}{\pi \mathrm{}^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _zD_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _{}f_L(1f_L)$$
(36)
Equations (35) and (36) imply $`S_I(0)=4k_BTG`$, which represents Nyquist theorem.

Let us now show that $`S_I(0)\mathrm{}`$ on the border of the instability region where $`d<I>/dV\mathrm{}`$. To this purpose, we note that $`dI/dV`$ can be decomposed as:

$$\frac{d<I>}{dV}=\frac{<I>}{V}+\frac{<I>}{u}\frac{du}{dV}$$
(37)
By writing the condition of charge neutrality as:

$$C_edu_L+dQ_{QW}+C_c(dVdu_R)=0$$
(38)
by taking into account Eqs. (22), (23) and that

$$dQ_{QW}=C_{QW}du+\frac{N_{QW}}{V}dV$$
(39)
we obtain

$$\frac{du}{dV}=\left(C_c+\frac{Q_{QW}}{V}\right)(C_L+C_R+C_{QW})^1$$
(40)
By using Eq. (8) for $`<I>`$, we see that $`<I>/u_L`$ and $`<I>/V`$ entering Eq. (37) are always finite. This implies that $`d<I>/dV\mathrm{}`$ only if the sum $`(C_L+C_R+C_{QW})0`$. We remark that also the denominator of $`\lambda `$ is proportional to $`(C_L+C_R+C_{QW})`$; thus, $`\lambda `$, and in turn $`S_I(0)`$ go to infinity simultaneously with $`dI/dV`$. Note that $`C_{L,R}`$ are always positive and $`C_{QW}`$ becomes negative when the resonant state approaches $`g_L`$, that is when the number of electrons in the quantum well decreases at increasing $`u`$.

## V Results and discussion

In this section we present the theoretical results for the two relevant cases of zero and high temperatures (i.e. $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which here corresponds to $`T77K`$), the former being appropriate to investigate the influence on shot noise of the Pauli principle and the latter of long range Coulomb interaction. Then, theoretical results are compared with experiments.

### V.1 Zero temperature. Three dimensional case

We investigate the condition of high applied voltages, when $`qV>F_R`$, because more close to experiments. (We recall that typical magnitudes for the relevant parameters of DBRDs are: for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ less than a few $`meV`$, for $`F_L`$ less than $`100meV`$, and for the voltage at the peak current around $`0.5V`$.) Because of the above, from Eq. (8) the expression for the current becomes:

$$<I>=\frac{qm}{2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}_{g_L}^{F_L}𝑑\epsilon (F_L\epsilon )D(\epsilon )=\frac{qm\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}B(f,\xi )$$
(41)
where

$$B(f,\xi )=2(f+\xi )\left[\mathrm{arctan}(f+\xi )\mathrm{arctan}(\xi )\right]$$

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+(f+\xi )^2}{1+\xi ^2}\right),$$

and for convenience we define dimensionless chemical potential $`f`$ and voltage drop $`\xi `$ as

$$f=\frac{2(F_L+g_L)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }},\xi =\frac{2(qu\epsilon _rg_L)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$$

The expression for the noise spectral density becomes

$$S_I(0)=\frac{q^2m}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}_{g_L}^{F_L}𝑑\epsilon (F_L\epsilon )D(\epsilon )[1D(\epsilon )]+$$

$$+\frac{q^2m}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3}\left[\lambda \frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\lambda ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\right]_{g_L}^{F_L}𝑑\epsilon (F_L\epsilon )D(\epsilon )^2$$
(42)
For the Fano factor, $`\gamma =S_I(0)/2q<I>`$, Eqs. (41) and (42) yield:

$$\gamma =1\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\left\{1\lambda \frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\lambda ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\right\}\frac{A(f,\xi )}{B(f,\xi )}$$
(43)
where

$$A=(f+\xi )[\frac{f+\xi }{1+(f+\xi )^2}+\mathrm{arctan}(f+\xi )\frac{\xi }{1+\xi ^2}$$

$$\mathrm{arctan}(\xi )]+\frac{1}{1+(f+\xi )^2}\frac{1}{1+\xi ^2},$$

We note that $`\lambda `$ depends on $`f`$ and $`\xi `$ through $`C_{L,R}`$, $`C_{QW}`$, $`<I>/u`$ which are given by Eq. (24) and by:

$$C_{QW}=\frac{q^2m}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}H(f,\xi ),\frac{<I>}{u}=\frac{q^2m\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }}H(f,\xi )$$
(44)
$$H(f,\xi )=\left[\mathrm{arctan}(f+\xi )\mathrm{arctan}(\xi )\frac{f}{\xi ^2+1}\right]+$$

$$+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}\frac{g_L}{qu}fD(g_L)$$

If $`f1`$ and the resonant level is located below the the Fermi level of the emitter far from its borders $`F_L`$ and $`g_L`$, i.e. $`\xi 1`$, $`f+\xi 1`$, then $`A(f,\xi )/B(f,\xi )1/2`$ and Eq. (43) recovers the expression given in Ref. \[blanter99, \]

$$\gamma =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}$$
(45)
with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}$$

As it will be shown below, when $`f1`$ the values taken by $`\gamma `$ in Eq. (45) are practically constant and correspond to the plateau exhibited by the dependence $`\gamma (f,\xi )`$. On this plateau, $`\gamma 1/2`$ (the minimum is reached when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)/2`$). Note that on the plateau

$$C_{QW}\frac{q^2m\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\pi \mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }},\lambda \frac{q^2m}{\pi \mathrm{}^2}\frac{1}{C_L+C_R+C_{QW}}<\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}$$

and the expression in the braces of Eq. (43) is positive. Therefore, on the plateau $`1\gamma 1/2`$ and shot noise enhancement is impossible.

Now we demonstrate that at voltage values for which the resonant level is close to the band edge of the emitter the Fano factor can drop below the value $`1/2`$. To this purpose, let us firstly consider the simplified model where we take $`\kappa =12.9`$ (GaAs), $`C_L=C_R=\kappa /4\pi d`$, $`d=5nm`$ and neglect the term proportional to $`g_L/u`$ in the expression for $`H(f,\xi )`$. Figure 2 reports the dependencies of current and Fano factor on $`\xi `$ for the two values $`f=100`$ (Fig. 2 (a)), $`f=10`$ (Fig. 2(b)) when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ and in the presence (continuous curves) or absence (dotted curves) of Coulomb interaction. The figure shows that for large value of the ratio between the Fermi energy and the resonant width ($`f=100`$), $`\gamma (\xi )`$ exhibits a wide plateau region where $`\gamma 0.55`$ followed by a minimum with $`\gamma _{min}0.464`$. By further increasing the value of $`f`$ ($`f=1000`$) the plateau region is found to widen and $`\gamma _{min}0.49`$. Note that, as it follows from Eq. (42), the Coulomb interaction always increases the noise if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ With the decrease of $`f`$ (see Fig. 2(b) where $`f=10`$), the plateau region becomes narrower and $`\gamma _{min}`$ is found to decrease. The decrease of the value of $`\gamma _{min}`$ is due to two complementary reasons. The first is associated with the decreasing of the strength of Coulomb interaction. The second is associated with the increase of the effective barrier transparency near to the current peak and in turn with the further suppression of partition noise. For the ideal case $`f1`$, at the peak current the transparency $`D1`$ and in turn $`\gamma _{min}0`$.

Why does Coulomb interaction increase the shot noise if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ ? To answer this question, we analyze the noise contribution due to electrons with energies implying $`D1`$. The part of $`S_1`$ corresponding to these electrons is zero, while the part of $`S_3`$ is finite. We remind that the term $`S_1`$ describes partition noise, thus it is proportional to $`D(1D)`$ and for $`D=1`$ at zero frequency there is no noise associated with the fluctuation of $`\delta I_2`$. However, even for $`D=1`$ there is charge fluctuation in the quantum well due to the random character of electron escape from the well (random time-delay of charge). The probability of this escape is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and this is the reason why $`S_3`$ decreases with the increase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Therefore, Coulomb interaction enhances current noise due to the random time-delay of the charge in the quantum well, and which represents the quantum property of the electron motion in the RTD.

The effects due to the asymmetry of the diode barriers when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.25\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.75\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are shown in Fig. 3 which reports the dependencies of current and Fano factor on $`\xi `$ for the two values $`f=100`$, $`f=10`$. We note, that without Coulomb interaction (i.e. $`\lambda =0`$) these dependencies are the same for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.25\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.75\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. From this figure it is clear that on the plateau Coulomb interaction decreases the noise for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.25\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ while increases the noise for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.75\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This asymmetry is due to the cross correlation term $`S_2`$ which on the plateau is positive for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L>\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ and negative for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L<\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. The physical reason of this asymmetry stems from the following fact. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L>\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$, then the charge situated in the quantum well is characterized by an escaping probability to the emitter which is greater than that to the collector. By contrast, when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L<\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ the opposite happens. Of course, when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ the escaping probability to the emitter and to the collector is the same and $`S_2=0`$. We note the important role played by Pauli principle for the possibility of $`S_2`$ to be positive. From Eq. (33) it is clear that if $`f_L1`$ and $`f_R=0`$ then $`S_2<0`$ for any value of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. From Fig. 3 one can also see that $`\gamma _{min}=0.457<0.5`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.75\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`f=100`$ (see Fig. 3(a)) and for both values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ when $`f=10`$ (see Fig. 3(b)).

We conclude, that for the simple model considered here both the increase of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the decrease of $`F_L`$ decreases $`\gamma _{min}`$ which value drops below 0.5 for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L>\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. We further note, that there is bias when $`<I>/u=0`$ and $`\lambda `$ changes of sign. Under this bias, for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ the curves of the Fano factor with and without Coulomb interaction touch each other (see Fig. 2) while for$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ they cross (see Fig. 3).

To confirm the possibility of evidencing the giant suppression $`\gamma _{min}<0.5`$ in a real structure, Fig. 4 presents the calculations performed with a set of parameters related to the experiments in Ref. \[brown92, \] at $`T=4.2K`$ and where both a symmetric (continuous curve) and an asymmetric (dashed curve) are considered. The structure parameters are $`n=2\times 10^{16}cm^3`$, $`d_L=d_R=d_{QW}=5nm`$, squared area of contacts $`50\mu m^2`$ and $`L=50nm`$, $`m=0.067m_0`$, with $`m_0`$ the free electron mass and $`\kappa =12.9`$. In the symmetric structure, the only two fitting parameters are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.5\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.48meV`$ and $`\epsilon _r=104meV`$. Their values control the location and the amplitude of the current peak, respectively, and are chosen by optimizing the agreement between the experimental and calculated I-V characteristics at $`77K`$. For the asymmetric structure there are three parameters and we take $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.25\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.22`$ meV, $`\epsilon _r=112`$ meV to preserve the location of the current peak at the same voltage. The function $`g_L(u_L)`$ is calculated by solving the Schrödinger equation for a potential which: (i) for $`x<0`$ follows from the Poisson equation without accounting for quantization effects; (ii) for $`x>0`$ corresponds to the solid solution $`Al_{0.42}Ga_{0.58}As`$ with zero electric field inside, as was done in Ref. \[brown92, \]. For these values, the dependence $`g_L(u_L)`$ is found to be almost linear and well approximated by: $`g_L(u_L)0.28(qu_L110k_BT)14k_BT`$. The details of the solution of the Schrödinger equation are reported in the Appendix. Calculations give $`\gamma _{min}=0.43`$ in reasonable agreement with the value of 0.35 found in experiments brown92 . From Fig. 4 we see that both the I-V and the noise characteristics are sensitive to the asymmetry of the structure, as expected. In any case, the main features of both characteristics are preserved.

We conclude, that the main reason for shot noise suppression in RTDs at temperatures below about $`4.2K`$ is essentially related to Pauli principle and, because of the coherent tunneling regime, near to the current peak the Fano factor can take values significantly lower than $`0.5`$ (giant shot-noise suppression).

### V.2 Zero temperature. One dimensional case

Here we shall discuss shot noise suppression for the case of one dimensional geometry. We recall that the possibility for $`\gamma _{min}<0.5`$ when the resonance level touches the Fermi level in the absence of Coulomb interaction follows from the expression of the noise spectral density originally derived in Ref. \[averin93, \] and further discussed in Ref. \[wei99, \]. At zero temperature we can write the expressions for the current and current noise spectral density in the following forms (spin degeneracy included)

$$<I>=\frac{q}{\pi \mathrm{}}_{g_L}^{F_L}𝑑\epsilon D(\epsilon )$$
(46)
$$S_I(0)=\frac{2q^2}{\pi \mathrm{}}[_{g_L}^{F_L}d\epsilon D(\epsilon )$$

$$\{1\lambda \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\lambda ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\}_{g_L}^{F_L}d\epsilon D(\epsilon )^2]$$
(47)
By using Eqs. (46) and (47) and after integration, for $`\gamma `$we obtain the expression:

$$\gamma (f,\xi )=1\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\left\{1\lambda \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\lambda ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\right\}\frac{A_1(f,\xi )}{B_1(f,\xi )}$$
(48)
here

$$A_1(f,\xi )=[\frac{f+\xi }{(f+\xi )^2+1}\frac{\xi }{\xi ^2+1}+$$

$$+\mathrm{arctan}(f+\xi )\mathrm{arctan}(\xi )]$$

$$B_1(f,\xi )=\mathrm{arctan}(f+\xi )\mathrm{arctan}(\xi )$$

The dependencies $`C_{QW}`$ and $`<I>/u`$ on $`f,\xi `$ are

$$C_{QW}=\frac{4q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }^2}H_1(f,\xi ),\frac{<I>}{u}=\frac{4q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{}}H_1(f,\xi )$$

with

$$H_1(f,\xi )=\frac{1}{(f+\xi )^2+1}\frac{1}{\xi ^2+1}+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{4\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}D(g_L)\frac{g_L}{qu}$$

If we neglect the Coulomb interaction (i.e. $`\lambda =0`$), introduce $`z=f+\xi `$ and take $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ (the so called infinite band modeljauho94 ), then Eq. (47) recovers the expression for the noise spectral density derived in Ref. \[averin93, \]. We note, that similarly to the three dimensional case there is a plateau region in the behavior $`\gamma (\xi )`$ when $`f1`$. However, in the present one dimensional case $`<I>/u`$ is small and hence Coulomb interaction weakly influences the current noise. In contrast to the three dimensional case, here the Coulomb interaction influences the noise when the resonant level is: either close to the Fermi level in the emitter $`F_L`$, or to the conduction band edge $`g_L`$. We note, that here the expressions for the capacitances derived in the three dimensional case are no longer valid, and furthermore we have assumed $`C_{L,R}`$ to be constant. Since when $`f1`$ the minimum value of $`C_{QW}`$ is approximatively given by $`4q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, for the appearance of a current instability due to Coulomb interaction it should be $`(C_L+C_R)>4q^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L/\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$.

Figure 5 reports the calculated dependencies of the current and Fano factor versus $`\xi `$ for the symmetrical structure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ when $`f=100`$ (Fig. 5(a)) and $`f=10`$ (Fig. 5(b)), respectively. Here, we take $`\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(C_LC_R)/2q^2=0.9`$, which corresponds to the absence of current instability, and neglect terms proportional to $`g_L/qu`$ in the expression for $`H_1(f,\xi )`$. The I-V characteristics exhibits a symmetric shape with respect to $`\xi =f/2`$ as a consequence of a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which is independent of the applied voltage and of the property of the one-dimensional density of states. From this figure it is evident that $`\gamma _{min}<0.5`$ even when $`f=100`$. We note, that due to the reasons discussed above, the Coulomb interaction increases the noise for the symmetric case when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. In addition, the reason of shot noise enhancement is the Coulomb interaction. Accordingly, the enhanced result obtained in Ref. \[wei99, \] in the absence of Coulomb interaction is not physically plausible. From Fig. 5 it is clear, that the Coulomb interaction in the one dimensional case influences the noise when the resonant level is close either to the $`F_L`$ ($`\xi f`$) or to $`g_L`$ ($`\xi 0`$).

The effects due to the asymmetries of the structure are reported in Fig. 6 which shows the dependencies of the current and Fano factor versus $`\xi `$ when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.25\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.75\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the same $`(C_L+C_R)`$ value as in Fig. 5. We note, that in the absence of Coulomb interaction, the Fano factor is the same for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.25\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.75\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. From Fig. 6 one can see that the Coulomb interaction decreases the value of $`\gamma _{min}`$. In particular, when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L<\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$, $`\gamma _{min}`$ is located at $`\xi f`$, while, when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L>\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$, at $`\xi 0`$. We note, that for $`\xi f`$ the cross correlator $`<\delta I_2\delta Q_{QW2}>`$ is negative when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L<\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ and positive when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L>\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. In both cases $`\lambda `$ is positive. On the contrary, for $`\xi 0`$ $`\lambda `$ is negative because $`<I>/u<0`$.

We conclude, that also for a one dimensional RTD the Fano factor can drop below the value 0.5 in the presence or in the absence of Coulomb interaction.

### V.3 High temperatures

We now discuss the case of high temperatures when $`k_BT\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which in the present case refers to $`T77K`$. Again, we consider applied voltages high enough to neglect the contribution to the current and noise of the electron flux moving from the collector to the emitter. Since the energy scale for the change of $`D(\epsilon )`$is significantly less than that of $`f_L(\epsilon )`$, all the integrals in the expressions for the current and the noise spectral density can be calculated analytically. To perform the calculations, first of all we note that

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _{}f_L(\epsilon )=k_BT\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{F_L\epsilon _z}{k_BT}\right)\right]=k_BT\mathrm{\Phi }_L(\epsilon _z)$$
(49)
$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _{}f_L(\epsilon )^2=$$

$$=k_BT\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_L(\epsilon _z)\left(1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{F_L\epsilon _z}{k_BT}\right)\right)^1\right]=k_BT\mathrm{\Phi }_{2L}(\epsilon _z)$$
(50)
and

$$_{g_L}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _zD(\epsilon _z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{L,2L}(\epsilon _z)\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Phi }_{L,2L}(\beta )D_1(\xi )$$
(51)
$$_{g_L}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\epsilon _zD(\epsilon _z)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{L,2L}(\epsilon _z)\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^3}\mathrm{\Phi }_{L,2L}(\beta )D_2(\xi )$$
(52)
here $`\beta `$ is the maximum value between $`(\epsilon _rqu)`$ and $`g_L`$,

$$D_1(\xi )=\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{arctan}(\xi ),D_2(\xi )=D_1\frac{\xi }{\xi ^2+1}$$

By using Eqs. from (49) to (52), we can write the following expressions, respectively for the current, the noise spectral density and the Fano factor

$$<I>=\frac{qmk_BT\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Phi }_L(\beta )D_1(\xi )$$
(53)
$$S_I(0)=\frac{2q^2mk_BT\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\pi ^2\mathrm{}^3\mathrm{\Gamma }}\{D_1(\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )$$

$$\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_RD_2(\xi )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}[\mathrm{\Phi }_{2L}(\beta )+\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi }_L(\beta )\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Phi }_{2L}(\beta ))$$

$$\lambda ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\mathrm{\Phi }_L(\xi )\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Phi }_{2L}(\beta ))]\}$$
(54)
$$\gamma =1\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_RD_2(\xi )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2D_1(\xi )}\{\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )+\lambda (1\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ))$$

$$\lambda ^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta ))\}$$
(55)
here $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )=\mathrm{\Phi }_{2L}(\beta )/\mathrm{\Phi }_L(\beta )`$. Analogously, we derive the expressions for $`C_{QW}`$ and $`<I>/u`$. Since in this case $`<I>/u=\mathrm{\Gamma }_RC_{QW}/\mathrm{}`$, we obtain

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }C_{QW}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L(C_L+C_R+C_{QW})}$$
(56)
and $`\lambda <\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ in the stable region where $`(C_L+C_R+C_{QW})>0`$.

We now estimate the possible minimum value for $`\gamma `$. From Eq. (55) it is clear that to obtain $`\gamma _{min}`$ it is necessary that

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}\left(1\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )\right)\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )\right)^1$$
(57)
We note, that this value of $`\lambda `$ lies in the range of possible values characterizing the stable region. By substituting Eq. (57) into Eq. (55) we find

$$\gamma _{min}=1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{D_2(\xi )}{D_1(\xi )}\left(1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )\right)^1$$
(58)
Now we analyze two limiting cases.

The first is the case when the occupation factor of the state with energy $`\beta `$ is much smaller than unity. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )0`$ and:

$$\gamma _{min}=1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{D_2(\xi )}{D_1(\xi )}$$
(59)
Since the maximum value of $`D_2(\xi )/D_1(\xi )`$ equals 1.217 ($`\xi =\xi _0=0.802`$), from Eq. (59) we find that $`\gamma _{min}<0.5`$ when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R>0.821\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and that the expression (57) holds near $`\xi =\xi _0`$.

The second limiting case is when the probability of occupation of an electron state with energy $`\beta `$ is close to unity and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )1`$. In this case

$$\gamma _{min}=1\frac{D_2(\xi )}{2D_1(\xi )}$$
(60)
and $`\gamma _{min}<0.5`$ when the expression (57) holds in any point where $`\xi <0`$, since there $`D_2(\xi )/D_1(\xi )>1`$.

In concluding this subsection, we emphasize that, for RTD theory predicts values of the Fano factor below 0.5 also at high temperatures. We note that, provided $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )=f_L(\beta )/f_L(\beta )^2`$, Eq. (55) is valid also for the one dimensional case and thus again $`\gamma _{min}<0.5`$ is confirmed to be possible.

### V.4 Comparison of theory with experiments

We compare theory with two sets of experiments performed on DBRDs with barriers sufficiently narrow to expect that coherent tunneling is of importance. The first set refers to pioneer experiments of Brownbrown92  which are detailed at $`77K`$ with indications at $`300K`$. The second set refers to recent experiments at $`300K`$ reported in Ref. \[alkeev02, ; aleshkin03, \]. In both cases the comparison is limited to the voltage region up to the peak current since theory neglects energy levels in the quantum well higher than the first one.

Figure 7 reports the comparison between experiments performed in Ref. \[brown92, \] and present calculations at $`77K`$. Numerical results make use of the same parameters in Fig. 4 for the symmetric structure. For the used values, the dependence $`g_L(u_L)`$ is found to be almost linear and well approximated by: $`g_L(u_L)0.44(qu_L1.5k_BT)0.07k_BT`$ for $`77K`$.

From Fig. 7 (a) we see that present calculations well reproduce the I-V characteristic including the current peak. From Fig. 7 (b) we see that the calculated Fano factor reproduces both the suppression and enhanced behaviors. However, its minimum value is of $`0.65`$ against the experimental value of $`0.35`$. By choosing appropriate values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}`$ the theoretical model can be forced to fit the experimental Fano factor at the expense of overestimating the I-V characteristics for about one order of magnitude. This result corrects previous findings of the same authors aleshkin03 , where the contribution of charge fluctuations to the total noise was underestimated with respect to the present approach. In this context, we note that Ref. \[jahan95, \] presented a theoretical calculations of the same experiments brown92  at $`77K`$. The results of these calculations were found to be in excellent agreement with experimental data except for the region of instability. On the borders of this region the noise tends to infinity and, as a consequence, there were no measurements of noise in this region. However, contrary to such an experimental evidence, the theoretical calculations jahan95  provided finite values of the noise and the the absence of the instability region, which makes the theoretical approach at least suspect.

To provide a physical insight of the physical reason for shot-noise suppression, Fig. 8 reports the results of the calculations associated with the presence (continuous curves) and the absence (dotted lines) of Coulomb interaction. From Fig. 8 (a) we see that at $`77K`$ the Coulomb part contributes to suppress shot noise in the whole region of applied voltage, and that the Pauli part becomes noticeable near the current peak. Furthermore, while Pauli contribution leads systematically to suppression, the Coulomb contribution becomes responsible of enhanced shot noise at voltages near to $`0.57V`$ where the instability region is approached. From Fig. 8 (b) we see that at $`4.2K`$ the predominance of Pauli over Coulomb interaction in suppressing shot noise is confirmed. Again, Coulomb effects are found to be responsible of enhanced shot noise around above the current peak, in agreement with experiments brown92 .

To complete the analysis of this structure at $`77K`$, we have investigated the role played by the electron concentration and the width of the quantum well. Accordingly, Fig. 9 reports the current voltage characteristic and the Fano factor for the same structure of Fig. 7 but with two different values of the electron concentration $`n`$ in the injector. For the first structure we use $`g_L(u_L)0.37(qu_L4k_BT)1.79k_BT`$ ($`n=2\times 10^{15}cm^2`$) and for the second $`g_L(u_L)0.22(qu_L4k_BT)0.09k_BT`$ ($`n=2\times 10^{17}cm^2`$). From the figure it is clear that the increase of $`n`$ leads to: (i) the increase of the value of the current peak, (ii) the widening of the region of shot noise suppression and, (iii) the decrease of the voltage value corresponding to the current peak and the minimum of the Fano factor. We note that for values of $`n`$ which differ over two orders of magnitude the peak current changes only for a factor of about $`2.5`$. It means that, due to accumulation, the electron concentration on the border of the left barrier differs only for a factor of $`2.5`$ for voltages corresponding to the current peak. Figure 10 reports the current voltage characteristic and the Fano factor for the same structure of Fig. 7 but with two different values of the quantum well width $`d_{QW}`$. We have taken into account that when $`d_{QW}`$ decreases both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\epsilon _r`$ increases by using for the first structure $`\epsilon _r=145meV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.5\mathrm{\Gamma }=1meV`$ and for the second structure $`\epsilon _r=45meV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=0.5\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.05meV`$. This leads to the growth of the current peak and its shift to higher voltages. From the same figure we see that simultaneously with the growth of the current peak also the width of the suppression region rises and shifts to higher voltages. Furthermore, the minimum value of the Fano factor is found to become more pronounced at increasing carrier concentration and decreasing the width of the quantum well.

Figure 11 reports the current voltage characteristic and the Fano factor for the same structure of Fig. 7 at $`300K`$. Here the solution of the Schrödinger equation provides: $`g_L(u_L)=0.53(qu_L1.5k_BT)+0.7k_BT`$. Calculations show, that even by increasing the temperature, the main features of transport and noise already shown at $`77K`$ are preserved. However, the current peak and the minimum of the Fano factor become less pronounced at increasing the temperature. These trends are in agreement with experimental resultsbrown92  which claim a reduction of the peak-current value of about $`1mA`$ and an increase of the minimum of the Fano factor when going from $`77`$ to $`300K`$. However, even at $`300K`$ present calculations give a Fano Factor for about a factor of two greater than that found by experiments.

A recent set of experimentsalkeev02 ; aleshkin03  carried out at 300 K on a DBRD with barriers thinner than those of Ref. \[brown92, \], thus more adequate to check coherent tunnelling at high temperature, is reported in Fig. 12 together with theoretical calculations. The structure consisted of two $`2nm`$ AlAs layers separated by $`6nm`$ InGaAs quantum well alkeev00 ; alkeev02 . Measurements were carried out at $`300K`$ using a Noise Figure Meter (XK5-49), that allows to measure simultaneously noise figure and power gain of two-port networks in the $`50\mathrm{\Omega }`$ feed circuit. Simultaneously with the noise the I-V curve was measured. The diode was mounted in the break of a microstrip line, with one electrode been grounded, and another one bonded to the ends of a microstrip line. Noise measurements at frequencies $`60`$ and $`200MHz`$ showed the same results within an experimental uncertainty at worst of $`20\%`$, thus indicating that $`1/f`$ noise contribution is negligible. Numerical results makes use of the following values for the parameters entering the model: $`\epsilon _r=87meV`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=1.08meV`$, $`n=5\times 10^{16}cm^3`$, $`d_L=d_R=2nm`$, $`d_{QW}=6nm`$ $`L=50nm`$, $`g_L(u_L)=0.445(qu_L1.5k_BT)+0.451k_BT`$, $`m=0.045m_0`$. Also here the only two fitting parameters are $`\epsilon _r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.5\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}`$, all other parameters being provided by the experimental conditions, Figure 12(a) reports the I-V characteristic which shows a region of positive differential conductance (pdc) up to about $`0.7V`$ followed by an instability region. In the same pdc region, the Fano factor is found to exhibit a suppression with a minimum value of about $`0.4`$ at around $`0.65V`$ \[see Fig. 12(b)\]. As for the case at $`77K`$, from Fig. 12 (a) we see that present calculations well reproduce the I-V characteristic including the current peak. From Fig. 12 (b) we see that the calculated Fano factor reproduces both the suppression and enhanced behaviors. However, the minimum value of the Fano factor is found to be of $`0.75`$ against the experimental value of $`0.40`$. By choosing larger values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}`$ the theoretical model can be forced to fit the Fano factor at the expenses of overestimating the I-V characteristic for about one order of magnitude. This result corrects previous findings of the same authors aleshkin03 , where the contribution of charge fluctuations to the total noise was underestimated. Thus, the comparison between theory and experiments at temperatures above about $`77K`$ provides qualitative agreement but is not able to explain the drop of the Fano factor below $`0.5`$ found in experiments.

## VI Conclusions

We have implemented a quantum mechanical approach to investigate DBRDs transport and noise characteristics within the coherent tunneling regime that includes both Pauli principle and long range Coulomb interaction. The expression for the current voltage and noise characteristics generalize previous findingsaverin93 ; blanter99 ; wei99 . In agreement with expectations, at increasing voltages theory predicts a current characteristic which exhibits a peak followed by an instability region and that before the current peak shot noise is suppressed because of Pauli principle and/or Coulomb interaction. In addition, theory confirms shot noise enhancement well above the full Poissonian value at the current peak as a consequence of the positive feedback between tunneling and space charge.

At zero temperature, the suppression of shot noise starts in concomitance with the sharp increase of the current associated with the alignment within the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the Fermi level in the emitter with the resonant level in the quantum well. Accordingly, the Fano factor is found to exhibit a minimum near the current peak. Remarkably, the value of this minimum can be significantly below the value $`0.5`$ of the full Poissonian value. This giant suppression of shot noise can be taken as a signature of coherent tunneling since sequential tunneling can predict suppression but at most with a Fano factor not less than 0.5. At $`4.2K`$, for a realistic DBRD structure we find a minumum value of the Fano factor of 0.44 that is in agreement with experiments brown92 . At temperatures above about $`77K`$, we have found that coherent tunneling still predict that shot noise can be suppressed well below the value of $`0.5`$. This giant suppression has been evidenced by experiments performed at $`77`$ and $`300K`$. However, the present theory is not able to explain this noise feature with the same set of parameter values able to explain the I-V characteristics. Probably the model used is still too simple, and further efforts are needed to provide a better interpretation of experiments.

In any case, to our opinion, the main result obtained here is the fact that in RTDs the drop of the Fano factor below 0.5 can be taken as a signature of coherent against sequential tunneling. Therefore, below we briefly discuss the physical reason why shot noise suppression is expected to be more effective for coherent than for sequential tunneling. Starting from the fact that the two mechanisms responsible for shot noise suppression are Pauli principle and Coulomb interaction, we note that both act simultaneously for coherent and sequential tunneling. Let us consider the first mechanism, which is the most relevant at zero temperature, in the case when the Fermi energy is sufficiently small so that all the electrons exhibit the same transparency. Then, coherent transport admits a transparency near equal to unity, which implies $`\gamma =(1D)0`$ according to Lesovik findingslesovik89 . For sequential transport the total transparency is always less than unity because of the finite value of the differential rates controlling the relaxation of carrier number fluctuations inside the two terminal device through the contacts. As a consequence, under coherent transport for the possible case of full transparency (i.e. $`D=1`$) there is no noise. By contrast, under sequential transport the presence of scattering inside the quantum well always introduces noise. This example illustrates why Pauli principle is more efficient in suppressing shot noise under coherent than sequential transport. By considering Coulomb interaction, which is more relevant at high temperatures, we recall that in the absence of collisions it provides giant shot noise suppressiongomila02  as in the vacuum tubesziel54  because electron reflection in this case is due only to Coulomb interaction. It is clear that the presence of scattering provides additional random mechanisms for electrons returning to the emitter and, therefore, provides an additional source of noise. Even this example shows that Coulomb interaction is more efficient in suppressing shot noise under coherent than sequential transport. We finally want to stress that the main reason of the difference between these approaches stems from the fact that the sequential tunneling is based on a master equationdavies95 ; iannaccone97  for treating fluctuations of carrier numbers inside the quantum well, while coherent tunneling uses the quantum partition noise as only source of interaction and fluctuations. The master equation describes implicitly a sequential mechanism for a carrier entering/exiting from the well and, as a consequence, its intrinsic limit coincides with that of two independent resistors (or vacuum diodes) connected in series and each of them exhibiting full shot noise. This system yields a maximum suppression of shot noise down to the value of 0.5. By contrast, partition noise, inherent to a quantum coherent formalism, can be fully suppressed down to zero in the presence of a fully transparent barrier and weak Coulomb interaction like in vacuum diodes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Prof. V. Volkov of Moscow Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics for having suggested the problem of this research and Prof. M. Büttiker of Geneva University for having addressed the importance of charge fluctuations in the calculation of the current fluctuations. This research has ben performed within the project ”Noise models and measurements in nanostructures” supported by the Italian Ministery of Education, University and Research (MIUR) through the cofin03. Partial support from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Volta Landau Center (the fellowship of V.Ya.A.), and the SPOT-NOSED project IST-2001-38899 of the EC is gratefully acknowledged.

## VII Appendix

Here we detail the calculations to evaluate the current operator, the differential capacitances of the DBRDs and the solution of theSchrödinger equation for the voltage dependence of the first electron level in the emitter.

### VII.1 Current operators

By using Eqs. (3), (4), (5) and (7), the explicit expression for $`A_{\beta ,\gamma }^\alpha (E_\beta ,E_\gamma )`$ is the following

$$A_{\beta ,\gamma }^\alpha (E_\beta ,E_\gamma )=2\pi i(\frac{T_\alpha T_\beta ^{}B_{\alpha \gamma }(E_\gamma )}{E_\beta E_ri\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}$$

$$\frac{T_\alpha ^{}T_\gamma B_{\alpha \beta }^{}(E_\beta )}{E_\gamma E_r+i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2})$$
$`(A1)`$
where

$$B_{\alpha \beta }(E_\beta )=\left(\delta _{\alpha \beta }i\pi \frac{T_\alpha ^{}T_\beta \rho _\alpha }{E_\beta E_r+i\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}\right)$$
$`(A2)`$
From the above, we note the following properties:

$$A_{LL}^L(E,E)\rho _L=A_{RR}^R(E,E)\rho _R=A_{RR}^L(E,E)\rho _R=$$

$$=A_{LL}^R(E,E)\rho _L=D(E)$$
$`(A3)`$
and

$$A_{LR}^L(E,E)A_{RL}^L(E,E)\rho _L\rho _R=$$

$$A_{LR}^R(E,E)A_{RL}^R(E,E)\rho _L\rho _R=D(E)(1D(E))$$
$`(A4)`$
Eqs. (A3) and (A4) are useful for current and noise calculations.

### VII.2 Capacitances

By recalling that $`Q_L=\kappa \phi _L^{}/4\pi `$ from Eq. (12) we have

$$C_e(u_L)=q\{N_cF_{1/2}\left(\frac{F_L+qu_L}{k_BT}\right)n\}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa }{8\pi k_BT}}\times $$

$$\left[N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_L+qu_L}{k_BT}\right)N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_L}{k_BT}\right)\frac{q}{k_BT}nu_L\right]^{1/2}$$
$`(B1)`$
If the electron accumulation is relevant (i.e. $`qu_L>k_BT`$) then we can write

$$C_e(u_L)q\frac{N_cF_{1/2}\left(\frac{F_L+qu_L}{k_BT}\right)}{\sqrt{\frac{8\pi k_BT}{\kappa \kappa _0}N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_L+qu_L}{k_BT}\right)}}$$
$`(B2)`$
By substituting for $`Q_R`$ the value given in Eq. (15), for $`C_c`$ we find

$$C_c=q\left\{nN_cF_{1/2}\left(\frac{F_L+qu_LqV}{k_BT}\right)\right\}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa }{8\pi k_BT}}$$

$$[N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_L+qu_RqV}{k_BT}\right)N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_LqV}{k_BT}\right)$$

$$\frac{qn}{k_BT}(u_RV)]^{1/2}$$
$`(B3)`$
If $`q(Vu_R)/(k_BT)>1`$, then we have the usual expression for the capacitance of the depletion region

$$C_c\sqrt{\frac{q\kappa n}{8\pi (Vu_R)}}$$
$`(B4)`$
### VII.3 Energy of the first electron level in the emitter

The one dimensional Schrödinger equation for an electron moving in the potential $`q\phi (x)`$ can be written in the following form

$$\frac{dy}{dx}+y^2+\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(q\phi +\epsilon \right)=0$$
$`(C1)`$
here $`y=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the electron wave function and $`\epsilon `$ the electron energy. Since $`d\phi /dx`$ in the emitter is function of $`\phi `$ \[see Eqs. (11) and (12)\], instead of $`x`$ it is convenient to use $`\phi `$ asvariable quantity so that

$$\frac{dy}{d\phi }\frac{d\phi }{dx}+y^2+\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(q\phi +\epsilon \right)=0$$
$`(C2)`$
where

$$\frac{d\phi }{dx}=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi k_BT}{\kappa }}[N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_L+q\phi }{k_BT}\right)N_cF_{3/2}\left(\frac{F_L}{k_BT}\right)$$

$$\frac{q}{k_BT}n\phi ]^{1/2}$$
$`(C3)`$
The potential $`\phi `$ in the emitter takes values in the range from $`0`$ far from the barriers $`(x\mathrm{})`$ to $`u_L`$ on the border of the left barrier. We note that far from the barriers the potential falls exponentially $`\phi \mathrm{exp}(x/\lambda _D)`$ when $`q\phi k_BT`$, where $`\lambda _D`$ is the Debye screening length. For localized state the electron wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(k_1x)`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$, where $`k_1=\sqrt{2m\epsilon }/\mathrm{}`$ and, thus, we have as boundary condition $`y(\phi =0)=k_1`$. Since we suppose that the field in the barrieris absent, the electron wave function in the barrier is $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(k_2x)`$ where $`k_2=\sqrt{2m\left(\mathrm{\Delta }E_cqu_L\epsilon \right)}/\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_c`$ is the conduction band offset on the barrier border. By using the conditions of continuity of the wave function and of its derivative, we obtain the second boundary condition $`y(\phi =u_L)=k_2`$. Equations (C2) and (C3) together with the boundary conditions allow us to find the energy of the first electron level in the potential well of the emitter by numerical calculations.


format: text

text:
# I. INTRODUCTION

## I. INTRODUCTION

The Yang-Baxter equation (YBE for short) has played important roles in study of statistical mechanics, knot theory, conformal field theory etc.,1 and many of its solutions are associated with finite dimensional irreducible representations of quantum affine algebras2,3 and superalgebras.4 We call the solutions of the YBE the $`R`$-matrices.

If a finite dimensional simple Lie superalgebra is $`A(m,n)`$, $`B(m,n)`$, $`C(n)`$, $`D(m,n)`$, $`F(4)`$, $`G(3)`$ or $`D(2,1;\alpha )`$ ($`\alpha 0,1`$), it is called a basic classical Lie superalgebra5,6 (BCLS for short). We first recall that $`A(m,n)`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{sl}(m+1|n+1)`$ if and only if $`mn`$, and that $`\mathrm{sl}(m+1|m+1)`$ is a one dimensional central extension of $`A(m,m)`$. Let $`𝔤`$ be a BCLS and $`\overline{𝔤}`$ the universal central extension (UCE for short) of $`𝔤`$. We also recall that $`\overline{𝔤}=𝔤`$ if $`𝔤A(m,m)`$ for any $`m`$, and that $`\overline{A(m,m)}=\mathrm{sl}(m+1|m+1)`$ ($`m2`$) and $`\overline{A(1,1)}=𝔡`$. Here $`𝔡`$ is the Lie superalgebra called $`D(2,1;1)`$.7 The $`𝔡`$ is a two (resp. three) dimensional central extension of $`\mathrm{sl}(2|2)`$ (resp. $`A(1,1)`$). The UCE of $`𝔤[t,t^1]`$ is given by the affine version $`\overline{𝔤}^{(1)}=\overline{𝔤}[t,t^1]c`$ of $`\overline{𝔤}`$.7 Motivated by this fact, we direct our attention to the quantum superalgebra $`U_q𝔡^{(1)}`$ (strictly speaking, $`\stackrel{~}{U}=\stackrel{~}{U}_q𝔡^{(1)}`$) in order to give new $`R`$-matrices $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(u,v;x)`$ satisfying the (twisted) YBE:

$`(\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(v,w;x)I)(I\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(u,w;q^nx))(\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(u,v;x)I)`$
$`=(I\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(u,v;q^nx))(\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(u,w;x)I))(I\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(v,w;q^nx))`$
for some integer $`n`$, where $`u`$, $`v`$, $`x`$ are continuous parameters. This can be viewed as a quantum dynamical YBE (see Appendix). The $`R`$-matrices we will give are such that as $`x0`$, they become the $`U_q\mathrm{sl}(2|2)^{(1)}`$ $`R`$-matrices4,8-10 associated with the symmetric and anti-symmetric tensor products of the copies of the vector representation $`\phi `$ of $`U_q\mathrm{sl}(2|2)^{(1)}`$. One of our tools is a four dimensional irreducible representation $`\rho _x`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ with the parameter $`x`$ such that $`\rho _0=\phi p`$, where $`p:\stackrel{~}{U}U_q\mathrm{sl}(2|2)^{(1)}`$ is the natural epimorphism.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, we introduce $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ and $`\rho _x`$. In Section 2, we give $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(u,v;x)`$ associated with $`\rho _x`$. In Section 3, we give all the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(u,v;x)`$’s mentioned above using the fusion process.

## II. A CENTRAL EXTENSION OF $`U_q\mathrm{sl}(2|2)^{(1)}`$

Let $`=_{i=0}^4\epsilon _i`$ be the five dimensional vector space. Define the symmetric bilinear form $`(,)`$ on $``$ by $`(\epsilon _0,\epsilon _0)=0`$, $`(\epsilon _1,\epsilon _1)=(\epsilon _2,\epsilon _2)=1`$, $`(\epsilon _3,\epsilon _3)=(\epsilon _4,\epsilon _4)=1`$ and $`(\epsilon _i,\epsilon _j)=0`$ ($`ij`$). Let $`\alpha _0:=\epsilon _0\epsilon _1+\epsilon _4`$ and $`\alpha _i:=\epsilon _i\epsilon _{i+1}`$ ($`1i3`$). Define the parity $`p(\alpha _i)`$ to be $`(4(\alpha _i,\alpha _i)^2)/4`$. Then the Cartan matrix of $`A(1,1)^{(1)}`$ is given by the $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`(a_{ij})`$, where $`a_{ij}=2(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)/((\alpha _i,\alpha _i)+2p(\alpha _i))`$.

Throughout this paper, we assume $`q`$ to be such that $`q0`$ and $`q^r1`$ for every positive integer $`r`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{U}=\stackrel{~}{U}_q𝔡^{(1)}`$ be the associative $``$-algebra presented by the generators $`s`$, $`K_i^\pm `$, $`E_i`$, $`F_i`$ ($`0i3`$) and the defining relations:

$$s^2=1,sK_is=K_i,sE_is=(1)^{p(\alpha _i)}E_i,sF_is=(1)^{p(\alpha _i)}F_i,$$

$$K_iK_i^1=1,K_iK_j=K_jK_i,$$

$$K_iE_jK_i^1=q^{(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)}E_j,K_iF_jK_i^1=q^{(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)}F_j,$$

$$[E_i,F_j]=\delta _{ij}\frac{K_iK_i^1}{qq^1}\text{if }(i,j)\text{ is neither }(2,0)\text{ nor }(0,2)\text{,}$$

$$K_2[E_2,F_0]Z(\stackrel{~}{U}),K_2^1[E_0,F_2]Z(\stackrel{~}{U}),$$

where $`[E_i,F_j]:=E_iF_j(1)^{p(\alpha _i)p(\alpha _j)}F_jE_i`$ and $`Z(\stackrel{~}{U})`$ is the center of $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$. We view $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ as the (non-$`_2`$-graded) Hopf algebra with the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }:\stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{U}`$ satisfying:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(s)=ss,\mathrm{\Delta }(K_i)=K_iK_i,$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(E_i)=E_i1+K_is^{p(\alpha _i)}E_i+\delta _{i0}(qq^1)s[E_0,F_2]E_2,$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(F_i)=F_iK_i^1+s^{p(\alpha _i)}F_i\delta _{i0}(qq^1)F_2[E_2,F_0].$$

We do not give the antipode and the counit; we do not need them. We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n1)}:\stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{U}^n`$ by letting $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m)}=(\mathrm{id}_{\stackrel{~}{U}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(m1)})\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`m2`$).
Remark: (1) The above comultiplication is not standard. Taking the twisting11 for the $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$, we get the standard comultiplication of a quantum superalgebra defined for a Dynkin diagram other than the one associated with the Cartan matrix $`(a_{ij})`$ (see above); the $`\mathrm{A}(1,1)^{(1)}`$ has the two Dynkin diagrams.

(2) Let $`\stackrel{~}{U}^{}`$ be the subalgebra of $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ generated by $`K_i^\pm `$, $`E_i`$, $`F_i`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{U}=\stackrel{~}{U}^{}\stackrel{~}{U}^{}s`$. There exists a nonzero ideal $`J`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{U}^{}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{U}^{}/J`$ can be regarded as $`U_q𝔡^{(1)}`$. We can get generators of $`J`$ in the same way as in Ref. 12. By the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 8.4.3 of Ref. 12, we can get the natural epimorphism from $`U_q𝔡^{(1)}`$ to $`U_q\mathrm{sl}(2|2)^{(1)}`$.

Let $`V_x=^4`$ be the four dimensional vector space, where $`x`$ is a parameter. Put $`\theta (i):=(1(\epsilon _i,\epsilon _i))/2`$. Define the irreducible representation $`\rho _x:\stackrel{~}{U}\mathrm{End}(V_x)`$ by:

$$\rho _x(s)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}(1)^{\theta (j)}E_{jj},\rho _x(K_i)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}q^{(\alpha _i,\epsilon _j)}E_{jj},$$

$$\rho _x(E_0)=E_{41},\rho _x(E_1)=E_{12},$$

$$\rho _x(E_2)=E_{23}+xE_{41},\rho _x(E_3)=E_{34},$$

$$\rho _x(F_0)=E_{14}xq^1E_{32},\rho _x(F_1)=E_{21},$$

$$\rho _x(F_2)=E_{32},\rho _x(F_3)=E_{43}.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{U}^0=\stackrel{~}{U}_q𝔡`$ be the subalgebra of $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ generated by $`s`$, $`K_i^\pm `$, $`E_i`$, $`F_i`$ ($`1i3`$). Define the vector subspaces $`V_x^{(i)}=V_{x,y}^{(i)}`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$) of $`V_xV_y`$ by

$`V_x^{(1)}`$ $`:=`$ $`(e_3e_3)(e_4e_4)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(e_ie_j(1)^{\theta (i)\theta (j)}qe_je_i`$
$`+\delta _{i1}\delta _{j2}(q^2ye_3e_4+xe_4e_3))`$
and

$$V_x^{(2)}:=(e_1e_1)(e_2e_2)\underset{i<j}{}(e_ie_j+(1)^{\theta (i)\theta (j)}q^1e_je_i).$$

Lemma 1: $`V_x^{(1)}`$ is an irreducible $`\stackrel{~}{U}^0`$-module. Moreover $`V_xV_y`$ is a completely reducible $`\stackrel{~}{U}^0`$-module if and only if $`y=qx`$. If this is the case, $`V_x^{(2)}`$ is an irreducible $`\stackrel{~}{U}^0`$-module which is not isomorphic to $`V_x^{(1)}`$; in particular, $`V_xV_{qx}`$ has an irreducible $`\stackrel{~}{U}^0`$-submodule decomposition $`V_x^{(1)}V_x^{(2)}`$.

Proof: For each $`1i4`$, the weight space including $`e_ie_i`$ is one dimensional. Hence, if $`V_xV_y`$ is a completely reducible $`\stackrel{~}{U}^0`$-module, there exists an irreducible $`\stackrel{~}{U}^0`$-module including $`e_ie_i`$. Using this fact, we can check the lemma directly. $`\mathrm{}`$

## III. $`R`$-MATRIX FOR THE VECTOR REPRESENTATION

Define $`P_x^{(i)}\mathrm{End}(V_xV_{qx})`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$) by $`P_x^{(i)}(v)=\delta _{ij}v`$ ($`vV_x^{(j)}`$). Put

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\mathrm{}}(u,v;x):=(q^2uv)P_x^{(1)}+(q^2vu)P_x^{(2)},$$
(2)
where $`u,v`$. Then:

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\mathrm{}}(u,v;x)`$
$`=`$ $`(q^2vu){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}E_{ii}E_{ii}+(q^2uv){\displaystyle \underset{i=3}{\overset{4}{}}}E_{ii}E_{ii}`$
$`+(q^21){\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(vE_{ii}E_{jj}+uE_{jj}E_{ii})`$
$`q(uv){\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(1)^{\theta (i)\theta (j)}E_{ij}E_{ji}`$
$`+x(q^21)(uv)(qE_{31}E_{42}q^2E_{32}E_{41}`$
$`E_{41}E_{32}+qE_{42}E_{31}).`$
For $`u^\times `$, define $`\chi _u\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{U})`$ by $`\chi _u(s)=s`$, $`\chi _u(K_i)=K_i`$, $`\chi _u(E_i)=u^{\delta _{i0}}E_i`$ and $`\chi _u(F_i)=u^{\delta _{i0}}F_i`$. Put $`\rho _{u,v,x}:=(\rho _x\rho _{qx})(\chi _u\chi _v)\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Using (2) and Lemma 1 , we can directly check that:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\mathrm{}}(u,v;x)\rho _{u,v,x}(X)=\rho _{v,u,x}(X)\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\mathrm{}}(u,v;x)$$
(4)
for $`X\stackrel{~}{U}`$.

Theorem 1: The $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\mathrm{}}(u,v;x)`$ satisfies the YBE in the form of (I. INTRODUCTION) with $`n=1`$.

Proof: Let $`E_i^{}`$, $`F_i^{}`$, $`H_i^{}`$ ($`0i3`$) be the Chevalley generators of $`\mathrm{sl}(2|2)^{(1)}`$. Then there exists a representation $`\widehat{\psi }_u:\mathrm{sl}(2|2)^{(1)}\mathrm{End}(^4)`$ sending $`E_i^{}`$, $`F_i^{}`$, $`H_i^{}`$ to the limits of $`\rho _x\chi _u(E_i)`$, $`\rho _x\chi _u(F_i)`$, $`(qq^1)^1\rho _x\chi _u(K_iK_i^1)`$ as $`(q,x)(1,0)`$, respectively. Notice that $`\psi :=\widehat{\psi }_1_{|\mathrm{sl}(2|2)}`$ is an irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{sl}(2|2)`$ and that there exist a highest root vector $`E_{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3}^{}`$ and a lowest root vector $`E_{(\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3)}^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{sl}(2|2)`$ such that

$$u\psi (E_{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3}^{})=\widehat{\psi }_u(F_0),u^1\psi (E_{(\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3)}^{})=\widehat{\psi }_u(E_0).$$
(5)
Then, using (4), together with the same argument used in the proof of Proposition 3 in Ref. 3, we get the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

## IV. $`R`$-MATRIX FOR THE (ANTI-)SYMMETRIC TENSORS

Here we use a similar process to the fusion process.13-15 To begin with, we recall some facts16,17 about the Hecke algebra $`H_n(q^2)`$ associated with the symmetric group $`S_n`$; the $`H_n(q^2)`$ is the associative $``$-algebra presented by the generators $`h_i`$ ($`1in1`$) and the defining relations: $`(h_iq^2)(h_i+1)=0`$, $`h_ih_{i+1}h_i=h_{i+1}h_ih_{i+1}`$ and $`h_ih_j=h_jh_i`$ ($`|ij|2`$). We abbreviate $`H_n(q^2)`$ to $`H`$. We know that there exists a $``$-basis $`\{h(\sigma )|\sigma S_n\}`$ of $`H`$ such that $`h(1)=1`$, $`h(\sigma _i)=h_i`$ and $`h(\sigma ^{}\sigma )=h(\sigma ^{})h(\sigma )`$ if $`\mathrm{}(\sigma ^{}\sigma )=\mathrm{}(\sigma ^{})+\mathrm{}(\sigma )`$. Here $`\sigma _i`$ is the simple transposition $`(i,i+1)`$ and $`\mathrm{}(\sigma )`$ is the length of $`\sigma `$ with respect to $`\sigma _i`$’s.

Put

$$e_+:=\underset{\sigma S_n}{}h(\sigma ),e_{}:=\underset{\sigma S_n}{}(q^2)^{\mathrm{}(\sigma )}h(\sigma ).$$

Then $`h_ie_+=q^2e_+`$, $`h_ie_{}=e_{}`$ and

$$e_{\pm }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=(\underset{\sigma S_n}{}q^{\pm 2\mathrm{}(\sigma )})e_\pm .$$
(6)
Now we treat $`R`$-matrices. Let $`W_x^{(n)}:=V_xV_{qx}\mathrm{}V_{q^{n1}x}`$. Put:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_i(u,v;x):=I^{i1}\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\mathrm{}}(u,v;q^{i1}x)I^{ni+1}\mathrm{End}(W_x^{(n)}).$$

By Theorem 1 , we can define $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(a;x|\sigma )\mathrm{End}(W_x^{(n)})`$, $`a(^\times )^n`$ and $`\sigma S_n`$, inductively by

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(a;x|1)=I^n,\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(a;x|\sigma _i)=\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_i(a_i,a_{i+1};x)$$

and

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(a;x|\sigma ^{}\sigma )=\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(\sigma [a];x|\sigma ^{})\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(a;x|\sigma )\text{if }\mathrm{}(\sigma ^{}\sigma )=\mathrm{}(\sigma ^{})+\mathrm{}(\sigma )\text{,}$$

where $`\sigma [a]:=(a_{\sigma ^1(1)},\mathrm{},a_{\sigma ^1(n)})`$. By Theorem 1 and (2), there exists a unique representation $`\pi _x^{(n)}:H\mathrm{End}(W_x^{(n)})`$ such that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_i(u,v;x)=\pi _x^{(n)}(uh_ivq^2h_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})`$.

Let $`p_\pm :=(1,q^2,\mathrm{},q^{2(n1)})^n`$. Let $`\gamma _nS_n`$ be such that $`\gamma _n(i)=ni+1`$.

Lemma 2: Let $`u`$. Then:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(up_\pm ;x|\gamma _n)=u^{\mathrm{}(\gamma _n)}a_\pm (q)\pi _x^{(n)}(e_\pm )$$

for some $`a_\pm (q)^\times `$.

This can be checked directly; a similar formula has been given in Section 5 in Ref. 14.

Let $`V_{\pm ,x}:=\pi _x^{(n)}(e_\pm )W_x^{(n)}`$. By (6), $`d_\pm (n):=dimV_{\pm ,x}`$ does not depend on $`q`$ or $`x`$. For $`a(^\times )^n`$, define the representation $`\rho _{a,x}:\stackrel{~}{U}\mathrm{End}(W_x^{(n)})`$ by

$$\rho _{a,x}:=(\rho _x\mathrm{}\rho _{q^{n1}x})(\chi _{a_1}\mathrm{}\chi _{a_n})\mathrm{\Delta }^{(n1)}.$$

By (4), we have:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(a;x|\sigma )\rho _{a,x}(X)=\rho _{\sigma [a],x}(X)\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(a;x|\sigma )$$
(7)
for $`X\stackrel{~}{U}`$. By Lemma 2 and (7), we may define the representation $`\rho _{u,x}^{\pm ,(n)}:\stackrel{~}{U}\mathrm{End}(V_{\pm ,x})`$ by $`\rho _{u,x}^{\pm ,(n)}(X)=\rho _{\gamma _n[up_\pm ],x}(X)_{|V_{\pm ,x}}`$. Notice that

$$\rho _{u,x}^{\pm ,(n)}=\rho _{1,x}^{\pm ,(n)}\chi _u.$$
(8)
We have a representation $`\widehat{\psi }_u^{\pm ,(n)}:\mathrm{sl}(2|2)^{(1)}\mathrm{End}(^{d_\pm (n)})`$ sending $`E_i^{}`$, $`F_i^{}`$, $`H_i^{}`$ to the limits of $`\rho _{u,x}^{\pm ,(n)}(E_i)`$, $`\rho _{u,x}^{\pm ,(n)}(F_i)`$, $`(qq^1)^1\rho _{u,x}^{\pm ,(n)}(K_iK_i^1)`$ as $`(q,x)(1,0)`$. Define the representation $`\psi ^{\pm ,(n)}`$ of $`\mathrm{sl}(2|2)`$ to be $`(\widehat{\psi }_1^{\pm ,(n)})_{|\mathrm{sl}(2|2)}`$. Then $`\psi ^{+,(n)}`$ (resp. $`\psi ^{,(n)}`$) is the $`n`$-fold symmetric (resp. anti-symmetric) tensor product of the vector representation $`\psi `$ of $`\mathrm{sl}(2|2)`$. By Ref. 18, we have:

Lemma 3: The $`\psi ^{\pm ,(n)}`$ is irreducible. Moreover $`d_\pm (n)0`$.

Define $`\tau S_{2n}`$ by $`\tau (i)=i+n`$, $`\tau (n+i)=i`$ ($`1in`$). For $`g,h^n`$, let $`gh:=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n,h_1,\mathrm{},h_n)^{2n}`$. Let $`S_n`$ be embedded into $`S_{2n}`$ in the natural way. By Lemma 2 , we have:

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(\gamma _n[up_\pm ]\gamma _n[vp_\pm ];x|\tau )(\pi _x^{(n)}(e_\pm )\pi _{q^nx}^{(n)}(e_\pm ))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(uv)^{\mathrm{}(\gamma _n)}}{a_\pm (q)^2}}\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(\gamma _n[up_\pm ]\gamma _n[vp_\pm ];x|\tau )\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(up_\pm ;x|\gamma _n)\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(vp_\pm ;x|\tau \gamma _n\tau )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(uv)^{\mathrm{}(\gamma _n)}}{a_\pm (q)^2}}\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(up_\pm vp_\pm ;x|\gamma _n\tau \gamma _n)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(uv)^{\mathrm{}(\gamma _n)}}{a_\pm (q)^2}}\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(vp_\pm ;x|\gamma _n)\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(up_\pm ;x|\tau \gamma _n\tau )\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(up_\pm vp_\pm ;x|\tau )`$
$`=`$ $`(\pi _x^{(n)}(e_\pm )\pi _{q^nx}^{(n)}(e_\pm ))\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(up_\pm vp_\pm ;x|\tau ).`$
Hence we may put:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\pm ,(n)}(u,v;x):=\stackrel{ˇ}{R}(\gamma _n[up_\pm ]\gamma _n[vp_\pm ];x|\tau )_{|V_{\pm ,x}V_{\pm ,q^nx}}$$

$`\mathrm{End}(V_{\pm ,x}V_{\pm ,q^nx}).`$

Let $`\rho _{u,v}^{\pm ,(n)}:=(\rho _{u,x}^{\pm ,(n)}\rho _{v,q^nx}^{\pm ,(n)})\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Notice that

$$\rho _{u,v}^{\pm ,(n)}(X)=(\rho _{\gamma _n[up_\pm ]\gamma _n[vp_\pm ],x}(X))_{|V_{\pm ,x}V_{\pm ,q^nx}}.$$
(9)
By (7) and (9), we have:

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\pm ,(n)}(u,v;x)\rho _{u,v}^{\pm ,(n)}(X)=\rho _{v,u}^{\pm ,(n)}(X)\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\pm ,(n)}(u,v;x).$$
(10)
for $`X\stackrel{~}{U}`$.

Theorem 2: The $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\pm ,(n)}(u,v;x)`$ satisfies the YBE in the form of (I. INTRODUCTION).

Proof: By (5), we have $`u\psi ^{\pm ,(n)}(E_{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3}^{})=\widehat{\psi }_u^{\pm ,(n)}(F_0)`$ and
$`u^1\psi ^{\pm ,(n)}(E_{(\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3)}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\psi }_u^{\pm ,(n)}(E_0)`$. Noting this fact and using (8), (10) and Lemma 3 , together with the same argument as in the proof of Proposition 3 in Ref. 3, we have the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

## ACNOWLEDGMENTS

The author thanks E. Date, M. Okado and Y. Koga for valuable comments. He also thanks Y.Z. Zhang for telling him about face-type dynamical $`R`$-matirces.

## APPENDIX: A QUANTUM DYNAMICAL $`R`$-MATRIX

Here we show that the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\pm ,(n)}(u,v;x)`$ can be viewed as a dynamical $`R`$-matrix. Let $`𝔥`$ be a finite dimensional commutative Lie algebra. Let $`V`$ be a finite dimensional diagonalizable $`𝔥`$-module, i.e., $`V=_{\mu 𝔥^{}}V_\mu `$, where $`V_\mu :=\{v|h.v=\mu (h)v\}`$. We say that a (meromorphic) function $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{}:^2\times 𝔥^{}\mathrm{End}(VV)`$ is a quantum dynamical $`R`$-matrix if it satisfies the quantum dynamical YBE (see Ref. 19 for example):

$`(\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{}(v,w,\lambda )I)\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{}^{}{}_{23}{}^{}(u,w,\lambda h^{(1)})(\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{}(u,v,\lambda )I)`$
$`=\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{}^{}{}_{23}{}^{}(u,v,\lambda h^{(1)})(\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{}(u,w,\lambda )I)\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{}^{}{}_{23}{}^{}(v,w,\lambda h^{(1)}),`$
where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{}^{}{}_{23}{}^{}(u,v,\lambda h^{(1)})\mathrm{End}(V^3)`$ is defined by

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{}^{}{}_{23}{}^{}(u,v,\lambda h^{(1)})_{|V_\mu VV}=(I\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{}(u,v,\lambda \mu ))_{|V_\mu VV}.$$

Let $`𝔥^{\prime \prime }=`$ and let $`𝔥^{\prime \prime }`$ act on $`^{d_\pm (n)}`$ by $`z.v=nzv`$. Let $`a`$ be such that $`e^a=q`$. Define $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\prime \prime }:^2\times (𝔥^{\prime \prime })^{}\mathrm{End}(^{d_\pm (n)}^{d_\pm (n)})`$ by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\prime \prime }(u,v,\lambda )=\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\pm ,(n)}(u,v;e^{a\lambda (1)})`$. By Theorem 2 , $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{\prime \prime }`$ is a quantum dynamical $`R`$-matrix.
1C. N. Yang and M. L. Ge(eds), Braid Groups, Knot theory and Statistical Mechanics, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989).
2V. G. Drinfeld, ICM Proceedings, (Berkeley 1986), p. 798.
3M. Jimbo, Commun. Math. Phys. 102, 537 (1986).
4A. J. Bracken, M. D. Gould and R. B. Zhang,, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 5, 831 (1989).
5V. G. Kac, Adv. in. Math. 26, 8 (1977).
6V. G. Kac, Lect. Note in Math. 676, 597 (1978).
7K. Iohara and Y. Koga, Comment. Math. Helv. 76, 110 (2001)
8V. V. Bazhanov and A. G. Shadrikov, Theoret. Math. Phys. 73, 1302 (1987).
9R. M. Gade, J. Phys. A. 31, 4909 (1998).
10J. H. H. Perk, and C. L. Schultz, Non-linear Integrable systems–Classical theory and quantum theory ed, by M. Jimbo and T. Miwa, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1983), p. 135.
11S. M. Khoroshkin and V. N. Tolstoy, Twisting of quantum (super-)algebras, in Generalized symmetries in physics (Claustal, 1993), (World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1994) p. 42.
12H. Yamane, Publ. RIMS Kyoto Univ. 35, 321 (1999), (Errata) Publ. RIMS Kyoto Univ. 37, 615 (2002).
13I. V. Cherednik, Sov. Math. Dokl. 33, 507 (1986).
14M. Jimbo, Lett. Math. Phys. 11, 247 (1986).
15P. P. Kulish, N. Yu Reshetikhin and E. K. Sklyanin, Lett. Math. Phys. 5, 393 (1981).
16C. W. Curtis and I. Reiner, Methods of Representation Theory with Applications to Finite Groups and Orders, Volume II, (A Wiley International Publication, New York. 1987).
17A. Gyoja, Osaka J. Math. 23, 841 (1986).
18A. N. Sergeev, Math. USSR-Sb. 51, 419 (1985).
19P. Etingof and A. Varchenko, Commun. Math. Phys. 196, 591 (1998).