text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Electronic transport in mesoscopic systems has been at the focus of experimental and theoretical interest during the last decade due to recent development in fabrication of small electronic devices and their interesting equilibrium and non-equilibrium properties. Especially interesting are the transport properties of a quantum dot (QD) under the influence of external time-dependent fields. The high-frequency signals may be applied to a QD and the time-dependent fields will modify the tunneling current.

New effects have been observed and theoretically described, e.g. photon-assisted tunneling through small quantum dots with well-resolved discrete energy states , photon-electron pumps  and others. One can investigate the current flowing through a QD under periodic modulation of the QD electronic structure  or periodic (non-periodic) modulation of the tunneling barriers  and electron energy levels in both (left and right) electron reservoirs  (see also ).

The progress of nanomaterials science has enabled the experimental study of the phase coherence of the charge carriers in many mesoscopic systems. The asymmetric Fano line shapes  are observed whenever resonant and nonresonant scattering paths interfere. In some nanostructures, e.g. in single-electron transistors, the Fano resonances in the conductance were observed , which imply that there are two paths for transfer of electrons between a source and a drain. Especially the recent experimental and theoretical study with a low-temperature scanning tunneling microscope (STM) of the single magnetic atom deposited on a metallic surface showed the asymmetric Fano resonances in the tunneling spectra \[12–15\]. The STM measurements indicate that in tunneling of electrons between STM tip and a surface with a single impurity atom two different paths are present. The electrons can tunnel between the tip and the adsorbate state and directly between the tip and the metal surface. The electronic transport through a QD coupled to the electron reservoirs within a model with two electron tunneling channels was considered in Ref.  and it was shown, that transport of electrons through both channels leads to an asymmetric shape of the zero bias voltage conductance curves, which is typical behaviour for a Fano resonance resulting from constructive and destructive interference processes for electrons transmitted through both channels.

In all papers mentioned above and relating to the electron transport through a QD with the additional (bridge) transmission channel the external fields were not applied and the considered systems were driven out of equilibrium only by means of a dc voltage bias. In this paper we address the issue of a QD with a bridge channel between a source and a drain driven out of equilibrium by means of a dc voltage bias and additional time-dependent external fields. In this manner, our paper can be seen as generalization of Ref.  to the case of a QD with the additional bridge channel in the presence of external microwave fields which are applied to the dot and two leads, respectively. In literature, different theoretical approaches have been developed to treat the time-dependent, nonequilibrium electron transport processes in the mesoscopic systems. It seems, that the most popular is the nonequilibrium Green’s function method. However, these Green’s functions depend on the time arguments and for non trivial quantum models it is a rather difficult task to calculate them. In our treatment of the time-dependent tunneling through a mesoscopic system we use the evolution operator technique (e.g. ). The final expressions for the QD charge and the current flowing in the system can be described in terms of the corresponding matrix elements of the evolution operator. In our earlier work  we have considered the similar problem solving numerically the corresponding sets of the differential equations satisfied by the matrix elements of the evolution operator. Due to the complexity and a large number of these equations we considered only a very limited number of intereting cases although we were able to take into consideration the electronic structure of the lead energy bands and the specific time-dependence of the QD-lead barriers. Here we give the analytical expressions for the QD charge and current assuming so called the wide-band limit approximation and the time-independent strength of the QD-lead barriers. As a result, due to these analytical forms, we are able to analyze the required characteristics of the considered system for the very broad class of parameters. Additionally, due to the final forms given for some matrix elements of the evolution operator it is possible to build up the expressions for the QD charge or current in the form of the perturbation series.

In the next Section we present the model and formalism and give the resulting expressions for equations for the corresponding matrix elements of the evolution operator. In Section 3 we obtain the approximate solutions for all required matrix elements and give the final forms for the QD charge and the current flowing in the system. The results are presented in Section 4 which includes also the summary and a brief discussion.

## 2 Model and calculation method

We model the QD coupled to the left and right electron reservoirs with the additional bridge tunneling channel between them by the usually used Hamiltonian $`H=H_1+V`$, where

$`H_1={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }{}}\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }(t)a_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }^+a_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }+\epsilon _d(t)a_d^+a_d,`$ (1)
$`V={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }{}}V_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}(t)a_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }^+a_d+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{k}_R}{}}V_{\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t)a_{\stackrel{}{k}_L}^+a_{\stackrel{}{k}_R}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (2)
The operators $`a_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }(a_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }^+)`$, $`a_d(a_d^+)`$ are the annihilation (creation) operators of the electron in the lead $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =L,R`$) and in the QD, respectively. The couplings between QD and lead states and between both lead states are denoted by $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}`$ and $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{k}_R}`$, respectively. For simplicity, the dot is characterized only by a single level $`\epsilon _d`$ and we have neglected the intradot electron-electron Coulomb interaction. We assume the case in which there exist microwave fields applied to the leads and QD. In the adiabatic approximation our time-dependent driven system is described by $`\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }(t)=\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }+\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha \mathrm{cos}\omega t`$, $`\epsilon _d(t)=\epsilon _d+\mathrm{\Delta }_d\mathrm{cos}\omega t`$, i.e. the energy levels of the leads and QD are driven by the ac field with the frequency $`\omega `$ and the amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$, respectively.

We describe the dynamical evolution of the charge localised on the QD and the current flowing in the system in terms of the time evolution operator $`U(t,t_0)`$ (in the interaction representation) which satisfies the equation

$$i\frac{}{t}U(t,t_0)=\stackrel{~}{V}(t)U(t,t_0),$$
(3)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{V}(t)=U_0(t,t_0)V(t)U_0^+(t,t_0),`$ (4)
$`U_0(t)=T\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t^{}H_1(t^{})\right).`$ (5)
Here we assume that the interaction between QD and leads and between both leads is switched on in the distant past $`t_0`$, i.e. $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}(t)`$ and $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t)`$ equal to zero for $`tt_0`$ and takes constant values for $`t>t_0`$.

The QD charge and currents flowing in the system can be obtained from the knowledge of the appropriate matrix elements of the evolution operator $`U(t,t_0)`$. The QD charge is given as follows (cf. ):

$$n_d(t)=n_d(t_0)|U_{dd}(t,t_0)|^2+\underset{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }{}n_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }(t_0)|U_{d\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }(t,t_0)|^2,$$
(6)
where $`U_{dd}(t,t_0)d|U(t,t_0)|d`$ and $`U_{d\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }(t,t_0)d|U(t,t_0)|\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha `$ denote the matrix elements of $`U(t,t_0)`$ calculated within the basis functions containing the electron single-particle functions of the leads and QD, $`|\stackrel{}{k}_L`$, $`|\stackrel{}{k}_R`$ and $`|d`$, respectively. $`n_d(t_0)`$ and $`n_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }(t_0)`$ represent the initial filling of the corresponding single-particle states.

The tunneling current flowing, e.g. from the left lead into the QD and the right lead, $`j_L(t)`$ , can be obtained from the time derivative of the total number of electrons in the left lead, $`j_L(t)=edn_L(t)/dt`$ (cf. ), where

$`n_L(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_L}{}}n_{\stackrel{}{k}_L}(t)={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_L}{}}(n_d(t_0)|U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t,t_0)|^2`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{q}_L}{}}n_{\stackrel{}{q}_L}(t_0)|U_{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{q}_L}(t,t_0)|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_R}{}}n_{\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t_0)|U_{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t,t_0)|^2).`$
Let us begin with the calculations of the QD charge $`n_d(t)`$. Then we have to calculate the matrix elements $`U_{dd}(t,t_0)`$ and $`U_{d\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }(t,t_0)`$. Using the identity operator $`I=|dd|+_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }|\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha \stackrel{}{k}_\alpha |`$ the following set of coupled equations can be obtained from Eq. (3):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}U_{dd}(t,t_0)=i{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_{\alpha d}}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}^{}(t)U_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}(t,t_0),`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t,t_0)=i\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t)U_{dd}(t,t_0)i{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_R}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t)U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Rd}(t,t_0),`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Rd}(t,t_0)=i\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_Rd}(t)U_{dd}(t,t_0)i{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_L}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_R\stackrel{}{k}_L}(t)U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t,t_0),`$ (10)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}(t)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha |\stackrel{~}{V}(t)|d=V_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}\mathrm{exp}(i(\epsilon _\alpha \epsilon _d)(tt_0)`$ (11)
$`i(\mathrm{\Delta }_d\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha )(\mathrm{sin}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega t_0)/\omega ),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{}{k}_L|\stackrel{~}{V}(t)|\stackrel{}{k}_R=V_{\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{k}_R}\mathrm{exp}(i(\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_L}\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_R})(tt_0)`$ (12)
$`i(\mathrm{\Delta }_L\mathrm{\Delta }_R)(\mathrm{sin}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega t_0)/\omega ).`$
It is easy to show that the equation for $`U_{dd}(t,t_0)`$ can be written as follows:

$$\frac{U_{dd}(t,t_0)}{t}=\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑t^{}(𝒦(t,t^{})U_{dd}(t^{},t_0)+\underset{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }{}_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }(t,t^{})U_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}(t^{},t_0)),$$
(13)
where

$`𝒦(t,t^{})={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_{\alpha d}}^{}(t)\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_{\alpha d}}(t^{}),`$ (14)
$`_{\stackrel{}{k}_L}(t,t^{})={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_R}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_R}^{}(t)\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_R\stackrel{}{k}_L}(t^{}),`$ (15)
and the similar equation can be written for $`_{\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t,t^{})`$.

The formal solution of Eq. (9) written in the form

$$U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t,t_0)=i\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑t^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t^{})U_{dd}(t^{},t_0)i\underset{\stackrel{}{k}_R}{}\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑t^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t^{})U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Rd}(t^{}),$$
(16)
(and the similar equation for $`U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Rd}(t,t_0)`$) can be iterated giving

$`U_{Ld}(t,t_0)=i{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{V}_L(t_1)U_{dd}(t_1,t_0)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i)^j{\displaystyle \underset{R_1,L_2,R_3,L_4,\mathrm{},\alpha _{j1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{j1}}{}}}𝑑t_j\stackrel{~}{V}_{LR_1}(t_1)\stackrel{~}{V}_{R_1L_2}(t_2)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\alpha _{j1}}(t_j)U_{dd}(t_j,t_0).`$
Here we have introduced the abbreviated form for the vector $`\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha `$ and replaced it by $`\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}(t)\stackrel{~}{V}_\alpha (t)`$. The equation for $`U_{Rd}(t,t_0)`$ can be obtained from Eq. (17) by interchanging $`LR`$. Inserting these expressions for $`U_{Ld}(t,t_0)`$ and $`U_{Rd}(t,t_0)`$ into Eq. (13) one obtains the closed integro-differential equation for $`U_{dd}(t,t_0)`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}U_{dd}(t,t_0)={\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1𝒦(t,t_1)U_{dd}(t_1,t_0)`$ (18)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i)^{j1}{\displaystyle \underset{L_1,R_2,L_3,\mathrm{},\alpha _j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{j1}}{}}}𝑑t_j\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_1}^{}(t)\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_1R_2}(t_1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\alpha _j}(t_j)U_{dd}(t_j,t_0)`$
$`+(\mathrm{the}\mathrm{second}\mathrm{term}\mathrm{with}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{change}LR).`$
Equation (18) together with the expressions for $`\stackrel{~}{V}_L(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_{LR}(t)`$, Eqs. (11, 12), and for $`𝒦(t,t_1)`$ written as follows

$$𝒦(t,t_1)=\underset{\alpha =L,R}{}|V_\alpha |^2𝒟_\alpha (tt_1)\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon _d(tt_1)+i(\mathrm{\Delta }_d\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha )(\mathrm{sin}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega t_1)/\omega )$$
(19)
where $`𝒟_\alpha (t)`$ a Fourier transform of the $`\alpha `$-th lead density of states, gives exact, closed equation for $`U_{dd}(t,t_0)`$. Here we have assumed that $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }`$ does not depend on the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha `$ and then the similar assumption will be made for $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{k}_R}`$.

Under the wide-band limit (WBL) approximation (e.g. ) this equation can be analytically solved and such solutions will be considered later. Formally, solving Eq. (18) and inserting its solution to Eq. (17), the solutions for $`U_{Ld}(t,t_0)`$ and $`U_{Rd}(t,t_0)`$ can be obtained. These functions are needed in the calculations of the first term of $`j_L(t)`$ (see Eq. 7).

In order to calculate $`n_d(t)`$ we still need $`U_{d\alpha }(t,t_0)`$. Writing down the set of closed equations for $`U_{dR}(t,t_0)`$, $`U_{R_1R_2}(t,t_0)`$ and $`U_{LR}(t,t_0)`$ (obtained on the basis of Eq. (3)) and performing similar calculations to those described above, one obtains for $`U_{dR}(t,t_0)`$ (and similar equation for $`U_{dL}(t,t_0)`$ by interchanging $`LR`$):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}U_{dR}(t,t_0)=`$ (20)
$``$ $`i\stackrel{~}{V}_R^{}(t)+(i)^2{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_L^{}(t)\stackrel{~}{V}_{LR}(t_1)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2,4,6,\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i)^{j+1}{\displaystyle \underset{R_1,L_2,R_3,\mathrm{},L_j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{j1}}{}}}𝑑t_j\stackrel{~}{V}_{R_1}^{}(t)\stackrel{~}{V}_{R_1L_2}(t_1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_jR}(t_j)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=3,5,7,\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i)^{j+1}{\displaystyle \underset{L_1,R_2,L_3,\mathrm{},L_j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{j1}}{}}}𝑑t_j\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_1}^{}(t)\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_1R_2}(t_1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_jR}(t_j)`$
$`+`$ $`(i)^2{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}\stackrel{~}{V}_L^{}(t)V_L(t_1)U_{dR}(t_1,t_0)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i)^{j+1}{\displaystyle \underset{L_1,R_2,L_3,\mathrm{},\alpha _j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{j1}}{}}}𝑑t_j\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_1}^{}(t)\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_1R_2}(t_1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\alpha _j}(t_j)U_{dR}(t_j,t_0),`$
and for $`U_{LR}(t,t_0)`$ (needed for calculation of the last term of $`n_L(t)`$, Eq. (7)):

$`U_{LR}(t,t_0)=i{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{V}_{LR}(t_1)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=3,5,7\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i)^j{\displaystyle \underset{R_1,L_2,R_3,\mathrm{},L_{j1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_1}{}}}𝑑t_2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{j1}}{}}}𝑑t_j\stackrel{~}{V}_{LR}(t_1)\stackrel{~}{V}_{R_1L_2}(t_2)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_{j1}R}(t_j)`$
$``$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{V}_L(t_1)U_{dR}(t_1,t_0)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i)^j{\displaystyle \underset{R_1,L_2,\mathrm{},\alpha _{j1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_1}{}}}𝑑t_2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{j1}}{}}}𝑑t_j\stackrel{~}{V}_{LR_1}(t_1)\stackrel{~}{V}_{R_1L_2}(t_2)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\alpha _j}(t_j)U_{dR}(t_j,t_0).`$
The analytical solutions of these equations under the WBL approximation will be discussed in the next section.

For calculation of $`n_{\stackrel{}{k}_L}(t)`$ one needs the functions $`U_{Ld}(t,t_0)`$, $`U_{LR}(t,t_0)`$ and $`U_{L_1L_2}(t,t_0)`$. The first two functions are given in Eqs. (17) and (21) and $`U_{L_1L_2}(t,t_0)`$ should be calculated from the set of coupled equations for $`U_{dL}(t,t_0)`$, $`U_{L_1L_2}(t,t_0)`$ and $`U_{RL}(t,t_0)`$ obtained from Eq. (3). The result is as follows:

$`U_{L_1L}(t,t_0)=\delta _{L_1L}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=2,4,\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i)^j{\displaystyle \underset{R_1,L_2,R_3,\mathrm{},R_{j1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_1}{}}}𝑑t_2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{j1}}{}}}𝑑t_j\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_1R_1}(t_1)\stackrel{~}{V}_{R_1L_2}(t_2)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{R_{j1}L}(t_j)`$
$`i{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_1}^{}(t_1)U_{dL}(t_1,t_0)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i)^j{\displaystyle \underset{R_1,L_2,R_3,\mathrm{},\alpha _{j1}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_1}{}}}𝑑t_2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t_{j1}}{}}}𝑑t_j\stackrel{~}{V}_{L_1R_1}(t_1)\stackrel{~}{V}_{R_1L_2}(t_2)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{\alpha _{j1}L}(t_j)U_{dL}(t_j,t_0),`$
where $`U_{dL}(t,t_0)`$ is given by solving Eq. (20) with the replacement $`LR`$.

## 3 Analytical solutions in the WBL approximation

In order to calculate the QD charge $`n_d(t)`$ or current $`j_L(t)`$ one has to solve, in the first step, the integro-differential equations satisfied by $`U_{dd}(t,t_0)`$, Eq. (18), and $`U_{dR/L}(t,t_0)`$, Eq. (20). The other needed functions $`U_{Ld}(t,t_0)`$, $`U_{L_1L_2}(t,t_0)`$ and $`U_{LR}(t,t_0)`$ can be obtained from Eqs. (17, 21, 22) inserting into them $`U_{dd}(t,t_0)`$, $`U_{dL/R}(t,t_0)`$ and performing multiple time and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-vector integrations. Unfortunately, it is a very difficult task to solve the integro-differential equations and to perform these integrals in a general case when the leads are characterized by some density of state curves. Here, we use the WBL approximation, under which all multiple time and $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-vectors integrals can be performed without difficulties. The WBL approximation has been widely used in calculating of many properties of mesoscopic systems (e.g. ). It is justified under the conditions that the QD energy level linewidth is much smaller than the bandwidth of the leads and that the density of states and hopping matrix elements vary slowly with energy. Furthermore, as we are not going to consider the case of the QD energy level lying close to the edges of the leads energy band or lying close to some singular structure present in the leads density of states, then application of the WBL approximation should be fully justified. The conditions under which we perform our calculations are satisfied in most experimental constructions of mezoscopic systems. As a check, we have performed the direct but time consuming numerical integration of Eqs. (8–10) (and similar equations for other functions) for the rectangular leads density of states and did not find any differences in the results for the time-averaged QD charge or the currents flowing in the considered system. Therefore, in this section we consider the electron transport through the QD with the additional bridge tunnel over the dot within the WBL approximation. In this approach the solutions of the integro-differential Eqs. (19) and (20) in the analytical form can be obtained and the infinite sums of all terms in Eqs. (17) and (21) can be calculated.

Let us consider the equation for the matrix element $`U_{dd}(t,t_0)`$, Eq. (18). The function $`𝒦(t,t^{})`$, Eq. (19), is approximated in WBL as follows

$`𝒦(t,t_1)={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}|V_\alpha |^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d\epsilon 𝒟_\alpha (\epsilon )\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon (tt_1))\mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon _d(tt_1)`$ (23)
$`+i(\mathrm{\Delta }_d\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha )(\mathrm{sin}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega t_1)/\omega )`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|V_\alpha |^2}{D_\alpha }}2\pi \delta (tt_1),`$
where the leads density of states $`𝒟_\alpha (\epsilon )`$ was replaced by the rectangular density of states with the ”effective” bandwidth $`D_\alpha `$

Using similar approximation in calculations of the multiple integrals present in Eq. (18) one obtains

$$\frac{}{t}U_{dd}(t,t_0)=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\frac{2V^2\pi }{D}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(i\pi V_{RL}/D)^j\right)U_{dd}(t,t_0),$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =2\pi V^2/D`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$, $`D_L=D_R=D`$, $`VV_\alpha `$.

Assuming $`\pi V_{RL}/D<1`$ the series can be summed up and finally the equation for $`U_{dd}(t,t_0)`$ reads

$$\frac{}{t}U_{dd}(t,t_0)=C_1U_{dd}(t,t_0),$$
(25)
where $`C_1=(2\pi V^2/D)/(1+i\pi V_{RL}/D)`$.

Similarly, Eq. (20) becomes

$$\frac{}{t}U_{d\alpha }(t,t_0)=i\stackrel{~}{V}_{dd}(t)/(1+iV_{RL}\pi /D)C_1U_{d\alpha }(t,t_0).$$
(26)
The solutions of Eqs. (25) and (26) are as follows:

$`U_{dd}(t,t_0)=\mathrm{exp}(C_1(tt_0)),`$ (27)
$`U_{d\alpha }(t,t_0)=i/(1+iV_{RL}\pi /D){\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{V}_{d\alpha }(t_1)\mathrm{exp}(C_1(tt_1))`$ (28)
and the QD charge $`n_d(t)`$ can be easily obtained, Eq. (6). It can be verified, that the first term of Eq. (6) tends to zero as $`tt_0\mathrm{}`$ and finally for the QD charge we have

$$n_d(t)=\frac{1}{(1+(V_{RL}\pi /D)^2)}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha }{2\pi }𝑑\epsilon f_\alpha (\epsilon )|A_\alpha (\epsilon ,t)|^2,$$
(29)
where

$$A_\alpha (\epsilon ,t)=\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}𝑑t_1\mathrm{exp}(i(\epsilon _d\epsilon )(tt_1)i(\mathrm{\Delta }_d\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha )(\mathrm{sin}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega t_1)/\omega C_1(tt_1))$$
(30)
In the limit of vanishing bridge over the QD, Eq. (29) reproduces the result of Ref. .

The current $`j_L(t)`$ flowing from the left lead into the QD and the right lead is calculated from the evolution of the total number of electrons in the left lead (see Eq. 7) and one can read:

$`j_L(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\{n_d(t_0){\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_L}{}}U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}^{}(t,t_0){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t,t_0)`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{q}_L}{}}n_{\stackrel{}{q}_L}(t_0)U_{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{q}_L}^{}(t,t_0){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}U_{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{q}_L}(t,t_0)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{k}_R}{}}n_{\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t_0)U_{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{k}_R}^{}(t,t_0){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}U_{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t,t_0)\}.`$
The functions $`U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}`$, $`U_{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{q}_L}`$ and $`U_{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t,t_0)`$ are calculated according to Eqs. (17), (22) and (21), respectively, and after summing up of the corresponding multiple integrals one obtains:

$`U_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t,t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{1+ix}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t_1)U_{dd}(t_1,t_0),`$ (32)
$`U_{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{q}_L}(t,t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{q}_L}{\displaystyle \frac{V_{RL}x}{1+x^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\mathrm{exp}\{i(\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_L}\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{q}_L})(t_1t_0)\}`$ (33)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{1+ix}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t_1)U_{d\stackrel{}{q}_L}(t_1,t_0),`$
$`U_{\stackrel{}{k}_L,\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t,t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{1+ix}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_Ld}(t_1)U_{d\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t_1,t_0)`$ (34)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{1+x^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}}𝑑t_1\stackrel{~}{V}_{\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t_1),`$
where $`U_{dd}(t,t_0)`$, $`U_{d\stackrel{}{k}_L}(t,t_0)`$ and $`U_{d\stackrel{}{k}_R}(t,t_0)`$ are given in Eqs. (27, 28) and $`x=\pi V_{RL}/D`$. One can verify, that the first term in Eq. (31) tends to zero for $`tt_0\mathrm{}`$ as we have for this term

$$n_d(t_0)|1/(1+ix)|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(tt_0)ReC_2),$$
(35)
where $`\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}C_2=\mathrm{𝑅𝑒}(1/(1+ix))>0`$.

The second and third terms of the expression for $`j_L(t)`$, Eq. (30), together with Eqs. (27, 28, 31-33) give finally the time averaged current:

$`j_L(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2x^2}{(1+x^2)^2}}{\displaystyle (f_R(\epsilon )f_L(\epsilon ))𝑑\epsilon }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }/2}{1+x^2}}n_d(t)`$ (36)
$`+\mathrm{Im}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1x^2}{(1+x^2)(1+ix)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\epsilon f_L(\epsilon )A_L(\epsilon ,t)}\right\}`$
$`+\mathrm{Re}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{(1+x^2)(1+ix)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\epsilon f_R(\epsilon )A_R(\epsilon ,t)}\right\}.`$
In the vanishing bridge channel case Eq. (35) coincides with the results of Ref. :

$$j_L^{V_{RL}=0}(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}n_d(t)+\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L}{\pi }𝑑\epsilon f_L(\epsilon )\mathrm{Im}A_L(\epsilon ,t).$$
(37)
The current $`j_L(t)`$, Eq. (36), flowing from the left lead to the central region and to the right lead (through the bridge channel) is the superposition of four terms. The first term corresponds to the current between two leads and this term is not disturbed by the QD. The form of the second and third terms is the same as for $`j_L^{V_{RL}=0}(t)`$, Eq. (37), except for the renormalization constants due to the additional tunneling channel. Note, that some additional renormalizations also occur due to $`V_{RL}`$ which enters into the expression for $`n_d(t)`$, Eq. (29), and for $`A_\alpha (\epsilon ,t)`$, Eq. (30). The last term of Eq. (36) is the interference term due to the simultaneous tunneling through two channels.

## 4 Results and discussion

Here we show the numerical results of the time-averaged QD charge $`n_d(t)`$ and the current $`j_L(t)`$ and its derivatives with respect to the QD energy level position and the chemical potential $`\mu _L`$ (or equivalently, with respect to the gate and source-drain voltages) for different sets of parameters which characterize our system. We assume the temperature $`T=0`$ K and the time-average of time-dependent quantities $`f(t)`$ is defined by

$$f(t)=\underset{2\tau \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{2\tau }\underset{\tau }{\overset{\tau }{}}𝑑t^{}f(t^{}),$$
(38)
and because $`f(t)`$ is a periodic function of time, we average it over the period $`2\pi /\omega `$. We take the chemical potential of the right lead $`\mu _R`$ as the energy measurement point, $`\mu _R=0`$. As the potential drop between the left and right leads is given by $`\mu _L\mu _R=eV_{sd}`$ and $`V_{sd}`$ is the measured voltage between a source and a drain, then the derivatives of the current $`j_L(t)`$ with respect to $`\mu _L`$ will correspond to the derivatives $`dj_L(t)/dV_{sd}`$ usually measured in experiments. In experiments the gate voltage controls the position of the QD energy level $`\epsilon _d`$ (regardless how complicated the relation between the gate voltage and $`\epsilon _d`$ is) and for that reason to mimic measurements of the QD charge or current vs. the gate voltage we have calculated them vs. the position of the QD energy level $`\epsilon _d`$.

The values of the hybridization matrix elements $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}`$ present in the Hamiltonian do not enter the final expressions for the current or QD charge obtained within the WBL approximation. Usually the effective linewidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =2\pi \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha }|V_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}|^2\delta (E\epsilon _{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha })`$ is introduced. However, in our calculations the others hybridization matrix elements appear, $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_R,\stackrel{}{k}_L}V_{RL}`$, responsible for the additional tunneling channel for which we should take some values in order to perform numerical calculations. We have taken the values comparable with $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}`$ and estimated $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}`$ (assuming its $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-independence, $`V_{\stackrel{}{k}_\alpha d}V_\alpha =V`$) using the relation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =2\pi |V_\alpha |^2/D_\alpha `$, where $`D_\alpha `$ is the $`\alpha `$-lead’s bandwidth and $`D_\alpha =100\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`D_L=D_R=D`$ was assumed). We assumed the amplitude of the QD energy levels oscillation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ to be one half of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R=0`$, if otherwise stated. In our calculations the values $`V_{RL}`$ were taken from the range (0–10), in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ units.

In the first three figures, Figs. 1–3, we present the overall shape of the average current $`j_L(t)`$ and the derivatves of the average current with respect to the QD energy level $`\epsilon _d`$ and the left chemical potential $`\mu _L`$, respectively, against $`\epsilon _d`$ and $`\mu _L`$. The upper panels correspond to the $`V_{RL}=0`$ case and the lower ones present the results obtained for the non-vanishing over-dot tunneling channel, $`V_{RL}0`$. There are quite visible differences between the case of a QD with and without additional bridge tunneling channel (cf. upper and lower panels in Figs 1–3). For better visualization of the peculiarities of the presented functions and for simpler discussion let us consider the specific cuts of the surfaces given in Figs. 1-3.

At first, let us consider the dependence of $`j_L(t)`$ vs. $`\epsilon _d`$ for given values of the left lead chemical potential $`\mu _L`$. In Fig. 4 we present such curves for different values of $`\mu _L`$ – the subsequent curves beginning from the lower one correspond to $`\mu _L=4`$ up to the upper curve (with the step $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _L=1`$) obtained for $`\mu _L=8`$. The left (right) panel corresponds to $`V_{RL}=0`$ ($`V_{RL}=10`$). In the case of vanishing over-dot tunneling channel (the left panel) the current has a simple structure – a single peak localized in the middle between $`\mu _L`$ and $`\mu _R`$ for smaller values of $`\mu _L`$. The width of this peak increases with increasing $`|\mu _L|`$ ($`\mu _R=0`$) and for greater values of $`|\mu _L|`$ the current is almost independent of $`\epsilon _d`$ localized inside the energy region between $`\mu _R`$ and $`\mu _L`$. For non-vanishing over-dot tunneling (Fig. 4, the right panel) the curves $`j_L(t)`$ become asymmetric. With increasing source-drain bias, the current possesses greater values in comparison with the $`V_{RL}=0`$ case due to the direct tunneling between both leads. Note, however , that due to the interference effects the resulting $`j_L(t)`$ curves are asymmetric. The interference effects are most visible approximately for $`\epsilon _d`$ lying in the region ($`\mu _R,\mu _L`$).

In Fig. 5 we show the average current $`j_L(t)`$ vs. the left lead chemical potential $`\mu _L`$ for several values of $`\epsilon _d`$. For vanishing $`V_{RL}`$ the corresponding curves are nearly asymmetric with the asymmetry point $`\mu _L=\epsilon _d`$. With increasing $`\mu _L`$ at fixed $`\epsilon _d`$ the current achieves a constant value depending on the position of the QD energy level $`\epsilon _d`$ with respect to the $`\mu _R=0`$. It means, that electrons which occupy the lead energy levels not too distant from $`\epsilon _d`$ take part in the tunneling process. For greater $`\mu _L`$ most of the lead energy levels lying far away from the $`\epsilon _d`$ are inactive in the tunneling between leads through the QD energy level. However, at non-vanishing $`V_{RL}`$ (see the right panel of Fig. 5) these lead energy levels are active and the current $`j_L(t)`$ vs. $`\mu _L`$ is of much richer structure. The current is nearly linearly growing with the increasing $`\mu _L`$ (for larger $`\mu _L`$) because the tunneling through the QD can be neglected compared with the direct tunneling between both leads. The clearly visible interference effects appear only for $`\mu _L`$ not too distant from $`\epsilon _d`$.

In Fig. 6 we show the derivatives of the average current vs. the QD energy level $`\epsilon _d`$ obtained for some values of $`\mu _L`$. These are the results of the intersection of the surfaces given in Fig. 2 with the planes at constant values of $`\mu _L`$ or the results of the differentiation of curves shown in Fig. 4. Again, the most visible differences between the results obtained for $`V_{RL}=0`$ and $`V_{RL}0`$ are present for the QD energy level $`\epsilon _d`$ localized approximately between chemical potentials of both leads (compare, for example, the curves calculated for $`\mu _L=8`$).

Fig. 7 presents the comparison of the $`dj_L(t)/d\mu _L`$ vs. $`\mu _L`$ curves calculated for vanishing $`V_{RL}`$ (left panels) and for $`V_{RL}=10`$ (right panels) for two different values of the amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_d=\mathrm{\Delta }_L/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R=0`$). At the vanishing value of $`V_{RL}`$, the shape of the curves is symmetrical in relation to the values $`\mu _L=\epsilon _d`$ although for greater $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ some shoulders appear on both sides of the corresponding peaks in the distance $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L/2`$ from the curve centres. For non-vanishing $`V_{RL}`$, the corresponding curves are approximately asymmetric and for large $`\mu _L`$ they tend to constant, non-zero values corresponding to linear increasing of the current at large $`\mu _L`$. It is interesting that with the increasing amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ very clear structures appear on both sides of the corresponding curves. Note, that all these curves can be obtained, for example, from the one calculated for $`\epsilon _d=0`$ and moved along the $`\mu _L`$-axis by the corresponding value (equal to $`\epsilon _d`$).

Fig. 8 shows the dependence of the average current $`j_L(t)`$ on the QD energy level $`\epsilon _d`$ and the direct coupling $`V_{RL}`$ between both leads. The upper and bottom panels correspond to different values of the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_d=\mathrm{\Delta }_L/2`$). A very distinct transition from the symmetric to nearly antisymmetric behaviour of the current vs. $`\epsilon _d`$ curves is observed with the increasing value of the over-dot additional coupling between the leads for both values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$. The larger amplitudes of the left lead and QD levels oscillations result only in some broadening of the characteristic features of the average current vs. $`V_{RL}`$ and $`\epsilon _d`$ surface and do not introduce any additional structures on these surfaces (for the range of parameters where $`\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mu _L\mu _R`$ is not very small).

Fig. 9 presents the average current $`j_L(t)`$ obtained for the case in which only the QD energy level $`\epsilon _d`$ oscillates with some frequency ($`\omega >\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ) and for the small source-drain voltage $`\mu _L\mu _R=0.2`$ . The subsequent panels a, b, c and d correspond to the increasing value of the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ and the different curves (broken, thin, thick and very thick) describe the QD without the over dot channel, $`V_{RL}=0`$, and with this channel at $`V_{RL}=4,7`$ and 10, respectively. For vanishing $`V_{RL}`$ (broken curves) we observe for small amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ only a central resonant peak (Fig. 9a). With increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$, the subsequent peaks appear and the distance between them and the central peak is an integer multiple of the frequency $`\omega `$ (sidebands). The location of peaks is independent of the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ but their relative intensity values change and with increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ the height of the central peak is reduced. For the relatively large amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$, the heights of the two neighbouring peaks (at $`\epsilon _d\pm \omega `$) are approximately equal to the height of the central peak. If we take the additional over-dot tunneling channel into consideration, especially for small $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$, the asymmetric shape of the current curve is observed and this asymmetry increases with the increasing strength of the over-dot coupling between both leads. With the increasing amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ this asymmetry is reduced largely due to the extra, photon-assisted tunneling peaks whose strength increases with the increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$. For sufficiently large values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ and $`V_{RL}`$ the functional dependence of the average current on the QD energy level $`\epsilon _d`$ is nearly the same for vanishing and non-vanishing over-dot tunneling channels. There is only one difference – for large $`V_{RL}`$ the corresponding curve is shifted to the higher values due to the direct channel between both leads.

The last two Figures 10, 11 are devoted to the analysis of the average current $`j_L(t)`$ dependence on the oscillation period $`2\pi /\omega `$ of the external fields. In Fig. 10 we show the overall dependence of $`j_L(t)`$ on $`2\pi /\omega `$ and the QD energy level $`\epsilon _d`$. The upper (lower) part of the Figure presents the results for the vanishing (non-vanishing) over dot channel between both leads. The most visible differences between averaged currents calculated for $`V_{RL}=0`$ and $`V_{RL}0`$ can be observed for $`\epsilon _d\mu _L`$, especially for small values of $`2\pi /\omega `$. More detailed analysis of the $`j_L(t)`$ dependence on the oscillation period $`2\pi /\omega `$ is shown for some chosen values of the parameters $`\epsilon _d`$ and $`V_{RL}`$ in Fig. 11. The thin (thick) curves correspond to $`\epsilon _d=5`$ ($`\epsilon _d=1`$) and the solid (broken) curves correspond to $`V_{RL}=4`$ ($`V_{RL}=0`$). Additionally, we give the resutls for two values of the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_d=\mathrm{\Delta }_L/2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R=0`$), i.e. for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L=10`$, the left and the right parts of Fig. 11 respectively. We observe the characteristic average current oscillations damped with increasing $`2\pi /\omega `$ for $`\epsilon _d`$ lying in the central part between the left and right chemical potentials (see also ). These oscillations are present for both $`V_{RL}=0`$ and $`V_{RL}0`$ and more visible for greater amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ but the maxima and minima of the oscillating average current are localized at the same value of the oscillation period. Note, that the existence of the additional over-dot tunneling channel results approximately in shifting the corresponding curves to higher values without any additional serious modifications. For the QD energy level lying away from the middle point between the left and right chemical potentials, the average current is still an oscillating function of $`2\pi /\omega `$ although these oscillations are less transparent and their oscillation period is much longer.

To conclude, we have provided a detailed investigation of a QD connected to two leads with an additional over-dot tunneling channel. The harmonic external microwave fields were considered as applied to the QD and two leads which result in time-dependence of the corresponding QD and leads energy levels. The QD charge and the average current flowing in this system were calculated within the evolution operator technique. The corresponding matrix elements of the evolution operator required for the calculation of the QD charge and current were presented in the form of the infinite series of multiple time integrals of the functions containing the information about the coupling between the QD and leads or in the form of the integro-differential equation. Applying the WBL aproximation we were able to obtain all required evolution operator matrix elements in closed forms and give the final analytical expressions for the QD charge and current. We have performed the extended numerical calculations for the QD charge, the average current and the derivatives of the current with respect to the gate and source-drain voltages (Fig. 4). The most spectacular influence of the additional bridge tunneling channel is visible in the $`j_L(t)`$ dependence vs. the position of the QD energy level at the constant source-drain voltage. Going from the vanishing values of the over-dot tunneling channel strength to the non-vanishing one due to the interference effects, the corresponding curve transforms from the symmetric to nearly antisymmetric shape. Similar influence of the non-vanishing $`V_{RL}`$ is visible in the dependence of $`dj_L(t)/d\mu _L`$ vs. $`\mu _L`$ (Fig. 7). The characteristic behaviour of the average current vs. the QD energy level position at the small source-drain voltage is observed for the case when the external oscillating field is applied only to the QD (Fig. 9). For the vanishing over-dot tunneling channel at the small amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$, the main resonant peak is only observed and with the increasing amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ the next peaks localized at $`\epsilon _d`$ equal to the multiplicity of $`\omega `$ appear corresponding to the photon-assisted tunneling. In that case the current is a symmetric curve centered around the main resonant peak. For the nonvanishing over-dot tunneling channel and small amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$, the character of the dependence of the average current on the QD energy level position transforms with increasing $`V_{RL}`$ from the symmetrical to nearly antisymmetrical behaviour. This tendency to the antisymmetrical behaviour with increasing $`V_{RL}`$ at small amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ is reduced with increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$. For sufficiently large amplitude $`\mathrm{\Delta }_d`$ the overall behaviour of the average current vs. $`\epsilon _d`$ is very similar for different values of $`V_{RL}`$ and does not manifest the tendency for the antisymmetry with increasing $`V_{RL}`$.

Literature

1. T. H. Oosterkamp, L.P. Kouwenhoven, A.E.A. Koden, N.C. van der Vaart, C.J.P.M. Harmans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1536 (1997)
2. Qing-feng Sun, Tsung-han Lin, Phys. Rev. B56 3591 (1997)
3. Qing-feng Sun, Jian Wang, Tsung-han Lin, Phys. Rev. B58, 13007 (1998)
4. C.A. Stafford, N.S. Wingreen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1916 (1996)
5. Qing-feng Sun, Tsung-han Lin, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 9, 3043 (1997)
6. L.P. Kouwenhoven, A.T. Johnson, N.C. van der Vaart, A. van der Enden, C.J.P.M. Harmans, C.T. Foxon, Z. Phys. B, Condens. Matter 85, 381 (1991)
7. H.-K. Zhao, J. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. B9, 513 (1999)
8. Y. Goldin, Y. Avishai, Phys. Rev. B61, 16750 (2000)
9. A.-P. Jauho, N.S. Wingreen, Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. B50, 5528 (1994)
10. Qing-feng Sun, Tsung-han Lin, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 9, 4875 (1998)
11. U. Fano, Phys. Rev. 124, 1866 (1969)
12. J. Göres, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, S. Heemeyer, M.A. Kastner, H. Shtrikman, D. Mahalu, U. Meirav, Phys. Rev. B62, 2188 (2000)
13. M. Plihal, J.W. Gadzuk, Phys. Rev. B63, 085404 (2001)
14. V. Madhavan, W. Chen, T. Jamneala, M.F. Crommie, N.S. Wingreen, Science 280, 567 (1998)
15. O. Ujsaghy, J. Kroha, L. Szunyogh, A. Zawadowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2557 (2000)
16. B.R. Bułka, P. Stefański, Phys. Rev. lett. 86, 5128 (2001)
17. M. Tsukada, N. Shima, in: “Dynamical Processes and Ordering on Solid Surfaces”, Eds. A. Yoshimori and M. Tsukada (Springer, Berlin 1995), p. 34
18. T.B. Grimley, V.C.J. Bhasu, K.L. Sebastian, Surf. Sci. 121,305 (1983)
19. T. Kwapiński, R. Taranko, Physica E, in press


format: text

text:
# Metastability and Transient Effects in Vortex Matter Near a Decoupling Transition

\[

## Abstract

We examine metastable and transient effects both above and below the first-order decoupling line in a 3D simulation of magnetically interacting pancake vortices. We observe pronounced transient and history effects as well as supercooling and superheating between the 3D coupled, ordered and 2D decoupled, disordered phases. In the disordered supercooled state as a function of DC driving, reordering occurs through the formation of growing moving channels of the ordered phase. No channels form in the superheated region; instead the ordered state is homogeneously destroyed. When a sequence of current pulses is applied we observe memory effects. We find a ramp rate dependence of the $`V(I)`$ curves on both sides of the decoupling transition. The critical current that we obtain depends on how the system is prepared.

\]

Vortices in superconductors represent an ideal system in which to study the effect of quenched disorder on elastic media. The competition between the flux-line interactions, which order the vortex lattice, and the defects in the sample, which disorder the vortex lattice, produce a remarkable variety of collective behavior . One prominent example is the peak effect in low temperature superconductors, which appears near $`H_{c2}`$ when a transition from an ordered to a strongly pinned disordered state occurs in the vortex lattice . In high temperature superconductors, particularly BSCCO samples, a striking “second peak” phenomenon is observed in which a dramatic increase in the critical current occurs for increasing fields. It has been proposed that this is an order-disorder or 3D to 2D transition.

Recently there has been renewed interest in transient effects, which have been observed in voltage response versus time curves in low temperature superconductors . In these experiments the voltage response increases or decays with time, depending on how the vortex lattice was prepared. The existence of transient states suggests that the disordered phase can be supercooled into the ordered region , producing an increasing voltage response, whereas the ordered phase may be superheated into the disordered region, giving a decaying response. In addition to transient effects, pronounced memory effects and hysteretic V(I) curves have been observed near the peak effect in low temperature materials . Memory effects are also seen in simulations . Xiao et al.  have shown that transient behavior can lead to a strong dependence of the critical current on the current ramp rate. Recent neutron scattering experiments in conjunction with ac shaking have provided more direct evidence of supercooling and superheating near the peak effect . Experiments on BSCCO have revealed that the high field disordered state can be supercooled to fields well below the second peak line . Furthermore, transport experiments in BSCCO have shown metastability in the zero-field-cooled state near the second peak as well as hysteretic V(I) curves , and magnetooptic imaging has revealed the coexistence of ordered and disordered phases . Hysteretic and memory effects have also been observed near the second peak in YBCO .

The presence of metastable states and superheating/supercooling effects strongly suggests that the order-disorder transitions in these different materials are first order in nature. The many similarities also point to a universal behavior between the peak effect of low temperature superconductors and the peak effect and second peak effect of high temperature superconductors.

A key question in all these systems is the nature of the microscopic dynamics of the vortices in the transient states; particularly, whether plasticity or the opening of flowing channels are involved . The recent experiments have made it clear that a proper characterization of the static and dynamic phase diagrams must take into account these metastable states, and therefore an understanding of these effects at a microscopic level is crucial. Despite the growing amount of experimental work on metastability and transient effects in vortex matter near the peak effect transition , these effects have not yet been investigated numerically.

In this work we numerically study magnetically interacting pancake vortices driven through quenched point disorder. As a function of applied field, temperature, or interlayer coupling the model exhibits a sharp 3D (coupled, ordered phase) to 2D (decoupled, disordered phase) transition, consistent with theoretical expectations , that is associated with a large change in the critical current . Near the disordering transition, we find strong metastability and transient effects. A metastable state is a thermodynamic state that is out of equilibrium, which persists for a time longer than the characteristic relaxation time of the system at equilibrium . By supercooling or superheating the ordered and disordered phases, we find increasing or decreasing transient voltage response curves, depending on the amplitude of the drive pulse and the proximity to the disordering transition. In the supercooled transient states a growing ordered channel of flowing vortices forms. No channels form in the superheated region but instead the ordered state is homogeneously destroyed. We observe memory effects when a sequence of pulses is applied, as well as ramp rate dependence and hysteresis in the V(I) curves. The critical current we obtain depends on how the system is prepared.

We consider a 3D layered superconductor containing an equal number of pancake vortices in each layer, interacting magnetically. We neglect the Josephson coupling, which is a reasonable approximation for highly anisotropic materials. The overdamped equation of motion for vortex $`i`$ at $`T=0`$ is

$$𝐟_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_v}{}}_i𝐔(\rho _{ij},z_{ij})+𝐟_i^{vp}+𝐟_d=\eta 𝐯_i.$$
(1)
The total number of pancakes is $`N_v`$, and $`\rho _{ij}`$ and $`z_{ij}`$ are the distance between vortex $`i`$ and vortex $`j`$ in cylindrical coordinates. We impose periodic boundary conditions in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions and open boundaries in the $`z`$ direction. The magnetic interaction energy between pancakes is

$`𝐔(\rho _{ij},0)=2dϵ_0\left((1{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2\lambda }})\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2\lambda }}E_1\right),`$ (2)
$`𝐔(\rho _{ij},z)=s_m{\displaystyle \frac{d^2ϵ_0}{\lambda }}\left(\mathrm{exp}(z/\lambda )\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\rho }}+E_2\right),`$ (3)
where $`E_1=_\rho ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho ^{}\mathrm{exp}(\rho ^{}/\lambda )/\rho ^{}`$, $`E_2=_\rho ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\rho ^{}\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{z^2+\rho ^2}/\lambda )/\rho ^{}`$, $`R=22.6\lambda `$, the maximum in-plane distance, $`ϵ_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_0^2/(4\pi \lambda )^2`$, $`d=0.005\lambda `$ is the interlayer spacing as in BSCCO, $`s_m`$ is the coupling strength, and $`\lambda `$ is the London penetration depth. The viscosity $`\eta =B_{c2}\mathrm{\Phi }_0/\rho _N`$, where $`\rho _N`$ is the normal-state resistivity. Time is measured in units of $`\eta /f_0^{}`$. For

example, in the case of a BSCCO sample 2 $`\mu `$m thick, taking $`\lambda =250`$ nm, $`\xi =1.8`$ nm, and $`\rho _N=2.8`$ m$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ cm gives the value of a single time step as 0.4 ns. We model the pinning as $`N_p`$ short range attractive parabolic traps that are randomly distributed in each layer. The pinning interaction is $`𝐟_i^{vp}=_{k=1}^{N_p}(f_p/\xi _p)(𝐫_i𝐫_k^{(p)})\mathrm{\Theta }((\xi _p|𝐫_i𝐫_k^{(p)}|)/\lambda )`$, where the pin radius $`\xi _p=0.2\lambda `$, the pinning force is $`f_p=0.02f_0^{}`$, and $`f_0^{}=ϵ_0/\lambda `$. We fix the temperature $`T=0`$. To vary the applied magnetic field $`H`$, we fix the number of vortices in the system and change the system size, thereby changing the vortex density $`n_v`$. The pin density remains fixed. We use $`L=16`$ layers throughout this work, and except where mentioned, we focus on a system that ranges from $`12.9\lambda \times 12.9\lambda `$ to $`14.8\lambda \times 14.8\lambda `$, with a pin density of $`n_p=1.0/\lambda ^2`$ in each of the layers. We have also studied a sample with stronger, denser pinning of $`\xi _p=0.1\lambda `$, $`f_p=0.08f_0^{}`$, and $`n_p=8.0/\lambda ^2`$, of size $`5.1\lambda \times 5.1\lambda `$ to $`6.9\lambda \times 6.9\lambda `$. In each case there are $`N_v=80`$ vortices per layer, giving a total of 1280 pancake vortices.

For sufficiently strong disorder, the vortices in this model show a sharp 3D-2D decoupling transition as a function of coupling strength $`s_m`$, vortex density $`H`$ , or temperature . A dynamic 2D-3D transition can also occur . There are actually two disordering transitions that occur in the model: a decoupling transition from 3D to 2D, and an in-plane disordering transition. In our studies, we find that these two transitions always coincide, and appear as a single transition from a 3D state that is ordered in the plane and coupled between planes, to a 2D state that is decoupled and disordered in the plane. We denote the magnetic field at which the static 3D-2D transition occurs as $`n_v^c`$, and the coupling strength at which the transition occurs as $`s_m^c`$. For the main system considered here, a transition from ordered 3D flux lines to disordered, decoupled 2D pancakes occurs at $`s_m^c=1.2`$ with $`n_v=0.3/\lambda ^2`$ or at $`n_v^c=0.38`$ with $`s_m=0.7`$. The coupling/decoupling transition occurs twice as a function of field , once at low

fields when the vortex lines form as the effective pinning strength begins to decrease away from the single vortex pinning regime, and a second time at higher fields when the magnetic interactions among vortex pancakes in a given plane cause the pancakes in different planes to decouple. We examine the higher field transition in the sample with strong, dense pinning, where $`n_v^c=3.0`$ at $`s_m=0.7`$. The same effects described here also appear on either side of a temperature-induced 3D-2D transition.

We illustrate the difference in critical current between the coupled and decoupled vortex phases in Fig. 1. As a function of interlayer coupling $`s_m`$, we show the critical current $`f_c`$, obtained by summing $`V_x=(1/N_v)_1^{N_v}v_x`$ and identifying the drive $`f_d`$ at which $`V_x>0.0005`$. Also plotted is a measure of the $`z`$-axis correlation, $`C_z=1(|𝐫_{i,L}𝐫_{i,L+1}|/(a_0/2))\mathrm{\Theta }(a_0/2|𝐫_{i,L}𝐫_{i,L+1}|`$, where $`a_0`$ is the vortex lattice constant, and the average is taken over all pancakes in the system. The ordered phase has a much lower critical current, $`f_c^o=0.0008f_0^{}`$, than the disordered phase, $`f_c^{do}=0.0105f_0^{}`$.

To observe transient effects, we supercool the lattice by annealing the system at $`s_m<s_m^c`$ into a disordered, decoupled configuration. Starting from this state, we set $`s_m>s_m^c`$ such that the pancakes would be ordered and coupled at equilibrium, and at $`t=0`$ we apply a fixed drive $`f_d`$ for 400000 steps. Application of a driving current is only one possible way in which the equilibrium configuration can be regained. The equilibrium state can also be reached via thermal fluctuations, through gradients in the magnetic field , or by applying a rapidly fluctuating magnetic field . In Fig. 2 we show the time-dependent voltage response $`V_x`$ for several different drives $`f_d`$ for a sample which would be coupled in equilibrium, with $`s_m=2.0`$, that has been prepared in a decoupled state at $`s_m=0.5`$. For $`f_d<0.0053\pm 0.0001f_0^{}`$ the system remains pinned in a decoupled disordered state. For $`f_d0.0053f_0^{}`$ a time dependent increasing

response occurs. $`V_x`$ does not rise instantly but only after a specific waiting time $`t_w`$. The rate of increase in $`V_x`$ grows as the amplitude of the $`f_d`$ increases. As shown in Fig. 3(a,b), the $`z`$-axis correlation $`C_z`$ exhibits the same behavior as $`V_x`$, indicating that the vortices are becoming more aligned in the $`z`$ direction as time passes. If the vortices move in response to thermal activation, a voltage response of the form $`V_x(t)=V_0(1e^{Wt})`$ should appear . Since our simulation is at $`T=0`$, we would not expect thermal activation to apply. Instead, the response we observe can be fit by an exponential form only at long times, such as $`t30000`$ in Fig. 3, when $`V_x`$ is beginning to saturate. At intermediate times ($`5000<t<30000`$ in Fig. 3(a,b)) the increase in $`V_x`$ and $`C_z`$ is roughly linear with time. As we will show below, this linear increase indicates that an ordered regime is growing at a constant rate. The amount of time required for the system to reach a steady voltage response level is indicative of the fact that we have started the system in a metastable state. If we prepare the lattice in its equilibrium configuration of coupled lines and then apply the same currents shown in Fig. 2, the voltage response reaches its full, steady value within less than 100 steps, whereas in Fig. 2, 10000 to 50000 steps are required.

To determine how the vortex lattice is moving when $`V_x`$ is nearly zero (during $`t_w`$), linearly increasing, and saturating exponentially, we show the vortex positions and trajectories in the supercooled sample in Fig. 4. Here a series of images have been taken from a sample in Fig. 2 with $`s_m=2.0`$ for $`f_d=0.007f_0^{}`$ for different times. In Fig. 4(a) at $`t=2500`$ the initial state is disordered. In Fig. 4(b) at $`t=7500`$ significant vortex motion occurs through the nucleation of a single channel of moving vortices. At lower drives the channel gradually appears

during the waiting time $`t_w`$, but at $`f_d=0.007f_0`$ the channel nucleates relatively rapidly. Vortices outside the channel remain pinned. In Fig. 4(c) at $`t=12500`$ the channel is wider, and vortices inside the channel are ordered and have recoupled. The pinned vortices remain in the disordered state. During the transient motion there is a coexistence of ordered and disordered states. If the drive is shut off the ordered domain is pinned but remains ordered, and when the drive is re-applied the ordered domain moves again. The vortices inside the ordered channel tend to align their lattice vector in the direction of the drive . The increase in both $`V_x`$ and $`C_z`$ is roughly linear in time during the period when the fully formed channel is expanding outward. Since the velocity of the moving vortices is constant, a linear increase in $`V_x`$ indicates that the number of moving vortices is also increasing linearly in time. Vortices do not begin to move until the edge of the ordered channel reaches them. Therefore, the linear increase in $`V_x`$ indicates that the outward growth of the ordered channel is proceeding at a constant rate. In Fig. 4(d) for $`t=20000`$ almost all of the vortices have reordered and the channel width is the size of the sample. After this time slow rearrangements of the vortices into a more ordered configuration occur, and

$`V_x`$ switches over to an exponential saturation with time. Thus in the supercooled case we observe nucleation of a microscopic transport channel, followed by expansion of the channel. We note that in recent scanning Hall probe  and magneto-optic  experiments, coexisting ordered and disordered vortex phases have been imaged, and are associated with history effects and anomalous voltage responses of the vortex lattice.

As illustrated by the lower curve in Fig. 5, the waiting time $`t_w`$ decreases rapidly as the applied driving force $`f_d`$ increases, until for $`f_d>0.0065f_0^{}`$ there is no measurable waiting time. Since a channel is opening along the length of the system during the waiting time, $`t_w`$ should be proportional to the amount of time required for vortices to move along this channel. This is given by:

$$t_wL_x/f_d,$$
(4)
where $`L_x`$ is the system size along the length of the channel. A fit of $`t_w`$ to $`1/f_d`$ is shown in Fig. 5 by the dashed line.

The time $`t_s`$ required for the response to saturate decreases with $`f_d`$ for $`f_d<0.0065f_0^{}`$, as indicated by the upper curve in Fig. 5. For $`t_w<t<t_s`$, the ordered channel begins to spread through the sample in the direction transverse to the applied driving force. The motion of this ordered front resembles the transverse depinning of a longitudinally driven interface. The faster the interface is moving in the longitudinal direction, the lower the transverse depinning force is, since the interface becomes less rough. In a model for the transverse depinning of a longitudinally driven elastic string , the transverse depinning force $`f_{dp}^T`$ was found to decrease as $`f_{dp}^T(f_df_{dp})^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =2/3`$. In the case of the moving front of ordered vortices, an effective transverse force $`f_{\mathrm{eff}}^T`$ on the front is provided by the interactions between the pinned and

moving vortices. If we assume that these interactions do not change with $`f_d`$, since $`f_d`$ is not being applied in the transverse direction, then $`f_{\mathrm{eff}}^T`$ remains constant while $`f_{dp}^T`$ decreases with increasing applied drive $`f_d`$. As a result, the ordered front propagates outward more quickly as $`f_d`$ increases, and the saturation time $`t_s`$ required for the ordered channel to fill the entire sample decreases. In Fig. 5 the dotted line indicates a fit to

$$t_s(f_df_d^0)^1,$$
(5)
with $`f_d^0=0.0053`$. For $`f_d<0.0053f_0^{}`$, there was no voltage response to the applied current over the time period we considered (indicating that $`t_w>400000`$) and the vortices remained stationary in the supercooled state. The apparent discontinuity in $`t_w`$ from a finite to an unmeasured value arises only because our simulations were performed for a finite amount of time.

We next consider transient effects produced by superheating the lattice. In Fig. 6 we show a superheated system at $`s_m=0.7`$ prepared in the ordered state by artificially placing the vortices into perfectly aligned columns at $`t=0`$. Here we find a large initial $`V_x`$ response that decays. With larger $`f_d`$ the decay takes an increasingly long time. The time scale for the decay is much shorter than the time scale for the increasing response in Fig. 2. As illustrated in Fig. 3(c) and (d), the $`z`$-axis correlation $`C_z`$ decays more rapidly than the overall voltage response $`V_x`$, indicating that vortex motion continues to occur even after the vortex lines have been broken apart into individual pancakes. The form of $`V_x`$ cannot be fit by any simple function over a significant period of time. The decay of $`C_z`$, however, is nearly linear with time before saturating at $`t3500`$. For $`f_d0.011f_0^{}`$ the voltage does not decay completely away to zero, but the vortices continue to move in the disordered state.

The decaying response of the superheated vortex state resembles the yield drop curves observed in crystalline solids, as first noted in low-Tc materials by Good and Kramer . In a yield drop, the stress required to maintain a constant shear strain rate decreases with time. Such a drop occurs when the crystalline solid has a low initial concentration of defects, and the drop is associated with a proliferation of dislocations inside the crystal. In the case of the superheated vortex lattice, a transition from the ordered to the disordered state occurs and the

vortex velocity drops. Good and Kramer find that the total drop in the response of the vortex lattice increases linearly with the applied voltage . To paraphrase their argument, the voltage response of the lattice can be written $`V_x=F_mR_ff_d`$, where $`F_m`$ is the fraction of the vortex lattice that is moving, and $`R_f`$ is the flux flow resistance, or the slope of the $`V(I)`$ curve at high currents. The change in voltage response from the initial peak, where $`F_m^0=1`$ and the entire lattice is moving, to the saturated plateau where $`F_m^f=0`$ and all of the vortices have repinned, can then be written

$$V_x^0V_x^f=(F_m^0F_m^f)R_ff_d,$$
(6)
or $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_x=R_ff_d`$. In Fig. 7 we plot the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_x`$ between $`V_x`$ at the peak and plateau as a function of applied drive $`f_d`$, and find a linear relation with slope $`R_f=0.93`$, in good agreement with the expected value $`R_f=1`$. There is a deviation from linearity for $`f_d>0.010`$ because at higher drives, $`F_m^f>0`$ since all of the vortices do not repin.

The vortex positions and trajectories for a superheated sample with $`s_m=0.7`$ and $`f_d=0.006f_0^{}`$, as in Fig. 6, are shown in Fig. 8(a-d). In Fig. 8(a) the initial vortex state is ordered. In Fig. 8(b-d) the vortex lattice becomes disordered and pinned in a homogeneous manner rather than through nucleation. Each vortex line is decoupled by the point pinning as it moves until the entire line dissociates and is pinned. Since all of the vortex lines decouple simultaneously, this decaying response process occurs much more rapidly than the increasing response of the supercooled sample, which required nucleation and growth of a channel.

In Fig. 9 we demonstrate the presence of a memory effect by abruptly shutting off $`f_d`$ at $`t=400`$ for 400 time steps. The vortex motion stops when the drive is shut off, and when $`f_d`$ is re-applied $`V_x`$ resumes at the same

point. We find such memory on both the increasing and decreasing response curves. Since we are at zero temperature, it is the applied current, and not thermal effects, that is responsible for the vortex motion, and thus the vortices cannot adjust their positions in the absence of a driving current. The response curves and memory effect seen here are very similar to those observed in experiments .

We next consider the effect of changing the rate $`\delta f_d`$ at which the driving force is increased on $`V(I)`$ in both superheated and supercooled systems. Fig. 10(a) shows

$`V_x`$ versus $`f_d`$, which is analogous to a V(I) curve, for the supercooled system at $`s_m=2.0`$ prepared in a disordered state. $`V_x`$ remains low during a fast ramp, when the vortices in the strongly pinned disordered state cannot reorganize into the more ordered state. There is also considerable hysteresis since the vortices reorder at higher drives producing a higher value of $`V_x`$ during the ramp-down. For the slower ramp the vortices have time to reorganize into the weakly pinned ordered state, and remain ordered, producing no hysteresis in V(I).

In a superheated sample, the reverse behavior occurs. Fig. 10(b) shows V(I) curves at different $`\delta f_d`$ for a system with $`s_m=0.7`$ prepared in the ordered state. Here, the fast ramp has a higher value of $`V_x`$ corresponding to the ordered state while the slow ramp has a low value of $`V_x`$. During a slow initial ramp in the superheated state the vortices gradually disorder through rearrangements but there is no net vortex flow through the sample. Such a phase was proposed by Xiao et al.  and seen in recent experiments on BSCCO samples . At the slower $`\delta f_d`$, we find negative $`dV/dI`$ characteristics which resemble those seen in low-  and high-  temperature superconductors. Here, $`V(I)`$ initially increases as the vortices flow in the ordered state, but the vortices decouple as the lattice moves, increasing $`f_c`$ and dropping $`V(I)`$ back to zero, resulting in an N-shaped characteristic.

To demonstrate the effect of vortex lattice disorder on the critical current, in Fig. 11 we plot the equilibrium $`f_c`$ along with $`f_c`$ obtained for the supercooled system, in which each sample is prepared in a state with $`s_m=0.5`$, and then $`s_m`$ is raised to a new value above $`s_m^c`$ before $`f_c`$ is measured. The disorder in the supercooled state produces a value of $`f_c`$ between the two extrema observed in the equilibrium state. Note that the sharp transition in $`f_c`$ associated with equilibrium systems is now smooth. A similar increase in the critical current when the vortex lattice has been prepared in a disordered state, rather

than in an ordered state, has also been observed experimentally as a history effect .

We find the same metastable and history-dependent effects described above on either side of a magnetic-field

driven disordering transition. To demonstrate this, in Fig. 12(a) we show $`V_x`$ for several different drives $`f_d`$ for a sample with dense, strong pinning ($`f_p=0.08f_0^{}`$, $`n_p=8.0/\lambda ^2`$) at $`n_v=2.5/\lambda ^2`$, where a field-induced decoupling transition occurs above $`n_v=3.0/\lambda ^2`$. The sample shown in Fig. 12(a) would be coupled in equilibrium but has been prepared in a decoupled state. For $`f_d0.009f_0^{}`$ we observe a time dependent increasing response similar to that shown in Fig. 2. The rising response is associated with the formation of a channel of ordered, coupled vortices as illustrated in Fig. 13. In Fig. 12(b) we show $`V_x`$ for the same sample in a superheated state at $`n_v=3.1/\lambda ^2`$, where the sample would be disordered in equilibrium but has been prepared in an ordered state. Here we find a transient decreasing response as the lattice disorders, similar to the response in Fig. 6. Images of the sample before and after the current pulse is applied are illustrated in Fig. 14, showing the transition from an ordered to a disordered state. The presence of transients also leads to a ramp-rate dependence of the $`V(I)`$ curve, and in Fig. 15 we illustrate the appearance of N-shaped characteristics in the superheated system when the current is ramped at increasing rates for the same sample.

Our simulation does not contain a surface barrier which can inject disorder at the edges. Such an effect is proposed to explain experiments in which AC current pulses induce an increasing response as the vortices reorder but DC pulses produce a decaying response . We observe no difference between AC and DC drives.

In low temperature superconductors, a rapid increase in $`z`$-direction vortex wandering occurs simultaneously with vortex disordering , suggesting that the change in $`z`$-axis correlations may be crucial in these systems as well. Our results, along with recent experiments on layered superconductors, suggest that the transient response seen in low temperature materials should also appear in layered materials.

In summary we have investigated transient and metastable states near the 3D-2D transition by supercooling or superheating the system. We find voltage-response curves and memory effects that are very similar to those observed in experiments, and we identify the microscopic vortex dynamics associated with these transient features. In the supercooled case the vortex motion occurs through nucleation of a channel of ordered moving vortices followed by an increase in the channel width over time. In the superheated case the ordered phase homogeneously disorders. We also demonstrate that the measured critical current depends on the vortex lattice preparation and on the current ramp rate.

We acknowledge helpful discussions with E. Andrei, S. Bhattacharya, X.S. Ling, Z.L. Xiao, and E. Zeldov. This work was supported by CLC and CULAR (LANL/UC) by NSF-DMR-9985978, by the Director, Office of Adv. Scientific Comp. Res., Div. of Math., Information and Comp. Sciences, U.S. DoE contract DE-AC03-76SF00098, and by the U.S. Dept. of Energy under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-36.