nanoparticle arrays@xcite are a perfect system to analyze correlated electronic transport and have received a lot of experimental and theoretical attention during the last decade@xcite . in spite of this , their properties and i - v characteristics are not well understood .
the presence of disorder in these arrays complicates the analysis@xcite .
the two most relevant and experimentally unavoidable types of disorder are charging disorder due to random charges quenched at the substrate and resistance disorder due to small changes in the distance between the nanoparticles and the exponential dependence of the resistance on the distance .
voids in the lattice or a non - homogeneous distribution of nanoparticle size can be also present@xcite but this source of disorder is less important in some recent experiments .
theoretical analysis have mainly considered arrays in which each nanoparticle is capacitively coupled only to its nearest neighbors@xcite , especially the case in which this coupling is small .
the truncation of capacitive coupling to nearest neighbor results in an interaction between charges in different conductors which decays exponentially with the distance between them@xcite .
this limit is relevant for those arrays coupled to a gate electrode@xcite , as the mobile charges in this lead effectively screen coulomb interactions .
a complete description of the non - equilibrium transport through arrays has been presented only very recently@xcite and is restricted to one - dimensional metallic nanoparticle arrays in which interactions are finite only when charges are placed on the same conductor .
self - assembled arrays fabricated nowadays are deposited onto insulating substrates and generally lack a gate voltage . in these arrays , the screening of long - range interactions is less effective , but the proximity of other conductors , both islands and leads , modifies its value compared to a @xmath0 coulomb law@xcite .
the electrodes contribute to the screening of the interaction .
theoretical analysis including the effect of long - range interactions are scarce and limited@xcite to numerical results or particular cases . in this paper
we perform a detailed analysis of the effect of the long - range character of the interaction on the transport properties through ordered and disordered one - dimensional arrays .
we consider the influence of charging and resistance disorder .
the interactions are described by an inverse capacitance matrix , in which coupling to other conductors is not truncated .
the matrix is calculated including the effect of screening and the current is computed numerically .
some analytical approximations are also discussed and compared with the numerical results .
this comparison allows us to understand the origin of the behavior found . to analyze the transport we put forward a model to describe the electrostatic interactions among the charges occupying the islands and the electrodes , which allows for a clear description of the relevant contributions to the transport .
in particular , we introduce the concept of polarization potential drop at the junctions between the nanoparticles . as in our previous study of the short - range case@xcite
, we analyze the threshold voltage , flow of current and voltage drop for the cases with and without charge or junction resistance disorder .
the organization of the paper is as follows .
section ii describes the system under study and the model used to analyze the transport properties and compares it with previous models used in the literature . in section iii
we discuss the correlations introduced by the long - range character of the interaction in the disorder potential .
section iv , v and vi respectively analyze the threshold voltage , i - v characteristics and voltage drop through the array . in section vii
we summarize our results .
finally , in appendix i we describe the two methods employed to calculate the screened interaction between charges , and in appendix ii we discuss the effect of screening on the distance - dependence of this interaction .
we consider an array composed of @xmath1 metallic spheres of radius @xmath2 and center to center distance @xmath3 . throughout lengths
are measured in units of @xmath2 and energies in units of the charging energy of an isolated nanoparticle @xmath4 , with @xmath5 the nanoparticle capacitance when it is isolated . here and in the following the electronic charge @xmath6 .
as @xmath7 decreases , the charges in an island feel more the effects of charges in other islands . in this sense
we say that decreasing the spacing @xmath7 increases the range of interactions .
experimentally arrays in which the metallic nanoparticles are capped with thiols have @xmath8 .
arrays self - assembled via other types of molecules , like dna , allow for the investigation of larger @xmath7 values .
we model each nanoparticle with a continuum level spectrum .
the tunneling barriers which separate them have a resistance much larger than the quantum of resistance and we treat the transport at the sequential tunneling level@xcite . to analyze the transport the array
is sandwiched between two large electrodes .
we assume that the electrodes are not ideal voltage sources , but have finite self - capacitances .
the potential on the leads will thus fluctuate in response to all tunneling events , even those that do not directly involve the electrodes . for a more extensive discussion of these assumptions see@xcite    the energy of the system
is given by @xmath9 labels @xmath10 and @xmath11 refer to source and drain electrodes and @xmath12 to the islands .
latin capital and lower case letters are used to denote electrodes and islands respectively .
greek indexes will be used when the labels refer to both islands and electrodes .
@xmath13 is a random potential at each island , present in charge disordered arrays , and zero in the clean case .
charges @xmath14 and @xmath15 maintain source and drain electrodes at potentials @xmath16 and @xmath17 , respectively .
the electrostatic interactions in our system are defined through an inverse capacitance matrix @xmath18 that directly includes all the conductors in our system .
all the elements @xmath19 are positive .
the inverse capacitance matrix is symmetric , @xmath20 , and has dimension @xmath21 , i.e. it includes the electrodes .
we have developed two numerical methods to calculate the interaction potential ( inverse capacitance matrix ) of an array of spheres .
these methods are explained in appendix i. the properties of this interaction , how it compares to previous calculations for the case of cubic , cylindrical ( with array and island axis collinear ) and disk shaped islands ( with array and island axis perpendicular ) and the screening effect of the electrodes are discussed in appendix ii . for simplicity we have considered two large spherical leads .
the coupling between the islands and the electrodes is included through @xmath22 and @xmath23 .
the current is computed numerically by means of a monte carlo simulation , described in@xcite .
it is controlled by the probability of a tunneling process , given by @xmath24 here @xmath25 is the resistance of the junction through which tunneling takes place and @xmath26 is the difference between the energy of the system before and after the tunneling event . in the following
we restrict the discussion to zero temperature .
then @xmath27 .
it is finite only when @xmath26 is negative .    after a bit of algebra ,
the change in energy due to a tunneling event from @xmath28 to @xmath29 can be rewritten as @xmath30 here , the excitonic energy @xmath31 necessary to create an electron - hole pair in an uncharged array is given by @xmath32 the second term in ( [ change ] ) can be seen as the potential difference between the sites involved in the tunneling . at the electrodes @xmath33 and @xmath34 , where @xmath35 is the bias potential and we have introduced the bias asymmetry parameter @xmath28 as in ref.@xcite .
both @xmath36 , also denoted as symmetric bias , and @xmath37 have been used in the literature .
@xmath28 characterizes how the bias voltage is partitioned between source and drain chemical potential shifts .
since no physical properties depend on the overall zero of energy , varying @xmath28 in our model is entirely equivalent to rigidly shifting all impurity potentials by @xmath38 . since in our model
all transport occurs by transfer between adjacent nanoparticles , the evolution of a nanoparticle array as the bias voltage is applied is sensitive to @xmath28 , and we believe that the dependence on @xmath28 could in principle be observable , see discussion in @xcite .    at the islands
the potential can be decomposed into three terms @xmath39 , the disorder potential @xmath13 due to random charges in the substrate , the polarization potential @xmath40 at the island induced by the electrodes at finite bias and the potential due to the charges in the nanoparticles @xmath41 . here
@xmath42 with @xmath43 { \ ; \mbox{.}}\label{lambda2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath44 the charging potential @xmath45 with @xmath46 { \ ; \mbox{.}}\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath47 can be interpreted as a modification of the interaction between the charges in the islands due to the proximity of the electrodes at a fixed potential . for the case @xmath48 in which both charges are on the same island this modification was already discussed in@xcite , as the interaction of a soliton with a passive edge .
expression ( [ ctilde ] ) shows that not only when the charges are in the same island , but also when they occupy different islands , their effective interactions are modified by the presence of the voltage - biased leads .
two types of terms can be differentiated in the modification of this interaction .
the last two terms in ( [ ctilde ] ) or direct terms , can be viewed as the interaction between a charge in island @xmath49 and the image charge at one of the electrodes induced by the charge in island @xmath50 .
this term is affected by the presence of the other electrode . on the other hand ,
the terms containing @xmath51 , or indirect terms , reflect the interaction between the image charges in both electrodes .
direct and indirect terms have opposite sign .
the direct term reduces the effective interaction ; the indirect one increases it .
we emphasize that ( [ change ] ) to ( [ ctilde ] ) follow from ( [ freecharge ] ) after straightforward and trivial algebra .
we have just defined a few quantities and split the change in energy @xmath26 and potential @xmath52 in several terms to facilitate the physical interpretation of the transport properties .
we can also define the potential drop at each junction @xmath53 with the corresponding disorder , polarization and charging terms @xmath54 , @xmath55 , and @xmath56 .
label @xmath49 for a junction runs from @xmath57 to @xmath11 and refers to the one between conductors @xmath58 and @xmath49 .
the polarization potential drop at each junction , @xmath59 does not depend on the resistance of the junctions , but on the electrostatic interactions of each island with the voltage - biased leads . here
@xmath60 and @xmath61 .    a linear drop of the polarization potential implies @xmath62 , requires @xmath63 for all junctions and independence on @xmath28 .
from ( [ lambda2 ] ) we see that a priori @xmath64 depends both on the geometry of the electrodes and the array and on how this is biased .
it depends on how the charges in the islands and the electrodes interact . for most capacitance matrices , in particular for the capacitance matrices discussed here , the polarization potential is not linear in the island label @xmath49 and the potential drops are larger close to the biasing leads . in the onsite case , discussed in ref.@xcite @xmath65
is finite only at junctions @xmath57 and @xmath11 and given by @xmath66 and @xmath67 .
in general , as the range of the interactions between charges increases , @xmath68 is more homogeneous    in previous models@xcite @xmath18 had dimension @xmath69 and the inverse self - capacitances of the electrodes , @xmath70 and @xmath71 , and the inverse mutual capacitances between them , @xmath72 , were neglected . in our model @xmath73
are small quantities whose values will not significatively affect the quantitative results .
these other models do not include the indirect term in ( [ ctilde ] ) either . on the other hand , an expression analogous to ( [ phipol ] )
can be defined in other models .
for example , in the model previously discussed by middleton and wingreen@xcite , with an @xmath69 capacitance matrix , the interaction between an island and an electrode is given by the interaction of the charge of the island with charges induced by the electrode in the islands immediately adjacent to the electrode .
this interaction results in a polarization potential characterized by @xmath74 here @xmath75 is the capacitance between the source or drain electrode and an adjacent island . in this model , except in the extreme long - range case ,
see below , the polarization potential does not decay linearly with distance and depends on the asymmetry of the bias potential .
other models , however , impose a uniform polarization drop through the array @xcite    as discussed in@xcite and section vi , even if the polarization potential does not drop linearly and is independent on the junction resistance , the average total potential drop depends on the resistance ( via the average charge occupation of the islands ) and for homogeneous resistances a linear drop is partially recovered at large bias voltages .    whenever not specified we assume that all the junction resistances @xmath76 are equal and given by @xmath77 .
the effect of non homogeneous resistances will be studied in two ways . in the first case ,
one of the junction resistances at a given position is larger than the other ones ( given by @xmath77 ) . in the second case the value of the resistances , varying in between two values
is randomly assigned to the junctions . to mimic
that disorder in resistances originates in variations in distances between the islands and the exponential dependence of the junction resistance in the distance between islands the junction resistance is given by @xmath78 with @xmath79 and @xmath80 input parameters and @xmath81 .
here @xmath82 is a random number between @xmath10 and @xmath57 . in the paper ,
we have used @xmath83 and @xmath84 . with these values
the resistance changes respectively between ( 5 - 11)@xmath77 , ( 8 - 21)@xmath77 and ( 23 - 83)@xmath77 .
charged impurities trapped in the substrate underlying the nanoparticle array create random potentials at the nanoparticles . in molecularly assembled arrays , charge transfer to the organic molecules surrounding the nanoparticles results in non - integer random charges at the islands@xcite . charging disorder is included in our model through a random potential at each island @xmath85 . in principle , @xmath85 take values larger than the charging energy @xmath86 . however , for large values of the disorder potential , charges flow to compensate for these large fluctuations . in this section
we analyze the effect of the long - range interaction on the final distribution of disorder potential as compared to the case with onsite interactions .
we find that the distribution of probabilities @xmath87 and @xmath88 are modified .
the maximum and minimum values of @xmath89 and @xmath90 are modified compared to the short range case and given by @xmath91 and @xmath92 .
correlations between the disorder potentials of neighboring islands are introduced .
if interactions between the charges are short - range , ( @xmath93 ) , the set of disorder potentials @xmath94 , once the screening of the potential due to the mobile charges is taken into account , is uniformly distributed in the interval @xmath95 .
the probability associated with each pair , @xmath96 , is a constant , see fig .  1 and the distribution of the probabilities of the potential drops due to disorder across the array junctions , @xmath97 , has the form@xcite @xmath98 and @xmath99 . in the presence of long - range interactions , the charges which flow to compensate the large fluctuations of the disorder potential , influence the value of the total potential at neighboring islands .
as a consequence , the screened disorder is correlated@xcite .
the probability of each pair @xmath96 is no longer a constant .
@xmath88 depends on the inverse capacitance matrix @xmath18 . in order to analyze these correlations and obtain the proper disorder potential distribution we assign the potentials by first randomly assigning potentials to the islands @xmath100 , in the interval @xmath101 with @xmath102 larger than the charging energy .
we then find the equilibrium configuration of charges @xmath103 that occupy the array with island disorder potentials @xmath104 and grounded leads ( @xmath105 ) and redefine the potentials at each site using the expression @xmath106 the effect of the screening charges @xmath103 is included in the redefined potentials @xmath94 so we then reset the number of charges at each site to zero to avoid doublecounting the charge when we calculate the total electrostatic energy of our system .    following the redefinition of the disorder potentials , we find that on average the distribution of the disorder potentials @xmath94 and the disorder potential drops @xmath107 between adjacent islands are independent of @xmath102 .
the values of @xmath94 and @xmath107 are bound by @xmath91 and @xmath108 respectively , as the total energy of the system is at a global minimum when the original disorder configuration @xmath104 is screened out by the charges @xmath103 .
when in this state , adding an additional charge to any island in the array increases the energy of the system .
the energy of adding an additional charge to an island from a large electrode outside the system with neglible self inverse capacitance is given by @xmath109 where the top ( bottom ) sign refers to the change in energy of the system as a result of adding a positive ( negative ) charge to island @xmath49 .
since @xmath110 when the array is in equilibrium , the disorder potential values must lie between @xmath111 .
the magnitude of this quantity equals @xmath86 in the onsite limit and decreases as the strength and range of the coulomb interactions increases , see appendix ii .
additionally when the array is in equilibrium state , the energy to hop between all pairs of adjacent sites must be greater than zero . from ( [ change ] ) , the disorder potential differences @xmath112 are restricted between @xmath113 .
@xmath92 equals @xmath114 in the onsite limit and decreases with decreasing @xmath7 , as shown in fig .
1(a ) and ( b ) compare @xmath115 and @xmath116 for arrays with purely onsite interactions ( @xmath117 ) with arrays with long range interactions ( @xmath118 ) at two spacings , @xmath119 and @xmath120 .
in all cases , @xmath13 and @xmath121 are calculated for arrays with 50 islands in between two grounded leads .
the histograms average the values of the potentials of all islands and the values of the potential drops between all adjacent islands over many realizations of disorder @xmath122 .
the smaller spacing , @xmath119 , is typical of chemically assembled nanoparticle arrays .
the larger spacing , @xmath120 , is atypical of arrays in most experiments but is mainly included as a pedagogical example because it has interactions among islands that are finite yet comparable to the onsite case that is often used to describe experiments @xcite .
arrays recently synthesized@xcite have large @xmath7 values . in fig .
1(a ) , @xmath115 is a constant between @xmath123 for the onsite case . as the range of interactions increases ( decreasing @xmath124 , the width of @xmath115 decreases because the disorder potential values are bound by @xmath125 .
increasing coulomb interactions also increases ( decreases ) the probability of small ( large ) values of @xmath126 . in fig .
1(b ) , the onsite @xmath127 distribution is given by ( [ pdmuonsite ] ) .
similar to the trends in fig .
1(a ) , as the range of coulomb interactions increases , the width of the distribution decreases and the probability of small ( large ) @xmath128 values increases ( decreases ) .
the increased probabilities of small @xmath128 are due to coulomb correlations that make it more likely for the disorder potentials of neighboring islands to have similar values .
see fig .  2 .
increasing the range of coulomb interactions leads to a greater relative reduction in the width of @xmath127 than @xmath129 because the former are bound by @xmath113 whereas the latter are bound by @xmath125 . in the onsite case
, @xmath130 equals @xmath114 for all junctions between two islands and increasing coulomb interactions can reduce @xmath92 significantly due to an decrease ( increase ) in @xmath131 ( @xmath132 ) .
see ( [ excitonic ] ) .
our results for @xmath116 differ to some extent from those by elteto et al@xcite , calculated with an inverse capacitance matrix @xmath133 that is finite only for nearest neighbors and charge disorder modelled by a set of stationary quenched charges .
elteto et al@xcite distributions are bound by @xmath134 instead of by @xmath92 due to the lack of correlations in their quenched disorder model .
we permit the interactions among the screening charges to determine whether or not the disorder potentials are correlated .    in fig .  2 , we plot @xmath135 to show how interactions among charges affect the correlations among disorder potentials . in the onsite case ,
correlations are finite only if @xmath48 . in this case
, the disorder potentials of different islands are uncorrelated . in the case of long - range interactions with @xmath136 ,
correlations are maximal when @xmath48 , but they do not vanish for @xmath137 .
@xmath135 is finite for at least @xmath138 .
the correlation of disorder decays faster than the interactions as shown in the figure .
the correlations between @xmath85 and its nearest neighbors @xmath139 make it more likely for the disorder potential differences @xmath140 to have small magnitudes .
the threshold voltage is the minimum voltage which allows the flow of current . in this section
we analyze the threshold voltage of one - dimensional arrays with long - range interactions for both clean and disordered systems . as in the short - range case the threshold
is completely determined by energetic considerations and is independent of junction resistance disorder . in the clean case
we find that the threshold equals the minimum voltage necessary to create an electron - hole pair and increases with the number of particles at a rate which depends on @xmath7 . for charge disordered arrays the average threshold
is reduced compared to the onsite interactions case , and increases linearly with the number of islands , with a slope that decreases with decreasing @xmath7 , i.e. with increasing the range of the interaction .
when the interaction strength between charges at the nanoparticle and those at the electrodes does not vanish for any particle the polarization potential drop at every junction is finite . in a clean array ,
the potential gradient created by this polarization potential drop allows current once an electron - hole pair is created , opposite to what happens in the onsite case . as a result , the threshold voltage equals the mimimum voltage which allows the creation of an electron - hole pair .
the cost in energy to create an electron - hole pair in junction @xmath49 in an uncharged array ( i.e. an array in which the nanoparticles have no excess charges ) is @xmath141 .
we can define a junction dependent threshold voltage for creating an electron - hole pair @xmath142 . in the onsite limit
@xmath143 is finite only at one or both contact junctions and infinite at the bulk , but with long - range interactions @xmath144 is finite at every junction . for those cases analyzed , we have found that due to the smaller value of the excitonic energy and the larger potential drop @xmath145 is smallest at the contact junctions and the threshold voltage is controlled by them .    figs .
3(a ) and ( b ) show the dependence of the threshold voltage @xmath146 of clean , symmetrically biased arrays with long - range interactions on the number of islands in the array @xmath1 and on the spacing between array sites , @xmath7 .
the threshold voltage is determined by those factors that define the polarization potential drops across the contacts , @xmath147 and @xmath148 .
@xmath146 increases with increasing @xmath1 because the fraction of the polarization potential which drops across the contact junctions decreases as @xmath1 increases .
as the spacing between the leads increases , the polarization potential drop across each contact decreases until eventually it reaches a minimum value at which the polarization of each contact is only due to the interaction of each contact with the lead closest to it . as a result
, @xmath146 increases sublinearly with increasing @xmath1 and eventually saturates . for @xmath1 and @xmath7 large enough that the polarization potential drop across the contacts is not strongly influenced by interactions with the opposite lead , decreasing the array spacing decreases the polarization potential drop across the contact junctions and the threshold increases . for @xmath1 and @xmath7
small enough that both leads strongly influence the polarization of both contact junctions , decreasing the spacing increases the polarization potential drop across the leads and the threshold decreases .
the potential drops and threshold can be estimated by using an unscreened @xmath149 model for the inverse capacitance elements associated with the leads , @xmath150 and @xmath151 .
these estimates are included as dashed lines in figs .
3(a ) and ( b ) .     of symmetrically biased arrays @xmath152 , with no disorder as a function of number of islands @xmath1 and of array spacing @xmath7 for the inverse capacitances calculated as described in appendix i. as decribed in the text ,
the threshold voltage of clean arrays is controlled by the value @xmath153 at the contact junctions .
the dashed lines are estimates of the threshold voltage that use a @xmath149 interaction to approximate the polarization potential drops across the contact junctions @xmath154 and @xmath155 .
inset in ( b ) : threshold voltage of clean arrays for several array parameters as a function of @xmath28 normalized to the value for a symmetrically biased array . from top
to bottom @xmath156 ; @xmath157 ; and @xmath158 .
( c ) main figure : average threshold voltage of disordered arrays versus the array length at three different array spacings .
the solid line shows the dependence of the average threshold on array length in the limit of onsite interactions .
the inset shows the root mean square deviation of the threshold voltage distribution . for small @xmath7
it deviates from the @xmath159 dependence found in the onsite case ( in solid line ) .
in inset and main figure dashed - dot lines are a guide to the eye and same legend as in ( a ) applies , width=3 ]    as shown in the inset of fig .
3(b ) @xmath146 changes smoothly with @xmath28 , contrary to the peak - valley structure found in the onsite interaction case@xcite .
the threshold voltage depends less on @xmath28 as @xmath1 increases and as @xmath7 decreases because the applied voltage drops more homogenously across the array junctions .
this dependence disappears completely if the polarization potential drops linearly . in this last case
the threshold voltage of clean arrays would be @xmath160 .
this threshold is linear in the number of particles , as in the onsite case , but its origin of linearity and its slope differs in both cases .    in the charge disordered onsite case every up - step in the disorder potential prevents current flow and has to be compensated by a charge gradient . as a result , the threshold voltage is controlled by the number of up - steps , but this is not the case for long - range interactions . in the long - range case
the situation is more complex . due to the finite polarization potential drop at the inner junctions the number of junctions which prevent the flow of current
is reduced , compared to the onsite case . up - steps in the disorder potential drop
can localize the charge only if its value is larger than the polarization potential drop at the same junction . in some cases
in which there is finite polarization drop at a junction , that is slightly smaller than the energy cost for tunneling it is possible that a small increase in the voltage in the electrodes permits the tunneling . increasing the voltage above the minimum bias voltage which permits the generation of electron - hole pairs will , in some cases , but not always , result in a negative potential drop at the given junction allowing the flow of charges .
but , quite often , the entrance of more charges and the creation of a charging potential gradient will be required in a similar way as it happened in the onsite case . note that due to the polarization voltage drop at the bulk , the threshold junction can be other than the contact ones .
moreover , the interaction between charges in different islands decreases the energy for the entrance of a charges with opposite sign and increases the one for the entrance of charges with the same sign .
this effect was attributed to an attraction ( repulsion ) between the injected soliton and an antisoliton ( soliton ) on the array by likharev and coauthors@xcite .
accumulation of charges in the array increases the threshold voltage . on the other hand a value of @xmath85 at the contact islands favourable for
the entrance of charge unto the array can decrease it , as the polarization potential drop to allow entrance of charge is smaller .
both mechanisms compete to determine @xmath146 . for large @xmath7
the accumulation of charges is more important as the voltage drop at the bulk junctions is small and on average @xmath146 of large arrays will increase compared to the clean array threshold voltage . on the contrary the second effect can be more important for small @xmath7 .    numerically we have found a linear dependence of the threshold voltage on the number of particles in the array , see fig .
3(c ) . decreasing the array spacing decreases the average thresholds below the threshold values of the arrays in the onsite limit
. the expected behavior of the average threshold value as compared to the clean limit , discussed above , is found . only at the largest array spacing ( @xmath120 ) studied do we recover the dependence of the fluctuations of the threshold voltage on array length predicted by middleton and wingreen@xcite , see inset of fig .
in this section we discuss the three main voltage regimes which can be distinguished in the i - v curve . at voltages very close to the threshold ,
we show that the current is linear in @xmath161 .
contrary to the short - range interaction case , the slope of this linearity depends , not only on the junction resistance and on @xmath28 , but also on the number of islands and on @xmath7 . for given @xmath28 , @xmath1 , @xmath7 and @xmath162 , in the presence of charge disorder , the slope of the i - v curve close to threshold can depend on the potential disorder configuration . at intermediate voltages steps in the current
are smoothed compared to the onsite interaction case . a linear i - v with an offset voltage , closely related to the one found for short range interactions , characterizes the high voltage regime .
, much lower than the values used in experiments to check the power - law dependence close to threshold .
( a ) shows how varying the length and spacing of symmetrically biased arrays affects the slopes of the linear regimes , due to the change in the polarization potential drop factors @xmath153 and correspondingly the fraction of potential which drops in the junction which acts as bottle - neck .
( b ) in a similar way , the slope depends on how symmetrically is the array biased .
( c)plots the i - v curves and derivatives corresponding to clean arrays with equal length , @xmath7 and @xmath28 but different junction resistances .
resistances in these plots vary randomly in between @xmath163 , @xmath164 and @xmath165 in top , middle and lower curves .
( d)i - v curves corresponding to three different realizations of charge - disordered arrays with all junction resistances equal @xmath166 and @xmath152 .
contrary to what was found for onsite interactions the slope of the low - voltage linear current can be different for different arrays with the same nominal parameters if there is charge disorder .
this reflects that the bottle - neck is not necessarily a contact junction but can be a junction in the bulk .
, width=3 ]      for the onsite interaction case we recently resolved the controversy@xcite on the power law dependence of current on @xmath161 , showing that very close to threshold it is linear@xcite .
such a linearity is due to the bottle - neck character of one of the junctions and the linear dependence of the energy for tunneling on the bias voltage .
these two assumptions remain valid for long - range interactions , so the linear @xmath161 dependence is also found in this case . in the case of clean arrays ,
the threshold and low - voltage bottle - neck for current are found at the contact junctions and @xmath167 except for @xmath36 , for which @xmath168 and @xmath169 have to be added in the expression for the slope .
dependence in @xmath1 , @xmath7 and @xmath28 via the dependence of @xmath170 on these parameters is found as seen in fig.4 ( a ) and ( b ) .
the value of @xmath171 which appears in the expression of @xmath146 is the same that controls the linearity of the iv curves very close to theshold .
the behavior of the slope of @xmath172 vs @xmath161 with @xmath28 , @xmath1 and @xmath7 is opposite to the one of @xmath146 . for @xmath28 different from @xmath173 , increasing @xmath1 and decreasing @xmath7 decreases the slope because these changes reduce the fraction of the polarization potential that drops across the contact junctions .
biasing the array in a more assymetric way ( increasing @xmath174 changes the slope as the fraction of the polarization potential that drops across the contact junction that serves as a bottle - neck at small voltages is modified .
the slope does also depend on the junction resistances , similar to the dependence found for onsite interactions@xcite , see fig .
the charge disordered case is to some extent different .
the above threshold bottle - neck ( and below threshold current - blocking ) junction is not necessarily either of the contact junctions , so the slope of the linear dependence can be controlled by @xmath153 with @xmath175 .
the junction that acts as the bottle - neck depends on the particular disorder configuration .
this is shown in fig .
4(d ) , which plots the current and its derivative with respect to voltage for several configurations of disorder corresponding to the same value of @xmath7 , @xmath1 and @xmath28 and the same junction resistances .
a similar dependence of the slope on the charge disorder configuration was not present in the short - range case , as the energy gain for tunneling is directly modified by changes in the bias potential only at the contact junctions , at least for @xmath36 .
the slope is generally larger ( smaller ) when the bottleneck junction lies closer to the edge ( middle ) of the array .
changing @xmath28 also modifies the slope of the disordered case , not shown .
this modification can be due to the change of @xmath176 with or without a change in the bottleneck junction .
as in the onsite case@xcite the linearity of the current disappears when the bottle - neck description stops being valid .
this happens at very small values of @xmath177 .
it is easy to show how this situation leads to sublinear behavior .
assume that the transport happens through a sequence of @xmath11 tunneling processes and consider a bottle - neck process with rate @xmath178 with @xmath179 and another process in the sequence with rate @xmath180 .
here @xmath181 is the gain in energy of the second process at @xmath182 .
if these two processes have rates much smaller than the rest of processes in the sequence , the current can be approximated by     and respectively to @xmath166 with onsite interaction ; @xmath166 with @xmath136 ; @xmath183 with @xmath184 ; @xmath166 with @xmath184
. the lowest curve corresponds to a @xmath166 and @xmath37 and @xmath184 .
the threshold voltage has been substracted .
@xmath146 equals 98 , 43 , 14 , 16 and 9.7 respectively . in the onsite case it is necessary to create a charge gradient at every junction to allow current , but once charge can reach the opposite electrode it flows easily and the i - v shows a large jump close to threshold . for @xmath184 a charge gradient is not created and bulk junctions slow the current flow producing the staircase structure . the step width is smaller for forward bias @xmath37 than for symmetric bias , but contrary to the behavior found in the coulomb staircase for onsite interactions , with long - range interactions the step width is not fixed .
the steps are washed out for @xmath136 due to a more homogeneous polarization potential drop through the array .
( b ) i - v curves for disordered arrays with @xmath185 . the clean case is included for comparison .
( c ) i - v in a large voltage scale for clean arrays with homogeneous resistances , from top to bottom solid lines correspond to @xmath136 , @xmath184 and onsite interactions .
the dashed lines give the asymptotic predictions for @xmath136 and @xmath186 . at high voltages
all the curves have the same slope given by @xmath187 .
the offset voltages differ as the excitonic energies do . in spite of the very different threshold voltage and the different dependence on voltage close to threshold , the @xmath184 i
- v curve differs little from the onsite one at high voltages .
( d ) i - v curves in a large voltage scale corresponding to @xmath136 symmetrically biased arrays . from top
to bottom @xmath183 and @xmath166 disordered arrays with homogeneous resistances and a @xmath166 clean array with the first resistance ten times larger than the other ones .
dashed lines give the asymptotic predictions .
the slope of both @xmath166 curves differ , but their offset voltages are the same . , width=3 ]    @xmath188    the slope of the current and the lost of linearity depends on the resistance of the junctions , as was also seen in the onsite case@xcite . in the clean long - range case comparing the values of @xmath153
the linear behavior lasts longer in shorter arrays , smaller @xmath7 and smaller @xmath28 , as in these cases the values of @xmath153 are more homogenous throughout the array .
the disordered long - range case is more complex . due to the non - homogeneous increase in polarization voltage
drop a junction which has a small energy gain can increase this gain more than other junctions when the applied voltage increases and the dependence of the slope with the array parameters is not so easily predicted .
if the value of the voltage is increased further several tunneling processes are energetically allowed at each step in a sequence and the discussion of transport becomes more complex due to the multiple choices available and the polarization potential drop at the bulk junctions . above the linear regime
there is a region of smoothed steps in the i - v curve .
decreasing @xmath7 smooths the steps and for small @xmath7 they are hardly distinguishable .
this behavior is seen in fig .
5(a ) which compares the onset of current , at voltages not extremely close to threshold , for several array parameters . for clarity
the curves have been plotted as a function of @xmath161 .
the staircase profile differs in all these cases .
the top curve corresponds to an @xmath166 array with short - range interactions , previously studied@xcite . in this case to allow current flow a charge gradient at each bulk junction has to be created , but once charge can enter the array it flows easily through it .
this is reflected in the sharp onset of the current close to threshold .
the steps at higher voltages are just barely visible at this scale .
once the polarization voltage at each junction is finite it is not necessary to create a charge gradient at the inner junctions and the steps shape is modified .
the three bottom curves correspond to @xmath184 .
several features can be appreciated in these curves . the step shape is clearly seen . as the potential drop at the inner junction is small , bulk
junctions control the flow of currents at each plateau and their slope is small .
the slope is larger for shorter arrays , and the step width depends on the value of @xmath28 .
the dependence of the step width on @xmath28 was also found for onsite interactions , but contrary to the short range case , for finite @xmath7 the step width is not a constant throughout the curve as the presence of charges in the array influences the energy cost to add charges from the electrodes , to the first or last island .
as also seen in this figure , for small @xmath7 the polarization potential drop at the inner junction is larger and similar to what happened in the onsite case ( but for reasons to some extent different ) once the charge enters the array it can flow easily . in ( b ) we can see the different i - v curves in clean and disordered arrays .
specially interesting is the disordered @xmath136 i - v characteristic .
it looks superlinear , similar to what would be found if a power - law larger than unity is present at these voltages .
we have observed that this approximate superlinear type dependence is common in disordered arrays with small @xmath7 .
if experimentally the power - law behavior expected close to threshold is measured at these voltages ( larger than those at which the linear behavior is predicted ) the exponent of the power - law could be erroneously assigned a value larger than one .
at very high voltages , in the onsite interaction case we showed@xcite that the current can be approximated by the asymptotic expression @xmath189 with @xmath190
. the arguments , based on a uniform tunneling rate through all the junctions in this voltage regime , which led to this expression remain valid in the long - range case , with the only change of the quantitative value of the excitonic energies @xmath191 .
the slope of the current does not depend on the range of the interaction or the presence of charge disorder but the offset voltage at which the asymptotic expression cuts the zero current axis , does@xcite .
confirmation of the validity of ( [ highcurrent ] ) is seen in figs .
5(c ) and ( d ) , where numerical results are compared with the asymptotic behavior predicted by ( [ highcurrent ] ) . in fig .
5(c ) the i - vs for symmetrically biased arrays with @xmath166 nanoparticles and different interaction range are plotted . at high voltages slopes are equal but the offset voltage to which they extrapolate it is not .
note the difference between the value of threshold and the one of the offset .
in particular the @xmath184 curve has a smaller threshold and larger offset than the @xmath136 . in fig .
5(d ) the influence of the number of junctions and their resistance in the high - voltage current is reported and shown to be in good agreement with the approximate prediction .
in this section we analyze the effect of long - range interactions in the voltage drop through the array .
we differentiate the same three regimes as in previous section .
differences found with respect to the onsite case , previously analyzed@xcite are mainly due to the polarization potential drop at the bulk junctions , which vanishes in the onsite limit but is finite when interactions between the charges at the islands and those at the electrodes are long - range .     arrays with different parameters . both ( a ) and ( b ) correspond to clean arrays .
main figures are for @xmath152 and long - range interaction .
the average potential drop essentially equals the polarization potential for each value of @xmath7 , which is plotted as filled small dots in ( b ) for comparison .
this behavior contrasts with the potential due to the charge gradient which has to be created in the onsite case , shown in the inset of ( a ) .
as shown by comparing main figure in ( a ) with the inset in ( b ) a change in the value of @xmath28 modifies @xmath192 and correspondingly the potential drop through the array .
, width=3 ]    as discussed in section iv , in a clean array , @xmath146 is given by the minimum bias voltage which allows the creation of an electron - hole pair .
contrary to the onsite case@xcite there is no charge accumulation in the array .
it is thus expected that very close to @xmath146 the voltage drop reflects the polarization drop @xmath193 at each junction .
the potential drop distribution thus depend on the length of the array @xmath1 , the bias asymmetry @xmath28 and on the range of the interactions @xmath7 .
this dependence is confirmed in figs .
6(a ) and ( b ) where the potential drop is plotted for different array parameters .
the value of @xmath194 is included for comparison in fig .
the voltage drop is very different from the one found to the onsite case ( included in the inset of fig .
6(a ) ) , where in the bulk it is due to charge accumulation at the islands .
the dependence on the value of the resistance is extremely weak even once the polarization potential drop is substracted ( not shown ) and not observable , except if the difference in the value of resistances is very large . in the disordered case with long - range interaction it is possible
that once charge is allowed to enter the array it can flow .
then the average potential drop is approximately the sum of the disorder potential and the polarization potential . in general , when this happens the threshold voltage is smaller than the one in the clean case as the disorder potential reduces the polarization potential drop necessary at at least one of the contact junctions .
but for large @xmath7 is more probable that one or more charges remain stacked in the array , similarly to the case of onsite interactions and the charge potential due to these stacked charges has to be added .    at intermediate voltages , in the coulomb staircase regime
, we saw in the onsite case@xcite that the voltage drop through the array shows an oscillatory behavior , with the number of maxima increasing from step to step . a similar behavior is found in fig .
7(a ) corresponding to a clean array and @xmath184 . in fig .
7(b ) for all the voltages plotted the number of maxima is two , and their amplitude decreases until at the largest voltage oscillations can not be discerned . comparing with fig .  5
one realizes that the step number has not changed .
the i - v curves reaches the high - voltage regime without showing stepwise behavior .    at high voltages ,
the potential drop is qualitatively similar to the one found in the onsite case@xcite .
the voltage drops linearly only after subtracting from each junction the excitonic energy .
the sum of the excitonic energies results in the offset voltage .
the current is equal to @xmath195 and the corresponding voltage drop at each junction is @xmath196 which satisfies @xmath197 .
eq.([drophigh ] ) is valid for both ordered and disordered arrays .
some examples of this behavior are shown in are shown in fig .
7 . in fig .
7(c ) we can see that as expected , in the absence of resistance disorder , once the excitonic energy is substracted the potential drops homogeneously through the array even if there is charge disorder , while it is proportional to the resistance value when resistances are not homogeneous , as in fig .
7(d ) .     and @xmath166 .
upper figures correspond to clean arrays .
curves in ( a ) are for @xmath184 and ( from top to bottom ) @xmath198 .
the oscillations in average potential found in the onsite case at intermediate bias voltages are still present , and the number of maxima increases in two when going to a higher step . in ( b ) @xmath136 and @xmath199 .
the number of maxima has not increased in this range of voltages but oscillations are smoothed with increasing bia voltage . in spite of the large value of the voltage the current is still in the first step of the coulomb staircase , see fig .
the potential drop at @xmath200 resembles the one at high voltages , homogeneous except by the excitonic term responsible of the offset . in ( c ) and
( d ) the excitonic energy has been substracted from the average potential drop at high voltages .
once this term is substracted the average potential drop is completely homogeneous through the array in ( c ) where there is charge disorder , and all resistances are equal but not in ( d ) which corresponds to a clean array but with resistances which vary randomly between @xmath163 , width=3 ]
in this paper we have analyzed the effect of the long - range interaction in the transport through ordered and disordered nanoparticle arrays . to this end
we have introduced a model which allows a discussion of the relevant quantities in determining these transport properties .
we have introduced the concept of polarization potential drop , which results from the interaction between charges at the electrodes and at the islands . in the model
used we take into account that electrodes are not ideal voltage sources .
their potential fluctuates in response to tunneling processes ( but its effect in the numerical results is very small ) .
we have studied how the proximity of the nanoparticles modifies the @xmath0-interaction due to screening . to determine this screening
we have developed two methods which allow us to calculate the inverse capacitance matrix of the system under study , see appendix i. as discussed in appendix ii , and shown in fig .
8(a ) , for the case of metallic nanoparticles , here considered , the effect of screening starts to be relevant when @xmath201 , there is no divergency in the value of @xmath131 at small @xmath7 values , but capacitance values and their inverses saturate at finite values . as discussed previously by matsuoka and likharev@xcite for cylindrical nanoparticles ,
the interaction between charges is reduced only when the nanoparticles are very close , at larger distances the interaction increases and approaches the @xmath0 law from above , resulting in a bump in the interaction potential as compared to coulomb law , see fig .
we have related this anti - screening effect with the dipolar charges induced in the conductors .
long - range interactions screen the disorder potential and induce correlations between the values of @xmath13 at different islands .
these correlations are related to , but smaller than the inverse capacitance matrix elements .
the distribution of the island and junction potentials is modified in comparison to the one found for onsite interactions .
these effects are discussed in section iii , and are shown in figs .  1 and 2 .
as discussed in section iv , as in the onsite case , the current is blocked up to a threshold value @xmath146 .
this threshold value is independent of the resistances of the junctions . in clean arrays ,
@xmath146 is the minimum voltage that allows the creation of an electron - hole pair , see figs .
3(a ) and ( b ) .
this behavior is opposite to the one found in the onsite case where a charge gradient at the junctions has to be created to allow the flow of current . with long - range interactions ,
the polarization potential drop across the array creates a potential gradient which facilitates charge flow . in the disordered case ,
two effects compete that can increase or decrease the threshold voltage compared to the clean case .
charge accumulation can be induced by up - steps in the disorder potential , increasing @xmath146 , and the disorder potential distribution can reduce the energy to create an electron - hole pair decreasing it .
the latest effect dominates for small @xmath7 , see fig .
the current varies linearly with respect voltage close to threshold , in the bottle - neck regime .
this is discussed in section v and plotted in fig .
the slope depends , as the threshold voltage does on the polarization potential drop , and also on the resistance of the bottle - neck junction . at intermediate voltages
, we find steps in the current , but these are smoothed as compared to the onsite case , see fig .
5(a ) and ( b ) .
contrary to the onsite case , due to the interaction between the charges in different islands the width of the steps is not fixed .
a linear dependence of current on voltage is recovered for large biases , but as in the onsite case , current extrapolates to zero at a finite offset voltage ( fig .
5(c ) and ( d ) ) .
the offset voltage is given by the sum of the excitonic energies of all the junctions , and its value depends on the range of the interaction , but as in the case of onsite interactions the slope of the current is given by the sum of the resistances in series and is independent of @xmath7 .
the voltage drop through the array close to threshold , reflects the polarization contribution @xmath68 due to the electrodes , as shown in fig .
6 . in the onsite case , the potential drop in this bottle - neck regime was due to the charge accumulation at the islands , necessary to create a potential gradient through the array .    shown in fig .
7 , at intermediate voltages an oscillatory voltage drop through the array , similar to the one found for short range interactions is found for large values of @xmath7 . for small @xmath7
there is some remnant of this behavior but the amplitude of the oscillations can vanish while still being in the first step of the coulomb staircase , which is not well defined in this case . at large voltages , the potential drop is analogous to the one found in the onsite case .    in conclusion
, we have found that the long - range character of the interaction modifies the i - v characteristics of one - dimensional arrays for both ordered and disordered arrays .
this modification is greatly due to the finite polarization potential drop at the bulk junctions , due to the interactions between charges at the islands and at the electrodes .
differences in transport as a function of the range of the interaction are larger at low voltages . in both the long - range and onsite cases
the current is blocked up to a threshold voltage @xmath146 and the current depends linearly on for very small @xmath161 , but the value of both @xmath146 and the slope of the current are different in both cases , as the mechanism to create a potential gradient through the array differs . at high voltages , for given values of the excitonic energies the transport in both cases is analogous .
in this appendix we discuss the two methods that we have used to calculate the interaction strength @xmath202 . in the first one we determine the capacitance matrix using the method of images .
this is an iterative method which a priori can be used to determine the capacitance matrix @xmath203 for any geometric configuration of spheres , so it is valid also for two - dimensional arrays , for example .
although the algorithm for generating images is straightforward , the number of images required to calculate @xmath204 makes the numerical implementation of this technique nontrivial . while computer memory problems can be solved , the computation time is too large to tackle those cases with very large arrays and electrodes and small distance between conductors . on the other hand ,
the capacitance matrix is calculated to a given accuracy .
small errors in @xmath203 can be enhanced and uncontrolled in @xmath205 . in the second method
the interaction matrix @xmath205 is calculated directly taking into account the symmetry of the system and the properties of spherical harmonics . it requires the inversion of a matrix which can be quite large .
it is specially useful and fast for systems with azimuthal symmetry as the one considered here .
results obtained with both methods are in extremely good agreement .      the method of images is based on the relation between charges and potentials in capacitively coupled conductors .
the charge @xmath206 induced on a conductor in the presence of @xmath207 equipotentials at potentials @xmath208 is given by the capacitance matrix @xmath203 @xmath209 the inverse capacitance matrix which enters the free energy ( [ freecharge ] ) is the inverse of the capacitance matrix @xmath204 .
we have calculated the capacitance matrix using some properties of spheres and the fact that the charge in a conductor @xmath28 produced by a unit potential in a conductor @xmath29 is equal to the capacitance matrix element @xmath204 .
we have obtained @xmath202 inverting @xmath204 .
the method of images@xcite is the placement of imaginary charges inside the spheres at positions that make the potential everywhere on the surface of the conductor equal a constant .    to determine the positions of the image charges , we exploit two properties of spheres .
first , the center of the sphere is equidistant from all points on the surface of the sphere . using this property ,
the surface of an sphere of radius @xmath25 can be set to a potential @xmath35 by placing an image at the center of the sphere of charge @xmath210 .
second , for every point outside a sphere there is a point inside the sphere for which the ratio of the distances between these two points and any point on the surface of the sphere is a constant .
from here it follows that if a charge @xmath211 is located at the outside point , at a distance @xmath212 from the center , an image charge @xmath213 placed at the inside a distance @xmath214 from the center in the radial line , with charge @xmath215 will set the potential to zero everywhere on the surface of the sphere .
we determine the @xmath216 capacitance matrix , column by column , by determining the set of image charges that sets the potentials of the spheres to @xmath217 .
the capacitance matrix elements @xmath203 are given by the sum of all the charges in sphere @xmath28 . to set the potential of the @xmath29 sphere , with radius @xmath218 to one , we place a charge with magnitude @xmath218 at the center of this sphere @xmath219 .
the remaining spheres are grounded by placing images inside each sphere with charges @xmath220 at positions @xmath221 here @xmath222 and @xmath223 are the value and the position of the charge which creates the inhomogeneous potential that we want to compensate and @xmath224 and @xmath225 are the radius and position of the center of the sphere to which we add the image charge @xmath226 .
these image charges are added to all the spheres except the one in which @xmath227 is placed .
the charges that have been added generate new inhomogeneous potentials at the rest of the spheres and have to be compensated following the same method .
this process repeats iteratively for all the charges added to all the spheres . during each iteration @xmath228 ,
the number of new images required to compensate the potential of the other spheres approximately equals @xmath229 .
we eliminate some of the images by discarding images with a magnitude that is smaller than a suitable cutoff value , @xmath230 .
we required @xmath230 to be small enough that the relative diffferences between the matrix elements generated with the cutoff value @xmath230 and by a larger cutoff value @xmath231 are less than one percent .
following wehrli _
et al_@xcite , the energy of the system , given by ( [ freecharge ] ) can be rewritten in terms of the higher - order multipolar charges induced by the charges on the conductors as @xmath232 here greek indices denote the conductors , @xmath233 and @xmath234 denote the order of the multipole , and @xmath235 and @xmath236 denote the azimuthal number .
this matrix @xmath237 is hermitian with respect to the exchange of @xmath238 and @xmath239 . using the linear response form for the induced multipoles ,
the higher - order multipolar charges , @xmath240 , can be expressed in terms of the ( monopolar ) charges on the conductors @xmath241 , as @xmath242 substituting ( [ qlm ] ) into ( [ freemultipolar ] ) and comparing it with ( [ freecharge ] ) , the inverse capacitance matrix can be expressed as @xmath243 the multipolar charge induced is the one which minimizes the energy . separating the monopolar contribution ( @xmath244 ) in the expression of the free energy , and minimizing the latter with respect to @xmath245
, we obtain @xmath246 here @xmath247 and @xmath248 , correspondingly @xmath249 , and the equation is written in vectorial and matrix notation .
once this expression is substituted in the free energy , the inverse capacitance can be written in terms of the @xmath250 matrices @xmath251 the order of approximation in this method is the number of the highest multipoles @xmath252 included .
matrix @xmath253 has dimension @xmath254 with @xmath255 the total number of conductors .
matrices @xmath256 and @xmath257 are @xmath258 and ( @xmath259)@xmath260 respectively , and matrix @xmath261 has dimension @xmath262 .
@xmath263 is the maximum number of multipolar terms considered .
formally it is @xmath264 with @xmath265 the order of the maximum multipole included in the approximation .
however the symmetries of the problem can help us to reduce it as the @xmath261 elements corresponding to certain @xmath266 can be seen to vanish by symmetry .
in particular in the case of azimuthal symmetry , considered in the text , only @xmath267 gives non - zero values and the number of terms included can be reduced to @xmath268 .
depending on the geometry of the conductors it can be convenient to use different number of @xmath265 for different conductors . in particular in the case of an array of small islands sandwiched by two large electrodes , it is better to use a larger number of multipoles at the electrodes .
most of the cases presented here are done with @xmath269 .
the expression for @xmath270 follows from the decomposition of @xmath271 , with @xmath272 , @xmath273 and @xmath274 three points in space and depends on the geometry of the conductors . for @xmath275    @xmath276^{1/2 } \\
( -1)^{l_2+m_2}i_{l_1+l_2+m_1-m_2}(x_\beta - x_\alpha)\end{aligned}\ ] ]    with @xmath277 the irregular solid spherical harmonics @xmath278 the sign of @xmath279 depends not only on @xmath280 and @xmath281 , but also on the order @xmath282 or @xmath283 through the dependence of @xmath284 .    for the case of an sphere
@xmath28 with radius @xmath285 , @xmath286 @xmath287 the case of spheres on a row is especially simple .
in this case we have azimuthal symmetry what means that all terms involving @xmath288 should vanish .
thus at order @xmath265 we have just @xmath268 .
this simplification allows us to go to reasonably high orders .
we can eliminate the indexes @xmath289 from the matrix @xmath237 .
together with the diagonal terms @xmath290 calculated above , and using that @xmath291 and @xmath292 and @xmath293 the equations are greatly simplified .
thus @xmath294 for @xmath295 . here
@xmath296 is the distance between the centers of the spheres @xmath28 and @xmath29 .
the diagonal of @xmath297 and @xmath298 are zero and @xmath299 .
note that @xmath300 and @xmath301 the zero - order approximation recovers our expectation for the case of far - apart spheres .
the correction to the inverse capacitance due to the higher order multipoles is given by @xmath302 .
as spheres come closer , higher order terms become more and more important .
this is reasonable taking into account that the interaction between two multipolar charges @xmath303 and @xmath304 decays as @xmath305 .
when two conductors become closer together the mobile charges in their surfaces screen the interaction between the charges in them , compared to the @xmath0 coulomb law which describes the interaction between two isolated point - like charges .
other metallic systems in the surrounding environment contribute to this screening .
it is expected that the charging energy of an sphere , or the energy to create an electron - hole pair between two islands will depend on the distance between the particles in the array . in this appendix
we describe the modification of the interaction due to screening and compare it with other models and calculations available in the literature .
@xmath202 is calculated as described in appendix i. both methods described give the same value of @xmath205 to several digits when the accuracy used in the computation is good enough . here ,
inverse capacitances are measured in units of @xmath306 , the value of the inverse capacitance of a nanoparticle @xmath131 when it is isolated .
we find that the effect of screening is essentially restricted to the interactions between charges which are in the same islands or in the closest neighboring islands and only when the particles are very close @xmath307 .    , nearest - neighbor interaction @xmath308 and excitonic energy , all in units of @xmath309 , at the center of a 50 nanoparticle array ( without electrodes ) as a function of the interisland separation .
solid - lines give the value obtained with a @xmath0 interaction between charges .
the effect of screening is evident for @xmath307 .
all the plotted quantities saturate to a finite value as @xmath7 vanishes.(b ) decay of the interaction potential from the center of a 50 nanoparticle array ( without electrodes ) as a function of island position for different values of @xmath7 .
inverse capacitances are given in units of @xmath309 solid lines correspond to an unscreened @xmath0 law .
the bump is clearly observed only for very small @xmath7 .
it is much weaker than the one found in@xcite and is restricted to the first nearest neighbor . for large distances
the @xmath0 law is approached from above .
the effect of screening is negligible for @xmath310 . in ( a ) and ( b ) dashed and dotted lines
are included as a guide to the eye.,width=3 ]    three important quantities for the transport are the island inverse capacitance @xmath131 , the nearest - neighbor interaction @xmath308 and the resulting excitonic energy @xmath92 . in fig .
8(a ) we show how these quantities depend on the distance between the particles , @xmath7 for the case of an array with @xmath311 equal - sized islands , at the center of the array .
the effects of screening start to be relevant for @xmath312 . at this value
@xmath131 starts decreasing , and when @xmath313 , approximately at @xmath314 it saturates at about 0.68 of its bare value .
@xmath315 increases following a @xmath0 law as @xmath316 is reduced , until @xmath201 .
then it decreases slightly due to the screening of the interaction , and finally it saturates at about @xmath317 . at large @xmath7
the @xmath92 starts decreasing when @xmath7 is reduced , according to the @xmath0 increase of @xmath315 . for @xmath318 ,
its value is affected both by the increase of @xmath315 and the decrease of @xmath131 , at small distance is controlled by this last effect .
finally it saturates .
the modification of the distance dependent interaction in one - dimensional arrays has been previously studied for some particular island geometries . for the case of thin circular disks ( with disk axis perpendicular to the array axis ) , whan et al.@xcite found that a @xmath0 law describes well the dependence of the non - diagonal inverse capacitance matrix elements on distance and that the diagonal elements are reduced .
likharev and matsuoka@xcite analyzed the cases of an array of cubic islands ( with inverse capacitance matrix calculated using the finite - differences software fastcap ) and a continuum model in which the discrete periodic structure is replaced by a continuous dielectric medium .
they found that the dependence of the interaction on the distance between the charges @xmath319 has a crossover between a linear dependence at short distances and a @xmath0 law at long distances .
there is a bump on the interaction when compared to a @xmath0 law .
the potential approaches the @xmath0 law from above .
the interaction potential could by approximated by the expression @xmath320 \right ) \ ] ] here @xmath321 is the distance in units of the array period , @xmath322 , @xmath323 , with @xmath324 a characteristic decay length of the interaction .
@xmath325 , the inter - islands dielectric constant , @xmath326 the junction surface and @xmath327 a fitting parameter with value very close to 1 and related to @xmath28 by @xmath328    the dependence of @xmath329 on @xmath50 that we have obtained for the experimentally relevant case of an array of spherical particles is plotted in fig .
screening is less important for the case of spheres than for cubic islands but larger than for the thin disks analyzed by whan _
et al_@xcite . compared with a @xmath0 law , at short distance the screened interaction potential decreases and at large distances it increases .
when the particles are very close , there is a bump in the renormalization of the interaction .
only when two charges are in the same particle or at the nearest neighbor one the interaction between them decreases . in other cases the interaction increase .
we have not been able to fit our results with ( [ fit ] ) .
we recover the bump found by likharev and matsuoka@xcite , but it is smaller than the one they observe , even when our particles are very close .
we believe that the differences are due to the different geometry of the system under study .    from the decomposition of the induced screening charge in high - order multipoles discussed in previous appendix it is possible to get some insight on how does the bump appear .
the correction to the inverse capacitance @xmath330 due to screening is @xmath331 , see ( [ correction ] ) , which has the same sign as the monopole - induced multipole interaction .
thus , @xmath332 has the same sign as the interaction of the monopolar charge in @xmath28 with the multipolar charge induced in all conductors by the monopolar charge in @xmath29 .
let us restrict to dipolar order , which will be the largest contribution .
@xmath333 generates dipolar charges in all the other conductors @xmath80 , equal to @xmath334 and the monopolar charge in @xmath28 interact with these induced charges via @xmath335 .
both the monopolar - dipolar interaction @xmath336 and the dipolar induced charges are odd quantities with respect to position . to dipolar order ,
all the elements of @xmath337 are positive .
the sign of the two odd quantities will control the sign of @xmath332 .
consider @xmath332 , with @xmath338 , the charges induced by a monopolar charge placed in @xmath29 in conductors from @xmath57 to @xmath339 and from @xmath340 to @xmath341 have the same sign , but the interaction of a monopolar charge in @xmath28 with them , have opposite .
thus those terms coming from the charge induced in conductors from @xmath57 to @xmath339 and those from conductors @xmath342 to @xmath343 contribute to @xmath344 with different sign .
the sign of the contribution of the conductors at the right of @xmath29 will be the same as those at the left of @xmath28 and both induced charge and interaction have opposite sign . as further are these conductors to @xmath28 and @xmath29 the correction will be smaller .
individual contributions from each conductor @xmath80 will be larger when @xmath345 . the contribution of the interaction term which comes from the dipoles generated in conductors between @xmath28 and @xmath29 increase @xmath202 .
only when the contribution of the terms which decrease the inverse capacitance matrix element is able to compensate the contribution of those ones which increase it , the total change will be negative . as closer are @xmath28 and @xmath29 the number of terms increasing the interaction will decrease .
@xmath202 is expected to be smaller than the bare value , only if @xmath28 and @xmath29 are very close , what results in the appearance of the bump and the anti - screening effect at intermediate and large distances .
the interaction obtained differs considerably from the one resulting from capacitive coupling only to nearest - neighbors .
this form of the interaction has been used frequently in the literature , and applies when the system is coupled to a gate electrode which screens the long - range part .
the capacitance matrix has a triband form .
only @xmath346 and @xmath347 are finite .
the inverse of @xmath348 for the case of an infinite array becomes @xmath349 with @xmath350 and @xmath351 defined from @xmath352 .
due to the exponential dependence @xmath350 can be viewed as the decay length of the interaction , which increases with @xmath353 .
interactions on the same island are given by @xmath354 . in the case of a finite array of length @xmath1 this value
is approached , from below , as @xmath1 increases .
the onsite case is recovered when @xmath355 and long - range interactions appear in the opposite limit @xmath356 . in the later limit the interaction potential goes like @xmath357 it decays linearly with distance .
the energy to create an electron - hole pair @xmath358 remains bound and equal to @xmath359 . on the contrary ,
the diagonal element @xmath360 diverges with the array size .
there is not such unphysical divergence in @xmath131 with the array size in our model .    to analyze the transport properties the array
is sandwiched between two electrodes , much larger than each of the nanoparticles . to this end
we consider a one - dimensional array of @xmath1 nanoparticles placed in between two large spheres , with radius @xmath25 , which play the role of the leads .
the large size ensures large screening and that @xmath361 and @xmath362 are much smaller than the islands @xmath131 .
the spherical shape greatly simplifies the calculations of the inverse capacitance matrix .
the interaction between the charges at the islands and those at the electrodes and the inverse capacitance elements of the electrodes determine @xmath176 and @xmath363 , which control the polarization voltage drop through the array and to a large extent the current flow at small voltages , see figs .
6(a ) and ( b ) .    for the size of the electrodes used in the text , @xmath364 , the inverse capacitance of the islands close to the electrodes
is slightly reduced compared to those at the center , except for very small @xmath7 . for small @xmath7 the inverse capacitance of islands at the center of the array
is almost insensitive to the presence of the electrodes .
if the electrodes are much larger the dependence of the inverse capacitance matrix elements with the size of the electrodes can become non - monotonous .
this behavior , like the one found for small @xmath7 is most probably associated to the spherical shape chosen to model the electrodes .
we thank s. wehrli for useful discussions .
financial support from the swiss national foundation , nccr manep of the swiss national fonds , the spanish science and education ministry through ramn y cajal contract fpi fellowship and grant no .
fis2005 - 05478-c02 - 02 and the direccin general de universidades e investigacin de la consejera de educacin de la comunidad de madrid and csic through grant no .
200550m136 is gratefully acknowledged . work at ut austin was supported by the welch foundation , by the nsf under grant dmr-0606489 and by the aro under grant w911nf-07 - 1 - 0439 .
99 r.l.whetten , j.t .
khoury , m.m .
alvarez , s.murthy , i. vezmar , z.l .
wang , p.w .
stephens , c.l .
cleveland , w.d .
luedtke and u. landman , adv .
* 8 * , 428 ( 1996 ) .
collier , r.j .
saykally , j.j .
shiang , s.e .
henrichs , j.r .
heath , science * 277 * , 1978 ( 1997 ) .
g. markovich , c. p. collier , s.e .
henrichs , f. remacle , r.d . levine and j.r .
heath , acc .
32 * , 415 ( 1999 ) .
r. parthasarathy , x - m lin and h. m. jaeger , phys .
lett . * 87 * , 186807 ( 2001 ) j.d .
le , y. pinto , n.c .
seeman , k. musier - forsyth , t.a .
taton and r.a .
kiehl , nanoletters * 4 * , 2343 ( 2004 ) .
y. lin , a. bker , j. he , k. sill , h. xiang , c. abetz , x. li , j. wang , t. emrick , s. long , q. wang , a. balazs and t.p .
russell , nature * 434 * , 55 ( 2005 ) .
k. elteto , x .-
lin and h.m .
jaeger , phys .
b * 71 * , 205412 ( 2005 ) .
j. zhang , y.liu , y. ke and h. yan , nanoletters * 6 * , 248 ( 2006 ) . t.p .
bigioni , x .-
m.lin , t.t .
nguyen , e.i .
corwin , t.a .
witten and h. m. jaeger , nature materials * 5 * , 265 ( 2006 ) .
j. liao , l. bernard , m. langer , c. schnenberger and m. calame , adv . mater.*18 * , 2803 ( 2006 ) .
( ojo comprobar si es 2803 o 2444 ) .
s.s . mark , m. bergkvist , x. yang , l.m .
teixeira , p. bhatnagar , e. r. angert and c.a .
batt , langmuir * 22 * , 3763 ( 2006 )
murray , c.r .
kagan and m.g .
bawendi , science * 270 * , 1335 ( 1995 ) .
d.v.talapin , e.v .
shevchenko , a. kornowski , n. gaponik , m. haase , a.l .
rogach and h. weller , adv .
* 13 * , 1868 ( 2001 ) .
morgan , c.a .
leatherdale , m. drndc , m.v .
jarosz , m.a .
kastner and m. bawendi , phys .
rev . b*66 * , 075339 ( 2002 ) .
v.j . porter , t. mentzel , s. charpentier , m.a .
kastner and m.g .
bawendi , phys .
b * 73 * , 155303 ( 2006 ) .
d. yu , c. wang , b.l .
wehrenberg and p.
guyot - sionnest , phys .
lett . * 92 * , 216802 ( 2004 ) .
h. romero and m. drndic , phys .
lett . * 95 * , 156801 ( 2005 ) .
t. feng , h. yu , m. dicken , j.r . heath and h.a .
atwater , app .
* 86 * , 033103 ( 2005 ) .
s. sun , c.b .
murray , d. weller , l. folks and a. moser , science * 287 * , 1989 ( 2000 ) .
black , c.b .
murray , r.l .
sandstrom and s. sun , science * 290 * , 1131 ( 2000 ) v. f. puntes , p. gorostiza , d.m .
aruguete , n.g .
bastus and a.p .
alivisatos , nature materials * 3 * , 263 ( 2004 ) .
redl , k .- s .
cho , c.b .
murray and s. obrien , nature ( london ) * 423 * , 968 ( 2003 ) .
a.e . saunders and b. a. korgel , chem .
phys . chem .
* 6 * , 61 ( 2005 ) .
schevchenko , c.v .
talapin , n.a .
kotov , s. obrien and c.b .
murray , nature ( london ) * 439 * , 55 ( 2006 ) . , _ nato asi series , vol b _ , 294 , eds . h. grabert and m.h .
devoret . , new york , plenum press 1992 .
p. sheng and b. abeles , phys .
* 28 * , 34 ( 1972 ) .
p. sheng , b. abeles and y. arie , phys .
* 31 * , 44 ( 1973 ) .
j.s . helman and b.
abeles , phys .
lett . * 37 * , 1429 ( 1976 ) .
shiang , j.r .
heath , c.p .
collier and r.j .
saykally , j. phys .
b * 102 * , 3425 ( 1998 ) .
kim , g. medeiros - ribeiro , d.a.a .
ohlberg , r.s .
williams and j.r .
heath , j. phys .
b * 103 * , 10341 ( 1999 ) . j.f .
sampaio , k.c .
beverly and j.r .
heath , j. phys .
b , * 105 * , 8797 ( 2001 ) i.s .
weitz , j.l .
sample , r.ries , e.m .
spain and j.r .
heath , j. phys .
chem b * 104 * , 4288 ( 2000 ) .
quinn , i. prieto , s. k. haram and a.j .
bard , j. phys .
b * 105 * , 7474 ( 2001 ) .
doty , h. yu , c.k .
shih and b.a .
korgel , j. phys .
b * 105 * , 8291 ( 2001 ) .
a. courty , a. mermet , p.a .
albouy , e. duval and m.p .
pileni , nature materials * 4 * , 395 ( 2005 ) .
ancona , w. kruppa , r.w .
rendell , a.w .
snow , d. park and j.b .
boos , phys .
b * 64 * , 033408 ( 2001 ) .
a. bezryadin , r.m .
westervelt , and m. tinkham , app .
* 74 * , 2699 ( 1999 ) .
bakhalov , g.s .
kazacha , k.k .
likharev and s.i .
serdyukova , sov .
jetp * 68 * , 581 ( 1989 ) .
a.a . middleton and n.s .
wingreen , phys .
* 71 * , 3198 ( 1993 ) .
k.a . matsuoka and k.k .
likharev , phys .
b * 57 * , 15613 ( 1998 )
kaplan , v.a .
sverdlov and k.k .
likharev , cond - mat/0303477 .
m.shin , s. lee , k.w . park and e.h .
lee , phys .
lett . * 80 * , 5774 ( 1998 ) .
m. stopa phys .
b * 64 * , 193315 ( 2001 )
kaplan , v.a .
sverdlov and k.k .
likharev , phys .
b * 65 * , 193309 ( 2002 ) . d.a .
kaplan , v.a .
sverdlov and k.k .
likharev , phys .
b * 68 * , 045321 ( 2003 ) .
kinkhabwala , v.a .
sverdlov , k.k .
likharev , j , of phys .
matter * 18 * 2013 ( 2006 ) .
s. semrau , h. schoeller and w. wenzel , phys .
b * 72 * , 205443 ( 2005 ) .
r.kotliar and s. das sarma , superlatt . and microst .
* 20 * , 641 ( 1996 ) .
beloborodov , a.v .
lopatin , v.m .
vinokur and k.b .
efetov , rev .
phys . * 79 * , 469 ( 2007 ) .
beloborodov , a. glatz and v.m .
vinokur , phys .
b * 75 * , 052302 ( 2007 ) . t.b .
tran , i.s .
beloborodov , x.m .
lin , t.p .
bigioni , v.m .
vinokur and h.m .
jaeger , phys .
lett . * 95 * , 076806 ( 2005 ) .
a. atland , l. glazman , a. kamenev , phys .
lett . * 92 * , 026801 ( 2004 ) .
meyer , a. kamenev and l.i .
glazman , phys .
b * 70 * , 045310 ( 2004 ) .
y.l . loh , v. tripathi and m. turlakov , phys .
b * 72 * , 233404 ( 2005 ) .
k.b . efetov and a. tschersich , europhys . lett . * 59 * , 114 ( 2002 ) . j. zhang and b.i .
shklovskii , phys .
b * 70 * , 115317 ( 2004 ) .
r. parthasarathy , x .-
lin , k. elteto , t.f .
rosenbaum and h.m .
jaeger , phys .
lett . * 92 * , 076801 ( 2004 ) .
k. elteto , e. g. antonyan , t. t. nguyen , and h. m. jaeger , phys .
b * 71 * , 064206 ( 2005 ) .
beverly , j.f .
sampaio and j.r .
heath , j. phys .
chem b * 106 * , 2131 ( 2002 ) .
f. remacle , c.p .
collier , g. markovich , j.r .
heath , u. banin , r.d .
levine j. phys .
chem b * 102 * , 7727 ( 1998 ) .
f. remacle , k.c .
beverly , j.r .
heath and r.d .
levine , j. phys .
chem b * 106 * 4116 ( 2002 ) .
cordan , a. goltzen , y. herv , m. mejas , c. vieu and h. launois , jour . of app
. phys . * 84 * , 3756 ( 1998 ) .
a. ppin , c. vieu , m. mejias , y. jin , f. carcenac , j. gieraz , c. david , l. couraud , a. s. cordan , y. leroy and a. goltzen , app .
. lett . * 74 * , 3047 ( 1999 ) .
cordan , y. leroy , a. goltzen , a. pepin , c. vieu , m. mejias and h. launois , jour . of app
. phys . * 87 * 345 ( 2000 ) .
y. leroy , a. s. cordan and a. goltzen , jour . of app
. phys . * 90 * 953 ( 2001 ) .
hu and r.f .
oconnell , phys .
b * 49 * , 16773 ( 1994 ) . j.a .
melsen , u. hanke , h.o .
mller and k.a .
chao , phys .
b * 55 * , 10638 ( 1997 ) . c.a .
berven and m.n .
wybourne , app .
. lett . * 78 * , 3893 ( 2001 ) .
s. jha and a.a .
middleton , cond - mat/0511094 c. kurdak , a.j .
rimberg , t.r
. ho and j. clarke , phys . rev .
b * 57 * , r6842 ( 1998 ) .
e. bascones , v. estvez , j.a .
trinidad , a.h .
macdonald , arxiv:0709.3718 k.k .
likharev and k.a .
matsuoka , appl .
. lett . * 67 * , 3037 ( 1995 ) .
whan , j. white and t.p .
orlando , app .
. lett . * 68 * , 2996 ( 1996 ) .
c.reichhardt and c.j .
o. reichhardt , phys .
lett . * 90 * , 046802 ( 2003 ) .
y. xue and m.a .
ratner , phys .
b * 68 * , 235410 ( 2003 ) .
n.s.bakhalov , g.s .
kazacha , k.k .
likharev and s.i .
serdyukova , physica b * 173 * , 319 ( 1991 ) .
u. geigenmller and g. schn , europhys . lett . * 10 * , 765 ( 1989 ) .
w.r . smythe _ static and dynamic electricity _ ( mcgraw - hill , new york , 1950 ) .
s. wehrli , e. koch and m. sigrist , phys . rev .
b * 68 * , 115412 ( 2003 ) .