the control and manipulation of single electrons in mesoscopic systems constitutes one of the key ingredients in nanoelectronics .
the study of single - electron sources@xcite in the high - frequency regime has attracted a great interest due to their potential application in quantum electron optics experiments , in metrology , and in quantum information processing based on fermionic systems.@xcite in this work we study the time evolution of a quantum dot ( qd ) tunnel coupled to a single electronic reservoir , as depicted schematically in fig .  [ fig_scheme](a ) . in the presence of some time - dependent voltage modulations ,
this system defines the building block of the typical single - electron source , namely the mesoscopic capacitor.@xcite in the linear - response regime , the relaxation behavior of such a mesoscopic capacitor has been extensively studied theoretically@xcite and experimentally,@xcite revealing the quantization of the charge relaxation resistance.@xcite on the other hand , the application of _ nonlinear _ periodic potentials to the mesoscopic capacitor yields the controlled emission and absorption of electrons at giga - hertz frequencies.@xcite from these experiments the average charge as well as current correlations@xcite after each cycle of the potential applied have been extracted .
these results demonstrate the importance of investigating the dynamics of this kind of single - electron sources . in some of the recent realizations@xcite
the coulomb interaction is weak ; however , in small - sized qds the coulomb blockade is , in general , strong and it is , therefore , desirable to include it in the theoretical analysis @xcite since it may even dominate time - dependent phenomena , see e.g. ref .  .
the time - evolution of interacting quantum dots after the coupling to the leads has been switched on , has , e.g. , been studied in refs .   and references therein .    , coupled to a normal lead with a tunneling strength @xmath0 .
dot occupations can be measured via the current passing through a nearby quantum point contact ( qpc ) capacitively coupled to the dot .
b ) qd attached to an additional superconducting contact .
c ) qd coupled to a ferromagnetic lead . ]    here we investigate the exponential relaxation of a qd towards its equilibrium state after its has been brought out of equilibrium by applying , e.g. , a voltage step pulse .
we consider a voltage pulse that affects the occupation of only a single orbital energy level .
the level can be spin split due to coulomb interaction . in an earlier work,@xcite some of the present authors investigated the decay of charge and spin of such a single level qd .
it was found that the relaxation of charge and spin are given by rates which differ from each other due to coulomb repulsion . since the reduced density matrix of a qd with a single orbital level with spin is four dimensional , there are thus three rates which govern the relaxation of the diagonal elements of the density matrix towards equilibrium ( plus one which is always zero and corresponds to the stable stationary state ) .
in addition to the rates that govern charge and spin there is a third rate that appears in the relaxation of a single level qd with spin and with interaction .
this additional rate is the subject of this paper .
interestingly , this additional time scale is independent of the interaction and of the dot s level position .
it is shown to be related to two - particle effects and appears , e.g. , in the time - evolution of the mean squared deviations of the charge from its equilibrium value .
we study in detail the perturbations leading to a relaxation of the system with the additional decay rate only , and find that it is indeed related to two - particle correlations .
we also propose a procedure to separately read out the different relaxation rates occurring in the dynamics of the qd exploiting the sensitivity of a nearby quantum point contact to the occupation of the qd , see fig .
[ fig_scheme ] ( a ) .    in order to further clarify the properties of the additional time scale , we extend our study to two other setups :
a qd proximized by an extra , superconducting electrode and tunnel coupled to a normal lead ; and a qd tunnel coupled to a ferromagnetic lead , see fig .
[ fig_scheme ] ( b ) and ( c ) .
we consider a quantum dot coupled to an electronic reservoir .
we assume that the single - particle level spacing in the dot is larger than all other energy scales , so that only one , spin - degenerate level of the qd spectrum is accessible . at a certain time
@xmath1 the system is brought out of equilibrium , e.g. by applying a gate potential , and afterwards relaxes to an equilibrium dictated by the hamiltonian @xmath2 .
the hamiltonian @xmath3 of the decoupled dot @xmath4 contains the spin - degenerate level @xmath5 and the on - site coulomb energy @xmath6 for double occupation of the dot .
the creation ( annihilation ) operator of an electron with spin @xmath7 on the dot is denoted by @xmath8 and @xmath9 is the corresponding number operator .
the reservoir is modeled by the hamiltonian @xmath10 , in which @xmath11 creates ( annihilates ) an electron with spin @xmath12 and momentum @xmath13 in the lead .
the coupling between the dot and the reservoir is described by the tunneling hamiltonian @xmath14 , where @xmath15 is a tunneling amplitude , which we assume to be independent of momentum and spin . by considering a constant density of states @xmath16 in the reservoir ,
the tunnel coupling strength @xmath0 is defined as @xmath17 .    in the remainder of this paper , we focus on the relaxation behavior of the quantum dot to its equilibrium state and in particular on how this relaxation manifests itself in measurable quantities .
we are not interested in the dynamics of the reservoir , thus the trace over its degrees of freedom is performed to obtain the reduced density matrix of the qd .
the hilbert space is spanned by the four eigenstates of the decoupled dot hamiltonian , @xmath18 , where @xmath19 represents the unoccupied dot , the dot is in the state @xmath20 when being singly occupied with spin @xmath7 , and @xmath21 is the state of double occupation .
the energies related to these states are @xmath22 and @xmath23 , where we set the electrochemical potential of the reservoir to zero .
as we consider spin - conserving tunneling events , the off - diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix evolve independently of the diagonal ones ( which are the occupation probabilities ) .
we can , therefore , consider these probabilities alone , which arranged in a vector are given by @xmath24 and fulfill the condition @xmath25 .
the time evolution of the occupation probabilities is governed by the generalized master equation @xmath26 where the matrix elements @xmath27 of the kernel @xmath28 describe transitions from the state @xmath29 at time @xmath30 to a state @xmath31 at time @xmath32 .
we consider now the dynamics of the system after being brought out of equilibrium at time @xmath1 .
since for @xmath33 the total hamiltonian is time independent , the transition matrix elements depend only on the time difference @xmath34 , i.e. @xmath35 .
furthermore , we are interested in the exponential decay towards equilibrium . to be more specific , we will therefore consider only the leading , time - independent , prefactor of the exponential functions .
time - dependent corrections to the pre - exponential functions , that generally may appear,@xcite are disregarded .
furthermore , when focussing on times @xmath32 distant from the switching time @xmath1 , such that the difference @xmath36 is hence much larger than the decay time of the kernel @xmath37 , we can replace the lower limit of the integral in eq .
( [ eq_master ] ) by @xmath38 . expanding the probability vector @xmath39 in eq .
( [ eq_master ] ) around the measuring time @xmath32 we find@xcite @xmath40 here we introduced the laplace transform of the kernel @xmath41 , with @xmath42 and the @xmath43-th derivative of the kernel with respect to the laplace variable @xmath44_{z=0}$ ] .
the formal solution of eq .
( [ eq_masterexpand ] ) is given by @xmath45 which depends on the initial probability vector @xmath46 at @xmath47 , where the initial values for the system parameters are given by the ones just after the switching time @xmath1 .
the matrix @xmath48 includes markovian and non - markovian processes.@xcite in the following , we consider the limit of weak coupling between quantum dot and reservoir and limit ourselves to a perturbation expansion up to second order in @xmath0 , which is valid for the regime where the tunnel coupling @xmath0 is much smaller than the energy scale set by the temperature @xmath49 .
the perturbative expansion of @xmath48 is @xmath50 with @xmath51 and @xmath52 , where the number in the superscript represents the power of @xmath0 included in the transition matrix @xmath53 .
notice that the first non - markovian correction , i.e. the term @xmath54 is present in second - order in the tunnel coupling .
the evaluation of the kernel within a perturbative expansion can be performed using a real - time diagrammatic technique,@xcite which has been used in ref .   in order to extract the exponential decay of spin and charge in the system studied here .
considering eq .
( [ eq_exp ] ) , we see that the rates defining the decay of the state into equilibrium are found from the eigenvalues of the matrix @xmath48 , which turn out to be real and non - positive .
the matrix @xmath48 is not hermitian , as expected since we deal with a dissipative system , and hence has different left and right eigenvectors , @xmath55 and @xmath56 .
the time - dependent probability vector , @xmath57 , can be expressed in terms of the right eigenvectors of @xmath48 , each being related to a decay with a different rate .
the left eigenvectors determine the observable that decay with a single time scale only , see also the appendix .
+ in the following we discuss the exponential relaxation towards equilibrium of the vector of occupation probabilities , in first order in the tunneling strength @xmath0 .
we start by briefly discussing the simplest case of a single spinless particle .
this limit is obtained , when a magnetic field much larger than the temperature is applied , @xmath58 .
the hilbert space of the system is two dimensional and spanned by the states @xmath19 and @xmath59 for the empty and singly - occupied dot respectively , whose occupation probabilities are arranged in the vector @xmath60 .
the decay to the stationary state is governed by matrix @xmath61 ( defined equivalently to @xmath62 but for the two - dimensional hilbert space for the problem at hand ) which contains a single relaxation rate , namely the tunnel coupling @xmath0 , as intuitively expected .
we now include the spin degree of freedom but disregard interactions .
the system is described by two independent hilbert spaces spanned by the states @xmath63 and @xmath64 with @xmath7 .
the probability vector for each spin @xmath12 can be written in terms of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the matrix @xmath61 ( for the two - dimensional hilbert space ) as @xmath65 \label{eq_psigma}\ ] ] where the right eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue zero of @xmath61 defines the occupation probabilities for the equilibrium state , @xmath66 , with the fermi function @xmath67^{-1}$ ] and the inverse temperature @xmath68 .
furthermore , @xmath69 is the vector representation of the number operator for dot electrons with spin @xmath12 , whose initial / equilibrium expectation value is obtained by multiplying it from the left into the initial / equilibrium probability vector , @xmath70 . the rate @xmath71 is obtained as the negative of the non - zero eigenvalue of @xmath61 , with the corresponding left eigenvector being @xmath72 .
the time evolution of the occupation of each spin state is governed by a single decay rate @xmath0 , @xmath73 this equation can be obtained making use of the fact that the time evolution of the expectation value of any operator , which describes an observable of the qd , is given by projecting its vector representation from the left onto eq .
( [ eq_psigma ] ) .
the time evolution of the total charge of the dot , @xmath74 , is also determined by a single relaxation rate @xmath71 .
this means that both charge and spin , which are quantities related with single - particle processes , do not evolve independently from each other and the corresponding decay is given by the same rate .
a similar non - interacting problem has been studied _ non - pertubatively _ in refs . and .    as a next step we consider the squared deviation of the charge from its equilibrium value , @xmath75 ^ 2 $ ] .
its time evolution is obtained from eq .
( [ eq_psigma ] ) as @xmath76 ^ 2\rangle(t)-[\langle\hat{n}\rangle^{\text{eq}}]^2\\ & & = \sum_{\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow}[1+\langle\hat{n}_{\sigma}\rangle^{\text{eq}}]\langle\hat{n}_{\sigma}\rangle(t)+2\langle\hat{n}_{\uparrow}\hat{n}_{\downarrow}\rangle(t)\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the last , two - particle term of this expression exhibits a decay rate given by @xmath77 .
this is in contrast to the spinless case , where such a term does not appear since double occupation is not possible .
such an additional exponential decay with the rate @xmath78 appears directly in the time evolution of the probability vector , when considering the full two - particle hilbert space spanned by the basis @xmath79 . in this basis , eq .
( [ eq_exp ] ) for the non - interacting regime can be written as :    @xmath80\\ \frac{1}{2}\left[1 - 2f(\epsilon)\right]\\ \frac{1}{2}\left[1 - 2f(\epsilon)\right]\\ f(\epsilon ) \end{array}\right ) e^{-\gamma t}\left(\langle\hat{n}\rangle^\mathrm{in}-\langle\hat{n}\rangle^\mathrm{eq}\right)\nonumber \\
+ \left(\begin{array}{c } 0\\ \frac{1}{2}\\ -\frac{1}{2}\\ 0 \end{array}\right ) e^{-\gamma t}\langle\hat{s}\rangle^\mathrm{in } + \left ( \begin{array}{c } -1\\1\\1\\-1 \end{array } \right ) e^{-2\gamma t}\left ( \langle\hat{m}\rangle^\mathrm{in}-\langle\hat{m}\rangle^\mathrm{eq } \right ) \nonumber\\\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where as before , @xmath81 defines the state at equilibrium . the decaying part of the probability vector can be divided into three contributions which appear depending on how the initial state at @xmath1 differs from the equilibrium state .
deviations of charge and spin from their equilibrium value relax with the same rate @xmath0 .
the corresponding expectation values are calculated by multiplying the probability vector eq .
( [ ptot ] ) from the left with the vector representation of the operators @xmath82 and @xmath83 which represent the charge and spin , respectively , in this two - particle basis .
the two left eigenvectors of the matrix @xmath84 with the same eigenvalue @xmath85 , are given by @xmath86 and @xmath87 .
the third contribution to the decay of the system into the equilibrium comes from the relaxation rate @xmath78 , which enters the probability vector in connection with a quantity @xmath88 , defined by the operator in vector notation @xmath89 the left eigenvector of @xmath62 with the eigenvalue @xmath90 is given by @xmath91 .
in contrast to charge and spin , the quantity represented by @xmath88 does not have a straightforward intuitive interpretation , since it depends on the quantum dot parameters at @xmath33 and on the temperature and chemical potential of the reservoir via the fermi functions .      from now on we assume a finite on - site coulomb repulsion @xmath6 on the dot .
analogously to the noninteracting case discussed before , from eq .
( [ eq_exp ] ) we can write the time - dependent probability vector in terms of contributions exhibiting different decay times    @xmath92\\ \frac{1}{2}\left[1-f(\epsilon)-f(\epsilon+u)\right]\\ \frac{1}{2}\left[1-f(\epsilon)-f(\epsilon+u)\right]\\ f(\epsilon+u ) \end{array}\right)e^{-\gamma_n t}\left(\langle\hat{n}\rangle^\mathrm{in}-\langle\hat{n}\rangle^\mathrm{eq}\right ) \nonumber \\ & & + \left(\begin{array}{c } 0\\ \frac{1}{2}\\ -\frac{1}{2}\\ 0 \end{array}\right ) e^{-\gamma_s t}\langle\hat{s}\rangle^\mathrm{in}+\left ( \begin{array}{c } -1\\1\\1\\-1 \end{array } \right ) e^{-\gamma_m t}\left ( \langle\hat{m}\rangle^\mathrm{in}-\langle\hat{m}\rangle^\mathrm{eq } \right)\ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    again , @xmath93 is the eigenvector of @xmath51 with the zero eigenvalue and represents the equilibrium state in lowest order in the tunnel coupling ( the explicit form of the four - dimensional matrix @xmath62 , together with its entire set of eigenvalues and eigenvectors , is given in the appendix ) .
in the two - particle basis , again @xmath94 represents the charge operator , and @xmath95 represents the spin operator .
the form of the operator @xmath88 is modified by the presence of finite coulomb interaction ; the explicit form will be discussed later in this sub - section ( see eq .
( [ eq_def_m ] ) below ) .
the initial and equilibrium expectation values for these operators , entering in the above eq .
( [ eq_solution ] ) , are obtained as @xmath96 , with @xmath97 .
explicit expressions for @xmath98 and @xmath99 are shown below .
the negative of the other three eigenvalues of @xmath62 directly determine the decay of charge , spin,@xcite and the quantity denoted by @xmath88 .
these decay rates read    @xmath100\label{eq_lcharge1}\\ \gamma_s&=&\gamma\left[1-f(\epsilon)+f(\epsilon+u)\right]\label{eq_lspin1}\\ \gamma_m&=&2\gamma . \label{eq_lmal1}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    notice that due to interaction , the relaxation rates for charge and spin ( @xmath101 and @xmath102 respectively ) differ from each other and depend on the level position @xmath5 , in contrast to the non - interacting case .
their dependence on the level position is shown in fig .
[ fig_decay ] . in the region for @xmath103 , @xmath101 is enhanced as the charge decays into the twofold degenerate state of single - occupation , whereas the spin relaxation in first order in @xmath0 is suppressed , since spin - flip processes are not possible .
however , the third decay rate , @xmath104 , remains fully energy independent as in the case with @xmath105 .
( blue , dashed line ) , @xmath101 ( red , dash - dotted line ) and @xmath102 ( green , solid line ) in units of @xmath0 as a function of the dot level position @xmath5 .
the temperature is @xmath106 and the interaction energy is @xmath107 . ]
the right eigenvectors occurring in eq .
( [ eq_solution ] ) each represent a change to the steady state density matrix that decays exponentially with rate @xmath108 ( @xmath109 ) .
therefore , a system being brought out of equilibrium by a symmetric deviation between @xmath110 and @xmath111 only , is decaying with a rate @xmath102 .
a deviation from equilibrium in which the occupation of the even sector , @xmath112 is symmetrically shifted from the odd sector , @xmath113 , is governed solely by the relaxation rate @xmath104 .
this right eigenvector is found to play an important role also in the low - temperature renormalization of this model .
@xcite an energy - dependent change in the occupation probabilities as prescribed by the second vector in eq .
( [ eq_solution ] ) yields a decay of the total charge of the system with the rate @xmath101 .
the conditions under which specific deviations from the equilibrium state should be performed in order to obtain a specific decay rate , are discussed in the following section .
the attribution of these relaxation rates to the charge , spin , and @xmath88 arises from the independent decay of these quantities , due to the explicit form of the _ left _ eigenvectors of @xmath62 .
the spin operator coincides with the left eigenvector associated to the eigenvalue @xmath114 and since it has a vanishing equilibrium value , the time evolution of its expectation value is given by @xmath115    equivalently , the left eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue @xmath116 , is @xmath117 .
it contains the charge operator @xmath118 and its equilibrium value @xmath119 $ ] .
hence , for the time evolution of the charge we find @xmath120     as a function of the dot level position @xmath5 .
the other parameters are : @xmath106 and @xmath107 . ]    the quantity decaying with the rate @xmath104 alone is related to the left eigenvector @xmath91 , where the operator @xmath88 is given by @xmath121 its expectation value follows a time evolution equivalent to the one for the charge in eq .
( [ eq_nrelax ] ) : @xmath122 .
its equilibrium value @xmath123 $ ] , plotted in fig .
[ fig_meh ] , is - in contrast to spin and charge - not sensitive to the regime of single occupation on the quantum dot .
instead , it exhibits a feature close to the electron - hole symmetric point of the anderson model , indicating that @xmath88 represents a quantity which is affected by two - particle effects and it decays with a rate that is not modified by the coulomb interaction @xmath6 . already for the noninteracting case , we found that the rate @xmath78 appears as a consequence of introducing two particles in the system , and we considered the deviations from equilibrium charge as a quantity involving two - particle processes leading to such a decay rate .
also in the case for finite coulomb interaction , the time - dependent mean squared deviations @xmath124
^ 2\rangle(t)$ ] are suitable to reveal the relaxation rate @xmath125 .
their time evolution is obtained by means of eq .
( [ eq_solution ] ) and reads @xmath126 ^ 2\rangle(t ) - [ \langle \hat{n}\rangle^\mathrm{eq}]^2 & = & c\cdot\langle \hat{n}\rangle(t)-2\cdot\langle \hat{m}\rangle(t)\nonumber\\   \label{eq_variance}\end{aligned}\ ] ]     ( red , solid line ) and the coefficient @xmath127 ( blue , dashed line ) as a function of the dot level position @xmath5 .
the other parameters are : @xmath106 and @xmath107 . ]    where in front of the time - dependent charge @xmath128 the following coefficient appears : @xmath129 with @xmath130    the quantity @xmath131/\left[1+f(\epsilon)-f(\epsilon+u)\right]$ ] is the difference between the probability of doubly occupied and empty dot in equilibrium , which can also be related with the occupation of electrons and holes , @xmath132 . the behavior of @xmath133 is shown in fig .  [ fig_coeff ] . for @xmath134 ,
when the dot is doubly occupied , @xmath135 ; for @xmath103 , when one electron and one hole are present in the system ( singly occupied dot ) , @xmath136 ; and for @xmath137 , when the system is completely `` filled with holes '' ( empty dot ) , @xmath138 .
the quantity @xmath127 is also shown in fig .  [ fig_coeff ] ( blue dashed line ) , exhibiting a sign change around @xmath139 , the point at which the anderson model is electron - hole symmetric . by replacing @xmath140 , we go from the electron - like to the hole - like behavior , finding an inversion in the sign of @xmath127 , @xmath141 .
the function @xmath127 therefore indicates whether the spectrum of the quantum dot is electron - like or hole - like .
the mean squared deviations of the charge from its value at equilibrium is an example for a physical quantities showing a decay with @xmath104 ; it also includes the charge relaxation rate @xmath101 , which is found independently from the time evolution of the charge .
equivalently also the time - resolved charge variance , @xmath142 ^ 2\rangle(t)$ ] , or the time - resolved spin variance,@xcite @xmath143 , contain a contribution decaying with @xmath104 .
we now consider in detail which external perturbations are necessary in order to induce a decay of the _ full _ occupation probability vector with one certain relaxation rate only , in a controlled way .
furthermore , we address the conditions under which a single decay rate can be extracted more easily from the occupation of a single state by a measurement with a nearby quantum point contact ( qpc ) .
we first address the case of an infinitesimal perturbation ( linear response ) .
a small variation of the gate potential leads to a decay of the charge governed by the charge relaxation rate @xmath101 .
similarly , the infinitesimal variation of the zeeman splitting in the dot yields a decay with the spin relaxation rate @xmath102 . in order to obtain a decay of the state with the rate @xmath104 only , it is not sufficient to modulate the gate voltage , also the two - particle term in the hamiltonian , @xmath144 , needs to be varied .
the on - site repulsion @xmath6 could be changed , for example , by tuning the carrier density in a nearby two - dimensional electron gas , thereby controlling the screening of the electron - electron interaction in the dot . from eq .
( [ eq_solution ] ) we know that a dynamics given only by @xmath104 is obtained if the occupation of the even states are changed in the same direction , opposite to that of the single occupied states ; this condition is fulfilled if infinitesimal variations of the gate , @xmath145 , and of the interaction , @xmath146 , obey the relation : @xmath147)}{1+\exp(\beta\epsilon)}d\epsilon . \label{dvarm}\ ] ] this expression is represented in terms of field lines in fig .  [ fig_field ] . an infinitesimal change tangential to the field line passing through the point corresponding to the initial values of @xmath5 and @xmath6 leads to a pure decay with @xmath104 .
for parameter variations that are not infinitesimal ( beyond linear response ) , a change only of the gate voltage results in a decay of the state with both rates @xmath101 and @xmath104 . from eq .
( [ eq_solution ] ) we find that a finite variation of the energy level and the interaction from an initial condition @xmath148 to @xmath149 resulting in a relaxation containing solely @xmath101 , satisfies the equation @xmath150 . \label{varn}\ ] ] a relaxation given _ only _ by the rate @xmath104 is found when the relation : @xmath151 \label{varm}\ ] ] is fulfilled . for different values of @xmath152 and @xmath153 , eq .
( [ varm ] ) produces again the field lines shown in fig .
[ fig_field ] . therefore ,
finite variations of the parameters between two points lying on _ the same _ field line yield a dynamics for the entire occupation probabilities vector @xmath154 governed only by @xmath104 . obviously , a generic variation in both @xmath5 and @xmath6 which does not fulfill the conditions specified by eqs .
( [ varn ] ) or ( [ varm ] ) exhibits a dynamics of the probabilities with two time scales : @xmath101 and @xmath104 .    in fig .
[ fig_field ] it is observed that in the region @xmath155 the field lines are approximately horizontal , i.e , only the interaction @xmath6 needs to be varied while keeping the level position constant in order to see a dynamics of the probability governed by @xmath104 only .
in fact , in this regime the qd is predominantly empty and variations of the interaction strength @xmath6 do not affect the occupation of the dot .
this is the reason why this variation yields a dynamics in which the rate @xmath101 does not contribute . on the other hand , in the region for @xmath156 in order to avoid that the number of particles on the dot changes , which would lead to a relaxation with rate @xmath101 , a variation in @xmath6 needs to be accompanied by an opposite variation in @xmath5 , that is @xmath157 .
the crossover between the two regimes appears around the symmetry point of the anderson model , @xmath139 .
importantly , it is also possible to read out either the rate @xmath101 or the rate @xmath104 by varying the gate voltage only ( and , thus , not fulfilling eqs .
( [ dvarm ] ) and ( [ varm ] ) ) , which is easier to realize in an experiment . this can be done by measuring an observable that is sensitive to only one occupation probability , for instance the probability of the quantum dot being empty .
such a time - resolved read - out of the probability can be achieved by considering a qpc located nearby the system and tuned such that it conducts only if the qd is empty .
@xcite in the simplest model of the qpc , which assumes a very fast response , the operator corresponding to the current in the qpc is given by @xmath158 where @xmath159 is a constant current , given by the characteristics of the qpc potential .
the expectation value of the qpc current is simply @xmath160 . in this way
, the qpc effectively measures the dynamics of the occupation probability @xmath161 . according to eq .
( [ eq_solution ] ) , a modulation of the gate in which the initial value @xmath162 equals the equilibrium value @xmath99 leads to a pure decay with @xmath101 . instead , for a decay given by @xmath104 either the factor @xmath163 or the factor @xmath164/\left[1-f(\epsilon)+f(\epsilon+u)\right]$ ] in eq .
( [ eq_solution ] ) has to vanish .    .
the on - site coulomb repulsion @xmath6 is constant and takes the value @xmath165 .
dashed blue line : @xmath5 changes from @xmath166 to @xmath167 , its slope yields the relaxation rate @xmath104 .
red dot - dashed line : in this case @xmath168 to @xmath169 , and the slope leads to @xmath101 . the black line is obtained if @xmath5 changes from @xmath170 to @xmath169 , in which both rates @xmath104 and @xmath101 are present . in all cases
we have subtracted the corresponding value for the current in the long - time limit . ]
results for the qpc current for different variations of the level position @xmath5 while @xmath6 is kept constant , are shown in the logarithmic plot in fig .
[ lines ] .
for clarity , we also subtracted the corresponding current in the long time limit , @xmath171 .
in particular , for a fixed value of @xmath6 equal to @xmath172 , we find that if the level position is changed from @xmath166 to @xmath167 , the time evolution of @xmath161 is governed entirely by the rate @xmath104 , giving rise to the straight , blue - dashed line in fig .
[ lines ] .
its slope is given by @xmath104 , making it possible to extract this relaxation rate from measurements of the current in the qpc .
however we can obtain a dynamics of @xmath161 given mainly by the rate @xmath101 by performing a variation in @xmath5 from @xmath166 to @xmath169 which results in the red dot - dashed straight line in fig .
[ lines ] ; again , the slope yields the corresponding relaxation rate which takes the value @xmath173 . finally , we show an example in which variations from @xmath170 to @xmath169 ( solid black line ) produce a dynamics of @xmath161 which includes two exponential decays with rates @xmath104 and @xmath101 . as a result ,
the curve exhibits a change in the slope , showing that a single rate will not be obtained by arbitrary variations of the parameters .      in the previous sections we investigated the relaxation rates in first order in the tunnel coupling strength @xmath0 .
however , corrections due to higher order tunneling processes appear when the tunnel coupling gets stronger . besides quantitative corrections , this reveals an interesting new aspect . in second order in the tunnel coupling ,
the matrix @xmath174 included in the exponential decay takes the form @xmath175 .
the second - order corrections to the relaxation rates for charge and spin are given by:@xcite @xmath176w_{\mathrm{d}0 }                    }                     { 1-f(\epsilon)+f(\epsilon+u ) } \label{eq_charge_corr}\\ \gamma_\mathrm{s}^{(2 ) } & = & \sigma(\epsilon,\gamma , u ) \frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\gamma_\mathrm{s}+\sigma_\gamma(\epsilon,\gamma , u)\gamma_\mathrm{s}+2w_\mathrm{sf}\ .
\label{eq_spin_corr}\end{aligned}\ ] ] these corrections contain renormalization terms as well as real cotunneling contributions .
on one hand , the renormalization terms contain an effect due to the level renormalization @xmath177 , with @xmath178 $ ] , @xmath179 and @xmath180 is the digamma function . on the other hand , the renormalization of the tunnel coupling appears , @xmath181 $ ] , with @xmath182 $ ] and where @xmath127 was defined in eq .
( [ eq_coeff ] ) .
real cotunneling contributions are manifest in terms of spin flips , @xmath183 , and coherent transitions changing the particle number on the dot by @xmath184 , @xmath185 and @xmath186 .
these cotunneling terms read @xmath187\\ w_{\mathrm{d}0 } & = & - \frac{2 \gamma } { e^{\beta(2\epsilon+u)}-1 }   \left[\gamma\phi'(\epsilon)+\gamma\phi'(\epsilon+u)-\frac{2}{u}\sigma(\epsilon , u)\right],\nonumber\\\end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath188 w_{\mathrm{d}0}$ ] .
the way in which the cotunneling contributions enter in the respective charge and spin relaxation rates is related to the deviation of the state of the qd from equilibrium , given by eq .
( [ eq_solution ] ) in first order in @xmath0 . as an example we discuss the correction to the charge decay rate , second line of eq .
( [ eq_charge_corr ] ) . there
the factor @xmath184 appears due to the change in the charge by @xmath189 in a process bringing the dot from zero to double occupation and vice versa .
@xcite the fraction with which the transition from zero to double occupation , @xmath186 , enters the correction to the charge relaxation rate , @xmath190 , is given by the deviation from equilibrium of @xmath57 in the direction of @xmath161 , of the contribution which actually decays with @xmath101 only .
this is the first component of the second vector in eq .
( [ eq_solution ] ) .
equivalently , the transition from double to zero occupation , @xmath185 , enters with the fraction given by the fourth component of the same vector , namely by the deviation from equilibrium of @xmath57 in the direction of @xmath191 .
strikingly , in contrast to the charge and spin relaxation rates , @xmath104 does not get renormalized at all by second order tunneling processes : @xmath192 the reason for this is that the contribution due to @xmath0 renormalization and those due to coherent processes between empty and doubly occupied dot , cancel each other .
the lack of second order corrections , confirms that this relaxation rate is related to a quantity which is not sensitive to the coulomb interaction .
the fact that corrections are missing , is also found using a renormalization - group approach .
another important aspect of this missing second - order correction is that it is due to an exact cancelation of the contribution due to virtual second order processes , namely the @xmath0-renormalization , with real cotunneling contributions .
this is in contrast to , e.g. the conductance , where only the real cotunneling processes contribute far from resonances , while renormalization terms are limited to the resonant regions .      until now , we considered the quantum dot to be coupled to a normal conducting lead .
however , the vicinity of a superconducting or a ferromagnetic reservoir induces correlations between electrons and holes or between charge and spin , respectively . in the following we study , in first order in the tunnel coupling strength @xmath0 , the influence of induced correlations on the relaxation rates of the dot .
the charge response of a noninteracting mesoscopic scattering region coupled to both normal and superconducting leads has been studied in refs .  .
in the previous sections we have seen that the rate @xmath104 , which together with the time decay of charge and spin determines the relaxation of the qd to the equilibrium state , is independent of the level position and the coulomb interaction and that it enters in the time evolution of quantities sensitive to two - particle effects . it is therefore expected that the rate @xmath104 will directly influence the relaxation of the charge towards the equilibrium in a setup that naturally mixes the empty and doubly occupied states of the dot .
this situation is obtained if the qd is not only coupled to a normal lead ( with tunnel coupling strength @xmath0 ) but also to an _ additional _ superconducting contact ( with tunnel coupling strength @xmath193 ) , as shown in fig .
[ fig_scheme ] ( b ) .
we consider only the case when the superconductor is kept at the same chemical potential as the normal lead and we set both chemical potentials to zero .
the only purpose of the extra lead is here to induce superconducting correlations on the dot via the proximity effect .
to the original hamiltonian , @xmath194 , we now add the hamiltonian for the superconducting contact and its tunnel coupling to the qd , @xmath195 where @xmath196 is the the annihilation ( creation ) operator of electrons in the lead . in the limit of a large superconducting gap @xmath197
the effect of the additional contact can be cast in an effective hamiltonian of the dot which includes a coupling between electrons and holes in the qd , @xmath198 .
the eigenstates of the proximized dot are the states of single occupation @xmath20 and other two states which are superpositions of the empty and double occupied states of the dot ( due to andreev reflection ) : @xmath199 with energies given by @xmath200 , where the level detuning between @xmath19 and @xmath21 is @xmath201 and @xmath202 is the energy splitting between the @xmath203 and @xmath204 states.@xcite in the new basis @xmath205 , the vector representing the charge operator is expressed as @xmath206 and we expect that the effect of the mixing of electrons and holes will be visible in its time evolution . in first order in the tunnel - coupling strength to the normal reservoir @xmath0 and assuming @xmath207 , we find the relaxation rates @xmath208\\ \gamma_{s , s}&= & \gamma\left[1-f(\epsilon - e_-)+f(e_+-\epsilon)\right]\\ \gamma_{s,2}&=&2\gamma.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    remarkably the eigenvalue @xmath209 remains unaffected , i.e. @xmath210 is not modified by the presence of the additional superconducting lead .
the spin on the dot , which is determined by the occupation probabilities of singly occupied states , still decays with a single relaxation rate given by @xmath211 , i.e. @xmath212 is an eigenvector of the kernel @xmath62 ( in the proximized basis ) .
in contrast , the decay of the charge to its equilibrium value is given by @xmath213                    \left(e^{-\gamma_{s,2 } t}+e^{-\gamma_{s,1}t }
\right )                          + \langle \hat{n}\rangle^{\mathrm{eq}}\nonumber\\ & & + a_{sc }        \frac{1}{2}\left[\langle x\rangle^{\mathrm{in}}-\langle x\rangle^{\mathrm{eq}}\right ]        \left(e^{-\gamma_{s,2 } t}-e^{-\gamma_{s,1}t}\right ) \nonumber \\ & & + \frac{1}{2}\left[\langle y\rangle^{\mathrm{in}}-\langle y\rangle^{\mathrm{eq}}\right ]        \left(e^{-\gamma_{s,2 } t}-e^{-\gamma_{s,1}t}\right ) \label{eq_nsct}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath214 and where we defined the difference in the occupation of the @xmath215 states , @xmath216 and the quantity @xmath217 , with @xmath218 .
the charge evolves with two different time scales , @xmath219 and @xmath220 , instead of only one as in the normal case .
this is a direct consequence of the mixing of the states @xmath19 and @xmath21 induced by the superconducting contact .
this effect opens the possibility to extract this rate by measuring the time evolution of the charge in the proximized dot .      even though the presence of a superconducting lead couples electrons and holes , the relaxation rate @xmath104 has not been modified .
since we associate this rate with processes involving two particles each with spin @xmath12 , it is expected that if the spin symmetry is broken by introducing a ferromagnetic contact , the rate @xmath104 will now be the sum of the tunneling rates for spin up and spin down electrons . in order to verify this
, we consider the hamiltonian used for the normal case and assume a spin - dependent density of states in the only reservoir attached to the quantum dot , see fig .
[ fig_scheme ] ( c ) .
this leads to spin - dependent tunnel couplings , @xmath221 and @xmath222 , which are included in the corresponding transition matrix @xmath62 .
diagonalization of @xmath62 yields the three relaxation rates : @xmath223 ^ 2 } \\
\gamma_{f,2 } & = & \gamma-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\left(\delta\gamma\right)^2 + 4\gamma_\uparrow\gamma_\downarrow\left[f(\epsilon)-f(\epsilon+u)\right]^2 } \\
\gamma_{f , m}&= & 2 \gamma\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath224 and @xmath225 .    as in the normal case
, there is an eigenvalue which does not depend on the level position nor on the interaction but on the sum of the different tunneling rates : @xmath226 .
the appearance of such a combination of the spin - dependent tunneling strengths in the relaxation rate , confirms the statement that two - particle processes involving electrons with both spin polarizations are at the basis of the decay rate @xmath104 .    due to the ferromagnetic lead ,
the dynamics of spin and charge are now mixed .
the corresponding time evolution in first order in the tunnel coupling takes the form : @xmath227(e^{-\gamma_{f,1}t}-e^{-\gamma_{f,2}t } ) \nonumber \\
\langle\hat{n}\rangle_f(t ) & = & \frac{1}{2}\left[\langle \hat{n}\rangle^{\mathrm{in}}-\langle \hat{n}\rangle^{\mathrm{eq}}\right](e^{-\gamma_{f,1}t}+e^{-\gamma_{f,2}t } ) + \langle \hat{n}\rangle^{\mathrm{eq}}\nonumber \\ & & + a_c\left[\langle \hat{n}\rangle^{\mathrm{in}}-\langle \hat{n}\rangle^{\mathrm{eq}}\right](e^{-\gamma_{f,1}t}-e^{-\gamma_{f,2}t})\nonumber \\ & & + b_c\langle \hat{s}\rangle^{\mathrm{in}}(e^{-\gamma_{f,1}t}-e^{-\gamma_{f,2}t})\label{eq_decay_ferro}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we introduced the abbreviations : @xmath228}{2\sqrt{\delta\gamma^2 + 4\gamma_\uparrow\gamma_\downarrow\left[f(\epsilon)-f(\epsilon+u)\right]^2 } } \nonumber \\ b_s & = & \frac{\delta\gamma[1+f(\epsilon)-f(\epsilon+u)]}{2\sqrt{\delta\gamma^2 + 4\gamma_\uparrow\gamma_\downarrow\left[f(\epsilon)-f(\epsilon+u)\right]^2 } } \nonumber \\ a_c & = & a_s\nonumber \\ b_c & = & \frac{\delta\gamma[1-f(\epsilon)+f(\epsilon+u)]}{2\sqrt{\delta\gamma^2 + 4\gamma_\uparrow\gamma_\downarrow\left[f(\epsilon)-f(\epsilon+u)\right]^2}}. \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] the last term in eq .
( [ spin_ferro ] ) shows that at finite time @xmath32 the initial charge influences the time evolution of the spin ; similarly , the initial spin enters explicitly in the dynamics of the charge , eq .
( [ eq_decay_ferro ] ) .
these terms persist in the non - interacting limit , revealing that the coupled evolution of charge and spin including two relaxation rates ( which for the non - interacting case take the form @xmath229 and @xmath230 ) is a direct consequence of the presence of the ferromagnetic contact .
in contrast , the factor @xmath231 vanishes for @xmath105 implying that it stems from the combined effect of the coulomb interaction and the breaking of the spin symmetry . as expected the independent evolution of charge and spin
is recovered in the limit @xmath232 .
the mixing of the dynamics of both , charge and spin , induced here by a ferromagnetic lead was found in ref .
for the case of lifted spin - degeneracy in the dot due to a finite zeeman splitting . note that for the hybrid as well as for the normal system , the sum of the energy - dependent relaxation rates equals @xmath78 , as long as the tunnel coupling @xmath0 is treated in first order , only .
we have studied the different time scales present in the evolution of the reduced density matrix of a single - level qd with coulomb interaction and tunnel coupled to a single reservoir , after being brought out of equilibrium . besides the relaxation rates for charge and spin
, we find an additional rate @xmath125 , which is independent of the energy level of the dot as well as of the interaction strength .
this relaxation is related to the presence of two particles in the dot and is found to be not sensitive to the coulomb interaction .
the time evolution of the square deviations of the charge from its equilibrium value is proposed as a physical quantity related with processes involving two - particles leading to the rate @xmath78 . in order to further elucidate the properties of this decay
, we analyzed the response of the system to specific variations of both , the interaction strength @xmath6 and the level position @xmath5 , finding that @xmath104 can be extracted from time - resolved measurements of the current passing through a nearby quantum point contact .
additionally , we analyzed two other setups : a dot proximized by a superconductor and coupled to a normal reservoir , and a dot coupled to a ferromagnetic lead .
in the hybrid normal - superconducting systems , we found that the time - resolved read - out of the charge represents another possibility to get access to the rate @xmath104 .
we thank michael moskalets , roman riwar and maarten wegewijs for fruitful discussion .
financial support by the ministry of innovation , nrw , the dfg via spp 1285 and ko 1987/5 , the european community s seventh framework programme under grant agreement no .
238345 ( geomdiss ) , as well as the swiss national science foundation , the swiss centers of excellence manep and qsit and the european marie curie itn , nanoctm is acknowledged .
the transition matrix for the normal case in the eigenbasis of the isolated qd @xmath233 , in first order in the tunneling strength @xmath0 , is calculated by means of fermi s golden rule and is given by :    @xmath234 & 0 & 1-f(\epsilon+u))\\ f(\epsilon ) & 0 & -\left[1-f(\epsilon)+f(\epsilon+u)\right ] & 1-f(\epsilon+u))\\ 0 & f(\epsilon+u ) & f(\epsilon+u ) & -2\left[1-f(\epsilon+u)\right ] \end{array } \right)\end{aligned}\ ] ]      as @xmath62 is non - hermitian it has different right and left eigenvectors , @xmath56 and @xmath55 . for a system with a well - defined steady state ( as the one we are considering here ) there must be at least a zero eigenvalue , @xmath238 .
@xcite the other eigenvalues are found to be the negative of @xmath100 \nonumber \\
\gamma_s&=&\gamma\left[1-f(\epsilon)+f(\epsilon+u)\right ] \\
\nonumber \label{evalues}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the right eigenvector corresponding with the zero eigenvalue , @xmath239 , determines the stationary density matrix ( which we also label as @xmath81 ) , whereas each one of the rest of the right eigenvectors represents a deviation out of the equilibrium density matrix which decays exponentially with a rate given by the negative of the corresponding eigenvalue :    @xmath240[1-f(\epsilon+u)]\\ f(\epsilon)[1-f(\epsilon+u)]\\ f(\epsilon)[1-f(\epsilon+u)]\\ f(\epsilon)f(\epsilon+u)\\ \end{array}\right ) , \
\mathbf{r}_s=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1 \\-1 \\
0\end{array}\right),\\ \mathbf{r}_n    = \frac{1}{1-f(\epsilon)+f(\epsilon+u)}\left(\begin{array}{c } -[1-f(\epsilon)]\\ \frac{1}{2}\left[1-f(\epsilon)-f(\epsilon+u)\right]\\ \frac{1}{2}\left[1-f(\epsilon)-f(\epsilon+u)\right]\\ f(\epsilon+u ) \end{array}\right ) , \ \mathbf{r}_m
= \left(\begin{array}{c } -1\\1\\1\\-1\end{array}\right)\ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]              these left eigenvectors contain the operators for spin , charge and @xmath88 in vector representation , which can be understood in the following manner .
while in general the expectation value of an operator @xmath247 is found from @xmath248 , with the full density matrix @xmath249 , this can be considerably simplified in the situation considered here , where only diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix of the quantum dot , collected in the vector @xmath154 , play a role .
the expectation value of a quantum dot operator is then obtained by multiplying its vector representation from the left hand side onto the vector @xmath154 . to show an example the expectation value of the spin on the dot
is obtained by multiplying @xmath154 from left by the vector @xmath250 , yielding @xmath251 .
similarly , all other operators for quantum dot observables can be expressed in such a vector representation .