an important drawback of the conventional single - electron transistor @xcite ( set ) is its relatively large output resistance which should be much larger than the quantum resistance @xmath1 .
this limits the operation frequency of the prospective integrated single - electron circuits @xcite and imposes a severe frequency limitation for individual sets used nowadays as electrometers .
estimating the total capacitance of a wire delivering set signal from a cryostat to outside electronics as 1 nf , we get the time constant on the order of @xmath2 ; therefore the operating frequency is limited to few khz , which is a typical value achievable by conventional set setups.@xcite while the operating frequency can be significantly increased by placing a preamplifier in a close vicinity of the set , @xcite the preferred at present solution of the problem is the use of the radio - frequency set @xcite ( rf - set ) which in many instances has already replaced the traditional set setup .
the principle of the rf - set operation is somewhat similar to the operation of the radio - frequency superconducting quantum interference device @xcite ( rf - squid ) and is based on the microwave reflection from a tank ( lc ) circuit containing the set ( fig .
[ fig1 ] ) ; another possibility is to use the transmitted wave . @xcite the measured set input signal changes effective set resistance and affects the intensity and the phase of the reflected ( or transmitted ) wave that is later sensed by either homodyne detection or simple rectification ( to separate incoming and reflected waves a directional coupler can be used ) .
the high operation frequency of the rf - set is due to the signal propagation by the microwave , so that the set does not need to charge the whole output wire , while the tank circuit tuned in resonance works as an impedance transformer providing a better match between the effective set differential resistance @xmath3 ( @xmath4 ) and the microwave cable wave impedance @xmath5 ( typically @xmath6 ) .    for a good matching
the `` unloaded '' quality factor @xmath7 of the tank circuit consisting of inductance @xmath8 and capacitance @xmath9 should be comparable to @xmath10 .
while a much lower value , @xmath11 , was used in the first experiment , @xcite the values close to the matching condition ( sometimes even higher ) are typically used at present .
increase of the @xmath0-factor obviously decreases the rf - set bandwidth limited by @xmath12 where @xmath13 is the `` carrier '' microwave frequency and @xmath14 is the `` loaded '' @xmath0-factor , which also takes into account the effect of the set ( see below ) .
the straightforward design @xcite shown in fig .
[ fig1 ] can be somewhat modified to reduce the bandwidth further for a dense multiplexing;@xcite however , in this paper we will consider only the original design .
the rf - set bandwidth as wide as 100 mhz has been demonstrated @xcite using a relatively high carrier frequency @xmath15 and relatively low @xmath0-factor @xmath11 .
however , to improve experimental rf - set sensitivity , it happens to be advantageous to reduce the carrier frequency by few times ( to reduce the noise contribution from the amplifier ) and also increase @xmath0 ( closer to the impedance matching regime ) , so that a practical bandwidth at present is about 10 mhz ( for example , the bandwidth of 7 mhz for the carrier frequency of 332 mhz has been reported in ref .
@xcite ) .
the high operation frequency of the rf - set makes it easily possible to avoid the 1/@xmath16 noise limitation of the set sensitivity which is typically dominant at frequencies @xmath17 , and so work in the region of the shot noise limited sensitivity.@xcite though experimentally the contribution from the amplifier noise is still comparable or larger than the set noise , a relatively rapid improvement of the rf - set charge sensitivity from @xmath18 at 1.1 mhz in the first experiment @xcite to the value @xmath19 ( 4.8 @xmath20 in energy units ) at 2 mhz reported in ref .
@xcite assures that the pure shot noise limit will be achieved pretty soon .
( the above numbers can be compared with the sensitivity @xmath21 at 4.4 khz of a purely conventional set reported in ref .
@xcite , the value @xmath22 at 10 hz for the `` stacked '' set , @xcite and the sensitivity @xmath23 at 45 hz for the set made of carbon nanotubes .
@xcite )    one of important potential applications of the rf - set is for the readout of the charge qubits in a solid - state quantum computer .
@xcite the possibility of a single - shot qubit measurement requires fast enough distinguishing between two charge states to avoid significant qubit evolution during measurement .
this requires sufficiently wide rf - set bandwidth and most importantly good enough charge sensitivity .
the estimates @xcite show that the single - shot qubit measurement is almost within the reach of present - day rf - set performance ; however , reliable measurement still requires significant improvement in sensitivity .
this makes very important the question of ultimate ( theoretical ) rf - set sensitivity .
the ultimate rf - set sensitivity is also a crucial parameter for monitoring quantum dynamics of nanomechanical resonators @xcite and for a variety of rf - set applications as an electrometer in classical single - electron devices .    in spite of significant experimental activity on rf - sets , we are aware of only few theoretical papers on the rf - sets . the basic theory of the shot noise limited charge sensitivity of the rf - set has been developed in ref .
a similar theory has been applied to the sensitivity analysis for the rf - set - based micromechanical displacement detector . @xcite
some theoretical analysis of the transmission - type rf - set can be found in ref .
the theory of a somewhat related device , radio - frequency bloch - transistor , has been developed in ref .  @xcite . in our opinion
, the rf - set definitely requires further theoretical attention , since many questions about rf - set performance has not yet been answered theoretically .    in this paper
we extend the theory of ref .
@xcite to the case of arbitrary @xmath0-factor of the tank circuit , removing the assumption ( strongly violated in the present - day experiments ) of @xmath0 being much smaller than the impedance matching value .
we calculate the response and sensitivity of the normal - metal rf - set and optimize these magnitudes numerically over the rf wave amplitude and the set background charge . then we study the dependence of the optimized rf - set response and sensitivity on the tank @xmath0-factor , operation temperature , set resistance , carrier frequency , and set asymmetry due to asymmetric biasing .
some results of this paper have been presented earlier in a short form .
the schematic of the rf - set used in our analysis is shown in fig .
the set consists of two tunnel junctions with capacitances @xmath24 and @xmath25 and resistances @xmath26 and @xmath27 .
the set is coupled via gate capacitance @xmath28 to the measured charge source ( for example , a single - electron box or a similar structure ) , which is characterized by the charge @xmath29 and capacitances @xmath30 and @xmath31 to the set leads ( the total source capacitance is @xmath32 ) .
assuming constant @xmath29 ( neglecting backaction from the set ) , it is easy to show that the set coupled to the charge source is equivalent to the simple double - junction set structure with parameters @xmath33 where @xmath34 and @xmath35 are effective junction capacitances ( the total set island capacitance is @xmath36 ) , and the total induced charge of the set island @xmath37 is the sum of the initial background charge @xmath38 and the contribution from the measured charge source . for numerical results we have used the `` orthodox '' model @xcite for a normal - metal set ( see appendix ) .
= 3.3 in      the current @xmath39 through the set affects the quality factor of the tank circuit consisting of inductance @xmath8 and capacitance @xmath9 , while the contribution to the tank circuit capacitance is neglected , assuming @xmath40 $ ] .
( this condition is usually well satisfied experimentally ; it also allows us to neglect the effect of single electron jumps on the tank circuit oscillations . ) the quality factor of the tank circuit is also affected by the wave impedance @xmath5 of the cable . for a simple linear analysis
let us substitute the set by an effective differential resistance @xmath3 .
then , assuming the case of weak damping , we can simply add the contributions from @xmath5 and @xmath3 , so that the total ( `` loaded '' ) quality factor of the tank circuit is @xmath41 where the `` unloaded '' quality factor @xmath0 corresponds to absence of the set , @xmath42 , while @xmath43 corresponds to the damping by the set only , @xmath44 .
notice that @xmath0 is fixed by the rf - set design , while @xmath43 and therefore @xmath14 depend on the operating conditions ; so even though @xmath14 is a more physically meaningful quantity than @xmath0 , in this paper we consider unloaded @xmath0 as an independent parameter and call it as @xmath0-factor .    for the incoming voltage wave @xmath45
, the reflected wave @xmath46 is determined by the complex reflection coefficient @xmath47 : @xmath48 since the measured charge signal changes the set resistance @xmath3 , the rf - set response is proportional to @xmath49 . using the first order approximation close to the resonant frequency @xmath50 of the tank circuit : @xmath51 ( in particular , this approximation neglects the shift of the resonant frequency , which is a second - order effect ) it is easy to get @xmath52 for fixed values of @xmath5 and @xmath3 , this expression increases with @xmath0 for small @xmath0 , thus showing the need of @xmath0-factor increase to achieve a better rf - set response . the maximum is reached at @xmath53 which is the case of practically matched impedances , @xmath54 , at frequencies close to resonance , and also corresponds to the condition @xmath55 .
notice that in this case the reflection practically vanishes , @xmath56 .
actually , eq .  ( [ dadr ] ) is not really relevant , because the rf amplitude @xmath57 should depend on @xmath0 in order to maintain approximately constant amplitude @xmath58 of the set bias voltage oscillations , which is determined by the voltage scale of the coulomb blockade .
taking into account the relation @xmath59 we obtain @xmath60 which is somewhat similar to eq .
( [ dadr ] ) and also reaches maximum at @xmath61 . notice that this condition optimizes only the rf - set response , while the shot - noise - limited sensitivity can ( and as will be seen later does ) have completely different dependence on @xmath0 .
the linear analysis discussed above can be used only as an estimate because of the significant nonlinearity of the set current - voltage ( @xmath62 ) dependence . for a more exact analysis
@xcite we use the kirchhoff s rules taking into account the current @xmath39 through the set .
let us separate the voltage @xmath63 at the end of the rf cable into the dc component @xmath64 ( which can be supplied via the bias - tee @xcite ) and rf component @xmath65 , where @xmath66 is the incoming wave ( from now on we do not use complex representation ) and @xmath67 is the outgoing reflected wave .
the differential equation for the rf component @xmath68 is @xmath69 ,          \label{difeq}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath70 is the current through the set averaged over time much longer than @xmath71 , and the time dependence of the set current @xmath39 can be found self - consistently from the time dependence of its bias voltage @xmath72\ , q/\omega_0 .
\label{vb}\ ] ] in this paper we assume that the rf frequency is small compared to the frequency of electron tunneling through the set , @xmath73 , so that the set shot noise is a small contribution compared to the deterministic part of the set current @xmath39 , which is calculated using dc @xmath62 curve and @xmath74 ( actually , it is still ok if this condition is not satisfied during some fraction of the period due to coulomb blockade , since the small current does not affect the oscillations significantly ) .    in a steady state ( assuming that the induced set charge @xmath37 does not change with time ) the reflected wave can only contain the incoming frequency @xmath75 and its overtones : @xmath76 .
\label{vout}\ ] ] we separate the term @xmath77 mainly to follow the notations of ref .
@xcite , even though it really makes sense only for a low-@xmath0 case at @xmath78 , when all @xmath79 and @xmath80 are small .
using the substitution @xmath81 $ ] in eq .
( [ difeq ] ) , we find the coefficients @xmath79 and @xmath80 as @xmath82 where @xmath83 ( averaging is over the oscillation period ) , @xmath84 is the normalized frequency , @xmath85 is the kronecker symbol , and the current @xmath39 is calculated self - consistently using the set bias voltage @xmath86 .
\label{vbiter}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    because of the resonant behavior of the tank circuit at @xmath87 , the contribution of overtones ( @xmath88 ) in the reflected signal is always small if @xmath78 ( since the overtones are far from resonance ) .
this can be easily seen from eqs .
( [ xn])([yn ] ) , especially in the case @xmath89 , when they are significantly simplified : @xmath90    therefore , a linear ( one - frequency ) approximation in which only @xmath91 and @xmath92 are taken into account , works very well in this case . in our numerical analysis
we used the result of the linear approximation as a starting point of the iterative procedure [ @xmath93 to solve selfconsistently eqs .
( [ xn])([vbiter ] ) taking into account few ( typically 3 - 5 ) overtones .
we have checked numerically that the account of overtones typically gives a small correction in the case of a reasonably large @xmath0-factor and @xmath78 .    in the linear approximation
the set bias voltage has only one frequency component : @xmath94 and therefore for the calculation of @xmath95 and @xmath96 [ see eq .
( [ anbn ] ) ] the set can be simply replaced by the effective resistance @xmath97 where @xmath98 is the set current - voltage dependence .
[ notice that @xmath99 , i.e.  there is no effective reactance contribution . ]    hence , this linear ( one - frequency ) approximation is completely equivalent to the case of a resistor instead of the set , considered in the previous subsection .
the only new condition is a selfconsistent relation between the effective resistance @xmath3 and the amplitude @xmath100 of the set bias voltage .
the amplitude @xmath100 ( which depends on @xmath3 ) can be calculated either using eq .
( [ vinvb ] ) in which @xmath101 or using eq .
( [ vbiter ] ) , which gives @xmath102 ^ 2 + ( x_1+q\tilde{\omega}y_1)^2 } , \ ] ] while the components @xmath91 and @xmath92 are given by equations @xmath103 ^ 2 } { ( q^2+\tilde{r})^2 } } \ ,   v_{in } ,           \label{x1}\\ & & y_1= \frac{2\tilde\omega q}{q^2+\tilde{r } }   \frac{-\frac{q^2[1+(1-\tilde\omega^2)\tilde{r}]}{q^2+\tilde{r } } + ( 1-\tilde\omega^2)\tilde{r } }   { \tilde\omega^2+\frac{q^2[1+(1-\tilde\omega^2)\tilde{r}]^2 } { ( q^2+\tilde{r})^2 } } \ ,   v_{in } ,           \label{x2}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath104 ( these equations can obviously be rewritten in a shorter way ; however , they become less transparent to analyze ) .
the equations ( [ x1])([x2 ] ) significantly simplify in the case @xmath89 : @xmath105 from which it is clear that @xmath106 for @xmath107 , and therefore @xmath108      so far we have implicitly assumed that the set current @xmath39 depends on time only because of the periodic time dependence of the set bias voltage @xmath74 . however , @xmath39 has also a small noise component , the magnitude of which depends on the bias voltage and therefore also has a periodic time dependence .
the shot noise of the set current leads to the fluctuations of the parameters @xmath109 and @xmath110 defined by eq .
( [ anbn ] ) and consequently to the fluctuations of the reflected wave quadratures @xmath79 and @xmath80 . since the noise of @xmath79 and @xmath80 can be meaningfully discussed only at frequencies less than @xmath111 , which is much less than the typical frequency @xmath112 of electron tunneling in the set , it is sufficient to consider the low - frequency limit of the set shot noise .
the low - frequency spectral densities of @xmath109 and @xmath110 , and their mutual spectral density can be calculated as @xmath113 where the averaging is over the oscillation period , @xmath114 is the low- ( zero- ) frequency spectral density of the set current ( see appendix ) , and the time dependence comes from oscillating bias voltage @xmath74 .
consequently , the low - frequency spectral densities of @xmath79 and @xmath80 fluctuations , and their mutual spectral density are @xmath115 where @xmath116 notice much simpler equations for @xmath117 and @xmath118 in the case @xmath89 : @xmath119    the change of the measured charge @xmath29 can in principle be monitored via the change of any quadrature @xmath79 or @xmath80 .
the corresponding _ responses _ can be defined as the derivatives @xmath120 or @xmath121 , while the corresponding _ sensitivities _ ( minimal detectable charge @xmath122 for a small measurement bandwidth @xmath123 ) are @xmath124    numerical calculations show that in the usual case @xmath78 thus defined rf - set sensitivity for overtones ( @xmath88 ) can be comparable to the sensitivity using the carrier frequency ( @xmath125 ) . however , because of relatively small amplitude of reflected overtones in this case , their monitoring is impractical , and so we mainly consider monitoring of @xmath91 and @xmath92 which are referred below as @xmath126 and @xmath127 .
monitoring both quadratures @xmath126 and @xmath127 simultaneously , one can improve the sensitivity compared with monitoring of only one quadrature .
it is easy to show that the resulting sensitivity can be obtained as the optimization over angle @xmath128 of the sensitivity corresponding to monitoring the linear combination @xmath129 ( experimentally , this is just a phase shift in the homodyne detector ; notice that the contribution @xmath130 is noiseless by assumption ) .
the optimum sensitivity is achieved at @xmath131 and the resulting sensitivity is @xmath132^{1/2 } , \label{dq1}\ ] ] that can be rewritten as @xcite @xmath133^{1/2 } ,          \label{dq2}\ ] ] where @xmath134 $ ] is the noise correlation factor [ @xmath135 is a real magnitude because we consider only low - frequency sensitivity ; for finite frequency @xmath135 in eq .
( [ dq1 ] ) should be replaced by @xmath136 .
notice that the response optimization for @xmath137 monitoring is achieved at different phase shift : @xmath138 that leads to the response @xmath139^{1/2}$ ] .
let us also consider the case when the reflected wave is monitored by simple rectification .
assuming for simplicity the monitoring of only the first harmonic amplitude @xmath140^{1/2}$ ] ( overtones are filtered out ) , the rf - set sensitivity can be calculated as @xmath141^{1/2 } } { |(x - v_{in } ) dx / dq_s + y dy / dq_s| }           \label{dq3}\ ] ] while the response is obviously @xmath142/a_1 $ ] .
the formulas for monitoring of @xmath143th overtone are similar , except @xmath57 does not contribute to the amplitude @xmath144 .    in the most interesting for practice case
@xmath145 the magnitude of @xmath127 is small in comparison with @xmath126 for @xmath146 [ see eqs .
( [ x1s])([y1s ] ) ] , and the correlation factor @xmath147 also vanishes [ because @xmath148 and the set bias voltage contains mostly @xmath149-component  see eq .  ( [ vbsimple ] ) ] .
then eq .
( [ dq2 ] ) for the best homodyne detection practically coincides with eq .
( [ dq3 ] ) for rectification and reduces to the sensitivity @xmath150 for monitoring of @xmath126 component only ( similarly , the formulas for response also practically coincide ) . because of that , the numerical results for rf - set response and sensitivity in the case @xmath89 will assume monitoring of @xmath126 quadrature .
since the increments of the measured charge @xmath29 and the effective set charge @xmath37 are related by a constant factor , @xmath151 the rf - set response and sensitivity in respect to @xmath29 and in respect to @xmath37 differ by the factor @xmath152 .
all our numerical results will be in terms of @xmath37 measurement , so for @xmath126 monitoring we will use the derivative @xmath153 as a measure of the rf - set response and the magnitude @xmath154 as a measure of the sensitivity .
we have studied numerically the dependence of the rf - set response and sensitivity on various parameters , which include `` fixed '' parameters ( which can not be easily changed in an experiment ) and the parameters of the operation point .
the fixed parameters are : effective junction capacitances of the set @xmath34 and @xmath35 ( we assume @xmath155 unless mentioned otherwise ) , resistances @xmath26 and @xmath27 ( we always assume @xmath156 ) , temperature @xmath157 , cable wave impedance @xmath5 ( we always assume @xmath158 ) , the tank circuit frequency @xmath159 , and the @xmath0-factor @xmath160 .
the operating point parameters are the effective set background charge @xmath37 , dc bias voltage @xmath64 , amplitude @xmath57 of the incident wave , and its frequency @xmath75 ( in most cases we assume @xmath89 ) .
we use the set parameters for normalization , so that a natural unit for temperature is @xmath161 ( where @xmath162 ) , the voltage unit is @xmath163 , the rf - set response @xmath153 ( or @xmath164 ) can be measured in units @xmath165 , and the unit for sensitivity @xmath166 is @xmath167 ( where @xmath168 ) . notice that all considered magnitudes have a simple scaling with @xmath169 ; however , there is no simple scaling with @xmath170 because of the dimensionless parameter @xmath171 .
= 3.0 in    = 3.0 in    figure [ res - sens-2d](a ) shows the rf - set response @xmath153 on the plane of operating point parameters @xmath37 and @xmath57 for the case @xmath172 , @xmath173 ( i.e.  @xmath174 ) , @xmath175 , @xmath89 , and @xmath176 ( the set is symmetric , @xmath155 , @xmath156 ) .
figure [ res - sens-2d](c ) is similar , except @xmath177 .
we do not show @xmath164 because it is practically vanishing .
because of the same reason , the sensitivity @xmath178 shown in figs .  [ res - sens-2d](b ) and [ res - sens-2d](d )
is calculated using only quadrature @xmath126 .
both the response and sensitivity are obviously poor when the amplitude of oscillations at the set is below the coulomb blockade threshold @xmath179 [ this happens at @xmath180 where @xmath181 , and corresponds to the triangles in the lower left corners of figs .   [ res - sens-2d](a)(d ) ] , and they are also poor when @xmath57 is much larger than this condition ( notice that better response corresponds to larger @xmath153 , while better sensitivity corresponds to smaller @xmath182 ) . even though the regions of relatively good response and sensitivity are similar , the maximum response and optimum sensitivity
are achieved at quite different points in the @xmath183 plane .
in particular , the amplitude @xmath57 of the incoming wave is significantly larger for maximum response , than for best sensitivity .    in the present - day experiments , maximization of response [ figs .
[ res - sens-2d](a ) and [ res - sens-2d](c ) ] is still of the major importance , because the noise from the next amplifying stage is still significant [ if a large constant noise had been added to @xmath184 in eq .
( [ dq0x ] ) , then the sensitivity would be mainly determined by the denominator @xmath153 ] . however , if the amplifier noise is small compared to the contribution from the set shot noise , then the best operation point should optimize the shot - noise - limited sensitivity [ figs .  [ res - sens-2d](b ) and
[ res - sens-2d](d ) ] . in the case of comparable contributions from two noises ,
we have a trade - off between two regimes .
in this paper we will concentrate on the analysis of the maximum response ( mr ) mode and optimized sensitivity ( os ) mode , keeping in mind that experimentally optimal regime is somewhere in between , depending on the amplifier noise .
= 3.0 in    = 3.0 in    figure [ v0dep ] shows dependence of the response @xmath153 and sensitivity @xmath178 on the dc bias voltage @xmath64 in the mr and os modes ( optimizations are over @xmath57 and @xmath37 ) .
several curves on each plot are for different @xmath0-factors : @xmath186 , 30 , 50 , 70 , and 90 , while other parameters are similar to the parameters of fig .
[ res - sens-2d ] .
one can see that the best response in both mr and os regimes as well as the best sensitivity in os mode are achieved at @xmath175 .
this is because both positive and negative branches of the symmetric set @xmath62 curve ( see fig .  [ i - v ] in appendix ) contribute equally at @xmath175 , and therefore the signal is maximal .
in the mr mode at @xmath187 the optimum background charge [ see fig .
[ res - sens-2d](a ) ] is about @xmath188 ( so the coulomb blockade threshold @xmath179 is about @xmath189 ) while the optimum amplitude @xmath100 of the set bias @xmath190 oscillations is about @xmath191 ( these numbers have only weak dependence on @xmath0 , while the optimum @xmath57 obviously depends on @xmath0 quite significantly ) .
when @xmath192 starts to increase , it becomes advantageous to increase @xmath37 ( so @xmath179 decreases ) while @xmath100 stays approximately constant , so that both positive and negative branches of the set @xmath62 still contribute to the response .
however , since these branches can not both contribute in the optimal way , the response decreases with @xmath64 [ see fig .  [
v0dep](a ) ] . for large enough @xmath64
it becomes preferable to use only one ( positive ) branch [ this regime corresponds to the lower maximum in fig .
[ res - sens-2d](c ) , while the upper maximum corresponds to the two - branch regime ] ; then the optimal wave amplitude drops to @xmath193 and the optimal @xmath37 corresponds to @xmath179 slightly above @xmath64 ( by about @xmath194 ) .
this change causes the kinks on the response curves in fig .
[ v0dep](a ) and jumps down on the sensitivity curves in fig.[v0dep](c ) .
notice that in the mr mode the sensitivity at @xmath195 is better than at @xmath175 .    in the os regime
the optimal amplitude is significantly less than in the mr regime .
it depends mainly on temperature , and for parameters of fig .
[ v0dep ] the amplitude @xmath100 at the set is typically between 0.08 and 0.1 in units of @xmath163 .
the `` above blockade '' voltage @xmath196 is few times smaller than @xmath100 and is comparable to the temperature .
the best sensitivity is achieved at @xmath175 when both branches participate , while at large enough @xmath64 when it becomes preferable to use only one branch , both sensitivity and response practically do not depend on @xmath64 [ see figs .
[ v0dep](b ) and [ v0dep](d ) ] .
= 2.7 in    = 2.7 in    the dependence on @xmath0-factor is summarized in fig .
[ qdep ] , which shows the response and sensitivity in the mr and os modes for @xmath197 , @xmath173 , and @xmath89 .
the results are presented for @xmath175 ( thick lines ) , which provides the best mr and os response and best os sensitivity , and also for @xmath198 ( thin lines ) , which is a typical value for the case when only one branch of the set @xmath62 is involved .
one can see that the response @xmath153 grows linearly with @xmath0 at small @xmath0 [ see eq .
( [ resp - lin ] ) ] and reaches the maximum at @xmath0 around 50 ( this number is somewhat different for different regimes ; for example it is almost 70 for the thin solid line ) , which is close to the crude theoretical estimate @xmath199 for the impedance matching .
however , unlike in the linear model , this maximum does not correspond to the exact impedance matching .
for example , the impedance matching ( minimum of reflection ) occurs at @xmath200 for the upper curve in fig .
[ qdep](a ) and at @xmath201 for the curve second from the top , while for two lower curves ( os mode ) it does not occur at all in a reasonable range of @xmath0 .
in contrast to the response behavior , _ the rf - set sensitivity monotonically worsens with increase of _ @xmath0 .
qualitatively , this happens because the noise @xmath184 has @xmath202 scaling [ see eq .
( [ sx1 ] ) ] , while the response @xmath153 has slower than @xmath0 dependence [ see eq .
( [ resp - lin ] ) ] .
this simple analysis predicts the parabolic dependence @xmath203 , which crudely fits the curves in fig .
[ qdep](b ) using @xmath204 about 1.5 - 3 times larger than @xmath171 , though the curves in fig .
[ qdep](b ) actually have slower than parabolic dependences at large @xmath0 .    comparing the mr and os modes at @xmath205 ( just some typical number ) and @xmath175
, we see that the mr regime provides about 40% larger response , while the os regime provides about twice better sensitivity . even though these numbers depend significantly on the temperature and
also depend on @xmath0 and @xmath171 , they show that the results for the mr and os regimes are not too much different ( not by an order of magnitude ) .
comparison of the cases @xmath175 and @xmath198 shows that for the mr and os response as well as for the os sensitivity there is no much difference between these two cases , and the relative difference decreases with @xmath0 .
in contrast , the difference between mr sensitivity at @xmath175 and at @xmath198 grows with @xmath0 and can become significant .    the low-@xmath0 limit of the os sensitivity for @xmath175 is well described by the formula @xcite ( which also assumes @xmath206 ) @xmath207
[ we do not use a shorter formula @xmath208 to emphasize natural normalizations ] , and similar limit for @xmath209 ( one - branch case ) is close to @xcite @xmath210 [ see fig .
[ qdep](b ) ] . however , the theory of ref .
@xcite which assumes @xmath211 , is not able to describe significant change of the sensitivity with @xmath0 in fig .
[ qdep](b ) .
one can see that this dependence is even more significant in the mr mode .
= 3.0 in    = 3.0 in      the numerical results on temperature dependence are shown in fig .
[ tdep ] for @xmath173 and @xmath89 .
similar to fig .
[ v0dep ] we show on four panels the response @xmath153 and corresponding sensitivity in the mr and os modes ( the optimal dc bias value @xmath175 is used ) .
it is important to notice that in the mr mode both response and sensitivity almost do not depend on temperature at @xmath212 , and the rf - set performance is still ok at temperatures @xmath213 ( response and sensitivity change less than twice compared to zero - temperature case ) . in the os regime
the response also has a very weak temperature dependence at @xmath214 ; however , the sensitivity is strongly temperature - dependent .
the low-@xmath0 os sensitivity can be accurately described by eq .
( [ dq - an ] ) up to temperatures @xmath215 , [ see the lowest dotted line in fig .
[ tdep](d ) ] , and the curves for large @xmath0-factors also follow the scaling @xmath216 at temperatures @xmath217 . in the orthodox theory this @xmath218 dependence is valid even at very small temperatures leading to infinitely good sensitivity ( @xmath219 ) ; however , in reality the neglected contribution of cotunneling processes becomes significant in the os regime at small @xmath157 that changes the formalism.@xcite comparing the results for mr and os modes , we notice that while they are significantly different at low temperatures , the difference decreases with temperature , so that at @xmath220 the mr and os results are already quite similar .
= 3.0 in    = 3.0 in    figure [ rdep ] shows the response and sensitivity dependence on the total set junction resistance @xmath170 for @xmath197 , @xmath175 , and @xmath89 ( we show results only for @xmath221 , because at @xmath222 the theory is too inaccurate due to neglected cotunneling processes ) . in the case
@xcite @xmath211 the response @xmath153 scales as @xmath223 [ see eq .
( [ x1 ] ) ] and the sensitivity @xmath178 scales as @xmath224 [ see eq .
[ dq - an ] ] .
correspondingly , the solid lines ( @xmath186 ) in figs .  [ rdep](a ) and ( b ) are practically straight lines passing through the origin , and in figs .
[ rdep](c ) and ( d ) the solid lines are practically horizontal [ the level determined by eq .
( [ dq - an ] ) is shown in fig .
[ rdep](d ) by the lowest dotted line , which fits well the solid line ] .
the dependence on @xmath170 becomes nontrivial when @xmath171 is comparable to @xmath202 .
it is interesting to notice that the inverse response remains a practically linear function of @xmath170 even for large @xmath0 , as seen in figs .
[ rdep](a ) and ( b ) ( the slope of the lines decreases with @xmath0 while the offset increases ) .
in particular , this means that in the orthodox model the rf - set response continues to increase with the set resistance decrease even when the matching condition is overshot .
decrease of @xmath170 close or beyond the matching condition , worsens the sensitivity in comparison with scaling @xmath225 [ see figs.[rdep](c ) and ( d ) ] . in the mr mode
the sensitivity worsens with decrease of @xmath170 even in absolute units ( @xmath226 ) when the matching condition is sufficiently overshot , while in the os mode the sensitivity still improves with decrease of @xmath170 in absolute units , in spite of worsening compared to @xmath224 scaling .
= 3.0 in    = 3.0 in    now let us discuss the effect of asymmetric effective capacitances of the set junctions , @xmath227 .
even when the physical junction capacitances are equal , @xmath228 , the effective capacitances @xmath34 and @xmath35 can be significantly different when the gate capacitance @xmath28 is comparable to junction capacitances . in our model shown in fig .
[ fig1 ] this happens due to asymmetry of signal source capacitances , @xmath229 [ see eqs .
( [ c1 ] ) and ( [ c2 ] ) ] ; in rf - set experiments this effect is called asymmetric rf biasing of the set.@xcite for the conventional set setup , the biasing asymmetry is not important at all , because of the formal set equivalence under transformation @xcite @xmath230 for arbitrary @xmath231 , that means that the asymmetric biasing ( different @xmath34 and @xmath35 ) can be simply corrected by the background charge shift .
however , for the rf - set there is no simple equivalence because the bias voltage @xmath190 changes in time .
( effective capacitance asymmetry can still be controlled by addition of the extra rf signal to the set gate . )
therefore it is interesting to find if the asymmetric biasing ( @xmath227 ) is better or worse than the symmetric case ( @xmath155 ) .
figure [ asymbias ] shows the @xmath64 dependence of the rf - set response and sensitivity in the mr and os modes for several ratios @xmath232 ( with fixed total capacitance @xmath233 ) .
one can see that in the asymmetric cases the best mr response and os sensitivity are achieved at nonzero @xmath64 and are typically @xmath234 than the corresponding values for the symmetric case .
therefore , the _ asymmetric biasing is actually preferable _ ( that eases the concern about this issue discussed in ref .
@xcite ) ; however , the advantage is rather minor .
in particular , the os sensitivity in the asymmetric case is still limited by eq .
( [ dq - an-2 ] ) ; therefore the possible improvement is less than the sensitivity decline due to high @xmath0-factor [ see fig .
[ qdep](b ) ] , and even less because of the difference between eqs .  ( [ dq - an ] ) and ( [ dq - an-2 ] ) .
so far we have considered the resonant case @xmath89 .
[ actually , the exact resonance is at the frequency @xmath235 which is very close to @xmath236 . ] in this case the quadrature component @xmath126 is much larger than @xmath127 ( at @xmath107 ) and therefore the rf - set response and sensitivity in respect to monitoring @xmath126 quadrature practically coincide with that for monitoring the reflected wave amplitude @xmath237 ( we denote with @xmath237 the amplitude @xmath238 of the first harmonic ) or monitoring the optimized phase - shifted combination @xmath239 .
the detuning of @xmath75 from the resonant frequency @xmath236 leads to a significant magnitude of @xmath127 quadrature , and so to different results for different ways of reflected wave monitoring .    for a small frequency detuning @xmath240 the simple linear analysis using eq .
( [ resp - lin ] ) predicts the non - monotonic shape of the @xmath126-response frequency dependence with zeros at @xmath241 and with the full width at half height ( fwhh ) equal to @xmath242 ; while for the amplitude monitoring it predicts fwhh of @xmath243 .
( [ dadr ] ) which assumes both @xmath3 and @xmath57 being frequency - independent , gives the response fwhh equal to @xmath244 and @xmath245 for @xmath126 and @xmath237 monitoring , respectively ] .
in reality the situation is more complex because even neglecting the nonlinear contributions , the effective set resistance @xmath3 ( and therefore @xmath14 ) depends on @xmath74 amplitude , which depends itself on @xmath75 , @xmath3 , and @xmath57 .
moreover , the optimized point in the @xmath183 plane is also frequency - dependent .
= 3.0 in    = 3.0 in    figure [ freq - dep ] shows the numerical results for the frequency dependence ( in the vicinity of the resonance ) of the optimized response and sensitivity .
each panel shows four curves , which correspond to monitoring the components @xmath126 ( thick solid line ) , @xmath127 ( dashed ) , optimized phase - shifted combination @xmath246 ( thin solid ) , and amplitude @xmath237 ( dotted line ) . at each frequency
we perform optimizations of the response ( mr mode ) and sensitivity ( os mode ) over @xmath183 plane for all four monitored magnitudes , so the optimizations are different for different curves .
the @xmath0-factor is equal to @xmath247 , which is close to the estimate of the impedance - matching value ( see also fig .  [ qdep ] ) ; however , instead of the naively expected value @xmath248 for the loaded @xmath0-factor , it is @xmath249 in the mr mode since @xmath250 ( these values are calculated at @xmath89 using effective set resistance ) .
the shape of the @xmath126-response dependence in panel ( a ) is close to the prediction of eq .
( [ resp - lin ] ) using @xmath251 , though the minima do not reach zero and the curve beyond the minima is shifted up .
the mr @xmath127-response is practically zero at @xmath89 ( since @xmath127 vanishes ) ; however , it becomes comparable to the resonant @xmath126-response at some frequency detuning ; the overall shape is close to the prediction of eq .
( [ resp - lin ] ) , but the maxima are about 15% higher .
the mr @xmath237-response curve is about 50% wider than the prediction of the linear theory ( using @xmath251 ) and is very close to the curve for monitoring optimal phase - shifted quadrature @xmath246 .
as expected , the @xmath237- and @xmath246-responses are better than @xmath126- and @xmath127-responses at finite detuning ( for both mr and os modes ) .    the sensitivity ( both os and mr ) for @xmath246 or @xmath237 monitoring at finite detuning is also better then for @xmath126 or @xmath127 monitoring .
an interesting observation is that while the rf - set response decreases with detuning , the sensitivity slightly improves with detuning for @xmath246 and @xmath237 monitoring .
this effect is similar to the sensitivity improvement with the decrease of @xmath0-factor ( see fig .
[ qdep ] ) .      in experiments the incoming rf wave
is usually tuned close to the resonance with the tank circuit ; in this case the contribution of overtones in the reflected rf wave is small in spite of significant set @xmath62 nonlinearity ( the set nonlinearity has been recently used @xcite for rf mixing ) .
however , if the @xmath143th overtone is in resonance , @xmath252 , then the reflected wave may have a significant contribution from this overtone , and the rf - set operation can be based on monitoring this overtone .
@xcite the use of different frequencies for the incident and reflected waves may be advantageous for some applications .
also , it may be useful to have the absence of the monitored reflected wave when the set is off ( no current ) , while in the conventional regime this case corresponds to the largest reflected power .
one more possible advantage is somewhat easier control of the amplitude of the set bias voltage oscillations , since now it is more directly related to the incident amplitude @xmath57 , while in the usual regime the relation depends on @xmath14 [ see eq .
( [ vbsimple ] ) ] which varies with operating point .
( the disadvantage is that the incident amplitude @xmath57 should be much larger than in usual regime that may lead to heating problems . )
= 2.7 in    = 2.7 in    figure [ overtones ] shows the rf - set response and sensitivity for @xmath253 and @xmath254 , in respect to monitoring @xmath255 and @xmath256 , correspondingly ( the @xmath126-quadratures are small ) .
we use @xmath175 in the case @xmath254 and @xmath257 in the case @xmath253 [ for @xmath175 there is no second overtone because of the @xmath62 curve symmetry even at nonzero @xmath37  see fig .
[ i - v](a ) and eq .
( [ anbn ] ) ] . as seen from fig .
[ overtones ] , the mr responses and os sensitivities in the two cases ( second and third resonant overtone ) are quite similar , that is related to a strong nonlinearity of the set @xmath62 curve . moreover , comparing figs .  [ qdep ] and [ overtones ] ( the parameters are the same ) we see that the rf - set performance in the regime of a resonant overtone is comparable to the performance in the conventional regime @xmath258 ( the mr response and os sensitivity are worse by only about 1.5 times ) . combined with the advantages discussed above
, this makes the regime of resonant overtone potentially useful in experiments .
in this paper we have developed the formalism for the calculation of the response and shot - noise - limited sensitivity of the normal - metal rf - set , extending the theory of ref .
@xcite to the case of arbitrary large @xmath0-factor of the tank circuit and arbitrary frequency of the incident rf wave .
the formalism has been used to analyze numerically the dependence of the rf - set response and sensitivity on the operation parameters .
we have mainly studied two operation modes , optimized over the rf wave amplitude and the set background charge , corresponding to either maximum response ( mr mode ) or optimum sensitivity ( os mode ) .
the rf amplitude for the optimum sensitivity is typically significantly smaller than for maximum response .
the mr mode is the best experimental regime when the preamplifier noise is more significant than the effect of the set noise , while the os mode is the best when the preamplifier noise is negligible . analyzing the performance dependence on the set dc bias voltage
, we have found that the best response and sensitivity are achieved at zero dc bias , though finite biasing does not change the rf - set performance much as long as it is within the coulomb blockade range .
we have found that the dependence of the rf - set response on the unloaded @xmath0-factor of the tank circuit has a maximum at @xmath0 comparable to the simple impedance matching estimate @xmath259 .
in contrast , the rf - set sensitivity monotonically worsens with increase of @xmath0 ; the dependence is approximately parabolic and the sensitivity change can reach few times ( compared to the low-@xmath0 case ) if @xmath0 is chosen too large .
this means that to improve the sensitivity in an experiment , it is better to `` undershoot '' the @xmath0-factor compared to the impedance matching case , than to `` overshoot '' it .
studying the temperature dependence we have found that the rf - set response saturates approximately at temperatures @xmath260 , that translates into 200 mk for a typical capacitance value @xmath261 af .
the optimized sensitivity continues to improve as @xmath218 at lower temperatures until it reaches the quantum limitation due to cotunneling @xcite ( not studied here ) .
the `` orthodox '' rf - set performance improves with decrease of the set resistance ; however , for high @xmath0-factors the dependence is significantly slower than the low-@xmath0 scaling @xmath223 for the response and @xmath262 for the sensitivity .
we have analyzed the effect of the asymmetric rf biasing of the set which leads to unequal effective capacitances of the set and found that such asymmetry does not worsen the rf - set performance ( even slightly improves it ) .
this answers the concern about asymmetric rf biasing raised in ref .
@xcite .
we have analyzed the effect of the carrier frequency detuning from the resonance and found that the decrease of the rf - set response with detuning can crudely be described by the simple linear theory ( though difference in linewidth can reach 50% ) ; however , the estimate of the loaded @xmath0-factor determining the linewidth is not simple since it significantly depends of the operation point . even with the frequency detuning , the rf - set performance for monitoring the reflected wave amplitude ( by rectification ) is found to be very similar to the case of optimal homodyne detection ( one - channel mixing with the optimal phase ) .
it is important that the mixing phase optimizing the sensitivity can be different from the phase optimizing the response .
unexpectedly , in contrast to the response decrease with detuning , the optimized sensitivity slightly improves with detuning .
we have also analyzed the operation regime for which an overtone of the incident rf wave is in resonance with the tank circuit , and found that the rf - set performance in this regime is comparable to the performance in the conventional regime . taking into account an advantage of the frequency separation between the incident and monitored waves , this operation mode may be experimentally useful .
the theoretical proposal of the resonant overtone regime @xcite has been recently realized experimentally in the group of keith schwab .
experimental rf - set sensitivities using the second and third resonant overtones have been found practically coinciding with the sensitivity in the conventional regime .
@xcite    now let us compare our theoretical results for the rf - set sensitivity with the experimental value of @xmath263 from ref .
@xcite for the normal - metal case ( the sensitivity of the superconducting rf - set was significantly better : @xmath264 ) . using the experimental parameters @xmath265 af , @xmath266 k@xmath267 , assuming the temperature @xmath268 mk , and using fig .
[ rdep ] , we get the mr sensitivity of @xmath269 for @xmath205 and @xmath270 for @xmath172 , while the os sensitivities are @xmath271 for @xmath205 and @xmath272 for @xmath172 [ notice that all these numbers are significantly higher than the low-@xmath0 os estimate @xmath273 using eq .
( [ dq - an ] ) ] .
unfortunately , it is not possible to extract the unloaded @xmath0-factor value from ref .
@xcite ; however , it seems to be between 30 and 50 .
it is also not known if the rf - set operation point was closer to the mr or os mode ( we guess the response was more important ) .
nevertheless , we see that the difference between the theory and experiment is few times .
we guess that the difference is mainly due to the preamplifier noise .
some contribution may also come from higher effective temperature than we assumed and from a non - optimal operation point .
another contribution to the difference may come from the neglected here effect of cotunneling , which limits the sensitivity . however , a rough estimate @xcite of this limit @xmath274 gives the value of @xmath275 , so it is unlikely to be the major reason for the difference .
we hope that the further experimental progress will bring the rf - set sensitivity really close to the theoretical limit .
there are still many theoretical questions about the rf - set performance , not answered in this paper . for example , as seen from the above estimate , the account of cotunneling and study of the quantum operation of the rf - set is starting to be important for experiments . the development of the theory for superconducting rf - set is even more important since in the majority of experiments with rf - sets the superconducting state is used .
there is still no rigorous theory of the frequency dependence of the rf - set sensitivity .
it is also important to consider the backaction from the rf - set and analyze if it can in principle be used as a quantum detector with high quantum efficiency ( ideality ) .
these problems are going to be the topics of further studies .
useful discussions with m. blencowe , k. likharev , and k. schwab are gratefully acknowledged .
the work was partially supported by nsa and arda under aro grant daad19 - 01 - 1 - 0491 and by the semiconductor research corporation grant 2000-nj-746 .
the numerical calculations were partially performed on the ucr - igpp beowulf computer lupin .    d. v. averin and k. k. likharev , in _ mesoscopic phenomena in solids _ , edited by b. l. altshuler , p. a. lee , and r. a. webb ( elsevier , amsterdam , 1991 ) , p. 173 .
t. a. fulton and g. d. dolan , phys .
lett . * 59 * , 109 ( 1987 ) .
k. k. likharev , proc .
ieee * 87 * , 606 ( 1999 ) .
a. n. korotkov , int .
j. electronics * 86 * , 511 ( 1999 ) .
b. starmark , t. henning , t. claeson , p. delsing , and a. n. korotkov , j. appl . phys . * 86 * , 2132 ( 1999 ) .    j. pettersson , p. wahlgren , p. delsing , d. b. haviland , t. claeson , n. rorsman , and h. zirath , phys . rev .
b 53 , 13272 ( 1996 ) .
e. h. visscher , j. lindeman , s. m. verbrugh , p. hadley , j. e. mooij , and w. van der vleuten , appl .
* 68 * , 2014 ( 1996 ) .
r. j. schoelkopf , p. wahlgren , a. a. kozhevnikov , p. delsing , and d. e. prober , science * 280 * , 1238 ( 1998 ) .
j. clarke , proc .
ieee * 77 * , 1208 ( 1989 ) .
p. wahlgren , r j. schoelkopf , a. a. kozhevnikov , p. delsing , d. e. prober , and t. claeson , j. supercond .
* 12 * , 741 ( 1999 ) .
a. aassime , g. johansson , g. wendin , r. j. schoelkopf , and p. delsing , phys .
lett . * 86 * , 3376 ( 2001 ) .
a. aassime , d. gunnarsson , k. bladh , p. delsing , and r. schoelkopf , appl .
phys . lett . *
79 * , 4031 ( 2001 ) .
a. aassime , p. delsing , and t. claeson , nanotechnology * 12 * , 96 ( 2001 ) .    t. r. stevenson , f. a. pellerano , c. m. stahle , k. aidala , and r. j. schoelkopf , appl . phys
. lett . * 80 * , 3012 ( 2002 ) .
k. segall , k. w. lehnert , t. r. stevenson , r. j. schoelkopf , p. wahlgren , a. aassime , and p. delsing , appl .
. lett . * 81 * , 4859 ( 2002 ) .
k. bladh , d. gunnarsson , g. johansson , a. kck , g. wendin , a. aassime , m. taslakov , and p. delsing , physica scripta * t102 * , 167 ( 2002 ) .
lehnert , k. bladh , l. f. spietz , d. gunnarsson , d. i. schuster , p. delsing , and r. j. schoelkopf , phys .
lett . * 90 * , 027002 ( 2003 ) .
t. m. buehler , d. j. reilly , r. p. starret , s. kenyon , a. r. hamilton , a. s. dzurak , and r. g. clark , microel .
* 67 * , 775 ( 2003 ) .
t. m. buehler , d. j. reilly , r. p. starret , a. d. greentree , a. r. hamilton , a. s. dzurak , and r. g. clark , cond - mat/0304384 ; cond - mat/0302085 .
t. fujisawa and y. hirayama , appl .
* 77 * , 543 ( 2000 ) .
h. d. cheong , t. fujisawa , t. hayashi , and y. hirayama , appl .
. lett . * 81 * , 3257 ( 2002 ) .
a. n. korotkov , d. v. averin , k. k. likharev , and s. a. vasenko , in _ single - electron tunneling and mesoscopic devices _ , edited by h. koch and h. lubbig ( springer , berlin 1992 ) , p. 45 .
a. n. korotkov , phys .
b * 49 * , 10381 ( 1994 ) .
v. a. krupenin , d. e. presnov , a. b. zorin , and j. niemeyer , j. low temp . phys .
* 118 * , 287 ( 2000 ) .
l. roschier , r. tarkiainen , m. ahlskog , m. paalanen , and p. hakonen , appl .
. lett . * 78 * , 3295 ( 2001 ) .
p. m. echternach , c. p. williams , s. c. dultz , s. braunstein , and j. p. dowling , quant .
comp . * 1 * , 143 ( 2001 ) .
a. d. armour , m. p. blencowe , and k. c. schwab , phys .
* 88 * , 148301 ( 2002 ) .
e. k. irish and k. schwab , cond - mat/0301252 .
r. g. knobel and a. n. cleland , nature * 424 * , 291 ( 2003 ) .
a. n. korotkov and m. a. paalanen , appl .
. lett . * 74 * , 4052 ( 1999 ) .
m. p. blencowe and m. n. wybourne , appl .
. lett . * 77 * , 3845 ( 2000 ) .
y. zhang and m. p. blencowe , j. appl .
* 91 * , 4249 ( 2002 ) .
y. zhang and m. p. blencowe , j. appl .
phys . * 92 * , 7550 ( 2002 ) .
a. b. zorin , phys .
* 86 * , 3388 ( 2001 ) .    v. o. turin and a. n. korotkov , cond - mat/0305012 ; to be published in appl .
lett .    m. h. devoret and r. j. schoelkopf , nature * 406 * , 1039 ( 2000 ) .
a. n. korotkov , r. h. chen , and k. k. likharev , j. appl .
phys . * 78 * , 2520 ( 1995 ) .
r. knobel , c. s. yung , and a. n. cleland , appl .
* 81 * , 532 ( 2002 ) .
k. schwab , private communication .
the set current @xmath276 and its low frequency shot noise @xmath277 have been calculated using the orthodox theory of single - electron tunneling,@xcite assuming that a stationary state of the set is achieved at any moment of time ( i.e.  @xmath278 ) .
we assume normal metal ( non - superconducting ) case and calculate the tunneling rates @xmath279 of electron tunneling to ( @xmath280 ) or from ( @xmath281 ) the island through the first or second junction as@xcite @xmath282 } \ , , \\ & & w_j^\pm ( m ) = \frac{e^2}{c_\sigma } \left [ \mp ( -1)^j   \frac{v_bc_1c_2}{ec_j } -\frac{1}{2 } \mp m \mp \frac{q_0}{e } \right ] ,           \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath283 is the number of extra electrons on the set , @xmath284 denotes the junction , and @xmath157 is the temperature .
the low - frequency spectral density @xmath277 of the set current [ fig .  [ i - v](b ) ] can be calculated as @xcite @xmath289   ( \hat{\bf\gamma}^{-1})_{m'm }           \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{0.3 cm } \times [ \gamma_1^+(m-1 )    \sigma_{st}(m-1 ) -\gamma_1 ^ -(m+1)\sigma_{st}(m+1 ) \nonumber \\ & & \hspace{0.3 cm } -(i / e)\sigma_{st}(m ) ] + 2e^2 \sum_m \sigma_{st}(m ) [ \gamma_1^+(m)+\gamma_1 ^ -(m ) ] ,          \label{s_i}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath290 is the three - diagonal matrix of the set charge evolution , @xmath291 ] $ ] .
notice that eq .
( [ s_i ] ) can be easily used numerically even though the matrix @xmath290 is singular and therefore does not have a unique inverse ; eq .
( [ s_i ] ) is constructed in a way that the non - uniqueness is not important , and therefore the standard algorithm for solving a linear system of equations with three - diagonal matrix can be readily used .
( there is no problem of the matrix singularity at a finite frequency @xmath292 , when the inverse of the matrix @xmath293 should be calculated . ) actually , instead of using eq .
( [ s_i ] ) , we have used a somewhat faster algorithm for calculation of @xmath277 , described in section vii of ref .