SciPost Submission Page
Highfrequency transport and zerosound in an array of SYK quantum dots
by Aleksey. V. Lunkin, Mikhail. V. Feigel'man
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
Authors (as registered SciPost users):  Lunkin Aleksey · Mikhail Feigel'man 
Submission information  

Preprint Link:  https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.11500v2 (pdf) 
Date submitted:  20220608 10:28 
Submitted by:  Aleksey, Lunkin 
Submitted to:  SciPost Physics 
Ontological classification  

Academic field:  Physics 
Specialties: 

Approach:  Theoretical 
Abstract
We study an array of strongly correlated quantum dots of complex SYK type and account for the effects of quadratic terms added to the SYK Hamiltonian; both local terms and interdot tunneling are considered in the nonFermiliquid temperature range $T \gg T_{FL}$. Electric $\sigma(\omega,p)$ and thermal $\kappa(\omega,p)$ conductivities are calculated as functions of frequency and momentum, for arbitrary values of the particlehole asymmetry parameter $\mathcal{E}$. At lowfrequencies $\omega \ll T$ we find the Lorentz ratio $L = \kappa(0,0)/\sigma(0,0)$ to be nonuniversal and temperaturedependent. At $\omega \gg T$ the conductivity $\sigma(\omega,p)$ contains a pole with nearly linear dispersion $\omega \approx sp\ln\frac{\omega}{T}$ reminiscent of the "zerosound", known for Fermiliquids.
Author comments upon resubmission
Dear Editors,
We thank both referees for their reviews of our work. We took these reports into account while doing a major revision to our work. We have extended both the Introduction and Conclusions. We also simplified formulas for a more convenient presentation and added an Appendix for the readers interested in technical details. Below we answer the referees’ comments in detail.
Answers to the Report 1 on 2022110
(i) Phase diagram (e.g. energy vs momentum) which demonstrates the hierarchy of energy/momentum scales and the expected window of the existence of the zero sound. We have added a phase diagram to describe regions with different features to the Conclusions (ii) Discussion of a usual hydrodynamic sound, its range of existence, and overlap (if any) with the zerosound. The presented model lives on the lattice. The tunneling elements between dots do not depend on the lattice constants. Therefore, there is no traditional sound in the model. We have called the mode a zerosound for the following reasons:  This mode describes the fluctuation of electron density  This mode exists only for high frequencies which are much higher than inverse thermalization time
(iii) Since the model is intrinsically disordered, one could expect a range where response functions exhibit diffusive behavior. Is it indeed the case and how does it conform to the presented expressions? The diffusive regime has detailed analysis in our paper (see section 5.3 of the new text, it was also present in the old version in section 5.2)
(iv) What are the relative contributions of reparametrization and phase fluctuations in the obtained response functions. E.g. how different are they in Majorana SYK (no phase fluctuations), vs. Fermi liquid (no reparametrizations)? We did not describe a crossover to Fermi liquid so our formulas do not cover this region of parameters. The comparison between the Fermiliquid theory and our result is presented in the conclusion. We also mentioned in both versions of the text that in the absence of the charge transport there is only an intrinsic contribution to the heat conductivity.
(v) What is the role of finite N (if any) for the presented results? Finite N bounds the strength of \Gamma where our approach is valid. For \Gamma less than \Gamma_c ~ J/N, we can no longer consider fluctuations of the soft modes as Gaussian. The corresponding comment is added to the 1st paragraph of the Conclusions.
Answers to the Report 2 on 202224

A considerably improved introduction should be provided discussing the larger context of the model, the physical interpretation and consequences of zerosound, etc. The conclusions should also be extended, since at this time they amount to a summary of results presenting no insight into their relevance, connections to other known systems, and so on. We have improved our Introduction and Conclusion.

At the end of section 3.2 the authors discuss the asymmetry parameter E, mentioning numerical evidence that its absolute value is found to be bounded. The provided citations, however, deal with a different variant of the complex SYK model, namely the massdeformed case where the coefficient in front of the quadratic term in each quantum dot is not random but simply a fixed constant. This is different from the SYKq=4+SYKq=2 considered here, and can lead to confusion. To avoid this, the authors should clarify the distinctions between SYKq=4+SYKq=2 and the massdeformed SYK model, and maybe comment on whether their results would also apply to a linear array of massdeformed complex SYK quantum dots. In section 3.2 we are considering the saddlepoint equations of the pure SYK model with real fermions. The authors of the mentioned papers considered different models but obtain the same saddlepoint equations as ours. As a result, their numerical analysis of these equations is applicable to our case.
 In equation (12) the authors introduce the parameter q because it "will be useful below for dimensional regularization of some singular expressions." Details of this regularization are scarce to nonexistent, and the reader is left wondering whether the results obtained could depend on this regularization scheme. Some discussion of this procedure is therefore in order. We add the comment in the Appendix between (54) and (55)
 While the manuscript is readable as is, the number of typographical errors can be distracting, and there is ample room for improving the English. Hopefully, the number of typographical errors and cases of improper use of English is now reduced considerably.
List of changes
1. Introduction and conclusion were expanded.
2. Appendix was added.
3. The phase diagram with different transport regimes was added
4. The section " Noether’s theorem" was added
5. Formulas were simplified in the main part of the text
6. Large number of small correction was made
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #2 by Anonymous (Referee 4) on 202289 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2112.11500v2, delivered 20220809, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.5518
Strengths
1  clear structure
2  interesting and novel results
3  deep analytical study
4  clear connection with what was made before (on a technical level)
Weaknesses
1  the physical motivation of the research was not very well explained
2  absence of numeracal crosscheck
Report
I would recommend that the paper is accepted after the minor revisions according to the comments presented in this review.
Requested changes
listed in the report