Chargeless heat transport in the fractional quantum Hall regime

Show preview

Hide preview

Chargeless heat transport in the fractional quantum Hall regime
C. Altimiras,1, ∗ H. le Sueur,1, † U. Gennser,1 A. Anthore,1 A. Cavanna,1 D. Mailly,1 and F. Pierre1, ‡ 1CNRS / Univ Paris Diderot (Sorbonne Paris Cite´),
Laboratoire de Photonique et de Nanostructures (LPN), route de Nozay, 91460 Marcoussis, France (Dated: July 6, 2012)
We demonstrate a direct approach to investigate heat transport in the fractional quantum Hall regime. At filling factor of ν = 4/3, we inject power at quantum point contacts and detect the related heating from the activated current through a quantum dot. The experiment reveals a chargeless heat transport from a significant heating that occurs upstream of the power injection point, in the absence of a concomitant electrical current. By tuning in-situ the edge path, we show that the chargeless heat transport does not follow the reverse direction of the electrical current path along the edge. This unexpected heat conduction, whose mechanism remains to be elucidated, may play an important role in the physics of the fractional quantum Hall regime.
PACS numbers: 73.43.Fj, 73.43.Lp, 73.23.Hk
The quantum Hall effect arises for two-dimensional electrons subjected to a strong perpendicular magnetic field and involves gapless electronic excitations propagat- ing in channels along the sample edge [1]. It is evidenced from distinct plateaus in the Hall resistance RH = RK/ν, with RK = h/e2 the resistance quantum, accompanied by a vanishing longitudinal resistance. At fractional values of the filling factor ν, this effect is due to Coulomb inter- action. It is associated with the formation of exotic elec- tronic phases [2], with quasiparticle excitations markedly different from bosons and fermions and carrying a frac- tion of the electron charge [3, 4]. Although the fractional quantum Hall effect was discovered three decades ago [5], the experimental investigation of many striking aspects of this physics is still at an incipient stage. This includes the predicted anyonic [1] and possibly non-abelian statis- tics [6] of the fractional quasiparticles, and the presence of correlated electronic edge modes carrying heat but no charge [7–9].
It was pointed out since the mid-nineties that the study of heat transport would provide decisive informa- tion on the peculiar physics of the different fractional quantum Hall regimes [9–14]. Very recently, a non-chiral heat transport at several fractional filling factors was ev- idenced using noise measurements, and attributed to the presence of upstream neutral edge modes [15–17]. In the present work, we demonstrate a direct approach to in- vestigate heat transport in the fractional quantum Hall regime at the filling factor ν = 4/3 (Fig. 1(a)). For this purpose we controllably inject power at several locations along the sample channel, using voltage biased quantum point contacts, and detect the resulting heating from the thermally activated current across a quantum dot located at an intermediate edge position (Fig. 1(b)). With this approach, we first evidence an unexpected heating up- stream power injection, with respect to the chiral elec- trical current along the edge. We then demonstrate that this chargeless heat current flows in the bulk, further away from the edge than the electrical path. The rel-
atively important upstream heating suggests the corre- sponding chargeless heat transport mechanism may play an important role in the physics of the fractional quan- tum Hall regime.
The studied sample is tailored in a typical two- dimensional electron gas of density 2 1015 m−2 and mobility 250 m2V−1s−1, buried 105 nm deep in a GaAs/Ga(Al)As heterojunction. Note that similar ob- servations on a second sample confirmed the reported findings. We performed the measurements either at DC or by standard lock-in techniques at frequencies below 100 Hz, in a dilution refrigerator of base temperature 40 mK [18]. Heaters, detector and sample geometry are tuned by field effect using capacitively coupled surface metal gates (Fig. 1(b)). We applied a perpendicular magnetic field B = 6.0 T to set the sample in the mid- dle of the zero longitudinal resistance plateau at ν = 4/3 (see Fig. 1(a) and [18], the extracted thermal activation transport gap is ∼ kB × 700 mK). According to the ef- fective edge state theory [1], the electrical edge current at this bulk filling factor is carried by two channels co- propagating in the same direction. The ‘ν = 1’ outer channel (white line in Fig. 1(b)) is associated to the inte- ger quantum Hall physics, and the ‘ν = 1/3’ inner channel to the fractional physics (yellow line in Fig. 1(b)).
The data in Fig. 1(c) confirms the reality of the above edge picture. A bias of 1.9 µV ≃ (3/4)RK ×100 pA is ap- plied to the left top contact and the resulting currents are measured at different locations as a function of the split gate voltage tuning the constriction HU . The current IHU transmitted across HU is zero for gate voltages be- low −0.5 V and increases up to the injected current above 0.3 V . Importantly, IHU shows a wide plateau, larger than 0.3 V , at 3/4 of the injected current. This plateau corresponds to the full transmission of the ‘ν = 1’ outer channel, which carries three times more current than the fully reflected fractional ‘ν = 1/3’ inner channel. Similar behaviors are observed across all the studied constric- tions of this sample. In order to establish the distinct-
ar X
iv :1
20 2.
63 00
v2 [
co nd
-m at.
me s-h
all ]
4 J ul
20 12

2 1 µm (b)
HU
HD1 HD2
D
IHD2 IHU
ID
(a) (c)
0 2 4 6

B (T) IR
-0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0
100
IHU ID IHD2 IRIHU+ID+IR

I (p A)
Split gate HU (V)
3/4
1/2 3/5
1/4 1/3
0
R x y (
h/e 2 )
B=6 T
FIG. 1. (color online). Measured device. (a) Measured Hall resistance Rxy versus perpendicular magnetic field B. (b) SEM micrograph of the sample. Surface metal gates ap- pear brighter. Large and top right gates (not colorized) are grounded. The large ohmic contacts indicated as black disks or as a rectangle are located hundreds of microns away. At filling factor ν = 4/3, the electrical current propagates an- ticlockwise along two edge channels (lines). The fractional inner channel (yellow line) is locally heated up by voltage bi- asing a quantum point contact (upstream HU , downstream HD1 or HD2) using its split gate (colorized red) to set it to half (fully) transmit the inner (outer) channel. The heating induced in the inner channel is probed from the current ID across the detector (D) set in the Coulomb blockade regime using its split gate (colorized blue). (c) Test of electrical edge paths, with HD2 and D set to perfectly transmitting the in- teger outer channel, HD1 set to perfectly reflecting it, and the fractional inner channel being fully reflected at the three split gates. Symbols display outgoing currents, measured at different locations versus the gate voltage controlling HU , for a current of 100 pA injected at the left top contact.
ness of the two copropagating channels, the constrictions labeled D and HD2 were tuned to fully transmitting (re- flecting) the outer (inner) channel, and the constriction HD1 was closed. In this regime, the vanishing currents ID and IHD2 at positive split gate voltages show that the electrical current IR is carried only by the inner channel, with negligible charge tunneling toward the outer chan- nel between HU and HD2. Similar tests were performed
in presence of the largest injected powers to establish the counter-clockwise (chiral) propagation of the electrical current as well as the absence of inter-channel tunneling in all the experimental configurations investigated here- after.
(c)
(a) (b)
-100 0 100
0
0.3
0.6
T=40 mK
200 mK
D
50 100 1500
0.1
0.2
T (mK)
-0.1 0 0.1 -500
0
500
split gate D (V) -200 0 200 -1
0
1 =1/2 HU HD1 HD2


I H (n
A)
VH (µV) (d)
VD (µV)
V D (µ
V)
in
D
VD=0
FIG. 2. (color online). Heaters and detector characteriza- tions. (a) I − V characteristics of the heater quantum point contacts (symbols), with IinH the measured DC current trans- mitted in the inner edge channel and VH the applied voltage bias. The continuous line (green) is a calculation for an ex- actly half transmitted inner edge channel. (b) Representative surface plot of ∂ID/∂VD ≡ τD/3RK+1/RK (higher is brighter) versus the detector bias voltage VD and the split gate voltage controlling D. Darkest areas correspond to the detector inner edge channel transmission τD = 0. (c) Measured τD versus VD for different temperatures T ∈ {40,100,150,200} mK, keeping the detector split gate voltage fixed. (d) Symbols: measured τD(VD = 0) versus T for the same detector settings as the data in (c). Continuous line (red): fit assuming a metallic quantum dot (see text).
Now that we have characterized charge transport, we investigate heat transport by injecting power and probing the resulting heating in the fractional inner edge channel.
Power is injected locally into the inner channel by ap- plying a voltage bias VH across a constriction set to transmit half (all) of the current carried by the inner (outer) channel. These constrictions were tuned to have little voltage dependence of their transmission, as shown Fig. 2(a). At half transmission of the inner channel, the injected power into edge excitations is PH ≃ 0.25V 2H/6RK [18]. One heater HU is located at an edge distance 1.8 µm upstream the detector D, and two heaters HD1 and HD2 are located respectively at 1.4 and 2.2 µm downstream the edge channel.
Heating in the fractional inner channel is detected

3 from the activated ac current across the constriction D tuned to the Coulomb blockade regime. Interestingly, this regime is here obtained with a simple split gate. Such a behavior is usually attributed to small variations of the 2DEG density of states in the vicinity of the constric- tion. The Coulomb blockade regime is first evidenced by the appearance of Coulomb diamonds in the bias and gate voltage dependence of the inner channel transmis- sion τD ≡ 3RK∂ID/∂VD−3 (Fig. 2(b)). The detector split gate voltage is adjusted using the Coulomb diamonds to tune the activation temperature of τD to a value much higher than the base temperature, but sufficiently low to detect a small heating. Figure 2(c) displays τD versus the detector voltage bias and for several temperatures, at the working point used hereafter (unless otherwise specified). In order to minimize power injection at the detector, we probe the electronic temperature from τD measured at zero detector bias voltage VD = 0 and we restrict our investigation to τD < 0.2. The detector is calibrated at thermal equilibrium by measuring τD versus tempera- ture T (Fig. 2(d)). Remarkably, despite the fractional character of the studied ‘ν = 1/3’ inner edge channel, we find a very good agreement between the measured τD(T ) (symbols) and the simple Coulomb thermometry expression [19, 20] τD ∝ cosh−2(TC/T ) (red line) with an activation temperature TC = 155 mK, compatible with the non-linear characterization value ≃ 150 mK [18]. In the present heat transport experiment, only one side of the detector is heated up and the electronic energy distri- bution in the corresponding inner edge channel could be different from an equilibrium distribution function [21]. We therefore extract an effective temperature Teff from the inverted temperature calibration shown Fig. 2(d).
Figure 3(a) shows the detector transmission as a func- tion of the voltage bias VH applied either to the heater upstream (HU , ▲) or downstream (HD2, △), with the in- ner edge channel fully reflected at HD1. Assuming only that τD increases with the temperature, we find as ex- pected that heating is the largest for the upstream heater HU , directly connected to the detector by the current car- rying edge modes, and that heating increases with VH . More surprisingly, the raw data demonstrates the pres- ence of a smaller but relatively important heating from the downstream heater HD2, without associated electri- cal current. This is in contrast with the co-propagation of heat and charge seen at integer filling factors [15, 22], and in particular on the same sample at ν = 2 [21, 23]. Figure 3(b) shows on a surface plot of τD the interplay of heating upstream and downstream the detector (the detector is here set to a slightly higher activation temper- ature than elsewhere). Remarkably, the equitransmission lines (red) display ellipsoid shapes of similar aspect ra- tios. This is illustrated at τD = 0.05 with the ellipse(VHU/60 µV)2+(VHD2/136 µV)2 = 1 (white dashed line). The detected heating is therefore approximately given by simply summing up the upstream and downstream in-
(a)
(d)
0.1
0.2

-100 0 100 50
100
150 HUHD2
T ef f (m
K)
VH (µV) -100 0 100VH (µV)
0
(c)HUHD2
T ef f-T
eff (V H
=0 ) (
mK 2 )
2 2
D
HD2 long edge HU HD1 HD2
(-100)2 0 (100)2 VH (µV2)
(50)2 (75)2(-75)2 (-50)2 0
502 752
1002
1502
1252
VHD2 (µV)
V H U (µ
V)
-100
100
0
100 2000-100-200 0
0.1
0.2
D
(b)
2
FIG. 3. (color online). Heat detection versus heater posi- tion. (a) Measured detector inner edge channel transmission τD(VD = 0) versus the voltage bias VH applied either to the heater HU upstream (▲) or HD2 downstream (△), with the inner edge channel fully reflected at HD1. (b) Surface plot of τD versus the simultaneously applied upstream VHU and downstream VHD2 heater voltages, with the inner channel re- flected at HD1. The detector is here set to a slightly higher activation energy than elsewhere. Continuous lines (red) are equitransmission contours at integer multiples of 0.025. The dashed line is a fit of the equitransmission line τD = 0.05 with an ellipse of minor (major) diameter 60 µV (136 µV) along VHU (VHD2). (c) Effective temperature Teff extracted from τD(VD = 0) in (a), using the temperature detector cal- ibration (Fig. 2(d)). (d) Symbols: Difference between the squared effective temperature and the thermal contribution T 2eff(VH = 0) (∝ energy increase) plotted versus V 2H (∝ in- jected power) for each heater. Full (open) symbols correspond to heating upstream (downstream). In the ‘HD2 long edge’ configuration, more than 91 % of the inner channel electrical current is deviated toward a large ohmic contact at the inter- mediate downstream heater HD1. Straight lines are guides to the eye.

4 jected power with a fixed scaling factor. The observation that injecting power in the upstream heater does not fa- cilitate the chargeless heating from HD2 confirms that this phenomena is not related to a local destruction of the fractional state.
To investigate further the heat transport mechanisms, and in particular the chargeless heat transport possibly driven by neutral excitations, the effective temperature Teff is extracted from the measured τD (Fig. 3(c)). In order to focus on the increase in energy density within the ‘ν = 1/3’ inner edge channel, we plot for different heater positions T 2eff(VH) − T 2eff(VH = 0) as a func- tion of V 2H , which is proportional to the injected power (Fig. 3(d)). The validity of this procedure to subtract the thermal background was established experimentally by checking that data taken at different temperatures T = {50,100,150} mK fall on top of each other [18]. Note that, if we assume a thermal energy distribution at the temperature Teff(VH), the plotted quantity would be directly proportional to the increase in electronic energy density due to the injected power. The increase in the effective energy density is found proportional to the in- jected power when heating upstream (HU ), as expected in the simple edge channel picture [21]. Interestingly, the same linear dependence is also observed when heating downstream the detection point (HD1, HD2), in presence of only chargeless heat transport (straight lines are guides to the eye). These observations were reproduced for dif- ferent settings of the heat detector and on two samples. They are compatible with a proportion of injected power transferred at the heaters into neutral modes, which does not depend on energy (nor on base temperature up to 150 mK [18]). It is also consistent with a chargeless heat current that has the same energy dependence as the heat current by the charged edge modes, which is expected to be proportional to the energy density. Interestingly, the same heating is detected when using either the clos- est downstream heater HD1, or the furthest downstream HD2 with an injected power increased by a factor 1.8±0.3, similar to the heater-detector distance ratio ∼ 1.6 (this quantitative comparison can be done using the raw τD directly).
Neutral edge modes propagating in the opposite di- rection to the electrical current are not usually expected at ν = 4/3 [24]. Nonetheless, such phenomena could re- sult from edge reconstruction due to Coulomb interaction in presence of a realistic smooth confinement potential at the edge [25–28]. In order to discriminate between chargeless heat transport along the edge or through the bulk, we deviate the electrical edge path between the de- tector and the heater HD2 toward a macroscopic ohmic contact located six hundred microns away. This is done by opening the intermediate constriction HD1. Note that the same ohmic contact at ν = 2 was found to behave like a reservoir of cold electrons [23]. Here the simultaneous monitoring of the conductance through HD1 allows us
to ascertain that between 91 % and 96 % of the elec- trical current carried by the inner edge channel reaches the contact. Therefore, if the chargeless heat transport is carried by neutral modes following the reverse direc- tion of the electrical current along the edge, we should observe a strong reduction in the detected heating. On the contrary, the corresponding data labeled ‘HD2 long edge’ in Fig. 3(d) (○ ) are indistinguishable, at our rela- tive experimental accuracy of ±15% [18], from injecting power with the same heater HD2 without deviating the edge path (△). This shows that the presently observed chargeless heat transport propagates through the bulk. We remark that this central conclusion can be reached di- rectly from the raw τD measurements. Note also that the observation of a similar upstream heat signal, when the injected power and heater-detector distance are scaled by the same factor, is consistent with an isotropic 2D-bulk heat transport (see [18] for further discussions on heat paths). Intriguingly, the recent noise measurements in- vestigating neutral edge modes [15–17] have not pointed out such a chargeless heat transport through the bulk. However, to the best of our knowledge, these previous noise measurements would not discriminate between bulk and edge heat transport [18].
The mechanism responsible for the presently observed chargeless heat transport is presently not known. In principle the coupling to phonons is possible, but dif- ferent estimates suggest it is negligible [18, 29, 30] and it did not result in discernable heat transfers at ν = 2 on the same sample and energy scales for propagation distances up to 30 µm [18, 23, 31]. Heat transfers be- tween edge states and the electronic excitations in the nearby surface metallic gates were also found negligible at ν = 2 [23, 31]. A possibility is the coupling to low energy spin degrees of freedom in the 2D-bulk. In that respect, it is noteworthy that experimental signatures of a spin-unpolarized 2D-bulk were observed in similar de- vices set to ν = 4/3 [32, 33], and that low energy spin excitations were evidenced from the fragile spin polar- ization at ν = 1 [34]. Another possibility is the coupling to localized electronic states in the 2D-bulk by the long range Coulomb interaction. Such states are more abun- dant in the fractional quantum Hall regimes, where the fractional gap is not much larger than the energy broad- ening by disorder. It is conceivable that in our sample, the presence of such states is favored by the wide surface gate located along the edge channel and fixed at ground potential (Fig. 1(b)).
Finally, an important outcome of this work is the demonstration of a direct method to investigate heat transport in the fractional quantum Hall regimes. This opens the path to novel experiments studying the intrigu- ing electronic states found in these regimes.
The authors gratefully acknowledge P. Degiovanni, F. Portier, H. Pothier, P. Roche for discussions. This work was supported by the ERC (ERC-2010-StG-20091028,

5 #259033). Note added.- Recently, we became aware of two related
experimental works investigating heat transport in the quantum Hall regime with quantum dots [35, 36].
∗ Current address: CEA, Service de Physique de l’E´tat Condense´ (SPEC), 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
† Current address: CNRS, Centre de Spectrome´trie Nu- claire et de Spectrome´trie de Masse (CSNSM), 91405 Or- say Campus, France
‡ Corresponding author: frederic.pierre@lpn.cnrs.fr [1] X.-G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys B 6, 1711 (1992). [2] R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983). [3] L. Saminadayar, D. C. Glattli, Y. Jin, and B. Etienne,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2526 (1997). [4] R. de Picciotto, M. Reznikov, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky,
G. Bunin, and D. Mahalu, Nature 389, 162 (1997). [5] D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 48, 1559 (1982). [6] G. Moore and N. Read, Nucl. Phys. B 360, 362 (1991). [7] C. L. Kane, M. P. A. Fisher, and J. Polchinski, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 72, 4129 (1994). [8] S.-S. Lee, S. Ryu, C. Nayak, and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 99, 236807 (2007). [9] M. Levin, B. I. Halperin, and B. Rosenow, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 99, 236806 (2007). [10] C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 55, 15832
(1997). [11] E. Grosfeld and S. Das, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 106403
(2009). [12] H. A. Fertig, Physics 2, 15 (2009). [13] S. Takei, M. Milletar`ı, and B. Rosenow, Phys. Rev. B
82, 041306 (2010). [14] G. Viola, S. Das, E. Grosfeld, and A. Stern, “Thermo-
electric probe for neutral edge modes in the fractional quantum Hall regime,” ArXiv:1203.3813.
[15] A. Bid, O. Nissim, H. Inoue, M. Heiblum, C. L. Kane, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Nature 466, 585 (2010).
[16] M. Dolev, Y. Gross, R. Sabo, I. Gurman, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 036805 (2011).
[17] Y. Gross, M. Dolev, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, and
D. Mahalu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 226801 (2012). [18] See online supplementary material. [19] C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B 44, 1646 (1991). [20] L. P. Kouwenhoven, C. M. Marcus, P. L. McEuen,
S. Tarucha, R. M. Westervelt, and N. S. Wingreen, in Mesoscopic Electron Transport Series E: Applied Sci- ences, Vol. 345, edited by L. L. Sohn, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and G. Scho¨n (Kluwer Academic, 1997) pp. 105–214.
[21] C. Altimiras, H. le Sueur, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, D. Mailly, and F. Pierre, Nature Phys. 6, 34 (2010).
[22] G. Granger, J. P. Eisenstein, and J. L. Reno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 086803 (2009).
[23] C. Altimiras, H. le Sueur, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, D. Mailly, and F. Pierre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 226804 (2010).
[24] C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 51, 13449 (1995).
[25] A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 220 (1990).
[26] I. L. Aleiner and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2935 (1994).
[27] C. d. C. Chamon and X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 49, 8227 (1994).
[28] X. Wan, K. Yang, and E. H. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 056802 (2002).
[29] T. Martin and S. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1971 (1990). [30] P. J. Price, J. Appl. Phys. 53, 6863 (1982). [31] H. le Sueur, C. Altimiras, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna,
D. Mailly, and F. Pierre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 056803 (2010).
[32] R. G. Clark, S. R. Haynes, A. M. Suckling, J. R. Mallett, P. A. Wright, J. J. Harris, and C. T. Foxon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1536 (1989).
[33] L. Tiemann, G. Gamez, N. Kumada, and K. Muraki, Science 335, 828 (2012).
[34] P. Plochocka, J. M. Schneider, D. K. Maude, M. Potem- ski, M. Rappaport, V. Umansky, I. Bar-Joseph, J. G. Groshaus, Y. Gallais, and A. Pinczuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 126806 (2009).
[35] V. Venkatachalam, S. Hart, L. Pfeiffer, K. West, and A. Yacoby, “Local Thermometry of Neutral Modes on the Quantum Hall Edge,” ArXiv:1202.6681.
[36] I. Gurman, R. Sabo, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, “Extracting net current from an upstream neutral mode in the fractional quantum Hall regime,” ArXiv:1205.2945.

Supplementary Material for ‘Chargeless heat transport in the fractional quantum Hall regime’
C. Altimiras,1, ∗ H. le Sueur,1, † U. Gennser,1 A. Anthore,1 A. Cavanna,1 D. Mailly,1 and F. Pierre1, ‡ 1CNRS / Univ Paris Diderot (Sorbonne Paris Cite´),
Laboratoire de Photonique et de Nanostructures (LPN), route de Nozay, 91460 Marcoussis, France
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ν = 4/3 FRACTIONAL QUANTUM HALL REGIME
Supplementary figure 1 shows the transverse (Hall) and longitudinal resistance of the sample in the vicin- ity of the ν = 4/3 plateau, measured at base temperature T ≃ 40 mK.
5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4
0.65
0.70
0.75
0
500
1000
1500
R X Y/R
K
B (T)
R (O
hm )
XX
FIG. 1. Longitudinal (RXX) and transverse (RXY ) resis- tances plotted as function of magnetic field in the vicinity of the ν = 4/3 plateau at T = 40 mK.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
1000
R X X+
R s eri
es (O
hm )
T (K) FIG. 2. Temperature dependence of the longitudinal resis- tance. The longitudinal resistance RXX in series with a fixed access resistance of ∼ 310 Ω is plotted as symbols in Log scale versus temperature. The continuous line is a fit of the lon- gitudinal resistance with the function R0 exp(∆eff4/3 /2kBT ), using ∆eff
4/3 ≃ kB × 700 mK, and assuming a series resistance of 310 Ω.
Supplementary figure 2 displays as symbols the longi- tudinal resistance at the working point B = 6 T as a func- tion of temperature. The fit of these data with the usual exponential function R0 exp(∆eff4/3 /2kBT ) (continuous line) gives an effective fractional gap ∆eff
4/3 ≃ kB×700 mK. Note that the intrinsic fractional gap ∆4/3 is larger since ∆4/3 = ∆eff4/3 + δE, with δE the energy broadening due to disorder. In our sample we find δE ∼ 2.5 K > ∆eff
4/3 from the onset magnetic field B ∼ 0.2 T for the Shubnikov de Haas oscillations.
POWER INJECTION AT THE QUANTUM POINT CONTACT HEATERS
Derivation of the power injected locally
FIG. 3. Simplified schematic circuit used for power balance considerations. The Landau level filling factor is here set to 1/3. The edge channel is shown as a white line and the propa- gation direction of the electrical current is indicated by an ar- row. Red areas in the reservoirs highlight the locations where the power Pδµ, associated to the difference in electrochemical potential between edge and reservoir, is dissipated.
We derive the power injected locally, at the voltage bi- ased quantum point contact heaters. The analysis does not rely on a detailed description of the fractional edge physics but on general power balance considerations to- gether with the observed chirality of the electrical current (following the analysis detailed in the supplementary in- formation of [1] for an integer quantum channel).
We consider the simplified circuit at filling factor 1/3 (one fractional ν = 1/3 edge channel) shown in Supple- mentary figure 3.
The total power provided by the voltage generator is P = V 2/(3RK/τ), with τ the quantum point contact transmission. This power can be decomposed into two
ar X
iv :1
20 2.
63 00
v2 [
co nd
-m at.
me s-h
all ]
4 J ul
20 12

2 contributions:
P = V 2τ/3RK = Pδµ + Pheat. (1) The first one (Pδµ) corresponds to the power injected into the drain and source electrodes due to the electro- chemical potential difference δµ with the corresponding incoming edge. The edge electrochemical potential is de- fined as that of a floating electrode inserted in its path, in the spirit of the ‘measurement reservoir’ model (see e.g. [2]). At unity transmission τ = 1, this ‘electro- chemical power’ is the only contribution to the dissipated power Pδµ(τ = 1) = P = V 2/3RK . In general, the electro- chemical power injected by each fractional ν = 1/3 edge channel in its output electrode is (δµ)2/6h. At arbitrary transmission τ , the electrochemical potential difference at the input of both the source and drain electrodes is∣δµ∣ = τe∣V ∣ and one finds:
Pδµ = τ2V 2/3RK . (2) The second contribution (Pheat) corresponds to the heat power injected locally, absorbed by excited states on both sides of the quantum point contact. At perfect transmis- sion and reflection, this contribution vanishes. At in- termediate transmissions, Pheat is obtained from Supple- mentary equations 1 and 2:
Pheat = P − Pδµ = τ(1 − τ) V 2 3RK
. (3)
Half of this power is distributed on each side of the quan- tum point contact. Consequently, at transmission τ = 0.5 the power injected into excited states in one side of the quantum point contact reads Pheat/2 ≃ 0.25V 2/6RK .
Practical implementation of local power injection
As an illustration, we detail here the simultaneous power injection at HU and HD2 performed to obtain the data shown in Article Fig. 3(b).
In this case, the edge channels are fully reflected at HD1. Since the right electrode across HD2 is grounded (see Article Fig. 1(b)), the voltage VHD2 is applied by shifting the electrochemical potential of the inner edge channel on the left-hand side of the constriction HD2. This is done by biasing HU with symmetric voltage sources VHD2 ± VHU /2. Note that the quantum detector is maintained at zero voltage for the probed inner edge channel by applying VHD2 to the bottom right voltage source in Article Fig. 1(b).
split gate D (V)
V D (µ
V)
-0.30 -0.25
-100
0
100


FIG. 4. Detector dot non-linear characterization. Surface plot of the detector transmission (darkest areas correspond to the transmission τD = 0). Solid lines delimit the charge stability areas. Data at 40 mK of Article fig. 2(c) are obtained on the dashed line position.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PRESENT HEAT DETECTION TECHNIQUE AND THE ENERGY DISTRIBUTION SPECTROSCOPY
DEMONSTRATED IN [1]
We here clarify the differences between the previously demonstrated energy distribution spectroscopy [1] and the present heat detection technique.
First, although both the present heat detection tech- nique and that demonstrated in [1] make use of a quan- tum dot, these are tuned in different regimes. In the present work, the quantum dot is tuned in the metal- lic regime, with no evidences of discrete electronic levels in the dot, whereas in the previous works [1, 3, 4] the quantum dot is tuned in the single active electronic level regime.
Second, the present heat detection technique relies on activated transport above the Coulomb gap whereas the previous technique [1] makes use of the narrow energy filter provided by the single active electronic level in the dot.
In practice, we find that the activated transport tech- nique demonstrated in the present work is well suited to investigate the complex fractional regime, whereas we could not implement on the ‘fractional’ inner edge channel the electronic energy distribution spectroscopy demonstrated in [1] due to the stringent constraints on the quantum dot detector (e.g. single electronic level in the quantum dot in an adequate energy window and energy independent quantum dot-edge channel tunnel transmissions).

3 QUANTUM DOT CALIBRATION
The Coulomb blockade regime of the detector is ev- idenced from the Coulomb diamond shape differential transmission τD of the ‘ν = 1/3’ edge channel versus the detector split gate voltage and applied detector bias voltage VD. The diamonds corresponding to the detec- tor used for the data of Article Fig. 2(c),(d) are shown in Supplementary Fig. 4. The data shown in Article Fig. 2(c) at T = 40 mK are obtained for the split gate D set to the voltage −0.284 V (dashed line).
(-100)2 0 (100)2 0
(VH)2 (µV2) (50)2 (75)2(-75)2 (-50)2
502 752
1002
1502
1252
T ef f-T
eff (V H
=0 ) (
mK 2 )
2 2
FIG. 5. Relative precision of heat injection. Difference be- tween the squared effective temperature and the thermal con- tribution versus V 2H . The red dots correspond to the HD2 long edge effect measurement (same data as in Article figure 3(d)), the purple squares to the HD1 effect configuration and the or- ange triangles to the HD2 configuration.
The coupling of the dot to the drain (source) is char- acterized by a capacitance CD (CS) and a resistance RD (RS). The gate is only capacitively coupled to the dot with CG. From the slopes of the degeneracy lines that delimit the charge stability areas, we estimate CD = 1.1 (CS = 1.4) fF and CG = 1 aF. These values correspond to a charging energy EC = 32 µeV, consistent with the measured gap displayed Article Fig. 2(c).
Note the absence of lines parallel to the degeneracy lines. This indicates that the detector dot contained a large number of levels separated by δE << kBT . Conse- quently, we use the standard ‘metallic’ dot description of coulomb blockade.
In the regime δE << kBT < EC , the detector calibra- tion at VD = 0 is made by changing the base temperature T and measuring the activated differential transmission τD(T ). The measured data at the chosen split gate D value are consistent with the standard expression [5, 6]. In the middle of a nearly symmetric metallic dot, this
expression reads:
τD(T ) = ( RK RD +RS ) 1cosh2(EC/(2.5kBT )) .
The activation temperature quoted in the paper is there- fore related to the charging energy by TC = EC/(2.5kB). Note that the above expression is valid assuming that source and drain electrodes and the metallic dot are at thermal equilibrium at temperature T and composed of Fermi quasiparticles. Remarkably, we find an excellent agreement while probing the fractional ‘ν = 1/3’ inner channel.
RELATIVE ACCURACY ON THE EXTRACTED EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE Teff
-100000 0 100000 0
5000
10000
15000
T2 eff -T
2 eff (V H
=0 ) (
mK )2
V (µV2)2H FIG. 6. Excess squared temperature for different base temperatures versus injected power across the downstream heater HD1. Square symbols (blue), circle symbols (pur- ple) and triangular symbols (red) respectively correspond to Tbase = 50, 100 and 150 mK.
In order to change the downstream heater used (HD1, HD2 and HD2 long edge), we also change the voltage ap- plied to the corresponding split gates. Due to capacitive cross-talk, this could slightly modify the detector cali- bration and therefore reduce our relative accuracy when comparing different downstream heaters. However, this can be checked by comparing the heating signals resulting from the same upstream power injection in the different downstream heater configurations: if the quantum dot detector is not modified, the different HU data should fall on top of each other.
Supplementary figure 5 shows the measured excess square temperature for the three configurations as a function of V 2H . The relative imprecision between the three downstream configurations remains mostly below 15 %, which is the relative accuracy quoted in the article.

4 EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE PROCEDURE USED TO SUBTRACT THE THERMAL
BACKGROUND CONTRIBUTION
We here establish experimentally the procedure to sub- tract the thermal background.
For this purpose, we compare data taken at strongly different base temperatures, Tbase = 50, 100 and 150 mK. The observation that the resulting excess square temper- ature T 2eff(VH)−T 2eff(VH = 0) is essentially independent of the base temperature, at our experimental accuracy of 15%, validates the procedure.
Supplementary figure 6 shows a comparison of the ex- cess square temperature extracted from the detector sig- nal when injecting power at the downstream heater HD1 for the three base temperatures. Note that the present test was made on another sample with a different detec- tor (of which diamonds are shown in Article figure 2(b)) but with the same geometry. Similar results are obtained when injecting power upstream on the same sample (data not shown), as well as on a less systematic study but on the same sample and with detector settings as that used in Article figures 2(c),(d) and 3 (data not shown).
HOW DOES THE PRESENT OBSERVATION OF CHARGELESS HEAT TRANSPORT AWAY
FROM THE EDGE COMPARE WITH EXISTING DATA?
Comparison to neutral edge modes investigations by noise measurements
Recently, the predicted neutral edge modes were inves- tigated through noise measurements [7–9]. In apparent contradiction with the present work, these measurements have shown no indications of chargeless heat transport through the 2D-bulk.
However, the previous noise experiments [7–9] are not designed to discriminate between chargeless heat trans- port along the edge and through the bulk. We believe the presence of chargeless heat transport through the 2D-bulk would not have necessarily resulted in a distinct detected noise signal.
Moreover, the distance between power injection and heat detection is larger than in the present experiment by an order of magnitude or more. We found in the present work that increasing the heater-detector distance reduces the upstream heat signal due to chargeless heat transport through the bulk. The much larger distance in the pre- vious noise investigations is likely to strongly reduce the heat signal due to the presently observed chargeless heat transport through the bulk.
Other possibly important differences include the differ- ent heat detection schemes (noise measurement vs ther- mally activated current) and the power injection method
(in Refs. [7–9] the power injection to neutral modes is performed with a current biased ohmic contact, possibly due to the hot spot associated with an incoming charge mode).
We therefore conclude that the present observation of a chargeless heat transport through the bulk is not in- compatible with the previous experiments [7–9].
Heat transport investigations at integer filling factors
Filling factor ν = 1 In the experiment performed by Granger and cowork-
ers [10], the heat current was found to obey the same chirality as the electrical current, for relatively long distances between power injection and heat detection (20 − 60 µm). In addition, an apparent energy leak- age was observed, whose mechanism remains unresolved. The presently observed chargeless heat transport through the bulk could be related to the apparent energy leakage in [10], possibly due to similar low energy magnetic exci- tations in the 2D-bulk [11].
Filling factor ν = 2 No similar chargeless heat transport was detected on
the same sample at filling factor ν = 2 [1, 3, 4]. It is directly seen in the experiment shown Fig. 2(b)
of [4], which is the equivalent, but in the ‘forward’ di- rection, of the measurement labeled ‘HD2 long edge’ in Article Fig. 3(d). In the experiment at ν = 2, one finds no discernable heat transfer across the same constriction HD1 of the same sample when the electrical path is de- viated toward a cold reservoir (Gi = 1 in Fig. 2(b) of [4]).
The conclusion that no significant amount of heat was deviated toward extra modes at the power injection point and on sub-micron length scales can also be reached from the fact that the injected power is fully recovered down- stream the power injection point at our experimental ac- curacy (see Fig. 4d in [1]).
SUPPLEMENTARY DISCUSSIONS ON HEAT TRANSPORT MECHANISMS
Coupling to phonons
In principle it is conceivable that electron-phonon cou- pling is responsible for the detected chargeless heat trans- port through the bulk. However we believe it is unlikely, as detailed below.

5 Our arguments rely on theoretical considerations, on the actual observation that this mechanism is negligible at filling factor ν = 2 for similar length and energy scales, and on the relatively small heating detected on the ‘cold’ side of a quantum dot detector.
Theoretical expectations
The expected exponential decay of the electron-phonon coupling along quantum Hall channels and the small power transfer from electrons to phonons in 2D elec- tron gases seem incompatible with an explanation relying on electron-phonon interactions for the chargeless heat transport observed in the present work. Temperature dependence At low temperature along a quantum Hall edge chan-
nel, the electron-phonon coupling is expected to be expo- nentially suppressed with a characteristic inelastic time proportional to exp(−TC/T ), and a cross-over tempera- ture evaluated to TC ≈ 4 K for our sample [12].
This prediction seems incompatible with the observa- tion that heating upstream scales with the power injected downstream (see Article Fig. 3(d)). Quantitative estimate in 2D electron gases at
low temperature We are not aware of quantitative theoretical predic-
tions for the electron-phonon coupling along quantum Hall channels. In order to get an order of magnitude esti- mate of the power transferred from electrons to phonons, we will use the theoretical predictions for a 2D electron gas in the ballistic regime.
According to theory [13] and experiment [14], in Ga(Al)As ballistic 2D electron gases at sub-Kelvin temperatures the power transferred from electrons to phonons reads:
Pe−ph = 1.65 × 106n−1/2S A(T 5e − T 5ph), (4) with nS the electron density per unit area (nS ≃ 2 × 1015 m−2), A is the area, Te is the elec- tronic temperature and Tph is the phonon temperature.
In order to have a significant electron-phonon contribu- tion to the heating detected upstream, the power trans- ferred to phonons should be at least 1/10 of the injected power (note that, in addition, the phonons should be significantly heated up in order to transmit back to the electronic system some of the absorbed power). An upper bound of the power transferred from electrons to phonons is obtained using the above expression with the highest effective electronic temperature 200 mK measured down- stream for VHU = 100 µV, a cold phonon bath at 50 mK and assuming a large edge channel of width 1 µm. Un- der these conditions, a macroscopic length of 0.14 mm is required to transfer 1/10 of the injected power from electrons to phonons. This is in contrast with the small
heater-detector edge distances, below 3 microns in the present experiment.
Electron-phonon coupling at filling factor ν = 2 Several observations at filling factor ν = 2 on the same
sample show that electron-phonon energy exchanges are small (these conclusions also apply to the coupling with the low energy electronic states in the surface metal gates).
The most direct demonstration is the observation in [4] that all inelastic mechanisms along a quantum edge chan- nel can be frozen over a propagation distance of 8 µm, for an effective electronic temperature of 85 mK. In par- ticular, this observation shows that the energy exchanges between electrons and phonons have a negligible effect on the non-equilibrium electronic energy distribution func- tion for this propagation length and energy scale.
Moreover, we find that an edge channel driven out-of- equilibrium relaxes toward the same hot Fermi function (of electronic temperature up to 110 mK on top of a bath temperature of 40 mK) after a propagation distance of either 10 µm or 30 µm [3]. The fact that this hot Fermi function remains at the same temperature over at least 20 µm shows that no significant net power is transferred toward the phonons degrees of freedom. Assuming the phonons are at cold equilibrium, this observation implies that energy exchanges between electrons and phonons are negligible on these length and energy scales.
Electron-phonon coupling at filling factor ν = 4/3 An indication that electron-phonon interactions do not
result in significant heat transfers in the present exper- iment at ν = 4/3 is the supplementary data set showing that, at our experimental accuracy, only one side of the quantum dot detector is heated up. See the dedicated subsection below.
Heat paths discussion
Isotropic chargeless heat transport through the bulk?
We demonstrate experimentally the presence charge- less heat transport located further in the bulk than the electrical edge path. One may ask if this heat current flows in all directions within the 2D-bulk.
Note first that far enough inside the 2D-bulk the edge has no influence and therefore there can be no preferred direction relative to the electrical current along the edge.
In addition, the observation of a similar upstream heat signal when the power injected on HD1 and HD2 is scaled as the heater-detector distance seems consistent with an

6 isotropic 2D-bulk heat transport. Indeed, in the station- ary regime and ignoring interactions with other degrees of freedom, the power injected locally in the bulk is equal to the outgoing energy current across a perimeter enclos- ing the power injection point. For an isotropic chargeless heat transport in the 2D-bulk, the corresponding heat current is distributed equally at a given distance and therefore scales with the injected power and inversely with the distance to power injection. Note that such scaling is only approximately valid for the geometry of the studied sample. At the investigated heater-detector distances using HD1 and HD2, the injected power would redistribute roughly on a quarter of circle.
Chiral heat transport along the edge?
One may ask if heat transport occurs only in the bulk, or also along the edge in the ‘forward’ direction (with the same chirality as the electrical current). Our findings very strongly suggest that heat transport in the ‘forward’ direction is also carried along the edge and that it is the main heat transport mechanism in that direction.
First, the very observation of chiral charge transport along the edge points out a forward heat current along the edge. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, according to theory a chiral charge transport along the quantum Hall edge is always associated with the propagation of electronic excitations along the edge that transfer heat in the same direction as the electrical current (see e.g. [15– 17]). (In addition, other excited states could transport heat along different paths, possibly through the bulk due to e.g. Coulomb interaction or spin polarization.) Sec- ond, we find that heat transport is much more efficient in the forward direction than in the backward direction. (We can compare the detected heating signal for heat injection points at similar edge distances upstream and downstream. We show in Article Fig. 3(d) that it is nec- essary to inject about four times more power when using the downstream heat injection point HD1 in order to ob- tain the same heating signal as using HU ). This suggests the presence of an extra heat transport mechanism in the forward direction, in addition to the detected chargeless heat transport through the bulk observed directly in the backward direction. This therefore corroborates the ex- pected forward heat transport along the edge.
SUPPLEMENTARY HEAT TRANSPORT DATA AT ν = 4/3
In this section we present supplementary data provid- ing information on the chargeless heat transport mecha- nism revealed in the present work.
Heating of the ‘fractional’ inner edge channel with power injected in the ‘integer’ outer edge channel
We here show data demonstrating that the inner edge channel can be heated up by injecting power in the outer edge channel. Remarkably, a similar heating is observed for upstream or downstream power injection at, respec- tively, HU and HD1 which are located approximately at the same distance from the detector D. This suggests that the main heat transfer mechanism responsible for the presently observed heating is not a direct coupling between inner and outer edge channels, but rather the coupling of both channels with other low energy modes.
V H U (
µV )
VHD1 (µV) -100
-100 100
100
0
0
0.2
0.1
0
D
FIG. 7. Inner edge channel heat signal versus outer edge channel power injection. The detector inner edge channel transmission is plotted versus the simultaneously applied up- stream VHU and downstream VHD1 heater voltages. Con- tinuous lines (red) are equitransmission contours at integer multiples of 0.025. The white dashed line is a fit of the equi- transmission line τD = 0.05 with an ellipse of minor (major) diameter 58 µV (68 µV) along VHD1 (VHU ).
Supplementary Fig. 7 shows the activated transmission probability of the ‘fractional’ inner edge channel across the quantum dot detector D, plotted as a function of the applied voltage across the heaters HU and HD1 set to inject power in the ‘integer’ outer edge channel. For this purpose, in contrast with the data displayed in the article, the constrictions HU and HD1 are here tuned to transmit half of the outer edge channel (with the inner edge channel fully reflected). Note also that the detector is set to a different operating point that in the article, here with a blockaded transport up to a onset drain- source voltage of 35 µV at 30 mK (similar data were obtained at another operating point with a half smaller onset drain-source voltage).
The increased detector transmission probability with power injection at HU or/and HD1 demonstrates that heat can be transferred from the outer edge channel

7 to the inner one. Remarkably, in contrast with ob- servations when heat injection and detection are per- formed on the same inner channel (see Article Fig. 3(d)), the same heating (increase in detector transmission) is here obtained with a slightly lower power injection from the downstream heater HD1 than from the up- stream heater HU . This is illustrated by compar- ing the equipotential line τD = 0.05 with the ellipse(VHU/68 µV)2 + (VHD1/58 µV)2 = 1 (white dashed line). Interestingly, the downstream heater HD1 is at an edge distance of 1.4 µm from the detector, slightly closer than HU located at an edge distance of 1.8 µm. Assuming that more heat propagates downstream along the ‘in- teger’ outer edge channel and taking into account the other observation that power injected in the inner chan- nel propagates preferentially downstream, this finding appears incompatible with a direct heat transfer between outer and inner channel along the edge. Instead, this suggests that the inner and outer edge channel are both coupled to some other low energy modes that do not contribute to charge transport and that propagate heat equally upstream and downstream.
Heating in the ‘integer’ outer edge channel probed with a quantum dot detector in the discrete
electronic level regime
We here show the heating signal detected on the outer edge channel when the power is injected upstream at a short distance (0.7 µm) in the same channel (see Supple- mentary Fig. 8). Importantly, the quantum dot detector is set in the discrete electronic level regime. This allows us to probe separately the temperatures in the outer edge channels on both sides of the dot. We observe an im- portant heating on the same drain side where power is injected whereas the source side remains cold, within our typical error bars ±10%. This observation, which corrob- orates our findings at ν = 2, shows that heat transfers mediated by phonons in the substrate or by electronic degrees of freedom in the surface metal gates are much smaller than the downstream heat transfers detected in the drain outer edge channel. However, the accuracy of the present test is insufficient to directly and unambigu- ously rule out the role of phonons and surface metal gates regarding the detected chargeless heat transport through the bulk.
The quantum dot detector is here at the location of HD2 and tuned using the four nearby surface metal gates (see Supplementary Fig. 8). The detector is set to probe the ‘integer’ outer edge channel. Power was injected at HD1 (drain side of the quantum dot) in the same outer channel. For this purpose the constriction HD1 is set to transmit half of the outer channel (the inner channel being fully reflected).
The signal displayed in Supplementary Fig. 9 corre-
Drain Source
IHD2
V
VHD1VDrain
200nm
B=6T
plunger gate
HD1
FIG. 8. Experimental configuration corresponding to the data displayed in Supplementary figure 9.
-0.436 -0.434-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
outer EC HD1 ~0.5, T=42mK
No injected power Power injection in drain (V =35µV)HD1
Source signal
dI H D2
/dV plu
ng er
ga te (n
S)
Vplunger gate (V)
Drain signal
FIG. 9. Outer edge channel heat detection in source and drain based on a quantum dot detector set in the discrete electronic level regime. The quantum dot detector is here located at HD2 and tuned using the nearby top metal gates (see our previous works on the same sample [1, 3, 4]). Although the detector has more than one active electronic level in the en- ergy window defined by the applied drain-source voltage, the width of the displayed left dip (right peak) probes the temper- ature of the ’integer’ outer edge channel in the drain (source) electrode. When some power is injected in the probed outer edge channel at HD1 on the drain side, we observe a rounding of the left dip associated with an effective ‘temperature’ in- crease at the detection point on the drain side (and a shift due to the related change in electrochemical potential). On the contrary, the right dip associated with the source temperature does not change significantly with injected power.

8 sponds to the variation of the current across the quantum dot detector when the plunger gate voltage is changed. As discussed in further details below, the width of the outer-most left dip (right peak) is an increasing func- tion of the temperature in the drain (source) outer edge channel. Note that the extra center peak results from the presence of two active quantum dot levels. The observa- tion that the left dip is strongly widened when a voltage bias VHD1 = 35 µV is applied across HD1 shows that the ‘effective’ temperature of the drain outer edge channel is increased. In contrast, the right peak aspect ratio is mostly unchanged by power injection in the drain side. Consequently, the temperature of the outer edge channel in the source side of the quantum dot is not significantly heated up by power injection on the other side of the dot.
This finding shows in the present experimental con- figuration, at ν = 4/3, that heat transfers across a nar- row area depleted by a voltage biased surface gate are much smaller than heat transfers toward a downstream location along the edge channel where power is injected. However, the accuracy of this test does not allow us to rule out directly and unambiguously the possibility that the phonons or the surface metal gates play a role in the chargeless heat transport observed upstream power injection.
We now provide further detail on heat detection with a discrete electronic level quantum dot. In the simple case of a canonical quantum dot with a single active electronic level in the probed energy window (approximately delim- ited by the drain-source voltage, here VDrain = −108 µV), the left dip (right peak) is directly proportional to the derivative of the electronic energy distribution function in the drain (source) and the plunger gate voltage is pro- portional to the energy [1]. With equilibrium Fermi dis- tributions, the half-width of the dip (peak) is then sim- ply proportional to the temperature in the drain (source). The present configuration is more complex since there are at least two active electronic levels, as evidenced by the presence of two peaks. Nevertheless, we expect that the left dip and right peak probe mostly the outer edge chan- nel of, respectively, the drain and the source. Moreover, we expect that the peak/dip width remains an increasing function of the corresponding temperature, at least un- til the different peaks/dips merge. Note that simple fits of the peak/dip at cold equilibrium (‘No injected power’ data in Supplementary Fig. 9) using the derivative of a Fermi function gives the fit temperatures Tfit = 51 mK, 60 mK and 58 mK respectively for the left dip, center
peak and right peak (‘No injected power’ data in Supple- mentary Fig. 9). The same fit of the right peak in pres- ence of power injection in the drain (VHD1 = 35 µV) gives Tfit = 68 mK. With a typical temperature error bar of approximately ±10% for each temperature, the difference from the corresponding cold equilibrium fit temperature 58 mK is below our experimental accuracy.
∗ Current address: CEA, Service de Physique de l’E´tat Condense´ (SPEC), 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
† Current address: CNRS, Centre de Spectrome´trie Nu- claire et de Spectrome´trie de Masse (CSNSM), 91405 Or- say Campus, France
‡ Corresponding author: frederic.pierre@lpn.cnrs.fr [1] C. Altimiras, H. le Sueur, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna,
D. Mailly, and F. Pierre, Nature Phys. 6, 34 (2010). [2] U. Sivan and Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. B 33, 551 (1986). [3] H. le Sueur, C. Altimiras, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna,
D. Mailly, and F. Pierre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 056803 (2010).
[4] C. Altimiras, H. le Sueur, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, D. Mailly, and F. Pierre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 226804 (2010).
[5] C. W. J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B 44, 1646 (1991). [6] L. P. Kouwenhoven, C. M. Marcus, P. L. McEuen,
S. Tarucha, R. M. Westervelt, and N. S. Wingreen, in Mesoscopic Electron Transport Series E: Applied Sci- ences, Vol. 345, edited by L. L. Sohn, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and G. Scho¨n (Kluwer Academic, 1997) pp. 105–214.
[7] A. Bid, O. Nissim, H. Inoue, M. Heiblum, C. L. Kane, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Nature 466, 585 (2010).
[8] M. Dolev, Y. Gross, R. Sabo, I. Gurman, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 036805 (2011).
[9] Y. Gross, M. Dolev, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, “Upstream neutral modes in the fractional quantum hall effect regime: heat waves or coherent dipoles,” ArXiv:1109.0102.
[10] G. Granger, J. P. Eisenstein, and J. L. Reno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 086803 (2009).
[11] P. Plochocka, J. M. Schneider, D. K. Maude, M. Potem- ski, M. Rappaport, V. Umansky, I. Bar-Joseph, J. G. Groshaus, Y. Gallais, and A. Pinczuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 126806 (2009).
[12] T. Martin and S. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1971 (1990). [13] P. J. Price, J. Appl. Phys. 53, 6863 (1982). [14] A. Mittal, R. Wheeler, M. Keller, D. Prober, and
R. Sacks, Surface Science 361/362, 537 (1996). [15] X.-G. Wen, Int. J. Mod. Phys B 6, 1711 (1992). [16] C. L. Kane and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 55, 15832
(1997). [17] C. d. C. Chamon and X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 49, 8227
(1994).