Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Ergotropy of a Photosynthetic Reaction Center

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the Photosystem II reaction center's capacity for storing work as quantum ergotropy depends on which electron-transfer pathway is active, with the ChlD1–PheD1 pathway and the three-state pathway behaving like energy…

desk verdict A solid ergotropy analysis on a borrowed PSIIRC model, but the population-only master equation leaves the pathway ranking unproven until coherences are checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04097 v1 pith:UVAKBU26 submitted 2025-07-05 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.bio-phquant-ph

Trishna Kalita , Manash Jyoti Sarmah , Javed Akhtar , Himangshu Prabal Goswami This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phcond-mat.mes-hallphysics.bio-phquant-ph
keywords ergotropyPhotosystemIIreactioncenterquantumthermodynamicselectrontransferpathwayspassivestateschargeseparationenergystorageinphotosynthesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks how much work a Photosystem II reaction center could in principle deliver, and whether that amount depends on which charge-transfer route the electron takes. Using a quantum master equation with Redfield and Förster rates, the authors compute ergotropy, the maximum work extractable from a quantum state without losing energy, for three pathways. They find that the ChlD1–PheD1 pathway and the pathway through all three charge-separated states store energy in a high-quality, capacitor-like form, while the PD1–PD2 pathway favors fast charge flow with lower-quality work. The difference is caused by population inversions that reorganize the passive state at specific electron-ejection rates. If correct, this means biological energy conversion is not just about how much energy is transferred but about which route stores it in usable form.

What carries the argument

The machinery is ergotropy constructed from passive states, where a passive state is the same set of populations reordered so that no work can be extracted by unitary operations. Starting from a 12-state electronic Hamiltonian of the Photosystem II reaction center and a Lindblad-type rate superoperator built from Redfield excitonic relaxation rates, Förster charge-transfer rates, and perturbative electron-ejection rates, the steady-state populations are solved and sorted in descending order against ascending energies. The energy difference between the actual state and the passive state is ergotropy. Population crossovers under varying Γαβ alter the passive ordering repeatedly, producing the pathway-specific ergotropy branches.

What would settle it

Solve the same master equation with the full density matrix including coherences, for example using a hierarchical equations of motion approach, and compare the resulting ergotropy and pathway ranking; if coherences change the ordering or increase ergotropy beyond the reported values, the diagonal-state assumption is the point of failure. Experimentally, time-resolved spectroscopy tracking the ChlD1–PheD1 and PD1–PD2 charge-separated populations under controlled electron-ejection conditions could look for the predicted population crossovers at Γαβ near 0.009, 0.025, and 0.065 eV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that ergotropy, the maximum work extractable from the reaction center's quantum state through unitary operations, is pathway-specific. Solving the steady-state master equation for three electron-transfer routes shows that the pathway through ChlD1–PheD1 (the exclusive |I1⟩ pathway) and the combined three-intermediate pathway behave as energy capacitors: ergotropy and useful work rise together while photocurrent falls. In the |I2⟩–|I3⟩ pathway, by contrast, ergotropy increases while useful work declines and current rises, indicating fast charge transport at the expense of work quality. These differences are traced to population crossovers that reorder the passive state at specific electron-ejection rates Γαβ, switching the dominant energy terms that contribute to ergotropy.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that at steady state the reaction center has no quantum coherences, meaning its density matrix is diagonal in the energy eigenbasis, so all ergotropy comes from population imbalances; if real PSII retains coherence, the extractable work could be larger and the pathway ranking could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ChlD1–PheD1 exclusive pathway and the combined three-intermediate pathway act as energy capacitors, storing energy in a form with higher work quality.
  • The PD1–PD2 (|I2⟩–|I3⟩) pathway prioritizes throughput: current rises with ergotropy while useful work falls.
  • Ergotropy is not monotonic in the electron-ejection rate; population crossovers create multiple passive-state branches and ergotropy segments.
  • Ergotropy offers a thermodynamic quality metric for photosynthetic charge separation, complementing traditional measures such as photocurrent and output power.
  • The protein environment's electrostatic tuning of charge-separated states shifts which pathway is ergotropically favorable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer that if the diagonal-state assumption is relaxed to include quantum coherences, the computed ergotropy is likely to increase and the pathway ranking could change; this is a direct, testable extension of the paper's model.
  • I infer that the capacitor-like behavior suggests the reaction center could be viewed as a natural quantum battery whose charging quality is controlled by the protein environment, so mutating or electrostatically tuning ChlD1–PheD1 energies might modulate extractable work.
  • I infer that the same population-crossover mechanism should appear in other photosynthetic complexes with multiple charge-separation routes, making ergotropy a general diagnostic for energy-storage quality in bioinspired photovoltaics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyses the Photosystem II reaction center (PSIIRC) as a multi-state quantum junction and computes ergotropy for three charge-transfer pathways. The authors parameterize a population-only master equation with rates taken from Redfield and Förster theory using previously published quantum-chemical data (Refs. 18 and 44), solve for steady-state populations, construct passive states by ordering populations in descending energy, and compare ergotropy, work, power, and current as functions of the terminal electron-ejection rate Γαβ. They report that pathways involving ChlD1–PheD1 charge separation and a mixed pathway through three charge-separated states have higher ergotropy, while the pathway through PD2–PD1 and PD1–ChlD1 has lower ergotropy, and they interpret this as an energy-quality/throughput trade-off.

Significance. If the reported pathway ranking is robust, the work would extend quantum-thermodynamic concepts such as ergotropy to a biologically relevant light-harvesting complex and would identify charge-separation route as a control knob for work extractability. The study has several strengths: it uses a realistic, previously validated model of PSIIRC rather than a toy Hamiltonian; the ergotropy computation follows the standard prescription from Allahverdyan et al.; and the central quantity, the pathway ranking, is a falsifiable prediction that could be checked with more complete quantum-dynamics simulations or by measuring steady-state coherences. The paper does not fit any parameter to the reported ergotropy values, so circularity is limited. However, the population-only master equation and the hand-set terminal rate are load-bearing assumptions, and the current manuscript does not establish that the ranking survives their relaxation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III and Appendix A, Eq. (A10)] The master equation evolves only diagonal density-matrix elements, and the steady-state density matrix is asserted to be diagonal in the system-Hamiltonian eigenbasis without any secular-approximation check or estimate of stationary coherences. This assumption is load-bearing because ergotropy is not invariant under discarding coherences: for any state ρ, E(ρ) ≥ E(diag(ρ)), and Eq. (6) is exact only for diagonal states. Near-degenerate excitonic states at physiological temperature and non-secular Redfield contributions could generate appreciable off-diagonal elements, making every reported ergotropy a lower bound whose size may vary by pathway. The claimed ranking (I1-exclusive and combined pathways higher; I2–I3 pathway reduced) could therefore be an artifact of the diagonal assumption. Please provide a quantitative justification, for example by computing steady-state coherences with a non-secular Redfield or HEOM calculation, or by giving a controlled argument for their smallness in each pathway.
  2. [Appendix C] The terminal rate kβ2g is introduced as a fixed parameter set to 205 cm⁻¹ without derivation, and no sensitivity analysis is reported. This rate controls repopulation of the ground state from the terminal state and therefore affects all steady-state populations, passive-state orderings, and ergotropy values. Since the central claim is a quantitative ranking of pathways, it is essential to show either that kβ2g follows from the same spectral-overlap calculation used for other Förster rates or that the reported ranking is insensitive to variation of this parameter over a physically plausible range.
  3. [Sections III.A, III.B, and III.C] The three 'pathways' are modelled by deleting states from the master equation, giving ten-, eleven-, and twelve-dimensional Hilbert spaces, rather than by partitioning the stationary flux in a single calculation that includes all states. Because the normalization and the available decay channels differ between the reduced models, the ergotropy comparison is a comparison of artificial subsystems, not necessarily a prediction about which route an actual reaction center uses. Please clarify whether the ranking is meant as a statement about the same physical system under different hypothetical coupling scenarios, and, if so, consider validating it with a full multi-pathway calculation that decomposes the flux into the three routes.
  4. [Eq. (A10) and surrounding text] The Liouvillian matrix in Eq. (A10) is described as a Lindblad-type generator satisfying detailed balance, but it contains unidirectional rates Γβg and Γαβ, and the ground-state row includes a term γex(n+1) with no explicit definition. As written, the ground-state row appears to omit absorption terms to most excitonic states, and the use of both n and n+1 in γexn and γex(n+1) is never explained. Please define all entries of the rate matrix, especially γex(n+1), and verify explicitly that the Liouvillian conserves probability for the parameter ranges used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.C] The text states that the presence of I2 is responsible for an increase in ergotropy in the second pathway, but then concludes that the combined pathway has the lowest ergotropy; this tension should be resolved or clarified.
  2. [Figures 2–4 captions] The captions label panels as 'Wαβ−E, P−E, and j−E', which is ambiguous; if these are plots of work, power, and current versus ergotropy, please use standard notation such as 'E (eV)' for the horizontal axis.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (3)] The phrase 'ordered in a decreasing fashion Ek ≤ Ek+1' is self-contradictory; this should read 'ordered in ascending fashion' or 'Ek ≤ Ek+1' with the correct verbal description.
  4. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C3)–(C4)] The equations contain duplicated symbols '2R' and missing definitions of R; please correct these typographical errors and define all quantities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ergotropy ranking is a new calculation on an existing externally sourced PSIIRC model, not a fit or a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result is the pathway-resolved ergotropy E(Γαβ), computed from steady-state populations of a PSIIRC master equation. The model Hamiltonian and rates are taken from published external work (Olaya-Castro et al., Chem. Sci. 2017, Ref. 18) and reproduced in the same group's prior J. Chem. Phys. paper (Ref. 44); this is model input, not a fitted target. Ergotropy is then obtained by the standard definition in Eqs. (5)-(6), with the passive state constructed by sorting the same populations; no ergotropy value is used to fit any rate, and no parameter is renamed as a prediction. The fixed rate kβ2g = 205 cm^-1 (Appendix C) is hand-set but not fitted to ergotropy. The diagonal steady-state assumption (Sec. III, Eq. (A10)) is an approximation that could change the ranking if coherences were important, but that is a robustness/correctness issue, not a circularity: the approximation is stated explicitly and is not equivalent to the claimed result by construction. Self-citations [11,44] carry over framework and model ingredients, but the ergotropy ranking is not contained in those citations as an already-computed number. Hence no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main free parameter is the hand-set terminal rate. The model depends on prior literature parameters and the secular approximation; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • k_beta2g (Gamma_beta g) = 205 cm^-1
    Set as a fixed parameter in Appendix C for the ground-state recovery rate from the terminal state beta. The value is not derived and the units are unusual for a rate (cm^-1 instead of s^-1), but it affects the steady-state populations and hence the ergotropy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The PSIIRC electronic Hamiltonian and its parameters (state energies, couplings) are taken from Ref [18] without re-derivation.
    Invoked in Section II and Appendix A; the paper states 'The energies of the relevant states are reported in the literature, which we have taken from accepted calculations[18].'
  • standard math The system-bath dynamics is described by a Markovian master equation with rates at Redfield and Forster levels.
    Appendix B and C; the master equation (Eq. A10) is derived using perturbation theory applied to the system-bath coupling.
  • domain assumption The steady-state density matrix is diagonal in the Hamiltonian eigenbasis (secular approximation); coherences are neglected.
    Section III states the steady-state density matrix is diagonal, and Eq. A10 tracks only populations. If coherences are non-negligible, the ergotropy calculation is incomplete.
  • ad hoc to paper The terminal rate k_beta2g is set to 205 cm^-1 as a fixed parameter.
    Appendix C: 'we treat it as a fixed parameter, set to 205 cm^-1.' This value is not derived from spectral profiles or ab initio calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ergotropy of a Photosynthetic Reaction Center." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UVAKBU26

@misc{pith2026250704097,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ergotropy of a Photosynthetic Reaction Center},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UVAKBU26}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04097}
}
abstract

We theoretically analyze the Photosystem II reaction center using a quantum master equation approach, where excitonic and charge-transfer rates are computed at the Redfield and F\"orster levels with realistic spectral densities. The focus is on ergotropy, the maximum work extractable from a quantum state without energy loss. We compute the ergotropy by constructing passive states in the thermodynamic sense. Among the electron transfer pathways, those involving charge separation between $Chl_{D1}$ and $Phe_{D1}$, as well as a route passing through three sequential charge-separated states, yield higher ergotropy, suggesting greater capacity for work extraction, akin to quantum energy capacitors. A third pathway, bypassing the $Chl_{D1},Phe_{D1}$ pair, shows significantly reduced ergotropy. These differences arise from population-induced transitions between active and passive regimes. Our findings highlight how biological systems may exploit non-equilibrium population structures to optimize energy conversion, connecting quantum thermodynamic principles to biological energy harvesting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04097 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Model of the PSIIRC as a quantum junction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Panels (a)–(d) show the variation of system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Panels (a)–(d) show the variation of system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Panels (a)–(f) show the variation of system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Population dynamics of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Population dynamics of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (a),(b) :Energy terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (a),(b) :Energy terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems

    Armen E Allahverdyan, Roger Balian, and Theo M Nieuwenhuizen. Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems. Europhysics Letters, 67(4):565–571, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Quantum coherence and ergotropy.Physical Review Letters, 125(18):180603, 2020

    Gianluca Francica, Felix C Binder, Giacomo Guarnieri, Mark T Mitchison, John Goold, and Francesco Plas- tina. Quantum coherence and ergotropy.Physical Review Letters, 125(18):180603, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Most energetic passive states.Physical Review E, 92(4):042147, 2015

    Mart ´ ı Perarnau-Llobet, Karen V Hovhannisyan, Marcus Huber, Paul Skrzypczyk, Nicolas Brunner, and Antonio Ac ´ ın. Most energetic passive states.Physical Review E, 92(4):042147, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Quantum thermo- dynamics

    Sai Vinjanampathy and Janet Anders. Quantum thermo- dynamics. Contemporary Physics, 57(4):545–579, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Introduction to quan- tum thermodynamics

    Robert Alicki and Ronnie Kosloff. Introduction to quan- tum thermodynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.08314, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Quantum thermodynamics of local ver- sus global master equations

    Felix C Binder, Sai Vinjanampathy, Kavan Modi, and John Goold. Quantum thermodynamics of local ver- sus global master equations. New Journal of Physics, 17(7):075015, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Quantum charging advantage cannot be exten- sive without global operations

    Gian Marcello Andolina, Maximilian Keck, Andrea Mari, Michele Campisi, Vittorio Giovannetti, and Marco Polini. Quantum charging advantage cannot be exten- sive without global operations. Physical Review Letters, 122(4):047702, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Maximal work extraction unitarily from an unknown quantum state: Ergotropy estimation via feedback experiments

    Jitendra Joshi and TS Mahesh. Maximal work extraction unitarily from an unknown quantum state: Ergotropy estimation via feedback experiments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04087, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Experimental investigation of coherent er- gotropy in a single spin system

    Zhibo Niu, Yang Wu, Yunhan Wang, Xing Rong, and Jiangfeng Du. Experimental investigation of coherent er- gotropy in a single spin system. Physical Review Letters, 133(18):180401, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Ergotropy from quantum and classical correlations

    Akram Touil, Barı¸ s C ¸ akmak, and Sebastian Deffner. Ergotropy from quantum and classical correlations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 55(2):025301, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Noise-induced coherent ergotropy of a quantum heat en- gine

    Manash Jyoti Sarmah and Himangshu Prabal Goswami. Noise-induced coherent ergotropy of a quantum heat en- gine. Phys. Rev. A, 110:032213, Sep 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems

    Armen E Allahverdyan, Roger Balian, and Theo M Nieuwenhuizen. Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 67(4):565, 2004

    2004

  5. [13]

    K. N. Ferreira, T. M. Iverson, K. Maghlaoui, J. Barber, and S. Iwata. Architecture of the photosystem ii reaction center. Science, 303:1831, 2004

    2004

  6. [14]

    Molecular mechanisms of photosynthesis

    Robert E Blankenship. Molecular mechanisms of photosynthesis. John Wiley & Sons, 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    Lessons from nature about solar light harvesting

    Gregory D Scholes, Graham R Fleming, Alexandra Olaya-Castro, and Rienk van Grondelle. Lessons from nature about solar light harvesting. Nature Chemistry, 3(10):763–774, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    Photosynthetic excitation trans- fer: Theoretical and experimental insights

    Herbert van Amerongen, Leonas Valkunas, and Rienk van Grondelle. Photosynthetic excitation trans- fer: Theoretical and experimental insights. Science, 289(5485):943–948, 2000

    2000

  9. [17]

    Ev- idence for wavelike energy transfer through quan- tum coherence in photosynthetic systems

    Gregory S Engel, Tessa R Calhoun, Elizabeth L Read, Tae-Kyu Ahn, Tom´ aˇ s Manˇ cal, Yuan-Chung Cheng, Robert E Blankenship, and Graham R Fleming. Ev- idence for wavelike energy transfer through quan- tum coherence in photosynthetic systems. Nature, 446(7137):782–786, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    On the perfor- mance of a photosystem ii reaction centre-based pho- tocell††electronic supplementary information (esi) avail- able

    Richard Stones, Hoda Hossein-Nejad, Rienk van Gron- delle, and Alexandra Olaya-Castro. On the perfor- mance of a photosystem ii reaction centre-based pho- tocell††electronic supplementary information (esi) avail- able. see doi: 10.1039/c7sc02983g. Chemical Science, 8(10):6871–...

    doi

  11. [19]

    V. I. Novoderezhkin, E. Romero, J. P. Dekker, and R. van Grondelle. Multiple charge-separation pathways in pho- tosystem ii: Modeling of transient absorption kinetics. ChemPhysChem, 12(4):681–688, 2011

    2011

  12. [20]

    Theoretical examination of quantum coherence in a photosynthetic system at physiological temperature

    Akihito Ishizaki and Graham R Fleming. Theoretical examination of quantum coherence in a photosynthetic system at physiological temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(41):17255–17260, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Quantum-mechanical nature of electronic transitions in photosynthetic light harvesting

    Kenji Hoki and Paul Brumer. Quantum-mechanical nature of electronic transitions in photosynthetic light harvesting. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 113(45):15791–15800, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Quantum coherence, energy transfer and photosynthesis

    Francesca Fassioli, Alexandra Olaya-Castro, Simon Scheuring, James N Sturgis, and Rienk van Grondelle. Quantum coherence, energy transfer and photosynthesis. New Journal of Physics, 12(8):085005, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Protein matrix control of reaction center excitation in photosystem II

    Abhishek Sirohiwal, Frank Neese, and Dimitrios A Pan- tazis. Protein matrix control of reaction center excitation in photosystem II. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 142(42):18174–18190, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Creatore, M

    C. Creatore, M. Parker, S. Emmott, and A. Chin. Effi- cient biologically inspired photocell enhanced by quan- tum coherence. Physical Review Letters, 111:253601, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Fluctuations in biological and bioinspired electron-transfer reactions

    Spiros S Skourtis, David H Waldeck, and David N Beratan. Fluctuations in biological and bioinspired electron-transfer reactions. Annual Reviews of Physical Chemistry, 61(1):461–485, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Photosynthetic reac- tion center as a quantum heat engine

    Konstantin E Dorfman, Dmitri V Voronine, Shaul Mukamel, and Marlan O Scully. Photosynthetic reac- tion center as a quantum heat engine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(8):2746–2751, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Light-harvesting efficiency cannot depend on optical co- herence in the absence of orientational order.The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 15(1):254–261, 2024

    Dominic M Rouse, Adesh Kushwaha, Stefano Tomasi, Brendon W Lovett, Erik M Gauger, and Ivan Kassal. Light-harvesting efficiency cannot depend on optical co- herence in the absence of orientational order.The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 15(1):254–261, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Nicholas Werren, Will Brown, and Erik M. Gauger. Light harvesting enhanced by quantum ratchet states. PRX Energy, 2:013002, Feb 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Dissipative five-level quan- tum systems: A quantum model of photosynthetic reac- tion centers

    Zibo Wang and Imran Mirza. Dissipative five-level quan- tum systems: A quantum model of photosynthetic reac- tion centers. pages JM6B–26. Optica Publishing Group, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Noise-induced coherence in molecular processes

    Amro Dodin and Paul Brumer. Noise-induced coherence in molecular processes. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 54(22):223001, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Network structure and dynamics of effective models of nonequilibrium quantum transport

    Abigail N Poteshman, Mathieu Ouellet, Lee C Bassett, and Dani S Bassett. Network structure and dynamics of effective models of nonequilibrium quantum transport. Physical Review Research, 5(2):023125, 2023. 12

    2023

  24. [32]

    Nonequilibrium physics in biology

    Xiaona Fang, Karsten Kruse, Ting Lu, and Jin Wang. Nonequilibrium physics in biology. Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(4):045004, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Quantum kinetic rates within the nonequilibrium steady state

    Lo ¨ ıc Joubert-Doriol, Kenneth A Jung, Artur F Izmaylov, and Paul Brumer. Quantum kinetic rates within the nonequilibrium steady state. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 19(4):1130–1143, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Electronic energy transfer in model photosynthetic systems: Markovian vs

    Navinder Singh and Paul Brumer. Electronic energy transfer in model photosynthetic systems: Markovian vs. non-markovian dynamics. Faraday Discussions, 153:41– 50, 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    Steady-state analysis of light-harvesting energy transfer driven by incoherent light: From dimers to networks

    Pei-Yun Yang and Jianshu Cao. Steady-state analysis of light-harvesting energy transfer driven by incoherent light: From dimers to networks. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 11(17):7204–7211, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Using non-markovian measures to evaluate quantum master equations for pho- tosynthesis

    Hong-Bin Chen, Neill Lambert, Yuan-Chung Cheng, Yueh-Nan Chen, and Franco Nori. Using non-markovian measures to evaluate quantum master equations for pho- tosynthesis. Scientific reports, 5(1):12753, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Qutip-bofin: A bosonic and fermionic numerical hierarchical-equations- of-motion library with applications in light-harvesting, quantum control, and single-molecule electronics

    Neill Lambert, Tarun Raheja, Simon Cross, Paul Menczel, Shahnawaz Ahmed, Alexander Pitchford, Daniel Burgarth, and Franco Nori. Qutip-bofin: A bosonic and fermionic numerical hierarchical-equations- of-motion library with applications in light-harvesting, quantum control, and ...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Many-body green’s function theory for electronic exci- tations in complex chemical systems

    Min Zhang, Yaru Liu, Ya-nan Jiang, and Yuchen Ma. Many-body green’s function theory for electronic exci- tations in complex chemical systems. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 14(23):5267–5282, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Quantum mechanics of excitation trans- port in photosynthetic complexes: a key issues review

    Federico Levi, Stefano Mostarda, Francesco Rao, and Florian Mintert. Quantum mechanics of excitation trans- port in photosynthetic complexes: a key issues review. Reports on Progress in Physics, 78(8):082001, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Quantum transport in the fmo photosynthetic light-harvesting complex

    Ioannis G Karafyllidis. Quantum transport in the fmo photosynthetic light-harvesting complex. Journal of Biological Physics, 43:239–245, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    Hierarchy of stochastic pure states for open quantum system dynam- ics

    D Suess, A Eisfeld, and WT Strunz. Hierarchy of stochastic pure states for open quantum system dynam- ics. Physical Review Letters, 113(15):150403, 2014

    2014

  34. [42]

    Single-electron counting spectroscopy: simulation study of porphyrin in a molecular junction

    Sven Welack, Jeremy B Maddox, Massimiliano Esposito, Upendra Harbola, and Shaul Mukamel. Single-electron counting spectroscopy: simulation study of porphyrin in a molecular junction. Nano letters, 8(4):1137–1141, 2008

    2008

  35. [43]

    Computation of biologi- cal conductance with liouville quantum master equation

    Eszter Papp and G´ abor Vattay. Computation of biologi- cal conductance with liouville quantum master equation. Scientific Reports, 14(1):19571, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Cotunnel- ing assisted nonequilibrium thermodynamics of a pho- tosynthetic junction

    Debasish Sharma, Manash Jyoti Sarmah, Mriganka Sandilya, and Himangshu Prabal Goswami. Cotunnel- ing assisted nonequilibrium thermodynamics of a pho- tosynthetic junction. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 162(24):245101, 06 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Barth, Simone M

    Daniel Gerster, Joachim Reichert, Hai Bi, Johannes V. Barth, Simone M. Kaniber, Alexander W. Holleitner, Iris Visoly-Fisher, Shlomi Sergani, and Itai Carmeli. Pho- tocurrent of a single photosynthetic protein. Nature Nanotechnology, 7(10):673–676, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    Experimental studies of psiirc photocurrents

    Narayan Srinivasan, Marcel Wendling, and Rienk van Grondelle. Experimental studies of psiirc photocurrents. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 76(1-3):179–189, 2004

    2004

  39. [47]

    V. I. Novoderezhkin, J. P. Dekker, and R. Van Grondelle. Dynamics of excitation energy transfer in the photosys- tem ii core complex. Biophysical Journal, 93:1293, 2007

    2007

  40. [48]

    Umena, K

    Y. Umena, K. Kawakami, J.-R. Shen, and N. Kamiya. Crystal structure of oxygen-evolving photosystem ii at a resolution of 1.9 ˚A. Nature, 473:55, 2011

    2011

  41. [49]

    N. J. Tao. Electron transport in molecular junctions. Nature Nanotechnology, 1:173, 2006

    2006

  42. [50]

    Brixner, J

    T. Brixner, J. Stenger, H. M. Vaswani, M. Cho, R. E. Blankenship, and G. R. Fleming. Two-dimensional spectroscopy of electronic couplings in photosynthesis. Nature, 434:625, 2005

    2005

  43. [51]

    H.-G. Duan, V. I. Prokhorenko, E. Wientjes, R. Croce, M. Thorwart, and R. J. D. Miller. Nature’s light- harvesting engine: A quantum-coherent energy transport network. Scientific Reports, 7:12347, 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    Reaction center excitation in pho- tosystem ii: From multiscale modeling to functional prin- ciples

    Lorenzo Cupellini, Christian Teutloff, Jan Pieper, Frank M¨ uh, Thomas Renger, Stefano Jurinovich, and Benedetta Mennucci. Reaction center excitation in pho- tosystem ii: From multiscale modeling to functional prin- ciples. Accounts of Chemical Research, 56(21):1592– 1603, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Durga Prasad

    Shubhadeep Lal, Pavel Posp ´ ıˇ sil, and M. Durga Prasad. Electrostatic profiling of photosynthetic pigments: impli- cations for directed spectral tuning. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 23(35):19830–19841, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    Zouni, H.-T

    A. Zouni, H.-T. Witt, J. Kern, P. Fromme, N. Krauss, W. Saenger, and P. Orth. Crystal structure of photosys- tem ii from synechococcus elongatus at 3.8 ˚A resolution. Nature, 409:739, 2001

    2001

  47. [55]

    All-atom molecular dynamics simulation of photosystem ii embedded in thy- lakoid membrane

    Koji Ogata, Taichi Yuki, Makoto Hatakeyama, Waka Uchida, and Shinichiro Nakamura. All-atom molecular dynamics simulation of photosystem ii embedded in thy- lakoid membrane. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 135(42):15670–15673, 2013

    2013

  48. [56]

    An analytic continuation approach to nonequilibrium quantum trans- port

    Gerhard Ritschel and Alexander Eisfeld. An analytic continuation approach to nonequilibrium quantum trans- port. Journal of Chemical Physics, 141(9):094101, 2014

    2014

  49. [57]

    Tunneling through molecules and quan- tum dots: Master-equation approaches

    Carsten Timm. Tunneling through molecules and quan- tum dots: Master-equation approaches. Physical Review B, 77(19):195416, 2008

    2008

  50. [58]

    Mingli Yang and Graham R. Fleming. A quantum theory of exciton–electron transfer kinetics. Chemical Physics, 282(2–3):355–368, 2002

    2002

  51. [59]

    Runeson et al

    Jesper E. Runeson et al. Exciton transfer in donor- bridge-acceptor molecular systems: A unified treatment of coherent and incoherent dynamics. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 160(5):054105, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Quantum master equation for electron transport through quantum dots and single molecules

    Upendra Harbola, Massimiliano Esposito, and Shaul Mukamel. Quantum master equation for electron transport through quantum dots and single molecules. Physical Review B, 74(23):235309, 2006

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.