pith. sign in

arxiv: 2407.03161 · v1 · submitted 2024-07-03 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · quant-ph

Simulating electron-vibron energy transfer with quantum dots and resonators

Cecilie Hermansen , Mara Caltapanides , Volker Meden , Jens Paaske This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 22:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords quantum dotsmicrowave resonatorsenergy transferelectron-vibron couplinginterference effecttriple quantum dotLindblad master equationKeldysh Green functions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gate-tunable interference in triple quantum dots links a charge current minimum to a maximum in energy transfer to a coupled resonator.

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

The paper investigates extending quantum dot arrays, already used to simulate interacting electrons in small molecules, to also model nuclear vibrations by coupling the dots capacitively to microwave resonators. In a voltage-biased triple quantum dot setup, calculations using Lindblad equations and Keldysh perturbation theory show how gate voltage controls the flow of electrons and the transfer of energy into the resonator mode. The central finding is that an interference effect among the dot orbitals produces a clear dip in charge current exactly where energy delivery to the resonator peaks. This interrelation arises directly from the orbital structure of the three-dot system and holds in both computational methods, though each has its own limitations. A sympathetic reader would see this as a concrete route to analog simulation of electron-vibron processes in a fully controllable solid-state platform.

Core claim

The authors establish that in a voltage-biased triple quantum dot system capacitively coupled to a single damped microwave resonator, a gate-tunable interference effect within the molecular orbitals of the TQD produces a pronounced minimum in the charge current that coincides with a maximum in energy transfer to the resonator.

What carries the argument

The gate-tunable interference effect in the molecular orbitals of the TQD electron system, which interrelates the charge current minimum with the energy transfer maximum to the resonator.

If this is right

  • Energy transfer to the resonator reaches its peak precisely where the charge current is minimized by gate tuning.
  • The same interference mechanism governs both charge and energy currents through the TQD.
  • Both Lindblad master equations and lowest-order Keldysh perturbation theory reproduce the current minimum and energy transfer maximum, allowing comparison of their accuracy and computational cost.
  • The resonator photon occupation increases at the gate setting that maximizes energy transfer.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could be scaled to larger dot arrays to simulate molecules with several vibrational modes if the single-mode resonator approximation remains valid.
  • Gate control of the interference point offers a direct experimental knob for studying how orbital structure affects energy dissipation in molecular junctions.
  • If the capacitive coupling alone suffices, similar dot-resonator circuits might test predictions for vibronic effects in other mesoscopic transport setups.

Load-bearing premise

A single-mode microwave resonator coupled only capacitively to the quantum dots provides a faithful representation of nuclear vibrational degrees of freedom without extra modes or direct electron-phonon terms.

What would settle it

Measure charge current and resonator photon number (or energy dissipation rate) versus gate voltage in an experimental triple quantum dot device; if the current minimum fails to align with the energy transfer maximum, the claimed orbital interference effect is falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2407.03161 by Cecilie Hermansen, Jens Paaske, Mara Caltapanides, Volker Meden.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. TQD-resonator hybrid system with inter-dot tunnel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Single-particle spectrum. (a): LTD with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. One- and two-electron spectra for LTD (a) and TTD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Transmission function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Second-order self-energy diagrams for the photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Spectral functions (lines) and corresponding occupational weights (fillings) as a function of frequency for the LTD, (a), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Particle current obtained with the master equation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Scaling analysis of the photon-assisted current for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Photon spectral functions for the TTD configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Rate of energy transfer from the TQD electron system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Imaginary part of the photon self-energy as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Photon number for the LTD (a) and the TTD (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Wigner function (left) and photon number probabil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Resonator occupation as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Eigenenergies of the closed system (interacting TTD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Spectral function (lines) and occupational weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Energy current from the fermionic system into the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Occupation of the right QD calculated using PER [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gateable semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) provide a versatile platform for analog quantum simulations of electronic many-body systems. In particular, QD arrays offer a natural representation of the interacting $\pi$-electron system of small hydrocarbons. Here we investigate the prospects for extending QD simulators to encompass also the nuclear degrees of freedom. We represent the molecular vibrational modes by single-mode microwave resonators coupled capacitively to the QDs and study the gate-tunable energy transfer from a voltage-biased triple quantum dot (TQD) system to a single damped resonator mode. We determine the QD population inversions, the corresponding charge and energy currents as well as the resonator photon number, using Lindblad master equations and lowest-order perturbation theory within Keldysh Green function formalism. Along the way, we discuss the merits and shortcomings of the two methods.A central result is the interrelation of a pronounced minimum in the charge current with a maximum in energy transfer, arising from a gate-tunable interference effect in the molecular orbitals of the TQD electron system.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using gateable triple quantum dot (TQD) arrays coupled capacitively to a single-mode damped microwave resonator as an analog simulator for electron-vibron energy transfer in molecular systems. Employing Lindblad master equations and lowest-order Keldysh Green function perturbation theory, the authors compute QD population inversions, charge and energy currents, and resonator photon number, identifying a gate-tunable orbital interference effect that produces a pronounced minimum in charge current correlated with a maximum in energy transfer to the resonator mode.

Significance. If the central correlation holds under the stated model, the work provides a concrete, experimentally accessible platform for simulating vibronic effects beyond pure electronic many-body physics in QD arrays. The explicit comparison of Lindblad and Keldysh approaches, including their respective merits and shortcomings, adds practical value for the mesoscopic physics community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model and abstract] The central claim (abstract) that a gate-tunable interference effect produces a charge-current minimum correlated with an energy-transfer maximum rests on the replacement of nuclear vibrations by a single capacitively coupled damped resonator mode. No robustness analysis is provided against multi-mode resonators, anharmonicities, or direct electron-phonon matrix elements; such extensions could shift or remove the reported interrelation, rendering the single-mode result non-generic.
  2. [Results and methods] The abstract states that parameter values, explicit derivations, and error estimates are omitted, and the full text similarly provides no quantitative bounds on how the interference feature depends on resonator damping, coupling strength, or bias voltage; without these, the load-bearing status of the interference mechanism cannot be assessed from the presented calculations.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions discussing merits and shortcomings of the two formalisms but does not preview the key differences (e.g., treatment of coherent vs. incoherent processes) that would orient the reader.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the significance of our work and for the detailed comments. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications on the model assumptions and indicating revisions to strengthen the presentation of quantitative aspects.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model and abstract] The central claim (abstract) that a gate-tunable interference effect produces a charge-current minimum correlated with an energy-transfer maximum rests on the replacement of nuclear vibrations by a single capacitively coupled damped resonator mode. No robustness analysis is provided against multi-mode resonators, anharmonicities, or direct electron-phonon matrix elements; such extensions could shift or remove the reported interrelation, rendering the single-mode result non-generic.

    Authors: The interference mechanism originates entirely from the coherent superposition of electronic states in the gate-tunable TQD, as captured by the molecular-orbital structure. The single damped resonator is introduced explicitly as a minimal analog for vibrational energy transfer via capacitive coupling, consistent with the goal of an experimentally accessible QD simulator. While extensions to multi-mode or anharmonic resonators are valuable for closer molecular fidelity, they lie beyond the scope of the present study, which establishes the basic platform and the electronic interference effect. We will add a clarifying paragraph in the conclusions discussing these model assumptions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results and methods] The abstract states that parameter values, explicit derivations, and error estimates are omitted, and the full text similarly provides no quantitative bounds on how the interference feature depends on resonator damping, coupling strength, or bias voltage; without these, the load-bearing status of the interference mechanism cannot be assessed from the presented calculations.

    Authors: Specific parameter values are stated in all figure captions and the methods section; the Lindblad and Keldysh derivations appear in the supplementary material. To address the request for quantitative bounds, the revised manuscript will include additional text and/or supplementary figures that map the position and depth of the charge-current minimum and the resonator energy-transfer maximum across ranges of damping rate, capacitive coupling strength, and bias voltage. This will allow readers to assess the robustness of the reported correlation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; derivations rely on standard external methods applied to an explicit model

full rationale

The paper computes populations, currents, and resonator occupation via Lindblad master equations and lowest-order Keldysh perturbation theory applied to a TQD-resonator Hamiltonian with capacitive coupling. The reported interrelation between charge-current minimum and energy-transfer maximum follows directly from solving these equations for gate-tunable orbital interference; it is not obtained by fitting a parameter to the target observable or by redefining inputs. No load-bearing premise is justified solely by self-citation, no ansatz is smuggled via prior work, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The single-mode resonator representation is an explicit modeling choice whose consequences are computed rather than presupposed, leaving the derivation chain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard domain assumptions of mesoscopic physics and circuit QED; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Single-mode resonators coupled capacitively to QDs faithfully represent molecular vibrational modes.
    Invoked when mapping nuclear degrees of freedom to the resonator.
  • standard math Lindblad master equations and lowest-order Keldysh perturbation theory are valid for the driven, damped TQD-resonator system.
    Used as the two computational frameworks.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5717 in / 1294 out tokens · 26999 ms · 2026-05-23T22:55:26.693338+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 113 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Expanding the logarithm to first-order leads to a term S(1) eff = 2gnR Z dt Xq(t), (17) where nR = −i R dω 2π G< RR(ω)

    The photon perspective The effective action for the photons takes the form iSeff[X] = iS0[X] + tr ln −i(1 − ˇG0 ◦ ˇV ) , (16) where ◦ denotes a temporal convolution. Expanding the logarithm to first-order leads to a term S(1) eff = 2gnR Z dt Xq(t), (17) where nR = −i R dω 2π G< RR(ω). The first-order term can be removed by a constant shift of the classica...

    work page

  2. [2]

    It yields the Hartree-Fock (HF) self-energies for the right QD [cf

    The electron perspective In an analogous perturbative expansion of the elec- tronic part of the action the leading non-vanishing term is of order g2. It yields the Hartree-Fock (HF) self-energies for the right QD [cf. Fig. 5(b)], ΣR/A RR (ω) = −ig2 DR/A 0 (0) Z dω′ 2π G< 0,RR(ω′) (20) + ig2 2 Z dω′ 2π DR/A 0 (ω − ω′)GK 0,RR(ω′) + DK 0 (ω − ω′)GR/A 0,RR(ω′...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Electron tunneling in from the left lead: {2Γ, c † L}

    work page

  4. [4]

    Electron tunneling out into the right lead: {2Γ, c R}

    work page

  5. [5]

    Photon annihilation {2κ(1 + nB(ω0)), a }

    work page

  6. [6]

    Within the Lindblad master equation approach, the Green functions can be computed using the quantum re- gression theorem (QRT) [73, 74]

    Photon creation {2κnB(ω0), a †} As we are considering low temperatures, T ≪ κ ≪ ω0, the Bose distribution satisfies nB(ω0) ≃ 0 and the fourth process can safely be omitted. Within the Lindblad master equation approach, the Green functions can be computed using the quantum re- gression theorem (QRT) [73, 74]. Details are given in Appendix B. D. Applicabili...

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Hensgens, T

    T. Hensgens, T. Fujita, L. Janssen, X. Li, C. J. Van Diepen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, S. Das Sarma, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 548, 70 (2017). 19

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    J. P. Dehollain, U. Mukhopadhyay, V. P. Michal, Y. Wang, B. Wunsch, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, M. S. Rudner, E. Demler, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 579, 528 (2020)

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    C. J. van Diepen, T.-K. Hsiao, U. Mukhopadhyay, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041025 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    C.-A. Wang, C. D´ eprez, H. Tidjani, W. I. L. Lawrie, N. W. Hendrickx, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, npj Quantum Inf. 9, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Hsiao, P

    T.-K. Hsiao, P. Cova Fari˜ na, S. D. Oosterhout, D. Jirovec, X. Zhang, C. J. van Diepen, W. I. L. Lawrie, C.-A. Wang, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, E. Demler, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011048 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Wu and Z

    J. Wu and Z. M. Wang, Quantum Dot Molecules (Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2014)

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    Pariser and R

    R. Pariser and R. G. Parr, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 767 (1953)

    work page 1953

  14. [14]

    J. A. Pople, Trans. Faraday Soc. 49, 1375 (1953)

    work page 1953

  15. [15]

    Z. G. Soos and S. Ramasesha, Phys. Rev. B 29, 5410 (1984)

    work page 1984

  16. [16]

    Ohno, Theor

    K. Ohno, Theor. Chim. Acta 2, 219 (1964)

    work page 1964

  17. [17]

    P. Senn, J. Chem. Educ. 69, 819 (1992)

    work page 1992

  18. [18]

    Nakamura, Y

    K. Nakamura, Y. Osamura, and S. Iwata, Chem. Phys. 136, 67 (1989)

    work page 1989

  19. [19]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Vigneau, F

    F. Vigneau, F. Fedele, A. Chatterjee, D. Reilly, F. Kuemmeth, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, E. Laird, and N. Ares, Appl. Phys. Rev. 10, 10.1063/5.0088229 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0088229 2023

  21. [21]

    T. Frey, P. J. Leek, M. Beck, A. Blais, T. Ihn, K. En- sslin, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 046807 (2012)

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    M. R. Delbecq, V. Schmitt, F. D. Parmentier, N. Roch, J. J. Viennot, G. F` eve, B. Huard, C. Mora, A. Cottet, and T. Kontos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 256804 (2011)

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Toida, T

    H. Toida, T. Nakajima, and S. Komiyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 066802 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Stockklauser, P

    A. Stockklauser, P. Scarlino, J. V. Koski, S. Gas- parinetti, C. K. Andersen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraff, Phys. Rev. X 7, 011030 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Forn-D´ ıaz, L

    P. Forn-D´ ıaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025005 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Yoshihara, T

    F. Yoshihara, T. Fuse, S. Ashhab, K. Kakuyanagi, S. Saito, and K. Semba, Nat. Phys. 13, 44 (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Gu, Y.-Q

    S.-S. Gu, Y.-Q. Xu, R. Wu, S.-L. Jiang, S.-K. Ye, T. Lin, B.-C. Wang, H.-O. Li, G. Cao, and G.-P. Guo, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 054020 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    May and O

    V. May and O. K¨ uhn,Charge and Energy Transfer Dy- namics in Molecular Systems (Wiley-VCH, 2011)

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    D. A. Ryndyk, in Theory of Quantum Transport at Nanoscale (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2015) pp. 1– 14

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    H.-T. Chen, G. Cohen, A. J. Millis, and D. R. Reichman, Phys. Rev. B 93, 174309 (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Y. Wang, I. Esterlis, T. Shi, J. I. Cirac, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043258 (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    H. Park, J. Park, A. K. L. Lim, E. H. Anderson, A. P. Alivisatos, and P. L. McEuen, Nature 407, 57 (2000)

    work page 2000

  33. [33]

    Evers, R

    F. Evers, R. Koryt´ ar, S. Tewari, and J. M. van Ruiten- beek, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 035001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Braig and K

    S. Braig and K. Flensberg, Phys. Rev. B 68, 205324 (2003)

    work page 2003

  35. [35]

    Koch and F

    J. Koch and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 206804 (2005)

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    Burzur´ ı, Y

    E. Burzur´ ı, Y. Yamamoto, M. Warnock, X. Zhong, K. Park, A. Cornia, and H. S. J. van der Zant, Nano Lett. 14, 3191 (2014)

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    Fedorets, L

    D. Fedorets, L. Y. Gorelik, R. I. Shekhter, and M. Jon- son, Europhys. Lett. 58, 99 (2002)

    work page 2002

  38. [38]

    H¨ artle and M

    R. H¨ artle and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. B 83, 125419 (2011)

    work page 2011

  39. [39]

    J.-T. L¨ u, P. Hedeg˚ ard, and M. Brandbyge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 046801 (2011)

    work page 2011

  40. [40]

    N. Bode, S. V. Kusminskiy, R. Egger, and F. von Oppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 036804 (2011)

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    Erpenbeck, R

    A. Erpenbeck, R. H¨ artle, and M. Thoss, Phys. Rev. B 91, 195418 (2015)

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    L¨ u, B.-Z

    J.-T. L¨ u, B.-Z. Hu, P. Hedeg˚ ard, and M. Brandbyge, Prog. Surf. Sci. 94, 21 (2019)

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Childress, A

    L. Childress, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 69, 042302 (2004)

    work page 2004

  44. [44]

    Y.-Y. Liu, J. Stehlik, C. Eichler, M. J. Gullans, J. M. Taylor, and J. R. Petta, Science 347, 285 (2015)

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    Y.-Y. Liu, J. Stehlik, M. J. Gullans, J. M. Taylor, and J. R. Petta, Phys. Rev. A 92, 053802 (2015)

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    Saldutti, Y

    M. Saldutti, Y. Yu, and J. Mørk, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2305.15888 (2023), 2305.15888

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.15888 2023

  47. [47]

    W. Khan, P. P. Potts, S. Lehmann, C. Thelander, K. A. Dick, P. Samuelsson, and V. F. Maisi, Nat. Commun. 12, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Haldar, D

    S. Haldar, D. Zenelaj, P. P. Potts, H. Havir, S. Lehmann, K. A. Dick, P. Samuelsson, and V. F. Maisi, Phys. Rev. B 109, L081403 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    P.-Q. Jin, M. Marthaler, J. H. Cole, A. Shnirman, and G. Sch¨ on, Phys. Rev. B84, 035322 (2011)

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    P.-Q. Jin, M. Marthaler, J. H. Cole, A. Shnirman, and G. Sch¨ on, Phys. Scr.2012, 014032 (2012)

    work page 2012

  51. [51]

    B. K. Agarwalla, M. Kulkarni, S. Mukamel, and D. Se- gal, Phys. Rev. B 94, 121305 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Xu and M

    C. Xu and M. G. Vavilov, Phys. Rev. B 88, 195307 (2013)

    work page 2013

  53. [53]

    Zenelaj, P

    D. Zenelaj, P. P. Potts, and P. Samuelsson, Phys. Rev. B 106, 205135 (2022)

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    C. H. Wong and M. G. Vavilov, Phys. Rev. A95, 012325 (2017)

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    Ghirri, S

    A. Ghirri, S. Cornia, and M. Affronte, Sensors 20, 4010 (2020)

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    Cottet, Z

    A. Cottet, Z. Leghtas, and T. Kontos, Phys. Rev. B 102, 155105 (2020)

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    Hsieh, Y.-P

    C.-Y. Hsieh, Y.-P. Shim, M. Korkusinski, and P. Hawry- lak, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 114501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    K. G. L. Pedersen, M. Strange, M. Leijnse, P. Hedeg˚ ard, G. C. Solomon, and J. Paaske, Phys. Rev. B 90, 125413 (2014)

    work page 2014

  59. [59]

    Z. Chen, I. M. Grace, S. L. Woltering, L. Chen, A. Gee, J. Baugh, G. A. D. Briggs, L. Bogani, J. A. Mol, C. J. Lambert, H. L. Anderson, and J. O. Thomas, Nat. Nan- otechnol. , 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    F. R. Braakman, P. Barthelemy, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 10.1063/1.4798335 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4798335 2013

  61. [61]

    F. R. Braakman, P. Barthelemy, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 432 (2013). 20

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    M. R. Delbecq, T. Nakajima, P. Stano, T. Otsuka, S. Amaha, J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, G. Allison, A. Lud- wig, A. D. Wieck, and S. Tarucha, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 046802 (2016)

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    Ansaloni, A

    F. Ansaloni, A. Chatterjee, H. Bohuslavskyi, B. Bertrand, L. Hutin, M. Vinet, and F. Kuem- meth, Nat. Commun. 11, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  64. [64]

    M. Russ, C. G. P´ eterfalvi, and G. Burkard, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 32, 165301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  65. [65]

    Medford, J

    J. Medford, J. Beil, J. M. Taylor, E. I. Rashba, H. Lu, A. C. Gossard, and C. M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 050501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  66. [66]

    A. J. Landig, J. V. Koski, P. Scarlino, U. C. Mendes, A. Blais, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, A. Wallraff, K. En- sslin, and T. Ihn, Nature 560, 179 (2018)

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    A. J. Landig, J. V. Koski, P. Scarlino, C. M¨ uller, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, B. Kratochwil, C. Reichl, W. Wegschei- der, S. N. Coppersmith, M. Friesen, A. Wallraff, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Nat. Commun. 10, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    A. Pan, T. E. Keating, M. F. Gyure, E. J. Pritchett, S. Quinn, R. S. Ross, T. D. Ladd, and J. Kerckhoff, Quantum Sci. Technol. 5, 034005 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    Chen, Y.-c

    C.-C. Chen, Y.-c. Chang, and D. M. T. Kuo, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17, 6606 (2015)

    work page 2015

  70. [70]

    Rajput, Mater

    G. Rajput, Mater. Today:. Proc. 10.1016/j.matpr.2023.01.240 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2023.01.240 2023

  71. [71]

    Holstein, Ann

    T. Holstein, Ann. Phys. 8, 325 (1959); Ann. Phys. 8, 343 (1959)

    work page 1959

  72. [72]

    Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, UK, 2023)

    A. Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, UK, 2023)

    work page 2023

  73. [73]

    Frederiksen, M

    T. Frederiksen, M. Paulsson, M. Brandbyge, and A.-P. Jauho, Phys. Rev. B 75, 205413 (2007)

    work page 2007

  74. [74]

    L. K. Dash, H. Ness, and R. W. Godby, J. Chem. Phys. 132, 10.1063/1.3339390 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3339390 2010

  75. [75]

    A. C. Hewson, The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions , Cambridge Studies in Magnetism (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 1993)

    work page 1993

  76. [76]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760 (2012)

    work page 2012

  77. [77]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234 (2013)

    work page 2013

  78. [78]

    Thompson and A

    F. Thompson and A. Kamenev, Ann. Phys. 455, 169385 (2023)

    work page 2023

  79. [79]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    work page 2007

  80. [80]

    Lax, Phys

    M. Lax, Phys. Rev. 129, 2342 (1963)

    work page 1963

Showing first 80 references.