Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Current noise in quantum dot thermoelectric engines

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Next-to-leading-order tunneling in a single-level quantum dot never violates the thermodynamic uncertainty relation and always pushes the engine further from the bound than sequential tunneling does.

desk verdict A clean, honest negative result on TUR violations in single-level QD heat engines, but the 'always pushes further away' claim is slightly overextended because the exact noninteracting TUR is never computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13408 v1 pith:E2H5KEZI submitted 2024-11-20 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Simon Wozny , Martin Leijnse This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords quantumdotheatenginethermoelectriccurrentnoisethermodynamicuncertaintyrelationnext-to-leadingordertunnelingfullcountingstatisticsFanofactorCoulombinteraction
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

The paper asks whether the non-Markovian (memory) quantum effects generated by next-to-leading-order tunneling can give a single-level quantum-dot thermoelectric engine a precision advantage by violating the thermodynamic uncertainty relation (TUR), the bound that ties current fluctuations to power and efficiency. To answer it, the authors use a second-order perturbative expansion of the transport memory kernel together with full counting statistics of the transferred charge, computing current, noise, output power, heat current, and efficiency for a dot coupled to hot and cold leads and to a load resistor. The central finding is that, across every parameter sweep studied, second-order tunneling never produces a TUR violation; it always moves the engine further from the bound than sequential tunneling does. The mechanism is that second-order processes reduce the current more than they reduce the noise, so the Fano factor grows, and while Coulomb interactions lower the Fano factor they also lower the heat current and efficiency, keeping the TUR unsaturated. If the paper is right, the TUR supplies a practical efficiency ceiling below the Carnot limit for this engine, and the hoped-for quantum advantage from higher-order tunneling does not appear in this realization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the real-time diagrammatic expansion of the memory kernel in superoperator space, truncated at order $H_T^4$, with a counting field $\chi_r$ inserted into the bath contraction functions to produce the counting-field-resolved kernel $W(\chi_r,z)=\sum_{k=-2}^{2} e^{ik\chi_r} W_{k,r}(z)$. The sub-kernels $W_{\pm 2,r}$ contain exclusively second-order processes, and from the full kernel the mean current $I$ and zero-frequency noise $S$ follow from the shifted-kernel cumulant formulas $I=-((J'))$ and $S=-((J''-2J'RJ'))+2I((\dot J'-J'R\dot J))$; the Fano factor is $F=S/|I|$. The thermodynamic uncertainty relation is tested in the form $S/(I^2\sigma)\ge 2$ with entropy production $\sigma=(P/T_c)(\eta_C-\eta)/\eta$, recast as a lower bound on noise or an upper bound on efficiency. A load resistor is attached self-consistently through $I(V_g,V)=V/R$, with $R$ chosen to maximize power, so the figures of merit are evaluated at the engine's realistic operating point.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the zero-frequency current noise and Fano factor of a single-level quantum-dot thermoelectric engine at its maximum-power point while sweeping the tunnel coupling from $\Gamma\approx0.01$ to $\Gamma\approx0.4$ and the temperature difference up to $\Delta T\approx3\,T_c$: the paper's claim predicts the TUR ratio $S/(I^2\sigma)$ stays above 2 and moves further from 2 as $\Gamma$ grows, so any point with $S/(I^2\sigma)<2$, or a Fano factor that decreases with increasing $\Gamma$ in the second-order regime, would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a single spinful level quantum dot operated as a thermoelectric heat engine, expanding the tunneling Hamiltonian to next-to-leading order (order $H_T^4$, i.e. second order in $\Gamma$) never brings the thermodynamic uncertainty ratio $S/(I^2\sigma)$ below 2, and in fact always drives it further away from 2 than the sequential-tunneling (first-order) approximation does. This is demonstrated along a gate sweep with the load resistance set at maximum power, along a tunnel-coupling sweep at the maximum-power point, and along a temperature-difference sweep at maximum power, for both interacting ($U=100\,T_c$) and non-interacting cases, with the non-interacting results checked against exact scattering theory for a single resonant level. In every case the TUR-derived efficiency bound lies below the Carnot efficiency, so the noise measured for a given current and power certifies a tighter ceiling than thermodynamics alone allows. Second-order tunneling nevertheless changes the physics qualitatively: it shifts the current-inversion point through level renormalization, leaves a residual heat current where the charge current vanishes because tight coupling is broken, and alters the Fano factor's gate dependence, but none of these memory effects crosses the TUR.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that including tunneling processes only up to the next-to-leading order is enough to describe the current and noise in the parameter range studied; if still-higher-order processes matter below the apparent breakdown near $\Gamma\approx0.4$, the result that the engine is always pushed away from the bound could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The TUR acts as a measurable efficiency ceiling: with current and noise known, the bound gives an upper limit on efficiency below Carnot, so noise spectroscopy can certify heat-engine performance directly.
  • Higher-order tunneling cannot be used as a knob to suppress fluctuations relative to the mean current in this engine; second-order tunneling raises the Fano factor compared with the sequential-tunneling prediction.
  • Sequential-tunneling-only calculations overstate the efficiency at high power because they miss the breaking of tight coupling between particle and heat currents, so quantitative modelling must include second-order terms.
  • In the non-interacting limit the second-order approximation tracks exact scattering theory for current and power but deviates for noise because the maximum-power point shifts; this identifies where perturbation theory begins to fail near $\Gamma\approx 0.4\,T_c$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, the result that the engine is always pushed away from the bound is established only inside the explored parameter window; a natural next test is whether a multi-level dot, a dot with spin coherence, or a different lead geometry lets second-order processes violate the TUR.
  • Going beyond the paper, the near-saturation of the TUR seen for first-order interacting results at small temperature differences suggests that weakly coupled, strongly interacting dots are the most promising place to look for operation close to the fluctuation bound, with second-order corrections and finite coupling acting as the factors that break saturation.
  • Going beyond the paper, a practical diagnostic follows from the numbers: in a real device, a measured TUR ratio dipping below 2 would signal physics outside the second-order diagrammatic expansion, such as strong electronic correlations or multi-channel transport.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a single-level quantum dot operated as a thermoelectric heat engine, using real-time diagrammatic perturbation theory to second order in the tunneling Hamiltonian to compute average current, heat current, power, efficiency, and current noise. It compares first- and second-order results and, in the noninteracting limit, benchmarks selected quantities against exact Landauer-Büttiker scattering theory. The paper's central claim is that next-to-leading-order tunneling never violates the thermodynamic uncertainty relation for this engine and always pushes the system further from the TUR bound than sequential tunneling does.

Significance. If correct, the central claim is a useful negative result: it identifies a concrete single-level quantum dot heat engine for which non-Markovian second-order tunneling effects do not create the 'quantum advantage' of TUR violations, and it suggests a TUR-based efficiency bound below the Carnot bound. The paper's strengths are the released code, the systematic parameter sweeps of gate voltage, tunnel coupling, and temperature bias, and the explicit benchmark of current, noise, power, and efficiency against exact Landauer-Büttiker theory for U=0. The main gap is that the corresponding exact TUR ratio is not computed in this U=0 benchmark, leaving the central 'always pushes further away' claim untested in the one case where an all-orders check is available.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 3 and Appendix A] The paper's central claim that next-to-leading-order tunneling 'always pushes the results further away' from the TUR bound (abstract and Section IV) is never checked against the exact all-orders solution that exists for U=0. Appendix A provides the Landauer-Büttiker expressions for I, S, and Q_r, and the paper benchmarks the second-order I, S, P, and η against them in Fig. 3, but the TUR ratio S/(I^2 σ) is not evaluated for the exact solution. Given that Fig. 3(b) shows a marked deviation between the second-order noise and the exact noise, and that the TUR ratio is a sensitive function of I, S, and η, the qualitative conclusion could be an artifact of the truncation or of the operating-point shift discussed in the text. I request a plot or table of the exact U=0 TUR ratio at maximum power as a function of Γ (and ΔT), compared with the first- and second-order ratios. If the exact ratio is closer to 2 than the second-order result, the claim must be revised; if it is further, the claim is strongly supported.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 3(a)] The statement that second-order tunneling 'always' pushes the engine away from the TUR bound is stronger than the evidence presented. Figure 3(a) explicitly indicates breakdown of perturbation theory near Γ ≈ 0.4, and the curves in Fig. 3 are plotted up to and beyond this scale. The abstract and Section IV should either restrict the claim to the parameter regime where the second-order expansion is controlled (e.g., Γ ≲ 0.2-0.3 for the parameters studied) or provide an all-orders U=0 check that demonstrates the direction of the effect beyond the perturbative regime.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (23)–(26)] The sign convention in the TUR inequalities should be clarified. Under Eq. (18), P = -IV, so in the engine regime IV is negative; as written, Eq. (24) and the rearranged bounds in Eqs. (25)–(26) are trivially satisfied or require the use of absolute values. Please state explicitly whether I and V are signed or magnitudes.
  2. [Fig. 2(f) caption] The caption says 'shaded areas are indicate TUR violations', but no shaded areas are visible in the described figure and the text states no violations occur; please remove this phrase or explain where the shaded regions are.
  3. [Section III, discussion of Fig. 2] The sentence 'We omit the first order bound, since at this scale it cannot be distinguished from the efficiency' implies that the first-order result saturates the TUR bound, which is a significant observation for the comparison; please state this explicitly.
  4. [Section III, Fig. 3(b)] The claim that the deviation between scattering-theory and second-order noise is explained by the maximum-power-point shift would be more convincing if the noise were also compared at the same operating point or with a quantitative decomposition; as written, Fig. 5 is only qualitative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TUR check is an evaluation of independently computed I, S, and eta against a known inequality, with benchmark support.

full rationale

The paper's central claim about next-to-leading-order tunneling and thermodynamic uncertainty relations is not reduced to its own inputs by construction. The TUR is an external bound (Eqs. 23-26), and the paper computes current, noise, power, heat current, and efficiency from a real-time diagrammatic expansion truncated at second order in the tunneling amplitude, then evaluates whether S/(I^2 sigma) >= 2. No parameter is fitted to the TUR ratio, and the ratio is not defined in terms of the conclusion. The self-citations to Refs. [23, 62, 72, 80] are to the method and code; these are not load-bearing as unique theorems and have independent support: for U=0, current, noise, power, and heat current are benchmarked against exact Landauer-Buttiker results (Figs. 3-4 and Appendix A). The paper itself notes perturbation-theory breakdown near Gamma ~ 0.4 (Fig. 3(a)), and the absence of an exact U=0 TUR-ratio check is a convergence-domain and completeness concern, not a circularity, because the derivation does not assume the conclusion. The phrase 'always pushes the results further away' is a summary of the computed results, not a fitted prediction or a renamed input. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against an exact benchmark in the noninteracting limit and no particular prediction reduces to a fitted value.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper uses standard model assumptions (wide-band limit, non-interacting leads, single-level Anderson dot) and standard counting-statistics formulas. The only parameters chosen by hand are the operating conditions (temperatures, tunnel coupling, charging energy), which are varied across scans and not fitted to any target result. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Coulomb interaction U = 100 Tc and 0
    Chosen to model strong interactions and the non-interacting limit; not fitted to the paper's conclusions. The TUR result is shown for both values.
  • Tunnel coupling Γ = 0.25 Tc typical; scanned 0.01 to 0.4 Tc
    Sets the tunneling rate scales in the numerical calculations; the scan tests the perturbative range and shows breakdown near 0.4.
  • Temperature bias Th/Tc = Th = 1.3, Tc = 1.0 in gate sweeps; ΔT scanned up to 3.0
    Chosen as representative operating conditions for the heat engine; the paper notes the max power point shifts with ΔT.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Wide-band limit with constant lead density of states νr.
    Invoked in Section II when defining tunnel rates (Eq. 4). Standard for QD transport but an idealization.
  • domain assumption Leading and next-to-leading order expansion in the tunneling Hamiltonian H_T (H_T^2 and H_T^4) is convergent in the studied parameter range.
    The noise and all transport quantities are computed to second order in Γ; the paper itself notes breakdown for Γ ≳ 0.4 (Fig. 3), so the TUR conclusion is contingent on this truncation.
  • standard math Counting statistics formulas for the second current cumulant from Refs [60-62] are correct for the second-order kernel.
    Used in Eqs. (13)-(16) to define the noise. This is a published result, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Non-interacting fermionic leads and single-level Anderson model with spin degeneracy.
    The model Hamiltonian in Eqs. (1)-(5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Current noise in quantum dot thermoelectric engines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E2H5KEZI

@misc{pith2026241113408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Current noise in quantum dot thermoelectric engines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E2H5KEZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13408}
}
read the original abstract

We theoretically investigate a thermoelectric heat engine based on a single-level quantum dot, calculating average quantities such as current, heat current, output power, and efficiency, as well as fluctuations (noise). Our theory is based on a diagrammatic expansion of the memory kernel together with counting statistics, and we investigate the effects of strong interactions and next-to-leading order tunneling. Accounting for next-to-leading order tunneling is crucial for a correct description when operating at high power and high efficiency, and in particular affect the qualitative behavior of the Fano factor and efficiency. We compare our results with the so-called thermodynamic uncertainty relations, which provide a lower bound on the fluctuations for a given efficiency. In principle, the conventional thermodynamic uncertainty relations can be violated by the non-Markovian quantum effects originating from next-to-leading order tunneling, providing a type of quantum advantage. However, for the specific heat engine realization we consider here, we find that next-to-leading order tunneling does not lead to such violations, but in fact always pushes the results further away from the bound set by the thermodynamic uncertainty relations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13408 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Sketch of the system with the QD energy level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Current, (b) noise, (c) Fano factor, (d) power, (e) heat current and (f) efficiency as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Current, (b) noise, (c) Fano factor, (d) power, (e) heat current and (f) efficiency at maximum power plotted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Current, (b) noise, (c) Fano factor, (d) power, (e) heat current and (f) efficiency at maximum power plotted as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Position of the max power point in gate/bias space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Position of the max power point in gate/bias space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. P. Kouwenhoven, C. M. Marcus, P. L. McEuen, S. Tarucha, R. M. Westervelt, and N. S. Wingreen, Elec- tron transport in quantum dots, in Mesoscopic Electron 8 Transport (Springer Netherlands, 1997) pp. 105–214

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    S. M. Cronenwett, T. H. Oosterkamp, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, A tunable Kondo effect in quantum dots, Science 281, 540 (1998)

    1998

  3. [3]

    Sasaki, S

    S. Sasaki, S. De Franceschi, J. M. Elzerman, W. G. van der Wiel, M. Eto, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Kondo effect in an integer-spin quantum dot, Na- ture 405, 764 (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    W. G. van der Wiel, S. De Franceschi, J. M. Elzerman, T. Fujisawa, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Elec- tron transport through double quantum dots, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1 (2002)

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    T. A. Su, M. Neupane, M. L. Steigerwald, L. Venkatara- man, and C. Nuckolls, Chemical principles of single- molecule electronics, Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 10.1038/na- trevmats.2016.2 (2016)

    doi:10.1038/na- 2016

  6. [6]

    Y. Hu, H. O. H. Churchill, D. J. Reilly, J. Xiang, C. M. Lieber, and C. M. Marcus, A Ge/Si heterostruc- ture nanowire-based double quantum dot with integrated charge sensor, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2, 622 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Kiyama, A

    H. Kiyama, A. Korsch, N. Nagai, Y. Kanai, K. Mat- sumoto, K. Hirakawa, and A. Oiwa, Single-electron charge sensing in self-assembled quantum dots, Sci. Rep. 8, 10.1038/s41598-018-31268-x (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-018-31268-x 2018

  8. [8]

    F. P. G. de Arquer, D. V. Talapin, V. I. Klimov, Y. Arakawa, M. Bayer, and E. H. Sargent, Semiconductor quantum dots: Technological progress and future chal- lenges, Science 373, eaaz8541 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    Chatterjee, P

    A. Chatterjee, P. Stevenson, S. De Franceschi, A. Morello, N. P. de Leon, and F. Kuemmeth, Semicon- ductor qubits in practice, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 157 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Blanter and M

    Y. Blanter and M. B¨ uttiker, Shot noise in mesoscopic conductors, Phys. Rep. 336, 1 (2000)

    2000

  5. [13]

    Rammer, Quantum Field Theory of Non-equilibrium States (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    J. Rammer, Quantum Field Theory of Non-equilibrium States (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Metzner, M

    W. Metzner, M. Salmhofer, C. Honerkamp, V. Meden, and K. Sch¨ onhammer, Functional renormalization group approach to correlated fermion systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 299 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    A. N. Rubtsov, V. V. Savkin, and A. I. Lichten- stein, Continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo method for fermions, Phys. Rev. B 72, 035122 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    F. B. Anders, Steady-state currents through nanodevices: A scattering-states numerical renormalization-group ap- proach to open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 066804 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    J. Jin, X. Zheng, and Y. Yan, Exact dynamics of dissi- pative electronic systems and quantum transport: Hier- archical equations of motion approach, J. Chem. Phys. 128, 10.1063/1.2938087 (2008)

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    Weiss, J

    S. Weiss, J. Eckel, M. Thorwart, and R. Egger, Itera- tive real-time path integral approach to nonequilibrium quantum transport, Phys. Rev. B 77, 195316 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    Werner, T

    P. Werner, T. Oka, and A. J. Millis, Diagrammatic Monte Carlo simulation of nonequilibrium systems, Phys. Rev. B 79, 035320 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    D. V. Averin and Y. V. Nazarov, Virtual electron dif- fusion during quantum tunneling of the electric charge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2446 (1990)

    1990

  14. [22]

    K¨ onig, H

    J. K¨ onig, H. Schoeller, and G. Sch¨ on, Cotunneling at resonance for the single-electron transistor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4482 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    Leijnse and M

    M. Leijnse and M. R. Wegewijs, Kinetic equations for transport through single-molecule transistors, Phys. Rev. B 78, 235424 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Koller, M

    S. Koller, M. Grifoni, M. Leijnse, and M. R. Wegewijs, Density-operator approaches to transport through inter- acting quantum dots: Simplifications in fourth-order per- turbation theory, Phys. Rev. B 82, 235307 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Schoeller and G

    H. Schoeller and G. Sch¨ on, Mesoscopic quantum trans- port: Resonant tunneling in the presence of a strong coulomb interaction, Phys. Rev. B 50, 18436 (1994)

    1994

  18. [26]

    J. N. Pedersen and A. Wacker, Tunneling through nanosystems: Combining broadening with many-particle states, Phys. Rev. B 72, 195330 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    R. B. Saptsov and M. R. Wegewijs, Fermionic superop- erators for zero-temperature nonlinear transport: Real- time perturbation theory and renormalization group for Anderson quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B86, 235432 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    M. T. Mitchison, Quantum thermal absorption machines: refrigerators, engines and clocks, Contemp. Phys.60, 164 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Dutta, D

    B. Dutta, D. Majidi, N. Talarico, N. Lo Gullo, H. Cour- tois, and C. Winkelmann, Single-quantum-dot heat valve, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 237701 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    F. K. Malik and K. Fobelets, A review of thermal rec- tification in solid-state devices, J. Semicond. 43, 103101 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Tesser, B

    L. Tesser, B. Bhandari, P. A. Erdman, E. Paladino, R. Fazio, and F. Taddei, Heat rectification through sin- gle and coupled quantum dots, New J. Phys. 24, 035001 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    H. L. Edwards, Q. Niu, and A. L. de Lozanne, A quantum-dot refrigerator, Appl. Phys. Lett. 63, 1815 (1993)

    1993

  25. [33]

    Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, J

    R. Alicki, The quantum open system as a model of the heat engine, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 12, L103 (1979)

    1979

  26. [34]

    Bhandari, P

    B. Bhandari, P. T. Alonso, F. Taddei, F. von Oppen, R. Fazio, and L. Arrachea, Geometric properties of adi- abatic quantum thermal machines, Phys. Rev. B 102, 155407 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Dann and R

    R. Dann and R. Kosloff, Quantum signatures in the quan- tum Carnot cycle, New J. Phys. 22, 013055 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Josefsson and M

    M. Josefsson and M. Leijnse, Double quantum-dot engine fueled by entanglement between electron spins, Phys. Rev. B 101, 081408 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Josefsson, Quantum-Dot Heat Engines, Phd thesis, Lund University (2020)

    M. Josefsson, Quantum-Dot Heat Engines, Phd thesis, Lund University (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Annby-Andersson, D

    B. Annby-Andersson, D. Bhattacharyya, P. Bakhshinezhad, D. Holst, G. De Sousa, C. Jarzynski, P. Samuelsson, and P. P. Potts, Maxwell’s demon across the quantum-to-classical transition, arXiv:2405.09376 [quant-ph] (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. V. Koski, V. F. Maisi, J. P. Pekola, and D. V. Averin, Experimental realization of a Szilard engine with a single electron, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 13786 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    J. M. R. Parrondo, J. M. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa, Ther- modynamics of information, Nat. Phys. 11, 131 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Barker, M

    D. Barker, M. Scandi, S. Lehmann, C. Thelander, K. A. Dick, M. Perarnau-Llobet, and V. F. Maisi, Experimen- tal verification of the work fluctuation-dissipation rela- 9 tion for information-to-work conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 040602 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Barker, Information Thermodynamics and Fluctua- tions in Quantum Dots , Phd thesis, Lund University (2022)

    D. Barker, Information Thermodynamics and Fluctua- tions in Quantum Dots , Phd thesis, Lund University (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    T. E. Humphrey, R. Newbury, R. P. Taylor, and H. Linke, Reversible quantum Brownian heat engines for electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 116801 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    T. E. Humphrey and H. Linke, Reversible thermoelectric nanomaterials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 096601 (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    M. F. O’Dwyer, T. E. Humphrey, and H. Linke, Concept study for a high-efficiency nanowire based thermoelectric, Nanotechnology 17, S338 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Esposito, K

    M. Esposito, K. Lindenberg, and C. Van den Broeck, Thermoelectric efficiency at maximum power in a quan- tum dot, Europhys. Lett. 85, 60010 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    D. M. Kennes, D. Schuricht, and V. Meden, Efficiency and power of a thermoelectric quantum dot device, Eu- rophys. Lett. 102, 57003 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Benenti, G

    G. Benenti, G. Casati, K. Saito, and R. Whitney, Funda- mental aspects of steady-state conversion of heat to work at the nanoscale, Phys. Rep. 694, 1 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Josefsson, A

    M. Josefsson, A. Svilans, A. M. Burke, E. A. Hoffmann, S. Fahlvik, C. Thelander, M. Leijnse, and H. Linke, A quantum-dot heat engine operating close to the ther- modynamic efficiency limits, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 920 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Josefsson, A

    M. Josefsson, A. Svilans, H. Linke, and M. Leijnse, Opti- mal power and efficiency of single quantum dot heat en- gines: Theory and experiment, Phys. Rev. B 99, 235432 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    Hershfield, J

    S. Hershfield, J. H. Davies, P. Hyldgaard, C. J. Stanton, and J. W. Wilkins, Zero-frequency current noise for the double-tunnel-junction coulomb blockade, Phys. Rev. B 47, 1967 (1993)

    1993

  44. [52]

    Thielmann, M

    A. Thielmann, M. H. Hettler, J. K¨ onig, and G. Sch¨ on, Shot noise in tunneling transport through molecules and quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 68, 115105 (2003)

    2003

  45. [53]

    E. V. Sukhorukov, G. Burkard, and D. Loss, Noise of a quantum dot system in the cotunneling regime, Phys. Rev. B 63, 125315 (2001)

    2001

  46. [54]

    Thielmann, M

    A. Thielmann, M. H. Hettler, J. K¨ onig, and G. Sch¨ on, Cotunneling current and shot noise in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146806 (2005)

    2005

  47. [55]

    Thielmann, M

    A. Thielmann, M. H. Hettler, J. K¨ onig, and G. Sch¨ on, Super-poissonian noise, negative differential conduc- tance, and relaxation effects in transport through molecules, quantum dots, and nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B 71, 045341 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    Aghassi, M

    J. Aghassi, M. H. Hettler, and G. Sch¨ on, Cotunneling assisted sequential tunneling in multilevel quantum dots, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 10.1063/1.2927379 (2008)

    2008 doi

  49. [57]

    Kaasbjerg and W

    K. Kaasbjerg and W. Belzig, Full counting statistics and shot noise of cotunneling in quantum dots and single- molecule transistors, Phys. Rev. B 91, 235413 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Gustavsson, R

    S. Gustavsson, R. Leturcq, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, D. Driscoll, and A. Gossard, Noise measurements in quantum dots using charge detection techniques, Physica E 40, 103 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    Hasler, M

    T. Hasler, M. Jung, V. Ranjan, G. Puebla-Hellmann, A. Wallraff, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Shot noise of a quan- tum dot measured with gigahertz impedance matching, Phys. Rev. Applied 4, 054002 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Flindt, T

    C. Flindt, T. Novotn´ y, A. Braggio, M. Sassetti, and A.- P. Jauho, Counting statistics of non-Markovian quan- tum stochastic processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 150601 (2008)

    2008

  53. [61]

    Flindt, T

    C. Flindt, T. Novotn´ y, A. Braggio, and A.-P. Jauho, Counting statistics of transport through coulomb block- ade nanostructures: High-order cumulants and non- markovian effects, Phys. Rev. B 82, 155407 (2010)

    2010

  54. [62]

    Emary, Counting statistics of cotunneling electrons, Phys

    C. Emary, Counting statistics of cotunneling electrons, Phys. Rev. B 80, 235306 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    Tesser and J

    L. Tesser and J. Splettstoesser, Out-of-equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation bounds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 186304 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    A. C. Barato and U. Seifert, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation for biomolecular processes, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 158101 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    Pietzonka and U

    P. Pietzonka and U. Seifert, Universal trade-off between power, efficiency, and constancy in steady-state heat en- gines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 190602 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics: From principles to the cost of precision, Physica A 504, 176 (2018)

    U. Seifert, Stochastic thermodynamics: From principles to the cost of precision, Physica A 504, 176 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    T. R. Gingrich, J. M. Horowitz, N. Perunov, and J. L. England, Dissipation bounds all steady-state current fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120601 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    B. K. Agarwalla and D. Segal, Assessing the validity of the thermodynamic uncertainty relation in quantum sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B 98, 155438 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Liu and D

    J. Liu and D. Segal, Thermodynamic uncertainty relation in quantum thermoelectric junctions, Phys. Rev. E 99, 062141 (2019)

    2019

  62. [70]

    Kheradsoud, N

    S. Kheradsoud, N. Dashti, M. Misiorny, P. Potts, J. Splettstoesser, and P. Samuelsson, Power, efficiency and fluctuations in a quantum point contact as steady- state thermoelectric heat engine, Entropy 21, 777 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    Ptaszy´ nski, Coherence-enhanced constancy of a quan- tum thermoelectric generator, Phys

    K. Ptaszy´ nski, Coherence-enhanced constancy of a quan- tum thermoelectric generator, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085425 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    The standard version can perform current and heat current calculations and has been extended to include calculations of the current noise

    To perform the calculations of the transport quantities we use a custom version of the QD transport package QmeQ [80]. The standard version can perform current and heat current calculations and has been extended to include calculations of the current noise. The extended versio...

  65. [73]

    Flindt, Electrons in Nanostructures– coherent manip- ulation and counting statistics, Phd thesis, Technical Uni- versity of Denmark (2007)

    C. Flindt, Electrons in Nanostructures– coherent manip- ulation and counting statistics, Phd thesis, Technical Uni- versity of Denmark (2007)

    2007

  66. [74]

    F. L. Curzon and B. Ahlborn, Efficiency of a Carnot en- gine at maximum power output, Am. J. Phys. 43, 22 (1975)

    1975

  67. [75]

    Van den Broeck, Thermodynamic efficiency at maxi- mum power, Phys

    C. Van den Broeck, Thermodynamic efficiency at maxi- mum power, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 190602 (2005)

    2005

  68. [76]

    R. S. Whitney, Finding the quantum thermoelectric with maximal efficiency and minimal entropy production at given power output, Phys. Rev. B 91, 115425 (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    K¨ onig, H

    J. K¨ onig, H. Schoeller, and G. Sch¨ on, Cotunneling and renormalization effects for the single-electron transistor, Phys. Rev. B 58, 7882 (1998)

    1998

  70. [78]

    Kubala and J

    B. Kubala and J. K¨ onig, Quantum-fluctuation effects on the thermopower of a single-electron transistor, Phys. Rev. B 73, 195316 (2006)

    2006

  71. [79]

    De Franceschi, S

    S. De Franceschi, S. Sasaki, J. M. Elzerman, W. G. van der Wiel, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Elec- tron cotunneling in a semiconductor quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 878 (2001). 10

    2001

  72. [80]

    Kirˇ sanskas, J

    G. Kirˇ sanskas, J. Nyvold Pedersen, O. Karlstr¨ om, M. Lei- jnse, and A. Wacker, Qmeq 1.0: An open-source python package for calculations of transport through quantum dot devices, Comput. Phys. Commun. 221, 317 (2017). Appendix A: Landauer-B¨ uttiker scattering theory Here we...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.