Fischer Information of a Nonequilibrium Anharmonic Donor-Acceptor Rectifier

Bitap Raj Thakuria; Himangshu Prabal Goswami; Javed Akhtar; Trishna Kalita

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 31 references

Fischer Information of a Nonequilibrium Anharmonic Donor-Acceptor Rectifier

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper finds that in a donor–acceptor rectifier model, the acceptor energy is the most precisely estimable parameter, best measured at high bias before the system reaches steady state, while the vibrational frequency is best estimated…

desk verdict Ambiguity about whether the reduced system is the vibration or the electronics sinks the Fisher-information claims, despite a genuinely new saturation observation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23636 v1 pith:MYGAWHL6 submitted 2025-05-29 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Bitap Raj Thakuria , Trishna Kalita , Javed Akhtar , Himangshu Prabal Goswami This is my paper

classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall

keywords quantumFisherinformationdonor-acceptorrectifiervibrationallyassistedtransportparameterestimationnonequilibriumsteadystateanharmonicvibrationalmodemolecularjunctionmetrology

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 which parameters of a nonequilibrium donor–acceptor molecular junction can be estimated most precisely from measurements of its two-site occupation probabilities. Using the classical Fisher information of the time-dependent populations, it reports three parameter-specific behaviors: the acceptor energy shows a sharp maximum at an optimal interrogation time that shifts earlier as the bias grows; the donor energy is weakly estimable and barely affected by vibrations; and the anharmonic vibrational frequency shows no optimal time—its Fisher information instead saturates at steady state and grows at low temperature and low frequency. The authors conclude that acceptor energy is the best-estimated parameter, especially under high bias and strong vibronic coupling, which matters because it suggests which experimental settings (bias, timing, temperature) would most effectively reveal each molecular-junction parameter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the classical Fisher information I(θ)=Σ_i (1/p_i)(∂p_i/∂θ)^2 built from the time-dependent donor and acceptor populations p_1(t), p_2(t) of a two-level (spin-fermion) master equation, with rates determined by Fermi functions of the leads and by vibrational excitation or de-excitation. Because the reduced density matrix is diagonal in the site basis, the quantum Fisher information coincides with the classical Fisher information, so population measurements are optimal for parameter estimation. The paper also uses a five-state Liouville-space extension (empty state, donor or acceptor with ground or excited vibration) to check the steady-state behavior of I(ω_0). This machinery converts parameter sensitivity into a time-dependent scalar whose peak-or-plateau shape decides when and under what bias or temperature a parameter is best measured.

What would settle it

Measure the donor and acceptor populations in an anthracene–PMDA-style junction as a function of time at several biases and temperatures and compare the empirical Fisher information (from repeated population estimates) with the predicted I(ε_a) and I(ω_0) curves. A direct check: at high bias, I(ε_a) should peak at an earlier time than at low bias, and I(ω_0) should keep rising to steady state rather than peaking—if the peak times do not shift with bias or if I(ω_0) shows a maximum before steady state, the central claims fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: for a junction in which electron transfer between donor and acceptor is mediated entirely by an anharmonic vibrational mode, the classical Fisher information computed from the time-dependent populations of the reduced master equation yields three parameter-specific estimation regimes. I(ε_a) peaks at a finite optimal time before steady state, grows with vibrational frequency and bias, and its peak shifts to earlier times as bias increases; I(ε_d) is consistently smaller and insensitive to the vibrational mode; I(ω_0) does not peak—it saturates monotonically toward the steady-state value, and its magnitude increases as temperature drops and as the mode frequency decreases. A five-level extension of the model confirms that steady-state I(ω_0) rises at low temperature and decays nonlinearly to zero as ω_0 grows. The paper's claim is that acceptor energy is the most precisely estimable system parameter, especially under high bias and strong vibronic coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the master equation in Eqs. (8)–(9) (cited to earlier works) being the correct reduced dynamics for this junction; if the two tracked populations are not the donor and acceptor occupations, or if the Born–Markov approximation misses essential coherences, the Fisher information curves no longer describe what the paper says they do.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is right, time-resolved transport or spectroscopic measurements on a donor–acceptor junction under high bias and with high-frequency vibrations will determine the acceptor energy with the highest precision, but the measurement must be taken before the system relaxes to steady state.
Lowering the temperature improves the precision of vibrational-frequency estimation, with smaller vibrational energies giving larger Fisher information, so low-temperature steady-state measurements are the right protocol for reading out the mode frequency.
Donor-energy estimation is intrinsically harder: I(ε_d) is orders of magnitude smaller than I(ε_a) and does not respond to the vibrational mode, so donor energies would require longer integration times or complementary techniques.
The optimal time for measuring acceptor and donor energies shifts earlier as the bias window is widened, meaning high-bias protocols gain precision only if measurements are fast.
In the five-level model, the steady-state information about the vibrational frequency decays to zero for very large ω_0 because the mode cannot participate in electron transfer, so estimation fails for modes too energetic to be accessed.
The saturation of I(ω_0) rather than a peak means that, unlike site energies, the mode frequency should be read after the system equilibrates, reversing the usual 'measure before steady state' rule for this parameter.

Reading between the lines

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

An implicit consequence of the parameter-specific time profiles is that a single measurement-time choice cannot optimise all three parameters: protocols tuned for acceptor-energy readout (early times, high bias) will be poor for vibrational-frequency readout, which requires steady state.
The resonance structure visible in the I(ω_0) contours—maxima near ε_a + ω_0 = μ_R—suggests a testable strategy: tuning the right-lead chemical potential to this resonance should enhance vibrational-frequency estimation, a prediction the paper notes in the contours but does not elevate to a standalone claim.
The same classical Fisher formalism could be extended to estimate the electron–vibration coupling strength κ or lead temperatures, though the diagonal-density-matrix assumption would need re-checking if coherences were included, since then classical and quantum Fisher information would no longer coincide.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper reports a clear and potentially interesting numerical observation—I(ω0) saturates rather than peaking before steady state, while I(ε_a) and I(ε_d) peak at an optimal time. I think that contrast is real, given the equations in the paper. But the equations themselves are the problem. The master equation is never derived, and the paper is internally ambiguous about whether p1, p2 are vibrational populations or donor/acceptor occupations. Eq. (7) treats the vibrational TLS as the open system with H_int = σ_z F_c(t), while the text calls p1, p2 donor and acceptor probabilities. The rates in Eq. (9) multiply left- and right-lead Fermi functions, which does not look like a standard Born–Markov–Redfield result for that interaction, and the derivation is just cited to Refs. [26–28]. The f_R function in Eq. (9) uses μ_L instead of μ_R, which is probably a typo, but it's not the only sign of carelessness: Section 4 justifies dropping Franck–Condon factors by saying 'the space is spanned by a single photon,' which is nonsense. The donor/acceptor comparison is also confounded by using asymmetric lead temperatures (T_L = 2, T_R = 1) in the key figures.

What is genuinely new: the saturation of I(ω0) is not in earlier work, and the systematic scan over bias and temperature is a reasonable first exploration. The anthracene-PMDA parametrization grounds the numbers. I would not dismiss the numerical work as faked; the FI curves probably follow from the stated equations. But because the physical identity of the states is ambiguous, every curve loses its interpretation, and the central claims about estimating donor/acceptor energies are unsupported.

My recommendation: this is not ready for peer review. A serious editor should desk reject unless the authors fix the model description: derive or properly invoke the master equation for the actual reduced system, clarify what p1 and p2 are, correct the f_R typo, and replace the 'single photon' statement with a real justification. If that happens, the saturation observation might be worth a second look. For now, I would not cite it.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies Fisher information for parameter estimation in a nonequilibrium donor-acceptor rectifier coupled to an anharmonic vibrational mode. The authors adopt a two-level Pauli master equation for donor/acceptor populations (Eqs. 8–9) from Refs. [26,27,30], compute time-dependent classical Fisher information for the donor energy ε_d, acceptor energy ε_a, and vibrational frequency ω0, and report an optimal measurement time for ε_a and ε_d but steady-state saturation for ω0. They then introduce a five-level model that includes vibrational states |0⟩ and |1⟩ and repeat the steady-state Fisher information calculation for ω0. The central claims are that ε_a is the most precisely estimable parameter, especially at high bias, and that ω0 is best estimated at low temperatures and long times.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper provides a concrete example of parameter-specific Fisher information profiles in a molecular transport model, extending prior work on optimal time in open quantum systems to a vibrationally coupled rectifier. The distinction between parameters best estimated at finite time and those requiring steady state could inform metrological protocols for molecular junctions. However, the significance is currently limited because the master equation is not derived in the manuscript and the text is ambiguous about which physical degrees of freedom form the reduced system; without resolving these points, the Fisher information curves cannot be uniquely interpreted. The paper does present the classical Fisher information formula for diagonal states clearly and performs a systematic parameter scan, which are positive features.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.1, Eqs. (7)–(9)] The master equation used for all Fisher information calculations is not derived; the authors simply refer to Refs. [26,27,30]. More seriously, the text introducing Eq. (7) is internally inconsistent: the reduced density matrix ρ_TLS is described as a two-level vibrational system (H_vib = ω0/2 σ_z, H_int = σ_z F_c(t)), but p1(t) and p2(t) are immediately called donor and acceptor occupation probabilities. The electron-vibration coupling in Eq. (6) is κ(c†_d c_a + c†_a c_d)σ_x, which is not of the form σ_z F_c(t). If ρ_TLS is meant to describe the donor/acceptor charge state, Eq. (7) should involve the tunneling Hamiltonian H_c of Eq. (4) rather than σ_z F_c(t). This ambiguity makes the physical interpretation of the Fisher information curves in Figs. 1–3 unclear. The authors must either derive the master equation from the model Hamiltonian or provide a precise mapping to the cited works, including the explicit form of the interaction Hamiltonian used.
[Eq. (9), Fermi function definitions] In the definitions after Eq. (9), f_R is written as (exp((ε_a − μ_L)/(k_B T_R)) + 1)^{-1}, with the left chemical potential μ_L appearing in the right-lead Fermi function. This is thermodynamically inconsistent and changes the rates α. The authors should correct this to μ_R and explicitly state whether the numerical results were computed with the corrected expression. In addition, the rates such as α+_da = f_L[1 − f+_R] multiply Fermi functions from different leads without an accompanying derivation; since this product form is characteristic of a sequential or cotunneling process, the authors should explain how it arises from the Hamiltonian (1)–(6).
[Section 4, Eq. (15) and text after Eq. (16)] The five-level model neglects Franck-Condon factors with the justification 'since the space is spanned by a single photon.' This is incorrect: the vibrational space consists of two phonon states, and the factors F_n = |⟨n|e^{λ/ω0(b†−b)}|0⟩|^2 are precisely the quantities that encode the electron-vibration coupling strength. Neglecting them without a small-λ argument removes the vibrational coupling from the rates, so the five-level calculation no longer represents the anharmonic rectifier introduced in Section 2. The additional use of δ_n0 in the acceptor-lead rates (Eq. (15)) eliminates vibrationally assisted acceptor tunneling altogether. Please include the Franck-Condon factors or provide a physically valid justification for their neglect.
[Section 3, Figs. 1–2 and Section 5] The paper's central claim that 'ε_a can be estimated better if the bias is high' and that I(ε_a) ≫ I(ε_d) is based on comparing curves across Figs. 1(c,d) and 2(a–d) that are plotted in arbitrary units. The authors should provide normalized plots or numerical values to support the magnitude comparison. This is secondary to the previous comments, but it is necessary to make the main conclusion quantitative.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract and Section 2.1] The abstract states that the Fisher information is calculated 'by deriving a quantum master equation,' but the master equation is not derived in the paper; it is taken from Refs. [26,27,30]. Please align the abstract with the main text.
[Throughout] The paper consistently misspells 'Fisher' as 'Fischer'; please correct throughout.
[Fig. 1b caption] In the caption of Fig. 1b, 'p1(1)' should read 'p1(t)'.
[Section 2.1] The sentence 'Since, the model is well accepted and studies, for a complete derivation ... we simply refer to the following works' is ungrammatical and should be rewritten.
[Section 3] The phrase 'This can confirmed from the peak positions' should be 'This can be confirmed from the peak positions'.
[Section 4] The notation 'Frank-Condon' should be 'Franck-Condon', and 'single photon' should be 'single phonon' (though the sentence remains incorrect as noted in the major comments).
[Figures and captions] The figures are not always referenced in the order they appear; for example, Fig. 2 is discussed before Fig. 3 in the text, and some parameter values appear only in captions. A table of parameters for each figure would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Fisher-information curves are numerical consequences of the stated master-equation solution and the standard Fisher-information formula, with the master equation attributed to independent prior work.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: model Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1-6), a Born-Markov master equation (Eqs. 8-9), its closed-form exponential solution (Eqs. 10-11), and the classical Fisher information formula (Eq. 12). The FI curves for epsilon_a, epsilon_d, and omega_0 are obtained by direct differentiation of this analytic solution, not by fitting any parameter to data, and no prediction is renamed from a fitted input. The only externally imported ingredient is the master equation itself, which the paper explicitly delegates to Refs. [26,27,30]; those references are by different author groups (Simine-Segal, Friedman-Agarwalla-Segal, Agarwalla-Jiang-Segal) and therefore do not constitute a self-citation chain. Even if the master equation is underived or its interpretation is ambiguous (e.g., whether p1 and p2 are donor/acceptor vs vibrational populations), that is a model-correctness or reproducibility concern, not circularity, because the FI results genuinely depend on the stated equations rather than on the target claim being assumed. The observed optimal-time and saturation behaviors are nontrivial consequences of the exponential relaxation form and parameter derivatives, not identities. No step in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several unproved or partly unjustified inputs: the Born-Markov and rotating-wave approximations, the two-level vibrational truncation, single-occupancy restriction, the use of a cited master equation without derivation, and the ad hoc neglect of Franck-Condon factors. The free parameters are largely physical inputs from the anthracene-PMDA literature plus environmental parameters chosen by hand, including lead temperatures of 1-2 eV. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)

donor energy ε_d = -5.4 eV
Set to anthracene HOMO energy as a model input; not fitted to data, but defines the operating point for the FI calculations.
acceptor energy ε_a = -3.8 eV
Set to PMDA LUMO energy as a model input.
vibrational frequencies ω0 = 0.091, 0.139, 0.196 eV
Taken from PMDA vibrational modes; the paper varies these to study I(ω0).
left/right chemical potentials μ_L, μ_R = various pairs from ±0.1 to ±3.8 eV
Chosen to set bias; the paper tunes them to study bias dependence.
lead temperatures T_L, T_R = 1-2 eV in main two-level results; 0.05-0.5 eV for I(ω0)
Chosen ad hoc; temperatures of 1-2 eV are far above typical molecular junction experiments.
overall rate scale Γ = 0.7 eV
Used as the time unit in the two-level model.
phonon relaxation rate γ0 = 0.5 eV
Used in the 5-level model for vibrational relaxation; stated in Fig. 5 caption.
lead hybridizations Γ_L, Γ_R = 1 eV each
Stated in Fig. 5 caption.
electron-vibration coupling κ = not stated
Defined in Eq. (6) and claimed to be 'strong' in the conclusions, but never given a numerical value or varied.
donor-acceptor transfer rates Γ_DA, Γ_AD = not stated
Appear in Eq. (16) for the 5-level model but their values are not given, preventing exact reproduction.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Born-Markov approximation is valid for the reduced dynamics
Used to derive Eq. (7); stated in Section 2.1 but not justified for the strong-coupling regime discussed in the paper.
domain assumption Rotating wave approximation applies in the 5-level model
Invoked in Section 4 before Eq. (13).
domain assumption The vibrational mode can be truncated to its two lowest levels
The strong anharmonicity/two-level assumption in Section 2.
domain assumption Single electron occupancy of the donor and acceptor sites
Used to define the five-state basis in Section 4.
domain assumption Populations and coherences decouple, so classical Fisher information equals quantum Fisher information
Stated at the start of Section 3 with no check of coherence suppression.
domain assumption The master equation cited from Refs. [26,27,30] correctly describes the model
The paper refers to prior work for the derivation of Eqs. (8)-(9).
ad hoc to paper Franck-Condon factors can be neglected in the 5-level model
Set to unity with the incorrect statement that the space is spanned by a single photon; this changes the rates in Eqs. (14)-(16).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fischer Information of a Nonequilibrium Anharmonic Donor-Acceptor Rectifier." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYGAWHL6

@misc{pith2026250523636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fischer Information of a Nonequilibrium Anharmonic Donor-Acceptor Rectifier},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYGAWHL6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23636}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate a nonequilibrium donor-acceptor quantum rectifier system coupled to an anharmonic vibrational mode, treating the vibrational dynamics both as a two-level system and as multilevel system. The time-dependent Fischer information is then calculated by deriving a quantum master equation for the reduced system dynamics. We estimate some key rectifier parameters, the donor energy, the acceptor energy, and the vibrational frequency. We report that there is an optimal time for estimating the donor and acceptor energy. However, the anharmonic mode can be estimated better only in the steadystate. The acceptor energy is found to be most precisely estimable, especially under strong coupling and high bias. Donor energy shows limited sensitivity, while vibrational frequency estimation benefits from low temperatures. This work offers a theoretical foundation for enhancing parameter estimation in nanoscale quantum devices, guiding future sensing and metrological applications in quantronic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23636 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a) Schematic representation of the donor-acceptor rectifier coupled to an anharmonic mode. (b) Time evolution of the occupation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) Time-dependent Fischer Information for estimating acceptor state’s energy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Time-dependent Fischer Information for estimating the vibration mode’s energy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Contours of time-dependent I(ω0) when another system parameter is varied evaluated at high bias. 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 Ωo I H Ω o L 0 5 10 15 20 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 t PiHtL p0 p1 p2 p3 p4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.02…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a, c) Population dynamics of the rectifier with bosonic states included in the density matrix evaluated at two di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, International Journal of Quantum Information 7 (supp01) (2009) 125–137

work page 2009
[2]

Gambetta, H

J. Gambetta, H. M. Wiseman, State and dynamical parameter estimation for open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 64 (2001) 042105.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.042105. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.64.042105

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.64.042105 2001
[3]

J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53 (2) (2019) 023001.doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab5d4d. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ab5d4d

doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab5d4d 2019
[4]

Thoss, F

M. Thoss, F. Evers, Perspective: Theory of quantum transport in molecular junctions, The Journal of Chemical Physics 148 (3) (2018) 030901.arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/ 1.5003306/19971546/030901\_1\_1.5003306.pdf,doi:10.1063/1.5003306. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.5003306

work page doi:10.1063/1.5003306 2018
[5]

J. P. Menzel, H. J. M. de Groot, F. Buda, Photoinduced electron transfer in donor–acceptor complexes: Iso- tope effect and dynamic symmetry breaking, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 10 (21) (2019) 6504– 6511, pMID: 31593634.arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b02408,doi:10.1021/acs. jpclett.9b02408. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b02408

work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b02408 2019
[6]

J. P. Pekola, Towards quantum thermodynamics in electronic circuits, Nature Physics 11 (2) (2015) 118–123

work page 2015
[7]

A. N. Bruch, M. Thomas, S. V . Kusminskiy, L. Arrachea, F. von Oppen, Quantum thermodynamics of nanoscale thermoelectrics and electronic refrigerators, Physical Review B 93 (11) (2016) 115318

work page 2016
[8]

S. Seah, S. Nimmrichter, V . Scarani, Maxwell’s demon assisted thermodynamic cycle in superconducting cir- cuits, Physical Review Letters 123 (18) (2019) 180602

work page 2019

Show all 31 references

[9]

Mancino, M

L. Mancino, M. Sbroscia, I. Gianani, E. Roccia, M. Genovese, M. Barbieri, Quantum simulation of single-qubit thermometry using linear optics, Physical Review A 98 (4) (2018) 042129

2018
[10]

C. W. Helstrom, Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory, Academic Press, 1976. 9

1976
[11]

L. J. Fiderer, T. Tufarelli, S. Piano, G. Adesso, General expressions for the quantum fisher information matrix with applications to discrete quantum imaging, PRX Quantum 2 (2021) 020308.doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum. 2.020308. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.020308

2021 doi
[12]

B. K. Agarwalla, J.-H. Jiang, D. Segal, Thermoelectricity in molecular junctions with harmonic and anharmonic modes, Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology 6 (2015) 2129–2139.doi:10.3762/bjnano.6.218. URLhttps://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.6.218

2015 doi
[13]

M. A. Ratner, A brief history of molecular electronics, Nature Nanotechnology 8 (6) (2013) 378–381

2013
[14]

J. C. Cuevas, E. Scheer, Molecular Electronics: An Introduction to Theory and Experiment, World Scientific, 2017

2017
[15]

J.-X. Peng, B. Zhu, W. Zhang, K. Zhang, Enhanced quantum metrology with non-phase-covariant noise, Physical Review Letters 133 (9) (2024) 090801

2024
[16]

Z. H. Saleem, A. Shaji, S. K. Gray, Optimal time for sensing in open quantum systems, Physical Review A 108 (2) (2023) 022413

2023
[17]

J. Liu, H. Yuan, X. Lu, X. Wang, X. Zhang, Quantum fisher information for density matrices with arbitrary ranks, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53 (2) (2019) 023001

2019
[18]

Gammelmark, K

S. Gammelmark, K. Molmer, Quantum parameter estimation with a neural network, Physical Review Letters 112 (17) (2014) 170401

2014
[19]

Albarelli, M

F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. G. Genoni, M. A. C. Rossi, A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrology: From theoretical tools to applications in quantum imaging, Physics Letters A 384 (12) (2020) 126311

2020
[20]

Härtle, M

R. Härtle, M. Butzin, O. Rubio-Pons, M. Thoss, Vibrationally coupled electron transport through single- molecule junctions: Current and noise, Physical Review B 84 (8) (2011) 085414

2011
[21]

P. A. Schulz, A. R. Rocha, G. M. Dalpian, Tuning the vibrational response of donor–acceptor molecular recti- fiers, Journal of Physical Chemistry C 119 (21) (2015) 11849–11855

2015
[22]

Nitzan, M

A. Nitzan, M. A. Ratner, Electron transport in molecular wire junctions, Science 300 (5624) (2003) 1384–1389

2003
[23]

Galperin, A

M. Galperin, A. Nitzan, M. A. Ratner, Hysteresis, switching, and negative differential resistance in molecular junctions: A polaron model, Nano Letters 5 (1) (2005) 125–130

2005
[24]

Montenegro, M

V . Montenegro, M. G. Genoni, A. Bayat, M. G. Paris, Quantum metrology with boundary time crystals, Com- munications Physics 6 (1) (2023) 304

2023
[25]

J.-X. Peng, B. Zhu, W. Zhang, K. Zhang, Dissipative quantum fisher information for a general liouvillian parametrized process, Physical Review A 109 (1) (2024) 012432

2024
[26]

Simine, D

L. Simine, D. Segal, Vibrational cooling, heating, and instability in molecular conducting junctions: full counting statistics analysis, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 14 (40) (2012) 13820–13834

2012
[27]

H. M. Friedman, B. K. Agarwalla, D. Segal, Effects of vibrational anharmonicity on molecular electronic con- duction and thermoelectric efficiency, The Journal of Chemical Physics 146 (9) (2017)

2017
[28]

Galperin, A

M. Galperin, A. Nitzan, Current-induced light emission and light-induced current in molecular-tunneling junc- tions, Physical review letters 95 (20) (2005) 206802

2005
[29]

Galperin, A

M. Galperin, A. Nitzan, Molecular optoelectronics: the interaction of molecular conduction junctions with light, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 14 (26) (2012) 9421–9438. 10

2012
[30]

B. K. Agarwalla, J.-H. Jiang, D. Segal, Full counting statistics of vibrationally assisted electronic conduction: Transport and fluctuations of thermoelectric efficiency, Physical Review B 92 (24) (2015) 245418

2015
[31]

Fonari, N

A. Fonari, N. S. Corbin, D. Vermeulen, K. P. Goetz, O. D. Jurchescu, L. E. McNeil, J. L. Bredas, V . Coropceanu, Vibrational properties of organic donor-acceptor molecular crystals: Anthracene-pyromellitic-dianhydride (pmda) as a case study, The Journal of Chemical Physics 143...

2015 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, International Journal of Quantum Information 7 (supp01) (2009) 125–137

work page 2009

[2] [2]

Gambetta, H

J. Gambetta, H. M. Wiseman, State and dynamical parameter estimation for open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 64 (2001) 042105.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.64.042105. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.64.042105

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.64.042105 2001

[3] [3]

J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53 (2) (2019) 023001.doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab5d4d. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ab5d4d

doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab5d4d 2019

[4] [4]

Thoss, F

M. Thoss, F. Evers, Perspective: Theory of quantum transport in molecular junctions, The Journal of Chemical Physics 148 (3) (2018) 030901.arXiv:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/ 1.5003306/19971546/030901\_1\_1.5003306.pdf,doi:10.1063/1.5003306. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.5003306

work page doi:10.1063/1.5003306 2018

[5] [5]

J. P. Menzel, H. J. M. de Groot, F. Buda, Photoinduced electron transfer in donor–acceptor complexes: Iso- tope effect and dynamic symmetry breaking, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 10 (21) (2019) 6504– 6511, pMID: 31593634.arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b02408,doi:10.1021/acs. jpclett.9b02408. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b02408

work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.9b02408 2019

[6] [6]

J. P. Pekola, Towards quantum thermodynamics in electronic circuits, Nature Physics 11 (2) (2015) 118–123

work page 2015

[7] [7]

A. N. Bruch, M. Thomas, S. V . Kusminskiy, L. Arrachea, F. von Oppen, Quantum thermodynamics of nanoscale thermoelectrics and electronic refrigerators, Physical Review B 93 (11) (2016) 115318

work page 2016

[8] [8]

S. Seah, S. Nimmrichter, V . Scarani, Maxwell’s demon assisted thermodynamic cycle in superconducting cir- cuits, Physical Review Letters 123 (18) (2019) 180602

work page 2019