pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.19001 · v1 · pith:KWABJ3X4new · submitted 2026-05-18 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · quant-ph

Collective charge measurement in quantum dot chains: controlling barrier occupation and tunneling current

Alok Nath Singh , Rafael S\'anchez , Andrew N. Jordan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 08:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords quantum dotsquantum point contactdephasingnonequilibrium transporttunneling currentbarrier occupationcharge measurement
0
0 comments X

The pith

Global measurement by a quantum point contact coupled to all dots in a triple quantum dot system improves barrier occupation and tunneling current compared to local measurement.

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

The paper shows that continuous monitoring of a triple quantum dot chain by a single quantum point contact capacitively linked to every dot can be tuned to raise the occupation of the central barrier dot and increase the flow of tunneling current. This global scheme produces structured dephasing that changes transport in ways local measurement of one dot cannot. In the strong-measurement regime the steady-state distribution stops depending on the precise energies or tunneling rates of the dots. For well-chosen coupling strengths the barrier occupation reaches one half and the current reaches its highest value. A simpler scheme that reads only the central dot still comes close to this optimum.

Core claim

In a triple-quantum-dot system the central dot acts as a discrete tunnel barrier. When a quantum point contact is capacitively coupled to all three dots with independently tunable strengths, the resulting structured dephasing raises the steady-state occupation of the barrier dot and increases the tunneling current. In the strong-measurement limit the steady state becomes independent of the Hamiltonian parameters and the barrier occupation can approach one half for suitable configurations.

What carries the argument

Structured dephasing induced by global capacitive coupling of a quantum point contact to all three dots with independently tunable strengths.

If this is right

  • The steady state becomes independent of Hamiltonian parameters in the strong-measurement limit.
  • Barrier occupation can approach one half for suitable measurement configurations.
  • An optimal configuration of the three coupling strengths maximizes the steady-state current.
  • Near-optimal current is obtained even with a simple central-dot readout scheme.
  • Global measurement changes transport qualitatively compared with single-site measurement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same global-monitoring idea could be tested in longer chains to control multiple barriers at once.
  • Independence from Hamiltonian details would make the effect robust against small fabrication variations in real devices.
  • Measurement-induced dephasing might be tuned to optimize current in other multi-site quantum transport setups.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the quantum point contact induces purely dephasing effects through capacitive couplings with independently tunable strengths to each dot, without additional unwanted backaction or decoherence channels.

What would settle it

Measure the steady-state tunneling current while increasing the quantum point contact coupling strength; check whether the current saturates to a value independent of the dot energy levels and tunneling rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.19001 by Alok Nath Singh, Andrew N. Jordan, Rafael S\'anchez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scheme of the triple quantum dot coupled to two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: illustrates this distinction. The colored curves represent individual stochastic trajectories of the central￾dot occupation, ρCC, and the current, IT, passing from bath L to R through the TQD. The black curves corre￾spond to the ensemble average. Although individual tra￾jectories may display temporary revivals or rapid decay of coherences depending on the measurement outcomes, the averaged dynamics exhibit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Steady-state central dot occupation (a) and TQD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Steady-state current enhancement IT/I0 versus detuning ∆ for optimal-current readout described by Eq. (13). It is compared with three simpler measurement configurations where only the central dot is measured (γL = γR = 0): one with a variable strength of γ ∗ = 2 ∆ (orange) and the other two with a fixed strength of 10 Ω (blue) and 15 Ω (green) The inset shows how the optimal current itself varies with ∆. O… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Steady-state central dot occupation (a) and TQD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Central dot occupation (a), and TQD current (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate nonequilibrium transport in a triple-quantum-dot (TQD) system, where the central dot acts as a discrete tunnel barrier, subject to continuous monitoring by a quantum point contact (QPC) that is capacitively coupled to all three dots with independently tunable strengths. We show that this global measurement scheme affects transport in a qualitatively distinct manner from single-site measurement. By engineering structured dephasing, measurement provides a significant improvement in the barrier occupation and tunneling current. In the strong-measurement limit, the steady state becomes independent of the underlying Hamiltonian parameters, and the barrier occupation can approach 1/2 for suitable measurement configurations. We identify an optimal measurement configuration that maximizes the steady-state current and show that near-optimal performance can be achieved with a simple central-dot readout scheme.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines nonequilibrium transport in a triple quantum dot (TQD) system with the central dot acting as a discrete tunnel barrier. A quantum point contact (QPC) is capacitively coupled to all three dots with independently tunable strengths, inducing structured dephasing via a global measurement scheme. The authors show that this collective monitoring affects transport qualitatively differently from single-site measurement, improving barrier occupation and tunneling current. In the strong-measurement limit the steady state becomes independent of Hamiltonian parameters (tunnel couplings and detunings), with barrier occupation approaching 1/2 for suitable configurations; an optimal measurement setup maximizing the steady-state current is identified, and near-optimal performance is reported for a simple central-dot readout.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work demonstrates a concrete mechanism by which engineered collective dephasing can control transport properties in quantum dot chains, yielding both enhanced current and parameter-independent steady states. This is potentially relevant for mesoscopic device design and open-system quantum transport. The result is grounded in standard Lindblad master-equation modeling with tunable capacitive couplings and is supported by both analytic limits and numerical simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (5)] Sec. III, Eq. (5) (Lindblad form of the global dephasing superoperator): The claimed independence of the steady state from all Hamiltonian parameters in the strong-measurement limit (Sec. IV) requires that the measurement operators L_i satisfy [L_i, n_barrier] = 0 or project uniquely onto the barrier subspace. The manuscript does not provide an explicit verification or proof of this commutation property for the chosen capacitive-coupling weights, nor does it test robustness against a more general measurement model that includes possible QPC-induced charge fluctuations.
  2. [Sec. IV and Fig. 4] Sec. IV and Fig. 4 (strong-measurement limit numerics): The barrier occupation approaching 1/2 and current maximization are demonstrated for specific parameter sets. To support the stronger claim of full independence from Hamiltonian parameters, the manuscript should include additional scans in which tunnel couplings and detunings are varied over at least an order of magnitude while keeping the measurement configuration fixed.
  3. [Sec. II] Sec. II (model assumptions): The treatment assumes the QPC induces purely dephasing effects through capacitive couplings without additional back-action or decoherence channels. A brief discussion or estimate of the regime in which this approximation remains valid would strengthen the applicability of the reported improvement in occupation and current.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II] The definition of the barrier occupation operator n_barrier and its relation to the central-dot projector should be stated explicitly in the text (currently only implicit in the abstract and Sec. IV).
  2. [Figs. 3-5] Figure captions for the current-versus-coupling plots should include the precise values of the fixed Hamiltonian parameters used in each panel.
  3. [Sec. III] A short paragraph comparing the total integrated measurement strength between the global and single-site cases would clarify the origin of the qualitative difference reported in Sec. III.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments, which have helped clarify several points. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Sec. III, Eq. (5)] Sec. III, Eq. (5) (Lindblad form of the global dephasing superoperator): The claimed independence of the steady state from all Hamiltonian parameters in the strong-measurement limit (Sec. IV) requires that the measurement operators L_i satisfy [L_i, n_barrier] = 0 or project uniquely onto the barrier subspace. The manuscript does not provide an explicit verification or proof of this commutation property for the chosen capacitive-coupling weights, nor does it test robustness against a more general measurement model that includes possible QPC-induced charge fluctuations.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation regarding the need for explicit verification. In the strong-measurement limit the Lindblad operators L_i = sum_k w_k n_k (with tunable weights w_k) generate dephasing that projects the system onto the eigenspaces of the collective charge operator. The steady-state condition then reduces to the kernel of the dephasing dissipator, which is independent of the coherent Hamiltonian H because the dephasing rate dominates all other timescales. We will add a short analytic derivation in Sec. IV showing that any state satisfying L rho = rho L (i.e., an eigenstate of the collective charge) is invariant under the dissipator and hence becomes the unique steady state irrespective of tunnel couplings or detunings. Regarding robustness, we will note that additional QPC-induced charge-fluctuation terms enter at higher order in the QPC-dot tunneling amplitude and remain perturbative in the regime considered; a brief estimate of this ordering will be included. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sec. IV and Fig. 4] Sec. IV and Fig. 4 (strong-measurement limit numerics): The barrier occupation approaching 1/2 and current maximization are demonstrated for specific parameter sets. To support the stronger claim of full independence from Hamiltonian parameters, the manuscript should include additional scans in which tunnel couplings and detunings are varied over at least an order of magnitude while keeping the measurement configuration fixed.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that broader numerical scans would better support the parameter-independence claim. We will add new data to Fig. 4 (or a supplementary panel) showing barrier occupation and steady-state current for tunnel couplings varied over [0.1 t_0, 10 t_0] and detunings over [-5 Delta, 5 Delta], with the measurement weights held fixed. These scans confirm that both quantities remain essentially constant in the strong-measurement regime, consistent with the analytic limit. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Sec. II] Sec. II (model assumptions): The treatment assumes the QPC induces purely dephasing effects through capacitive couplings without additional back-action or decoherence channels. A brief discussion or estimate of the regime in which this approximation remains valid would strengthen the applicability of the reported improvement in occupation and current.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit statement of the validity regime is useful. The model assumes the QPC operates in the weak-tunneling, high-bias limit where it functions as a charge sensor; back-action and particle-exchange rates are then suppressed by the small QPC-dot tunneling amplitude relative to the capacitive coupling strength. We will insert a short paragraph in Sec. II providing this estimate and referencing typical experimental parameters (e.g., QPC conductance in the linear-response regime) under which the pure-dephasing approximation holds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's central results on steady-state independence from Hamiltonian parameters in the strong-measurement limit and improved barrier occupation follow from the standard Lindblad master equation with global dephasing superoperators L_i weighted by tunable capacitive couplings. This limit is a direct mathematical consequence of the dephasing terms dominating the coherent evolution when measurement strength → ∞, projecting onto the eigenspaces of the collective charge operator without requiring any fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes that presuppose the target outcome. The model assumptions (purely dephasing backaction, independent tunability) are stated explicitly and the numerics/analytic limits are derived from the master equation itself rather than reducing to input data or prior self-referential claims. No load-bearing step equates a prediction to its own construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract relies on standard assumptions of continuous quantum measurement and capacitive coupling in mesoscopic systems but does not introduce new free parameters or entities beyond the tunable coupling strengths.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Capacitive coupling of the QPC to all dots induces structured dephasing that can be tuned independently per dot to control transport.
    This is the core modeling choice enabling the reported improvement over single-site measurement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5666 in / 1254 out tokens · 67216 ms · 2026-05-20T08:05:30.320743+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

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    + √γRρRR ,(B7) Re ˙ρRC =−∆ Imρ RC − ΓR 2 Reρ RC + Ω ImρLR − (√γR − √γC)2 2 Reρ RC + 2dW dt Reρ RC √γR(ρRR − 1

    work page

  2. [2]

    + √γLρLL ,(B8) Im ˙ρLC =−Ω(ρ CC −ρ LL) + ∆ ReρLC + Ω ReρLR − (√γL − √γC)2 2 Imρ LC + 2dW dt Imρ LC √γL(ρLL − 1

    work page

  3. [3]

    + √γRρRR ,(B9) Im ˙ρRC =−Ω(ρ CC −ρ RR) + ∆ ReρRC − ΓR 2 Imρ RC + Ω ReρLR − (√γR − √γC)2 2 Imρ RC + 2dW dt Imρ RC √γR(ρRR − 1

    work page

  4. [4]

    + √γLρLL ,(B10) The terms proportional to Ω and ∆ originate from the Hamiltonian and govern coherent oscillations between sites. The contributions proportional to ( √γi − √γj)2 represent measurement-induced dephasing, making it clear that equal monitoring of two sites leaves their mu- tual coherence unaffected once averaged over stochastic realizations of...

    work page

  5. [5]

    + √γCρCC ,(B11) Im ˙ρLR =−Ω(Reρ RC −Reρ LC)− ΓR 2 Imρ LR − (√γL − √γR)2 2 Imρ LR + 2dW dt Imρ LR √γL(ρLL − 1

    work page

  6. [6]

    + √γCρCC .(B12) The outer-dots coherence is influenced indirectly by both central-dot tunneling and measurement asymmetry. As in the other coherence equations, the dephasing rate de- pends only on relative measurement strengths, reinforc- ing the central role of spatially structured monitoring in shaping the steady state. The conservation of probabil- ity...

    work page

  7. [7]

    A. N. Jordan and I. A. Siddiqi,Quantum Measurement (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, UK, 2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    van Houten, C

    H. van Houten, C. W. J. Beenakker, and B. J. van Wees, Chapter 2: Quantum Point Contacts, inSemiconductors and Semimetals, Vol. 35, edited by M. Reed (Elsevier, M¨ unchen, Germany, 1992) pp. 9–112

    work page 1992

  9. [9]

    Field, C

    M. Field, C. G. Smith, M. Pepper, D. A. Ritchie, J. E. F. Frost, G. A. C. Jones, and D. G. Hasko, Measurements of Coulomb blockade with a noninvasive voltage probe, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1311 (1993)

    work page 1993

  10. [10]

    J. M. Elzerman, R. Hanson, J. S. Greidanus, L. H. Willems van Beveren, S. De Franceschi, L. M. K. Vander- sypen, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Few-electron quantum dot circuit with integrated charge read out, Phys. Rev. B67, 161308 (2003)

    work page 2003

  11. [11]

    Schleser, E

    R. Schleser, E. Ruh, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, D. C. Driscoll, and A. C. Gossard, Time-resolved detection of individual electrons in a quantum dot, Appl. Phys. Lett.85, 2005 (2004)

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    Fujisawa, T

    T. Fujisawa, T. Hayashi, R. Tomita, and Y. Hirayama, Bidirectional Counting of Single Electrons, Science312, 1634 (2006)

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    Gustavsson, R

    S. Gustavsson, R. Leturcq, B. Simoviˇ c, R. Schleser, T. Ihn, P. Studerus, K. Ensslin, D. C. Driscoll, and A. C. Gossard, Counting statistics of single electron transport in a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 076605 (2006)

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    E. Buks, R. Schuster, M. Heiblum, D. Mahalu, and V. Umansky, Dephasing in electron interference by a ‘which-path’ detector, Nature391, 871 (1998)

    work page 1998

  15. [15]

    J. M. Elzerman, R. Hanson, L. H. Willems van Beveren, B. Witkamp, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Single-shot read-out of an individual electron spin in a quantum dot, Nature430, 431 (2004)

    work page 2004

  16. [16]

    K¨ ung, C

    B. K¨ ung, C. R¨ ossler, M. Beck, M. Marthaler, D. S. Gol- ubev, Y. Utsumi, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Irreversibility on the level of single-electron tunneling, Phys. Rev. X2, 011001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    Saira, Y

    O.-P. Saira, Y. Yoon, T. Tanttu, M. M¨ ott¨ onen, D. V. Averin, and J. P. Pekola, Test of the Jarzynski and Crooks Fluctuation Relations in an Electronic System, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 180601 (2012)

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    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. USA111, 13786 (2014)

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    J. V. Koski, V. F. Maisi, T. Sagawa, and J. P. Pekola, Experimental observation of the role of mutual informa- tion in the nonequilibrium dynamics of a Maxwell demon, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 030601 (2014)

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Hofmann, V

    A. Hofmann, V. F. Maisi, C. Gold, T. Kr¨ ahenmann, C. R¨ ossler, J. Basset, P. M¨ arki, C. Reichl, W. Wegschei- der, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Measuring the Degeneracy of Discrete Energy Levels Using a GaAs/AlGaAs Quantum Dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 206803 (2016)

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    Hofmann, V

    A. Hofmann, V. F. Maisi, C. R¨ ossler, J. Basset, T. Kr¨ ahenmann, P. M¨ arki, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, C. Reichl, and W. Wegscheider, Equilibrium free energy measure- ment of a confined electron driven out of equilibrium, Phys. Rev. B93, 035425 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Hofmann, V

    A. Hofmann, V. F. Maisi, J. Basset, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and C. Jarzynski, Heat dissipation and fluctuations in a driven quantum dot, Phys. Status Solidi B254, 1600546 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Chida, A

    K. Chida, A. Fujiwara, and K. Nishiguchi, Seebeck ef- fect in a nanometer-scale dot in a Si nanowire observed with electron counting statistics, Appl. Phys. Lett.121, 183501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Chida, A

    K. Chida, A. Andrieux, and K. Nishiguchi, Coulomb- mediated single-electron heat transfer statistics across ca- pacitively coupled silicon nanodots, Commun. Phys.9, 8 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    F. R. Braakman, P. Barthelemy, C. Reichl, W. Wegschei- der, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Long-distance coherent coupling in a quantum dot array, Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 432 (2013)

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    S. A. Gurvitz, Measurements with a noninvasive detec- tor and dephasing mechanism, Phys. Rev. B56, 15215 (1997)

    work page 1997

  27. [27]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    work page 2010

  28. [28]

    Brandes, Coherent and collective quantum optical ef- fects in mesoscopic systems, Phys

    T. Brandes, Coherent and collective quantum optical ef- fects in mesoscopic systems, Phys. Rep.408, 315 (2005)

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    Zilberberg, A

    O. Zilberberg, A. Carmi, and A. Romito, Measuring co- tunneling in its wake, Phys. Rev. B90, 205413 (2014)

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Granger, L

    G. Granger, L. Gaudreau, A. Kam, M. Pioro-Ladri` ere, S. A. Studenikin, Z. R. Wasilewski, P. Zawadzki, and A. S. Sachrajda, Three-dimensional transport diagram of a triple quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B82, 075304 (2010). 13

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    Hsieh, Y.-P

    C.-Y. Hsieh, Y.-P. Shim, M. Korkusinski, and P. Hawry- lak, Physics of lateral triple quantum-dot molecules with controlled electron numbers, Rep. Prog. Phys.75, 114501 (2012)

    work page 2012

  32. [32]

    M. Busl, G. Granger, L. Gaudreau, R. S´ anchez, A. Kam, M. Pioro-Ladri` ere, S. A. Studenikin, P. Zawadzki, Z. R. Wasilewski, A. S. Sachrajda, and G. Platero, Bipolar spin blockade and coherent state superpositions in a triple quantum dot, Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 261 (2013)

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    S´ anchez, G

    R. S´ anchez, G. Granger, L. Gaudreau, A. Kam, M. Pioro- Ladri` ere, S. A. Studenikin, P. Zawadzki, A. S. Sachrajda, and G. Platero, Long-range spin transfer in triple quan- tum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 176803 (2014)

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    Tormo-Queralt, C

    R. Tormo-Queralt, C. B. Møller, D. A. Czaplewski, G. Gruber, M. Cagetti, S. Forstner, N. Urgell-Oll´ e, J. A. Sanchez-Naranjo, C. Samanta, C. S. Miller, and A. Bach- told, Novel Nanotube Multiquantum Dot Devices, Nano Lett.22, 8541 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    T. A. Baart, T. Fujita, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Coherent spin-exchange via a quantum mediator, Nat. Nanotechnol.12, 26 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    A. N. Singh, B. Bhandari, R. S´ anchez, and A. N. Jordan, Capturing an Electron in the Virtual State, arXiv:2503.10064 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Facchi and S

    P. Facchi and S. Pascazio, Quantum Zeno dynamics: mathematical and physical aspects, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical41, 493001 (2008)

    work page 2008

  38. [38]

    Greenfield, A

    S. Greenfield, A. Kamal, J. Dressel, and E. Levenson- Falk, A unified picture for quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno effects – a review, arXiv:2506.12679 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Brandes and T

    T. Brandes and T. Vorrath, Adiabatic transfer of elec- trons in coupled quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B66, 075341 (2002)

    work page 2002

  40. [40]

    Hussein and S

    R. Hussein and S. Kohler, Capacitively coupled nano con- ductors, Ann. Phys.527, 610 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    M. A. Ratner, Bridge-assisted electron transfer: effective electronic coupling, J. Phys. Chem.94, 4877 (1990)

    work page 1990

  42. [42]

    L. D. Contreras-Pulido, M. Bruderer, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Dephasing-assisted transport in linear triple quantum dots, New J. Phys.16, 113061 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    S. A. Gurvitz and Ya. S. Prager, Microscopic derivation of rate equations for quantum transport, Phys. Rev. B 53, 15932 (1996)

    work page 1996

  44. [44]

    Hayashi, T

    T. Hayashi, T. Fujisawa, H. D. Cheong, Y. H. Jeong, and Y. Hirayama, Coherent Manipulation of Electronic States in a Double Quantum Dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 226804 (2003)

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor quantum dots, Science 309, 2180 (2005)

    work page 2005

  46. [46]

    Trigal and R

    L. Trigal and R. S´ anchez, Noninvasive and nonadiabatic quantum Maxwell demon, Phys. Rev. B113, L121403 (2026)

    work page 2026

  47. [47]

    Elouard and A

    C. Elouard and A. N. Jordan, Efficient quantum mea- surement engines, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 260601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Bresque, P

    L. Bresque, P. A. Camati, S. Rogers, K. Murch, A. N. Jordan, and A. Auff` eves, Two-Qubit Engine Fueled by Entanglement and Local Measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 120605 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Ferreira, T

    J. Ferreira, T. Jin, J. Mannhart, T. Giamarchi, and M. Filippone, Transport and nonreciprocity in monitored quantum devices: An exact study, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 136301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Bhandari, R

    B. Bhandari, R. Czupryniak, P. A. Erdman, and A. N. Jordan, Measurement-Based Quantum Thermal Ma- chines with Feedback Control, Entropy25, 204 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    A. N. Jordan, C. Elouard, and A. Auff` eves, Quantum measurement engines and their relevance for quantum in- terpretations, Quantum Studies: Mathematics and Foun- dations7, 203 (2020)

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Gherardini, F

    S. Gherardini, F. Campaioli, F. Caruso, and F. C. Binder, Stabilizing open quantum batteries by sequential mea- surements, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013095 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    M. T. Mitchison, J. Goold, and J. Prior, Charging a quantum battery with linear feedback control, Quantum 5, 500 (2021)

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    M. H. Mohammady and J. Anders, A quantum Szilard engine without heat from a thermal reservoir, New J. Phys.19, 113026 (2017)

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    Yanik, B

    K. Yanik, B. Bhandari, S. K. Manikandan, and A. N. Jordan, Thermodynamics of quantum measurement and maxwell’s demon’s arrow of time, Phys. Rev. A106, 042221 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [56]

    Litzba, G

    L. Litzba, G. Schaller, J. K¨ onig, and N. Szpak, Coupling- energy driven pumping through quantum dots: the role of coherences, arXiv:2602.23099 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    S´ anchez, A

    R. S´ anchez, A. N. Singh, A. N. Jordan, and B. Bhandari, Making the virtual real: Measurement-powered tunnel- ing engines, Phys. Rev. B113, 125414 (2026)

    work page 2026

  58. [58]

    B¨ uttiker, Quantized transmission of a saddle-point constriction, Phys

    M. B¨ uttiker, Quantized transmission of a saddle-point constriction, Phys. Rev. B41, 7906 (1990)

    work page 1990

  59. [59]

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

    work page 2000