Landauer theory, inelastic scattering, and electron transport in molecular wires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we address the topic of inelastic electron scattering in mesoscopic quantum transport. For systems where only elastic scattering is present, Landauer theory provides an adequate description of transport that relates the electronic current to single-particle transmission and reflection probabilities. A formalism proposed recently by Bonc\ifmmode \breve{}\else \u{}\fi{}a and Trugman facilitates the calculation of the one-electron transmission and reflection probabilities for inelastic processes in mesoscopic conductors connected to one-dimensional ideal leads. Building on their work, we have developed a self-consistent procedure for the evaluation of the nonequilibrium electron distributions in ideal leads connecting such mesoscopic conductors to electron reservoirs at finite temperatures and voltages. We evaluate the net electronic current flowing through the mesoscopic device by utilizing these nonequilibrium distributions. Our approach is a generalization of Landauer theory that takes account of the Pauli exclusion principle for the various competing elastic and inelastic processes while satisfying the requirement of particle conservation. As an application we examine the influence of elastic and inelastic scattering on conduction through a two site molecular wire with longitudinal phonons using the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model of electron-phonon coupling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".