Interplay of Direct and Indirect Charge Transfer Pathways in Donor-Bridge-Acceptor Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Charge transfer in donor-bridge-acceptor (DBA) structures typically takes place through the combination of donor-bridge and bridge-acceptor overlap integrals forming an effective, indirect electronic coupling between the donor (D) and acceptor (A) moieties. Here, we examine the effects of an additional direct DA electronic coupling on charge transfer processes in DBA systems with local interaction to thermal baths. First, using the exact Nakajima-Zwanzig master equation (NZME) for the reduced density matrix, we rigorously define probability currents as the coherent part of the NZME, thereby allowing us to quantify the contribution of the different electronic pathways (direct and indirect) to the charge transfer dynamics. Focusing on two minimal DBA systems of three sites (V and L models), and adopting well-developed methods, we find that the interplay between different transfer pathways can be assessed by the McConnell formula in the weak systembath coupling regime. We then demonstrate that the combination of indirect and direct donor-acceptor coupling either enhances or leads to a destructive quantum interference effect on charge transport processes, depending on the energy landscape of the DBA system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".