- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Fermionic versus spin baths in noninteracting transport models

Muhammad Zia1,*, Moritz Cygorek2,†, Erik M. Gauger3, and Brendon W. Lovett1

  • 1SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews KY16 9SS, United Kingdom
  • 2Condensed Matter Theory, Department of Physics, TU Dortmund, 44221 Dortmund, Germany
  • 3SUPA, Institute of Photonics and Quantum Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, United Kingdom

  • *Contact author: ziaahmed812@gmail.com
  • †Contact author: moritz.cygorek@tu-dortmund.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033030 – Published 7 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/4n1t-qpm7

Abstract

We investigate how fermionic anticommutation shapes transport in a noninteracting resonant-level model where a single central site is coupled to an environment. To this end, we compare a fermionic reservoir with a bath of spin-12 modes using exact diagonalization and a perturbative expansion of the master equation to identify the differences. Notably, we find different reduced dynamics for the spin and fermionic baths even though both models restrict each local mode to at most one excitation; unlike the fermionic bath, however, the spin bath consists of commuting two-level modes and therefore lacks the global exchange antisymmetry of true fermions. These differences originate from higher-order terms in the system-bath coupling, where fermionic anticommutation introduces exchange signs in higher-order correlations. In contrast, all second-order contributions, set solely by two-point correlators, coincide. Deviations are largest for small to intermediate bath sizes, fading in the effectively Markovian regime where higher-order corrections are negligible. These results identify when spin baths can be a substitute for fermionic reservoirs and vice versa.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (58)

  1. K. G. Wilson, Renormalization group and critical phenomena. I. Renormalization group and the Kadanoff scaling picture, Phys. Rev. B 4, 3174 (1971).
  2. K. G. Wilson, Renormalization group and critical phenomena. II. Phase-space cell analysis of critical behavior, Phys. Rev. B 4, 3184 (1971).
  3. K. G. Wilson, The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the Kondo problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 773 (1975).
  4. A. C. Hewson, The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).
  5. R. Bulla, T. A. Costi, and T. Pruschke, Numerical renormalization group method for quantum impurity systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 395 (2008).
  6. S. Mishra, G. Catarina, F. Wu, R. Ortiz, D. Jacob, K. Eimre, J. Ma, C. A. Pignedoli, X. Feng, P. Ruffieux, J. Fernández-Rossier, and R. Fasel, Observation of fractional edge excitations in nanographene spin chains, Nature (London) 598, 287 (2021).
  7. F. Evers, R. Korytár, S. Tewari, and J. M. van Ruitenbeek, Advances and challenges in single-molecule electron transport, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 035001 (2020).
  8. M. Thoss and F. Evers, Perspective: Theory of quantum transport in molecular junctions, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 030901 (2018).
  9. Y. Liu, X. Qiu, S. Soni, and R. C. Chiechi, Charge transport through molecular ensembles: Recent progress in molecular electronics, Chem. Phys. Rev. 2, 021303 (2021).
  10. A. Nitzan and M. A. Ratner, Electron transport in molecular wire junctions, Science 300, 1384 (2003).
  11. N. Tao, Electron transport in molecular junctions, Nat. Nanotechnol. 1, 173 (2006).
  12. N. Agraït, A. Levy Yeyati, and J. M. van Ruitenbeek, Quantum properties of atomic-sized conductors, Phys. Rep. 377, 81 (2003).
  13. M. A. Reed, C. Zhou, C. J. Muller, T. P. Burgin, and J. M. Tour, Conductance of a molecular junction, Science 278, 252 (1997).
  14. T. A. Fulton and G. J. Dolan, Observation of single-electron charging effects in small tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 109 (1987).
  15. M. A. Kastner, The single-electron transistor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 849 (1992).
  16. K. Yano, T. Ishii, T. Sano, T. Mine, F. Murai, T. Hashimoto, T. Kobayashi, T. Kure, and K. Seki, Single-electron memory for giga-to-tera bit storage, Proc. IEEE 87, 633 (1999).
  17. Edited by H. Grabert and M. H. Devoret, Single Charge Tunneling: Coulomb Blockade Phenomena in Nanostructures (Springer, New York, NY, 1992).
  18. J. P. Pekola, O.-P. Saira, V. F. Maisi, A. Kemppinen, M. Möttönen, Y. A. Pashkin, and D. V. Averin, Single-electron current sources: Toward a refined definition of the ampere, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1421 (2013).
  19. C. W. J. Beenakker, Theory of Coulomb-blockade oscillations in the conductance of a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 44, 1646 (1991).
  20. I. L. Aleiner, P. W. Brouwer, and L. I. Glazman, Quantum effects in Coulomb blockade, Phys. Rep. 358, 309 (2002).
  21. J. K. Sowa, J. A. Mol, G. A. D. Briggs, and E. M. Gauger, Beyond Marcus theory and the Landauer–Büttiker approach in molecular junctions: A unified framework, J. Chem. Phys. 149, 154112 (2018).
  22. J. K. Sowa, N. Lambert, T. Seideman, and E. M. Gauger, Beyond Marcus theory and the Landauer–Büttiker approach in molecular junctions. II. A self-consistent Born approach, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 064103 (2020).
  23. M. Galperin, M. A. Ratner, and A. Nitzan, Molecular transport junctions: Vibrational effects, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19, 103201 (2007).
  24. J. Jin, X. Zheng, and Y. Yan, Exact dynamics of dissipative electronic systems and quantum transport: Hierarchical equations of motion approach, J. Chem. Phys. 128, 234703 (2008).
  25. Y. Tanimura, Numerically “exact” approach to open quantum dynamics: The hierarchical equations of motion (HEOM), J. Chem. Phys. 153, 020901 (2020).
  26. J. Koch and F. von Oppen, Franck-Condon blockade and giant Fano factors in transport through single molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 206804 (2005).
  27. L. Mühlbacher and E. Rabani, Real-time path integral approach to nonequilibrium many-body quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 176403 (2008).
  28. H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007).
  29. A. Rivas and S. F. Huelga, Open Quantum Systems (Springer, Berlin, 2012).
  30. U. Weiss, Quantum Dissipative Systems, 4th ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2012).
  31. A. Strathearn, P. Kirton, D. Kilda, J. Keeling, and B. W. Lovett, Efficient non-Markovian quantum dynamics using time-evolving matrix product operators, Nat. Commun. 9, 3322 (2018).
  32. M. R. Jørgensen and F. A. Pollock, Exploiting the causal tensor network structure of quantum processes to efficiently simulate non-Markovian path integrals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 240602 (2019).
  33. M. Cygorek, M. Cosacchi, A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling, and E. M. Gauger, Simulation of open quantum systems by automated compression of arbitrary environments, Nat. Phys. 18, 662 (2022).
  34. G. C. Wick, The evaluation of the collision matrix, Phys. Rev. 80, 268 (1950).
  35. W. Nolting and W. D. Brewer, Fundamentals of Many-Body Physics: Principles and Methods (Springer, Berlin, 2009).
  36. A.-P. Jauho, N. S. Wingreen, and Y. Meir, Time-dependent transport in interacting and noninteracting resonant-tunneling systems, Phys. Rev. B 50, 5528 (1994).
  37. J. C. Cuevas and E. Scheer, Molecular Electronics: An Introduction to Theory and Experiment (World Scientific, Singapore, 2010).
  38. A. J. Coleman, Structure of fermion density matrices, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 668 (1963).
  39. M. Cirio, P.-C. Kuo, Y.-N. Chen, F. Nori, and N. Lambert, Canonical derivation of the fermionic influence superoperator, Phys. Rev. B 105, 035121 (2022).
  40. M. Xu, Y. Yan, Q. Shi, J. Ankerhold, and J. T. Stockburger, Taming quantum noise for efficient low temperature simulations of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 230601 (2022).
  41. X. Dan, M. Xu, J. T. Stockburger, J. Ankerhold, and Q. Shi, Efficient low-temperature simulations for fermionic reservoirs with the hierarchical equations of motion method: Application to the Anderson impurity model, Phys. Rev. B 107, 195429 (2023).
  42. A. Nüßeler, I. Dhand, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Efficient simulation of open quantum systems coupled to a fermionic bath, Phys. Rev. B 101, 155134 (2020).
  43. J. Thoenniss, A. Lerose, and D. A. Abanin, Nonequilibrium quantum impurity problems via matrix-product states in the temporal domain, Phys. Rev. B 107, 195101 (2023).
  44. M. Cygorek, B. W. Lovett, J. Keeling, and E. M. Gauger, Treelike process tensor contraction for automated compression of environments, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043203 (2024).
  45. P. Jordan and E. Wigner, Über das Paulische Äquivalenzverbot, Z. Phys. 47, 631 (1928).
  46. E. Lieb, T. Schultz, and D. Mattis, Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain, Ann. Phys. 16, 407 (1961).
  47. S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
  48. D. M. Newns, Self-consistent model of hydrogen chemisorption, Phys. Rev. 178, 1123 (1969).
  49. H. Schoeller, A perturbative nonequilibrium renormalization group method for dissipative quantum mechanics, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 168, 179 (2009).
  50. A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Dover Publications, New York, 1975).
  51. H. Lin, J. Gubernatis, H. Gould, and J. Tobochnik, Exact diagonalization methods for quantum systems, Comput. Phys. 7, 400 (1993).
  52. D. Stanek, C. Raas, and G. S. Uhrig, Dynamics and decoherence in the central spin model in the low-field limit, Phys. Rev. B 88, 155305 (2013).
  53. H. J. Carmichael, Non-Classical Fields: Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 2, 1st ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2008).
  54. S. Nakajima, On quantum theory of transport phenomena: Steady diffusion, Prog. Theor. Phys. 20, 948 (1958).
  55. R. Zwanzig, Ensemble method in the theory of irreversibility, J. Chem. Phys. 33, 1338 (1960).
  56. W. M. Witzel and S. D. Sarma, Quantum theory for electron spin decoherence induced by nuclear spin dynamics in semiconductor quantum computer architectures: Spectral diffusion of localized electron spins in the nuclear solid-state environment, Phys. Rev. B 74, 035322 (2006).
  57. Ł. Cywiński, W. M. Witzel, and S. D. Sarma, Pure quantum dephasing of a solid-state electron spin qubit in a large nuclear spin bath coupled by long-range hyperfine-mediated interactions, Phys. Rev. B 79, 245314 (2009).
  58. D. Bauernfeind, M. Zingl, R. Triebl, M. Aichhorn, and H. G. Evertz, Fork tensor-product states: Efficient multiorbital real-time DMFT solver, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031013 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033030– Published 7 July, 2026
  • Received 31 October 2025
  • Accepted 5 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation