- Nano Idea
- Open Access

# Spin-Polarized Transport and Spin Seebeck Effect in Triple Quantum Dots with Spin-Dependent Interdot Couplings

- Li-Ming Liu
^{1}, - Feng Chi
^{1}, - Zhen-Guo Fu
^{2}Email author, - Shu-Chao Yu
^{3}and - Hong-Wei Chen
^{3}

**Received:**10 July 2018**Accepted:**24 October 2018**Published:**8 November 2018

## Abstract

We study the spin-dependent electronic and thermoelectric transport through a structure composed of triple quantum dots (TQDs) coupled to two metallic leads in the presence of spin-dependent interdot couplings, which is reliable by applying a static magnetic field on the tunnel junctions between different dots. When the TQDs are serially connected, a 100 *%* spin-polarized conductance and thermopower emerge even for very small spin-polarization of the interdot coupling as the dots are weakly coupled to each other. Whereas if the TQDs are connected in a ring shape, the Fano antiresonance will result in sharp peaks in the conductance and thermopower. In the presence of spin-dependent interdot couplings, the peaks of the spin-up and spin-down thermopowers will shift to opposite directions in the dot level regime, resulting large either 100 *%* spin-polarized or pure spin thermopowers. The latter generally arises at low temperatures and is robust against the level detuning, the dot-lead coupling, and the system equilibrium temperature.

## Keywords

- Spin Seebeck effect
- Quantum dots
- Spin-dependent interdot coupling
- Pure spin thermopower

## Introduction

Along with the development of spintronics [1–3], spin caloritronics [4, 5] has been paid much attention during the last two decades. In spintronics, one of the most attractive issues is to control electron spin by electrical bias. Whereas in spin caloritronics, the spin control method is mainly the thermal bias, a temperature gradient applied between different ends of the system. It is regarded as a combination of spintronics and thermoelectricity. Of particular interest is the spin Seebeck effect (SSE) that generates pure spin current without the accompany of the charge counterpart, or spin bias characterized by the splitting of spin-up and spin-down chemical potentials. It opens a way of utilizing the excess heat generated in nanostructures to achieve lower-energy consumption and improved performance in thermal devices. Such kind of device is also effective in detecting the system temperature gradient with the help of carriers’ spin degree of freedom. Since 2008, some great experimental breakthroughs of the observation of SSE were continuously reported by K. Uchida et.al. in magnetic metals [6], ferromagnetic insulators [7, 8], and ferromagnetic metals [9]. It was subsequently studied in ferromagnetic semiconductors [10], nonmagnetic materials with a magnetic field [11], paramagnetic materials [12], antiferromagnetic materials [13], metal-ferromagnet insulator interface [14], and also topological insulators [15–17].

It was proved by Mahan and his coworker that a delta-like shape of the transmission function, which is common in low-dimensional systems, will remarkably enhance the efficiency of thermoelectric devices [18]. Since then, the zero-dimensional quantum dot (QD) [19, 20] in which the carries are confined in all three dimensions has been extensively studied to enhance the SSE coefficient (spin thermopower), which indicates the magnitude of generated spin bias under the condition of open circuit by the infinitely small thermal bias [4–6]. Especially, if there are more than one transmission paths in the system, the electrons will interfere with each other and may arise the interesting Dick [21, 22] or Fano [23, 24] effects characterized by sharp change of the transmission function and conductance. Therefore, much work has been devoted to the investigation of SSE in various ring-shape or multiple-path structures containing QDs [25–33]. The rich parameters in it, such as the tunable dot levels, Coulomb interaction, magnetic flux, spin-orbit interactions, asymmetry of the dot-lead couplings enable effective control of the quantum interference processes, resulting in giant spin thermopower whose magnitude can reach as high as or even higher than that of the charge one.

*%*spin-polarized or pure spin thermopowers whose magnitude can be as large as that of the charge one. Such an effect is quite different from the case of spin-independent interdot coupling [53, 54]. Interestingly, the obtained results can be fulfilled with very small spin-polarization of the interdot couplings.

## Model and Methods

where \(c_{k\beta \sigma }^{\dag } \left (c_{k\beta \sigma }\right)\) with *β*=*L*,*R* and \(d_{i\sigma }^{\dag } \left (d_{i\sigma }\right)\) with *i*=0,1,2 are respectively the creation (annihilation) operators in lead- *β* and dot-*i* with spin *σ*. We assume that each dot includes a single energy level *ε*_{i} and neglects the Coulomb interaction between the electrons in the dots and the leads. QD-1 and QD-2 are coupled to each other by the interdot coupling *t*_{0,σ}=*t*_{0}(1+*σ**p*) and to the left and right leads by the dot-lead coupling *V*_{kL} and *V*_{kR}, respectively. The QD-0 is connected to QD-1 and QD-2 with strength *t*_{c,σ}=*t*_{c}(1+*σ**p*), where *σ*=±1 for spin-up and spin-down electrons, respectively.

*Δ*

*V*and a temperature difference

*Δ*

*T*between the left and right leads as [25, 33]

*e*is the electron charge and

*T*the system equilibrium temperature. The coefficients

*K*

_{n,σ}in the above equation are given by [25, 33]

where \(\hbar \) is the reduced Planck’s constant, *μ* the leads’ chemical potential, *f*(*ε*,*μ*)=1/{1+exp[(*ε*−*μ*)/*k*_{B}*T*]} the Fermi distribution function with Boltzmann constant *k*_{B}.

*T*

_{σ}(

*ε*) for each spin component can be obtained in terms of the retarded Green’s function as [25, 33] \(T_{\sigma }(\varepsilon)=\Gamma _{L}\Gamma _{R} \left |G_{21,\sigma }^{r}(\varepsilon)\right |^{2}\), where \(\Gamma _{L(R)}=2\pi \sum _{k}|V_{kL(R)}|^{2}\delta \left [\varepsilon -\varepsilon _{kL(R)}\right ]\) is the line-width function. Applying the equation of motion method, we can easily derive the analytical form of \(G_{21,\sigma }^{r}(\varepsilon)\) as [55, 56]

The thermopower (Seebeck coefficient) of each spin component *S*_{σ} is calculated under the condition of vanishing charge current *J*_{e}=*J*_{e,↑}+*J*_{e,↓}=0, and is given by [25, 33] *S*_{σ}=−*K*_{1,σ}/(*e**T**K*_{0,σ}), and the charge (spin) thermopower is given by *S*_{c(s)}=*S*_{↑}+(−)*S*_{↓}.

## Results and Discussions

*Γ*

_{L}=

*Γ*

_{R}=

*Γ*

_{0}=1 as the energy unit and fix

*μ*=0 as the energy zero point. The constants of

*e*,

*k*

_{B}, and

*h*are all set to be 1. Figure 2 shows the spin-dependent conductance

*G*

_{σ}and thermopower

*S*

_{σ}as functions of the dot level

*ε*

_{0}=

*ε*

_{1}=

*ε*

_{2}for

*t*

_{0}=0, i.e., the TQDs are connected in series. When the interdot couplings are independent of spin (

*p*=0), the spin-up and spin-down conductances in (a) and (b) are the same and develop a peak centered at

*ε*

_{0}=0 (black solid lines).

*p*≠0, the single peak of the spin-up conductance

*G*

_{↑}in Fig. 2a evolves to a triple peak configuration with unchanged maximum peak value because of the enhanced spin-up interdot coupling

*t*

_{c,↑}. Whereas

*G*

_{↓}remains the single-peak pattern with reduced peak width because of the smaller

*t*

_{c,↓}. For

*t*

_{0,σ}=0 and identical QDs levels (

*ε*

_{1}=

*ε*

_{2}=

*ε*

_{0}), the transmission coefficient in Eq. (6) reduces to

There are three resonances in the transmission function located respectively at *ε*=*ε*_{0} and \(\varepsilon =\varepsilon _{0}\pm \sqrt {2t_{c,\sigma }^{2}+\Gamma _{0}^{2}/4}\). Under the condition of low temperature, three resonant peaks emerge in the conductance at *ε*_{0}=*μ* and \(\varepsilon _{0}=\mu \pm \sqrt {2t_{c,\sigma }^{2}+\Gamma _{0}^{2}/4}\), respectively. For the case of weak interdot coupling, the three peaks merge into a single-peak configuration as shown by the black lines in Fig. 2a and. With increasing interdot spin-polarization *p*, the value of *t*_{c,↑}=*t*_{c}(1+*p*) increases and the three peaks in the spin-up conductance are separated in energy space as shown in Fig. 2a. Meanwhile, the magnitude of *t*_{c,↓} becomes smaller and *G*_{↓} in Fig. 2b remains a single-peak pattern accordingly. From Eq. (6) one can also see that the peak width is reduced by decreasing *t*_{c,↓}.

When *p*=0, the thermopowers of each spin component in Fig. 2c and d are identical and antisymmetric with respective to the electron-hole symmetry point (*ε*_{0}=0), which is consistent with previous works [33, 57]. Due to the existence of temperature gradient that generates the thermoelectric effect, the temperature of the left lead is higher than that of the right one, and there are more electrons above the chemical potential *μ* in the left lead. Correspondingly, there are more holes below *μ*. When the energy levels of QDs are below (above) *μ*, the main carriers are holes (electrons) and then the thermopower is positive (negative) [57]. The thermopowers change their signs at *ε*_{0}=0 due to the compensation of electrons and holes. With increasing *p*, the peak width of the spin-up thermopower *S*_{↑} is enlarged with reduced peak value. Whereas that of the spin-down is narrowed. Interestingly, the peak value of *S*_{↓} is obviously enhanced by increasing *p*. For the case of large interdot spin polarization, such as *p*=0.8, the peak value of *S*_{↓} is about ten times of *S*_{↑} with nearly unchanged value of the spin-dependent conductance *G*_{σ}. This can be explained as follows. For positive *p*, the interdot tunneling rate *t*_{c,↑}>*t*_{c,↓} and the spin-up electrons (or holes) will pass through the QDs quicker than the spin-down ones. Correspondingly, there are more spin-down electrons (holes) being blockaded at the left (right) leads as compared to the spin-up ones, resulting in larger spin-down voltage in response of the temperature gradient.

*S*

_{↓}and

*S*

_{↑}, we present the results of extremely large

*p*in Fig. 3. We find that the spin-up conductance

*G*

_{↑}and thermopower

*S*

_{↓}are less influenced by the variation of

*p*, which is shown by the insets in Fig. 3a and b for comparison. With increasing

*p*, the spin-down carriers become even harder to transport through the QDs and will be accumulated on the leads. Accordingly, the value of

*G*

_{↓}is monotonously suppressed, but the peak value of

*S*

_{↓}is remarkably enlarged, suggesting an effective means for generating a fully spin-polarized thermopower by the spin-dependent interdot coupling. This result may also be promising in detecting the temperature gradient in the system by SSE technique. Now that weak interdot coupling enhances the thermopower value, we then choose smaller

*t*

_{c}with fixed

*p*=0.7 in Fig. 4. In this case, the three resonant peaks in both the spin-up and spin-down conductances are emerged into one. The peak width of the conductance is broadened by increasing

*t*

_{c}which is in agreement with previous results. Fig. 4b and d shows that the magnitude of both

*S*

_{↑}and

*S*

_{↓}is enhanced by decreasing

*t*

_{c}. The maxima of the spin-down thermopower can also reach about 4

*k*

_{B}/

*e*for

*t*

_{c}=0.02

*Γ*

_{0}. In experiments, the interdot couplings are adjustable by the gate voltage or the thickness of the tunnel barrier. Therefore, it may be more feasible to enhance the thermopower by changing

*t*

_{c}with a fixed spin-polarization

*p*, as the magnetic field usually is more difficult to be controlled as compared to the electric field. In fact, large thermopower may be obtained with very small

*p*under some conditions, as shown in the following.

*T*

_{σ}(

*ε*)=0 due to the complete reflection [25–33]. Replacing the electron energy

*ε*by the chemical potential

*μ*in Eq. (5), one can find the only antiresonance state is located at

*ε*

_{1},

*ε*

_{2}, temperature

*T*or the dot-lead hybrid matrix

*Γ*

_{α}. Therefore, it is rather simple to adjust the conductance and the thermoelectric quantities in such a complex system. Under the condition of

*μ*=0, the antiresonance state locate only at positive

*ε*

_{0}side. Figure 5a and b shows the Fano antiresonance valley in the conductance. The inset in Fig. 5a shows the Fano line-shape of the conductance in a large dot level regime. Unlike the case of

*t*

_{0}=0 in which the zero point of the thermopower locates at

*ε*

_{0}=0, that of

*t*

_{0}≠0 is at the antiresonant state, respective to which the thermopower is antisymmetric. For the case of

*p*=0, the zero points of the thermopowers of both spin component are at

*ε*

_{0}=0.09 as shown in Fig. 5c and d. With increasing

*p*, they are separated and shifted to opposite directions of 0.09. A broad peak with positive and negative values emerge at the two sides of the zero points, respectively. It is worth mentioning that the value of the thermopower is neglectable small in the other dot level regimes, which is shown in the inset of Fig. 5c. The shifting of the zero points as well as the peaks in the thermopowers brings about two interesting results. One is the 100

*%*spin-polarized thermopower when the peaks of

*S*

_{↑}and

*S*

_{↓}are fully separated in energy space by rather large

*p*value. See for example the blue dash-dotted line in Fig. 5c and d for

*p*=0.4. At the right side of

*ε*

_{0}=0.09, the value of

*S*

_{↓}approaches to zero but

*S*

_{↑}has two sharp peaks. Whereas at the left side of

*ε*

_{0}=0.09, the spin-down thermopower

*S*

_{↓}has two peaks with almost zero

*S*

_{↑}.

*S*

_{s}=

*S*

_{↑}−

*S*

_{↓}≠0 while

*S*

_{e}=

*S*

_{↑}+

*S*

_{↓}=0, or pure spin current in closed circuit under finite thermal bias [58]. It means that the spin-up and spin-down thermopowers with equal magnitude are opposite in signs. The magnitude of

*S*

_{s}is maximized when the sharp peaks in the spin-down and spin-up thermopowers with opposite signs meet at the same

*ε*

_{0}by adjusting the spin-polarization of the interdot couplings

*p*. As shown in Fig. 6a, the zero points as well as the peaks in

*S*

_{↑}and

*S*

_{↓}are respectively shifted to the right and left sides of

*ε*

_{0}=90

*k*

_{B}

*T*due to

*p*≠0. As a result of it, the negative peak in the spin-up thermopower and the positive peak in the spin-down one emerge simultaneously around

*ε*

_{0}=90

*k*

_{B}

*T*inducing the pure spin thermopower. This usually occurs for small

*p*because the two narrow peaks in

*S*

_{σ}are very close to the zero points, which is confirmed by the blue dash-dotted line in Fig. 6a with

*p*=0.02. To clearly show the small energy dominant, we choose

*k*

_{B}

*T*as the energy unit in it. We emphasize that this pure spin thermopower may be obtained with very small spin-polarization of the interdot coupling which is realizable by applying a weak magnetic field on the tunnel barriers. Moreover, the magnitude of the pure spin thermopower is as large as the charge one (the green dotted line).

Finally, we present the spin-resolved, pure spin and the charge thermopowers varying with the temperature *T* and the level detuning *Δ* in Fig. 6b and d, respectively. The dot level *ε*_{0} is chosen as 0.09 to focus on the Fano antiresonance valley. Figure 6b shows that at low temperature *S*_{↑} and *S*_{↓} develop peaks with opposite signs denoted by the solid and dashed lines, resulting in quite large pure spin thermopower *S*_{s} (blue dash-dotted line). Now the charge thermopower *S*_{e} can be very small as shown by the green dotted line. With increasing temperature, the Fano effect is destructed by the carriers’ random thermal motion, and the peaks in *S*_{σ} are smeared out. As a result of it, the difference between *S*_{↑} and *S*_{↓} is undistinguishable, and the pure spin thermopower approaches to zero. Figure 6d shows that the pure spin thermopower is robust against the difference between the dot levels *Δ*. This is consistent with the result from Eq. (7) that the Fano antiresonant state is independent of dots 1 and 2.

## Conclusions

In conclusion, we have studied the properties of the electric conductance and the thermopower in a TQDs connected either serially or circularly with spin-dependent interdot couplings. Particular attention is paid on the generation of 100 *%* spin-polarized and pure spin thermopowers. It is found that the former can be realized in the serial TQDs configuration with sufficiently large interdot coupling spin polarization when the dots are rather strongly coupled to each other. Whereas if the dots are weakly coupled, giant 100 *%* spin-polarized thermopower can be realized under very small interdot coupling spin polarization. When the dots are in circular configuration, the thermopower is antisymmetric with respective to the Fano antiresonance state around which the thermopower develop sharp peaks. By changing the spin-polarization of the interdot couplings, the peaks in spin-up and spin-down thermopowers are shifted to opposite directions in the QDs levels regime. Now the 100 *%* spin-polarized and pure spin thermopowers can be realized in a quite easy way. The present results can be obtained under small value of the spin polarization of the interdot couplings, which is favorable in experiments.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the NSFC (Grant Nos. 61274101, 51362031, and 11675023) and the Initial Project of UEST of China, Zhongshan Institute (415YKQ02), Science and Technology Bureau of Zhongshan (417S26). Liu acknowledges support from the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2014M562301). This work is also supported by the Innovation Team of Zhongshan City (No. 170615151170710).

### Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

### Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Open Access** This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Prinz GA (1998) Magnetoelectronics. Science 282:1660.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wolf SA, Awschalom DD, Buhrman RA, Daughton JM, von Molnár S, Roukes ML, Chtchelkanova AY, Treger DM (2001) Spintronics: A Spin-Based Electronics. Science 294:1488.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Z̆utić I, Fabian J, Sarma SD (2004) Spintronics: Fundamentals and applications. Rev Mod Phys (London) 76:323.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Johnson M (2010) Spin caloritronics and the thermomagnetoelectric system. Solid State Commun 150:543–547.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bauer GE, Saitoh E, van Wees BJ (2010) Spin caloritronics. Nat Mater 150:391–399.Google Scholar
- Uchida K, Takahashi S, Harii K, Ieda J, Koshibae W, Ando K, Maekawa S, Saitoh E (2008) Observation of the spin Seebeck effect. Nature (London) 455:778.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Uchida K, Adachi H, Ota T, Nakayama H, Maekawa S, Saitoh E (2010) Observation of longitudinal spin-Seebeck effect in magnetic insulators. Appl Phys Lett 97:172505.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Uchida K, Xiao J, Adachi H, Ohe J, Takahashi S, Ieda J, Ota T, Kajiwara Y, Umezawa H, Kawai H, Bauer GEW, Maekawa S, Saitoh E (2010) Spin Seebeck insulator. Nat Mater 9:894–897.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bosu S, Sakuraba Y, Uchida K, Saito K, Ota T, Saitoh E, Takanashi K (2011) Spin seebeck effect in thin films of the heusler compound co2 MnSi. Phys Rev B 83:224401.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jaworski CM, Yang J, Mack S, Awschalom D, Heremans J, Myers R (2010) Observation of the spin-Seebeck effect in a ferromagnetic semiconductor. Nat Mater 9:898–903.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jaworski C, Myers R, Halperin JE, Heremans J (2012) Giant spin Seebeck effect in a non-magnetic material. Nature (London) 487:210–212.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wu SM, Pearson JE, Bhattacharya A (2015) Paramagnetic spin seebeck effect. Phys Rev Lett 114:186602.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wu SM, Zhang W, Kc A, Borisov P, Pearson JE, Jiang JS, Lederman D, Hoffmann A, Bhattacharya A (2016) Antiferromagnetic Spin Seebeck Effect. Phys Rev Lett 116:097204.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tang GM, Chen XB, Ren J, Wang J (2018) Rectifying full-counting statistics in a spin Seebeck engine. Phys Rev B 97:081407(R).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chang PH, Mahfouzi F, Nagaosa N, Nikolić BK (2014) Spin-Seebeck effect on the surface of a topological insulator due to nonequilibrium spin-polarization parallel to the direction of thermally driven electronic transport. Phys Rev B 89:195418.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hwang SY, López R, Lee M, Sánchez D (2014) Nonlinear spin-thermoelectric transport in two-dimensional topological insulators. Phys Rev B 90:115301.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Okuma N, Masir MR, MacDonald AH (2017) Theory of the spin-Seebeck effect at a topological-insulator/ferromagnetic-insulator interface. Phys Rev B 95:165418.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mahan GD, Sofo JO (1996) The best thermoelectric. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:7436–7439.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang ZM (2008) Self-Assembled Quantum Dots. Springer, New York.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang ZM, Holmes K, Mazur YI, Ramsey KA, Salamo GA (2006) Self-organization of quantum-dot pairs by high-temperature droplet epitaxy. Nanoscal Res Lett 1:57.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dicke RH (1953) The Effect of Collisions upon the Doppler Width of Spectral Lines. Phys Rev 89:472–473.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang Q, Xie HQ, Nie YH, Ren W (2013) Enhancement of thermoelectric efficiency in triple quantum dots by the Dicke effect. Phys Rev B 87:075102.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fano U (1961) Effects of Configuration Interaction on Intensities and Phase Shifts. Phys Rev 124:1866–1878.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- de Guevara MLL, Claro F, Orellana PA (2003) Ghost Fano resonance in a double quantum dot molecule attached to leads. Phys Rev B 67:195335.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Liu YS, Chi F, Yang XF, Feng JF (2011) Pure spin thermoelectric generator based on a rashba quantum dot molecule. J Appl Phys 109:053712.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Liu YS, Hong XF, Feng JF, Yang XF (2011) Fano-Rashba effect in thermoelectricity of a double quantum dot molecular junction. Nanoscal Res Lett 6:618.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zheng J, Chi F (2012) Enhanced spin figure of merit in a Rashba quantum dot ring connected to ferromagnetic leads. J Appl Phys 111:093702.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Trocha P, Barnaś J (2012) Large enhancement of thermoelectric effects in a double quantum dot system due to interference and Coulomb correlation phenomena. Phys Rev B 85:085408.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhou XF, Qi FH, Jin GJ (2014) Enhanced spin figure of merit in an Aharonov-Bohm ring with a double quantum dot. J Appl Phys 115:153706.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yang X, Zheng J, Guo Y (2015) Spin thermoelectric effects in a double quantum dot embedded in an Aharonov-Bohm ring coupled to nonmagnetic leads. Physica B: Condens Matter 461:122–128.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yang X, Zhen GJ, Li CL, Guo Y (2015) Spin and charge Nernst effect in a four-terminal quantum dot ring. J Phys: Condens Matter 27:075302.Google Scholar
- Karwacki Ł, Trocha P (2016) Spin-dependent thermoelectric effects in a strongly correlated double quantum dot. Phys Rev B 94:085418.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Andrade JRP, Peña FJ, González A, Ávalos-Ovando O, Orellana PA (2017) Spin-Seebeck effect and spin polarization in a multiple quantum dot molecule. Phys Rev B 96:165413.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vidan A, Westervelt R, Stopa M, Hanson M, Gossard AC (2004) Triple quantum dot charging rectifier. Appl Phys Lett 85:3602.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gaudreau L, Studenikin SA, Sachrajda AS, Zawadzki P, Kam A, Lapointe J, Korkusinski M, Hawrylak P (2006) Stability diagram of a few-electron triple dot. Phys Rev Lett 97:036807.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gaudreau L, Granger G, Kam A, Aers GC, Studenikin SA, Zawadzki P, Ladriere PP, Wasilewski ZR, Sachrajda AS (2011) Coherent control of three-spin states in a triple quantum dot. Nat Phys 8:54–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Noiri A, Takakura T, Obata T, Otsuka T, Nakajima T, Yoneda J, Tarucha S (2017) Cotunneling spin blockade observed in a three-terminal triple quantum dot. Phys Rev B 96:155414.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Głdzik S, Wójcik KP, Weymann I, Domański T (2017) Interplay between electron pairing and Dicke effect in triple quantum dot structures. Phys Rev B 95:125419.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rogge MC, Haug RJ (2008) Two-path transport measurements on a triple quantum dot. Phys Rev B 77:193306.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gaudreau L, Sachrajda AS, Studenikin S, Kam A, Delgado F, Shim YP, Korkusinski M, Hawrylak P (2009) Coherent transport through a ring of three quantum dots. Phys Rev B 80:075415.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Seo M, Choi HK, Lee SY, Kim N, Chung Y, Sim HS, Umansky V, Mahalu D (2013) Charge frustration in a triangular triple quantum dot. Phys Rev Lett 110:046803.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Delgado F, Shim YP, Korkusinski M, Gaudreau L, Studenikin SA, Sachrajda AS, Hawrylak P (2008) Spin-selective Aharonov-Bohm oscillations in a lateral triple quantum dot. Phys Rev Lett 101:226810.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang WZ (2008) Kosterlitz-Thouless transition induced by Aharonov-Bohm effect in a triple quantum dot. Phys Rev B 78:235316.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Shim YP, Delgado F, Hawrylak P (2009) Tunneling spectroscopy of spin-selective Aharonov-Bohm oscillations in a lateral triple quantum dot molecule. Phys Rev B 80:115305.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Busl M, Sánchez R, Platero G (2010) Control of spin blockade by ac magnetic fields in triple quantum dots. Phys Rev B 81:121306(R).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Niklas M, Trottmann A, Donarini A, Grifoni M (2017) Fano stability diagram of a symmetric triple quantum dot. Phys Rev B 95:115133.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Büttiker M (1983) Larmor precession and the traversal time for tunneling. Phys Rev B 27:6178.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hüttel AK, Ludwig S, Lorenz H, Eberl K, Kotthaus JP (2005) Direct control of the tunnel splitting in a one-electron double quantum dot. Phys Rev B 72:081310(R).View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zhang P, Xue QK, Wang YP, Xie XC (2002) Spin-dependent transport through an interacting quantum dot. Phys Rev Lett 89:286803.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Masuda S, Tan KY, Nakahara M (2018) Spin-selective electron transfer in a quantum dot array. Phys Rev B 97:045418.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Li ZJ, Jin YH, Nie YH, Liang JQ (2008) Electron transport through double quantum dots with spin-polarization dependent interdot coupling. J Phys Condens Matter 20:085214.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wang HX, Yin W, Wang F (2011) Spin current through double quantum dots with spin- and time-dependent interdot coupling. J Appl Phys 109:053710.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chi F, Zheng J, Lu XD, Zhang KC (2011) Thermoelectric effect in a serial two-quantum-dot. Phys Lett A 375:1352–1356.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kuo DMT, Chang YC (2012) Effects of interdot hopping and Coulomb blockade on the thermoelectric properties of serially coupled quantum dots. Nanoscale Res Lett 7:257.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jiang ZT, Sun QF, Wang YP (2005) Kondo transport through serially coupled triple quantum dots. Phys Rev B 72:045332.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jiang ZT, Sun QF (2007) Quantum transport through circularly coupled triple quantum dots. J Phys Condens Matter 19:156213.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Liu J, Sun QF, Xie XC (2010) Enhancement of the thermoelectric figure of merit in a quantum dot due to the Coulomb blockade effect. Phys Rev B 81:245323.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dubi Y, Ventra MD (2008) Thermospin effects in a quantum dot connected to ferromagnetic leads. Phys Rev B 79:081302.View ArticleGoogle Scholar