Paper detail

Counterintuitive issues in the charge transport through molecular junctions

Whether at phenomenological or microscopic levels, most theoretical approaches to charge transport through molecular junctions postulate or attempt to justify microscopically the existence of a dominant molecular orbital (MO). Within such single level descriptions, experimental current-voltage I-V curves are sometimes/often analyzed by using analytical formulas expressing the current as a cubic expansion in terms of the applied voltage V, and relate possible V-driven shifts of the level energy offset relative to the metallic Fermi energy \varepsilon_{0} to an asymmetry of molecule-electrode couplings or to an asymmetric location of the "center of gravity" of the MO with respect to electrodes. In this paper, we present results demonstrating the failure of these intuitive expectations. For example, we show how typical data processing based on cubic expansions yields a value of \varepsilon_0 underestimated by a typical factor of about two. When compared to theoretical results of DFT approaches, which typically underestimate the HOMO-LUMO gap by a similar factor, this may create the false impression of "agreement" with experiments in situations where this is actually not the case. Further, such cubic expansions yield model parameter values dependent on the bias range width employed for fitting, which is unacceptable physically. Finally, we present an example demonstrating that, counter-intuitively, the bias-induced change in the energy of an MO located much closer to an electrode can occur in a direction that is opposite to the change in the Fermi energy of that electrode. This is contrary to what one expects based on a "lever rule" argument, according to which the MO "feels" the local value of the electric potential, which is assumed to vary linearly across the junction and is closer to the potential of the closer electrode.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.