Optical Ceiling on Polaron Mobility in Disordered Molecular Semiconductors: Lessons from Eumelanin

Alvan Hunt

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2611.04986

Optical Ceiling on Polaron Mobility in Disordered Molecular Semiconductors: Lessons from Eumelanin

Alvan Hunt

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Polaron hopping in disordered molecular semiconductors such as eumelanin is set by energetic disorder $σ$ and reorganization energy $λ$. We show that the reduced polaron absorption band encodes this transport problem. Its value at zero energy fixes the mean hop rate, which bounds the mobility in any dimension. For Gaussian disorder and classical vibrations its centroid is $E_\mathrm{op}=λ+(1-c)σ^2/k_BT$, its variance obeys the Hush relation, and the bound is the Marcus rate at $λ\to E_\mathrm{op}$; a 1D lower bound vanishes at $k_BT^*=(1-c)σ^2/λ$, read from optics.

Explore related subjects

cond-mat.dis-nn physics.chem-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Alvan Hunt. 2026-11-03. Optical Ceiling on Polaron Mobility in Disordered Molecular Semiconductors: Lessons from Eumelanin. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.04986

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Statistical levels and spatial modes of Fock-space heterogeneity in many-body localization crossovers

Near many-body localization crossovers, local memory fluctuates strongly among eigenstates and ensemble realizations, but the observed heterogeneity combines contributions from different statistical levels. We develop a statistical framework based on configuration-space distance distributions that uses a variance decomposition to separate fluctuations within eigenstates, between eigenstates of one sample, and between samples. Applying this framework to random-cosine and quasiperiodic-cosine Ising ensembles with the same one-site field marginal, we find that, at the exact-diagonalization sizes studied, the clearest difference occurs among disorder realizations or quasiperiodic phase samples, whereas within-eigenstate and within-sample eigenstate-to- eigenstate contributions remain broadly comparable. Spatial covariances show that random outer fluctuations have a much stronger uniform component, whereas quasiperiodic phase fluctuations are organized more strongly at finite wave number and partly cancel in the spatial average controlling the distance center. We find that, near the crossover in the random ensemble, the ensemble-averaged distance center is particularly sensitive to changes in the nominal field strength. Combined with sample-to-sample differences in the realized field amplitude, this mean response accounts for much of the sample-to-sample variation in the distance center. Analysis of half-chain entanglement further shows that its sample-to-sample fluctuations likewise reflect the combined effects of amplitude variations and its own mean response. An application to a fixed-magnetization spin chain demonstrates the framework in a constrained configuration space. Resolving both statistical level and spatial mode therefore provides a more complete picture of sample- dependent many-body memory and its configuration-space probability geometry.

cond-mat.dis-nn↗

arXiv2026

Synchronous and asynchronous Monte Carlo dynamics of mean-field spin glasses with rotationally invariant couplings: what they share and where they differ

We compare two Markov chain Monte Carlo dynamics for Ising spin glasses with rotationally invariant couplings: the synchronous Monte Carlo method (SyncMC), which updates all spins in parallel with the help of Gaussian auxiliary fields, and asynchronous Metropolis-Hastings dynamics, which updates one spin at a time. Using the Guionnet-Maïda formula, we derive the dynamical mean-field theory of both dynamics in terms of the R-transform of the coupling spectrum. The two effective single-spin processes share a retarded self-interaction and a Gaussian noise; SyncMC has, in addition, an instantaneous self-coupling and a noise that depends only on the response function. These additional terms act only on the fastest time scale, so that the equations for slow time scales, including the fluctuation-dissipation ratio and, for the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model, the Parisi equation, are the same for the two dynamics. Simulations of the random orthogonal and Sherrington-Kirkpatrick models confirm that both dynamics approach the same fluctuation-dissipation relations, differing only in how many updates they need to do so.

cond-mat.dis-nn↗

arXiv2026

A Cross-Entropy Audit (CEA) for Consciousness Tests Moved from Brain to Large Language Model

Brain tests of consciousness are often applied to large language models (LLMs). Here consciousness means access: whether information, such as a heard sound, becomes available for report and use. A brain recording is in microvolts and an LLM's internal activations are arbitrary numbers, so the two share no common measurement unit. A brain test of this kind compares competing statistical models of how responses vary over repeated trials. The test's decision names the best-fitting model. The decision is wrong when the test names two states for responses that vary smoothly, or the reverse. No method we reviewed measures how often a transferred test is wrong. We call such a method a transfer audit and propose one, the cross-entropy audit (CEA). First, our audit holds back part of the trials and fits each model to the remaining trials. It then scores how well each fitted model predicts the held-back responses. Comparing two models gives a score difference in nats per trial. That difference does not depend on whether the recording is in microvolts or in activations, so brain and machine are scored on one scale. Second, the audit writes down five choices that such tests make for brain data: the competing models, their fitting, what counts as one independent sample, what the uncertainty interval describes, and the decision rule. Each may need to change on a machine. Third, the audit runs the test on simulated data built to follow one model, so the right decision is known, and counts wrong decisions. In our example, the two models of a two-state test, carried over unchanged to an LLM, found two states in 989 of 12,000 smoothly varying simulated datasets. The audited version of the test found two states in none of them. It detected 599 of 600 two-state datasets. The audited version's uncertainty interval, however, was too narrow at six of the twelve smoothly varying settings and is being repaired.

cond-mat.dis-nn↗