\section{Introduction}

Electron temperature is a fundamental parameter that can limit the performance of low-temperature experiments and applications. Electron thermometry is an essential tool in understating the behaviour of low-temperature circuitry \cite{giazotto2006opportunities}, for example the processors used in quantum computers or devices used to study exotic electronic phases and materials. Accurate and fast electron temperature readout is also a valuable tool for thermodynamic experiments. Increasingly sensitive quantum circuits require delicate and non-invasive electronic thermometry. Quantum dot (QD) and single-electron transistor (SET) conduction thermometry are well established as a powerful approach to monitor electron temperatures \cite{beenakker1991theory, pekola1994thermometry, spietz2003primary, giazotto2006opportunities, maradan2014gaas, koski2015chip, bradley2016nanoelectronic, hahtela2016traceable, iftikhar2016primary, nicoli2019quantum, jones2020progress}. However, these thermometers require the measurement of current through the QD, which can complicate or interfere with other electronic measurements in the experiment. Furthermore, the extra galvanic connections for dot thermometry can be a source of additional noise and parasitic heating. Local charge sensing can be used to probe the occupation of a QD without having to pass a direct current through it \cite{dicarlo2004differential, torresani2013nongalvanic, mavalankar2013non, maradan2014gaas, prance2009electronic}. This approach still requires galvanic connections to read the charge sensor. Similarly, radio frequency (RF) reflectometry techniques have recently allowed QD thermometry to be performed without measuring current through the QD, which is effective outside the lifetime broadened regime \cite{gasparinetti2015fast, ahmed2018primary}. However, for both charge sensing and reflectometry, connections to the source and drain of the dot are still needed to measure the dot lever arm for calibration.

Here we demonstrate how a completely non-galvanic QD thermometer can be calibrated and used with a single capacitive gate connection, including a calibration of the lever arm with no DC source-drain bias. The QD thermometer has the flexibility to be used on any conducting reservoir and operates in an intermediate regime where the maximum temperature is much lower than the QD charging energy $k_\mathrm{B} T \ll E_\mathrm{c}$ and the minimum temperature is similar to the tunnel coupling $k_\mathrm{B} T \sim \hbar \Gamma$.

\section{Experimental Details}
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Figures/Device_schematic.pdf}
	\caption{Details of the silicon field-effect transistor QD. \textbf{a)} Cross-section schematic of the device. The transistor consists of an undoped 1-D Si channel, $10\,\mathrm{nm}$ high by $30\,\mathrm{nm}$ wide, with n-doped Si source-drain connections. A polycrystalline silicon top gate, $80\,\mathrm{nm}$ wide, bridges over the channel, separated by a layer of SiO$_2$. A grounded Si back gate is beneath the channel, separated from the channel by $145\,\mathrm{nm}$ thick buried SiO$_2$. \textbf{b)} Top view of device. The source (S) and drain (D) channel connection points are n-doped and behave as a single grounded reservoir during thermometry operation. Two spacers are used to prevent doping of the Si channel under the top gate. \textbf{c)} Energy diagram of the system. The reservoir has an occupation of electron states given by the Fermi-Dirac distribution $f$. The QD energy level $E_\mathrm{QD}$ is broadened from tunnel coupling to the reservoir, with a density of states $n$ described by Eq. (\ref{eq:lor}). The tunnelling capacitance $C_\mathrm{t}$ as a function of $E_\mathrm{QD}$ has a shape proportional to $f'\ast n$.}
	\label{fig:device}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Figures/Circuit_schematic_and_resonance.pdf}
	\caption{Details of RF circuitry. \textbf{a)} Schematic of the circuit layout. The resonant circuit is comprised of the NbTiN-on-quartz spiral inductor $L$, the parasitic capacitance $C_\mathrm{p}$, coupling capacitance $C_\mathrm{c}$ and the variable QD tunnelling capacitance $C_\mathrm{t}$, which is the physical parameter monitored for thermometry. $C_\mathrm{p}$ includes the geometric gate capacitance $C_\mathrm{tg}$ for modelling purposes. $R_\mathrm{p}$ is a modelled parasitic loss resistance to ground which impacts the resonant circuit Q-factor. The inductor line has a $100 \,\mathrm{pF}$ capacitor to provide a DC break between the top gate and ground. The $96 \,\mathrm{k \Omega}$ resistor limits top gate RF signal loss to the DC line. $V_\mathrm{tg}$ is the controllable DC top gate voltage. IN and OUT represent the RF reflectometry input and output signal, respectively. \textbf{b)} The loaded measurement circuit resonance when coupled to the top gate, with the reflected signal magnitude $|R|$ and phase $\phi$ shown in red and blue, respectively. The black dashed lines show the fitted circuit model, which measures a Q-factor of 63. Thermometry is performed on resonance at $f_0 = 593\,\mathrm{MHz}$, where phase is most responsive.}
	\label{fig:cicuit}
\end{figure}

The QD device used in our experiment is a silicon-on-insulator trigate accumulation-mode field-effect transistor (FET) with a channel length, width and height of $80\,\mathrm{nm}$, $30\,\mathrm{nm}$ and $10\,\mathrm{nm}$ respectively, shown in Fig \ref{fig:device}a and b. For more details about the device, see reference \cite {betz2014high}. At cryogenic temperatures, when a positive sub-threshold DC voltage $V_\mathrm{tg}$ is applied to the top gate, a localisation potential appears in the Si channel underneath the gate. This allows bound electron states to accumulate, and creates a single QD. Corner dots \cite{voisin2014few, ibberson2018electric} do not appear in the structure due to the narrow width of the channel. The FET top gate also acts as a plunger gate for the QD via capacitance $C_\mathrm{tg}$, allowing tuning of the next available energy level in the QD, which is labelled $E_{\mathrm{QD}}$, by adjusting $V_\mathrm{tg}$. The source and drain electrodes are both grounded and act as a single reservoir of electrons with a Fermi level $\mu$ (Fig \ref{fig:device}c). Throughout the experiment, the back gate was grounded.

The QD energy level $E_\mathrm{QD}$ is broadened by tunnel coupling to the reservoir \cite{kouwenhoven1997electron, ihn2010semiconductor}. This is described with a broadened density of states in the form of a normalised Lorentzian, given by:
\begin{equation}
n(E_{\mathrm{QD}}, E) = \frac{1}{\pi} \frac{\hbar \Gamma}{(E_{\mathrm{QD}} - E)^2 + (\hbar \Gamma)^2},
\label{eq:lor}
\end{equation}
where $\hbar$ is the reduced Planck's constant \cite{kouwenhoven1997electron}. The tunnel rate $\Gamma$ between the QD and the reservoir is given by $\Gamma = \Gamma_\mathrm{s} \Gamma_\mathrm{d}/(\Gamma_\mathrm{s}+\Gamma_\mathrm{d})$, where $\Gamma_\mathrm{s}(\mathrm{d})$ is the tunnel rate through source(drain) barrier. The probability $P_{\mathrm{QD}}$ of an excess electron occupying the QD is given by the integral of the product of $n(E_\mathrm{QD}, E)$ and the Fermi-Dirac distribution of electrons in the reservoir $f(E)$ \cite{kouwenhoven1997electron}:
\begin{equation}
P_{\mathrm{QD}}(E_\mathrm{QD}) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(E)n( E_{\mathrm{QD}}, E) \mathrm{d}E.
\label{eq:prob_int}
\end{equation}
This is the convolution of the two functions, so $P_{\mathrm{QD}}$ becomes:
\begin{equation}
P_{\mathrm{QD}}(E_\mathrm{QD}) = (f \ast n).
\label{eq:prob_conv}
\end{equation}
Due to the spin degeneracy of the extra electron in the QD, $P_{\mathrm{QD}} = 1/2$ occurs when $E_\mathrm{QD} = \mu \pm k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{ln}2$ \cite{hartman2018direct, ahmed2018primary}. The QD has both a constant geometric capacitance and a variable `tunneling' capacitance $C_\mathrm{t}$, given by \cite{esterli2019small,ahmed2018primary,mizuta2017quantum,shevchenko2012multiphoton,shevchenko2012inverse,johansson2006readout}:
\begin{equation}
C_\mathrm{t}(V_\mathrm{tg}) = e \alpha \frac{\partial P_{\mathrm{QD}}}{\partial V_\mathrm{tg}},
\label{eq:ct1}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha = C_\mathrm{tg} / C_\Sigma$ is the top gate lever arm, $C_\Sigma$ is the total QD capacitance, $\partial V_\mathrm{tg} = -\partial E_\mathrm{QD} / e \alpha$, and $e$ is the elementary charge. Inserting Eq. (\ref{eq:prob_conv}) into this definition gives us the tunnelling capacitance of the QD-reservoir system:
\begin{equation}
C_\mathrm{t}(V_\mathrm{tg})  = e \alpha (f \ast n)' = e \alpha (f' \ast n).
\label{eq:ct2}
\end{equation}
 The derivative of $f$ with respect to $V_\mathrm{tg}$, denoted $f'$, is
\begin{equation}
f'(V_\mathrm{tg}) = \frac{1}{4 k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{e}} \mathrm{cosh}^{-2} \left( \frac{-\alpha e (V_\mathrm{tg} - V_0)}{2 k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{e}}\right),
\label{eq:fermi_dirac_diff}
\end{equation}
where $T_\mathrm{e}$ is the electron temperature of the reservoirs, $V_0$ is the value of $V_\mathrm{tg}$ when $P_{\mathrm{QD}} = 1/2$, and $k_\mathrm{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant. The $T_\mathrm{e}$ dependence of $C_\mathrm{t}$ via Eq. (\ref{eq:fermi_dirac_diff}) is the basis for the non-galvanic QD thermometer.

The capacitance $C_\mathrm{t}$ was measured by RF reflectometry using the setup shown in Fig \ref{fig:cicuit}a. A resonant circuit was connected to the QD top gate and consisted of a NbTiN-on-quartz spiral inductor $L = 96\,\mathrm{nH}$, and a coupling capacitor $C_\mathrm{c} = 0.18\,\mathrm{pF}$. The inductor is placed parallel to the measured capacitance to help improve the loaded Q-factor, which helps achieve a larger signal for a given change in capacitance \cite{ahmed2018radio}. Modelling the circuit using the measured RF reflection $|R|$ and phase $\phi$ (shown in Fig \ref{fig:cicuit}b) gives a resonance frequency of $f_0 = 593.4 \,\mathrm{MHz}$ with a Q-factor of $63$, a parasitic capacitance of $C_\mathrm{p} = 0.57 \, \mathrm{pF}$ and a parasitic resistance of $R_\mathrm{p} = 43.2 \,\mathrm{k \Omega}$. A modelled circuit loss to ground is represented by resistance $R_\mathrm{p}$, which affects the resonance Q-factor \cite{ahmed2018radio}. The parasitic capacitance $C_\mathrm{p}$ includes the geometric gate capacitance $C_\mathrm{tg}$. The demodulation of $|R|$ and $\phi$ was performed with an `ADL5387' active quadrature demodulator chip. To allow a DC bias $V_\mathrm{tg}$ to be applied to the top gate, a $100 \,\mathrm{pF}$ capacitor was placed after the inductor to avoid DC-shorting the device and to create a good RF ground at the frequency of operation. A $96 \,\mathrm{k \Omega}$ resistor was used to prevent RF signals from escaping via the DC bias line. The resonant frequency depends on total top gate capacitance via $f_0 =  1 /2 \pi \sqrt{L(C_\mathrm{c} + C_\mathrm{p} + C_\mathrm{t})}$. At the circuit resonant frequency, $\phi \propto C_\mathrm{t}$, when $C_\mathrm{t} \ll C_\mathrm{p} + C_\mathrm{c}$ \cite{johansson2006readout, chorley2012measuring, betz2015dispersively, gonzalez2016gate, ahmed2018primary}. This gives a change in reflected signal phase that depends on $T_\mathrm{e}$ according to:
\begin{equation}
\phi - \phi_0 = A e \alpha \left(f'\ast n\right),
\label{eq:phase_conv}
\end{equation}
where $A$ is a fitting constant, which tells us the phase change due to a small change in capacitance, and $\phi_0$ is the circuit phase offset at the resonant frequency when $C_\mathrm{t} \approx 0$. If the constants $A$, $\alpha$ and $\Gamma$ are known, measuring $\phi - \phi_0$ as a function of $V_\mathrm{tg} - V_0$ and fitting the model described by Eq. (\ref{eq:phase_conv}) gives a readout of electron temperature $T_\mathrm{e}$. A demonstration of this technique is shown in Fig \ref{fig:unifit}.

\section{Results}
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Figures/MEGAFIT3_THERMOMETER_CALIBRATION_IO_PLOTTER_megafit_points_edited.pdf}
	\caption{QD thermometer calibration in $1\,\mathrm{K}$ cryostat, showing three experimental phase traces taken at fridge temperatures $T_\mathrm{f} = 2.0,\, 2.5,\, 3.0 \, \mathrm{K}$. Each trace shows the change in reflected signal phase $\phi - \phi_0$ against top gate voltage $V_\mathrm{tg} - V_0$ around the Coulomb peak of the QD. The solid black lines show the least-square fit of Eq. (\ref{eq:phase_conv}) onto the data, assuming the electron temperature $T_\mathrm{e}$ equals the fridge thermometer readout $T_\mathrm{f}$. This calibration procedure estimates $\alpha = 0.74 \pm 0.02$ , $\Gamma = 270 \pm 20 \, \mathrm{ns^{-1}}$ and $A = 5.13 \pm 0.06 \, \mathrm{rad\, pF^{-1}} $. These three constants are then included within Eq. (\ref{eq:phase_conv}), allowing electron thermometry to be performed, shown here with a $T_\mathrm{e}$ fit to data taken at $T_\mathrm{f} = 1.35 \, \mathrm{K}$, yielding an electron temperature $T_\mathrm{e} = 1.4 \pm 0.1 \,\mathrm{K}$}
	\label{fig:unifit}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Figures/ET_AND_MAXP_EDITED.pdf}
	\caption{Electron temperature $T_\mathrm{e}$ (orange) and max phase $\phi_{\mathrm{MAX}}$ (green) readout from QD thermometer in $1\,\mathrm{K}$ cryostat. Thermometry readout was generated by fitting $T_\mathrm{e}$, via calibrated Eq. (\ref{eq:phase_conv}), to the phase curve observed by sweeping the $V_\mathrm{tg}$ over the QD Coulomb peak. The peak phase $\phi_{\mathrm{MAX}}$ was measured at $V_{\mathrm{tg}}=V_0$, with no fitting process required. The fridge temperature $T_\mathrm{f}$ was read from a ruthenium oxide fridge thermometer thermally linked to the QD device. The dashed line highlights where $T_\mathrm{e} = T_\mathrm{f}$. The dotted line represents the model prediction from calibrated Eq. (\ref{eq:phase_conv}), assuming $T_\mathrm{e} = T_\mathrm{f}$.}
	\label{fig:thermometry}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Figures/SD_STAB.pdf}
	\caption{Charge stability diagram measured by reflectometry technique and DC transport in $1\,\mathrm{K}$ cryostat. To the left of $V_\mathrm{tg} = 220\,\mathrm{mV}$, the derivative of reflected signal phase with respect to the top gate voltage $\mathrm{d}\phi/\mathrm{d}V_{\mathrm{tg}}$ is plotted, demonstrating the non-galvanic reflectometry technique. For this measurement, the source and drain connections were grounded. To the right of $V_\mathrm{tg} = 220\,\mathrm{mV}$, the QD source-drain current $|I_{\mathrm{sd}}|$ is plotted in log scale. The fridge temperature was $T_\mathrm{f} = 1.268 \pm 0.001 \, \mathrm{K}$. Red lines highlight the source-drain gradients that match the calibration fit lever arm prediction, $\alpha = 0.74 \pm 0.02$, via Eq. (\ref{eq:alpha}), crossing at the QD Coulomb peak where the thermometry took place. Here the on-resonance current has a order of magnitude $I_\mathrm{sd} \approx 1-10\,\mathrm{nA}$, which is similar to the single-electron current defined by the calibration fit tunnel rate $e \Gamma \sim 6.9 \pm 0.5\, \mathrm{nA}$.}
	\label{fig:stab_check}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Figures/BF_STAB_ET.pdf}
	\caption{QD Thermometry and stability diagram from dilution refrigerator measurements. \textbf{a)} Re-calibrated QD thermometer readout of electron temperature $T_\mathrm{e}$ compared with fridge thermometer readout $T_\mathrm{f}$, measured near the device within the dilution refrigerator. The QD and fridge thermometers start to disagree below $1\,\mathrm{K}$, but still agree within one standard deviation of confidence (For details on how the error is determined, see section II in the Supplemental Material \cite{supplemetal}). \textbf{b)} Source-drain current stability diagram of QD mounted in dilution refrigerator.  The temperature of the fridge was held at $T_\mathrm{f} = 8.70 \pm 0.05 \, \mathrm{mK}$.  Red lines highlight the source-drain gradients that match the calibration fit lever arm prediction, $\alpha = 0.84 \pm 0.03$, via Eq. (\ref{eq:alpha}), crossing at the QD Coulomb peak where the thermometry took place.}
	\label{fig:BF_stab_et}
\end{figure}
The QD thermometer was measured in two fridge systems: a cryogen-free $1\,\mathrm{K}$ cryostat\footnote{Oxford Instruments `Io'} and a cryogen-free dilution refrigerator\footnote{BlueFors `LD250'}, where it was calibrated and operated. In both systems, the fridge temperature was monitored by a ruthenium oxide resistance fridge thermometer\footnote{Model ref `ROTH-GEN' in the 1K cryostat and `RuO2.RX-102B' in the dilution refrigerator} mounted alongside the QD thermometer during data collection. The reading of the ruthenium oxide fridge thermometer is denoted as $T_\mathrm{f}$.

In the $1\,\mathrm{K}$ cryostat, calibration was done by reading the reflected signal phase across a number of sweeps of $V_\mathrm{tg}$ at a set of fridge temperatures $T_\mathrm{f} = 2.0, \, 2.5, \, 3.0 \, \mathrm{K}$. A single least-squares fit using Eq. (\ref{eq:phase_conv}) was performed on the collective phase traces for this set of temperatures (Fig \ref{fig:unifit}). It was assumed that the electron temperature is well thermalised with the fridge temperature at $2 \,\mathrm{K}$ and above, and so during the calibration the condition $T_\mathrm{e} = T_\mathrm{f}$ was applied to Eq. (\ref{eq:phase_conv}). For each phase trace, $\phi_0$ and $V_0$ were individually fitted. The calibration fit produced an estimate for the values $\alpha = 0.74 \pm 0.02$ , $\Gamma = 270 \pm 20 \, \mathrm{ns^{-1}}$ and $A = 5.13 \pm 0.06 \, \mathrm{rad\, pF^{-1}}$. This implies $\Gamma \gg 2\pi f_0$, therefore dissipative components were neglected and the cyclic tunnelling was considered adiabatic. With these three constants defined, the thermometer was calibrated and ready for operation.

To use the QD thermometer, $\phi - \phi_0$ was measured as a function of $V_\mathrm{tg} - V_0$ and fitted with the calibrated Eq. (\ref{eq:phase_conv}) to give a readout of electron temperature $T_\mathrm{e}$. A series of thermometry readings were taken at varying fridge temperatures between $3.0\,\mathrm{K}$ and $1.3\,\mathrm{K}$. Fridge temperature $T_\mathrm{f}$ was monitored for each QD thermometer reading of $T_\mathrm{e}$ (Fig \ref{fig:thermometry}). The QD thermometer agreed with the fridge thermometer across the range of temperatures, even at temperatures below the calibration range. It is worth noting that this works in the intermediate regime where $k_\mathrm{B} T \sim \hbar \Gamma$ because the tunnel broadening is taken into account within the physical model. For quicker electron temperature readout, the QD can be tuned to where $V_\mathrm{tg}=V_0$ so that $\phi - \phi_0 = \phi_\mathrm{MAX}$, which was directly converted to a electron temperature via Eq. (\ref{eq:phase_conv}), using the previously calibrated values of $\alpha$, $\Gamma$ and $A$. This approach worked effectively, even at fridge temperatures below the calibration data.

Finally, to provide an independent confirmation of the calibration process, the QD source and drain connections were ungrounded to apply a source-drain voltage $V_\mathrm{sd}$ across the QD and measure a charge stability diagram of the device. Using the relationship
\begin{equation}
\alpha = \frac{1}{m_\mathrm{d} - m_\mathrm{s}}, \label{eq:alpha}
\end{equation}
where $m_\mathrm{d} = \Delta V_{\mathrm{tg}}^\mathrm{d} / \Delta V_{\mathrm{sd}}^\mathrm{d}$ is the gradient along the the ‘drain resonance’ side of a Coulomb diamond and $m_\mathrm{s}= \Delta V_{\mathrm{tg}}^\mathrm{s} / \Delta V_{\mathrm{sd}}^\mathrm{s}$ is the ‘source resonance’ side, we can see the lever arm $\alpha = 0.74 \pm 0.02$ matches well with the Coulomb diamond geometry in Fig \ref{fig:stab_check}. This demonstrates that the lever arm of a QD can be obtained using one non-galvanic gate connection and measurements spanning a range of fridge temperatures. The order of magnitude of source-drain current $|I_\mathrm{sd}|$ from the unblockaded QD was found to be in the order of $\sim 10\,\mathrm{nA}$. This agrees with the calibration fit of the total tunnel rate constant $270 \pm 20 \, \mathrm{ns^{-1}}$, which equates to a source-drain current of $e \Gamma = 6.9 \pm 0.5\, \mathrm{nA}$ for a single electron transport channel.

To study operation at lower temperatures, the QD thermometer was mounted into a dilution refrigerator. The calibration fit was performed as described above, with phase data taken at $1300 \, \mathrm{mK}$ and $1600 \, \mathrm{mK}$. Within this system, the three calibration constants were found to be $\alpha = 0.84 \pm 0.03$, $\Gamma = 510 \pm 10 \, \mathrm{ns^{-1}}$ and $ A = 0.75 \pm 0.07 \, \mathrm{rad\, pF^{-1}}$. The change in $A$ is attributed to the differences between the two fridge systems affecting the RF electronics, such as parasitic capacitance $C_\mathrm{p}$ changing due to a different metallic geometry near to the QD chip. Both $\alpha$ and $\Gamma$ are sensitive to the shape and position of the QD in the Si channel, which are likely to be different after a thermal cycle of the device.

The electron temperature readout $T_\mathrm{e}$ from the QD thermometer in the dilution refrigerator agreed with the fridge temperature readout $T_\mathrm{f}$ above $1\,\mathrm{K}$, despite the fact that $ k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{f} < \hbar\Gamma $ (Fig \ref{fig:BF_stab_et}a). Below $1\,\mathrm{K}$ there was deviation of $T_\mathrm{e}$ away from $T_\mathrm{f}$, although the point $T_\mathrm{e} = T_\mathrm{f}$ remains within one standard deviation of experimental uncertainty (For details on how the error is determined, see section II in the Supplemental Material \cite{supplemetal}). The deviation of $T_\mathrm{e}$ readout and its increase in uncertainty occurs because the QD energy level is strongly tunnel-broadened and the response of the phase trace to temperature becomes weaker (For details on the influence of tunnel broadening, see section III and FIG. 4 in the Supplemental Material \cite{supplemetal}). With a reduced $\Gamma$ the QD thermometer would work at lower temperatures. This can be achieved by adjusting the device design geometry. Checking the charge stability diagram, the predicted lever arm $\alpha = 0.84 \pm 0.03$ matches the Coulomb diamond geometry well (Fig \ref{fig:BF_stab_et}b). The dilution refrigerator experiment has an average white noise phase sensitivity of $1.1\pm0.1 \, \mu\mathrm{rad}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, in this case dominated by the measurement chain. With this equipment and the $\phi_\mathrm{MAX}$ measurements demonstrated in Fig \ref{fig:thermometry}, the QD thermometer setup could achieve a potential sensitivity of $11\pm 1 \, \mathrm{mK}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ at $3.0 \, \mathrm{K}$, and $4.0\pm0.3 \, \mathrm{mK}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ at $1.3 \, \mathrm{K}$ (For details on the thermometer sensitivity, see section I in the Supplemental Material \cite{supplemetal}).

\section{Conclusions}

We have described the successful calibration and operation of a QD thermometer readout via a single capacitive connection in two separate cryostats,  which introduces a new level of simplicity and versatility for measuring electron temperature. The calibration uses limited data to generate a physical model of the QD-reservoir system, which correctly estimates physical parameters such as the QD lever arm. Electron thermometry was successfully performed with the calibrated QD thermometer in a $1.0\,\mathrm{K}$ to $3.0\,\mathrm{K}$ range. The QD thermometer was also used for faster readout by monitoring the phase when the QD has an occupation probability of $1/2$. In this mode of operation, the noise floor of the measurement should allow for a sensitivity of $4.0\pm0.3 \, \mathrm{mK}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ and $11\pm 1 \, \mathrm{mK}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, at $1.3 \, \mathrm{K}$ and $3.0 \, \mathrm{K}$ respectively. This process worked with the same QD chip in both cryostats. The QD thermometer can operate even in the case where $k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{e} < \hbar \Gamma$, however with the system and techniques used here, the thermometry uncertainty starts to increase below $1\,\mathrm{K}$ due to strong tunnel coupling overriding the temperature dependence. Careful analysis of the thermometry uncertainty reveals the coldest limit of the QD thermometer, when the electron temperature readout confidence boundary increases beyond a usable size. A redesign of the QD device to reduce the tunnel rate would be needed to decrease the uncertainty at lower temperatures. The ability to fully calibrate and operate a non-galvanic electron thermometer with a single RF line simplifies the application of the device substantially. This device provides a versatile, sensitive and effective tool for monitoring electron temperature in nanoelectronic devices at cryogenic temperatures.

\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Xiao Collins, Kunal Lulla Ramrakhiyani, Michael Thompson and Alex Jones for their assistance.

This work was funded and supported by the European Microkelvin Platform (the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, Grant Agreement No. 824109), the UK EPSRC (EP/N019199/1), the ERC (818751) and Hitachi Europe Ltd.

The data that support the findings of this study are available at https://doi.org/10.17635/lancaster/researchdata/403, including descriptions of the data sets.
\end{acknowledgments}

\section{Determination of QD Thermometer sensitivity}

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/BF_NOISE_SPECTRA.pdf}
	\caption{Reflected phase modulation and noise measured in the dilution refrigerator. \textbf{a)} A phase trace taken at $T_\mathrm{f} = 0.18\,\mathrm{K}$. Each data point was measured for 3 seconds. The RMS phase noise for readings taken at the tails, $\sigma_0$ (orange), sides, $\sigma_\mathrm{side}$ (blue), and peak, $\sigma_\mathrm{MAX}$ (green), of the trace are equivalent, i.e $\sigma_0 \approx \sigma_\mathrm{side} \approx \sigma_\mathrm{MAX}$. The black dashed line shows a fit to the data that is used to estimate the RMS deviation of each point. \textbf{b)} An RF signal was reflected off the QD thermometer at $T_\mathrm{f} = 8.7 \,\mathrm{mK}$, and a ADL5387 quadrature demodulator chip was used to extract the phase from the reflected signal. (This is detailed in the paper within the text and Figure 2a). The black points, connected with grey lines, show the spectral density of the readout. The orange dashed line corresponds to the average spectral density over the whole bandwidth, which is equal to a effective white noise phase sensitivity of $1.1\pm0.1 \, \mu\mathrm{rad}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$. The inset displays a zoomed in section of the spectral density, which shows that the noise peaks seen at higher frequencies are extremely narrow compared to their typical spacing. The blue line shows the total RMS phase noise, which is the integral of the spectral density between $0.27\,\mathrm{Hz}$ and the frequency indicated.}
	\label{fig:phase_spectra}
\end{figure}
The sensitivity of the thermometer is determined by its response to temperature and the noise in the measurement of the phase of the reflected RF signal. Within the dilution refrigerator, a phase trace was measured at $T_\mathrm{f} = 0.18\,\mathrm{K}$, shown in FIG \ref{fig:phase_spectra}a). The RMS phase noise is consistent across the Coulomb peak, so it is assumed that the noise arises principally from the measurement chain and is not intrinsic to the device. It is presumed that any noise intrinsic to the QD, such as charge noise, lies somewhere underneath the measured noise floor. The reflected signal phase $\phi$ from the blockaded quantum dot (QD) was recorded at a sample rate of $2.6 \times 10^5 \,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ for $0.5 \,\mathrm{s}$. This was done $128$ times and averaged, producing the spectral density in FIG \ref{fig:phase_spectra}b). The result is generally flat, with narrow spikes of noise at higher frequencies. These spikes are much narrower than their typical spacing (most only having a single data point), therefore contribute relatively little to the total noise. In principle, they could be easily avoided with the use of a lock-in measurement technique. For example, a Zurich Instruments UHFLI could perform the demodulation and subsequently lock-in to a component of the demodulated signal. Averaging the spectral density over the entire bandwidth gives an effective white noise phase sensitivity of $1.1\pm0.1 \, \mu\mathrm{rad}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$. Using $\mathrm{d} \phi / \mathrm{d} T_\mathrm{e}$ from Eq. (7) in the paper text, with the condition $V_{\mathrm{tg}}=V_0$, the phase spectrum can be converted to temperature spectrum. The best case phase reponsivity, $|\mathrm{d} \phi / \mathrm{d} T_\mathrm{e}| = 0.10 \pm 0.01 \,\mathrm{mrad/K}$ at $3.0 \, \mathrm{K}$ and $|\mathrm{d} \phi / \mathrm{d} T_\mathrm{e}| = 0.24 \pm 0.02 \,\mathrm{mrad/K}$ at $1.3 \, \mathrm{K}$ (from FIG 4 in the paper), gives a corresponding effective temperature sensitivity of $11\pm 1 \, \mathrm{mK}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ at $3.0 \, \mathrm{K}$, and $4.0\pm0.3 \, \mathrm{mK}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ at $1.3 \, \mathrm{K}$.

\section{Electron Thermometry Uncertainty}

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{Figures/Error_analysis_importForced_Te_fit_error.pdf}
	\caption{Goodness of fit $\chi^2 / \chi_\mathrm{min}^2$ against electron temperature $T_\mathrm{e}$ guess for a variety of phase traces. Two phase traces are from measurements taken within a cryogen-free, $1\,\mathrm{K}$ cryostat, `OC', and were measured at $T_\mathrm{f} = 3.0 \,\mathrm{K}$ and $1.35 \,\mathrm{K}$. Two more phase traces are from dilution refrigerator, `DR', measurements taken at $T_\mathrm{f} = 1.6 \,\mathrm{K}$ and $0.2 \,\mathrm{K}$. The black points represent the $T_\mathrm{e}$ fit where $\chi^2$ is minimum. The height of these points is the confidence boundary $\chi^2 = \chi_\mathrm{min}^2 + 1$ which defines the confidence region shown by the error bars.}
	\label{fig:fit_error}
\end{figure}
The QD thermometer calibration process described in the paper text gives an estimation of $\alpha$, $\Gamma$ and $A$. These three constants are included in the phase model (described by Eq. (7) in the paper text), leaving only electron temperature $T_\mathrm{e}$ as a fitting parameter, along with $\phi_0$ and $V_0$ which are trivial to define for each phase trace. For a given phase trace, each guess of $T_e$ returns a goodness of fit that can be quantified with $\chi^2$ via
\begin{equation}
\chi^2 = \sum_{i = 0}^{N -1} \frac{[\phi^i - \phi(V_\mathrm{tg}^i | T_\mathrm{e}\mathrm{,}\, \phi_0\mathrm{,}\, V_0)]^2}{\sigma (N -3)},
\end{equation}
where $N$ is the number of data points in the phase trace, $\phi^i$ and $V_\mathrm{tg}^i$ are the values of phase and top gate voltage respectively for the $i^\mathrm{th}$ data point \cite{press2007numerical}. The standard deviation of phase readout for each data point, $\sigma$, is constant over the whole phase trace. However, $\sigma$ does vary for each trace, for example if the temperature is different. The minimum value of $\chi^2$, which we will label $\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$, corresponds to the final fit estimate for $T_\mathrm{e}$, and is always $\chi^2_\mathrm{min} < 10$. To work out the certainty of this measurement, a constant confidence boundary of $\chi^2_\mathrm{min} + 1$ surrounds $\chi^2_\mathrm{min}$, creating an interval which represents one standard deviation of confidence. FIG \ref{fig:fit_error} demonstrates this process with a few example phase traces; $T_\mathrm{f} = 3.0 \,\mathrm{K}$ and $1.35 \,\mathrm{K}$ from the cryogen-free $1\,\mathrm{K}$ cryostat, $T_\mathrm{f} = 1.6 \,\mathrm{K}$ and $0.1 \,\mathrm{K}$ from the dilution refrigerator. At temperatures below $1\,\mathrm{K}$ the confidence interval starts to broaden, and can extend to $T_\mathrm{e} = 0$. At this point it can be said the QD thermometer has reached its lower temperature limit for operation. An explanation for the broadening of the confidence region is given in Section \ref{sec:energy}.

\section{Energy Scales}
\label{sec:energy}

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width = \linewidth]{Figures/STAB.pdf}
	\caption{Stability diagrams for QD in two fridge systems: \textbf{a)} a cryogen-free 1K cryostat `OC' and \textbf{b)} a dilution refrigerator `DR'. $V_\mathrm{tg}$ is the top gate voltage, $V_\mathrm{sd}$ is source-drain voltage and $I_\mathrm{sd}$ is source-drain current. For each diagram, the crossed reds line highlight the Coulomb resonance where the thermometry was performed, and the gradients correspond to the lever arm as measured from the QD calibration process, $\alpha = 0.74 \pm 0.02$ and $0.84 \pm 0.03$ for OC and DR, respectively. The lowest red line highlights the first excited state of the QD.}
	\label{fig:stab}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
	\centering
	\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
		\hline
		\textbf{Energy Scale}$\,\mathrm{(meV)}$ & $k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{e}$ & $\hbar \Gamma$ & $E_\mathrm{con}$ & $E_\mathrm{c}$  \\
		\hline
		Cryogen-free 1K cryostat & \thermalenio & \tunnelenio & \excitedenio & $16.9$ \\
		\hline
		Dilution refrigerator & \thermalenbf & \tunnelenbf & \excitedenbf & \chargingenbf \\
		\hline

	\end{tabular}
	\caption{Energy scales associated with the experiments in the two fridge systems. $T_\mathrm{e}$ is the electron temperature. The experiments took place over a range of temperatures, so the thermal energy scale is shown as a range. $\Gamma$ is the QD tunnel rate which defines the tunnel coupling. $E_\mathrm{con}$ is the confinement energy for the first excited state in the QD. $E_\mathrm{c}$ is the charging energy for the QD.}
	\label{tab:energy_scales}
\end{table}
Several energy scales are involved in the experiments that impact the behaviour of the QD. The tunnel coupling $\hbar \Gamma$ is measured from the QD thermometer calibration process. The QD excited state confinement energy $E_\mathrm{con}$ and QD charging energy $E_\mathrm{c} = e \Delta V_\mathrm{sd}$ can be observed in FIG \ref{fig:stab} for both the 1K cryostat and dilution refrigerator experiments. To extract the voltage $\Delta V_\mathrm{sd}$, the average height was taken from the Coulomb diamonds on either side of the conduction resonance where the thermometry was performed. The thermal energy $k_\mathrm{B} T$ is extracted from the range of temperatures used in each fridge during the experiments. All the energy scales for both systems are stated in Table \ref{tab:energy_scales} for comparison. For the cryogen-free 1K cryostat experiment, the QD energy condition is
\begin{equation}
k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{e} \sim \hbar \Gamma < E_\mathrm{con} < E_\mathrm{c},
\end{equation}
so the Coulomb-blockaded QD is affected but not dominated by tunnel coupling. For the dilution refrigerator experiment the energy condition is
\begin{equation}
k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{e} < \hbar \Gamma  < E_\mathrm{con} < E_\mathrm{c},
\end{equation}
so the Coulomb-blockaded QD is strongly tunnel-broadened and the tunnelling capacitance has much weaker temperature dependence.

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{Figures/PHASE_SENSITIVITY.pdf}
	\caption{Predicted maximum phase $\phi_\mathrm{MAX}$ (solid black line) against electron temperature, when $V_\mathrm{tg} = V_0$. The upper x-axis shows the electron temperature $T_\mathrm{e}$ and the lower x-axis shows the corresponding ratio between the thermal energy and tunnel coupling $k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{e}/\hbar \Gamma$. The derivative of $\phi_\mathrm{MAX}$ with respect to $T_\mathrm{e}$ is shown with a red dotted line. The prediction is generated from the thermometer calibration in the dilution refrigerator experiment detailed in section III of the paper text. The dotted black line shows the predicted $\phi_\mathrm{MAX}$ assuming there is no tunnel coupling, i.e $\Gamma = 0$, which will converge with the tunnel-coupled model at high temperature. Below $T_\mathrm{e} = 1\,\mathrm{K}$ the maximum phase $\phi_\mathrm{MAX}$ begins to plateau, which indicates the loss of temperature sensitivity, and therefore the lower operational limit of the electron temperature.}
	\label{fig:pmax}
\end{figure}
In the case of the dilution refrigerator experiment, detailed in section III of the paper, the $T_\mathrm{e}$ readout uncertainty increases as the temperature is reduced below $\sim 1 \,\mathrm{K}$. This occurs since the thermal energy scale is much smaller relative to the tunnel broadening, and so the phase trace shape has much weaker temperature dependence. This can be seen in FIG \ref{fig:pmax}, which uses the predicted maximum phase of the phase trace, $\phi_\mathrm{MAX}$, as an indicator of the thermometer's temperature sensitivity. The prediction is based off the calibration of the QD thermoemter in the dilution refrigerator experiment. At high temperatures, the tunnel coupling does not impact the thermometer phase significantly from the theoretical case of zero tunnel coupling. As the temperature is reduced to $k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{e}/\hbar \Gamma \approx 2$, the maximum phase deviates significantly away from the prediction with negligible tunnel coupling. The sensitivity deteriorates at even lower temperatures where $k_\mathrm{B} T_\mathrm{e}/\hbar \Gamma \approx 1/4$, which in this particular case is $T_\mathrm{e} \approx 1\,\mathrm{K}$. Approaching $0\,\mathrm{K}$, the phase trace converges on a Lorentzian shape defined by the tunnel broadening, and so the maximum phase plateaus, losing its temperature sensitivity. This defines the lower limit at which the QD thermometer can operate.

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{Figures/Electron_Thermometry_Final_Model_IO_RESIDUAL_V0_LOCKEDV0_against_T.pdf}
	\caption{Location of the top gate voltage $V_0$ where $P_\mathrm{QD} = 1/2$, against fridge temperature $T_\mathrm{f}$ in the cryogen-free 1K cryostat. $m$ equals the gradient $\mathrm{d}V_0 / \mathrm{d}T_\mathrm{f}$. The blue line shows the theoretical temperature dependence of $V_0$ with a gradient of $m = k_\mathrm{B} \mathrm{ln}2 / e \alpha\, \mathrm{VK}^{-1}$. The orange line shows a linear fit to the data which predicts a gradient of $m = - (6 \pm 4) \times 10^{-5} \, \mathrm{VK}^{-1}$. }
	\label{fig:charge_degeneracy_loc}
\end{figure}
It has been shown that for a QD-reservoir system, the imbalance of spin degeneracy between an extra electron in the QD and the absence of an extra electron creates a temperature dependence for the QD energy with $1/2$ occupation probability, described by $E_\mathrm{QD} = \mu \pm k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{ln}2$ \cite{hartman2018direct, ahmed2018primary}. The top gate voltage value for $P_\mathrm{QD} = 1/2$, labelled $V_0$, is recorded for each phase trace measured across a range of temperatures. FIG \ref{fig:charge_degeneracy_loc} shows a subtle negative correlation between $V_0$ and the fridge temperature $T_\mathrm{f}$. The theoretical gradient $\mathrm{d}V_0 / \mathrm{d}T_\mathrm{f} = -k_\mathrm{B} \mathrm{ln}2 / e \alpha\, \mathrm{VK}^{-1} = -4.4 \times 10^{-5} \, \mathrm{VK}^{-1}$ is certainly believable when compared with the measured $V_0$, and a linear fit returns $\mathrm{d}V_0 / \mathrm{d}T_\mathrm{f} = - (6 \pm 4) \times 10^{-5} \, \mathrm{VK}^{-1}$. Although the correlation is clouded by charge noise, the relationship between $V_0$ and $T_\mathrm{f}$ is consistent with the theory.


\section{Introduction}
Tracking out-of-equilibrium dynamical processes and their fluctuations in mesoscopic systems is central to thermodynamics at intermediate scales~\cite{Campisi2011,Campisi2010} and transport in solid state systems~\cite{Blanter2000}.
For example, current fluctuations in mesoscopic electronic devices reveal the charge quantization of elementary or emergent particles, shedding light on the underlying microscopic physics~\cite{Schottky1918,Gustavsson2006}.
Advanced experimental control and precise measurements make ultracold atomic gases an ideal testbed for studying transport phenomena with solid-state analogs and beyond~\cite{Brantut2012,Brantut2013,Chien2015}. Furthermore, the achievable system sizes, ranging from single to millions of atoms in different setups, naturally provide access to explore the mesoscopic domain with ensembles of cold atoms.\\
However, solid-state and ultracold-atom mesoscopic systems differ in their fragility against measurement. Solid-state devices are coupled to large thermal reservoirs, which rapidly dissipate the backaction of measurement, and are refreshed with large particle reservoirs. In contrast, ultracold-atom systems are well isolated from thermal environments. Technical and backaction disturbance from measurement, such as from optical force fluctuations caused by light scattering, is absorbed within the mesoscopic system itself and can change the properties of the system significantly. Thus, the measured fluctuations within a mesoscopic cold-atom system can be strongly altered by continuous or stroboscopic measurements performed on the system.
Accessing real-time information in such systems therefore requires strategies to maximize the extracted information for a given heating rate associated with the measurement.\\
The enhanced atom--light interaction in high-finesse optical cavities~\cite{Tanji-Suzuki2011} provides a means for performing minimally invasive, extremely sensitive measurements on atomic gases. Demonstrations span from recording transient signals of single or few atoms passing through an optical cavity~\cite{Hood2000,Pinkse2000} to measurements on static and dynamically evolving mesoscopic trapped atomic ensembles~\cite{Brahms2011,Zhang2012,Chen2014,Norcia2016,Kohler2017,Roux2021}, or the probing of dynamical evolution of novel states of matter realized in the cavity~\cite{Leonard2017c,Leonard2017b,Kroeze2019}.
Cavity-enhanced dispersive atom number measurements have been proposed as a non-invasive probe for dynamical and transport phenomena in mesoscopic samples~\cite{Krinner2017,Uchino2018,Yang2018}. The achievable precision surpasses that of stroboscopic free-space dispersive measurements, which have been performed on macroscopic atomic gases with greater capacity than mesoscopic gases to absorb backaction disturbance~\cite{Sawyer2012,Gajdacz2013,Kristensen2019,Christensen2021}.
Cavity-enhanced atom-number readout with single-atom precision has been demonstrated, but was accompanied by strong disturbance that precluded repeated measurement on the gas~\cite{Zhang2012}.\\
In this work, we employ cavity-enhanced measurements to continuously track the non-equilibrium process of evaporative cooling~\cite{Davis1995b, Luiten1996a,Ketterle1996a, Wu1996, OHara2001a} of a mesoscopic sample for long evolution times, which allows us to probe temporal correlations at all times under observation.
Evaporative cooling occurs in a gas of temperature $T$ and atom number $N$ when collisions drive atoms to energies above the finite trap depth $U$, whereupon these atoms escape the trap, reducing the number of atoms remaining as well as their temperature.
\begin{figure*}[t!]

  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig1_Final_Resub.pdf}%
  \caption{ \label{fig:1}
  \textbf{Experimental setup and measurement imprecision.}
  \textbf{a} Schematic of the tilted evaporation of atoms (red) with temperature $T$ in the trap potential (blue) with  dynamically lowered depth $U$. Atoms with energies exceeding the trap depth are spilled. \textbf{b} The atoms dispersively couple to the cavity, resulting in an atom-number-dependent shift $\Delta_N$ of the transmission line shape (blue solid traces) compared to an empty cavity (blue dashed line). Tracking the side of fringe (marked by red dot and line) provides a dynamical measurement of atom number. \textbf{c} The cavity resonance is tracked using a feedback loop involving the cavity-coupled atomic cloud (dark red), located at the intensity maximum of a probe beam in the cavity (light red). The transmitted intensity of probe light is detected using a heterodyne receiver with local oscillator (LO) and a radiofrequency power detector (Det). This power is kept constant using a feedback loop (PID) adjusting the frequency of probe and LO through an acousto-optic modulator (AO). The atom number is derived from an in-loop measurement of the voltage used to adjust a voltage controlled oscillator driving the AO. \textbf{d} A single unfiltered trace of equivalent atom number $N$ vs.~time with the filter procedure indicated (gray shaded areas). \textbf{e} The Allan deviation $\Delta N$ is dominated by photonic shot noise for small integration times $\tau$ and by dynamics of the atom number for large $\tau$. A low pass filter of the traces with optimal integration time $\tilde{\tau}$ minimizes the noise associated with both effects. The solid lines represent guides to the eye. Larger photon number $n$ (orange: $n=1.9(1)$, blue: $n=3.2(1)$, red: $n=6.0(1)$ and green: $n=9.7(1)$) results in reduced shot noise, but also faster loss of the atoms and therefore increased imprecision at longer integration times. The colored ticks mark the noise level set by Poissonian statistics for our lowest measured mean atom number for each $n$. The light symbols show a reduced Allan deviation, where the average dynamics has been subtracted from each trace before calculating $\Delta N$.}
\end{figure*}
The ensuing dynamics depend on dimensionality, atom number, and temperature of the gas, all features also at the heart of transport phenomena studied with destructive measurements~\cite{Krinner2017}.
A simple model captures the interplay between temperature and atom number in an evaporatively cooled atomic ensemble~\cite{Ketterle1996a}: To evaporate from the trap, atoms have to be collisionally transferred to the high-energy tail of the Maxwell--Boltzmann distribution, such that the average evaporation rate, $\dot{N}\propto -\eta e^{-\eta}$, depends exponentially on $\eta=U/k_BT$. This implies that samples with initially higher temperature evaporate atoms more quickly than samples with lower temperature. Moreover, due to the density-dependent thermalization rate of an evaporatively cooled gas~\cite{Luiten1996a,Ketterle1996a} and the presence of three-body collisions~\cite{Whitlock2010}, the evaporation dynamics can be expected to be non-linear in atom number. In the course of evaporative cooling, thermodynamic properties of the trapped atomic gas also undergo stochastic fluctuations. For example, a linear single-particle loss process results in a binomial partition of the gas between trapped and untrapped populations, with fluctuations described by the binomial distribution. Non-linearity associated with few-body loss processes, and also the non-linear dependence of evaporative cooling on instantaneous atom number and temperature, can be expected to modify these fluctuations, which are particularly pronounced in mesoscopic systems.\\
Here, we observe the non-equilibrium dynamics of an ultracold quantum gas during forced evaporation in a tilted trap potential by collecting real-time traces of the atom number dynamics (see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}a). We utilize the enhanced optical cross section of atoms coupled to a single mode of a high-finesse optical cavity to perform minimally invasive high-precision atom number measurements. In particular, we reveal two distinct dynamical regimes during evaporation: first, a super-linear regime driven by temperature variations early in the evaporation process, and, second, a sub-linear regime when these variations are damped away. Furthermore, we directly observe the temporal growth of stochastic fluctuations inherent in the evaporative cooling process itself.
\section{Dispersive atom number readout}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig2_Final_Resub.pdf}%
  \caption{ \label{fig:2}
  \textbf{Two-time correlations of atom numbers from real-time trajectories.}
  \textbf{a} Traces of equivalent atom number $N$ vs.~observation time $t$, calculated from the number-dependent cavity shift, for varying intracavity photon number $n$ (indicated in the upper right corner). The bright curves represent individual runs of the experiment (approximately $150$ per panel). Selected traces are shown in slightly darker color to illustrate their stochastic character. The dark curves are the mean over all traces. The traces were filtered using their corresponding optimal integration time; see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}e. The vertical lines mark the two times $t_2=25\,$ms ($t_2=275\,$ms) used to produce the scatter plots shown above the time traces. They illustrate the standardized atom number $N_{2,s}$ measured at the earlier (later) $t_2$ vs.~$N_{1,s}$ measured at $t_1=5\,$ms. The diagonal (dashed line) and the slope extracted from a linear ordinary least squares fit to the data (dash-dotted line) are indicated in all scatter plots. The corresponding measurement noise is indicated by the ellipse in the center.}
\end{figure*}
The principle of continuous dynamical dispersive atom number readout of our atomic cloud is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}b and c.
We consider a cloud of atoms that is localized at the intensity maximum of the standing wave formed by a probe beam coupled into the TEM$_{00}$ mode of a Fabry--Perot optical cavity. The cavity resonance is at a frequency $\omega_c$ in the absence of atoms, which are coupled to the cavity with a single-atom vacuum Rabi coupling $g$ on an optical transition with frequency $\omega_a$, linewidth $\Gamma$ and atom-cavity detuning $\Delta_{ca} = \omega_c-\omega_a$. In the dispersive limit $\abs{\Delta_{ca}}\gg \sqrt{N}\,g\gg\Gamma$, the presence of $N$ atoms causes a frequency shift of the light-like mode of the coupled atom-cavity system by an amount proportional to the atom number~\cite{Brahms2011, Zhang2012,Chen2014},
\begin{align}
\label{eq:Delta}
\Delta_N = N\frac{g^2}{\Delta_{ca}}.
\end{align}
We detect this dispersive shift by feedback-stabilizing the frequency of the weak cavity probe to the side of fringe of the cavity transmission, realizing a continuous quantum non-demolition measurement of atom number~\cite{Chen2014}. During the measurement, the probe power in the cavity is held constant at a level characterized by the intracavity photon number $n = P/(2\hbar\omega_c\kappa\epsilon_c)$, where $\kappa$ denotes the cavity half linewidth, $P$ is the power transmitted through the cavity and $\epsilon_c$ quantifies the photon extraction efficiency. The frequency shift of the cavity resonance is extracted through the feedback signal; see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}b and Fig.~\ref{fig:S1}.
We use knowledge of $g$~\cite{Brahms2011,Kohler2017,Kohler2018} and $\Delta_{ca}$ to calculate the dispersive cavity shift due to a single atom, $\Delta_1$, and estimate the instantaneous ``equivalent atom number'' $N(t)=\Delta_{N(t)}/\Delta_1$, see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}d, where ``equivalent'' reflects a slight reduction of the vacuum Rabi coupling in our experiment (see Appendix A) and is implied if not stated explicitly otherwise.\\
We monitor the evolution of the intracavity gas during evaporation dynamics initiated by an applied magnetic field gradient~\cite{Hung2008a}; see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}a.
In the following, we discuss different quantities used to extract dynamics, measurement noise and intrinsic fluctuations from our data.
Commonly adopted measures to quantify the imprecision in the real-time measurement for different integration times are the Allan deviation $\Delta N(\tau) =(\langle \left(N_\tau(t_{i+1})- N_\tau(t_i)\right)^2\rangle/2)^{1/2}$~\cite{Brahms2011,Zhang2012} or the corresponding Allan variance $\Delta N^2$. Here, the trace $N_\tau(t_i)$ is obtained by low-pass filtering the full trace $N(t)$ with an integration time $\tau$ and then resampling at discrete times $t_i$ separated by time intervals of length $\tau$. The angle brackets denote the average over all $i$. Photon shot noise limits the measurement precision of the dispersive cavity shift for short integration times; see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}e.
For integration times above approximately $1\,$ms, the dynamics of the evaporation process start dominating the Allan deviation.
Choosing such a long integration time leads to a loss of information about the dynamical system under observation.
As a consequence, the dynamics set an upper bound on the achievable integration times and therefore suppression of photonic shot noise in the measurement; see Appendix D. Despite this, the minimal imprecision and therefore the measurement noise of our cavity-assisted detection is well below the level set by Poissonian fluctuations of size $\sqrt{N}$ for $N$ atoms for all measured traces and all times presented in the following; see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}e.
The effect of dynamics on the optimal integration time can be mitigated by subtracting the average dynamics from each trace. The reduced Allan deviation calculated from these subtracted traces lacks the strong increase towards longer integration times, such that, in this case, the optimal integration times are typically longer; see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}e. As described in detail below, a generalization of this method with an adjusted time separation between the two integration intervals detects the intrinsic stochastic fluctuations inherent in a dynamically evolving system.\\
We started our experiment with an atomic cloud of about $2200$ $^\mathrm{87}$Rb atoms with a mean temperature of approximately $T_0 = 2.6\,\mu$K. The gas was prepared in its hyperfine state $\ket{F,\,m_F}=\ket{2,\,2}$ and was trapped predominantly in a single well of a far-detuned optical lattice potential with an initial depth $U_0/k_B = 31(1)\,\mu$K in an optical cavity~\cite{Purdy2010a,Kohler2017,Kohler2018}. The lattice provided strong confinement in the $z$-direction with a trapping frequency of $\omega_z/2\pi = 91(2)\,$kHz, putting the gas in the quasi two-dimensional regime $\hbar\omega_z>k_BT_0$. At these parameters, we estimate the phase-space density to be $0.3$, close to the quantum degenerate regime.
Crucially, accurate positioning of the atomic cloud along the cavity axis at the peak of the probe standing wave maximized the atom-cavity coupling, rendered it nearly identical for all atoms, and minimized optomechanical backaction heating~\cite{Purdy2010a,Brahms2012}.
The cavity length was stabilized such that its resonance frequency was kept at a near-constant red detuning $\Delta_{ca}/2\pi\approx-42\,$GHz with respect to the $D2$ line of $^\mathrm{87}$Rb, for which the atomic resonance linewidth is $\Gamma/2\pi \approx 6\,$MHz. The detuning of the cavity probe from atomic resonance together with the vacuum Rabi coupling $g/2\pi=13.1\,$MHz led to a maximal cavity shift $\abs{\Delta_{1}/2\pi}\approx4\,$kHz per atom.
The cavity probe was maintained at a constant detuning of $\delta_{pc}/2\pi=\kappa/2\pi=1.8\,$MHz from the atom-shifted cavity resonance frequency. The frequency lock of the probe to the cavity was realized by stabilizing the radiofrequency power output from a heterodyne receiver monitoring the probe transmission through the cavity; see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}c and Appendix A.
The large single-atom cooperativity $C = g^2/\kappa\Gamma = 15.9$ and consequently low cavity probe powers of a few picowatts in our experiment allowed us to minimize the probe-induced off-resonant scattering and associated heating rate. This sets the cavity-based measurement apart from free-space methods and was key for achieving the long measurement times at the imprecision required for performing atom counting in mesoscopic system; see Appendix D.\\
In a first set of experiments, we tracked the equivalent atom number for different intracavity photon numbers $n$, while slowly lowering the trap potential $U/k_B$ from $31\,\mu$K to approximately $8\,\mu$K by ramping up a magnetic field gradient within $330\,$ms; see Fig.~\ref{fig:S2} and Appendix A.
The resulting ensemble of atom number traces is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, with every individual trace representing a new run of the experiment. The traces taken together form a statistical ensemble that encompasses both the variation in evaporation trajectories with different initial atom number and temperature, and also the fluctuations in atom number generated by evaporation dynamics in individual trajectories. In order to minimize the effect of noise, each trace was filtered with a bandwidth corresponding to the optimal integration time $\tilde{\tau}$ extracted from the Allan deviation shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}c. For clarity we suppress the subscript and write $N(t)\equiv N_{\tilde{\tau}}(t)$ in the following.
Our measurements of $N(t)$ show a clear trend to lower final atom numbers as the intracavity photon number is increased. This trend reflects the larger measurement-induced heating at increasing probe power, which leads to an increase in the number of atoms ejected from the trap during evaporation.\\
In general, decorrelation of two measured atom numbers $N(t_1)\equiv N_1$ and $N(t_2)\equiv N_2$ at two points in time, indicated by $t_1$ and $t_2$, arises from three sources: technical noise, measurement noise and stochastic noise due to the evaporation process itself. We extract the correlations from the slope of the standardized atom numbers $N_{2,s}$ vs.~$N_{1,s}$, which equals the Pearson correlation coefficient $\rho_{12} = \mathrm{cov}(N_1,N_2)/\sigma_1\sigma_2$; see Appendix C. The standardized atom numbers are defined as $N_{1(2),s} = (N_{1(2)}-\avg{N_{1(2)}})/\sigma_{1(2)}$, where $\avg{N_1}$ ($\avg{N_2}$) and $\sigma_{1}$ ($\sigma_2$) are the mean and the standard deviation of the non-standardized atom number distribution measured at time $t_1$ ($t_2$). In our experiment, we observe dominant linear correlations of around $\rho_{12}=97\%$ at all intracavity photon numbers for two measurements closely spaced in time; see Fig.~\ref{fig:2} upper panel.
The strong observed correlation indicates a small influence of all noise sources at these early times. In particular, it confirms that our measurement noise is small, consistent with our previous analysis of the imprecision. For a time $t_2=275\,$ms, later on the evaporation trajectory, the fluctuations accrued over the process of evaporation are much more prominent. However, there is still some degree of linear correlation present. The reduction of the correlation from $\rho_{12}=75.9(1)\%$ at the smallest intracavity photon number $n=1.9(1)$ to $35.0(1)\%$ at the largest intracavity photon number $n=9.7(1)$ indicates a larger impact of stochastic noise coupled into the system at larger lost fraction of atoms.
Extracting the final temperature of the evaporating ensemble from a time of flight absorption image after our real-time measurement, we estimate the temperature to drop to less than $1.5(1)\,\mu$K for $n=1.9(1)$, which implies a phase-space density increase of at least $13\%$, but possibly significantly more; see Fig.~\ref{fig:S4} and Appendix A.
\begin{figure}[t!]
  \centering
  \includegraphics{Fig3_Final_Resub.pdf}
  \caption{ \label{fig:3}
  \textbf{Non-linearity of evaporation process.}
\textbf{a} Schematic illustrating the non-linearity measure. Super- (sub-) linearity is equivalent to a slope $a$ of the scatter of $N_2$ vs.~$N_1$ that is larger (smaller) than the remaining fraction of atoms $p$. For a linear process, $a=p$.
\textbf{b} Subtracted slope $a_s=a-p$ for different initial times $t_1$ (dark to bright color, indicated in legend) used to quantify the non-linearity of the evaporation process vs.~remaining fraction of atoms $p$. The shaded region shows the standard deviation calculated by bootstrapping for the smallest and largest initial time.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
  \centering
  \includegraphics{Fig4_Final_Resub.pdf}%
  \caption{\label{fig:4}
  \textbf{Mesoscopic fluctuations of the evaporation process.}
  \textbf{a} Unexplained variance $\sigma_u^2$ vs.~remaining fraction of atoms $p$ for intracavity photon number $n=1.9(1)$ at initial time $t_1=10\,$ms and \textbf{b} at $t_1=180\,$ms, with the standard deviation calculated by bootstrapping indicated by the shaded region. The solid gray lines show the model prediction including Poissonian stochastic noise and measurement noise, the dashed lines show the prediction without the contribution of Poissonian stochastic noise. \textbf{c} Unexplained variance $\sigma_u^2$ for $p\approx1$ ($t_2=t_1+\tau$, darker points) and $p=0.60(2)$ ($t_2=t_1+95(5)\,$ms, lighter points) for different integration times $\tau$. For $p\approx 1$, the unexplained variance corresponds to twice the reduced Allan variance (solid orange line). The bright orange line denotes the full Allan variance without subtracting the mean dynamics (see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}e). The gray tick indicates the integration time $\tau=4\,$ms that minimizes $\sigma_u^2$ and was used to produce the curves shown in \textbf{a} and \textbf{b}.
\textbf{d} Scaling of unexplained variance for fixed lost fraction $p=0.60(2)$ with initial atom number $N_1$. The constant measurement noise has been subtracted from the data for each $n$, to compare different $n$ (color coded as in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}). The gray solid line denotes the linear Poissonian expectation $\tilde{\sigma}_u^2(N_1)=p(1-p)\,N_1$. The errorbars denote one standard deviation.}
\end{figure*}
\section{Non-linearity of evaporation}
The non-linear dynamics of a system are captured already by the evolution of statistical averages. In the following, we outline how two-time correlations extracted from a continuous measurement of the atom number of the same cloud enable us to uncover the non-linear character of evaporative cooling. To this end, we compare the remaining fraction of atoms, $p=\avg{N_2}/\avg{N_1}$, to the slope extracted from scatter plots such as those shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, calculated as the least squares estimate $a=\rho_{12}\,\sigma_2/\sigma_1$. For a linear process, defined by a constant evaporation rate per atom and hence $\dot{N}\propto -N$, the two quantities should coincide and hence $a=p$, whereas non-linear effects lead to a deviation from this expectation; see Fig.~\ref{fig:3}a and Appendix C.
As an example, the case $\dot{N}\propto -N^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha>1$ leads to $a<p$, which we term ``sub-linear'' to indicate a scatter slope smaller than in the linear case.\\
For our evaporation sequence, we find systematic deviations from a simple linear relationship; see Fig.~\ref{fig:3}b. Recording the difference $a_s = a-p$ versus the remaining fraction of atoms $p$, we observe a pronounced super-linear behavior with $a>p$, when $p$ is calculated relative to a small initial time $t_1$.
We interpret this super-linear behavior as being mediated by temperature variations in our sample distribution:  Atomic gases are prepared with a low initial atom number because of higher atom losses from an initially high gas temperature.  The high temperature hastens evaporation, leading to a higher per-atom loss rate and thus a relatively lower final atom number, leading altogether to $a > p$. This picture is backed by simulations of the evaporation process; see Fig.~\ref{fig:S3} and Appendix B.\\
The rapid evaporation of hotter gases also quickly reduces their temperatures, such that over time different realizations of the gas arrive at nearly the same final temperature irrespective of their initial temperatures.
This interesting transient behavior is often implicitly assumed in literature quoting that the temperature locks to a fixed fraction $1/\eta$ of the trap depth~\cite{Luiten1996a,Ketterle1996a,OHara2001a} and ultimately originates from the competition between exponential truncation and temperature-dependent thermalization of atoms in the evaporation process.\\
At later times in the evaporation process, after the effect of initial temperature variation is suppressed, we find slightly sub-linear behavior, where an initial excess of atoms at time $t_1$ is reduced during the evolution. This behavior can be explained by increased three-body losses towards the end of the evaporation ramp, which reduce ensemble variations due to their non-linear character~\cite{Whitlock2010}; see Fig.~\ref{fig:S3}.
Interestingly, our observations imply that evaporation first moderates temperature variation and then, thereafter, atom number variation in different realizations, ultimately resulting in a stabilizing effect for both atom number and temperature.
\section{Stochastic character of evaporation}
The mesoscopic nature of our samples together with the continuous, high-precision measurement enables us to characterize also the stochastic fluctuations inherent in evaporative cooling accrued on a single trajectory. These cannot be obtained from the average evolution of an evaporating gas.
Crucially, analysis of two-time correlations allows for discriminating the effect of variation in initial conditions from the inherent stochastic fluctuations, which reach up to an rms on the order of $\sqrt{N}$ in mesoscopic samples with small $N$.\\
To access stochastic fluctuations directly, we analyze the unexplained variance $\sigma_u^2=\sigma_2^2\left(1-\rho_{12}^2\right)$ as the amount of variance in atom number measured at time $t_2$ that is not predictable through correlation with the initial atom number at time $t_1$; that is, the unexplained variance captures the variance beyond that explained by the linear slope in an $N_1$--$N_2$ scatter plot; see also Figs.~\ref{fig:2} and~\ref{fig:3}.
The unexplained variance also generalizes the reduced Allan variance (see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}e) to arbitrary time separations, and is dominated by the measurement noise and additionally the stochastic noise associated with atom loss; see Appendix C.\\
We observe distinctly different behavior at early times and at late times during the evaporation process. Referenced to an early initial time $t_1 = 10$ ms, the the unexplained variance grows rapidly; see Fig.~\ref{fig:4}a. Compared to a simple parameter-free theoretical model (see Appendix C) we find that the fluctuations are up to a factor of three above the fluctuations expected for a purely uncorrelated atom loss, which is described by a Poissonian stochastic process. Consistent with our earlier interpretation, we ascribe these large fluctuations to additional variance in the initial temperature that is uncorrelated with the initial atom number.\\
Referenced to a later initial time $t_1 = 180$ ms, when unexplained temperature variations have been suppressed, we observe a slower growth of $\sigma_u^2$. Here, we find good agreement with a linear, Poissonian stochastic loss process, indicating that linear single-atom loss dominates the fluctuations of the cooling process even in presence of a non-linear three-body loss; see Fig.~\ref{fig:4}b.
For large remaining fraction of atoms $p\approx1$ ($t_2$ close to $t_1$), the unexplained variance is consistent with the sum of measurement noise in $N_1$ and $N_2$ and, hence, coincides with twice the reduced Allan variance; see Fig.~\ref{fig:4}c. We note that, in the fluctuation analysis, the mean dynamics is subtracted, such that the optimal integration time can be increased to $\tau=4\,$ms without compromising time resolution of our dynamical measurement; see Fig.~\ref{fig:1}e.\\
In order to further corroborate the stochastic nature of the unexplained variance above measurement noise, we investigated the unexplained variance at a fixed fraction of lost atoms $p=0.60(2)$ for varying initial atom numbers $N_1$; see Fig.~\ref{fig:4}d. This strategy is motivated by quantum optics experiments, where the variance originating from photon (quantum) shot noise ($\propto n$) can be discriminated against technical noise ($\propto n^2$) through their scaling with photon number.
In our experiment, we again find a strong excess in $\sigma_u^2$ for large initial atom numbers $N_1$. However, for smaller initial atom numbers, the unexplained variance approaches and traces the Poissonian expectation $p(1-p)\,N_1$ for a range of $N_1$ at all $n$. This contrasts with the quadratic dependence of unexplained variance on initial atom number expected for technical noise.

\section{Conclusion}
The minimally invasive measurement of atom number dynamics in our cavity-coupled atomic gas opens numerous near- and longer term perspectives.
First, our work provides an ideal starting point for further studies of evaporation dynamics in low-dimensional mesoscopic quantum gases. Specifically, our results call for a detailed study of the impact of $N$-body losses on evaporation, which are expected to lead to enhanced atom-number fluctuations but also have a moderating effect on ensemble variations due to the non-linear density dependence of the evaporation rate.\\
Our results also indicate that feedback on the atom number~\cite{Gajdacz2013,Gajdacz2016} based on the non-destructive real-time record of an evaporating gas can prepare samples at a fixed temperature with controllable atom numbers fluctuating less than the amount set by Poissonian statistics. Samples stabilized this way provide an ideal starting condition to study atom-number-dependent collective phenomena in optical cavities such as dynamical instabilities~\cite{Kohler2018}.\\
Furthermore, the densities reached in our two-dimensional system are close to the regime where corrections due to Bose statistics and interactions in the gas become relevant. We expect that we can reach this regime with only slightly higher initial atom numbers, which were limited technically in the present study. This prospect motivates further studies focusing on how evaporation dynamics, thermodynamics and stochastic fluctuations are modified by quantum statistics and atomic interactions. Approaching the superfluid transition, our technique complements recent studies in three-dimensional gases~\cite{Kristensen2019,Christensen2021}. In particular, it enables highly sensitive studies of dynamical fluctuation growth and stochastic behavior in a two-dimensional mesoscopic setting and at strong interactions, providing a new window into the intriguing physics of interacting two-dimensional Bose gases~\cite{Hadzibabic2011}.\\
Combining our technique with locally controlled coupling to the cavity~\cite{Periwal2021} opens the path towards future non-invasive two-terminal transport measurements of strongly correlated quantum gases in optical cavities~\cite{Uchino2018}, for dynamical probing of fluctuation dissipation relations~\cite{Schuckert2020}, or for realizing novel non-destructive local scanning probes of cold gases~\cite{Yang2018}. Such non-destructive probes are also directly relevant to uncovering dynamical fluctuations characteristic of non-equilibrium universality in transport phenomena~\cite{Ferrier2016}, or at fluctuating interfaces~\cite{Halpin-Healy2015}, which can also be studied in neutral-atom systems~\cite{Wei2021}.\\
Finally, leveraging the recent advances in optical tweezer technology, our detection scheme can be extended to the single-atom level through controlled coupling to optical cavities, realizing a versatile quantum sensor. As a direct application, continuous non-destructive probing of single atoms has recently been identified as a key step to enable energy measurements in many-body systems~\cite{Yang2020}, thereby bringing experimental tests of mesoscopic quantum thermodynamics~\cite{Campisi2011} within reach.\\

\begin{acknowledgements}
We thank M. Knap, A. Schuckert, J. Moore, A. Avdoshkin and T. Xu for discussions and A. Rubio-Abadal for comments on the manuscript.
We acknowledge support from NSF QLCI program through grant number OMA-2016245 and also NSF grant PHY-1707756, from the AFOSR (award number FA9550-19-1-0328), from ARO
through the MURI program (grant number W911NF-20-1-0136), and from the California Institute for Quantum Entanglement supported by the Multicampus Research Programs and Initiative of the UC Office of the President (Grant No. MRP-19-601445). The contributions of J.A.I. are funded by the Heising-Simons Foundation through grant 2020-2479 and by the NSF under grant number 1707756.
J.Z. thanks the Humboldt Foundation for the support through a Feodor Lynen fellowship.\\
\end{acknowledgements}