pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.12248 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-12 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

Simultaneous High-Fidelity Readout and Strong Coupling for a Donor-Based Spin Qubit

Si Yan Koh , Weifan Wu , Kelvin Onggadinata , Arghya Maity , Mark Chiyuan Ma , Calvin Pei Yu Wong , Kuan Eng Johnson Goh , Bent Weber
show 2 more authors
Hui Khoon Ng Teck Seng Koh
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 05:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spin qubitdonor qubitsuperconducting resonatorstrong couplingreadout fidelitytunnel couplingspin-charge hybridization
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Choosing intermediate tunnel couplings enables simultaneous high-fidelity readout and strong coupling in donor-based spin qubits.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines the challenge of coupling donor-based spin qubits to superconducting resonators for scalable quantum computing. Spin-charge hybridization provides the necessary electric dipole for strong coupling but increases decoherence. The authors show that intermediate values of the tunnel coupling between the donor and a nearby reservoir strike a balance, preserving long qubit lifetimes while achieving sufficient coupling strength. This allows both fast, accurate readout and the conditions for strong coupling. They also calculate the needed charge-photon interaction strengths and loss rates, and suggest squeezed light to ease experimental requirements.

Core claim

For the donor-based flip-flop qubit, intermediate tunnel couplings that balance strong interaction with long qubit lifetimes make high-fidelity readout and strong coupling simultaneously achievable. The required charge-photon couplings and photon-loss rates are mapped out, and squeezed input fields mitigate experimental constraints.

What carries the argument

Tunable tunnel coupling in the donor-based flip-flop qubit, which sets the degree of spin-charge hybridization and thereby the strength of the electric dipole moment interacting with the resonator field.

Load-bearing premise

The spin-charge hybridization model accurately predicts decoherence rates at the chosen intermediate tunnel couplings, with no significant additional noise sources or fabrication constraints on tuning.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures readout fidelity and the ratio of coupling strength to decoherence rate at the intermediate tunnel coupling point to verify if the strong coupling condition is met alongside high fidelity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12248 by Arghya Maity, Bent Weber, Calvin Pei Yu Wong, Hui Khoon Ng, Kelvin Onggadinata, Kuan Eng Johnson Goh, Mark Chiyuan Ma, Si Yan Koh, Teck Seng Koh, Weifan Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of the flip-flop qubit. The electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Readout efficiency function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Using the parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Landscape of SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Regimes of simultaneous high fidelity and strong coupling. (a-c) Map of different SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of high-fidelity and strong coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Effect of squeezing on critical photon numbers and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Superconducting resonators coupled to solid-state qubits offer a scalable architecture for long-range entangling operations and fast, high-fidelity readout. Realizing this requires low photon-loss rates and qubits with tunable electric dipole moments that couple strongly to the resonator's electric field while maintaining long coherence times. For spin qubits, spin-photon coupling is typically achieved via spin-charge hybridization. However, this introduces a fundamental trade-off: a large spin-charge admixture enhances the coupling strength, which boosts readout and resonator-mediated gate speeds, but exposes the qubit to increased decoherence, thereby increasing the threshold required for strong coupling and limiting the time available for accurate state measurement. This makes it essential to identify optimal operating points for each qubit platform. We address this for the donor-based flip-flop qubit, whose microwave-controllable electron-nuclear spin states make it suitable for coupling to microwave resonators. We demonstrate that, by choosing intermediate tunnel couplings that balance strong interaction with long qubit lifetimes, high-fidelity readout and strong coupling are simultaneously achievable. We also map out the respective charge-photon couplings and photon-loss rates required. Furthermore, we show that experimental constraints on charge-photon coupling and photon loss can be mitigated using squeezed input fields. As similar trade-offs appear in quantum-dot-based qubits, our methods and insights extend naturally to these platforms, offering a potential route toward scalable architectures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that donor-based flip-flop spin qubits can achieve simultaneous high-fidelity readout and strong coupling to superconducting resonators by operating at intermediate tunnel couplings. These couplings balance spin-charge hybridization to produce a sufficient electric dipole moment for strong resonator interaction while keeping decoherence low enough for accurate state measurement. The work maps the required charge-photon coupling strengths and photon-loss rates, shows that squeezed input fields can mitigate experimental constraints on these parameters, and notes that the same trade-off considerations apply to quantum-dot qubits.

Significance. If the modeling holds, the identification of practical operating points addresses a central trade-off in spin-photon coupling and supports scalable circuit-QED architectures with donor qubits. The use of standard hybridization models, explicit parameter mapping, and the concrete mitigation via squeezed fields provides falsifiable experimental targets. No machine-checked proofs or open code are presented, but the absence of ad-hoc parameters in the core argument is a positive feature.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.2] §4.2, around Eq. (12): the decoherence-rate expressions used to identify the intermediate tunnel-coupling window assume the spin-charge hybridization model remains accurate without additional unmodeled charge-noise or fabrication-induced variations; a sensitivity analysis or explicit bounds on these rates at the proposed operating points is needed to support the central claim that both strong coupling and high-fidelity readout are simultaneously achievable.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: a single quantitative example (e.g., expected readout fidelity or g/κ ratio at the optimal tunnel coupling) would make the central result more immediately concrete.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 caption: the definition of the plotted charge-photon coupling strength should explicitly reference the tunnel-coupling value used, to avoid ambiguity when comparing to the intermediate regime discussed in the text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our work and for the constructive comment. We address the point raised below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2, around Eq. (12): the decoherence-rate expressions used to identify the intermediate tunnel-coupling window assume the spin-charge hybridization model remains accurate without additional unmodeled charge-noise or fabrication-induced variations; a sensitivity analysis or explicit bounds on these rates at the proposed operating points is needed to support the central claim that both strong coupling and high-fidelity readout are simultaneously achievable.

    Authors: We agree that the decoherence-rate expressions in §4.2 are derived within the standard spin-charge hybridization framework and do not explicitly incorporate additional charge-noise sources or fabrication-induced variations. While these expressions follow the widely adopted model for donor qubits (with no ad-hoc parameters), we acknowledge that a quantitative sensitivity analysis would strengthen the robustness of the identified intermediate tunnel-coupling window. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph (and accompanying figure) that provides explicit bounds on the decoherence rates at the proposed operating points, using representative experimental values for charge-noise spectral density and donor-placement tolerances. This addition will directly support the central claim that strong coupling and high-fidelity readout remain simultaneously achievable within realistic parameter ranges. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation remains self-contained

full rationale

The paper's argument proceeds from standard spin-charge hybridization models and known decoherence trade-offs to identify intermediate tunnel couplings that balance coupling strength against lifetime. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, nor to a self-citation chain that supplies the uniqueness or ansatz. The abstract and described methods invoke external mitigations (squeezed fields) and map required parameters without re-deriving them from the target result itself. The central claim therefore rests on independent physical modeling rather than tautological re-expression of its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; full paper likely invokes standard quantum-optics and solid-state spin models without introducing new free parameters or entities in the summary provided.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Spin-charge hybridization governs the electric-dipole moment and decoherence rates of the flip-flop qubit
    Invoked to define the coupling-coherence trade-off

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5580 in / 1060 out tokens · 42785 ms · 2026-05-16T05:23:22.628812+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IV:F≥90% (SNR 2 ≥13),F≥95% (SNR 2 ≥36), andF≥99% (SNR 2 ≥282)

    We adopt the following reference thresholds for Sec. IV:F≥90% (SNR 2 ≥13),F≥95% (SNR 2 ≥36), andF≥99% (SNR 2 ≥282). C. Parameter restrictions Here, we define the imposed restrictions on system pa- rameters to ensure the validity of our theoretical model and the feasibility of readout

    work page

  2. [2]

    As established in Sec

    Regime validity and system requirements First, projecting into the ground state manifold re- quires energy levels of the unperturbed Hamiltonian to be well-separated. As established in Sec. II C, we assume ω0 > ω B, ωr,(34) which ensure that the excited orbitals are well-separated from the Zeeman-split lower orbitals and large resonator Fock states. We al...

    work page

  3. [3]

    invalid region

    Critical photon numbers While SNR 2 scales with⟨n⟩, the dispersive ap- proximation fails beyond a critical photon number nc. Each photon-dependent qubit-flip transition that we treat perturbatively has its own critical number, nc,1, nc,2, . . . , nc,6, determined by system parameters and computable individually. When⟨n⟩approaches one of these, the probabi...

    work page

  4. [4]

    4(a) and (d) reveal that SNR 2—and consequently the fidelityF—is highest at zero donor-interface detuning (ε= 0)

    General trends Fig. 4(a) and (d) reveal that SNR 2—and consequently the fidelityF—is highest at zero donor-interface detuning (ε= 0). This physically corresponds to where delocal- ization of the electron wavefunction and hence effective electric dipole are maximized. Transverse couplings lead- ing tog s, which drives readout throughχ z, are enhanced, whil...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Trends at zero detuning Motivated by the results above, we focus our analysis on the optimal regime atε= 0 going forward, where our approximation forχ z remains valid. To understand the behavior here, we must look at the interplay between the mean photon number⟨n⟩, the readout efficiencyD, and the relaxation rateγasV t varies, which are all non-linear and...

    work page

  6. [6]

    AtV t = 2π×20 GHz (γ dec ≈91.3 kHz), we require κ≤2π×92.1 kHz (Q≥7.1×10 4) forg c = 30 MHz, orκ≤2π×0.355 MHz (Q≥1.83×10 4) forg c = 110 MHz

    work page

  7. [7]

    Notably, the simultaneous regime is significantly larger in Fig

    AtV t = 2π×12.3 GHz (γ dec ≈0.148 MHz), we requireκ≤2π×80 kHz (Q≥8.13×10 4) forg c = 30 MHz, orκ≤2π×0.517 MHz (Q≥1.3×10 4) forg c = 110 MHz. Notably, the simultaneous regime is significantly larger in Fig. 5(b) than (a). This occurs because theg s/κ= 1 contour shifts left while the SNR 2 = 282 contour shifts right asV t increases. An intermediateV t where...

    work page

  8. [8]

    clock transition

    Second-order clock transition sweet spot Beyond the first-order charge qubit sweet spot atε= 0, the flip-flop qubit states themselves exhibit two first- order sweet spots. At specific coordinates (ε, V t), they merge into a a second-order “clock transition” sweet spot (CTSS) [22, 24], where the qubit spin splitting becomes insensitive to charge noise to s...

    work page

  9. [9]

    III D, we neglectedχcor under the assumption of operating far from the straddling regime (ω0 ≈ω r +ω B)

    Straddling regime In Sec. III D, we neglectedχcor under the assumption of operating far from the straddling regime (ω0 ≈ω r +ω B). Relaxing this assumption reveals thatχ cor diverges near this resonance. Depending on the sign of the detuning from this regime,χ cor can constructively or destructively interfere with the dispersive shift, significantly enhan...

    work page

  10. [10]

    The total HamiltonianH tot =H FF + Hr +H int (see Sec

    First Schrieffer-Wolff transformation To derive an effective low-energy Hamiltonian that is needed for dispersive readout, we employ the Schrieffer- Wolff (SW) transformation, a form of degenerate per- turbation theory, to decouple the low- and high-energy subspaces [30, 31]. The total HamiltonianH tot =H FF + Hr +H int (see Sec. II) is decomposed asH tot...

    work page

  11. [11]

    Second Schrieffer-Wolff transformation We rediagonalize the orbital and spin subspaces from H ′, defining a new perturbation term (V ′′ =V ′′ od +V ′′ d ) in the double-primed basis. The block off-diagonal com- ponent now causes spin-flip transitions: H ′′ 0 =− 1 2 ω′ 0(1)τ ′′ z − 1 2 ω′ B(1)σ′′ z +ω ra†a(A19) V ′′ od =ω ′ r,xτ ′′ x a†a+A ′ zxτ ′′ z σ′′ x...

    work page

  12. [12]

    B. E. Kane, A silicon-based nuclear spin quantum com- puter, Nature393, 133 (1998)

    work page 1998

  13. [13]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A57, 120 (1998)

    work page 1998

  14. [14]

    Becher, W

    C. Becher, W. Gao, S. Kar, C. D. Marciniak, T. Monz, J. G. Bartholomew, P. Goldner, H. Loh, E. Marcel- lina, K. E. J. Goh, T. S. Koh, B. Weber, Z. Mu, J.- Y. Tsai, Q. Yan, T. Huber-Loyola, S. H¨ ofling, S. Gyger, S. Steinhauer, and V. Zwiller, 2023 roadmap for materi- als for quantum technologies, Mater. Quantum. Technol. 3, 012501 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Chatterjee, P

    A. Chatterjee, P. Stevenson, S. D. Franceschi, A. Morello, N. P. de Leon, , and F. Kuemmeth, Semiconductor qubits in practice, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 157 (2021). 16

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    T. F. Watson, B. Weber, Y. Hsueh, L. C. L. Hollenberg, R. Rahman, and M. Y. Simmons, Atomically engineered electron spin lifetimes of 30 s in silicon, Sci. Adv.3, 3 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    A. M. Tyryshkin, S. Tojo, J. J. L. Morton, H. R. N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H.-J.Pohl, T. Schenkel, M. L. W. Thewalt, K. M. Itoh, and S. A. Lyon, Electron spin coher- ence exceeding seconds in high-purity silicon, Nat. Mater. 11, 143 (2012)

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    Saeedi, S

    K. Saeedi, S. Simmons, J. Z. Salvail, P. Dluhy, H. Rie- mann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, J. J. L. Morton, and M. L. W. Thewalt, Room-temperature quantum bit storage exceeding 39 minutes using ionized donors in silicon-28, Science342, 6160830 (2013)

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Morello, J

    A. Morello, J. J. Pla, P. Bertet, and D. N. Jamieson, Donor spins in silicon for quantum technologies, Adv. Quantum Tech.3, 11 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Stano and D

    P. Stano and D. Loss, Review of performance metrics of spin qubits in gated semiconducting nanostructures, Nature Reviews Physics4, 672 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Steinacker, N

    P. Steinacker, N. D. Stuyck, W. H. Lim, T. Tanttu, M. Feng, S. Serrano, A. Nickl, M. Candido, J. D. Ci- fuentes, E. Vahapoglu, S. K. Bartee, F. E. Hudson, K. W. Chan, S. Kubicek, J. Jussot, Y. Canvel, S. Beyne, Y. Shimura, R. Loo, C. Godfrin, B. Rase, S. Baudot, D. Wan, A. Laucht, C. H. Yang, A. Saraiva, C. C. Es- cott, K. D. Greve, and A. S. Dzurak, Indu...

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    C. H. Yang, A. Rossi, R. Ruskov, N. S. Lai, F. A. Mo- hiyaddin, S. Lee, C. Tahan, G. Klimeck, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, Spin-valley lifetimes in a silicon quantum dot with tunable valley splitting, Nature Communica- tions4, 2069 (2013)

    work page 2069

  23. [23]

    Asenov, A

    A. Asenov, A. R. Brown, J. H. Davies, S. Kaya, and G. Slavcheva, Simulation of intrinsic parameter fluctu- ations in decananometer and nanometer-scale mosfets, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices50, 1837 (2003)

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    L. M. K. Vandersypen, H. Bluhm, J. S. Clarke, A. S. Dzu- rak, R. Ishihara, A. Morello, D. J. Reilly, L. R. Schreiber, and M. Veldhorst, Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, dense, and coherent, npj Quan- tum Inf.3, 34 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A69, 062320 (2004)

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    Childress, A

    L. Childress, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Meso- scopic cavity quantum electrodynamics with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A69, 042302 (2004)

    work page 2004

  27. [27]

    Burkard and A

    G. Burkard and A. Imamoglu, Ultra-long-distance inter- action between spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B74, 041307(R) (2006)

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    M. Trif, V. N. Golovcach, and D. Loss, Spin dynamics in inas nanowire quantum dots coupled to a transmission line, Phys. Rev. B77, 045434 (2008)

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    Xiang, S

    Z.-L. Xiang, S. Ashhab, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Hybrid quantum circuits: superconducting circuits interacting with other quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 623 (2013)

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    Srinivasa, J

    V. Srinivasa, J. M. Taylor, and J. R. Petta, Cavity- mediated entanglement of parametrically driven spin qubits via sidebands, PRX Quantum5, 020339 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    E. N. Osika, S. Kocsis, Y.-L. Hsueh, S. Monir, C. Chua, H. Lam, B. Voisin, M. Y. Simmons, S. Rogge, and R. Rahman, Spin-photon coupling for atomic qubit de- vices in silicon, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 054007 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    F. N. Krauth, S. K. Gorman, Y. He, M. T. Jones, P. Macha, S. Kocsis, C. Chua, B. Voisin, S. Rogge, R. Rahman, Y. Chung, and M. Y. Simmons, Flopping- mode electric dipole spin resonance in phosphorus donor qubits in silicon, Phys. Rev. Applied17, 054006 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    G. Tosi, F. A. Mohiyaddin, V. Schmitt, S. Tenberg, R. Rahman, G. Klimeck, and A. Morello, Silicon quan- tum processor with robust long-distance qubit couplings, Nat. Commun.8, 450 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    K. D. Petersson, L. W. McFaul, M. D. Schroer, M. Jung, J. M. Taylor, A. A. Houck, and J. R. Petta, Circuit quantum electrodynamics with a spin qubit, Nature490, 380–383 (2012)

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    Truong and X

    J. Truong and X. Hu, Decoherence of coupled flip-flop qubits due to charge noise, arXiv:2104.07485 (2017)

    work page arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Boross, G

    P. Boross, G. Sz´ echenyi, and A. P´ alyi, Valley-enhanced fast relaxation of gate-controlled donor qubits in silicon, Nanotech.27, 314002 (2016)

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    D’Anjou and G

    B. D’Anjou and G. Burkard, Optimal dispersive readout of a spin qubit with a microwave resonator, Phys. Rev. B100, 245427 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Rahman, S

    R. Rahman, S. H. Park, T. B. Boykin, G. Klimeck, S. Rogge, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Gate-induced g-factor control and dimensional transition for donors in multival- ley semiconductors, Phys. Rev. B80, 155301 (2009)

    work page 2009

  39. [39]

    Warren, E

    A. Warren, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Long- distance entangling gates between quantum dot spins mediated by a superconducting resonator, Phys. Rev. B 100, 161303(R) (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Beaudoin, D

    F. Beaudoin, D. Lachance-Quirion, W. A. Coish, and M. Pioro-Ladri` ere, Coupling a single electron spin to a microwave resonator: controlling transverse and longitu- dinal couplings, Nanotech.27, 46 (2016)

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Relation between the anderson and kondo hamiltonians, Phys. Rev.149, 491 (1966)

    work page 1966

  42. [42]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. P. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Schrieffer-wolff transformation for quantum many-body systems, Annals of Phys.326, 102793 (1966)

    work page 1966

  43. [43]

    Srinivasa, K

    V. Srinivasa, K. C. Nowack, M. Shafiei, L. M. K. Van- dersypen, and J. M. Taylor, Simultaneous spin-charge re- laxation in double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 196803 (2013)

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    Pines, J

    D. Pines, J. Bardeen, and C. P. Slichter, Nuclear polar- ization and impurity-state spin relaxation processes in silicon, Phys. Rev.106, 489 (1957)

    work page 1957

  45. [45]

    Baena, L

    A. Baena, L. Saraiva, B. Koiller, and M. J. Calder´ on, Impact of the valley degree of freedom on the control of donor electrons near a si/sio2 interface, Phys. Rev. B86, 035317 (2012)

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Kohn and J

    W. Kohn and J. M. Luttinger, Theory of donor states in silicon, Phys. Rev.98, 915 (1955)

    work page 1955

  47. [47]

    F. A. Zwanenburg, A. S. Dzurak, A. Morello, M. Y. Sim- mons, L. C. L. Hollenberg, G. Klimeck, S. Rogge, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Silicon quantum elec- tronics, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 961 (2013)

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    G. Hu, W. W. Huang, R. Cai, L. Wang, C. H. Yang, G. Cao, X. Xue, P. Huang, and Y. He, Single-electron spin qubits in silicon for quantum computing, Intell. Comput.4, 0115 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    J. T. Muhonen, J. P. Dehollain, A. Laucht, F. E. Hud- 17 son, R. Kalra, T. Sekiguchi, K. M. Itoh, D. N. Jamieson, J. C. McCallum, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, Storing quantum information for 30 seconds in a nanoelectronic device, Nature Nanotech9, 986–991 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    Thorvaldson, D

    I. Thorvaldson, D. Poulos, C. M. Moehle, S. H. Misha, H. Edlbauer, J. Reiner, H. Geng, B. Voisin, M. T. Jones, M. B. Donnelly, L. F. Pe˜ na, C. D. Hill, C. R. Myers, J. G. Keizer, Y. Chung, S. K. Gorman, L. Kranz, and M. Y. Simmons, Grover’s algorithm in a four-qubit sili- con processor above the fault-tolerant threshold, Nature Nanotech20, 472 (2025)

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    J. J. Pla, K. Y. Tan, J. P. Dehollain, W. H. Lim, J. J. L. Morton, F. A. Zwanenburg, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzu- rak, and A. Morello, High-fidelity readout and control of a nuclear spin qubit in silicon, Nature496, 334 (2013)

    work page 2013

  52. [52]

    V. N. Ciriano-Tejel, M. A. Fogarty, S. Schaal, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, L. Ibberson, M. F. Gonzales-Zalba, J. Li, Y.-M. Niquet, M. Vinet, and J. J. L. Morton, Spin readout of a cmos quantum dot by gate reflectometry and spin-dependent tunneling, PRX Quantum2, 010353 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Veldhorst, J

    M. Veldhorst, J. C. C. Hwang, C. H. Yang, A. W. Leen- stra, B. de Ronde, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity, Nature Nanotech9, 981 (2014)

    work page 2014

  54. [54]

    S. B. Tenberg, S. Asaad, M. T. Madzik, M. A. I. John- son, B. Joecker, A. Laucht, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. M. Jakob, B. C. Johnson, D. N. Jamieson, J. C. Mc- Callum, A. S. Dzurak, R. Joynt, and A. Morello, Elec- tron spin relaxation of single phosphorus donors in metal- oxide-semiconductor nanoscale devices, Phys. Rev. B99, 205306 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Dutta and P

    P. Dutta and P. M. Horn, Low-frequency fluctuations in solids: 1/f noise, Rev. Mod. Phys.53, 497 (1981)

    work page 1981

  56. [56]

    Paladino, Y

    E. Paladino, Y. Galperin, G. Falci, and B. Altshuler, 1/f noise:implications for solid-state quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 361 (2014)

    work page 2014

  57. [57]

    San-Jose, G

    P. San-Jose, G. Zarand, A. Shnirman, and G. Sch¨ on, Ge- ometrical spin dephasing in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 076803 (2006)

    work page 2006

  58. [58]

    E. J. Connors, J. Nelson, H. Qiao, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Low-frequency charge noise in si/sige quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B100, 165305 (2019)

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Input and output in damped quantum systems: quantum stochastic differen- tial equations and the master equation, Phys. Rev. A31, 3761 (1985)

    work page 1985

  60. [60]

    Benito, X

    M. Benito, X. Mi, J. M. Taylor, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Input-output theory for spin-photon cou- pling in si double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B96, 235434 (2017)

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Gimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and am- plification, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, , and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    work page 2010

  63. [63]

    Gambetta, W

    J. Gambetta, W. A. Braff, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Protocols for optimal readout of qubits using a continuous quantum nondemolition mea- surement, Phys. Rev. A76, 012325 (2007)

    work page 2007

  64. [64]

    Gambetta, A

    J. Gambetta, A. Blais, M. Boissonneault, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, and S. M. Girvin, Quantum trajectory approach to circuit qed: Quantum jumps and the zeno effect, Phys. Rev. A77, 012112 (2008)

    work page 2008

  65. [65]

    D’Anjou and W

    B. D’Anjou and W. A. Coish, Optimal post-processing for a generic single-shot qubit readout, Phys. Rev. A89, 012313 (2014)

    work page 2014

  66. [66]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, , and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the cooper pair box, Phys. Rev. A76, 042319 (2007)

    work page 2007

  67. [67]

    Yamamoto, K

    T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, K. Koshino, P.-M. Billan- geon, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Superconducting flux qubit capacitively coupled to an lc resonator, New J. Phys.16, 015017 (2014)

    work page 2014

  68. [68]

    Inomata, T

    K. Inomata, T. Yamamoto, P.-M. Billangeon, Y. Naka- mura, and J. S. Tsai, Large dispersive shift of cavity res- onance induced by a superconducting flux qubit in the straddling regime, Phys. Rev. B86, 140508(R) (2012)

    work page 2012

  69. [69]

    Zotova, S

    J. Zotova, S. Sanduleanu, G. Fedorov, R. Wang, J. S. Tsai, and O. Astafiev, Control and readout of a transmon using a compact superconducting resonator, Appl. Phys. Lett.124, 102601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Boissonneault, J

    M. Boissonneault, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Im- proved qubit bifurcation readout in the straddling regime of circuit qed, Phys. Rev. A86, 022326 (2012)

    work page 2012

  71. [71]

    Tahan and R

    C. Tahan and R. Joynt, Relaxation of excited spin, or- bital, and valley qubit states in ideal silicon quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B89, 075302 (2014)

    work page 2014

  72. [72]

    Amasha, K

    S. Amasha, K. MacLean, I. P. Radu, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, M. A. Kastner, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Elec- trical of a spin relaxation in a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 046803 (2008)

    work page 2008

  73. [73]

    Leroux, L

    C. Leroux, L. C. G. Govia, and A. A. Clerk, Enhancing cavity quantum electrodynamics via antisqueezing: syn- thetic ultrastrong coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 093602 (2018)

    work page 2018

  74. [74]

    Kam and X

    C.-F. Kam and X. Hu, Submicrosecond high-fidelity dis- persive readout of a spin qubit with squeezed photons, Phys. Rev. A109, L040402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  75. [75]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, P.-B. Li, X.-Y. L¨ u, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Exponentially enhanced light-matter inter- action, cooperativities, and steady-state entanglement using parametric amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 093601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    W. Qin, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Exponentially improved dispersive qubit readout with squeezed light, arXiv:2402.12044 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Vahlbruch, M

    H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, K. Danzmann, and R. Schn- abel, Detection of 15 db squeezed states of light and their application for the absolute calibration of photoelectric quantum efficiency, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 110801 (2016). 18 Label nc,i Expression Associated Transition Effect on system when⟨n⟩ →n c,i nc,1 (ω′ 0 −ω r)2 4g2c,x gc,xτx a+a † Photon-induced ...

    work page 2016