Coherent exciton spin dynamics and three-dimensional quantum state tomography in a single InAlAs quantum dot

H. Sasakura; J. Njala; R. Kaji; S. Adachi; Y. Yamamoto

arxiv: 2605.01801 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-03 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

Coherent exciton spin dynamics and three-dimensional quantum state tomography in a single InAlAs quantum dot

J. Njala , Y. Yamamoto , R. Kaji , S. Adachi , H. Sasakura This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 16:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords InAlAs quantum dotexciton spin dynamicsquantum state tomographyanisotropic exchange interactionfine-structure splittingspin coherencepolarization quantum beats

0 comments

The pith

Exciton spin in a single InAlAs quantum dot maintains coherence for 1.1 ns, longer than the 767 ps lifetime.

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

The paper tracks the spin evolution of a neutral exciton in one InAlAs quantum dot using time-resolved measurements in three polarization bases after quasi-resonant excitation. Quantum beats appear that a single global fit attributes to a Hamiltonian governed by anisotropic exchange and the associated fine-structure splitting. The fit returns a spin coherence time of 1.1 nanoseconds that outlasts the exciton radiative lifetime. No Overhauser shift is seen, and spin formation is faster than the measurement response. The work supplies a concrete demonstration that full three-dimensional spin trajectories can be reconstructed from differential polarization signals.

Core claim

Under two-LO-phonon quasi-resonant excitation the neutral exciton exhibits pronounced quantum beats in circular and diagonal polarization components that reflect a fine-structure splitting of approximately 19.6 microelectronvolts. A global fitting procedure across the three orthogonal polarization bases shows that the entire spin evolution is described by one unified Hamiltonian dominated by the anisotropic exchange interaction. The extracted spin coherence time is 1.1 plus or minus 0.2 nanoseconds, exceeding the exciton lifetime of roughly 767 picoseconds, while the initial circular polarization reaches only 0.28 because of fast relaxation during carrier cooling. Spin formation occurs on a

What carries the argument

Global fitting of time-resolved polarization signals across three orthogonal bases to extract a single Hamiltonian dominated by anisotropic exchange interaction that accounts for the observed quantum beats and spin precession.

Load-bearing premise

The polarization quantum beats and dynamics result only from fine-structure splitting and anisotropic exchange interaction without significant contributions from other decoherence mechanisms or post-hoc adjustments.

What would settle it

Observation of a clear Overhauser shift in the precession frequency or inability of one global fit to describe all three polarization bases consistently would show that the unified Hamiltonian does not capture the dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01801 by H. Sasakura, J. Njala, R. Kaji, S. Adachi, Y. Yamamoto.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. Static photoluminescence characterization and tem view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: displays the resulting quantum state tomography. In the circular and diagonal bases (top and middle panels of view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the spin po view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate the coherent exciton spin dynamics in a single InAlAs/AlGaAs quantum dot using time-resolved quantum state tomography. Under two-LO-phonon quasi-resonant excitation of neutral exciton, we observe pronounced quantum beats in the circular and diagonal polarization components, reflecting the fine-structure splitting ($\Delta \approx 19.6 \ \mu\text{eV}$). By employing a global fitting procedure across three orthogonal polarization bases, we demonstrate that the spin evolution is consistently described by a unified Hamiltonian dominated by the anisotropic exchange interaction. While the initial degree of circular polarization is limited to $\approx 0.28$ due to fast relaxation processes during carrier cooling, the subsequent dynamics reveal a long-lived spin coherence ($1.1 \pm 0.2$ ns) that exceeds the exciton lifetime ($\sim 767$ ps). Our analysis reveals that the spin-formation time is significantly shorter than the instrument response function, and the absence of a discernible Overhauser shift confirms a negligible influence from the local nuclear environment under the present conditions. These results provide a quantitative benchmark for the three-dimensional reconstruction of spin trajectories using differential polarization signals, demonstrating the feasibility of using quasi-resonant excitation for stable spin initialization in semiconductor nanostructures.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This InAlAs dot paper extracts a 1.1 ns coherence time longer than the 767 ps lifetime from global fits to three-basis tomography data, with the main value being new numbers for this system.

read the letter

The main point is that they report a spin coherence time of 1.1 ns in a single InAlAs quantum dot under two-LO-phonon excitation, measured via time-resolved quantum state tomography, and it comes out longer than the exciton lifetime. They also give a fine-structure splitting of 19.6 μeV and show the initial circular polarization reaches only 0.28 before the dynamics settle in. The global fit across circular, diagonal, and other bases produces consistent results with a simple Hamiltonian set by anisotropic exchange, and they note no visible Overhauser shift. This supplies concrete experimental values for coherence and splitting in InAlAs dots that were not previously available in this excitation regime. The tomography reconstruction of spin trajectories is presented as a practical benchmark, and the data appear to support the model without obvious internal contradictions. The low circularity burden is clear because the parameters are pulled directly from polarization signals rather than assumed. The work is a straightforward extension of existing tomography methods to this material and excitation scheme, and the consistency across bases is a positive sign that the Hamiltonian description holds for the observed beats. The soft spots are mostly in the level of detail provided. The abstract does not spell out the full error analysis, data processing pipeline, or explicit tests for whether adding a small pure-dephasing term or inhomogeneous broadening would shift the extracted T2 within the reported uncertainty. The stress-test point about possible unmodeled decoherence being absorbed into the coherence time is fair to raise on the basis of what is shown; if the full paper includes model-comparison residuals or checks that alternative Hamiltonians do not fit equally well, that would close the gap. Otherwise it remains a moderate concern rather than a fatal one, given that the beats match the splitting and the fit is global. This paper is aimed at experimental groups working on spin dynamics in quantum dots, particularly those using polarization tomography or studying InAlAs systems for initialization. A reader in that area would find the quantitative results and the demonstration of T2 exceeding lifetime useful for comparison. It deserves peer review because the experimental claims rest on reproducible measurements and the results are new for this dot type, even if revisions would likely focus on expanding the fitting robustness section.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports time-resolved quantum state tomography of exciton spin dynamics in a single InAlAs/AlGaAs quantum dot under two-LO-phonon quasi-resonant excitation. Pronounced quantum beats are observed in circular and diagonal polarization components, attributed to a fine-structure splitting Δ ≈ 19.6 μeV. A global fit across three orthogonal polarization bases is used to show that the dynamics are described by a single Hamiltonian dominated by anisotropic exchange; this yields a spin coherence time of 1.1 ± 0.2 ns that exceeds the measured exciton lifetime of ~767 ps. The initial circular polarization is limited to ~0.28, the spin-formation time is shorter than the instrument response function, and the lack of an Overhauser shift is taken to indicate negligible nuclear influence.

Significance. If the global fit is shown to be robust against plausible additional decoherence channels, the work supplies a useful experimental benchmark for three-dimensional reconstruction of exciton spin trajectories via differential polarization signals and supports quasi-resonant excitation as a route to stable spin initialization in quantum dots. The consistency of the extracted Hamiltonian parameters across bases is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Results] Abstract and Results (global-fit paragraph): The central claim that a single anisotropic-exchange Hamiltonian fully accounts for the observed beats and yields T2 = 1.1 ± 0.2 ns rests on the global fit being both unique and complete. No quantitative comparison is provided to alternative models that include an additional phenomenological pure-dephasing rate, inhomogeneous broadening, or a small dynamic hyperfine term; such tests are required to confirm that the reported coherence time is not inflated by absorption of unmodeled decay into the fitted T2.
[Methods/Results] Methods/Results (fitting and tomography reconstruction): The description of the global fitting procedure, error propagation, covariance-matrix evaluation, and how differential polarization signals are converted into the full Bloch-vector trajectories lacks sufficient detail (e.g., reduced-χ² values, cross-validation between bases, or explicit handling of the instrument response function). These omissions directly affect in the headline result that T2 exceeds the exciton lifetime.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The exciton lifetime is quoted as ~767 ps; reporting the fitted value together with its uncertainty would improve quantitative clarity.
[Results] The manuscript would benefit from a brief explicit statement of how the three-dimensional state tomography is reconstructed from the measured differential polarization signals, even if the procedure is standard.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report, which highlights important aspects of our analysis. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and Results] The central claim that a single anisotropic-exchange Hamiltonian fully accounts for the observed beats and yields T2 = 1.1 ± 0.2 ns rests on the global fit being both unique and complete. No quantitative comparison is provided to alternative models that include an additional phenomenological pure-dephasing rate, inhomogeneous broadening, or a small dynamic hyperfine term; such tests are required to confirm that the reported coherence time is not inflated by absorption of unmodeled decay into the fitted T2.

Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on model robustness. The global fit across three orthogonal bases already yields consistent Hamiltonian parameters, which strongly constrains the model and argues against the need for additional terms. To directly address the concern, we will add in the revised manuscript (and supplementary material) a quantitative comparison to an extended model incorporating an extra pure-dephasing rate. This comparison shows that the single-Hamiltonian model provides a comparable or better reduced-χ² without inflating T2, confirming the reported coherence time is not an artifact of unmodeled decay. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods/Results] The description of the global fitting procedure, error propagation, covariance-matrix evaluation, and how differential polarization signals are converted into the full Bloch-vector trajectories lacks sufficient detail (e.g., reduced-χ² values, cross-validation between bases, or explicit handling of the instrument response function). These omissions directly affect in the headline result that T2 exceeds the exciton lifetime.

Authors: We agree that expanded methodological details are needed to ensure reproducibility and bolster confidence in the T2 result. In the revised manuscript we will substantially expand the Methods section to include: the explicit global-fitting algorithm and reduced-χ² values, full covariance-matrix evaluation and error propagation, cross-validation metrics between the three polarization bases, and a step-by-step description of how differential polarization signals are converted to Bloch-vector trajectories, including convolution with the measured instrument response function. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results obtained via data-driven global fit to standard Hamiltonian

full rationale

The paper extracts fine-structure splitting Δ ≈ 19.6 μeV and coherence time T2 = 1.1 ± 0.2 ns by performing a global fit of a conventional anisotropic-exchange Hamiltonian to time-resolved polarization tomography data across three orthogonal bases. This is a standard parameter-estimation procedure on experimental inputs rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The comparison of T2 to the independently measured exciton lifetime (~767 ps) and the statement of negligible nuclear influence (absence of Overhauser shift) are direct observational outcomes, not reductions to the model's own fitted values by construction. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work to force the result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an experimental paper that relies on standard quantum optics techniques and a conventional Hamiltonian for exciton fine structure in quantum dots; no new entities are postulated. Free parameters are the values extracted from data fitting rather than ad hoc inventions.

free parameters (2)

fine-structure splitting Δ = 19.6 μeV
Determined from the frequency of observed quantum beats in circular and diagonal polarization components.
spin coherence time = 1.1 ns
Extracted from the decay envelope in the global fit to the spin evolution across polarization bases.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Exciton spin dynamics in the quantum dot can be described by a Hamiltonian dominated by anisotropic exchange interaction
Invoked as the unified model for the global fitting procedure across three orthogonal bases.
standard math Polarization measurements in three bases suffice for full quantum state tomography of the exciton spin
Standard assumption in quantum optics applied to reconstruct the spin trajectory.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5534 in / 1683 out tokens · 63067 ms · 2026-05-09T16:46:42.604277+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Awschalom, D

D. Awschalom, D. Loss, and N. Samarth,Semiconductor spintronics and quantum computation(Springer Science & Business Media, 2002)

work page 2002
[2]

A. J. Shields, Semiconductor quantum light sources, Nat. Photonics1215 (2007)

work page 2007
[3]

Press, T

D. Press, T. D. Ladd, B. Zhang, and Y. Yamamoto, Com- 6 plete quantum control of a single quantum dot spin using ultrafast optical pulses, Nature456218 (2008)

work page 2008
[4]

Berezovsky, M

J. Berezovsky, M. H. Mikkelsen, N. G. Stoltz, L. A. Col- dren, and D. D. Awschalom, Picosecond coherent optical manipulation of a single electron spin in a quantum dot, Science320349 (2008)

work page 2008
[5]

De Greve, L

K. De Greve, L. Yu, P. L. McMahon, J. S. Pelc, C. Natarajan, N. Y. Kim, E. Abe, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, R. H. Hadfield, M. M. Fejer, and Y. Yamamoto, Quantum-dot spin photon entanglement via frequency downconversion to telecom wavelength, Nature 491, 421 (2012)

work page 2012
[6]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Interfacing single photons and single quantum dots with photonic nanostructures, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 347 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Bayer, G

M. Bayer, G. Ortner, O. Stern, A. Kuther, A. A. Gor- bunov, A. Forchel, P. Hawrylak, S. Fafard, K. Hinzer, T. L. Reinecke, S. N. Walck, J. P. Reithmaier, F. Klopf, and F. Sch¨ afer, Fine structure of neutral and charged excitons in self-assembled In(Ga)As/(Al)GaAs quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B65, 195315 (2002)

work page 2002
[8]

Gammon, E

D. Gammon, E. S. Snow, B. V. Shanabrook, D. S. Katzer, and D. Park, Fine structure splitting in the optical spec- tra of single GaAs quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3005 (1996)

work page 1996
[9]

A. I. Tartakovskii, M. N. Makhonin, I. R. Sellers, J. Cahill, A. D. Andreev, D. M. Whittaker, J-P. R. Wells, A. M. Fox, D. J. Mowbray, M. S. Skolnick, K. M. Groom, M. J. Steer, H. Y. Liu, and M. Hopkinson, Effect of thermal annealing and strain engineering on the fine structure of quantum dot excitons, Phys. Rev. B70, 193393 (2004)

work page 2004
[10]

E. L. Ivchenko, Fine structure of excitonic levels in semi- conductor nanostructures, Phys. Status Solidi (a)164, 487 (1997)

work page 1997
[11]

Flissikowski, A

T. Flissikowski, A. Hundt, M. Lowisch, M. Rebe, and F. Henneberger, Photon beats from a single semiconductor quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3172 (2001)

work page 2001
[12]

S´ en` es, B

M. S´ en` es, B. Urbaszek, X. Marie, T. Amand, J. Tribol- let, F. Bernardot, C. Testelin, M. Chamarro, and J.-M. G´ erard, Exciton spin manipulation in InAs/GaAs quan- tum dots: Exchange interaction and magnetic field ef- fects, Phys. Rev. B71, 115334 (2005)

work page 2005
[13]

Ant´ on, P

C. Ant´ on, P. Hilaire, C. A. Kessler, J. Demory, C. G´ omez, A. Lemaˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, O. Krebs, N. Somaschi, P. Senellart, and L. Lanco, Tomog- raphy of the optical polarization rotation induced by a single quantum dot in a cavity Optica4, 1326 (2017)

work page 2017
[14]

Cogan, G

D. Cogan, G. Peniakov Z-E. Su, and D. Gershoni, Com- plete state tomography of a quantum dot spin qubit, Phys. Rev. B101, 035424 (2020)

work page 2020
[15]

Braun, X

P.-F. Braun, X. Marie, L. Lombez, B. Urbaszek, T. Amand, P. Renucci, V. K. Kalevich, K. V. Kavokin, O. Krebs, P. Voisin, and Y. Masumoto, Direct observation of the electron spin relaxation induced by nuclei in quan- tum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 116601 (2005)

work page 2005
[16]

Urbaszek, X

B. Urbaszek, X. Marie, T. Amand, O. Krebs, P. Voisin, P. Malentinsky, A. H¨ ogele, and A. Imamoglu, Nuclear spin physics in quantum dots: An optical investigation, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 79 (2013)

work page 2013
[17]

J. M. Kikkawa and D. D. Awschalom, Resonant Spin Amplification inn-Type GaAs, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 4313 (1998)

work page 1998
[18]

Kosaka, H

H. Kosaka, H. Shigyou, Y. Mitsumori, Y. Rikitake, H. Imamura, T. Kutsuwa, K. Arai, and K. Edamatsu, Co- herent Transfer of Light Polarization to Electron Spins in a Semiconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 096602 (2008)

work page 2008
[19]

Peniakov, I

G. Peniakov, I. M. Michl, M. Helal, R. joos, M. Jetter, S. L. Portalupl, P. Michler, S. H¨ ofling, and T. Huber- Loyola, Initialization of neutral and charged exciton spin states in a telecom-emitting quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 112, 085422 (2025)

work page 2025
[20]

Sasakura, S

H. Sasakura, S. Adachi, S. Muto, H.-Z. Song, T. Miyazawa, and T. Usuki, Spin depolarization via tunnel- ing effects in asymmetric double quantum dot structure, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 143, 2110 (2004)

work page 2004
[21]

Adachi, N

S. Adachi, N. Yatsu, R. Kaji, S. Muto, and H. Sasakura, Decoherence of exciton complexes in single InAlAs quan- tum dots measured by Fourier spectroscopy, Appl. Phys. Lett.91, 161910 (2007)

work page 2007
[22]

P. R. Eastham, A. O. Spracklen, and J. Keeling, Lind- blad theory of dynamical decoherence of quantum-dot excitons, Phys. Rev. B87, 195306 (2013)

work page 2013
[23]

R. Kaji, S. Adachi, H. Sasakura, and S. Muto, Hysteretic response of the electron-nuclear spin system in single In- AlAs quantum dots: Dependences on excitation power and polarization, Phys. Rev. B77, 115345 (2008)

work page 2008
[24]

Matsusaki, R

R. Matsusaki, R. Kaji, S. Yamamoto, H. Sasakura, and S. Adachi, Quadrupolar effect on nuclear spin depolariza- tion in single self-assembled quantum dots, Appl. Phys. Express11, 085201 (2018)

work page 2018

[1] [1]

Awschalom, D

D. Awschalom, D. Loss, and N. Samarth,Semiconductor spintronics and quantum computation(Springer Science & Business Media, 2002)

work page 2002

[2] [2]

A. J. Shields, Semiconductor quantum light sources, Nat. Photonics1215 (2007)

work page 2007

[3] [3]

Press, T

D. Press, T. D. Ladd, B. Zhang, and Y. Yamamoto, Com- 6 plete quantum control of a single quantum dot spin using ultrafast optical pulses, Nature456218 (2008)

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Berezovsky, M

J. Berezovsky, M. H. Mikkelsen, N. G. Stoltz, L. A. Col- dren, and D. D. Awschalom, Picosecond coherent optical manipulation of a single electron spin in a quantum dot, Science320349 (2008)

work page 2008

[5] [5]

De Greve, L

K. De Greve, L. Yu, P. L. McMahon, J. S. Pelc, C. Natarajan, N. Y. Kim, E. Abe, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. H¨ ofling, R. H. Hadfield, M. M. Fejer, and Y. Yamamoto, Quantum-dot spin photon entanglement via frequency downconversion to telecom wavelength, Nature 491, 421 (2012)

work page 2012

[6] [6]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Interfacing single photons and single quantum dots with photonic nanostructures, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 347 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Bayer, G

M. Bayer, G. Ortner, O. Stern, A. Kuther, A. A. Gor- bunov, A. Forchel, P. Hawrylak, S. Fafard, K. Hinzer, T. L. Reinecke, S. N. Walck, J. P. Reithmaier, F. Klopf, and F. Sch¨ afer, Fine structure of neutral and charged excitons in self-assembled In(Ga)As/(Al)GaAs quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B65, 195315 (2002)

work page 2002

[8] [8]

Gammon, E

D. Gammon, E. S. Snow, B. V. Shanabrook, D. S. Katzer, and D. Park, Fine structure splitting in the optical spec- tra of single GaAs quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3005 (1996)

work page 1996

[9] [9]

A. I. Tartakovskii, M. N. Makhonin, I. R. Sellers, J. Cahill, A. D. Andreev, D. M. Whittaker, J-P. R. Wells, A. M. Fox, D. J. Mowbray, M. S. Skolnick, K. M. Groom, M. J. Steer, H. Y. Liu, and M. Hopkinson, Effect of thermal annealing and strain engineering on the fine structure of quantum dot excitons, Phys. Rev. B70, 193393 (2004)

work page 2004

[10] [10]

E. L. Ivchenko, Fine structure of excitonic levels in semi- conductor nanostructures, Phys. Status Solidi (a)164, 487 (1997)

work page 1997

[11] [11]

Flissikowski, A

T. Flissikowski, A. Hundt, M. Lowisch, M. Rebe, and F. Henneberger, Photon beats from a single semiconductor quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 3172 (2001)

work page 2001

[12] [12]

S´ en` es, B

M. S´ en` es, B. Urbaszek, X. Marie, T. Amand, J. Tribol- let, F. Bernardot, C. Testelin, M. Chamarro, and J.-M. G´ erard, Exciton spin manipulation in InAs/GaAs quan- tum dots: Exchange interaction and magnetic field ef- fects, Phys. Rev. B71, 115334 (2005)

work page 2005

[13] [13]

Ant´ on, P

C. Ant´ on, P. Hilaire, C. A. Kessler, J. Demory, C. G´ omez, A. Lemaˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, O. Krebs, N. Somaschi, P. Senellart, and L. Lanco, Tomog- raphy of the optical polarization rotation induced by a single quantum dot in a cavity Optica4, 1326 (2017)

work page 2017

[14] [14]

Cogan, G

D. Cogan, G. Peniakov Z-E. Su, and D. Gershoni, Com- plete state tomography of a quantum dot spin qubit, Phys. Rev. B101, 035424 (2020)

work page 2020

[15] [15]

Braun, X

P.-F. Braun, X. Marie, L. Lombez, B. Urbaszek, T. Amand, P. Renucci, V. K. Kalevich, K. V. Kavokin, O. Krebs, P. Voisin, and Y. Masumoto, Direct observation of the electron spin relaxation induced by nuclei in quan- tum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 116601 (2005)

work page 2005

[16] [16]

Urbaszek, X

B. Urbaszek, X. Marie, T. Amand, O. Krebs, P. Voisin, P. Malentinsky, A. H¨ ogele, and A. Imamoglu, Nuclear spin physics in quantum dots: An optical investigation, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 79 (2013)

work page 2013

[17] [17]

J. M. Kikkawa and D. D. Awschalom, Resonant Spin Amplification inn-Type GaAs, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 4313 (1998)

work page 1998

[18] [18]

Kosaka, H

H. Kosaka, H. Shigyou, Y. Mitsumori, Y. Rikitake, H. Imamura, T. Kutsuwa, K. Arai, and K. Edamatsu, Co- herent Transfer of Light Polarization to Electron Spins in a Semiconductor, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 096602 (2008)

work page 2008

[19] [19]

Peniakov, I

G. Peniakov, I. M. Michl, M. Helal, R. joos, M. Jetter, S. L. Portalupl, P. Michler, S. H¨ ofling, and T. Huber- Loyola, Initialization of neutral and charged exciton spin states in a telecom-emitting quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 112, 085422 (2025)

work page 2025

[20] [20]

Sasakura, S

H. Sasakura, S. Adachi, S. Muto, H.-Z. Song, T. Miyazawa, and T. Usuki, Spin depolarization via tunnel- ing effects in asymmetric double quantum dot structure, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 143, 2110 (2004)

work page 2004

[21] [21]

Adachi, N

S. Adachi, N. Yatsu, R. Kaji, S. Muto, and H. Sasakura, Decoherence of exciton complexes in single InAlAs quan- tum dots measured by Fourier spectroscopy, Appl. Phys. Lett.91, 161910 (2007)

work page 2007

[22] [22]

P. R. Eastham, A. O. Spracklen, and J. Keeling, Lind- blad theory of dynamical decoherence of quantum-dot excitons, Phys. Rev. B87, 195306 (2013)

work page 2013

[23] [23]

R. Kaji, S. Adachi, H. Sasakura, and S. Muto, Hysteretic response of the electron-nuclear spin system in single In- AlAs quantum dots: Dependences on excitation power and polarization, Phys. Rev. B77, 115345 (2008)

work page 2008

[24] [24]

Matsusaki, R

R. Matsusaki, R. Kaji, S. Yamamoto, H. Sasakura, and S. Adachi, Quadrupolar effect on nuclear spin depolariza- tion in single self-assembled quantum dots, Appl. Phys. Express11, 085201 (2018)

work page 2018