Fast raster scan multiplexed charge stability measurements toward high-throughput quantum dot array calibration

Changki Hong; Dohun Kim; Hwanchul Jung; Jehyun Kim; Min-Kyun Cho; Myungwon Lee; Vladimir Umansky; Wonjin Jang; Yunchul Chung

arxiv: 1907.00562 · v1 · pith:LNOR4B7Mnew · submitted 2019-07-01 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

Fast raster scan multiplexed charge stability measurements toward high-throughput quantum dot array calibration

Wonjin Jang , Min-Kyun Cho , Myungwon Lee , Changki Hong , Jehyun Kim , Hwanchul Jung , Yunchul Chung , Vladimir Umansky

show 1 more author

Dohun Kim

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 12:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords charge stabilityquantum dotsmultiplexed measurementsrf-reflectometryGaAs heterostructurestriple quantum dottuning platformquantum point contact

0 comments

The pith

Multiplexed 2D charge stability scans locate the few-electron regime in multiple quantum dots in minutes.

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

The paper establishes a method for rapid tuning of multiple quantum dots through multiplexed raster scans of charge stability diagrams. High signal-to-noise ratios in radio-frequency measurements permit two-dimensional scans that are fast enough for practical use. The authors show that combining these scans identifies the few-electron regime across several dots in a triple quantum dot system within minutes. Their platform achieves this stability through a switching matrix and alternating current ramp sources under software control. The approach is intended to scale to larger arrays for efficient calibration of quantum dot systems.

Core claim

The central claim is that a multiplexed combination of 2D scans enables the identification of few electron regime in multiple quantum dots in just a few minutes, demonstrated through systematic triple quantum dot formation in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures using a stable raster scan platform.

What carries the argument

The raster scan multiplexed quantum dot tuning platform using a switching matrix and transformer-coupled AC ramp sources.

If this is right

Double and triple quantum dot tuning processes are facilitated by fast 2D scanning.
Systematic triple quantum dot formation is achieved in a few minutes.
The platform allows efficient quantum dot system Hamiltonian parameter calibration.
The method applies to more complex multiple quantum dot arrays for high-throughput tuning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Calibration times for quantum dot based devices could be significantly reduced with this scanning approach.
Automated tuning procedures for larger qubit arrays might incorporate multiplexed 2D measurements.
Similar multiplexed platforms could be tested in silicon or other heterostructures for comparable speed gains.

Load-bearing premise

The switching matrix and transformer-coupled AC ramp sources maintain sufficient voltage stability without introducing excess noise or cross-talk that degrades the signal-to-noise ratio or distorts the diagrams.

What would settle it

A measurement in the multiplexed setup that yields charge stability diagrams with SNR much lower than 40 or with visible distortions from cross-talk would challenge the reliability of the fast tuning method.

read the original abstract

We report raster scan multiplexed charge-stability diagram measurements for tuning multiple gate-defined quantum dots in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures. We evaluate the charge sensitivity of the quantum point contact (QPC) in both radio frequency (rf)-reflectometry and direct current (dc)-transport modes, where we measure the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 40 for rf-QPC with integration time per pixel of 10ms , corresponding to 1.14ms for resolving single electron transition in few electron regime. The high SNR for reasonable integration time allows fast two-dimensional (2D) scanning, which we use to facilitate double and triple quantum dot tuning process. We configure highly stable raster scan multiplexed quantum dot tuning platform using a switching matrix and transformer-coupled alternating current (ac) ramp sources with software control. As an example of high-throughput multiple quantum dot tuning, we demonstrate systematic triple quantum dot (TQD) formation using this platform in which a multiplexed combination of 2D scans enables the identification of few electron regime in multiple quantum dots in just a few minutes. The method presented here is general, and we expect that the tuning platform is applicable to more complex multiple quantum dot arrays, allowing efficient quantum dot system Hamiltonian parameter calibration.

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

The paper gives a concrete working example of multiplexed raster scanning that tunes a triple dot in minutes with reported SNR of 40, but leaves the hardware stability claim under-supported.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this group built and ran a switching-matrix plus transformer-ramp setup that lets them raster-scan multiple gates fast enough to locate the few-electron regime in a TQD in a few minutes. They back the claim with a measured SNR of 40 at 10 ms per pixel in rf-QPC mode, which is a usable number for real lab work. That combination of hardware and timing result is the incremental advance here; similar ideas exist but the specific platform configuration and the reported minutes-scale TQD example are new enough to be worth noting for people who actually tune arrays by hand. The paper does a reasonable job showing the end-to-end flow from single-dot scans to the multiplexed TQD case without obvious over-claiming. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test: the abstract states the matrix and AC ramps are stable but supplies no side-by-side noise spectra, Allan deviation, or SNR comparison with the matrix engaged versus bypassed under the actual scan conditions. Without those data it is hard to know whether the quoted SNR holds once everything is multiplexed or whether cross-talk or drift eats into the timing gain. The circularity burden is low since this is a straight experimental report with independent observables. For a reader who tunes GaAs dots and wants a faster calibration workflow, the paper is worth a look; for someone outside that niche it is a narrow instrumentation note. It is solid enough on the demonstrated result to deserve a serious referee rather than a desk reject, though the stability quantification will probably need tightening in review.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a multiplexed raster-scan platform for charge-stability measurements on gate-defined GaAs quantum dots. Using a switching matrix and transformer-coupled AC ramps under software control, the authors report an rf-QPC SNR of 40 at 10 ms/pixel (1.14 ms per single-electron transition) and demonstrate systematic identification of the few-electron regime in a triple quantum dot within a few minutes via combinations of 2D scans.

Significance. If the reported SNR is preserved under multiplexed operation, the work addresses a practical bottleneck in scaling quantum-dot arrays by shortening the tuning time from hours to minutes. The concrete numerical benchmarks (SNR=40, 10 ms/pixel, few-minute TQD example) constitute a clear, falsifiable advance over conventional sequential tuning.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract (platform-configuration paragraph): the assertion that the switching matrix and transformer-coupled AC ramp sources produce a 'highly stable' platform is not accompanied by any quantitative evidence (noise spectra, Allan deviation, or side-by-side SNR comparison with/without the matrix engaged) under the actual multiplexed scan conditions used for the TQD demonstration. Because the headline timing advantage rests on the SNR remaining ~40, this omission is load-bearing.

minor comments (2)

The integration-time conversion (10 ms/pixel → 1.14 ms per transition) should be derived explicitly, including any duty-cycle or averaging factors.
Figure captions and text should state the precise voltage ranges and gate-voltage step sizes used in the 2D scans so that the reported scan times can be reproduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comment. We address it point-by-point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (platform-configuration paragraph): the assertion that the switching matrix and transformer-coupled AC ramp sources produce a 'highly stable' platform is not accompanied by any quantitative evidence (noise spectra, Allan deviation, or side-by-side SNR comparison with/without the matrix engaged) under the actual multiplexed scan conditions used for the TQD demonstration. Because the headline timing advantage rests on the SNR remaining ~40, this omission is load-bearing.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by quantitative evidence of stability under multiplexed conditions. The reported SNR of 40 at 10 ms/pixel was measured in the complete multiplexed configuration (switching matrix and transformer-coupled AC ramps engaged), because all data shown—including the TQD few-electron identification—were acquired with that hardware. Nevertheless, we will add in revision: (i) noise spectra of the rf-QPC under the exact multiplexed scan conditions used for the TQD, and (ii) a side-by-side SNR comparison with/without the matrix. These additions will directly confirm that the SNR remains ~40 when the matrix is engaged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental methods report with independent observables

full rationale

The manuscript is an experimental techniques paper describing hardware configuration (switching matrix, transformer-coupled AC ramps) and measured performance (SNR=40 at 10 ms integration, few-minute TQD tuning via multiplexed 2D raster scans). No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear in the provided text. All central claims rest on direct experimental observables (charge transition visibility, timing) rather than any self-referential definition, fitted-input renaming, or self-citation load-bearing step. The platform description is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental methods paper; central claim rests on measured performance metrics rather than mathematical derivation. No free parameters are fitted to produce the headline result. Standard domain assumptions about QPC sensor behavior are invoked but not derived.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The quantum point contact functions as a non-invasive charge sensor whose conductance change directly reports single-electron transitions in the nearby dots.
Invoked when converting measured SNR into the claim that single-electron transitions are resolved.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5787 in / 1307 out tokens · 31164 ms · 2026-05-25T12:10:13.928690+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We configure highly stable raster scan multiplexed quantum dot tuning platform using a switching matrix and transformer-coupled alternating current (ac) ramp sources with software control.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

multiplexed combination of 2D scans enables the identification of few electron regime in multiple quantum dots in just a few minutes

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

Loss and D

D. Loss and D. P . DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998)

work page 1998
[2]

D. Kim, D. R. Ward, C. B. Simmons, J. K. Gamble, R. Blume-Kohout, E. Nielsen, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith et al. , Nature Nanotechnology 10, 243 (2015)

work page 2015
[3]

J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P . Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Science 309, 2180 (2005). 16

work page 2005
[4]

E. A. Laird, J. M. Taylor, D. P . DiVincenzo, C. M. Marcus, M. P . Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Physical Review B 82, 075403 (2010)

work page 2010
[5]

Barthelemy and L

P . Barthelemy and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Annalen Der Physik 525, 808 (2013)

work page 2013
[6]

Byrnes, N

T. Byrnes, N. Y. Kim, K. Kusudo, and Y. Yamamoto, Physical Review B 78, 075320 (2008)

work page 2008
[7]

Hensgens, T

T. Hensgens, T. Fujita, L. Janssen, X. Li, C. J. Van Diepen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, S. Das Sarma, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 548, 70 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

M. Seo, H. K. Choi, S. Y. Lee, N. Kim, Y. Chung, H. S. Sim, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Physical Review Letters 110, 046803 (2013)

work page 2013
[9]

Hanson, L

R. Hanson, L. P . Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 1217 (2007)

work page 2007
[10]

L. P . Kouwenhoven, N. C. Vandervaart, A. T. Johnson, W. Kool, C. Harmans, J. G. Williamson, A. A. M. Staring, and C. T. Foxon, Zeitschrift Fur Physik B-Condensed Matter 85, 367 (1991)

work page 1991
[11]

Livermore, C

C. Livermore, C. H. Crouch, R. M. Westervelt, K. L. Campman, and A. C. Gossard, Science 274, 1332 (1996)

work page 1996
[12]

Meirav, M

U. Meirav, M. A. Kastner, and S. J. Wind, Physical Review Letters 65, 771 (1990)

work page 1990
[13]

R. C. Ashoori, H. L. Stormer, J. S. Weiner, L. N. Pfeiffer, S. J. Pearton, K. W. Baldwin, and K. W. West, Physical Review Letters 68, 3088 (1992)

work page 1992
[14]

Field, C

M. Field, C. G. Smith, M. Pepper, D. A. Ritchie, J. E. F. Frost, G. A. C. Jones, and D. G. Hasko, Physical Review Letters 70, 1311 (1993)

work page 1993
[15]

Landauer, Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter 1, 8099 (1989)

R. Landauer, Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter 1, 8099 (1989)

work page 1989
[16]

F. H. L. Koppens, C. Buizert, K. J. Tielrooij, I. T. Vink, K. C. Nowack, T. Meunier, L. P . Kouwenhoven, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 442, 766 (2006)

work page 2006
[17]

F. K. Malinowski, F. Martins, P . D. Nissen, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, C. M. Marcus, and F. Kuemmeth, Physical Review B 96, 045443 (2017)

work page 2017
[18]

Medford, J

J. Medford, J. Beil, J. M. Taylor, E. I. Rashba, H. Lu, A. C. Gossard, and C. M. Marcus, Physical Review Letters 111, 050501 (2013)

work page 2013
[19]

Fallahi, J

S. Fallahi, J. R. Nakamura, G. C. Gard ner, M. M. Yannell, and M. J. Manfra, Physical Review Applied 9, 034008 (2018). 17

work page 2018
[20]

Pioro-Ladriere, J

M. Pioro-Ladriere, J. H. Davies, A. R. Long, A. S. Sachrajda, L. Gaudreau, P . Zawadzki, J. Lapointe, J. Gupta, Z. Wasilewski, and S. Studenikin, Physical Review B 72, 115331 (2005)

work page 2005
[21]

W. Lu, Z. Q. Ji, L. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, and A. J. Rimberg, Nature 423, 422 (2003)

work page 2003
[22]

D. J. Reilly, C. M. Marcus, M. P . Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Applied Physics Letters 91, 162101 (2007)

work page 2007
[23]

Stehlik, Y

J. Stehlik, Y. Y. Liu, C. M. Quintana, C. Eichler, T. R. Hartke, and J. R. Petta, Physical Review Applied 4, 014018 (2015)

work page 2015
[24]

C. Hong, G. Yoo, J. Park, M. Cho, Y. Chung, H. S. Sim, D. Kim, H. K. Choi, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Physical Review B 97, 241115(R) (2018)

work page 2018
[25]

Mueller, R

F. Mueller, R. N. Sch outen, M. Brauns, T. Gang, W. H. Lim, N. S. Lai, A. S. Dzurak, W. G. van der Wiel, and F. A. Zwanenburg, Review of Scientific Instruments 84, 044706 (2013)

work page 2013
[26]

Horowitz and W

P . Horowitz and W. Hill, THE ART OF ELECTRONICS (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1989), pp. 391-470

work page 1989
[27]

A. V. Kretinin and Y. Chung, Review of Scientific Instruments 83, 084704 (2012)

work page 2012
[28]

Schroer, A

D. Schroer, A. D. Greentree, L. Gaudreau, K. Eberl, L. C. L. Hollenberg, J. P . Kotthaus, and S. Ludwig, Physical Review B 76, 075306 (2007)

work page 2007
[29]

Mukhopadhyay, J

U. Mukhopadhyay, J. P . Dehollain, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Applied Physics Letters 112, 183505 (2018)

work page 2018
[30]

D. M. Zajac, T. M. Hazard, X. Mi, E. Nielsen, and J. R. Petta, Physical Review Applied 6, 054013 (2016)

work page 2016
[31]

Friesen, J

M. Friesen, J. Ghosh, M. A. Eriksson, and S. N. Coppersmith, Nature Communications 8, 15923 (2017)

work page 2017
[32]

T. H. Oosterkamp, T. Fujisawa, W. G. van der Wiel, K. Ishibashi, R. V. Hijman, S. Tarucha, and L. P . Kouwenhoven, Nature 395, 873 (1998)

work page 1998
[33]

R. Y. Li, L. Petit, D. P . Franke, J. P . Dehollain, J. Helsen, M. Steudtner, N. K. Thomas, Z. R. Yoscovits, K. J. Singh, S. Wehner et al., Science Advances 4, eaar3960 (2018). 18 Fast raster scan multiplexed charge stability measurements toward high -throughput quantum dot array calibration Supplementary Note: Noise spectrum analysis To confirm that the ...

work page 2018
[34]

A. V . Kretinin and Y . Chung, Review of Scientific Instruments 83, 084704 (2012)

work page 2012

[1] [1]

Loss and D

D. Loss and D. P . DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998)

work page 1998

[2] [2]

D. Kim, D. R. Ward, C. B. Simmons, J. K. Gamble, R. Blume-Kohout, E. Nielsen, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith et al. , Nature Nanotechnology 10, 243 (2015)

work page 2015

[3] [3]

J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P . Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Science 309, 2180 (2005). 16

work page 2005

[4] [4]

E. A. Laird, J. M. Taylor, D. P . DiVincenzo, C. M. Marcus, M. P . Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Physical Review B 82, 075403 (2010)

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Barthelemy and L

P . Barthelemy and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Annalen Der Physik 525, 808 (2013)

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Byrnes, N

T. Byrnes, N. Y. Kim, K. Kusudo, and Y. Yamamoto, Physical Review B 78, 075320 (2008)

work page 2008

[7] [7]

Hensgens, T

T. Hensgens, T. Fujita, L. Janssen, X. Li, C. J. Van Diepen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, S. Das Sarma, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 548, 70 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

M. Seo, H. K. Choi, S. Y. Lee, N. Kim, Y. Chung, H. S. Sim, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Physical Review Letters 110, 046803 (2013)

work page 2013

[9] [9]

Hanson, L

R. Hanson, L. P . Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 1217 (2007)

work page 2007

[10] [10]

L. P . Kouwenhoven, N. C. Vandervaart, A. T. Johnson, W. Kool, C. Harmans, J. G. Williamson, A. A. M. Staring, and C. T. Foxon, Zeitschrift Fur Physik B-Condensed Matter 85, 367 (1991)

work page 1991

[11] [11]

Livermore, C

C. Livermore, C. H. Crouch, R. M. Westervelt, K. L. Campman, and A. C. Gossard, Science 274, 1332 (1996)

work page 1996

[12] [12]

Meirav, M

U. Meirav, M. A. Kastner, and S. J. Wind, Physical Review Letters 65, 771 (1990)

work page 1990

[13] [13]

R. C. Ashoori, H. L. Stormer, J. S. Weiner, L. N. Pfeiffer, S. J. Pearton, K. W. Baldwin, and K. W. West, Physical Review Letters 68, 3088 (1992)

work page 1992

[14] [14]

Field, C

M. Field, C. G. Smith, M. Pepper, D. A. Ritchie, J. E. F. Frost, G. A. C. Jones, and D. G. Hasko, Physical Review Letters 70, 1311 (1993)

work page 1993

[15] [15]

Landauer, Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter 1, 8099 (1989)

R. Landauer, Journal of Physics-Condensed Matter 1, 8099 (1989)

work page 1989

[16] [16]

F. H. L. Koppens, C. Buizert, K. J. Tielrooij, I. T. Vink, K. C. Nowack, T. Meunier, L. P . Kouwenhoven, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 442, 766 (2006)

work page 2006

[17] [17]

F. K. Malinowski, F. Martins, P . D. Nissen, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, C. M. Marcus, and F. Kuemmeth, Physical Review B 96, 045443 (2017)

work page 2017

[18] [18]

Medford, J

J. Medford, J. Beil, J. M. Taylor, E. I. Rashba, H. Lu, A. C. Gossard, and C. M. Marcus, Physical Review Letters 111, 050501 (2013)

work page 2013

[19] [19]

Fallahi, J

S. Fallahi, J. R. Nakamura, G. C. Gard ner, M. M. Yannell, and M. J. Manfra, Physical Review Applied 9, 034008 (2018). 17

work page 2018

[20] [20]

Pioro-Ladriere, J

M. Pioro-Ladriere, J. H. Davies, A. R. Long, A. S. Sachrajda, L. Gaudreau, P . Zawadzki, J. Lapointe, J. Gupta, Z. Wasilewski, and S. Studenikin, Physical Review B 72, 115331 (2005)

work page 2005

[21] [21]

W. Lu, Z. Q. Ji, L. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, and A. J. Rimberg, Nature 423, 422 (2003)

work page 2003

[22] [22]

D. J. Reilly, C. M. Marcus, M. P . Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Applied Physics Letters 91, 162101 (2007)

work page 2007

[23] [23]

Stehlik, Y

J. Stehlik, Y. Y. Liu, C. M. Quintana, C. Eichler, T. R. Hartke, and J. R. Petta, Physical Review Applied 4, 014018 (2015)

work page 2015

[24] [24]

C. Hong, G. Yoo, J. Park, M. Cho, Y. Chung, H. S. Sim, D. Kim, H. K. Choi, V. Umansky, and D. Mahalu, Physical Review B 97, 241115(R) (2018)

work page 2018

[25] [25]

Mueller, R

F. Mueller, R. N. Sch outen, M. Brauns, T. Gang, W. H. Lim, N. S. Lai, A. S. Dzurak, W. G. van der Wiel, and F. A. Zwanenburg, Review of Scientific Instruments 84, 044706 (2013)

work page 2013

[26] [26]

Horowitz and W

P . Horowitz and W. Hill, THE ART OF ELECTRONICS (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1989), pp. 391-470

work page 1989

[27] [27]

A. V. Kretinin and Y. Chung, Review of Scientific Instruments 83, 084704 (2012)

work page 2012

[28] [28]

Schroer, A

D. Schroer, A. D. Greentree, L. Gaudreau, K. Eberl, L. C. L. Hollenberg, J. P . Kotthaus, and S. Ludwig, Physical Review B 76, 075306 (2007)

work page 2007

[29] [29]

Mukhopadhyay, J

U. Mukhopadhyay, J. P . Dehollain, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Applied Physics Letters 112, 183505 (2018)

work page 2018

[30] [30]

D. M. Zajac, T. M. Hazard, X. Mi, E. Nielsen, and J. R. Petta, Physical Review Applied 6, 054013 (2016)

work page 2016

[31] [31]

Friesen, J

M. Friesen, J. Ghosh, M. A. Eriksson, and S. N. Coppersmith, Nature Communications 8, 15923 (2017)

work page 2017

[32] [32]

T. H. Oosterkamp, T. Fujisawa, W. G. van der Wiel, K. Ishibashi, R. V. Hijman, S. Tarucha, and L. P . Kouwenhoven, Nature 395, 873 (1998)

work page 1998

[33] [33]

R. Y. Li, L. Petit, D. P . Franke, J. P . Dehollain, J. Helsen, M. Steudtner, N. K. Thomas, Z. R. Yoscovits, K. J. Singh, S. Wehner et al., Science Advances 4, eaar3960 (2018). 18 Fast raster scan multiplexed charge stability measurements toward high -throughput quantum dot array calibration Supplementary Note: Noise spectrum analysis To confirm that the ...

work page 2018

[34] [34]

A. V . Kretinin and Y . Chung, Review of Scientific Instruments 83, 084704 (2012)

work page 2012