Three individual two-axis control of singlet-triplet qubits in a micromagnet integrated quantum dot array

Dohun Kim; Hwanchul Chung; Jehyun Kim; Min-Kyun Cho; Vladimir Umansky; Wonjin Jang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 14 references

Three individual two-axis control of singlet-triplet qubits in a micromagnet integrated quantum dot array

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Three singlet-triplet qubits in a sextuple quantum dot array are individually controlled and read out with one shared micromagnet.

desk verdict A solid experimental step showing three singlet-triplet qubits in one linear GaAs dot array with two-axis control; the main caveats are the unmonitored charge states of the non-active dots and the lack of reported fidelities. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.13182 v2 pith:Z42WX5ZP submitted 2020-09-28 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Wonjin Jang , Min-Kyun Cho , Jehyun Kim , Hwanchul Chung , Vladimir Umansky , Dohun Kim This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph

keywords singlet-tripletqubitquantumdotarraymicromagnettwo-axiscontrolLarmoroscillationRamseyinterferometryspinPauliblockade

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports coherent, independent control of three singlet-triplet qubits in a single linear array of six gate-defined quantum dots in gallium arsenide. Each qubit occupies a different pair of neighboring dots, and one rectangular micromagnet supplies the site-dependent magnetic field difference that drives the qubits. The authors show underdamped Larmor oscillations at distinct frequencies (76, 311, and 192 MHz for the three sites) and Ramsey fringes whose rotation axis can be tuned, establishing two-axis control on all three qubits. They also extract root-mean-square electric and magnetic noise at each site, finding levels comparable to earlier single-qubit devices. If correct, this is a concrete step toward multi-qubit spin-based quantum processors in extended dot arrays.

What carries the argument

The central object is the singlet-triplet qubit, a two-electron spin qubit encoded in the singlet state $|S\rangle$ and the zero-spin triplet state $|T_0\rangle$ of a double quantum dot. Its energy splitting is $\sqrt{\Delta B_z^2 + J(\varepsilon)^2}$, where $\Delta B_z$ is the magnetic field difference across the two dots produced by the micromagnet and $J(\varepsilon)$ is the exchange coupling tuned by detuning. The micromagnet gives each site a different $\Delta B_z$, so each qubit has a distinct Larmor frequency and can be addressed individually. Pauli spin blockade converts the spin state into a charge state, read out by an rf single-electron transistor with correlated double sampling, while detuning pulses rotate the qubit around the Bloch sphere. This combination of site-selective field gradient, exchange-tuned rotation axis, and fast charge readout is what carries the argument.

What would settle it

Repeat the Q1, Q2, and Q3 pulse sequences while continuously monitoring the charge occupancy of all six dots, for example with additional sensors or virtual-gate calibration; if any neighboring dot switches charge state during a sequence, the assignment of the oscillation to that specific pair is not secure. A clean test would show that the Larmor and Ramsey traces remain unchanged when neighboring dots are intentionally retuned through their charge transitions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that three singlet-triplet qubits, each formed in a distinct double-dot site of a sextuple quantum dot array, can be initialized, coherently rotated, and read out independently using one shared rectangular micromagnet and a single rf single-electron transistor sensor. Coherent rotations around the x-axis appear as underdamped Larmor oscillations driven by the site-dependent magnetic field difference $\Delta B_z$, measured as 76 MHz for Q1, 311 MHz for Q2, and 192 MHz for Q3. Rotations around a tunable axis are demonstrated by Ramsey free-induction decay, where the detuning pulse amplitude sets the exchange coupling $J(\varepsilon)$ and thereby moves the rotation axis from z to x. The authors analyze the decay of these oscillations to extract root-mean-square charge and magnetic noise at each site, finding values comparable to earlier single-qubit devices. The paper concludes that a simple rectangular micromagnet can provide usable field gradients over roughly a micrometer of array length, supporting about four or five qubits at the present coherence times.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that each observed signal belongs to the intended qubit pair rests on the other dots staying in their tuned charge states, and the authors did not strictly verify the occupancy of the neighboring dots during each measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The same shared rectangular micromagnet can address at least three qubits at distinct sites, so a scaled array does not need a separate magnet per qubit.
The extracted magnetic and charge noise levels are comparable to earlier single-qubit devices, indicating the micromagnet is not the dominant source of decoherence in this geometry.
Because the exchange coupling $J(\varepsilon)$ tunes the rotation axis continuously, each site already has the control knob needed for arbitrary single-qubit rotations.
With current coherence times and gradients, the design should support about four or five underdamped x-axis qubits within a one-micrometer array, giving a concrete near-term scaling target.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension would be to operate the micromagnet as a gate electrode: the paper's carrier-depletion hypothesis predicts that a biased magnet should restore the electron gas and allow simultaneous two-sensor readout, enabling parallel qubit measurement.
The site-to-site gradient asymmetry attributed to magnet misalignment suggests that the Larmor frequencies themselves could serve as in-situ magnetometers for aligning or shaping the micromagnet.
Applying the same noise-extraction method to qubits at the array edges rather than the center could map how strain or edge effects from the micromagnet change charge noise, a question the paper leaves open.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick read of Jang et al. on three ST0 qubits in a sextuple dot array. The genuinely new thing is the count: previous work had single and coupled pairs, and a four-qubit Loss-DiVincenzo array, but not three independently controlled singlet-triplet qubits in one linear array with a single rectangular micromagnet. The Larmor and Ramsey data for all three qubits look credible, and the measured field gradients (76, 311, 192 MHz) line up with the RADIA simulation. That gives me reasonable confidence the experiment is real and the core claim holds.

The noise analysis is standard for this subfield: they fit T2* versus total energy splitting using the model from Wu et al. to extract rms charge and magnetic noise. It relies on an assumed exponential J(epsilon), but that's the conventional approach in these papers, and the resulting values are consistent with earlier work. They also report T1 trends that scale with field gradient as expected.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the charge occupancy of the dots not being addressed is not strictly examined—the authors say this explicitly. Since all three qubits are read out via a single rf-SET and the array is tuned sequentially, a charge rearrangement in an unmonitored dot during a measurement could in principle affect the signal. This is a real limitation on the word "individual" if you interpret it strictly. I don't think it sinks the demonstration, because the observed oscillation frequencies match the magnet simulation and the measurements are reproducible, but it is not a fully closed loop. Second, there are no reported gate fidelities, and the readout is box-car averaged rather than single-shot. That means the paper is a clear demonstration of coherent oscillations with two-axis control, not a metrology-grade characterization of qubit performance. Third, data and code are not deposited, only "available upon request," which limits independent verification. Minor.

The paper is upfront about all of these limitations and suggests concrete fixes (latched readout, virtual gate calibration, magnet as gate). That honesty is worth crediting.

Who should read it: anyone working on semiconductor spin qubit scaling, especially if they care about micromagnet design and array-level control. It's a legitimate contribution that extends the state of the art by one qubit in a linear array. It deserves peer review—editors should send it out rather than desk reject. The weaknesses are the usual ones for this kind of device paper and are not disqualifying.

Recommendation: send to a competent referee; I'd accept with the understanding that the charge-state caveat and lack of fidelities are documented rather than fatal flaws.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the fabrication and characterization of a GaAs sextuple quantum dot array with an integrated rectangular micromagnet, and it demonstrates coherent control of three singlet-triplet (ST0) qubits located in three different double dot sites. Using Pauli spin blockade readout with a single rf-SET and correlated double sampling, the authors show underdamped Larmor oscillations (76, 311, and 192 MHz) and two-axis control via free-induction-decay (Ramsey) measurements on all three qubits. The measured Larmor splittings are compared with a boundary-integral RADIA magnetostatic simulation. From the dependence of T2* on the total qubit energy splitting, the authors extract root-mean-square magnetic-field and charge-noise amplitudes for each qubit. The paper also documents a carrier-depletion effect under the micromagnet that limits simultaneous use of two rf sensors, and it discusses device-improvement strategies.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a useful experimental step toward multi-qubit semiconductor processors: it shows that a single simple rectangular micromagnet can produce usable site-dependent field gradients for several ST0 qubits in a linear array, and it demonstrates independent x-axis and z-axis style rotations for three distinct qubits with a single readout sensor. The strengths of the paper include the direct measurement of the three site-dependent magnetic gradients from Larmor oscillations, the explicit comparison with an independent RADIA simulation, the use of a standard noise-modeling framework for charge and magnetic noise, and a candid discussion of device limitations. The main risk is that the identification of the three qubits rests on an unverified assumption about the charge occupancy of the dots not under investigation, and the quantitative agreement between the measured and simulated gradients is weaker than the text suggests.

major comments (3)

[Fig. 1b (main text)] The paper states that "charge occupancies other than dots under investigation are not strictly examined" and that the three qubits were sequentially tuned. Because the central claim is that Q1, Q2, and Q3 are three individually confined singlet-triplet qubits in a sextuple array, the identification of the observed rf signal with a specific qubit presupposes that the neighboring dots remain in their intended charge states during each measurement. A single electron moving into or out of an unmonitored dot would shift the target double dot's detuning and tunnel coupling and could corrupt the Pauli-spin-blockade readout. The agreement between the measured Larmor frequencies and the RADIA simulation is partial reassurance, but it does not rule out other charge configurations that produce similar splittings. This is a load-bearing device-state assumption that should be addressed, for example by a full-array charge-stability map taken concurrently, or by a gate configuration that demonstrably pins the unused dots in a fixed charge state.
[Fig. 2b and caption] The simulated Delta_Bz values for Q2 and Q3 are both 250 MHz (43.9 mT), while the measured Larmor frequencies are 311 MHz and 192 MHz respectively. Describing this as "agrees well" and "slightly differ" is an overstatement; the discrepancy is roughly plus or minus 25% and, more importantly, the simulation does not reproduce the observed 119 MHz asymmetry between Q2 and Q3. Since the paper uses the simulation to support the claim of an "accurate measure of site-dependent field gradients" and to project the scalability to 4-5 qubits, the authors should either quantify the magnet misalignment/asymmetry required to produce the observed pattern or characterize the simulation's sensitivity to these parameters.
[Fig. 3c and noise-analysis equation] The extraction of the rms noise amplitudes is a headline result but the model is incompletely specified. The inline equation in the text is garbled (the expression involving total energy E, exchange energy J(eps), delta B, and delta eps is not readable), and the text does not give the exact functional form fitted to the T2* versus E_tot data. The analysis assumes Gaussian FID decay, a first-order expansion in charge and magnetic-field fluctuations, and an exponential J(eps) dependence [21,50]; the sensitivity of the quoted noise values to the latter assumption should be quantified. Please provide the fitted function, fit ranges, goodness-of-fit, and a discussion of systematic uncertainties.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The phrase "individual confinement and two-axis qubit operations of two electron spin qubits" is ambiguous; since the paper demonstrates three singlet-triplet qubits, the wording should be revised to "two-electron spin qubits" or "three singlet-triplet qubits" to avoid a mismatch with the body of the paper.
[References] References 4 and 31 appear to cite the same work (T. Ito et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 061006 (2018)); they should be consolidated to avoid duplication.
[Abstract and main text] There are several typographical errors: "site site-dependent" in the abstract, "multi multi-qubit operations" in the abstract, and "expected (measured) zB" in the Fig. 2 caption should be "Delta_Bz" or properly formatted notation.
[Fig. 1d and Fig. 3c (text)] The T1 values in Fig. 1d are typeset awkwardly ("1 ~ 1 s muT" etc.); the text should clearly state T1 = 1 microsecond and 10 microseconds. The same applies to the noise values in the Fig. 3c paragraph, where the units and the parentheses need to be typeset cleanly.
[General] Because all qubit data are box-car averaged, a brief statement of the visibility (contrast) of the Larmor and Ramsey oscillations, or an estimate of the readout fidelity, would help readers calibrate the quality of the demonstration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the field gradients and noise amplitudes are extracted from measured oscillations and compared against independent simulation, not derived from the paper's own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the observation of underdamped Larmor and Ramsey oscillations for three singlet-triplet qubits and the extraction of site-dependent field gradients and rms noise amplitudes. The field gradients are read directly from the measured Larmor oscillation frequencies (76, 311, and 192 MHz) and are compared with, rather than generated by, the independent RADIA magnetostatic simulation; the simulation is a benchmark, not an input to the measurement. The noise amplitudes are obtained by fitting the measured T2* versus total energy splitting to the standard model cited to reference [21], with the exponential form of J(epsilon) also taken from external references. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity back to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation. The self-citations present ([35], [36], [42]) support experimental techniques such as correlated double sampling and sensor calibration, but the demonstration of three independent coherent oscillations does not rest on a self-citation chain. The paper's own admission that charge occupancies of dots not under investigation were not strictly examined is a device-state assumption and a correctness risk, not a circular derivation, because it concerns the validity of the physical configuration rather than the logical dependence of the reported results on their inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained, with no circular step identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main added modeling burden is the exponential exchange parameterization and the assumed magnet geometry; the other assumptions are standard singlet-triplet qubit physics and readout.

free parameters (1)

Exchange energy J(epsilon) amplitude and scale for Q1, Q2, Q3 = not reported
Used to convert detuning pulse amplitude into qubit energy splitting for the T2* noise analysis. The exponential form is assumed from references 21 and 50, and the parameters are not independently measured.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Singlet-triplet qubit Hamiltonian H = J(epsilon) sigma_z + Delta_Bz sigma_x governs the two-electron double-dot system.
Standard model invoked throughout the paper and established by references 5, 19, and 21.
domain assumption Exchange energy depends exponentially on detuning: J(epsilon) is assumed to follow an exponential form.
Assumed in Figure 3a,b to fit oscillation frequency and to convert pulse amplitude into J(epsilon); cited to references 21 and 50.
domain assumption Pauli spin blockade with correlated double sampling maps triplet probability to a charge signal.
Readout relies on this standard mechanism; cited to references 35 and 38.
domain assumption The micromagnet geometry and magnetization used in the RADIA simulation represent the fabricated magnet.
The simulation is compared with measured field gradients, and discrepancies are attributed to misalignment without independent verification of the magnet shape or position.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three individual two-axis control of singlet-triplet qubits in a micromagnet integrated quantum dot array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z42WX5ZP

@misc{pith2026200913182,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three individual two-axis control of singlet-triplet qubits in a micromagnet integrated quantum dot array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z42WX5ZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.13182}
}

read the original abstract

We report individual confinement and two-axis qubit operations of two electron spin qubits in GaAs gate-defined sextuple quantum dot array with integrated micro-magnet. As a first step toward multiple qubit operations, we demonstrate coherent manipulations of three singlet-triplet qubits showing underdamped Larmor and Ramsey oscillations in all double dot sites. We provide an accurate measure of site site-dependent field gradients and rms electric and magnetic noise, and we discuss the adequacy of simple rectangular micro-magnet for practical use in multiple quantum dot arrays. We also discuss current limitations and possible strategies for realizing simultaneous multi multi-qubit operations in extended linear arrays.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Sigillito, J.C

1 A.J. Sigillito, J.C. Loy, D.M. Zajac, M.J. Gullans, L.F. Edge, and J.R. Petta, Phys. Rev. Applied 11, 061006 (2019). 2 D.M. Zajac, T.M. Hazard, X. Mi, E. Nielsen, and J.R. Petta, Phys. Rev. Applied 6, 054013 (2016). 3 C. Volk, A.M.J. Zwerver, U. Mukhopadhyay, P .T. Eendebak, C.J. van Diepen, J.P. Dehollain, T. Hensgens, T. Fujita, C. Reichl, W. Wegschei...

work page 2019
[2]

Wieck, and S

Ludwig, A.D. Wieck, and S. Tarucha, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 093102 (2018). 5 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). 6 M. Veldhorst, C.H. Yang, J.C.C. Hwang, W. Huang, J.P . Dehollain, J.T. Muhonen, S. Simmons, A. Laucht, F.E. Hudson, K.M. Itoh, A. More...

work page 2018
[3]

Hudson, K.M. Itoh, D. Culcer, T.D. Ladd, A. Morello, and A.S. Dzurak, Nat. Commun. 9, 4370 (2018). 9 J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M.R. Delbecq, G. Allison, T. Honda, T. Kodera, S. Oda, Y. Hoshi, N. Usami, K.M. Itoh, and S. Tarucha, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 102 (2018). 10 J.M. Nichol, L.A. Orona, S.P . Harvey, S. Fallahi, G.C. Gardner, M.J. M...

work page 2018
[4]

van Donkelaar, A.D.C

Yang, J.A. van Donkelaar, A.D.C. Alves, D.N. Jamieson, C.C. Escott, L.C.L. Hollenberg, R.G. Clark, and A.S. Dzurak, Nature 467, 687 (2010). 13 E. Kawakami, P . Scarlino, D.R. Ward, F.R. Braakman, D.E. Savage, M.G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S.N

work page 2010
[5]

Eriksson, and L.M.K

Coppersmith, M.A. Eriksson, and L.M.K. Vandersypen, Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 666 (2014). 14 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). 15 J.P . Dodson, N. Holman, B. Thorgrimsson, S.F. Neyens, E.R. MacQuarrie, T. McJunkin, R.H. Foote, L.F. Edge, S.N. Copper...

work page arXiv 2014
[6]

Hudson, K.M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A.S. Dzurak, Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 981 (2014). 19 S. Foletti, H. Bluhm, D. Mahalu, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Nat. Phys. 5, 903 (2009). 20 B.M. Maune, M.G. Borselli, B. Huang, T.D. Ladd, P .W. Deelman, K.S. Holabird, A.A. Kiselev, I

work page 2014
[7]

Ross, A.E

Alvarado-Rodriguez, R.S. Ross, A.E. Schmitz, M. Sokolich, C.A. Watson, M.F. Gyure, and A.T. Hunter, Nature 481, 344 (2012). 21 X. Wu, D.R. Ward, J.R. Prance, D. Kim, J.K. Gamble, R.T. Mohr, Z. Shi, D.E. Savage, M.G. Lagally, M

work page 2012
[8]

Coppersmith, and M.A

Friesen, S.N. Coppersmith, and M.A. Eriksson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 11938 (2014). 22 E.A. Laird, J.M. Taylor, D.P . DiVincenzo, C.M. Marcus, M.P . Hanson, and A.C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. B 82, 075403 (2010). 23 J. Medford, J. Beil, J.M. Taylor, S.D. Bartlett, A.C. Doherty, E.I. Rashba, D .P . DiVincenzo, H. Lu, A.C. Gossard, an...

work page 2014

Show all 14 references

[9]

Mahalu, Phys. Rev. B 97, 241115 (2018). 31 T. Ito, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M.R. Delbecq, S. Amaha, J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, A. Noiri, G. Allison, A

2018
[10]

Wieck, and S

Ludwig, A.D. Wieck, and S. Tarucha, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 093102 (2018). 32 J. Yoneda, T. Otsuka, T. Takakura, M. Pioro -Ladrière, R. Brunner, H. Lu, T. Nakajima, T. Obata, A

2018
[11]

Palmstrøm, A.C

Noiri, C.J. Palmstrøm, A.C. Gossard, and S. Tarucha, Appl. Phys. Express 8, 084401 (2015). 33 D. Maradan, L. Casparis, T. -M. Liu, D.E.F. Biesinger, C.P . Scheller, D.M. Zumbühl, J.D. Zimmerman, and A.C. Gossard, J Low Temp Phys 175, 784 (2014). 34 C. Livermore, C.H. Crouch, R...

2015
[12]

Yacoby, Phys. Rev. B 98, 125404 (2018). 41 K.D. Petersson, J.R. Petta, H. Lu, and A.C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 246804 (2010). 42 D. Kim, D.R. Ward, C.B. Simmons, J.K. Gamble, R. Blume -Kohout, E. Nielsen, D.E. Savage, M.G

2018
[13]

Friesen, S.N

Lagally, M. Friesen, S.N. Coppersmith, and M.A. Eriksson, Nature Nanotechnology 10, 243 (2015). 43 C. Barthel, D.J. Reilly, C.M. Marcus, M.P . Hanson, and A.C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160503 (2009). 44 P . Harvey-Collard, B. D’Anjou, M. Rudolph, N.T. Jacobson, J. Doming...

2015
[14]

Mukhopadhyay, L.M.K

Dehollain, U. Mukhopadhyay, L.M.K. Vandersypen, and P.G. Evans, Nano Lett. 18, 2780 (2018). 2 Yong Cai, Yugang Zhou, K.J. Chen, and K.M. Lau, IEEE Electron Dev ice Letters 26, 435 (2005)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Sigillito, J.C

1 A.J. Sigillito, J.C. Loy, D.M. Zajac, M.J. Gullans, L.F. Edge, and J.R. Petta, Phys. Rev. Applied 11, 061006 (2019). 2 D.M. Zajac, T.M. Hazard, X. Mi, E. Nielsen, and J.R. Petta, Phys. Rev. Applied 6, 054013 (2016). 3 C. Volk, A.M.J. Zwerver, U. Mukhopadhyay, P .T. Eendebak, C.J. van Diepen, J.P. Dehollain, T. Hensgens, T. Fujita, C. Reichl, W. Wegschei...

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Wieck, and S

Ludwig, A.D. Wieck, and S. Tarucha, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 093102 (2018). 5 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). 6 M. Veldhorst, C.H. Yang, J.C.C. Hwang, W. Huang, J.P . Dehollain, J.T. Muhonen, S. Simmons, A. Laucht, F.E. Hudson, K.M. Itoh, A. More...

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Hudson, K.M. Itoh, D. Culcer, T.D. Ladd, A. Morello, and A.S. Dzurak, Nat. Commun. 9, 4370 (2018). 9 J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M.R. Delbecq, G. Allison, T. Honda, T. Kodera, S. Oda, Y. Hoshi, N. Usami, K.M. Itoh, and S. Tarucha, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 102 (2018). 10 J.M. Nichol, L.A. Orona, S.P . Harvey, S. Fallahi, G.C. Gardner, M.J. M...

work page 2018

[4] [4]

van Donkelaar, A.D.C

Yang, J.A. van Donkelaar, A.D.C. Alves, D.N. Jamieson, C.C. Escott, L.C.L. Hollenberg, R.G. Clark, and A.S. Dzurak, Nature 467, 687 (2010). 13 E. Kawakami, P . Scarlino, D.R. Ward, F.R. Braakman, D.E. Savage, M.G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S.N

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Eriksson, and L.M.K

Coppersmith, M.A. Eriksson, and L.M.K. Vandersypen, Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 666 (2014). 14 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). 15 J.P . Dodson, N. Holman, B. Thorgrimsson, S.F. Neyens, E.R. MacQuarrie, T. McJunkin, R.H. Foote, L.F. Edge, S.N. Copper...

work page arXiv 2014

[6] [6]

Hudson, K.M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A.S. Dzurak, Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 981 (2014). 19 S. Foletti, H. Bluhm, D. Mahalu, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Nat. Phys. 5, 903 (2009). 20 B.M. Maune, M.G. Borselli, B. Huang, T.D. Ladd, P .W. Deelman, K.S. Holabird, A.A. Kiselev, I

work page 2014

[7] [7]

Ross, A.E

Alvarado-Rodriguez, R.S. Ross, A.E. Schmitz, M. Sokolich, C.A. Watson, M.F. Gyure, and A.T. Hunter, Nature 481, 344 (2012). 21 X. Wu, D.R. Ward, J.R. Prance, D. Kim, J.K. Gamble, R.T. Mohr, Z. Shi, D.E. Savage, M.G. Lagally, M

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Coppersmith, and M.A

Friesen, S.N. Coppersmith, and M.A. Eriksson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 11938 (2014). 22 E.A. Laird, J.M. Taylor, D.P . DiVincenzo, C.M. Marcus, M.P . Hanson, and A.C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. B 82, 075403 (2010). 23 J. Medford, J. Beil, J.M. Taylor, S.D. Bartlett, A.C. Doherty, E.I. Rashba, D .P . DiVincenzo, H. Lu, A.C. Gossard, an...

work page 2014