Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 64 references

Spin flip locking by the tunneling and relaxation in a driven double quantum dot with spin-orbit coupling

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Relaxation can lock a flipped spin in a driven double quantum dot, enabling a long-lived excited spin state.

desk verdict A careful numerical demonstration that relaxation-assisted pumping can lock a flipped spin in a SOC double dot, but the untested assumption of spin-conserving charge relaxation leaves the central robustness claim incomplete. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17843 v2 pith:A75OIEBE submitted 2024-11-26 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

D.V. Khomitsky , M.V. Bastrakova , D.S. Pashin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph PACS 73.21.La72.25.Rb73.23.-b
keywords doublequantumdotspin-orbitcouplingspinfliplockingrelaxationmasterequationelectricdipoleresonancesubharmonicdrivingGaAsnanowire
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 studies a double quantum dot with spin-orbit coupling, driven by a periodic electric field, and asks whether relaxation and decoherence can be exploited rather than merely dampening the spin dynamics. The central claim is that when the driving field resonantly couples the ground state to an excited state that involves both a spin flip and interdot tunneling, fast charge relaxation combined with slower spin relaxation can lock the electron in the excited, flipped-spin state in the right dot. The effect is reported to persist for a wide range of relaxation times and driving amplitudes, and also appears on the second subharmonic, which requires a lower driving frequency. This matters because it suggests a mechanism for fast spin manipulation and slow spin relaxation in a single device, potentially useful for spin-based information processing.

What carries the argument

The key object is a four-level subspace of the double dot Hamiltonian, comprising two spin states in each dot, coupled via spin-orbit coupling and driven by a periodic gate potential. The central mechanism is a dissipative pumping cycle: resonant driving promotes the electron from E1 to E4 (spin flip plus tunneling), then fast charge relaxation (modeled as a Lindblad operator acting only on the charge degree of freedom) transfers population from E4 to E2 (same spin, right dot), effectively bypassing the ground state. The spin relaxation is slower, so the flipped spin persists. The ratio of charge to spin relaxation times ($T^{(2)}/T^{(1)}$) is the control parameter, and the paper maps the stabilized spin projection and stabilization time as functions of this ratio, the charge relaxation time, and the driving amplitude.

What would settle it

Measure the spin projection of the right dot after driving a GaAs double dot at the E1–E4 resonance, in a regime where T^(2) ≈ 200 ns and T^(1) ≈ 2 μs. If the stabilized ⟨σz⟩ does not approach values near 0.99 after ~60 ns, or if the population of the ground state E1 remains significant, the locking mechanism is not operating as described. A more direct test is to check whether the relaxation from E4 goes predominantly to E2 (spin-conserving) rather than to E1; this could be probed by time-resolved charge and spin readout after a short drive pulse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in a GaAs double quantum dot with Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling, driven at the resonance between the ground state E1 and the excited state E4 (where the spin flips and the electron tunnels to the left dot), the inclusion of relaxation in the master equation can stabilize the spin flip. The mechanism is that fast charge relaxation drives the electron from the left-dot excited state E4 back to the right dot but into the E2 state, which has the same flipped spin. Because spin relaxation is slower, the electron remains in E2, giving a long-lived flipped spin in the original dot. The stabilized spin-flip amplitude is reported to reach as high as 0.99, and the locked state is reached within 15–60 ns. This is a qualitative change from the purely damped EDSR case, where relaxation only damps the spin oscillations.

Load-bearing premise

The effect relies on the charge relaxation being purely coordinate-dependent, meaning that when the electron decays from the excited left-dot state it lands in the flipped-spin state on the right, not in the ground state; if the physical relaxation process mixes spin and charge, the locking disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the effect holds, a double quantum dot can act as a spin-flip latch: a resonant electric pulse flips the spin and holds it in place via relaxation, without requiring a long coherent driving burst.
  • The effect is predicted to work on the second subharmonic of the E1–E4 resonance, so lower driving frequencies (around 9 GHz instead of 18 GHz) could be used, which are easier to generate in experiments.
  • The stabilization time of 15–60 ns is within the range of electron spin coherence times in GaAs double dots, suggesting the locked state could be used as a memory or readout element in a spin-qubit architecture.
  • Because the effect requires only that charge relaxation be faster than spin relaxation (a common condition in semiconductor nanostructures), it could be observed in a variety of gate-defined dot systems, not just the specific GaAs parameters modeled here.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper implicitly suggests a new design principle: rather than trying to suppress relaxation, one can engineer a dissipative pathway that converts fast charge relaxation into a stabilizing agent for a spin state. This could be extended to other qubit systems where the 'wrong' fast decay channel can be redirected through a carefully chosen excited state.
  • The stability of the locked spin likely depends on the ability of the driving field to continuously re-excite the system from E1, so if the driving is turned off the spin will eventually relax back. A testable extension is to measure the locked-state lifetime after the driving is removed, which the paper does not report.
  • The model assumes independent spin and charge baths; in a real device, phonons or nuclear spins might mediate spin-charge relaxation, which would leak population back to E1. A quantitative estimate of this mixed-relaxation rate from experimental data would be a useful benchmark.
  • The effect is reminiscent of optical pumping in atomic three-level systems, but here it is realized with microwave-frequency electric fields in a solid-state device, which could allow on-chip integration with existing spin-qubit control electronics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a single electron in a gate-defined semiconductor double quantum dot with Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling, described by a four-level model of coupled spin and charge subsystems and driven by a periodic electric field. The authors solve a Lindblad master equation with independent charge and spin relaxation and find that on the E1-E4 resonance (spin flip accompanied by interdot tunneling), fast spin-conserving charge relaxation combined with slow spin relaxation builds up and stabilizes population in the excited spin-flipped state E2 in the right dot, reaching ⟨σz⟩ up to 0.99. The effect is reported to be robust over a range of charge relaxation times and driving amplitudes, and it also appears on the second subharmonic of the resonance. The paper checks the four-level approximation by computing leakage to higher levels and validates the instantaneous-basis approach through an adiabaticity parameter.

Significance. If the spin-conserving charge relaxation assumption holds, the proposed mechanism is a physically interesting and potentially useful example of relaxation-assisted spin manipulation in a spin-orbit-coupled double dot. The numerical evidence within the model is solid: the four-level leakage probability is at the 1e-8 to 1e-7 level, the adiabaticity parameter is 0.02-0.07, and the parameter sweeps in Figs. 7-9 support the claimed robustness. The subharmonic variant is a practical advantage. The main weakness is that the central assumption of independent spin and charge baths, specifically spin-conserving charge relaxation, is asserted but not tested or quantitatively justified; this conditionality limits the strength of the claim as a prediction for real devices.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II D, Eq. (16)] The central mechanism of Sec. III B relies on the charge relaxation channel conserving spin, so that decay from E4 populates E2 and not E1. In the implemented dissipator, Γ_e^{(2)} D[σ_-^{(2)}] enforces this by construction, allowing only the E4→E2 and E3→E1 transitions. The paper's justification in Sec. II D — that spin and charge subsystems interact with separate dominating reservoirs, and that the SOC-induced spin admixture is about 1% — is not a quantitative bound on the rate of spin-flip charge relaxation. In a GaAs double dot, phonon-assisted tunneling in the presence of SOC has a spin-flip matrix element controlled by the phonon spectral function and the SOC-modified velocity operator, not simply by the static eigenstate admixture. A spin-flip charge relaxation path E4→E1 would short-circuit the pumping cycle and reduce the locked population by approximately Γ_e/(Γ_e + Γ_flip). Because the paper's robustness claim depends on this channel being negligible, the authors should add a phenomenological spin-flip term to the charge dissipator and scan Γ_flip/Γ_e, or provide a microscopic estimate for the parameters used. As written, the effect is established only for the idealized decoupled-bath model.
  2. [Sec. II D, Eqs. (16)-(18)] The numerical implementation of the relaxation rates is not specified. Eq. (18) defines energy-dependent rates involving coth(ΔE/2k_BT), and the text notes that ΔE^(q) are the instantaneous splittings (19), which vary with the drive. However, the simulations appear to be parameterized by constant relaxation times T^(q), and it is never stated whether Γ^(q) in Eq. (16) are evaluated at each time step or fixed at their t=0 values. In addition, no secular approximation is discussed for the Lindblad equation in the instantaneous basis of a strongly driven system. These choices can affect the steady-state populations and the stabilization times in Figs. 7-9, so the paper should state the implementation explicitly and justify the approximation used.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III B] The text says 'the fastest charge relaxation time of 200 ns is of the same order as the maximum evolution time of 700 ns in Fig. 4,' but 2000 periods of the 18 GHz E1-E4 drive correspond to about 110 ns; please correct or clarify the discrepancy.
  2. [Eq. (16) and Eqs. (17)-(18)] The dash over the Pauli matrices is said to indicate the adiabatic basis, but the notation is not used consistently in Eqs. (17)-(18); please make the convention uniform.
  3. [Reference [12]] Reference [12] contains the stray LaTeX command '/suppress' in the author list; please correct it.
  4. [Sec. III D] The interpolation t_s ≈ a_1/Ω_R + a_2 T^(2) is introduced without showing the fitted curves or residuals; a brief fit plot or error estimate would support the claim.
  5. [Introduction and Sec. III B] The term 'spin flip locking' is used for a driven steady-state population buildup; this is different from the conventional spin-locking effect used for dynamic decoupling. Please define the term explicitly at first use to avoid confusion.
  6. [Abstract and Sec. III C] The abstract states the effect is 'also observed on higher subharmonic,' but the body demonstrates only the second subharmonic (s=2); please either present the higher-subharmonic data or rephrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-flip locking is a solved output of the Lindblad dynamics, not an input.

full rationale

The central claim, spin-flip locking in the right quantum dot, is obtained by numerically solving the Lindblad master equation (Eq. (16)) for a stated four-level model. The dissipators are introduced independently: a charge relaxation operator D[sigma_-^{(2)}] acting only on the charge degree of freedom and a spin relaxation operator D[sigma_-^{(1)}] acting only on the spin degree of freedom. The assumption that charge relaxation conserves spin is a model input, but the locked steady state with sigma_z reaching 0.99 is not inserted as a target; it emerges from the time evolution with scanned parameters (Figs. 7-9). No rate or driving parameter is fitted to reproduce the locking amplitude. The only fitting in the paper is a post-hoc interpolation formula for the stabilization time in Sec. III D, which is not load-bearing for the effect. Self-citations to refs. 38 and 39 are used for the model Hamiltonian and prior coherent dynamics, but the Hamiltonian is explicitly restated in Eqs. (1)-(7), so the derivation does not reduce to an unverified self-citation. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The reviewer's concern that real phonon or nuclear baths may introduce spin-flip charge relaxation is a robustness or external-validity question, not a circularity in the paper's internal derivation. The paper is self-contained against its stated assumptions, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the choice of independent spin and charge relaxation channels, a small set of device parameters taken from typical GaAs nanowires, and the four-level truncation. No new physical entities are introduced. The only fitted numbers are the a1 and a2 coefficients in the ancillary interpolation formula for the stabilization time ts.

free parameters (7)
  • charge relaxation time T^(2) = 0.01-0.15 microseconds (scanned)
    The effect requires fast charge relaxation; this time is swept as a control parameter in Figs. 7-9 and is not derived from a microscopic calculation for this specific device.
  • spin/charge relaxation ratio T^(2)/T^(1) = 0.1 in most sweeps; below 0.05 for the highest locked amplitude
    The locking depends on the hierarchy T^(2) much smaller than T^(1), chosen by hand to model GaAs spin relaxation being slower than charge relaxation.
  • driving amplitude Vd = 30 micro-eV in main simulations; swept in Fig. 8
    Determines Rabi frequency and resonance width; chosen to stay inside the four-level subspace where leakage is small.
  • detuning Ud = -100 micro-eV, giving charge splitting delta2 about 55 micro-eV
    Sets the charge splitting and the E1-E4 resonance frequency; chosen as a representative GaAs double-dot parameter.
  • Zeeman splitting delta1 = 20 micro-eV
    Sets the spin splitting and the EDSR drive frequency; chosen to match typical g-factor and magnetic field values in GaAs dots.
  • Dresselhaus SOC amplitude beta_D = 3 meV*nm
    Borrowed from prior work; determines the spin-flip matrix elements and is not fitted to the target result.
  • stabilization-time interpolation coefficients a1, a2 = not specified numerically
    Fitted to the authors' own numerical curve in Fig. 9 via ts approximately a1/Omega_R + a2 T^(2); this is an empirical interpolation, not a derivation, and is ancillary to the central claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The four lowest eigenstates of the static Hamiltonian form a closed subspace during the driven evolution (leakage probability about 1e-8 to 1e-7).
    Numerically verified for a grid of driving parameters in Fig. 2, but assumed to extend to all parameter sweeps; if higher levels participate, the four-level Lindblad model fails.
  • domain assumption The Lindblad master equation in the instantaneous adiabatic basis with independent spin and charge reservoirs is valid, given the adiabaticity parameter h/delta^2 about 0.02-0.07.
    Section II D, Eqs. (16)-(23). Non-adiabatic corrections and cross-reservoir correlations are neglected.
  • domain assumption Charge relaxation conserves spin, meaning the charge dissipator acts only on the charge degree of freedom and does not flip spin.
    This is the load-bearing premise for the locking effect. It is asserted in Sec II D via independent spin and charge dissipators, but not microscopically derived for GaAs double dots.
  • domain assumption Standard Born-Markov and secular approximations apply at GHz driving and 100 mK temperature.
    The paper uses the standard Lindblad form without individually justifying the Markovian, weak-coupling, and secular limits for this device.
  • domain assumption The SOC-induced correction to the spin splitting (coefficient c33 about 1e-4 micro-eV) is small, so the spin and charge subsystems are well defined.
    Section II C uses this to justify the two-subsystem representation and separate relaxation rates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin flip locking by the tunneling and relaxation in a driven double quantum dot with spin-orbit coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A75OIEBE

@misc{pith2026241117843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin flip locking by the tunneling and relaxation in a driven double quantum dot with spin-orbit coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A75OIEBE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17843}
}
read the original abstract

Coupled spin evolution and tunneling together with the relaxation and decoherence effects are studied for the double quantum dot formed in a semiconductor nanowire and driven by the periodic electric field. Such system represents a model of the spin and charge qubits interacting via the strong spin-orbit coupling. It is found that at certain regimes the combination of fast relaxation in the coordinate channel with the slower relaxation in the spin channel leads to the promising combination of fast spin manipulation and slow spin relaxation, locking the flipped spin in an excited state in one of the dots for a sufficiently long time. The predicted effect is maintained for a wide range of the relaxation times and the driving amplitude both for the coordinate and the spin channels and is also observed on higher subharmonic which requires lower driving frequencies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Scheme of the spin (left) and charge (right) subsys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Contour plots of the leakage probability (13) in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Stroboscopic evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Evolution of (a) the mean spin projection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. An example of the level occupancies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The same as in Fig.4 for the second subharmonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Stabilized value of the spin projection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Map of the spin flip stabilization time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Final value of the spin projection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shevchenko, S

    S.N. Shevchenko, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Landau-Zener- St \"u ckelberg interferometry, Phys. Rep. 492 , 1 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Ivakhnenko, S.N

    O.V. Ivakhnenko, S.N. Shevchenko, F. Nori, Nonadiabatic Landau-Zener-St \"u ckelberg-Majorana transitions, dynamics, and interference, Phys. Rep. 995 , 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Semenov and K.W

    Y.G. Semenov and K.W. Kim, Elastic spin-relaxation processes in semiconductor quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 75 , 195342 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Taylor, J.R

    J.M. Taylor, J.R. Petta, A.C. Johnson, A. Yacoby, C.M. Marcus, and M.D. Lukin, Relaxation, dephasing, and quantum control of electron spins in double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 76 , 035315 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    S \'a nchez, C

    R. S \'a nchez, C. L \'o pez-Mon \'i s, and G. Platero, Coherent spin rotations in open driven double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 77 , 165312 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Petersson, J.R

    K.D. Petersson, J.R. Petta, H. Lu and A.C. Gossard, Quantum Coherence in a One-Electron Semiconductor Charge Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 , 246804 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Nalbach, J

    P. Nalbach, J. Kn \"o rzer, and S. Ludwig, Nonequilibrium Landau-Zener-Stueckelberg spectroscopy in a double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 87 , 165425 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Ribeiro, G

    H. Ribeiro, G. Burkard, J.R. Petta, H. Lu, and A.C. Gossard, Coherent Adiabatic Spin Control in the Presence of Charge Noise Using Tailored Pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 , 086804 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Srinivasa, K.C

    V. Srinivasa, K.C. Nowack, M. Shafiei, L.M.K. Vandersypen, and J.M. Taylor, Simultaneous Spin-Charge Relaxation in Double Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 , 196803 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Braakman, J

    F.R. Braakman, J. Danon, L.R. Schreiber, W. Wegscheider, and L.M.K. Vandersypen, Dynamics of spin-flip photon-assisted tunneling, Phys. Rev. B 89 , 075417 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Nakajima, A

    T. Nakajima, A. Noiri, J. Yoneda, M.R. Delbecq, P. Stano, T. Otsuka, K. Takeda, S. Amaha, G. Allison, K. Kawasaki, A. Ludwig, A.D. Wieck, D. Loss and S. Tarucha, Quantum non-demolition measurement of an electron spin qubit, Nature Nanotech. 14 , 555 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Krzywda and

    J.A. Krzywda and . Cywi \' n ski, Interplay of charge noise and coupling to phonons in adiabatic electron transfer between quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 104 , 075439 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Fern \' a ndez-Fern \' a ndez, J

    D. Fern \' a ndez-Fern \' a ndez, J. Pic \' o -Cort \' e s, S. Vela Li \ n \'a n and G. Platero, Photo-assisted spin transport in double quantum dots with spin–orbit interaction, J. Phys.: Materials 6 , 034004 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Engel and D

    H.-A. Engel and D. Loss, Single-spin dynamics and decoherence in a quantum dot via charge transport, Phys. Rev. B 65 , 195321 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    Levitov and E.I

    L.S. Levitov and E.I. Rashba, Dynamical spin-electric coupling in a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 67 , 115324 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Stepanenko, N.E

    D. Stepanenko, N.E. Bonesteel, D.P. DiVincenzo, G. Burkard, D. Loss, Spin-orbit coupling and time-reversal symmetry in quantum gates, Phys. Rev. B 68 , 115306 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Debald and C

    S. Debald and C. Emary, Spin-Orbit-Driven Coherent Oscillations in a Few-Electron Quantum Dot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 , 226803 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Golovach, M

    V.N. Golovach, M. Borhani, and D. Loss, Electric-dipole-induced spin resonance in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 74 , 165319 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Yokoshi, H

    N. Yokoshi, H. Imamura, and H. Kosaka, Electrical Measurement of a Two-Electron Spin State in a Double Quantum Dot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 , 046806 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Nowack, F.H.L

    K.C. Nowack, F.H.L. Koppens, Yu.V. Nazarov, L.M.K. Vandersypen, Coherent Control of a Single Electron Spin with Electric Fields, Science 318 , 1430 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Stehlik, M.D

    J. Stehlik, M.D. Schroer, M.Z. Maialle, M.H. Degani, and J.R. Petta, Extreme Harmonic Generation in Electrically Driven Spin Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 , 227601 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Bogan, S

    A. Bogan, S. Studenikin, M. Korkusinski, L. Gaudreau, P. Zawadzki, A.S. Sachrajda, L. Tracy, J. Reno, and T. Hargett, Landau-Zener-Stückelberg-Majorana Interferometry of a Single Hole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 , 207701 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Studenikin, M

    S. Studenikin, M. Korkusinski, M. Takahashi, J. Ducatel, A. Padawer-Blatt, A. Bogan, D. G. Austing, L. Gaudreau, P. Zawadzki, A. Sachrajda, Y. Hirayama, L. Tracy, J. Reno, and T. Hargett, Electrically tunable effective g-factor of a single hole in a lateral GaAs/AlGaAs quantum...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Marton, A

    V. Marton, A. Sachrajda, M. Korkusinski, A. Bogan, and S. Studenikin, Coherence Characteristics of a GaAs Single Heavy-Hole Spin Qubit Using a Modified Single-Shot Latching Readout Technique, Nanomat. 13 , 950 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Petta, A.C

    J.R. Petta, A.C. Johnson, J.M. Taylor, A. Yacoby, M.D. Lukin, C.M. Marcus, M.P. Hanson, and A.C. Gossard, Charge and spin manipulation in a few-electron double dot, Physica E 34 , 42 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Kyriakidis and G

    J. Kyriakidis and G. Burkard, Universal quantum computing with correlated spin-charge states, Phys. Rev. B 75 , 115324 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    Zhang, Y.-Z

    W.-M. Zhang, Y.-Z. Wu, C. Soo, and M. Feng, Charge-to-spin conversion of electron entanglement states and spin-interaction-free solid-state quantum computation, Phys. Rev. B 76 , 165311 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Ramon and X

    G. Ramon and X. Hu, Decoherence of spin qubits due to a nearby charge fluctuator in gate-defined double dots, Phys. Rev. B 81 , 045304 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Petersson, C.G

    K.D. Petersson, C.G. Smith, D. Anderson, P. Atkinson, G.A.C. Jones, and D.A. Ritchie, Charge and Spin State Readout of a Double Quantum Dot Coupled to a Resonator, Nano Lett. 10 , 2789 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Mizuta, R.M

    R. Mizuta, R.M. Otxoa, A.C. Betz, and M.F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Quantum and tunneling capacitance in charge and spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B 95 , 045414 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Yang, S.N

    Y.-C. Yang, S.N. Coppersmith, and M. Friesen, High-fidelity single-qubit gates in a strongly driven quantum-dot hybrid qubit with 1/f charge noise, Phys. Rev. A 100 , 022337 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Kregar and A

    A. Kregar and A. Ram s ak, Rashba controlled two-electron spin-charge qubits as building blocks of a quantum computer, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 32 , 2040058 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Ran c i \' c , Entangling spin and charge degrees of freedom in semiconductor quantum dots, Phys

    M.J. Ran c i \' c , Entangling spin and charge degrees of freedom in semiconductor quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A 105 , 032611 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Fern \'a ndez-Fern \'a ndez, Y

    D. Fern \'a ndez-Fern \'a ndez, Y. Ban, and G. Platero, Quantum Control of Hole Spin Qubits in Double Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18 , 054090 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Pioro-Ladri \'e re, Y

    M. Pioro-Ladri \'e re, Y. Tokura, T. Obata, T. Kubo, and S. Tarucha, Micromagnets for coherent control of spin-charge qubit in lateral quantum dots, Appl. Phys. Lett. 90 , 024105 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    Bodey, R

    J.H. Bodey, R. Stockill, E.V. Denning, D.A. Gangloff, G. \' E thier-Majcher, D.M. Jackson, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, C. Le Gall and M. Atat \" u re, Optical spin locking of a solid-state qubit, NPJ Quantum Information 5 , 95 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    I. Zuk, D. Cohen, A.V. Gorshkov, and A. Retzker, Robust gates with spin-locked superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. Research 6 , 013217 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Khomitsky and S.A

    D.V. Khomitsky and S.A. Studenikin, Single-spin Landau-Zener-St \"u ckelberg-Majorana interferometry of Zeeman-split states with strong spin-orbit interaction in a double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 106 , 195414 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Khomitsky, M.V

    D.V. Khomitsky, M.V. Bastrakova, V.O. Munyaev, N.A. Zaprudnov, and S.A. Studenikin, Controllable single-spin evolution at subharmonics of electric dipole spin resonance enhanced by four-level Landau-Zener-St \"u ckelberg-Majorana interference, Phys. Rev. B 108 , 205404 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems , Oxford University Press (New York), 2003

    2003

  33. [41]

    Kohler, T

    S. Kohler, T. Dittrich, and P. H \"a nggi, Floquet-Markovian description of the parametrically driven, dissipative harmonic quantum oscillator, Phys. Rev. E 55 , 300 (1997)

    1997

  34. [42]

    Grifoni, P

    M. Grifoni, P. H \"a nggi, Driven quantum tunneling, Phys. Rep. 304 , 229 (1998)

    1998

  35. [43]

    D.W. Hone, R. Ketzmerick, and W. Kohn, Statistical mechanics of Floquet systems: The pervasive problem of near degeneracies, Phys. Rev. E 79 , 051129 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Nalbach and M

    P. Nalbach and M. Thorwart, Landau-Zener Transitions in a Dissipative Environment: Numerically Exact Results, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 , 220401 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    C. Xu, A. Poudel, and M.G. Vavilov, Nonadiabatic dynamics of a slowly driven dissipative two-level system, Phys. Rev. A 89 , 052102 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Makhlin, G

    Y. Makhlin, G. Sch\"on, and A. Shnirman, Quantum-state engineering with Josephson-junction devices, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 , 357 (2001)

    2001

  39. [47]

    Satanin, M.V

    A.M. Satanin, M.V. Denisenko, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Amplitude spectroscopy of two coupled qubits, Phys. Rev. B 85 , 184524 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Munyaev and M.V

    V.O. Munyaev and M.V. Bastrakova, Control of spectroscopic features of multiphoton transitions in two coupled qubits by driving fields, Phys. Rev. A 104 , 012613 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Pashin, P.V

    D.S. Pashin, P.V. Pikunov, M.V. Bastrakova, A.E. Schegolev, N.V. Klenov, I.I. Soloviev, A bifunctional superconducting cell as flux qubit and neuron, Beilstein J. of Nanotechnol. 14 , 1116 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Bonifacio, D

    M. Bonifacio, D. Dom \'i nguez, and M.J. S \'a nchez, Landau-Zener-St \"u ckelberg interferometry in dissipative circuit quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. B 101 , 245415 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Tokman, A

    M. Tokman, A. Behne, B. Torres, M. Erukhimova, Y. Wang, and A. Belyanin, Dissipation-driven formation of entangled dark states in strongly coupled inhomogeneous many-qubit systems in solid-state nanocavities, Phys. Rev. A 107 , 013721 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Marques, A.A

    B. Marques, A.A. Matoso, W.M. Pimenta, A.J. Guti \' e rrez-Esparza, M.F. Santos and S. P \' a dua, Experimental simulation of decoherence in photonics qudits, Sci. Rep. 5 , 16049 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Zhang, L

    L. Zhang, L. Wang, M.F. Gelin, and Y. Zhao, Dynamics of dissipative Landau-Zener transitions in an anisotropic three-level system, J. Chem Phys. 158 , 204115 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Evers, Phase-dependent interference mechanisms in a three-level system driven by a quantized laser field, J

    J. Evers, Phase-dependent interference mechanisms in a three-level system driven by a quantized laser field, J. Mod. Opt. 52 , 2699 (2005)

    2005

  47. [55]

    Ilinova and A

    E. Ilinova and A. Derevianko, Dynamics of a three-level -type system driven by trains of ultrashort laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A 86 , 013423 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    Boukhris, A

    B. Boukhris, A. Tirbiyine, and J. El Qars, Gaussian quantum steering in a nondegenerate three-level laser, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 37 (35), 2350194 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Hofer, M

    P.P. Hofer, M. Perarnau-Llobet, L.D.M. Miranda, G. Haack, R. Silva, J. Bohr Brask, and N. Brunner, Markovian master equations for quantum thermal machines: local versus global approach, New J. Phys. 19 , 123037 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Cattaneo, G.L

    M. Cattaneo, G.L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zambrini, Local versus global master equation with common and separate baths: superiority of the global approach in partial secular approximation, New J. Phys. 21 , 113045 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Albash, S

    T. Albash, S. Boixo, D.A. Lidar, P. Zanardi, Quantum adiabatic Markovian master equations, New J Phys. 14 , 123016 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    Petta, J.M

    J.R. Petta, J.M. Taylor, A.C. Johnson, A. Yacoby, M.D. Lukin, C.M. Marcus, M.P. Hanson, and A.C. Gossard, Dynamic Nuclear Polarization with Single Electron Spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 , 067601 (2008)

    2008

  53. [61]

    Schuetz, E.M

    M.J.A. Schuetz, E.M. Kessler, L.M.K. Vandersypen, J.I. Cirac, and G. Giedke, Nuclear spin dynamics in double quantum dots: Multistability, dynamical polarization, criticality, and entanglement, Phys. Rev. B 89 , 195310 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    Vezvaee, G

    A. Vezvaee, G. Sharma, S.E. Economou, and E. Barnes, Driven dynamics of a quantum dot electron spin coupled to a bath of higher-spin nuclei, Phys. Rev. B 103 , 235301 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Knap, D.A

    M. Knap, D.A. Abanin, and E. Demler, Dissipative Dynamics of a Driven Quantum Spin Coupled to a Bath of Ultracold Fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 , 265302 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Das Sarma, R.E

    S. Das Sarma, R.E. Throckmorton, and Y.-L. Wu, Dynamics of two coupled semiconductor spin qubits in a noisy environment, Phys. Rev. B 94 , 045435 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.