Revealing Hidden States in Quantum Dot Array Dynamics: Quantum Polyspectra Versus Waiting Time Analysis

Daniel H\"agele; Johannes C. Bayer; Markus Sifft; Rolf J. Haug

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Revealing Hidden States in Quantum Dot Array Dynamics: Quantum Polyspectra Versus Waiting Time Analysis

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Higher-order spectra of the detector current reveal a hidden third Markov state in a double quantum dot that appears to switch between only two levels, and waiting-time analysis provably cannot distinguish the alternative three-state…

desk verdict A careful experimental QPS analysis with a genuinely new analytic result about WTD factorization, but the 'hidden third state' headline overreaches what a non-unique model fit can establish. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14893 v1 pith:EN3VPEHV submitted 2024-12-19 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Markus Sifft , Johannes C. Bayer , Daniel Hägele , Rolf J. Haug This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall

keywords quantumpolyspectradotdynamicshiddenMarkovstatewaiting-timedistributionspointcontactstochasticmasterequationinformationcriteriontelegraphnoise

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 claims that the seemingly two-level switching of a double quantum dot monitored by a quantum point contact is actually driven by three Markov states, and that higher-order correlation spectra of the raw detector current, called quantum polyspectra, can reveal that hidden state without identifying individual quantum jumps. The authors fit second-, third-, and fourth-order spectra to candidate models and use an information criterion to show that four different three-state models with very different transition rates fit equally well, implying that the (2,0) charge configuration must be split into two Markov states, most plausibly a singlet and a triplet spin configuration. They prove that for any three-state Markov model with two output levels, every multi-time waiting-time distribution factorizes into single-time waiting-time distributions, so waiting-time analysis cannot distinguish among these models. Both methods recover the same rates with similar accuracy, but the polyspectra method works from the raw current and stays usable at low signal-to-noise, where jump-based full counting statistics falters. If this is right, the result offers a route to detecting hidden dynamics in quantum dot arrays and challenges earlier five-state interpretations of similar data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the quantum polyspectra $S^{(n)}_z(\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_n)$ of the detector current, defined through $n$th-order cumulants of the Fourier-transformed signal, and their analytic expressions from the stochastic master equation in terms of the Liouvillian $\mathcal{L}$ and the measurement superoperator $\mathcal{A}$. The measurement operator that lumps the high output level onto two states is $A=I_{\mathrm{low}}|0\rangle\langle 0|+I_{\mathrm{high}}(|1\rangle\langle 1|+|2\rangle\langle 2|)$, so the (2,0) configuration is represented by two Markov states that share the same detector output. The proof that waiting-time analysis cannot go further rests on the identity that for any three-state two-output Markov model, $J_{\mathrm{up}}e^{\mathcal{L}_0\tau}J_{\mathrm{down}}\rho_0 = w_{\mathrm{low}}(\tau)J_{\mathrm{up}}\rho_0$ and the analogous relation for down jumps, which iterates to the factorization $w_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}(\tau_n,\ldots,\tau_1)=\prod_{k=1}^n w_{i_k}(\tau_k)$. Model selection is done by an information criterion, which is what picks out the four minimal three-state models.

What would settle it

Repeat the same double dot measurement at a temperature low enough that $k_BT$ is small compared with the inferred singlet-triplet splitting $\Delta E\approx 200\text{--}300\,\mu\mathrm{eV}$, or apply a magnetic field that separates the triplet states; if the hidden state is a thermally excited spin configuration, the narrow zero-frequency features in the second- and third-order polyspectra and the double-exponential tail of the high-level waiting-time distribution should disappear, leaving a single Lorentzian and a mono-exponential distribution. If they persist, the background subtraction has left a charge-configuration-dependent environmental contribution and the third state is an artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the measured QPC current statistics are exactly those of a three-state Markov model with two output levels, in which the low level corresponds to the (1,1) charge configuration and the high level corresponds to two distinct Markov states within the (2,0) configuration, assigned to the singlet and triplet spin states. A simple two-state model cannot reproduce the second-, third-, and fourth-order spectra, which contain both broad and narrow features, whereas four three-state models with only four nonzero transition rates achieve the same minimal information-criterion score. These models have significantly different transition rates yet yield the same waiting-time distributions and the same polyspectra, because for such a model the identity $w_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}(\tau_n,\ldots,\tau_1)=\prod_{k=1}^n w_{i_k}(\tau_k)$ holds: all multi-time waiting-time distributions are products of single-time ones. Waiting-time analysis therefore cannot identify which model is correct. The polyspectra method and the waiting-time method produce consistent rate estimates within error, but the polyspectra method does not require jump detection and remains accurate at low signal-to-noise. The paper further reinterprets an earlier five-state model for a similar double dot, arguing that the same data can be identically described by three Markov states with modified rates.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the noise recorded with only one electron in the dots is identical to the environmental noise present during the two-electron measurement, so that after subtracting that background the remaining narrow spectral peaks reflect dot dynamics and not noise that changes with the charge configuration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a three-state Markov model with two output levels, all higher-order waiting-time distributions are redundant: the single-time distributions already determine the full output statistics, so any two models with the same single-time WTDs are experimentally indistinguishable by jump-based analysis.
The four three-state models found in the experiment give identical polyspectra and identical model-selection scores, so the transition rates cannot be uniquely determined from the measurement alone; physical arguments such as bidirectionality and steady-state probabilities must be used to select between them.
Because the polyspectra method uses the raw detector current rather than detected jumps, it can be applied in weak-measurement or low-signal-to-noise regimes where full counting statistics fails.
The two-level telegraph noise with alternating periods of rapid switching and no switching is the fingerprint of a hidden Markov state within the high-current (2,0) configuration, most likely the singlet-triplet splitting, meaning spin dynamics inside the dot are visible in the charge detector statistics.
The earlier five-state model proposed for a similar double quantum dot system need not be correct: the same data can be identically described by a three-state model, so conclusions drawn from the five-state model are not uniquely supported by waiting-time statistics.

Reading between the lines

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

The same kind of model degeneracy is likely to appear whenever a measurement has fewer output levels than Markov states; treating output-level multiplicity as an additional constraint could be a general strategy for finding minimal state-space models in other hidden-Markov experiments, quantum or classical.
The factorization identity suggests a no-go result for any measurement that lumps exactly two Markov states into one output level: no waiting-time or counting statistics can resolve rates within the lumped level; only noise that couples to the internal dynamics, such as polyspectra, can.
A direct experimental test would be to tune temperature or magnetic field so the triplet is depopulated: the slow component's weight should follow a thermal factor $3\exp(-\Delta E/k_BT)$; if narrow spectral features persist under those conditions, the hidden state is environmental rather than spin-related.
Applying the same polyspectra analysis to the earlier five-state dataset for a similar device would show whether that model's extra states are required by the data or are an artifact of model choice.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful core here is the App. D proof: for any three-state Markov model with two output levels, all multi-time waiting-time distributions factor into products of single-time WTDs. That is a clean, parameter-free analytic result, and it explains why the four minimal models in Table I are statistically indistinguishable. The paper also does something right that is easy to underrate: it compares quantum polyspectra and WTD fits on the same 89 s trace, with error bars from 250 simulations, and shows the two methods agree within three standard deviations. The software is public, the fitting procedure is described, and the authors openly state that the general three-state model cannot converge to a unique rate set. That is honest work.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The main one is the headline claim of having "revealed a hidden third state." What the data actually establish is that a two-state model fits badly and that the four three-state models fit equally well. The physical assignment of the third Markov state to triplet states in (2,0) needs equilibrium assumptions and a choice between Models 1 and 4; the paper argues for that choice, but it is not forced by the statistics. The stress-test concern about the background subtraction is worth taking seriously, and it is a genuine experimental weakness: the background was taken with one electron in (1,0), while the actual measurement alternates between (2,0) and (1,1), so any charge-configuration-dependent low-frequency noise would survive the subtraction. The paper's own Sec. IV admits environmental noise beyond white background noise is not in the error estimates. That said, the biexponential WTD of the (2,0) level is visible directly in Fig. 2, independent of polyspectra, so the evidence for a second state associated with the high level does not rest entirely on the subtraction. I would not call the central claim load-bearing in the sense that removing the background issue would collapse the paper; it would weaken the triplet interpretation and the model selection, but the WTD data still show two timescales.

The four-state model search is underreported — "larger models result in even higher AIC values" without showing them — and the App. C parameterization is described as "guessing guided by Table I," which is fine for a proof but thin for a model-selection claim. Minor.

Who is this for? Experimentalists working on QD charge detection and people interested in what higher-order statistics can and cannot tell you about hidden states. The App. D result deserves citation on its own. I would send it to a serious referee, and if I were the referee I would ask for the four-state search details and a more careful statement of what the third state is versus what the fit requires.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes time-resolved QPC current traces from a gate-defined GaAs double quantum dot tuned near the (2,0)-(1,1) degeneracy. The authors apply their quantum polyspectral (QPS) method to the raw current and fit second-, third-, and fourth-order spectra with models of multi-state Markov dynamics under continuous measurement. They find that a two-state random telegraph model is insufficient and that four structurally different three-state Markov models with two output levels fit the spectra with equal AIC values. They interpret the two high-current Markov states as the singlet and triplet configurations of the (2,0) charge state, i.e., a hidden third state. In addition, the paper proves that for a general three-state Markov process with two output levels, the single-time WTDs already determine all multi-time WTDs (which factorize as products of single-time WTDs), and it proves that four specific reduced three-state models share identical WTDs. The paper also compares QPS with a waiting-time analysis and finds consistent transition rates.

Significance. The WTD factorization theorem (App. D) and the non-uniqueness theorem (App. C) are clean, parameter-free analytic results that clarify the information content of waiting-time statistics for three-state two-output Markov models; these are likely to be of independent interest to the quantum transport and continuous-measurement communities. The open-source software (SignalSnap, QuantumCatch, MarkovAnalyzer) and the detailed AIC comparison are strengths: the fits are reproducible and the derivation steps in Apps. C and D are explicit and internally consistent. The comparison with the earlier five-state model of Maisi et al. is a useful caution about over-parameterization. However, the experimental identification of the 'hidden third state' is conditional on the background subtraction and on equilibrium assumptions; if those hold, the method is a noteworthy assumption-light tool for state-structure inference.

major comments (2)

[Section II and Section IV] The central 'hidden third state' claim is load-bearing on the background subtraction procedure described in Section II ('Background spectra had been subtracted that were recorded with the same system gate settings but with only a single electron loaded'). The paper's own caveat in Section IV that environmental noise beyond white background noise is not included in the error estimates leaves open the possibility that a slow non-Gaussian fluctuator, active only when the dot is in the two-electron configuration, survives the subtraction and produces the narrow zero-frequency features in S(2), S(3), and S(4) shown in Fig. 3. Because the AIC model selection is based on those spectra, the assignment of a third Markov state rather than a background artifact requires either a control measurement with a known two-state system or an independent check that the residual narrow features vanish when the dot is held in a two-electron configuration without inter-dot tunneling. Without such a test, the headline claim is conditional; this should be addressed or explicitly qualified.
[Section V and Table I] The identification of the hidden state as triplet states of the (2,0) configuration relies on additional assumptions not tested by the data. The four three-state models in Table I have identical output statistics (App. C), and the data alone cannot distinguish them. The paper excludes Models 2 and 3 only by invoking thermodynamic equilibrium (Section V), and the singlet-triplet assignment further assumes spin-flip scattering within the (1,1) state and equal transition rates within a Markov state. These assumptions are physically plausible but not measured; the reported rates such as gamma_21 = 185 Hz (Model 1) versus gamma_20 = 173 Hz (Model 4) are therefore model-dependent. The conclusion 'reveals hidden excited triplet states' should be softened to state that the data are consistent with a third Markov state, and that the triplet interpretation is one possible assignment under equilibrium assumptions.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The phrase 'the statistics of a three-state Markov model is fully described without multi-time waiting-time distributions' is confusing; it should say that the statistics are fully described by the single-time WTDs, since multi-time WTDs factorize into products of single-time WTDs and thus add no information.
[References] Reference [53] gives the title 'SignalSnap Toolbox' but the URL points to MarkovAnalyzer; the title should be corrected to 'MarkovAnalyzer Toolbox'.
[Appendix D] The identities in (D8), which underlie the factorization theorem, are said to be found 'via an explicit calculation for the general three-state Markov model using computer algebra' without showing the intermediate expressions; providing those expressions or a derivation sketch would improve verifiability.
[Figure 4 caption] The caption states 'Thicker arrows represent larger rates' without a quantitative scale; specifying the numerical values or adding a scale bar would make the figure self-contained.
[Section IV] The notation for the reduced fourth-order spectrum, 'S^(4)(omega_1, omega_2, -omega_1)', is incomplete because a fourth-order polyspectrum has three independent frequency arguments plus the sum condition; please specify explicitly which slice (including the fourth frequency) is used.
[Section IV] The statement 'The general three-state system results in an equally precise fit, however, while introducing two unnecessary parameters immediately visible in the AIC value, which increases by four' could be clarified by noting that a four-parameter increase in AIC corresponds to exactly the 2k term for two extra parameters, assuming unchanged RSS.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transition rates are openly fitted parameters, the WTD factorization and model non-uniqueness are proven in-text, and the self-citations to the polyspectra formalism are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The central analytic claims are self-contained within the paper. Appendix C proves, from the explicit three-state Liouvillian and Brandes' waiting-time recipe, that the four reduced three-state models share identical waiting-time distributions; Appendix D proves that all multi-time WTDs factorize into single-time WTDs for three-state Markov models with two output levels. These are in-paper derivations, not imported uniqueness theorems or renamed results. The transition rates in Table I are explicitly fitted parameters; the comparison between quantum polyspectra and WTD analysis is a consistency check between two estimators applied to the same trace, not an out-of-sample prediction. The word 'predicting' in Section IV for the WTD analysis is loose language for computing model WTDs during the fitting procedure, and none of the paper's conclusions depend on treating that computation as a predictive test. Self-citations to Refs. [36], [37], [48], [52], and [53] supply the polyspectra formulas, unbiased estimators, and software libraries used for the analysis; these are methodological tools with independent derivations in the cited works, and they are not used to forbid alternative models or to smuggle in the three-state ansatz. The three-state measurement operator in Eq. (6) is stated as a model choice, not disguised as a prediction. The acknowledged limitation that environmental noise is not included in the error estimates (Section IV) is a correctness risk for the 'hidden third state' interpretation, but it is not a circular step. Overall, no significant circularity is present; the modest score of 2 merely acknowledges that several methodological components are drawn from the authors' prior work without affecting the independence of the paper's central derivations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The analysis fits transition rates to experimental polyspectra and WTDs; the central mathematical claim rests on standard stochastic master equation theory and Markov chain waiting-time formalism, plus domain assumptions about the measurement being strong, the dynamics incoherent, and background noise subtractable.

free parameters (2)

Transition rates gamma_ij = Model 1: gamma_01=5115 Hz, gamma_10=953 Hz, gamma_12=54 Hz, gamma_21=185 Hz; other rates in Table I
These are fit parameters obtained by matching quantum polyspectra or WTDs to the experimental data; the general three-state model has six rates, and the four reduced models each have four.
Polyspectra amplitude or measurement-strength scaling (beta) = unreported
The theoretical spectra (Eqs. 13, 14, A1) depend on the measurement strength beta, and experimental spectra need an absolute scale; the paper does not state whether beta is fitted, fixed, or normalized away.

assumptions (6)

standard math Stochastic master equation and Brillinger polyspectra formalism
Spectra expressions (Eqs. 12-14, A1) are taken from Refs. [36,37]; the paper treats them as established results.
domain assumption The QPC measurement is in the strong measurement limit (beta >> 1), so detector output levels map directly to charge states and the density matrix stays diagonal
Section II and Eq. (8) rely on this limit to identify Markov states with current levels; coherent dynamics are neglected.
domain assumption The two-electron dynamics are an incoherent continuous-time Markov process with no non-Markovian environment
Section III models transitions as rates gamma_ij in a diagonal Lindblad master equation; any memory or coherent oscillations would alter the polyspectra.
domain assumption Background spectra from the (1,0) configuration can be subtracted to remove environmental noise
Section II: background spectra recorded with a single electron are subtracted; assumes configuration-independent environmental noise.
domain assumption Equilibrium and detailed balance constraints are valid for selecting among the four degenerate models and for the singlet/triplet interpretation
Section V excludes Models 2 and 3 because their unidirectional rates violate detailed balance, and uses rho22/rho11 = 3 exp(-Delta E/kT) to assign energies.
domain assumption Markov states can aggregate multiple quantum states that share identical effective transition rates
Section V assumes spin configurations within a Markov state (e.g., triplets) have the same rates to other Markov states; this is a lumpability assumption required for the physical interpretation.

invented entities (1)

Hidden third Markov state |2> in the (2,0) configuration, interpreted as triplet states
purpose: Explains the biexponential high-level waiting-time distribution and the narrow spectral features in Fig. 3
The data require at least three Markov states, but the paper proves the model is non-unique (App. C), and the assignment to triplet states relies on equilibrium and spin-scattering arguments with no independent falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing Hidden States in Quantum Dot Array Dynamics: Quantum Polyspectra Versus Waiting Time Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EN3VPEHV

@misc{pith2026241214893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing Hidden States in Quantum Dot Array Dynamics: Quantum Polyspectra Versus Waiting Time Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EN3VPEHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14893}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum dots (QDs) are pivotal for the development of quantum technologies, with applications ranging from single-photon sources for secure communication to quantum computing infrastructures. Understanding the electron dynamics within these QDs is essential for characterizing their properties and functionality. Here, we show how by virtue of the recently introduced quantum polyspectral analysis of transport measurements, the complex transport measurements of multi-electron QD systems can be analyzed. This method directly relates higher-order temporal correlations of a raw quantum point contact (QPC) current measurement to the Liouvillian of the measured quantum system. By applying this method to the two-level switching dynamics of a double QD system, we reveal a hidden third state, without relying on the identification of quantum jumps or prior assumptions about the number of involved quantum states. We show that the statistics of the QPC current measurement can identically be described by different three-state Markov models, each with significantly different transition rates. Furthermore, we compare our method to a traditional analysis via waiting-time distributions for which we prove that the statistics of a three-state Markov model is fully described without multi-time waiting-time distributions even in the case of two level switching dynamics. Both methods yield the same parameters with a similar accuracy. The quantum polyspectra method, however, stays applicable in scenarios with low signal-to-noise, where the traditional full counting statistics falters. Our approach challenges previous assumptions and models, offering a more nuanced understanding of QD dynamics and paving the way for the optimization of quantum devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14893 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Comparison of waiting-time distributions (WTDs) for elec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Comparison of experimental polyspectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Model candidates for double dot charging dynamics: The comparison of experimental data with theoretical quantum polyspectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Physical interpretation of the Markov states within the double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[1]

Heindel, C

T. Heindel, C. A. Kessler, M. Rau, C. Schneider, M. Fürst, F. Hargart, W.-M. Schulz, M. Eichfelder, R. Roßbach, S. Nauerth, M. Lermer, H. Weier, M. Jetter, M. Kamp, S. Re- itzenstein,S.Höfling,P.Michler,H.Weinfurter,andA.Forchel, Quantum key distribution using quantum dot single-photon emittingdiodesintheredandnearinfraredspectralrange,New Journal of Phys...

work page 2012
[2]

Müller, S

M. Müller, S. Bounouar, K. D. Jöns, M. Glässl, and P. Mich- ler, On-demand generation of indistinguishable polarization- entangled photon pairs, Nature Photonics8, 224 (2014)

work page 2014
[3]

Gschrey, A

M. Gschrey, A. Thoma, P. Schnauber, M. Seifried, R. Schmidt, B. Wohlfeil, L. Krüger, J. H. Schulze, T. Heindel, S. Burger, F. Schmidt, A. Strittmatter, S. Rodt, and S. Reitzenstein, Highly indistinguishable photons from deterministic quantum- dot microlenses utilizing three-dimensional in situ electron- beam lithography, Nature Communications6, 7662 (2015)

work page 2015
[4]

Senellart, G

P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, High-performance semiconductorquantum-dotsingle-photonsources,NatureNan- otechnology12, 1026 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. C. Löbl, A.R.Korsch,R.Schott,S.R.Valentin,A.D.Wieck,A.Ludwig, andR.J.Warburton,Abrightandfastsourceofcoherentsingle photons, Nature Nanotechnology16, 399 (2021)

work page 2021
[6]

L. Zhai, G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, J. Ritzmann, M. C. Löbl, A.D.Wieck,A.Ludwig,A.Javadi,andR.J.Warburton,Quan- tuminterferenceofidenticalphotonsfromremotegaasquantum dots, Nature Nanotechnology17, 829 (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

Zhang, N

Y. Zhang, N. Cai, and V. Chan, Recent advances in sili- con quantum dot-based fluorescent biosensors, Biosensors13, 10.3390/bios13030311 (2023)

work page doi:10.3390/bios13030311 2023
[8]

Boeyens, B

J. Boeyens, B. Annby-Andersson, P. Bakhshinezhad, G. Haack, M. Perarnau-Llobet, S. Nimmrichter, P. P. Potts, and M. Mehboudi, Probe thermometry with continuous measure- ments, New Journal of Physics25, 123009 (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 59 references

[9]

D.LossandD.P.DiVincenzo,Quantumcomputationwithquan- tum dots, Phys. Rev. A57, 120 (1998)

1998
[10]

J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Ya- coby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor quantum dots, Science 309, 2180 (2005), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/scie...

2005 doi
[11]

S. G. J. Philips, M. T. Mądzik, S. V. Amitonov, S. L. de Snoo, M.Russ,N.Kalhor,C.Volk,W.I.L.Lawrie,D.Brousse,L.Try- puten, B. P. Wuetz, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in silicon, Nature609, 919 (2022)

2022
[12]

A. L. Efros and M. Rosen, Random telegraph signal in the photoluminescenceintensityofasinglequantumdot,Phys.Rev. Lett.78, 1110 (1997)

1997
[13]

Treutlein, and R

J.-P.Jahn,M.Munsch,L.Béguin,A.V.Kuhlmann,M.Renggli, Y.Huo,F.Ding,R.Trotta,M.Reindl,O.G.Schmidt,A.Rastelli, P. Treutlein, and R. J. Warburton, An artificial rb atom in a semiconductorwithlifetime-limitedlinewidth,Phys.Rev.B 92, 245439 (2015)

2015
[14]

Santori, D

C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vučković, G. S. Solomon, and Y. Ya- mamoto,Indistinguishablephotonsfromasingle-photondevice, Nature419, 594 (2002)

2002
[15]

R. J. Warburton, Single spins in self-assembled quantum dots, Nature Materials12, 483 (2013)

2013
[16]

Schrader, M

G.N.Nguyen,C.Spinnler,M.R.Hogg,L.Zhai,A.Javadi,C.A. Schrader, M. Erbe, M. Wyss, J. Ritzmann, H.-G. Babin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. J. Warburton, Enhanced electron- spin coherence in a gaas quantum emitter, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 210805 (2023)

2023
[17]

Hanson, L

R. Hanson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Spins in few-electron quantum dots, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 1217 (2007)

2007
[18]

K. C. Nowack, F. H. L. Koppens, Y. V. Nazarov, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Coherent control of a single elec- tron spin with electric fields, Science 318, 1430 (2007), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1148092

2007 doi
[19]

Veldhorst, D

T.F.Watson,S.G.J.Philips,E.Kawakami,D.R.Ward,P.Scar- lino, M. Veldhorst, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S.N.Coppersmith,M.A.Eriksson,andL.M.K.Vandersypen, Aprogrammabletwo-qubitquantumprocessorinsilicon,Nature 555, 633 (2018)

2018
[20]

O. Dani, R. Hussein, J. C. Bayer, S. Kohler, and R. J. Haug, Temperature-dependent broadening of coherent current peaks in inas double quantum dots, Communications Physics5, 292 (2022)

2022
[21]

O. Dani, R. Hussein, J. C. Bayer, K. Pierz, S. Kohler, and R. J. Haug,Directmeasurementofspin-flipratesofaself-assembled inasdoublequantumdotinsingle-electrontunneling,Phys.Rev. B109, L121404 (2024)

2024
[22]

Ubbelohde, C

N. Ubbelohde, C. Fricke, C. Flindt, F. Hohls, and R. J. Haug, Measurement of finite-frequency current statistics in a single- electron transistor, Nat. Commun.3, 612 (2012)

2012
[23]

Kurzmann, P

A. Kurzmann, P. Stegmann, J. Kerski, R. Schott, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, J. König, A. Lorke, and M. Geller, Optical detec- tion of single-electron tunneling into a semiconductor quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 247403 (2019)

2019
[24]

Sifft, A

M. Sifft, A. Kurzmann, J. Kerski, R. Schott, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck,A.Lorke,M.Geller,andD.Hägele,Quantumpolyspec- tra approach to the dynamics of blinking quantum emitters at low photon rates without binning: Making every photon count, Phys. Rev. A109, 062210 (2024)

2024
[25]

L. S. Levitov, H. Lee, and G. B. Lesovik, Electron counting statistics and coherent states of electric current, J. Math. Phys. 37, 4845 (1996)

1996
[26]

D. A. Bagrets and Y. V. Nazarov, Full counting statistics of charge transfer in Coulomb blockade systems, Phys. Rev. B67, 085316 (2003)

2003
[27]

Flindt, C

C. Flindt, C. Fricke, F. Hohls, T. Novotny, K. Netocny, T. Bran- des,andR.J.Haug,Universaloscillationsincountingstatistics, PNAS106, 10116 (2009)

2009
[28]

R. J. Cook, Photon number statistics in resonance fluorescence, 13 Phys. Rev. A23, 1243 (1981)

1981
[29]

Kambly, C

D. Kambly, C. Flindt, and M. Büttiker, Factorial cumulants revealinteractionsincountingstatistics,Phys.Rev.B 83,075432 (2011)

2011
[30]

Stegmann, B

P. Stegmann, B. Sothmann, A. Hucht, and J. König, Detection ofinteractionsviageneralizedfactorialcumulantsinsystemsin and out of equilibrium, Phys. Rev. B92, 155413 (2015)

2015
[31]

Haug, Controlled emission time statistics of a dynamic single- electron transistor, Science Advances 7, eabe0793 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abe0793

F.Brange,A.Schmidt,J.C.Bayer,T.Wagner,C.Flindt,andR.J. Haug, Controlled emission time statistics of a dynamic single- electron transistor, Science Advances 7, eabe0793 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abe0793

2021 doi
[32]

König, Unraveling spin dynamics from charge fluctuations, Phys

E.Kleinherbers,H.Mannel,J.Kerski,M.Geller,A.Lorke,and J. König, Unraveling spin dynamics from charge fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Research5, 043103 (2023)

2023
[33]

Emary, D

C. Emary, D. Marcos, R. Aguado, and T. Brandes, Frequency- dependent counting statistics in interacting nanoscale conduc- tors, Phys. Rev. B76, 161404(R) (2007)

2007
[34]

B. Küng, O. Pfäffli, S. Gustavsson, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, M. Rein- wald,andW.Wegscheider,Time-resolvedchargedetectionwith cross-correlation techniques, Phys. Rev. B79, 035314 (2009)

2009
[35]

Ludwig, A

J.Kerski,H.Mannel,P.Lochner,E.Kleinherbers,A.Kurzmann, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, J. König, A. Lorke, and M. Geller, Post-processing of real-time quantum event measurements for an optimal bandwidth, Sci. Rep.13, 1105 (2023)

2023
[36]

D.HägeleandF.Schefczik,Higher-ordermoments,cumulants, and spectra of continuous quantum noise measurements, Phys. Rev. B98, 205143 (2018)

2018
[37]

Sifft, A

M. Sifft, A. Kurzmann, J. Kerski, R. Schott, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck,A.Lorke,M.Geller,andD.Hägele,Quantumpolyspec- tra for modeling and evaluating quantum transport measure- ments: A unifying approach to the strong and weak measure- ment regime, Phys. Rev. Research3, 033123 (2021)

2021
[38]

G. T. Landi, M. J. Kewming, M. T. Mitchison, and P. P. Potts, Currentfluctuationsinopenquantumsystems: Bridgingthegap between quantum continuous measurements and full counting statistics, PRX Quantum5, 020201 (2024)

2024
[39]

Jacobs and D

K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, A straightforward introduction to continuous quantum measurement, Contemp. Phys. 47, 279 (2006)

2006
[40]

A. N. Korotkov, Continuous quantum measurement of a double dot, Phys. Rev. B60, 5737 (1999)

1999
[41]

A.N.Korotkov,Outputspectrumofadetectormeasuringquan- tum oscillations, Phys. Rev. B63, 085312 (2001)

2001
[42]

Barchielli, L

A. Barchielli, L. Lanz, and G. M. Prosperi, A model for the macroscopicdescriptionandcontinualobservationsinquantum mechanics, Nuovo Cimento72B, 79 (1982)

1982
[43]

Sifft and D

M. Sifft and D. Hägele, Random-time quantum measurements, Phys. Rev. A107, 052203 (2023)

2023
[44]

V. F. Maisi, A. Hofmann, M. Röösli, J. Basset, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Spin-orbit coupling at the level of a single electron, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 136803 (2016)

2016
[45]

J. C. Bayer, T. Wagner, E. P. Rugeramigabo, and R. J. Haug, Charge reconfiguration in isolated quan- tum dot arrays, Annalen der Physik 531, 1800393 (2019), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.201800393

2019 doi
[46]

D. R. Brillinger, An introduction to polyspectra, Ann. Math. Statist.36, 1351 (1965)

1965
[47]

Gardiner,Stochastic Methods, 4th ed

C. Gardiner,Stochastic Methods, 4th ed. (Springer, Berlin Hei- delberg, 2009)

2009
[48]

Sifft, SignalSnap Toolbox, https://github.com/ MarkusSifft/SignalSnap(2022)

M. Sifft, SignalSnap Toolbox, https://github.com/ MarkusSifft/SignalSnap(2022)

2022
[49]

F.SchefczikandD.Hägele,Ready-to-UseUnbiasedEstimators for Multivariate Cumulants Including One That Outperforms¯𝑥3, (2019), arXiv:1904.12154 [math.st]

2019 arXiv
[50]

Tilloy, Exact signal correlators in continuous quantum mea- surements, Phys

A. Tilloy, Exact signal correlators in continuous quantum mea- surements, Phys. Rev. A98, 010104(R) (2018)

2018
[51]

Please note, that𝑘 is not required on the right-hand side
[52]

Sifft, QuantumCatch Toolbox, https://github.com/ MarkusSifft/QuantumCatch(2023)

M. Sifft, QuantumCatch Toolbox, https://github.com/ MarkusSifft/QuantumCatch(2023)

2023
[53]

Sifft, SignalSnap Toolbox, https://github.com/ MarkusSifft/MarkovAnalyzer(2023)

M. Sifft, SignalSnap Toolbox, https://github.com/ MarkusSifft/MarkovAnalyzer(2023)

2023
[54]

Yalamanchili, U

P. Yalamanchili, U. Arshad, Z. Mohammed, P. Garigipati, P. Entschev, B. Kloppenborg, J. Malcolm, and J. Melonakos, ArrayFire - A high performance software library for parallel computing with an easy-to-use API (2015)

2015
[55]

Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

H. Akaike, A new look at the statistical model identification, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control19, 716 (1974)

1974
[56]

J. C. Bayer, F. Brange, A. Schmidt, T. Wagner, E. P. Rugerami- gabo, C. Flindt, and R. J. Haug, Real-time detection and con- trol of correlated charge tunneling in a quantum dot, (2024), arXiv:2405.16724

2024 arXiv
[57]

Hägele, M

D. Hägele, M. Sifft, and F. Schefczik, Erratum: Higher-order moments, cumulants, and spectra of continuous quantum noise measurements [Phys. Rev. B 98, 205143 (2018)], Phys. Rev. B 102, 119901(E) (2020)

2018
[58]

Johansson, P

J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip 2: A Python frame- workforthedynamicsofopenquantumsystems,Comput.Phys. Commun.184, 1234 (2013)

2013
[59]

Brandes, Waiting times and noise in single parti- cle transport, Annalen der Physik 520, 477 (2008), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.20085200707

T. Brandes, Waiting times and noise in single parti- cle transport, Annalen der Physik 520, 477 (2008), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.20085200707

2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Heindel, C

T. Heindel, C. A. Kessler, M. Rau, C. Schneider, M. Fürst, F. Hargart, W.-M. Schulz, M. Eichfelder, R. Roßbach, S. Nauerth, M. Lermer, H. Weier, M. Jetter, M. Kamp, S. Re- itzenstein,S.Höfling,P.Michler,H.Weinfurter,andA.Forchel, Quantum key distribution using quantum dot single-photon emittingdiodesintheredandnearinfraredspectralrange,New Journal of Phys...

work page 2012

[2] [2]

Müller, S

M. Müller, S. Bounouar, K. D. Jöns, M. Glässl, and P. Mich- ler, On-demand generation of indistinguishable polarization- entangled photon pairs, Nature Photonics8, 224 (2014)

work page 2014

[3] [3]

Gschrey, A

M. Gschrey, A. Thoma, P. Schnauber, M. Seifried, R. Schmidt, B. Wohlfeil, L. Krüger, J. H. Schulze, T. Heindel, S. Burger, F. Schmidt, A. Strittmatter, S. Rodt, and S. Reitzenstein, Highly indistinguishable photons from deterministic quantum- dot microlenses utilizing three-dimensional in situ electron- beam lithography, Nature Communications6, 7662 (2015)

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Senellart, G

P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, High-performance semiconductorquantum-dotsingle-photonsources,NatureNan- otechnology12, 1026 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. C. Löbl, A.R.Korsch,R.Schott,S.R.Valentin,A.D.Wieck,A.Ludwig, andR.J.Warburton,Abrightandfastsourceofcoherentsingle photons, Nature Nanotechnology16, 399 (2021)

work page 2021

[6] [6]

L. Zhai, G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, J. Ritzmann, M. C. Löbl, A.D.Wieck,A.Ludwig,A.Javadi,andR.J.Warburton,Quan- tuminterferenceofidenticalphotonsfromremotegaasquantum dots, Nature Nanotechnology17, 829 (2022)

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Zhang, N

Y. Zhang, N. Cai, and V. Chan, Recent advances in sili- con quantum dot-based fluorescent biosensors, Biosensors13, 10.3390/bios13030311 (2023)

work page doi:10.3390/bios13030311 2023

[8] [8]

Boeyens, B

J. Boeyens, B. Annby-Andersson, P. Bakhshinezhad, G. Haack, M. Perarnau-Llobet, S. Nimmrichter, P. P. Potts, and M. Mehboudi, Probe thermometry with continuous measure- ments, New Journal of Physics25, 123009 (2023)

work page 2023