Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Singlet-only Always-on Gapless Exchange Qubits with Baseband Control

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a four-electron SAGE spin qubit whose always-on exchange couplings make it immune to local magnetic-field-gradient errors, giving order-of-magnitude longer coherence and better gate fidelities than conventional…

desk verdict A genuinely new four-electron exchange-only qubit with sound Hamiltonian physics and an honest but regime-dependent advantage claim; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18589 v3 pith:LWNIEI35 submitted 2025-01-30 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Nathan L. Foulk , Silas Hoffman , Katharina Laubscher , Sankar Das Sarma This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall MSC 81P68
keywords spinqubitexchange-onlysinglet-onlyencodingalways-onexchangequantumdotsmagneticgradientnoiseleakagesuppressionbasebandcontrol
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 proposes a four-electron spin qubit, called SAGE (singlet-only always-on gapless exchange), that encodes one qubit in the spin state of four electrons in a T-shaped quantum-dot array. Because the exchange couplings between neighboring dots are always on, states outside the computational subspace sit at a higher energy and leakage is suppressed; and because both computational states have total spin zero, local magnetic-field differences between dots cannot mix them. The paper argues that in the regime where magnetic-gradient noise is the dominant decoherence source (roughly gradient disorder above 40 kHz and charge disorder below 7×$10^{-3}$), idle coherence times and single-qubit gate fidelities improve by about an order of magnitude compared with conventional three-electron exchange-only qubits. It also shows that a CNOT between two SAGE qubits can be done with a single interqubit exchange pulse, with ~785 ns gate time at 20 MHz exchange, and that all single-qubit rotations can be done with dc (baseband) pulses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the four-electron singlet-only encoding in a T-shape geometry, where the qubit states are $|0\rangle = |S_{12}S_{34}\rangle$ and $|1\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|T^0_{12}T^0_{34}\rangle - |T^+_{12}T^-_{34}\rangle - |T^-_{12}T^+_{34}\rangle)$, both with total spin $S=0$. The always-on exchange couplings $J_{12}=J_{13}=J_{14}=J$ make these two states degenerate (gapless) while keeping all $S=1$ and $S=2$ leakage states separated by an exchange gap that reaches its maximum of $J/2$ for the T-geometry. This gap is what suppresses leakage and blocks gradient-induced coherent errors, since magnetic gradients only couple states with different total spin. Single-qubit control comes from the fact that lowering any one coupling rotates the qubit about an axis in the $x$-$z$ plane, so any rotation can be built from two dc pulses, and the two-qubit interaction is generated by a single interqubit exchange pulse whose noncomputational couplings are projected out by the always-on intraqubit gap.

What would settle it

Measure the Ramsey coherence time of a SAGE qubit and a conventional exchange-only qubit in the same device with magnetic gradient disorder near 50 kHz and exchange disorder near 5×$10^{-3}$; the paper predicts SAGE's T2 should be roughly constant near 2.6 μs and about an order of magnitude longer than the conventional qubit, and leakage out of the computational subspace should be strongly suppressed. A clear violation of either prediction would falsify the claimed regime advantage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the SAGE qubit, described by the Hamiltonian $H_q = \frac{J_{14}}{4}(\sqrt{3}\sigma_x + \sigma_z) - \frac{J_{13}}{4}(\sqrt{3}\sigma_x - \sigma_z) - \frac{J_{12}}{2}\sigma_z$ with always-on couplings $J_{12}=J_{13}=J_{14}=J$, keeps the two computational states degenerate while placing all leakage states at an exchange energy gap of up to $J/2$ in the T-geometry. This combination eliminates magnetic-gradient-induced coherent errors inside the qubit subspace and energetically suppresses leakage, because local magnetic field gradients only couple states of different total spin. Numerical simulations of idle decay and randomized benchmarking, averaging over disorder realizations, show that when magnetic gradient noise dominates ($\delta_h \gtrsim 40\,\mathrm{kHz}$) and charge noise stays modest ($\delta_J \lesssim 7\times10^{-3}$), the SAGE qubit's coherence times and single-qubit gate infidelities improve by roughly an order of magnitude over conventional exchange-only qubits and over the triangular TriAGE qubit. The same always-on gap enables a two-qubit CNOT through a single interqubit exchange pulse, with an effective interaction $\frac{J_c^2}{6J_0}\sigma_1^z\sigma_2^z - \frac{J_c^2}{24J_0}(\sigma_1^z+\sigma_2^z)$ (up to higher-order corrections), giving ~785 ns gate time and ~99.8% intrinsic fidelity at $J_0=20\,\mathrm{MHz}$, $J_c=4\,\mathrm{MHz}$.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed order-of-magnitude improvement assumes real devices operate in the regime where magnetic-gradient noise dominates over charge noise, roughly gradient disorder above 40 kHz and exchange disorder below 7×$10^{-3}$; outside that regime conventional exchange-only qubits are competitive or better.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When magnetic-gradient noise is the dominant error source, SAGE qubits idle with coherence times that are roughly independent of gradient strength and about an order of magnitude longer than conventional exchange-only qubits.
  • Single-qubit Clifford gates on SAGE qubits have infidelities about an order of magnitude lower than conventional EO and TriAGE qubits in the same regime (e.g., $\delta_h=100\,\mathrm{kHz}$, $\delta_J=7\times10^{-3}$).
  • A CNOT can be realized with a single interqubit exchange pulse plus local unitaries; at $J_0=20\,\mathrm{MHz}$, $J_c=4\,\mathrm{MHz}$ the gate runs in ~785 ns with intrinsic fidelity ~99.8%, and at $J_0=100\,\mathrm{MHz}$ it runs in ~157 ns.
  • Because SAGE is insensitive to differences in Zeeman splitting and $g$-factor, it can operate at larger global magnetic fields than conventional EO qubits, which degrade beyond roughly 1 mT.
  • All single-qubit control is dc/baseband, so no ac driving or on-chip micromagnets are needed, avoiding the heating and fabrication overheads they impose.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The table of all 16 possible interqubit exchange couplings (in the Supplemental Material) shows that different dot pairs yield different effective two-qubit interactions, suggesting a single physical layout could implement a family of entangling gates beyond CNOT just by choosing which interqubit pulse to apply; the paper does not develop this explicitly.
  • Because the protection weakens when exchange couplings are lowered during gates, a natural next test is whether pulse shaping or small corrections can keep the exchange gap high during single-qubit operations; the paper shows the gap shrinks during gates, which is an opening this inference targets.
  • The predicted crossover at $\delta_h\approx40\,\mathrm{kHz}$ means a device engineered to tune magnetic gradient noise across this value should show a sharp performance swap between conventional EO and SAGE qubits, providing a clean experimental signature that has not yet been directly measured.
  • The paper's hole-spin suggestion is conditional; a concrete extension would be to identify a concrete hole-spin encoding with controlled spin-orbit coupling that preserves the singlet-only structure, which would directly convert the gradient protection into a platform advantage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a four-electron, T-shaped, always-on exchange qubit called SAGE. The qubit is encoded in the S=0, S_z=0 subspace spanned by |0>=|S12S34> and |1>, a triplet-triplet singlet combination. At equal always-on couplings J12=J13=J14=J, the qubit is gapless; unequal couplings produce the effective single-qubit Hamiltonian Eq. (3), enabling baseband rotations in the x-z plane. The authors derive Eq. (3) from the Heisenberg model in the Supplemental Material and argue that magnetic-field gradients couple only states with different total spin, so intra-subspace gradient errors vanish and leakage is suppressed by the always-on exchange gap. Disorder-averaged simulations of idle coherence times and randomized benchmarking of single-qubit gates are compared with conventional three-electron exchange-only and TriAGE qubits, showing an order-of-magnitude improvement when magnetic-gradient disorder is large (δh≳40 kHz) and charge disorder is small (δJ≲7e-3). For two qubits, a single interqubit exchange pulse produces an effective σz1σz2 interaction plus local fields; up to local unitaries this realizes a CNOT in about 785 ns with ~99.8% intrinsic fidelity at J0=20 MHz, Jc=4 MHz.

Significance. If the targeted noise regime is realized in devices, SAGE offers a qualitatively different error trade-off: it converts the dominant magnetic-gradient error of exchange-only qubits from a first-order intra-subspace error into a leakage error suppressed by an exchange gap, while retaining dc baseband control. The analytic derivation of Eq. (3), the explicit selection-rule argument, and the comparison against conventional EO and TriAGE baselines are genuine strengths. The two-qubit Schrieffer-Wolff analysis is checked against exact numerics via Makhlin invariants, and the paper is careful to identify the disorder parameters used in each simulation. However, the headline improvement is not a property of the encoding alone: it is conditional on a specific noise regime that the paper itself shows is not universally favorable. The manuscript would be substantially strengthened by anchoring δh and δJ to published device data and by making the crossover explicit in the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §Qubit definition and coherence times, Figs. 2 and 3] The central claim that SAGE improves coherence times and single-qubit gate infidelities by an order of magnitude is established only in the noise regime δh≳40 kHz and δJ≲7e-3 (Fig. 2(a,b) and Fig. 3(b,c)). In the same figures, conventional EO qubits have longer idle coherence times for δh≲30 kHz and for δJ≳7e-3. The abstract's phrase 'when magnetic gradient noise dominates over charge noise' is not wrong, but it is underspecified: the paper should state the crossover values explicitly and justify that the quoted 'experimentally attainable' operating point (δh=50 kHz, T_eff^2≈2.6 μs; δJ=5e-3, Q_eff≈70) is representative of the devices cited in Refs. [13]-[17]. Without such calibration, or a sensitivity analysis around the crossover, the headline advantage is a prediction about unmeasured noise parameters rather than a demonstrated property of the encoding. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it is load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion.
  2. [Two-qubit operation, Eq. (5) and SM Fig. S3] The two-qubit performance is summarized by the lower-bound formulas F_CNOT≈1−J_c^2/(2J_0^2) and t_CNOT≈3J_0/(4J_c^2)−45/(64J_c), but SM Fig. S3 shows that the actual simulated fidelity fluctuates in a wide band around this bound because of leakage oscillations, and the quoted 99.8% intrinsic fidelity at J_c/J_0=0.2 is a selected favorable point described as 'far above the lower bound.' The paper should quantify how much the fidelity varies under small changes of J_c/J_0 and whether the favorable point is robust; otherwise the speed-fidelity trade-off central to the scalability claim is underdetermined. Reporting the leakage probability for the selected parameters would also help, since leakage is stated to be the principal error source.
  3. [Randomized benchmarking methodology, §Single-qubit operation and Fig. 3] The comparison with conventional EO qubits is a central pillar of the paper, but the manuscript does not state explicitly whether H_C (charge disorder) is included for the conventional EO qubit during finite-duration gate pulses or only at idle. The caption of Fig. 2 says H_C=0 for conventional EO systems because J=0 for each coupling, which is true at idle, but the RB sequences necessarily turn on exchange couplings. If charge noise is excluded during conventional EO gates, the comparison is conservative in favor of the conventional qubit, but this should be stated; if it is included, the near-constant fidelity in Fig. 3(c) should be explained more carefully. This clarification matters for the fairness of the benchmark and for reproducing the results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should include the explicit crossover (δh≳40 kHz and δJ≲7e-3) or otherwise state that the order-of-magnitude claim is a regime-specific prediction.
  2. [Figs. 2 and 3] The coherence-time and fidelity plots have no error bars or confidence intervals, even though all quantities are averages over disorder realizations; adding standard errors would help the reader assess the claimed order-of-magnitude separation.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S1)] The 6x6 matrix representation of H_4-dot is typeset without explicit column separators, which makes it difficult to verify the selection-rule structure and the claim that gradients couple only states with different total S; please reformat as a proper matrix with delimiters.
  4. [Eq. (5)] Please state the units of t_CNOT explicitly (microseconds for couplings expressed in MHz) and the range of validity of the two formulas in terms of J_c/J_0.
  5. [References] Several references are arXiv preprints that have since appeared in journals; please update them where possible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SAGE qubit results follow from the four-electron Heisenberg Hamiltonian, explicit disorder simulations, and a Schrieffer-Wolff expansion, with no load-bearing self-citation or fitted input disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are self-contained derivations and simulations. The qubit Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) is obtained by restricting the four-electron Heisenberg Hamiltonian H4-dot to the Sz=0 subspace and setting J23=J24=J34=0, as explicitly shown in the Supplemental Material; no fitted parameters enter this step. The claimed immunity to magnetic-field-gradient errors follows from the S=0 structure of the computational states |0> and |1>: the gradient operator HB couples only states with different total spin S, so its matrix elements within the qubit subspace vanish by the symmetry of the encoding, as displayed in the H4-dot matrix. Coherence times and single-qubit gate fidelities are generated by averaging over 2500 disorder realizations of the stated noise model H = H_exch + HB + HC, with all parameters and sweeps specified (J0 = 10 MHz, delta_h, delta_J), and are benchmarked against conventional EO and TriAGE qubits under the same noise model. The two-qubit CNOT result is derived from a Schrieffer-Wolff expansion (Eq. 4), verified by exact simulation and Makhlin invariants; Eq. (5) is explicitly presented as a numerically extracted lower bound and is a secondary engineering estimate, not a hidden input to the main encoding claim. The conditional 'order-of-magnitude' improvement is tied to a stated noise regime (delta_h > ~40 kHz, delta_J < ~7e-3), which is a validity assumption about experimental parameters, not a circular use of the conclusion. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited singlet-only encodings and TriAGE comparisons are prior external works by other authors. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Heisenberg model, the noise regime assumption (gradients dominate, charge noise below threshold), and the ability to maintain the T-shape always-on operating point. The free parameters delta_h, delta_J, J0, Jc are chosen, not fitted to external data; they define the regime where the claimed advantage appears.

free parameters (4)
  • magnetic disorder scale delta_h = 50 kHz (main sweep); up to ~300 kHz
    Chosen to represent experimentally attainable gradient noise; the crossover where SAGE wins depends on this value and the claimed order-of-magnitude improvement only holds for delta_h above ~40 kHz.
  • charge disorder scale delta_J = 5e-3 (main sweep); up to ~2e-2
    Relative fluctuation of exchange couplings, assumed multiplicative and quasistatic. The SAGE advantage requires delta_J below ~7e-3; above this, conventional EO qubits are competitive.
  • intraqubit exchange J0 = 10 MHz single-qubit; 20 MHz two-qubit
    Sets the leakage gap and the operating point; larger J0 enables faster two-qubit gates but requires stronger always-on exchange that may be hard to realize.
  • interqubit exchange Jc = 4 MHz (two-qubit example)
    Chosen to satisfy Jc << J0 for the Schrieffer-Wolff expansion while keeping the CNOT gate time at ~785 ns. The ratio Jc/J0 controls fidelity and speed.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Heisenberg exchange Hamiltonian with nearest-neighbor couplings: H = 1/4 sum J_ij s_i . s_j
    Standard model for exchange-coupled electron spins in quantum dots, used to derive Eq. (3) and all simulations.
  • domain assumption A large global magnetic field polarizes magnetic disorder along the quantization axis, so H_B = sum h_i s_i^z
    Stated in footnote [40]; justifies restricting to Sz=0 subspace and treating gradients as scalar fields.
  • domain assumption Charge noise is multiplicative and scales linearly with exchange coupling, delta_J proportional to J, and is quasistatic
    Cites Refs. [41,42]; central to the comparison because conventional EO qubits have J=0 during idle and thus no charge noise, while SAGE always has J=J0.
  • domain assumption Quasistatic noise realizations are drawn from uniform distributions on [-delta_h, delta_h] and [-delta_J, delta_J]
    Noise model used for all simulations; uniform distribution is a convenience and may not match real spectral densities or non-Gaussian tails.
  • domain assumption The T-shape geometry allows only J12, J13, J14 nonzero among the four dots
    Needed to obtain Eq. (3); other exchange couplings are assumed negligible, which is an idealization of real dot arrays.
  • standard math Schrieffer-Wolff perturbation theory is valid to third order in Jc/J0 for the two-qubit gate
    Used to derive the effective two-qubit Hamiltonian; cross-checked with exact numerics, but the perturbative parameter Jc/J0=0.2 is not very small.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Singlet-only Always-on Gapless Exchange Qubits with Baseband Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LWNIEI35

@misc{pith2026250118589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Singlet-only Always-on Gapless Exchange Qubits with Baseband Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LWNIEI35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18589}
}
abstract

We propose a singlet-only always-on gapless exchange (SAGE) spin qubit that encodes a single qubit in the spins of four electrons while allowing universal baseband control. While conventional exchange-only qubits suffer from magnetic-field-gradient-induced leakage and coherent errors, for instance due to local nuclear environments and variations in the $g$-factor, the SAGE qubit subspace is protected from coherent errors due to local magnetic field gradients and leakage out of the computational subspace is energetically suppressed due to the exchange interactions between electrons being always-on. Consequently, we find that when magnetic gradient noise dominates over charge noise, coherence times and single-qubit gate infidelities of the SAGE qubit improve by an order of magnitude compared to conventional exchange-only qubits. Moreover, using realistic parameters, two-qubit gates can be performed with a single interqubit exchange pulse with times comparable in duration to conventional exchange-only qubits but with a significantly simplified pulse sequence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18589 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (c) due to the magnetic fluctuations dominating the error in this regime. Although TriAGE qubits have lower fidelity than SAGE or conventional EO for any disorder [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Coherent control of a triangular exchange-only spin qubit

    Edwin Acuna, Joseph D. Broz, Kaushal Shyamsundar, Antonio B. Mei, Colin P. Feeney, Valerie Smetanka, Tiffany Davis, Kangmu Lee, Maxwell D. Choi, Bry- don Boyd, June Suh, Wonill D. Ha, Cameron Jennings, Andrew S. Pan, Daniel S. Sanchez, Matthew D. Reed, and Jason R. Petta, “Coherent control of a triangular exchange-only spin qubit,” (2024), arXiv:2406.03705

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [17]

    Quantifying error and leakage in an encoded si/sige triple-dot qubit,

    R. W. Andrews, C. Jones, M. D. Reed, A. M. Jones, S. D. Ha, M.P.Jura, J.Kerckhoff, M.Levendorf, S.Meenehan, S. T. Merkel, A. Smith, B. Sun, A. J. Weinstein, M. T. Rakher, T. D. Ladd, and M. G. Borselli, “Quantifying error and leakage in an encoded si/sige triple-dot qubit,” Nature Nanotechnology14, 747–750 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    Quantum compu- tation with quantum dots,

    Daniel Loss and David P. DiVincenzo, “Quantum compu- tation with quantum dots,” Physical Review A57, 120– 126 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [2]

    Coupled quantum dots as quantum gates,

    Guido Burkard, Daniel Loss, and David P. DiVincenzo, “Coupled quantum dots as quantum gates,” Physical Re- view B59, 2070–2078 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [3]

    Semiconduc- tor spin qubits,

    Guido Burkard, Thaddeus D. Ladd, Andrew Pan, John M. Nichol, and Jason R. Petta, “Semiconduc- tor spin qubits,” Reviews of Modern Physics95, 025003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [4]

    Probing single electrons across 300-mm spin qubit wafers

    SNeyens, OKZietz, TFWatson, FLuthi, ANethwewala, HC George, E Henry, M Islam, AJ Wagner, F Borjans, EJ Connors, J Corrigan, MJ Curry, D Keith, R Kotlyar, LF Lampert, MT Mądzik, K Millard, FA Mohiyaddin, S Pellerano, R Pillarisetty, M Ramsey, R Savytskyy, S Schaal, G Zheng, J Ziegler, NC Bishop, S Bojarski, J Roberts, and JS Clarke, “Probing single electro...

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    12-spin-qubit arrays fabricated on a 300 mm semiconductor manufacturing line

    Hubert C. George, Mateusz T. Mądzik, Eric M. Henry, Andrew J. Wagner, Mohammad M. Islam, Felix Bor- jans, Elliot J. Connors, Joelle Corrigan, Matthew Curry, Michael K. Harper, Daniel Keith, Lester Lampert, Flo- rian Luthi, Fahd A. Mohiyaddin, Sandra Murcia, Ro- hit Nair, Rambert Nahm, Aditi Nethwewala, Samuel Neyens, Roy D. Raharjo, Carly Rogan, Rostyslav...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [6]

    A 300 mm foundry silicon spin qubit unit cell exceeding 99% fidelity in all operations,

    Paul Steinacker, Nard Dumoulin Stuyck, Wee Han Lim, Tuomo Tanttu, MengKe Feng, Andreas Nickl, Santiago Serrano, Marco Candido, Jesus D. Cifuentes, Fay E. Hudson, Kok Wai Chan, Stefan Kubicek, Julien Jussot, Yann Canvel, Sofie Beyne, Yosuke Shimura, Roger Loo, Clement Godfrin, Bart Raes, Sylvain Baudot, Danny Wan, Arne Laucht, Chih Hwan Yang, Andre Saraiva...

    arXiv 2024

Show all 47 references
  1. [7]

    Low charge noise quan- tum dots with industrial CMOS manufacturing,

    Asser Elsayed, Mohamed Shehata, Clement Godfrin, Ste- fan Kubicek, Shana Massar, Yann Canvel, Julien Jussot, George Simion, Massimo Mongillo, Danny Wan, Bog- dan Govoreanu, Iuliana P. Radu, Ruoyu Li, Pol Van Dorpe, and Kristiaan De Greve, “Low charge noise quan- tum dots with ...

    2022 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Universal control of a six- qubitquantumprocessorinsilicon,

    Stephan G. J. Philips, Mateusz T. Mądzik, Sergey V. Amitonov, Sander L. de Snoo, Maximilian Russ, Nima Kalhor, Christian Volk, William I. L. Lawrie, Delphine Brousse, Larysa Tryputen, Brian Paquelet Wuetz, Amir Sammak, Menno Veldhorst, Giordano Scappucci, and Lieven M. K. Vand...

    2022

  3. [9]

    Computing with spin qubits at the surface code error threshold,

    Xiao Xue, Maximilian Russ, Nodar Samkharadze, Bren- 6 nan Undseth, Amir Sammak, Giordano Scappucci, and Lieven M. K. Vandersypen, “Computing with spin qubits at the surface code error threshold,” arXivNature 601, 343-347 (2022) , 2107.00628v1 (2021)

    2022 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Fast universal quantum control above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon,

    Akito Noiri, Kenta Takeda, Takashi Nakajima, Takashi Kobayashi, Amir Sammak, Giordano Scappucci, and Seigo Tarucha, “Fast universal quantum control above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon,” (2021), arXiv:2108.02626

    2021 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Operating semiconductor quantum processors with hop- ping spins,

    Chien-An Wang, Valentin John, Hanifa Tidjani, Cé- cile X. Yu, Alexander S. Ivlev, Corentin Déprez, Floor van Riggelen-Doelman, Benjamin D. Woods, Nico W. Hendrickx, William I. L. Lawrie, Lucas E. A. Stehouwer, Stefan D. Oosterhout, Amir Sammak, Mark Friesen, Giordano Scappucci...

    2024

  6. [12]

    Optimized electri- cal control of a Si/SiGe spin qubit in the presence of an induced frequency shift,

    K. Takeda, J. Yoneda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M. R. Delbecq, G. Allison, Y. Hoshi, N. Usami, K. M. Itoh, S. Oda, T. Kodera, and S. Tarucha, “Optimized electri- cal control of a Si/SiGe spin qubit in the presence of an induced frequency shift,” (2018), arXiv:1810.12040

    2018 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Fast quantum gates for exchange-only qubits using simultane- ous exchange pulses,

    Irina Heinz, Felix Borjans, Matthew Curry, Roza Kotl- yar, Florian Luthi, Mateusz T. Mądzik, Fahd A. Mo- hiyaddin, Nathaniel Bishop, and Guido Burkard, “Fast quantum gates for exchange-only qubits using simultane- ous exchange pulses,” (2024), arXiv:2409.05843

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Uni- versal logic with encoded spin qubits in silicon

    AJ Weinstein, MD Reed, AM Jones, RW Andrews, D Barnes, JZ Blumoff, LE Euliss, K Eng, BH Fong, SD Ha, DR Hulbert, CAC Jackson, M Jura, TE Keating, J Kerckhoff, AA Kiselev, J Matten, G Sabbir, A Smith, J Wright, MT Rakher, TD Ladd, and MG Borselli, “Uni- versal logic with encode...

    2023

  9. [16]

    A Flexible Design Platform for Si/SiGe Exchange-Only Qubits with Low Disorder,

    Wonill Ha, Sieu D. Ha, Maxwell D. Choi, Yan Tang, Adele E. Schmitz, Mark P. Levendorf, Kangmu Lee, James M. Chappell, Tower S. Adams, Daniel R. Hul- bert, EdwinAcuna, RamseyS.Noah, JustineW.Matten, Michael P. Jura, Jeffrey A. Wright, Matthew T. Rakher, and Matthew G. Borselli,...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Magnetic Gradient Fluctuations from Quadrupolar 73 Ge in Si / Si Ge Exchange-Only Qubits,

    J. Kerckhoff, B. Sun, B.H. Fong, C. Jones, A.A. Kise- lev, D.W. Barnes, R.S. Noah, E. Acuna, M. Akmal, S.D. Ha, J.A. Wright, B.J. Thomas, C.A.C. Jackson, L.F. Edge, K. Eng, R.S. Ross, and T.D. Ladd, “Magnetic Gradient Fluctuations from Quadrupolar 73 Ge in Si / Si Ge Exchange-...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Quadrupolar Exchange-Only Spin Qubit,

    Maximilian Russ, J. R. Petta, and Guido Burkard, “Quadrupolar Exchange-Only Spin Qubit,” Physical Re- view Letters121, 177701 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Exchange-Only Spin-Orbit Qubits in Silicon and Germanium,

    Stefano Bosco and Maximilian Rimbach-Russ, “Exchange-Only Spin-Orbit Qubits in Silicon and Germanium,” (2024), arXiv:2410.05461

    2024

  13. [21]

    Exchange-only singlet- only spin qubit,

    Arnau Sala and Jeroen Danon, “Exchange-only singlet- only spin qubit,” Physical Review B95, 241303(R) (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Highly tunable exchange-only singlet-only qubit in a GaAs triple quantum dot,

    Arnau Sala, Jørgen Holme Qvist, and Jeroen Danon, “Highly tunable exchange-only singlet-only qubit in a GaAs triple quantum dot,” Physical Review Research2, 012062(R) (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Universal Fault-Tolerant Computation on Decoherence-Free Subspaces,

    Dave Bacon, Julia Kempe, Daniel A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, “Universal Fault-Tolerant Computation on Decoherence-Free Subspaces,” Physical Review Let- ters85, 1758–1761 (2000)

    2000

  16. [24]

    Robustness ofdecoherence-freesubspacesforquantumcomputation,

    D. Bacon, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, “Robustness ofdecoherence-freesubspacesforquantumcomputation,” Physical Review A60, 1944–1955 (1999)

    1999

  17. [25]

    Encoded Universality in Physical Implementations of a Quantum Computer,

    D. Bacon, J. Kempe, D. P. DiVincenzo, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley, “Encoded Universality in Physical Implementations of a Quantum Computer,” (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0102140

    2001 arXiv

  18. [26]

    D.Bacon,Decoherence, Control, and Symmetry in Quan- tum Computers, PhD Thesis, arXiv (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Encoded Universality from a Single Physical Inter- action,

    J. Kempe, D. Bacon, D. P. DiVincenzo, and K. B. Wha- ley, “Encoded Universality from a Single Physical Inter- action,” (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0112013

    2001 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Theory of decoherence-free fault-tolerant universal quantum computation,

    J. Kempe, D. Bacon, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Wha- ley, “Theory of decoherence-free fault-tolerant universal quantum computation,” Physical Review A63, 042307 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    An Explicit Universal Gate-set for Exchange-Only Quantum Computation,

    M. Hsieh, J. Kempe, S. Myrgren, and K. B. Whaley, “An Explicit Universal Gate-set for Exchange-Only Quantum Computation,” (2003), arXiv: 0309002

    2003

  22. [30]

    Coherence-Preserving Quantum Bits,

    Dave Bacon, Kenneth R. Brown, and K. B. Whaley, “Coherence-Preserving Quantum Bits,” Physical Review Letters87, 247902 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    Quantum-dot cluster-state computing with en- coded qubits,

    Yaakov S. Weinstein, C. S. Hellberg, and Jeremy Levy, “Quantum-dot cluster-state computing with en- coded qubits,” Physical Review A72, 020304(R) (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    Scalable Archi- tecture for Coherence-Preserving Qubits,

    Yaakov S. Weinstein and C. S. Hellberg, “Scalable Archi- tecture for Coherence-Preserving Qubits,” Physical Re- view Letters98, 110501 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    Two-qubit gates for decoherence-free qubits using a ring exchange interac- tion,

    Bobby Antonio and Sougato Bose, “Two-qubit gates for decoherence-free qubits using a ring exchange interac- tion,” Physical Review A88, 042306 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Preparation of decoherence-free cluster states with optical superlat- tices,

    L. Jiang, A.M. Rey, O. Romero-Isart, J.J. Garcia- Ripoll, A. Sanpera, and M. D. Lukin, “Preparation of decoherence-free cluster states with optical superlat- tices,” Physical Review A79, 022309 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    See Supplemental Material [url] which also includes Ref. [47]]

  28. [36]

    Quantum dots,

    Leo Kouwenhoven and Charles Marcus, “Quantum dots,” Physics World11, 35 (1998)

    1998

  29. [37]

    Coherent Manipulation of Coupled Electron Spins in Semiconductor Quantum Dots,

    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, “Coherent Manipulation of Coupled Electron Spins in Semiconductor Quantum Dots,” Sci- ence309, 2180–2184 (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    Allowed and forbidden transitions in artificial hydrogen and he- lium atoms,

    Toshimasa Fujisawa, David Guy Austing, Yasuhiro Tokura, Yoshiro Hirayama, and Seigo Tarucha, “Allowed and forbidden transitions in artificial hydrogen and he- lium atoms,” Nature419, 278–281 (2002), arXiv:cond- 7 mat/0209464

    2002

  31. [39]

    Fast and High-Fidelity State Preparation and Measurement in Triple-Quantum-Dot Spin Qubits,

    Jacob Z. Blumoff, Andrew S. Pan, Tyler E. Keating, Reed W. Andrews, David W. Barnes, Teresa L. Brecht, Edward T. Croke, Larken E. Euliss, Jacob A. Fast, Clayton A.C. Jackson, Aaron M. Jones, Joseph Kerck- hoff, Robert K. Lanza, Kate Raach, Bryan J. Thomas, Roland Velunta, Aaro...

    2022

  32. [40]

    We assume that a large global magnetic field is applied to the system, which justifies the polarization of magnetic disorder along the axis of quantization

  33. [41]

    Reduced sensitivity to charge noise in semiconductor spin qubits via symmetric operation,

    M. D. Reed, B. M. Maune, R. W. Andrews, M. G. Borselli, K. Eng, M. P. Jura, A. A. Kiselev, T. D. Ladd, S. T. Merkel, I. Milosavljevic, E. J. Pritchett, M. T. Rakher, R. S. Ross, A. E. Schmitz, A. Smith, J. A. Wright, M. F. Gyure, and A. T. Hunter, “Reduced sensitivity to charg...

    2016

  34. [42]

    Demonstration of En- tanglement of Electrostatically Coupled Singlet-Triplet Qubits,

    M. D. Shulman, O. E. Dial, S. P. Harvey, H. Bluhm, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, “Demonstration of En- tanglement of Electrostatically Coupled Singlet-Triplet Qubits,” Science336, 202–205 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Energetic sup- pression of decoherence in exchange-only quantum com- putation,

    Yaakov S. Weinstein and C. S. Hellberg, “Energetic sup- pression of decoherence in exchange-only quantum com- putation,” Physical Review A72, 022319 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates,

    E. Knill, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, J. Britton, R. B. Blakestad, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, R. Ozeri, S. Sei- delin, and D. J. Wineland, “Randomized benchmarking of quantum gates,” Physical Review A77, 012307 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Char- acterizing errors on qubit operations via iterative ran- domized benchmarking,

    Sarah Sheldon, Lev S. Bishop, Easwar Magesan, Stefan Filipp, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta, “Char- acterizing errors on qubit operations via iterative ran- domized benchmarking,” Physical Review A93, 012301 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Thegermaniumquantuminformation route,

    Giordano Scappucci, Christoph Kloeffel, Floris A. Zwa- nenburg, Daniel Loss, Maksym Myronov, Jian-Jun Zhang, Silvano De Franceschi, Georgios Katsaros, and MennoVeldhorst, “Thegermaniumquantuminformation route,” Nature Reviews Materials6, 926–943 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Nonlocal Properties of Two-Qubit Gates and Mixed States, and the Optimization of Quan- tumComputations,

    Yuriy Makhlin, “Nonlocal Properties of Two-Qubit Gates and Mixed States, and the Optimization of Quan- tumComputations,” QuantumInformationProcessing1, 243–252 (2002). 8 Supplemental Material: Singlet-only Always-on Gapless Exchange Qubits with Baseband Control SINGLE-QUBIT HA...

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.