Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The impact of hole $g$-factor anisotropy on spin-photon entanglement generation with InGaAs quantum dots

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that in annealed InGaAs quantum dots, the in-plane hole g-factor anisotropy is set by valence-band mixing, not the cubic Luttinger q term, and that this anisotropy can be tuned to improve spin-photon entanglement.

desk verdict Solid single-dot evidence for VBM-dominated hole g-anisotropy, undermined by an unexplained parameter mismatch between the main-text fit and the simulation appendix. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07627 v2 pith:TIMCNRWG submitted 2025-02-11 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

P. R. Ramesh , E. Annoni , N. Margaria , D. A. Fioretto , A. Pishchagin , M. Morassi , A. Lemaître , M. F. Doty
show 5 more authors
P. Senellart L. Lanco N. Belabas S. C. Wein O. Krebs
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords holeg-factoranisotropyspin-photonentanglementInGaAsquantumdotsvalencebandmixingLuttingerqparameterclusterstatesZeemansplittingpolarization-resolvedphotoluminescence
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 investigates why the in-plane g-factor of a heavy hole in an annealed InGaAs quantum dot depends on the direction of an applied magnetic field, and what that anisotropy means for spin-photon entanglement. Using polarization-resolved photoluminescence on a single dot, the authors show that the polarization eigenaxes of the Zeeman-split transitions stay locked to a fixed offset from the [110] crystal axis as the magnetic field rotates. That locking identifies valence-band mixing, not the cubic Luttinger q term, as the dominant source of the hole g-factor anisotropy. From the measured g-tensor they simulate the cluster-state generation protocol and show that tuning the magnetic field angle and the excitation polarization can suppress hole precession during photon emission, improving concurrence and cluster-state fidelity. If this holds, post-growth annealing does not erase the anisotropy; instead the anisotropy becomes a usable control knob for entangled-photon sources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 2×2 hole g-tensor in the heavy-hole pseudospin basis: $g_h = -3 \begin{pmatrix} q+\rho\sin 2\theta_0 & \rho\cos 2\theta_0 \\ -\rho\cos 2\theta_0 & -q+\rho\sin 2\theta_0 \end{pmatrix}$ with $\rho = (4\kappa+7q)\beta/\Delta_{\mathrm{HL}}$, plus a corrective symmetric term $q_c$ that lowers the symmetry below C2v. The Hamiltonian that produces it combines the bulk Luttinger Zeeman term ($\kappa$, $q$), the confinement splitting $\Delta_{\mathrm{HL}}$, and a C2v perturbation $\beta e^{-i\theta_0 J_z}(J_x J_y + J_y J_x)e^{i\theta_0 J_z}$ that mixes heavy- and light-hole states. The ratio $\rho/\tilde{q}$ decides the physics: if $\rho \gg \tilde{q}$, the polarization eigenaxes are pinned to the offset $\theta_0$ (what is measured), whereas if $\tilde{q} \gg \rho$, they rotate as $-\theta_B$. In the simulation, the same g-tensor enters the master equation and determines both the hole precession axis and its rate $\omega_h$, which is what the protocol must compensate.

What would settle it

Measure the polarization eigenaxis angle α1 versus magnetic field angle θB on a statistically meaningful set of annealed InGaAs QDs from the same growth; if any dot shows α1 rotating as −θB instead of staying pinned near a fixed θ0, the claim that valence-band mixing dominates the hole g-tensor after annealing is falsified for the ensemble.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in an annealed InGaAs/GaAs quantum dot, the anisotropic in-plane hole g-tensor is dominated by a C2v-like valence-band-mixing term (parameter ρ) rather than by the confinement-renormalized cubic Luttinger q term. Experimentally, the polarization eigenaxes α1 and α2 of the four Zeeman-split trion transitions remain approximately constant in the sample frame (α1 ≈ θ0 ≈ −28° with respect to [110]) as the magnetic field angle θB is varied over six values, which is the signature of the VBM-dominated regime predicted by Eq. 5. The measured magnitude |gh(θB)| is then captured by |g_h| = 3 sqrt(q̃² + ρ² + 2q̃ρ cos[2(θ0 + θc + θB)]), with fitted parameters q = 0.010, ρ = 0.086, θ0 = −28°, qc = 0.018. Using this g-tensor in a master-equation simulation of the cluster-state protocol of Ref. [5], the paper shows that by choosing the excitation polarization θe to make the hole spin a Zeeman eigenstate, single-cycle concurrence can be maximized, and by choosing θB near ±90° (where |gh| is minimum) the fidelity of larger cluster states scales better.

Load-bearing premise

The single dot QD16, the only one measured in detail, is representative of the annealed InGaAs dot ensemble; the paper gives no dot-to-dot statistics, so if QD16 is atypical the extracted g-tensor parameters and the simulated entanglement improvements would not transfer to other dots.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a single emission step, maximal concurrence can always be recovered by choosing excitation polarization $\theta_e$ to match the hole Zeeman eigenstate, independent of the magnetic field angle.
  • Cluster-state fidelity is highest and scales best when $\theta_B$ is near $\pm 90^\circ$, where $|g_h|$ is minimal, though optimal $\theta_e$ still matters for small cluster sizes.
  • The hole g-factor anisotropy persists after annealing at $900^\circ$C, so post-growth morphology changes do not suppress the C2v contribution enough to make the cubic q term dominant.
  • The extracted parameters (q = 0.010, ρ = 0.086, θ0 = −28°, qc = 0.018) provide a quantitative g-tensor model that can be used to predict entanglement quality for other dots and angles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the claim holds, a single polarization measurement at one field angle gives the full in-plane g-tensor orientation for a dot, since the eigenaxes are pinned to θ0; this simplifies calibration for entanglement sources.
  • The same g-tensor model, applied to positive trions, suggests an inverted strategy: maximize |gh| by choosing θB so that the ground-state hole precesses fast while the excited-state electron precession is minimized, an extension the authors describe qualitatively.
  • Because the simulations show concurrence is most robust when ρ ≈ q̃ (two angles with |gh| = 0), growth or post-growth control that tunes β/ΔHL could deliberately place a dot near this regime; a testable prediction is that such dots would show two magnetic-field angles with near-zero hole precession.
  • Since θ0 is set by each dot's specific strain and shape asymmetry, the optimal field angle for a device would have to be determined per dot; the paper's single-dot fit may not transfer to other dots without per-dot calibration.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports polarization-resolved magneto-photoluminescence measurements on a single annealed InGaAs quantum dot at six in-plane magnetic field angles. The authors find that the eigenpolarization angles α1 of the Zeeman-split trion transitions remain approximately fixed relative to the [110] crystal axis, and they interpret this as evidence that valence-band mixing (C2v perturbation) dominates over the cubic Luttinger q term. They construct a g-tensor model with parameters q, ρ, θ0, and qc, fit it to the measured α1 and |g_h|, and then use the model to simulate spin-photon Bell-state concurrence and cluster-state fidelity as functions of magnetic field angle and excitation polarization. They conclude that post-growth control of the hole g-factor can improve spin-photon entanglement generation.

Significance. The qualitative finding—that the eigenpolarization offset is roughly constant across field angles—is a clean, falsifiable discriminator between VBM-dominated and cubic-dominated g-factor anisotropy, and the perturbative derivation of the g-tensor from the Luttinger and C2v Hamiltonians is standard and appears sound. The experimental methodology is careful, with in-situ lithography and polarization-resolved spectroscopy. The simulation framework is detailed and uses a realistic master-equation approach. However, the quantitative impact of the paper is currently compromised by the mismatch between the fitted g-tensor parameters and those used in the simulations, and by the lack of uncertainty quantification on the four-parameter fit. If these issues are resolved, the paper would be a useful contribution to understanding and harnessing hole g-factor anisotropy in quantum dot spin-photon interfaces.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D / Table D1 and main text after Eq. (7)] The simulation parameters in Table D1 are inconsistent with the g-tensor fit reported in the main text. The main text states q=0.010, ρ=0.086, θ0=-28°, qc=0.018, but Table D1 lists q=-0.012, ρ=0.086, qc=-0.018, θ0=-28°. Both the sign and magnitude of q differ, and the ratio qc/q changes from 1.8 to 1.5, shifting θc and the angular dependence of |g_h| in Eq. (7). Since the Figure 3 caption and the main text state that the simulation uses the g-factor fit of Fig. 2, the concurrence and fidelity results are not demonstrably predictions for the measured QD. The authors must either re-run the simulations with the fitted parameters or explicitly justify that the sign/magnitude change is a harmless convention and demonstrate that the results are invariant under it.
  2. [Eq. (7), Fig. 2, and Appendix D] The four-parameter fit (q, ρ, θ0, qc) is performed on the same six-angle data of α1 and |g_h| that the model is then said to describe, but no uncertainties, covariance, or goodness-of-fit are reported. The α1 values in Appendix B scatter from -21.8° to -39° with stated errors up to ±5.3°, so the claim that α1 maintains a fixed offset of about -28° has appreciable scatter. Given that the simulated concurrence in Fig. 3b depends sensitively on the exact tensor parameters (as shown by the sensitivity to q and qc in Eq. 7), the authors should provide confidence intervals for the fitted parameters or a sensitivity analysis of the simulation results to parameter variations. Without this, the quantitative predictions of Section 3 are not robustly established.
  3. [Appendix A and concluding discussion] The paper draws a general conclusion about annealed InGaAs QDs ('the hole g-factor remains dominated by valence band mixing') from a single dot, QD16. Appendix A explains that 16 dots were selected, but only one was measured and no dot-to-dot g-factor statistics are presented. The claim that QD16 is 'representative' is based only on its emission wavelength relative to the group's median, which does not constrain the g-factor anisotropy. The authors acknowledge the single-dot limitation but nonetheless state that the conclusions 'apply to the case of a positive trion' and to cluster-state generation beyond the measured dot. To support these extrapolations, additional dots should be measured or the claims should be explicitly restricted to the measured dot.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text after Eq. (7) and Appendix C] The values q=0.010 and qc=0.018 yield θc = ½ arctan(0.018/0.010) ≈ 30.5°, but Appendix C states θc = 31.3°; please make these numbers consistent.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'using the g-factor fit of Fig 2'; given the discrepancy with Table D1, this caption must be corrected or the parameters reconciled.
  3. [Equation (C6)] The sign convention for q and qc is not defined; a brief statement of how these signs relate to the Luttinger parameter convention would help avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Throughout the text] The spelling 'longtitudinal-acoustic' in Section 3 should be 'longitudinal-acoustic', and the hyphenation of 'g-factor' should be standardized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity was found: the g-tensor model is fitted rather than independently predicted, and the Table D1 parameter mismatch is a consistency issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No significant circularity is present in the derivation chain. The central experimental claim, that valence-band mixing dominates over the cubic Luttinger q term, is supported by the directly measured near-constant eigenpolarization offset alpha1 ~ -28 degrees as a function of the magnetic-field angle thetaB (Fig. 2a); this is a falsifiable check of the model limits in Eqs. (5) and (6), not an artifact of parameter fitting. The parameters q, rho, theta0 and qc are fitted to the same alpha1 and |gh| data shown in Fig. 2, so the reported 'good agreement' is parameter estimation rather than an independent prediction; however, the paper does not present that agreement as a prediction, and the fitted model is then used only to simulate entanglement properties (Fig. 3) rather than to claim new measured predictions. The C2v Hamiltonian and the master-equation / Lindner-Rudolph protocol are cited from prior work, including some co-authored references ([3], [23], [24]-[26], [37]), but these citations supply standard Hamiltonians and simulation methods, not an unverified load-bearing premise that assumes the conclusion. One internal inconsistency is that Appendix D, Table D1 lists q = -0.012 and qc = -0.018, while the main text reports the fit q = 0.010 and qc = 0.018; this is a correctness and reproducibility issue affecting whether the simulated concurrence corresponds to the measured dot, but it is not a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs. The acknowledged single-QD limitation likewise affects generality rather than circularity.

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

No new physical entities are postulated; the qc term is a model parameter, not a new degree of freedom. All free parameters are fitted to the same single-QD dataset, and the model assumes the standard Luttinger and C2v Hamiltonian forms without independent verification of the qc correction.

free parameters (4)
  • q (Luttinger cubic parameter) = 0.010 (main text); -0.012 (Table D1)
    Fitted to the measured angle dependence of |gh| and the polarization eigenaxes. The sign and magnitude inconsistency between the main text and the simulation table is unexplained.
  • rho (valence-band mixing strength) = 0.086
    Fitted to the alpha_1 offset and |gh| modulation; represents the effective C2v perturbation strength divided by the heavy-hole/light-hole splitting.
  • theta0 (C2v mirror plane angle) = -28 degrees
    Fitted to the near-constant offset of the eigenpolarization axis alpha_1 relative to [110].
  • qc (lower-than-C2v correction) = 0.018 (main text); -0.018 (Table D1)
    Added post-hoc and fitted to resolve the discrepancy between the predicted and observed extrema of |gh|. No independent justification is given beyond a suggestion that it corresponds to a rotation of the cubic term's symmetry axes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Luttinger Hamiltonian for the valence band (Eq. 1)
    Standard model for hole Zeeman interaction in zinc-blende semiconductors; cited from Luttinger (1956).
  • domain assumption C2v perturbation Hamiltonian (Eq. 2)
    Form for valence-band mixing in self-assembled QDs, taken from Ivchenko et al.; the paper assumes this is the dominant symmetry-breaking term.
  • standard math First-order perturbation in beta/Delta_HL
    The g-tensor is derived to first order in the valence-band mixing parameter over the heavy-hole/light-hole splitting; higher-order terms are neglected.
  • domain assumption Isotropic electron g-factor
    The electron in-plane g-factor is taken as isotropic based on prior literature; the measured |ge| is nearly constant with theta_B.
  • domain assumption Optical selection rules for negative trion: |up> <-> |R>, |down> <-> |L>
    Standard heavy-hole selection rules; used to connect spin states to photon polarizations in the simulation.
  • domain assumption Master equation with only spontaneous emission as decoherence, parameters from Ref. [3]
    The simulation neglects other decoherence sources (nuclear spins, charge noise) and assumes instantaneous pulses and polarization-preserving excitation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The impact of hole $g$-factor anisotropy on spin-photon entanglement generation with InGaAs quantum dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TIMCNRWG

@misc{pith2026250207627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The impact of hole $g$-factor anisotropy on spin-photon entanglement generation with InGaAs quantum dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TIMCNRWG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07627}
}
abstract

Self-assembled InGaAs/GaAs quantum dots (QDs) are of particular importance for the deterministic generation of spin-photon entanglement. One promising scheme relies on the Larmor precession of a spin in a transverse magnetic field, which is governed by the in-plane $g$-factors of the electron and valence band heavy-hole. We probe the origin of heavy-hole $g$-factor anisotropy with respect to the in-plane magnetic field direction and uncover how it impacts the entanglement generated between the spin and the photon polarization. First, using polarization-resolved photoluminescence measurements on a single QD, we determine that the impact of valence-band mixing dominates over effects due to a confinement-renormalized cubic Luttinger $q$ parameter. From this, we construct a comprehensive hole $g$-tensor model. We then use this model to simulate the concurrence and fidelity of spin-photon entanglement generation with anisotropic hole $g$-factors, which can be tuned via magnetic field angle and excitation polarization. The results demonstrate that post-growth control of the hole $g$-factor can be used to improve spin-photon cluster state generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07627 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Experimental setup for measuring polarization-resolved PL of a single QD under a transverse magnetic field, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Measured angle of eigenpolarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Schematic of trion state evolution. At time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An entangled photon source for the telecom C-band based on a semiconductor-confined spin

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A telecom C-band quantum dot spin is entangled with sequentially emitted photons, with fidelities of about 60% and 53% for two and three qubits, marginally above the classical bound.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [15]

    A. V. Trifonov, I. A. Akimov, L. E. Golub, E. L. Ivchenko, I. A. Yugova, A. N. Kosarev, S. E. Scholz, C. Sgroi, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, D. R. Yakovlev, and M. Bayer, Homogeneous optical anisotropy in an ensem- ble of InGaAs quantum dots induced by strong enhance- ment of the heavy-hole band Land´ e parameter q, Physical Review B104, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [110]

    #+2𝜃$Ω$ z 𝐵 Ω! z𝑡=0 0<𝑡≲𝑇!

    that is incompatible with a dominant cubic term. (a) (b) FIG. 2. (a) Measured angle of eigenpolarizationα 1 (symbols) andg-factor model fit (solid line) versus the magnetic field angleθ B. Dashed green and red lines respectively show pre- dicted relationship under dominantC 2v-driven valence-band mixing (VBM) from Eq. 5 or dominant Luttingerqparameter (cu...

    work page

  3. [1]

    Schwartz, D

    I. Schwartz, D. Cogan, E. R. Schmidgall, Y. Don, L. Gantz, O. Kenneth, N. H. Lindner, and D. Gershoni, Deterministic generation of a cluster state of entangled photons, Science354, 434 (2016)

    2016

  4. [2]

    J. P. Lee, B. Villa, A. J. Bennett, R. M. Stevenson, D. J. Ellis, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, A quan- tum dot as a source of time-bin entangled multi-photon states, Quantum Science and Technology4(2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [3]

    Coste, D

    N. Coste, D. A. Fioretto, N. Belabas, S. C. Wein, P. Hi- laire, R. Frantzeskakis, M. Gundin, B. Goes, N. So- maschi, M. Morassi, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, A. Harouri, S. E. Economou, A. Auffeves, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, High-rate entanglement between a semicon- ductor spin and indistinguishable photons, Nature Pho- tonics17, 582 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [4]

    Y. Meng, M. L. Chan, R. B. Nielsen, M. H. Appel, Z. Liu, Y. Wang, N. Bart, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, A. Tiranov, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lodahl, Determinis- tic photon source of genuine three-qubit entanglement, Nature Communications15, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [5]

    N. H. Lindner and T. Rudolph, Proposal for pulsed On- demand sources of photonic cluster state strings, Physical Review Letters103, 1 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [6]

    H. Huet, P. R. Ramesh, S. C. Wein, N. Coste, P. Hilaire, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, M. F. Doty, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, D. A. Fioretto, and P. Senel- lart, Deterministic and reconfigurable graph state gener- ation with a single solid-state quantum emitter, Nature Communications16, 4337 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 41 references
  1. [7]

    Z.-E. Su, B. Taitler, I. Schwartz, D. Cogan, I. Nassar, O. Kenneth, N. H. Lindner, and D. Gershoni, Continu- ous and deterministic all-photonic cluster state of indis- tinguishable photons, Reports on Progress in Physics87, 077601 (2024)

    2024

  2. [8]

    A. V. Koudinov, I. A. Akimov, Y. G. Kusrayev, and F. Henneberger, Optical and magnetic anisotropies of the hole states in Stranski-Krastanov quantum dots, Physi- cal Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 70, 1 (2004)

    2004

  3. [9]

    D. N. Krizhanovskii, A. Ebbens, A. I. Tartakovskii, F. Pulizzi, T. Wright, M. S. Skolnick, and M. Hopkin- son, Individual neutral and charged InxGa1-xAs-GaAs quantum dots with strong in-plane optical anisotropy, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics72, 8 (2005)

    2005

  4. [10]

    Kowalik, O

    K. Kowalik, O. Krebs, A. Golnik, J. Suffczy´ nski, P. Wo- jnar, J. Kossut, J. A. Gaj, and P. Voisin, Manipulating the exciton fine structure of single CdTe ZnTe quantum dots by an in-plane magnetic field, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics75, 1 (2007)

    2007

  5. [11]

    L´ eger, L

    Y. L´ eger, L. Besombes, L. Maingault, and H. Mariette, Valence-band mixing in neutral, charged, and mn-doped self-assembled quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B76, 045331 (2007)

    2007

  6. [12]

    Y. G. Kusrayev, A. V. Koudinov, I. G. Aksyanov, B. P. Zakharchenya, T. Wojtowicz, G. Karczewski, and J. Kos- sut, Extreme in-plane anisotropy of the heavy-holegfac- tor in (001)-cdte/cdmnte quantum wells, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3176 (1999)

    1999

  7. [13]

    R. Kaji, T. Tominaga, Y. Wu, M. Wu, S. Cheng, and S. Adachi, Anisotropic nature of hole g-factor in individ- ual InAs quantum rings, physica status solidi (b)254 (2017)

    2017

  8. [14]

    Schwan, B

    A. Schwan, B. M. Meiners, A. Greilich, D. R. Yakovlev, M. Bayer, A. D. Maia, A. A. Quivy, and A. B. Henriques, Anisotropy of electron and hole g-factors in (In,Ga)As quantum dots, Applied Physics Letters99, 1 (2011)

    2011

  9. [16]

    J. G. Keizer, A. B. Henriques, A. D. Maia, A. A. Quivy, and P. M. Koenraad, Atomically resolved study of the morphology change of InAs/GaAs quantum dot layers induced by rapid thermal annealing, Applied Physics Let- ters101(2012)

    2012

  10. [17]

    S. S. K. Sinha, S. Kumar, and M. K. Das, Dot size vari- ability induced changes in the optical absorption spectra of interdiffused quantum dot systems, Applied Physics A: Materials Science and Processing125(2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    M. Y. Petrov, I. V. Ignatiev, S. V. Poltavtsev, A. Greilich, A. Bauschulte, D. R. Yakovlev, and M. Bayer, Effect of thermal annealing on the hyperfine interaction in InAs/GaAs quantum dots, Physical Re- view B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics78, 1 (2008)

    2008

  12. [19]

    Dousse, L

    A. Dousse, L. Lanco, J. Suffczy´ nski, E. Semenova, A. Mi- ard, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, C. Roblin, J. Bloch, and P. Senellart, Controlled light-matter coupling for a single quantum dot embedded in a pillar microcavity using far- field optical lithography, Physical Review Le...

    2008

  13. [20]

    J. M. Luttinger, Quantum Theory of Cyclotron Reso- nance in Semiconductors: General Theory, Physical Re- view102, 1030 (1956)

    1956

  14. [21]

    H. W. Van Kesteren, E. C. Cosman, W. A. Van Der Poel, and C. T. Foxon, Fine structure of excitons in type-II GaAs/AlAs quantum wells, Physical Review B41, 5283 (1990). 7

    1990

  15. [22]

    Ivchenko, A

    E. Ivchenko, A. Y. Kaminski, and U. R¨ ossler, Heavy-light hole mixing at zinc-blende (001) interfaces under normal incidence, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics54, 5852 (1996)

    1996

  16. [23]

    A. A. Toropov, E. L. Ivchenko, O. Krebs, S. Cortez, P. Voisin, and J. L. Gentner, Excitonic contributions to the quantum-confined pockels effect, Phys. Rev. B63, 035302 (2000)

    2000

  17. [24]

    M. F. Doty, J. I. Climente, A. Greilich, M. Yakes, A. S. Bracker, and D. Gammon, Hole-spin mixing in inas quan- tum dot molecules, Physical Review B81, 035308 (2010)

    2010

  18. [25]

    S. E. Economou, J. I. Climente, A. Badolato, A. S. Bracker, D. Gammon, and M. F. Doty, Scalable qubit architecture based on holes in quantum dot molecules, Physical Review B86, 085319 (2012)

    2012

  19. [26]

    Vezvaee, P

    A. Vezvaee, P. Hilaire, M. F. Doty, and S. E. Economou, Deterministic generation of entangled photonic cluster states from quantum dot molecules, Physical Review Ap- plied18, L061003 (2022)

    2022

  20. [27]

    Semenov and M

    G. Semenov and M. Ryabchenko, Effects of photolumi- nescence polarization in semiconductor quantum wells subjected to an in-plane magnetic field, Physical Re- view B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics68, 1 (2003)

    2003

  21. [28]

    Serov, A

    Y. Serov, A. Galimov, D. S. Smirnov, M. Rakhlin, N. Leppenen, G. Klimko, S. Sorokin, I. Sedova, D. Berez- ina, Y. Salii, M. Kulagina, Y. Zadiranov, S. Troshkov, T. V. Shubina, and A. A. Toropov, Hidden anisotropy controls spin-photon entanglement in a charged quantum dot, Phys...

    2025

  22. [29]

    S. E. Thomas, M. Billard, N. Coste, S. C. Wein, Priya, H. Ollivier, O. Krebs, L. Taza ¨ ırt, A. Harouri, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, C. Anton, L. Lanco, N. Somaschi, J. C. Loredo, and P. Senellart, Bright Polarized Single- Photon Source Based on a Linear Dipole, Physical Re- view ...

    2021

  23. [30]

    Coste, M

    N. Coste, M. Gundin, D. A. Fioretto, S. E. Thomas, C. Millet, E. Mehdi, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi, M. Pont, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, N. Belabas, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, Probing the dynamics and coherence of a semiconductor hole spin via acoustic phonon-assisted ex- citation...

    2023

  24. [31]

    M. F. Doty, M. Scheibner, I. V. Ponomarev, E. A. Sti- naff, A. S. Bracker, V. L. Korenev, T. L. Reinecke, and D. Gammon, Electrically tunable g factors in quantum dot molecular spin states, Physical Review Letters97, 197202 (2006)

    2006

  25. [32]

    Pingenot, C

    J. Pingenot, C. E. Pryor, and M. E. Flatt´ e, Method for full Bloch sphere control of a localized spin via a single electrical gate, Applied Physics Letters92, 1 (2008)

    2008

  26. [33]

    A. J. Bennett, M. A. Pooley, Y. Cao, N. Sk¨ old, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Voltage tunability of single-spin states in a quantum dot, Nature Communica- tions4(2013)

    2013

  27. [34]

    W. Liu, S. Sanwlani, R. Hazbun, J. Kolodzey, A. S. Bracker, D. Gammon, and M. F. Doty, In situ tunable g factor for a single electron confined inside an InAs quan- tum dot, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics84, 1 (2011)

    2011

  28. [35]

    J. H. Prechtel, F. Maier, J. Houel, A. V. Kuhlmann, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, D. Loss, and R. J. Warburton, Electrically tunable hole g factor of an optically active quantum dot for fast spin rotations, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics91, 1 (2015)

    2015

  29. [36]

    H. M. Tholen, J. S. Wildmann, A. Rastelli, R. Trotta, C. E. Pryor, E. Zallo, O. G. Schmidt, P. M. Koenraad, and A. Y. Silov, Strain-induced g -factor tuning in single InGaAs/GaAs quantum dots, Physical Review B94, 1 (2016)

    2016

  30. [37]

    S. C. Wein, Simulating photon counting from dynamic quantum emitters by exploiting zero-photon measure- ments, Physical Review A109, 1 (2024). 8 Appendix A: Identification of individual quantum dots An in-situ lithography technique [19] was used to mark the position of quantum...

    2024

  31. [39]

    These differ from the plots in Fig

    have the same linear polarization but different energies. These differ from the plots in Fig. 1d and e, where the average intensity of the two transitions with the same polarization (e.g.α 1 andα ′

  32. [40]

    The complete data set of key parametersα 1,α 2,|g h|and|g e|for each angleθ B is summarized below, with error bars

    is instead plotted for clarity. The complete data set of key parametersα 1,α 2,|g h|and|g e|for each angleθ B is summarized below, with error bars. θB (◦) α1 (◦) α2 (◦) |ge| |gh| 1.1±0.45 −22.9±2 68.10±3.3 0.415±0.004 0.323±0.004 −30.5±1.5 −30.5±4.7 59.5±4.3 0.400±0.014 0.308±...

  33. [41]

    B[mT] 60 T1[ns] 0.2 ge 0.4 q -0.012 ρ 0.086 qc -0.018 θ0 [°] -28 θB [°] [0,360] θe [°] [0,360] TABLE D1

    The exact value of the equation parameters used in the simulation are shown in Table D1. B[mT] 60 T1[ns] 0.2 ge 0.4 q -0.012 ρ 0.086 qc -0.018 θ0 [°] -28 θB [°] [0,360] θe [°] [0,360] TABLE D1. Value of the system and protocol parameters used to simulate the master equation of...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.