Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Engineering Ge profiles in Si/SiGe heterostructures for increased valley splitting

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thinner Si/SiGe wells with broad, diffused interfaces raise valley splitting up to twice the sharp-interface control while preserving low disorder.

desk verdict A credible growth-engineering result with a real valley-splitting enhancement, but the headline trend leans on single-device quantum-Hall data and needs more statistics before the linear-correlation claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22295 v1 pith:NZMFK57X submitted 2025-05-28 cond-mat.mes-hall

Lucas E. A. Stehouwer , Merrit P. Losert , Maia Rigot , Davide Degli Esposti , Sara Martí-Sánchez , Maximillian Rimbach-Russ , Jordi Arbiol , Mark Friesen
show 1 more author
Giordano Scappucci
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords valleysplittingSi/SiGeheterostructuresquantumwellspinqubitsconcentrationprofileHalleffectdisorderelectronmobility
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 deliberately growing Si/SiGe quantum wells with broad, diffused interfaces rather than atomically sharp ones can increase the valley splitting—the energy separation between the two low-lying conduction-band valleys that limits silicon spin qubits—by up to a factor of two. The authors grow a series of increasingly thin quantum wells with wider interfaces and measure, via quantum Hall activation energies, a valley splitting that grows as the quantum well thickness decreases and correlates linearly with disorder. They benchmark against a sharp-interface control and show that a well with approximately 3.6 nm interfaces and 7.8 nm width gives a 1.8x valley-splitting increase while retaining mobility above $2\times10^5$ cm$^2$/Vs and percolation density below $6\times10^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$. Simulations using the measured Ge concentration profiles predict a proportional increase in the average valley splitting of quantum dots. If correct, this provides a growth-level knob—temperature and well thickness—for engineering valley splitting on average, rather than relying on atomically sharp interfaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are: (i) the engineered Ge concentration profiles, extracted from HAADF-STEM intensity combined with SIMS, which show reproducible, roughly 2.4x wider interfaces in B1–B3 than in control A; (ii) the overlap parameter $\eta_1$, defined as $\Delta_z \sum_l \psi_{\mathrm{env}}^4(z_l) G_l(1 - G_l)$, which quantifies how much the electron wavefunction samples Ge atoms; and (iii) the common-intercept activation-energy analysis in which the mobility gaps $\Delta_1, \Delta_2, \Delta_4$ for $\nu = 1, 2, 4$ extrapolate linearly in magnetic field to a shared intercept, giving the disorder broadening $\Gamma$ and the valley splitting $E_v = \Delta_1 + \Gamma$. The simulation formula $\bar{E}_v = \tfrac{a_0^2 \Delta E_c}{8 a_{\mathrm{dot}} \Delta G} \sum_l \psi_{\mathrm{env}}^4(z_l) G_l(1 - G_l)$ connects the measured profiles to average quantum-dot valley splittings.

What would settle it

Grow two or more nominally identical wafers of heterostructure B2, fabricate many Hall bars on each, and measure valley splitting on every device. If the device-to-device spread in $E_v$ (or $g_v$) is comparable to or larger than the reported ~1.8x difference between B2 and the control A, then the claimed engineering enhancement is not robust. A second check: measure valley splitting directly in quantum dots fabricated on B2 and compare the distribution's mean to the simulated $E_v^{\mathrm{QD}}$; if the mean does not track the 2DEG $E_v$ at the same orbital energy, the predictive link fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the valley splitting in Si/SiGe two-dimensional electron gases can be engineered on average by controlling the Ge concentration profile—specifically by growing thinner quantum wells with intentionally diffused interfaces, which increases the overlap of the electron wavefunction with Ge atoms. The paper establishes a linear correlation between the measured valley splitting (extracted as $E_v = \Delta_1 + \Gamma$ from thermally activated transport) and the disorder broadening $\Gamma$, and between the valley g-factor $g_v$ and both the maximum mobility and the computed wavefunction-overlap parameter $\eta_1$. It further predicts, using a simulation that takes the experimental Ge profiles as input, that quantum dots in these heterostructures will show an average valley splitting $E_v^{\mathrm{QD}}$ proportional to the measured two-dimensional value. The benchmark claim is that the B2 heterostructure—about 7.8 nm well width and 3.6 nm interface width—delivers a 1.8x increase in valley splitting over the sharp-interface control A while retaining mobility above $2\times10^5$ cm$^2$/Vs and percolation density below $6\times10^{10}$ cm$^{-2}$.

Load-bearing premise

The valley splitting in each heterostructure is measured on a single representative Hall-bar device, and the paper assumes that value represents the whole wafer; if that device is atypical, the claimed correlation and the 1.8x enhancement are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Growth temperature and well thickness become tunable knobs for valley splitting on average, reducing the need for atomically abrupt interfaces in Si/SiGe qubit wafers.
  • The linear relationship between simulated dot valley splitting and measured 2DEG valley splitting suggests that quantum Hall measurements can serve as a rapid screen for heterostructure quality before fabricating quantum dots.
  • Wafers grown this way could reduce the spread of valley splittings across qubits, alleviating the leakage and shuttling errors that currently limit silicon spin qubit fidelity and scaling.
  • The B2 trade-off point (1.8x valley gain at mobility above $2\times10^5$ cm$^2$/Vs) provides a concrete target for industrial fabrication of qubit-grade heterostructures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because each heterostructure's valley splitting was measured on a single representative device, the strength of the claimed correlation rests on wafer-level reproducibility; a multi-device statistical study on B2 would test whether the 1.8x enhancement survives averaging.
  • The same growth strategy may extend to other alloy systems (e.g., SiGeSn or GeSn wells) where interface abruptness is harder to control and the wavefunction-overlap metric $\eta_1$ could be optimized computationally.
  • The results imply an optimal well thickness exists: thin enough to boost $\eta_1$, but thick enough to keep Ge out of the well center, as in B3 where mobility collapses. This suggests a design curve for future heterostructures.
  • If the linear $E_v^{\mathrm{QD}}$ versus $E_v$ relationship is confirmed in actual quantum dot devices, 2DEG transport could become a quantitative proxy for qubit-relevant valley physics, accelerating materials screening.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a growth study of 28Si/28SiGe heterostructures in which the Ge concentration profile is engineered by growing thinner quantum wells with intentionally broad interfaces (B1-B3) and comparing them with a sharp-interface control (A). STEM and SIMS are used to extract Ge concentration profiles; Hall-bar magnetotransport provides mobility and percolation densities for multiple devices per structure, while valley splitting is obtained from activation-energy measurements in the quantum Hall regime on one representative H-FET per heterostructure. The authors report larger valley splitting for the broad-interface/thin-well structures, extract a valley g-factor, and present correlations between gv, disorder broadening Gamma, maximum mobility, and a computed Ge-overlap parameter eta_1. Simulations using the measured Ge profiles predict mean quantum-dot valley splittings that scale linearly with the measured two-dimensional valley splitting. The central claim is that valley splitting can be enhanced on average by growth-profile engineering while retaining low disorder, with B2 identified as the best trade-off.

Significance. If the central trend is confirmed, the result is practically significant: it offers growth parameters (temperature and well thickness) as a route to enhance valley splitting in Si/SiGe without requiring atomically sharp interfaces, and it connects 2DEG valley splitting to quantum-dot predictions through measured Ge profiles. The paper's strengths include direct atomic-scale Ge profiling, statistically characterized mobility and percolation densities from 8-10 H-FETs per structure, an activation-energy method anchored to prior work, openly available data, and simulations that use measured Ge profiles with constants that are not fitted to the present valley-splitting data. The main weakness is statistical: the headline valley-splitting enhancement and the four-point linear correlations rest on a single H-FET per heterostructure with no reported uncertainty on Ev, gv, or Gamma. This is a sampling issue rather than an internal inconsistency, but it is load-bearing for the paper's central claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Figs. 3-4 and SI Figs. S3-S5] The valley-splitting dataset consists of one representative H-FET per heterostructure: activation measurements are shown for a single device for A, B1, B2, and B3, and no error bars are reported for Ev, gv, or Gamma in Fig. 4(b)-(e). Because Refs. 30 and 31, cited by the authors, demonstrate that random alloy fluctuations cause large device-to-device variability in valley splitting, a single device per wafer cannot establish the claimed 'on average' enhancement (1.8x for B2) or the four-point linear correlations. The risk is especially acute for B1, whose mobility statistics already show a large spread attributed to possible strain relaxation (Fig. 2(c) and SI Fig. S2(b)). The Conclusions acknowledge that future statistical studies are required, but the abstract and Fig. 4 present the trend as established. I request per-device valley-splitting statistics, or at minimum repeated measurements with propagated uncertainties, and a regression metric with confidence intervals for the correlations.
  2. [Fig. 3(c) and Ev = Delta1 + Gamma] The extraction of valley splitting uses Ev = Delta1 + Gamma, where Gamma is the common intercept of the linear fits to Delta1, Delta2, and Delta4 versus B. The text states that the lines converge to a similar intercept, but the intercept values and their uncertainties are not reported; SI Figs. S3-S5 show only the fitted lines. Because gv is obtained from the slope of Ev versus B, any systematic error in the common-intercept assumption propagates directly into gv and into the correlations in Fig. 4(b)-(d). Please report the fitted intercepts with confidence intervals, or perform a sensitivity analysis in which Ev is computed allowing the intercepts to differ.
  3. [Fig. 4(b)-(e) and Abstract] The claim of a linear correlation between valley splitting and disorder is supported by only four heterostructure-level points without per-point uncertainties. Four points cannot establish linearity; the data are equally consistent with a monotonic trend. Moreover, Gamma and gv are both extracted from the same activation-energy fitting procedure (Delta1, Delta2, and Delta4 versus B), so the reported gv-Gamma relation may partly reflect a statistical coupling between fitted slopes and intercepts. I recommend either adding more data points (per-device or per-density values) or rephrasing the conclusion as a monotonic trend that is consistent with, but not uniquely established by, the present four samples.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Supporting Information, Sections 1 and 5] Several placeholders remain unresolved: '800 ppm residual 29Si isotopes ? ? ?', 'Methods section of Ref. ?', 'In Refs., ? ? it was demonstrated', and 'computed following Ref. ?'. These should be replaced with concrete references or removed.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption labels two panels as '(d)': the panel showing gv versus eta_1 and the panel showing simulated E_QD_v. The second panel should be labeled '(e)'.
  3. [Supporting Information, Section 1 and Fig. 2 caption] There is a typo 'we use use' in the growth description, and the Fig. 2 caption reads 'A verage maximum mobility µ max four the four heterostructures' rather than 'for the four heterostructures'.
  4. [TOC graphic] The scale-bar label '3mm' should presumably read '3 nm'.
  5. [Data availability] The DOI string contains an internal space ('d5094eb b9c27'); please provide the full, correctly formatted DOI or URL.
  6. [Supporting Information, Eqs. (1) and (4)] The notation for the mean valley splitting in Eq. (1) is not matched to E_QD_v used in the main text, and Eq. (4) calls eta_1 dimensionless without showing the normalization explicitly; please align the notation and state the units or normalization used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quantum-dot valley-splitting simulation is an external consistency check on independently measured 2DEG valley splitting, not a restatement of it.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) extract Ge concentration profiles from STEM/SIMS; (ii) measure transport disorder (mobility, percolation density); (iii) extract valley splitting Ev from thermal activation of quantum Hall gaps using Ev = Delta1 + Gamma, with Gamma from linear fits following Ref. 39; (iv) compute eta1 from the measured Ge profiles via Schrodinger-Poisson; (v) compute EQD_v from Eq. 1 of Ref. 31; and (vi) compare EQD_v with Ev. Step (v) does not use Ev as an input: the constants in Eq. 1 are fixed by theory, and the envelope function is obtained from the measured Ge profile and a stated density, not from the valley-splitting data. The plotted linear relation between EQD_v and Ev is a genuine cross-check: both quantities scale with the independently measured eta1, but they are different observables with independent constants, so the agreement is not an identity. The gv versus Gamma correlation compares slope and intercept of the same activation-gap fits, but these are independent fit parameters; no parameter is fitted to the target quantity it is said to predict. Refs. 30 and 31 are same-group papers and are load-bearing for the simulation model, but Eq. 1 is a parameter-free prior theoretical result with stated assumptions that do not include the present Ev values, so the citation carries independent content. The paper itself calls for confirmation: 'Future statistical studies of valley splitting in quantum dots fabricated on these new generations of heterostructures are required to confirm the valley splitting increase,' which is a sampling/reproducibility concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental result (enhanced Ev in broad-interface wells) is grounded in transport data; the QD prediction and eta1 correlation rest on a random-alloy disorder model from Refs 30 and 31. No free parameters are fitted to the measured valley splitting, but several simulation inputs are chosen by hand. The main missing external anchor is direct quantum-dot valley splitting measurements on these heterostructures.

free parameters (3)
  • Vertical electric field in QD simulations (Ez) = 1 mV/nm
    Chosen in SI Section 5 to compute quantum dot envelope functions; a modeling input, not fitted to the measured Ev, but it sets the QD confinement and affects simulated E_QD_v.
  • Total electron density for Schrodinger-Poisson bound = 1.5e11 cm^-2
    Chosen in SI Section 5 to bound the Hall bar wavefunction calculation; an input that can shift the envelope and hence eta1.
  • Orbital energy for QD comparison = 1.88 meV (B=6.5 T)
    Chosen in the main text to compare simulated QD valley splitting at an orbital energy on par with measured dots; this sets the comparison point in Fig 4(e).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The expected valley splitting of a disorder-dominated quantum dot is given by Eq. 1 (E_QD proportional to a0^2 DeltaEc/(8 adot DeltaG) times sqrt(sum psi_env^4 Gl(1-Gl))), as derived in Refs 30 and 31.
    This random-alloy disorder model, from prior papers with overlapping authorship, is the basis for the simulated E_QD values and the eta1 correlation. The paper does not independently benchmark it against quantum dot valley splitting measurements.
  • domain assumption Valley splitting in the 2DEG is obtained from the mobility gap via Ev = Delta1 + Gamma, with Gamma the common Landau-level broadening extracted from linear fits of Delta1, Delta2, Delta4 versus B.
    This is the standard method of Ref 39, used to convert measured activation energies to single-particle valley splitting; a failure of the common-intercept model would change Ev and gv.
  • domain assumption The electron wavefunction in the Hall bar is described by a Schrodinger-Poisson virtual crystal Hamiltonian with a single valley and effective mass ml = 0.916 me.
    Used in SI Section 5 to compute the envelope function that enters eta1 and E_QD; ignores multi-valley and atomistic details beyond the Ge concentration profile.
  • domain assumption Activation of rho_xx minima follows the Arrhenius law rho_xx proportional to exp(-Delta/2kBT).
    Standard thermally activated transport model used to extract mobility gaps from the temperature dependence of Shubnikov-de Haas minima; it could be modified by variable-range hopping or percolation, but this is the established method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Engineering Ge profiles in Si/SiGe heterostructures for increased valley splitting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NZMFK57X

@misc{pith2026250522295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Engineering Ge profiles in Si/SiGe heterostructures for increased valley splitting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NZMFK57X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22295}
}
read the original abstract

Electron spin qubits in Si/SiGe quantum wells are limited by the small and variable energy separation of the conduction band valleys. While sharp quantum well interfaces are pursued to increase the valley splitting energy deterministically, here we explore an alternative approach to enhance the valley splitting on average. We grow increasingly thinner quantum wells with broad interfaces to controllably increase the overlap of the electron wave function with Ge atoms. In these quantum wells, comprehensive quantum Hall measurements of two-dimensional electron gases reveal a linear correlation between valley splitting and disorder. Benchmarked against quantum wells with sharp interfaces, we demonstrate enhanced valley splitting while maintaining a low-disorder potential environment. Simulations using the experimental Ge concentration profiles predict an average valley splitting in quantum dots that matches the enhancement observed in two-dimensional systems. Our results motivate the experimental realization of quantum dot spin qubits in these heterostructures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22295 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 28Si/SiGe heterostructures with engineered Ge concentration profiles. (a)-(c) HAADF-STEM images of 28Si/SiGe heterostructures B1 (blue), B2 (green), and B3 (orange), with intentionally diffused quantum well interfaces. The quantum well and surrounding barriers feature isotopically purified 28Si. We vary the quantum well width between B1–B3 from 9.5 to 5.9 nm (see also table 1). (d) HAADF-STEM image of control hetero… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Classical transport measurements of disorder. (a) Mobility (µ)-density (n) curves for heterostructures A, B1, B2, and B3. (b) Conductivity (σxx)-density (n) curves of the four heterostructures, from which we fit the percolation density np (see Section 4 in the Supporting Information). (c) Average maximum mobility µmax four the four het￾erostructures (A1, B1–B3) from measurements of multiple devices. Error bars repre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quantum transport measurements of valley splitting. (a) Longitudinal resistivity ρxx of heterostructure B2 as a function of magnetic field B over a range of fixed densities n between 0.77×1011 cm−2 (light grey) and 2.46×1011 cm−2 (black) (offset for clar￾ity). (b) Magnetotransport measurements at fixed density n (here 0.91 × 1011 cm−2 ) and at different temperatures T, plotted against integer filling factor ν = nh/e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Valley splitting correlations (a) Valley splitting energy Ev = ∆1 + Γ as a function of magnetic field B for heterostructures A, B1–B3. The corresponding orbital energy Eorb is shown in the top x-axis. (b) Valley g-factor gv, from the slopes of Ev versus magnetic field …
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The conduction band offset ∆Ec is computed following Ref.? . The electrostatic potential is given by Uz = −eEzz for constant vertical electric field Ez = 1 mV/nm. Examining Eq. 1, we can define the dimensionless quantity ¸1 = ∆z sX l È4 env(zl)Gl(1 − Gl), (4) where ∆z …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Xue, X.; Russ, M.; Samkharadze, N.; Undseth, B.; Sammak, A.; Scappucci, G.; Vandersypen, L. M. K. Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold. Nature 2022, 601, 343--347

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Fast universal quantum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon

    Noiri, A.; Takeda, K.; Nakajima, T.; Kobayashi, T.; Sammak, A.; Scappucci, G.; Tarucha, S. Fast universal quantum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon. Nature 2022, 601, 338--342

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    R.; Guinn, C

    Mills, A. R.; Guinn, C. R.; Gullans, M. J.; Sigillito, A. J.; Feldman, M. M.; Nielsen, E.; Petta, J. R. Two-qubit silicon quantum processor with operation fidelity exceeding 99

    work page

  4. [4]

    Philips, S. G. J.; Madzik, M. T.; Amitonov, S. V.; de Snoo, S. L.; Russ, M.; Kalhor, N.; Volk, C.; Lawrie, W. I. L.; Brousse, D.; Tryputen, L.; Wuetz, B. P.; Sammak, A.; Veldhorst, M.; Scappucci, G.; Vandersypen, L. M. K. Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in silicon. Nature 2022, 609, 919--924

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    George, H. C. et al. 12- Spin - Qubit Arrays Fabricated on a 300 mm Semiconductor Manufacturing Line . Nano Letters 2025, 25, 793--799

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    K.; Undseth, B.; Raymenants, E.; Matsumoto, Y.; Karwal, S.; Pietx-Casas, O.; Ivlev, A

    Unseld, F. K.; Undseth, B.; Raymenants, E.; Matsumoto, Y.; Karwal, S.; Pietx-Casas, O.; Ivlev, A. S.; Meyer, M.; Sammak, A.; Veldhorst, M.; Scappucci, G.; Vandersypen, L. M. K. Baseband control of single-electron silicon spin qubits in two dimensions. 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    A shuttling-based two-qubit logic gate for linking distant silicon quantum processors

    Noiri, A.; Takeda, K.; Nakajima, T.; Kobayashi, T.; Sammak, A.; Scappucci, G.; Tarucha, S. A shuttling-based two-qubit logic gate for linking distant silicon quantum processors. Nature Communications 2022, 13

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Seidler, I.; Struck, T.; Xue, R.; Focke, N.; Trellenkamp, S.; Bluhm, H.; Schreiber, L. R. Conveyor-mode single-electron shuttling in Si/SiGe for a scalable quantum computing architecture. npj Quantum Information 2022, 8

    work page 2022

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    J.; Tryputen, L.; de Snoo, S

    De Smet, M.; Matsumoto, Y.; Zwerver, A.-M. J.; Tryputen, L.; de Snoo, S. L.; Amitonov, S. V.; Sammak, A.; Samkharadze, N.; G \"u l, \"O .; Wasserman, R. N. M.; Rimbach-Russ, M.; Scappucci, G.; Vandersypen, L. M. K. High-fidelity single-spin shuttling in silicon. 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    L.; Zheng, G.; Sammak, A.; Scappucci, G.; Vandersypen, L

    Dijkema, J.; Xue, X.; Harvey-Collard, P.; Rimbach-Russ, M.; de Snoo, S. L.; Zheng, G.; Sammak, A.; Scappucci, G.; Vandersypen, L. M. K. Cavity-mediated iSWAP oscillations between distant spins. Nature Physics 2025, 21, 168--174

    2025

  3. [11]

    Neyens, S. et al. Probing single electrons across 300-mm spin qubit wafers. Nature 2024, 629, 80--85

    2024

  4. [12]

    Ha, S. D. et al. Two-dimensional Si spin qubit arrays with multilevel interconnects. 2025; http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08861, arXiv:2502.08861

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A.; Coppersmith, S

    Friesen, M.; Eriksson, M. A.; Coppersmith, S. N. Magnetic field dependence of valley splitting in realistic Si/SiGe quantum wells. Applied Physics Letters 2006, 89, 202106

    2006

  6. [14]

    A.; Dzurak, A

    Zwanenburg, F. A.; Dzurak, A. S.; Morello, A.; Simmons, M. Y.; Hollenberg, L. C. L.; Klimeck, G.; Rogge, S.; Coppersmith, S. N.; Eriksson, M. A. Silicon quantum electronics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2013, 85, 961--1019

    2013

  7. [15]

    M.; Borselli, M

    Maune, B. M.; Borselli, M. G.; Huang, B.; Ladd, T. D.; Deelman, P. W.; Holabird, K. S.; Kiselev, A. A.; Alvarado-Rodriguez, I.; Ross, R. S.; Schmitz, A. E.; Sokolich, M.; Watson, C. A.; Gyure, M. F.; Hunter, A. T. Coherent singlet-triplet oscillations in a silicon-based double...

    2012

  8. [16]

    M.; Hazard, T

    Zajac, D. M.; Hazard, T. M.; Mi, X.; Wang, K.; Petta, J. R. A reconfigurable gate architecture for Si/SiGe quantum dots. Applied Physics Letters 2015, 106

    2015

  9. [17]

    B.; Prance, J

    Shi, Z.; Simmons, C. B.; Prance, J. R.; King Gamble, J.; Friesen, M.; Savage, D. E.; Lagally, M. G.; Coppersmith, S. N.; Eriksson, M. A. Tunable singlet-triplet splitting in a few-electron Si/SiGe quantum dot. Applied Physics Letters 2011, 99

    2011

  10. [18]

    R.; Savage, D

    Scarlino, P.; Kawakami, E.; Jullien, T.; Ward, D. R.; Savage, D. E.; Lagally, M. G.; Friesen, M.; Coppersmith, S. N.; Eriksson, M. A.; Vandersypen, L. M. K. Dressed photon-orbital states in a quantum dot: Intervalley spin resonance. Physical Review B 2017, 95, 165429

    2017

  11. [19]

    J.; Amitonov, S

    Paquelet Wuetz, B.; Degli Esposti, D.; Zwerver, A.-M. J.; Amitonov, S. V.; Botifoll, M.; Arbiol, J.; Vandersypen, L. M. K.; Russ, M.; Scappucci, G. Reducing charge noise in quantum dots by using thin silicon quantum wells. Nature Communications 2023, 14

    2023

  12. [20]

    P.; Rahman, R.; Dodson, J

    McJunkin, T.; Harpt, B.; Feng, Y.; Losert, M. P.; Rahman, R.; Dodson, J. P.; Wolfe, M. A.; Savage, D. E.; Lagally, M. G.; Coppersmith, S. N.; Friesen, M.; Joynt, R.; Eriksson, M. A. SiGe quantum wells with oscillating Ge concentrations for quantum dot qubits. Nature Communicat...

    2022

  13. [21]

    V.; Bougeard, D.; Schreiber, L

    Hollmann, A.; Struck, T.; Langrock, V.; Schmidbauer, A.; Schauer, F.; Leonhardt, T.; Sawano, K.; Riemann, H.; Abrosimov, N. V.; Bougeard, D.; Schreiber, L. R. Large, Tunable Valley Splitting and Single-Spin Relaxation Mechanisms in a Si/ Si_ x Ge_ 1-x Quantum Dot. Physical Rev...

    2020

  14. [22]

    G.; Ross, R

    Borselli, M. G.; Ross, R. S.; Kiselev, A. A.; Croke, E. T.; Holabird, K. S.; Deelman, P. W.; Warren, L. D.; Alvarado-Rodriguez, I.; Milosavljevic, I.; Ku, F. C.; Wong, W. S.; Schmitz, A. E.; Sokolich, M.; Gyure, M. F.; Hunter, A. T. Measurement of valley splitting in high-symm...

    2011

  15. [23]

    Vandersypen, L. M. K.; Bluhm, H.; Clarke, J. S.; Dzurak, A. S.; Ishihara, R.; Morello, A.; Reilly, D. J.; Schreiber, L. R.; Veldhorst, M. Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, dense, and coherent. npj Quantum Information 2017, 3, 1--10

    2017

  16. [24]

    Tagliaferri, M. L. V.; Bavdaz, P. L.; Huang, W.; Dzurak, A. S.; Culcer, D.; Veldhorst, M. Impact of valley phase and splitting on readout of silicon spin qubits. Physical Review B 2018, 97, 245412

    2018

  17. [25]

    Spin relaxation in a Si quantum dot due to spin-valley mixing

    Huang, P.; Hu, X. Spin relaxation in a Si quantum dot due to spin-valley mixing. Physical Review B 2014, 90, 235315

    2014

  18. [26]

    Seidler, I.; Struck, T.; Xue, R.; Focke, N.; Trellenkamp, S.; Bluhm, H.; Schreiber, L. R. Conveyor-mode single-electron shuttling in Si / SiGe for a scalable quantum computing architecture. npj Quantum Information 2022, 8, 100

    2022

  19. [27]

    A.; Focke, N.; Seidler, I.; Schreiber, L

    Langrock, V.; Krzywda, J. A.; Focke, N.; Seidler, I.; Schreiber, L. R.; Cywinski, L. Blueprint of a Scalable Spin Qubit Shuttle Device for Coherent Mid - Range Qubit Transfer in Disordered \ \ text\ Si / SiGe / SiO \ \ \_\ 2\ \ . PRX Quantum 2023, 4, 020305

    2023

  20. [28]

    Shuttling an Electron Spin through a Silicon Quantum Dot Array

    Zwerver, A.; Amitonov, S.; De Snoo, S.; Mądzik, M.; Rimbach-Russ, M.; Sammak, A.; Scappucci, G.; Vandersypen, L. Shuttling an Electron Spin through a Silicon Quantum Dot Array . PRX Quantum 2023, 4, 030303

    2023

  21. [29]

    P.; Oberl\"ander, M.; Teske, J

    Losert, M. P.; Oberl\"ander, M.; Teske, J. D.; Volmer, M.; Schreiber, L. R.; Bluhm, H.; Coppersmith, S.; Friesen, M. Strategies for Enhancing Spin-Shuttling Fidelities in Si / Si Ge Quantum Wells with Random-Alloy Disorder. PRX Quantum 2024, 5, 040322

    2024

  22. [30]

    Paquelet Wuetz, B. et al. Atomic fluctuations lifting the energy degeneracy in Si/SiGe quantum dots. Nature Communications 2022, 13

    2022

  23. [31]

    P.; Eriksson, M

    Losert, M. P.; Eriksson, M. A.; Joynt, R.; Rahman, R.; Scappucci, G.; Coppersmith, S. N.; Friesen, M. Practical strategies for enhancing the valley splitting in Si/SiGe quantum wells. Phys. Rev. B 2023, 108, 125405

    2023

  24. [32]

    Degli Esposti, D. et al. Low disorder and high valley splitting in silicon. npj Quantum Information 2024, 10

    2024

  25. [33]

    A.; Capellini, G.; Sammak, A.; Veldhorst, M.; Scappucci, G

    Lodari, M.; Tosato, A.; Sabbagh, D.; Schubert, M. A.; Capellini, G.; Sammak, A.; Veldhorst, M.; Scappucci, G. Light effective hole mass in undoped Ge / SiGe quantum wells. Physical Review B 2019, 100, 041304

    2019

  26. [34]

    Wafer-scale low-disorder 2DEG in 28Si / SiGe without an epitaxial Si cap

    Degli Esposti, D.; Paquelet Wuetz, B.; Fezzi, V.; Lodari, M.; Sammak, A.; Scappucci, G. Wafer-scale low-disorder 2DEG in 28Si / SiGe without an epitaxial Si cap. Applied Physics Letters 2022, 120, 184003

    2022

  27. [35]

    L.; Yeoh, L

    Paquelet Wuetz, B.; Bavdaz, P. L.; Yeoh, L. A.; Schouten, R.; van der Does, H.; Tiggelman, M.; Sabbagh, D.; Sammak, A.; Almudever, C. G.; Sebastiano, F.; Clarke, J. S.; Veldhorst, M.; Scappucci, G. Multiplexed quantum transport using commercial off-the-shelf CMOS at sub-kelvin...

    2020

  28. [36]

    H.; Fitzgerald, E

    Monroe, D.; Xie, Y. H.; Fitzgerald, E. A.; Silverman, P. J.; Watson, G. P. Comparison of mobility-limiting mechanisms in high-mobility Si_ 1-x Ge_ x heterostructures. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing, Measurement, a...

    1993

  29. [37]

    W.; Sturm, J

    Venkataraman, V.; Liu, C. W.; Sturm, J. C. Alloy scattering limited transport of two-dimensional carriers in strained Si_ 1-x Ge_ x quantum wells. Applied Physics Letters 1993, 63, 2795--2797

    1993

  30. [38]

    Understanding disorder in silicon quantum computing platforms: Scattering mechanisms in Si / SiGe quantum wells

    Huang, Y.; Das Sarma, S. Understanding disorder in silicon quantum computing platforms: Scattering mechanisms in Si / SiGe quantum wells. Physical Review B 2024, 109, 125405

    2024

  31. [39]

    P.; Losert, M

    Wuetz, B. P.; Losert, M. P.; Tosato, A.; Lodari, M.; Bavdaz, P. L.; Stehouwer, L.; Amin, P.; Clarke, J. S.; Coppersmith, S. N.; Sammak, A.; Veldhorst, M.; Friesen, M.; Scappucci, G. Effect of Quantum Hall Edge Strips on Valley Splitting in Silicon Quantum Wells. Phys. Rev. Let...

    2020

  32. [40]

    '" swap *

    Goswami, S.; Slinker, K. A.; Friesen, M.; McGuire, L. M.; Truitt, J. L.; Tahan, C.; Klein, L. J.; Chu, J. O.; Mooney, P. M.; van der Weide, D. W.; Joynt, R.; Coppersmith, S. N.; Eriksson, M. A. Controllable valley splitting in silicon quantum devices. Nature Physics 2007, 3, 4...

    2007 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.