Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Hole spin qubits in unstrained Germanium layers

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Confining holes at the interface of unstrained, bulk germanium reduces the g-factor anisotropy from about 50 to about 3 and increases the Rabi frequency and quality factor of electric-dipole spin resonance, easing the scaling of hole-spin…

desk verdict Solid modeling case for unstrained Ge hole qubits; the anisotropy reduction is robust, but the quality-factor advantage depends on noise assumptions that are not yet validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04977 v2 pith:KLWLD2MX submitted 2025-06-05 cond-mat.mes-hall

Lorenzo Mauro , Mauricio J. Rodriguez , Esteban A. Rodriguez-Mena , Yann-Michel Niquet This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords holespinqubitsgermaniumunstrainedGegyromagneticanisotropyheavy-holelight-holemixingRabifrequencyqualityfactorquantumdot
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

Strained germanium is a leading material for hole spin qubits, but the heavy-hole character of the confined states makes the spin response strongly anisotropic: the out-of-plane and in-plane g-factors differ by a factor of about 50, so the Rabi frequency and coherence change by an order of magnitude when the magnetic field tilts by a few degrees from the plane. The paper proposes instead to confine holes at the interface of an unstrained, bulk germanium layer, where the heavy-hole/light-hole splitting is set only by vertical confinement and the light-hole mixing is much stronger. Using numerical simulations of a realistic gate-defined dot, it shows that the g-factor anisotropy drops to about 3 while the Rabi frequency and quality factor for electric-dipole spin resonance increase, making the device much less sensitive to the magnetic field orientation. The authors conclude that this extends the operational range of hole spin qubits and should ease scaling to many-qubit arrays.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the heavy-hole/light-hole mixing weight $m^{2}$, which is near zero in strained wells because the biaxial strain term 2 b_v (epsilon_parallel - epsilon_perp) in the heavy-hole/light-hole gap stays around 46 meV, but grows to about 17.7% in the unstrained bulk device where the gap is set only by confinement. This mixing is described by the Luttinger-Kohn Hamiltonian solved with finite differences and by the perturbation formulas g_parallel approximately 3q + (6 m0 / Delta_LH)($\lambda$ <$p_x^{2}$> - $\lambda$' <$p_y^{2}$>) and g_perp approximately 6kappa + 27q/2 - 2 gamma_h, which show how the in-plane orbital motion and vertical confinement renormalize the g-factors. Rabi frequencies are computed with the g-matrix formalism, and the dephasing time T2* is obtained from the longitudinal spin electric susceptibility by lumping electrical fluctuations into gate-voltage noises of equal rms amplitude.

What would settle it

Grow a gate-defined hole dot at an unstrained Ge/GeSi interface, cool it below 100 mK, and measure g_parallel and g_perp for several magnetic-field angles together with the L-gate Rabi frequency at f_L = 1 GHz; if g_perp/g_parallel stays near 50 rather than dropping to about 3, or if f_R does not exceed the strained-well value at the same drive, the central claim is wrong. A second check is a direct measurement of T2* at fixed Larmor frequency, which tests whether the equal-voltage-noise model underlying the quality-factor gain is realistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that confining a hole at the interface of unstrained, bulk Ge produces a ground state with heavy-hole/light-hole mixing of about 17.7% instead of less than 0.2% in strained Ge quantum wells, reducing the gyromagnetic anisotropy g_perp/g_par from roughly 50 to about 3. In the modeled device, the maximal L-gate Rabi frequency is f_R/V_ac = 21.6 MHz/mV in the bulk device versus 6.7 MHz/mV in a strained 16-nm well, and the quality factor Q2* = 2 f_R T2* is larger and its angular peak much broader (FWHM delta_theta = 12.3 degrees vs 4.8 degrees). The reduction of anisotropy is traced to the closing of the heavy-hole/light-hole bandgap when biaxial strain is absent, which amplifies the heavy-hole/light-hole mixing that mediates both the g-factor corrections and the spin-orbit coupling driving the Rabi oscillations.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted quality-factor improvement assumes that electrical noise can be described as the same rms voltage fluctuation on every gate in both strained and unstrained devices; if a real bulk germanium device has different charge noise, for example from the thinner GeSi barrier or the exposed substrate interface, the advantage could be reduced or lost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A qubit in unstrained Ge can be operated at the same Larmor frequency with a magnetic field pointing anywhere over a much wider range of angles, relaxing the alignment constraints that currently limit many-qubit arrays.
  • The L-gate Rabi frequency in the modeled bulk device reaches 21.6 MHz/mV compared with 6.7 MHz/mV in the strained well, so single-qubit rotations are about three times faster at the same drive.
  • The quality factor Q2* = 2 f_R T2* is larger and its angular peak is much broader (12.3 degrees vs 4.8 degrees full width at half maximum) in the bulk device, so the operating point is less fragile to field misalignment and gate variability.
  • Phonon-limited relaxation times stay above 6.5 ms at 1 GHz despite the stronger spin-orbit coupling, so T1 does not limit operation in the predicted regime.
  • Inhomogeneous cool-down strains from the gate stack can further enhance L-gate Rabi frequencies and quality factors, so strain control becomes part of the device design space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the equal-noise assumption in the model gives way and real bulk devices show higher charge noise from the substrate interface, the quality-factor advantage could narrow; a direct noise measurement on a fabricated device would settle this before large arrays are committed.
  • The tunability of the heavy-hole/light-hole mixing via the GeSi buffer composition suggests a design variable that could trade g-factor anisotropy against dephasing time, possibly allowing different qubits in one array to be matched to different tasks.
  • Isotopic purification, which the authors note would benefit all germanium qubits, may be even more valuable in unstrained Ge because the hyperfine dephasing time peaks in-plane and is softened by the stronger mixing there.
  • The sweet lines of zero longitudinal spin electric susceptibility sit well separated from the Rabi hot spots in the bulk device, suggesting that multi-gate driving schemes could operate each qubit near its sweet line without sacrificing speed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes confining hole spin qubits at the interface between an unstrained bulk Ge substrate (modeled as a 170-nm-thick well) and a thin GeSi barrier, as an alternative to strained Ge/SiGe heterostructures. Using a finite-volume Poisson solver and a finite-difference Luttinger-Kohn Hamiltonian with published Luttinger and deformation-potential parameters, the authors compute dot dimensions, g-factors, LH mixing, Rabi frequencies, LSES, and quality factors Q2*=2f_R T2* for the five-gate test device of Refs. [37,38]. They compare an unstrained bulk device with a strained reference well (L_w=16 nm), finding that the g-factor anisotropy g_⊥/g_∥ drops from about 50 to about 3, that the L-gate Rabi frequency increases from 6.7 to 21.6 MHz/mV (at V_C=-25 mV and f_L=1 GHz), and that the angular maps of Rabi and Q2* are much broader. The SI reports phonon relaxation, hyperfine dephasing, and order-of-magnitude changes of the spin metrics induced by cool-down strains from the gate stack.

Significance. If the calculations are correct, the work gives a concrete, scalable route to reducing the main drawback of Ge hole qubits, namely the extreme sensitivity of spin properties to the magnetic-field orientation. The central physical mechanism (enhanced HH/LH mixing when the biaxial strain is removed) is robust and follows from standard k.p theory with established parameters. The manuscript also ships detailed numerical machinery (Poisson + 3D k.p, g-matrix formalism) and provides falsifiable predictions for g-factors, Rabi frequencies, and LSES maps. The main quantitative caveat is that the Q2* comparison assumes identical gate-voltage noise in the unstrained and strained devices; this is an assumption, not a result, and the paper's own discussion acknowledges the need for noise control. With that caveat addressed, the work would be a useful contribution to the hole-spin-qubit literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [II.C, Eq. (4)] The quality-factor comparison in Figs. 5 and 6 rests on Eq. (4), which assigns the same rms voltage fluctuation δV_rms to every gate and uses the same value for the unstrained bulk and strained devices. The resulting Q2* = 2 f_R T2* is therefore a conditional statement, not a measured or predicted ratio. The bulk device's thinner 20-nm GeSi barrier and exposed substrate interface could plausibly have larger charge noise; the authors themselves say in the Discussion that noise must be 'carefully controlled.' Because a roughly twofold increase in δV_rms would invert the L-gate Q2* advantage, the paper should provide a sensitivity analysis (for example, Q2* advantage versus the ratio of noise amplitudes) or explicitly temper the abstract's claim of improved quality factors.
  2. [SI III, Figs. S4-S6] The main-text numbers in Figs. 2, 5 and 7 describe an idealized, perfectly strain-free Ge layer, while the SI shows that cool-down strains from the gate stack change g_∥ from −0.28 to −0.85 and increase the L-gate Rabi frequency from 21.6 to 228.8 MHz/mV (with Q2* also strongly modified). This idealization is disclosed only in the Methods paragraph, not in the abstract or conclusion. The authors should either move the strain-perturbed results (or at least a summary) into the main text, or state explicitly in the abstract and conclusion that the reported numbers are for the ideal strain-free limit and that realistic gates can change them by an order of magnitude. The qualitative trend survives, but the quantitative promise of the platform should not be presented without this caveat.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] There are language issues: 'one of the most promising material' should be 'materials,' and 'shall ease' is stilted; please proofread for English style.
  2. [References] References [16] and [48] both list the same arXiv identifier (2310.05902) but are different works; please correct the identifier for one of them.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption reads 'as as a function of V_C'; please remove the duplicated 'as.'
  4. [II.B] The notation ℓ_∥ = sqrt(⟨x^2⟩)=sqrt(⟨y^2⟩) is used for the in-plane extension; it would be clearer to define it as the quadratic spread along one in-plane axis, given the dot is quasi-circular.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: g-factors, Rabi frequencies, and quality factors are computed from stated microscopic Hamiltonians and not fitted or defined from the target comparisons.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities — g_parallel, g_perpendicular, Rabi frequency f_R, LSES, and Q*2 — are obtained by direct numerical solution of a Luttinger-Kohn Hamiltonian with Poisson electrostatics and the g-matrix formalism (Eq. 3), with no parameter fitted to any quantity that is later called a prediction. The only inputs are material parameters, gate voltages, and device geometry, all stated in the text. The noise model of Eq. (4) is a declared modeling assumption (equal delta-V_rms on all gates), not a fitted or self-referential construction; it affects the magnitude of Q*2 but does not define f_R or T*2 in terms of the target comparison. Prior works by the same group are cited for methodology and interpretive concepts such as dephasing sweet spots and HH/LH mixing formulas, but the calculations in Figs. 2-7 are performed here, and the cited inputs (Luttinger parameters, deformation potentials, geometry) are given in the paper. No uniqueness claim or ansatz is imported solely from a self-citation, and no target result is equivalent by definition to an input. The unvalidated equal-noise assumption is a robustness concern for the quality-factor comparison, but it is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on published Ge band parameters and prior simulation methods, which is appropriate. No target quantity is fitted to data. The main caveats are the idealized no-strain assumption and the assumed noise model; both are stated in the text but control the quantitative claims.

free parameters (2)
  • rho_ac = V_ac / deltaV_rms (drive-to-noise amplitude ratio) = 100
    Set to compute Q2*; same for all devices, so it sets the absolute scale but not the strained versus unstrained comparison.
  • L_w for the bulk device = 170 nm
    Footnote 39: the bulk germanium device is practically modeled as L_w = 170 nm; this finite approximation stands in for an infinite well in all bulk-Ge figures.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 4-band Luttinger-Kohn k.p Hamiltonian with bulk Ge parameters (gamma1=13.18, gamma2=4.24, gamma3=5.69, kappa=3.41, q=0.06) describes hole confinement and spin properties at HH/LH mixings up to about 18%.
    Used throughout the model in Section II.A; not validated against experiment here, and the perturbation theory used for interpretation (Eq. 1) is not quantitatively valid at the largest mixings.
  • domain assumption The g-matrix formalism of Ref. [42] gives correct Larmor and Rabi frequencies from g and dg/dV.
    Central to Eqs. (3)-(4); established in prior work and not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper All relevant electrical dephasing is represented by gate-voltage noises with equal rms deltaV_rms on all five gates, and no other dephasing mechanism dominates except hyperfine and phonon contributions treated in the SI.
    Eq. (4) and the Q2* comparison rely on this assumed noise model, which is not measured for unstrained devices.
  • ad hoc to paper The Ge channel is strain-free in the main-text calculations; gate-cooling inhomogeneous strains are omitted there and treated only in the SI.
    Stated in Section II.A; SI Section III shows these strains significantly modify g-factors and Rabi/LSES magnitudes.
  • domain assumption A thin Ge0.8Si0.2 barrier on unstrained bulk Ge forms a usable hole interface with low disorder.
    Feasibility is taken from Ref. [36]; the full device with the gate stack is not yet demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hole spin qubits in unstrained Germanium layers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLWLD2MX

@misc{pith2026250604977,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hole spin qubits in unstrained Germanium layers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLWLD2MX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04977}
}
read the original abstract

Strained germanium heterostructures are one of the most promising material for hole spin qubits but suffer from the strong anisotropy of the gyromagnetic factors that hinders the optimization of the magnetic field orientation. The figures of merit (Rabi frequencies, lifetimes...) can indeed vary by an order of magnitude within a few degrees around the heterostructure plane. We propose to address this issue by confining the holes at the interface of an unstrained, bulk Ge substrate or thick buffer. We model such structures and show that the gyromagnetic anisotropy is indeed considerably reduced. In addition, the Rabi frequencies and quality factors can be significantly improved with respect to strained heterostructures. This extends the operational range of the qubits and shall ease the scale-up to many-qubit systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04977 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The test device is made of a Ge well (red) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Spin manipulation metrics in the unstrained, bulk Ge device. (a-c) Normalized LSES ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Spin manipulation metrics in a strained Ge well with thickness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Rabi frequency and (b) quality factor of the L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Spin-orbit-enabled realization of arbitrary two-qubit gates on moving spins

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Spin-orbit coupling during shuttling of two spin qubits can realize any two-qubit gate in one step.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Physical Review A57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    France 2030

    moves towardsφ=±45 ◦. ForB∥x, the quality factor is optimal forV C ≈ −25 mV. III. DISCUSSION The above calculations illustrate the benefits in mak- ing hole spin qubits in unstrained Germanium. With- out biaxial strains, the HH/LH bandgap closes and the HH/LH mixing is enhanced. The strong anisotropy of the gyromagnetic response, characteristic of pure he...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Maurand, X

    R. Maurand, X. Jehl, D. Kotekar-Patil, A. Corna, H. Bo- huslavskyi, R. Lavi´ eville, L. Hutin, S. Barraud, M. Vinet, M. Sanquer, and S. de Franceschi, A CMOS silicon spin qubit, Nature Communications7, 13575 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    F. N. M. Froning, L. C. Camenzind, O. A. H. van der Molen, A. Li, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, and F. R. Braakman, Ultrafast hole spin qubit with gate-tunable spin–orbit switch functionality, Nature Nan- otechnology16, 308 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    L. C. Camenzind, S. Geyer, A. Fuhrer, R. J. Warbur- ton, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, and A. V. Kuhlmann, A hole spin qubit in a fin field-effect transistor above 4 kelvin, Nature Electronics5, 178 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    K. Wang, G. Xu, F. Gao, H. Liu, R.-L. Ma, X. Zhang, Z. Wang, G. Cao, T. Wang, J.-J. Zhang, D. Culcer, X. Hu, H.-W. Jiang, H.-O. Li, G.-C. Guo, and G.-P. Guo, Ultrafast coherent control of a hole spin qubit in a ger- manium quantum dot, Nature Communications13, 206 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Y. Fang, P. Philippopoulos, D. Culcer, W. A. Coish, and S. Chesi, Recent advances in hole-spin qubits, Materials for Quantum Technology3, 012003 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Winkler,Spin-orbit coupling in two-dimensional elec- tron and hole systems(Springer, Berlin, 2003)

    R. Winkler,Spin-orbit coupling in two-dimensional elec- tron and hole systems(Springer, Berlin, 2003)

    work page 2003

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    E. I. Rashba and A. L. Efros, Orbital mechanisms of electron-spin manipulation by an electric field, Physical Review Letters91, 126405 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Y. Kato, R. C. Myers, D. C. Driscoll, A. C. Gossard, J. Levy, and D. D. Awschalom, Gigahertz electron spin manipulation using voltage-controlledg-tensor modula- tion, Science299, 1201 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    V. N. Golovach, M. Borhani, and D. Loss, Electric-dipole- induced spin resonance in quantum dots, Physical Review B74, 165319 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Crippa, R

    A. Crippa, R. Maurand, L. Bourdet, D. Kotekar-Patil, A. Amisse, X. Jehl, M. Sanquer, R. Lavi´ eville, H. Bo- huslavskyi, L. Hutin, S. Barraud, M. Vinet, Y.-M. Ni- quet, and S. De Franceschi, Electrical spin driving byg- matrix modulation in spin-orbit qubits, Physical Review L...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Sammak, D

    A. Sammak, D. Sabbagh, N. W. Hendrickx, M. Lodari, B. Paquelet Wuetz, A. Tosato, L. Yeoh, M. Bollani, M. Virgilio, M. A. Schubert, P. Zaumseil, G. Capellini, M. Veldhorst, and G. Scappucci, Shallow and undoped germanium quantum wells: A playground for spin and hybrid quantum t...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Scappucci, C

    G. Scappucci, C. Kloeffel, F. A. Zwanenburg, D. Loss, M. Myronov, J.-J. Zhang, S. De Franceschi, G. Katsaros, and M. Veldhorst, The germanium quantum information route, Nature Reviews Materials6, 926 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Martinez and Y.-M

    B. Martinez and Y.-M. Niquet, Variability of electron and hole spin qubits due to interface roughness and charge traps, Physical Review Applied17, 024022 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    J. B. Varley, K. G. Ray, and V. Lordi, Dangling bonds as possible contributors to charge noise in silicon and silicon–germanium quantum dot qubits, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces15, 43111 (2023)

    2023

  9. [18]

    Martinez, S

    B. Martinez, S. de Franceschi, and Y.-M. Niquet, Miti- gating variability in epitaxial-heterostructure-based spin- qubit devices by optimizing gate layout, Physical Review Appl.22, 024030 (2024)

    2024

  10. [19]

    Watzinger, J

    H. Watzinger, J. Kukuˇ cka, L. Vukuˇ si´ c, F. Gao, T. Wang, F. Sch¨ affler, J.-J. Zhang, and G. Katsaros, A germanium hole spin qubit, Nature Communications9, 3902 (2018)

    2018

  11. [20]

    N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, L. Petit, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, A single-hole spin qubit, Nature Communications11, 3478 (2020)

    2020

  12. [21]

    N. W. Hendrickx, D. P. Franke, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, Fast two-qubit logic with holes in germanium, Nature577, 487 (2020)

    2020

  13. [22]

    N. W. Hendrickx, I. L. Lawrie William, M. Russ, F. van Riggelen, S. L. de Snoo, R. N. Schouten, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, A four-qubit germanium quantum processor, Nature591, 580 (2021)

    2021

  14. [23]

    W. I. L. Lawrie, M. Rimbach-Russ, F. v. Riggelen, N. W. Hendrickx, S. L. d. Snoo, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, J. Helsen, and M. Veldhorst, Simultaneous single-qubit driving of semiconductor spin qubits at the fault-tolerant threshold, Nature Communications14, 3617 (2023)

    2023

  15. [24]

    N. W. Hendrickx, L. Massai, M. Mergenthaler, F. Schupp, S. Paredes, S. W. Bedell, G. Salis, and A. Fuhrer, Sweet-spot operation of a germanium hole spin qubit with highly anisotropic noise sensitivity, Na- ture Materials23, 920 (2024)

    2024

  16. [25]

    V. John, C. X. Yu, B. van Straaten, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez- Mena, M. Rodr ´ ıguez, S. Oosterhout, L. E. A. Stehouwer, G. Scappucci, S. Bosco, M. Rimbach-Russ, Y.-M. Niquet, F. Borsoi, and M. Veldhorst, A two-dimensional 10-qubit array in germanium with robust and localised qubit c...

    2025

  17. [26]

    Jirovec, A

    D. Jirovec, A. Hofmann, A. Ballabio, P. M. Mutter, G. Tavani, M. Botifoll, A. Crippa, J. Kukucka, O. Sagi, F. Martins, J. Saez-Mollejo, I. Prieto, M. Borovkov, J. Arbiol, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, and G. Katsaros, A singlet-triplet hole spin qubit in planar Ge, Nature Ma- teria...

    2021

  18. [27]

    Jirovec, P

    D. Jirovec, P. M. Mutter, A. Hofmann, A. Crippa, M. Rychetsky, D. L. Craig, J. Kukucka, F. Martins, A. Ballabio, N. Ares, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, G. Burkard, and G. Katsaros, Dynamics of hole singlet-triplet qubits with largeg-factor differences, Physical Review Letters 128, ...

    2022

  19. [28]

    Zhang, E

    X. Zhang, E. Morozova, M. Rimbach-Russ, D. Jirovec, T.-K. Hsiao, P. C. Fari˜ na, C.-A. Wang, S. D. Oost- erhout, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Universal control of four singlet- triplet qubits, Nature Nanotechnology20, 209 (2025)

    2025

  20. [29]

    Tsoukalas, U

    K. Tsoukalas, U. von L¨ upke, A. Orekhov, B. Het´ enyi, I. Seidler, L. Sommer, E. G. Kelly, L. Massai, M. Aldeghi, M. Pita-Vidal, N. W. Hendrickx, S. W. Bedell, S. Pare- des, F. J. Schupp, M. Mergenthaler, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, and P. Harvey-Collard, A dressed singlet-triplet q...

    2025

  21. [30]

    C.-A. Wang, V. John, H. Tidjani, C. X. Yu, A. S. Ivlev, C. D´ eprez, F. van Riggelen-Doelman, B. D. Woods, N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, L. E. A. Stehouwer, S. D. Oosterhout, A. Sammak, M. Friesen, G. Scappucci, S. L. de Snoo, M. Rimbach-Russ, F. Borsoi, and M. Veld- horst...

    2024

  22. [31]

    C.-A. Wang, C. D´ eprez, H. Tidjani, W. I. L. Lawrie, N. W. Hendrickx, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, Probing resonating valence bonds on a pro- grammable germanium quantum simulator, npj Quan- tum Information9, 58 (2023)

    2023

  23. [32]

    Mauro, E

    L. Mauro, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, M. Bassi, V. Schmitt, and Y.-M. Niquet, Geometry of the dephasing sweet spots of spin-orbit qubits, Physical Review B109, 155406 (2024)

    2024

  24. [33]

    Mauro, E

    L. Mauro, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, B. Martinez, and Y.- M. Niquet, Strain engineering in Ge/Ge−Si spin-qubit heterostructures, Physical Review Applied23, 024057 (2025)

    2025

  25. [34]

    L. E. A. Stehouwer, A. Tosato, D. Degli Esposti, D. Costa, M. Veldhorst, A. Sammak, and G. Scappucci, Germanium wafers for strained quantum wells with low disorder, Applied Physics Letters123, 092101 (2023)

    2023

  26. [35]

    Scappucci, A

    G. Scappucci, A. Tosato, M. F. Russ, L. E. A. Ste- houwers and S. Amir,Method for manufacturing a single heterojunction semiconductor device and such a single heterojunction semiconductor device, Patent WO2024210754A1

  27. [36]

    Bosco, M

    S. Bosco, M. Benito, C. Adelsberger, and D. Loss, Squeezed hole spin qubits in Ge quantum dots with ultra- fast gates at low power, Physical Review B104, 115425 (2021)

    2021

  28. [37]

    Costa, K

    D. Costa, K. Hudson, P. D. Vecchio, L. E. A. Ste- houwer, A. Tosato, D. D. Esposti, M. Lodari, S. Bosco, and G. Scappucci, Buried unstrained Ge channels: a lattice-matched platform for quantum technology, arXiv: 2506.04724 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Martinez, J

    B. Martinez, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, and Y.-M. Niquet, Hole spin manipulation in inhomoge- neous and nonseparable electric fields, Physical Review B106, 235426 (2022)

    2022

  30. [39]

    J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, B. Mar- tinez, and Y.-M. Niquet, Hole-spin driving by strain- induced spin-orbit interactions, Physical Review Letters 131, 097002 (2023)

    2023

  31. [40]

    The bulk germanium device is practically modeled as Lw = 170 nm

  32. [41]

    J. M. Luttinger, Quantum theory of cyclotron resonance in semiconductors: General theory, Physical Review102, 1030 (1956)

    1956

  33. [42]

    L. C. Lew Yan Voon and M. Willatzen,The k p Method (Springer, Berlin, 2009)

    2009

  34. [43]

    Venitucci, L

    B. Venitucci, L. Bourdet, D. Pouzada, and Y.-M. Niquet, Electrical manipulation of semiconductor spin qubits within theg-matrix formalism, Physical Review B98, 155319 (2018)

    2018

  35. [44]

    (1) [44]

    To lowest order, the transport mass ism ∥ ≈m 0/(γ1 + γ2 −γ h), whereγ 1 = 13.18,γ 2 = 4.24 andγ h is defined after Eq. (1) [44]

  36. [45]

    V. P. Michal, B. Venitucci, and Y.-M. Niquet, Longitu- dinal and transverse electric field manipulation of hole spin-orbit qubits in one-dimensional channels, Physical Review B103, 045305 (2021)

    2021

  37. [46]

    N. Ares, V. N. Golovach, G. Katsaros, M. Stoffel, F. Four- nel, L. I. Glazman, O. G. Schmidt, and S. De Franceschi, Nature of tunable holegfactors in quantum dots, Phys- ical Review Letters110, 046602 (2013)

    2013

  38. [47]

    We use it as a guide in the present, qualitative discussion

    This expression is not valid for largeL w’s where the con- finement becomes electrical and ∆ LH ∝1/ℓ 2 ⊥. We use it as a guide in the present, qualitative discussion

  39. [48]

    N. Piot, B. Brun, V. Schmitt, S. Zihlmann, V. P. Michal, A. Apra, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, X. Jehl, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojewski, L. Hutin, M. Vinet, M. Urdampil- leta, T. Meunier, Y.-M. Niquet, R. Maurand, and S. De Franceschi, A single hole spin with enhanced coher- ence in natu...

    2022

  40. [49]

    Bassi, E.-A

    M. Bassi, E.-A. Rodrıguez-Mena, B. Brun, S. Zihlmann, T. Nguyen, V. Champain, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojewski, R. Maurand, Y.-M. Niquet, X. Jehl, S. D. Franceschi, and V. Schmitt, Optimal op- eration of hole spin qubits, arXiv:2310.05902 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Marcellina, A

    E. Marcellina, A. R. Hamilton, R. Winkler, and D. Cul- cer, Spin-orbit interactions in inversion-asymmetric two- dimensional hole systems: A variational analysis, Physi- cal Review B95, 075305 (2017)

    2017

  42. [51]

    L. A. Terrazos, E. Marcellina, Z. Wang, S. N. Copper- smith, M. Friesen, A. R. Hamilton, X. Hu, B. Koiller, A. L. Saraiva, D. Culcer, and R. B. Capaz, Theory of hole-spin qubits in strained germanium quantum dots, Physical Review B103, 125201 (2021)

    2021

  43. [52]

    V. P. Michal, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, S. Zihlmann, R. Mau- rand, Y.-M. Niquet, and M. Filippone, Tunable hole spin- photon interaction based ong-matrix modulation, Phys- ical Review B107, L041303 (2023)

    2023

  44. [53]

    Bosco and D

    S. Bosco and D. Loss, Fully tunable hyperfine interac- tions of hole spin qubits in Si and Ge quantum dots, Physical Review Letters127, 190501 (2021)

    2021

  45. [54]

    J. Li, B. Venitucci, and Y.-M. Niquet, Hole-phonon inter- actions in quantum dots: Effects of phonon confinement and encapsulation materials on spin-orbit qubits, Physi- cal Review B102, 075415 (2020)

    2020

  46. [55]

    Machnikowski, K

    P. Machnikowski, K. Gawarecki, and L. Cywi´ nski, Hyper- fine interaction for holes in quantum dots:k·pmodel, Physical Review B100, 085305 (2019)

    2019

  47. [56]

    I. A. Merkulov, A. L. Efros, and M. Rosen, Electron spin relaxation by nuclei in semiconductor quantum dots, Physical Review B65, 205309 (2002)

    2002

  48. [57]

    Fischer, W

    J. Fischer, W. A. Coish, D. V. Bulaev, and D. Loss, Spin decoherence of a heavy hole coupled to nuclear spins in a quantum dot, Physical Review B78, 155329 (2008)

    2008

  49. [58]

    Testelin, F

    C. Testelin, F. Bernardot, B. Eble, and M. Chamarro, Hole–spin dephasing time associated with hyperfine in- teraction in quantum dots, Physical Review B79, 195440 (2009)

    2009

  50. [59]

    Bosco, B

    S. Bosco, B. Het´ enyi, and D. Loss, Hole spin qubits in Si FinFETs with fully tunable spin-orbit coupling and sweet spots for charge noise, PRX Quantum2, 010348 (2021)

    2021

  51. [60]

    Philippopoulos, S

    P. Philippopoulos, S. Chesi, and W. A. Coish, First- principles hyperfine tensors for electrons and holes in GaAs and silicon, Physical Review B101, 115302 (2020)

    2020

  52. [61]

    J. J. Pla, A. Bienfait, G. Pica, J. Mansir, F. A. Mohiyaddin, Z. Zeng, Y.-M. Niquet, A. Morello, T. Schenkel, J. J. L. Morton, and P. Bertet, Strain- induced spin-resonance shifts in silicon devices, Physical Review Applied9, 044014 (2018). 13

    2018

  53. [62]

    Ranjan, B

    V. Ranjan, B. Albanese, E. Albertinale, E. Billaud, D. Flanigan, J. J. Pla, T. Schenkel, D. Vion, D. Esteve, E. Flurin, J. J. L. Morton, Y. M. Niquet, and P. Bertet, Spatially resolved decoherence of donor spins in silicon strained by a metallic electrode, Physical Review X11,...

    2021

Pith tools

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