Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 77 references

Hybrid metal-semiconductor quantum dots in InAs as a platform for quantum simulation

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read InAs hybrid metal-semiconductor islands are presented as a scalable building block for quantum simulation, with near-perfect edge-mode transparency and uniform Coulomb blockade.

desk verdict InAs hybrid metal-semiconductor dots are a real advance, but the >99.2% transparency number rests on an untested no-equilibration assumption over 60 µm. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.03928 v1 pith:EAT5AOXD submitted 2025-08-05 cond-mat.mes-hall

Praveen Sriram , Connie L. Hsueh , Karna A. Morey , Tiantian Wang , Candice Thomas , Geoffrey C. Gardner , Marc A. Kastner , Michael J. Manfra
show 1 more author
David Goldhaber-Gordon
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 73.23.Hk73.43.-f73.21.La
keywords hybridmetal-semiconductorquantumdotInAswellHalledgemodesCoulombblockadesimulationKondolatticechargenoisedynamical
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 is trying to establish that a submicron metal island in ohmic contact with an InAs quantum well can serve as the repeating unit of a quantum simulator, solving a variability problem that plagues conventional semiconductor quantum dot arrays. Because the island's metallic spectrum is quasi-continuous, each site's electronic energy levels are essentially the same regardless of local disorder, while the surrounding gates keep the couplings between sites tunable. The authors report three device-level results that would make this work: an outer quantum Hall edge mode enters the metal with transparency above 99.2% at $\nu=2$; Coulomb blockade in the weak-coupling limit shows uniform peak heights and no excited-state spectrum; and the charging energy is about $E_c\approx100\,\mu\mathrm{eV}$, four times larger than in GaAs hybrid dots. They also show that as the tunnel couplings are opened, charge quantization is gradually quenched and replaced by dynamical Coulomb blockade, matching an environment model with no adjustable parameters. If these results hold, arrays of such islands become a credible route to simulating Kondo-lattice and heavy-fermion physics at less demanding cryogenic temperatures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hybrid metal-semiconductor island: a roughly $1\,\mu\mathrm{m}^2$ Ti/Au metal island making direct sidewall ohmic contact to a gate-confined region of an InAs two-dimensional electron gas, with quantum point contacts (gate-defined constrictions) as tunable tunnel barriers. The metal's quasi-continuous density of states---single-particle level spacing $\delta\approx400\,\mathrm{peV}$, far below $k_B T$---removes the dot-specific excitation spectrum that makes conventional semiconductor dots non-identical, while the semiconductor side keeps Coulomb charging and gate-tunable couplings. Quantum Hall edge modes are the measuring tool: their chiral, quantized transmission

What would settle it

Measure the inferred outer-edge transparency on a Device-A-style sample with detector QPCs at 60 µm and again with the QPC-island distance reduced toward 1 µm, and track the value across the $\nu=2$ plateau. If partial edge-mode equilibration is biasing the extraction, the inferred transparency will shift with distance and fall with magnetic field; if the value stays above 99.2% and field-flat, the no-equilibration assumption is validated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper reports a mesoscopic building block intended to make quantum-dot-array simulation scalable: a submicron Ti/Au island in ohmic sidewall contact with an InAs quantum well, flanked by gate-defined quantum point contacts. In the integer quantum Hall regime the outermost edge mode is measured to enter the metal with transparency above 99.2% at $\nu=2$, which the authors take as evidence of a near-ideal metal-semiconductor interface. Pinched off to weak tunneling, the device behaves as a single-electron transistor with Coulomb peaks uniform in height over 17 consecutive charge additions, Coulomb diamonds with no resolvable excited-state spectrum, and charging energy $E_c\approx100\,\mu\

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quantum Hall edge modes do not equilibrate over the 60 µm between the QPC and the metal island in Device A; the paper says it cannot predict the extent of equilibration over that distance, yet the 99.2% transparency and the Landauer-Büttiker fit assume none.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A multi-island array built from these sites would inherit the metal's quasi-continuous spectrum at every site, so dot-to-dot variations in excitation spectra and charging energies---the obstacle identified for conventional arrays---drop out of the problem.
  • The four-fold charging-energy increase over GaAs hybrid dots ($E_c\approx100\,\mu\mathrm{eV}$ at $T_e\approx54\,\mathrm{mK}$) puts $E_c/k_B T$ at about 23 without requiring 12 mK electron temperatures, widening the temperature window for Kondo and quantum-critical studies.
  • Charge quantization is robust for QPC transmissions up to roughly 0.7 and disappears only near full transmission, and the onset of its recovery follows the predicted $\sqrt{1-\tau_2}$ scaling; this defines the operating range in which an array site is a well-defined charge pseudospin.
  • In the nearly ballistic regime, dynamical Coulomb blockade suppresses the zero-bias transmission of a QPC, and the backaction magnitude as a function of environment resistance matches theory with no fit parameters---so intrinsic couplings can in principle be calibrated from the blockade itself.
  • With charge noise of 0.45 $\mu\mathrm{eV}^2/\mathrm{Hz}$ at 1 Hz, the estimated charge-noise energy scale $T_*$ is about 0.8 mK, an order of magnitude below the device electron temperature; charge noise should therefore not destabilize the charge-Kondo critical points these arrays are meant to simulate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not build a two-site array, but their uniformity result implies that the hardest part of array scaling may be the QPC barriers rather than the sites; calibration would then be a problem of matching barrier transmissions, not matching spectral fingerprints.
  • Their own speculation that transparency falls with field because of inter-edge-mode equilibration can be tested directly: shrink the QPC-island distance from 60 µm toward the sub-micron scale; if the apparent outer-edge transparency stops falling with field, equilibration, not the interface, was the limiter.
  • A further charging-energy boost should follow from replacing the 400 nm isotropic wet etch and thick HfO$_2$ dielectric with shallower or anisotropic etches, so the advantage over GaAs could grow beyond the factor of four and push quantum-critical studies to higher temperatures.
  • If two coupled islands reproduce the two-site charge-Kondo critical point at $T_e\approx50\,\mathrm{mK}$, the route from this single-site demonstration to a Kondo-lattice simulator becomes an engineering task of array scale rather than new physics.
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. The manuscript reports the fabrication and characterization of hybrid metal-semiconductor islands in an InAs quantum well: a submicron Ti/Au island makes sidewall contact to the 2DEG, and quantum point contacts gate-tune the coupling to quantum Hall edge modes. In the weak-coupling limit (Device B) the authors observe uniform Coulomb peaks with no resolvable excitation spectrum and a charging energy Ec ≈ 100 µeV. In the nearly ballistic regime (Device C) they observe dynamical Coulomb blockade with parameter-free agreement to environmental backaction theory. Device A is used to extract the transparency of the metal-semiconductor interface to the outermost quantum Hall edge mode, reported as t1 > 99.2% at ν = 2. The paper proposes this platform as a route to arrays of functionally identical sites for quantum simulation of Kondo-lattice-type models.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a significant advance: a transparent submicron metal–InAs contact with Ec/kB T up to ~23, uniform Coulomb peaks, and a quantitative parameter-free demonstration of dynamical Coulomb blockade would make hybrid InAs islands materially better than the GaAs-based hybrid dots used in earlier charge-Kondo experiments. The manuscript is strong in several specific respects: the Landauer-Büttiker derivation in the SM is explicit and checkable; the DCB comparison in Fig. 6(c) is parameter-free in Ec, T, and Renv; the Coulomb-peak statistics are carefully fitted; and the charge-noise spectroscopy covers a wide frequency range. The main weakness is that the headline transparency value relies on an explicitly unverified no-equilibration assumption, and the near-ballistic scaling test in Fig. 5(b) is not parameter-free.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III, Eq. (2) and SM S5] The extraction of the island transparency from Eq. (2) assumes that the non-equilibrium edge-mode distribution created by the QPC arrives at the island unchanged over the 60 µm propagation length. SM S5 explicitly states that the extent of equilibration over this distance cannot be predicted from the available data, and the longest directly tested injector–detector distance is 5 µm. If partial inter-mode equilibration occurs on the 60 µm path, the reflected voltage entering Eq. (2) is modified and the inferred t1 is systematically biased. The authors themselves invoke field-dependent equilibration to explain the decrease of t1 with field. Because the >99.2% interface transparency is a headline quantitative result that motivates the InAs platform, this unverified assumption is load-bearing. I recommend either a direct equilibration test at the actual device length, or a sensitivity analys
  2. [§V, Eq. (10) and Fig. 5(b)] The asymptotic √(1−τ2) scaling shown in Fig. 5(b) is presented with the prefactor left as a fit parameter, and the nonasymptotic cotunneling curves use τ1 as a fit parameter. The text appropriately says the agreement is qualitative, but the caption phrase 'reveal the √1−τ2 scaling' overstates the strength of the test. This is not a parameter-free prediction like the DCB comparison in Fig. 6(c). The scaling evidence should be framed as consistency with the predicted functional form, not as a quantitative verification of Eq. (10).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: '>ok99.2%' should read '>99.2%'.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption and panel labels] The caption lists τ2 values {1.002, 0.999, 0.664, 0.574}, but panels (d) and (e) are labeled 0.994 and 0.718. Please reconcile the numbers.
  3. [§IV A, Eq. (6) and following text] With σµ = 2.2 µeV and Ec = 100 µeV, σµ²/Ec ≈ 0.56 mK, not the stated 0.8 mK. Please check the numerical value and the conversion.
  4. [SM S11] Typo: 'untinentional quantum dots' should be 'unintentional quantum dots'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central results are measured quantities fit to independent theory; minor self-citations are not load-bearing, and the fitted comparison in Fig. 5(b) and admitted no-equilibration assumption are caveats, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are grounded in direct measurements and external theory. The transparency t1 is extracted by inverting a Landauer-Buttiker expression (Eq. 2) from measured normalized reflected voltages; this is a parameter extraction rather than a prediction of a quantity already contained in the inputs. The Coulomb-blockade energy Ec is read from diamond heights; the peak shape is fit to Kulik-Shekhter theory (Eq. 3) with T as the fit parameter; and the dynamical Coulomb blockade comparison (Eq. 11, Fig. 6) is parameter-free given independently measured Ec, T, and Renv, matching data over the full range. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the choice of model. Self-citations [18] and [24] are comparative/contextual: [18] provides the GaAs Ec comparison and [24] describes the QPC design, but the present tau1,2 values are measured in situ, not adopted from [24]. Two limitations should be weighed but are not circularity: (i) SM Sec. S5 explicitly states 'we cannot predict the extent of equilibration over the 60 micrometer propagation length relevant for Device A', so the reported t1>99.2% depends on the no-equilibration assumption; this is a model-dependence/correctness risk, not a self-referential reduction. (ii) In Fig. 5(b), the asymptotic sqrt(1-tau2) curves use a fitted prefactor and the nonasymptotic curves use tau1 as a fit parameter, so these are fits rather than parameter-free predictions; however the sqrt(1-tau2) functional form comes from external theory (Flensberg; Furusaki-Matveev), so the comparison still tests the predicted scaling rather than reducing to the data by construction. For these reasons the circularity score is low.

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

The central experimental claims rest on standard transport theory plus a few domain assumptions. The most fragile assumptions are the unverified 60 micrometer no-equilibration hypothesis and the continuum density of states approximation. The free parameters are mostly calibrations (T, alpha) or fits used for specific comparisons (scaling prefactor, tau1 drift, noise exponents); the headline DCB match in Fig. 6(c) uses no free parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • Prefactor of sqrt(1 - tau2) visibility scaling (Eq. 10) = left as fit parameter
    Dashed asymptotic curves in Fig. 5(b) are matched to data by fitting the prefactor; the scaling exponent itself is fixed by theory.
  • tau1 in nonasymptotic cotunneling predictions (Eq. S26) = fit parameter, varies per trace
    Solid curves in Fig. 5(b) leave tau1 as a fit parameter to account for drift in the bottom QPC transmission.
  • Electron temperature T from Coulomb peak fits = 54 mK (Device B), 59 +/- 2 mK (Device C)
    Obtained by fitting peaks to Eq. 3; used as input for DCB predictions and charge noise estimates.
  • Lever arm alpha from Coulomb diamond = not stated numerically
    Extracted from diamond heights and used to convert gate voltage to energy in Eq. 5; a calibration, not a theory parameter.
  • Charge noise exponents beta = 1.06 (CPF), 1.86 (CPT)
    Fitted to power spectral densities; descriptive of the two-level fluctuator ensemble, not inputs to the platform claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption No equilibration of quantum Hall edge modes over the 60 micrometer distance between QPC and island in Device A
    SM S5 states 'we cannot predict the extent of equilibration over the 60 micrometer propagation length relevant for Device A', yet the transparency extraction relies on the absence of such equilibration.
  • domain assumption Metallic island has a quasi-continuous density of states (level spacing about 5 microkelvin, much less than electron temperature)
    Used throughout Sec. IV to justify uniform Coulomb peaks and no excitation spectrum; based on bulk gold parameters.
  • domain assumption Single-subband occupation of the InAs quantum well
    Supported by Hall and Shubnikov-de Haas measurements and NEMO5 simulations in SM S1; needed for the integer quantum Hall edge-state analysis.
  • standard math Landauer-Buttiker formalism describes the multi-terminal quantum Hall circuit
    Used to derive Eqs. 1 and 2 and the transparency extraction in SM S4.
  • domain assumption Environment for DCB modeled as an RC circuit with Renv = h/e^2*tau2 and C = e^2/2Ec
    Standard DCB model (Refs 64, 67, 68) applied in Sec. VI to predict low-bias transmission suppression.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid metal-semiconductor quantum dots in InAs as a platform for quantum simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EAT5AOXD

@misc{pith2026250803928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid metal-semiconductor quantum dots in InAs as a platform for quantum simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EAT5AOXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03928}
}
read the original abstract

Arrays of hybrid metal-semiconductor islands offer a new approach to quantum simulation, with key advantages over arrays of conventional quantum dots. Because the metallic component of these hybrid islands has a quasi-continuous level spectrum, each site in an array can be effectively electronically identical; in contrast, each conventional semiconductor quantum dot has its own spectral fingerprint. Meanwhile, the semiconductor component retains gate-tunability of intersite coupling. This combination creates a scalable platform for simulating correlated ground states driven by Coulomb interactions. We report the fabrication and characterization of hybrid metal-semiconductor islands, featuring a submicron metallic component transparently contacting a gate-confined region of an InAs quantum well with tunable couplings to macroscopic leads. Tuning to the weak-coupling limit forms a single-electron transistor with highly-uniform Coulomb peaks, with no resolvable excitation spectrum in the Coulomb diamonds. Upon increasing the transmissions toward the ballistic regime we observe an evolution to dynamical Coulomb blockade.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.03928 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. J. V . Diepen, T. K. Hsiao, U. Mukhopadhyay, C. Re- ichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. Vandersypen, Quantum simulation of antiferromagnetic heisenberg chain with gate- defined quantum dots, Physical Review X 11, 10.1103/Phys- RevX.11.041025 (2021)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2021

  2. [2]

    T. K. Hsiao, P. C. Fariña, S. D. Oosterhout, D. Jirovec, X. Zhang, C. J. V . Diepen, W. I. Lawrie, C. A. Wang, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, E. Demler, and L. M. Vander- sypen, Exciton transport in a germanium quantum dot ladder, Physical Review X 14, 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.011048 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.011048 2024

  3. [3]

    C. W. Kim, J. M. Nichol, A. N. Jordan, and I. Franco, Analog quantum simulation of the dynamics of open quantum systems with quantum dots and microelectronic circuits, PRX Quantum 3, 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.040308 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.040308 2022

  4. [4]

    Knörzer, C

    J. Knörzer, C. J. V . Diepen, T. K. Hsiao, G. Giedke, U. Mukhopadhyay, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, J. I. Cirac, and L. M. Vandersypen, Long-range electron-electron inter- actions in quantum dot systems and applications in quantum chemistry, Physical Review Research 4, 10.1103/PhysRevRe- search.4.033043 (2022)

    doi:10.1103/physrevre- 2022

  5. [5]

    L. M. Vandersypen, H. Bluhm, J. S. Clarke, A. S. Dzurak, R. Ishihara, A. Morello, D. J. Reilly, L. R. Schreiber, and M. Veldhorst, Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, dense, and coherent, npj Quantum Information 3, 10.1038/S41534-017-0038-Y (2017)

    doi:10.1038/s41534-017-0038-y 2017

  6. [6]

    C. A. Wang, C. Déprez, H. Tidjani, W. I. Lawrie, N. W. Hen- drickx, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, Probing resonating valence bonds on a programmable germanium quan- tum simulator, npj Quantum Information 9, 10.1038/s41534- 023-00727-3 (2023)

    doi:10.1038/s41534- 2023

  7. [7]

    J. P. Dehollain, U. Mukhopadhyay, V . P. Michal, Y . Wang, B. Wunsch, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, M. S. Rudner, E. Dem- ler, and L. M. Vandersypen, Nagaoka ferromagnetism observed in a quantum dot plaquette, Nature 579, 528 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Goldhaber-Gordon, H

    D. Goldhaber-Gordon, H. Shtrikman, D. Mahalu, D. Abusch- Magder, U. Meirav, and M. A. Kastner, Kondo effect in a single- electron transistor, Nature 391, 156 (1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    W. G. van der Wiel, S. D. Franceschi, T. Fujisawa, J. M. Elzer- man, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, Tech. Rep. (1985)

    1985

  2. [10]

    R. M. Potok, I. G. Rau, H. Shtrikman, Y . Oreg, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Observation of the two-channel kondo effect, Nature 446, 167 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Nguyen, C

    T. Nguyen, C. D. Hill, L. C. Hollenberg, and M. R. James, Fan- out estimation in spin-based quantum computer scale-up, Sci- entific Reports 7, 10.1038/s41598-017-13308-0 (2017)

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    D. J. Reilly, Challenges in Scaling-up the Control Interface of a Quantum Computer, Tech. Rep

  5. [13]

    Undseth, X

    B. Undseth, X. Xue, M. Mehmandoost, M. Rimbach-Russ, P. T. Eendebak, N. Samkharadze, A. Sammak, V . V . Dobrovitski, G. Scappucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, Nonlinear response and crosstalk of electrically driven silicon spin qubits, Physical Re- view Applied 19, 10.1103/PhysRevA...

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Borsoi, N

    F. Borsoi, N. W. Hendrickx, V . John, S. Motz, F. V . Riggelen, A. Sammak, S. L. D. Snoo, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, Shared control of a 16 semiconductor quantum dot crossbar array, Tech. Rep

  7. [15]

    Künne, A

    M. Künne, A. Willmes, M. Oberländer, C. Gorjaew, J. D. Teske, H. Bhardwaj, M. Beer, E. Kammerloher, R. Otten, I. Seidler, R. Xue, L. R. Schreiber, and H. Bluhm, The spinbus architec- ture for scaling spin qubits with electron shuttling, Nature Com- munications 15, 10.1038/s414...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    R. Li, L. Petit, D. P. Franke, J. P. Dehollain, J. Helsen, M. Steudtner, N. K. Thomas, Z. R. Yoscovits, K. J. Singh, S. Wehner, L. M. K. Vandersypen, J. S. Clarke, and M. Veld- horst, A crossbar network for silicon quantum dot qubits , Tech. Rep. (2018). 13

    2018

  9. [17]

    Neyens, O

    S. Neyens, O. K. Zietz, T. F. Watson, F. Luthi, A. Nethwewala, H. C. George, E. Henry, M. Islam, A. J. Wagner, F. Borjans, E. J. Connors, J. Corrigan, M. J. Curry, D. Keith, R. Kotl- yar, L. F. Lampert, M. T. M ˛ adzik, K. Millard, F. A. Mo- hiyaddin, S. Pellerano, R. Pillaris...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Pouse, L

    W. Pouse, L. Peeters, C. L. Hsueh, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, M. A. Kastner, A. K. Mitchell, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Quantum simulation of an exotic quantum critical point in a two-site charge kondo circuit, Nature Physics 19, 492 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Iftikhar, A

    Z. Iftikhar, A. Anthore, A. K. Mitchell, F. D. Parmentier, U. Gennser, A. Ouerghi, A. Cavanna, C. Mora, P. Simon, and F. Pierre, Tunable quantum criticality and super-ballistic trans- port in a “charge” kondo circuit, Science 360, 1315 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/1...

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Iftikhar, S

    Z. Iftikhar, S. Jezouin, A. Anthore, U. Gennser, F. D. Parmen- tier, A. Cavanna, and F. Pierre, Two-channel kondo effect and renormalization flow with macroscopic quantum charge states, Nature 526, 233 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    J. M. Woodall, J. L. Freeouf, G. D. Pettit, T. Jack- son, and P. Kirchner, Ohmic contacts to n-GaAs using graded band gap layers of Ga1-xInxAs grown by molecular beam epitaxy, Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology 19, 626 (1981), _eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/avs/jvst/artic...

    1981

  14. [22]

    A. K. Mitchell, L. A. Landau, L. Fritz, and E. Sela, Universality and scaling in a charge two-channel kondo device, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 157202 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    O. Gökta¸ s,Small Alloyed Ohmic Contacts to 2DES and Sub- micron Scale Corbino Devices in Strong Magnetic Fields: Ob- servation of a Zero Bias Anomaly and Single-Electron Charg- ing, Ph.D. thesis, Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research (2009), ph.D. Thesis

    2009

  16. [24]

    C. L. Hsueh, P. Sriram, T. Wang, C. Thomas, G. Gardner, M. A. Kastner, M. J. Manfra, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Clean quantum point contacts in an inas quantum well grown on a lattice-mismatched inp substrate, Physical Review B 105, 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.195303 (2022)

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    A. T. Hatke, T. Wang, C. Thomas, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Manfra, Mobility in excess of 106 cm2/v s in inas quantum wells grown on lattice mismatched inp substrates, Applied Physics Letters 111, 10.1063/1.4993784 (2017)

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    I. O. Kulik and R. I. Shekhter, Kinetic phenomena and charge discreteness effects in granulated media , Tech. Rep. (1975)

    1975

  19. [27]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Theory of coulomb-blockade oscillations in the conductance of a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 44, 1646 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Fuhrer, Phase coherence, orbital and spin states in quantum rings, Doctoral thesis, ETH Zurich, Zürich (2003), diss., Natur- wissenschaften ETH Zürich, Nr

    A. Fuhrer, Phase coherence, orbital and spin states in quantum rings, Doctoral thesis, ETH Zurich, Zürich (2003), diss., Natur- wissenschaften ETH Zürich, Nr. 15094, 2003

    2003

  21. [29]

    Kouwenhoven and C

    L. Kouwenhoven and C. Marcus, Quantum dots, Physics World 11, 35 (1998)

    1998

  22. [30]

    L. P. Kouwenhoven, D. G. Austing, and S. Tarucha, Few- electron quantum dots, Reports on Progress in Physics 64, 701 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    Jezouin, Z

    S. Jezouin, Z. Iftikhar, A. Anthore, F. D. Parmentier, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, A. Ouerghi, I. P. Levkivskyi, E. Idrisov, E. V . Sukhorukov, L. I. Glazman, and F. Pierre, Con- trolling charge quantization with quantum fluctuations, Nature 536, 58 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Paladino, Y

    E. Paladino, Y . M. Galperin, G. Falci, and B. L. Altshuler, 1/f noise: Implications for solid-state quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 361 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Kogan, Electronic Noise and Fluctuations in Solids (Cam- bridge University Press, 1996)

    S. Kogan, Electronic Noise and Fluctuations in Solids (Cam- bridge University Press, 1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    W.-C. Hua, M. Lee, P. Chen, M.-J. Tsai, and C. Liu, Threading dislocation induced low frequency noise in strained-si nmos- fets, IEEE Electron Device Letters 26, 667 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Liefrink, J

    F. Liefrink, J. I. Dijkhuis, and H. van Houten, Low-frequency noise in quantum point contacts, Semiconductor Science and Technology 9, 2178 (1994)

    1994

  28. [36]

    Ramon and X

    G. Ramon and X. Hu, Decoherence of spin qubits due to a nearby charge fluctuator in gate-defined double dots, Phys. Rev. B 81, 045304 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Dekker, A

    C. Dekker, A. J. Scholten, F. Liefrink, R. Eppenga, H. van Houten, and C. T. Foxon, Spontaneous resistance switching and low-frequency noise in quantum point contacts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2148 (1991)

    1991

  30. [38]

    Pioro-Ladrière, J

    M. Pioro-Ladrière, J. H. Davies, A. R. Long, A. S. Sachra- jda, L. Gaudreau, P. Zawadzki, J. Lapointe, J. Gupta, Z. Wasilewski, and S. Studenikin, Origin of switching noise in GaAs /alxga1−xAs lateral gated devices, Phys. Rev. B 72, 115331 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    D. H. Cobden, A. Savchenko, M. Pepper, N. K. Patel, D. A. Ritchie, J. E. F. Frost, and G. A. C. Jones, Time-irreversible random telegraph signal due to current along a single hopping chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 502 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    Smith, C

    J. Smith, C. Berven, M. Wybourne, and S. Goodnick, Conduc- tance instabilities in quantum point contacts, Surface Science 361-362, 656 (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    Diehl, A

    S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms, Nature Physics 4, 878 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Viola, E

    L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynamical decoupling of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999)

    1999

  35. [43]

    M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, A. P. VanDevender, N. Shiga, W. M. Itano, and J. J. Bollinger, Optimized dynamical decoupling in a model quantum memory, Nature 458, 996 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    E. J. Connors, J. Nelson, H. Qiao, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Low-frequency charge noise in si/sige quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 100, 165305 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    R. H. Kingston, ed., Semiconductor Surface Physics (Liter- ary Licensing, LLC, United States, 2012) reprint of the 1957 edition; with contributions from Elias Burstein and A. L. McWhorter

    2012

  38. [46]

    Dutta and P

    P. Dutta and P. M. Horn, Low-frequency fluctuations in solids: 1 f noise, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 497 (1981)

    1981

  39. [47]

    Paquelet Wuetz, D

    B. Paquelet Wuetz, D. Degli Esposti, A.-M. J. Zwerver, S. V . Amitonov, M. Botifoll, J. Arbiol, A. Sammak, L. M. K. Van- dersypen, M. Russ, and G. Scappucci, Reducing charge noise in quantum dots by using thin silicon quantum wells, Nature Communications 14, 1385 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Massai, B

    L. Massai, B. Hetényi, M. Mergenthaler, F. J. Schupp, L. Som- mer, S. Paredes, S. W. Bedell, P. Harvey-Collard, G. Salis, A. Fuhrer, and N. W. Hendrickx, Impact of interface traps on charge noise and low-density transport properties in Ge/SiGe heterostructures, Communications ...

    2024

  41. [49]

    E. J. Connors, J. Nelson, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Charge- noise spectroscopy of Si/SiGe quantum dots via dynamically- decoupled exchange oscillations, Nature Communications 13, 940 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Basset, A

    J. Basset, A. Stockklauser, D.-D. Jarausch, T. Frey, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, A. Wallraff, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Evaluat- ing charge noise acting on semiconductor quantum dots in the circuit quantum electrodynamics architecture, Applied Physics 14 Letters 105, 063105 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Jekat, B

    F. Jekat, B. Pestka, D. Car, S. Gazibegovi ´c, K. Flöhr, S. Heedt, J. Schubert, M. Liebmann, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, T. Schäpers, and M. Morgenstern, Exfoliated hexagonal BN as gate di- electric for InSb nanowire quantum dots with improved gate hysteresis and charge noise, Applie...

    2020 doi

  44. [52]

    X. Mi, S. Kohler, and J. R. Petta, Landau-zener interferometry of valley-orbit states in si/sige double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 98, 161404 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    K. D. Petersson, J. R. Petta, H. Lu, and A. C. Gossard, Quantum coherence in a one-electron semiconductor charge qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 246804 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Huang and X

    P. Huang and X. Hu, Spin relaxation in a si quantum dot due to spin-valley mixing, Phys. Rev. B 90, 235315 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Huang and X

    P. Huang and X. Hu, Electron spin relaxation due to charge noise, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 89, 10.1103/PhysRevB.89.195302 (2014)

    2014 doi

  48. [56]

    L. P. Kouwenhoven, N. C. van der Vaart, A. T. Johnson, W. Kool, C. J. P. M. Harmans, J. G. Williamson, A. A. M. Star- ing, and C. T. Foxon, Single electron charging effects in semi- conductor quantum dots, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter 85, 367 (1991)

    1991

  49. [57]

    Amasha, I

    S. Amasha, I. G. Rau, M. Grobis, R. M. Potok, H. Shtrikman, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Coulomb blockade in an open quan- tum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 216804 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    Berman, N

    D. Berman, N. B. Zhitenev, R. C. Ashoori, and M. Shayegan, Observation of quantum fluctuations of charge on a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 161 (1999)

    1999

  51. [59]

    Chouvaev, L

    D. Chouvaev, L. S. Kuzmin, D. S. Golubev, and A. D. Zaikin, Strong tunneling and coulomb blockade in a single-electron transistor, Phys. Rev. B 59, 10599 (1999)

    1999

  52. [60]

    Joyez, V

    P. Joyez, V . Bouchiat, D. Esteve, C. Urbina, and M. H. De- voret, Strong tunneling in the single-electron transistor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1349 (1997)

    1997

  53. [61]

    Staring, J

    A. Staring, J. Williamson, H. van Houten, C. Beenakker, L. Kouwenhoven, and C. Foxon, Coulomb-blockade oscilla- tions in a quantum dot, Physica B: Condensed Matter 175, 226 (1991), analogies in Optics and Micro-Electronics

    1991

  54. [62]

    Furusaki and K

    A. Furusaki and K. A. Matveev, Theory of strong inelastic co- tunneling, Phys. Rev. B 52, 16676 (1995)

    1995

  55. [63]

    Yi and C

    H. Yi and C. L. Kane, Coulomb blockade in a quantum dot coupled strongly to a lead, Phys. Rev. B 53, 12956 (1996)

    1996

  56. [64]

    F. D. Parmentier, A. Anthore, S. Jezouin, H. le Sueur, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, D. Mailly, and F. Pierre, Strong back- action of a linear circuit on a single electronic quantum channel, Nature Physics 7, 935 (2011)

    2011

  57. [65]

    Flensberg, Capacitance and conductance of mesoscopic sys- tems connected by quantum point contacts, Phys

    K. Flensberg, Capacitance and conductance of mesoscopic sys- tems connected by quantum point contacts, Phys. Rev. B 48, 11156 (1993)

    1993

  58. [66]

    Flensberg, S

    K. Flensberg, S. Girvin, M. Jonson, D. Penn, and M. Stiles, Coulomb blockade in single tunnel-junctions: Quantum me- chanical effects of the electromagnetic environment, (1991)

    1991

  59. [67]

    Joyez, D

    P. Joyez, D. Esteve, and M. H. Devoret, How is the coulomb blockade suppressed in high-conductance tunnel junctions?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1956 (1998)

    1956

  60. [68]

    Ingold and Y

    G.-L. Ingold and Y . V . Nazarov, Charge tunneling rates in ultra- small junctions, arXiv preprint cond-mat/0508728 (2005)

    2005 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Kindermann and Y

    M. Kindermann and Y . V . Nazarov, Interaction effects on count- ing statistics and the transmission distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 136802 (2003)

    2003

  62. [70]

    Doniach, The kondo lattice and weak antiferromagnetism, Physica B+C 91, 231 (1977)

    S. Doniach, The kondo lattice and weak antiferromagnetism, Physica B+C 91, 231 (1977)

    1977

  63. [71]

    P. Coleman, Heavy fermions and the kondo lattice: A 21st cen- tury perspective, in Many-Body Physics: From Kondo to Hub- bard, Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich: Modeling and Simulation, V ol. 5, edited by E. Pavarini, E. Koch, and P. Cole- man (Forschungszentrum Jülich ...

    2015

  64. [72]

    Steiger, M

    S. Steiger, M. Povolotskyi, H.-H. Park, T. Kubis, and G. Klimeck, Nemo5: A parallel multiscale nanoelectronics modeling tool, IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology10, 1464 (2011)

    2011

  65. [73]

    S. D. Sarma and E. H. Hwang, Universal density scaling of disorder-limited low-temperature conductivity in high-mobility two-dimensional systems, Physical Review B 88, 035439 (2013)

    2013

  66. [74]

    Datta, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995)

    S. Datta, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995)

    1995

  67. [75]

    L. E. A. Stehouwer, C. X. Yu, B. van Straaten, A. Tosato, V . John, D. Degli Esposti, A. Elsayed, D. Costa, S. D. Oost- erhout, N. W. Hendrickx, M. Veldhorst, F. Borsoi, and G. Scap- pucci, Exploiting strained epitaxial germanium for scaling low- noise spin qubits at the micro...

    2025 doi

  68. [76]

    ν = 2 Vt /V τ=0 r = q ↓, p → 0 1/2 1 0 0 0 0 1/2 0 t2,Lt2,R/2 (t2,L + t2,R) tLt2,R/(2tL + t2,R) 1 0 t2,LtR/(t2,L + 2tR) tLtR/(tL + tR) , (S15) where tL = (t1,L + t2,L)/2 tR = (t1,R + t2,R)/2 Assuming tL = tR Vt /Vs = q ↓, p → 0 1/2 1 0 0 0 0 1/2 0 t2/4 tt2/(2t + t2) 1 0 t2t/(t...

  69. [77]

    i” behind the detector QPC reads µd = 1 n eVS, (S18) where eVS is the electrochemical potential of the source contact “1

    ν = 3 V3/V2 = q ↓, p → 0 1/3 2/3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1/3 0 t3,Lt3,R/3 (t3,L + t3,R) 2t2,Lt3,R/3 (2t2,L + t3,R) tLt3,R/(3tL + t3,R) 2/3 0 2t3,Lt2,R/3 (t3,L + 2t2,R) 2t2,Lt2,R/3 (t2,L + t2,R) 2tLt2,R/(3tL + 2t2,R) 1 0 t3,LtR/(t3,L + 3tR) 2t2,LtR/(2t2,L + 3tR) tLtR/(tL + tR) , (S17) wher...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.