pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.19537 · v1 · submitted 2025-09-23 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · quant-ph

Rapid Autotuning of a SiGe Quantum Dot into the Single-Electron Regime with Machine Learning and RF-Reflectometry FPGA-Based Measurements

Marc-Antoine Roux , Joffrey Rivard , Victor Yon , Alexis Morel , Dominic Leclerc , Claude Rohrbacher , El Bachir Ndiaye , Felice Francesco Tafuri
show 13 more authors
Brendan Bono Stefan Kubicek Roger Loo Yosuke Shimura Julien Jussot Cl\'ement Godfrin Danny Wan Kristiaan De Greve Marc-Andr\'e T\'etrault Dominique Drouin Christian Lupien Michel Pioro-Ladri\`ere Eva Dupont-Ferrier
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 13:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords quantum dotautotuningneural networkmachine learningSiGesingle-electron regimestability diagramFPGA reflectometry
0
0 comments X

The pith

Combining neural network autotuning with FPGA-accelerated measurements reduces SiGe quantum dot initialization time by a factor of 2.2

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Spin qubits require precise voltage settings around specific charge state transitions to reach high-fidelity operation, and these settings are located by acquiring stability diagrams that grow time-consuming as qubit count increases. The paper shows that an autotuning algorithm built around a neural network can identify the target charge states while FPGA hardware speeds up the underlying RF-reflectometry measurements. Together these changes shorten the time to acquire each stability diagram by a factor of 9.8 and shorten the full device initialization into the single-electron regime by a factor of 2.2. The remaining bottleneck is Python execution overhead rather than the measurements themselves, indicating that software optimization could yield still larger gains.

Core claim

Using an autotuning algorithm based on a neural network and faster measurements by harnessing the FPGA embedded in Keysight's Quantum Engineering Toolkit (QET), the measurement time of stability diagrams has been reduced by a factor of 9.8. This led to an acceleration factor of 2.2 for the total initialization time of a SiGe quantum dot into the single-electron regime, which is limited by the Python code execution.

What carries the argument

Neural-network autotuning algorithm that classifies charge states from stability diagrams acquired via FPGA-driven RF-reflectometry

If this is right

  • Stability diagrams can be acquired nearly ten times faster than before.
  • The total time to bring a SiGe quantum dot into the single-electron regime drops by a factor of 2.2.
  • The method directly addresses the rapid growth in voltage search space that occurs when scaling to multi-qubit processors.
  • Further overall acceleration is possible once the Python execution overhead that now limits total time is reduced.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same combination of neural-network classification and FPGA measurement acceleration could be transferred to other quantum-dot platforms with only modest retraining.
  • Reducing the software overhead that currently caps the speedup would produce still larger total gains.
  • Training the network on a broader set of simulated charge diagrams might lower the need for device-specific retraining on future chips.

Load-bearing premise

The neural network, trained on prior devices or simulated data, will correctly classify charge states on the new SiGe device without substantial retraining or false positives that require manual intervention.

What would settle it

Running the autotuning routine on several fresh SiGe devices and finding that the neural network repeatedly selects incorrect charge regions, forcing manual intervention and erasing the reported speedup.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.19537 by Alexis Morel, Brendan Bono, Christian Lupien, Claude Rohrbacher, Cl\'ement Godfrin, Danny Wan, Dominic Leclerc, Dominique Drouin, El Bachir Ndiaye, Eva Dupont-Ferrier, Felice Francesco Tafuri, Joffrey Rivard, Julien Jussot, Kristiaan De Greve, Marc-Andr\'e T\'etrault, Marc-Antoine Roux, Michel Pioro-Ladri\`ere, Roger Loo, Stefan Kubicek, Victor Yon, Yosuke Shimura.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Experimental setup with the DC circuit on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. a) Single quantum dot stability diagram used as the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Success rate of the autotuning procedure as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Bar plot showing the time needed for each autotuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Total autotuning time (blue) and measurement time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Spin qubits need to operate within a very precise voltage space around charge state transitions to achieve high-fidelity gates. However, the stability diagrams that allow the identification of the desired charge states are long to acquire. Moreover, the voltage space to search for the desired charge state increases quickly with the number of qubits. Therefore, faster stability diagram acquisitions are needed to scale up a spin qubit quantum processor. Currently, most methods focus on more efficient data sampling. Our approach shows a significant speedup by combining measurement speedup and a reduction in the number of measurements needed to tune a quantum dot device. Using an autotuning algorithm based on a neural network and faster measurements by harnessing the FPGA embedded in Keysight's Quantum Engineering Toolkit (QET), the measurement time of stability diagrams has been reduced by a factor of 9.8. This led to an acceleration factor of 2.2 for the total initialization time of a SiGe quantum dot into the single-electron regime, which is limited by the Python code execution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an autotuning algorithm for initializing a SiGe quantum dot into the single-electron regime. It combines a neural-network classifier for charge-state identification with FPGA-based RF-reflectometry measurements using Keysight's Quantum Engineering Toolkit (QET) to accelerate stability-diagram acquisition. The central claims are a measured 9.8-fold reduction in stability-diagram measurement time and a resulting 2.2-fold speedup in total device initialization time, with the latter limited by Python code execution overhead.

Significance. If the neural-network generalization holds without substantial manual intervention, the work provides a concrete, hardware-validated route to reducing the dominant time cost in scaling spin-qubit processors. The direct wall-clock timing measurements on actual devices and the integration of FPGA acceleration constitute reproducible, falsifiable evidence of practical speedup that does not rely on fitted parameters or self-referential definitions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and experimental results section] Abstract and experimental results section: the reported 9.8× measurement-time and 2.2× total-initialization speedups are presented as direct outcomes of the NN-driven autotuning loop, yet no quantitative classifier error rate, confusion matrix, or failure-rate statistic under the exact FPGA acquisition conditions is supplied. This is load-bearing for the central claim; if false-positive charge-state identifications occur at non-negligible frequency on the target SiGe device, the measured acceleration factors become conditional on unquantified post-hoc manual corrections.
  2. [Methods / neural-network training subsection] Methods / neural-network training subsection: the manuscript states that the network is trained on prior devices or simulated data and then applied to the new SiGe dot, but provides neither the training/validation split details nor a hold-out test on a fresh device under the FPGA readout protocol used for the timing benchmarks. Without this, the assumption that the autotuning loop completes without human intervention remains unverified and directly affects the reproducibility of the quoted acceleration factors.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract introduces the acronym QET without expansion; a parenthetical definition on first use would improve readability for readers outside the immediate instrumentation community.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions for the stability diagrams should explicitly state the voltage ranges and the charge-state labels assigned by the neural network to allow direct comparison with conventional manual tuning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments point by point below, and we will incorporate the suggested improvements in the revised version to enhance the clarity and reproducibility of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and experimental results section] Abstract and experimental results section: the reported 9.8× measurement-time and 2.2× total-initialization speedups are presented as direct outcomes of the NN-driven autotuning loop, yet no quantitative classifier error rate, confusion matrix, or failure-rate statistic under the exact FPGA acquisition conditions is supplied. This is load-bearing for the central claim; if false-positive charge-state identifications occur at non-negligible frequency on the target SiGe device, the measured acceleration factors become conditional on unquantified post-hoc manual corrections.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out the need for quantitative performance metrics of the classifier. The 9.8× and 2.2× speedups were obtained from direct wall-clock measurements of the full autotuning procedure executed on the SiGe device using the FPGA-accelerated RF reflectometry. To address this concern and strengthen the manuscript, we will include in the revised version a confusion matrix and the classifier error rates specifically measured under the FPGA acquisition conditions used in the timing experiments. This will demonstrate that false-positive identifications were not a significant factor and that the reported accelerations reflect the performance of the automated loop with minimal manual corrections. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods / neural-network training subsection] Methods / neural-network training subsection: the manuscript states that the network is trained on prior devices or simulated data and then applied to the new SiGe dot, but provides neither the training/validation split details nor a hold-out test on a fresh device under the FPGA readout protocol used for the timing benchmarks. Without this, the assumption that the autotuning loop completes without human intervention remains unverified and directly affects the reproducibility of the quoted acceleration factors.

    Authors: We agree that providing more details on the neural network training procedure is important for reproducibility. The network was pretrained on data from earlier devices and simulations before being deployed on the new SiGe quantum dot. In the revised manuscript, we will add the specific training and validation split details, including dataset sizes and ratios. Additionally, we will report the results of a hold-out test performed on data from the target device acquired with the FPGA readout protocol, which will confirm the generalization capability and verify that the autotuning completed with negligible human intervention during the benchmarked runs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in experimental timing claims

full rationale

The paper reports direct wall-clock measurements of stability-diagram acquisition time (reduced by 9.8×) and total device-initialization time (accelerated by 2.2×) on a physical SiGe quantum-dot setup that combines FPGA-based RF reflectometry with a neural-network autotuner. These numerical factors are obtained from hardware timing rather than from any mathematical derivation, fitted parameter, or self-referential definition that would reduce the reported result to its own inputs. No equations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked whose validity depends on the present paper's own outputs or on a self-citation chain; the neural-network generalization assumption is an empirical premise but does not create circularity in the timing data themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a trained neural network whose internal parameters are fitted to device data and on the assumption that RF reflectometry signals faithfully encode charge-state transitions. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • neural-network weights and hyperparameters
    The autotuning algorithm relies on a trained neural network; its parameters are fitted to prior stability diagrams or simulated data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption RF reflectometry signals acquired via the Keysight QET FPGA accurately reflect the charge-state transitions of the SiGe quantum dot.
    The speedup claim presupposes that the faster hardware measurement still produces usable data for the neural-network classifier.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5819 in / 1528 out tokens · 38588 ms · 2026-05-18T13:35:23.985258+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. AI-enhanced tuning of quantum dot Hamiltonians toward Majorana modes

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A vision-transformer neural network trained unsupervised on synthetic conductance data proposes Hamiltonian parameter updates that drive quantum dot chains into the topological phase with Majorana modes, often succeed...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    where a convolutional neural network is used to de- tect the charge transition lines on small 18 mV x 18 mV voltagepatcheswith1mVpixels. Thankstothefastvolt- age ramps, the algorithm can explore the voltage space in many directions with an X-shaped pattern to cover a large area with only a minimal time penalty in order to find the first transition. When a...

    work page doi:10.69777/268397 2020

  2. [2]

    Electron spin coherence exceeding seconds in high-purity silicon,

    A. M. Tyryshkin, S. Tojo, J. J. Morton, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H. J. Pohl, T. Schenkel, M. L. Thewalt, K. M. Itoh, and S. A. Lyon, “Electron spin coherence exceeding seconds in high-purity silicon,” Nature Materials, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 143–147, Dec. 2011, publisher: Nature Publishing Group. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3182

    work page doi:10.1038/nmat3182 2011

  3. [3]

    Storing quantum information for 30 seconds in a nanoelectronic device

    J. T. Muhonen, J. P. Dehollain, A. Laucht, F. E. Hudson, R. Kalra, T. Sekiguchi, K. M. Itoh, D. N. Jamieson, J. C. McCallum, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, “Storing quantum information for 30 seconds in a nanoelectronic device,”Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 986–991, Oct. 2014, arXiv: 1402.7140 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. [Online]. Avai...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/nnano.2014.211 2014

  4. [4]

    Room- temperature quantum bit storage exceeding 39 minutes using ionized donors in silicon-28,

    K. Saeedi, S. Simmons, J. Z. Salvail, P. Dluhy, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H. J. Pohl, J. J. L. Morton, and M. L. W. Thewalt, “Room- temperature quantum bit storage exceeding 39 minutes using ionized donors in silicon-28,”Science, vol. 342, no. 6160, pp. 830–833, Nov. 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1239584

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1239584 2013

  5. [5]

    An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity,

    M. Veldhorst, J. C. Hwang, C. H. Yang, A. W. Leenstra, B. De Ronde, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, “An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity,”Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 981–985, Dec. 2014, publisher: Nature Publishing Group. [Online]. Available: http: //w...

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Low charge noise quantum dots with industrial CMOS manufacturing,

    A. Elsayed, M. M. Shehata, C. Godfrin, S. Kubicek, S. Massar, Y. Canvel, J. Jussot, G. Simion, M. Mongillo, D. Wan, B. Govoreanu, I. P. Radu, R. Li, P. Van Dorpe, and K. De Greve, “Low charge noise quantum dots with industrial CMOS manufacturing,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 70, Jul. 2024, arXiv: 2212.06464 Publisher: Nature Publishing Grou...

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Spin Qubits with Scalable milli-kelvin CMOS Control,

    S. K. Bartee, W. Gilbert, K. Zuo, K. Das, T. Tanttu, C. H. Yang, N. D. Stuyck, S. J. Pauka, R. Y. Su, W. H. Lim, S. Serrano, C. C. Escott, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Laucht, A. S. Dzurak, and D. J. Reilly, “Spin Qubits with Scalable milli-kelvin CMOS Control,” arXiv, Jul. 2024, arXiv: 2407.15151. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15151

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Silicon CMOS architecture for a spin- based quantum computer,

    M. Veldhorst, H. G. J. Eenink, C. H. Yang, and A. S. Dzurak, “Silicon CMOS architecture for a spin- based quantum computer,”Nature Communications, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 1766, Dec. 2017, publisher: Nature Publishing Group. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01905-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01905-6 2017

  9. [9]

    Gate-based high fidelity spin readout in a CMOS device,

    M. Urdampilleta, D. J. Niegemann, E. Chanrion, B. Jadot, C. Spence, P. A. Mortemousque, C. Bäuerle, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, S. Barraud, R. Maurand, M. San- quer, X. Jehl, S. De Franceschi, M. Vinet, and T. Meu- nier, “Gate-based high fidelity spin readout in a CMOS device,”Nature Nanotechnology, 2019

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Efficiently measuring a quantum device using machine learning,

    D. T. Lennon, H. Moon, L. C. Camenzind, L. Yu, D. M. Zumbühl, G. A. Briggs, M. A. Osborne, E. A. Laird, and N. Ares, “Efficiently measuring a quantum device using machine learning,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 79, Sep. 2019, arXiv: 1810.10042 Publisher: Nature Partner Journals. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0193-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-019-0193-4 2019

  11. [11]

    Ray-Based Framework for State Identification in Quantum Dot Devices,

    J. P. Zwolak, T. McJunkin, S. S. Kalantre, S. F. Neyens, E. R. MacQuarrie, M. A. Eriksson, and J. M. Taylor, “Ray-Based Framework for State Identification in Quantum Dot Devices,”PRX Quantum, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 20335, Jun. 2021, arXiv: 2102.11784. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.020335

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.020335 2021

  12. [12]

    Machine learning enables completely automatic tuning of a quantum device faster than human experts,

    H. Moon, D. T. Lennon, J. Kirkpatrick, N. M. van Esbroeck, L. C. Camenzind, L. Yu, F. Vigneau, D. M. Zumbühl, G. A. Briggs, M. A. Osborne, D. Sejdinovic, 7 E. A. Laird, and N. Ares, “Machine learning enables completely automatic tuning of a quantum device faster than human experts,”Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 4161, Aug. 2020, arXiv: 2001.025...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17835-9 2020

  13. [13]

    Colloquium: Advances in automation of quantum dot devices control,

    J. P. Zwolak and J. M. Taylor, “Colloquium: Advances in automation of quantum dot devices control,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 95, no. 1, p. 011006, Feb. 2023, arXiv: 2112.09362. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.011006

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.95.011006 2023

  14. [14]

    BATIS: Bootstrapping, Autonomous Testing, and Initialization System for Quantum Dot Devices,

    T. J. Kovach, D. Schug, M. A. Wolfe, E. R. MacQuarrie, P. J. Walsh, J. Benson, M. Friesen, M. A. Eriksson, and J. P. Zwolak, “BATIS: Bootstrapping, Autonomous Testing, and Initialization System for Quantum Dot Devices,”arXiv, Dec. 2024, arXiv: 2412.07676. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.07676v2

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Computer-automated tuning procedures for semiconductor quantum dot arrays,

    A. R. Mills, M. M. Feldman, C. Monical, P. J. Lewis, K. W. Larson, A. M. Mounce, and J. R. Petta, “Computer-automated tuning procedures for semiconductor quantum dot arrays,”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 115, no. 11, p. 113501, Sep. 2019, arXiv: 1907.10775. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/ 10.1063/1.5121444

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5121444 2019

  16. [16]

    MAViS: Modular Autonomous Virtualization System for Two- Dimensional Semiconductor Quantum Dot Arrays,

    A. S. Rao, D. Buterakos, B. van Straaten, V. John, C. X. Yu, S. D. Oosterhout, L. Stehouwer, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, F. Borsoi, and J. P. Zwolak, “MAViS: Modular Autonomous Virtualization System for Two- Dimensional Semiconductor Quantum Dot Arrays,” Physical Review X, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 021034, Apr. 2025, arXiv: 2411.12516 Publisher: American Physica...

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Algorithm for automated tuning of a quantum dot into the single-electron regime,

    M. Lapointe-Major, O. Germain, J. Camirand Lemyre, D. Lachance-Quirion, S. Rochette, F. Camirand Lemyre, and M. Pioro-Ladrière, “Algorithm for automated tuning of a quantum dot into the single-electron regime,”Physical Review B, vol. 102, no. 8, p. 085301, Aug. 2020, arXiv: 1911.11651 Publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https: //lin...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.102.085301 2020

  18. [18]

    Miniaturizing neural networks for charge state autotuning in quantum dots,

    S. Czischek, V. Yon, M. A. Genest, M. A. Roux, S. Rochette, J. C. Lemyre, M. Moras, M. Pioro-Ladrière, D. Drouin, Y. Beilliard, and R. G. Melko, “Miniaturizing neural networks for charge state autotuning in quantum dots,”Machine Learning: Science and Technology, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 015001, Nov. 2021, arXiv: 2101.03181 Publisher: IOP Publishing. [Online]. Av...

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ac34db 2021

  19. [19]

    Tuning Arrays with Rays: Physics- Informed Tuning of Quantum Dot Charge States,

    J. Ziegler, F. Luthi, M. Ramsey, F. Borjans, G. Zheng, and J. P. Zwolak, “Tuning Arrays with Rays: Physics- Informed Tuning of Quantum Dot Charge States,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 20, no. 3, p. 34067, Sep. 2023, arXiv: 2209.03837. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.034067

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.20.034067 2023

  20. [20]

    Automated Tuning of Double Quantum DotsintoSpecificChargeStatesUsingNeuralNetworks,

    R. Durrer, B. Kratochwil, J. V. Koski, A. J. Landig, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, and E. Greplova, “Automated Tuning of Double Quantum DotsintoSpecificChargeStatesUsingNeuralNetworks,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 054019, May 2020, arXiv: 1912.02777. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.13.054019

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.13.054019 2020

  21. [21]

    Autotuning of double-dot devices in situ with machine learning,

    J. P. Zwolak, T. McJunkin, S. S. Kalantre, J. Dodson, E. MacQuarrie, D. Savage, M. Lagally, S. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, and J. M. Taylor, “Autotuning of double-dot devices in situ with machine learning,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 34075, Mar. 2020, arXiv: 1909.08030. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplie...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.13.034075 2020

  22. [22]

    Experimental Online Quantum Dots Charge Autotuning Using Neural Networks,

    V. Yon, B. Galaup, C. Rohrbacher, J. Rivard, A. Morel, D. Leclerc, C. Godfrin, R. Li, S. Kubicek, K. D. Greve, E. Dupont Ferrier, Y. Beilliard, R. G. Melko, and D. Drouin, “Experimental Online Quantum Dots Charge Autotuning Using Neural Networks,”Nano Letters, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 3717–3725, Mar. 2025, arXiv: 2409.20320 Publisher: American Chemical Societ...

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c04889 2025

  23. [23]

    Quantum device fine-tuning using unsupervised embedding learning,

    N. M. Van Esbroeck, D. T. Lennon, H. Moon, V. Nguyen, F. Vigneau, L. C. Camenzind, L. Yu, D. M. Zumbühl, G. A. Briggs, D. Sejdinovic, and N. Ares, “Quantum device fine-tuning using unsupervised embedding learning,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 22, no. 9, p. 095003, Sep. 2020, arXiv: 2001.04409 Publisher: IOP Publishing. [Online]. Available: https: //iopsci...

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/abb64c 2020

  24. [24]

    Identifying Pauli spin blockade using deep learning,

    J. Schuff, D. T. Lennon, S. Geyer, D. L. Craig, F. Fedele, F. Vigneau, L. C. Camenzind, A. V. Kuhlmann, G. D. Briggs, D. M. Zumbühl, D. Sejdinovic, and N. Ares, “Identifying Pauli spin blockade using deep learning,”Quantum, vol. 7, p. 1077, Aug. 2023, arXiv: 2202.00574. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-08-08-1077

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-08-08-1077 2023

  25. [25]

    Autonomous Bootstrapping of Quantum Dot Devices,

    A. Zubchenko, D. Middlebrooks, T. Rasmussen, L. Lausen, F. Kuemmeth, A. Chatterjee, and J. P. Zwolak, “Autonomous Bootstrapping of Quantum Dot Devices,”Physical Review Applied, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 014072, Jan. 2025, arXiv: 2407.20061 Publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.23.014072

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.23.014072 2025

  26. [26]

    Cross-architecture tuning of silicon and SiGe-based quantum devices using machine learning,

    B. Severin, D. T. Lennon, L. C. Camenzind, F. Vigneau, F. Fedele, D. Jirovec, A. Ballabio, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, M. de Kruijf, M. J. Carballido, S. Svab, A. V. Kuhlmann, S. Geyer, F. N. Froning, H. Moon, M. A. Osborne, D. Sejdinovic, G. Katsaros, D. M. Zumbühl, G. A. Briggs, and N. Ares, “Cross-architecture tuning of silicon and SiGe-based quantum devi...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-67787-z 2024

  27. [27]

    Computer-automatedtuning of semiconductor double quantum dots into the single- electron regime,

    T. A. Baart, P. T. Eendebak, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, andL.M.K.Vandersypen, “Computer-automatedtuning of semiconductor double quantum dots into the single- electron regime,”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 108, no. 21, p. 213104, May 2016, publisher: AIP Publishing LLC. [Online]. Available: http://aip.scitation.org/doi/ 10.1063/1.4952624

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4952624 2016

  28. [28]

    Fully autonomous tuning of a spin qubit,

    J. Schuff, M. J. Carballido, M. Kotzagiannidis, J. C. Calvo, M. Caselli, J. Rawling, D. L. Craig, B. van Straaten, B. Severin, F. Fedele, S. Svab, P. C. Kwon, R. S. Eggli, T. Patlatiuk, N. Korda, D. Zumbühl, and N. Ares, “Fully autonomous tuning of a spin qubit,” arXiv, Feb. 2024, arXiv: 2402.03931. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03931

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    An automated approach for consecutive tuning of quantum dot arrays,

    H. Liu, B. Wang, N. Wang, Z. Sun, H. Yin, H. Li, G. Cao, and G. Guo, “An automated approach for consecutive tuning of quantum dot arrays,”Applied Physics Letters, 8 vol. 121, no. 8, p. 84002, Aug. 2022, arXiv: 2208.12414v1 Publisher: American Institute of Physics Inc. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0111128

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0111128 2022

  30. [30]

    Fast charge sensing of a cavity-coupled double quantum dot using a Josephson parametric amplifier

    J. Stehlik, Y. Y. Liu, C. M. Quintana, C. Eichler, T. R. Hartke, and J. R. Petta, “Fast charge sensing of a cavity-coupled double quantum dot using a Josephson parametric amplifier,”Physical Review Applied, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 014018, Jul. 2015, arXiv: 1502.01283. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.4.014018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.4.014018 2015

  31. [31]

    QubiC: An Open-Source FPGA-Based Control and Measurement System for Superconducting Quantum Information Processors,

    Y. Xu, G. Huang, J. Balewski, R. Naik, A. Morvan, B. Mitchell, K. Nowrouzi, D. I. Santiago, and I. Siddiqi, “QubiC: An Open-Source FPGA-Based Control and Measurement System for Superconducting Quantum Information Processors,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 1–11, Sep. 2021, arXiv: 2101.00071 Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Elec...

    work page doi:10.1109/tqe.2021.3116540 2021

  32. [32]

    Stefanazzi, K

    L. Stefanazzi, K. Treptow, N. Wilcer, C. Stoughton, C. Bradford, S. Uemura, S. Zorzetti, S. Montella, G. Cancelo, S. Sussman, A. Houck, S. Saxena, H. Arnaldi, A. Agrawal, H. Zhang, C. Ding, and D. I. Schuster, “The QICK (Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit): Readout and control for qubits and detectors,”Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 93, no. 4, p....

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0076249 2022

  33. [33]

    FASQuiC: Flexible Architecture for Scalable Spin Qubit Control,

    M. Toubeix, E. Guthmuller, A. Evans, A. Faurie, and T. Meunier, “FASQuiC: Flexible Architecture for Scalable Spin Qubit Control,”IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering, vol. 5, pp. 1–16, Jun. 2024, publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 1109/TQE.2024.3409811

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    ICARUS-Q: Integrated control and readout unit for scalable quantum processors,

    K. H. Park, Y. S. Yap, Y. P. Tan, C. Hufnagel, L. H. Nguyen, K. H. Lau, P. Bore, S. Efthymiou, S. Carrazza, R. P. Budoyo, and R. Dumke, “ICARUS-Q: Integrated control and readout unit for scalable quantum processors,”Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 93, no. 10, p. 104704, Oct. 2022, arXiv: 2112.02933 Publisher: American Institute of Physics Inc. [Onl...

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0081232 2022

  35. [35]

    Real-Time Feedback Control of Charge Sensing for Quantum Dot Qubits,

    T.Nakajima, Y.Kojima, Y.Uehara, A.Noiri, K.Takeda, T. Kobayashi, and S. Tarucha, “Real-Time Feedback Control of Charge Sensing for Quantum Dot Qubits,” Physical Review Applied, vol. 15, no. 3, p. L031003, Mar. 2021, arXiv: 2103.15258 ISBN: 1000100200. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.15. L031003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.15 2021

  36. [36]

    Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in silicon,

    S. G. Philips, M. T. Mądzik, S. V. Amitonov, S. L. de Snoo, M. Russ, N. Kalhor, C. Volk, W. I. Lawrie, D. Brousse, L. Tryputen, B. P. Wuetz, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, “Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in silicon,”Nature, vol. 609, no. 7929, pp. 919–924, Sep. 2022, arXiv: 2202.09252 Publisher: Nature Pu...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05117-x 2022

  37. [37]

    Tomography of entangling two-qubit logic operations in exchange-coupled donor electron spin qubits,

    H. G. Stemp, S. Asaad, M. R. v. Blankenstein, A. Vaartjes, M. A. I. Johnson, M. T. Mądzik, A. J. A. Heskes, H. R. Firgau, R. Y. Su, C. H. Yang, A. Laucht, C. I. Ostrove, K. M. Rudinger, K. Young, R. Blume- Kohout, F. E. Hudson, A. S. Dzurak, K. M. Itoh, A. M. Jakob, B. C. Johnson, D. N. Jamieson, and A. Morello, “Tomography of entangling two-qubit logic o...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52795-4 2024

  38. [38]

    Real-time two-axis control of a spin qubit,

    F. Berritta, T. Rasmussen, J. A. Krzywda, J. van der Heijden, F. Fedele, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, E. van Nieuwenburg, J. Danon, A. Chatterjee, and F. Kuemmeth, “Real-time two-axis control of a spin qubit,”Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 1676, Feb. 2024, arXiv: 2308.02012 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. [Online]. Available: ht...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-45857-0 2024

  39. [39]

    Passive and active suppression of transduced noise in silicon spin qubits,

    J. Park, H. Jang, H. Sohn, J. Yun, Y. Song, B. Kang, L. E. A. Stehouwer, D. D. Esposti, G. Scappucci, and D. Kim, “Passive and active suppression of transduced noise in silicon spin qubits,”Nature Communications, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 78, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55338-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-55338-z 2025

  40. [40]

    High-fidelity single-spin shuttling in silicon,

    M. De Smet, Y. Matsumoto, A.-M. J. Zwerver, L. Tryputen, S. L. de Snoo, S. V. Amitonov, S. R. Katiraee-Far, A. Sammak, N. Samkharadze, O. Gül, R. N. M. Wasserman, E. Greplová, M. Rimbach- Russ, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, “High-fidelity single-spin shuttling in silicon,”Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 866–872, Jun. 2025, arXiv: 2406...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41565-025-01920-5 2025

  41. [41]

    Si/SiGe QuBus for single electron information-processing devices with memory and micron- scale connectivity function,

    R. Xue, M. Beer, I. Seidler, S. Humpohl, J.-S. Tu, S. Trellenkamp, T. Struck, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, “Si/SiGe QuBus for single electron information-processing devices with memory and micron- scale connectivity function,”Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 2296, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46519-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46519-x 2024

  42. [42]

    Industrial300mmwaferprocessedspinqubitsinnatural silicon/silicon-germanium,

    T. Koch, C. Godfrin, V. Adam, J. Ferrero, D. Schroller, N. Glaeser, S. Kubicek, R. Li, R. Loo, S. Massar, G. Simion, D. Wan, K. De Greve, and W. Wernsdorfer, “Industrial300mmwaferprocessedspinqubitsinnatural silicon/silicon-germanium,”npj Quantum Information, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 59, Apr. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-025-01016-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41534-025-01016-x 2025

  43. [43]

    The radio-frequency single-electron transistor (RF-SET): A fast and ultra- sensitive electrometer,

    R. J. Schoelkopf, P. Wahlgren, A. A. Kozhevnikov, P. Delsing, and D. E. Prober, “The radio-frequency single-electron transistor (RF-SET): A fast and ultra- sensitive electrometer,”Science, vol. 280, no. 5367, pp. 1238–1242, May 1998, publisher: American Assoc for the Advancement of Science. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5367.1238

    work page doi:10.1126/science.280.5367.1238 1998

  44. [44]

    Radio Frequency Reflectometry of Single-Electron Box Arrays for Nanoscale Voltage Sensing Applications,

    T. A. Zirkle, M. J. Filmer, J. Chisum, A. O. Orlov, E. Dupont-Ferrier, J. Rivard, M. Huebner, M. Sanquer, X. Jehl, and G. L. Snider, “Radio Frequency Reflectometry of Single-Electron Box Arrays for Nanoscale Voltage Sensing Applications,”Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 24, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/app10248797

    work page doi:10.3390/app10248797 2020

  45. [45]

    Multimode RF Reflectometry for Spin Qubit Readout and Device Characterization,

    J. Rivard, C. Rohrbacher, A. Morel, O. Romain, E. B. Ndiaye, A. Idris, C. Lupien, C. Godfrin, and E. Dupont- Ferrier, “Multimode RF Reflectometry for Spin Qubit Readout and Device Characterization,”(in preparation), 2025

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    PathWave Test Sync Executive | Keysight

    “PathWave Test Sync Executive | Keysight.” [Online]. Available: https://www.keysight.com/us/en/product/ 9 KS2201A/pathwave-test-sync-executive.html

    work page

  47. [47]

    hvi-sweeper,

    M.-A. Roux, “hvi-sweeper,” Sep. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/Marc-AntoineRoux/ hvi-sweeper

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Robust quantum dots charge autotuning using neural network uncertainty,

    V. Yon, B. Galaup, C. Rohrbacher, J. Rivard, C. Godfrin, R. Li, S. Kubicek, K. De Greve, L. Gaudreau, E. Dupont-Ferrier, Y. Beilliard, R. G. Melko, and D. Drouin, “Robust quantum dots charge autotuning using neural network uncertainty,”Machine Learning: Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 045034, Nov. 2024, arXiv: 2406.05175 Publisher: IOP Publishin...

    work page doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad88d5 2024