Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Vertical Si/SiGe double quantum dots can rotate electron spins entirely by electric fields, with no micromagnets, by exploiting gate-induced strain and a geometry-controlled valley splitting.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:35 UTC pith:MJVFMYI4

load-bearing objection A promising vertical-DQD proposal that could remove micromagnets and disorder-limited valley splitting, but the numbers hang on an unvalidated COMSOL strain field and a few internal inconsistencies. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.19785 v1 pith:MJVFMYI4 submitted 2025-12-22 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Micromagnet-free operation of electron spin qubits in Si/Si_(1-x)Ge_x vertical double quantum dots

Abhikbrata Sarkar , Daniel Loss This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords vertical double quantum dotsilicon spin qubitvalley splittingmicromagnet-free controlEDSRg-tensor modulationspin shuttlingSi/SiGe heterostructure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that a vertical double quantum dot in a Si/SiGe/Si heterostructure—two thin silicon wells separated by a thin SiGe barrier—solves two standing problems for silicon electron spin qubits at once. The double-well geometry itself produces a large valley splitting of about 250 micro-electronvolts, removing the notorious valley degeneracy that usually depends on messy interface details. Meanwhile, strain from the metal gate stack (which contracts on cooling) creates a small spin-orbit coupling and a gate-tunable g-factor that varies by roughly one percent. That tunability opens several micromagnet-free routes to single-qubit control: electric dipole spin resonance with Rabi frequencies up to about 80 MHz, electrically controlled electron spin resonance, and spin shuttling between neighboring dots with gate times below one nanosecond. If correct, this means silicon spin qubits could be built and scaled without micromagnets, which are currently a major source of noise, crosstalk, and fabrication complexity.

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that a vertical double quantum dot in a Si/SiGe/Si double-well heterostructure enables full electrical control of a single electron spin qubit without any micromagnet. The key findings are: (i) the vertical double-well geometry yields a large valley splitting Ev ~ 250 micro-eV, which is geometry-controlled rather than disorder-dominated; (ii) gate-induced shear strain from the cooling of the metal gate stack produces a percentage-level g-tensor variation, g = 2 ± O(10^-2), as the plunger gate shifts the electron between the two wells; (iii) this tunability supports g-tensor modulation resonance (g-TMR) with Rabi frequencies around 550 kHz and, combined with the spin-va

What carries the argument

The central objects are the vertical double-well heterostructure and the gate-induced shear strain. The vertical Si/SiGe/Si double well confines the electron in two coupled wells, and its geometry enhances the coherent coupling between the +z and -z valley states through interface-induced Fourier components of the confinement potential near 2k0, giving a large valley splitting of ~250 micro-eV. The shear strain (epsilon_xy) from thermal contraction of the tri-layer aluminum gate stack enters the effective-mass Hamiltonian as a valley-splitting term and, together with the atomic-scale Dresselhaus-type spin-valley coupling, produces a spatially inhomogeneous spin-orbit interaction. This strain

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the thermal-contraction strain field of the aluminum gate stack, as modeled in the finite-element simulation, is quantitatively realistic in magnitude and distribution—if the real strain is weaker or differently shaped, the g-factor tunability and all the speed and control numbers collapse.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to fabricate a vertical Si/SiGe/Si double quantum dot and measure the electron g-factor as a function of plunger gate voltage at a fixed magnetic field. If no g-factor variation of the order of 1% (about 0.02 in g) or no rotation of the in-plane g-tensor principal axes between the two dots is observed, the central claims of electrical tunability and shuttling-based rotations would be falsified. Additionally, a valley splitting measurement below ~50 micro-eV in such a structure would contradict the geometry-controlled splitting claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Silicon electron spin qubits could be operated and scaled without micromagnets, eliminating a major source of magnetic noise and fabrication complexity in semiconductor foundry processes.
  • The large, geometry-controlled valley splitting (over 150 micro-eV across the operating regime) would suppress valley-mediated decoherence and relax the need for interface engineering that is currently required in planar Si/SiGe devices.
  • Gate-controlled g-factor tuning provides a local, electrostatic knob for shifting spin resonance frequencies, enabling per-dot addressability in large arrays without modifying the global microwave field.
  • Spin shuttling in vertical and horizontal directions becomes an ultrafast single-qubit gate (0.6 ns), offering a new mechanism for qubit control that is compatible with existing shuttling-based architectures.
  • The findings motivate a two-spin study of this architecture, with the path toward universal two-qubit gates, which is the logical next step for the proposed design.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The quantitative realism of the simulated gate-induced shear strain is the linchpin: if a real device exhibits weaker or different strain than the COMSOL thermal-contraction model, the predicted g-factor variation, EDSR Rabi frequencies, and shuttling gate times would shrink, though the valley splitting might remain large.
  • The same vertical double-well geometry could be exploited in other silicon-based qubit designs that require a large and reproducible valley splitting, since the mechanism is geometric rather than dependent on a single sharp interface.
  • The g-TMR mechanism at high magnetic fields could offer a charge-noise-resistant, plunger-only control scheme, which could be tested in existing Si/SiGe devices by measuring the g-factor shift with plunger voltage before attempting full Rabi oscillations.
  • The horizontal shuttling idea with deliberately tilted plunger gates suggests a general strategy to engineer g-tensor anisotropy patterns in planar dot arrays, potentially enabling all-electrical 'hopping' rotations without micromagnets in a scalable layout.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a vertical Si/SiGe/Si double quantum dot (DQD) architecture for full electrical control of electron Loss-DiVincenzo spin qubits, claiming that the vertical double-well geometry yields a large valley splitting (~250 μeV) and that gate-induced shear strain plus spin-valley coupling produce g-tensor variations on the order of 1%, enabling micromagnet-free EDSR/g-TMR and sub-nanosecond spin shuttling gates. The authors model the system with an effective-mass spin-valley Hamiltonian, include a COMSOL thermal-contraction strain field, and diagonalize a 512×512 Hamiltonian to obtain qubit energies, g factors, Rabi frequencies, and g-tensor anisotropy. They report fπ=550 kHz for out-of-plane EDSR, up to 80 MHz for in-plane EDSR, and a 0.6 ns π/2 gate via vertical or horizontal shuttling based on ~30°–37° principal-axis differences.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions hold, the proposal is significant: it would remove micromagnets from Si spin-qubit architectures, address valley-degeneracy via geometry, and offer a path to scalable all-electrical control. The work has clear strengths: the Hamiltonian is standard, no parameter is fitted to the target quantities, the exact-diagonalization framework is explicit, and the predictions are falsifiable. However, the central quantitative claims depend on an unvalidated gate-stack shear-strain input and on approximate Rabi and shuttling calculations, so the significance is conditional on those points being resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (2) / Device model] The entire micromagnet-free mechanism rests on the inhomogeneous shear strain εxy from the cooled Al gate stack, which enters Eq. (2) as −2Ξ'_u εxy τ_z and produces the δg≈1% tunability, the 550 kHz and 80 MHz EDSR rates, and the ~30°/37° g-tensor axis differences behind the 0.6 ns shuttling gate. The paper reports no magnitude or spatial profile of εxy in the Si well, no COMSOL material parameters or boundary conditions, and no experimental benchmark. For a dot under a uniform gate, biaxial contraction gives εxy=0; the nonzero value comes from gate edges or pattern asymmetry and could be an order of magnitude smaller at the electron position. Please report εxy quantitatively, justify the COMSOL setup, and include a sensitivity analysis over εxy. As posted, this load-bearing input is not independently checkable.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The Rabi formula h fπ = e E0_ac |⟨Ψ0| n·r|Ψ1⟩| is stated without derivation and appears to be a charge-dipole matrix element, not a spin-flip EDSR rate. It omits the spin selection rule, the g-tensor derivative for g-TMR, and any prefactors relating the matrix element to the Rabi frequency. Since this formula underpins the central rates (550 kHz and 80 MHz), please derive it carefully, define fπ precisely, and verify numerically that the relevant transition is a spin flip. Note also the inconsistency between the main text (550 kHz) and the conclusion (100 kHz) for the out-of-plane drive.
  3. [Shuttling gates] The sub-nanosecond spin-shuttling gate is asserted from the principal-axis differences shown in Fig. 4, but the paper gives no pulse sequence, no time-dependent Schrödinger or master-equation simulation, no leakage estimate for orbital or valley excitations, and no quantitative definition of τt and τb beyond a sketch in the SM. A π/2 gate in 0.6 ns via three hoppings requires the spin to follow a rotating quantization axis without residual nonadiabatic excitations; this needs to be demonstrated with a concrete pulse and leakage analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion] The conclusion states that an out-of-plane ac field produces '100 kHz Rabi frequency', while the main text reports fπ=550 kHz for the same drive; also, the 'gate time of ~30 ns' for an 80 MHz Rabi frequency is inconsistent with a π-pulse duration of about 6 ns. Please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Data availability] The data availability statement says 'repository link' without an actual link or DOI. Please provide a working repository identifier.
  3. [COMSOL description] The text says the heat transfer module is used for thermal contraction; this should be a thermal-stress/solid-mechanics simulation. Please specify the physics module, material parameter table, boundary conditions, and mesh resolution used to obtain the strain maps in SM Fig. S1.
  4. [Notation in Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) uses h in the prefactor; depending on whether fπ is a Rabi frequency in Hz or an angular frequency, the factor should be h or ħ. Please clarify the definition and use consistent notation throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the g-tensor shifts, valley splitting, Rabi rates, and shuttle gate times are computed from an independently stated Hamiltonian and a thermomechanical strain model; no target quantity is fitted or defined in terms of the claimed result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is explicit and forward: a spin-valley Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1–3) with material parameters (ml, mt, Ξ′u, β0 = 8.2 meV from Ref. [79]) and a double-well potential (L = 5 nm, a = 2.5 nm, Vb = 15 meV) is combined with a COMSOL shear-strain field; the 512×512 matrix is diagonalized; and the g factor, Rabi frequencies via Eq. (4), and shuttle times are read off the resulting energy levels and matrix elements. None of the headline outputs (Ev ≈ 250 μeV, δg ≈ 1%, fπ = 550 kHz / 80 MHz, Tg = 0.6 ns) is used to set any input. The COMSOL strain is supplied by an independent mechanical simulation using standard material parameters [80,81], not by the spin model. The spin-valley SOI coefficient and Hamiltonian form are taken from external many-body/tight-binding work [77,79], not from a self-citation uniqueness claim. The paper’s self-citations (Loss–DiVincenzo, Burkard–Seelig–Loss vertical DQDs, Adelsberger et al.) appear as background or motivation and are not load-bearing; no 'uniqueness theorem' from the same authors is invoked. The text explicitly flags modeling limitations—e.g., 'Random alloy disorder is not included in the effective mass approximation employed here'—but these are validity concerns, not circular reductions. The sensitivity of the results to the unbenchmarked COMSOL strain magnitude is a correctness/robustness risk, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central predictions (Ev ~ 250 micro-eV, delta-g ~ 1%, f_pi values, shuttling gate times) all depend on hand-chosen geometry (L=5 nm, a=2.5 nm, Vb=15 meV, Lip=20 nm) and on the assumed strain field. No parameter is fitted to the target, but none is experimentally benchmarked either. The model imports spin-orbit coupling from prior literature rather than deriving it from a more fundamental model.

free parameters (8)
  • Si well width L = 5 nm
    Central device geometry; valley splitting and tunnel coupling depend on it; chosen by hand, not scanned against experimental data.
  • SiGe barrier width a = 2.5 nm
    Controls tunnel coupling (tc=1 meV) and valley splitting; chosen by hand.
  • Barrier height Vb = 15 meV (x=0.033)
    Sets the vertical confinement and valley splitting; corresponds to Si0.967Ge0.033 barrier; chosen.
  • In-plane confinement length Lip = 20 nm
    Sets orbital splitting (e0=1 meV) and lateral dot size; affects EDSR matrix elements.
  • Plunger field range Fz = -2 to +2 MV/m
    Operating regime for g-factor tuning and wavefunction displacement; chosen.
  • ac field amplitude E0_ac = 10^4 V/m
    Drive amplitude for EDSR; taken from experiment ref [87], but assumed constant.
  • Magnetic field |B| = 100 mT
    Zeeman splitting scale; chosen.
  • P1/P2 plunger gate rotation angle = 30 degrees
    Chosen to maximize the g-tensor principal-axis difference (37 degrees) for horizontal shuttling gates.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Effective mass approximation with only the two lowest ±z valleys captures the band structure of the Si/SiGe double well.
    Used in H_EFA Eq. (2); neglects other valleys and alloy disorder. Authors acknowledge disorder but assume geometry dominates.
  • domain assumption Spin-valley interaction Hamiltonian H_sigma-tau (Eq. 3) with beta0=8.2 meV from Ref. [79] describes Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling in this DQD.
    Central to all EDSR and g-tensor claims; taken from prior tight-binding work; not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Gate-induced shear strain from the COMSOL thermal-contraction model is realistic.
    Responsible for the g-factor variation and anisotropy; unvalidated by experiment.
  • domain assumption Lateral confinement is a 2D parabolic potential with Lx=Ly=Lip.
    Simplifies the basis; orbital states are harmonic oscillators; ignores disorder and gate-defined anharmonicities.
  • domain assumption Basis truncation (4x4x8 orbital states times spin/valley) is sufficient for converged results.
    Diagonalization of a 512x512 Hamiltonian; convergence is not demonstrated in the main text.
  • domain assumption No charge noise, spin relaxation, or decoherence is included when computing Rabi frequencies and gate times.
    Rabi rates are bare matrix elements; fidelity is not evaluated.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11394 in / 14526 out tokens · 143195 ms · 2026-08-03T14:35:33.474316+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Micromagnet-free operation of electron spin qubits in Si/Si$_{1-x}$Ge$_x$ vertical double quantum dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MJVFMYI4

@misc{pith2026251219785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Micromagnet-free operation of electron spin qubits in Si/Si$_1-x$Ge$_x$ vertical double quantum dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MJVFMYI4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.19785}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We study a vertical double quantum dot (DQD) in a Si/Si$_{1-x}$Ge$_x$/Si double-well heterostructure for full electrical control of electron Loss-DiVincenzo (LD) spin qubits, using realistic device modeling and numerical simulations. Due to the emerging spin-orbit interaction in the DQD, as well as strain from the gate electrodes, small (percentage range) but finite $g$ tensor variations emerge. In addition, we find a large valley splitting, on the order of $E_v{\sim}250\,\mu$eV. As a result, multiple avenues for fast electrical single qubit rotations emerge. An ac electric field gives rise to electric dipole spin resonance (EDSR), while electron spin resonance (ESR) in the presence of an ac magnetic field can be electrically controlled by local gates due to varying $g$ factors in DQDs. We also show that shuttling between neighboring dots, in vertical and horizontal direction, results in ultrafast single qubit gates of less than a nanosecond. Remarkably, this DQD architecture completely eliminates the need for micromagnets, significantly facilitating the scalability of LD spin qubits in semiconductor foundries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19785 by Abhikbrata Sarkar, Daniel Loss.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Classical Reversible Computation by Quantum Coherence

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Coherent Ge/Si hole-spin dynamics implement a classical iToffoli with DC hops, simulated truth-table fidelity, and cold-device gate energy below the 4 K Landauer scale.

  2. Classical Reversible Computation by Quantum Coherence

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A DC-voltage-driven iToffoli gate in Ge/Si hole-spin quantum dots implements classical reversible logic with simulated gate energy ~0.10 kT ln2 at 4K, about five orders of magnitude below CMOS per-gate energy includin...

  3. Classical Reversible Computation by Quantum Coherence

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A DC-voltage-driven iToffoli gate built from Ge/Si hole spins is proposed as a sub-Landauer reversible classical logic element.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    Levy, Phys

    J. Levy, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 147902 (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Science309, 2180 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    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,et al., Nat. Mater.11, 143 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    F. A. Zwanenburg, A. S. Dzurak, A. Morello, M. Y. Sim- mons, L. C. L. Hollenberg, G. Klimeck, S. Rogge, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 961 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Zhang, H.-O

    X. Zhang, H.-O. Li, G. Cao, M. Xiao, G.-C. Guo, and G.-P. Guo, Nat. Sci. Rev.6, 32 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    K. M. Itoh and H. Watanabe, MRS Commun.4, 143 (2014)

    2014

  9. [9]

    Prada, R

    M. Prada, R. H. Blick, and R. Joynt, Phys. Rev. B77, 115438 (2008)

    2008

  10. [10]

    Chanrion, D

    E. Chanrion, D. J. Niegemann, B. Bertrand, C. Spence, B. Jadot, J. Li, P.-A. Mortemousque, L. Hutin, R. Mau- rand, X. Jehl,et al., Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 024066 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Veldhorst, C

    M. Veldhorst, C. H. Yang, J. C. C. Hwang, W. Huang, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, S. Simmons, A. Laucht, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh,et al., Nature526, 410 (2015)

    2015

  12. [12]

    Veldhorst, H

    M. Veldhorst, H. G. Eenink, C.-H. Yang, and A. S. Dzu- rak, Nat. Commun.8, 1766 (2017)

    2017

  13. [13]

    Gilbert, A

    W. Gilbert, A. Saraiva, W. H. Lim, C. H. Yang, A. Laucht, B. Bertrand, N. Rambal, L. Hutin, C. C. Es- cott, M. Vinet,et al., Nano Lett.20, 7882 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    Harvey-Collard, N

    P. Harvey-Collard, N. T. Jacobson, C. Bureau-Oxton, R. M. Jock, V. Srinivasa, A. M. Mounce, D. R. Ward, J. M. Anderson, R. P. Manginell, J. R. Wendt,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 217702 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    L. C. L. Hollenberg, A. D. Greentree, A. G. Fowler, and C. J. Wellard, Phys. Rev. B74, 045311 (2006)

    2006

  16. [16]

    Y. He, S. K. Gorman, D. Keith, L. Kranz, J. G. Keizer, and M. Y. Simmons, Nature571, 371 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    F. N. Krauth, S. K. Gorman, Y. He, M. T. Jones, P. Macha, S. Kocsis, C. Chua, B. Voisin, S. Rogge, R. Rahman,et al., Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 054006 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    T. F. Watson, B. Weber, Y.-L. Hsueh, L. C. L. Hollen- berg, R. Rahman, and M. Y. Simmons, Sci. Adv.3, e1602811 (2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    Maurand, X

    R. Maurand, X. Jehl, D. Kotekar-Patil, A. Corna, H. Bo- huslavskyi, R. Lavié, L. Hutin, S. Barraud, M. Vinet, M. Sanquer, and S. D. Franceschi, Nat. Commun.7, 13575 (2016)

    2016

  20. [20]

    S. D. Liles, R. Li, C. H. Yang, F. E. Hudson, M. Veld- horst, A. S. Dzurak, and A. R. Hamilton, Nat. Commun. 9, 3255 (2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    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. Urdampilleta, T. Meunier, Y.-M. Niquet, R. Maurand, and S. D. Franceschi, Nat. Nanotechnol.17, 1072 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    L. C. Camenzind, S. Geyer, A. Fuhrer, R. J. Warburton, D. M. Zumbühl, and A. V. Kuhlmann, Nat. Electron.5, 178 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    C. X. Yu, S. Zihlmann, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, V. P. Michal, N. Rambal, H. Niebojewski, T. Bedecarrats, M. Vinet, É. Dumur, M. Filippone,et al., Nat. Nanotechnol.18, 741 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    X. Mi, T. M. Hazard, C. Payette, K. Wang, D. M. Zajac, J. V. Cady, and J. R. Petta, Phys. Rev. B92, 035304 (2015)

    2015

  25. [25]

    M. Y. Melnikov, A. A. Shashkin, V. T. Dolgopolov, S.-H. Huang, C. W. Liu, and S. V. Kravchenko, Appl. Phys. Lett.106(2015)

    2015

  26. [26]

    Huang, T.-M

    S.-H. Huang, T.-M. Lu, S.-C. Lu, C.-H. Lee, C. W. Liu, and D. C. Tsui, Appl. Phys. Lett.101(2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    D.Kim, Z.Shi, C.B.Simmons, D.R.Ward, J.R.Prance, T. S. Koh, J. K. Gamble, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen,et al., Nature511, 70 (2014)

    2014

  28. [28]

    Kawakami, P

    E. Kawakami, P. Scarlino, D. R. Ward, F. R. Braakman, D. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nat. Nan- otechnol.9, 666 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Huang, M

    W. Huang, M. Veldhorst, N. M. Zimmerman, A. S. Dzu- rak, and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. B95, 075403 (2017)

    2017

  30. [30]

    Kawakami, T

    E. Kawakami, T. Jullien, P. Scarlino, D. R. Ward, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, V. V. Dobrovitski, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson,et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA113, 11738 (2016)

    2016

  31. [31]

    A. J. Sigillito, J. C. Loy, D. M. Zajac, M. J. Gullans, L. F. Edge, and J. R. Petta, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 061006 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    A. R. Mills, C. R. Guinn, M. J. Gullans, A. J. Sigillito, M. M. Feldman, E. Nielsen, and J. R. Petta, Sci. Adv. 8, eabn5130 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    E. J. Connors, J. Nelson, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Nat. Commun.13, 940 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Yoneda, K

    J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M. R. Delbecq, G. Allison, T. Honda, T. Kodera, S. Oda, Y. Hoshi,et al., Nat. Nanotechnol.13, 102 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 601, 343 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    S. G. J. Philips, M. T. Mądzik, S. V. Amitonov, S. L. de Snoo, M. Russ, N. Kalhor, C. Volk, W. I. L. Lawrie, D. Brousse, L. Tryputen,et al., Nature609, 919 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    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,et al., Sci. Adv.4, eaar3960 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Z. Shi, C. B. Simmons, J. R. Prance, J. King Gamble, M. Friesen, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, S. N. Copper- smith, and M. A. Eriksson, Appl. Phys. Lett.99(2011)

    2011

  39. [39]

    D. M. Zajac, T. M. Hazard, X. Mi, K. Wang, and J. R. Petta, Appl. Phys. Lett.106(2015)

    2015

  40. [40]

    Takeda, J

    K. Takeda, J. Kamioka, T. Otsuka, J. Yoneda, T. Naka- jima, M. R. Delbecq, S. Amaha, G. Allison, T. Kodera, S. Oda,et al., Sci. Adv.2, e1600694 (2016)

    2016

  41. [41]

    Y. Song, J. Yun, J. Kim, W. Jang, H. Jang, J. Park, M.-K. Cho, H. Sohn, N. Usami, S. Miyamoto,et al., npj Quantum Inf.10, 77 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    A. Kha, R. Joynt, and D. Culcer, Appl. Phys. Lett.107 (2015)

    2015

  43. [43]

    N. I. Dumoulin Stuyck, F. A. Mohiyaddin, R. Li, M. Heyns, B. Govoreanu, and I. P. Radu, Appl. Phys. Lett.119(2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Undseth, X

    B. Undseth, X. Xue, M. Mehmandoost, M. Rimbach- Russ, P. T. Eendebak, N. Samkharadze, A. Sammak, 6 V. V. Dobrovitski, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Van- dersypen, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044078 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    F. K. Unseld, B. Undseth, E. Raymenants, Y. Mat- sumoto, S. L. de Snoo, S. Karwal, O. Pietx-Casas, A. S. Ivlev, M. Meyer, A. Sammak,et al., Nat. Commun.16, 5605 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    M. G. Borselli, R. S. Ross, A. A. Kiselev, E. T. Croke, K. S. Holabird, P. W. Deelman, L. D. Warren, I. Alvarado-Rodriguez, I. Milosavljevic, F. C. Ku,et al., Appl. Phys. Lett.98(2011)

    2011

  47. [47]

    X. Mi, C. G. Péterfalvi, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 176803 (2017)

    2017

  48. [48]

    S. F. Neyens, R. H. Foote, B. Thorgrimsson, T. J. Knapp, T. McJunkin, L. M. K. Vandersypen, P. Amin, N. K. Thomas, J. S. Clarke, D. E. Savage,et al., Appl. Phys. Lett.112(2018)

    2018

  49. [49]

    Roychowdhury, T

    R.Vrijen, E.Yablonovitch, K.Wang, H.W.Jiang, A.Ba- landin, V. Roychowdhury, T. Mor, and D. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A62, 012306 (2000)

    2000

  50. [50]

    Friesen, S

    M. Friesen, S. Chutia, C. Tahan, and S. N. Coppersmith, Phys. Rev. B75, 115318 (2007)

    2007

  51. [51]

    J.K.Gamble, M.Friesen, S.N.Coppersmith, andX.Hu, Phys. Rev. B91, 235318 (2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    Burkard and J

    G. Burkard and J. R. Petta, Phys. Rev. B94, 195305 (2016)

    2016

  53. [53]

    Ferdous, R

    R. Ferdous, R. Rahman, and G. Klimeck, Phys. Rev. B 97, 241401 (2018)

    2018

  54. [54]

    Klimeck, S

    G. Klimeck, S. S. Ahmed, H. Bae, N. Kharche, S. Clark, B. Haley, S. Lee, M. Naumov, H. Ryu, F. Saied,et al., IEEE Trans. Electron Dev.54, 2079 (2007)

    2079

  55. [55]

    Klimeck, S

    G. Klimeck, S. S. Ahmed, N. Kharche, M. Korkusin- ski, M. Usman, M. Prada, and T. B. Boykin, IEEE Trans. Electron Dev.54, 2090 (2007)

    2090

  56. [56]

    Abadillo-Uriel, B

    J. Abadillo-Uriel, B. Thorgrimsson, D. Kim, L. Smith, C. Simmons, D. R. Ward, R. H. Foote, J. Corrigan, D. Savage, M. Lagally,et al., Phys. Rev. B98, 165438 (2018)

    2018

  57. [57]

    J. P. Dodson, H. E. Ercan, J. Corrigan, M. P. Losert, N. Holman, T. McJunkin, L. F. Edge, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 146802 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    A. L. Saraiva, M. J. Calderón, R. B. Capaz, X. Hu, S. Das Sarma, and B. Koiller, Phys. Rev. B84, 155320 (2011)

    2011

  59. [59]

    Sarkar, J

    A. Sarkar, J. Hochstetter, A. Kha, X. Hu, M. Y. Sim- mons, R. Rahman, and D. Culcer, npj Quantum Inf.8, 127 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    Hosseinkhani and G

    A. Hosseinkhani and G. Burkard, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043180 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    Tariq and X

    B. Tariq and X. Hu, Phys. Rev. B100, 125309 (2019)

    2019

  62. [62]

    Goswami, K

    S. Goswami, K. A. Slinker, M. Friesen, L. McGuire, J. L. Truitt, C. Tahan, L. Klein, J. O. Chu, P. M. Mooney, D. W. Van Der Weide,et al., Nat. Phys.3, 41 (2007)

    2007

  63. [63]

    Culcer, X

    D. Culcer, X. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B82, 205315 (2010)

    2010

  64. [64]

    Boross, G

    P. Boross, G. Széchenyi, D. Culcer, and A. Pályi, Phys. Rev. B94, 035438 (2016)

    2016

  65. [65]

    Adelsberger, S

    C. Adelsberger, S. Bosco, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 037001 (2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    Paquelet Wuetz, M

    B. Paquelet Wuetz, M. P. Losert, S. Koelling, L. E. A. Stehouwer, A.-M. J. Zwerver, S. G. Philips, M. T. Mądzik, X. Xue, G. Zheng, M. Lodari,et al., Nat. Com- mun.13, 7730 (2022)

    2022

  67. [67]

    Lodari, L

    M. Lodari, L. Lampert, O. Zietz, R. Pillarisetty, J. S. Clarke, and G. Scappucci, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 176603 (2022)

    2022

  68. [68]

    Degli Esposti, L

    D. Degli Esposti, L. E. Stehouwer, Ö. Gül, N. Samkharadze, C. Déprez, M. Meyer, I. N. Mei- jer, L. Tryputen, S. Karwal, M. Botifoll,et al., npj Quantum Inf.10, 32 (2024)

    2024

  69. [69]

    J. C. Marcks, E. Eagen, E. C. Brann, M. P. Losert, T. Oh, J. Reily, C. S. Wang, D. Keith, F. A. Mohiyaddin, F. Luthi,et al., Nat. Commun. (2025), 10.1038/s41467- 025-67325-z

    doi:10.1038/s41467- 2025

  70. [70]

    McJunkin, B

    T. McJunkin, B. Harpt, Y. Feng, M. P. Losert, R. Rah- man, J. P. Dodson, M. A. Wolfe, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, S. N. Coppersmith,et al., Nat. Commun.13, 7777 (2022)

    2022

  71. [71]

    Feng and R

    Y. Feng and R. Joynt, Phys. Rev. B106, 085304 (2022)

    2022

  72. [72]

    Gradwohl, L

    K.-P. Gradwohl, L. Cvitkovich, C.-H. Lu, S. Koelling, M. Oezkent, Y. Liu, D. Waldhör, T. Grasser, Y.-M. Ni- quet, M. Albrecht, C. Richter, O. Moutanabbir, and J. Martin, Nano Lett.25, 4204 (2025)

    2025

  73. [73]

    McJunkin, E

    T. McJunkin, E. R. MacQuarrie, L. Tom, S. F. Neyens, J. P. Dodson, B. Thorgrimsson, J. Corrigan, H. E. Ercan, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally,et al., Phys. Rev. B104, 085406 (2021)

    2021

  74. [74]

    Burkard, G

    G. Burkard, G. Seelig, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B62, 2581 (2000)

    2000

  75. [75]

    Stehouwer, A

    H.Tidjani, A.Tosato, A.Ivlev, C.Déprez, S.Oosterhout, L. Stehouwer, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veld- horst, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 054035 (2023)

    2023

  76. [76]

    A. S. Ivlev, H. Tidjani, S. D. Oosterhout, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, Appl. Phys. Lett.125 (2024)

    2024

  77. [77]

    B. D. Woods, M. P. Losert, R. Joynt, and M. Friesen, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19795 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    80,81 from the main text

    See supplementary material, which also includes Refs. 80,81 from the main text

  79. [79]

    B. D. Woods, M. Eriksson, R. Joynt, and M. Friesen, Phys. Rev. B107, 035418 (2023)

    2023

  80. [80]

    Schäffler, Semicond

    F. Schäffler, Semicond. Sci. Technol.12, 1515 (1997)

    1997

Showing first 80 references.