Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

The electron readout contrast enhancement in exchange-coupled donor qubits with parallel nuclear spins arises from a second electron tunnelling event to the single-electron transistor within one readout period.

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

2026-08-02 23:10 UTC pith:ARMXDQWM

load-bearing objection A credible two-blip explanation for the long-standing readout-contrast anomaly in exchange-coupled donor pairs, backed by new blip-counting data, but the claim that the same electron tunnels twice is not fully distinguished from a simpler two-electron-tunneling alternative. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.14426 v1 pith:ARMXDQWM submitted 2026-02-16 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Electron readout contrast enhancement in the parallel nuclear regime of an exchange-coupled donor spin qubit system

Holly G. Stemp , Mark R. van Blankenstein , Benjamin Wilhelm , Serwan Asaad , Mateusz T. M\k{a}dzik , Arne Laucht , Fay E. Hudson , Andrew S. Dzurak
show 5 more authors
Kohei M. Itoh Alexander M. Jakob Brett C. Johnson David N. Jamieson Andrea Morello
This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords exchange-coupled donorselectron spin readoutElzerman readoutsingle-electron transistorreadout contrastdouble tunnellingsilicon spin qubitsparallel nuclear spins
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 the puzzling 40% improvement in electron readout contrast seen in exchange-coupled donor spin qubits when the two donor nuclei are initialized in a parallel spin orientation is not a new physical effect but a straightforward consequence of two-electron quantum mechanics. When the nuclei are parallel, the exchange coupling dominates the energy mismatch between the two electrons, so the two-electron states acquire singlet-triplet character. As a result, after a spin-up electron tunnels off to the single-electron transistor and a spin-down electron returns, the remaining two-electron state still contains spin-up character on the first donor, allowing a second spin-up electron to tunnel off within the same readout window. This produces two current blips instead of one, which halves the probability that a spin-up electron is missed because its blip is too brief for the measurement bandwidth. The paper supports this with direct blip-counting statistics and a quantitative prediction of the parallel-nuclear spin-up fraction.

Core claim

The central claim is that the readout contrast enhancement in the parallel nuclear regime is caused by an additional electron tunnelling event from donor 1 to the SET island within a single readout period. In this regime the exchange interaction J is much larger than the hyperfine difference ΔA between the two donors, so the eigenstates of the two electrons are hybridised versions of the singlet and triplet states. Starting from the |T+> = |↑↑> state, the first spin-up electron tunnels off, a spin-down electron tunnels back in, and because the system now occupies an odd-parity state (tilde|S> or tilde|T0>) with a significant |↑1> component, a second spin-up electron can tunnel off before the

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-electron energy-level ladder of an exchange-coupled donor pair in the J >> |ΔA| (parallel-nuclear) regime, specifically the odd-parity states tilde|S> and tilde|T0>. These are linear combinations of |↑↓> and |↓↑> with appreciable single-spin-up probability on the tunnel-coupled donor, which lets a second spin-up electron escape after the first has been replaced by a spin-down electron. The paper uses this level structure to predict a double 'blip' of SET current and to derive the quantitative error-suppression relation for the readout.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative fit rests on treating missed blips as the only significant readout error and assuming the two parallel-nuclear blips are detected independently with the same per-event miss probability as the single anti-parallel blip; if thermal activation, control errors, or ionization shock contribute substantially, the error-propagation formula would not be a clean test, even though the direct observation of two blips would remain.

What would settle it

Record SET current traces with a detection bandwidth high enough to resolve single tunnelling events far faster than the current ~50 kHz limit (sub-microsecond rise time). If the double-tunnelling explanation is right, the average blip count for parallel nuclei should approach exactly 2.0 per spin-up readout while anti-parallel stays at 1.0, and the readout-contrast advantage should vanish once no blips are missed. If the contrast gap persists under conditions where only one resolvable blip per readout occurs, the mechanism as proposed is incomplete.

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

If this is right

  • In the parallel-nuclear configuration, a spin-up electron produces two current blips per readout, so the probability of missing it is the square of the single-blip miss probability, directly improving readout contrast.
  • The measured average of 1.77 blips per parallel-nuclear readout (vs 1.02 for anti-parallel) quantitatively matches the double-tunnelling picture, with the shortfall from 2.0 attributable to missed blips in the ~50 kHz measurement bandwidth.
  • Readout fidelity for exchange-coupled donor qubits can be improved either by increasing measurement bandwidth or by deliberately operating in regimes where the extra tunnelling event occurs.
  • The mechanism explains previously observed, device-to-device variations in readout contrast as arising from differences in exchange coupling and hyperfine detuning, which shift the system between the J>>|ΔA| and J<<|ΔA| regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the double-tunnelling mechanism holds, the same physics should also affect the effective measurement back-action on the nuclear spins: each extra electron tunnelling event is an additional opportunity for 'ionization shock', so in devices operated with many repetitive readouts the parallel-nuclear advantage in contrast could come with a slightly higher nuclear-spin flip probability.
  • A testable engineering extension follows: instead of simply thresholding the SET current once, a readout protocol that counts blips (or triggers on either of the two blips) should recover even more of the parallel-nuclear contrast, and could be applied to anti-parallel readout by transiently driving the system into the high-exchange regime during the readout window.
  • The independence assumption behind the squared-error formula could be checked by examining the statistics of inter-blip intervals: the model predicts the second blip waiting time follows the same exponential distribution as the first, with the measured ~33 µs tunnel-in time; deviations would indicate correlations or additional tunnelling channels.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a mechanism for the enhanced electron readout contrast observed in exchange-coupled donor pairs when the nuclear spins are parallel. In the J≫ΔA regime, after the spin-up electron on donor 1 tunnels to the SET and a spin-down electron tunnels back, the readout electron still has significant |↑1> character from the weakly hybridized T0/S manifold and tunnels off a second time, producing two current blips in one readout window. This is supported by blip-counting statistics (1.77±0.15 blips per readout for parallel nuclei vs 1.02±0.09 for anti-parallel), state-resolved histograms for T−, TX, and T+ initial states, and an adiabatic spectroscopy comparison using Eq. (5), P(⇓⇓/⇑⇑)=1−(1−P(⇓⇑/⇑⇓))².

Significance. If established, the result would explain a long-standing, unexplained observation in donor-based qubit readout and would guide improvements in readout fidelity. The paper's strengths are its use of direct experimental statistics (blip counting) rather than only indirect contrast measurements, and the construction of a parameter-free prediction in Eq. (5) from independently measured anti-parallel spin-up proportion. The open data statement is also a positive feature. However, the central mechanism distinguishing sequential tunneling of the same electron from the simpler scenario in which both donor electrons tunnel to the SET is not experimentally established; this is the main gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.A, Fig. 2] The sentence 'Only electron 1 was tunnel-coupled to the SET and hence could be read out via spin-dependent tunneling' is load-bearing but is not supported by any measurement shown in the manuscript. The two-blip statistics in Fig. 2(c)–(i) and the prediction in Eq. (5) are equally consistent with an alternative in which both donor electrons have tunnel coupling to the SET: in that case |T−> gives no blips, |T+> gives two blips (one from each spin-up electron), the |TX> mixture gives about one blip on average, and Eq. (5) still follows from two independent missed-blip events. A control experiment is needed, e.g., preparing |↓1↑2> in the anti-parallel nuclear configuration and showing that the |↑2> electron produces no blip, or independently calibrating the tunnel coupling of electron 2. Without this, the data do not uniquely support the proposed exchange-mediated sequential tunneling of e
  2. [Section IV.C, Eq. (5)] The quantitative validation assumes that missed blips are the dominant readout error and that the two blips in the parallel case are missed independently and with the same per-event probability as the single anti-parallel blip. The manuscript itself lists thermal tunneling and ionization shock as additional error channels (Appendix A). The dashed prediction in Fig. 2(j) is plotted without propagated uncertainty or a goodness-of-fit statistic; 'good correspondence' is not quantified. Please provide uncertainty bands and a statistical comparison, or explicitly present Eq. (5) as a qualitative consistency check rather than a quantitative validation.
  3. [Section III, step 2] The claim that tunneling into the |T~0> and |S~> states occurs with approximately equal probability is asserted without tunnel-rate measurements or estimates. Since states with different orbital character generally have different tunnel couplings to the SET, this assumption is not obvious and is relevant to the expected two-blip probability. The authors should either provide a measurement or an order-of-magnitude calculation supporting this assumption, or state it as an approximation whose uncertainty does not affect the main conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1 caption and panel (d)] The J/|∆| labels for the parallel and anti-parallel cases appear interchanged: the text gives J/|∆|≈0.1 for anti-parallel nuclei and J/|∆|≈133 (≈10²) for parallel nuclei, but the caption and panel (d) state 10⁻¹ for parallel and 10² for anti-parallel.
  2. [Section III, step 2] Typo: 'the the |T0⟩ or |S~⟩' should read 'either the |T0⟩ or |S~⟩ state'.
  3. [Appendix A] Typo: 'donor spinspin qubits' should be 'donor spin qubits'.
  4. [Fig. 2(j)] The x-axis label 'Frequency idx' is informal; specify the frequency range and units (or state that it is a linear frequency ramp index).
  5. [Section IV.B] The preparation of the |TX> state is described as a mixture of ≈50% |T~0>, ≈25% |T−>, and ≈25% |T+>, but no derivation or simulation is shown for these fractions. Please clarify how these numbers are obtained.
  6. [Eq. (5)] The notation P(⇓⇓/⇑⇑) could be confused with a conditional probability. Define explicitly: the denominator is the prepared nuclear spin configuration and the numerator is the nuclear state after readout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: Eq. 5 is a genuine prediction from the independently measured anti-parallel contrast under the two-blip hypothesis, and the blip histograms are raw data confirming two tunneling events.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: (i) from the two-electron eigenstates in the parallel nuclear regime, an extra electron tunnel-out/tunnel-in/second tunnel-out sequence should produce two blips; (ii) measured blip counts show 1.77±0.15 blips per readout for parallel versus 1.02±0.09 for anti-parallel, with state-resolved histograms (0.21 for |T−>, 1.12 for |TX>, 1.67 for |T+>); (iii) Eq. 5, P(⇓⇓/⇑⇑)=1−(1−P(⇓⇑/⇑⇓))^2, predicts the parallel spin-up proportion from the measured anti-parallel proportion by treating the anti-parallel missed-blip probability as the per-blip miss probability for two independent blips. This is not circular: Eq. 5 is a parameter-free prediction for the parallel observable, not a fit to it, and the blip histograms are direct counting evidence rather than outputs of the model. Self-citations such as [5,10] document the previously unexplained contrast enhancement, but the paper reproduces the effect and proposes a new mechanism; citations for eigenstates and tunneling behavior ([9,26,36]) are standard, externally falsifiable results, not self-referential constraints. The main caveat is Section IV.A's assertion that only electron 1 is tunnel-coupled to the SET; no dedicated control is shown, so the skeptic's alternative (both electrons tunnel-coupled) could also explain two blips in |T+>. That is an underdetermination or correctness-risk issue, not circularity, because the paper's predictions do not reduce to that assertion and the blip-counting evidence stands independently. Appendix A's acknowledgment that ionization shock was not studied is an honest limitation, not a circular step. Overall, the derivation is self-contained and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard two-electron donor physics and Elzerman readout assumptions; no free parameters are fitted to the contrast enhancement itself. The main unproven premises are the independence and dominance of missed blips in Eq. 5 and the equal tunnel-rate assumption, both flagged in the text.

free parameters (2)
  • Exchange coupling J = ≈10 MHz
    Device parameter taken from prior characterization of ion-implanted donor pairs (Ref. [23]); used to establish J/ΔA≈133 in the parallel nuclear regime. Not fitted to the readout-contrast data in this paper.
  • Hyperfine difference ΔA = 90 kHz
    Measured in this device; sets the detuning |Δ| in the parallel nuclear regime. Input to the model, not fitted to blip statistics.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The two-donor electron Hamiltonian is accurately described by Zeeman, hyperfine, and isotropic Heisenberg exchange J S1·S2 (Eq. 1), with J≪A so nuclear spin orientation determines the electron detuning regime.
    Invoked in Section II; standard model for donor pairs, but device-specific assumptions (single valley, negligible anisotropy) are not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Spin-dependent tunneling selection rule: with μSET positioned between μ↑ and μ↓, only spin-↑ electrons can tunnel from donor to SET, and only spin-↓ electrons can tunnel back (Appendix A).
    Core of Elzerman readout; established experimentally and cited [12,13].
  • domain assumption Tunnel rates into the T0-like and S-like states are approximately equal because J≈10 MHz is negligible compared with thermal broadening 5kBT/h≈10 GHz (Section III, step 2).
    Stated in the paper; if false, the relative population of the two states changes but both states still carry spin-up amplitude on electron 1.
  • domain assumption Missed-blip events are independent and the per-event miss probability is 1−P(anti), where P(anti) is the measured anti-parallel spin-up proportion (Eq. 5).
    Assumed in Section IV C; neglects non-missed-blip error channels and correlations between successive blips.
  • domain assumption In adiabatic spectroscopy, resonance peak height is dominated by missed readout blips rather than control errors (Section IV C).
    Used to identify P(anti) with the anti-parallel peak height; if control errors contribute, the Eq. 5 comparison is biased.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16295 in / 14015 out tokens · 129971 ms · 2026-08-02T23:10:51.109484+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent experiments on donor-based spin qubits in silicon have leveraged the exchange interaction between electrons bound to separate donor nuclei to perform two-qubit operations. A consistently observed yet unexplained phenomenon in such systems is the significant increase in electron readout contrast, measured via Elzerman-style readout to a single-electron transistor (SET) island, when the donor nuclei are initialized in a parallel spin orientation compared to an anti-parallel orientation. In this work, we present a detailed analysis of the exchange-coupled donor system in the parallel nuclear regime and propose a physical mechanism for this effect. We attribute the enhanced readout contrast to an additional electron tunneling event to the SET during a single read period, when the donor nuclei are aligned in a parallel spin configuration. These insights inform strategies for improving electron readout fidelity in these systems and contribute to a more complete understanding of spin-dependent tunnelling processes in donor-based qubit architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14426 by Alexander M. Jakob, Andrea Morello, Andrew S. Dzurak, Arne Laucht, Benjamin Wilhelm, Brett C. Johnson, David N. Jamieson, Fay E. Hudson, Holly G. Stemp, Kohei M. Itoh, Mark R. van Blankenstein, Mateusz T. M\k{a}dzik, Serwan Asaad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Eigenstates of the exchange-coupled donor system. (a) Schematic of the exchange-coupled donor system, consisting of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Tunneling to the SET in the parallel vs anti-parallel nuclear regime. (a) Two-electron energy levels with respect to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Elzerman-style readout of the donor electron spin. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Tunneling time calculation. (a) 100 raw SET current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Electron spin time evolution simulation in the par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A spin|↑ 1⟩electron tunnels from donor 1 to the SET island, producing a current blip and leaving behind a spin|↑2⟩electron on donor 2 [Fig. 2(a)-i]

  2. [2]

    Figures 1 (b),(c) show the projection of the electron eigenstates on the|S⟩and|T 0⟩states and on the tensor product states|↓↑⟩and|↑↓⟩as a function of the ratio J |∆|

    In this case, the electron eigenstates consist of the singlet and triplet states:|S⟩= 1√ 2(|↓1↑2⟩−|↑ 1↓2⟩),|T−⟩= |↓1↓2⟩,|T 0⟩= 1√ 2(|↓1↑2⟩+|↑ 1↓2⟩),|T +⟩=|↑ 1↑2⟩[9]. Figures 1 (b),(c) show the projection of the electron eigenstates on the|S⟩and|T 0⟩states and on the tensor product states|↓↑⟩and|↑↓⟩as a function of the ratio J |∆|. In the donor spin system...

  3. [3]

    2 (a)-ii]

    While remaining at the readout position, a spin |↓1⟩electron will eventually tunnel from the SET island back onto the ionized donor 1 [Fig. 2 (a)-ii]. Since the electron must tunnel into an eigenstate of the system, and the other electron of the pair is in the|↑ 2⟩state, the most energetically favor- able state is either the ˜|T0⟩or ˜|S⟩state. These state...

  4. [4]

    2 (a)-iii]

    After waiting at the readout position for some pro- portion of the spin|↑1⟩tunnel time, a second spin |↑1⟩electron will tunnel from donor 1 to the SET island [Fig. 2 (a)-iii]. This is because the electron tunnels from a ˜|T0⟩or ˜|S⟩state, which both have a significant|↑ 1⟩probability. This tunneling event leaves behind a spin|↓ 2⟩electron on donor 2, as e...

  5. [5]

    2 (a)-iv]

    Another|↓ 1⟩electron will tunnel from the SET is- land onto donor 1, leaving the electrons in the state |T−⟩=|↓ 1↓2⟩[Fig. 2 (a)-iv]. With both electrons now in the|↓⟩state, any further tunneling events are energetically forbidden for the remainder of the read period. For the case of the anti-parallel nuclei, in the energy regime whereJ≪ |∆|= ¯A, the eigen...

  6. [6]

    A spin|↑ 1⟩electron will tunnel off of donor 1, to the SET island, producing a blip of current

  7. [7]

    After waiting at the readout position for some pro- portion of the tunnel time, a spin|↓1⟩electron tun- nels from the SET to donor 1, preventing any fur- ther tunneling during the remainder of the read pe- riod. IV. RESULTS A. Counting readout blips in the parallel vs anti-parallel nuclear configuration The experiments described in the following sections ...

    2000

  8. [8]

    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,et al., Storing quantum infor- mation for 30 seconds in a nanoelectronic device, Nature Nanotechnology9, 986 (2014)

    2014

  9. [9]

    Chatterjee, P

    A. Chatterjee, P. Stevenson, S. De Franceschi, A. Morello, N. P. de Leon, and F. Kuemmeth, Semicon- ductor qubits in practice, Nature Reviews Physics3, 157 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, R. Blume-Kohout, K. M. Rudinger, J. K. Gamble, E. Nielsen, A. Laucht, S. Sim- mons, R. Kalra, A. S. Dzurak,et al., Optimization of a solid-state electron spin qubit using gate set tomography, New Journal of Physics18, 103018 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    J. J. Pla, K. Y. Tan, J. P. Dehollain, W. H. Lim, J. J. Morton, F. A. Zwanenburg, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzu- rak, and A. Morello, High-fidelity readout and control of a nuclear spin qubit in silicon, Nature496, 334 (2013)

    2013

  12. [12]

    H. G. Stemp, S. Asaad, M. R. v. Blankenstein, A. Vaart- jes, M. A. Johnson, M. T. Mądzik, A. J. Heskes, H. R. Firgau, R. Y. Su, C. H. Yang,et al., Tomography of en- tangling two-qubit logic operations in exchange-coupled donor electron spin qubits, Nature Communications15, 8415 (2024). 11

    2024

  13. [13]

    M. T. Mądzik, S. Asaad, A. Youssry, B. Joecker, K. M. Rudinger, E. Nielsen, K. C. Young, T. J. Proctor, A. D. Baczewski, A. Laucht,et al., Precision tomography of a three-qubit donor quantum processor in silicon, Nature 601, 348 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Thorvaldson, D

    I. Thorvaldson, D. Poulos, C. M. Moehle, S. H. Misha, H. Edlbauer, J. Reiner, H. Geng, B. Voisin, M. T. Jones, M. B. Donnelly,et al., Grover’s algorithm in a four-qubit silicon processor above the fault-tolerant threshold, Na- ture Nanotechnology , 1 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Edlbauer, J

    H. Edlbauer, J. Wang, A. S.-E. Huq, I. Thorvaldson, M. T. Jones, S. H. Misha, W. J. Pappas, C. M. Moehle, Y.-L. Hsueh, H. Bornemann,et al., An 11-qubit atom processor in silicon, Nature648, 569 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    Kalra, A

    R. Kalra, A. Laucht, C. D. Hill, and A. Morello, Robust two-qubit gates for donors in silicon controlled by hyper- fine interactions, Physical Review X4, 021044 (2014)

    2014

  17. [17]

    M. T. Mądzik, A. Laucht, F. E. Hudson, A. M. Jakob, B. C. Johnson, D. N. Jamieson, K. M. Itoh, A. S. Dzu- rak, and A. Morello, Conditional quantum operation of two exchange-coupled single-donor spin qubits in a mos- compatible silicon device, Nature Communications12, 181 (2021)

    2021

  18. [18]

    H. G. Stemp, M. R. van Blankenstein, S. Asaad, M. T. Mądzik, B. Joecker, H. R. Firgau, A. Laucht, F. E. Hud- son, A. S. Dzurak, K. M. Itoh,et al., Scalable entan- glement of nuclear spins mediated by electron exchange, Science389, 1234 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Morello, J

    A. Morello, J. J. Pla, F. A. Zwanenburg, K. W. Chan, K. Y. Tan, H. Huebl, M. Möttönen, C. D. Nugroho, C. Yang, J. A. Van Donkelaar,et al., Single-shot readout of an electron spin in silicon, Nature467, 687 (2010)

    2010

  20. [20]

    Elzerman, R

    J. Elzerman, R. Hanson, L. Willems van Beveren, B. Witkamp, L. Vandersypen, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Single-shot read-out of an individual electron spin in a quantum dot, Nature430, 431 (2004)

    2004

  21. [21]

    A. M. Jakob, S. G. Robson, V. Schmitt, V. Mourik, M. Posselt, D. Spemann, B. C. Johnson, H. R. Firgau, E. Mayes, J. C. McCallum,et al., Deterministic shal- low dopant implantation in silicon with detection confi- dence upper-bound to 99.85% by ion–solid interactions, Advanced Materials34, 2103235 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    D. N. Jamieson, Single-ion implantation for quantum computing, inSingle-Atom Nanoelectronics, edited by E. Prati and T. Shinada (Routledge, 2013)

    2013

  23. [23]

    Fuechsle, J

    M. Fuechsle, J. A. Miwa, S. Mahapatra, H. Ryu, S. Lee, O. Warschkow, L. C. Hollenberg, G. Klimeck, and M. Y. Simmons, A single-atom transistor, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy7, 242 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    S. R. Schofield, A. J. Fisher, E. Ginossar, J. W. Lyd- ing, R. Silver, F. Fei, P. Namboodiri, J. Wyrick, M. G. Masteghin, D. C. Cox,et al., Roadmap on atomic-scale semiconductor devices, Nano Futures9, 012001 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Q. Li, Ł. Cywiński, D. Culcer, X. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, Exchange coupling in silicon quantum dots: Theoretical considerations for quantum computation, Physical Re- view B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics81, 085313 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    Burkard, D

    G. Burkard, D. Loss, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Coupled quantum dots as quantum gates, Physical Review B59, 2070 (1999)

    2070

  27. [27]

    Koiller, X

    B. Koiller, X. Hu, and S. D. Sarma, Exchange in silicon- based quantum computer architecture, Physical Review Letters88, 027903 (2001)

    2001

  28. [28]

    Klymenko and F

    M. Klymenko and F. Remacle, Electronic states and wavefunctions of diatomic donor molecular ions in sil- icon: multi-valley envelope function theory, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter26, 065302 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Saraiva, A

    A. Saraiva, A. Baena, M. Calderón, and B. Koiller, The- ory of one and two donors in silicon, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter27, 154208 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

    Joecker, A

    B. Joecker, A. D. Baczewski, J. K. Gamble, J. J. Pla, A. Saraiva, and A. Morello, Full configuration interac- tion simulations of exchange-coupled donors in silicon using multi-valley effective mass theory, New Journal of Physics23, 073007 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    J. J. Pla, K. Y. Tan, J. P. Dehollain, W. H. Lim, J. J. Morton, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, A single-atom electron spin qubit in silicon, Nature489, 541 (2012)

    2012

  32. [32]

    J. P. Dehollain, S. Simmons, J. T. Muhonen, R. Kalra, A. Laucht, F. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, D. N. Jamieson, J. C. McCallum, A. S. Dzurak,et al., Bell’s inequality viola- tion with spins in silicon, Nature Nanotechnology11, 242 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    Huang, C

    W. Huang, C. Yang, K. Chan, T. Tanttu, B. Hensen, R. Leon, M. Fogarty, J. Hwang, F. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, et al., Fidelity benchmarks for two-qubit gates in silicon, Nature569, 532 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    Feher, Electron spin resonance experiments on donors in silicon

    G. Feher, Electron spin resonance experiments on donors in silicon. i. electronic structure of donors by the elec- tron nuclear double resonance technique, Physical Re- view114, 1219 (1959)

    1959

  35. [35]

    Usman, C

    M. Usman, C. D. Hill, R. Rahman, G. Klimeck, M. Y. Simmons, S. Rogge, and L. C. Hollenberg, Strain and electric field control of hyperfine interactions for donor spin qubits in silicon, Physical Review B91, 245209 (2015)

    2015

  36. [36]

    Mansir, P

    J. Mansir, P. Conti, Z. Zeng, J. J. Pla, P. Bertet, M. W. Swift, C. G. Van de Walle, M. L. Thewalt, B. Sklenard, Y.-M. Niquet,et al., Linear hyperfine tuning of donor spins in silicon using hydrostatic strain, Physical Review Letters120, 167701 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    J. Pla, A. Bienfait, G. Pica, J. Mansir, F. Mohiyaddin, Z. Zeng, A. Morello, T. Schenkel, J. Morton,et al., Strain-induced spin-resonance shifts in silicon devices, Physical Review Applied9, 044014 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Rahman, C

    R. Rahman, C. J. Wellard, F. R. Bradbury, M. Prada, J. H. Cole, G. Klimeck, and L. C. Hollenberg, High pre- cision quantum control of single donor spins in silicon, Physical Review Letters99, 036403 (2007)

    2007

  39. [39]

    G. Pica, G. Wolfowicz, M. Urdampilleta, M. L. Thewalt, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, J. J. Morton, R. N. Bhatt,et al., Hyperfine stark effect of shallow donors in silicon, Physical Review B90, 195204 (2014)

    2014

  40. [40]

    Laucht, J

    A. Laucht, J. T. Muhonen, F. A. Mohiyaddin, R. Kalra, J. P. Dehollain, S. Freer, F. E. Hudson, M. Veldhorst, R. Rahman, G. Klimeck,et al., Electrically controlling single-spin qubits in a continuous microwave field, Sci- ence Advances1, e1500022 (2015)

    2015

  41. [41]

    T. F. Watson, B. Weber, M. G. House, H. Büch, and M. Y. Simmons, High-fidelity rapid initialization and read-out of an electron spin via the single donor d-charge state, Physical Review Letters115, 166806 (2015)

    2015

  42. [42]

    Hanson, L

    R. Hanson, L. W. van Beveren, I. Vink, J. Elzerman, W. Naber, F. Koppens, . f. L. Kouwenhoven, and L. Van- dersypen, Single-shot readout of electron spin states in a 12 quantum dot using spin-dependent tunnel rates, Physical Review Letters94, 196802 (2005)

    2005

  43. [43]

    J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, K. Y. Tan, A. Saraiva, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, Single- shotreadout andrelaxationof singletand triplet statesin exchange-coupled p 31 electron spins in silicon, Physical Review Letters112, 236801 (2014)

    2014

  44. [44]

    Laucht, R

    A. Laucht, R. Kalra, J. T. Muhonen, J. P. Dehollain, F. A. Mohiyaddin, F. Hudson, J. C. McCallum, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, High-fidelity adiabatic inversion of a31P electron spin qubit in natural silicon, Applied Physics Letters104(2014)

    2014

  45. [45]

    Stemp, M

    H. Stemp, M. van Blankenstein, B. Wilhelm, S. Asaad, M. Madzik, A. Laucht, F. Hudson, A. Dzurak, K. Itoh, A. Jakob, B. Johnson, D. Jamieson, and A. Morello, Dataset for electron readout contrast enhancement in the parallelnuclearregimeofanexchange-coupleddonorspin qubit system, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.1c59zw4b2 (2026)

    work page doi:10.5061/dryad.1c59zw4b2 2026

  46. [46]

    Morello, C

    A. Morello, C. Escott, H. Huebl, L. Willems van Beveren, L. Hollenberg, D. Jamieson, A. Dzurak, and R. Clark, Architecture for high-sensitivity single-shot readout and control of the electron spin of individual donors in silicon, Physical Review B80, 081307 (2009)

    2009

  47. [47]

    H. Büch, S. Mahapatra, R. Rahman, A. Morello, and M. Simmons, Spin readout and addressability of phosphorus-donor clusters in silicon, Nature Communi- cations4, 2017 (2013)

    2017

  48. [48]

    F. A. Mohiyaddin, R. Rahman, R. Kalra, G. Klimeck, L. C. Hollenberg, J. J. Pla, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, Noninvasive spatial metrology of single-atom devices, Nano Letters13, 1903 (2013)

    1903

  49. [49]

    M. A. Johnson, M. T. Mądzik, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. M. Jakob, D. N. Jamieson, A. Dzurak, and A. Morello, Beating the thermal limit of qubit initializa- tion with a bayesian maxwell’s demon, Physical Review X12, 041008 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    J. Y. Huang, W. H. Lim, R. C. Leon, C. H. Yang, F. E. Hudson, C. C. Escott, A. Saraiva, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Laucht, A high-sensitivity charge sensor for silicon qubits above 1 k, Nano Letters21, 6328 (2021)

    2021

  51. [51]

    Joecker, H

    B. Joecker, H. G. Stemp, I. Fernández de Fuentes, M. A. Johnson,andA.Morello,Errorchannelsinquantumnon- demolition measurements on spin systems, Physical Re- view B109, 085302 (2024)

    2024

  52. [52]

    Vaartjes, R

    A. Vaartjes, R. Y. Su, L. A. O’Neill, P. Steinacker, G. Goenka, M. R. van Blankenstein, X. Yu, B. Wilhelm, A. M. Jakob, F. E. Hudson,et al., Maximizing the nonde- molition nature of a quantum measurement via an adap- tive readout protocol, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.10978 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    X. Yu, B. Wilhelm, D. Holmes, A. Vaartjes, D. Schwien- bacher, M. Nurizzo, A. Kringhøj, M. R. v. Blankenstein, A. M. Jakob, P. Gupta,et al., Schrödinger cat states of a nuclear spin qudit in silicon, Nature Physics21, 362 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    Nakai, R

    T. Nakai, R. Challoner, and C. A. McDowell, Forbid- den nuclear magnetic resonance transitions between sin- glet and triplet states in spin-12 pair systems in rotating solids, Chemical Physics Letters180, 13 (1991)

    1991