Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 103 references

A single gate-reflectometry measurement of quantum capacitance can distinguish all four spin states of two exchange-coupled electron qubits, by exploiting micromagnet-induced singlet-triplet anticrossings.

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 ↗

Single-shot gate-reflectometry readout can discriminate all four spin states of a two-electron double quantum dot by tuning detuning and tunnel coupling to maximize quantum-capacitance contrast.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection A clean theoretical proposal for single-shot four-state spin-qubit readout via quantum capacitance, with a load-bearing perfect-state-transfer caveat that the authors openly acknowledge. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2603.07806 v2 pith:WNWRGAVE submitted 2026-03-08 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Four-state discrimination for a pair of spin qubits via gate reflectometry

Aritra Sen , Andr\'as P\'alyi This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords quantum capacitancegate reflectometryPauli spin blockadespin qubit readoutdouble quantum dotsinglet-triplet anticrossingmicromagnetfour-state discrimination
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.

The reading

The paper proposes that the four computational basis states of two electron spin qubits in a double quantum dot can be distinguished in one measurement, by reading out the quantum capacitance of each state with gate reflectometry. The key physical resource is the inhomogeneous magnetic field of a micromagnet, which opens two singlet-triplet anticrossings and gives each spin state a different charge response near the (1,1)-(0,2) charge transition. The authors derive a simple tuning recipe—a small shift of the interdot tunnel coupling and of the detuning away from the anticrossing-alignment point—that maximizes the minimum capacitance difference, and they model the readout error coming from amplifier noise and phonon-mediated relaxation. If the method works as modeled, it would let two qubits be read out simultaneously without an ancilla or a separate charge sensor, reducing the overhead of scaled-up silicon spin-qubit devices.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the quantum capacitance contrast can be made large enough for reliable single-shot four-state discrimination, with a concrete recipe. Working near the (1,1)-(0,2) charge transition, the four lowest two-electron eigenstates get distinct quantum capacitances because the transverse micromagnet gradient B_a⊥ hybridizes each singlet-triplet pair; the perturbative analysis shows that when the tunnel coupling is set to t_0 = t_align + δt_opt with δt_opt ≈ 0.27 g μ_B B_a⊥ and detuning ε_opt ≈ −0.77 g μ_B B_a⊥, the minimum separation between capacitance values reaches ΔC = C_peak/2. With a Gaussian amplifier noise of σ_C = 1 fF and a measurement time limit

What carries the argument

The central object is the quantum capacitance C_j = e² d⟨ψ_j|n_R|ψ_j⟩/dε of each two-electron energy eigenstate—the voltage-derivative of the dot's charge response, measurable as a shift in the reflectance of a resonant circuit attached to a plunger gate. The mechanism that makes four-state discrimination possible is the pair of singlet-triplet anticrossings opened by the transverse field gradient B_a⊥ (the component of the field difference between dots perpendicular to the average field): at each anticrossing a spin state and a charge state hybridize, so each of the four computational states acquires a distinct, tunable capacitance. The carrying identity is the perturbative recipe of Eqs. (

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the pulse from the idle position to the readout point transfers each computational basis state into the corresponding energy eigenstate without loss or mixing; if this state transfer is not high-fidelity, the four measured capacitance values no longer map cleanly onto the four qubit states and the assignment-fidelity claim does not hold.

What would settle it

Prepare each of the four spin states separately in a silicon double dot with a micromagnet, sweep the detuning around the predicted optimal point, and record the gate-reflectometry signal. If the four inferred quantum capacitance curves do not separate into four resolvable branches with a minimum gap approaching C_peak/2 at (ε_opt, t_align + δt_opt)—or if the splitting direction of the two capacitance peaks as t_0 is varied across t_align does not match Eqs. (25)-(26)—the central claim is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Single-shot two-bit readout of a pair of spin qubits becomes possible with gate reflectometry alone, removing the need for a separate charge sensor or readout ancilla and reducing wiring overhead.
  • The optimal operating point is given by closed-form expressions in terms of the micromagnet field parameters, so experimentalists can target it directly by measuring B_s and B_a⊥.
  • With modeled amplifier noise of 1 fF and the measurement time set by the shortest phonon relaxation time, the assignment fidelity approaches unity in the modeled silicon device.
  • The method transfers to other platforms whenever any spin-mixing mechanism (field gradient or spin-orbit coupling) opens the needed anticrossings; near the charge transition, low valley splitting in silicon is less harmful than in deep (0,2) charge sensing.
  • Relaxation-time analysis picks out a single best readout point: the negative-detuning position where the dominant 4→1 relaxation is slow because it requires a spin flip.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that a direct experimental signature of the mechanism is the predicted ordering of the four capacitance values (C_2 < C_3 < C_4 < C_1) at the optimal point; observing a different ordering would indicate that the assumed level structure or state transfer is not right.
  • We infer that the quatrefoil structure of the capacitance contrast in the (ε, t_0) plane implies a degree of robustness: a small error in one control parameter can be compensated by tuning the other along a diagonal line, which could simplify experimental calibration.
  • We infer that time-resolved analysis of the reflectance trace (for instance with hidden-Markov methods, as the paper mentions) could recover part of the fidelity lost to amplifier noise, because the instantaneous threshold inference discards information in the measurement dynamics.
  • We infer that the same recipe could be used for charge-noise spectroscopy: the sensitivity of the capacitance contrast to detuning jitter makes the width of the contrast peak a direct probe of environmental charge noise strength.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes four-state spin readout of a two-electron double quantum dot by quantum-capacitance gate reflectometry. Starting from a 5×5 Hamiltonian in the (1,1)-(0,2) singlet-triplet basis with a micromagnet-induced inhomogeneous field (Eq. (5)), it proposes to read out at a detuning/tunnel point where the four lowest eigenstates have distinct quantum capacitances. It defines a capacitance contrast ΔC (Eq. (8)), an assignment fidelity (Eq. (14)), and derives perturbative optimum conditions for the tunnel coupling and detuning, Eqs. (17)-(18), which are checked against exact numerics in Figs. 3-4. It then computes phonon-mediated relaxation times (App. C) and uses the shortest T1 to set the measurement time entering the amplifier-noise model, Eqs. (27)-(29). The headline claim is that single-shot four-state discrimination with assignment fidelity approaching unity is possible for amplifier noise σC = 1 fF, conditional on the explicitly stated assumption of perfect state transfer from the idle position to the readout position.

Significance. If the conditional caveats are resolved, this is a useful proposal: it offers a concrete route to two-bit spin readout in silicon without an ancilla qubit or a separate charge sensor, and it gives an explicit experimental recipe. The central derivation is transparent and self-contained. Credit should be given to the capacitance formula Eq. (A1), which avoids numerical differentiation; to the clean 2×2 effective models that reproduce the exact numerics in the small-B_a⊥ regime (Figs. 4 and 6); and to the fact that no parameter is fitted to the target outcome, with magnetic, phonon, and amplifier parameters taken from prior work. The main limitations are also visible: the perfect-state-transfer assumption suspends the quantitative fidelity claim, and the relaxation calculation enters the assignment fidelity only through the integration time, not through the capacitance statistics. Both are currently load-bearing for the abstract's claim that the method 'enables' high-fidelity single-shot four-state discrimination.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.A; Eqs. (9)-(14), Figs. 1(d) and 5(a)] The headline assignment fidelity is computed under the assumption of perfect state transfer from the idle (1,1) point to the readout eigenbasis. The paper itself states that optimizing such a high-fidelity transfer protocol 'is in general a challenging problem' (Sec. III.A). The issue is not merely practical: because B_a⊥ ≠ 0, the idle Hamiltonian (ε = -U, t0 = 0) is diagonal in the local tilted-field product basis, not in the external-field product basis. If the computational basis is the external-field basis, a generic computational state is a superposition of idle eigenstates, and an adiabatic ramp maps its components to different readout eigenstates, producing a mixed capacitance distribution rather than the Gaussian model of Eq. (9). If the computational basis is instead defined as the idle eigenbasis, that convention must be reconciled with the qubit basis used for gates. I therefo
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (27)-(29), Fig. 5(a)] The calculation labeled 'assignment infidelity in the presence of phonon-mediated relaxation and amplifier noise' includes relaxation only through the choice of integration time t_meas = min_j T_j. The probability model Eq. (14) assumes that the capacitance of the initial state is constant during the measurement, with Gaussian broadening of width σC(t_meas). But at t_meas = T_j, the state decays with probability 1 - e^{-1} ≈ 0.63, so the time-averaged reflectance is a mixture of the initial and final capacitance values. This produces assignment errors and non-Gaussian distributions that are absent from Eq. (14). Thus the infidelity dips in Fig. 5(a) underestimate the true readout error in the presence of relaxation. The authors should either include relaxation transitions in the measurement model (e.g., a rate-equation or hidden-Markov treatment of the time trace) or restrict the claim t
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (18)] ε_opt ≈ −2√2 t_opt should read ε_opt ≈ −2√2 δt_opt; the numerical estimate −0.77 gμ_B B_a⊥ follows from δt_opt, not from t_align.
  2. [Sec. II] The sentence 'To make our plots, we will set ε = 0' is confusing because ε is subsequently used as the variable detuning. This likely refers to the average on-site energy or a reference point; please clarify.
  3. [Introduction] The passage 'This functionality is similar to simultaneous single-shot readout of two superconducting qubits Simultaneous readout of two qubits have also be demonstrated' is an incomplete sentence with missing punctuation and no citations.
  4. [References] Refs. [74] and [77] appear to be the same work (arXiv preprint and published version). Please consolidate.
  5. [Fig. 5] The caption refers to the T1 curves as zero-temperature relaxation times, while the main text evaluates the measurement time at 50 mK via Eq. (29). Please clarify whether Fig. 5(b) is zero-temperature or finite-temperature.
  6. [Eq. (11)] The interval notation ']C1,C2,]' in Eq. (11b) contains a stray comma; use (C1, C2] or the equivalent French-bracket notation consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the capacitance-recipe derivation and fidelity estimates follow from the stated model Hamiltonian with externally sourced parameters; the Sec. III.A state-transfer caveat is a stated limitation, not a circular input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained given the 5x5 model Hamiltonian of Eq. (5). The quantum capacitance formula Eq. (7) is independently derived via perturbation theory in Appendix A (Eq. (A1)); the capacitance contrast Eq. (8) and maximum-likelihood assignment fidelity Eqs. (10)-(14) are definitions computed from those capacitances and a Gaussian noise model. The central quantitative recipe, Eqs. (17)-(18), is obtained by solving the 2x2 effective Hamiltonians (Eq. (22)) and imposing C1=C_peak, C4=C_peak/2; it is not fitted to the paper's target fidelity. Magnetic-field and material parameters are taken from external experiments and established silicon phonon literature (Refs. 77, 96). The self-citations that appear (Refs. 83, 92, 96, including Pályi as a coauthor) supply an independent published dispersive-readout noise model and relaxation formalism; they are not derived from, and do not assume, the result being claimed. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The perfect state-transfer assumption in Sec. III.A is explicitly acknowledged and flagged by the authors as challenging ('optimizing such a high-fidelity state transfer protocol is in general a challenging problem'), meaning the fidelity results are conditional on an unverified control-layer assumption. That is a correctness risk and a stated limitation, but it is not circular: the assumption is an input hypothesis, not an output of the derivation, and the paper does not redefine the readout basis to make the claim true by construction. No equation reduces to its own input, no parameter is fitted to the predicted assignment-fidelity curve, and no known result is merely renamed. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is a proposed measurement protocol; its quantitative predictions depend on physical parameters inherited from prior experiments and standard silicon material constants. No new entities are introduced; no parameter is fitted to the target outcome. The main hand-waved ingredient is the perfect state-transfer assumption, which is acknowledged as a challenging open problem.

free parameters (5)
  • B_s (symmetric magnetic field) = ~171.8 mT (example)
    Chosen/estimated from micromagnet data of Ref. [77]; sets the scale for t_align and the Zeeman gaps, affecting the optimal tunnel coupling and relaxation rates.
  • B_a∥ (parallel antisymmetric field) = −2.5 mT (example)
    Example value; affects the spectra and hence the capacitances. The general recipe does not depend on its small value.
  • B_a⊥ (perpendicular antisymmetric field) = 9.8 mT (example; 3–12 mT explored)
    Controls the size of the singlet-triplet anticrossings and hence the capacitance peaks; the optimal δt_opt and ε_opt scale linearly with it.
  • c (amplifier noise constant) = 3.136 fF/√μs
    From Eq. (27) with κ=0.6 fF^-1, V0=3 μV, Tn=4 K, R=577 Ω (Ref. [83]). Sets the noise floor for the fidelity estimates.
  • Phonon/material parameters (d, Ξ_d, Ξ_u, v_L, v_T, ρ) = d=100 nm, Ξ_u=8.77 eV, Ξ_d=5 eV, v_L=9330 m/s, v_T=5420 m/s, ρ=2330 kg/m³
    Standard silicon values from Ref. [96]; enter the relaxation-time calculation.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption 5x5 Hamiltonian truncation: the (2,0) singlet is neglected; valid for |ε|, |t0| ≪ U.
    Section II: 'we disregard the (2,0) singlet state'. Standard for modeling the vicinity of the (1,1)-(0,2) charge transition.
  • domain assumption Perfect state transfer from the idle position to the readout position.
    Section III.A: 'we assume that the detuning and the tunnel coupling are tuned in a way that their change leads to a perfect state transfer.' The authors note this is 'in general a challenging problem' (Refs. 78-80).
  • domain assumption Amplifier noise appears as Gaussian broadening of the inferred capacitance, with identical σC for all four states.
    Eq. (9). Standard dispersive-readout noise model.
  • domain assumption The reflectance measurement reveals the quantum capacitance in the adiabatic limit; Sisyphus resistance, tunneling capacitance, and overdrive effects are negligible.
    Section V Discussion: the authors state these effects 'can be made small' with a weak probe and a resonator period below the relaxation times.
  • domain assumption Phonon relaxation calculation uses Dirac-delta localized basis states on each dot.
    Appendix C1: 'strongly localized, Dirac-delta-type local basis states'. Gives order-of-magnitude relaxation rates.
  • standard math Fermi's Golden Rule with the Herring-Vogt deformation-potential Hamiltonian describes phonon-mediated relaxation.
    Appendix C, Eqs. (C1)-(C3). Established formalism for silicon quantum dots.
  • domain assumption Amplifier noise strength scales as σC = c/√t_meas with the measurement time.
    Eq. (27), from the reflectometry model of Ref. [83].

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Four-state discrimination for a pair of spin qubits via gate reflectometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNWRGAVE

@misc{pith2026260307806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Four-state discrimination for a pair of spin qubits via gate reflectometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNWRGAVE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.07806}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Single-electron spin qubits defined in quantum dots are used as building blocks of a semiconductor-based quantum computer. Readout in a scaled-up version of such a quantum computer is expected to rely on the Pauli Spin Blockade (PSB) mechanism. A desired functionality of PSB readout is that it reveals two bits of information on the two spin qubits that are involved in the process, such that the four computational basis states can be discriminated. In this work, we propose and quantitatively analyze an experimental procedure, based on gate reflectometry, which enables this four-state discrimination in a single measurement. We provide an intuitive recipe to maximize the contrast between the quantum capacitances of the four basis states. Focusing on silicon double quantum dots equipped with a micromagnet, we quantify how amplifier noise and phonon-mediated relaxation influence readout fidelity. Our results highlight a realistic opportunity to mitigate the overhead of readout ancilla qubits in a spin-based quantum computer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.07806 by Andr\'as P\'alyi, Aritra Sen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a). The micromagnet enables electrically driven spin resonance via ac electric gate-voltage pulses. As we argue here, the presence of the micromagnet also opens an opportunity for 4SD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) shows a generic situation, when the singlet￾triplet anticrossings are misaligned, that is, their detun￾ing positions are far from each other. In this case, the capacitance contrast is poor for any value of ε: if ε is tuned to, say, the upper (lower) singlet-triplet anticross￾ing, then C2 ≈ C3 ≈ 0 (C3 ≈ C4 ≈ 0) and hence ∆C ≈ 0. It is possible to fine-tune the tunneling energy t0 such that the lower and… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

103 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Relaxation of a charge qubit 11

  2. [2]

    Relaxation between two-electron energy eigenstates 13 References 14 I. INTRODUCTION Semiconductor quantum dot spin qubits have emerged as an important platform for quantum information pro- cessing, owing to their long coherence times, compatibil- ity with industrial fabrication, and potential for dense in- tegration [1–6]. The early proposal [1] identifie...

  3. [3]

    Stano and D

    P. Stano and D. Loss, Review of performance metrics of spin qubits in gated semiconducting nanostructures, Nature Reviews Physics4, 672 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    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, Silicon quantum elec- tronics, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 961 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Relaxation of a charge qubit First, we consider phonon-assisted relaxation of a charge qubit defined in a double quantum dot. We as- sume that the relaxation is caused by the interplay of (i) the interdot motion of the electron caused by the phonon- induced on-site energy difference between the two dots (ii) and the different magnetic fields in the two do...

  7. [7]

    5, we perform calculations analogous to those pre- sented in the previous subsection

    Relaxation between two-electron energy eigenstates To describe the two-electron relaxation times shown in Fig. 5, we perform calculations analogous to those pre- sented in the previous subsection. We denote the zero temperature downhill relaxation rate asΓ j,k 0 =T −1 1,k→j for each pairj, kof energy eigenstates withE j < Ek. We project our electron-phono...

  8. [8]

    upon tuning the DQD from the (1,1) to the (0,2) charge configuration. In its conventional implementa- tion, the spin-dependent tunneling between the (1,1) and (0,2) charge states results in a blockade for triplet con- figurations, while singlet states hybridize with (0,2) and arXiv:2603.07806v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 8 Mar 2026 2 can tunnel. This spin-to-cha...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Loss and D

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

    1998

  10. [10]

    Hanson, L

    R. Hanson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Spins in few-electron quan- tum dots, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 1217 (2007)

    2007

  11. [11]

    Takeda, T

    Y.-H.Wu, L.C.Camenzind, P.Bütler, I.K.Jin, A.Noiri, K. Takeda, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, G. Scap- pucci, H.-S. Goan, and S. Tarucha, Simultaneous high- fidelity single-qubit gates in a spin qubit array (2025), arXiv:2507.11918 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Huang, C

    W. Huang, C. H. Yang, K. W. Chan, T. Tanttu, B. Hensen, R. C. C. Leon, M. A. Fogarty, J. C. C. Hwang, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, A. Laucht, and A. S. Dzurak, Fidelity benchmarks for two-qubit gates in silicon, Nature569, 532 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

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

    2021

  14. [14]

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

    2004

  15. [15]

    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, Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor quantum dots, Science 309, 2180 (2005)

    2005

  16. [16]

    F. H. L. Koppens, C. Buizert, K. J. Tielrooij, I. T. Vink, K. C. Nowack, T. Meunier, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Driven coherent oscillations of a single electron spin in a quantum dot, Nature442, 766 (2006)

    2006

  17. [17]

    Yoneda, K

    J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M. R. Delbecq, G. Allison, T. Honda, T. Kodera, S. Oda, Y. Hoshi, N. Usami, K. M. Itoh, and S. Tarucha, A quantum-dot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%, Nature Nanotech- nology13, 102 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Zhang, E

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

    2025

  19. [19]

    J. P. Dehollain, U. Mukhopadhyay, V. P. Michal, Y. Wang, B. Wunsch, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, M. S. Rudner, E. Demler, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nagaoka ferromagnetism observed in a quantum dot plaquette, Nature579, 528 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold, Nature601, 343 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Steinacker, N

    P. Steinacker, N. D. Stuyck, W. H. Lim, T. Tanttu, M. Feng, S. Serrano, A. Nickl, M. Candido, J. D. Ci- fuentes, E. Vahapoglu, S. K. Bartee, F. E. Hudson, K. W. Chan, S. Kubicek, J. Jussot, Y. Canvel, S. Beyne, Y. Shimura, R. Loo, C. Godfrin, B. Raes, S. Baudot, D. Wan, A. Laucht, C. H. Yang, A. Saraiva, C. C. Escott, K. D. Greve, and A. S. Dzurak, Indust...

    2025

  22. [22]

    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, B. P. Wuetz, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in sil- icon, Nature609, 919 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    I. F. de Fuentes, E. Raymenants, B. Undseth, O. Pietx- Casas, S. Philips, M. Mądzik, S. de Snoo, S. Amitonov, L. Tryputen, A. Schmitz, A. Matsuura, G. Scappucci, and L. Vandersypen, Running a six-qubit quantum cir- cuit on a silicon spin-qubit array, PRX Quantum7, 010308 (2026)

    2026

  24. [24]

    N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, M. Russ, F. van Rigge- len, S. L. de Snoo, R. N. Schouten, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, A four-qubit germanium quan- tum processor, Nature591, 580 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    Veldhorst, J

    M. Veldhorst, J. C. C. Hwang, C. H. Yang, A. W. Leen- stra, 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 Nanotechnology9, 981 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    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, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, A two-qubit logic gate in silicon, Nature526, 410 (2015)

    2015

  27. [27]

    C. J. van Diepen, T.-K. Hsiao, U. Mukhopadhyay, C. Re- ichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Quan- tum simulation of antiferromagnetic heisenberg chain withgate-definedquantumdots,Phys.Rev.X11,041025 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Hsiao, P

    T.-K. Hsiao, P. Cova Fariña, S. D. Oosterhout, D. Jirovec, X. Zhang, C. J. van Diepen, W. I. L. Lawrie, C.-A. Wang, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, E. Demler, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Exciton trans- 15 port in a germanium quantum dot ladder, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011048 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    van Riggelen, W

    F. van Riggelen, W. I. L. Lawrie, M. Russ, N. W. Hen- drickx, A. Sammak, M. Rispler, B. M. Terhal, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, Phase flip code with semicon- ductor spin qubits, npj Quantum Information8, 124 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    Takeda, A

    K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, and S. Tarucha, Quantum error correction with silicon spin qubits, Nature608, 682 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Undseth, N

    B. Undseth, N. Meggiato, Y.-H. Wu, S. R. Katiraee- Far, L. Tryputen, S. L. de Snoo, D. D. Esposti, G. Scappucci, E. Greplová, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Weight-four parity checks with silicon spin qubits (2026), arXiv:2601.23267 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Mills, C

    A. Mills, C. Guinn, M. Feldman, A. Sigillito, M. Gullans, M. Rakher, J. Kerckhoff, C. Jackson, and J. Petta, High- fidelity state preparation, quantum control, and readout of an isotopically enriched silicon spin qubit, Physical Review Applied18, 064028 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    A. M. J. Zwerver, T. Krähenmann, T. F. Watson, L. Lampert, H. C. George, R. Pillarisetty, S. A. Bojarski, P. Amin, S. V. Amitonov, J. M. Boter, R. Caudillo, D. Correas-Serrano, J. P. Dehollain, G. Droulers, E. M. Henry, R. Kotlyar, M. Lodari, F. Lüthi, D. J. Michalak, B. K. Mueller, S. Neyens, J. Roberts, N. Samkharadze, G. Zheng, O. K. Zietz, G. Scappucc...

    2022

  34. [34]

    J. T. Muhonen, J. P. Dehollain, A. Laucht, F. E. Hud- son, 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 Nanotechnology9, 986 (2014)

    2014

  35. [35]

    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, and A. Morello, Bell’s inequal- ity violation with spins in silicon, Nature Nanotechnology 11, 242 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Yoneda, W

    J. Yoneda, W. Huang, M. Feng, C. H. Yang, K. W. Chan, T. Tanttu, W. Gilbert, R. C. C. Leon, F. E. Hud- son, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, S. D. Bartlett, A. Laucht, A. Saraiva, and A. S. Dzurak, Coherent spin qubit trans- port in silicon, Nature Communications12, 4114 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    A. M. Tyryshkin, S. Tojo, J. J. L. Morton, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, T. Schenkel, M. L. W. Thewalt, K. M. Itoh, and S. A. Lyon, Electron spin coherence exceeding seconds in high-purity silicon, Nature Materials11, 143 (2012)

    2012

  38. [38]

    K. M. Itoh and H. Watanabe, Isotope engineering of sil- icon and diamond for quantum computing and sensing applications, MRS Communications4, 143 (2014)

    2014

  39. [39]

    Urdampilleta, D

    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. D. Franceschi, M. Vinet, and T. Meu- nier, Gate-based high fidelity spin readout in a CMOS device, Nature Nanotechnology14, 737 (2019)

    2019

  40. [40]

    Crippa, R

    A. Crippa, R. Ezzouch, A. Aprá, A. Amisse, R. Lav- iéville, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, M. Vinet, M. Urdampil- leta, T. Meunier, M. Sanquer, X. Jehl, R. Maurand, and S. D. Franceschi, Gate-reflectometry dispersive readout and coherent control of a spin qubit in silicon, Nature Communications10, 2776 (2019)

    2019

  41. [41]

    Neyens, O

    S. Neyens, O. K. Zietz, T. F. Watson, F. Luthi, A. Neth- wewala, H. C. George, E. Henry, M. Islam, A. J. Wag- ner, F. Borjans, E. J. Connors, J. Corrigan, M. J. Curry, D. Keith, R. Kotlyar, L. F. Lampert, M. T. Mądzik, K. Millard, F. A. Mohiyaddin, S. Pellerano, R. Pil- larisetty, M. Ramsey, R. Savytskyy, S. Schaal, G. Zheng, J. Ziegler, N. C. Bishop, S. ...

    2024

  42. [42]

    H. C. George, M. T. Mądzik, E. M. Henry, A. J. Wag- ner, M. M. Islam, F. Borjans, E. J. Connors, J. Corrigan, M. Curry, M. K. Harper, D. Keith, L. Lampert, F. Luthi, F.A.Mohiyaddin, S.Murcia, R.Nair, R.Nahm, A.Neth- wewala, S. Neyens, B. Patra, R. D. Raharjo, C. Rogan, R. Savytskyy, T. F. Watson, J. Ziegler, O. K. Zietz, S. Pellerano, R. Pillarisetty, N. ...

    2025

  43. [43]

    M. T. Mądzik, F. Luthi, G. G. Guerreschi, F. A. Mo- hiyaddin, F. Borjans, J. D. Chadwick, M. J. Curry, J. Ziegler, S. Atanasov, P. L. Bavdaz, E. J. Connors, J. Corrigan, H. E. Ercan, R. Flory, H. C. George, B. Harpt, E. Henry, M. M. Islam, N. Khammassi, D. Keith, L. F. Lampert, T. M. Mladenov, R. W. Mor- ris, A. Nethwewala, S. Neyens, R. Otten, L. P. O. I...

    2025

  44. [44]

    Kotekar-Patil, A

    D. Kotekar-Patil, A. Corna, R. Maurand, A. Crippa, A. Orlov, S. Barraud, L. Hutin, M. Vinet, X. Jehl, S. D. Franceschi, and M. Sanquer, Pauli spin blockade in CMOS double quantum dot devices, physica status solidi (b)254, 10.1002/pssb.201600581 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1002/pssb.201600581 2017

  45. [45]

    Maurand, X

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

    2016

  46. [46]

    S. M. Patomäki, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, M. A. Fogarty, Z. Cai, S. C. Benjamin, and J. J. L. Morton, Pipeline quantum processor architecture for silicon spin qubits, npj Quantum Information10, 31 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    K. Ono, D. G. Austing, Y. Tokura, and S. Tarucha, Cur- rent rectification by pauli exclusion in a weakly coupled double quantum dot system, Science297, 1313 (2002)

    2002

  48. [48]

    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-qubit control with a milli-kelvin CMOS chip, Nature643, 382 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    J. M. Boter, J. P. Dehollain, J. P. van Dijk, Y. Xu, T. Hensgens, R. Versluis, H. W. Naus, J. S. Clarke, M. Veldhorst, F. Sebastiano, and L. M. Vandersypen, Spiderweb array: A sparse spin-qubit array, Physical Re- view Applied18, 024053 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    Pataki and A

    D. Pataki and A. Pályi, Compiling the surface code to crossbarspinqubitarchitectures,PhysicalReviewB111, 115307 (2025). 16

    2025

  51. [51]

    Ishihara, A

    L.M.K.Vandersypen, H.Bluhm, J.S.Clarke, A.S.Dzu- rak, R. Ishihara, A. Morello, D. J. Reilly, L. R. Schreiber, and M. Veldhorst, Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, dense, and coherent, npj Quan- tum Information3, 34 (2017)

    2017

  52. [52]

    Künne, A

    M. Künne, A. Willmes, M. Oberländer, C. Gorjaew, J. D. Teske, H. Bhardwaj, M. Beer, E. Kammerloher, R. Ot- ten, I. Seidler, R. Xue, L. R. Schreiber, and H. Bluhm, The SpinBus architecture for scaling spin qubits with electron shuttling, Nature Communications15, 4977 (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    Nurizzo, B

    M. Nurizzo, B. Jadot, P.-A. Mortemousque, V. Thiney, E. Chanrion, D. Niegemann, M. Dartiailh, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, C. Bäuerle, M. Urdampilleta, and T. Me- unier, Complete readout of two-electron spin states in a double quantum dot, PRX Quantum4, 010329 (2023)

    2023

  54. [54]

    J. Y. Huang, R. Y. Su, W. H. Lim, M. Feng, B. van Straaten, B. Severin, W. Gilbert, N. D. Stuyck, T. Tanttu, S. Serrano, J. D. Cifuentes, I. Hansen, A. E. Seedhouse, E. Vahapoglu, R. C. C. Leon, N. V. Abrosi- mov, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, F. E. Hudson, C. C. Escott, N. Ares, S. D. Bartlett, A. Morello, A. Saraiva, A. Laucht, A. S. Dzurak, and C. H. Y...

    2024

  55. [55]

    Schleser, E

    R. Schleser, E. Ruh, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, D. C. Driscoll, and A. C. Gossard, Time-resolved detection of individual electrons in a quantum dot, Applied Physics Letters85, 2005 (2004)

    2005

  56. [56]

    achieved three-state discrimination in a Si device, us- ing a single electron box charge sensor, and implementing state discrimination using a hidden Markov model. In this work, we propose, model, and quantitatively analyze a method to discriminate the four spin states in PSB readout, by measuring the quantum capacitance of the DQD with gate reflectometry...

  57. [57]

    D. J. Reilly, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Fast single-charge sensing with a rf quantum pointcontact,AppliedPhysicsLetters91,162101(2007)

    2007

  58. [58]

    Barthel, M

    C. Barthel, M. Kjærgaard, J. Medford, M. Stopa, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Fast sensing of double-dot charge arrangement and spin state with a radio-frequency sensor quantum dot, Physical Review B 81, 161308 (2010)

    2010

  59. [59]

    T. M. Buehler, D. J. Reilly, R. P. Starrett, A. D. Green- tree, A. R. Hamilton, A. S. Dzurak, and R. G. Clark, Single-shot readout with the radio-frequency single- electron transistor in the presence of charge noise, Ap- plied Physics Letters86, 143117 (2005)

    2005

  60. [60]

    W. Jang, J. Kim, M.-K. Cho, H. Chung, S. Park, J. Eom, V. Umansky, Y. Chung, and D. Kim, Robust energy- selective tunneling readout of singlet-triplet qubits under large magnetic field gradient, npj Quantum Information 6, 64 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    Mizuta, R

    R. Mizuta, R. M. Otxoa, A. C. Betz, and M. F. Gonzalez- Zalba, Quantum and tunneling capacitance in charge and spin qubits, Physical Review B95, 045414 (2017)

    2017

  62. [62]

    V. N. Ciriano-Tejel, M. A. Fogarty, S. Schaal, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, L. Ibberson, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, J. Li, Y.-M. Niquet, M. Vinet, and J. J. Morton, Spin readout of a CMOS quantum dot by gate reflectometry and spin- dependent tunneling, PRX Quantum2, 010353 (2021)

    2021

  63. [63]

    Lainé, G

    C. Lainé, G. A. Oakes, V. Ciriano-Tejel, J. F. Chittock- Wood, L. Peri, M. A. Fogarty, S. M. Patomäki, S. Ku- bicek, D. F. Wise, R. C. C. Leon, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, and J. J. L. Morton, High-fidelity dispersive spin sens- ing in a tuneable unit cell of silicon MOS quantum dots (2025), arXiv:2505.10435 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    J. I. Colless, A. C. Mahoney, J. M. Hornibrook, A. C. Doherty, H. Lu, A. C. Gossard, and D. J. Reilly, Disper- sive readout of a few-electron double quantum dot with fast rf gate sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 046805 (2013)

    2013

  65. [65]

    A. West, B. Hensen, A. Jouan, T. Tanttu, C.-H. Yang, A. Rossi, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, F. Hudson, A. Morello, D. J. Reilly, and A. S. Dzurak, Gate-based single-shot readout of spins in silicon, Nature Nanotechnology14, 437 (2019)

    2019

  66. [66]

    E. J. Connors, J. Nelson, and J. M. Nichol, Rapid high- fidelity spin-state readout inSi/Si-Gequantum dots via rf reflectometry, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 024019 (2020)

    2020

  67. [67]

    Vigneau, F

    F. Vigneau, F. Fedele, A. Chatterjee, D. Reilly, F. Kuem- meth, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, E. Laird, and N. Ares, Probingquantumdeviceswithradio-frequencyreflectom- etry, Applied Physics Reviews10, 021305 (2023)

    2023

  68. [68]

    Scherübl, A

    Z. Scherübl, A. Pályi, G. Frank, I. E. Lukács, G. Fülöp, B. Fülöp, J. Nygård, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Zaránd, and S. Csonka, Observation of spin–orbit cou- pling induced Weyl points in a two-electron double quan- tum dot, Communications Physics2, 108 (2019)

    2019

  69. [69]

    Esterli, R

    M. Esterli, R. M. Otxoa, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Small-signal equivalent circuit for double quantum dots at low-frequencies, Applied Physics Letters114, 253505 (2019)

    2019

  70. [70]

    L. Peri, M. Benito, C. J. B. Ford, and M. F. Gonzalez- Zalba, Unified linear response theory of quantum elec- tronic circuits, npj Quantum Information10, 114 (2024)

    2024

  71. [71]

    Rossi, Gate-based spin readout ofholequantumdotswithsite-dependentg-factors,Phys

    A.Russell, A.Zotov, R.Zhao, A.S.Dzurak, M.Fernando Gonzalez-Zalba, and A. Rossi, Gate-based spin readout ofholequantumdotswithsite-dependentg-factors,Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044039 (2023)

    2023

  72. [72]

    Zheng, N

    G. Zheng, N. Samkharadze, M. L. Noordam, N. Kalhor, D. Brousse, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Rapid gate-based spin read-out in silicon using an on-chip resonator, Nature Nanotechnology14, 742 (2019)

    2019

  73. [73]

    A.Pfund, I.Shorubalko, K.Ensslin,andR.Leturcq,Sup- pression of spin relaxation in an InAs nanowire double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 036801 (2007)

    2007

  74. [74]

    Danon and Y

    J. Danon and Y. V. Nazarov, Pauli spin blockade in the presence of strong spin-orbit coupling, Physical Review B80, 041301 (2009)

    2009

  75. [75]

    J. M. Taylor, J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, A. Yacoby, C. M. Marcus, and M. D. Lukin, Relaxation, dephasing, and quantum control of electron spins in double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B76, 035315 (2007)

    2007

  76. [76]

    A. Sen, G. Frank, B. Kolok, J. Danon, and A. Pályi, Clas- sification and magic magnetic field directions for spin- orbit-coupled double quantum dots, Physical Review B 108, 245406 (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    Lundberg, D

    T. Lundberg, D. J. Ibberson, J. Li, L. Hutin, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, M. Filippone, B. Bertrand, A. Nun- nenkamp, C.-M. Lee, N. Stelmashenko, J. W. A. Robin- son, M. Vinet, L. Ibberson, Y.-M. Niquet, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Non-symmetric Pauli spin blockade in a silicon double quantum dot, npj Quantum Information 10, 28 (2024)

    2024

  78. [78]

    von Horstig, L

    F.-E. von Horstig, L. Peri, V. N. Ciriano-Tejel, S. Bar- raud, J. A. W. Robinson, M. Benito, F. Martins, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Electrical readout of spins in the absence of spin blockade, npj Quantum Information11, 155 (2025)

    2025

  79. [79]

    O. N. Jouravlev and Y. V. Nazarov, Electron transport 17 in a double quantum dot governed by a nuclear magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 176804 (2006)

    2006

  80. [80]

    Pioro-Ladrière, T

    M. Pioro-Ladrière, T. Obata, Y. Tokura, Y. S. Shin, T.Kubo, K.Yoshida, T.Taniyama,andS.Tarucha,Elec- trically driven single-electron spin resonance in a slanting zeeman field, Nature Physics4, 776 (2008)

    2008

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.