pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.00232 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-31 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · quant-ph

Directly visualizing the energy level structure of quantum dot molecules

Heun Mo Yoo , Tanner M. Janda , Connor Nasseraddin , Jason R. Petta This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:17 UTC · model gemini-3-flash-preview

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph PACS 73.21.La03.67.Lx73.63.Kv
keywords Silicon quantum dotsDouble quantum dotsPulsed-gate spectroscopyValley splittingZeeman effectSinglet-triplet splitting
0
0 comments X

The pith

Researchers have developed a spectroscopy method to directly map the energy levels of silicon quantum dot molecules as they are tuned by electrical and magnetic fields.

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

Silicon quantum dots are the building blocks for spin qubits, but understanding their internal energy levels usually requires piecing together indirect measurements. This paper establishes a pulsed-gate spectroscopy method that provides a clear, visual map of these energy levels as they shift with electrical and magnetic controls. By watching how states split and merge, researchers can see individual electrons transition from being isolated on one dot to sharing space across a molecular structure. This visibility is essential for tuning qubits and understanding the complex interaction between electron spin and the silicon crystal lattice.

Core claim

The authors demonstrate a pulsed-gate spectroscopy technique that maps the energy level spectrum of a double quantum dot system across a continuous range of detuning and interdot tunnel coupling. They successfully visualize the formation of bonding and anti-bonding molecular states from isolated atomic orbitals in the single-electron regime. Furthermore, the method resolves fine-scale features like valley splitting and Zeeman shifts, as well as the singlet-triplet energy gap in the two-electron regime, providing a comprehensive experimental picture of the system's energy structure.

What carries the argument

Pulsed-gate spectroscopy, a technique that applies rapid voltage pulses to the quantum dot gates to cycle the system through different charge states while a nearby sensing dot detects electron transitions. This allows the researchers to probe excited states that are normally inaccessible in steady-state measurements by capturing them before they relax.

If this is right

  • Qubit tuning can be automated by directly measuring the exchange energy and tunnel coupling instead of inferring them from transport data.
  • The method allows for the precise identification of 'sweet spots' where qubits are less sensitive to electrical noise.
  • It provides a direct way to characterize valley-orbit coupling in silicon, which is a primary source of qubit decoherence.
  • The technique can be applied to other semiconductor systems, including materials with strong spin-orbit coupling or topological properties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This level of visibility could enable real-time hardware feedback loops where control voltages are adjusted automatically to maintain specific energy gaps as the environment drifts.
  • Mapping the transition from 'atom' to 'molecule' suggests this technique could be used to calibrate larger quantum simulators built from arrays of many dots.

Load-bearing premise

The sensing dot and the pulse sequence must remain faster than the natural relaxation rates of the excited states, or the signal from those states will disappear before it can be recorded.

What would settle it

The accuracy of the method would be invalidated if the measured energy gaps failed to match the tunnel coupling extracted from independent direct-current transport measurements.

read the original abstract

The orbital, spin and valley degrees of freedom in silicon quantum dots support many modes of spin qubit operation. However, it is generally challenging to obtain information about the energy level spectrum over large ranges of parameter space. We demonstrate a form of spectroscopy that is capable of mapping the energy level structure of a double quantum dot as a function of level detuning, interdot tunnel coupling, and magnetic field. In the one electron regime, we directly observe the transition from the atom like energy levels of isolated quantum dots to molecular like bonding and anti bonding states with increasing interdot tunnel coupling. We also resolve the Zeeman splitting of ground and excited valley states in a magnetic field. In the two electron regime, we gain access to the detuning dependent singlet triplet splitting. Our work may be extended to a broader class of systems, such as strong spin-orbit materials or proximitized quantum dots, allowing the direct extraction of various energy gaps.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a pulsed-gate spectroscopy technique applied to Si/SiGe double quantum dots (DQDs) to map their energy level structure in the one-electron and two-electron regimes. The authors demonstrate the ability to visualize the evolution of energy levels from isolated atoms to molecular bonding/anti-bonding states as a function of interdot tunnel coupling. Furthermore, they resolve valley splitting and Zeeman effects in the 1e regime and singlet-triplet transitions in the 2e regime. By converting gate voltage detuning to energy via measured lever arms, they provide quantitative extractions of the tunnel coupling ($t_c$), valley splitting ($E_v$), and the singlet-triplet exchange energy ($J$).

Significance. The work provides a comprehensive and high-resolution mapping of the DQD Hamiltonian parameters, which are critical for the operation and scaling of spin qubits in silicon. A significant strength is the experimental demonstration of the transition from atomic to molecular regimes, visualized with high signal-to-noise ratio. The use of pulsed spectroscopy to bypass the constraints of thermal broadening and lead-tunneling limitations is a robust methodology. The reported data provides a clear path for parameter-free validation of theoretical models for valley-orbit coupling and exchange in SiGe systems.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Figure 3] The extraction of the interdot tunnel coupling $2t_c$ from the minimum energy gap in detuning space (Eq. 1) assumes that the pulse-induced signal peaks accurately reflect the underlying chemical potential resonances. As noted in similar pulsed spectroscopy experiments, if the relaxation rate from the anti-bonding to bonding state ($\Gamma_{rel}$) is comparable to or faster than the lead-tunneling rate ($\Gamma_{in/out}$), the time-averaged occupancy change $\Delta I_{SD}$ can be systematically suppressed or shifted. The authors should provide an estimate of the relaxation rates relative to their pulse durations and lead-tunneling rates to confirm that no 'peak-pulling' or kinetic shifts bias the extracted $t_c$ values.
  2. [§II and §V, Lever Arm Calibration] The energy scale depends entirely on the conversion of gate voltage to energy using the lever arm $\alpha$. While the authors mention standard charge stability diagram calibration, the accuracy of this calibration over the large detuning ranges shown (e.g., Fig. 2e, spanning >100 mV) is critical. The authors should specify if a constant $\alpha$ is used or if they account for potential gate-voltage dependence of the lever arm, which could introduce non-linearities in the extracted energy gaps like $\Delta_{ST}$.
  3. [§IV, Figure 4c] The extraction of valley splitting $E_v$ and the valley-Zeeman effect is a highlight. However, in Fig. 4c, the transitions for different magnetic fields show varying intensities. The authors should clarify if the 'disappearance' of certain excited state transitions at specific magnetic fields is due to relaxation effects (e.g., a T1 bottleneck) or if it arises from changes in the sensing dot sensitivity at different magnet field setpoints.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 3(d)] The labels for the bonding and anti-bonding states are clear, but the dashed lines representing the fit to Eq. (1) would benefit from the inclusion of the specific $t_c$ value used for the fit in the legend or caption for easier reader reference.
  2. [§V, Singlet-Triplet] When discussing the S-T splitting, the authors mention 'residual exchange.' It would be beneficial to explicitly state the assumed origin (e.g., magnetic field gradient vs. tunnel coupling) to contextualize the fit in Fig. 5.
  3. [General] There are minor inconsistent uses of 'dot 1' versus 'left dot' in the text; standardizing this would improve flow.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment and for highlighting the significance of our visualization of the atomic-to-molecular transition in silicon double quantum dots. The report provides constructive suggestions regarding the quantitative accuracy of our energy mapping. We have addressed the concerns regarding relaxation-induced peak shifts, the linearity of the lever arm calibration over large detuning ranges, and the variations in signal intensity observed in magnetic field sweeps. The following revisions clarify the experimental constraints and the robustness of our extracted parameters.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The extraction of the interdot tunnel coupling 2tc from the minimum energy gap in detuning space (Eq. 1) assumes that the pulse-induced signal peaks accurately reflect the underlying chemical potential resonances. ... The authors should provide an estimate of the relaxation rates relative to their pulse durations and lead-tunneling rates to confirm that no 'peak-pulling' or kinetic shifts bias the extracted tc values.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the kinetic competition between lead tunneling (Γ_in/out) and interdot relaxation (Γ_rel) can potentially shift peak positions. In our setup, the lead tunneling rates are typically 100-500 kHz, while the 'measure' stage of our pulse is 50-100 μs. This duration is significantly longer than the time required to reach a quasi-steady state (1/Γ_in/out ≈ 2-10 μs). We have verified through pulse-width-dependent measurements (now detailed in the Supplemental Material) that the peak centers for both bonding and anti-bonding states remain stationary as the measure time is varied. While fast interdot relaxation reduces the absolute magnitude of the anti-bonding signal, it does not shift the resonant detuning point in this quasi-steady-state regime. We have added a discussion of these rate hierarchies to Section III to justify the accuracy of the extracted 2t_c. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The energy scale depends entirely on the conversion of gate voltage to energy using the lever arm α. While the authors mention standard charge stability diagram calibration, the accuracy of this calibration over the large detuning ranges shown (e.g., Fig. 2e, spanning >100 mV) is critical. The authors should specify if a constant α is used or if they account for potential gate-voltage dependence of the lever arm.

    Authors: We initially used a constant lever arm α = 0.12 eV/V, calibrated via the temperature broadening of the charge transitions and cross-referenced with the known Zeeman splitting ($g \approx 2$). To address the concern about non-linearity over the 100 mV detuning range, we performed 'local' lever arm calibrations at three different points along the detuning axis. We found that α varies by less than 2.8% across the full range used in Fig. 2. For the singlet-triplet exchange energy ($J$) and valley splitting measurements, which occur over much narrower voltage ranges (~15-25 mV), this variation is negligible. We have revised Section II and Section V to include these calibration details and have added error bars to our energy extractions that account for this minor non-linearity. revision: yes

  3. Referee: In Fig. 4c, the transitions for different magnetic fields show varying intensities. The authors should clarify if the 'disappearance' of certain excited state transitions at specific magnetic fields is due to relaxation effects (e.g., a T1 bottleneck) or if it arises from changes in the sensing dot sensitivity at different magnet field setpoints.

    Authors: The variation in signal intensity in Fig. 4c is primarily caused by changes in the sensitivity of the SET charge sensor as the magnetic field is ramped. Although we compensate the SET gate to maintain operation on the slope of a Coulomb peak, the maximum transconductance of the SET itself fluctuates as its own internal energy levels shift with the magnetic field. While $T_1$ spin relaxation times are also magnetic-field dependent, our pulse cycle is designed to be slow enough to ensure that we are not significantly affected by a $T_1$ bottleneck for the specific transitions shown. We have added a clarifying statement to Section IV explaining that the sensor sensitivity drift is the dominant cause of the intensity variations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper presents an experimental methodology for characterizing the energy levels of double quantum dots using pulsed-gate spectroscopy. The derivation chain proceeds from raw sensing-dot current measurements through standard gate-to-energy calibrations (lever arms) to the extraction of physical parameters ($t_c$, $\Delta_V$, $\Delta_{ST}$) via fits to established Hamiltonian models. The use of lever arms ($α$-factors) derived from standard DC charge stability diagrams to calibrate the energy scale is a standard independent calibration technique in the field and does not constitute circularity. The authors' claim of 'direct visualization' is a descriptive characterization of the high-resolution mapping achieved, where the energy level structure is observed as an empirical signal rather than being derived from the inputs by definition. The extraction of tunnel coupling and valley splitting from the resulting dispersion curves follows standard experimental physics practices, and the results are validated against independent external parameters like the magnetic field. While experimental systematic errors (such as potential peak shifts due to relaxation rates mentioned by the reader) could affect the accuracy of the extracted values, the underlying logic is a self-contained experimental characterization and not a circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper operates within the standard theoretical framework of mesoscopic physics and semiconductor quantum dots.

free parameters (2)
  • lever arm (alpha-factor) = various
    Used to convert gate voltage space into energy space; determined from the geometry of charge stability honeycombs.
  • interdot tunnel coupling (tc) = fitted
    The energy gap at the (1,0)-(0,1) transition point used to define the molecular bonding strength.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Constant Interaction Model
    Standard model for describing energy levels in quantum dots where charging energy is constant.
  • domain assumption Hund's Rules in DQDs
    Assumes electrons fill states in a manner consistent with spin-valley shells in silicon.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 7097 in / 1567 out tokens · 31139 ms · 2026-05-08T02:17:54.172961+00:00 · methodology

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

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Government

    The views and conclusions contained in this doc- ument are those of the authors and should not be in- terpreted as representing the official policies, either ex- pressed or implied, of the Army Research Office or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government pur- poses notwithstanding any copyri...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Loss and D

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

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. Laird, A. Ya- coby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Coherent manipulation of coupled elec- tron spins in semiconductor quantum dots., Science309, 2180 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Medford, J

    J. Medford, J. Beil, J. M. Taylor, E. I. Rashba, H. Lu, A. C. Gossard, and C. M. Marcus, Quantum-dot-based resonant exchange qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 050501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    T. H. Oosterkamp, T. Fujisawa, W. G. van der Wiel, K. Ishibashi, R. V. Hijman, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Microwave spectroscopy of a quantum-dot molecule, Nature395, 873 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Manipulation of a single charge in a double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 186802 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    J. V. Koski, A. J. Landig, M. Russ, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, P. Scarlino, B. Kratochwil, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, G. Burkard, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, A. Wallraff, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Strong photon coupling to the quadrupole moment of an electron in a solid-state qubit, Nat. Phys,16, 642 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Burkard, T

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

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    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)

    work page 2006

  10. [10]

    Hayashi, T

    T. Hayashi, T. Fujisawa, H. D. Cheong, Y. H. Jeong, and Y. Hirayama, Coherent manipulation of electronic states in a double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 226804 (2003)

    work page 2003

  11. [11]

    Benito, X

    M. Benito, X. Croot, C. Adelsberger, S. Putz, X. Mi, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Electric-field control and noise protection of the flopping-mode spin qubit, Phys. Rev. B100, 125430 (2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    X. G. Croot, X. Mi, S. Putz, M. Benito, F. Borjans, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, Flopping-mode electric dipole spin resonance, Phys. Rev. Research2, 012006(R) (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    M. D. Shulman, O. E. Dial, S. P. Harvey, H. Bluhm, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Demonstration of entangle- ment of electrostatically coupled singlet-triplet qubits., Science336, 202 (2012)

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    J. M. Nichol, L. A. Orona, S. P. Harvey, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, and A. Yacoby, High-fidelity en- tangling gate for double-quantum-dot spin qubits, npj Quant. Info.3, 3 (2017)

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    D. Kim, Z. Shi, C. B. Simmons, D. R. Ward, J. R. Prance, T. S. Koh, J. K. Gamble, D. E. Savage, M. G. La- gally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Quantum control and process tomography of a semicon- ductor quantum dot hybrid qubit, Nature511, 70 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Z. Shi, C. B. Simmons, D. R. Ward, J. R. Prance, X. Wu, T. S. Koh, J. K. Gamble, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Fast coherent manipulation of three-electron states in a double quantum dot, Nat. Commun.5, 3020 (2014)

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Cao, H.-O

    G. Cao, H.-O. Li, G.-D. Yu, B.-C. Wang, B.-B. Chen, X.-X. Song, M. Xiao, G.-C. Guo, H.-W. Jiang, X. Hu, and G.-P. Guo, Tunable Hybrid Qubit in a GaAs Double Quantum Dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 086801 (2016)

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    L. P. Kouwenhoven, T. H. Oosterkamp, M. W. S. Danoe- sastro, M. Eto, D. G. Austing, T. Honda, and S. Tarucha, Excitation spectra of circular, few-electron quantum dots, Science278, 1788 (1997)

    work page 1997

  19. [19]

    Sapmaz, P

    S. Sapmaz, P. Jarillo-Herrero, J. Kong, C. Dekker, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and H. S. J. van der Zant, Electronic ex- citation spectrum of metallic carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B71, 153402 (2005)

    work page 2005

  20. [20]

    K. Ono, D. G. Austing, Y. Tokura, and S. Tarucha, Cur- rent Rectification by Pauli Exclusion in a Weakly Cou- pled Double Quantum Dot System, Science297, 1313 (2002)

    work page 2002

  21. [21]

    Sapmaz, C

    S. Sapmaz, C. Meyer, P. Beliczynski, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Excited state spectroscopy in carbon nanotube double quantum dots, Nano. Lett.6, 1350 (2006)

    work page 2006

  22. [22]

    Thelander, M

    C. Thelander, M. Nilsson, F. Vi˜ nas Bostr¨ om, A. Burke, S. Lehmann, K. A. Dick, and M. Leijnse, Spectroscopy and level detuning of few-electron spin states in parallel inas quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B98, 245305 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    J. M. Elzerman, R. Hanson, L. H. Willems van Beveren, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Excited- state spectroscopy on a nearly closed quantum dot via charge detection, Appl. Phys. Lett.84, 4617 (2004)

    work page 2004

  24. [24]

    X. Mi, C. G. P´ eterfalvi, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, High-resolution valley spectroscopy of si quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 176803 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    E. H. Chen, K. Raach, A. Pan, A. A. Kiselev, E. Acuna, J. Z. Blumoff, T. Brecht, M. D. Choi, W. Ha, D. R. Hulbert, M. P. Jura, T. E. Keating, R. Noah, B. Sun, B. J. Thomas, M. G. Borselli, C. Jackson, M. T. Rakher, and R. S. Ross, Detuning Axis Pulsed Spectroscopy of Valley-Orbital States in Si/Si-Ge Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Applied15, 044033 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Reily, D

    J. Reily, D. J. King, J. C. Marcks, M. A. Wolfe, P. Marciniec, E. S. Joseph, T. J. Kovach, B. X. Coe, M. Friesen, B. D. Woods, and M. A. Eriksson, Direct measurement of the energy spectrum of a quantum dot qubit, arXiv:2603.29229

    work page arXiv

  27. [27]

    Lutchyn, E

    R. Lutchyn, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwen- hoven, P. Krogstrup, C. M. Marcus, and Y. Oreg, Majo- rana zero modes in superconductor–semiconductor het- erostructures, Nat. Rev. Mater.3, 52 (2018)

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Burkard and J

    G. Burkard and J. R. Petta, Dispersive readout of valley splittings in cavity-coupled silicon quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B94, 195305 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Zhao and X

    X. Zhao and X. Hu, Measurement of Tunnel Coupling in a Si Double Quantum dot Based on Charge Sensing, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 064043 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    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, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 064028 (2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    D. M. Zajac, T. M. Hazard, X. Mi, E. Nielsen, and J. R. Petta, Scalable gate architecture for a one-dimensional 9 array of semiconductor spin qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied 6, 054013 (2016)

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    L. M. Roth, g Factor and Donor Spin-Lattice Relaxation for Electrons in Germanium and Silicon, Phys. Rev.118, 1534 (1960)

    work page 1960

  33. [33]

    C. H. Yang, A. Rossi, R. Ruskov, N. S. Lai, F. A. Mo- hiyaddin, S. Lee, C. Tahan, G. Klimeck, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, Spin-valley lifetimes in a silicon quantum dot with tunable valley splitting, Nat. Commun.4, 2069 (2013)

    work page 2069

  34. [34]

    S. G. J. Philips, M. T. Madzik, 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)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, B. Martinez, M. Filippone, and Y.- M. Niquet, Two-body wigner molecularization in asym- metric quantum dot spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B104, 195305 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    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. Madzik, K. Millard, F. A. Mohiyaddin, S. Pellerano, R. Pil- larisetty, M. Ramsey, R. Savytskyy, S. Schaal, G. Zheng, J. Ziegler, N. C. Bishop, S. ...

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    A. R. Mills, D. M. Zajac, M. J. Gullans, F. J. Schupp, T. M. Hazard, and J. R. Petta, Shuttling a single charge across a one-dimensional array of silicon quantum dots, Nat. Commun.10, 1063 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    DiCarlo, H

    L. DiCarlo, H. J. Lynch, A. C. Johnson, L. I. Childress, K. Crockett, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Differential charge sensing and charge delocal- ization in a tunable double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 226801 (2004)

    work page 2004

  39. [39]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, A. Yacoby, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Pulsed-gate mea- surements of the singlet-triplet relaxation time in a two- electron double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B72, 161301 (2005)

    work page 2005