pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24689 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · quant-ph

Singlet-triplet oscillations in multivalley Si double quantum dots

{\L}ukasz Cywi\'nski , Mats Volmer , Tom Struck , Giordano Scappucci , Lars R. Schreiber This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 02:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords silicon quantum dotssinglet-triplet oscillationsvalley splittingspin-valley couplingdouble quantum dotscharge shuttlingPauli blockade
0
0 comments X

The pith

Accounting for multiple valley occupations in silicon double quantum dots modifies the predicted singlet return probability and renormalizes oscillation frequencies at spin-valley resonances.

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

The paper develops expressions for the probability that a singlet state returns after charge separation in a Si/SiGe double quantum dot, incorporating the finite chances that the singlet forms with different combinations of valley states in the two dots. It focuses on regimes where the magnetic-field-induced Zeeman splitting approaches the valley splitting, showing that spin-valley coupling then strongly alters the frequency of singlet-triplet oscillations. The resulting formulas are compared directly with shuttling measurements performed in two distinct heterostructures, yielding information on how g-factors vary with valley index.

Core claim

The authors show that the singlet return probability after shuttling one electron is governed by a superposition over several valley occupation patterns, and that near spin-valley resonance the effective oscillation frequency is renormalized by the spin-valley coupling term, producing characteristic features that match experimental traces in two different Si/SiGe devices.

What carries the argument

Spin-valley coupling that renormalizes the singlet-triplet oscillation frequency when Zeeman energy nears valley splitting.

If this is right

  • Shuttling one dot relative to the other can map spatial variations in valley splitting.
  • The model accounts for the valley dependence of g-factors observed in the structures.
  • Electric-field noise that fluctuates valley splittings adds extra dephasing near the resonances.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Protocols that select a single valley configuration could reduce unwanted mixing during readout.
  • The same resonance physics may limit coherence in other multivalley materials used for spin qubits.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that the experimentally observed valley occupation patterns remain fixed during charge separation and that spin-valley coupling is the dominant cause of the measured frequency shifts.

What would settle it

If the oscillation frequency stays unchanged when Zeeman splitting is tuned through the valley splitting value, the spin-valley coupling explanation for the renormalization would be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24689 by Giordano Scappucci, Lars R. Schreiber, {\L}ukasz Cywi\'nski, Mats Volmer, Tom Struck.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Energies of singlet states (solid lines) and energies of view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Occupations of valley states in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Solid lines: spectrum of Hamiltonian (7) as a function view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Illustration of pathways of getting back from a given view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. a) Frequencies present in view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Two possible patterns of frequency and magnetic view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fourier transform of the singlet return probabil view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a)-(c): Fourier transform of singlet-return probability measured in a range of magnetic fields in structure from [21, 43] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Fourier transform of singlet return probability as view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: On the other hand, from values given in Ta view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Charge separation from the $(4,0)$ to the $(3,1)$ state in a Si/SiGe double quantum dot is commonly used for initialization of spin qubits and Pauli-spin-blockade readout. It was used in recent experiments involving creation of the $(3,1)$ singlet, and subsequent shuttling of one of the electrons. We present a theoretical description of the process of charge separation and singlet-triplet mixing, arriving at expressions for the singlet return probability that take into account experimentally observed finite probabilities of the creation of singlets with various patterns of valley occupations. In our analysis we focus on magnetic fields for which the electron spin Zeeman splitting is close to the valley splitting in one of the dots, when the spin-valley coupling causes a strong renormalization of the frequency of oscillations of singlet return probability. The latter effect has been recently used to perform valley splitting mapping by shuttling of one quantum dot to various locations with respect to the other. We give a detailed description of singlet-triplet dynamics near these spin-valley resonances and compare the results of calculations with measurements on double quantum dots in two distinct Si/SiGe heterostructures. Comparison of theory with experiments in which the presence of a few valley occupation patterns is visible, gives insight into the valley dependence of $g$-factors in these structures, providing support for a recently proposed theoretical model of this dependence. We also discuss how dephasing of singlet return probability oscillations near the spin-valley resonances is affected by valley splitting fluctuations caused by electric field noise.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a theoretical description of charge separation from the (4,0) to (3,1) state in multivalley Si/SiGe double quantum dots, deriving expressions for the singlet return probability that incorporate finite probabilities for different valley occupation patterns. It focuses on spin-valley resonances where Zeeman splitting approaches valley splitting, explaining frequency renormalization via spin-valley coupling, and compares the model to experimental data from two heterostructures to extract insights on valley-dependent g-factors while analyzing dephasing from electric-field-induced valley fluctuations.

Significance. If the central derivations hold, the work advances understanding of spin-valley dynamics critical for initialization and readout in silicon spin qubits. The explicit treatment of multiple valley patterns as experimental inputs, the perturbation analysis near degeneracy, and direct comparison to data from distinct heterostructures provide concrete support for a valley g-factor model and a practical method for valley splitting mapping via shuttling. The dephasing discussion adds operational relevance.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2, near Eq. (12): the singlet return probability expressions are stated to follow from the spin-valley Hamiltonian under the assumption of specific occupation probabilities; however, the text does not show an explicit derivation of how the effective two-level Hamiltonian is obtained when multiple valley patterns coexist, leaving open whether cross terms between patterns are neglected or averaged.
  2. [§5] §5, Fig. 4: the reported agreement between theory and data for frequency renormalization relies on fitting the valley splitting and g-factor difference; it is unclear whether the extracted parameters are consistent across the two heterostructures or if the model overfits by allowing independent valley patterns per device.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction use 'experimentally observed finite probabilities' without a forward reference to the specific section or figure where these probabilities are extracted from data.
  2. [§2] Notation for the valley occupation states (e.g., |v1 v2>) is introduced in §2 but reused with slight variations in §4; a single consistent table or definition would improve readability.
  3. [§6] The dephasing analysis in §6 invokes electric-field noise but does not quantify the noise spectrum or compare the predicted coherence time to the observed oscillation damping.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment below with clarifications on the derivations and parameter consistency, and will update the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2, near Eq. (12): the singlet return probability expressions are stated to follow from the spin-valley Hamiltonian under the assumption of specific occupation probabilities; however, the text does not show an explicit derivation of how the effective two-level Hamiltonian is obtained when multiple valley patterns coexist, leaving open whether cross terms between patterns are neglected or averaged.

    Authors: The singlet return probability is computed as an incoherent weighted sum over the experimentally observed probabilities of each valley occupation pattern. For each individual pattern the effective two-level Hamiltonian near resonance is obtained by diagonalizing the spin-valley Hamiltonian in the relevant subspace and retaining only the slowly varying terms; cross terms between distinct patterns are omitted because the patterns occupy orthogonal valley states and therefore do not interfere coherently in the ensemble measurement. We agree that the step-by-step reduction to the effective Hamiltonian for the multi-pattern case was not written out explicitly. In the revised manuscript we will add a short appendix that derives the effective Hamiltonian for a single pattern and then shows how the total return probability is assembled as the probability-weighted sum. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5, Fig. 4: the reported agreement between theory and data for frequency renormalization relies on fitting the valley splitting and g-factor difference; it is unclear whether the extracted parameters are consistent across the two heterostructures or if the model overfits by allowing independent valley patterns per device.

    Authors: Fits are performed separately for each heterostructure because valley splittings and g-factors are known to vary between samples. The same theoretical model is used for both devices, and the extracted g-factor differences are consistent with the valley-dependent g-factor model presented in the manuscript. The number of free parameters per fit is limited to the resonance position and the g-factor difference, and the model reproduces the observed resonance locations and oscillation frequencies without additional tuning. To make the consistency explicit we will add a table in the revised manuscript that lists the fitted valley splittings and g-factor differences for both heterostructures side by side. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The central derivations for singlet return probability follow from the standard spin-valley Hamiltonian and time-dependent perturbation theory applied near Zeeman-valley resonances, with valley occupation probabilities explicitly treated as experimental inputs rather than derived or fitted quantities. The model is validated against independent measurements from two distinct Si/SiGe heterostructures, and dephasing effects are analyzed as additive contributions from electric-field noise. No equation reduces to its own inputs by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citation to force the result, and the comparison to data provides external falsifiability. The argument is therefore self-contained within standard quantum mechanics of multivalley double dots.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is incomplete. The work rests on standard quantum mechanics for two-electron systems in double quantum dots and established models of valley splitting and spin-valley coupling in Si/SiGe; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanical description of charge separation and singlet-triplet mixing in double quantum dots
    Invoked for deriving singlet return probability expressions.
  • domain assumption Existence of spin-valley coupling that renormalizes oscillation frequencies near resonance
    Central to the analysis of magnetic field dependence.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5592 in / 1324 out tokens · 53434 ms · 2026-05-08T02:02:50.953791+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

80 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    slow enough

    showed signatures of initialization of more than one S(3,1) state, as the singlet return probability signals for Rdot shuttled for distancedand back contained clear signatures of presence of two frequencies, corresponding to two distinct spatial dependencies ofg-factors of the shuttled qubit. In this Section we focus on the possi- ble reasons for initiali...

    2000

  2. [2]

    dominant

    (for more discussion see Sec. VI B). Consequently, an always–present 1/fcharge noise leads to quasi-static fluctuations ofE D V . The singlet return probability in each individual mea- surement is then calculated for Zeeman and valley split- tings given byE D Z +δE D Z andE D V +δE D V , and then an average over Gaussian distributions of all these parame-...

  3. [3]

    The ratiop 1/p2 ≈10 17 is much larger that in the other structure, and as noted beforep 1/p3(4) ≈100

    and in the one studied in [43]). The ratiop 1/p2 ≈10 17 is much larger that in the other structure, and as noted beforep 1/p3(4) ≈100. This shows that the effects of non- adiabaticity during charge separation are weaker in this structure, suggesting larger values oft µν - although the presence of 4 components in the fit to the signal shows that all the va...

    2004

  4. [4]

    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%, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 102 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Struck, A

    T. Struck, A. Hollmann, F. Schauer, O. Fedorets, A. Schmidbauer, K. Sawano, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosi- mov, L. Cywi´ nski, D. Bougeard, and L. R. Schreiber, Low-frequency spin qubit detuning noise in highly puri- fied 28si/sige, npj Quantum Inf.6, 40 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Struck, J

    T. Struck, J. Lindner, A. Hollmann, F. Schauer, A. Schmidbauer, D. Bougeard, and L. R. Schreiber, Ro- bust and fast post-processing of single-shot spin qubit detection events with a neural network, Sci. Rep.11, 16203 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Noiri, K

    A. Noiri, K. Takeda, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and S. Tarucha, Fast universal quan- tum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon, Nature601, 338 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    A. R. Mills, C. R. Guinn, M. J. Gullans, A. J. Sigillito, M. M. Feldman, E. Nielsen, and J. R. Petta, Two-qubit silicon quantum processor with operation fidelity exceed- ing 99%, Sci. Adv.8, eabn5130 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

    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, 19 Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in sil- icon, Nature609, 919 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    I. F. de Fuentes, E. Raymenants, B. Undseth, O. Pietx- Casas, S. Philips, M. Madzik, S. L. de Snoo, S. V. Amitonov, L. Tryputen, A. T. Schmitz, A. Y. Matsuura, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Running a six-qubit quantum circuit on a silicon spin qubit array, arXiv:2505.19200 10.48550/arXiv.2505.19200 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.19200 2024

  12. [12]

    Y. Fang, P. Philippopoulos, D. Culcer, W. A. Coish, and S. Chesi, Recent advances in hole-spin qubits, Mat. Quant. Tech3, 012003 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Borjans, X

    F. Borjans, X. G. Croot, X. Mi, M. J. Gullans, and J. R. Petta, Strong Spin-Photon Coupling in Silicon, Nature 577, 195 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    Samkharadze, G

    N. Samkharadze, G. Zheng, N. Kalhor, D. Brousse, A. Sammak, U. C. Mendes, A. Blais, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Resonant microwave-mediated in- teractions between distant electron spins, Science359, 1123 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Langrock, J

    V. Langrock, J. A. Krzywda, N. Focke, I. Seidler, L. R. Schreiber, and L. Cywi´ nski, Blueprint of a scalable spin qubit shuttle device for coherent mid-range qubit trans- fer in disordered si/sige/sio 2, PRX Quantum4, 020305 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    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. K. Vandersypen, Spiderweb array: A sparse spin-qubit array, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 024053 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    Ginzel, M

    F. Ginzel, M. Fellner, C. Ertler, L. R. Schreiber, H. Bluhm, and W. Lechner, Scalable parity architecture with a shuttling-based spin qubit processor, Phys. Rev. B110, 075302 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    K¨ unne, A

    M. K¨ unne, A. Willmes, M. Oberl¨ ander, 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 elec- tron shuttling, Nat. Commun.102, 195418 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Seidler, T

    I. Seidler, T. Struck, R. Xue, N. Focke, S. Trellenkamp, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Conveyor-mode single- electron shuttling in Si/SiGe for a scalable quantum com- puting architecture, npj Quantum Information8, 100 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Zwerver, S

    A. Zwerver, S. Amitonov, S. de Snoo, M. Madzik, M. Rimbach-Russ, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. Vandersypen, Shuttling an electron spin through a sili- con quantum dot array, PRX Quantum4, 030303 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    R. Xue, M. Beer, I. Seidler, S. Humpohl, J.-S. Tu, S. Trel- lenkamp, T. Struck, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Si/sige qubus for single electron information-processing devices with memory and micron-scale connectivity func- tion, Nat. Commun.15, 2296 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    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, Nat. Commun.12, 4114 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    M. D. Smet, Y. Matsumoto, A.-M. J. Zwerver, L. Try- puten, S. L. de Snoo, S. V. Amitonov, S. R. Katiraee-Far, A. Sammak, N. Samkharadze, ¨O. G¨ ul, R. N. M. Wasser- man, E. Greplova, M. Rimbach-Russ, G. Scappucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, High-fidelity single-spin shuttling in silicon, Nat. Nanotechnol.20, 866 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Struck, M

    T. Struck, M. Volmer, L. Visser, T. Offermann, R. Xue, J.-S. Tu, S. Trellenkamp, L. Cywi´ nski, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Spin-epr-pair separation by conveyor- mode single electron shuttling in si/sige, Nat. Commun. 15, 1325 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    N. D. Foster, J. D. Henshaw, M. Rudolph, D. R. Luhman, and R. M. Jock, Dephasing and error dynamics affecting a singlet-triplet qubit during coherent spin shuttling, npj Quantum Inf.11, 63 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Matsumoto, M

    Y. Matsumoto, M. De Smet, L. Tryputen, S. L. de Snoo, S. V. Amitonov, A. Sammak, M. Rimbach-Russ, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Two-qubit logic and teleportation with mobile spin qubits in sili- con, arXiv:2503.15434 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    J. A. Krzywda, Y. Matsumoto, M. De Smet, L. Try- puten, S. L. de Sno, S. V. Amitonov, E. van Nieuwenburg, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Coherence pro- tection for mobile spin qubits in silicon, arXiv:2602.09179 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Friesen, S

    M. Friesen, S. Chutia, C. Tahan, and S. N. Copper- smith, Valley splitting theory of sige/si/sige quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B75, 115318 (2007)

    2007

  29. [29]

    Saraiva, M

    A. Saraiva, M. Calderon, X. Hu, S. Das Sarma, and B. Koiller, Physical mechanisms of interface-mediated in- tervalley coupling in si, Phys. Rev. B80, 081305 (2009)

    2009

  30. [30]

    Friesen and S

    M. Friesen and S. N. Coppersmith, Theory of valley- orbit coupling in a si/sige quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 81, 115324 (2010)

    2010

  31. [31]

    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, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 961 (2013)

    2013

  32. [32]

    Kawakami, P

    E. Kawakami, P. Scarlino, D. R. Ward, F. R. Braakman, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Cop- persmith, M. A. Eriksson, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Electrical control of a long-lived spin qubit in a si/sige quantum dot, Nat. Nanotechnol.9, 666 (2014)

    2014

  33. [33]

    Paquelet Wuetz, M

    B. Paquelet Wuetz, M. P. Losert, S. Koelling, L. E. A. Stehouwer, A.-M. J. Zwerver, S. G. J. Philips, M. T. Madzik, X. Xue, G. Zheng, M. Lodari, S. V. Amitonov, N. Samkharadze, A. Sammak, L. M. K. Vandersypen, R. Rahman, S. N. Coppersmith, O. Moutanabbir, M. Friesen, and G. Scappucci, Atomic fluctuations lift- ing the energy degeneracy in Si/SiGe quantum ...

    2022

  34. [34]

    J. R. F. Lima and G. Burkard, Interface and electromag- netic effects in the valley splitting of si quantum dots, Mater. Quantum. Technol.3, 025004 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    M. P. Losert, M. A. Eriksson, R. Joynt, R. Rahman, G. Scappucci, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. Friesen, Prac- tical strategies for enhancing the valley splitting in si/sige quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B108, 125405 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    J. Klos, J. Tr¨ oger, J. Keutgen, M. P. Losert, N. V. Abrosimov, J. Knoch, H. Bracht, S. N. Coppersmith, M. Friesen, O. Cojocaru-Mir´ edin, L. R. Schreiber, , and D. Bougeard, Atomistic compositional details and their importance for spin qubits in isotope-purified sili- con quantum wells, Adv. Sci.11, 2407442 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    Thayil, L

    A. Thayil, L. Ermoneit, and M. Kantner, Theory of val- ley splitting in si/sige spin-qubits: Interplay of strain, resonances and random alloy disorder, arXiv:2412.20618 10.48550/arXiv.2412.20618 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.20618 2024

  38. [38]

    B. D. Woods, H. Soomro, E. S. Joseph, C. C. Frink, R. Joynt, M. A. Eriksson, and M. Friesen, Spin-orbit 20 coupling and operation of multivalley spin qubits, npj Quant. Info.10, 54 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    C. Yang, A. Rossi, R. Ruskov, N. Lai, F. Mohiyaddin, 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.481, 344 (2012)

    2012

  40. [40]

    Corna, L

    A. Corna, L. Bourdet, R. Maurand, A. Crippa, D. Kotekar-Patil, H. Bohuslavskyi, R. Lavi´ eville, L. Hutin, S. Barraud, X. Jehl, M. Vinet, S. De Franceschi, Y.-M. Niquet, and M. Sanquer, Electrically driven elec- tron spin resonance mediated by spin–valley–orbit cou- pling in a silicon quantum dot, npj Quant. Info.4, 6 (2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Zhang, R.-Z

    X. Zhang, R.-Z. Hu, H.-O. Li, F.-M. Jing, Y. Zhou, R.- L. Ma, M. Ni, G. Luo, G. Cao, G.-L. Wang, X. Hu, H.- W. Jiang, G.-C. Guo, and G.-P. Guo, Giant anisotropy of spin relaxation and spins-valley mixing in a silicon quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 257701 (2020)

    2020

  42. [42]

    Huang and X

    P. Huang and X. Hu, Fast spin-valley-based quantum gates in si with micromagnets, npj Quant. Info.7, 162 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    M. P. Losert, M. Oberl¨ ander, J. D. Teske, M. Volmer, L. R. Schreiber, H. Bluhm, S. Coppersmith, and M. Friesen, Strategies for enhancing spin-shuttling fideli- ties in Si/SiGe quantum wells with random-alloy disor- der, PRX Quantum5, 040322 (2024)

    2024

  44. [44]

    David, A

    A. David, A. M. Pazhedath, L. R. Schreiber, T. Calarco, H. Bluhm, and F. Motzoi, Long distance spin shut- tling enabled by few-parameter velocity optimization, arXiv:2409.07600 10.48550/arXiv.2409.07600 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.07600 2024

  45. [45]

    Németh, V

    R. N´ emeth, V. K. Bandaru, P. Alves, M. P. Losert, E. Brann, O. M. Eskandari, H. Soomro, A. Vivrekar, M. A. Eriksson, and M. Friesen, Omnidirectional shut- tling to avoid valley excitations in Si/SiGe quan- tum wells, arXiv:2412.09574 10.48550/arXiv.2412.09574 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.09574 2024

  46. [46]

    Volmer, T

    M. Volmer, T. Struck, A. Sala, B. Chen, M. Oberl¨ ander, T. Offermann, R. Xue, L. Visser, J.-S. Tu, S. Trel- lenkamp, L. Cywi´ nski, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Mapping of valley-splitting by conveyor-mode spin- coherent electron shuttling, npj Quantum Information 10, 61 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Volmer, T

    M. Volmer, T. Struck, A. Sala, J.-S. Tu, S. Trellenkamp, D. Degli Espositi, G. Scappucci, L. Cywi´ nski, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Mapping g-factors and complex in- tervalley coupling in si/sige by conveyor-mode shuttling, arXiv:2603.01844 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Ferdous, E

    R. Ferdous, E. Kawakami, P. Scarlino, M. P. Nowak, D. R. Ward, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, S. N. Cop- persmith, M. Friesen, M. A. Eriksson, L. M. K. Van- dersypen, and R. Rahman, Valley dependent anisotropic spin splitting in silicon quantum dots, npj Quant. Info. 4, 26 (2018)

    2018

  49. [49]

    R. M. Jock, N. T. Jacobson, M. Rudolph, D. R. Ward, M. S. Carroll, and D. R. Luhman, A silicon singlet–triplet qubit driven by spin-valley coupling, Nat. Commun.13, 641 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    N. T. Jacobson, N. D. Foster, R. M. Jock, A. M. Mounce, D. R. Ward, M. S. Carroll, and D. R. Luhman, Anisotropic spin-valley coupling in simos and si/sige quantum dots, arXiv:2604.16713 10.48550/arXiv.2604.16713 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.16713 2026

  51. [51]

    Volmer, T

    M. Volmer, T. Struck, J.-S. Tu, S. Trellenkamp, D. Degli Espositi, G. Scappucci, L. Cywi´ nski, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Reduction of the impact of the local valley splitting on the coherence of conveyor-belt spin shuttling in 28si/sige, arXiv:2510.03773 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    X. Hao, R. Ruskov, M. Xiao, C. Tahan, and H. Jiang, Electron spin resonance and spin–valley physics in a sili- con double quantum dot, Nat. Commun.5, 3860 (2014)

    2014

  53. [53]

    J. C. C. Hwang, C. H. Yang, M. Veldhorst, N. Hendrickx, M. A. Fogarty, W. Huang, F. E. Hudson, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, Impact ofg-factors and valleys on spin qubits in a silicon double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B96, 045302 (2017)

    2017

  54. [54]

    Y.-Y. Liu, L. Orona, S. F. Neyens, E. MacQuarrie, M. Eriksson, and A. Yacoby, Magnetic-gradient-free two- axis control of a valley spin qubit in sixge1−x, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 024029 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    X. Cai, E. J. Connors, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Coherent spin–valley oscillations in silicon, Nat. Phys. 19, 386 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    B. D. Woods, M. P. Losert, R. Joynt, and M. Friesen, g-factor theory of si/sige quantum dots: spin-valley and giant renormalization effects, arXiv:2412.19795 10.48550/arXiv.2412.19795 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.19795 2024

  57. [57]

    B. D. Woods, M. P. Losert, N. R. Elston, M. A. Eriks- son, S. N. Coppersmith, R. Joynt, and M. Friesen, g-factor theory of si/sige quantum dots: spin-valley and giant renormalization effects, arXiv:2507.05160 10.48550/arXiv.2507.05160 (2025)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.05160 2025

  58. [58]

    A. L. Saraiva, M. J. Calder´ on, R. B. Capaz, X. Hu, S. Das Sarma, and B. Koiller, Intervalley coupling for interface-bound electrons in silicon: An effective mass study, Phys. Rev. B84, 155320 (2011)

    2011

  59. [59]

    Culcer, X

    D. Culcer, X. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, Interface rough- ness, valley-orbit coupling, and valley manipulation in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B82, 205315 (2010)

    2010

  60. [60]

    Thayil, L

    A. Thayil, L. Ermoneit, and M. Kantner, Theory of valley splitting in si/sige spin qubits: Interplay of strain, res- onances, and random alloy disorder, Phys. Rev. B112, 115303 (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    J. C. Marcks, E. C. B. Emily Eagen 4, M. P. Losert, T. Oh, J. Reily, C. S. Wang, DanielKeith, F. A. Mo- hiyaddin, F. Luthi, M. J. Curry, J. Zhang, F. J. Here- mans, M. Friesen, and M. A. Eriksson, Valley splitting correlations across a silicon quantum well containing ger- manium, Nat. Commun.16, 11381 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Tariq and X

    B. Tariq and X. Hu, Impact of the valley orbit coupling on exchange gate for spin qubits in silicon, npj Quant. Info. 8, 53 (2011)

    2011

  63. [63]

    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)

    2022

  64. [64]

    Veldhorst, R

    M. Veldhorst, R. Ruskov, C. H. Yang, J. C. C. Hwang, F. E. Hudson, M. E. Flatt´ e, C. Tahan, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, Spin-orbit coupling and operation of multivalley spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B92, 201401 (2015)

    2015

  65. [65]

    Ruskov, M

    R. Ruskov, M. Veldhorst, A. S. Dzurak, and C. Tahan, Electrong-factor of valley states in realistic silicon quan- tum dots, Phys. Rev. B98, 245424 (2018)

    2018

  66. [66]

    Cvitkovich, P

    L. Cvitkovich, P. Stano, C. Wilhelmer, D. Waldh¨ or, D. Loss, Y.-M. Niquet, and T. Grasser, Coherence limit due to hyperfine interaction with nuclei in the barrier material of Si spin qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 064089 21 (2024)

    2024

  67. [67]

    Huang and X

    P. Huang and X. Hu, Spin relaxation in a si quantum dot due to spin-valley mixing, Phys. Rev. B90, 235315 (2014)

    2014

  68. [68]

    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

  69. [69]

    S. N. Shevchenko, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Landau-Zener- St¨ uckelberg Interferometry, Phys. Rep.492, 1 (2010)

    2010

  70. [70]

    J. A. Krzywda and L. Cywi´ nski, Adiabatic electron charge transfer between two quantum dots in presence of 1/fnoise, Phys. Rev. B101, 035303 (2020)

    2020

  71. [71]

    J. A. Krzywda and L. Cywi´ nski, Interplay of charge noise and coupling to phonons in adiabatic electron transfer between quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B104, 075439 (2021)

    2021

  72. [72]

    Blundobler and V

    S. Blundobler and V. Elser, S-matrix for generalized landau-zener problem, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.26, 1211 (1993)

    1993

  73. [73]

    Kranz, S

    L. Kranz, S. K. Gorman, B. Thorgrimsson, Y. He, D. Keith, J. G. Keizer, and M. Y. Simmons, Exploit- ing a single-crystal environment to minimize the charge noise on qubits in silicon, Adv. Mat.32, 2003361 (2020)

    2020

  74. [74]

    Hollmann, T

    A. Hollmann, T. Struck, V. Langrock, A. Schmidbauer, F. Schauer, T. Leonhardt, K. Sawano, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, D. Bougeard, and L. R. Schreiber, Large, tunable valley splitting and single-spin relaxation mecha- nisms in a Si/si xge1−x quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Applied 13, 034068 (2020)

    2020

  75. [75]

    Falci, A

    G. Falci, A. D’Arrigo, A. Mastellone, and E. Paladino, Initial decoherence in solid state qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 167002 (2005)

    2005

  76. [76]

    Ithier, E

    G. Ithier, E. Collin, P. Joyez, P. J. Meeson, D. Vion, D. Esteve, F. Chiarello, A. Shnirman, Y. Makhlin, J. Schriefl, and G. Sch¨ on, Decoherence in a supercon- ducting quantum bit circuit, Phys. Rev. B72, 134519 (2005)

    2005

  77. [77]

    F. H. L. Koppens, D. Klauser, W. A. Coish, K. C. Nowack, L. P. Kouwenhoven, D. Loss, and L. M. K. Van- dersypen, Universal phase shift and nonexponential de- cay of driven single-spin oscillations, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 106803 (2007)

    2007

  78. [78]

    Ramon and L

    G. Ramon and L. Cywi´ nski, Qubit decoherence under two-axis coupling to low-frequency noises, Phys. Rev. B 105, L041303 (2022)

    2022

  79. [79]

    Yoneda, J

    J. Yoneda, J. S. Rojas-Arias, P. Stano, K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, D. Loss, and S. Tarucha, Noise- correlation spectrum for a pair of spin qubits in silicon, Nat. Phys.19, 1793 (2023)

    2023

  80. [80]

    Albrecht, J

    W. Albrecht, J. Moers, and B. Hermanns, HNF - Helmholtz Nano Facility, J. Large Scale Res. Facil. (JLSRF)3, A112 (2017)

    2017