Exchange-Only Silicon Based Spin Qubits: Charge Noise, PINN Optimised Pulse Sequences,and Gate-Level Fidelity

Amitoj Singh Miglani; Rajdeep Rameshchandra Dwivedi; Vishvendra Singh Poonia

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 36 references

Exchange-Only Silicon Based Spin Qubits: Charge Noise, PINN Optimised Pulse Sequences,and Gate-Level Fidelity

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-08 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A two-stage PINN optimizes pulses to reach 99% fidelity and shorten gate times for noisy silicon spin qubits

desk verdict The two-stage PINN reaches 0.99 noise-averaged fidelity then shortens pulses for exchange-only silicon qubits, but the Monte Carlo averages over 2000 samples lack error bars or variance checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.03056 v1 submitted 2026-05-04 quant-ph

Rajdeep Rameshchandra Dwivedi , Amitoj Singh Miglani , Vishvendra Singh Poonia This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords exchange-onlyqubitssiliconspinchargenoisePINNoptimizationpulsesequencesgatefidelitytwo-qubitgates

checked against Cost.FunctionalEquation derivedCost alexander_duality_circle_linking

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

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 a two-stage Physics-Informed Neural Network method to optimize control pulses for exchange-only spin qubits in silicon that suffer from charge noise. Stage I tunes the pulses to achieve a noise-averaged fidelity of at least 0.99 while keeping the total duration at its nominal value. Once this threshold is met, Stage II shortens the pulse duration by adjusting the shape parameters, still holding the fidelity above 0.99. Benchmarks on single-qubit gates and the CX gate show consistent success across 1%, 5%, and 10% noise levels, with duration reductions of 20-40% for single qubits and from 31 ns to 22 ns for CX at the lowest noise. This matters for making all-electrical quantum gates faster and more practical in scalable silicon quantum computers.

What carries the argument

The two-stage Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) optimizer that first maximizes fidelity at fixed pulse time and then minimizes pulse time at fixed fidelity threshold, with cost based on ensemble-averaged mean-squared error over 2000 noise realizations.

What would settle it

Performing the optimized gates on a physical silicon exchange-only qubit chip at a known charge noise level and verifying that the experimental fidelity meets or exceeds 0.99 at the shortened pulse durations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We present a two-stage PINN framework for per-gate pulse optimisation. In Stage I the PINN maximises the noise-averaged gate fidelity toward a threshold of 0.99 with fixed pulse duration. Once the threshold is crossed, Stage II progressively compresses the total pulse time while maintaining F greater than or equal to 0.99. The cost function is a Monte-Carlo ensemble mean-squared error averaged over 2000 quasi-static Gaussian noise realisations. All single-qubit gates cross the threshold within the first 100 iterations across all noise levels, and Stage II reduces pulse durations by 20-40 percent; the CX gate compresses from 31 ns to approximately 22 ns at 1 percent noise.

Load-bearing premise

The charge noise can be represented by quasi-static Gaussian fluctuations in the exchange coupling J, and that the average fidelity over 2000 independent realizations accurately reflects the true noise-averaged performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

All single-qubit gates reach the 0.99 fidelity threshold within 100 iterations at noise levels of 1% to 10%.
Stage II reduces single-qubit pulse durations by 20-40% while preserving fidelity.
The CX two-qubit gate duration decreases from its nominal 31 ns to about 22 ns at 1% noise.
The two-phase optimization behavior applies equally to single- and two-qubit gates in the tested set.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The approach may be extended to optimize sequences for larger multi-qubit operations.
Hardware experiments could test whether the simulated fidelity improvements translate to real devices.
Alternative noise models beyond quasi-static Gaussian could be incorporated to broaden applicability.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The punchline is that this work introduces a two-stage PINN optimization for pulse sequences in exchange-only silicon spin qubits. Stage one pushes the noise-averaged fidelity to 0.99 with fixed duration, and stage two then shortens the pulses while keeping fidelity above that mark. They demonstrate it on the usual single-qubit set and on CX. The approach is new in how it splits the optimization into reaching the threshold first and then compressing time. The results look concrete: single-qubit gates all cross the threshold in under 100 iterations at 1, 5, and 10 percent noise, and then durations drop 20 to 40 percent. For the CX gate they get it down to about 22 ns from 31 ns at the lowest noise level. Using 2000 fresh noise draws each iteration for the cost function is a solid way to handle the averaging. The main concern is whether those averages are reliable enough. At fidelities this close to 1, even small variance in the individual realizations can make the mean uncertain by a few thousandths. The paper does not appear to report error bars or checks on how the Monte Carlo estimate behaves, so it is hard to know if the crossings are stable or sensitive to more samples. The noise model itself is the usual quasi-static Gaussian on the exchange coupling, which is fine as an input but means the gains are only as good as that model. This is useful for people building control software for silicon spin qubits or testing PINN methods on quantum problems. A reader who wants an example of applying neural networks to gate optimization under noise would find the setup clear and the numbers specific. It is worth sending to peer review because the framework is well-defined and the numerical claims can be checked, though referees will likely ask for statistical diagnostics and perhaps baseline comparisons to non-PINN optimizers.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a two-stage Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) framework for per-gate optimization of control pulses in exchange-only silicon spin qubits. Stage I (iterations 1-100) maximizes the noise-averaged gate fidelity to a threshold F_th=0.99 with fixed nominal pulse duration, using a Monte Carlo MSE cost averaged over N_real=2000 fresh quasi-static Gaussian draws of the exchange coupling J at each iteration. Stage II (iterations 101-250) then compresses the total pulse time while enforcing F >= F_th. The method is benchmarked on the single-qubit set {X,Y,Z,H} and two-qubit set {X,Y,Z,H,CX} at charge-noise levels sigma_J/J in {1%,5%,10%}, with reported outcomes that all single-qubit gates cross threshold rapidly and pulse durations are reduced 20-40%, including CX compression from 31 ns to ~22 ns at 1% noise.

Significance. If the numerical claims hold after statistical validation, the work supplies a concrete, automated procedure for trading off gate speed against fidelity under realistic multiplicative charge noise, which is directly relevant to scaling silicon spin-qubit processors. The two-stage strategy (fidelity-first, then duration compression) is a clear methodological contribution that avoids the common pitfall of optimizing duration at the expense of fidelity. Explicit benchmarking across a full gate set and multiple noise strengths, together with the reproducible Monte-Carlo cost construction, adds practical value. The approach could be extended to larger circuits once the per-gate optimizers are shown to be statistically stable.

major comments (2)

[Abstract / cost-function description] Abstract and cost-function description: the headline claims that all single-qubit gates cross F_th=0.99 within the first 100 iterations and that the CX gate compresses from 31 ns to ~22 ns rest on a Monte-Carlo estimator (MSE over 2000 independent quasi-static Gaussian realizations of J, refreshed each iteration). No error bars, sample variance, or convergence diagnostics for this estimator are reported. At 5-10% noise the per-realization fidelity variance is plausibly several percent; the resulting standard error on the average is then comparable to the 0.01 margin to threshold, so it is unclear whether the reported crossings are statistically stable or could fall below F_th under a larger ensemble or different random seed.
[PINN framework section] PINN framework section: the manuscript provides no details on network architecture (depth, width, activation functions), how the physics-informed loss is constructed from the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, training hyperparameters, or convergence behavior of the optimizer. In addition, no comparison is given to alternative pulse optimizers (gradient descent on the same cost, Bayesian optimization, or evolutionary algorithms). Without these elements the advantage of the PINN choice and the reproducibility of the reported pulse compressions cannot be assessed.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: the symbol F_th is introduced without an explicit definition sentence, although its numerical value is stated; likewise the first use of PINN should be expanded.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions planned for the next version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract / cost-function description] Abstract and cost-function description: the headline claims that all single-qubit gates cross F_th=0.99 within the first 100 iterations and that the CX gate compresses from 31 ns to ~22 ns rest on a Monte-Carlo estimator (MSE over 2000 independent quasi-static Gaussian realizations of J, refreshed each iteration). No error bars, sample variance, or convergence diagnostics for this estimator are reported. At 5-10% noise the per-realization fidelity variance is plausibly several percent; the resulting standard error on the average is then comparable to the 0.01 margin to threshold, so it is unclear whether the reported crossings are statistically stable or could fall below F_th under a larger ensemble or different random seed.

Authors: We agree that the statistical properties of the Monte Carlo estimator require explicit quantification to support the reported threshold crossings and compressions. In the revised manuscript we will add the standard error of the mean (computed from the 2000 realizations) at the iteration where each gate first exceeds F_th, include convergence plots of both the mean fidelity and its sample variance, and report results from at least three independent optimization runs that employ different random seeds for the noise ensemble. These diagnostics will be placed in the main text and supplementary material. revision: yes
Referee: [PINN framework section] PINN framework section: the manuscript provides no details on network architecture (depth, width, activation functions), how the physics-informed loss is constructed from the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, training hyperparameters, or convergence behavior of the optimizer. In addition, no comparison is given to alternative pulse optimizers (gradient descent on the same cost, Bayesian optimization, or evolutionary algorithms). Without these elements the advantage of the PINN choice and the reproducibility of the reported pulse compressions cannot be assessed.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater implementation detail. The revised PINN framework section will specify network depth and width, activation functions, the explicit construction of the physics-informed loss from the time-dependent Heisenberg Hamiltonian, all training hyperparameters, and convergence curves for the loss and fidelity. These additions will ensure reproducibility. A full quantitative comparison against gradient descent, Bayesian optimization, and evolutionary algorithms was not performed because it would require a separate, resource-intensive study; we will instead add a concise discussion of why the two-stage PINN formulation is particularly suited to the noisy, high-dimensional pulse-optimization task and flag such benchmarks as future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: numerical optimization results are forward outputs from explicit cost function

full rationale

The paper describes a two-stage PINN optimization procedure that directly maximizes a Monte-Carlo-averaged fidelity cost function (MSE over 2000 independent quasi-static Gaussian draws of J) to reach F_th=0.99 and then compresses pulse duration. The noise model and ensemble averaging are external inputs to the optimizer; the reported pulse durations and fidelities are computed outputs, not inputs redefined as predictions. No self-referential equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work appear in the derivation. The framework is self-contained numerical search against an externally specified noise model and threshold.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The approach depends on standard assumptions about noise in solid-state qubits and the effectiveness of neural network optimization for pulse design. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

F_th = 0.99
Fidelity threshold chosen to define acceptable performance
N_real = 2000
Number of Monte Carlo noise realizations selected for averaging the cost function
stage_I_iterations = 100
Number of iterations allocated to fidelity maximization before switching to compression
stage_II_iterations = 150
Iterations for pulse compression phase

assumptions (2)

domain assumption Charge noise couples multiplicatively to the exchange coupling and can be represented by quasi-static Gaussian fluctuations
This model is used to generate the ensemble of noise realizations for the cost function in both stages
domain assumption The total pulse time can be compressed while maintaining fidelity by fine-tuning pulse-shape parameters
Underlying assumption enabling Stage II optimization

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exchange-Only Silicon Based Spin Qubits: Charge Noise, PINN Optimised Pulse Sequences,and Gate-Level Fidelity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2605.03056

@misc{pith2026260503056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exchange-Only Silicon Based Spin Qubits: Charge Noise, PINN Optimised Pulse Sequences,and Gate-Level Fidelity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2605.03056}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.03056}
}

abstract

Exchange-only (EO) spin qubits in silicon realise all-electrical qubit control through pairwise Heisenberg exchange interactions, making them attractive for scalable quantum computation. Their principal vulnerability is charge noise, which couples multiplicatively to the exchange coupling and degrades gate fidelity. We present a \emph{two-stage} Physics-Informed Neural Network (PINN) framework for per-gate pulse optimisation. In \textbf{Stage~I} (iterations~1--100) the PINN maximises the noise-averaged gate fidelity toward a threshold of $\Fth=0.99$; the pulse duration is held fixed at its nominal hardware value. Once the threshold is crossed, \textbf{Stage~II} (iterations~101--250) progressively compresses the total pulse time while maintaining $F\geq\Fth$ via continuous fine-tuning of the pulse-shape parameters. The cost function is a Monte-Carlo ensemble mean-squared error (MSE) averaged over $N_{\rm real}=2000$ quasi-static Gaussian noise realisations drawn fresh at every iteration. We benchmark the framework on the single-qubit gate set $\{X,Y,Z,H\}$ and the two-qubit set $\{X,Y,Z,H,\mathrm{CX}\}$ at noise levels $\sigmaJ/J\in\{1\%,5\%,10\%\}$. All single-qubit gates cross $\Fth$ within the first 100 iterations across all noise levels; Stage~II then reduces pulse durations by 20--40\% from their nominal values. The two-qubit gates follow the same two-phase behaviour, with the CX gate compressing from its nominal \SI{31}{\nano\second} to $\approx\SI{22}{\nano\second}$ at 1\% noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03056 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** presents the fidelity (top row) and pulse duration (bottom row) as functions of training iteration for the single-qubit gate set {X, Y, Z, H} at noise levels 1%, 5%, and 10% view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Single-qubit simultaneous-pulsing baseline (no ML) noisy state evolution for the gate set {X, Y, Z, H} under quasistatic Gaussian charge noise. Each panel shows the noisy population dynamics for the relevant computational-basis input states; the resulting noise-averaged fidelities are annotated directly in the panels for each input state. Compared with the PINN results in fig. 1, the analytic simultaneous-pulsing sc… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Single-qubit simultaneous-pulsing baseline noise-averaged fidelity as a function of the fractional charge-noise amplitude σJ /J for each gate in {X, Y, Z, H}. The fidelity values reported in the figure are averaged over all computational-basis input states. The baseline fidelity falls monotonically with increasing noise while the PINN-optimised pulses maintain F ≥ Fth = 0.99 across the same noise range (fig. 1). Sta… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: shows the analogous PINN training plots for {X, Y, Z, H, CX}. As in the singlequbit case, we additionally include the simultaneous-pulsing baseline noisy evolution: fig. 5 for the two-qubit {X, Y, Z, H} subset, fig. 6 for the CX gate (shown separately because of its √…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Two-qubit simultaneous-pulsing baseline (no ML) noisy state evolution for the gate set {X, Y, Z, H} under quasistatic Gaussian charge noise. The noise-averaged fidelities for all computational-basis input states are annotated directly within each panel. Relative to the…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: √ CX gate simultaneous-pulsing baseline (no ML) noisy evolution under the SWAP-based decomposition of eq. (12), shown separately because the CX involves two independent √ SWAP primitives, each with its own noise draw. Noise-averaged fidelities for all four computationa…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Two-qubit simultaneous-pulsing baseline noise-averaged fidelity as a function of the fractional charge-noise amplitude σJ /J for each gate in {X, Y, Z, H, CX}. The fidelity values reported in the figure are averaged over all four computational-basis input states. Stage…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith.Cost.FunctionalEquation washburn_uniqueness_aczel (J(x)=½(x+x⁻¹)−1) unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

The cost function is a Monte-Carlo ensemble mean-squared error (MSE) averaged over N_real=2000 quasi-static Gaussian noise realisations ... J_ij → J_ij(1+δ_ij), δ_ij ∼ N(0,σ_J^2)
IndisputableMonolith.Foundation.LogicAsFunctionalEquation derivedCost / Translation Theorem unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

H_eff(t) = h_z(t)σ_z + h_x(t)σ_x with h_z = J23/4 − J12/2, h_x = √3 J23/4; pulse shapes optimized by a 4-layer tanh PINN
IndisputableMonolith.Foundation.AlexanderDuality alexander_duality_circle_linking (D=3 forcing — unrelated) unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

CX synthesised from √SWAP decomposition; Stage II compresses CX from 31 ns to ≈22 ns at 1% noise

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

Zheng An and D. L. Zhou. Deep reinforcement learning for quantum gate control. Europhysics Letters, 126(6):60002, jul 2019. doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/126/60002. URL https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/126/60002

work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/126/60002 2019
[2]

Bacon, J

D. Bacon, J. Kempe, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley. Universal fault-tolerant quantum computation on decoherence-free subspaces.Phys. Rev. Lett., 85:1758–1761, Aug

work page
[3]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1758

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.1758
[4]

Kresse, D

Guido Burkard, Daniel Loss, and David P. DiVincenzo. Coupled quantum dots as quantum gates.Phys. Rev. B, 59:2070–2078, Jan 1999. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.59. 2070

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.59
[5]

Wieck, and Hen- drik Bluhm

Pascal Cerfontaine, Tim Botzem, Julian Ritzmann, Simon Sebastian Humpohl, Arne Ludwig, Dieter Schuh, Dominique Bougeard, Andreas D. Wieck, and Hen- drik Bluhm. Closed-loop control of a GaAs-based singlet-triplet spin qubit with 99.5% gate fidelity and low leakage.Nature Communications, 11(1):4144, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17865-3

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17865-3 2020
[6]

Connors, JJ Nelson, Haifeng Qiao, Lisa F

Elliot J. Connors, JJ Nelson, Haifeng Qiao, Lisa F. Edge, and John M. Nichol. Low- frequency charge noise in si/sige quantum dots.Phys. Rev. B, 100:165305, Oct 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.165305

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.100.165305 2019
[7]

O. E. Dial, M. D. Shulman, S. P. Harvey, H. Bluhm, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby. Charge noise spectroscopy using coherent exchange oscillations in a singlet-triplet qubit.Phys. Rev. Lett., 110:146804, Apr 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.146804

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.146804 2013
[8]

D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Bacon, J. Kempe, G. Burkard, and K. B. Whaley. Universal quantum computation with the exchange interaction.Nature, 408(6810):339–342,

work page

Show all 36 references

[9]

doi: 10.1038/35042541

doi
[10]

Fong and Stephen M

Bryan H. Fong and Stephen M. Wandzura. Universal quantum computation and leakage reduction in the 3-qubit decoherence free subsystem.Quantum Info. Comput., 11(11–12):1003–1018, November 2011. ISSN 1533-7146

2011
[11]

Arbitrary quantum control of qubits in the presence of universal noise.New Journal of Physics, 15(9):095004, sep 2013

Todd J Green, Jarrah Sastrawan, Hermann Uys, and Michael J Biercuk. Arbitrary quantum control of qubits in the presence of universal noise.New Journal of Physics, 15(9):095004, sep 2013. doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/15/9/095004. URLhttps://doi. org/10.1088/1367-2630/15/9/095004

2013 doi
[12]

C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cour- napeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del Río, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. Gérard-Marchant, K. Sheppard, ...

2020 doi
[13]

Curry, Roza Kotlyar, Florian Luthi, Mateusz T

Irina Heinz, Felix Borjans, Matthew J. Curry, Roza Kotlyar, Florian Luthi, Mateusz T. Mądzik, Fahd A. Mohiyaddin, Nathaniel Bishop, and Guido Burkard. Fast Quantum Gates for Exchange-Only Qubits Using Simultaneous Exchange Pulses.PRX Quantum, 6(3):030353, 2025. doi: 10.1103/nj...

2025 doi
[14]

J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori. QuTiP: An open-source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems.Computer Physics Communications, 183 (8):1760–1772, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.02.021

2012 doi
[15]

B. E. Kane. A silicon-based nuclear spin quantum computer.Nature, 393(6681): 133–147, 1998. doi: 10.1038/30156

1998 doi
[16]

Kevrekidis, Lu Lu, Paris Perdikaris, Sifan Wang, and Liu Yang

George Em Karniadakis, Ioannis G. Kevrekidis, Lu Lu, Paris Perdikaris, Sifan Wang, and Liu Yang. Physics-informed machine learning.Nature Reviews Physics, 3(6): 422–440, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5

2021 doi
[17]

Navin Khaneja, Timo Reiss, Cindie Kehlet, Thomas Schulte-Herbrüggen, and Steffen J. Glaser. Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms.Journal of Magnetic Resonance, 172(2):296–305, 2005. ISSN 1090-7807. doi: https://d...

2005 doi
[18]

Kingma and Jimmy Ba

Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization, 2017

2017
[19]

DiVincenzo

Daniel Loss and David P. DiVincenzo. Quantum computation with quantum dots. Phys. Rev. A, 57:120–126, Jan 1998. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.57.120

1998 doi
[20]

Malinowski, Peter D

Frederico Martins, Filip K. Malinowski, Peter D. Nissen, Edwin Barnes, Saeed Fallahi, Geoffrey C. Gardner, Michael J. Manfra, Charles M. Marcus, and Ferdinand Kuemmeth. Noise suppression using symmetric exchange gates in spin qubits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:116801, Mar 2016. doi:...

2016 doi
[21]

Motzoi, J

F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm. Simple pulses for elimination of leakage in weakly nonlinear qubits.Phys. Rev. Lett., 103:110501, Sep
[22]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.110501

doi
[23]

Smelyanskiy, and Hartmut Neven

Murphy Yuezhen Niu, Sergio Boixo, Vadim N. Smelyanskiy, and Hartmut Neven. Universal quantum control through deep reinforcement learning.npj Quantum Information, 5(1):33, Apr 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41534-019-0141-3

2019 doi
[24]

Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library, 2019

Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Des- maison, Andreas Köpf, Edward Yang, Zach DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu F...

2019
[25]

N. Rach, M. M. Müller, T. Calarco, and S. Montangero. Dressing the chopped- random-basis optimization: A bandwidth-limited access to the trap-free landscape. Phys. Rev. A, 92:062343, Dec 2015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.92.062343

2015 doi
[26]

Raissi, P

M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G.E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations.Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686–707, 2019. ISSN 0021-9991. doi: htt...

2019 doi
[27]

M. D. Reed, B. M. Maune, R. W. Andrews, M. G. Borselli, K. Eng, M. P. Jura, A. A. Kiselev, T. D. Ladd, S. T. Merkel, I. Milosavljevic, E. J. Pritchett, M. T. Rakher, R. S. 20 Ross, A. E. Schmitz, A. Smith, J. A. Wright, M. F. Gyure, and A. T. Hunter. Reduced sensitivity to cha...

2016 doi
[28]

Abrosimov, Łukasz Cywiński, Do- minique Bougeard, and Lars R

Tom Struck, Arne Hollmann, Floyd Schauer, Olexiy Fedorets, Andreas Schmidbauer, Kentarou Sawano, Helge Riemann, Nikolay V. Abrosimov, Łukasz Cywiński, Do- minique Bougeard, and Lars R. Schreiber. Low-frequency spin qubit energy splitting noise in highly purified28Si/SiGe.npj Q...

2020 doi
[29]

Tyryshkin, Shinichi Tojo, John J

Alexei M. Tyryshkin, Shinichi Tojo, John J. L. Morton, Helge Riemann, Nikolai V. Abrosimov, Peter Becker, Hans-Joachim Pohl, Thomas Schenkel, Michael L. W. Thewalt, Kohei M. Itoh, and S. A. Lyon. Electron spin coherence exceeding seconds in high-purity silicon.Nature Materials...

2012 doi
[30]

Veldhorst, J

M. Veldhorst, J. C. C. Hwang, C. H. Yang, A. W. Leenstra, B. de Ronde, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzu- rak. An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity.Nature Nanotechnology, 9(12):981–985, 2014. do...

2014 doi
[31]

Virtanen, R

P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, İ. Polat, Y. Feng,...

2020
[32]

Bishop, J

Xin Wang, Lev S. Bishop, J. P. Kestner, Edwin Barnes, Kai Sun, and S. Das Sarma. Composite pulses for robust universal control of singlet–triplet qubits.Nature Com- munications, 3(1):997, 2012. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2003

2012 doi
[33]

C. H. Yang, K. W. Chan, R. Harper, W. Huang, T. Evans, J. C. C. Hwang, B. Hensen, A. Laucht, T. Tanttu, F. E. Hudson, S. T. Flammia, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, S. D. Bartlett, and A. S. Dzurak. Silicon qubit fidelities approaching incoherent noise limits via pulse engineering.Nat...

2019
[34]

Delbecq, Giles Allison, Takumu Honda, Tetsuo Kodera, Shunri Oda, Yusuke Hoshi, Noritaka Usami, Kohei M

Jun Yoneda, Kenta Takeda, Tomohiro Otsuka, Takashi Nakajima, Matthieu R. Delbecq, Giles Allison, Takumu Honda, Tetsuo Kodera, Shunri Oda, Yusuke Hoshi, Noritaka Usami, Kohei M. Itoh, and Seigo Tarucha. A quantum-dot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelit...

2018 doi
[35]

Zwanenburg, Andrew S

Floris A. Zwanenburg, Andrew S. Dzurak, Andrea Morello, Michelle Y. Simmons, Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, Gerhard Klimeck, Sven Rogge, Susan N. Coppersmith, and Mark A. Eriksson. Silicon quantum electronics.Rev. Mod. Phys., 85:961–1019, Jul
[36]

doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.961. 21

doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Zheng An and D. L. Zhou. Deep reinforcement learning for quantum gate control. Europhysics Letters, 126(6):60002, jul 2019. doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/126/60002. URL https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/126/60002

work page doi:10.1209/0295-5075/126/60002 2019

[2] [2]

Bacon, J

D. Bacon, J. Kempe, D. A. Lidar, and K. B. Whaley. Universal fault-tolerant quantum computation on decoherence-free subspaces.Phys. Rev. Lett., 85:1758–1761, Aug

work page

[3] [3]

doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1758

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.1758

[4] [4]

Kresse, D

Guido Burkard, Daniel Loss, and David P. DiVincenzo. Coupled quantum dots as quantum gates.Phys. Rev. B, 59:2070–2078, Jan 1999. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.59. 2070

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.59

[5] [5]

Wieck, and Hen- drik Bluhm

Pascal Cerfontaine, Tim Botzem, Julian Ritzmann, Simon Sebastian Humpohl, Arne Ludwig, Dieter Schuh, Dominique Bougeard, Andreas D. Wieck, and Hen- drik Bluhm. Closed-loop control of a GaAs-based singlet-triplet spin qubit with 99.5% gate fidelity and low leakage.Nature Communications, 11(1):4144, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-17865-3

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17865-3 2020

[6] [6]

Connors, JJ Nelson, Haifeng Qiao, Lisa F

Elliot J. Connors, JJ Nelson, Haifeng Qiao, Lisa F. Edge, and John M. Nichol. Low- frequency charge noise in si/sige quantum dots.Phys. Rev. B, 100:165305, Oct 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.165305

work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.100.165305 2019

[7] [7]

O. E. Dial, M. D. Shulman, S. P. Harvey, H. Bluhm, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby. Charge noise spectroscopy using coherent exchange oscillations in a singlet-triplet qubit.Phys. Rev. Lett., 110:146804, Apr 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.146804

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.146804 2013

[8] [8]

D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Bacon, J. Kempe, G. Burkard, and K. B. Whaley. Universal quantum computation with the exchange interaction.Nature, 408(6810):339–342,

work page