Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Growth defects in Si/SiGe leave permanent tilt and strain in the quantum-well host at the scale of a qubit device.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review

2026-07-30 15:40 UTC pith:Q5FDU6RI

load-bearing objection Solid industrial nXDM maps of CHP depth evolution and device-scale strain–tilt correlation; QW-transfer assumption softens the quoted energy numbers but not the structural core. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26962 v1 pith:Q5FDU6RI submitted 2026-07-29 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Depth-Resolved Lattice Distortions in a Silicon-Germanium Qubit Host

Jonathan C. Marcks , E. S. Joseph , J. Reily , Talise Oh , Abigail Postlewaite , Tao Zhou , M. A. Eriksson , Mark Friesen
show 1 more author
Martin V. Holt
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Si/SiGe quantum dotscrosshatch patternnanoscale X-ray diffractionlattice tiltstrain mappingquantum well interfacesspin qubitsgraded buffer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Silicon–germanium quantum-dot chips inherit lattice damage from how the heterostructure is grown. Graded SiGe buffers relieve mismatch with the silicon wafer but leave dislocation bundles that buckle lattice planes into a crosshatch pattern and lock in inhomogeneous strain. This paper maps an industrial Intel Tunnel Falls chip with nanoscale X-ray diffraction that resolves both the lateral pattern (~30 nm) and, via the Ge gradient, depth (~200 nm). It shows that tilt features appear during buffer growth—tied to substrate miscut and relaxation kinks—and propagate into the virtual substrate and epitaxial quantum well. At the ~1 µm device scale, tilt, curvature, and c-axis strain are spatially correlated; the measured distortions imply conduction-band energy gradients up to tens of µeV per µm and interface step densities of several steps per µm—enough to matter for exchange, shuttling, and valley physics as devices grow beyond a few qubits.

Core claim

Functionally depth-resolved nanoscale X-ray diffraction of an Intel Si/SiGe qubit host shows that extended lattice defects from graded-buffer growth propagate through the stack as permanent crosshatch tilt and strain in the virtual substrate and epitaxial quantum well. At the ~1 µm scale of a quantum-dot device these quantities are correlated (decay lengths ~820–880 nm), and the measured maps imply conduction-band gradients up to ~68 µeV/µm and atomic step densities up to ~6.6 steps/µm.

What carries the argument

Functionally depth-resolved nXDM: the Ge-graded buffer maps diffraction angle (lattice constant) onto depth, so virtual detectors in Δ2θ isolate ~200 nm slices while a 30 nm focused beam maps lateral tilt Ω, curvature κ, and c-axis strain ε_zz; those maps are then converted to ΔE_C and interface step density.

Load-bearing premise

Strain and tilt measured in the thick virtual substrate are taken to be the same in the few-nanometer silicon quantum well where the qubits actually live.

What would settle it

A direct, low-bleed-through diffraction map of the thin quantum well itself (or cryogenic qubit spectroscopy on the same device) that shows energy gradients and valley/step effects inconsistent with the virtual-substrate tilt and strain maps would overturn the transfer of those maps to qubit spectra.

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

If this is right

  • As qubit arrays and electron shuttlers span microns, avoiding crosshatch bands becomes unavoidable rather than optional device placement.
  • Growth recipes that steer dislocation bundles or lock surface tilt earlier in the buffer can reduce final well strain and step density.
  • Device layouts can be oriented or sited relative to measured crosshatch fine structure to limit detuning and shuttling errors.
  • Quantitative multi-scale strain/tilt datasets become inputs for modeling exchange, shuttling fidelity, and valley splitting variability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Foundries may need wafer-scale crosshatch metrology as a release criterion once processors leave the few-qubit regime.
  • Combining this depth-resolved tilt with conveyor-mode shuttling maps on the same chip would directly test whether the predicted ~68 µeV/µm gradients set observed fidelity floors.
  • If substrate miscut sets one crosshatch arm, intentional miscut engineering could trade tilt anisotropy against step density along preferred shuttle axes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports nanoscale X-ray diffraction microscopy (nXDM) of an industrially fabricated Intel Tunnel Falls Si/SiGe heterostructure, achieving ~30 nm lateral and ~200 nm functional depth resolution by exploiting the graded-buffer [Ge]–lattice-constant relation. The authors map the depth evolution of crosshatch lattice tilt Ω through the strain-relaxed buffer into the virtual substrate, show device-scale spatial correlations between tilt/curvature and c-axis strain (ℓ_C ≈ 820–880 nm), resolve fine structure on the crosshatch slopes, and convert measured ε_zz and Ω into conduction-band shifts/gradients (up to ~68 µeV/µm) and interface step densities (up to ~6.6 steps/µm). A supplemental comparison finds no correlation with previously measured valley splitting on the same device, consistent with alloy-disorder dominance. The central experimental narrative is that growth-induced extended defects permanently distort the qubit host at the ~1 µm device scale.

Significance. If the structural maps and correlations hold, the work supplies a quantitative, industrially relevant dataset linking graded-buffer growth, crosshatch morphology, and device-scale strain/tilt inhomogeneity in a leading Si/SiGe qubit platform. The functionally depth-resolved nXDM approach (first applied here at this resolution to a full industrial stack), the explicit Ω/κ–ε_zz cross-correlations at the quantum-dot length scale, and the honest null comparison to valley splitting are concrete strengths. The calculated band gradients and step densities give the community falsifiable scales for shuttling and multi-dot variability, even if they rest on a transfer assumption. This is a solid materials-for-qubits contribution appropriate for a specialized condensed-matter or quantum-device audience.

major comments (2)
  1. [After Fig. 1; Figs. 4–5; Supp. S2] Main text after Fig. 1 and Supp. S2: the quantitative device-impact claims (ΔE_C, |∇E_C| up to ~68 µeV/µm in Fig. 4; step density up to ~6.6 steps/µm in Fig. 5; abstract “impact on qubit energy spectra”) rest on transferring ε_zz and Ω from the thick virtual substrate to the few-nm epitaxial Si QW. S2 shows only γ-tilt structure agreement within ~13%, with mismatched averaging volumes (~1 µm vs 4.6 nm) and acknowledged background bleed-through; c-axis strain is not independently extracted from the QW feature. Please state this transfer assumption and its uncertainty explicitly wherever the energy/step numbers are quoted (abstract, Fig. 4–5 captions, conclusions), and separate “measured in VS” from “inferred for QW” so the structural mapping claims remain cleanly supported even if the transfer is only approximate.
  2. [Fig. 1(d); Fig. 2; Methods/depth discussion] Fig. 1(d) and depth assignment (~200 nm functional resolution): depth is obtained by mapping Δ2θ → [Ge] via the Dismukes lattice-constant relation and then to depth via SIMS on a “similarly grown” (not identical) heterostructure. The main text should state that the SIMS calibration is from a sister/similar wafer and briefly quantify how grading-rate differences would shift the assigned depths and the claimed ~200 nm resolution, so that Fig. 2’s depth evolution remains interpretable under that systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1(c)] Fig. 1(c) feature labels jump from (vi) to (viii), omitting (vii) in the main panel list while (vii) appears only in the inset; align the labeling with the schematic in Fig. 1(b).
  2. [Fig. 4 discussion] ΔE_C = ξ_u ε_zz + ξ_d (2ε_xx + ε_zz) with ε_xx = ε_zz · (s11+s12)/(2 s13) [text writes 2s31]: cite the numerical deformation potentials and stiffness components used, and correct the index typo (s31 → s13) so the conversion is reproducible.
  3. [Fig. 4(a)] Fig. 4(a) notes beam-drop artifacts between Y = 15–50 µm; mark them on the figure or mask them so they are not mistaken for physical strain structure.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption / methods] Scanning axes are stated as ≈3° from [110]/[1-10]; a brief note on how this small rotation is handled when combining γ and θ into Ω and when interpreting crosshatch orientation would help non-specialists.
  5. [Discussion; Supp. S5] Supp. S5–S6 valley-splitting comparison is valuable; a one-sentence pointer in the main text to the quantitative null result (already alluded to) would strengthen the discussion of what does and does not limit this particular device.
  6. [Throughout] Typographical: “unavoidablyintroduces”, “havedemonstrated”, “SUPPLEMENT ARY MA TERIALS”, and similar spacing errors should be cleaned in production.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Measurement paper with no circular derivation: lattice maps and device-impact numbers are read from diffraction data plus external constants, not forced by fit or self-citation.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is experimental. Lattice tilt (γ, θ, Ω), curvature κ, and c-axis strain ε_zz are extracted from center-of-mass motion of diffraction signal in virtual detectors on rocking-scan nXDM maps; depth assignment uses the known a(Si1−xGex) relation plus SIMS [Ge](depth) on a similarly grown stack. Device-scale cross-correlations C_Ω,εzz and C_κ,εzz are empirical mono-exponential fits to those maps (ℓ_C ≈ 820–880 nm). Conduction-band shifts ΔE_C = ξ_u ε_zz + ξ_d(2ε_xx + ε_zz) and step density tan(Ω)/a apply standard deformation potentials and elastic constants from the literature to the measured fields; they are not fitted to qubit spectra. The only self-citation of substance is the null comparison to prior valley-splitting data on the same device (Ref. [23], overlapping authors), which does not support or force the structural claims. The QW-transfer assumption (virtual-substrate tilt/strain present in the few-nm well) is an ordinary measurement caveat, not a definitional loop. No prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

Load-bearing content is mostly standard diffraction contrast plus continuum elasticity/deformation-potential conversion. The main paper-specific moves are (i) equating virtual-substrate diffraction to QW host properties and (ii) mapping Δ2θ→depth via sister-wafer SIMS and a quadratic Vegard-like lattice law. No new particles or forces; free parameters are analysis choices (virtual-detector width, polynomial background order, mono-exponential correlation fits), not physics constants tuned to force the claim.

free parameters (4)
  • Virtual detector width (5 pixels in Δ2θ) = 5 pixels
    Sets the claimed ~200 nm functional depth resolution; wider/narrower windows would change depth binning and noise.
  • Mono-exponential correlation decay length ℓ_C = 820–880 nm
    Empirical fit to radially averaged C_Ω,εzz and C_κ,εzz; used to quote 820(10)–880(10) nm correlation scales.
  • Second-order polynomial background for fine-structure tilt = order 2
    Hand choice that defines ˜θ and ˜γ after subtracting device-scale CHP; different order would change reported fine-structure amplitude.
  • Sister-wafer SIMS [Ge](depth) calibration = from similarly grown heterostructure
    Converts Δ2θ to depth; not measured on the diffracted chip itself.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Si substrate 004 is unstrained and anchors the (Δ2θ, γ) angular frame.
    Stated when defining axes in Fig. 1(c); residual substrate strain would shift all relative lattice constants.
  • domain assumption a_Si1−xGex = 0.027x² + 0.2x + a_Si maps diffraction angle to [Ge] and thus depth.
    Invoked for Fig. 1(d) top axis via Dismukes et al.; assumes diffraction shift is lattice-constant dominated.
  • ad hoc to paper Virtual-substrate strain and tilt equal those in the epitaxial Si quantum well.
    Core transfer used for all qubit-impact plots; partially checked in Supp. S2 but not identical.
  • domain assumption ΔE_C = ξ_u ε_zz + ξ_d (2ε_xx + ε_zz) with ε_xx from isotropic stiffness projection captures the conduction-band shift relevant to QD chemical potential.
    Standard deformation-potential continuum model (Sverdlov); ignores atomistic alloy and interface details.
  • domain assumption Interface atomic step density ≈ tan(Ω)/a from lattice tilt after polish-and-regrowth.
    Geometric construction in Fig. 5; assumes tilt survives polishing and QW growth truncates planes as drawn.
  • domain assumption Center-of-mass motion of virtual-detector intensity tracks local lattice rotation and strain without major dynamical-diffraction bias.
    Underlying nXDM reduction assumption throughout Methods/Supp. S1.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 23452 in / 3575 out tokens · 79815 ms · 2026-07-30T15:40:31.330287+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Semiconductor qubits, promising for quantum computation, inherit properties from their host lattice. Quantum dot spins, occupying the local lowest energy states in the conduction band, necessarily couple to structural disorder and interfaces. While silicon-based systems promise low noise alongside industrially compatible manufacturing, the growth of SiGe---a leading platform---unavoidably introduces lattice dislocations, inhomogeneous strain, and crosshatch patterns, expected to cause fluctuations between devices, qubit failure, and subsequently higher operational overhead. Through X-ray nano-structural mapping of an Intel Si/SiGe chip, we reveal, with 30$~$nm lateral and 200$~$nm functional depth resolution, how extended lattice defects introduced during growth propagate through the heterostructure, creating permanently distorted lattice planes and strain. We correlate these at the $\approx1~\mu$m scale of a quantum dot device and calculate the impact on qubit energy spectra. We observe crosshatch fine structure and find that substrate miscut and growth correlate with the final crosshatch pattern.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26962 by Abigail Postlewaite, E. S. Joseph, Jonathan C. Marcks, J. Reily, M. A. Eriksson, Mark Friesen, Martin V. Holt, Talise Oh, Tao Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) nanoscale X-ray diffraction microscopy (nXDM) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Lattice tilt, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (f) and (g), respectively, by background subtract￾ing a second-order polynomial from the device-scale tilt maps. This reveals features that otherwise are drowned out by the CHP, but likely contribute to strain relaxation nonetheless. The largest fine-structure tilt of 0.0046 ◦ is a slope of 0.8 Å/1 µm. We now study the impact of strain on the emergent energy landscape of QD spin qubits. In [PITH_FULL_IMAG… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) As the strain relaxed buffer and virtual substrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a-c) c-axis strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    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)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Chatterjee, P

    A. Chatterjee, P. Stevenson, S. De Franceschi, A. Morello, N. P. de Leon, and F. Kuemmeth, Semicon- ductor qubits in practice, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 157 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Scappucci, C

    G. Scappucci, C. Kloeffel, F. A. Zwanenburg, D. Loss, M. Myronov, J.-J. Zhang, S. De Franceschi, G. Katsaros, and M. Veldhorst, The germanium quantum information route, Nat. Rev. Mater.6, 926 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Ishihara, A

    L.M.K.Vandersypen, H.Bluhm, J.S.Clarke, A.S.Dzu- rak, R. Ishihara, A. Morello, D. J. Reilly, L. R. Schreiber, and M. Veldhorst, Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, dense, and coherent, npj Quan- tum Inf.3, 1 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Wolfowicz, F

    G. Wolfowicz, F. J. Heremans, C. P. Anderson, S. Kanai, H. Seo, A. Gali, G. Galli, and D. D. Awschalom, Quan- tum guidelines for solid-state spin defects, Nat. Rev. Mater.6, 906 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    N. P. de Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. S. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman, Materials chal- lenges and opportunities for quantum computing hard- ware, Science372, eabb2823 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    D. D. Awschalom, R. Hanson, J. Wrachtrup, and B. B. Zhou, Quantum technologies with optically interfaced solid-state spins, Nat. Photonics12, 516 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    J. C. Marcks, B. Pingault, J. Zhang, C. Zeledon, F. J. Heremans, and D. D. Awschalom, Nuclear spin engineer- ing for quantum information science, J. Mater. Res.40, 1433 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    M. A. Eriksson, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, R. Joynt, L. J. Klein, K. Slinker, C. Tahan, P. M. Mooney, J. O. Chu, and S. J. Koester, Spin-Based Quantum Dot Quan- tum Computing in Silicon, Quantum Inf. Process.3, 133 (2004)

    2004

  10. [10]

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

    2022

  11. [11]

    Neyens, O

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

    2024

  12. [12]

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

    2025

  13. [13]

    Steinacker, N

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

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09531-9 2025

  14. [14]

    Elsayed, M

    A. Elsayed, M. M. K. Shehata, C. Godfrin, S. Kubicek, S. Massar, Y. Canvel, J. Jussot, G. Simion, M. Mongillo, D. Wan, B. Govoreanu, I. P. Radu, R. Li, P. Van Dorpe, and K. De Greve, Low charge noise quantum dots with industrial CMOS manufacturing, npj Quantum Inf.10, 1 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Tomić, P

    P. Tomić, P. Bütler, Y. Wu, B. Raes, C. Godfrin, S. Ku- bicek, J. Jussot, Y. Canvel, Y. Hermans, Y. Shimura, R. Loo, S. Beyne, G. Jaliel, T. V. Caekenberghe, V. Lev- ajac, D. Wan, K. D. Greve, W. W. Huang, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Long coherence silicon spin qubit fabricated in a 300 mm industrial foundry (2025), arXiv:2512.20758 7 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Beyne, S

    S. Beyne, S. Kubicek, C. Godfrin, B. Raes, T. Van Caekenberghe, J. De Backer, Y. Hermans, F. Treska, S. Kaushik, Y. Jiang, B. Chou, T. Sarkar, Y. Li, S. Sharma, S. Baudot, L. Pinotti, Y. Shimura, R. Loo, B. Kenens, J. Vande Weeghde, E. Vrancken, K. Vandersmissen, J. Mitard, K. Devriendt, D. Wan, and K. De Greve, 300mm fabrication of silicon quantum dot sp...

    2025

  17. [17]

    T. Koch, C. Godfrin, V. Adam, J. Ferrero, D. Schroller, N. Glaeser, S. Kubicek, R. Li, R. Loo, S. Massar, G. Simion, D. Wan, K. De Greve, and W. Wernsdorfer, Industrial 300 mm wafer processed spin qubits in natu- ral silicon/silicon-germanium, npj Quantum Inf.11, 59 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

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

    2025

  19. [19]

    Scappucci, and S

    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

  20. [20]

    J. Z. Blumoff, A. S. Pan, T. E. Keating, R. W. Andrews, D. W. Barnes, T. L. Brecht, E. T. Croke, L. E. Euliss, J. A. Fast, C. A. Jackson, A. M. Jones, J. Kerckhoff, R. K. Lanza, K. Raach, B. J. Thomas, R. Velunta, A. J. Weinstein, T. D. Ladd, K. Eng, M. G. Borselli, A. T. Hunter, and M. T. Rakher, Fast and High-Fidelity State Preparation and Measurement i...

    2022

  21. [21]

    Takeda, T

    Y.-H.Wu, L.C.Camenzind, P.Bütler, I.K.Jin, A.Noiri, K. Takeda, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, G. Scap- pucci, H.-S. Goan, and S. Tarucha, Simultaneous High- FidelitySingle-QubitGatesinaSpinQubitArray(2025), arXiv:2507.11918 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    M. o. t. H. Q. Team, Collaborators, M. Abraham, E. Acuna, T. S. Adams, M. Akmal, M. R. Alfaro, I. Al- varado, J. Amontree, C. Andrews, R. W. Andrews, M. Antcliffe, A. R. Aséncio, R. M. A. Batres, C. D. Baringer, D. W. Barnes, K. M. Beech, R. G. Blakey, Z. T. Bloom, A. J. Bluestone, J. Z. Blumoff, M. G. Borselli, K. A. Bose, B. Boyd, J. T. Boyer, T. L. Bre...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    J. C. Marcks, E. Eagen, E. C. Brann, M. P. Losert, T. Oh, J. Reily, C. S. Wang, D. Keith, 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

  24. [24]

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

    2023

  25. [25]

    J. P. Dodson, H. E. Ercan, J. Corrigan, M. P. Losert, N. Holman, T. McJunkin, L. F. Edge, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, How Valley-Orbit States in Silicon Quantum Dots Probe Quantum Well Interfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 146802 (2022). 8

    2022

  26. [26]

    Volmer, T

    M. Volmer, T. Struck, A. Sala, J.-S. Tu, S. Trellenkamp, D. Degli Esposti, G. Scappucci, Ł. Cywiński, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Impact of the local valley split- ting on the coherence of conveyor-belt spin shuttling in 28Si/SiGe, Nat. Commun.17, 5448 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    Volmer, T

    M. Volmer, T. Struck, A. Sala, J.-S. Tu, S. Trellenkamp, D. D. Esposti, G. Scappucci, Ł. Cywiński, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Mapping g-factors and complex in- tervalley coupling in Si/SiGe by conveyor-mode shuttling (2026), arXiv:2603.01844 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    J. Klos, J. Tröger, J. Keutgen, M. P. Losert, H. Rie- mann, N. V. Abrosimov, J. Knoch, H. Bracht, S. N. Coppersmith, M. Friesen, O. Cojocaru-Mirédin, L. R. Schreiber, and D. Bougeard, Atomistic compo- sitional details and their importance for spin qubits in isotope-purified silicon-germanium quantum wells, arXiv:2405.19974 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Volmer, T

    M. Volmer, T. Struck, A. Sala, B. Chen, M. Ober- länder, T. Offermann, R. Xue, L. Visser, J.-S. Tu, S. Trellenkamp, L. Cywiński, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Mapping of valley splitting by conveyor-mode spin-coherent electron shuttling, npj Quantum Inf.10, 1 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    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. Mądzik, 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

  31. [31]

    L. F. Peña, M. I. Brickson, F. Rovaris, J. H. Dycus, A. McDonald, Z. T. Piontkowski, J. B. Ruzindana, A. M. Bradicich, D. Bethke, R. Scott, T. E. Beechem, F. Mon- talenti, N. T. Jacobson, and E. Bussmann, Cross-hatch strain effects on SiGe quantum dots for qubit variability estimation (2026)

    2026

  32. [32]

    Schäffler, High-mobility Si and Ge structures, Semi- cond

    F. Schäffler, High-mobility Si and Ge structures, Semi- cond. Sci. Technol.12, 1515 (1997)

    1997

  33. [33]

    P. M. Mooney, Strain relaxation and dislocations in SiGe/Si structures, Mater. Sci. Eng.: R: Rep.17, 105 (1996)

    1996

  34. [34]

    Sawano, S

    K. Sawano, S. Koh, Y. Shiraki, N. Usami, and K. Naka- gawa, In-plane strain fluctuation in strained-Si/SiGe het- erostructures, Appl. Phys. Lett.83, 4339 (2003)

    2003

  35. [35]

    E. A. Fitzgerald, Y.-H. Xie, M. L. Green, D. Brasen, A. R. Kortan, J. Michel, Y.-J. Mii, and B. E. Weir, To- tally relaxed GexSi1−x layers with low threading disloca- tion densities grown on Si substrates, Appl. Phys. Lett. 59, 811 (1991)

    1991

  36. [36]

    Degli Esposti, L

    D. Degli Esposti, L. E. A. Stehouwer, Ö. Gül, N. Samkharadze, C. Déprez, M. Meyer, I. N. Meijer, L. Tryputen, S. Karwal, M. Botifoll, J. Arbiol, S. V. Amitonov, L. M. K. Vandersypen, A. Sammak, M. Veld- horst, and G. Scappucci, Low disorder and high valley splitting in silicon, npj Quantum Inf.10, 32 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    R. P. Winarski, M. V. Holt, V. Rose, P. Fuesz, D. Car- baugh, C. Benson, D. Shu, D. Kline, G. B. Stephenson, I.McNulty,andJ.Maser,AhardX-raynanoprobebeam- line for nanoscale microscopy, J. Synchrotron Rad.19, 1056 (2012)

    2012

  38. [38]

    M. Holt, R. Harder, R. Winarski, and V. Rose, Nanoscale Hard X-Ray Microscopy Methods for Materials Studies, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res.43, 183 (2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    P. G. Evans, D. E. Savage, J. R. Prance, C. B. Simmons, M. G. Lagally, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, and T. U. Schülli, Nanoscale Distortions of Si Quantum Wells in Si/SiGe Quantum-Electronic Heterostructures, Adv. Mater.24, 5217 (2012)

    2012

  40. [40]

    J. Park, Y. Ahn, J. A. Tilka, K. C. Sampson, D. E. Savage, J. R. Prance, C. B. Simmons, M. G. Lagally, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, M. V. Holt, and P. G. Evans, Electrode-stress-induced nanoscale disorder in Si quantum electronic devices, APL Mater.4, 066102 (2016)

    2016

  41. [41]

    M. H. Zoellner, M.-I. Richard, G. A. Chahine, P. Zaum- seil, C. Reich, G. Capellini, F. Montalenti, A. Marze- galli, Y.-H. Xie, T. U. Schülli, M. Häberlen, P. Storck, and T. Schroeder, Imaging Structure and Composition Homogeneity of 300 mm SiGe Virtual Substrates for Ad- vanced CMOS Applications by Scanning X-ray Diffrac- tion Microscopy, ACS Appl. Mater...

    2015

  42. [42]

    Corley-Wiciak, C

    C. Corley-Wiciak, C. Richter, M. H. Zoellner, I. Zait- sev, C. L. Manganelli, E. Zatterin, T. U. Schülli, A. A. Corley-Wiciak, J. Katzer, F. Reichmann, W. M. Klesse, N. W. Hendrickx, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, G. Scap- pucci, M. Virgilio, and G. Capellini, Nanoscale Map- ping of the 3D Strain Tensor in a Germanium Quantum Well Hosting a Functional Spin Qubi...

    2023

  43. [43]

    Corley-Wiciak, M

    C. Corley-Wiciak, M. Zoellner, I. Zaitsev, K. Anand, E. Zatterin, Y. Yamamoto, A. Corley-Wiciak, F. Re- ichmann, W. Langheinrich, L. Schreiber, C. Manganelli, M. Virgilio, C. Richter, and G. Capellini, Lattice Defor- mation at Submicron Scale: X-Ray Nanobeam Measure- ments of Elastic Strain in Electron Shuttling Devices, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 024056 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    T. S. Perova, J. Wasyluk, K. Lyutovich, E. Kasper, M. Oehme, K. Rode, and A. Waldron, Composition and strain in thin Si1−xGex virtual substrates measured by micro-Ramanspectroscopyandx-raydiffraction,J.Appl. Phys.109, 033502 (2011)

    2011

  45. [45]

    Rovaris, M

    F. Rovaris, M. H. Zoellner, P. Zaumseil, A. Marzegalli, L. Di Gaspare, M. De Seta, T. Schroeder, P. Storck, G. Schwalb, G. Capellini, and F. Montalenti, Dynam- ics of crosshatch patterns in heteroepitaxy, Phys. Rev. B 100, 085307 (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    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. Appl.15, 044033 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    J. P. Dismukes, L. Ekstrom, E. F. Steigmeier, I. Kud- man, and D. S. Beers, Thermal and electrical properties of heavily doped ge-si alloys up to 1300°k, Journal of Ap- plied Physics35, 2899 (1964)

    1964

  48. [48]

    Sverdlov,Strain-Induced Effects in Advanced MOS- FETs, Computational Microelectronics (Springer Vi- enna, Vienna, 2011)

    V. Sverdlov,Strain-Induced Effects in Advanced MOS- FETs, Computational Microelectronics (Springer Vi- enna, Vienna, 2011)

    2011

  49. [49]

    M. P. Losert, M. Oberländer, J. D. Teske, M. Volmer, L. R. Schreiber, H. Bluhm, S. Coppersmith, and M. Friesen, Strategies for Enhancing Spin-Shuttling Fi- delities in Si/SiGe Quantum Wells with Random-Alloy Disorder, PRX Quantum5, 040322 (2024). 9

    2024

  50. [50]

    Friesen, M

    M. Friesen, M. A. Eriksson, and S. N. Coppersmith, Magnetic field dependence of valley splitting in realis- tic Si/SiGe quantum wells, Appl. Phys. Lett.89, 202106 (2006)

    2006

  51. [51]

    Friesen, S

    M. Friesen, S. Chutia, C. Tahan, and S. N. Coppersmith, Valley splitting theory of SiGe/Si/SiGe quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B75, 115318 (2007)

    2007

  52. [52]

    De Smet, Y

    M. De Smet, Y. Matsumoto, A.-M. J. Zwerver, L. Try- puten, S.L.DeSnoo, S.V.Amitonov, S.R.Katiraee-Far, A. Sammak, N. Samkharadze, Ö. Gül, R. N. M. Wasser- man, E. Greplová, M. Rimbach-Russ, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, High-fidelity single-spin shuttling in silicon, Nat. Nanotechnol.20, 866 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Zwerver, S

    A. Zwerver, S. Amitonov, S. de Snoo, M. Mądzik, M. Rimbach-Russ, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. Vandersypen, Shuttling an Electron Spin through a Silicon Quantum Dot Array, PRX Quantum4, 030303 (2023). 10 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIALS S1. VIR TUAL DETECTORS Two-dimensional diffraction maps are acquired for each spatial position and every angle during a scan...

    2023

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 30, 2026.