Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Noise-resilient and Scalable Quantum Error Correction for Nuclear Spin Qubits in Silicon with Electron Shuttling

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a pair of shuttled electrons can non-destructively measure the parity of nuclear spin qubits in silicon, providing a noise-resilient syndrome measurement layer for CSS quantum error correction.

desk verdict A genuinely new parity-measurement scheme for nuclear spins, but the scalability claim depends on an unquantified shuttling spin-flip rate that the paper asserts rather than demonstrates. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27527 v1 pith:XJOKITEL submitted 2026-07-29 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Wayne M. Witzel , Matthew D. Grace , Dwight R. Luhman This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall PACS 03.67.Pp85.35.Gv
keywords quantumerrorcorrectionnuclearspinqubitssilicondotselectronshuttlingpairinterferometryhyperfineinteractionsinglet-tripletmeasurementCSScodes
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

This paper introduces electron pair interferometry (EPI), a protocol for reading out the parity of nuclear spin qubits in silicon quantum dots without destroying the qubits. A pair of electrons is initialized in a singlet state, split along two paths, and shuttled past two complementary sets of nuclei; the hyperfine interaction imprints the nuclear parity onto the electron pair's singlet/triplet state. Combined with global nuclear magnetic resonance pulses to switch measurement bases and selective hyperfine-induced $Z_\pi$ gates, EPI yields a gate set that is universal, compatible with Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) quantum error correction, and noise-resilient. At $B_0 = 1$ mT and $B_1 \approx 100$ $\mu$T, detector error model estimates place parity-measurement errors below $10^{-3}$ for magnetic field uniformities of about 0.1% ($B_0$) and 1% ($B_1$).

What carries the argument

The central object is electron pair interferometry (EPI), defined as splitting a singlet electron pair along two distinct shuttling paths and recombining the pair to measure the relative phase accumulated from hyperfine interactions with nuclear spin qubits. Each hyperfine CPhase gate contributes a $\pm\pi/2$ rotation to the electron phase depending on the nuclear spin state, so the total accumulated phase obeys $\phi = \phi_N + a_1 + c_1 - a_2 - c_2$, with $\phi_N = 0$ for equal nuclear polarizations and $\phi_N = \pm\pi$ for differing polarizations. The singlet return probability $P_S = \cos^2(\phi/2)$ gives the parity readout. The supporting machinery is the global NMR cycle: a $Y_{\pi/2}$ pulse switches between $Z$-basis and $X$-basis parity checks, an $X_\pi$ pulse supplies dynamical decoupling, and selective $Z_\pi$ rotations from doubled hyperfine CPhase gates complete the universal gate set. Performance is estimated through a detector error model derived via the Choi–Jamiołkowski isomorphism, capturing both projective parity measurements and coherent phase errors from static $B_0$ and $B_1$ inhomogeneity.

What would settle it

Run a two-nucleus EPI parity check while sweeping the shuttle velocity across the adiabatic threshold at $B_0 = 1$ mT; if the singlet-return visibility decays or the electron spin-flip probability exceeds the predicted $\sim 2 \times 10^{-4}$, the adiabaticity assumption that the protocol rests on is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the parity of an even-numbered set of nuclear spin qubits can be coherently transferred onto the measurable singlet/triplet state of an electron pair. Each electron in a singlet pair is shuttled along a distinct path, interacting with half of the nuclei via hyperfine CPhase gates that contribute $\pm \pi/2$ to the relative phase $\phi$; the singlet return probability $P_S = \cos^2(\phi/2)$ then reports even parity (singlet) or odd parity (triplet). Electron phase errors commute through the operation until measurement, so only electron spin flips can corrupt the data qubits, and those are suppressed by energy gaps during adiabatic shuttling. Repeating parity measurements suppresses outcome errors exponentially while damaging data qubits only linearly, and global NMR pulses convert $Z$-basis parity checks into $X$-basis checks, completing the syndrome-extraction requirements for CSS codes. With selective $Z_\pi$ gates added to global NMR, the gate set is universal.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that electrons shuttled through the dot array remain in their instantaneous spin and orbital eigenstates at all times, so no electron spin flips occur and the accumulated phase difference faithfully records the nuclear parity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Repeated EPI parity rounds on the same nuclei suppress measurement outcome errors exponentially while nuclear spin error accumulates only linearly, so syndrome extraction can be made arbitrarily reliable.
  • An EPI-based cycle with global $Y_{\pi/2}$ pulses provides both $Z$- and $X$-parity checks, making the protocol directly applicable to surface codes, color codes, and lattice-surgery-based logical operations.
  • The gate set formed by global NMR plus selective hyperfine-induced $Z_\pi$ gates is universal, with a $T$-like gate ($Z_{\pi/4}$) obtained by inserting a $Z_\pi$ into the global NMR cycle and tracked through the Pauli frame.
  • Electron dephasing during shuttling does not propagate to nuclear data qubits; it only affects the parity measurement outcome and can therefore be handled by majority voting over repeated EPI rounds.
  • At $B_0 = 1$ mT and $B_1 \approx 100$ $\mu$T, per-gate errors below $10^{-3}$ require $B_0$ uniformity of about 0.1% and $B_1$ uniformity of about 1%, with larger $B_1$ relaxing these requirements through power broadening.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same EPI geometry could measure parity across two-dimensional dot arrays or between distant patches on a modular chip, since the protocol only requires routing shuttle paths; the paper discusses linear arrays, but the phase-accumulation mechanism does not depend on path topology.
  • Because the parity measurement is non-demolition, EPI could also serve as a repeat-until-success entanglement protocol for nuclear qubits across long distances, a use the paper does not explicitly explore.
  • The detector error model framework presented for global NMR errors is transferable: any shuttling-based architecture relying on global control pulses could use the same Choi–Jamiołkowski extraction to set field-uniformity specifications.
  • A two-nucleus EPI parity check is the natural near-term experiment: matching $P_S = \cos^2(\phi/2)$ with high visibility would simultaneously validate the adiabatic-shuttling assumption and the CPhase error model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum error correction architecture for nuclear spin qubits in silicon quantum dots, built on a new measurement primitive called electron pair interferometry (EPI). A pair of electrons is initialized in a singlet state, split along two paths, and adiabatically shuttled through quantum dots that each contain a nuclear spin qubit. Hyperfine CPhase interactions imprint a phase on each electron that depends on the nuclear spin state; the differential phase accumulated between the two paths encodes the parity of the visited nuclear spins into the singlet/triplet measurement outcome. The authors combine EPI with global NMR pulses to perform both Z- and X-basis parity checks, enabling CSS-code syndrome extraction, and add selective hyperfine-induced Zπ rotations to complete a universal gate set. The paper also presents a detector error model (DEM) analysis of the effect of static B0 and B1 inhomogeneities on the global NMR rotations, concluding that error rates below 1e-3 are achievable at B0 = 1 mT with B0 uniformity of about 0.1% and B1 uniformity of about 1% (for B1 ≈ 100 µT). The central physics of the parity-to-singlet/triplet mapping is derived explicitly, and the protocol is framed as a scalable, noise-resilient route to QEC for nuclear spin qubits.

Significance. If the protocol operates as described, this would be a substantial contribution to silicon-based quantum computing: it provides a concrete, physically motivated route to non-demolition parity measurement of nuclear spin qubits, compatible with a broad class of CSS codes, and it leverages demonstrated capabilities in coherent electron shuttling and hyperfine control. The core derivation of the parity mapping is explicit and checkable, and the DEM analysis provides concrete, falsifiable operating points for magnetic field uniformity. The paper is honest about several caveats, including the need for adiabatic shuttling and the role of electron dephasing, and it correctly notes that electron phase errors alone do not directly corrupt the nuclear data qubits. However, the quantitative claims about scalability and performance rest on a small number of assumptions that are not fully quantified in the manuscript, most notably the suppression of electron spin flips over the full shuttling path. These assumptions are load-bearing because the protocol's central advantage is the preservation of nuclear coherence during measurement.

major comments (2)
  1. [Electron Pair Interferometry / Performance Estimates] The central claim that "the only type of ancilla qubit error that can spread to corrupt data qubits during EPI is an electron spin flip" is not quantitatively supported for the full shuttling path. The bound of <2e-4 cited from Ref. [28] applies to hyperfine flip-flop during a single CPhase interaction at a dot, not to spin flips accumulated during electron transport across the dot array. The 99.5% shuttling fidelity from Ref. [32] is an average fidelity that does not separate spin-preserving phase errors from spin-flip errors; only the latter are harmful to the data qubits. The DEM calculations in Figs. 2 and 3 model only NMR rotation errors under static B0/B1 inhomogeneity and exclude shuttling-induced spin flips. Without an estimate or bound for the spin-flip probability per EPI round, the statement that damage to data qubits "scales linearly" with the number of rounds, and the resulting scalability conclusion, are not established. This gap directly affects the paper's main claim.
  2. [Performance Estimates (hyperfine-CPhase paragraph)] The statement that only electron spin flips can corrupt data qubits during EPI appears to conflict with the paper's own account of hyperfine-CPhase errors. The text reports "correlated Z⊗Z errors below 10^-4" for the hyperfine-CPhase gate. A correlated Z⊗Z error on an electron-nuclear pair produces a Z error on the data qubit (the nucleus) in addition to an electron phase error. If these Z⊗Z errors are stochastic rather than static and calibratable, they directly corrupt data qubits during EPI, contradicting the "only type" statement. The authors should clarify whether the Z⊗Z errors are treated as static phase errors that can be canceled by dynamical decoupling (as is suggested for the b1 versus b2 variations) or as stochastic errors, and if stochastic, they should be included in the data-qubit error budget for each EPI round.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Electron Pair Interferometry (example with 119Sn)] In the numerical example, the text states that a1-a2 contributes about 0.017 radians to phi, resulting in a measurement outcome error of 1 - cos^2(0.017/2) ≈ 3 × 10^-4. The correct value is approximately 7 × 10^-5 (since 1 - cos^2(0.0085) ≈ 7.2e-5). Please check the calculation and the claimed value.
  2. [Figures 2 and 3 captions] The captions for Figs. 2 and 3 state "with DD (a)-(e) and without it (f)" but do not define what each of the five panels (a)-(e) represents. Adding a one-sentence description of each panel would make the figures substantially clearer.
  3. [Performance Estimates (DEM notation)] The notation P^{π/2}_X, P^{π}_X, etc., is used in the DEM discussion, but the convention (superscript gate, subscript error) is not explicitly defined in one place. A brief definition at first use would improve readability.
  4. [Electron Pair Interferometry (rotating frame)] The text says "we work in the rotating frame governed by the Zeeman interaction with each qubit," but the rotating frame for the electrons during shuttling with inhomogeneous fields is not fully specified. A short comment on how this frame is defined along the shuttle path would help the reader.
  5. [References and typos] There are a few minor typographical issues: "it's impact" should be "its impact," and "B-field inhomogenity" should be "B-field inhomogeneity." Also, Ref. [44] is heavily used to justify treating spatial correlations as independent; the precise condition (code distance greater than 3) should be stated in the main text rather than only in the reference context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: EPI parity transfer is derived from the singlet/triplet wavefunction and phase bookkeeping; cited prior work supplies subroutine parameters, not the claimed result.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The EPI parity readout follows from the explicit singlet state |psi(t)> = (|up>_A|down>_B - e^{-i phi(t)} |down>_A|up>_B)/sqrt(2) and the singlet-return probability P_S = cos^2(phi/2), with phi assembled from local Z-rotation bookkeeping in Eqs. (1)-(2). The mapping from nuclear polarization configurations to phi_N = 0 or +/-pi is a direct consequence of the controlled-phase structure of the hyperfine interaction, not a fitted or self-referential input. The performance estimates import hyperfine-CPhase error rates from the authors' prior PRX Quantum work [28], but that cited work is a separate microscopic characterization of the subroutine and does not assume EPI or the parity-measurement claim, so it is independent support rather than a circular reduction. Similarly, Ref. [44] is used only to justify treating static field inhomogeneity as independent noise for large codes, which is peripheral to the EPI claim. The explicitly acknowledged adiabatic-shuttling assumption is a genuine caveat on validity, but it is a correctness and risk concern, not a circular step: the paper does not define the predicted parity outcome in terms of that assumption. I find no step where a prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

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

The central parity-transfer mechanism is self-contained, but the quantitative performance claims rest on chosen operating points and on error rates imported from the authors' prior work. No new physical entity is postulated; the contribution is a new measurement protocol.

free parameters (4)
  • B0 operating point = 1 mT
    Chosen by hand as the static magnetic field for the performance estimates. It affects adiabaticity and the error rates of the hyperfine CPhase gates.
  • B1 operating points = 100 µT and 1 mT
    Chosen by hand as the NMR pulse amplitudes in the DEM simulations. The results and the inhomogeneity requirements depend on these values.
  • Hyperfine coupling strengths in example = 100 kHz and 400 kHz
    Used in the concrete example for the a1-a2 error estimate; taken from the authors' prior work on Sn qubits, not fitted in this paper.
  • T2* coherence times = 10 µs and 100 µs
    Used to estimate electron phase error during the hyperfine CPhase gate; these values are from the self-cited Ref. [28] and are not derived in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Adiabatic electron shuttling preserves the singlet/triplet encoding and suppresses electron spin flips throughout the EPI sequence.
    Assumed in the section 'Electron Pair Interferometry', where the authors state 'In assuming adiabatic shuttling during EPI, the electron polarization should be referenced to the instantaneous eigenbases along the respective paths.' The entire protocol and its error analysis depend on this.
  • domain assumption The hyperfine CPhase gate operates with error rates and phase shifts as computed in the authors' prior work, Ref. [28].
    The performance estimates for spin flips, correlated Z-Z errors, and electron phase errors are imported from Ref. [28], which is authored by two of the present authors. The paper does not re-derive these numbers.
  • domain assumption Spatial correlations of magnetic field inhomogeneity can be modeled as independent per-qubit noise when the code distance is greater than 3, following Ref. [44].
    Invoked in the 'Performance Estimates' section: 'it has been shown [44] that spatial correlations of this nature can be disregarded when codes are larger than distance 3.' Ref. [44] is self-cited and the argument is not reproduced.
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and the standard theory of CSS codes and Pauli frame tracking apply.
    The paper uses standard spin algebra, singlet/triplet states, and quantum error correction formalism without proof, which is appropriate background for the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noise-resilient and Scalable Quantum Error Correction for Nuclear Spin Qubits in Silicon with Electron Shuttling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XJOKITEL

@misc{pith2026260727527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noise-resilient and Scalable Quantum Error Correction for Nuclear Spin Qubits in Silicon with Electron Shuttling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XJOKITEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27527}
}
abstract

Nuclear spin qubits in silicon are well-isolated from their environment. Consequently, they have very long lifetimes and low sensitivity to noise, but this also suggests that control and measurement is challenging. We introduce electron pair interferometry (EPI), a protocol to overcome this challenge and maintain robustness to noise. EPI is implemented using an array of quantum dots with isoelectronic nuclear spin qubits located in the dots. A pair of electrons are initialized into a singlet ground state, split apart, and shuttled to the dots containing nuclear spin qubits. We show it is possible to coherently transfer the parity of the nuclei onto the measurable state of singlet/triplet-encoded electrons. Global nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) can be used to change bases and implement dynamical decoupling (DD). Combined with selective hyperfine-induced $Z_{\pi}$ rotations, our gate set is complete for universal quantum computation, tailored to Calderbank-Shor-Steane (CSS) quantum error correction, and robust to noise. We discuss very low sensitivity to charge noise and study the sensitivity to both DC and AC magnetic field inhomogeneity which depends strongly on their relative strengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27527 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Global NMR cycle for universal quantum compu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. DEM for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Referred to as electron-nuclear controlled-phase or e-n- CPhase gates in Ref. [28]

    work page

  2. [32]

    R. M. Jock, N. T. Jacobson, P. Harvey-Collard, A. M. Mounce, V. Srinivasa, D. R. Ward, J. Anderson, R. Manginell, J. R. Wendt, M. Rudolph, T. Pluym, J. K. Gamble, A. D. Baczewski, W. M. Witzel, and M. S. Carroll, Nature Communications9, 10.1038/s41467-018- 04200-0 (2018)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-018- 2018

  3. [1]

    J. T. Muhonen, J. P. Dehollain, A. Laucht, F. E. Hud- son, R. Kalra, T. Sekiguchi, K. M. Itoh, D. N. Jamieson, J. C. McCallum, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, Nature Nanotechnology9, 986–991 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [2]

    P. C. Maurer, G. Kucsko, C. Latta, L. Jiang, N. Y. Yao, S. D. Bennett, F. Pastawski, D. Hunger, N. Chisholm, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, J. I. Cirac, and M. D. Lukin, Science336, 1283–1286 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [3]

    v Our DEM ascribes a probability toX,Y, andZer- rors following each NMR gate for a given nuclear qubit depending upon its local, static DC and AC magnetic field offsets

    With this justification, we model rotation errors due to magnetic field inhomogeneity as an independent noise source for each nuclear spin qubit individually. v Our DEM ascribes a probability toX,Y, andZer- rors following each NMR gate for a given nuclear qubit depending upon its local, static DC and AC magnetic field offsets. TheX,Y, andZerrors each corr...

    work page

  6. [4]

    Saeedi, S

    K. Saeedi, S. Simmons, J. Z. Salvail, P. Dluhy, H. Rie- mann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, J. J. L. Morton, and M. L. W. Thewalt, Science342, 830–833 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [5]

    B. E. Kane, Nature393, 133 (1998)

    work page 1998

  8. [6]

    H. G. Stemp, M. R. van Blankenstein, S. Asaad, M. T. Mądzik, B. Joecker, H. R. Firgau, A. Laucht, F. E. Hud- son, A. S. Dzurak, K. M. Itoh, A. M. Jakob, B. C. Johnson, D. N. Jamieson, and A. Morello, Science389, 1234–1238 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [7]

    Thorvaldson, D

    I. Thorvaldson, D. Poulos, C. M. Moehle, S. H. Misha, H. Edlbauer, J. Reiner, H. Geng, B. Voisin, M. T. Jones, M. B. Donnelly, L. F. Peña, C. D. Hill, C. R. Myers, J. G. Keizer, Y. Chung, S. K. Gorman, L. Kranz, and M. Y. Simmons, Nature Nanotechnology20, 472–477 (2025)

    2025

  2. [8]

    Edlbauer, J

    H. Edlbauer, J. Wang, A. M. S.-E. Huq, I. Thorvaldson, M. T. Jones, S. H. Misha, W. J. Pappas, C. M. Moehle, Y.-L. Hsueh, H. Bornemann, S. K. Gorman, Y. Chung, J. G. Keizer, L. Kranz, and M. Y. Simmons, Nature648, 569–575 (2025)

    2025

  3. [9]

    Struck, M

    T. Struck, M. Volmer, L. Visser, T. Offermann, R. Xue, J.-S. Tu, S. Trellenkamp, Ł. Cywiński, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Nature Communications15, 10.1038/s41467-024-45583-7 (2024)

    2024 doi

  4. [10]

    R. Xue, M. Beer, I. Seidler, S. Humpohl, J.-S. Tu, S. Trel- lenkamp, T. Struck, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Nature Communications15, 10.1038/s41467-024-46519- x (2024)

    2024 doi

  5. [11]

    S. G. J. Philips, M. T. Mądzik, S. V. Amitonov, S. L. de Snoo, M. Russ, N. Kalhor, C. Volk, W. I. L. Lawrie, D. Brousse, L. Tryputen, B. P. Wuetz, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature609, 919–924 (2022)

    2022

  6. [12]

    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...

    2025

  7. [13]

    Nickl, N

    A. Nickl, N. D. Stuyck, P. Steinacker, J. D. Cifuentes, S. Serrano, M. Feng, E. Vahapoglu, F. E. Hudson, K. W. Chan, S. Kubicek, J. Jussot, Y. Canvel, S. Beyne, Y. Shimura, R. Loo, C. Godfrin, B. Raes, S. Baudot, D. Wan, A. Laucht, C.-H. Yang, W. H. Lim, A. Saraiva, C. C. Esco...

    2025 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Wang, J.-M

    N. Wang, J.-M. Kang, W.-L. Lu, S.-M. Wang, Y.-J. Wang, H.-O. Li, G. Cao, B.-C. Wang, and G.-P. Guo, Nano Letters24, 13126–13133 (2024)

    2024

  9. [15]

    Han Lim, T

    W. Han Lim, T. Tanttu, T. Youn, J. Y. Huang, S. Ser- rano, A. Dickie, S. Yianni, F. E. Hudson, C. C. Escott, C. H. Yang, A. Laucht, A. Saraiva, K. W. Chan, J. D. Ci- fuentes, and A. S. Dzurak, Nano Letters25, 10263–10269 (2025)

    2025

  10. [16]

    F. K. Unseld, B. Undseth, E. Raymenants, Y. Mat- sumoto, S. L. de Snoo, S. Karwal, O. Pietx-Casas, A. S. Ivlev, M. Meyer, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, G. Scap- pucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature Communica- tions16, 10.1038/s41467-025-60351-x (2025)

    2025 doi

  11. [17]

    Abraham, E

    M. Abraham, E. Acuna, T. S. Adams, M. Akmal, M. R. Alfaro, I. Alvarado, J. Amontree, C. Andrews, R. W. An- drews, 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. ...

    2026 arXiv

  12. [18]

    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, Nature Communications 12, 10.1038/s41467-021-24371-7 (2021)

    2021 doi

  13. [19]

    Seidler, T

    I. Seidler, T. Struck, R. Xue, N. Focke, S. Trellenkamp, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, npj Quantum Informa- tion8, 10.1038/s41534-022-00615-2 (2022)

    2022 doi

  14. [20]

    Volmer, T

    M. Volmer, T. Struck, A. Sala, B. Chen, M. Oberlän- der, T. Offermann, R. Xue, L. Visser, J.-S. Tu, S. Trel- lenkamp, Ł. Cywiński, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, npj Quantum Information10, 10.1038/s41534-024- 00852-7 (2024)

    2024 doi

  15. [21]

    M. P. Losert, M. Oberländer, J. D. Teske, M. Volmer, L. R. Schreiber, H. Bluhm, S. Coppersmith, and M. Friesen, PRX Quantum5, 10.1103/prxquan- tum.5.040322 (2024)

    2024 doi

  16. [22]

    N. D. Foster, J. D. Henshaw, M. Rudolph, D. R. Luh- man, and R. M. Jock, npj Quantum Information11, 10.1038/s41534-025-00996-0 (2025)

    2025 doi

  17. [23]

    Langheinrich, V

    W. Langheinrich, V. Brackmann, M. Friedrich, M. Wis- licenus, P. Muster, S. Pregl, F. Reichmann, N. Komer- ički, D. Bougeard, T. Huckemann, L. Schreiber, and H. Bluhm, in40th European Mask and Lithography Con- ference (EMLC 2025), edited by J. Finders and I. Stol- berg (SPIE, ...

    2025

  18. [24]

    S.-C. Lin, P. Steinacker, M. Feng, A. Dash, S. Ser- rano, W. H. Lim, K. M. Itoh, F. E. Hudson, T. Tanttu, A. Saraiva, A. Laucht, A. S. Dzurak, H.-S. Goan, and C. H. Yang, Interplay of zeeman splitting and tun- nel coupling in coherent spin qubit shuttling (2025), arXiv:2507.15...

    2025

  19. [25]

    Volmer, T

    M. Volmer, T. Struck, J.-S. Tu, S. Trellenkamp, D. D. Esposti, G. Scappucci, Ł. Cywiński, 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 (2025), arXiv:2510.03773 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Hensen, W

    B. Hensen, W. Wei Huang, C.-H. Yang, K. Wai Chan, J. Yoneda, T. Tanttu, F. E. Hudson, A. Laucht, K. M. Itoh, T. D. Ladd, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, Nat. Nanotechnol.15, 13 (2020)

    2020

  21. [27]

    Steinacker, G

    P. Steinacker, G. Goenka, R. Y. Su, T. Tanttu, W. H. Lim, S. Serrano, T. Botzem, J. D. Cifuentes, S. Q. Lim, J. C. McCallum, B. C. Johnson, F. E. Hudson, K. W. Chan, C. C. Escott, A. Saraiva, C. H. Yang, V. Mourik, A. Morello, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Laucht, Coupling a73ge nuclea...

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    W. M. Witzel, J. J. Lutz, and D. R. Luhman, PRX Quan- tum3, 10.1103/prxquantum.3.040320 (2022)

    2022 doi

  23. [30]

    Acharya, M

    R. Acharya, M. Coke, M. Adshead, K. Li, B. Achinuq, R. Cai, A. B. Gholizadeh, J. Jacobs, J. L. Boland, S. J. Haigh, K. L. Moore, D. N. Jamieson, and R. J. Curry, CommunicationsMaterials5,10.1038/s43246-024-00498- 0 (2024)

    2024 doi

  24. [31]

    S. Q. Lim, B. C. Johnson, S. Rubanov, N. Klingner, B. Gong, A. M. Jakob, D. Holmes, D. N. Jamieson, J. S. Williams, and J. C. McCallum, Physical Review Materi- als9, 10.1103/787r-9jps (2025)

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    De Smet, Y

    M. De 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. Gül, R. N. M. Wasserman, E. Greplová, M. Rimbach-Russ, G. Scap- pucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy20, 866–872 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Horsman, A

    D. Horsman, A. G. Fowler, S. Devitt, and R. V. Meter, New Journal of Physics14, 123011 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Tillich and G

    J.-P. Tillich and G. Zemor, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory60, 1193–1202 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    N. P. Breuckmann and J. N. Eberhardt, IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory67, 6653–6674 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Panteleev and G

    P. Panteleev and G. Kalachev, IEEE Transactions on In- formation Theory68, 213–229 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    M. A. Tremblay, N. Delfosse, and M. E. Beverland, Phys- ical Review Letters129, 10.1103/physrevlett.129.050504 (2022)

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Bravyi, A

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature627, 778–782 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    J. D. Chadwick and F. T. Chong, Cablecar: efficiently scheduling qldpc codes on a tileable spin qubit chip with shuttling (2026), arXiv:2604.24739 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dumoulin Stuyck, A

    N. Dumoulin Stuyck, A. E. Seedhouse, S. Serrano, T. Tanttu, W. Gilbert, J. Y. Huang, F. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Laucht, W. H. Lim, C. H. Yang, A. Saraiva, and A. S. Dzurak, Applied Physics Letters 124, 10.1063/5.0179958 (2024)

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    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, ...

    2025

  35. [43]

    W. M. Witzel, J. J. Lutz, M. D. Grace, N. D. Foster, R. M. Jock, and D. R. Luhman, Predicting the slow drift of nuclear spin noise in semiconductor spin qubits (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    Blume-Kohout and K

    R. Blume-Kohout and K. Young, Estimating detector er- ror models from syndrome data (2025), arXiv:2504.14643 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    W. M. Witzel, A. Ganti, and T. S. Metodi, Correcting coherent quantum errors by going with the flow (2026), arXiv:2602.21076 [quant-ph]

    2026

  38. [46]

    Guéry-Odelin, A

    D. Guéry-Odelin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Tor- rontegui, S. Martínez-Garaot, and J. Muga, Reviews 9 of Modern Physics91, 10.1103/revmodphys.91.045001 (2019)

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.