Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Quantum Steering and Nonlocal Correlations Between Non-Interacting Delocalized Electrons Under Rashba Spin-Orbit Interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Rashba spin-orbit strength can restore Bell nonlocality, steering, and uncertainty-induced nonlocality between distant electrons in a 2DEG after first suppressing them, with a peak near 4.32×10⁻¹¹ eV·m in Bi/Ag(111).

desk verdict Competent extension of an existing 2DEG–Rashba density matrix to steering/Bell/UIN; the quoted optimal α_R is a real numerical feature of Υ, but only inside the non-interacting model. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28450 v1 pith:U53SCJ4M submitted 2026-07-30 quant-ph

Zakaria Bouafia , Mostafa Mansour This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumsteeringBellnonlocalityuncertainty-inducedRashbaspin-orbitinteractiontwo-dimensionalelectrongasBi/Ag(111)delocalizedelectronsexchangehole
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 asks whether the Rashba spin-orbit interaction, already known to reshape entanglement and discord in a two-dimensional electron gas, can also control three stricter nonlocal resources—Bell nonlocality, quantum steering, and uncertainty-induced nonlocality—between two non-interacting delocalized electrons. Working with the Bi/Ag(111) surface alloy, whose intrinsic Rashba parameter is large, the authors compute all three quantities from the two-fermion exchange density matrix as functions of coupling strength and inter-electron distance. They find that turning on Rashba coupling first shrinks the distances at which Bell nonlocality and steering survive, yet further increase of the coupling produces a non-monotonic recovery that peaks near an optimal value 4.32×10⁻¹¹ eV·m for every separation they examine. Uncertainty-induced nonlocality is more resilient to distance but follows the same non-monotonic trend. The practical claim is that gate-tunable Rashba strength can therefore be used as a knob that partially compensates the natural decay of these resources with separation, offering a concrete materials handle for 2DEG-based quantum protocols that need steering or Bell nonlocality.

What carries the argument

The two-fermion spin density matrix of the non-interacting Rashba 2DEG (built from the exchange hole and spin-texture integrals Γ₁ and Γ₂), from which closed-form expressions for the CHSH-based Bell measure B, the CJWR steering quantifier S, and the uncertainty-induced nonlocality U_c are obtained and plotted versus α_R and R.

What would settle it

Electrically tune the Rashba parameter through approximately 4.3×10⁻¹¹ eV·m in a Bi/Ag(111) or equivalent 2DEG while measuring a steering or CHSH witness between electrons at fixed separation; absence of a recovery peak would falsify the central claim inside the model’s stated regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Although raising the Rashba coupling α_R initially suppresses Bell nonlocality, quantum steering and uncertainty-induced nonlocality between two electrons in a 2DEG, all three metrics recover non-monotonically and reach a maximum near the single optimal value α_R = 4.32×10⁻¹¹ eV·m across the range of inter-electron separations studied in the Bi/Ag(111) system. Rashba strength is thereby established as a control parameter that can stabilize these resources against separation-induced decay.

Load-bearing premise

Coulomb interactions, temperature and decoherence are all set to zero, so the two-electron state is purely the exchange-hole plus Rashba spin-texture form; if interactions reshape those correlations the reported optimal coupling need not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gate voltage can be used to switch a Bi/Ag(111) 2DEG between a regime that suppresses steering/Bell nonlocality and a nearby regime that partially restores them.
  • The critical separations at which Bell nonlocality and steering vanish can be pushed back toward their zero-Rashba values by sitting at the optimal coupling.
  • Uncertainty-induced nonlocality remains finite beyond the distances where steering and Bell nonlocality disappear, supplying a longer-range residual resource.
  • Device designs that already rely on electrically tunable Rashba spin-orbit coupling gain an explicit target window for preserving nonlocal quantum resources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the same density matrix was previously used only for entanglement and discord, the appearance of a sharp optimum specifically for steering and Bell nonlocality suggests those stricter resources are more sensitive to the competition between exchange-hole suppression and spin-texture asymmetry.
  • If weak interactions only perturb Γ₁ and Γ₂ continuously, a shifted but still present recovery peak should remain observable, giving a concrete experimental target even outside the idealised model.
  • The optimal coupling lying only modestly above the material’s native α₀ implies that modest gate swings, already demonstrated in related 2DEGs, may be sufficient to traverse the recovery curve.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies Bell nonlocality B, uncertainty-induced nonlocality U_c, and CJWR quantum steering S for a pair of non-interacting delocalized electrons in a 2DEG with Rashba SOI, specializing to Bi/Ag(111) parameters (α_0 = 3.05×10^{-11} eV m, n = 6.25×10^{11} cm^{-2}, m* = 0.35 m_0). Starting from the two-fermion density matrix of Aranzadi & Tamborenea (Eqs. 21–23), the authors obtain closed forms (Eqs. 29–31) in which all three resources are strictly monotone functions of the single scalar Υ = Γ_1² + Γ_2². Numerically evaluating these expressions versus inter-electron separation R and Rashba strength α_R, they report that RSOI initially suppresses the resources relative to the α_R = 0 case, but that B, S, and U_c recover non-monotonically and peak near α_R = 4.32×10^{-11} eV m across the R range considered. They conclude that electrically tunable RSOI can stabilize these correlations against separation-induced decay in this platform.

Significance. Within the stated non-interacting, zero-temperature, decoherence-free model the algebra is standard and reproducible: B, S, and U_c reduce cleanly to functions of Υ, the reduced state is correctly maximally mixed (v = 0), and the non-monotonic peak is a genuine numerical feature of Υ(α_R, R) for the Bi/Ag(111) parameters. Extending prior entanglement/discord analyses of the same 2DEG–Rashba setting to three operationally distinct resources (CHSH nonlocality, EPR steering, UIN) is a legitimate incremental contribution. If the recovery peak were shown to be robust under Coulomb interactions, density variation, or weak decoherence, the result would be of clear interest for gate-tunable 2DEG spin-orbit platforms and one-sided device-independent protocols. As written, the significance is conditional on that robustness, which is not demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Figs. 2d–f; abstract; Eqs. (29)–(31)] The central quantitative claim—an optimal coupling α_R = 4.32×10^{-11} eV m at which B, S, and U_c recover (abstract, §4–5, Figs. 2d–f)—is obtained solely by numerically maximizing Υ(α_R, R) inside the non-interacting two-fermion matrix (Eqs. 21–23). No analytic condition for ∂Υ/∂α_R = 0 is given, and the manuscript never varies electron density n, effective mass m*, or the high-density assumption n > m*²α_R²/(πℏ⁴). Because Γ_1 and Γ_2 are built from the non-interacting Fermi circles k_F^±(α_R) and free Bessel/Struve integrals, the quoted optimum is an untested feature of one parameter slice. At minimum the paper should (i) report the R-dependence of the maximizing α_R, (ii) scan n and m* over a physically motivated window, and (iii) soften the language that presents 4.32×10^{-11} eV m as a material-specific control point rather than a numerical maximum of Υ for the chosen inputs.
  2. [§3 (after Eq. 12); §4–5] Coulomb interactions are dropped entirely (§3: “to isolate RSOI-driven effects”), so the exchange hole and spin-texture factors Γ_1, Γ_2 retain their free-fermion form. The claimed dual role of RSOI (exchange-hole suppression at baseline α_R versus spin-texture revival near the optimum) and the recovery of steering/Bell nonlocality are therefore established only inside that idealization. Interactions generically renormalize occupations and the pair correlation hole; if they shift or flatten the maximum of Υ, the control-parameter narrative does not carry over to real 2DEGs. The manuscript should either supply a controlled interacting estimate (e.g., screened exchange or a variational two-body correction) or explicitly reframe the result as a property of the non-interacting model, with a clear caveat in the abstract and conclusion that survival under interactions is untested.
  3. [§2.2–2.3; Eqs. (29)–(31); §4] All three monotones are strictly increasing functions of the single scalar Υ (Eqs. 29–31). Consequently the “recovery of all three metrics” is not three independent phenomena but one: the non-monotonicity of Υ(α_R). The paper’s narrative of distinct mechanisms for B/S versus U_c is only partially supported—U_c remains nonzero past the CHSH/steering thresholds because its functional form in Υ stays positive longer, not because it probes a qualitatively different sector of the density matrix once v = 0. A short decomposition of Υ into Γ_1²(α_R) and Γ_2²(α_R) contributions (and of n_min(N) for UIN) would make the dual-role interpretation quantitative rather than verbal and would clarify what is actually being optimized.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 and caption; §4] Unit handling is inconsistent and easy to misread: α_R is quoted in eV m in the text and abstract but plotted in J m (4×10^{-30}–8×10^{-30}) in Fig. 2, with a parenthetical conversion only in the caption prose. State a single convention in the figures and give the conversion once in the methods.
  2. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 panels (d,e) are described as “a comparison of these three metrics” but the caption does not state which curves correspond to which resource or to with/without RSOI; add a legend or explicit panel labels.
  3. [Title page; §4] Typos and formatting: “andMostafa” (title block); missing spaces in several author/affiliation lines; “Twomechanismsdrivethissuppression” and similar run-on strings in §4; “eVm” vs “eV m” inconsistency; arXiv-style line breaks left in the prose.
  4. [§1; §4] The hierarchy statement in the introduction (Bell ⇒ steering ⇒ entanglement) is standard; a brief explicit check that the computed critical distances satisfy R_c^{(B)} < R_c^{(S)} for the present family of states would connect the numerics to that hierarchy.
  5. [References] Ref. [31] is dated 2026 and Ref. [61] similarly; ensure all citations are final or clearly marked as preprints to avoid confusion at production.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No derivation-by-construction circularity; only minor reuse of an externally introduced density matrix also cited in the authors' prior work.

  1. self citation load bearing [§1 Introduction; §3 Eqs. (18)–(23)]
    "The two-fermion density matrix ϱ_AB employed in this work follows the construction introduced by Aranzadi and Tamborenea [25], who used it to compute the exchange hole, concurrence, entanglement of formation, and quantum discord for the same 2DEG–Rashba system; this matrix was also employed in our earlier study of coherence and discord-type correlations [26]."

    The central object ϱ_AB is imported from prior literature that includes one overlapping-author paper [26]. This is not load-bearing circularity: the matrix originates with independent authors [25], the three resource formulas (4),(7),(11) are standard and independent of [26], and the α_R peak is obtained by evaluating those formulas rather than being assumed or fitted. Flagged only as minor self-citation reuse of the same platform.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: (i) non-interacting 2DEG+Rashba Hamiltonian → two filled Fermi seas with k_F^±(α_R); (ii) two-fermion density matrix ϱ_AB built from field operators, reducing to the closed form (21) with Γ_1, Γ_2 given by Bessel/Struve integrals (22)–(23); (iii) standard CHSH, UIN, and CJWR monotones evaluated on that matrix, yielding B, U_c, S as explicit monotone functions of the single scalar Υ=Γ_1²+Γ_2² (29)–(31); (iv) numerical scan over α_R and R for Bi/Ag(111) parameters produces a non-monotonic peak near α_R=4.32×10^{-11} eV m. None of these steps defines the output in terms of itself, fits a parameter to the claimed recovery, or imports a uniqueness theorem. The density matrix is taken from Aranzadi & Tamborenea (independent authors) and was also used in the present authors' earlier coherence/discord paper; that is ordinary methodological reuse, not a self-citation that forces the peak. The quoted optimum is a numerical feature of Υ(α_R,R) inside the stated non-interacting model, not an input renamed as a prediction. Robustness concerns about dropping Coulomb interactions affect correctness, not circularity. Score 1 only for the minor overlapping-author citation of the same matrix.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard non-interacting Rashba 2DEG Hamiltonian, a literature two-fermion density matrix, textbook resource monotones, and fixed Bi/Ag(111) material numbers. No new particles or forces are postulated. The load-bearing modeling choice is the complete neglect of Coulomb interactions and decoherence; material constants are taken from experiment/prior theory rather than fitted here. The reported optimal α_R is an output of the model, not a free fit parameter.

free parameters (2)
  • α_0 (baseline Rashba strength for Bi/Ag(111)) = 3.05×10^{-11} eV·m
    Taken from Ast et al. / Aranzadi & Tamborenea as the material’s native coupling; not refitted here, but the entire scan is anchored to this value and its multiples.
  • electron density n and effective mass m* = n=6.25e11 cm^{-2}, m*=0.35 m_0
    Fixed to n = 6.25×10^{11} cm^{-2} and m* = 0.35 m_0 to set k_F^± and r_0; chosen from the Bi/Ag(111) literature setup rather than varied systematically.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Coulomb interactions between the two electrons are neglected; correlations arise only from exchange and Rashba spin texture.
    Stated explicitly in §3 and §4 to ‘isolate RSOI-driven effects’; the density matrix (21) and all resource plots depend on it.
  • domain assumption Zero temperature, no decoherence, and high-density occupation of both Rashba branches (n > m*^2 α_R^2 / (π ℏ^4)).
    Ground state |Φ_0⟩ and Fermi wavevectors (17) assume T=0 filled seas; conclusion restates the scope.
  • domain assumption Two-fermion spin density matrix takes the Aranzadi–Tamborenea form (21) with Γ_1, Γ_2 built from Bessel and Struve functions of k_F^± R r_0.
    Imported from Refs. [25,29] and used unchanged as the sole state on which B, U_c, S are evaluated.
  • standard math Bell nonlocality, UIN, and CJWR steering are quantified by the standard two-qubit formulas (4), (7), (11).
    Section 2 recalls textbook definitions; closed forms (29)–(31) follow by direct substitution.
  • standard math Spin quantization axis along x and computational basis ordering used to write ρ_AB do not change the resource values beyond local unitaries.
    Implicit in the reduction to (21) and the correlation-matrix eigenvalues.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Steering and Nonlocal Correlations Between Non-Interacting Delocalized Electrons Under Rashba Spin-Orbit Interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U53SCJ4M

@misc{pith2026260728450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Steering and Nonlocal Correlations Between Non-Interacting Delocalized Electrons Under Rashba Spin-Orbit Interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U53SCJ4M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28450}
}
abstract

We investigate quantum steering and nonlocal correlations between two electrons in a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) as functions of Rashba spin-orbit interaction (RSOI) strength and inter-electron separation. We focus particularly on the Bi/Ag(111) system characterized by its strong RSOI ($\alpha_0 = 3.05\times10^{-11}$ eV~m), and we explore the influence of tuning intensity of RSOI and inter-electron distance on the dynamics of Bell nonlocality, uncertainty-induced nonlocality and steering. We find that, although increasing $\alpha_R$ initially suppresses quantum correlations, all three metrics exhibit a non-monotonic recovery as functions of $\alpha_R$, peaking near an optimal coupling strength $\alpha_R = 4.32\times10^{-11}$~eV~m across the range of inter-electron separations considered. This finding establishes RSOI as a critical control parameter for stabilizing quantum properties in two-dimensional electron gases against the decay of quantum correlations with inter-electron separation, and shows that the suppression and recovery of quantum resources within the Bi/Ag(111) system can be controlled by adjusting the inter-electron distance and carefully tuning the RSOI strength.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?,”Physical review, vol. 47, no. 10, p. 777, 1935

    1935

  2. [2]

    Discussion of probability relations between separated systems,

    E. Schrödinger, “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems,” inMath- ematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 31, pp. 555–563, Cam- bridge University Press, 1935

    1935

  3. [3]

    Steering, entanglement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox,

    H. Wiseman, S. Jones, and A. Doherty, “Steering, entanglement, nonlocality, and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 98, no. 14, p. 140402, 2007

    2007

  4. [4]

    Quantum steering,

    R. Uola, A. C. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. Gühne, “Quantum steering,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 92, no. 1, p. 015001, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Relationship between first-order coherence and the maximum violation of the three-setting linear steering inequality for a two-qubit system,

    M.-M. Du and D. Tong, “Relationship between first-order coherence and the maximum violation of the three-setting linear steering inequality for a two-qubit system,”Physical Review A, vol. 103, no. 3, p. 032407, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Manipulating the direction of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,

    Z. Qin, X. Deng, C. Tian, M. Wang, X. Su, C. Xie, and K. Peng, “Manipulating the direction of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,”Physical Review A, vol. 95, no. 5, p. 052114, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Quantum steerability: Characterization, quan- tification, superactivation, and unbounded amplification,

    C.-Y. Hsieh, Y.-C. Liang, and R.-K. Lee, “Quantum steerability: Characterization, quan- tification, superactivation, and unbounded amplification,”Physical Review A, vol. 94, no. 6, p. 062120, 2016

    2016

  8. [8]

    One-sided device-independentquantumkeydistribution: Security, feasibility, andtheconnectionwith steering,

    C.Branciard, E. G.Cavalcanti, S.P.Walborn, V.Scarani, andH.M.Wiseman, “One-sided device-independentquantumkeydistribution: Security, feasibility, andtheconnectionwith steering,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 85, no. 1, p. 010301, 2012

    2012

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Secure continuous variable tele- portation and einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,

    Q. He, L. Rosales-Zárate, G. Adesso, and M. D. Reid, “Secure continuous variable tele- portation and einstein-podolsky-rosen steering,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 115, no. 18, p. 180502, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Costa, M

    A. Costa, M. Beims, and R. Angelo, “Generalized discord, entanglement, einstein– podolsky–rosen steering, and bell nonlocality in two-qubit systems under (non-) markovian channels: Hierarchy of quantum resources and chronology of deaths and births,”Physica A: Statistical Mecha...

    2016

  3. [11]

    Rashba spin-orbit interaction in inas quantum wells,

    H. Koo, H. Yi, J.-B. Ko, J. Chang, S.-H. Han, D. Jung, S.-G. Huh, and J. Eom, “Rashba spin-orbit interaction in inas quantum wells,”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 90, no. 2, p. 022101, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    Control of spin precession in a spin-injected field effect transistor,

    H. Koo, J. Kwon, J. Eom, J. Chang, S. Han, and M. Johnson, “Control of spin precession in a spin-injected field effect transistor,”Science, vol. 325, no. 5937, pp. 1515–1518, 2009. 13

    2009

  5. [13]

    Spin hall effect transistor,

    J. Wunderlich, B.-G. Park, A. Irvine, L. Zarbo, E. Rozkotova, P. Nemec, V. Novak, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, “Spin hall effect transistor,”Science, vol. 330, no. 6002, pp. 1801–1804, 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    All-electric all-semiconductor spin field-effect transistors,

    P. Chuang, S.-C. Ho, L. Smith, F. Sfigakis, M. Pepper, C.-H. Chen, J.-C. Fan, J. Grif- fiths, I. Farrer, H. Beere,et al., “All-electric all-semiconductor spin field-effect transistors,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 35, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Perpendicular switching of a single ferromagnetic layer induced by in-plane current injection,

    I. Miron, G. Gaudin, S. Auffret, B. Rodmacq, A. Schuhl, S. Pizzini, J. Vogel, and P. Gam- bardella, “Perpendicular switching of a single ferromagnetic layer induced by in-plane current injection,”Nature Materials, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 230–234, 2010

    2010

  8. [16]

    Current-driven spin torque induced by the rashba effect in a ferromagnetic metal layer,

    I. Miron, K. Garello, G. Gaudin, P.-J. Zermatten, M. Costache, S. Auffret, S. Bandiera, B. Rodmacq, A. Schuhl, and P. Gambardella, “Current-driven spin torque induced by the rashba effect in a ferromagnetic metal layer,”Nature, vol. 476, no. 7359, pp. 189–193, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Rashba-like spin splitting in laalo3/srtio3 heterostructures,

    Y. Gan, Y. Zhang, D. Christensen, N. Pryds, and Y. Chen, “Rashba-like spin splitting in laalo3/srtio3 heterostructures,”Physical Review B, vol. 100, no. 12, p. 125134, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Electric field control of rashba spin-orbit interaction in srtio3-based heterostruc- tures,

    D. Choe, M.-J. Jin, S.-I. Kim, H.-J. Choi, J. Jo, I. Oh, J. Park, H. Jin, H. Koo, B.-C. Min, et al., “Electric field control of rashba spin-orbit interaction in srtio3-based heterostruc- tures,”Nature Communications, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 4510, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Rashba- like spin splitting in perovskite oxides,

    T. Gao, A. Qaiumzadeh, H. An, A. Musha, Y. Kageyama, J. Shi, and K. Ando, “Rashba- like spin splitting in perovskite oxides,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 121, no. 1, p. 017202, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Electric-field control of spin-orbit torque in a magnetically doped topological insulator,

    Y. Fan, P. Upadhyaya, X. Kou, M. Lang, S. Takei, Z. Wang, J. Tang, L. He, L.-T. Chang, M. Montazeri,et al., “Electric-field control of spin-orbit torque in a magnetically doped topological insulator,”Nature Materials, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 699–704, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Emergent quantum confinement at topological insulator surfaces,

    M. Bahramy, P. King, A. de la Torre, J. Chang, M. Shi, L. Patthey, G. Balakrishnan, P. Hofmann, R. Arita, N. Nagaosa,et al., “Emergent quantum confinement at topological insulator surfaces,”Nature Communications, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 1159, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Signatures of majorana fermions in hybrid superconductor-semiconductor nanowire devices,

    V. Mourik, K. Zuo, S. Frolov, S. Plissard, E. Bakkers, and L. Kouwenhoven, “Signatures of majorana fermions in hybrid superconductor-semiconductor nanowire devices,”Science, vol. 336, no. 6084, pp. 1003–1007, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Ballistic majorana nanowire devices,

    Ö. Gül, H. Zhang, J. Bommer, M. de Moor, D. Car, S. Plissard, E. Bakkers, A. Geresdi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi,et al., “Ballistic majorana nanowire devices,”Nature Nan- otechnology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 192–197, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Rashba effect in functional spintronic devices,

    H. C. Koo, S. B. Kim, H. Kim, T.-E. Park, J. W. Choi, K.-W. Kim, G. Go, J. H. Oh, D.-K. Lee, E.-S. Park, I.-S. Hong, and K.-J. Lee, “Rashba effect in functional spintronic devices,”Advanced Materials, vol. 32, no. 30, p. 2002117, 2020. 14

    2020

  17. [25]

    Quantum correlations of a two-dimensional electron gas with rashba spin-orbit coupling,

    J. Aranzadi and P. I. Tamborenea, “Quantum correlations of a two-dimensional electron gas with rashba spin-orbit coupling,”Physical Review B, vol. 108, no. 11, p. 115408, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Non-classical correlations and coherence in a two-dimensional electron gas under the influence of rashba spin–orbit cou- pling,

    C. Banouni, Z. Bouafia, M. Mansour, and M. Ouchrif, “Non-classical correlations and coherence in a two-dimensional electron gas under the influence of rashba spin–orbit cou- pling,”Modern Physics Letters A, vol. 39, no. 27n28, p. 2450128, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Note on the interpretation of the density matrix in the many-electron problem,

    P. Dirac, “Note on the interpretation of the density matrix in the many-electron problem,” inMathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 27, pp. 240–243, Cambridge University Press, 1931

    1931

  20. [28]

    Löwdin, “Quantum theory of many-particle systems

    P.-O. Löwdin, “Quantum theory of many-particle systems. i. physical interpretations by means of density matrices, natural spin-orbitals, and convergence problems in the method of configurational interaction,”Physical Review, vol. 97, no. 6, p. 1474, 1955

    1955

  21. [29]

    Entanglement in the second quantization formalism,

    V. Vedral, “Entanglement in the second quantization formalism,”Open Physics, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 289–306, 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    Thermal evolution of quantum steering, bell nonlocality, and entropic uncertainty in a heitler–london coupled spinsystem: M.oumennanaetal.,

    M. Oumennana, M. Mansour, H. Ardah, and A.-H. Abdel-Aty, “Thermal evolution of quantum steering, bell nonlocality, and entropic uncertainty in a heitler–london coupled spinsystem: M.oumennanaetal.,”Quantum Information Processing, vol.24, no.9, p.283, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Magnetic control of quantum correlations in a two-qubit spin system under dephasing,

    S. Bougouffa and K. Berrada, “Magnetic control of quantum correlations in a two-qubit spin system under dephasing,”Mathematics, vol. 14, no. 11, p. 1910, 2026

    1910

  24. [32]

    Properties of semiconductors with an extremum loop. i. cyclotron and com- binational resonance in a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the loop,

    E. Rashba, “Properties of semiconductors with an extremum loop. i. cyclotron and com- binational resonance in a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the loop,”Sov. Phys.-Solid State, vol. 2, p. 1109, 1960

    1960

  25. [33]

    Rashba spin-orbit interaction and shot noise for spin-polarized and entangled electrons,

    J. C. Egues, G. Burkard, and D. Loss, “Rashba spin-orbit interaction and shot noise for spin-polarized and entangled electrons,”Physical review letters, vol. 89, no. 17, p. 176401, 2002

    2002

  26. [34]

    Gate-tunable rashba spin-orbit coupling in mono- layer mote2,

    Y. Zhang, H. Liu, Q. Chen, and et al., “Gate-tunable rashba spin-orbit coupling in mono- layer mote2,”Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 18, pp. 789–795, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Semiconductor spin qubits,

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, “Semiconductor spin qubits,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 95, no. 2, p. 025003, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Materials challenges and opportunities for quantum computing hardware,

    N. P. De Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim,et al., “Materials challenges and opportunities for quantum computing hardware,”Science, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Silicon cmos architecture for a spin-based quantum computer,

    M. Veldhorst, H. G. J. Eenink, C. H. Yang, and A. S. Dzurak, “Silicon cmos architecture for a spin-based quantum computer,”Nat. Commun., 2017. 15

    2017

  30. [38]

    Silicon quantum electronics,

    F. A. Zwanenburg, A. S. Dzurak, A. Morello,et al., “Silicon quantum electronics,”Rev. Mod. Phys., 2013

    2013

  31. [39]

    Spin-orbit qubits in ingaas/inalas het- erostructures with coherence times exceeding 100 ns,

    X. Mi, G. Ben-Shach, X. Zhang, T. M. Nguyen, C. Quintana, Y. Chen, Z. Jiang, A. Marchenkov, C. Jünger, A. Zarassi,et al., “Spin-orbit qubits in ingaas/inalas het- erostructures with coherence times exceeding 100 ns,”Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 20, p. 014036, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Giant spin splitting through surface alloying,

    C. R. Ast, J. Henk, A. Ernst, L. Moreschini, M. C. Falub, D. Pacilé, P. Bruno, K. Kern, and M. Grioni, “Giant spin splitting through surface alloying,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 98, no. 18, p. 186807, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,”Physical review letters, vol. 23, no. 15, p. 880, 1969

    1969

  34. [42]

    Entanglement estimation from bell inequality violation,

    K. Bartkiewicz, B. Horst, K. Lemr, and A. Miranowicz, “Entanglement estimation from bell inequality violation,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 88, no. 5, p. 052105, 2013

    2013

  35. [43]

    Violating bell inequality by mixed spin-12 states: necessary and sufficient condition,

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, “Violating bell inequality by mixed spin-12 states: necessary and sufficient condition,”Physics Letters A, vol. 200, no. 5, pp. 340–344, 1995

    1995

  36. [44]

    Uncertainty-induced quantum nonlocality,

    S.-x. Wu, J. Zhang, C.-s. Yu, and H.-s. Song, “Uncertainty-induced quantum nonlocality,” Physics Letters A, vol. 378, no. 4, pp. 344–347, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Measurement-induced nonlocality,

    S. Luo and S. Fu, “Measurement-induced nonlocality,”Physical review letters, vol. 106, no. 12, p. 120401, 2011

    2011

  38. [46]

    Measurement-induced nonlocality based on the trace norm,

    M.-L. Hu and H. Fan, “Measurement-induced nonlocality based on the trace norm,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 033004, 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    Skew information correlations and local quan- tum fisher information in two gravitational cat states,

    Z. Dahbi, A. U. Rahman, and M. Mansour, “Skew information correlations and local quan- tum fisher information in two gravitational cat states,”Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 609, p. 128333, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Information contents of distributions,

    E. P. Wigner and M. M. Yanase, “Information contents of distributions,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 910–918, 1963

    1963

  41. [49]

    Wigner-yanase skew information and uncertainty relations,

    S. Luo, “Wigner-yanase skew information and uncertainty relations,”Physical review let- ters, vol. 91, no. 18, p. 180403, 2003

    2003

  42. [50]

    Experimental criteria for steeringandtheeinstein-podolsky-rosenparadox,

    E. G. Cavalcanti, S. J. Jones, H. M. Wiseman, and M. D. Reid, “Experimental criteria for steeringandtheeinstein-podolsky-rosenparadox,”Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 80, no. 3, p. 032112, 2009. 16

    2009

  43. [51]

    Quantification of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering for two-qubit states,

    A. Costa and R. Angelo, “Quantification of einstein-podolsky-rosen steering for two-qubit states,”Physical Review A, vol. 93, no. 2, p. 020103, 2016

    2016

  44. [52]

    Oscillatory effects and the magnetic susceptibility of carriers in inversion layers,

    Y. A. Bychkov and E. I. Rashba, “Oscillatory effects and the magnetic susceptibility of carriers in inversion layers,”Journal of physics C: Solid state physics, vol. 17, no. 33, p. 6039, 1984

    1984

  45. [53]

    New perspectives for rashba spin-orbit coupling,

    A. Manchonet al., “New perspectives for rashba spin-orbit coupling,”Nature Materials, vol. 14, pp. 871–882, 2015

    2015

  46. [54]

    Bruus and K

    H. Bruus and K. Flensberg,Many-body quantum theory in condensed matter physics: an introduction. OUP Oxford, 2004

    2004

  47. [55]

    Spin and charge optical conductivi- ties in spin-orbit coupled systems,

    J. A. Maytorena, C. López-Bastidas, and F. Mireles, “Spin and charge optical conductivi- ties in spin-orbit coupled systems,”Phys. Rev. B, vol. 74, p. 235313, 2006

    2006

  48. [56]

    Origin of giant rashba spin splitting in bi/ag surface alloys,

    G. Bian, X. Wang, T. Miller, and T.-C. Chiang, “Origin of giant rashba spin splitting in bi/ag surface alloys,”Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, vol. 88, no. 8, p. 085427, 2013

    2013

  49. [57]

    Illuminating the surface spin texture of the giant-rashba quantum-well system bi/ag (111) by circularly polarized pho- toemission,

    G. Bian, L. Zhang, Y. Liu, T. Miller, and T.-C. Chiang, “Illuminating the surface spin texture of the giant-rashba quantum-well system bi/ag (111) by circularly polarized pho- toemission,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 108, no. 18, p. 186403, 2012

    2012

  50. [58]

    Conversion of spin current into charge current at room temperature: Inverse spin-hall effect,

    E. Saitoh, M. Ueda, H. Miyajima, and G. Tatara, “Conversion of spin current into charge current at room temperature: Inverse spin-hall effect,”Applied physics letters, vol. 88, no. 18, 2006

    2006

  51. [59]

    Quantum transport in rashba spin–orbit materials: a review,

    D. Bercioux and P. Lucignano, “Quantum transport in rashba spin–orbit materials: a review,”Reports on Progress in Physics, vol. 78, no. 10, p. 106001, 2015

    2015

  52. [60]

    Gate voltage dependent rashba spin splitting in hole transverse magnetic focusing,

    M. Rendell, S. Liles, A. Srinivasan, O. Klochan, I. Farrer, D. Ritchie, and A. Hamil- ton, “Gate voltage dependent rashba spin splitting in hole transverse magnetic focusing,” Physical Review B, vol. 105, no. 24, p. 245305, 2022

    2022

  53. [61]

    Enhancing the intrinsic deco- herence dynamics of quantum nonlocality for semiconductor quantum dot qubits: quantum steering, bellnonlocalityandentanglement,

    A.-B. Mohamed, E. Jaradat, A. N. Khedr, and S. Alharbi, “Enhancing the intrinsic deco- herence dynamics of quantum nonlocality for semiconductor quantum dot qubits: quantum steering, bellnonlocalityandentanglement,”The European Physical Journal Plus, vol.141, no. 4, p. 432, 2026. 17

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.