Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Tunable g-Factors of Hybridized Orbitals in a Quantum Dot Molecule

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The electron g-factor of a negatively charged trion in an InGaAs quantum dot molecule jumps in a step-like manner at the tunneling resonance, from $-0.336$ to $-0.389$, a fingerprint of molecular-orbital formation that lets a gate voltage…

desk verdict Solid new data on separately resolved electron/hole g-factors in a QDM, but the k.p model overclaims quantitative agreement. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06647 v1 pith:5EZWB7YT submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.mes-hall

Michelle Lienhart , Krzysztof Gawarecki , Pavel Daskalov , Christopher Thalacker , Nadeem Akhlaq , Irina Ivanova , Johannes Schall , Sven Rodt
show 5 more authors
Stephan Reitzenstein Arne Ludwig Dirk Reuter Kai Müller Jonathan J. Finley
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 71.70.Ej73.21.La78.67.Hc
keywords quantumdotmoleculeelectrong-factorholetunnelingresonanceeight-bandk·pmodeltrionmagneto-photoluminescencevoltage-controlledZeemansplitting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports that in a single InGaAs quantum dot molecule, the electron g-factor of a negatively charged trion changes abruptly from $-0.336 \pm 0.008$ to $-0.389 \pm 0.003$ when a gate voltage tunes the electron across the tunneling resonance between the two dots. This step is a direct spectroscopic fingerprint of molecular-orbital formation: the electron wavefunction shifts its localization from the lower to the upper dot, sampling different local strain, composition, and barrier proximity. The hole g-factor stays nearly flat at about $0.094$ with only a weak modulation near the anticrossings, attributed to Coulomb-mediated deformation by the tunneling electron. Eight-band $\mathbf{k}{\cdot}\mathbf{p}$ theory reproduces the electron step quantitatively and shows the step size can be engineered through the Al content of the interdot barrier. If correct, the result makes electric-field control of trion g-factors a practical tool for independently setting the Zeeman splitting of each dot, relevant for suppressing spin dephasing in coupled-spin quantum photonic protocols.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the $X^-$ trion singlet line $X_{S0}^-$ measured by polarization-resolved magneto-photoluminescence in Voigt geometry: the H- and V-polarized transition pairs split by the in-plane magnetic field yield the electron and hole g-factors through $g_\mathrm{e} = |g_H + g_V|/2$ and $g_\mathrm{h} = |g_H - g_V|/2$. The theoretical reproduction uses an eight-band $\mathbf{k}{\cdot}\mathbf{p}$ envelope-function model with the magnetic field included gauge-invariantly, combined with configuration-interaction treatment of the trion restricted to the $s$-shell single-particle manifold. The QD geometry is specified by truncated-Gaussian shapes, a trumpet-shaped indium composition profile, and an $\mathrm{Al}_{0.33}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.67}\mathrm{As}$ interdot barrier; strain is computed by continuum elasticity with second-order piezoelectric terms. The key mechanism is that the electron wavefunction's tails penetrate the AlGaAs barrier, whose bulk AlAs g-factor is positive ($+1.52$), partially compensating the negative host g-factor; the lower dot sits closer to the barrier, giving it a less negative g-factor than the upper dot.

What would settle it

Cross-sectional scanning transmission electron microscopy of this exact sample could check whether the AlGaAs barrier really sits half a lattice constant closer to the lower dot as assumed; a centered barrier would invalidate the predicted asymmetry in the dot-resolved g-factors and the step magnitude. A second, simpler test is to measure $g_\mathrm{e}(V)$ in a device from the same growth run with the interdot AlGaAs barrier removed, where the model predicts a much smaller step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the electron Zeeman response of a quantum dot molecule can be switched by a static electric field: as the final-state electron of the $X^-$ trion tunnels from the upper to the lower dot at $V_e^-$, the measured electron g-factor shifts in a step-like way from $g_\mathrm{e} = -0.336 \pm 0.008$ to $g_\mathrm{e} = -0.389 \pm 0.003$, while the hole g-factor remains nearly constant. The authors attribute the step to the electron wavefunction moving between two dots with distinct heights, compositions, strain profiles, and distances to the $\mathrm{Al}_{0.33}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.67}\mathrm{As}$ interdot barrier, whose positive AlAs contribution partially compensates the negative GaAs/InAs g-factor. An eight-band $\mathbf{k}{\cdot}\mathbf{p}$ model reproduces the step and predicts dot-resolved g-factors of $-0.424$ (upper dot) and $-0.398$ (lower dot), in reasonable agreement with experiment, and shows that the step magnitude grows with barrier Al content, demonstrating that the effect can be engineered.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative match between theory and the measured $g_\mathrm{e}$ step rests on the assumed dot geometry and composition profile (truncated Gaussian shapes, a trumpet-shaped indium profile, and an $\mathrm{Al}_{0.33}\mathrm{Ga}_{0.67}\mathrm{As}$ barrier placed half a lattice constant closer to the lower dot), values inherited from earlier modeling rather than measured on this specific sample; if those morphological inputs are wrong, the agreement could be coincidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single gate voltage can independently set the electron Zeeman splitting of each dot, allowing g-factor mismatches between tunnel-coupled dots to be compensated in situ, which suppresses pure dephasing in two-qubit spin gates.
  • The step in $g_\mathrm{e}$ at $V_e^-$ provides an all-optical, polarization-resolved readout of where the electron wavefunction is localized, i.e., of the molecular-orbital character, across the full voltage range.
  • The magnitude of the g-factor step can be engineered by choosing the Al content of the interdot barrier: theory predicts the step grows progressively as $x$ increases from $0.11$ to $0.33$ in $\mathrm{Al}_x\mathrm{Ga}_{1-x}\mathrm{As}$.
  • The hole g-factor is only weakly affected by the tunneling electron, so independent electron and hole Zeeman tuning is possible, which is important for double-lambda optical schemes.
  • No magnetic-field dependence of $g_\mathrm{e}$ or $g_\mathrm{h}$ is observed between 6 T and 8 T, meaning the extracted g-factors are robust field-independent parameters for spin control protocols.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test is to grow a second QDM without the AlGaAs interdot barrier: the model predicts a much smaller $g_\mathrm{e}$ step, so a clean comparison would isolate the barrier's role from the dot-height difference.
  • One could exploit the step as a fast in-situ calibration: a polarization-resolved PLV sweep already contains the full $g_\mathrm{e}(V)$ curve, so the tunnel resonance can be located without separate transport measurements.
  • The voltage-dependent $g_\mathrm{e}$ suggests pulsed-gate sequences could dynamically switch the effective Zeeman field seen by a spin, an implicit pathway toward fast spin-echo or decoupling protocols that the paper does not itself demonstrate.
  • Because the model assigns the step to wavefunction tails in the barrier, interface roughness or alloy fluctuations at the AlGaAs/InGaAs interfaces should smear or shift the step; measuring several nominally identical devices would quantify this sensitivity.
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 paper reports polarization-resolved magneto-photoluminescence measurements of the electron and hole g-factors of the negatively charged trion X^- in a single InGaAs quantum dot molecule as a function of gate voltage. The central experimental finding is a step-like change in the electron g-factor from g_e = -0.336 ± 0.008 to g_e = -0.389 ± 0.003 at the electron tunneling resonance, with no observable magnetic-field dependence, while the hole g-factor stays nearly constant with a small modulation. The authors compare these data with an eight-band k·p model combined with a configuration-interaction treatment, and the abstract and conclusions state that the results are quantitatively reproduced by the theory. The paper also discusses the role of the AlGaAs tunnel barrier and the dot morphology in engineering the g-factor step.

Significance. If the experimental step is robust, the work is significant: it demonstrates electrostatic control of the electron Zeeman splitting in a quantum dot molecule, which is relevant for suppressing g-factor-mismatch dephasing and for photonic cluster-state protocols. The experimental measurement appears careful: g-factors are extracted from polarization-resolved data at three magnetic fields, and the absence of B-field dependence supports the interpretation. The theoretical framework is standard and the code is evidently mature, with prior applications to similar samples. However, the central quantitative claim is not supported by the paper's own numbers: the calculated electron g-factor step is about half the measured step, and the hole g-factor is substantially underestimated with the wrong field dependence. The theoretical interpretation therefore remains semi-quantitative, and the significance of the paper as a demonstration of predictive modeling is weakened accordingly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III C] The abstract and conclusions claim that the results are 'quantitatively reproduced' by the eight-band k·p model, but the numbers in Sec. III C do not support this. The calculated electron g-factors for the upper and lower dots are -0.424 and -0.398, giving a step of 0.026, whereas the measured step is |-0.389 - (-0.336)| = 0.053 ± 0.009. The discrepancy is roughly a factor of two and exceeds the experimental uncertainty by about 3σ. The individual values also disagree by 0.035-0.06. Because the step magnitude is the key quantity the model is intended to explain, this should be described as semi-quantitative or qualitative agreement, not quantitative reproduction.
  2. [Sec. III C and Appendix 3b] The hole g-factor agreement is demonstrably poor. The calculated values span 0.037-0.061, while the measured g_h ranges from 0.078 ± 0.007 to 0.110 ± 0.004. Moreover, the text admits that the calculated field dependence is opposite to the measured one: the theory increases with increasing electric field while the experiment decreases. Since the trion g-factor involves both carriers, this undermines the claim that the model captures the voltage dependence of the trion Zeeman splitting, and it should be discussed as a limitation rather than as 'reasonable agreement.'
  3. [Sec. III C and Appendix 3a] The quantitative comparison rests on morphological parameters that are not independently measured for this device. The truncated-Gaussian shapes, trumpet-shaped In profile, Al0.33Ga0.67As barrier thickness, and especially the ad hoc assumption that the barrier sits half a lattice constant closer to the lower dot are all taken from prior modeling of similar samples (Refs. [20,44]) or introduced for this paper. The sensitivity of the calculated g-factor step to these choices is not tested. The reader cannot assess whether the remaining factor-of-two discrepancy in the electron step and the wrong hole trend arise from the model inputs or from missing physics. A parameter-sensitivity analysis or a scan over the uncertain morphology would be needed to support a quantitative claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II B] The formulas g_e = |g_H + g_V|/2 and g_h = |g_H - g_V|/2 use absolute values, but the reported electron g-factor is negative. The sign convention should be stated explicitly, for example by defining the sign of the Zeeman splitting relative to the polarization assignments.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] In Fig. 5(b), the labels 'g_e in the lower QD' and 'g_e in the upper QD' are not self-explanatory; the text explains that these are evaluated at F = -5 kV/cm and F = 25 kV/cm, respectively. The caption should state this to avoid confusion.
  3. [Sec. III A] The sentence 'the CI space consists of four electron states (two s-like states for each spin projection in each QD) and two hole states (the s-like states in the upper QD)' is ambiguous about whether the two hole states are the two spin projections. Please clarify.
  4. [Reference [6]] Reference [6] contains a typo: 'Ecomplete quantum control' should be 'Complete quantum control.'
  5. [Fig. 1(c) and Sec. II A] The terms 'H' and 'V' for horizontal and vertical polarization are used in figures and text but not defined in the figure captions; please define them at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the g-factor step is measured directly and the k.p calculation outputs g-factors from band-structure inputs rather than fitting them.

full rationale

The central measured quantities (g_e and g_h) are obtained from polarization-resolved magneto-PL via the explicit Zeeman relation g_H/V = |ΔE_H/V|/(μ_B B) and the standard combinations g_e = |g_H+g_V|/2, g_h = |g_H−g_V|/2, so they are not defined in terms of the theory. The eight-band k.p calculation takes QD geometry, composition, strain, and electric field as inputs and returns g-factors as outputs; the paper never reports fitting the calculated g-factors to the measured values. The morphology is inherited from same-group Refs. [20,44] and includes an explicitly stated ad hoc assumption that the AlGaAs barrier sits half a lattice constant closer to the lower dot, but no equation or procedure is shown in which a target g-factor is used to fix any parameter, so the agreement is not forced by construction. The paper's own Sec. III C numbers actually undercut the 'quantitatively reproduced' claim (calculated electron step 0.026 vs measured 0.053; calculated hole g-factor trend opposite to data, as the paper admits: 'In contrast to the measured g_h, the calculated value increases with increasing electric field'), and the acknowledged uncertainty in 'exact QD morphology or in the material parameters' is a correctness/validity risk, not circularity. No self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives; Refs. [20,44] are used as ordinary prior modeling sources. Honest non-finding: no exhibited circular step reduces a prediction to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement has no free parameters beyond the standard Lorentzian fits and chosen magnetic fields. The theoretical reproduction, however, inherits many morphology and composition parameters from prior same-group modeling, including one ad hoc barrier offset, and rests on standard k.p and s-shell CI assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • Lower QD height h_l = 3.5a
    Truncated-Gaussian geometry input to the k.p model, inherited from prior modeling of the same sample series [20,44].
  • Upper QD height h_u = 4a
    Truncated-Gaussian geometry input to the k.p model, inherited from prior modeling [20,44].
  • Lower QD diameter d_l = 48a
    Model geometry parameter from Appendix 3, chosen to match established QD growth morphology.
  • Upper QD diameter d_u = 52a
    Model geometry parameter from Appendix 3, inherited from prior same-group modeling.
  • Gaussian steepness w for both dots = 25a each
    Model geometry parameter from Appendix 3, defining the QD top surface shape.
  • Indium composition profile parameters C_t, C_b, r_0, z_0l, z_0u, Gaussian blur = C_t=0.42, C_b=0.3, r_0=20a, z_0l=3.5a, z_0u=4a, blur=1a
    Trumpet-shaped composition profile from Appendix 3, based on prior QD growth characterization rather than direct measurement of this device.
  • AlGaAs tunnel barrier parameters = Al0.33Ga0.67As, thickness 4.5a, offset 0.5a toward lower QD
    Barrier composition matches growth, but the half-lattice-constant offset toward the lower QD is an ad hoc model assumption introduced in Sec. III.C to explain the lower-dot g-factor magnitude.
  • Interdot distance and wetting layer thickness = base-to-base distance 17.5a, wetting layer 1a
    Geometric inputs from Appendix 3, inherited from prior modeling [20,44].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Eight-band k.p envelope-function approximation with gauge-invariant magnetic field correctly models electron and hole states in these QDMs.
    Invoked in Sec. III.A via Refs. [53-55]; a standard but approximate method whose accuracy depends on material parameters not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption Truncated-Gaussian QD shapes and trumpet-shaped In composition profiles describe the actual grown dots.
    Appendix 3; the geometry parameters are taken from Ref. [20,44] and established QD growth literature, not from direct structural imaging of this specific device.
  • domain assumption The CI calculation may be restricted to the s-shell single-particle manifold.
    Sec. III.A states that excited X- configurations relax non-radiatively and are therefore excluded; if such configurations contribute, the calculated g-factors could change.
  • domain assumption The hole remains localized in the upper dot for all voltages studied.
    Sec. II.A; this assumption is used to assign charge configurations and to interpret the weak g_h modulation as Coulomb-mediated deformation rather than hole tunneling.
  • ad hoc to paper The Al0.33Ga0.67As tunnel barrier is positioned half a lattice constant closer to the lower QD.
    Sec. III.C; introduced to explain why the lower-dot electron g-factor is smaller in magnitude than the upper-dot one, with no independent structural evidence presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunable g-Factors of Hybridized Orbitals in a Quantum Dot Molecule." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5EZWB7YT

@misc{pith2026260806647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunable g-Factors of Hybridized Orbitals in a Quantum Dot Molecule},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5EZWB7YT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06647}
}
abstract

The ability to control the $g$-factors of orbital spin states in optically active quantum dot molecules (QDMs) is a prerequisite for the high-fidelity generation of multi-photonic cluster states with higher-dimensional entanglement structure. Protocols that rely on two coupled spins require knowledge of the $g$-factor and its dependence on external control parameters. Mismatches in the $g$-factor between tunnel-coupled dots introduce unwanted dephasing of coupled spin-states, making precise characterization and voltage control essential. Here, we measure the gate voltage dependence of the electron and hole $g$-factors of negatively charged trions $X^{-}$ in a single InGaAs QDM using polarization-resolved magneto-photoluminescence spectroscopy. The electron $g$-factor exhibits a pronounced step-like change at the tunneling resonance, shifting from $g_\mathrm{e} = -0.336\pm 0.008$ to $g_\mathrm{e} = -0.389\pm 0.003$, providing a direct spectroscopic fingerprint of molecular orbital formation and a shift of the wavefunction localization from the lower to the upper dot. In contrast, the hole $g$-factor remains nearly constant at $g_\mathrm{h} \approx 0.094 \pm 0.007$, exhibiting a weak modulation near the anticrossing voltages attributed to Coulomb-mediated deformation of the wavefunction by the tunneling electron. Our results are quantitatively reproduced by an eight-band $\mathbf{k}{\cdot}\mathbf{p}$ model, establishing electric-field control of the trion $g$-factors as a practical tool for independently tuning the Zeeman splitting of individual dots and opening new pathways towards the deterministic generation of two-dimensional photonic cluster states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06647 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Voltage-dependent photoluminescence recorded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Voltage-dependent photoluminescence recorded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. uncertainty, attributed to the finite integration time and spectrometer resolution limiting the fit accuracy, can oth￾erwise be inferred from the spread of the data. Notably, neither ge nor gh shows any measurable magnetic-field dependence across the three fields studied. The observed behavior can be understood in terms of the electron and hole wavefunctions sampling different local environments as the electric fiel… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The In content distribution (In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Calculated negative trion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) The electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The QDM sample structure. Figure taken from [20]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Two phase electrical and optical sequence for de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Voltage-dependent photoluminescence measured at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The hole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sample structure The QDM studied in this work was grown via solid- source molecular beam epitaxy and consists of two ver- tically aligned indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) QDs embedded within a gallium arsenide (GaAs) host (see Fig. 6). The heights of the upper and lower dots were set to 2.9 nm and 2.7 nm, respectively, by applying the In-flush procedure d...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Setup All measurements discussed in the main text are per- formed at a temperature of1.7K using an Attodry2100 dry magnet system with the sample mounted in Voigt geometry

    Experimental details a. Setup All measurements discussed in the main text are per- formed at a temperature of1.7K using an Attodry2100 dry magnet system with the sample mounted in Voigt geometry. Theg-factor measurements are performed at a repetition rate of390kHz, corresponding to a period of T= 2.564µs. The measurements make use of a two- phase electric...

    work page

  3. [3]

    System geometry As described in Ref

    Theoretical model: calculation details a. System geometry As described in Ref. [44], the QDs’ geometry is defined via the truncated Gaussians [20], where the QD top sur- faces are given by S(x, y) = min wexp − x2 +y 2 2d2 , h , wherehis the QD height,dis related to the diameter, andwdefines the Gaussian steepness. The values we used for the lower and uppe...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    Heindel, J.-H

    T. Heindel, J.-H. Kim, N. Gregersen, A. Rastelli, and S. Reitzenstein, Quantum dots for photonic quantum in- formation technology, Adv. Opt. Photon.15, 613 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Huber-Loyola, A

    T. Huber-Loyola, A. T. Pfenning, J. Michl, and S. H¨ ofling, From growth to integration: Quantum dot devices for quantum photonics, Applied Physics Reviews 13, 021318 (2026)

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Lodahl, Quantum-dot based photonic quantum net- works, Quantum Science and Technology3, 013001 (2017)

    P. Lodahl, Quantum-dot based photonic quantum net- works, Quantum Science and Technology3, 013001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    H. J. Krenner, M. Sabathil, E. C. Clark, A. Kress, D. Schuh, M. Bichler, G. Abstreiter, and J. J. Finley, Direct observation of controlled coupling in an individ- ual quantum dot molecule, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 057402 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Vrijen, E

    R. Vrijen, E. Yablonovitch, K. Wang, H. W. Jiang, A. Ba- landin, V. Roychowdhury, T. Mor, and D. DiVincenzo, Electron-spin-resonance transistors for quantum comput- ing in silicon-germanium heterostructures, Phys. Rev. A 62, 012306 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Press, T

    D. Press, T. Ladd, and B. e. a. Zhang, Ecomplete quan- tum control of a single quantum dot spin using ultrafast optical pulses, Nature456, 218 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    D. Kim, S. E. Economou, i. m. c. C. B˘ adescu, M. Scheib- ner, A. S. Bracker, M. Bashkansky, T. L. Reinecke, and D. Gammon, Optical spin initialization and nondestruc- tive measurement in a quantum dot molecule, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 236804 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Cogan, Z.-E

    D. Cogan, Z.-E. Su, O. Kenneth, and D. Gershoni, De- terministic generation of indistinguishable photons in a cluster state, Nature Photonics17, 324 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    S. E. Economou, N. Lindner, and T. Rudolph, Optically Generated 2-Dimensional Photonic Cluster State from Coupled Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 093601 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Vezvaee, P

    A. Vezvaee, P. Hilaire, M. F. Doty, and S. E. Economou, Deterministic Generation of Entangled Photonic Cluster States from Quantum Dot Molecules, Phys. Rev. Applied 18, L061003 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    N. H. Lindner and T. Rudolph, Proposal for Pulsed On- Demand Sources of Photonic Cluster State Strings, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 113602 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    A. V. Khaetskii, D. Loss, and L. Glazman, Electron spin decoherence in quantum dots due to interaction with nu- clei, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 186802 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    Schwartz, E

    I. Schwartz, E. R. Schmidgall, L. Gantz, D. Cogan, E. Bordo, Y. Don, M. Zielinski, and D. Gershoni, De- terministic writing and control of the dark exciton spin using single short optical pulses, Phys. Rev. X5, 011009 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Gimeno-Segovia, T

    M. Gimeno-Segovia, T. Rudolph, and S. E. Economou, Deterministic generation of large-scale entangled pho- tonic cluster state from interacting solid state emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 070501 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    I. A. Merkulov, A. L. Efros, and M. Rosen, Electron spin relaxation by nuclei in semiconductor quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B65, 205309 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Lienhart, K

    M. Lienhart, K. Gawarecki, M. St¨ ocker, F. Bopp, C. Cul- lip, N. Akhlaq, C. Thalacker, J. Schall, S. Rodt, A. Lud- wig, D. Reuter, S. Reitzenstein, K. M¨ uller, P. Mach- nikowski, and J. J. Finley, Resonant and antireso- nant exciton-phonon coupling in quantum dot molecules, ...

    2025

  13. [21]

    Hanson, L

    R. Hanson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Spins in few-electron quan- tum dots, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 1217 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    V. N. Golovach, A. Khaetskii, and D. Loss, Phonon- induced decay of the electron spin in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 016601 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    D. V. Bulaev and D. Loss, Spin relaxation and anticross- ing in quantum dots: Rashba versus dresselhaus spin- orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B71, 205324 (2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    M. F. Doty, M. Scheibner, I. V. Ponomarev, E. A. Sti- naff, A. S. Bracker, V. L. Korenev, T. L. Reinecke, and D. Gammon, Electrically tunablegfactors in quantum dot molecular spin states, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 197202 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Nakaoka, E

    T. Nakaoka, E. C. Clark, H. J. Krenner, M. Sabathil, M. Bichler, Y. Arakawa, G. Abstreiter, and J. J. Finley, Direct observation of acoustic phonon mediated relax- ation between coupled exciton states in a single quantum dot molecule, Phys. Rev. B74, 121305(R) (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    C. E. Pryor and M. E. Flatt´ e, Land´ egfactors and orbital momentum quenching in semiconductor quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 026804 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    Van Bree, A

    J. Van Bree, A. Yu. Silov, M. L. Van Maasakkers, C. E. Pryor, M. E. Flatt´ e, and P. M. Koenraad, Anisotropy of electron and hole g tensors of quantum dots: An intuitive picture based on spin-correlated orbital currents, Phys. Rev. B93, 035311 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Gawełczyk, M

    M. Gawełczyk, M. Krzykowski, K. Gawarecki, and P. Machnikowski, Controllable electron spin dephasing due to phonon state distinguishability in a coupled quan- tum dot system, Phys. Rev. B98, 075403 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Kosaka, D

    H. Kosaka, D. S. Rao, H. D. Robinson, P. Bandaru, K. Makita, and E. Yablonovitch, Single photoelectron trapping, storage, and detection in a field effect tran- sistor, Phys. Rev. B67, 045104 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    J. M. Zajac, T. Huber-Loyola, and S. H¨ ofling, Quan- tum dots for quantum repeaters, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13775 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Vrijen and E

    R. Vrijen and E. Yablonovitch, A spin-coherent semi- conductor photo-detector for quantum communication, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 10, 569 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Jovanov, T

    V. Jovanov, T. Eissfeller, S. Kapfinger, E. C. Clark, F. Klotz, M. Bichler, J. G. Keizer, P. M. Koenraad, M. S. Brandt, G. Abstreiter, and J. J. Finley, Highly nonlinear excitonic Zeeman spin splitting in composition- engineered artificial atoms, Physical Review B85, 165433 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Nakaoka, T

    T. Nakaoka, T. Saito, J. Tatebayashi, and Y. Arakawa, Size, shape, and strain dependence of thegfactor in self-assembled In(Ga)As quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B70, 235337 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    Gawarecki, Spin-orbit coupling and magnetic-field de- pendence of carrier states in a self-assembled quantum dot, Phys

    K. Gawarecki, Spin-orbit coupling and magnetic-field de- pendence of carrier states in a self-assembled quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B97, 235408 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Bayer, A

    M. Bayer, A. Kuther, A. Forchel, A. Gorbunov, V. B. Timofeev, F. Sch¨ afer, J. P. Reithmaier, T. L. Reinecke, 11 and S. N. Walck, Electron and holegfactors and ex- change interaction from studies of the exciton fine struc- ture inIn 0.60Ga0.40Asquantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8...

    1999

  28. [36]

    Gawarecki, A

    K. Gawarecki, A. Garbiec, J. Stanecki, and M. Zieliński, Modeling g factors, hyperfine interaction, and optical properties of semiconductor quantum dots: Atomistic and eight-band k·p approaches, Phys. Revi. B112, 205415 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Jovanov, T

    V. Jovanov, T. Eissfeller, S. Kapfinger, E. C. Clark, F. Klotz, M. Bichler, J. G. Keizer, P. M. Koenraad, G. Abstreiter, and J. J. Finley, Observation and expla- nation of strong electrically tunable excitongfactors in composition engineered In(Ga)As quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B...

    2011

  30. [38]

    N. A. J. M. Kleemans, J. van Bree, M. Bozkurt, P. J. van Veldhoven, P. A. Nouwens, R. N¨ otzel, A. Y. Silov, P. M. Koenraad, and M. E. Flatt´ e, Size-dependent excitong factor in self-assembled InAs/InP quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B79, 045311 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Medeiros-Ribeiro, E

    G. Medeiros-Ribeiro, E. Ribeiro, and J. Westfahl, H., g- factor engineering and control in self-assembled quantum dots, Applied Physics A77, 725 (2003)

    2003

  32. [40]

    Fafard, Z

    S. Fafard, Z. R. Wasilewski, C. N. Allen, D. Picard, M. Spanner, J. P. McCaffrey, and P. G. Piva, Manipu- lating the energy levels of semiconductor quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B59, 15368 (1999)

    1999

  33. [41]

    Nakaoka, T

    T. Nakaoka, T. Saito, J. Tatebayashi, S. Hirose, T. Usuki, N. Yokoyama, and Y. Arakawa, Tuning ofg-factor in self- assembled In(Ga)As quantum dots through strain engi- neering, Phys. Rev. B71, 205301 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    W. Liu, S. Sanwlani, R. Hazbun, J. Kolodzey, A. S. Bracker, D. Gammon, and M. F. Doty, In situ tunableg factor for a single electron confined inside an InAs quan- tum dot molecule, Phys. Rev. B84, 121304(R) (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Andlauer and P

    T. Andlauer and P. Vogl, Electrically controllablegten- sors in quantum dot molecules, Phys. Rev. B79, 045307 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Thalacker, M

    C. Thalacker, M. Lienhart, M. St¨ ocker, N. Akhlaq, I. Ivanova, N. Bart, A. Ludwig, J. Schall, S. Reitzenstein, D. Reuter, S. Wilksen, C. Gies, K. Gawarecki, P. Mach- nikowski, K. M¨ uller, and J. Finley, Ultra-slow orbital and spin dynamics in an electrically tunable quantum ...

    2026

  37. [45]

    Schall, M

    J. Schall, M. Deconinck, N. Bart, M. Florian, M. von Helversen, C. Dangel, R. Schmidt, L. Bremer, F. Bopp, I. H¨ ullen, C. Gies, D. Reuter, A. D. Wieck, S. Rodt, J. J. Finley, F. Jahnke, A. Ludwig, and S. Reitzenstein, Bright electrically controllable quantum-dot-molecule de- ...

    2021

  38. [46]

    F. Bopp, J. Schall, N. Bart, F. V¨ ogl, C. Cullip, F. Sbresny, K. Boos, C. Thalacker, M. Lienhart, S. Rodt, D. Reuter, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, S. Reitzenstein, K. M¨ uller, and J. J. Finley, Coherent driving of direct and indirect excitons in a quantum dot molecule, Phys. Rev....

    2023

  39. [47]

    F. Bopp, C. Cullip, C. Thalacker, M. Lienhart, J. Schall, N. Bart, F. Sbresny, K. Boos, S. Rodt, D. Reuter, A. Lud- wig, A. D. Wieck, S. Reitzenstein, F. Troiani, G. Goldoni, E. Molinari, K. M¨ uller, and J. J. Finley, Magnetic tuning of the tunnel coupling in an optically act...

    2025

  40. [48]

    P. L. Knight, B. Stoicheff, D. Walls, and J. H. Eberly, The double lambda system: a new workhorse for quantum op- tics?, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences355, 2387 (1997)

    1997

  41. [49]

    F. Bopp, J. Rojas, N. Revenga, H. Riedl, F. Sbresny, K. Boos, T. Simmet, A. Ahmadi, D. Gershoni, J. Kasprzak, A. Ludwig, S. Reitzenstein, A. Wieck, D. Reuter, K. M¨ uller, and J. J. Finley, Quantum Dot Molecule Devices with Optical Control of Charge Sta- tus and Electronic Con...

    2022

  42. [50]

    Bayer, G

    M. Bayer, G. Ortner, O. Stern, A. Kuther, A. A. Gor- bunov, A. Forchel, P. Hawrylak, S. Fafard, K. Hinzer, T. L. Reinecke, S. N. Walck, J. P. Reithmaier, F. Klopf, and F. Sch¨ afer, Fine structure of neutral and charged excitons in self-assembled In(Ga)As/(Al)GaAs quantum dots...

    2002

  43. [51]

    Gywat, H

    O. Gywat, H. Krenner, and J. Berezovsky, Optically ac- tive quantum dots: Single and coupled structures, in Spins in Optically Active Quantum Dots(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009) Chap. 2, pp. 15–37

    2009

  44. [52]

    M. A. Caro, S. Schulz, and E. P. O’Reilly, Origin of non- linear piezoelectricity in III-V semiconductors: Internal strain and bond ionicity from hybrid-functional density functional theory, Phys. Rev. B91, 75203 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    M. A. Migliorato, A. G. Cullis, M. Fearn, and J. H. Jefferson, Atomistic simulation of strain relaxation in InxGa1−xAs/GaAsquantum dots with nonuniform com- position, Phys. Rev. B65, 115316 (2002)

    2002

  46. [54]

    Pryor, J

    C. Pryor, J. Kim, L. W. Wang, A. J. Williamson, and A. Zunger, Comparison of two methods for describing the strain profiles in quantum dots, J. Appl. Phys.83, 2548 (1998)

    1998

  47. [55]

    Bester, X

    G. Bester, X. Wu, D. Vanderbilt, and A. Zunger, Im- portance of Second-Order Piezoelectric Effects in Zinc- Blende Semiconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 187602 (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    Haug and S

    H. Haug and S. W. Koch,Quantum Theory of the Optical and Electronic Properties of Semi- conductors, 5th ed. (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2009) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/7184

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    H. R. Trebin, U. R¨ ossler, and R. Ranvaud, Quantum res- onances in the valence bands of zinc-blende semiconduc- tors. I. Theoretical aspects, Phys. Rev. B20, 686 (1979)

    1979

  50. [58]

    Winkler,Spin-Orbit Coupling Effects in Two- Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems(Springer, 2003)

    R. Winkler,Spin-Orbit Coupling Effects in Two- Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems(Springer, 2003)

    2003

  51. [59]

    Andlauer, R

    T. Andlauer, R. Morschl, and P. Vogl, Gauge-invariant discretization in multiband envelope function theory and g factors in nanowire dots, Phys. Rev. B78, 75317 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    Scheibner, I

    M. Scheibner, I. V. Ponomarev, E. A. Stinaff, M. F. Doty, A. S. Bracker, C. S. Hellberg, T. L. Reinecke, and D. Gammon, Photoluminescence spectroscopy of the molecular biexciton in vertically stacked inas-gaas quan- tum dot pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 197402 (2007)

    2007

  53. [61]

    Thr¨ anhardt, C

    A. Thr¨ anhardt, C. Ell, G. Khitrova, and H. M. Gibbs, Relation between dipole moment and radiative lifetime in interface fluctuation quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B65, 035327 (2002)

    2002

  54. [62]

    Gawarecki, C

    K. Gawarecki, C. Spinnler, L. Zhai, G. N. Nguyen, A. Ludwig, R. J. Warburton, M. C. L¨ obl, D. E. Re- iter, and P. Machnikowski, Symmetry breaking via al- loy disorder to explain radiative auger transitions in 12 self-assembled quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B108, 235410 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    H. J. Krenner, E. C. Clark, T. Nakaoka, M. Bichler, C. Scheurer, G. Abstreiter, and J. J. Finley, Optically probing spin and charge interactions in a tunable artifi- cial molecule, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 076403 (2006)

    2006

  56. [65]

    Wasilewski, S

    Z. Wasilewski, S. Fafard, and J. McCaffrey, Size and shape engineering of vertically stacked self-assembled quantum dots, Journal of Crystal Growth201-202, 1131 (1999)

    1999

  57. [66]

    A. S. Bracker, M. Scheibner, M. F. Doty, E. A. Stinaff, I. V. Ponomarev, J. C. Kim, L. J. Whitman, T. L. Rei- necke, and D. Gammon, Engineering electron and hole tunneling with asymmetric InAs quantum dot molecules, Applied Physics Letters89, 233110 (2006)

    2006

  58. [67]

    J. J. Finley, D. J. Mowbray, M. S. Skolnick, A. D. Ash- more, C. Baker, A. F. G. Monte, and M. Hopkinson, Fine structure of charged and neutral excitons in InAs- Al0.6Ga0.4Asquantum dots, Phys. Rev. B66, 153316 (2002)

    2002

  59. [100]

    (nm) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 In/Al content InxGa1-xAs InxGa1-xAs AlxGa1-xAs FIG. 3. The In content distribution (InxGa1−xAs) in the QDs and Al content (Al xGa1−xAs) in the interdot barrier. Although the hole does not tunnel between QDs, its g-factorg h never...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.