Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Phonon-assisted transport and hole-phonon coupling in GaAs double quantum dots

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Oscillatory stripes near the (n+1,m)–(n,m+1) charge transition in a GaAs hole double dot are caused by phonon emission during inelastic interdot tunneling, and the 140 micro-eV stripe period gives an interdot distance of 147.7 nm.

desk verdict A new stripe observation in a hole DQD with a good geometric check, but the supporting theory has an unphysical cutoff and a wrong density; the core attribution is plausible, not airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09116 v1 pith:Q5YGS27E submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Jin Leng , Wei-Zhu Liao , Hao-Tian Jiang , Di Liu , Bao-Chuan Wang , Gang Cao , Hai-Ou Li , Guo-Ping Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph PACS 71.38.-k73.21.La73.23.Hk
keywords phonon-assistedtransporthole-phononcouplingdoublequantumdotGaAsinelasticinterdottunnelingpiezoelectricchargestabilitydiagramphononemission
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 claims that the oscillatory stripe patterns observed near the (n+1,m)–(n,m+1) charge transition in a gate-defined GaAs hole double quantum dot are caused by acoustic-phonon emission during inelastic interdot tunneling, with the phonon energy supplied by the source-drain bias. The stripe period, 140 micro-electronvolts, matches the interdot phonon energy $hc/d$ and yields an inferred interdot distance of 147.7 nm, consistent with the designed 150 nm. A master-equation model that includes piezoelectric hole-phonon coupling reproduces the measured patterns, and the oscillations appear only in charge configurations where the hole wave functions in the two dots are approximately translated copies of each other. If correct, the work offers a transport-based probe of coherent hole-phonon interactions and a practical method for extracting hole-phonon coupling parameters in GaAs quantum dots.

What carries the argument

The central object is the phonon emission rate for inelastic interdot tunneling, computed from Fermi's golden rule, which acquires an oscillatory factor $(1-\cos qd)$ when the left and right hole wave functions are related by a translation $\Psi_L(\mathbf{r}) \approx \Psi_R(\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{d})$. This factor, combined with the dominance of piezoelectric acoustic-phonon coupling in GaAs (with deformation potential contributing only about 0.1%), produces the periodic detuning dependence of the current. The numerical simulation uses a three-state master equation in the bonding/anti-bonding basis of the double dot, with Lindblad terms for sequential tunneling and phonon emission/absorption, and the steady-state current $I = e\Gamma_R \mathrm{Tr}(\rho |R\rangle\langle R|)$ is differentiated to match the measured charge-sensing signal. The model also shows, via a harmonic-oscillator wavefunction analysis, that the oscillatory factor washes out when the two dot wave functions differ (|m-n| ≥ 1), explaining the observed charge-configuration selectivity.

What would settle it

In a device with a different designed interdot separation, the stripe period should scale as $hc/d$; measuring a period that does not follow this reciprocal dependence would rule out the phonon-emission mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the oscillatory stripe pattern in the charge stability diagram of a gate-defined GaAs hole double quantum dot, observed under finite source-drain bias near the (n+1,m)–(n,m+1) transition, is a direct signature of spontaneous phonon emission during inelastic interdot tunneling. The phonon emission rate contains the factor $(1-\cos qd)$ because the hole wave functions in the two dots satisfy $\Psi_L(\mathbf{r}) \approx \Psi_R(\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{d})$, so the transport current oscillates with detuning and has period $\delta\epsilon = hc/d$. From the measured 140 $\mu$eV spacing the authors infer $d = 147.7$ nm, matching the engineered 150 nm separation. The oscillations grow with source-drain bias and are independent of QPC bias, ruling out QPC back-action, and they appear only in charge configurations where the wavefunction similarity holds, explaining the selectivity of the pattern.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the assumed wave-function similarity $\Psi_L(\mathbf{r}) \approx \Psi_R(\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{d})$ between the two dots, which is not directly measured; if the gate-tuned potential makes the wave functions differ in shape, the oscillatory $(1-\cos qd)$ factor disappears and the claimed stripe mechanism collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The stripe period provides a direct in-situ measurement of the interdot separation: from $\delta\epsilon = hc/d$, the 140 $\mu$eV spacing yields $d = 147.7$ nm, consistent with the design.
  • Because the stripe boundary grows with source-drain bias and is insensitive to QPC bias, the pattern can be used as a clear fingerprint to distinguish phonon-emission-assisted tunneling from QPC back-action in lateral double-dot circuits.
  • The charge-configuration dependence implies that phonon-assisted transport spectroscopy is sensitive to the symmetry of hole wave functions; only transitions where $\Psi_L(\mathbf{r}) \approx \Psi_R(\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{d})$ will show the oscillatory pattern.
  • The master-equation model with piezoelectric coupling reproduces the measured oscillations, providing a parameter-extraction tool for the interdot tunnel coupling, tunneling rates, and phonon temperature in GaAs hole dots.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to engineer the confinement potential to toggle the wavefunction similarity condition, turning the oscillatory pattern into a gate-controlled switch for phonon-assisted tunneling.
  • If confirmed in other materials, the same stripe measurement could become a calibration-free ruler for interdot distances in semiconductor quantum dots, using the phonon energy $hc/d$ as the yardstick.
  • The damping of the oscillations as a function of detuning could encode the spatial overlap of the two hole wave functions; extracting this envelope might allow a transport-based wavefunction tomography of the dots.
  • Coupling the device to a microwave resonator could turn the phonon emission stripes into a resonator-mediated phonon spectrometer, similar in spirit to cavity-coupled charge-photon studies.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports oscillatory stripe patterns in the charge stability diagram of a gate-defined GaAs hole double quantum dot under finite source–drain bias. The stripes are observed near the (n+1,m)–(n,m+1) charge transition, with an extracted period of 140 μeV. The authors attribute the stripes to inelastic interdot tunneling accompanied by acoustic-phonon emission, and they support this by showing that the stripe range grows with V_sd but is independent of V_QPC. A master-equation model with piezoelectric hole–phonon coupling is used to reproduce the patterns, and the stripe period is converted into an interdot distance d = hc/δε ≈ 147.7 nm, consistent with the designed 150 nm separation. The paper also proposes that the stripes appear only when the hole wave functions in the two dots are approximate translations of one another, which they connect to the observed charge-configuration dependence.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, the work provides a direct transport signature of phonon-assisted hole tunneling in a GaAs double quantum dot, complementing earlier QPC back-action and phonon-absorption experiments. The strongest independent element is the geometric consistency: the measured 140 μeV stripe period implies d ≈ 147.7 nm, close to the designed 150 nm separation, and the stripe boundary's growth with V_sd while remaining insensitive to V_QPC is a meaningful control experiment. These features give the central claim external grounding that does not rely solely on the fitted master equation. However, the quantitative model validation is weakened by an unspecified cutoff parameter, an incorrect mass density, and an unverified wave-function-translation assumption. The paper would be significant as a characterization of hole–phonon interactions if these issues are resolved; in its current form, the theory–data agreement is not yet convincing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (3)] The cutoff parameter δ_c in the exponential factor e^(−2πε/δ_c) is never specified, and the value required to reproduce fringes at ε ≈ 2 meV appears physically implausible. For a gate-defined dot with spatial extent a ≈ 10–50 nm, the intra-dot form factor at q ≈ 6×10^8 m⁻¹ gives qa ≈ 12–30 and a Gaussian suppression of order 10⁻¹⁶ to 10⁻⁹⁸; the model instead uses a mild exponential decay. Keeping oscillations visible at 2 meV would require δ_c of order meV, corresponding to an effective localization length near 1 nm, inconsistent with the reported device geometry. The claim of a 'perfect match' in Fig. 2(c) is therefore not supported unless δ_c is reported and justified against the actual wave-function extent.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3) and Fig. 2(c) caption] The mass density is quoted as ρ_M = 500 kg/m³, which is an order of magnitude below the accepted value for GaAs (approximately 5320 kg/m³). Since the coupling prefactor b scales as 1/ρ_M, this choice inflates the phonon coupling by roughly a factor of ten. If the correct density is used, the theoretical current amplitude and the fitted rates Γ_L, Γ_R, t_c, and T_h would need to be re-evaluated. This is a material-parameter error, not merely a typo, and it affects the quantitative validity of the model.
  3. [Section 4, Eqs. (7) and (8)] The derivation of the oscillatory (1 − cos qd) term rests on the assumption Ψ_L(r) ≈ Ψ_R(r+d), stated without quantitative support. This is load-bearing for the central mechanism: if the left and right hole wave functions differ in shape, the interference term is suppressed and the stripe period need not appear. The text calls the condition approximate, but no estimate of overlap or sensitivity to realistic gate-induced asymmetry is given. The paper should provide at least a quantitative consistency check, such as a comparison with realistic confinement parameters or an explicit statement of the wave-function width and separation that makes the approximation valid.
  4. [Section 4, Eqs. (9)–(10) and Fig. 3] The explanation for why oscillations appear only in the (n+1,m)–(n,m+1) configuration is post hoc and qualitative. The transformation function χ(r+d) is introduced without a microscopic model, and the harmonic-oscillator illustration with different quantum numbers is not linked to the actual hole states or gate-tuned potentials of the device. As written, this part does not independently confirm the proposed selection rule; it only shows that a generic wave-function mismatch can suppress oscillations. Either a more concrete model or an explicit caveat that this is a plausibility argument is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (2)] The phonon absorption term appears with the same Lindblad jump operator |Ψ−⟩⟨Ψ+| as the emission term; for absorption the jump operator should be reversed, i.e., |Ψ+⟩⟨Ψ−|. Although absorption is said to be negligible at T_h < 1 K, the expression as written is not the standard form.
  2. [Section 3, text after Eq. (3)] The sentence defining δ_ε contains a formatting error: it reads 'δ_ε = hc/d denotes the energy of an individual phonon., and b = ...' and should be split into complete, correctly punctuated sentences.
  3. [Figure 2(b)] The upper and lower panels lack clear axis labels and units: the plotted quantity appears to be ε_max, but the caption alternates between 'oscillation detuning-boundary spacing' and 'boundary spacing'. Please state explicitly that the vertical axis is ε_max in meV, and define the error bars if any.
  4. [Section 2, paragraph on lever arm] A lever arm of 0.02 eV/V together with ε_max = 2 meV at V_sd = 2 mV deserves a short explanation: the gate-voltage-to-detuning conversion and the source-drain-bias-to-detuning conversion are different quantities, and the text should clarify how each is obtained.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'Hole (QDs are confined', 'Phy. Rrev. Lett.', and inconsistent references to the number of gates ('eight Ti/Au gates' vs. 'Seven electrodes (G2~G8)'). These should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the stripe-period extraction is an independent geometric check, and the model's free parameters do not define the predicted period.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not self-referential. Equation (8) gives the phonon-emission matrix element |M|^2 proportional to (1 - cos(qd)) with q = 2πε/(hc), so the oscillation period is hc/d; the experimental spacing of 140 μeV yields d = 147.7 nm, independently consistent with the designed 150 nm separation. The period is therefore an external geometric benchmark rather than a fitted model output. The master-equation parameters (tc, ΓL, ΓR, Th) are tuned to match the measured curve, but these do not set the oscillation period; the period is set by the phonon-wavelength relation to the dot separation. The qualitative charge-configuration selection rule relies on the unmeasured wave-function-similarity assumption (Eq. 7) and a harmonic-oscillator model: this is a post-hoc interpretation and a robustness concern, but it is not a circular reduction because the m ≠ n suppression is computed from the model, not imposed by the data. The cited references from the same group (Refs. 33–34) support device fabrication and basic measurement, not the phonon-emission claim, so no load-bearing self-citation chain exists. The undisclosed cutoff δc and the questionable ρ_M value are correctness/reproducibility issues, not circularity. Overall, no significant circularity is found; minor non-load-bearing self-citations and fit-dependent comparisons account for the low nonzero score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main stripe period is fixed by the known interdot distance and material constants, so the central mechanism is not fitted. However, the quantitative match relies on tuned parameters (t_c, T_h, Gamma) and an unstated cutoff delta_c, and the charge-configuration dependence is grounded in an assumed wave-function similarity that is not directly measured. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • interdot tunnel coupling t_c = 8 micro-electronvolts
    Tuned to match simulated oscillation peaks to experimental data; no uncertainty reported (Section 3).
  • phonon temperature T_h = 200 mK
    Effective phonon temperature set above the 20 mK base temperature; treated as a fit parameter in the master equation (Section 3).
  • tunneling rates Gamma_L and Gamma_R = about 90 MHz
    Tunneling rates to source and drain, tuned for agreement; stated as equal for both leads (Section 3).
  • cutoff detuning delta_c = not stated
    Introduced in Eq. (3) as an exponential cutoff originating from the finite spatial extent of the electronic wave functions; its numerical value is not given, leaving the prefactor's scale unconstrained.
  • lever arm = 0.02 eV/V
    Experimental calibration converting gate-voltage spacing to detuning energy; enters the quoted 140 micro-electronvolt period (Section 2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Piezoelectric coupling dominates hole-phonon coupling in GaAs; deformation potential contributes about 0.1 percent of the total.
    Invoked in Section 3 before Eq. (3), citing refs. 31-32; this fixes the functional form of the coupling used in the master equation.
  • domain assumption The DQD-phonon dynamics obey a Born-Markov master equation with Lindblad dissipators.
    Used in Eq. (2) to compute steady-state probabilities and current; a standard open-quantum-system approximation, not derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper Hole wave functions in the left and right dots are approximate translations of each other: Psi_L(r) approximately Psi_R(r+d).
    Eq. (7) in Section 4 is the condition for the oscillatory factor; it is assumed rather than measured and is the structural basis for both the stripe pattern and the charge-configuration selection rule.
  • domain assumption Single-particle Gaussian wave functions describe the confined holes.
    Used to derive the piezoelectric coupling expression in Eq. (3), following refs. 30-31; hole band-structure complications are neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phonon-assisted transport and hole-phonon coupling in GaAs double quantum dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5YGS27E

@misc{pith2026260809116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phonon-assisted transport and hole-phonon coupling in GaAs double quantum dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5YGS27E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09116}
}
read the original abstract

Hole-phonon interactions play an important role in transport and decoherence processes in semiconductor quantum dots. Here we investigate hole-phonon coupling in a gate-defined GaAs double quantum dot integrated with a quantum point contact charge sensor. Under finite source-drain bias, pronounced oscillatory stripe patterns appear near specific charge transition regions in the charge stability diagram. We attribute these oscillations to phonon emission during inelastic interdot tunneling. A theoretical model including piezoelectric hole-phonon coupling reproduces the observed patterns. Furthermore, our analysis shows that the oscillations emerge only in particular charge configurations. Our results provide direct insight into phonon-assisted transport and coherent hole-phonon interactions in semiconductor quantum dots.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Kleppner, D

    Haroche, S. and Kleppner, D. Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics. Phys. Today 42, 24-30 (1989)

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Strong coupling in a single quantum dot–semiconductor microcavity system

    Reithmaier J P, Sęk G, Löffler A, et al. Strong coupling in a single quantum dot–semiconductor microcavity system. Nature 432, 197-200 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Semiconductor quantum dots: Technological progress and future challenges

    Garcí a de Arquer F P, Talapin D V, Klimov V I, et al. Semiconductor quantum dots: Technological progress and future challenges. Science, 373, eaaz8541. (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Controlling the dynamics of spontaneous emission from quantum dots by photonic crystals

    Lodahl P, Floris van Driel A, Nikolaev I S, et al. Controlling the dynamics of spontaneous emission from quantum dots by photonic crystals. Nature, 430, 654-657. (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Semiconductor quantum dots for integrated quantum photonics

    Hepp S, Jetter M, Portalupi S L, et al. Semiconductor quantum dots for integrated quantum photonics. Advanced Quantum Technologies, 2, 1900020. (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    High-performance semiconductor quantum -dot single - photon sources

    Senellart P, Solomon G, White A. High-performance semiconductor quantum -dot single - photon sources. Nat. Nano. 12, 1026-1039. (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Vacuum Rabi splitting with a single quantum dot in a photonic crystal nanocavity

    Yoshie T, Scherer A, Hendrickson J, et al. Vacuum Rabi splitting with a single quantum dot in a photonic crystal nanocavity. Nature 432, 200-203 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Quantum correlations of spontaneous two -photon emission from a quantum dot

    Liu S, Wang Y, Saleem Y, et al. Quantum correlations of spontaneous two -photon emission from a quantum dot. Nature, 643, 1234-1239(2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Coherent spin –photon coupling using a resonant exchange qubit

    Landig A J, Koski J V, Scarlino P, et al. Coherent spin –photon coupling using a resonant exchange qubit. Nature, 560(7717), 179-184 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Strong spin -photon coupling in silicon

    Samkharadze N, Zheng G, Kalhor N, et al. Strong spin -photon coupling in silicon. Science 359, 1123-1127 (2018). 12 / 13

    2018

  3. [11]

    A coherent spin –photon interface in silicon

    Mi X, Benito M, Putz S, et al. A coherent spin –photon interface in silicon. Nature 555, 599- 603 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Balandin A A. et al. Nanophononics: pho non engineering in nanostructures and nanodevices. Journal of nanoscience and nanotechnology, 5(7), 1015-1022(2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    Kilina S, Kilin D, Tretiak S. et al. Light-driven and phonon-assisted dynamics in organic and semiconductor nanostructures. Chem. Re. 115, 5929-5978(2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Domí nguez F, Kohler S, Platero G. et al. Phonon-mediated decoherence in triple quantum dot interferometers. Phys.Rev. B, 83, 235319 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Phonon decoherence of quantum dots in photonic structures: Broadening of the zero -phonon line and the role of dimensionality

    Tighineanu P, Dreeß en C L, Flindt C, et al. Phonon decoherence of quantum dots in photonic structures: Broadening of the zero -phonon line and the role of dimensionality. Phys. Rev.Lett. 120, 257401 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Phonon-assisted incoherent excitation of a quantum dot and its emission properties

    Weiler S, Ulhaq A, Ulrich S M, et al. Phonon-assisted incoherent excitation of a quantum dot and its emission properties. Phys. Rev. B, 86, 241304 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Lü ker S, Kuhn T, Reiter D E. et al. Phonon impact on optical control schemes of quantum dots: Role of quantum dot geometry and symmetry. Phy. Rev. B, 96, 245306(2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Phonon-induced dephasing of excitons in semiconductor quantum dots: Multiple exciton generation, fission, and luminescence

    Madrid A B, Hyeon-Deuk K, Habenicht B F, et al. Phonon-induced dephasing of excitons in semiconductor quantum dots: Multiple exciton generation, fission, and luminescence. ACS nano, 3, 2487-2494(2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Brandes and B

    T. Brandes and B. Kramer. Spontaneous emission of phonons by coupled quantum dots. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3021–3024 (1999)

    1999

  12. [20]

    Phonon spectral density in a GaAs/AlGaAs double quantum dot

    Hofmann A, Karlewski C, Heimes A, et al. Phonon spectral density in a GaAs/AlGaAs double quantum dot. Phys.Rev. Res., 2, 033230(2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Tunneling in suspended carbon nanotubes assisted by longitudinal phonons

    Sapmaz S, Jarillo -Herrero P, Blanter Y M, et al. Tunneling in suspended carbon nanotubes assisted by longitudinal phonons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 026801 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    Magnetic field control of the Franck -Condon coupling of few-electron quantum states

    Stiller P L, Dirnaichner A, Schmid D R, et al. Magnetic field control of the Franck -Condon coupling of few-electron quantum states. Phys. Rev. B 102, 115408 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Coherent electron –phonon coupling in tailored quantum systems

    Roulleau P, Baer S, Choi T, et al. Coherent electron –phonon coupling in tailored quantum systems. Nat. Commun. 2, 1-6 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Probing confined phonon mod es by transport through a nanowire double quantum dot

    Weber C, Fuhrer A, Fasth C, et al. Probing confined phonon mod es by transport through a nanowire double quantum dot. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 036801 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Microwave detection of electron-phonon interactions in a cavity-coupled double quantum dot

    Hartke T R, Liu Y Y, Gullans M J, et al. Microwave detection of electron-phonon interactions in a cavity-coupled double quantum dot. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 097701 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Phonon-induced exchange gate infidelities in semiconducting Si-SiGe spin qubits

    Brooks M, Lundgren R, Tahan C. Phonon-induced exchange gate infidelities in semiconducting Si-SiGe spin qubits. Phys. Rev. B, 110, 235204(2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Two-Qubit Module Based on Phonon - Coupled Ge Hole -Spin Qubits: Design, Fabrication, and Readout at 1 -4 K

    Mei D M, Panamaldeniya S A, Dong K M, et al. Two-Qubit Module Based on Phonon - Coupled Ge Hole -Spin Qubits: Design, Fabrication, and Readout at 1 -4 K. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.01704(2026). 13 / 13

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Phonon-coupled hole-spin qubits in high-purity germanium: design and modeling of a scalable architecture

    Mei D M, Panamaldeniya S A, Dong K, et al. Phonon-coupled hole-spin qubits in high-purity germanium: design and modeling of a scalable architecture. Quantum Science and Technology, 10, 045067(2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Gullans M J, Liu Y Y, Stehlik J, Petta, J. R.et al. Phonon-assisted gain in a semiconductor double quantum dot maser. Phy. Rrev. Lett. 114, 196802 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Gullans M J, Taylor J M, Petta J R. et al. Probing electron-phonon interactions in the charge- photon dynamics of cavity-coupled double quantum dots. Phy.l Rev. B, 97, 035305. (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    The Dicke effect in electronic systems (Doctoral dissertation, Habilitation Thesis, University of Hamburg) (2000)

    Brandes T. The Dicke effect in electronic systems (Doctoral dissertation, Habilitation Thesis, University of Hamburg) (2000)

    2000

  24. [32]

    Quantum interference and phonon -mediated back- action in lateral quantum-dot circuits

    Granger G, Taubert D, Young C E, et al. Quantum interference and phonon -mediated back- action in lateral quantum-dot circuits. Nat. Phys. 8, 522-527 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Fabrication and characterization of an undoped GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dot device

    Li, Hai-Ou, et al. Fabrication and characterization of an undoped GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dot device. J. Appl. Phys. 116, 174504 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Measuring the coherence of charge states in undoped GaAs/AlGaAs double quantum dots with photon -assisted tunneling

    You J, Li H O, Cao G, et al. Measuring the coherence of charge states in undoped GaAs/AlGaAs double quantum dots with photon -assisted tunneling. Europhy. Lett . 111, 17001(2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Ab initio calculation of phonon dispersions in semiconductors

    Giannozzi P, De Gironcoli S, Pavone P, et al. Ab initio calculation of phonon dispersions in semiconductors. Phys. Rev. B, 43, 7231 (1991)

    1991

  28. [36]

    Spin blockade in hole quantum dots: Tuning exchange electrically and probing zeeman interactions

    Hung, Jo-Tzu, et al. Spin blockade in hole quantum dots: Tuning exchange electrically and probing zeeman interactions. Phys. Rev. B 95, 195316 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Baker, M. et al. Phononic Engineering of Quantum Dot Spin Qubits. Nano Lett. 19, 977–982 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Blaauboer, M. et al. Enhancing the Coherence of Spin Qubits in Quantum Dots by Strain Engineering. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 150503 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Efficient entanglement of spin qubits mediated by a hot mechanical oscillator

    Rosenfeld E, Riedinger R, Gieseler J, et al. Efficient entanglement of spin qubits mediated by a hot mechanical oscillator. Phy. Rev. Lett.126, 250505 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.