pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.22650 · v2 · pith:ATSDIYUXnew · submitted 2026-04-24 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

Strain engineering of Andreev spin qubits in Germanium

Vittorio Coppini , Patrick Del Vecchio , Antonio L. R. Manesco , Anton Akhmerov , Valla Fatemi , Bernard van Heck , Stefano Bosco This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 09:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords strain engineeringAndreev spin qubitsgermanium heterostructuresJosephson junctionsspin-orbit couplingquantum gateshybrid devices
0
0 comments X

The pith

Compressive strain suppresses spin splitting in germanium Josephson junctions while unstrained and tensile-strained versions enable large splittings and fast gates.

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

The paper tries to establish that compressive strain is the main reason why spin splitting has not been resolved in current germanium Josephson junctions, blocking Andreev spin qubits. It proposes unstrained and tensile-strained alternatives that are fabrication-compatible and uses numerical simulations of ballistic junctions to predict much larger spin splittings in the GHz range. This would enable all-electric gates in about 100 nanoseconds. A reader would care because it offers a concrete way to leverage germanium's advantages for hybrid quantum devices with strong spin-orbit coupling and low disorder.

Core claim

Compressive strain suppresses the spin splitting of bound states in germanium Josephson junctions. Unstrained and tensile-strained heterostructures enhance the spin-orbit effect, yielding spin splittings in the GHz range and all-electric quantum gates in a hundred nanoseconds, as shown by ballistic simulations. Strain engineering is established as a key design principle for Andreev spin qubits in germanium-based devices.

What carries the argument

Strain-dependent spin-orbit interaction in ballistic Josephson junctions, tuned via compressive, unstrained, or tensile heterostructures.

If this is right

  • Spin splittings increase by more than two orders of magnitude to the GHz range.
  • All-electric quantum gates operate in approximately 100 nanoseconds.
  • Strain engineering becomes a central design tool for realizing functional Andreev spin qubits.
  • The proposed structures remain compatible with existing heterostructure growth techniques.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This approach might extend to tuning qubit performance in other material systems used for superconducting-semiconductor hybrids.
  • Experimental verification in real devices could reveal whether disorder effects limit the predicted enhancements.
  • Successful implementation would support more scalable designs for spin qubits leveraging germanium's material properties.

Load-bearing premise

The ballistic numerical simulations accurately model the strain effects on spin splitting without major influences from disorder, interface roughness, or non-ballistic transport in actual devices.

What would settle it

Microwave spectroscopy measurements on unstrained or tensile-strained germanium Josephson junctions showing whether spin splittings reach the GHz range.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22650 by Anton Akhmerov, Antonio L. R. Manesco, Bernard van Heck, Patrick Del Vecchio, Stefano Bosco, Valla Fatemi, Vittorio Coppini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ASQs in Ge. (a) Ge Josephson junction of length LN . Two aluminum leads with gap ∆, phase-difference ϕ, and width W, are coupled to a Ge heterostructure compris￾ing a 10 nm Si0.2Ge0.8 barrier, a 15 nm compressive-strained ε-Ge (tensile-strained ε¯-Ge) channel, and a bottom relaxed barrier of SixGe1−x (Ge1−ySny). At x = y = 0, the Ge channel is unstrained and accumulated by the electric field Ez = 1 mV/nm. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Andreev spin splitting in ε-Ge. (a) Coherence lengths ξ (upper panel) and energy levels (lower panel) against µ in an unstrained Ge junction. We show ξ of different spins (solid lines), and their average (dashed lines) for different sub-bands. The dots mark the values of the ξ used in (b) and (c); the arrow marks the value of µ in Figs. 1(c)-(d). (b) The spin-splitting ∆E rapidly decreases from the GHz ran… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Andreev spin splitting in ε¯-Ge (a) Band dispersion of ε¯-Ge at Sn concentration y = 10%, see view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Driving ASQs. Rabi frequency Ω01 for the intra￾doublet transition |0⟩ → |1⟩ against ϕ for different values of ξ. We consider electric-dipole-spin-resonance driving generated by a resonant AC potential with amplitude δV = 100 µV in an unstrained Ge junction with LN = 300 nm and W = 100 nm. For ξ = 175 nm, this is the same system whose energy levels are shown in view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Energies E τ j as a function of the concentration x and y. The zero of energy is pinned to the HH ground state, i.e. E H 1 ≡ 0. The shaded gray area marks the region excluded from the analysis in the main text to avoid the crossing between HH and LH ground states. with δε = εxx − εzz. We assume that all layers are pseudomorphic to each other, i.e., the in-plane lattice constant does not change along the gr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: E(k∥) dispersion from the full Hamiltonian (black) computed from a 400-dimensional Hilbert space and from the effective Hamiltonian Heff (green). Top row: 2 nd order SWT with A = {H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, η1, η2}. Bottom row: 1 st order SWT with A = {H1, · · · , H20, η1, · · · , η10}. (a) Compressive strained Ge with x = 20%. (b) Unstrained Ge. (c) Tensile strained Ge with y = 2%. (d) Tensile strained Ge with y… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Left panel: −β1 (left y-axis, dashed line) and β3 (right y-axis, solid line) as a function of the Sn content y. Right panel: β2 as a function of the Si content x. The right y-axis in both panels share the same units and scale. Ez = 1 mV/nm. (b) Maximum velocity difference against strain, for the two lowest bands of a germanium lead with W = 100 nm. The maximum is taken in the µ range where only the fir… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sketch of a germanium junction. Each dot is a site and each line represents an hopping term. The orange area is the view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sketch of a closed trajectory of an Andreev bound state. view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Phase dependence of the off-diagonal elements of view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Planar germanium heterostructures are promising hosts for hybrid quantum devices due to their compatibility with superconductors, low material disorder, and relaxed fabrication constraints. Also, the potentially low density of nuclear spins and strong spin-orbit interaction make germanium attractive for coherent spin physics. However, recent microwave spectroscopy experiments were unable to resolve a spin-splitting of bound states in germanium Josephson junctions, the prerequisite for defining and controlling Andreev spin qubits. Here, we argue that compressive strain is the key mechanism suppressing spin splitting in current devices. Furthermore, we propose unstrained and tensile-strained heterostructures, fully compatible with state-of-the-art growth technology, that significantly enhance the relevant spin-orbit effect. By numerically simulating ballistic Josephson junctions, we predict spin splittings comfortably in the GHz range, more than 2 orders of magnitude larger than compressively strained cases, and all-electric quantum gates in a hundred nanoseconds. Our results establish strain engineering as a key design principle for realizing Andreev spin qubits in germanium-based devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that compressive strain in current planar germanium heterostructures suppresses the spin-orbit interaction, thereby preventing observable spin splitting of Andreev bound states in Josephson junctions and hindering Andreev spin qubits. It proposes that unstrained or tensile-strained Ge heterostructures—compatible with existing growth methods—would enhance the relevant spin-orbit effects. Numerical simulations of ballistic Josephson junctions are used to predict spin splittings in the GHz range (more than two orders of magnitude larger than in compressively strained cases) and all-electric quantum gates operating in approximately 100 ns.

Significance. If the central predictions hold, the work establishes strain engineering as a practical design principle for realizing Andreev spin qubits in germanium, offering a route to fast, all-electric control in hybrid superconductor-semiconductor devices. The quantitative contrast between strain regimes and the emphasis on compatibility with state-of-the-art fabrication are notable strengths, though the overall impact depends on experimental confirmation of the simulated enhancements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical Simulations / Results] The central quantitative claims (GHz-scale spin splittings and ~100 ns gate times) rest on numerical simulations of ballistic Josephson junctions that map strain directly to enhanced spin-orbit physics. These simulations assume ideal, disorder-free transport and perfect interfaces (as described in the abstract and the simulation results section). In real fabricated planar Ge devices, interface roughness, potential fluctuations, and finite mean-free-path scattering are known to occur; any of these could dampen the strain-dependent spin-orbit term and reduce the predicted splittings by orders of magnitude. This assumption is load-bearing for the claim that unstrained/tensile configurations enable practical Andreev spin qubits.
  2. [Methods / Simulation Details] The manuscript does not provide sufficient detail on the model Hamiltonian, strain-dependent parameters, or validation of the ballistic simulations against existing microwave spectroscopy data on compressively strained Ge junctions. Without these, the forward predictions cannot be independently assessed for robustness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures and Captions] Clarify the exact strain values used in the simulations and ensure they are explicitly compared to typical experimental compressive strains in the figures and text.
  2. [Discussion] A brief discussion of how the proposed unstrained/tensile heterostructures can be grown with current technology would strengthen the experimental relevance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details and discussion where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central quantitative claims (GHz-scale spin splittings and ~100 ns gate times) rest on numerical simulations of ballistic Josephson junctions that map strain directly to enhanced spin-orbit physics. These simulations assume ideal, disorder-free transport and perfect interfaces (as described in the abstract and the simulation results section). In real fabricated planar Ge devices, interface roughness, potential fluctuations, and finite mean-free-path scattering are known to occur; any of these could dampen the strain-dependent spin-orbit term and reduce the predicted splittings by orders of magnitude. This assumption is load-bearing for the claim that unstrained/tensile configurations enable practical Andreev spin qubits.

    Authors: We agree that non-ideal effects such as interface roughness and scattering are present in real devices and could reduce the magnitude of the strain-enhanced spin-orbit interaction. Our simulations isolate the ballistic limit to highlight the intrinsic strain dependence, and the predicted enhancement exceeds two orders of magnitude, which provides a substantial buffer. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the revised discussion section that estimates the possible impact of moderate disorder and outlines how the effect should remain experimentally accessible. This addition addresses the concern without modifying the central quantitative predictions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The manuscript does not provide sufficient detail on the model Hamiltonian, strain-dependent parameters, or validation of the ballistic simulations against existing microwave spectroscopy data on compressively strained Ge junctions. Without these, the forward predictions cannot be independently assessed for robustness.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. The revised manuscript now includes an expanded Methods section that presents the explicit form of the model Hamiltonian, the strain-dependent parameters and their sources, and a direct comparison of our compressively strained simulation results against published microwave spectroscopy data on Ge Josephson junctions. These additions demonstrate consistency with the experimentally unresolved small splittings and allow independent evaluation of the simulation framework. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward simulations yield independent predictions

full rationale

The paper's derivation proceeds by numerically simulating ballistic Josephson junctions under varying strain to compute spin splittings from a strain-dependent spin-orbit Hamiltonian. These are presented as forward predictions rather than fits to target data, self-definitions, or reductions via self-citation chains. No load-bearing steps reduce by construction to inputs, and the central claim remains self-contained against external model benchmarks without invoking unverified author-specific uniqueness theorems or ansatzes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the simulations implicitly rely on standard ballistic transport assumptions and strain-dependent spin-orbit coupling whose details are not stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5726 in / 1204 out tokens · 40441 ms · 2026-05-21T09:22:04.309335+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    N. M. Chtchelkatchev and Y. V. Nazarov, Andreev quan- tum dots for spin manipulation, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 226806 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Padurariu and Y

    C. Padurariu and Y. V. Nazarov, Theoretical proposal for superconducting spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B81, 144519 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Park and A

    S. Park and A. L. Yeyati, Andreev spin qubits in mul- tichannel Rashba nanowires, Phys. Rev. B96, 125416 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 025005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    B. Béri, J. H. Bardarson, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Split- ting of Andreev levels in a Josephson junction by spin- orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B77, 045311 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Dell’Anna, A

    L. Dell’Anna, A. Zazunov, R. Egger, and T. Martin, Josephsoncurrentthroughaquantumdotwithspin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B75, 085305 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Michelsen, V

    J. Michelsen, V. S. Shumeiko, and G. Wendin, Manip- ulation with Andreev states in spin active mesoscopic Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B77, 184506 (2008)

    work page 2008

  9. [9]

    A. A. Reynoso, G. Usaj, C. A. Balseiro, D. Feinberg, and M. Avignon, Spin-orbit-induced chirality of Andreev states in Josephson junctions, Phys. Rev. B86, 214519 (2012)

    work page 2012

  10. [10]

    L. Tosi, C. Metzger, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Poth- ier, S. Park, A. L. Yeyati, J. Nygård, and P. Krogstrup, Spin-orbit splitting of Andreev states revealed by mi- crowave spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X9, 011010 (2019)

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Hoffman, M

    S. Hoffman, M. Hays, K. Serniak, T. Hazard, and C. Tahan, Decoherence in Andreev spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B111, 045304 (2025)

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    M. Hays, V. Fatemi, K. Serniak, D. Bouman, S. Dia- mond, G. de Lange, P. Krogstrup, J. Nygård, A. Geresdi, and M. Devoret, Continuous monitoring of a trapped su- perconducting spin, Nature Physics16, 1103 (2020)

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    M. Hays, V. Fatemi, D. Bouman, J. Cerrillo, S. Diamond, K. Serniak, T. Connolly, P. Krogstrup, J. Nygård, A. L. Yeyati, A. Geresdi, and M. H. Devoret, Coherent ma- nipulation of an Andreev spin qubit, Science373, 430 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Pita-Vidal, A

    M. Pita-Vidal, A. Bargerbos, R. Žitko, L. J. Splitthoff, L.Grünhaupt, J.J.Wesdorp, Y.Liu, L.P.Kouwenhoven, R. Aguado, B. van Heck,et al., Direct manipulation of a 6 superconducting spin qubit strongly coupled to a trans- mon qubit, Nature Physics19, 1110 (2023)

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Bargerbos, M

    A. Bargerbos, M. Pita-Vidal, R. Žitko, L. J. Splitthoff, L.Grünhaupt, J.J.Wesdorp, Y.Liu, L.P.Kouwenhoven, R. Aguado, C. K. Andersen, A. Kou, and B. van Heck, Spectroscopy of spin-split Andreev levels in a quantum dot with superconducting leads, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 097001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    Pita-Vidal, J

    M. Pita-Vidal, J. J. Wesdorp, L. J. Splitthoff, A. Barg- erbos, Y. Liu, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and C. K. Andersen, Strong tunable coupling between two distant supercon- ducting spin qubits, Nature Physics , 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Stano and D

    P. Stano and D. Loss, Review of performance metrics of spin qubits in gated semiconducting nanostructures, Nature Reviews Physics4, 672 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Moutanabbir, S

    O. Moutanabbir, S. Assali, A. Attiaoui, G. Daligou, P. Daoust, P. D. Vecchio, S. Koelling, L. Luo, and N. Rotaru, Nuclear spin-depleted, isotopically enriched 70ge/28si70ge quantum wells, Advanced Materials36, 2305703 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Fischer, W

    J. Fischer, W. A. Coish, D. V. Bulaev, and D. Loss, Spin decoherence of a heavy hole coupled to nuclear spins in a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B78, 155329 (2008)

    work page 2008

  20. [20]

    Philippopoulos, S

    P. Philippopoulos, S. Chesi, and W. A. Coish, First- principleshyperfinetensorsforelectronsandholesingaas and silicon, Phys. Rev. B101, 115302 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    S.BoscoandD.Loss,Fullytunablehyperfineinteractions of hole spin qubits in si and ge quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 190501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Scappucci, C

    G. Scappucci, C. Kloeffel, F. A. Zwanenburg, D. Loss, M. Myronov, J.-J. Zhang, S. De Franceschi, G. Katsaros, and M. Veldhorst, The germanium quantum information route, Nature Reviews Materials6, 926 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Borsoi, N

    F. Borsoi, N. W. Hendrickx, V. John, M. Meyer, S. Motz, F. van Riggelen, A. Sammak, S. L. de Snoo, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, Shared control of a 16semiconductor quantum dot crossbar array, Nature Nanotechnology19, 21 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    V. John, C. X. Yu, B. van Straaten, E. A. Rodríguez- Mena, M. Rodríguez, S. D. Oosterhout, L. E. A. Ste- houwer, G. Scappucci, M. Rimbach-Russ, S. Bosco, F. Borsoi, Y.-M. Niquet, and M. Veldhorst, Robust and localised control of a 10-spin qubit array in germanium, Nature Communications16, 10560 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, M. Russ, F. van Rigge- len, S. L. de Snoo, R. N. Schouten, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, A four-qubit germanium quan- tum processor, Nature591, 580 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    J. J. Dijkema, X. Zhang, A. Bardakas, D. Bouman, A. Cuzzocrea, D. van Driel, D. Girardi, L. E. Stehouwer, G. Scappucci, A.-M. J. Zwerver, and N. W. Hendrickx, Simultaneous operation of an 18-qubit modular array in germanium, arXiv:2604.01063 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Zhang, E

    X. Zhang, E. Morozova, M. Rimbach-Russ, D. Jirovec, T.-K. Hsiao, P. C. Fariña, C.-A. Wang, S. D. Oost- erhout, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Universal control of four singlet– triplet qubits, Nature Nanotechnology20, 209 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Hoffman and C

    S. Hoffman and C. Tahan, Resolving Andreev spin qubits in germanium-based Josephson junctions (2025), arXiv:2506.13988 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    N. W. Hendrickx, D. P. Franke, A. Sammak, M. Kouwen- hoven, D. Sabbagh, L. Yeoh, R. Li, M. L. V. Tagliaferri, M. Virgilio, G. Capellini, G. Scappucci, and M. Veld- horst, Gate-controlled quantum dots and superconduc- tivity in planar germanium, Nature Communications9, 2835 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    O. Sagi, A. Crippa, M. Valentini, M. Janik, L.Baghumyan, G.Fabris, L.Kapoor, F.Hassani, J.Fink, S. Calcaterra, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, and G. Katsaros, A gate tunable transmon qubit in planar ge, Nature Com- munications15, 6400 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Kiyooka, C

    E. Kiyooka, C. Tangchingchai, G. T. Fernandez-Bada, B. Brun-Barriere, S. Zihlmann, R. Maurand, F. Lefloch, V. Schmitt, J.-M. Hartmann, M. Houzet,et al., Andreev-enhanced conductance quantization and gate- tunable induced superconducting gap in germanium, arXiv:2604.00755 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Kiyooka, C

    E. Kiyooka, C. Tangchingchai, L. Noirot, A. Leblanc, B. Brun, S. Zihlmann, R. Maurand, V. Schmitt, É. Du- mur, J.-M. Hartmann, F. Lefloch, and S. De Franceschi, Gatemon qubit on a germanium quantum-well het- erostructure, Nano Letters25, 562 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Leblanc, C

    A. Leblanc, C. Tangchingchai, Z. Sadre Momtaz, E. Kiy- ooka, J.-M. Hartmann, F. Gustavo, J.-L. Thomassin, B. Brun, V. Schmitt, S. Zihlmann, R. Maurand, É. Du- mur, S. De Franceschi, and F. Lefloch, Gate- and flux- tunable sin(2ϕ) josephson element with planar-ge junc- tions, Nature Communications16, 1010 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Granular aluminum induced superconductivity in germanium for hole spin-based hybrid devices

    G. Fabris, P. Falthansl-Scheinecker, D. Shah, D. M. Pino, M. Borovkov, A. Bubis, K. Roux, D. Sokolova, A. A. Juanes, T. Costanzo,et al., Granular aluminum induced superconductivity in germanium for hole spin-based hy- brid devices, arXiv:2602.21364 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Lakic, W

    L. Lakic, W. I. L. Lawrie, D. van Driel, L. E. A. Ste- houwer, Y. Su, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, F. Kuem- meth, and A. Chatterjee, A quantum dot in germanium proximitized by a superconductor, Nature Materials24, 552 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Tosato, V

    A. Tosato, V. Levajac, J.-Y. Wang, C. J. Boor, F. Bor- soi, M. Botifoll, C. N. Borja, S. Martí-Sánchez, J. Arbiol, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, and G. Scappucci, Hard su- perconducting gap in germanium, Communications Ma- terials4, 23 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Aggarwal, A

    K. Aggarwal, A. Hofmann, D. Jirovec, I. Prieto, A. Sam- mak, M. Botifoll, S. Martí-Sánchez, M. Veldhorst, J. Ar- biol, G. Scappucci, J. Danon, and G. Katsaros, Enhance- ment of proximity-induced superconductivity in a planar ge hole gas, Phys. Rev. Res.3, L022005 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Hinderling, S

    M. Hinderling, S. C. ten Kate, M. Coraiola, D. Hax- ell, M. Stiefel, M. Mergenthaler, S. Paredes, S. Be- dell, D. Sabonis, and F. Nichele, Direct microwave spec- troscopy of Andreev bound states in planar Ge Josephson junctions, PRX Quantum5, 030357 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    ten Kate, D

    S. ten Kate, D. Ohnmacht, M. Coraiola, T. An- tonelli, S. Paredes, F. Schupp, M. Hinderling, S. Bedell, W. Belzig, J. Cuevas, A. Svetogorov, F. Nichele, and D.Sabonis,Finite-lengtheffectsandCoulombinteraction in Josephson junctions based on Ge quantum wells and probed with microwave spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Appl. 24, 064005 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    J. A. Steele, P. J. Strohbeen, C. Verdi, A. Baktash, A. Danilenko, Y.-H. Chen, J. van Dijk, F. H. Knud- sen, A. Leblanc, D. Perconte, L. Wang, E. Demler, S. Salmani-Rezaie, P. Jacobson, and J. Shabani, Super- conductivity in substitutional ga-hyperdoped ge epitaxial thin films, Nature Nanotechnology20, 1757 (2025). 7

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Buried unstrained germanium channels: a lattice-matched platform for quantum technology

    D. Costa, P. D. Vecchio, K. Hudson, L. E. A. Stehouwer, A. Tosato, D. D. Esposti, M. Lodari, S. Bosco, and G. Scappucci, Buried unstrained germanium channels: a lattice-matched platform for quantum technology (2025), arXiv:2506.04724 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    P. Kaul, J. Karthein, J. Buchhorn, T. Kawano, T. Usub- uchi, J. Ishihara, N. Rotaru, P. Del Vecchio, O. Concep- cion, Z. Ikonic, D. Grützmacher, Q.-T. Zhao, O. Moutan- abbir, M. Kohda, T. Schäpers, and D. Buca, Gesn quan- tum wells as a platform for spin-resolved hole transport, Communications Materials6, 216 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Eißfeller and P

    T. Eißfeller and P. Vogl, Real-space multiband envelope- function approach without spurious solutions, Phys. Rev. B84, 195122 (2011)

    work page 2011

  44. [44]

    Winkler,Spin-orbit Coupling Effects in Two- Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems, Vol

    R. Winkler,Spin-orbit Coupling Effects in Two- Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems, Vol. 191 (Springer, 2003)

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    Bir and G

    G. Bir and G. Pikus,Symmetry and Strain-induced Ef- fects in Semiconductors(Wiley, New York, 1974)

    work page 1974

  46. [46]

    SupplementalMaterialcontainingdetailsonthek·peffec- tive Hamiltonian, on the material parametrization, and on the model of the ASQ

    work page

  47. [47]

    C. G. Van de Walle and R. M. Martin, Theoretical cal- culations of heterojunction discontinuities in the Si/Ge system, Phys. Rev. B34, 5621 (1986)

    work page 1986

  48. [48]

    C. G. Van de Walle, Band lineups and deformation po- tentials in the model-solid theory, Phys. Rev. B39, 1871 (1989)

    work page 1989

  49. [49]

    R. R. Reeber and K. Wang, Thermal expansion and lat- tice parameters of group IV semiconductors, Materials Chemistry and Physics46, 259 (1996)

    work page 1996

  50. [50]

    M. P. Polak, P. Scharoch, and R. Kudrawiec, The elec- tronicbandstructureofGe 1−xSnx inthefullcomposition range: indirect, direct, and inverted gaps regimes, band offsets, and the Burstein–Moss effect, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics50, 195103 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Lawaetz, Valence-Band Parameters in Cubic Semicon- ductors, Phys

    P. Lawaetz, Valence-Band Parameters in Cubic Semicon- ductors, Phys. Rev. B4, 3460 (1971)

    work page 1971

  52. [52]

    Madelung, ed.,Semiconductors, Group IV Elements and III-V Compounds(Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidel- berg, 1991)

    O. Madelung, ed.,Semiconductors, Group IV Elements and III-V Compounds(Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidel- berg, 1991)

    work page 1991

  53. [53]

    Lu Low, Y

    K. Lu Low, Y. Yang, G. Han, W. Fan, and Y.-C. Yeo, Electronic band structure and effective mass parame- ters of Ge1-xSnx alloys, Journal of Applied Physics112, 103715 (2012)

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    Del Vecchio and O

    P. Del Vecchio and O. Moutanabbir, Light-hole spin con- fined in germanium, Phys. Rev. B110, 045409 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Del Vecchio, S

    P. Del Vecchio, S. Bosco, D. Loss, and O. Moutanabbir, Fully tunable strong spin-orbit interactions in light hole germanium quantum channels, arXiv:2506.14759 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Del Vecchio and O

    P. Del Vecchio and O. Moutanabbir, Light-hole gate- defined spin-orbit qubit, Phys. Rev. B107, L161406 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    L. A. Terrazos, E. Marcellina, Z. Wang, S. N. Copper- smith, M. Friesen, A. R. Hamilton, X. Hu, B. Koiller, A. L. Saraiva, D. Culcer, and R. B. Capaz, Theory of hole-spin qubits in strained germanium quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B103, 125201 (2021)

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    Bosco, M

    S. Bosco, M. Benito, C. Adelsberger, and D. Loss, Squeezed hole spin qubits in ge quantum dots with ul- trafast gates at low power, Phys. Rev. B104, 115425 (2021)

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    Mauro, M

    L. Mauro, M. J. Rodríguez, E. A. Rodríguez-Mena, and Y.-M. Niquet, Hole spin qubits in unstrained germanium layers, npj Quantum Information11, 167 (2025)

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. P. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Schrief- fer–Wolff transformation for quantum many-body sys- tems, Annals of Physics326, 2793 (2011)

    work page 2011

  61. [61]

    D. M. Pino, R. S. Souto, M. J. Calderón, R. Aguado, and J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, Theory of superconducting proximity effect in hole-based hybrid semiconductor- superconductor devices, Phys. Rev. B111, 235443 (2025)

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    S. S. Babkin, B. Joecker, K. Flensberg, M. Serbyn, and J. Danon, Superconducting proximity effect in two- dimensional hole gases, Phys. Rev. B111, 214518 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    A. G. Moghaddam, T. Kernreiter, M. Governale, and U. Zülicke, Exporting superconductivity across the gap: Proximity effect for semiconductor valence-band states duetocontactwithasimple-metalsuperconductor,Phys. Rev. B89, 184507 (2014)

    work page 2014

  64. [64]

    P. D. Johannsen, H. F. Legg, S. Bosco, D. Loss, and J. Klinovaja, Atypical josephson effect in hybrid superconductor-hole systems, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013289 (2026)

    work page 2026

  65. [65]

    Adelsberger, H

    C. Adelsberger, H. F. Legg, D. Loss, and J. Klino- vaja, Microscopic analysis of proximity-induced super- conductivity and metallization effects in superconductor- germanium hole nanowires, Phys. Rev. B108, 155433 (2023)

    work page 2023

  66. [66]

    C. W. Groth, M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, and X. Waintal, Kwant: a software package for quantum transport, New Journal of Physics16, 063065 (2014)

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    H. Lu, D. F. Bofill, Z. Sun, T. Kanne, J. Nygård, M. Kjaergaard, and V. Fatemi, Andreev spin relaxation time in a shadow-evaporated InAs weak link, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 024046 (2025)

    work page 2025

  68. [68]

    Metzger, S

    C. Metzger, S. Park, L. Tosi, C. Janvier, A. A. Reynoso, M. F. Goffman, C. Urbina, A. Levy Yeyati, and H. Poth- ier, Circuit-qed with phase-biased josephson weak links, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013036 (2021)

    work page 2021

  69. [69]

    Adelsberger, M

    C. Adelsberger, M. Benito, S. Bosco, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Hole-spin qubits in ge nanowire quantum dots: Interplay of orbital magnetic field, strain, and growth direction, Phys. Rev. B105, 075308 (2022)

    work page 2022

  70. [70]

    Adelsberger, S

    C. Adelsberger, S. Bosco, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, En- hanced orbital magnetic field effects in ge hole nanowires, Phys. Rev. B106, 235408 (2022)

    work page 2022

  71. [71]

    Laubscher, J

    K. Laubscher, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Germanium- based hybrid semiconductor-superconductor topological quantum computing platforms: Disorder effects, Phys. Rev. B110, 155431 (2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    Y. V. Nazarov and Y. M. Blanter,Quantum transport: introduction to nanoscience(Cambridge university press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  73. [73]

    Luethi, K

    M. Luethi, K. Laubscher, S. Bosco, D. Loss, and J. Kli- novaja, Planar josephson junctions in germanium: Effect of cubic spin-orbit interaction, Phys. Rev. B107, 035435 (2023)

    work page 2023

  74. [74]

    D. V. Bulaev and D. Loss, Electric dipole spin resonance for heavy holes in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 097202 (2007)

    work page 2007

  75. [75]

    J. A. Sauls, Andreev bound states and their signa- tures, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences376, 20180140 (2018)

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    V.N.Golovach, M.Borhani,andD.Loss,Electric-dipole- induced spin resonance in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 8 74, 165319 (2006)

    work page 2006

  77. [77]

    J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, E. A. Rodríguez-Mena, B. Mar- tinez, and Y.-M. Niquet, Hole-spin driving by strain- induced spin-orbit interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 097002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    P.DelVecchio, K.Rossi, G.Scappucci,andS.Bosco,Tai- loring germanium heterostructures for quantum devices with machine learning, arXiv:2604.21732 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    Jakob, K

    M. Jakob, K. Laubscher, P. Del Vecchio, A. Chatterjee, V. Fatemi, and S. Bosco, Fast readout of quantum dot spin qubits via andreev spins, arXiv:2506.19762 (2025). Supplemental Material: Strain engineering of Andreev spin qubits in Germanium Vittorio Coppini,1,∗ Patrick Del Vecchio,2,† Antonio L. R. Manesco,3, 4 Anton Akhmerov,3 Valla Fatemi,5 Bernard van...

    work page arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    + sw2(M† 1,M 1) i ,(39a) M2 =P[M 2]−α 0P[sw 2(M1,M 1)],(39b) (39c) and for completeness: E0 =P[E 0],(40a) M1 =P[M 1].(40b) In the Ge1−ySny material system, we apply perturbation theory up to1st order. In this case the states belonging to theBset are simply discarded from the Hamiltonian, which becomes Heff(k∥) =P[E 0] +P[W 1] +P[W 2],(41) 7 Figure 2.E(k ∥...

    work page

Showing first 80 references.