Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 86 references

Hole spins in bulk germanium double dots can reach strong spin-photon coupling above 100 MHz, far more than in strained germanium wells, and with far less dependence on magnetic-field direction.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 04:46 UTC pith:FHGZWKDI

load-bearing objection Solid head-to-head modeling that bulk Ge DQDs beat strained QWs on spin-photon coupling and B-angle tolerance; absolute ≳100 MHz claim is soft on the Vzpf choice but the comparison and normalized figure hold. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24967 v1 pith:FHGZWKDI submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Spin-cQED with bulk germanium spin qubits

A.-F. Kalo , E. A. Rodr\'iguez-Mena , J. C. Abadillo-Uriel , M. Filippone , Y.-M. Niquet This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords spin-cQEDbulk germaniumhole spin qubitsspin-photon couplingdouble quantum dotsspin-orbit interactionLuttinger-Kohncircuit QED
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that unstrained bulk germanium is a better host than today’s strained germanium quantum wells for coupling hole spins to microwave resonators. Systematic device modeling shows that bulk-Ge double quantum dots can push the spin-photon coupling into the strong-coupling regime (gs/2π of order 100 MHz and above), while the same geometry in a strained well tops out near 20 MHz. The gain comes from much stronger spin-orbit mixing once the heavy-hole/light-hole gap is set by gate confinement rather than lattice strain. The coupling peak is also much broader in magnetic-field angle, which should make devices easier to operate and less sensitive to misalignment. If the modeling holds, bulk germanium becomes a practical route to resonator-mediated long-range spin links and fast dispersive readout.

Core claim

Hole spins in unstrained bulk germanium double quantum dots readily enter the strong-coupling regime with a superconducting microwave resonator, reaching gs/2π ≳ 100 MHz (about 133 MHz at the optimal in-plane field in the simulated device), roughly six times the peak found in an otherwise comparable strained Ge quantum-well device. The enhancement is traced to large spin-orbit interactions beyond the usual perturbative heavy-hole/light-hole regime, and the coupling remains high over a wide range of field orientations rather than only in a narrow angular window.

What carries the argument

An effective four-level double-dot Hamiltonian (Zeeman, spin-conserving and spin-flip tunneling, magnetotunneling, and charge-photon drive) fitted to finite-difference Luttinger-Kohn solutions; the transverse spin-photon coupling gs is set by the spin-flip tunnel amplitude tsf between local Zeeman eigenstates, which becomes nearly optimal (tsf ≳ 0.75 tc) in bulk Ge.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted coupling numbers assume a fixed resonator zero-point voltage of 10 microvolts and a plunger lever arm near 0.22, together with the claim that the continuum Luttinger-Kohn model of the gate stack and cool-down strains faithfully represents a real bulk-Ge device.

What would settle it

Fabricate a bulk-Ge double-dot device wired to a microwave resonator with the modeled tunnel coupling and lever arm, measure the vacuum Rabi splitting (or equivalent gs) at spin-photon resonance near 2 GHz, and check whether gs/2π exceeds ~100 MHz over a broad in-plane field angle rather than only in a few-degree window.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Bulk-Ge hole devices can reach strong spin-photon coupling without needing the extreme field alignment required in strained wells.
  • Photon-mediated long-range spin-spin interactions and quantum non-demolition spin readout become more realistic on a Ge platform.
  • Gate-stack or buried-GeSi engineering can further tune SO strength toward the ultrastrong regime (gs ≳ 0.1 ωr).
  • Device-to-device variability in magnetic-field orientation should hurt bulk-Ge couplers less than strained-Ge ones.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If lever arms can be raised toward silicon values by tip-shaped or embedded gates, bulk Ge could match or exceed the best silicon hole spin-photon figures while keeping Ge’s materials advantages.
  • The same strong non-perturbative SO that boosts gs may also set new decoherence and sweet-spot trade-offs that experiments will have to map.
  • Flip-chip resonators on sapphire bonded to bulk Ge would let the platform inherit high-Q cavities without solving Ge-compatible superconductivity in situ.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a comparative theoretical study of spin-photon coupling for hole spins in double quantum dots (DQDs) in strained Ge/SiGe quantum wells versus unstrained bulk Ge heterostructures. Using finite-difference Luttinger-Kohn simulations (including cool-down gate strains) reduced to a four-level effective Hamiltonian with g-matrices, SO tunneling angle θso, and magnetotunneling terms, the authors compute the transverse spin-photon coupling gs at the ε=0 sweet spot with tc/h = 3.5 GHz, fr = 2 GHz, Vzpf = 10 μV. They find peak gs/2π ≈ 22 MHz (FWHM Δθ ≈ 2.25°) in the strained QW versus ≈133 MHz (FWHM Δθ ≈ 39°) in bulk Ge, attributed to strong HH/LH mixing beyond the perturbative regime, large θso ≈ 60.8°, and large gyromagnetic-axis tilts. A normalized figure of merit gs/(2παLVzpf) ≈ 60 MHz/μV, comparable to the best silicon experiment (74 MHz/μV), is quoted. Supplementary material details the canonical-basis extraction, Rashba coefficients, confinement and asymmetry dependence, a GeSi-insertion optimization (gs/2π ≈ 151 MHz), and frame-independent analytical expressions for gs.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a significant and timely contribution: bulk (lattice-matched, unstrained) Ge is an emerging platform, and the demonstration that its strong spin-orbit physics can out-perform the incumbent strained-Ge quantum wells for spin-photon coupling — with a ~17× broader angular tolerance — directly addresses the alignment-yield problem for scaling. The manuscript ships several genuine strengths: a microscopic, parameter-light modeling chain (FD Luttinger-Kohn solutions including cool-down gate strains, with effective-Hamiltonian parameters extracted rather than fitted to experiment); an assumption-free normalized figure of merit gs/(2παLVzpf) ≈ 60 MHz/μV benchmarked against the best silicon value (74 MHz/μV); a careful treatment of gauge dependence of θso and the g-matrices with closed-form expressions in the SO and local-Zeeman frames (SM §V); spot-checks of the linear-response formalism against full FD at finite B; and concrete, falsifiable predictions (peak positions, FWHM Δθ ≈ 39°, tsf/tc ratios, the effect of a 5-nm GeSi insertion raising gs/2π to 151 MHz). These make the comparative claim robust even though the absolute claim needs repair.

major comments (3)
  1. [Setup and model (paragraph fixing fr = 2 GHz, Vzpf = 10 μV); Eq. (2)] The headline number gs/2π ≈ 133 MHz (and the abstract's ≳100 MHz claim) is linear in Vzpf via Eq. (2), but the chosen operating point is internally inconsistent. Vzpf = 10 μV is imported from Ref. [18], where the resonator frequency was fr = 5.43 GHz; the simulations here use fr = 2 GHz. At fixed resonator impedance Vzpf = ωr·sqrt(ℏZr/2) scales linearly with frequency, so Ref. [18]'s 10 μV at 5.43 GHz implies Zr ≈ 1.6 kΩ, which at 2 GHz yields Vzpf ≈ 3.7 μV and a peak gs/2π ≈ 49 MHz. Holding 10 μV at 2 GHz requires Zr ≈ 12 kΩ — roughly an order of magnitude beyond the cited experiment, and achievable only with high-impedance superinductor resonators (the authors' own Ref. [30] shows granular-Al superinductors on Ge are a plausible route, but the manuscript never states this assumption). The paper must either (i) justify the impedance budget at 2 GHz explicitly, (ii) present the results a
  2. [Abstract; Conclusions; Fig. 2h] The claim that bulk Ge devices 'readily reach the strong-coupling regime' is asserted but never checked against a strong-coupling criterion. No resonator linewidth κ, spin decoherence rate γ, or cooperativity is quoted anywhere. This matters more here than usual because (a) if Major Comment 1 reduces gs to ~50 MHz, the margin against typical Ge-on-heterostructure resonator linewidths becomes thin, and (b) the bulk device's small g-factors (g ≈ 0.45–1.1, Eq. (S22)) push the resonance field to ~0.1–0.3 T at 2 GHz, where resonator field resilience (cf. Ref. [32]) and hole-spin coherence at finite B become relevant. A short quantitative paragraph — with explicit, referenced values for κ and T2* — would either substantiate the claim or delimit its regime of validity. This is not a request for new simulations, only for an explicit consistency check of the central claim.
  3. [After Eq. (1): 'with αL ≈ 0.22 the lever arm of gate PL'] The quantitative gs values inherit αL ≈ 0.22, introduced in one clause after Eq. (1) with no derivation or error bar in the main text. Given that the introduction itself identifies small lever arms as the principal weakness of Ge platforms (Refs. [24, 27, 33, 34]), and that the strained-versus-bulk comparison uses the same αL, the comparison is safe but the absolute numbers scale linearly with this model-derived quantity. Please state in the main text how αL is extracted from the FD electrostatics (presumably ⟨−↑|∂Vt/∂VL|−↑⟩ etc. at the operating point), how much it varies between the strained and bulk stacks, and how sensitive the conclusion is to a factor-of-two reduction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [SM §II.B.3; Figs. S8, S9] SM §II.B.3 and the captions of Figs. S8 and S9: 'VS2 = VS4 = 40 meV' should read 40 mV.
  2. [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (1)] Typo after Eq. (1): 'While observables such hole energies or spin-photon couplings...' — insert 'as'.
  3. [Fig. 2] Fig. 2 captions: please state the magnetic field amplitude at the optimal orientation (B∥x) for both devices, not only via the color maps in panels (d) and (h), since the required field is practically important for resonator compatibility.
  4. [SM §I.E] The statement that the g-matrix formalism was spot-checked against full FD calculations at finite B (SM §I.E) would be more convincing with one quantitative example (e.g., gs from Eq. (S7) vs. full FD at the optimal B orientation) reported in the SM.
  5. [Unstrained bulk device section] The discussion of why θso ≈ 60.8° implies a spin-orbit length comparable to the inter-dot distance is made quantitative only in SM §III (ℓso = 114 nm vs s = 170 nm, i.e., s/ℓso ≈ 85° vs θso ≈ 61°). A pointer to this estimate in the main text would help the reader follow the 'beyond perturbative regime' argument.
  6. [References] Refs. [27] and [48] are cited with year 2025/2026; please verify volume and page numbers at proof stage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: gs is computed from Luttinger–Kohn device eigenstates via an effective Hamiltonian fitted to those states, not to the target coupling.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is: finite-difference Luttinger–Kohn solutions at chosen gate biases → extraction of g-matrices, tc, θso, magnetotunneling into a four-level model → exact diagonalization and evaluation of gs = e Vzpf |⟨−↑|DL|−↓⟩|/h at ωs = 2π fr. The effective-Hamiltonian fit is to the microscopic wavefunctions and energies, not to experimental or target gs; observables are stated to be gauge-invariant under the canonical pseudo-spin choice. Absolute numbers inherit external operating-point inputs (Vzpf = 10 μV, αL ≈ 0.22, tc/h = 3.5 GHz, fr = 2 GHz) and material constants, which is ordinary parameter dependence, not a fit-then-predict loop or a self-definition. Self-citations supply the numerical framework and prior Ge SO/g-matrix physics but do not force the bulk-versus-strained ranking or the ≳100 MHz claim by construction. The comparative conclusion (bulk ≫ strained, broader angular width) is obtained by running the same protocol on both heterostructures. No step reduces Eq. (2)/(3) or the abstract claim to its own inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim is a computational materials prediction. It inherits standard valence-band quantum mechanics and device electrostatics, fixes several operating-point numbers by hand to match typical cQED experiments, and does not introduce new particles or forces. Load-bearing modeling choices (Vzpf, tc, gate geometry, LK parameters, cool-down strains) determine absolute MHz values and must be read as inputs, not outputs.

free parameters (5)
  • Vzpf (resonator zero-point voltage) = 10 μV
    Set to 10 μV following Si hole spin-cQED experiment [18]; absolute gs scales linearly with Vzpf.
  • Target charge tunnel coupling tc/h = 3.5 GHz
    Gate voltages are tuned so tc/h = 3.5 GHz for both heterostructures; enters gs ≈ (e αL Vzpf)(ωL+ωR) tsf/(8 tc²) in the adiabatic limit.
  • Resonator frequency fr = 2 GHz
    Fixed at 2 GHz; B amplitude is adjusted to ωs = 2π fr for each orientation.
  • Gate geometry and bias setpoints = e.g. bulk: VL=VR=-43.4 mV, VT=-11.6 mV, VSn=30 mV
    Plunger diameter 130 nm, center spacing 170 nm, oxide thicknesses, and specific VL,VR,VT,VSn values define confinement, lever arm αL≈0.22, and HH/LH mixing; chosen to realize symmetric DQDs at the target tc.
  • Cool-down inhomogeneous strains from Al gates = εxz ~ 10^{-4} scale (Fig. S2)
    Thermal-contraction strains (especially εxz) are included and affect g-matrix tilts; magnitude depends on assumed process/mechanics model from prior work.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Four-band Luttinger-Kohn Hamiltonian with standard Ge Luttinger parameters, deformation potentials, and κ,q Zeeman parameters accurately describes hole states in the simulated gate-defined dots.
    Invoked throughout Setup and model and SM §I; underpins all g-matrices and SO tunneling.
  • domain assumption Electrostatics are linear; DL = αL τL with αL extracted from gate-voltage derivatives is sufficient for spin-photon matrix elements.
    Eq. (1) and SM effective-Hamiltonian construction; neglects nonlinear screening and open-system resonator loading.
  • domain assumption Linear-in-B g-matrix / magnetotunneling formalism (neglecting O(B²) orbital effects) is adequate at the B fields needed for ωs/2π = 2 GHz.
    Stated in SM §I.B; used for all angular maps.
  • ad hoc to paper Operating at ε=0 sweet spot of a symmetric DQD with the stated tc captures the relevant strong-coupling figure of merit; decoherence and charge noise do not reverse the bulk vs strained ranking.
    Main text focuses on gs at ε=0; cooperativity and T2 are not computed.
  • standard math Unitary frame changes (canonical HH-like gauge, SO frame, local-Zeeman frame) leave observables invariant and justify interpreting tsf via ΘLR and θso.
    SM §V; standard SU(2) gauge freedom in two-dot spin models.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 38086 in / 4109 out tokens · 83268 ms · 2026-07-31T04:46:02.719013+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Unstrained bulk germanium is a particularly attractive material for circuit quantum electrodynamics with spins (spin-cQED). We show, through systematic modeling and comparison with state-of-the-art strained germanium heterostructures, that hole spins in bulk germanium double quantum dots readily reach the strong-coupling regime with superconducting microwave resonators, achieving spin-photon coupling strengths $g_s/2\pi\gtrsim100$\,MHz. This enhancement originates from large spin-orbit interactions beyond the perturbative regime. In addition, the coupling is much less sensitive to the orientation of the applied magnetic field, which shall ease operation and limit the impact of device-to-device variability. Our results establish bulk germanium as a compelling platform for scalable spin-cQED.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24967 by A.-F. Kalo, E. A. Rodr\'iguez-Mena, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, M. Filippone, Y.-M. Niquet.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Device for spin-photon coupling. (a) The strained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Spin-photon coupling in (a-d) a strained Ge QW and (e-h) an unstrained, bulk Ge heterostructure: (a, e) Spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Map of the density (arbitrary units) in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

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

86 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2a-d of the main text We first consider the strained quantum well of Fig

    Hamiltonian of the strained heterostructure of Fig. 2a-d of the main text We first consider the strained quantum well of Fig. 2a-d of the main text, at bias pointV L =V R =−20.5 mV andV T =−5 mV (all side gates grounded). The L and R orbitals of this DQD, plotted in Fig. S1, are symmetric with respect to the (yz) plane atx= 0. The in-plane extensions of t...

  2. [2]

    SO frame

    Hamiltonian of the bulk heterostructure of Fig. 2e-h of the main text We next consider the bulk heterostructure of Fig. 2e-h of the main text, at bias pointV L =V R =−43.4 mV and VT =−11.6 mV (top and bottom side gates biasV S1 =V S2 =V S3 =V S4 = 30 mV). The L and R orbitals of this DQD, plotted in Fig. S3, are symmetric with respect to the (yz) plane at...

  3. [3]

    Dependence on confinement We can further support this finding by looking at the dependence of the spin-photon coupling on the plunger gate bias. As the device of section II B 1 is in a saturation regime where all relevant quantities (HH/LH mixing,gs,t sf ...) are little dependent on the plunger gate voltages (at fixedt c), we start from a different bias p...

  4. [4]

    In the following example, we bias differently the side gates of the L and R dots (V L =−24.2 mV,V R =−46.9 mV,V T =−9.8 mV,V S2 =V S4 = 40 meV)

    Effects of dots asymmetry We finally illustrate the case of asymmetric quantum dots in the bulk heterostructure. In the following example, we bias differently the side gates of the L and R dots (V L =−24.2 mV,V R =−46.9 mV,V T =−9.8 mV,V S2 =V S4 = 40 meV). The L and R orbitals of this DQD are plotted in Fig. S8 (ℓ x = 20.5 nm,ℓ y = 18.7 nm in the L dot, ...

    2000

  5. [5]

    A. A. Clerk, K. W. Lehnert, P. Bertet, J. R. Petta, and Y. Nakamura, Hybrid quantum systems with circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature Physics16, 257 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Haroche and J.-M

    S. Haroche and J.-M. Raimond,Exploring the quantum: atoms, cavities, and photons(Oxford university press, 2006)

    2006

  7. [7]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wallraff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Review of Modern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Review of Modern Physics95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    X. Mi, J. Cady, D. Zajac, P. Deelman, and J. R. Petta, Strong coupling of a single electron in silicon to a microwave photon, Science355, 156 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Stockklauser, P

    A. Stockklauser, P. Scarlino, J. V. Koski, S. Gasparinetti, C. K. Andersen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, K. En- sslin, and A. Wallraff, Strong coupling cavity QED with gate-defined double quantum dots enabled by a high impedance resonator, Physical Review X7, 011030 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    L. E. Bruhat, T. Cubaynes, J. J. Viennot, M. C. Dartiailh, M. M. Desjardins, A. Cottet, and T. Kontos, Circuit QED with a quantum-dot charge qubit dressed by cooper pairs, Physical Review B98, 155313 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    Scarlino, J

    P. Scarlino, J. H. Ungerer, D. J. van Woerkom, M. Mancini, P. Stano, C. M¨ uller, A. J. Landig, J. V. Koski, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraff, In situ tuning of the electric-dipole strength of a double-dot charge qubit: Charge-noise protection and ultrastrong coupling, Physical Review X12, 031004 (2022). 25

    2022

  13. [13]

    Granel, F

    S. Granel, F. Gustavo, J.-L. Thomassin, H. Niebojewski, B. Bertrand, F. Berger, A. Gueugnot, C. Mhamdi, E. Dumur, R. Maurand, and S. Zihlmann, 3D integration of a hybrid quantum dot circuit-QED device for fast gate dispersive charge readout and coherent spin-photon coupling (2026), arXiv:2604.25871 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    V. K. H. Van, S. Serrano, C. Boh´ emier, A. Dash, F. E. Hudson, T. Tanttu, C. H. Yang, M. Feng, E. Vahapoglu, F. K. Unseld, W. H. Lim, A. Morello, A. S. Dzurak, and K. W. Chan, Dispersive readout of a SiMOS quantum dot using a flip-chip integrated microwave resonator (2026), arXiv:2607.14559 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Imamo¯ glu, D

    A. Imamo¯ glu, D. D. Awschalom, G. Burkard, D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Loss, M. Sherwin, and A. Small, Quantum information processing using quantum dot spins and cavity QED, Physical Review Letters83, 4204 (1999)

    1999

  16. [16]

    Viennot, M

    J. Viennot, M. Dartiailh, A. Cottet, and T. Kontos, Coherent coupling of a single spin to microwave cavity photons, Science 349, 408 (2015)

    2015

  17. [17]

    Samkharadze, G

    N. Samkharadze, G. Zheng, N. Kalhor, D. Brousse, A. Sammak, U. Mendes, A. Blais, G. Scappucci, and L. Vandersypen, Strong spin-photon coupling in silicon, Science359, 1123 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    X. Mi, M. Benito, S. Putz, D. M. Zajac, J. M. Taylor, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, A coherent spin–photon interface in silicon, Nature555, 599 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    A. J. Landig, J. V. Koski, P. Scarlino, U. Mendes, A. Blais, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, A. Wallraff, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Coherent spin–photon coupling using a resonant exchange qubit, Nature560, 179 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Borjans, X

    F. Borjans, X. Croot, X. Mi, M. Gullans, and J. Petta, Resonant microwave-mediated interactions between distant electron spins, Nature577, 195 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    Harvey-Collard, J

    P. Harvey-Collard, J. Dijkema, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Coherent spin-spin coupling mediated by virtual microwave photons, Physical Review X12, 021026 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    C. X. Yu, S. Zihlmann, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, V. P. Michal, N. Rambal, H. Niebojewski, T. Bedecarrats, M. Vinet,´E. Dumur, M. Filippone, B. Bertrand, S. De Franceschi, Y.-M. Niquet, and R. Maurand, Strong coupling between a photon and a hole spin in silicon, Nature Nanotechnology18, 741 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Noirot, C

    L. Noirot, C. X. Yu, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, ´E. Dumur, H. Niebojewski, B. Bertrand, R. Maurand, and S. Zihlmann, Coherence of a hole-spin flopping-mode qubit in a circuit quantum electrodynamics environment, Nature Physics22, 917 (2026)

    2026

  24. [24]

    D’Anjou and G

    B. D’Anjou and G. Burkard, Optimal dispersive readout of a spin qubit with a microwave resonator, Physical Review B 100, 245427 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    Kam and X

    C.-F. Kam and X. Hu, Submicrosecond high-fidelity dispersive readout of a spin qubit with squeezed photons, Physical Review A109, L040402 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Dijkema, X

    J. Dijkema, X. Xue, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Rimbach-Russ, S. L. de Snoo, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, Cavity-mediated iSW AP oscillations between distant spins, Nature physics21, 168 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    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)

    2021

  28. [28]

    N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, L. Petit, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, A single-hole spin qubit, Nature Communications11, 3478 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    N. W. Hendrickx, D. P. Franke, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, Fast two-qubit logic with holes in germanium, Nature577, 487 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    N. W. Hendrickx, I. L. Lawrie William, M. Russ, F. van Riggelen, S. L. de Snoo, R. N. Schouten, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, A four-qubit germanium quantum processor, Nature591, 580 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    V. John, C. X. Yu, B. van Straaten, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, M. Rodr ´ ıguez, S. Oosterhout, L. E. A. Stehouwer, G. Scappucci, S. Bosco, M. Rimbach-Russ, Y.-M. Niquet, F. Borsoi, and M. Veldhorst, A two-dimensional 10-qubit array in germanium with robust and localised qubit control, arXiv:2412.16044 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    De Palma, F

    F. De Palma, F. Oppliger, W. Jang, S. Bosco, M. Jan ´ ık, S. Calcaterra, G. Katsaros, G. Isella, D. Loss, and P. Scarlino, Strong hole-photon coupling in planar Ge for probing charge degree and strongly correlated states, Nature communications 15, 10177 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Kang, Z.-H

    Y. Kang, Z.-H. Li, Z.-Z. Kong, F.-G. Li, T.-Y. Hao, Z.-C. Wei, S.-Y. Deng, B.-C. Wang, H.-O. Li, G.-L. Wang,et al., Coupling of a hole double quantum dot in planar germanium to a microwave cavity, Physical Review Applied22, 024054 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Jan ´ ık, K

    M. Jan ´ ık, K. Roux, C. Borja-Espinosa, O. Sagi, A. Baghdadi, T. Adletzberger, S. Calcaterra, M. Botifoll, A. Garz´ on Manj´ on, J. Arbiol,et al., Strong charge-photon coupling in planar germanium enabled by granular aluminium superinductors, Nature communications16, 2103 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    F. D. Palma, E. Acinapura, W. Jang, F. Oppliger, R. Krishnan, A. Nigro, I. Zardo, and P. Scarlino, Low-loss frequency-tunable josephson junction array cavities on Ge/SiGe heterostructures with a tapered etching approach (2025), arXiv:2512.17812 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Ruggiero, C

    L. Ruggiero, C. Ciaccia, P. Drexler, V. J. Weibel, C. Olsen, C. Sch¨ onenberger, D. Bougeard, and A. Hofmann, High-quality and field resilient microwave resonators on ge quantum well heterostructures, npj Quantum Information 10.1038/s41534- 026-01297-w (2026)

    doi:10.1038/s41534- 2026

  37. [37]

    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 16 semiconductor quantum dot crossbar array, Nature Nanotechnology19, 21 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    N. W. Hendrickx, L. Massai, M. Mergenthaler, F. Schupp, S. Paredes, S. W. Bedell, G. Salis, and A. Fuhrer, Sweet-spot operation of a germanium hole spin qubit with highly anisotropic noise sensitivity, Nature Materials23, 920 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    L. A. Terrazos, E. Marcellina, Z. Wang, S. N. Coppersmith, 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, Physical Review B103, 26 125201 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    Z. Wang, E. Marcellina, A. R. Hamilton, J. H. Cullen, S. Rogge, J. Salfi, and D. Culcer, Optimal operation points for ultrafast, highly coherent Ge hole spin-orbit qubits, npj Quantum Information7, 54 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    V. P. Michal, B. Venitucci, and Y.-M. Niquet, Longitudinal and transverse electric field manipulation of hole spin-orbit qubits in one-dimensional channels, Physical Review B103, 045305 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Bosco, M

    S. Bosco, M. Benito, C. Adelsberger, and D. Loss, Squeezed hole spin qubits in Ge quantum dots with ultrafast gates at low power, Physical Review B104, 115425 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    Martinez, J

    B. Martinez, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, and Y.-M. Niquet, Hole spin manipulation in inhomogeneous and nonseparable electric fields, Physical Review B106, 235426 (2022)

    2022

  44. [44]

    J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, B. Martinez, and Y.-M. Niquet, Hole-spin driving by strain-induced spin-orbit interactions, Physical Review Letters131, 097002 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    Mauro, E

    L. Mauro, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, B. Martinez, and Y.-M. Niquet, Strain engineering in Ge/Ge−Si spin-qubit heterostruc- tures, Physical Review Applied23, 024057 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Sarkar, P

    A. Sarkar, P. Chowdhury, X. Hu, A. Saraiva, A. Dzurak, A. Hamilton, R. Rahman, and D. Culcer, Effect of disorder and strain on the operation of planar Ge hole spin qubits, npj Quantum Information11, 185 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    Costa, P

    D. Costa, P. Del Vecchio, K. Hudson, L. E. A. Stehouwer, A. Tosato, D. Degli Esposti, V. Calvi, L. Moreschini, M. Lodari, S. Bosco, and G. Scappucci, Buried unstrained germanium channels: A lattice-matched platform for quantum technology, Advanced Science13, e00066 (2026)

    2026

  48. [48]

    Mauro, M

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

    2025

  49. [49]

    Supplementary material with the methodology, the parameters of the Hamiltonians for Fig. 2, data on Rashba interactions in bulk Ge, an illustration of heterostructure engineering (insertion of a thin GeSi layer below the dots), and general expressions for spin-photon coupling in different frames

  50. [50]

    J. M. Luttinger, Quantum theory of cyclotron resonance in semiconductors: General theory, Physical Review102, 1030 (1956)

    1956

  51. [51]

    Winkler,Spin-orbit coupling in two-dimensional electron and hole systems(Springer, Berlin, 2003)

    R. Winkler,Spin-orbit coupling in two-dimensional electron and hole systems(Springer, Berlin, 2003)

    2003

  52. [52]

    E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, B. Mart ´ ınez, A. F. Kalo, Y.-M. Niquet, and J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, Sweet-spot protection of hole spins in sparse arrays via spin-dependent magneto-tunneling, Physical Review B113, 205303 (2026)

    2026

  53. [53]

    Venitucci, L

    B. Venitucci, L. Bourdet, D. Pouzada, and Y.-M. Niquet, Electrical manipulation of semiconductor spin qubits within the g-matrix formalism, Physical Review B98, 155319 (2018)

    2018

  54. [54]

    Cottet, T

    A. Cottet, T. Kontos, and B. Dou¸ cot, Electron-photon coupling in mesoscopic quantum electrodynamics, Physical Review B91, 205417 (2015)

    2015

  55. [55]

    V. P. Michal, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, S. Zihlmann, R. Maurand, Y.-M. Niquet, and M. Filippone, Tunable hole spin-photon interaction based ong-matrix modulation, Physical Review B107, L041303 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Bosco, P

    S. Bosco, P. Scarlino, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Fully tunable longitudinal spin-photon interactions in Si and Ge quantum dots, Physical Review Letters129, 066801 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    Sagaseta, M

    C. Sagaseta, M. J. Calder´ on, and J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, Switchable spin–photon coupling with hole spins in single-quantum dots, Materials for Quantum Technology6, 016302 (2026)

    2026

  58. [58]

    In contrast to the spin-flip term, there is a spin-conserving tunnel couplingt sc =− ⟨L˜⇑|H T |R˜⇑⟩=− ⟨L˜⇓|H T |R˜⇓⟩, such thatt 2 c =t 2 sc +t 2 sf

  59. [59]

    Geyer, B

    S. Geyer, B. Het´ enyi, S. Bosco, L. C. Camenzind, R. S. Eggli, A. Fuhrer, D. Loss, R. J. Warburton, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, and A. V. Kuhlmann, Anisotropic exchange interaction of two hole-spin qubits, Nature Physics20, 1152 (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    Marcellina, A

    E. Marcellina, A. R. Hamilton, R. Winkler, and D. Culcer, Spin-orbit interactions in inversion-asymmetric two-dimensional hole systems: A variational analysis, Physical Review B95, 075305 (2017)

    2017

  61. [61]

    E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, G. Veste, B. Martinez, J. Li, B. Skl´ enard, and Y.-M. Niquet, Linear-in- momentum spin orbit interactions in planar Ge/GeSi heterostructures and spin qubits, Physical Review B108, 205416 (2023)

    2023

  62. [62]

    M. J. Rodr ´ ıguez, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, A. F. Kalo, and Y.-M. Niquet, Dressed basis sets for the modeling of exchange interactions in double quantum dots, Physical Review B112, 115428 (2025)

    2025

  63. [63]

    P. D. Vecchio, K. Rossi, G. Scappucci, and S. Bosco, Tailoring germanium heterostructures for quantum devices with machine learning (2026), arXiv:2604.21732 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    Martinez, S

    B. Martinez, S. de Franceschi, and Y.-M. Niquet, Mitigating variability in epitaxial-heterostructure-based spin-qubit devices by optimizing gate layout, Physical Review Appl.22, 024030 (2024)

    2024

  65. [65]

    J. M. Luttinger and W. Kohn, Motion of electrons and holes in perturbed periodic fields, Physical Review97, 869 (1955)

    1955

  66. [66]

    L. C. Lew Yan Voon and M. Willatzen,The k p Method(Springer, Berlin, 2009)

    2009

  67. [67]

    The matricesJ x,J y,J z are: Jx = 1 2   0 √ 3 0 0√ 3 0 2 0 0 2 0 √ 3 0 0 √ 3 0   , Jy = i 2   0− √ 3 0 0√ 3 0−2 0 0 2 0− √ 3 0 0 √ 3 0   , Jz = 1 2   3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0−1 0 0 0 0−3   .(S57)

  68. [68]

    The eigenvalues ofD d are at least twofold degenerate owing to time-reversal symmetry constraints for an electric field operator (Kramers degeneracy). 27

  69. [69]

    (S3)],j z = +3/2 can not be mixed withj z =−3/2 states to first order in the HH/LH coupling termsRandS, and vice-versa

    Given the form of the LK Hamiltonian [Eq. (S3)],j z = +3/2 can not be mixed withj z =−3/2 states to first order in the HH/LH coupling termsRandS, and vice-versa

  70. [70]

    M. V. Fischetti and S. E. Laux, Band structure, deformation potentials, and carrier mobility in strained Si, Ge, and SiGe alloys, Journal of Applied Physics80, 2234 (1996)

    1996

  71. [71]

    (S1)] of the L and R + 3 2 states are (99.84%,0.15%,0.01%,0.00%)

    The squared norms of the (φ +3/2, φ+1/2, φ−1/2, φ−3/2) envelopes [Eq. (S1)] of the L and R + 3 2 states are (99.84%,0.15%,0.01%,0.00%). Those of the time-reversal symmetric − 3 2 states are (0.00%,0.01%,0.15%,99.84%)

  72. [72]

    Mauro, E

    L. Mauro, E. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Mena, M. Bassi, V. Schmitt, and Y.-M. Niquet, Geometry of the dephasing sweet spots of spin-orbit qubits, Physical Review B109, 155406 (2024)

    2024

  73. [73]

    (S3) and the Zeeman HamiltonianH Z [Eq

    Namely, from the interplay [39, 40] between theS K/ε terms of Eq. (S3) and the Zeeman HamiltonianH Z [Eq. (S6)]

  74. [74]

    More precisely, the new pseudo-spin basis set (the columns of a 2×2 unitary transformR) must be chosen so that the matrix representations ofR †(ui ·σ)Rare the usual Pauli matricesσ 1 ≡σ x,σ 2 ≡σ y,σ 3 ≡σ z

  75. [75]

    (S1)] of the L and R + 3 2 states are (78.37%,14.16%,4.86%,2.61%)

    The squared norms of the (φ +3/2, φ+1/2, φ−1/2, φ−3/2) envelopes [Eq. (S1)] of the L and R + 3 2 states are (78.37%,14.16%,4.86%,2.61%). Those of the time-reversal symmetric − 3 2 states are (2.61%,4.86%,14.16%,78.37%)

  76. [76]

    We practically considered a 100 nm thick, unstrained Ge film capped with a biaxially strained, 20-nm-thick Ge 0.8Si0.2 layer

  77. [77]

    [57], as we are assuming positive hole dispersion, while Ref

    Note thatβ R andβ ′ R have generally opposite signs in this work and in Ref. [57], as we are assuming positive hole dispersion, while Ref. [57] assumes negative hole dispersion

  78. [78]

    Kloeffel, M

    C. Kloeffel, M. Trif, and D. Loss, Strong spin-orbit interaction and helical hole states in Ge/Si nanowires, Physical Review B84, 195314 (2011)

    2011

  79. [79]

    Kloeffel, M

    C. Kloeffel, M. J. Ranˇ ci´ c, and D. Loss, Direct Rashba spin-orbit interaction in Si and Ge nanowires with different growth directions, Physical Review B97, 235422 (2018)

    2018

  80. [80]

    More precisely, on the action of theR ε andS ε terms of Eq. (S5)

Showing first 80 references.