Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

A flux-controlled two-site Kitaev chain

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that magnetic flux through a superconducting loop gives continuous control over the coupling between two quantum dots, turning an extended Andreev bound state into a tunable mediator for poor man's Majorana states.

desk verdict Flux phase control of ABS-mediated QD coupling is a real new knob and the continuous sweet-spot line is solid; the middle-probe spatial wavefunction claim is under-supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15912 v1 pith:GRA3AGV3 submitted 2025-01-27 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.supr-con

Ivan Kulesh , Sebastiaan L. D. ten Haaf , Qingzhen Wang , Vincent P. M. Sietses , Yining Zhang , Sebastiaan R. Roelofs , Christian G. Prosko , Di Xiao
show 3 more authors
Candice Thomas Michael J. Manfra Srijit Goswami
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.supr-con
keywords poorman'sMajoranaAndreevboundstatecrossedreflectionelasticcotunnelingsuperconductingphasecontrolquantumdotstwo-siteKitaevchain2DEGhybriddevice
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a new way to control the couplings that form a minimal Kitaev chain from two quantum dots. The key idea is that an extended Andreev bound state in a flux-tunable Josephson junction mediates both elastic cotunneling and crossed Andreev reflection between the dots, and the superconducting phase difference sets the balance between the two. The experiment shows that this phase control makes the poor-man's-Majorana sweet spot reachable for a continuous range of ABS chemical potentials, rather than only at isolated gate values. A middle spectroscopic probe reveals a zero-bias peak, which the authors take as evidence that the Majorana wavefunction extends into the hybrid region. These results add a practical tuning knob and relax design constraints for Majorana-based devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the extended Andreev bound state formed in a proximitized semiconductor segment that connects two superconducting electrodes in a loop. Its energy $E_{\mathrm{ABS}}$ and its coherence factors $u$ and $v$ determine the amplitudes of elastic cotunneling (ECT) and crossed Andreev reflection (CAR) between the two adjacent quantum dots. The superconducting phase difference $\Delta\phi$, controlled by a magnetic field through the loop, changes $u$ and $v$ and therefore the ECT/CAR ratio; the gate voltage $V_{\mathrm{ABS}}$ tunes the ABS chemical potential. The poor-man's-Majorana sweet spot is defined as the point where the effective spin-conserving coupling $\Gamma_o$ equals the spin-non-conserving coupling $\Gamma_e$, and the paper maps how this point moves as $V_{\mathrm{ABS}}$ and $\Delta\phi$ are varied.

What would settle it

A control measurement would settle it: record the middle-probe conductance with both quantum dots detuned away from the sweet spot (for instance, in Coulomb blockade) and look for the zero-bias peak; if the peak persists or does not split in the way the PMM model predicts when one dot is detuned, the spatial-distribution claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the superconducting phase difference, set by an out-of-plane magnetic field threading a loop, changes the effective coupling between two spin-polarized quantum dots separated by about one micrometre. The phase difference modifies the coherence factors of the mediating Andreev bound state, thereby changing the relative strengths of elastic cotunneling and crossed Andreev reflection. As a consequence, the condition for a poor-man's-Majorana sweet spot, where the spin-conserving and spin-non-conserving couplings are equal, can be satisfied for every value of the ABS chemical potential within a range, with the sweet spot tracing a continuous line in the gate–phase plane. The paper also claims that a zero-bias conductance peak measured from a probe attached to the middle of the hybrid segment shows that both Majorana wavefunctions reside partially in the ABS region, a spatial distribution that had been predicted but not directly probed previously.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the zero-bias peak seen with the middle probe comes from the poor-man's-Majorana wavefunctions, not from a zero-energy Andreev or Yu-Shiba-Rusinov state that exists independently of the two-dot sweet-spot configuration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PMM sweet spots become reachable for a continuous range of ABS chemical potentials by choosing the appropriate phase difference, not only at discrete gate voltages.
  • Quantum dots separated by about one micrometre can still be coupled strongly enough (10–30 µeV) to form a two-site Kitaev chain, relaxing geometric constraints on device layouts.
  • A zero-bias peak at a probe in the middle of the hybrid segment indicates that the Majorana wavefunctions extend into the ABS region, providing a direct way to probe their spatial distribution.
  • Phase control of the ABS can serve as an additional tuning mechanism for the interaction between quantum dots, complementing electrostatic gate control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step would be to use a fast on-chip flux line instead of a global magnetic field to switch between coupling regimes; because phase changes are local and fast, this could enable time-resolved tuning of the ECT/CAR ratio without disturbing the dot electrostatics.
  • The observed continuous sweet-spot line in the $(V_{\mathrm{ABS}},\Delta\phi)$ plane could be used as a sensitive probe of the ABS spectrum; the systematic deviations from theory that the authors note may reflect spin-orbit and Zeeman effects that a simple two-level ABS model omits.
  • If the middle-probe peak truly tracks the PMM wavefunction, then the same probe could test the predicted exchange braiding of poor-man's Majoranas by watching how the zero-bias peak evolves during a manipulation sequence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports measurements of a two-site Kitaev chain formed by two quantum dots coupled through an extended Andreev bound state (ABS) in an InSbAs 2DEG, with the ABS embedded in a superconducting loop. The authors show that the superconducting phase difference Δφ, controlled by an out-of-plane magnetic field, changes the relative strength of the spin-conserving and spin-non-conserving couplings Γo and Γe inferred from charge stability diagrams, and that a PMM sweet spot (Γe = Γo) can be found for a range of ABS gate voltages VABS, tracing a path in the (VABS, Δφ) plane. They also report a zero-bias conductance peak in a middle tunnel probe attached to the ABS region, which they interpret as evidence that the PMM wavefunctions extend into the ABS. The data come from several cooldowns, and raw data and plotting scripts are deposited on Zenodo.

Significance. If the phase-control result holds, it adds a genuinely useful control knob: the sweet-spot manifold is extended from a discrete set of ABS gate values to a continuous path in a two-dimensional parameter space, and the demonstration of 10–30 μeV couplings over ~1 μm distances is valuable for longer Kitaev chains. The 2π periodicity of the effect and the matching of the 28 μT field period to the loop area provide independent experimental checks, and the absence of fitted parameters is a clear strength. The middle-probe result, if properly controlled, would be a rare direct probe of PMM wavefunction delocalization. However, the skeptical concern about the middle-probe identification is justified and is the main reason I cannot accept the paper in its present form. The circularity concern raised in the reader's report does not land: the PMM criteria are taken from prior work, and the phase-periodicity and loop-area checks are independent of the PMM interpretation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, final paragraph and Fig. 3c] The inference that the middle-probe zero-bias peak in GMM demonstrates that γ1 and γ2 reside partially in the ABS region is not controlled. Figure 2c shows that the ABS spectrum itself crosses zero energy as a function of both Δφ and VABS, so a zero-energy ABS or Yu-Shiba-Rusinov state independent of the two-QD PMM subspace could also produce a peak in GMM. The manuscript does not report GMM spectra away from the PMM sweet spot, nor does it show that the GMM peak splits or vanishes with the same energy scale as the left/right PMM peaks when one or both dots are detuned. Please add such a control measurement, or explicitly weaken the abstract and Section III claim from 'spatial distribution of the Majorana wave function' to a zero-bias signal whose assignment to the PMM subspace remains to be established. The phase-control and sweet-spot results do not depend on this identification.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 4] The statement that sweet spots 'span a continuous line' in the (VABS, Δφ) plane is stronger than the evidence shown. Fig. 4b displays a discrete set of extracted Δφ* values with no error bars and no quantitative criterion for the 'straight transition line' diagnostic, and the text does not state how densely VABS was swept. Since the continuous-range claim is one of the paper's headline results, please either show a dense sweep with error analysis or rephrase to 'a sweet spot was obtained for every VABS setting explored, with a monotonic shift of Δφ*'.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3c caption] Please specify the detuning configuration for each trace (sweet spot, one dot detuned, both dots detuned) and mark the middle-probe zero-bias peak more explicitly; the main text currently leaves this to the reader.
  2. [Section IV, final paragraph] The attribution of the absence of the predicted excitation-gap variation to 'multiple states' and 'spin-splitting' is plausible but not demonstrated; please present it as an open question or support it with data.
  3. [Fig. 1] In the preprint rendering, some figure labels (e.g., 'φ/two.denominator' in Fig. 1) appear garbled; please check the final compiled figure files.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the phase-control sweet-spot results are experimental observations with independent consistency checks; self-citations provide context but do not force the claims.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical. The phase-controlled PMM sweet spots are identified from charge-stability-diagram crossings (straight QD transition lines) and verified by tunneling spectroscopy showing a zero-bias peak that persists under one-dot detuning and splits under two-dot detuning. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction; the coupling strength (~18–30 µeV) is read off the measured excited-state energy. The 2π-periodic modulation and the field period matching the loop area are independent checks of the phase variable, not definitions of the result. The theory motivation (refs 20, 21) predicts a sweet-spot line and a systematic gap behavior; the authors explicitly report that the predicted systematic gap behavior was not observed, showing that the theory is not being used as a self-fulfilling input. Self-citations (refs 19, 21) supply supporting context (e.g., expected finite overlap of PMM wavefunctions in the ABS segment) but the load-bearing observations—CSD crossings, ZBP splittings, and the middle-probe zero-bias peak—are presented as measurements with their own evidence. The middle-probe interpretation (that GMM ZBP indicates PMM wavefunction weight in the ABS) is an inference that could be challenged by an uncontrolled zero-energy ABS, but that is a possible alternative explanation, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define the PMM wavefunction in terms of the middle-probe peak, nor does it fit a parameter to produce the peak. Therefore no step in the claimed derivation chain is equivalent by construction to its inputs, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities. It relies on established models: ABS-mediated ECT/CAR from Liu et al. (PRL 129, 267701), the YSR description of QDs, the PMM model of ten Haaf et al. (Nature 630, 329) and Liu et al. (arXiv:2310.09106), and the flux-tunable Kitaev chain theory of Luna et al. (arXiv:2402.07575). These are domain assumptions from prior work, not ad hoc to this paper.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The QD-ABS-QD interaction is described by ECT and CAR amplitudes t and Δ, with effective QD couplings Γo and Γe being linear combinations of these amplitudes.
    Invoked in Section III; based on refs [14,19,21].
  • domain assumption In the strong-coupling regime, QDs are described as Yu-Shiba-Rusinov states with ground states |↓⟩ or |S⟩.
    Invoked in Section III; based on refs [30-34].
  • domain assumption The phase difference Δϕ between the SC electrodes controls the ABS coherence factors u and v, and hence the ECT/CAR amplitudes.
    Invoked in Section III; based on refs [14,20].
  • domain assumption The PMM sweet spot is defined as the point where Γe = Γo, where QD charge transitions cross in straight lines.
    Invoked in Section III; based on refs [19,21].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A flux-controlled two-site Kitaev chain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GRA3AGV3

@misc{pith2026250115912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A flux-controlled two-site Kitaev chain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GRA3AGV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15912}
}
abstract

In semiconducting-superconducting hybrid devices, Andreev bound states (ABSs) can mediate the coupling between quantum dots (QDs), allowing for the realisation of artificial Kitaev chains. In order to engineer Majorana bound states (MBSs) in these systems, one must control the energy of the ABSs. In this work, we show how extended ABSs in a flux tunable Josephson junction can be used to control the coupling between distant quantum dots separated by $\approx$ 1 $\mathrm{\mu}$m. In particular, we demonstrate that the combination of electrostatic control and phase control over the ABSs significantly increases the parameter space in which MBSs are observed. Finally, by employing an additional spectroscopic probe in the hybrid region between the QDs, we gain information about the spatial distribution of the Majorana wave function in a two-site Kitaev chain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15912 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic of the device with three tunneling spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Tuning into the PMM sweet spot and verifying the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The sweet spot location in the ABS gate - SC phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Procedure of tuning up a three-site artificial Kitaev chain based on transmon measurements

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A numerical protocol uses transmon spectra to tune a three-site artificial Kitaev chain to sweet spots, with a new classification into ECT-dominated, genuine, and CAR-dominated types.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Recher, E

    P. Recher, E. V. Sukhorukov, and D. Loss, Andreev tun- neling, Coulomb blockade, and resonant transport of non- local spin-entangled electrons, Physical Review B 63, 165314 (2001)

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    N. M. Chtchelkatchev, G. Blatter, G. B. Lesovik, and T. Martin, Bell inequalities and entanglement in solid- state devices, Physical Review B 66, 161320 (2002)

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Samuelsson, E

    P. Samuelsson, E. Sukhorukov, and M. B¨ uttiker, Orbital entanglement and violation of Bell inequalities in meso- scopic conductors, Physical review letters 91, 157002 (2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    P. Busz, D. Tomaszewski, and J. Martinek, Spin corre- lation and entanglement detection in Cooper pair split- ters by current measurements using magnetic detectors, Physical Review B 96, 064520 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Brange, O

    F. Brange, O. Malkoc, and P. Samuelsson, Minimal en- tanglement witness from electrical current correlations, Physical Review Letters 118, 036804 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Coupling spin qubits via superconductors, Physical review letters 111, 060501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Spethmann, S

    M. Spethmann, S. Bosco, A. Hofmann, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, High-fidelity two-qubit gates of hybrid superconducting-semiconducting singlet-triplet qubits, Physical Review B 109, 085303 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires, Physics-uspekhi 44, 131 (2001)

    2001

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    J. D. Sau and S. D. Sarma, Realizing a robust practical Majorana chain in a quantum-dot-superconductor linear array, Nature communications 3, 964 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Parity qubits and poor man’s Majorana bound states in double quantum dots, Physical Review B 86, 134528 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Tsintzis, R

    A. Tsintzis, R. S. Souto, and M. Leijnse, Creating and de- tecting poor man’s Majorana bound states in interacting quantum dots, Physical Review B 106, L201404 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    C.-X. Liu, H. Pan, F. Setiawan, M. Wimmer, and J. D. Sau, Fusion protocol for Majorana modes in coupled quantum dots, Physical Review B 108, 085437 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Tsintzis, R

    A. Tsintzis, R. S. Souto, K. Flensberg, J. Danon, and M. Leijnse, Majorana qubits and non-Abelian physics in quantum dot–based minimal Kitaev chains, PRX Quan- tum 5, 010323 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    C.-X. Liu, G. Wang, T. Dvir, and M. Wimmer, Tun- able superconducting coupling of quantum dots via Andreev bound states in semiconductor-superconductor nanowires, Physical review letters 129, 267701 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Bordin, G

    A. Bordin, G. Wang, C.-X. Liu, S. L. D. Ten Haaf, N. Van Loo, G. P. Mazur, D. Xu, D. Van Driel, F. Zatelli, S. Gazibegovic, et al., Tunable crossed Andreev reflection and elastic cotunneling in hybrid nanowires, Physical Re- view X 13, 031031 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Q. Wang, S. L. D. Ten Haaf, I. Kulesh, D. Xiao, C. Thomas, M. J. Manfra, and S. Goswami, Triplet correlations in Cooper pair splitters realized in a two- dimensional electron gas, Nature Communications 14, 4876 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Z.-H. Liu, C. Zeng, and H. Xu, Coupling of quantum- dot states via elastic-cotunneling and crossed Andreev reflection in a minimal Kitaev chain, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08636 10.48550/arXiv.2403.08636 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    T. Dvir, G. Wang, N. van Loo, C.-X. Liu, G. P. Mazur, A. Bordin, S. L. D. Ten Haaf, J.-Y. Wang, D. van Driel, F. Zatelli, et al. , Realization of a minimal Kitaev chain in coupled quantum dots, Nature 614, 445 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    S. L. D. ten Haaf, Q. Wang, A. M. Bozkurt, C.-X. Liu, I. Kulesh, P. Kim, D. Xiao, C. Thomas, M. J. Manfra, T. Dvir, M. Wimmer, and S. Goswami, A two-site Kitaev chain in a two-dimensional electron gas, Nature 630, 329 (2024). 6

    2024

  12. [20]

    J. D. T. Luna, A. M. Bozkurt, M. Wimmer, and C.-X. Liu, Flux-tunable Kitaev chain in a quantum dot array, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07575 10.48550/arXiv.2402.07575 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    C.-X. Liu, A. M. Bozkurt, F. Zatelli, S. L. D. ten Haaf, T. Dvir, and M. Wimmer, Enhancing the excitation gap of a quantum-dot-based Kitaev chain, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09106 10.48550/arXiv.2310.09106 (2023)

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [23]

    See Supplemental Material for further information

  15. [27]

    Razmadze, D

    D. Razmadze, D. Sabonis, F. K. Malinowski, G. C. M´ enard, S. Pauka, H. Nguyen, D. M. van Zanten, C. Eoin, J. Suter, P. Krogstrup, et al. , Radio-frequency methods for Majorana-based quantum devices: Fast charge sensing and phase-diagram mapping, Physical Re- view Applied 11, ...

    2019

  16. [28]

    Mayer, J

    W. Mayer, J. Yuan, K. S. Wickramasinghe, T. Nguyen, M. C. Dartiailh, and J. Shabani, Superconducting prox- imity effect in epitaxial Al-InAs heterostructures, Ap- plied Physics Letters 114, 10.1063/1.5067363 (2019)

    2019 doi

  17. [29]

    Zatelli, D

    F. Zatelli, D. van Driel, D. Xu, G. Wang, C.-X. Liu, A. Bordin, B. Roovers, G. P. Mazur, N. van Loo, J. C. Wolff, et al. , Robust poor man’s Majorana zero modes using Yu-Shiba-Rusinov states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03193 10.48550/arXiv.2311.03193 (2023)

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [30]

    T. Meng, S. Florens, and P. Simon, Self-consistent de- scription of Andreev bound states in Josephson quantum dot devices, Physical Review B 79, 224521 (2009)

    2009

  19. [31]

    Grove-Rasmussen, H

    K. Grove-Rasmussen, H. I. Jørgensen, B. M. Andersen, J. Paaske, T. S. Jespersen, J. Nyg˚ ard, K. Flensberg, and P. E. Lindelof, Superconductivity-enhanced bias spec- troscopy in carbon nanotube quantum dots, Physical Re- view B 79, 134518 (2009)

    2009

  20. [32]

    Deacon, Y

    R. Deacon, Y. Tanaka, A. Oiwa, R. Sakano, K. Yoshida, K. Shibata, K. Hirakawa, and S. Tarucha, Tunneling spectroscopy of Andreev energy levels in a quantum dot coupled to a superconductor, Physical review letters104, 076805 (2010)

    2010

  21. [33]

    E. J. Lee, X. Jiang, M. Houzet, R. Aguado, C. M. Lieber, and S. De Franceschi, Spin-resolved Andreev levels and parity crossings in hybrid superconductor–semiconductor nanostructures, Nature nanotechnology 9, 79 (2014)

    2014

  22. [34]

    Jellinggaard, K

    A. Jellinggaard, K. Grove-Rasmussen, M. H. Madsen, and J. Nyg˚ ard, Tuning Yu-Shiba-Rusinov states in a quantum dot, Physical Review B 94, 064520 (2016)

    2016

  23. [35]

    Yokoyama, M

    T. Yokoyama, M. Eto, and Y. V. Nazarov, Anomalous Josephson effect induced by spin-orbit interaction and Zeeman effect in semiconductor nanowires, Physical Re- view B 89, 195407 (2014)

    2014

  24. [36]

    Van Heck, J

    B. Van Heck, J. V¨ ayrynen, and L. Glazman, Zeeman and spin-orbit effects in the Andreev spectra of nanowire junctions, Physical Review B 96, 075404 (2017)

    2017

  25. [37]

    L. Tosi, C. Metzger, M. Goffman, C. Urbina, H. Pothier, S. Park, A. L. Yeyati, J. Nyg˚ ard, and P. Krogstrup, Spin- orbit splitting of Andreev states revealed by microwave spectroscopy, Physical Review X 9, 011010 (2019)

    2019

  26. [38]

    A flux-controlled two-site Kitaev chain Ivan Kulesh,1, † Sebastiaan L

    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13730031. A flux-controlled two-site Kitaev chain Ivan Kulesh,1, † Sebastiaan L. D. ten Haaf, 1, † Qingzhen Wang,1 Vincent P. M. Sietses, 1 Yining Zhang,1 Sebastiaan R. Roelofs, 1 Christian G. Prosko, 1 Di Xiao, 2 Candice Thomas, 2 Michael J. Man...

    arXiv

  27. [39]

    C. M. Moehle, C. T. Ke, Q. Wang, C. Thomas, D. Xiao, S. Karwal, M. Lodari, V. van de Kerkhof, R. Termaat, G. C. Gardner, et al. , InSbAs two-dimensional electron gases as a platform for topological superconductivity, Nano Letters 21, 9990 (2021)

    2021

  28. [40]

    Hornibrook, J

    J. Hornibrook, J. Colless, A. Mahoney, X. Croot, S. Blanvillain, H. Lu, A. Gossard, and D. Reilly, Frequency multiplexing for readout of spin qubits, Applied Physics Letters 104, 10.1063/1.4868107 (2014)

    2014 doi

  29. [41]

    Reilly, C

    D. Reilly, C. Marcus, M. Hanson, and A. Gossard, Fast single-charge sensing with a rf quantum point contact, Applied Physics Letters 91, 10.1063/1.2794995 (2007)

    2007 doi

  30. [42]

    M. Jung, M. Schroer, K. Petersson, and J. R. Petta, Radio frequency charge sensing in InAs nanowire double quantum dots, Applied Physics Letters 100, 10.1063/1.4729469 (2012)

    2012 doi

  31. [43]

    Razmadze, D

    D. Razmadze, D. Sabonis, F. K. Malinowski, G. C. M´ enard, S. Pauka, H. Nguyen, D. M. van Zanten, C. Eoin, J. Suter, P. Krogstrup, et al., Radio-frequency methods for Majorana-based quantum devices: Fast charge sensing and phase-diagram mapping, Physical Review Applied 11, 064...

    2019

Pith tools

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