Compact Quantum Dot Models for Analog Microwave co-Simulation

Alberto Gomez-Saiz; Christopher J. B. Ford; Lorenzo Peri; M. Fernando Gonzalez-Zalba

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Compact Quantum Dot Models for Analog Microwave co-Simulation

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lindblad dynamics for quantum-dot devices can be embedded directly in standard analog circuit simulators as Verilog-A compact models, reproducing coherent effects such as Rabi oscillations, LZSM interference, and dispersive readout in the…

desk verdict A genuinely useful bridge between Lindblad dynamics and commercial circuit simulators, with a load-bearing constant-interaction assumption that the paper over-sells as "compromise-free." read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06690 v1 pith:GUL76QPV submitted 2025-02-10 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Lorenzo Peri , Alberto Gomez-Saiz , Christopher J. B. Ford , M. Fernando Gonzalez-Zalba This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall

keywords Verilog-AcompactmodelquantumdotLindbladmasterequationco-simulationchargequbitLandau-Zener-Stückelberg-Majoranainterferencedispersivereadoutcircuitelectrodynamics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that the full coherent dynamics of a quantum-dot device can be packaged as a compact model in Verilog-A and run inside the same analog circuit simulators used for conventional integrated circuits. The central move is to translate the Lindblad master equation for the device's density matrix into an equivalent electrical network, where each population and coherence becomes a node voltage, and then to couple that network to the outside world through capacitively induced gate currents. If this works, engineers designing control and readout electronics for spin or Majorana qubits would be able to simulate the quantum device and its classical periphery as one unified circuit, catching transients, loading, and back-action before fabrication. The paper demonstrates the approach on two model systems, a single-electron box and a double-quantum-dot charge qubit, and shows that the simulators reproduce theoretically expected admittance lineshapes, LZSM interference fringes, damped Rabi oscillations, and dispersive cavity readout.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Liouvillian-to-circuit mapping for the Lindblad master equation, the standard Markovian equation of motion for the density matrix of an open quantum system. For each density-matrix element $\rho_{ij}$, the equation $\dot{\rho} = \mathcal{L}\rho$ is rewritten as a differential equation that a circuit simulator treats as a capacitor and resistor in parallel driven by voltage-controlled current sources whose values depend linearly on all other density-matrix elements; the diagonal branches have time constant $T_1$, the off-diagonal branches $T_2^*$. The boundary layer is the lever-arm relation $I_l(t) = e \sum_k \alpha_{k,l}\dot{\rho}_{kk}(t)$, which converts population change into terminal current and terminal voltage into on-site energy, closing the quantum-classical loop.

What would settle it

A measurement or self-consistent simulation in which the lever arm $\alpha_{k,l}$ varies with gate voltage by more than a few percent, or in which the gate current shows a phase lag not predicted by the constant-$\alpha$ formula at a frequency of order the tunnel rate, would show the boundary equation breaks down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Lindblad master equation can be mapped, with no approximation, onto a network of capacitors, resistors, and voltage-controlled current sources that a standard circuit simulator solves natively. In the paper's formulation, each element of the density matrix obeys an equation of the form $\dot{\rho}_{ij} + \gamma_{ij}\rho_{ij} = \sum_{kl} L^{ij}_{kl}\rho_{kl}$, which is literally a parallel RC branch driven by controlled sources; the branch time constants are the relaxation and dephasing times $T_1$ and $T_2^*$. The boundary between quantum and classical worlds is closed by charge bookkeeping: the current at gate $l$ is $I_l(t) = e \sum_k \alpha_{k,l}\dot{\rho}_{kk}(t)$, with $\alpha_{k,l}$ the lever arm, and the gate voltage enters the quantum Hamiltonian through the on-site energy $\varepsilon_k = -e \sum_l \alpha_{k,l} V_l$. Embedding the two sets of equations in a single Jacobian avoids convergence issues and lets transients in the classical circuit drive coherent evolution in the quantum device. The paper validates the construction by reproducing the full set of quantum-dot admittance effects, including thermal, lifetime, and power broadening; quantum capacitance and Sisyphus resistance; LZSM fringes; Rabi chevrons; and the dispersive shift in a high-Q resonator, and then uses the models to design a single-electron-box frequency multiplier and a dispersive charge-qubit readout circuit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the classical gate current is fully determined by fixed, constant lever arms acting on the instantaneous rate of change of quantum occupation, so that screening charge responds without delay to every tunnelling event.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A designer can co-simulate a qubit, its bias tees, resonators, and readout amplifiers in one industry-standard simulator, so interactions between the control electronics and the quantum dynamics are visible before fabrication.
The same recipe applies to any multilevel system described by a Lindblad master equation, including spin qubits and Majorana-based devices, since the equivalent-circuit construction is general.
The single-electron box's nonlinearity becomes a tunable cryogenic frequency multiplier whose harmonic output is selected by resonant loads and controlled by DC detuning.
Dispersive readout of a charge qubit in an RLC resonator can be simulated in both adiabatic and resonant regimes, including the back-action of dephasing on the reflected signal.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the mapping produces an equivalent circuit for the density matrix, the same compact model could serve as a virtual testbed for large qubit arrays, with one model instance per qubit, letting designers check crosstalk, reflections, and bias-tee transients across many qubits at once.
The boundary equation assumes constant lever arms and instantaneous screening; a natural extension is to let $\alpha_{k,l}$ depend on the instantaneous gate voltage, which would matter for devices with strong electrostatic nonlinearities such as barrier gates.
Since the quantum and classical equations share one Jacobian, automated circuit-level optimizers could in principle tune pulse waveforms or readout matching networks directly against simulated qubit fidelity, a workflow the paper does not demonstrate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look. The core contribution is real: they map the Lindblad master equation onto VCCS-based equivalent circuits and implement SEB and DQD compact models in Verilog-A inside Cadence Spectre. The reproductions of adiabatic admittance, lifetime/power broadening, LZSM interference fringes, damped Rabi chevrons, and dispersive cQED readout are convincing and match analytic theory across a broad parameter sweep. This is a useful engineering step for co-design of quantum-classical interfaces, and the dissipative resistive interpretation (RC time constants as T1 and T2*) is a nice pedagogical touch.

The main soft spot is the quantum-classical boundary. Everything that leaves the quantum system goes through Eq. (6), which assumes constant lever arms and instantaneous screening response. That is fine for small-signal near a fixed operating point, but the paper's large-signal demonstrations (frequency multiplier, power broadening) swing detunings far beyond thermal/lifetime scales, and the abstract's "compromise-free" wording is not qualified there. The authors do note Eq. (7) is first-order and that barrier-gate effects need more work, but the "compromise-free" claim and Fig. 7 results ride on that unvalidated assumption. I don't think the central mapping is wrong; the paper would be stronger if it delimited the validity domain and either shipped the Verilog-A code or compared against independent numerical simulation or experimental data.

Also, the validation is entirely against the authors' own prior theory. That is not a defect by itself, since the analytic lineshapes are external results, but it means the model's real-world fidelity against measured device data is an open question. The paper deserves a serious referee, mostly because it will be a reference for anyone trying to do EDA-based co-simulation; the missing code and over-claimed generality are fixable. I'd recommend sending it out with a request for code release and a tightened scope statement.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a method to represent Lindblad master equation dynamics of quantum-dot systems as equivalent electrical circuits in Verilog-A, enabling co-simulation with classical analog components in Cadence Spectre. The approach is demonstrated on a single-electron box (SEB) and a double-quantum-dot (DQD) charge qubit, reproducing small-signal admittance lineshapes, power and lifetime broadening, LZSM interference, damped Rabi oscillations, and dispersive cQED readout, along with a SEB-based frequency multiplier. The algebraic mapping from the LME to voltage-controlled current sources and RC elements is exact; the physical interface between quantum populations and terminal currents is based on the constant-interaction, quasi-static screening model.

Significance. If the stated scope is properly qualified, this is a valuable and timely contribution to the design of quantum-classical interfaces. The exact recasting of the LME into a circuit representation is transparent and parameter-free, and the validation against independent Crank-Nicholson Lindblad simulations and analytic expressions is a strength. The demonstrations in an industry-standard tool (Cadence Spectre) are convincing and provide falsifiable predictions (admittance, S11, harmonic content) that can guide experimental design. The main caveat is that the quantum-classical boundary is modeled under the constant-interaction quasi-static screening assumption; the paper should state this limitation as clearly for the current relation (Eq. 6) as it does for the energy relation (Eq. 7).

major comments (1)

[Sec. II, Eq. (6)] The terminal current formula I_l(t) = e Σ_k α_{k,l} dρ_{k,k}/dt is the sole channel through which quantum dynamics acts on the classical circuit in all co-simulation results. It is derived from the constant-interaction, quasi-static screening picture, yet—unlike Eq. (7), which is explicitly qualified as "first order... within the constant interaction model" and followed by a note that barrier gates require further modeling—Eq. (6) is presented without qualification. The large-signal demonstrations in Figs. 5 and 7 involve gate voltage swings far larger than ℏΓ and k_BT, where voltage-dependent lever arms or non-instantaneous screening would alter the predicted gate and reservoir currents, and hence the admittance and harmonic content. The abstract's "compromise-free" claim is therefore broader than the established scope. Please add an explicit statement of the validity limits of Eq. (6) and qualify "compromise-free" in the abstract and conclusions (e.g., "within the constant-interaction model"). This is a load-bearing issue for the central claim, but it is fixable by adding a caveat and does not undermine the algebraic mapping.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. I] The phrase "with no approximations" (referring to the circuit mapping) should be clarified to avoid implying that the physical models themselves are exact; the mapping is exact, but the underlying Hamiltonian, jump operators, and boundary conditions contain approximations.
[Sec. IV.A] The frequency multiplier operates at f0 ~ 0.5 MHz, which is not "microwave"; the title and abstract's "Analog Microwave co-Simulation" could be slightly misleading, although the cQED section does operate at 2 GHz.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption has a typo: "ircuit" should be "circuit".
[Sec. III.B] The instantaneous-eigenvalue approximation for the DQD is an important approximation; a brief discussion of its validity under fast driving (e.g., in the LZSM regime) would help readers assess the model's range of applicability.
[References] The paper relies heavily on self-citations (e.g., Refs. [27], [52], [55]-[57]); while these are highly relevant, adding independent references for the constant-interaction model and the instantaneous-eigenbasis Lindblad treatment would strengthen context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the compact models implement the Lindblad dynamics directly and are validated against external solvers, not fitted to the target results.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation is an implementation chain, not a physical derivation from first principles. It takes the Lindblad master equation (Eqs. 1-3) as input and maps each density-matrix element to an equivalent RC subcircuit driven by VCCSs (Eq. 4), which is a circuit-theoretic transcription, not a new physical prediction. The terminal currents are specified by Eq. (6), a charge-bookkeeping relation with constant lever arms, and the detuning-bias relation by Eq. (7); both are stated modeling assumptions within the constant-interaction picture, and the paper acknowledges the limitations (barrier gates require further modeling). No parameter is fitted to the target admittance, LZSM, Rabi, or S11 results: the same physical parameters (Gamma, t_c, T, Gamma_phi) are chosen a priori and used both in Cadence Spectre and in the Crank-Nicholson Lindblad reference calculations. The reference theory is external to the circuit simulator (analytic lineshapes and an independent numerical Lindblad solver), so the agreement demonstrates that the Verilog-A model solves the intended equations, which is exactly the paper's claim. Self-citations [52,55] supply the concrete tunnel-rate and relaxation models, but these are published, independently stated physics models with explicit formulas (Eqs. 11-17), not an unverified uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives. The 'compromise-free' language is broader than the demonstrated constant-interaction scope, but that is an overclaim about model range, not a circular reduction. Accordingly, no step of the derivation reduces by construction to its own output.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard quantum mechanics (Lindblad master equation), a constant-interaction model for the electrostatics, and a Markovian approximation for decoherence. These are domain assumptions, not fitted parameters. The simulation parameters in the demonstrations are hand-picked to illustrate regimes and are not used to fit the theory. No new physical entities are introduced; the equivalent circuits are mathematical representations of the LME.

free parameters (5)

SEB tunnel rate Γ = 0.5 GHz (default, Figs 3-4)
Hand-chosen simulation input to showcase lifetime broadening and power broadening; not fitted to data.
Temperature T = 100 mK (default)
Default thermal energy scale in simulations; swept to show thermal broadening.
DQD tunnel coupling tc = 8 GHz (default)
Chosen to set adiabatic versus resonant regimes; not fitted.
Charge relaxation rate Γcr = 0.5 GHz (default)
Sets relaxation timescale in the DQD phonon bath model; not fitted.
Dephasing rate Γϕ = 0 (default), varied
Controls coherence time in the DQD; not fitted.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The quantum dynamics follows the Lindblad master equation ρ̇ = Lρ with the stated Hamiltonian and jump operators (Eqs 1-3).
Used throughout; Markovian and Born approximations restrict validity to weakly coupled, memoryless baths.
domain assumption Constant interaction model: terminal currents are I_l = e Σ_k α_{k,l} dρ_{k,k}/dt and site energies are ε_k = -e Σ_l α_{k,l} V_l (Eqs 5-7), with constant lever arms and instantaneous screening.
Bridges quantum populations and classical currents/voltages; load-bearing for all co-simulated observables.
domain assumption DQD decoherence is treated in the instantaneous eigenvalue approximation, with relaxation rates Γ_↑, Γ_↓ evaluated in the instantaneous eigenbasis (Eqs 15-17).
Underlies the DQD model's dissipative dynamics; may be inaccurate for fast non-adiabatic driving.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compact Quantum Dot Models for Analog Microwave co-Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GUL76QPV

@misc{pith2026250206690,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compact Quantum Dot Models for Analog Microwave co-Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GUL76QPV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06690}
}

read the original abstract

Scalable solid-state quantum computers will require integration with analog and digital electronics. Efficiently simulating the quantum-classical electronic interface is hence of paramount importance. Here, we present Verilog-A compact models with a focus on quantum-dot-based systems, relevant to semiconductor- and Majorana-based quantum computing. Our models are capable of faithfully reproducing coherent quantum behavior within a standard electronic circuit simulator, enabling compromise-free co-simulation of hybrid quantum devices. In particular, we present results from co-simulations performed in Cadence Spectre, showcasing coherent quantum phenomena in circuits with both quantum and classical components using an industry-standard electronic design and automation tool. Our work paves the way for a new paradigm in the design of quantum systems, which leverages the many decades of development of electronic computer-aided design and automation tools in the semiconductor industry to now simulate and optimize quantum processing units, quantum-classical interfaces, and hybrid quantum-analog circuits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06690 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** d. Our inclusion of the effective density of state in Eq. (12) allows the compact model to further include a phenomenon known as lifetime broadening [24, 52]. This effect is shown in Fig. 3e, f, where we sweep the tunnel rate for T = 100 mK. When first increasing Γ, we see a simple increase in peak height (green and purple traces in Fig. 3e). This arises from the fact that faster tunneling results in a larger numbe… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: e. In Fig. 7d, we sweep input amplitude and dc detuning of the system, showing the characteristic Nlobed fan experimentally observed in similar SEB-base systems [27, 28]. We show similar results in Fig. 7g-m, in which we vary the values of the capacitors for the outp…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: c may be understood effectively as a vacuum Rabi splitting caused by the qubit–resonator coupling, which we show faithfully reproduced by the Spectre® simulation. Finally, we explore the influence of DQD dephasing on the reflected signal (Fig. 8d, e). To do so, we inc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

[1]

Arute, K

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S...

work page 2019
[2]

Preskill, Quantum computing 40 years later (2023), arXiv:2106.10522

J. Preskill, Quantum computing 40 years later (2023), arXiv:2106.10522

arXiv 2023
[3]

Bluvstein, S

D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semegh- ini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

2024
[4]

Bravyi, A

S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature 627, 778 (2024)

2024
[5]

Acharya, D

R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, J. Bausch, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Blackwell, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, D. A. Browne, B. Buchea, B. B. Buck- ley, D...

2024
[6]

Paetznick, M

A. Paetznick, M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, J. P. C. III, A. Chernoguzov, J. M. Dreil- ing, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatter- man, L. Grans-Samuelsson, D. Gresh, D. Hayes, N. He- witt, C. Holliman, C. V. Horst, J. Johansen, D. Luc- chetti, Y. Matsuoka, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyen- huis, A. Paz, J. Pino, P. Siegf...

arXiv 2024
[7]

Putterman, K

H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. MacCabe, S. Aghaeimeibodi, R. N. Patel, M. Lee, W. M. Jones, H. Moradinejad, R. Rodriguez, N. Mahuli, J. Rose, J. C. Owens, H. Levine, E. Rosenfeld, P. Reinhold, L. Mon- celsi, J. A. Alcid, N. Alidoust, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, J. Barnett, P. Bienias, H. A. Carson, C. Chen, L. Chen, H. Chinkezian, E. M. Chisholm, M.-H....

arXiv 2024
[8]

R. P. Feynman, Engineering and Science 23, 22–36 (1960)

work page 1960

Show all 80 references

[9]

A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Physical Review A 86, 032324 (2012)

2012
[10]

E. T. Campbell, B. M. Terhal, and C. Vuillot, Nature 549, 172–179 (2017)

2017
[11]

H. H. S. Chan, R. Meister, M. L. Goh, and B. Koczor, Algorithmic shadow spectroscopy (2023), arXiv:2212.11036

2023 arXiv
[12]

Huang, R

H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Nature Physics 16, 1050–1057 (2020)

2020
[13]

D. J. Reilly, npj Quantum Information 1, 15011 (2015)

2015
[14]

D. J. Reilly, in 2019 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM) (2019) pp. 31.7.1–31.7.6

2019
[15]

M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, S. De Franceschi, E. Charbon, T. Meunier, M. Vinet, and A. S. Dzurak, Nature Elec- tronics 4, 872–884 (2021)

2021
[16]

S. J. Pauka, K. Das, R. Kalra, A. Moini, Y. Yang, M. Trainer, A. Bousquet, C. Cantaloube, N. Dick, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, and D. J. Reilly, Nature Elec- tronics 4, 64–70 (2021)

2021
[17]

Hornibrook, J

J. Hornibrook, J. Colless, I. Conway Lamb, S. Pauka, H. Lu, A. Gossard, J. Watson, G. Gardner, S. Fallahi, M. Manfra, and D. Reilly, Physical Review Applied 3, 024010 (2015)

2015
[18]

Charbon, F

E. Charbon, F. Sebastiano, A. Vladimirescu, H. Homulle, S. Visser, L. Song, and R. M. Incandela, in 2016 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM)(2016) pp. 13.5.1–13.5.4

2016
[19]

Sebastiano, H

F. Sebastiano, H. Homulle, B. Patra, R. Incandela, J. van Dijk, L. Song, M. Babaie, A. Vladimirescu, and E. Char- bon, in Proceedings of the 54th Annual Design Automa- tion Conference 2017, DAC ’17 (Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2017) p. 1–6

2017
[20]

J. Park, S. Subramanian, L. Lampert, T. Mladenov, I. Klotchkov, D. J. Kurian, E. Juarez-Hernandez, B. P. Esparza, S. R. Kale, A. B. K. T., S. P. Premaratne, T. F. Watson, S. Suzuki, M. Rahman, J. B. Timbadiya, S. Soni, and S. Pellerano, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 56,...

2021
[21]

van Dijk, E

J. van Dijk, E. Kawakami, R. Schouten, M. Veldhorst, L. Vandersypen, M. Babaie, E. Charbon, and F. Sebas- tiano, Physical Review Applied 12, 044054 (2019)

2019
[22]

R. S. Eggli, T. Patlatiuk, E. G. Kelly, A. Orekhov, G. Salis, R. J. Warburton, D. M. Zumb¨ uhl, and A. V. Kuhlmann, All-electrical operation of a spin qubit cou- pled to a high-q resonator (2024), arXiv:2407.21484

2024 arXiv
[23]

K. M. Sliwa, M. Hatridge, A. Narla, S. Shankar, L. Frun- zio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041020 (2015)

2015
[24]

Ahmed, A

I. Ahmed, A. Chatterjee, S. Barraud, J. J. L. Morton, J. A. Haigh, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Communications Physics 1, 1–7 (2018)

2018
[25]

Aumentado, IEEE Microwave Magazine 21, 45 (2020)

J. Aumentado, IEEE Microwave Magazine 21, 45 (2020)

2020
[26]

Cochrane, T

L. Cochrane, T. Lundberg, D. J. Ibberson, L. A. Ib- berson, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, N. Stelmashenko, J. W. Robinson, M. Vinet, A. A. Seshia, and M. F. Gonzalez- Zalba, Physical Review Letters 128, 197701 (2022)

2022
[27]

Oakes, L

G. Oakes, L. Peri, L. Cochrane, F. Martins, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, M. Vinet, A. Gomez Saiz, C. Ford, C. Smith, and M. Gonzalez-Zalba, PRX Quantum 4, 020346 (2023)

2023
[28]

M. R. Hogg, M. House, P. Pakkiam, and M. Simmons, Physical Review Applied 20, 034066 (2023)

2023
[29]

D. Phan, P. Falthansl-Scheinecker, U. Mishra, W. Strick- land, D. Langone, J. Shabani, and A. Higginbotham, Physical Review Applied 19, 064032 (2023)

2023
[30]

Navarathna, D

R. Navarathna, D. T. Le, A. R. Hamann, H. D. Nguyen, T. M. Stace, and A. Fedorov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 037001 (2023)

2023
[31]

Csurgay and W

A. Csurgay and W. Porod, International Journal of Cir- cuit Theory and Applications 29, 3–35 (2001)

2001
[32]

A. I. Csurgay, International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications 35, 471–484 (2007)

2007
[33]

van Dijk, A

J. van Dijk, A. Vladimirescu, M. Babaie, E. Charbon, and F. Sebastiano, in 2019 IEEE 8th International Work- shop on Advances in Sensors and Interfaces (IWASI) (2019) p. 23–28

2019
[34]

Acharya, F

R. Acharya, F. A. Mohiyaddin, A. Potoˇ cnik, K. De Greve, B. Govoreanu, I. P. Radu, G. Gie- len, and F. Catthoor, in 2021 Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibition (DATE) (2021) p. 968–973

2021
[35]

B. Gys, F. A. Mohiyaddin, R. Acharya, R. Li, K. De Greve, G. Gielen, B. Govoreanu, I. P. Radu, and F. Catthoor, in ESSDERC 2021 - IEEE 51st Eu- ropean Solid-State Device Research Conference (ESS- DERC) (2021) p. 63–66

2021
[36]

Peˇ si´ c, A

V. Peˇ si´ c, A. Wright, and E. Charbon, in2024 Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exhibi- tion (DATE)(2024) p. 1–6

2024
[37]

C. C. McAndrew, G. J. Coram, K. K. Gullapalli, J. R. Jones, L. W. Nagel, A. S. Roy, J. Roychowdhury, A. J. Scholten, G. D. J. Smit, X. Wang, and S. Yoshitomi, IEEE Journal of the Electron Devices Society 3, 383–396 (2015)

2015
[38]

Persson, C

F. Persson, C. M. Wilson, M. Sandberg, G. Johans- son, and P. Delsing, Nano Letters 10, 953–957 (2010), arXiv:0902.4316

2010 arXiv
[39]

X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 601, 343–347 (2022)

2022
[40]

Noiri, K

A. Noiri, K. Takeda, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and S. Tarucha, Nature 601, 338 (2022)

2022
[41]

Burkard, T

G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 025003 (2023)

2023
[42]

Aghaee, A

M. Aghaee, A. Akkala, Z. Alam, R. Ali, A. Al- caraz Ramirez, M. Andrzejczuk, A. E. Antipov, P. Aseev, M. Astafev, B. Bauer, J. Becker, S. Boddapati, F. Boekhout, J. Bommer, T. Bosma, L. Bourdet, 12 S. Boutin, P. Caroff, L. Casparis, M. Cassidy, S. Cha- toor, A. W. Christensen,...

2023
[43]

V. D. Maman, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, and A. P´ alyi, Phys. Rev. Applied 14, 64024 (2020)

2020
[44]

Am-Shallem, A

M. Am-Shallem, A. Levy, I. Schaefer, and R. Kosloff, Three approaches for representing lindblad dynamics by a matrix-vector notation (2015), arXiv:1510.08634

2015 arXiv
[45]

Riesch and C

M. Riesch and C. Jirauschek, Journal of Computational Physics 390, 290–296 (2019), arXiv:1808.00416

2019 arXiv
[46]

Minganti and D

F. Minganti and D. Huybrechts, Arnoldi-lindblad time evolution: Faster-than-the-clock algorithm for the spec- trum of time-independent and floquet open quantum sys- tems (2022), arXiv:2109.01648

2022 arXiv
[47]

Manzano, AIP Advances 10, 025106 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115323

D. Manzano, AIP Advances 10, 025106 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115323

2020 doi
[48]

Zoller and C

P. Zoller and C. W. Gardiner, Quantum noise in quan- tum optics: the Stochastic Schr¨ odinger equation (1997), arXiv:quant-ph/9702030

1997 arXiv
[49]

C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum noise: a hand- book of Markovian and non-Markovian quantum stochas- tic methods with applications to quantum optics, 3rd ed., Springer series in synergetics (Springer, 2004)

2004
[50]

V. V. Albert, B. Bradlyn, M. Fraas, and L. Jiang, Phys- ical Review X 6, 041031 (2016), arXiv:1512.08079

2016 arXiv
[51]

Albash, S

T. Albash, S. Boixo, D. A. Lidar, and P. Zanardi, New Journal of Physics 14, 123016 (2012)

2012
[52]

L. Peri, G. A. Oakes, L. Cochrane, C. J. B. Ford, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Quantum 8, 1294 (2024)

2024
[53]

Bashir, P

I. Bashir, P. Giounanlis, E. Blokhina, D. Leipold, K. Po- morski, and R. B. Staszewski, in2019 17th IEEE Interna- tional New Circuits and Systems Conference (NEWCAS) (2019) p. 1–4

2019
[54]

Vigneau, F

F. Vigneau, F. Fedele, A. Chatterjee, D. Reilly, F. Kuem- meth, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, E. Laird, and N. Ares, Ap- plied Physics Reviews 10, 021305 (2023)

2023
[55]

L. Peri, M. Benito, C. J. B. Ford, and M. F. Gonzalez- Zalba, npj Quantum Information 10, 1–14 (2024)

2024
[56]

Mizuta, R

R. Mizuta, R. M. Otxoa, A. C. Betz, and M. F. Gonzalez- Zalba, Phys. Rev. B 95, 045414 (2017)

2017
[57]

Esterli, R

M. Esterli, R. M. Otxoa, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Ap- plied Physics Letters 114, 253505 (2019)

2019
[58]

M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, S. Barraud, A. J. Ferguson, and A. C. Betz, Nature Communications 6, 6084 (2015)

2015
[59]

von Horstig, L

F.-E. von Horstig, L. Peri, S. Barraud, S. N. Shevchenko, C. J. B. Ford, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Floquet in- terferometry of a dressed semiconductor quantum dot (2024), arXiv:2407.14241

2024 arXiv
[60]

Oakes, V

G. Oakes, V. Ciriano-Tejel, D. Wise, M. Fogarty, T. Lundberg, C. Lain´ e, S. Schaal, F. Martins, D. Ibber- son, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, N. Stelmashenko, J. Robin- son, L. Ibberson, A. Hashim, I. Siddiqi, A. Lee, M. Vinet, C. Smith, J. Morton, and M. Gonzalez-Zalba, Physical Rev...

2023
[61]

Yamaguchi, T

M. Yamaguchi, T. Yuge, and T. Ogawa, Physical Review E 95, 012136 (2017)

2017
[62]

Cattaneo, G

M. Cattaneo, G. L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zam- brini, New Journal of Physics 21, 113045 (2019)

2019
[63]

Mori, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 35 (2023)

T. Mori, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 35 (2023)

2023
[64]

Ikeda, K

T. Ikeda, K. Chinzei, and M. Sato, SciPost Physics Core 4, 033 (2021)

2021
[65]

Kohler, Physical Review Letters 119, 196802 (2017), publisher: American Physical Society

S. Kohler, Physical Review Letters 119, 196802 (2017), publisher: American Physical Society

2017
[66]

Benito, X

M. Benito, X. Mi, J. M. Taylor, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Physical Review B 96, 235434 (2017)

2017
[67]

von Horstig, L

F.-E. von Horstig, L. Peri, S. Barraud, J. A. W. Robin- son, M. Benito, F. Martins, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Electrical readout of spins in the absence of spin blockade (2024), arXiv:2403.12888

2024
[68]

X. Mi, M. Benito, S. Putz, D. M. Zajac, J. M. Taylor, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, Nature555, 599–603 (2018)

2018
[69]

Peri, F.-E

L. Peri, F.-E. von Horstig, S. Barraud, C. J. B. Ford, M. Benito, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Polarimetry with spins in the solid state (2024), arXiv:2410.17867

2024 arXiv
[70]

J. R. Petta, H. Lu, and A. C. Gossard, Science 327, 669–672 (2010)

2010
[71]

E. P. Glasbrenner and W. P. Schleich, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 56, 104001 (2023)

2023
[72]

S. N. Shevchenko, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Physics Re- ports 492, 1–30 (2010), arXiv:0911.1917

2010 arXiv
[73]

O. V. Ivakhnenko, S. N. Shevchenko, and F. Nori, Physics Reports Nonadiabatic Landau-Zener-St¨ uckelberg- Majorana transitions, dynamics, and interference, 995, 1–89 (2023)

2023
[74]

M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, S. N. Shevchenko, S. Barraud, J. R. Johansson, A. J. Ferguson, F. Nori, and A. C. Betz, Nano Letters 16, 1614–1619 (2016)

2016
[75]

Yoneda, T

J. Yoneda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, T. Takakura, T. Obata, M. Pioro-Ladri` ere, H. Lu, C. J. Palmstrøm, A. C. Gossard, and S. Tarucha, Physical Review Letters 113, 267601 (2014)

2014
[76]

Suarez and R

A. Suarez and R. Melville, IEEE Transactions on Mi- crowave Theory and Techniques 54, 1166–1179 (2006)

2006
[77]

E. Bava, G. Bava, A. Godone, and G. Rietto, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 27, 141–147 (1979)

1979
[78]

Diamond, IEEE Transactions on Circuit Theory 10, 35–44 (1963)

B. Diamond, IEEE Transactions on Circuit Theory 10, 35–44 (1963)

1963
[79]

Cochrane, A

L. Cochrane, A. A. Seshia, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Physical Review Applied 21, 064066 (2024). 13

2024
[80]

D. J. Ibberson, T. Lundberg, J. A. Haigh, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, S. Barraud, C.-M. Lee, N. A. Stelmashenko, G. A. Oakes, L. Cochrane, J. W. Robinson, M. Vinet, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, and L. A. Ibberson, PRX Quan- tum 2, 020315 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Arute, K

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graff, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoffmann, T. Huang, T. S...

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Preskill, Quantum computing 40 years later (2023), arXiv:2106.10522

J. Preskill, Quantum computing 40 years later (2023), arXiv:2106.10522

arXiv 2023

[3] [3]

Bluvstein, S

D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semegh- ini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 626, 58 (2024)

2024

[4] [4]

Bravyi, A

S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P. Rall, and T. J. Yoder, Nature 627, 778 (2024)

2024

[5] [5]

Acharya, D

R. Acharya, D. A. Abanin, L. Aghababaie-Beni, I. Aleiner, T. I. Andersen, M. Ansmann, F. Arute, K. Arya, A. Asfaw, N. Astrakhantsev, J. Atalaya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, B. Ballard, J. C. Bardin, J. Bausch, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, S. Blackwell, S. Boixo, G. Bortoli, A. Bourassa, J. Bovaird, L. Brill, M. Broughton, D. A. Browne, B. Buchea, B. B. Buck- ley, D...

2024

[6] [6]

Paetznick, M

A. Paetznick, M. P. da Silva, C. Ryan-Anderson, J. M. Bello-Rivas, J. P. C. III, A. Chernoguzov, J. M. Dreil- ing, C. Foltz, F. Frachon, J. P. Gaebler, T. M. Gatter- man, L. Grans-Samuelsson, D. Gresh, D. Hayes, N. He- witt, C. Holliman, C. V. Horst, J. Johansen, D. Luc- chetti, Y. Matsuoka, M. Mills, S. A. Moses, B. Neyen- huis, A. Paz, J. Pino, P. Siegf...

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Putterman, K

H. Putterman, K. Noh, C. T. Hann, G. S. MacCabe, S. Aghaeimeibodi, R. N. Patel, M. Lee, W. M. Jones, H. Moradinejad, R. Rodriguez, N. Mahuli, J. Rose, J. C. Owens, H. Levine, E. Rosenfeld, P. Reinhold, L. Mon- celsi, J. A. Alcid, N. Alidoust, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, J. Barnett, P. Bienias, H. A. Carson, C. Chen, L. Chen, H. Chinkezian, E. M. Chisholm, M.-H....

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

R. P. Feynman, Engineering and Science 23, 22–36 (1960)

work page 1960