Prediction of the spin triplet two-electron quantum dots in Si: towards controlled quantum simulations of magnetic systems

D. Miserev; O. P. Sushkov

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Prediction of the spin triplet two-electron quantum dots in Si: towards controlled quantum simulations of magnetic systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two-electron silicon quantum dots can have a spin-triplet ground state, the paper argues, because a Hubbard-driven exchange can exceed the valley splitting.

desk verdict A genuinely new triplet-ground-state prediction for Si dots driven by the Hubbard term, but the two-state truncation and bulk Coulomb inputs leave the key exchange J≈0.5 meV fragile. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02543 v2 pith:I2S3QH67 submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.str-el

D. Miserev , O. P. Sushkov This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-el

keywords siliconquantumdotsvalleysplittingspintripletgroundstateHubbardrepulsionexchangeinteractionsinglet-tripletcrossingsimulationHaldanechain

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

Two electrons in a single-valley quantum dot always bind into a spin singlet, a theorem that fails once the conduction band has multiple valleys, as in silicon. This paper calculates the two-electron spectrum of a small Si dot and predicts that a spin-triplet ground state is possible when the effective exchange, dominated by the on-site Hubbard repulsion, beats the single-electron valley splitting. For a $1\times 4\times 4$ nm dot with a parabolic or delta-doped interface the exchange is $J\approx 0.5$ meV while the valley splitting is $\omega_0\lesssim 0.3$ meV, satisfying $\omega_0<\sqrt{2}J$. If right, this turns a single dot into a tunable magnetic unit and opens a route to gate-controlled quantum simulations of spin models—Haldane chains, square-lattice O(3) criticality, and triangular-lattice transitions—that have not been realized in single-valley platforms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective two-level singlet-triplet Hamiltonian built from the two lowest single-electron valley states $|1\rangle,|2\rangle$ and the Coulomb matrix elements $M_{abcd}$ of Eq. (5), which combine the on-site Hubbard repulsion $U_H$ (taken from a bulk Si calculation as 3.5 eV) with the long-range nearest-site Coulomb $V_0$ (1.35 eV). Diagonalizing the singlet sector while subtracting the charging energy $U_C=M_{1122}$ reduces the spectrum to a one-parameter family controlled by $J\equiv M_{1111}-U_C\approx M_{2222}-U_C\approx 2M_{1212}$ and by $\omega_0$. The decisive identity is the triplet condition $\omega_0<\sqrt{2}J$, which comes from comparing $E_T=-J/2$ with the lowest singlet eigenvalue; the Hubbard term is what makes $J$ large enough to satisfy it, whereas earlier work that kept only long-range Coulomb gave too small an exchange.

What would settle it

Measure the low-energy spectrum of a $1\times 4\times 4$ nm Si dot with a parabolic or delta-doped interface using spin-resolved spectroscopy. The paper predicts a triplet ground state: for $J=0.5$ meV and $\omega_0=0.3$ meV, the triplet sits about $0.36$ meV below the lowest singlet; if the measured ground state is a singlet at these parameters, or the singlet-triplet gap has the opposite sign, the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the spin-triplet ground state of a two-electron Si quantum dot is not only possible but experimentally accessible. The low-energy physics is governed by two competing energies: the single-electron valley splitting $\omega_0$, which separates the two lowest valley states and is extremely sensitive to the interface potential, and the Coulomb exchange $J$, which the authors find is dominated by the on-site Hubbard repulsion and is insensitive to the interface. After subtracting the common charging energy, the authors derive the spectrum $\tilde E_{S1}=J-\sqrt{\omega_0^2+J^2/4}$, $E_{S2}=J/2$, $\tilde E_{S3}=J+\sqrt{\omega_0^2+J^2/4}$, and $E_T=-J/2$, so the triplet wins when $\omega_0<\sqrt{2}J$. For $d=1$ nm and $D=4$ nm, the numerical Coulomb matrix elements give $J\approx 0.5$ meV, and for parabolic and delta-doped interfaces $\omega_0\approx 0$ or $0.3$ meV, so the triplet is the ground state; for a sharp rectangular interface $\omega_0\approx 12$ meV and the singlet remains lowest.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on assuming that the on-site repulsion $U_H\approx 3.5$ eV and nearest-site Coulomb $V_0\approx 1.35$ eV, taken from a bulk Si calculation, remain unchanged inside a few-nanometre dot with no screening, strain, or confinement corrections, and on a chosen delta-doping field $\alpha=15.4$ meV/nm that keeps $\omega_0$ below threshold; if either shifts, the triplet window may close.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A $1\times 4\times 4$ nm Si dot with a parabolic or delta-doped interface should show a spin-triplet ground state, while a sharp rectangular-interface dot of the same size stays singlet.
Because $J\propto 1/(dD^2)$, shrinking or enlarging the dot electrostatically tunes the singlet-triplet level crossing in a single device.
Applying a back gate to change $\omega_0$ provides a second, independent control knob for the crossing, enabling in-situ driven quantum phase transitions.
Arrays of triplet dots couple antiferromagnetically through superexchange $A=4t^2/U_C$, giving concrete proposals for Haldane spin-1 chains with topological edge states, square-lattice O(3) criticality, and triangular-lattice quantum phase transitions.
For the already available $1\times 10\times 10$ nm dot, $J\approx 0.08$ meV, so the triplet condition becomes $\omega_0<0.11$ meV; even if that is not met, $J$ can be measured as the $S_2$-$T$ splitting.

Reading between the lines

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

Not tested in the paper: measuring the $S_2$-$T$ splitting in a 10-nm dot would calibrate the imported bulk Hubbard parameter against the confined-geometry prediction, separating the Hubbard contribution from the long-range Coulomb contribution.
Because $J$ is dominated by the on-site Hubbard repulsion, strain or dielectric screening in the dot should shift $J$ on a scale that could be probed directly; the paper does not compute these corrections.
The same valley-exchange mechanism may apply to other multi-valley semiconductors such as germanium or SiGe heterostructures, which would generalize the platform beyond silicon—an extension the paper does not develop.
If the dot-to-dot superexchange $A$ can be tuned to match the in-dot $J$, the proposed arrays could realize a continuously driven Haldane-to-ladder transition at fixed materials, which would be a sharper test of the underlying spin model than the single-dot ground state alone.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear [Colleague],

The headline: this paper predicts a spin-triplet ground state in a two-electron Si quantum dot when the single-electron valley splitting is below ~0.7 meV, driven by the on-site Hubbard term in the exchange. That is a genuinely new result, and the numerical implementation is simple and transparent. Previous work (Refs 7,8) only kept the long-range Coulomb part and either missed the exchange or got it too small; including Hubbard repulsion changes the story. The prediction is sharp and falsifiable, and the quantum simulation proposals (Haldane chain, O(3) criticality, triangular arrays) are natural extensions of the tunable singlet-triplet crossing idea.

What the paper does well: it uses a 1D tight-binding model along the [001] direction, computes valley splitting for three interface potentials, then evaluates the Coulomb matrix elements in the two-lowest-valley-state basis. The result that J is insensitive to interface details while ω0 varies by orders of magnitude is robust and worth stating. The scaling J ∝ 1/(dD^2) is also sensible and confirmed numerically.

Now the soft spots, in order of concern. The biggest is the two-state truncation. The calculation uses a single lateral Gaussian for both valley states and ignores all lateral excited states. For a 4 nm dot, the lateral level spacing is more like 100–200 meV, not 20–50 meV, given the effective mass and the ~250 meV confinement depth mentioned in Sec. IV. Even with the larger spacing, second-order Coulomb processes coupling to lateral excited states give corrections of order V²/ΔE; with V plausibly tens of meV, that lands at a few meV—several times the predicted J ≈ 0.5 meV. The paper gives no estimate of these corrections and does not discuss why they would preserve the singlet-triplet ordering. This is an internal consistency gap, and it directly affects the central condition ω0 < √2 J.

Secondary concerns: U_H ≈ 3.5 eV and V0 ≈ 1.35 eV are taken from a bulk DFT+U+V calculation and assumed to survive in a few-nm dot with no screening or confinement corrections. And the δ-doping field α = 15.4 meV/nm is chosen to give ω0 = 0.3 meV, which is realistic but hand-picked.

None of this makes the paper incoherent. It is a legitimate theoretical prediction, but the magnitude of J is small enough that both the parameter transferability and the omitted lateral correlations need quantitative addressing before I’d take the triplet claim to the bank.

Who is this for: silicon spin-qubit groups and condensed-matter theorists interested in quantum simulation of spin models. It deserves a serious referee—the question is important and the proposal is testable—but the referee should require the authors to estimate the lateral-correlation corrections and provide sensitivity studies over U_H, V0, and α.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, but expect that the triplet prediction, while intriguing, is not yet on firm ground.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper predicts that a two-electron quantum dot in silicon, with lateral size of a few nanometers, can have a spin-triplet ground state, a phenomenon stated to be impossible in single-valley materials. The authors use a 1D tight-binding model for the out-of-plane direction, include valley splitting from different interface potentials, and add on-site Hubbard and long-range Coulomb interactions. For a 1×4×4 nm dot with parabolic or δ-doped interfaces, they find an effective exchange J ≈ 0.5 meV and valley splitting ω0 below 0.7 meV, leading to the triplet ground state. They also propose using such dots as building blocks for quantum simulators of spin models such as Haldane chains and O(3) quantum critical systems.

Significance. If the prediction is correct, it identifies a qualitatively new regime for two-electron quantum dots, enabled by the valley degree of freedom in Si. The paper combines a numerically tractable model with a clear physical condition (ω0 < √2J) and proposes concrete experimental consequences. It also highlights the role of the Hubbard term, which previous long-range-only treatments missed. The strengths include an explicit numerical calculation of Coulomb matrix elements and a transparent derivation of the effective low-energy Hamiltonian. However, the central prediction rests on approximations that are not fully controlled, particularly the truncation to two single-particle orbitals and the use of bulk Coulomb parameters.

major comments (3)

[§III, Eqs. (6)–(8)] The low-energy spectrum is computed in a basis of two single-particle orbitals Ψ1 and Ψ2 that share the same lateral Gaussian φ(ρ). The paper does not estimate corrections from lateral excited states of the dot. Since the charging energy UC ≈ 116 meV is comparable to the lateral level spacing of a 4 nm dot (tens of meV), Coulomb interactions can couple the (1,2) configurations to configurations with one or both electrons in higher lateral orbitals. Second-order corrections of order V_off^2/ΔE, with off-diagonal Coulomb matrix elements of tens of meV, can plausibly be a few meV—several times the predicted exchange J ≈ 0.5 meV. These corrections could change the singlet-triplet ordering. The authors should provide a configuration-interaction calculation including a few lateral excited states, or a quantitative bound showing these corrections are negligible, before the triplet condition in Eq. (8) can be considered established.
[§II, Eq. (4) and Table II] The Coulomb parameters U_H ≈ 3.5 eV and V0 ≈ 1.35 eV are taken from a bulk DFT+U+V calculation (Ref. 24) and used without uncertainty estimates or justification for a laterally confined few-nanometer dot. The predicted exchange J ≈ 0.5 meV is dominated by the Hubbard contribution (about 0.34–0.36 meV out of ~0.46–0.48 meV for the parabolic and δ-doping cases in Table II). If the effective U_H is reduced by screening or confinement effects, J could drop well below 0.5 meV, shifting the triplet condition. The authors should discuss these corrections or provide a range of J for plausible variation of U_H and V0.
[§III, Table I and the paragraph after Eq. (8)] The δ-doping interface is modeled with a single hand-picked value of α = 15.4 meV/nm, chosen to give ω0 = 0.3 meV. While the parabolic interface (ω0 ≈ 0) already demonstrates the triplet ground state robustly, the claim about the δ-doping case is tied to this specific electric field. The sensitivity of ω0 to α is extreme (Table I shows orders of magnitude variation), so the paper should demonstrate that the triplet condition holds for a range of α consistent with experimental uncertainty, rather than a single value.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Introduction] The statement that two-electron quantum dots in single-valley materials are always spin singlets is a strong general assertion; it would be helpful to qualify it to non-degenerate bands, since degeneracies beyond spin can alter the theorem.
[§II, Eq. (2)] The definition of the lateral size D via inverse participation ratio of φ^4(ρ) is unconventional; for a Gaussian of width a, D is not simply the confinement length. Clarify the relation between D and the actual gate-defined potential, as the scaling J ∝ 1/(dD^2) is quoted from Ref. 7.
[§III, Fig. 2] The schematic level diagram would benefit from a more explicit identification of the singlet states S1, S2, S3 in terms of the configurations |11>, |22>, and their symmetric combination, to make the effective Hamiltonian (6) easier to follow.
[§II, Table I] For the rectangular well, ω0 = 11.93 meV is reported, but the text says 'ω0 ∼ 10 meV'; for consistency, state the rounded value explicitly or give the exact number.
[Throughout] There are minor typographical issues in the affiliations (e.g., 'Klingelbergst rasse' and 'Au stralia') and in Eq. (3) the spin indices are not explicitly summed; these should be corrected in a final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the triplet condition is derived from computed exchange and valley splitting, not imposed by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a two-electron Si quantum dot can have a spin-triplet ground state when the single-electron valley splitting omega_0 is smaller than sqrt(2) J, with J about 0.5 meV. The derivation is self-contained: after computing the Coulomb matrix elements (Table II) from the tight-binding model (Eq. 1) and the Coulomb interaction (Eqs. 3-4), the singlet channel is diagonalized in Eq. (6), yielding Eq. (8). The triplet condition E_T < E_{S1} is obtained algebraically from these equations, not inserted as an input. The values U_H approximately 3.5 eV and V_0 approximately 1.35 eV are taken from an external DFT+U+V calculation (Ref. 24); whether these bulk parameters remain valid in a few-nm confined dot is a transferability assumption, but using an external parameter is not circular. Similarly, the choice alpha = 15.4 meV/nm for the delta-doped interface is an explicit modeling parameter, not a hidden fit: the paper states that this value gives omega_0 = 0.30 meV, and the triplet condition follows from the computed J. This is an existence argument, not a fitted prediction disguised as a result. The self-citations to Refs. 15, 21, and 22 occur only in the speculative quantum-simulator section, where they support standard many-body physics (Haldane chain, O(3) criticality); they are not load-bearing for the two-electron spectrum. The two-state truncation of the valley basis is an approximation that omits lateral excited states; this is a completeness and robustness concern that could affect the numerical value of J, but it is not a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain. Therefore the analysis is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of model parameters and assumptions. The most important free input is the delta-doping field α, chosen to produce a valley splitting below the triplet threshold. The Coulomb parameters U_H and V0 are taken from a single bulk DFT+U+V calculation, and the Gaussian lateral model plus two-state truncation are simplifications. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

α (electric field of delta-doped plane) = 15.4 meV/nm
Chosen by hand to model an impurity-doped monolayer; yields valley splitting ω0=0.30 meV, below the triplet threshold. The qualitative prediction depends on this choice.
quantum dot lateral size D = 4 nm
Selected as a technology-relevant size; the exchange J scales as 1/(dD^2), so the triplet condition is size dependent. The paper also gives D=10 nm as a second scenario.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Hopping parameters v≈0.68 eV and u≈0.61 eV from Ref 23 correctly reproduce the Si [001] dispersion with two valleys.
Section II, Eq. (1). The result depends on the valley structure produced by these hoppings.
domain assumption Bulk DFT+U+V values U_H≈3.5 eV and V0≈1.35 eV (Ref 24) are valid for the confined two-electron dot.
Section II. The exchange J, and hence the triplet condition, is dominated by the Hubbard contribution.
ad hoc to paper The lateral wavefunction can be treated as Gaussian and the specific lateral potential is unimportant for the Coulomb matrix elements.
Section II: 'the actual lateral wave function is not important and for numerical calculations we model it by the Gaussian.' This is a modeling simplification.
domain assumption The low-energy spectrum is fully described by the two lowest single-electron valley-split states |1> and |2>; higher states are neglected.
Section III, Eq. (6). This requires the valley splitting to be much smaller than the distance to higher states.
ad hoc to paper The singlet-triplet splitting follows from the effective Hamiltonian with approximate equality J ≡ M1111-UC ≈ M2222-UC ≈ 2M1212.
Used to derive the simple analytical condition ω0 < sqrt(2)J. The approximation is good for parabolic and delta-doped interfaces, poor for rectangular.
domain assumption The scaling J ∝ 1/(dD^2) holds for extrapolating to larger dots.
Quoted from Ref 7 and stated to be confirmed by the authors' numerics, though the confirming data are not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prediction of the spin triplet two-electron quantum dots in Si: towards controlled quantum simulations of magnetic systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2S3QH67

@misc{pith2026190802543,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prediction of the spin triplet two-electron quantum dots in Si: towards controlled quantum simulations of magnetic systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2S3QH67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02543}
}

abstract

Ground state of two-electron quantum dots in single-valley materials like GaAs is always a spin singlet regardless of what the potential and interactions are. This statement cannot be generalized to the multi-valley materials like $n$-doped Si. Here we calculate numerically the spectrum of a two-electron Si quantum dot and show that the dot with the lateral size of several nm can have the spin triplet ground state which is impossible in the single-valley materials. Predicted singlet-triplet level crossing in two-electron Si quantum dots can potentially establish the platform for quantum simulation of magnetic many body systems based on quantum dots. We suggest several examples of such systems that open a way to controlled quantum simulations within the condensed matter setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02543 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Linear (a), square (b), and triangular (c) lattices o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Schematic double dot setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The “unfolded” and “folded” dispersions Eqs. (A2), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

F. A. Zwanenburg, A. S. Dzurak, A. Morello, M. Y. Simmons, L. C. L. Hollenberg, G. Klimeck, S. Rogge, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 , 961 (2013)

work page 2013
[2]

N. W. Ashcroft, and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics, Saunders, New York, 1974

work page 1974
[3]

M. G. Borselli, R. S. Ross, A. A. Kiselev, E. T. Croke, K. S. Holabird, P. W. Deelman, L. D. Warren, I. Alvarado-Rodriguez, I. Milosavljevic, F. C. Ku, W. S. Wong, A. E. Schmitz, M. Sokolich, M. F. Gyure, and A. T. Hunter, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 123118 (2011)

work page 2011
[4]

Goswami, K

S. Goswami, K. A. Slinker, M. Friesen, L. M. McGuire, J. L. Truitt, C. Tahan, L. J. Klein, J. O. Chu, P. M. Mooney, D. W. van der Weide, R. Joynt, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Nat. Phys. 3 , 41 (2007)

work page 2007
[5]

A. L. Saraiva, M. J. Calderon, R. B. Capaz, X. Hu, S. Das Sarma, and B. Koiller, Phys. Rev. B 84 , 155320 (2011)

work page 2011
[6]

A. L. Saraiva, M. J. Calderon, X. Hu, S. Das Sarma, and B. Koiller, Phys. Rev. B 80, 081305(R) (2009)

work page 2009
[7]

A. U. Sharafutdinov and I. S. Burmistrov, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24, 155301 (2012)

work page 2012
[8]

Jiang, C

L. Jiang, C. H. Yang, Z. Pan, A. Rossi, A. S. Dzurak, and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. B 88 , 085311 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 27 references

[9]

Of course, we compare dots of the same size

The exchange matrix element depends on the size of the dot. Of course, we compare dots of the same size
[10]

T. Ando, A. B. Fowler, and F. Stern, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54 , 437 (1982)

1982
[11]

C. H. Yang, A. Rossi, R. Ruskov, N. S. Lai, F. A. Mohiyaddin, S. Lee, C. Tahan, G. Klimeck, A. Morello and A. S. Dzurak, Nat. Commun. 4, 2069 (2013)

2013
[12]

Singha, M

A. Singha, M. Gibertini, B. Karmakar, S. Yuan, M. Polini, G. Vignale, M. I. Katsnelson, A. Pinczuk, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. West, V. Pellegrini, Science 332 , 1176 (2011)

2011
[13]

Salfi, J

J. Salfi, J. A. Mol, R. Rahman, G. Klimeck, M. Y. Simmons, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and S. Rogge, Nat. Commun. 7 , 11342 (2016)

2016
[14]

Hensgens, T

T. Hensgens, T. Fujita, L. Janssen, X. Li, C. J. Van Diepen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, S. Das Sarma, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 548 , 70 (2017)

2017
[15]

O. A. Tkachenko, V. A. Tkachenko, I. S. Terekhov, O. P. Sushkov, 2D Mater. 2 , 014010 (2015)

2015
[16]

Haze, Hung-Hsiang Yang, K

M. Haze, Hung-Hsiang Yang, K. Asakawa, N. Watanabe, R. Yamamoto, Y. Yoshida, and Y. Hasegawa, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 90, 013704 (2019)

2019
[17]

H. Kim, A. Palacio-Morales, T. Posske, L. Rózsa, K. Palotás, L. Szunyogh, M. Thorwart and R. Wiesendanger, Sci. Adv. 4, eaar5251 (2018)

2018
[18]

Friesen, H

C. Friesen, H. Osterhage, J. Friedlein, A. Schlenhoff, R. Wiesendanger, S. Krause, Science 363, 1065 (2019)

2019
[19]

F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Lett. A 93 , 464 (1983); Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 , 1153 (1983)

1983
[20]

Kennedy, J

T. Kennedy, J. Phys. Condens.: Matter 2 , 5737 (1990)

1990
[21]

V. N. Kotov, O. P. Sushkov, R. Eder, Phys. Rev. B 59 , 6266 (1999)

1999
[22]

P. V. Shevchenko, A. W. Sandvik, O. P. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. B 61, 3475 (2000)

2000
[23]

T. B. Boykin, G. Klimeck, M. A. Eriksson, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, P. von Allmen, F. Oyafuso, and S. Lee, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84 , 115 (2004)

2004
[24]

V. L. Campo, Jr., and M. Cococcioni, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 22 , 055602 (2010)

2010
[25]

P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 79, 350 (1950)

1950
[26]

Takatsu, W

K. Takatsu, W. Shiramura, and H. Tanaka, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 66, 1611 (1997)

1997
[27]

Merchant, B

P. Merchant, B. Normand, K. W. Krämer, M. Boehm, D. F. McMorrow, and Ch. R u egg, Nat. Phys. 10, 373 (2014)

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

F. A. Zwanenburg, A. S. Dzurak, A. Morello, M. Y. Simmons, L. C. L. Hollenberg, G. Klimeck, S. Rogge, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 , 961 (2013)

work page 2013

[2] [2]

N. W. Ashcroft, and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics, Saunders, New York, 1974

work page 1974

[3] [3]

M. G. Borselli, R. S. Ross, A. A. Kiselev, E. T. Croke, K. S. Holabird, P. W. Deelman, L. D. Warren, I. Alvarado-Rodriguez, I. Milosavljevic, F. C. Ku, W. S. Wong, A. E. Schmitz, M. Sokolich, M. F. Gyure, and A. T. Hunter, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 123118 (2011)

work page 2011

[4] [4]

Goswami, K

S. Goswami, K. A. Slinker, M. Friesen, L. M. McGuire, J. L. Truitt, C. Tahan, L. J. Klein, J. O. Chu, P. M. Mooney, D. W. van der Weide, R. Joynt, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriksson, Nat. Phys. 3 , 41 (2007)

work page 2007

[5] [5]

A. L. Saraiva, M. J. Calderon, R. B. Capaz, X. Hu, S. Das Sarma, and B. Koiller, Phys. Rev. B 84 , 155320 (2011)

work page 2011

[6] [6]

A. L. Saraiva, M. J. Calderon, X. Hu, S. Das Sarma, and B. Koiller, Phys. Rev. B 80, 081305(R) (2009)

work page 2009

[7] [7]

A. U. Sharafutdinov and I. S. Burmistrov, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24, 155301 (2012)

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Jiang, C

L. Jiang, C. H. Yang, Z. Pan, A. Rossi, A. S. Dzurak, and D. Culcer, Phys. Rev. B 88 , 085311 (2013)

work page 2013