Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Phonon-induced frequency shift in semiconductor spin qubits

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Acoustic phonons coupling to a silicon spin qubit through a micromagnet-induced spin-orbit interaction produce a temperature-dependent frequency shift that rises to a maximum and then falls, matching the non-monotonic shifts seen in experim

desk verdict A solid, honest theory paper that identifies a new microscopic mechanism for non-monotonic temperature shifts in spin qubits, with the caveat that it explains only the qualitative shape, not the measured magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.23077 v1 pith:RD5NOSZC submitted 2025-11-28 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Irina Heinz , Jeroen Danon , Guido Burkard This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords spinqubitsphonon-inducedfrequencyshiftsiliconquantumdotsdeformationpotentialmicromagnetspin-orbitcouplingZeemansplittingorbitalconfinementnon-monotonictemperaturedependence
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 claims that acoustic phonons in the host semiconductor, acting through the deformation potential and a micromagnet-induced spin-orbit coupling, shift the spin-qubit resonance frequency in a temperature-dependent way. Phonons with energy below the Zeeman splitting push the qubit frequency up; phonons with energy above it pull the frequency down. The competing signs produce a non-monotonic curve with a maximum, reproducing the shape of recent experimental observations. The paper estimates the maximum shift scales as the sixth power of the Zeeman splitting, inversely with the third power of the orbital confinement energy, and quadratically with the slanting-field coupling. If this is right, phonons alone can create a temperature 'sweet spot' where the qubit frequency is least sensitive to temperature fluctuations, though the predicted magnitude is far below current experimental shifts.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-level system (spin states split by the Zeeman energy E_z) linearly coupled to a phonon bath via an off-diagonal coupling g_sp,λ,k = −2 b_SL C_x,λ,k / (ℏω0,x). Here b_SL is the slanting magnetic field from a micromagnet, C_x,λ,k is the deformation-potential electron-phonon coupling to the first orbital state, and ℏω0,x is the orbital confinement energy. The sign of each phonon mode's contribution is set by whether its energy lies below or above E_z, and the thermal average over all modes, Eq. (19), converts this sign rule into a non-monotonic temperature dependence.

What would settle it

Measure the qubit frequency shift versus temperature in the same device at two Zeeman splittings, for example E_z = 20 GHz and E_z = 40 GHz. The model predicts the maximum shift should grow roughly as E_z^6 and the temperature of that maximum should increase with E_z. A measurement showing no field dependence, a monotonic shift, or a maximum that moves opposite to the prediction would contradict the phonon sign-rule. A complementary check is to drive the sample with microwave bursts tuned below versus above E_z; the model predicts positive versus negative shift contributions, respectively.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a full quantum-dot Hamiltonian, the paper derives an effective low-energy model in which the spin qubit is a two-level system coupled to phonons through an off-diagonal interaction. Each phonon mode with occupation number n shifts the qubit splitting by approximately g^2/(ε−ℏω) + 2n g^2/(ε−ℏω), where ε is the bare splitting and ω the phonon frequency. This gives a positive shift for phonons with energy below ε and a negative shift for phonons above ε. Thermally averaging over the Bose-Einstein distribution of all acoustic phonon modes yields a qubit frequency shift that grows, peaks, and then decreases with temperature. The paper also treats phonons near the valley and orbital

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the measured qubit splitting is the thermal average over equilibrium bulk acoustic phonons using silicon's bulk dispersion and deformation potential, and it explicitly leaves out non-equilibrium phonon populations from microwave heating and interface-localized phonon modes; if either of these dominates, the predicted sign structure and sweet-spot temperature could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a temperature sweet spot exists for each device, set by the Zeeman energy; operating there minimizes phonon-induced frequency fluctuations.
  • The maximum of the phonon-induced shift grows as E_z^6, so increasing the magnetic field should strongly enhance the shift while moving the sweet spot to higher temperature.
  • Stronger micromagnet gradients (larger b_SL) increase the shift magnitude quadratically but leave the sweet-spot temperature unchanged.
  • Smaller quantum dots (larger orbital splitting) suppress the shift as ω0,x^−3, so dot size is a design lever for phonon-induced frequency stability.
  • The same sign rule at the valley and orbital energy scales predicts additional non-monotonic shifts at higher temperatures, which could become significant near the spin-valley hotspot.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's sign rule generalizes beyond the specific silicon device: any two-level system with a phonon-mediated off-diagonal coupling should show a positive shift from phonons below its splitting and a negative shift from phonons above it, which could be tested in valley qubits or donor spin qubits.
  • Because the paper assumes equilibrium bulk acoustic phonons, a microwave-burst heating experiment that preferentially populates phonons above or below E_z would provide a sharper test of the mechanism than a simple temperature sweep.
  • If interface-localized phonon modes, which the paper explicitly leaves out, dominate the density of states, the predicted shift magnitude could rise toward the megahertz scale seen in experiments; including such modes in the density of states is a natural, testable extension.
  • A null result at current precision would not rule out the phonon mechanism, since the predicted shifts are tiny; the decisive experimental signature is the predicted E_z^6 and b_SL^2 scaling rather than the absolute magnitude.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a microscopic model of the temperature-dependent frequency shift of a spin qubit in a silicon quantum dot, caused by the coherent electron-phonon interaction. Starting from a full Hamiltonian with quantum-dot orbital, valley, Zeeman, micromagnet-induced spin-orbit, and deformation-potential electron-phonon couplings, the authors perform a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation to derive an effective spin-phonon coupling g_sp. They then analyze a generic two-level system coupled to phonons, showing that modes with ℏω<ε give a positive shift and modes with ℏω>ε give a negative shift, and compute the thermal average over bulk acoustic phonon modes. The result is a non-monotonic temperature-dependent shift with a maximum ('sweet spot'), with approximate scaling ⟨Δ⟩∝E_z^6 ω_{0,x}^{-3} b_SL^2. The same formalism is applied to valley and orbital splittings. The authors explicitly acknowledge that the computed shifts are orders of magnitude smaller than experimental values and that the equilibrium-phonon assumption may not match the microwave-heating protocol used in experiments.

Significance. The paper is a careful weak-coupling derivation of a phonon-induced frequency shift. Its strengths are the explicit Schrieffer-Wolff construction, the validation of the weak-coupling condition in App. B and Fig. 7, the numerical check of resonance-region frequency extraction in App. D, and the falsifiable scaling predictions. If the qualitative mechanism holds, it offers a concrete physical picture for non-monotonic temperature dependence and suggests a route to sweet spots. However, the computed magnitude is 10^2–10^4 Hz compared to MHz-level experimental shifts, and the link to the cited experiments rests on an equilibrium-phonon assumption that the microwave-pulse-heating protocol violates. The paper's contribution is therefore better described as a possible qualitative mechanism than a quantitative explanation of the observed effect.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IIIA, Eq. (19), Sec. IV] The central claim that the model reproduces the experimentally observed non-monotonic behavior is built on an equilibrium thermal average over bulk acoustic phonons. The authors themselves note that the cited experiments use off-resonant microwave bursts, which can create non-thermal phonon populations, and that interface/localized phonons can alter the phonon density of states (Refs. [41–43]). Neither effect is modeled. Because the sign balance and the location/existence of the sweet spot are controlled by the occupation weights in Eq. (19), this is load-bearing for the central claim. I recommend either modeling the non-thermal distribution explicitly (e.g., a drive-dependent effective occupation) or restricting the claim to equilibrium measurements, with a concrete suggestion for such an experiment.
  2. [Fig. 4, Sec. IV] The computed shifts are of order 10^2–10^4 Hz, while the experiments of Refs. [1,2,20,44] report megahertz shifts. The authors acknowledge this gap but still state that phonons 'can have a temperature-dependent impact on the qubit frequency.' As it stands, the model cannot quantitatively explain the observed magnitude. To make the qualitative claim convincing, the paper should either provide a concrete mechanism/estimate by which unmodeled interface or confined phonons could close the gap, or state more explicitly that phonons are likely a subdominant contribution and that the observed shifts require additional mechanisms (e.g., the two-level fluctuators mentioned in Sec. IV). Without this, the 'key features' claim reduces to a sign-changing non-monotonicity whose experimental relevance is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A5)] The transverse angular integral I_t should contain Ξ_u^2, not Ξ_d^2, because Ξ_{t,k} = Ξ_u sinθ cosθ as defined in Sec. II. The expression 16π Ξ_d^2/105 is inconsistent with the deformation potential definitions.
  2. [Fig. 4] The y-axis uses a 'SignedLog' scaling, which makes quantitative reading of the shift magnitudes and sign changes difficult. A conventional log-scale with sign annotation or separate positive/negative panels would be clearer.
  3. [Text after Eq. (21)] The substitution g_sp → g_sp − 2g_sv g_vp/E_v omits the mode indices; since all these couplings carry (λ,k) labels, the notation should be made explicit to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The green double arrows indicate the effective level spacing as defined in Eq. (16), which jumps at resonance. The caption could state more prominently that this jump is a labeling artifact; for a continuum of modes the resonance region has measure zero in the integral.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The 'temperature sweet spot' estimate is derived under the equilibrium-bulk-phonon assumption. The abstract and conclusion should carry an explicit caveat that the sweet-spot location and existence are conditional on this assumption and on the bulk phonon density of states.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; derivation is a self-contained forward Hamiltonian calculation with acknowledged model limitations, not a fit disguised as prediction.

full rationale

The central claim—non-monotonic phonon-induced frequency shift with positive low-energy and negative high-energy contributions—follows from a forward model, not from fitting the experimental shifts it is compared with. The paper starts from Eq. (1) with the standard electron-phonon interaction (7) and literature silicon parameters (Ξ_u=8.77 eV, Ξ_d=5 eV, v_t, v_l, ρ_Si). A Schrieffer-Wolff transformation gives the effective spin-phonon coupling g_sp,λ,k = −2 b_SL C_x / ℏω0,x. The two-level treatment yields the per-mode splitting Eq. (16), whose off-resonant expansion Eq. (17) explicitly contains (ε−ℏω) denominators and gives the sign rule. The thermal average Eq. (19) with Bose-Einstein occupations Eq. (20) produces the non-monotonic curve. No experimental frequency-shift data are used as fitting inputs; the paper explicitly says 'with realistic parameters ... we do not expect the effect to be on the same order of magnitude as in many experiments' (Sec. IV). The scaling ⟨Δqubit⟩ ∝ E_z^6 ω0,x^{-3} b_SL^2 is derived in App. C from the k-dependence of g_sp and checked numerically, not imposed to match data. The stated limitations—non-thermal phonon occupations from microwave pulse heating and interface/localized phonons (Sec. IIIA)—concern whether the equilibrium bulk average describes the specific experiments, not whether the derivation reduces to its own output. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [28], [34]) appear only as background for relaxation and valley effects and are not load-bearing. Thus no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation is a forward model: it starts from a microscopic electron-phonon Hamiltonian with literature values for Si deformation potentials, performs a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, reduces to a spin-boson model, and thermal-averages the resulting level shifts. No experimental frequency-shift data are used to set parameters. The main scanned device parameters (b_SL, ℏω0,x, g_vo) are not fitted but are not independently measured in the paper. The key domain assumptions are harmonic confinement plus truncation, bulk acoustic phonons with linear dispersion, weak coupling justifying Schrieffer-Wolff and red-block diagonalization, thermal equilibrium and measurement identification, and neglect of interface/localized phonons and z-interface valley modulation. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • b_SL (micromagnet slanting-field coupling) = 2 GHz in main results; 4 GHz in Fig. 4c
    Chosen strength of the effective spin-orbit term; not measured in this work. The frequency shift scales as b_SL^2.
  • ℏω0,x (orbital splitting) = 0.15/0.4 meV in Fig. 4; 0.1/1 meV in Fig. 5
    Device confinement energy, scanned over typical values; controls the phonon form-factor cutoff and the shift scales roughly as ω0^-3.
  • g_vo (valley-orbit coupling) = 10 GHz in the valley-section calculation
    Set to an order-of-magnitude interface value from literature, not measured for the specific devices discussed. Controls the valley-phonon contribution.
  • n_max (phonon-number cutoff) = 100
    Numerical truncation of the thermal sum in Eq. (19); justified only indirectly by footnote [39] energy scales, with no explicit convergence study shown.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Harmonic confinement in all three dimensions and truncation to the first excited orbital states
    Eq. (2) and Sec. II assume a harmonic quantum dot; real z-confinement is asymmetric, and higher orbitals/two-phonon terms are neglected.
  • domain assumption Bulk silicon acoustic phonons with linear dispersion and standard deformation-potential parameters
    Eqs. (6)-(7) use bulk v_l, v_t, Ξ_u=8.77 eV, Ξ_d=5 eV; the authors acknowledge in Sec. IIIA that interface/localized phonons could change the density of states.
  • domain assumption Weak-coupling hierarchy |g_vo|,|b_SL|,|C| ≪ ℏω0 and Ez ≪ Ev ≪ ℏω0, justifying the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation
    Sec. IIA relies on this hierarchy; App. B and Fig. 7 provide numerical checks for √⟨n⟩C/ω0 ≤ 1e-5.
  • domain assumption Validity of red-block diagonalization with |√n g| ≪ |ε+ℏω| and of the branch-assignment rule for qubit levels
    Sec. IIB uses this to obtain Eqs. (15)-(17); App. D tests two measurement protocols only in a restricted n=0/1 subspace, not the full many-mode case.
  • domain assumption Thermal equilibrium Bose-Einstein phonon distribution and identification of the measured qubit frequency with the thermal average ⟨Δ⟩
    Eqs. (19)-(20) average over equilibrium phonon occupations; the authors note in Sec. IIIA that microwave heating can create non-thermal populations.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of phonon-induced modulation of the electron wavefunction in z and the resulting change in valley splitting
    Sec. IIIB states this effect is neglected, although it could affect the valley splitting and hence the spin qubit frequency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phonon-induced frequency shift in semiconductor spin qubits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RD5NOSZC

@misc{pith2026251123077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phonon-induced frequency shift in semiconductor spin qubits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RD5NOSZC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.23077}
}
read the original abstract

Spin qubits have proven to be a feasible candidate for quantum computation, and some realizations of spin qubits already benefit from advanced device manufacturing in the semiconductor industry. Compared to superconducting platforms, spin qubits can operate at higher temperatures from tens of millikelvin up to a few kelvin. However, recent experiments show a non-trivial and often non-monotonic dependence of the spin qubit frequency on the temperature, featuring a region of decreased sensitivity to temperature fluctuations. In this work, we aim to gain insight into the physics behind such temperature shifts in the low-temperature limit. Investigating the spin qubits' interaction with phonon modes of the host material, we can explain some of the key features of the observed behavior and estimate the temperature sweet spot for the qubit frequency shift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.23077 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of an electron spin qubit in a silicon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic of the energy scales relevant for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Eigenenergies obtained from diagonalizing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temperature-dependent shift of the valley splitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Longitudinal and transversal electron-phonon cou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Numerical value of p ⟨n⟩Cx,l,k and p ⟨n⟩Cx,t,k de￾pending on the phonon energy ℏω and temperature T, where we have chosen V = 10−18 m3 , ℏω0 = 1 meV≈ 242 GHz, ϕ = 0 and we have maximized the coupling with respect to θ. curves as Ez approached ℏω0,x. All calculations di…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Extended analysis of the maximum in Fig. 0.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Maximal frequency shift depending on bSL where ℏω0,x = 36.6 GHz and Ez = 20 GHz. The simulated data points perfectly match the expected b 2 SL behavior. probability to find the qubit in the ground state P0(τ ) = ℏω ε (a) Out[ ]= P1 0. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (b) [PITH_FULL_I…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Undseth, X

    B. Undseth, X. Xue, M. Mehmandoost, M. Rimbach- Russ, P. T. Eendebak, N. Samkharadze, A. Sammak, V. V. Dobrovitski, G. Scappucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, Nonlinear response and crosstalk of electrically driven sil- icon spin qubits, Phys. Rev. Applied19, 044078 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Undseth, O

    B. Undseth, O. Pietx-Casas, E. Raymenants, M. Mehmandoost, M. T. Mądzik, S. G. J. Philips, S. L. de Snoo, D. J. Michalak, S. V. Amitonov, L. Try- puten, B. P. Wuetz, V. Fezzi, D. D. Esposti, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Hotter is easier: Unexpected temperature dependence of spin qubit frequencies, Phys. Rev. X13, 041015 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    N. P. De Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman, Materials chal- lenges and opportunities for quantum computing hard- ware, Science372, eabb2823 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    W. Ha, S. D. Ha, M. D. Choi, Y. Tang, A. E. Schmitz, M. P. Levendorf, K. Lee, J. M. Chappell, T. S. Adams, D.R.Hulbert, E.Acuna, R.S.Noah, J.W.Matten, M.P. Jura, J. A. Wright, M. T. Rakher, and M. G. Borselli, A flexible design platform for Si/SiGe exchange-only qubits with low disorder, Nano Letters22, 1443–1448 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Künne, A

    M. Künne, A. Willmes, M. Oberländer, C. Gorjaew, J. D. Teske, H. Bhardwaj, M. Beer, E. Kammerloher, R. Ot- ten, I. Seidler, R. Xue, L. R. Schreiber, and H. Bluhm, The spinbus architecture for scaling spin qubits with elec- tron shuttling, Nature Communications15, 4977 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    T. Koch, C. Godfrin, V. Adam, J. Ferrero, D. Schroller, N. Glaeser, S. Kubicek, R. Li, R. Loo, S. Massar, G. Simion, D. Wan, K. D. Greve, and W. Wernsdorfer, Industrial 300mm wafer processed spin qubits in natural silicon/silicon-germanium (2024), arXiv:2409.12731

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    H. C. George, M. T. Mądzik, E. M. Henry, A. J. Wag- ner, M. M. Islam, F. Borjans, E. J. Connors, J. Corrigan, M. Curry, M. K. Harper, D. Keith, L. Lampert, F. Luthi, F.A.Mohiyaddin, S.Murcia, R.Nair, R.Nahm, A.Neth- wewala, S. Neyens, B. Patra, R. D. Raharjo, C. Rogan, R. Savytskyy, T. F. Watson, J. Ziegler, O. K. Zietz, S. Pellerano, R. Pillarisetty, N. ...

    2024

  8. [8]

    Steinacker, N

    P. Steinacker, N. Dumoulin Stuyck, W. H. Lim, T. Tanttu, M. Feng, S. Serrano, A. Nickl, M. Candido, J. D. Cifuentes, E. Vahapoglu, S. K. Bartee, F. E. Hud- son, K. W. Chan, S. Kubicek, J. Jussot, Y. Canvel, S. Beyne, Y. Shimura, R. Loo, C. Godfrin, B. Raes, S. Baudot, D. Wan, A. Laucht, C. H. Yang, A. Saraiva, C. C. Escott, K. De Greve, and A. S. Dzurak, ...

    2025

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Burkard, T

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

    2023

  2. [10]

    A. R. Mills, C. R. Guinn, M. J. Gullans, A. J. Sigillito, M. M. Feldman, E. Nielsen, and J. R. Petta, Two-qubit silicon quantum processor with operation fidelity exceed- ing 99%, Science Advances8, eabn5130 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Scappucci, and S

    A.Noiri, K.Takeda, T.Nakajima, T.Kobayashi, A.Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and S. Tarucha, Fast universal quan- tum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon, Nature601, 338 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    L. C. Camenzind, S. Geyer, A. Fuhrer, R. J. Warbur- ton, D. M. Zumbühl, and A. V. Kuhlmann, A hole spin qubit in a fin field-effect transistor above 4 kelvin, Nature Electronics5, 178 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    J. Y. Huang, R. Y. Su, W. H. Lim, M. Feng, B. van Straaten, B. Severin, W. Gilbert, N. Dumoulin Stuyck, T. Tanttu, S. Serrano, J. D. Cifuentes, I. Hansen, A. E. 13 Seedhouse, E. Vahapoglu, R. C. C. Leon, N. V. Abrosi- mov, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, F. E. Hudson, C. C. Esco...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Freer, S

    S. Freer, S. Simmons, A. Laucht, J. T. Muhonen, J. P. Dehollain, R. Kalra, F. A. Mohiyaddin, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, J. C. McCallum, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzu- rak, and A. Morello, A single-atom quantum memory in silicon, Quantum Science and Technology2, 015009 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Takeda, J

    K. Takeda, J. Yoneda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M. R. Delbecq, G. Allison, Y. Hoshi, N. Usami, K. M. Itoh, S. Oda, T. Kodera, and S. Tarucha, Optimized electri- cal control of aSi/SiGespin qubit in the presence of an induced frequency shift, npj Quantum Information4, 54 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Hendrickx, D

    N. Hendrickx, D. Franke, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, Fast two-qubit logic with holes in germa- nium, Nature577, 487–491 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    A. M. J. Zwerver, T. Krähenmann, T. F. Watson, L. Lampert, H. C. George, R. Pillarisetty, S. A. Bojarski, P. Amin, S. V. Amitonov, J. M. Boter, R. Caudillo, D. Correas-Serrano, J. P. Dehollain, G. Droulers, E. M. Henry, R. Kotlyar, M. Lodari, F. Lüthi, D. J. Michalak, B. K. Mu...

    2022

  10. [18]

    S. G. J. Philips, M. T. Mądzik, S. V. Amitonov, S. L. de Snoo, M. Russ, N. Kalhor, C. Volk, W. I. L. Lawrie, D. Brousse, L. Tryputen, B. P. Wuetz, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in sil- icon, ...

    2022

  11. [19]

    flip-flop

    R. Savytskyy, T. Botzem, I. F. de Fuentes, B. Joecker, J. J. Pla, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. M. Jakob, B. C. Johnson, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, An electrically driven single-atom “flip-flop” qubit, Sci- ence Advances9, eadd9408 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    F. Ye, L. S. Dhami, and J. M. Nichol, Measuring pulse heating in si quantum dots with individual two-level fluc- tuators (2025), arXiv:2509.10816

    2025

  13. [21]

    Choi and R

    Y. Choi and R. Joynt, Interacting random-field dipole defect model for heating in semiconductor-based qubit devices, Phys. Rev. Research6, 013168 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Sato and T

    Y. Sato and T. Kawahara, Simulation of temperature- dependent quantum gates in silicon quantum dots with frequency shifts, arXiv:2407.05295 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. V. Khaetskii and Y. V. Nazarov, Spin-flip transi- tions betweenZeemansublevels in semiconductor quan- tum dots, Phys. Rev. B64, 125316 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    V. N. Golovach, A. Khaetskii, and D. Loss, Phonon- induceddecayoftheelectronspininquantumdots,Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 016601 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Hu, Two-spin dephasing by electron-phonon interac- tion in semiconductor double quantum dots, Phys

    X. Hu, Two-spin dephasing by electron-phonon interac- tion in semiconductor double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B83, 165322 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Tahan and R

    C. Tahan and R. Joynt, Relaxation of excited spin, or- bital, and valley qubit states in ideal silicon quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B89, 075302 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    J. Li, B. Venitucci, and Y.-M. Niquet, Hole-phonon inter- actions in quantum dots: Effects of phonon confinement and encapsulation materials on spin-orbit qubits, Phys. Rev. B102, 075415 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Hosseinkhani and G

    A. Hosseinkhani and G. Burkard, Relaxation of single- electron spin qubits in silicon in the presence of interface steps, Phys. Rev. B104, 085309 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Brooks, R

    M. Brooks, R. Lundgren, and C. Tahan, Phonon-induced exchange gate infidelities in semiconducting Si-SiGe spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B110, 235204 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Hasegawa, Spin-lattice relaxation of shallow donor states inGeandSithrough a direct phonon process, Phys

    H. Hasegawa, Spin-lattice relaxation of shallow donor states inGeandSithrough a direct phonon process, Phys. Rev.118, 1523 (1960)

    1960

  23. [31]

    Herring and E

    C. Herring and E. Vogt, Transport and deformation- potential theory for many-valley semiconductors with anisotropic scattering, Phys. Rev.101, 944 (1956)

    1956

  24. [32]

    Friesen and S

    M. Friesen and S. N. Coppersmith, Theory of valley-orbit coupling in a Si/SiGe quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B81, 115324 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    M. O. Nestoklon, L. E. Golub, and E. L. Ivchenko, Spin and valley-orbit splittings inSiGe/Siheterostructures, Phys. Rev. B73, 235334 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    J. R. F. Lima and G. Burkard, Interface and electromag- netic effects in the valley splitting of si quantum dots, Materials for Quantum Technology3, 025004 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Rahman, J

    R. Rahman, J. Verduijn, N. Kharche, G. P. Lansbergen, G. Klimeck, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and S. Rogge, Engi- neered valley-orbit splittings in quantum-confined nanos- tructures in silicon, Phys. Rev. B83, 195323 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

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

    2006

  29. [37]

    Kittel and P

    C. Kittel and P. McEuen,Introduction to Solid State Physics(John Wiley & Sons, 2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    P. Y. Yu and M. Cardona,Fundamentals of Semiconduc- tors: Physics and Materials Properties, Graduate Texts in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    The energies of phonons withkiℓi ∼1are∼0.1–0.5 meV ∼1–5 K, depending on the polarization of the phonon, forℓ i ≈20nm

  32. [40]

    The actual value ofVshould play no role, and we indeed found that our results are independent of the volume, as long as we setV≲10 −12 m3, above which numerical artifacts emerge

    In our calculations we usedV= 10 −18 m3. The actual value ofVshould play no role, and we indeed found that our results are independent of the volume, as long as we setV≲10 −12 m3, above which numerical artifacts emerge

  33. [41]

    R. Qi, R. Shi, Y. Li, Y. Sun, M. Wu, N. Li, J. Du, K. Liu, C. Chen, J. Chen, F. Wang, D. Yu, E.-G. Wang, and P. Gao, Measuring phonon dispersion at an interface, Na- ture599, 399–403 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Cheng, R

    Z. Cheng, R. Li, X. Yan, G. Jernigan, J. Shi, M. E. Liao, N. J. Hines, C. A. Gadre, J. C. Idrobo, E. Lee, K. D. Hobart, M. S. Goorsky, X. Pan, T. Luo, and S. Graham, Experimental observation of localized interfacial phonon modes, Nature Communications12, 6901 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    R. Shi, Q. Li, X. Xu, B. Han, R. Zhu, F. Liu, R. Qi, X. Zhang, J. Du, J. Chen, D. Yu, X. Zhu, J. Guo, and P. Gao, Atomic-scale observation of localized phonons at FeSe/SrTiO3 interface,NatureCommunications15,3418 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Champain, G

    V. Champain, G. Boschetto, H. Niebojewski, B. Bertrand, L. Mauro, M. Bassi, V. Schmitt, X. Jehl, S. Zihlmann, R. Maurand, Y. M. Niquet, C. B. Winkel- mann, S. D. Franceschi, B. Martinez, and B. Brun, A heat-resilient hole spin qubit in silicon (2025), arXiv:2509.15823

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.