Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Photon-mediated entanglement between spin qubits beyond the dispersive regime

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two distant spin qubits inside a shared resonator can be entangled in under 8 nanoseconds by swapping a real photon, despite cavity damping.

desk verdict Clean protocol with believable numerics, but fix the unnormalized appendix density matrix and stress-test the instantaneous switching before trusting the headline numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.12900 v1 pith:YO2TEVOB submitted 2026-03-13 cond-mat.other

Andrei Nikitchenko , Guido Burkard This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.other
keywords spinqubitscavityQEDentanglementgenerationrealphotonexchangesilicon/silicon-germaniumdoublequantumdotsSchrieffer-WolfftransformationiSWAPgatedecoherence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper makes the case that resonant coupling, where spin qubits exchange real microwave photons instead of virtual ones, can entangle distant spins far faster than the dispersive regime. The central predicted result is that a Bell state |↑↓⟩0 → 1/√2(|↑↓⟩−|↓↑⟩) forms in under 8 ns using a two-step voltage-pulse sequence that switches each qubit’s coupling to the cavity on and off. For realistic decoherence rates the entanglement survives with concurrence C≈0.9, and the decay is primarily from cavity damping. A sympathetic reader would care because this points to a practical route to faster two-qubit gates for semiconductor spin qubits, where the dispersive approach takes hundreds of nanoseconds.

What carries the argument

The calculation uses a first-order Schrieffer-Wolff transformation plus a rotation to spin-photon polariton eigenstates to bring the resonant (Eσ=ω) Hamiltonian into block-diagonal form. The voltage-pulse switching of the qubit–cavity coupling is the control mechanism, and the entanglement measure is Wootters concurrence of the reduced two-spin density matrix. The free-evolution analysis introduces an effective gate (iSWAP)^α whose rotation angle α(φ) depends on the spin-charge hybridization; the condition qα = p+1/2 selects entanglement times.

What would settle it

In a Si/SiGe double-quantum-dot spin qubit device with a shared cavity at resonance (Eσ=ω≈2π×10 GHz, g/2π≈100 MHz, κ/2π≈2 MHz), apply the two-step detuning sequence and measure the two-spin concurrence as a function of τ1 and τ2. If the maximum does not occur near τ1≈2.5 ns, τ2≈4.8 ns with C≈0.9 following |sin(2gσ τ1) sin(gσ τ2)| e^{-λτ1-Λτ2}, the protocol fails. Also, if the second qubit cannot be fully decoupled (residual g≠0), the predicted maximum disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper’s central claim is that two spin qubits in resonance with a shared cavity mode can become maximally entangled through the exchange of a real photon, with formation of the Bell state 1/√2(|↑↓⟩0−|↓↑⟩0) in less than 8 ns from the initial state |↑↓⟩0. The protocol works in two steps: keep the second qubit detuned while the first performs a √iSWAP with the cavity, creating a single-photon |↓↓⟩1 state; then detune the first qubit and bring the second into resonance so it performs an iSWAP with the cavity, leaving the cavity empty and the two spins entangled. The paper derives an analytic reduced density matrix for this process and shows that realistic cavity damping and spin decoherence

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that each qubit’s coupling to the cavity can be switched completely on and off instantaneously by a voltage-induced detuning pulse, with no residual coupling or finite rise time; any imperfection alters the trajectory and the Bell-state condition τ2=2τ1=π/(2gσ).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Bell state can be produced in under 8 ns with concurrence ≈0.9 using realistic parameters (ω/2π=10 GHz, g/2π=100 MHz, κ/2π=2 MHz).
  • Because the protocol uses only voltage-induced detuning pulses, it does not require microwave drives or parametric modulation.
  • The free-evolution (iSWAP)^α picture shows that even without pulse control, maximally entangled states emerge at discrete times satisfying qα = p+1/2.
  • Cavity damping is the dominant loss; in the weak-hybridization limit it preserves the ratio τ1/τ2 = 1/2 at maximum entanglement.
  • The optimal spin-charge mixing is small (φ≈9° at the chosen parameters), so stronger hybridization is counterproductive because emission and absorption interfere destructively.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the voltage-switching is fast enough, the same pulse sequence could be reused as a building block for long-range gates in a multi-qubit network, since each qubit–cavity coupling is individually addressable.
  • The predicted gate time is an order of magnitude shorter than reported dispersive iSWAP oscillations, so this protocol could bring spin qubit entangling gates near the speed of charge qubit gates without sacrificing spin coherence.
  • The analytic result that decoherence shifts the optimal τ1, τ2 to shorter times suggests a calibration method: locating the concurrence maximum as a function of pulse lengths directly measures the combined relaxation and dephasing rates.
  • A direct experiment could look for the predicted transient |↓↓⟩1 population peak after the first pulse and the subsequent dip in two-spin concurrence, a signature distinct from dispersive-coupling gates.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper theoretically studies two electron spin qubits in separate double quantum dots coupled to a shared microwave cavity, operating in the resonant regime Eσ=ω. Using a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation and a polariton basis, the authors derive an effective model and propose two entanglement schemes. In the first, a two-step voltage-pulse protocol sequentially brings each qubit into resonance with the cavity, generating a Bell state |↑↓⟩−|↓↑⟩ in about 7.5 ns with concurrence C≈0.9 under realistic decoherence. In the second, free evolution from |↑↓⟩ yields (iSWAP)^α gates, with optimal spin-charge hybridization φ≈g/Δ. The paper reports numerical master-equation agreement with the analytic concurrence formula and identifies the optimal working point.

Significance. If correct, the results offer a concrete route to fast, cavity-mediated entanglement of distant spin qubits beyond the dispersive limit, directly relevant to recent experimental progress in Si/SiGe spin-photon interfaces. The paper combines an analytic framework with numerical master-equation checks and uses externally fixed experimental parameters (ω, Δ, g, κ, γ, γφ) rather than fitted values, which is a strength. The predicted sub-8 ns Bell-state generation with C≈0.9 is a crisp, falsifiable claim. However, the analytic density-matrix derivation contains a serious normalization error, and the protocol relies on an idealized instantaneous on/off switching assumption that is not analyzed. These issues must be addressed before the central claims can be considered fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (13)] The density matrix elements in Eq. (A1) are not trace-normalized even in the zero-damping limit. At the Bell point τ1=π/(4gσ), τ2=π/(2gσ), λ=Λ=0, the diagonal elements give 0⟨↓↑|ρ|↓↑⟩=1, 0⟨↑↓|ρ|↑↓⟩=1, and 1⟨↓↓|ρ|↓↓⟩=0, so the trace is 2. The same problem appears in Eq. (14), where the trace also becomes 2 at λ=0. These populations do not match the pure state of Eq. (11), where the Bell point has P(|↓↑⟩)=P(|↑↓⟩)=1/2. Since Eq. (15) is claimed to follow by tracing the state from Eq. (A1), the analytic derivation of the concurrence is not valid as written. Please correct the density matrix or provide a direct derivation of C from the pure-state trajectory with decay factors, and verify normalization.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (13)] The two-step protocol assumes instantaneous, complete switching of each qubit-cavity coupling: gσ(1)=gσ, gσ(2)=0 for t<τ1 and vice versa afterwards. The model Hamiltonian (3) contains no detuning term; a voltage-induced detuning would modify the DQD orbital energies and therefore Eσ, Eτ, gσ, gτ, and φ. The Bell-state condition τ2=2τ1=π/(2gσ) is derived under this idealization. No error budget or robustness estimate is provided for finite pulse rise times, residual coupling of the 'off' qubit, or detuning-induced changes to gσ. This assumption is load-bearing for the headline prediction of a Bell state in under 8 ns with C≈0.9. Please add a robustness analysis or clearly identify and justify the parameter regime in which the idealization holds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (12), Fig. 2] The notation '√iSWAP' and 'iSWAP' is used loosely. The first step is a partial cavity-qubit swap with rotation angle θ=π/4, which is not the standard √iSWAP gate. Please define the intended gates or avoid the notation to prevent confusion.
  2. [Sec. III, text after Eq. (13)] The statement that the truncated master equation 'is not trace-preserving, but at relatively small times the reduction of the trace is negligible' is contradicted by Eq. (14), where the trace exceeds 1 even at zero damping. The issue is not a small reduction but a spurious increase; this needs to be reconciled with the claimed small error.
  3. [Sec. IV, near Fig. 8] The paper notes that the small deviation at small φ is due to the broken condition gσ ≫ gτ²/Δ. Since the recommended optimal angle φ≈g/Δ lies in this regime, please provide a quantitative estimate of the induced error in the gate time or fidelity, or discuss how the numerical master-equation results validate the analytic prediction despite the condition being marginal.
  4. [Sec. III, numerical verification] The numerical master-equation check is described as solving the Hamiltonian from Eq. (3), but the protocol requires time-dependent switching of gσ. Please clarify whether the numerical calculation implements the time-dependent coupling of Eq. (13) or assumes constant couplings; otherwise the agreement with Eq. (15) is not a direct test of the two-step entangling sequence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predictions follow from direct Hamiltonian evolution under external model parameters, not from fitting or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The starting Hamiltonian (3) is adopted from Benito et al. [14], but that is an independently published and experimentally benchmarked model (the cited experiments [16,17] observe coherent spin-photon coupling in Si DQDs), so it constitutes external support rather than a self-citation loop. The two-step protocol in Sec. III derives Eqs. (10)-(11) directly from Eq. (3) with a prescribed on/off schedule; the Bell-state condition τ2 = 2τ1 = π/(2gσ) follows algebraically and is not inferred from any fitted output. The optimal spin-charge hybridization angle is obtained by solving qα(φ) = p + 1/2, not by matching the predicted concurrence. Decoherence results come from the Lindblad master equation (9) with κ, γ, and γφ taken from prior experimental values. The main idealization, instantaneous and exact on/off switching of the qubit-cavity coupling, is explicitly acknowledged in the text ('This can be realized via an instant voltage-induced increase of the DQD detuning [22]') and is a robustness/correctness limitation, not a circular step: no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the input parameters or fitted to the target result. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the standard DQD-cavity Hamiltonian [14] augmented by the assumption of perfect switching; no parameters are fitted to the target Bell-state result. The only hand-set numerical quantity is the photon cutoff used in the master-equation integration.

free parameters (1)
  • photon-number cutoff in numerical master equation = nmax = 2 (checked with 3)
    Artificial truncation of the cavity Hilbert space for numerical solution of Eq. (9); the authors report no meaningful deviation when increased, so this is a convergence parameter rather than a fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dressed-state Hamiltonian Eq. (3) (from Ref. [14]) correctly describes two DQD spin qubits coupled to one cavity mode in Si/SiGe.
    The cavity couples to the charge (orbital) degree of freedom; spin-photon coupling arises through spin-charge hybridization parameterized by φ. All subsequent dynamics use this Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The Schrieffer-Wolff transformation to first order in S is valid, with S≪1 and gσ≫gτ²/Δ, and the Hilbert space can be rotated by R alone.
    Used to derive H′ and the polariton-basis wave functions Eq. (18). The authors note the condition is broken at small φ, where numerical and analytical results deviate.
  • domain assumption Qubit-cavity interaction can be switched on and off instantaneously by voltage pulses, and the detuned qubit is completely decoupled (g=0) during each step.
    Section III defines the two-step protocol with gσ(1)=gσ, gσ(2)=0 for t<τ1 and vice versa; no pulse duration or residual coupling is modeled.
  • domain assumption The Markovian Lindblad master equation Eq. (9) with cavity loss κ, spin dephasing γφ, and relaxation γ captures decoherence.
    Standard open quantum system modeling; used for the C=0.9 claim.
  • domain assumption The spin-charge angle φ can be tuned independently of Eσ=ω, Δ, and g by adjusting Bx, Bz, and tc.
    Assumed to justify the α(φ) optimization in Eq. (19) and the φ-dependent branches in Fig. 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photon-mediated entanglement between spin qubits beyond the dispersive regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YO2TEVOB

@misc{pith2026260312900,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photon-mediated entanglement between spin qubits beyond the dispersive regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YO2TEVOB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.12900}
}
read the original abstract

Dispersively coupled distant qubits in a shared cavity can become entangled through virtual photon exchange with energy-conserving phase evolution of their quantum states. This interaction can potentially be accelerated by operating on resonance, allowing for the exchange of real photons. In this theoretical study, we examine photon-mediated entanglement between two distant spins of electrons confined in double quantum dots formed in a Si/SiGe heterostructure. We calculate the dynamics of the combined system comprised of both spin qubits and the cavity, assuming that both spin qubits can be tuned into and out of resonance with the host cavity. We demonstrate that the exchange of real photons between the two spin qubits can result in rapid entanglement that is robust against decoherence. These results pave the way for the development of quantum gates on resonantly coupled distant semiconductor spin qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.12900 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two electrons (green clouds) are confined within [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two-step entanglement scheme for the initial state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The process of entangling the two spin qubits. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The concurrence from Eq. (15) as a function of two time intervals, during which SQ1,2 are activated/deactivated. The maximum concurrence Cmax = 0.9 is found at τ1 = 2.48 ns and τ2 = 4.82 ns. The parameters used in the compu￾tation are ω/2π = 10 GHz, ∆/2π = 2 GHz, g/2π …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The points in the two-dimensional parameter space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The concurrence C plotted against time for different spin-charge angle values ϕ. The dashed lines indicate the times at which the gates are completed. These are defined as the first local maximum within the series of local maxima of C(t). (a) and (e) panels correspond …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The concurrence C (a) and gate time τe (b) as functions of angle ϕ. Solid lines represent numerically derived data, while dots are taken from the q = p+ 1 branch in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The temporal dependences of states probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Controllable interaction between photons and distant spins via vacuum Rabi oscillations

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First time-domain vacuum Rabi oscillations between a single electron spin and a single microwave photon, including spin-to-spin excitation transfer and evidence of single-photon cavity states.

  2. Scalable Photon-Mediated Two-Qubit Gates with Spectrally Noisy Quantum Emitters

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    By applying Carr-Purcell π-pulse trains and periodically switching off qubit-cavity coupling, POCEG cancels detuning differences and lifts state-transfer fidelity from exponentially suppressed to >99.9% in an ideal ca...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [25]

    Warren, U

    A. Warren, U. G¨ ung¨ ord¨ u, J. P. Kestner, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Robust photon-mediated entangling gates between quantum dot spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B 104, 115308 (2021)

    2021

  2. [1]

    This definition of the maximal possible concurrence is justified by the entanglement reduction caused by the decoherence. When the damping and dephasing effects are taken into account, the much smaller gate time be- comes way more important than a small correction to the concurrence that is expected for the pure state. Beforeconcurrencereachesitsmaximumva...

  3. [2]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  4. [3]

    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

  5. [4]

    Hayashi, T

    T. Hayashi, T. Fujisawa, H. D. Cheong, Y. H. Jeong, and Y. Hirayama, Coherent manipulation of electronic states in a double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 226804 (2003)

    2003

  6. [5]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Manipulation of a single charge in a double quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 186802 (2004)

    2004

  7. [6]

    Dovzhenko, J

    Y. Dovzhenko, J. Stehlik, K. D. Petersson, J. R. Petta, H. Lu, and A. C. Gossard, Nonadiabatic quantum control ofasemiconductorchargequbit,Phys.Rev.B84,161302 (2011)

    2011

  8. [7]

    Cao, H.-O

    G. Cao, H.-O. Li, T. Tu, L. Wang, C. Zhou, M. Xiao, G.- C. Guo, H.-W. Jiang, and G.-P. Guo, Ultrafast universal quantum control of a quantum-dot charge qubit using Landau–Zener–St¨ uckelberg interference, Nat Commun4, 1401 (2013)

    2013

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Kayatz, J

    F. Kayatz, J. Mielke, and G. Burkard, Resonator- mediated quantum gate between distant charge qubits, Quantum Science and Technology9, 045048 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    Cottet and T

    A. Cottet and T. Kontos, Spin quantum bit with ferro- magnetic contacts for circuit qed, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 160502 (2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    M. Russ, D. M. Zajac, A. J. Sigillito, F. Borjans, J. M. Taylor, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, High-fidelity quan- tum gates in Si/SiGe double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B97, 085421 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Benito, X

    M. Benito, X. Croot, C. Adelsberger, S. Putz, X. Mi, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Electric-field control and noise protection of the flopping-mode spin qubit, Phys. Rev. B100, 125430 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    Croot, X

    X. Croot, X. Mi, S. Putz, M. Benito, F. Borjans, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, Flopping-mode electric dipole spin resonance, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 012006 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    P. M. Mutter and G. Burkard, Natural heavy-hole flop- ping mode qubit in germanium, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013194 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    Hu, Y.-x

    X. Hu, Y.-x. Liu, and F. Nori, Strong coupling of a spin qubit to a superconducting stripline cavity, Phys. Rev. B 86, 035314 (2012)

    2012

  8. [15]

    Benito, X

    M. Benito, X. Mi, J. M. Taylor, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Input-output theory for spin-photon cou- plinginSidoublequantumdots,Phys.Rev.B96,235434 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

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

    2017

  10. [17]

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

    2018

  11. [18]

    Samkharadze, G

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

    2018

  12. [19]

    Dijkema, X

    J. Dijkema, X. Xue, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Rimbach- Russ, S.L.deSnoo, G.Zheng, A.Sammak, G.Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Cavity-mediatediSWAP os- cillations between distant spins, Nature Physics21, 168 (2025)

    2025

  13. [20]

    J. P. Reithmaier, G. Se ˛k, A. L¨ offler, C. Hofmann, S. Kuhn, S. Reitzenstein, L. V. Keldysh, V. D. Ku- lakovskii, T. L. Reinecke, and A. Forchel, Strong coupling in a single quantum dot–semiconductor microcavity sys- tem, Nature432, 197 (2004)

    2004

  14. [21]

    Gibbs, G

    T.Yoshie, A.Scherer, J.Hendrickson, G.Khitrova, H.M. Gibbs, G. Rupper, C. Ell, O. B. Shchekin, and D. G. Deppe, Vacuum Rabi splitting with a single quantum dot in a photonic crystal nanocavity, Nature432, 200 (2004)

    2004

  15. [22]

    Borjans, X

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

    2020

  16. [23]

    Harvey-Collard, J

    P. Harvey-Collard, J. Dijkema, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Coherent Spin- Spin Coupling Mediated by Virtual Microwave Photons, Phys. Rev. X12, 021026 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Y.-B. Hu, R. Chen, G.-Q. Yan, and X.-Y. Zhu, Long- range entanglement between spin qubits in quantum dots by virtual photon process, Modern Physics Letters A38, 2350053 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    S. R. McMillan and G. Burkard, Resonant direct cnot in remote double quantum dot spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B 108, 125414 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    D. J. van Woerkom, P. Scarlino, J. H. Ungerer, C. M¨ uller, J. V. Koski, A. J. Landig, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraff, Microwave photon- mediated interactions between semiconductor qubits, Phys. Rev. X8, 041018 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    M. S. Dom´ ınguez, H. Vinck-Posada, and E. A. G´ omez, Entanglement generation between two solid-state qubits mediated by microwave photons, Physics Letters A388, 127045 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    K. D. Petersson, J. R. Petta, H. Lu, and A. C. Gos- sard, Quantum coherence in a one-electron semiconduc- tor charge qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 246804 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    D. M. Zajac, A. J. Sigillito, M. Russ, F. Borjans, J. M. Taylor, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, Resonantly driven cnot gate for electron spins, Science359, 439 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. H. Abobeih, R. C. Berrevoets, M. J. Degen, M. A. Bakker, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, A ten-qubit solid- state spin register with quantum memory up to one minute, Phys. Rev. X9, 031045 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    V. John, C. X. Yu, B. van Straaten, E. A. Rodr´ ıguez- Mena, M. Rodr´ ıguez, S. D. Oosterhout, L. E. A. Ste- houwer, G. Scappucci, M. Rimbach-Russ, S. Bosco, F. Borsoi, Y.-M. Niquet, and M. Veldhorst, Robust and localised control of a 10-spin qubit array in germanium, Nat Comm...

    2025

  25. [33]

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

    2006

  26. [34]

    Nadj-Perge, S

    S. Nadj-Perge, S. Frolov, E. Bakkers, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Spin–orbit qubit in a semiconductor nanowire, Nature468, 1084 (2010). 11

    2010

  27. [35]

    M.D.Schroer, K.D.Petersson, M.Jung,andJ.R.Petta, Field tuning thegfactor in inas nanowire double quan- tum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 176811 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

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

    2023

  29. [37]

    Rimbach-Russ, V

    M. Rimbach-Russ, V. John, B. van Straaten, and S. Bosco, Gapless Single-Spin Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 197001 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Pioro-Ladriere, T

    M. Pioro-Ladriere, T. Obata, Y. Tokura, Y.-S. Shin, T.Kubo, K.Yoshida, T.Taniyama,andS.Tarucha,Elec- trically driven single-electron spin resonance in a slanting zeeman field, Nature Physics4, 776 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Benito, J

    M. Benito, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Optimized cavity-mediated dispersive two-qubit gates between spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B100, 081412 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Srinivasa, J

    V. Srinivasa, J. M. Taylor, and J. R. Petta, Cavity- mediated entanglement of parametrically driven spin qubits via sidebands, PRX Quantum5, 020339 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Burkard, M

    G. Burkard, M. J. Gullans, X. Mi, and J. R. Petta, Super- conductor–semiconductor hybrid-circuit quantum elec- trodynamics, Nat Rev Phys2, 129 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    R. U. Haq and K. Singh, A systematic method for Schrieffer-Wolff transformation and its generalizations (2020), arXiv:2004.06534 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an ar- bitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  36. [44]

    L. R. B. Picard, A. J. Park, G. E. Patenotte, S. Gebret- sadkan, D. Wellnitz, A. M. Rey, and K.-K. Ni, Entangle- ment and iSWAP gate between molecular qubits, Nature 637, 821 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.