pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24150 · v1 · pith:ZLOV7GFZnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · quant-ph

Gate-Controlled Spin Qubits in Confined Altermagnets

Hamed Vakili This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph
keywords altermagnetic quantum dotsspin qubitsgate controlwithout spin-orbit couplingconfinement anisotropytwo-qubit entanglementqubit rotations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Altermagnetic quantum dots enable gate-controlled spin qubits without spin-orbit coupling.

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

The paper proposes gate-defined spin qubits realized in electrostatically confined altermagnetic quantum dots. Elliptical confinement of the d-wave structure produces an isolated low-energy doublet with opposite spin polarization whose gap sits in the microwave range. Time-dependent simulations show that a phase-controlled quadrupolar gate drive about a fixed bias implements X_{\pi/2} and X_\pi rotations by resonantly modulating confinement anisotropy. In a double-dot geometry the spectrum projects onto product states with a nonlocal Pauli block; resonant central-barrier modulation then drives the logical two-qubit component close to a maximally entangled state. The calculations establish anisotropic altermagnetic dots as a platform for locally gate-controlled spin qubits that does not require spin-orbit coupling.

Core claim

Gate-defined spin qubits in electrostatically confined altermagnetic quantum dots produce a low-energy doublet with opposite spin polarization. Phase-controlled quadrupolar gate drive about a fixed bias implements single-qubit X rotations by resonantly modulating confinement anisotropy. In double dots the spectrum projects cleanly onto isolated product states possessing a nonzero nonlocal Pauli block; resonant central-barrier modulation then drives the logical two-qubit component close to a maximally entangled state.

What carries the argument

The low-energy doublet with opposite spin polarization produced by elliptical confinement of the d-wave altermagnetic structure, which permits resonant modulation of confinement anisotropy for qubit control.

If this is right

  • Single-qubit X rotations become available through resonant modulation of confinement anisotropy alone.
  • Two-qubit entanglement can be generated by resonant central-barrier modulation in a double-dot geometry.
  • The microwave-scale qubit gap permits use of standard microwave control hardware.
  • Leakage remains suppressed by the meV-scale gap to higher states.
  • The approach supplies a route to spin-qubit control in materials lacking strong spin-orbit coupling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Fabrication compatibility with existing semiconductor processes could allow integration into larger quantum circuits.
  • Absence of spin-orbit coupling may reduce certain decoherence channels that rely on that interaction.
  • Different confinement shapes or altermagnetic symmetries could produce alternative gate sets or interaction strengths.
  • Direct measurement of the predicted microwave gap and leakage gap would test the central premise.

Load-bearing premise

Realistic electrostatic confinement of a d-wave altermagnetic structure produces an isolated low-energy doublet with opposite spin polarization whose gap lies in the microwave range while the leakage gap remains in the meV range.

What would settle it

Observation that the energy separation between the low-energy doublet and the next excited states falls outside the microwave window, or that time-dependent quadrupolar drive fails to produce the predicted X rotations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24150 by Hamed Vakili.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic device geometry. A two-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Qubit splitting E1 − E0 and ground-state po￾larization ⟨σz⟩0 versus ellipticity δ at Bx = 0.3 T. (b) Length dependence at δ = 0.3, showing E1 − E0, E2 − E0, and ⟨σz⟩0; the energy axis is logarithmic. (c) Spin polarizations of the two lowest states as a function of δ. (d) Color map of E1 − E0 versus δ and Bx; the white contour indicates the op￾erating boundary where the two lowest states have opposite s… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Single-qubit operation by a phase-controlled res [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Two-electron double-dot calculation using the atom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose gate-defined spin qubits in electrostatically confined altermagnetic quantum dots. Elliptical confinement of the $d$-wave altermagnetic structure produces a low-energy doublet with opposite spin polarization. For the range of parameters used here, the qubit states energy gap lies in the microwave range while the leakage gap remains in the meV range. Even without spin-orbit coupling, time-dependent simulations show that a phase-controlled quadrupolar gate drive about a fixed bias point implements $X_{\pi/2}$ and $X_\pi$ rotations by resonantly modulating the confinement anisotropy. We extend the study to two-qubits using a double quantum dot. We show that the double quantum dot spectrum can be cleanly projected onto isolated quantum dot product states with a nonzero nonlocal Pauli block in the effective logical two-qubit Hamiltonian. Resonant central-barrier modulation then drives the logical two-qubit component close to a maximally entangled state. These calculations show anisotropic altermagnetic quantum dots as a route to locally gate-controlled spin qubits without requiring spin-orbit coupling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes gate-defined spin qubits in electrostatically confined altermagnetic quantum dots. Elliptical confinement of the d-wave altermagnetic structure is shown to produce a low-energy doublet with opposite spin polarization. For the parameters used, the qubit energy gap lies in the microwave range while the leakage gap is in the meV range. Time-dependent simulations demonstrate that a phase-controlled quadrupolar gate drive implements X_{π/2} and X_π rotations by resonantly modulating confinement anisotropy, even without spin-orbit coupling. The study extends to a double quantum dot, where the spectrum projects onto isolated product states with a nonzero nonlocal Pauli block in the effective logical two-qubit Hamiltonian; resonant central-barrier modulation then drives the logical component close to a maximally entangled state.

Significance. If the claimed gap hierarchy holds, the work identifies a route to locally gate-controlled spin qubits in altermagnets that does not require spin-orbit coupling. The numerical demonstration of single- and two-qubit operations via electrostatic drives is a concrete strength, as is the projection onto an effective two-qubit Hamiltonian with nonlocal Pauli terms. These elements could be of interest to the mesoscopic physics and quantum-information communities if the parameter robustness is established.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and elliptical confinement paragraph] Abstract and paragraph on elliptical confinement: the central claim that an isolated low-energy doublet exists with microwave-scale splitting and meV-scale leakage gap 'for the range of parameters used here' is load-bearing for the time-dependent gate simulations and the protected logical subspace. No systematic robustness scan is presented against variations in altermagnetic exchange strength, confinement ellipticity, or Fermi energy; these are material-specific quantities, and modest changes could collapse the gap ratio or induce mixing with higher states, rendering the reported fidelities inapplicable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the importance of parameter robustness. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and elliptical confinement paragraph] Abstract and paragraph on elliptical confinement: the central claim that an isolated low-energy doublet exists with microwave-scale splitting and meV-scale leakage gap 'for the range of parameters used here' is load-bearing for the time-dependent gate simulations and the protected logical subspace. No systematic robustness scan is presented against variations in altermagnetic exchange strength, confinement ellipticity, or Fermi energy; these are material-specific quantities, and modest changes could collapse the gap ratio or induce mixing with higher states, rendering the reported fidelities inapplicable.

    Authors: We agree that the gap hierarchy is central to the proposal and that a systematic robustness analysis would strengthen the claims. The original manuscript qualified the result to the specific parameters employed and did not include a scan over altermagnetic exchange strength, ellipticity, or Fermi energy. In the revised manuscript we will add a new appendix (or supplementary figure) that maps the qubit splitting and leakage gap across a range of these quantities. The additional data confirm that the microwave/meV hierarchy persists over a broad and physically relevant window around the reported values, thereby supporting the applicability of the gate simulations and the isolation of the logical subspace. We will also update the abstract and the elliptical-confinement paragraph to reference this robustness analysis. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results are numerical outcomes of standard modeling for chosen parameters

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on electrostatic confinement of d-wave altermagnets, producing an isolated doublet whose microwave/meV gap hierarchy and gate responses are obtained from time-dependent simulations for a stated range of parameters. These are direct computational outputs rather than quantities fitted from the target data or reduced by definition to the inputs. No self-definitional equations, fitted-input predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or smuggled ansatzes appear in the derivation chain. The proposal is self-contained against external benchmarks of tight-binding/continuum modeling and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or prior author results to force its conclusions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the existence of an isolated spin-polarized doublet under elliptical confinement and on the validity of the effective two-qubit Hamiltonian projection; these are standard domain assumptions in mesoscopic physics rather than ad-hoc inventions.

free parameters (1)
  • confinement anisotropy and bias point
    Specific values of the elliptical potential and fixed bias are chosen so that the qubit gap falls in the microwave range; these are model parameters not derived from first principles.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption d-wave altermagnetic order survives electrostatic confinement and produces opposite spin polarization in the ground doublet
    Invoked in the opening description of the low-energy doublet; no independent verification supplied in the abstract.
  • domain assumption the leakage states remain separated by meV while the logical gap is microwave
    Required for the qubit subspace to be isolated; stated as holding for the parameter range used.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5708 in / 1406 out tokens · 19352 ms · 2026-06-25T23:01:54.232332+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. All-electrical dephasing-protected spin qubits in altermagnets

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Altermagnets provide all-electrical, dephasing-protected spin qubits in quantum dots with tunable frequencies via dot ellipticity and support for fSim gates plus singlet-triplet operation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (8) into the fixed dressed-CI basis at the operating point

    The time- dependent Hamiltonian is built by projecting the barrier- drive operator in Eq. (8) into the fixed dressed-CI basis at the operating point. The static spectra in Fig. 4(a) show the lowest-energy four-state CI manifold separated from the first leakage level over the dot-separation range used for the operat- ing point. The overlap panel gives the ...

  2. [2]

    Loss and D

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

    1998

  3. [3]

    Hanson, L

    R. Hanson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Spins in few-electron quan- tum dots, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 1217 (2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    Ishihara, A

    L.M.K.Vandersypen, H.Bluhm, J.S.Clarke, A.S.Dzu- rak, R. Ishihara, A. Morello, D. J. Reilly, L. R. Schreiber, and M. Veldhorst, Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors–hot, dense, and coherent, npj Quantum Inf.3, 34 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    J. M. Elzerman, R. Hanson, L. H. Willems van Beveren, B. Witkamp, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven, Single-shot read-out of an individual electron spin in a quantum dot, Nature430, 431 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor quantum dots, Science 309, 2180 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    F. H. L. Koppens, C. Buizert, K. J. Tielrooij, I. T. Vink, K. C. Nowack, T. Meunier, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Driven coherent oscillations of a single electron spin in a quantum dot, Nature442, 766 (2006)

    2006

  9. [9]

    K. C. Nowack, F. H. L. Koppens, Y. V. Nazarov, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Coherent control of a single elec- tron spin with electric fields, Science318, 1430 (2007)

    2007

  10. [10]

    B. M. Maune, M. G. Borselli, B. Huang, T. D. Ladd, P. W. Deelman, K. S. Holabird, A. A. Kise- lev, I. Alvarado-Rodriguez, R. S. Ross, A. E. Schmitz, M. Sokolich, C. A. Watson, M. F. Gyure, and A. T. Hunter, Coherent singlet-triplet oscillations in a silicon- based double quantum dot, Nature481, 344 (2012)

    2012

  11. [11]

    J. J. Pla, K. Y. Tan, J. P. Dehollain, W. H. Lim, J. J. L. Morton, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, A single-atom electron spin qubit in silicon, Nature489, 541 (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    Veldhorst, J

    M. Veldhorst, J. C. C. Hwang, C. H. Yang, A. W. Leen- stra, B. de Ronde, J. P. Dehollain, J. T. Muhonen, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity, Nat. Nanotechnol.9, 981 (2014)

    2014

  13. [13]

    Yoneda, K

    J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M. R. Delbecq, G. Allison, T. Honda, T. Kodera, S. Oda, Y. Hoshi, N. Usami, K. M. Itoh, and S. Tarucha, A quantum-dot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 102 (2018)

    2018

  14. [14]

    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

  15. [15]

    T. F. Watson, S. G. J. Philips, E. Kawakami, D. R. 7 Ward, P. Scarlino, M. Veldhorst, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, A programmable two-qubit quantum processor in silicon, Nature555, 633 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Huang, C

    W. Huang, C. H. Yang, K. W. Chan, T. Tanttu, B. Hensen, R. C. C. Leon, M. A. Fogarty, J. C. C. Hwang, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, A. Laucht, and A. S. Dzurak, Fidelity benchmarks for two-qubit gates in silicon, Nature569, 532 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    N. W. Hendrickx, D. P. Franke, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, Fast two-qubit logic with holes in germanium, Nature577, 487 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, L. Petit, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, A single-hole spin qubit, Nat. Commun.11, 3478 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, M. Russ, F. van Rigge- len, S. L. de Snoo, R. N. Schouten, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, A four-qubit germanium quan- tum processor, Nature591, 580 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold, Nature601, 343 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    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%, Sci. Adv.8, eabn5130 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    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, Nature609, 919 (2022)

    2022

  24. [24]

    Scappucci, C

    G. Scappucci, C. Kloeffel, F. A. Zwanenburg, D. Loss, M. Myronov, J.-J. Zhang, S. De Franceschi, G. Katsaros, and M. Veldhorst, The germanium quantum information route, Nat. Rev. Mater.6, 926 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    M. T. Mądzik, F. Luthi, G. G. Guerreschi, F. A. Mo- hiyaddin, F. Borjans, J. D. Chadwick, M. J. Curry, J. Ziegler, S. Atanasov, P. L. Bavdaz, E. J. Connors, J. Corrigan, H. E. Ercan, R. Flory, H. C. George, B. Harpt, E. Henry, M. M. Islam, N. Khammassi, D. Keith, L. F. Lampert, T. M. Mladenov, R. W. Morris, A. Nethwewala, S. Neyens, R. Otten, L. P. Osuna ...

    2025

  27. [27]

    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, Quantum simulation of a Fermi-Hubbard model using a semiconductor quantum dot array, Nature548, 70 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    X. Wang, E. Khatami, F. Fei, J. Wyrick, P. Nambood- iri, R. Kashid, A. F. Rigosi, G. Bryant, and R. Silver, Experimental realization of an extended Fermi-Hubbard model using a 2d lattice of dopant-based quantum dots, Nat. Commun.13, 6824 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Buterakos and S

    D. Buterakos and S. Das Sarma, Certain exact many- body results for Hubbard model ground states testable in small quantum dot arrays, Phys. Rev. B107, 014403 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Kiczynski, S

    M. Kiczynski, S. K. Gorman, H. Geng, M. B. Donnelly, Y. Chung, Y. He, J. G. Keizer, and M. Y. Simmons, En- gineering topological states in atom-based semiconductor quantum dots, Nature606, 694 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    M. B. Donnelly, Y. Chung, R. Garreis, S. Plugge, D. Pye, M. Kiczynski, J. Támara-Isaza, M. M. Munia, S. Suther- land, B. Voisin, L. Kranz, Y. L. Hsueh, A. M. S.-E. Huq, C. R. Myers, R. Rahman, J. G. Keizer, S. K. Gorman, and M. Y. Simmons, Large-scale analogue quantum sim- ulation using atom dot arrays, Nature650, 574 (2026)

    2026

  32. [32]

    Šmejkal, J

    L. Šmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conven- tional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Šmejkal, J

    L. Šmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging re- search landscape of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  34. [34]

    Mazin, Editorial: Altermagnetism—a new punch line of fundamental magnetism, Phys

    I. Mazin, Editorial: Altermagnetism—a new punch line of fundamental magnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040002 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    J.Krempáskýet al.,Altermagneticliftingofkramersspin degeneracy, Nature626, 517 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Reimerset al., Direct observation of altermagnetic band splitting in crsb thin films, Nat

    S. Reimerset al., Direct observation of altermagnetic band splitting in crsb thin films, Nat. Commun.15, 2116 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    J. A. Ouassou, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, dc joseph- son effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 076003 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    C. W. J. Beenakker and T. Vakhtel, Phase-shifted an- dreev levels in an altermagnet josephson junction, Phys. Rev. B108, 075425 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    H. G. Giil and J. Linder, Superconductor-altermagnet memory functionality without stray fields, Phys. Rev. B 109, 134511 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    B. Lu, K. Maeda, H. Ito, K. Yada, and Y. Tanaka, φjosephson junction induced by altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 226002 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Banerjee and M

    S. Banerjee and M. S. Scheurer, Altermagnetic supercon- ducting diode effect, Phys. Rev. B110, 024503 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Vakili, E

    H. Vakili, E. Schwartz, and A. A. Kovalev, Spin-transfer torque in altermagnets with magnetic textures, Physi- cal Review Letters134, 10.1103/physrevlett.134.176401 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.176401 2025

  43. [43]

    Schwartz, H

    E. Schwartz, H. Vakili, and A. A. Kovalev, Thermo- magnonic torques in insulating altermagnets (2025), arXiv:2512.14660

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Z. Zhu, R. Huang, X. Chen, Z. Cui, X. Duan, J. Zhang, I. Žutić, and T. Zhou, Altermagnetic proximity effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 186702 (2026)

    2026

  45. [45]

    J. D. Cao, K. S. Denisov, Y. Liu, and I. Žutić, Symmetry classification for alternating excitons in two-dimensional altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 266703 (2025). 8

    2025

  46. [46]

    Soori, Geometry induced net spin polarization ofd- wave altermagnets, Phys

    A. Soori, Geometry induced net spin polarization ofd- wave altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Mater.10, 044406 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    Vakili, M

    H. Vakili, M. Ali, I. Žutić, and A. A. Ko- valev, Supercurrent-driven néel torque in superconduc- tor/altermagnet hybrids (2026), arXiv:2603.22243

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    M. Roig, A. Kreisel, Y. Yu, B. M. Andersen, and D. F. Agterberg, Minimal models for altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B110, 144412 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Brekke, A

    B. Brekke, A. Brataas, and A. Sudbø, Two-dimensional altermagnets: Superconductivity in a minimal micro- scopic model, Phys. Rev. B108, 224421 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Tani and U

    T. Tani and U. Zülicke, Multipole order in two- dimensionalaltermagnets,Phys.Rev.Research7,043149 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    L. P. Kouwenhoven, T. H. Oosterkamp, M. W. S. Danoe- sastro, M. Eto, D. G. Austing, T. Honda, and S. Tarucha, Excitation spectra of circular, few-electron quantum dots, Science278, 1788 (1997)

    1997

  52. [52]

    Kyriakidis, M

    J. Kyriakidis, M. Pioro-Ladrière, M. Ciorga, A. S. Sachrajda, and P. Hawrylak, Voltage-tunable singlet- triplet transition in lateral quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 66, 035320 (2002)

    2002

  53. [53]

    M. T. Allen, J. Martin, and A. Yacoby, Gate-defined quantum confinement in suspended bilayer graphene, Nat. Commun.3, 934 (2012)

    2012

  54. [54]

    Prabhakar and J

    S. Prabhakar and J. E. Raynolds, Gate control of a quan- tum dot single-electron spin in realistic confining poten- tials: Anisotropy effects, Phys. Rev. B79, 195307 (2009)

    2009

  55. [55]

    R. C. C. Leon, C. H. Yang, J. C. C. Hwang, J. C. Lemyre, T. Tanttu, W. Huang, K. W. Chan, K. Y. Tan, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, A. Laucht, M. Pioro- Ladrière, A. Saraiva, and A. S. Dzurak, Coherent spin control of s-, p-, d- and f-electrons in a silicon quantum dot, Nat. Commun.11, 797 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    N. W. Hendrickx, L. Massai, M. Mergenthaler, F. J. Schupp, S.Paredes, S.W.Bedell, G.Salis,andA.Fuhrer, Sweet-spot operation of a germanium hole spin qubit with highly anisotropic noise sensitivity, Nat. Mater.23, 920 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    D. C. McKay, C. J. Wood, S. Sheldon, J. M. Chow, and J. M. Gambetta, EfficientZgates for quantum comput- ing, Phys. Rev. A96, 022330 (2017)

    2017

  58. [58]

    M. J. Bremner, C. M. Dawson, J. L. Dodd, A. Gilchrist, A. W. Harrow, D. Mortimer, M. A. Nielsen, and T. J. Osborne, A practical scheme for quantum computation with any two-qubit entangling gate, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 247902 (2002)

    2002

  59. [59]

    See Supplemental Material for the scan protocol, one- and two-parameter sweeps overJ,t AM,∆ ab, and op- tional interfacial Rashba coupling, definitions of the qubit-gap, leakage-gap, quadrupolarmatrix-element, and Rabi-rate diagnostics, source data and plotting scripts, and the CI basis-convergence check for the two-electron calculation

  60. [60]

    Friesen, J

    M. Friesen, J. Ghosh, M. A. Eriksson, and S. N. Coppersmith, A decoherence-free subspace in a charge quadrupole qubit, Nat. Commun.8, 15923 (2017)

    2017

  61. [61]

    J. V. Koski, A. J. Landig, M. Russ, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, P. Scarlino, B. Kratochwil, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, G. Burkard, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, A. Wallraff, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Strong photon coupling to the quadrupole moment of an electron in a solid-state qubit, Nat. Phys.16, 642 (2020)

    2020

  62. [62]

    Kratochwil, J

    B. Kratochwil, J. V. Koski, A. J. Landig, P. Scar- lino, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, C. Reichl, S. N. Coppersmith, W. Wegscheider, M. Friesen, A. Wallraff, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Charge qubit in a triple quantum dot with tunablecoherence,Phys.Rev.Research3,013171(2021)

    2021

  63. [63]

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

    2006

  64. [64]

    Tokura, W

    Y. Tokura, W. G. van der Wiel, T. Obata, and S. Tarucha, Coherent single electron spin control in a slanting Zeeman field, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 047202 (2006)

    2006

  65. [65]

    Pioro-Ladrière, T

    M. Pioro-Ladrière, 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, Nat. Phys.4, 776 (2008)

    2008

  66. [66]

    S. M. Reimann and M. Manninen, Electronic structure of quantum dots, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 1283 (2002)

    2002

  67. [67]

    Rontani, C

    M. Rontani, C. Cavazzoni, D. Bellucci, and G. Goldoni, Full configuration interaction approach to the few- electron problem in artificial atoms, J. Chem. Phys.124, 124102 (2006)

    2006

  68. [68]

    Burkard, D

    G. Burkard, D. Loss, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Coupled quantum dots as quantum gates, Phys. Rev. B59, 2070 (1999)

    2070

  69. [69]

    Hu and S

    X. Hu and S. Das Sarma, Hilbert-space structure of a solid-state quantum computer: Two-electron states of a double-quantum-dot artificial molecule, Phys. Rev. A61, 062301 (2000)

    2000

  70. [70]

    Nielsen, R

    E. Nielsen, R. P. Muller, and M. S. Carroll, Configuration interaction calculations of the controlled phase gate in double quantum dot qubits, Phys. Rev. B85, 035319 (2012)

    2012

  71. [71]

    Hetényi, C

    B. Hetényi, C. Kloeffel, and D. Loss, Exchange inter- action of hole-spin qubits in double quantum dots in highly anisotropic semiconductors, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033036 (2020)

    2020

  72. [72]

    Joecker, A

    B. Joecker, A. D. Baczewski, J. K. Gamble, J. J. Pla, A. Saraiva, and A. Morello, Full configuration interac- tion simulations of exchange-coupled donors in silicon us- ing multi-valley effective mass theory, New J. Phys.23, 073007 (2021)

    2021

  73. [73]

    Tariq and X

    B. Tariq and X. Hu, Impact of the valley orbit coupling on exchange gate for spin qubits in silicon, npj Quantum Inf.8, 53 (2022)

    2022

  74. [74]

    Geyer, B

    S. Geyer, B. Hetényi, S. Bosco, L. C. Camenzind, R. S. Eggli, A. Fuhrer, D. Loss, R. J. Warburton, D. M. Zum- bühl, and A. V. Kuhlmann, Anisotropic exchange in- teraction of two hole-spin qubits, Nat. Phys.20, 1152 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    M. J. Rodríguez, E. A. Rodríguez-Mena, A. F. Kalo, and Y.-M. Niquet, Dressed basis sets for the modeling of ex- change interactions in double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B112, 115310 (2025)

    2025

  76. [76]

    Fenget al., An anomalous hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium dioxide, Nat

    Z. Fenget al., An anomalous hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium dioxide, Nat. Electron.5, 735 (2022)

    2022

  77. [77]

    Boseet al., Tilted spin current generated by the collinear antiferromagnet ruo 2, Nat

    A. Boseet al., Tilted spin current generated by the collinear antiferromagnet ruo 2, Nat. Electron.5, 267 (2022)

    2022

  78. [78]

    Karubeet al., Observation of spin-splitter torque in collinear antiferromagnetic ruo2, Phys

    S. Karubeet al., Observation of spin-splitter torque in collinear antiferromagnetic ruo2, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 137201 (2022)

    2022

  79. [79]

    Fedchenkoet al., Observation of time-reversal symme- try breaking in the band structure of altermagnetic ruo2, Sci

    O. Fedchenkoet al., Observation of time-reversal symme- try breaking in the band structure of altermagnetic ruo2, Sci. Adv.10, eadj4883 (2024). 9

    2024

  80. [80]

    C. He, Z. Wen, J. Okabayashi, Y. Miura, T. Ma, T. Ohkubo, T. Seki, H. Sukegawa, and S. Mitani, Ev- idence for single variant in altermagnetic ruo2(101) thin films, Nat. Commun.16, 8235 (2025)

    2025

Showing first 80 references.