pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.25857 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-29 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

Sweet-spot protection of hole spins in sparse arrays via spin-dependent magnetotunneling

Esteban A. Rodr\'iguez-Mena , Biel Mart\'inez , Ahmad Fouad Kalo , Yann-Michel Niquet , Jos\'e C. Abadillo-Uriel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 02:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords hole spinsquantum dotssweet spotstunnel couplingsmagnetotunnelingsparse arraysspin qubitsg-factors
0
0 comments X

The pith

Spin-dependent magnetic corrections to tunnel couplings protect sweet spots for hole spins even when quantum dots have different g-factors.

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

The paper develops a microscopic theory for a hole in a double quantum dot that identifies spin-dependent magnetic corrections arising in the tunnel couplings between dots. These corrections stabilize existing sweet spots where the spin is less sensitive to noise and create additional ones that simpler models miss. A sympathetic reader would care because the corrections work even when the two dots have mismatched g-factors, which removes a major obstacle to building larger, distributed spin-qubit arrays. The same corrections explain sweet-spot observations already seen in shuttling and circuit-QED experiments and apply to every link in sparse arrays of any size.

Core claim

We develop a microscopic theory of a minimal sparse array formed by a hole in a double quantum dot. We show the existence of spin-dependent magnetic corrections to the tunnel couplings that help preserve existing sweet spots, even for quantum dots with different g-factors, and introduce new ones that are not accounted for in the simplest models. Our analytical and numerical results explain observed sweet spots in state-of-the-art shuttling and cQED experiments, are relevant to hopping and flopping modes, and apply broadly as corrections to each interdot tunnel link in sparse array encodings of any size.

What carries the argument

Spin-dependent magnetic corrections to the interdot tunnel couplings, which modify the effective spin interactions derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian and thereby stabilize sweet spots.

If this is right

  • The corrections explain the locations of sweet spots already measured in current shuttling and circuit-QED devices.
  • They remain relevant when qubits are manipulated via hopping or flopping modes.
  • The same corrections can be added to every tunnel link in sparse arrays of arbitrary size.
  • Protection persists without requiring the two dots to have identical g-factors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Device designers could deliberately engineer magnetic-field gradients to strengthen these corrections rather than treating them as small perturbations.
  • The mechanism may reduce the precision needed when fabricating arrays of many dots, since protection no longer demands perfect g-factor matching.
  • Extending the same microscopic treatment to three-dot or longer chains would test whether the corrections remain local to each link.

Load-bearing premise

The theory assumes the spin-dependent corrections to tunnel couplings emerge directly from the underlying Hamiltonian of the double quantum dot without extra fitting parameters chosen to produce the sweet spots.

What would settle it

A measurement of tunnel rates versus magnetic field in an isolated double quantum dot that shows no spin dependence, or a calculation of sweet-spot locations that fails to match experiment once the magnetic corrections are included.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.25857 by Ahmad Fouad Kalo, Biel Mart\'inez, Esteban A. Rodr\'iguez-Mena, Jos\'e C. Abadillo-Uriel, Yann-Michel Niquet.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Energy levels of a hole spin in a DQD. (a) Illustra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (e-f), where we show the changes in the in-plane g-factors. For simplicity, we focus on the symmetric case and find that the plunger gate has a stronger effect on the localized g-matrices than on the spin-dependent magneto-tunneling terms. We observe that the plunger gate steadily shifts the effective g-factors independently FIG. 4. Higher-order sweet spots and in-plane g-factor be￾havior. (a,b) Maps of th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Higher-order sweet spots and in-plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sweet spots and Rabi frequencies accounting for the magneto-tunneling term. (a) Sweet spot position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent advances in the scaling of spin qubits have led to the development of sparse architectures where spin qubits are distributed across multiple quantum dots. This distributed approach allows for qubit manipulation through hopping and flopping modes and may enable spin shuttling protocols to entangle spins beyond nearest neighbors. Here, we develop a microscopic theory of a minimal sparse array formed by a hole in a double quantum dot. We show the existence of spin-dependent magnetic corrections to the tunnel couplings that help preserve existing sweet spots, even for quantum dots with different $g$-factors, and introduce new ones that are not accounted for in the simplest models. Our analytical and numerical results explain observed sweet spots in state-of-the-art shuttling and cQED experiments, are relevant to hopping and flopping modes, and apply broadly as corrections to each interdot tunnel link in sparse array encodings of any size.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a microscopic theory for a hole spin in a minimal double quantum dot sparse array. It derives spin-dependent magnetic corrections to the interdot tunnel couplings that preserve existing sweet spots even when the two dots have unequal g-factors and generate additional sweet spots absent from minimal models. Analytical and numerical results are presented for hopping and flopping modes, with claims that the corrections explain observations in recent shuttling and cQED experiments and apply to larger sparse encodings.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work provides a useful microscopic mechanism for sweet-spot protection in hole-based spin qubits, which is relevant for scaling sparse architectures. The combination of analytical derivations with numerical checks is a positive feature that could support predictive device modeling without heavy reliance on post-hoc fitting.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III] §III (Microscopic model and effective tunnel couplings): the derivation of the spin-dependent corrections t_↑ and t_↓ for g1 ≠ g2 is performed within a truncated two-level orbital subspace; it is not shown whether residual heavy-hole/light-hole mixing terms from the Luttinger Hamiltonian remain negligible once the Zeeman resonance condition is shifted by the g-factor mismatch. This truncation is load-bearing for the claim that the corrections remain protective without additional parameters.
  2. [Eq. (8)] Eq. (8) and surrounding text (effective Hamiltonian after Schrieffer-Wolff or equivalent projection): the magnetic phase accumulation in the tunnel matrix elements is stated to be spin-dependent, but the explicit dependence on the orbital wave-function overlap under unequal Zeeman splittings is not compared against a full numerical diagonalization of the multi-band Hamiltonian. Without this benchmark, it is unclear whether the reported corrections survive when the symmetric point used in the analytic step is displaced.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction could state the range of validity of the effective-mass approximation more explicitly, particularly the assumed dot separation and magnetic-field regime.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should clarify which curves include the magnetotunneling corrections and which are from the reference model without them.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work's significance and for the detailed, constructive major comments. We address each point below with clarifications on our approximations and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§III] §III (Microscopic model and effective tunnel couplings): the derivation of the spin-dependent corrections t_↑ and t_↓ for g1 ≠ g2 is performed within a truncated two-level orbital subspace; it is not shown whether residual heavy-hole/light-hole mixing terms from the Luttinger Hamiltonian remain negligible once the Zeeman resonance condition is shifted by the g-factor mismatch. This truncation is load-bearing for the claim that the corrections remain protective without additional parameters.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The two-level orbital truncation in §III is justified by the large heavy-hole/light-hole splitting (several meV) compared to Zeeman energies and tunnel couplings (tens to hundreds of μeV). The g-factor mismatch shifts the resonance but remains a small perturbation relative to the orbital gap. We will revise the text in §III to include an explicit perturbative estimate of the residual mixing amplitude using standard Luttinger parameters for the relevant heterostructures, confirming that mixing corrections stay below a few percent and do not alter the sweet-spot protection. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Eq. (8)] Eq. (8) and surrounding text (effective Hamiltonian after Schrieffer-Wolff or equivalent projection): the magnetic phase accumulation in the tunnel matrix elements is stated to be spin-dependent, but the explicit dependence on the orbital wave-function overlap under unequal Zeeman splittings is not compared against a full numerical diagonalization of the multi-band Hamiltonian. Without this benchmark, it is unclear whether the reported corrections survive when the symmetric point used in the analytic step is displaced.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit numerical benchmark against the full multi-band Hamiltonian would strengthen the presentation. The spin-dependent phase in Eq. (8) follows directly from the orbital overlap integrals within the Schrieffer-Wolff projection of our effective model. Our existing numerics solve the resulting effective Hamiltonian and reproduce experimental sweet spots. We will add a supplementary comparison (new figure or table) that numerically diagonalizes the projected multi-orbital Hamiltonian for g1 ≠ g2 and confirms that the analytic corrections and displaced sweet spots remain intact. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Microscopic derivation of spin-dependent magnetotunneling corrections is self-contained from the hole Hamiltonian

full rationale

The paper develops a microscopic theory for a hole in a double quantum dot by starting from the underlying Luttinger or effective-mass Hamiltonian supplemented with Zeeman terms that allow for unequal g-factors. It computes spin-dependent magnetic corrections to the interdot tunnel couplings analytically and numerically, demonstrating their role in preserving and creating sweet spots for hopping and flopping modes. No step reduces the target protection effect to a fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or load-bearing self-citation; the corrections emerge directly from the orbital overlap and magnetic phase accumulation within the stated model assumptions. The derivation remains independent of the observed sweet spots it explains and is externally falsifiable against shuttling and cQED experiments.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on a domain model of a hole in a double quantum dot; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are named.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The system is a minimal sparse array formed by a hole in a double quantum dot whose tunnel couplings receive spin-dependent magnetic corrections.
    Directly stated in the abstract as the starting point for the microscopic theory.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5703 in / 1293 out tokens · 54386 ms · 2026-05-18T02:54:34.625880+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Granular aluminum induced superconductivity in germanium for hole spin-based hybrid devices

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Granular aluminum induces a hard, magnetically resilient superconducting gap of 305 μeV in germanium, allowing Zeeman splitting of YSR states beyond 50 μeV and g-tensor tunability for hole-based hybrid quantum devices.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ansatz wavefunctions We intend to calculate the gyromagnetic response of the DQD in a minimal subspace of left and right heavy- and light-hole states|Ψ(h,l) L,R ⟩that captures the qualitative physics in a truncated orbital subspace. In this confine- ment potential, we can assume that the wave functions |Ψ(h,l) L,R (x, y, z)⟩=|ψ h,l L,R(x)⟩ |Y h,l n (y)⟩ |...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Projection to the ansatz basis set We project the total HamiltonianHDQD in this sub- space, then integrate out the left and right light-hole states using quasi-degenerate perturbation theory to sec- ond order. We get that way an effective HamiltonianHeff in the heavy-hole subspace, Heff ij ≈ ⟨Ψ(h) i |H DQD |Ψ(h) j ⟩+ 1 2 X k 1 Ei −E k + 1 Ej −E k × ⟨Ψ(h) ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    pure detuning

    Peierls phase and theµ T vector After integrating out the light-hole states, our effective Hamiltonian toO(1/∆ LH)has the form H(0) eff = ε 2 τz +t 0τx +τ y(tso ·σ) + µB 2 τL(σ·ˆgLB) + µB 2 τR(σ·ˆgRB) +H (0) MT, H(0) MT = µB 2 τx(σ·ˆg(0) T B) , (A.16) which, compared to Eq. (A.10) misses the∝(µT ·B)τ y term. To find such a term in our microscopic theory, ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Maurand, X

    R. Maurand, X. Jehl, D. Kotekar-Patil, A. Corna, H. Bo- huslavskyi, R. Laviéville, L. Hutin, S. Barraud, M. Vinet, M. Sanquer,et al., A cmos silicon spin qubit, Nature communications7, 13575 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Watzinger, J

    H. Watzinger, J. Kukučka, L. Vukušić, F. Gao, T. Wang, F. Schäffler, J.-J. Zhang, and G. Katsaros, A germanium hole spin qubit, Nature communications9, 3902 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Crippa, R

    A. Crippa, R. Maurand, L. Bourdet, D. Kotekar-Patil, A. Amisse, X. Jehl, M. Sanquer, R. Laviéville, H. Bo- huslavskyi, L. Hutin,et al., Electrical spin driving by g- matrix modulation in spin-orbit qubits, Physical review letters120, 137702 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Hendrickx, W

    N. Hendrickx, W. Lawrie, L. Petit, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, A single-hole spin qubit, Nature communications11, 3478 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    F. N. Froning, L. C. Camenzind, O. A. van der Molen, A. Li, E. P. Bakkers, D. M. Zumbühl, and F. R. Braak- man, Ultrafast hole spin qubit with gate-tunable spin– orbit switch functionality, Nature Nanotechnology16, 308 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Jirovec, A

    D. Jirovec, A. Hofmann, A. Ballabio, P. M. Mutter, G. Tavani, M. Botifoll, A. Crippa, J. Kukucka, O. Sagi, F. Martins,et al., A singlet-triplet hole spin qubit in pla- nar ge, Nature Materials20, 1106 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    K. Wang, G. Xu, F. Gao, H. Liu, R.-L. Ma, X. Zhang, Z. Wang, G. Cao, T. Wang, J.-J. Zhang,et al., Ultrafast coherent control of a hole spin qubit in a germanium quantum dot, Nature Communications13, 206 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Y. Fang, P. Philippopoulos, D. Culcer, W. Coish, and S. Chesi, Recent advances in hole-spin qubits, Materials for Quantum Technology3, 012003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Liles, D

    S. Liles, D. Halverson, Z. Wang, A. Shamim, R. Eggli, I. K. Jin, J. Hillier, K. Kumar, I. Vorreiter, M. Rendell, et al., A singlet-triplet hole-spin qubit in mos silicon, Na- ture Communications15, 7690 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    N. Piot, B. Brun, V. Schmitt, S. Zihlmann, V. Michal, A. Apra, J. Abadillo-Uriel, X. Jehl, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojewski,et al., A single hole spin with enhanced coherence in natural silicon, Nature Nanotechnology17, 1072 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Hendrickx, L

    N. Hendrickx, L. Massai, M. Mergenthaler, F. Schupp, S. Paredes, S. Bedell, G. Salis, and A. Fuhrer, Sweet-spot operation of a germanium hole spin qubit with highly anisotropic noise sensitivity, Nature Materials23, 920 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    M. J. Carballido, S. Svab, R. S. Eggli, T. Patlatiuk, P. Chevalier Kwon, J. Schuff, R. M. Kaiser, L. C. Ca- menzind, A. Li, N. Ares,et al., Compromise-free scaling of qubit speed and coherence, Nature Communications 16, 7616 (2025)

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Bassi, E.-A

    M. Bassi, E.-A. Rodrıguez-Mena, B. Brun, S. Zihlmann, T. Nguyen, V. Champain, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojewski, R. Maurand,et al., Op- timal operation of hole spin qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13069 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Hendrickx, D

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

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    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 inter- action of two hole-spin qubits, Nature Physics20, 1152 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. 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)

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    V. John, C. X. Yu, B. van Straaten, E. A. Rodríguez- Mena, M. Rodríguez, S. Oosterhout, L. E. Stehouwer, G. Scappucci, S. Bosco, M. Rimbach-Russ,et al., A two-dimensional 10-qubit array in germanium with robust and localised qubit control, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16044 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    C.-A. Wang, C. Déprez, H. Tidjani, W. I. Lawrie, N. W. Hendrickx, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, Probing resonating valence bonds on a programmable germanium quantum simulator, npj Quantum Informa- tion9, 58 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Hsiao, P

    T.-K. Hsiao, P. Cova Fariña, S. D. Oosterhout, D. Jirovec, X. Zhang, C. J. van Diepen, W. I. Lawrie, C.-A. Wang, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci,et al., Exciton transport in a germanium quantum dot ladder, Physical Review X14, 011048 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    J. M. Boter, J. P. Dehollain, J. P. Van Dijk, Y. Xu, T. Hensgens, R. Versluis, H. W. Naus, J. S. Clarke, M. Veldhorst, F. Sebastiano,et al., Spiderweb array: A sparse spin-qubit array, Physical review applied18, 024053 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    C.-A. Wang, V. John, H. Tidjani, C. X. Yu, A. S. Ivlev, C.Déprez, F.vanRiggelen-Doelman, B.D.Woods, N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. Lawrie,et al., Operating semi- conductor quantum processors with hopping spins, Sci- ence385, 447 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    F. K. Unseld, B. Undseth, E. Raymenants, Y. Mat- sumoto, S. L. de Snoo, S. Karwal, O. Pietx-Casas, A. S. Ivlev, M. Meyer, A. Sammak,et al., Baseband control of single-electron silicon spin qubits in two dimensions, Nature Communications16, 5605 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Rimbach-Russ, V

    M. Rimbach-Russ, V. John, B. van Straaten, and S. Bosco, A spinless spin qubit, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13658 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Studenikin, P

    R.Sánchez, G.Granger, L.Gaudreau, A.Kam, M.Pioro- Ladrière, S. Studenikin, P. Zawadzki, A. Sachrajda, and G. Platero, Long-range spin transfer in triple quantum dots, Physical Review Letters112, 176803 (2014)

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Mills, D

    A. Mills, D. Zajac, M. Gullans, F. Schupp, T. Hazard, and J. R. Petta, Shuttling a single charge across a one- dimensional array of silicon quantum dots, Nature com- munications10, 1063 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Zwerver, S

    A. Zwerver, S. Amitonov, S. De Snoo, M. Mądzik, M. Rimbach-Russ, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L. Vandersypen, Shuttling an electron spin through a sili- con quantum dot array, PRX Quantum4, 030303 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    van Riggelen-Doelman, C.-A

    F. van Riggelen-Doelman, C.-A. Wang, S. L. de Snoo, W. I. Lawrie, N. W. Hendrickx, M. Rimbach-Russ, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, C. Déprez, and M. Veldhorst, Coherent spin qubit shuttling through germanium quan- tum dots, Nature Communications15, 5716 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Künne, A

    M. Künne, A. Willmes, M. Oberländer, C. Gorjaew, J. D. Teske, H. Bhardwaj, M. Beer, E. Kammerloher, R. Ot- ten, I. Seidler,et al., The spinbus architecture for scaling spin qubits with electron shuttling, Nature Communica- 17 tions15, 4977 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Langrock, J

    V. Langrock, J. A. Krzywda, N. Focke, I. Seidler, L. R. Schreiber, and Ł. Cywiński, Blueprint of a scalable spin qubit shuttle device for coherent mid-range qubit trans- fer in disordered si/sige/sio 2, PRX Quantum4, 020305 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Fernández-Fernández, Y

    D. Fernández-Fernández, Y. Ban, and G. Platero, Flying spin qubits in quantum dot arrays driven by spin-orbit interaction, Quantum8, 1533 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Ginzel, M

    F. Ginzel, M. Fellner, C. Ertler, L. R. Schreiber, H. Bluhm, and W. Lechner, Scalable parity architecture with a shuttling-based spin qubit processor, Physical Re- view B110, 075302 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Benito, X

    M. Benito, X. Croot, C. Adelsberger, S. Putz, X. Mi, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Electric-field control and noiseprotectionoftheflopping-modespinqubit,Physical Review B100, 125430 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    P. M. Mutter and G. Burkard, Natural heavy-hole flop- ping mode qubit in germanium, Physical Review Re- search3, 013194 (2021)

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Froning, M

    F. Froning, M. Rančić, B. Hetényi, S. Bosco, M. Rehmann, A. Li, E. P. Bakkers, F. A. Zwanenburg, D. Loss, D. Zumbühl,et al., Strong spin-orbit interac- tion and g-factor renormalization of hole spins in ge/si nanowire quantum dots, Physical Review Research3, 013081 (2021)

    work page 2021

  38. [38]

    Hu, R.-L

    R.-Z. Hu, R.-L. Ma, M. Ni, Y. Zhou, N. Chu, W.-Z. Liao, Z.-Z. Kong, G. Cao, G.-L. Wang, H.-O. Li,et al., Flopping-mode spin qubit in a si-mos quantum dot, Ap- plied Physics Letters122, 10.1063/5.0137259 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0137259 2023

  39. [39]

    A. Sen, G. Frank, B. Kolok, J. Danon, and A. Pályi, Clas- sification and magic magnetic field directions for spin- orbit-coupled double quantum dots, Physical Review B 108, 245406 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Stastny and G

    S. Stastny and G. Burkard, The singlet-triplet and exchange-only flopping-mode spin qubits, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05032 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    J. D. Teske, F. Butt, P. Cerfontaine, G. Burkard, and H. Bluhm, Flopping-mode electron dipole spin resonance in the strong-driving regime, Physical Review B107, 035302 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Liles, F

    S. Liles, F. Martins, D. Miserev, A. Kiselev, I. Thorvald- son, M. Rendell, I. Jin, F. Hudson, M. Veldhorst, K. Itoh, et al., Electrical control of the g tensor of the first hole in a silicon mos quantum dot, Physical Review B104, 235303 (2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, E. A. Rodríguez-Mena, B. Mar- tinez, and Y.-M. Niquet, Hole-spin driving by strain- induced spin-orbit interactions, Physical Review Letters 131, 097002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    E. A. Rodríguez-Mena, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, G. Veste, B. Martinez, J. Li, B. Sklénard, and Y.-M. Niquet, Linear-in-momentum spin orbit interactions in planar ge/gesi heterostructures and spin qubits, Physical Re- view B108, 205416 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Martinez, J

    B. Martinez, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, E. A. Rodríguez-Mena, and Y.-M. Niquet, Hole spin manipulation in inhomoge- neous and nonseparable electric fields, Physical Review B106, 235426 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Martinez and Y.-M

    B. Martinez and Y.-M. Niquet, Variability of hole spin qubits in planar germanium, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.04953 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    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)

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Samkharadze, G

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

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    C. X. Yu, S. Zihlmann, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, V. P. Michal, N. Rambal, H. Niebojewski, T. Bedecarrats, M. Vinet, É. Dumur, M. Filippone,et al., Strong coupling between a photon and a hole spin in silicon, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy18, 741 (2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Noirot, C

    L. Noirot, C. X. Yu, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, É. Du- mur, H. Niebojewski, B. Bertrand, R. Maurand, and S. Zihlmann, Coherence of a hole spin flopping-mode qubit in a circuit quantum electrodynamics environment, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10788 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Dijkema, X

    J. Dijkema, X. Xue, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Rimbach- Russ, S. L. de Snoo, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and L. M. Vandersypen, Cavity-mediated iswap oscillationsbetweendistantspins,NaturePhysics21,168 (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    M. Reed, B. Maune, R. Andrews, M. Borselli, K. Eng, M. Jura, A. Kiselev, T. Ladd, S. Merkel, I. Milosavljevic, et al., Reduced sensitivity to charge noise in semiconduc- tor spin qubits via symmetric operation, Physical review letters116, 110402 (2016)

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    Michal, J

    V. Michal, J. Abadillo-Uriel, S. Zihlmann, R. Maurand, Y.-M. Niquet, and M. Filippone, Tunable hole spin- photon interaction based on g-matrix modulation, Phys- ical Review B107, L041303 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    V. P. Michal, B. Venitucci, and Y.-M. Niquet, Longitu- dinal and transverse electric field manipulation of hole spin-orbit qubits in one-dimensional channels, Physical Review B103, 045305 (2021)

    work page 2021

  55. [55]

    Bosco, M

    S. Bosco, M. Benito, C. Adelsberger, and D. Loss, Squeezed hole spin qubits in ge quantum dots with ultra- fast gates at low power, Physical Review B104, 115425 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Z. Wang, A. Sarkar, S. Liles, A. Saraiva, A. Dzurak, A. Hamilton, and D. Culcer, Electrical operation of hole spin qubits in planar mos silicon quantum dots, Physical Review B109, 075427 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    The localizedˆg-matrices of Fig. 1 are given byˆgL =  0.87 0.49 0 −1.07 1.9 0 0 0g L,zz   andˆgR =   0.86 0.33 0 −0.81 2.1 0 0 0g R,zz   where the verticalg-factors could not be determined ex- perimentally [46]

    work page

  58. [58]

    We assume hereT |↑⟩=− |↓⟩andT |↓⟩=|↑⟩, whereT is the time-reversal symmetry operator

    work page

  59. [59]

    This is the case for all usual gauge choices (symmetric, Landau, ...)

    We assume that the Hamiltonian transforms under the time-reversal symmetry asT −1Heff(B)T=H eff(−B), which implies that the vector potentialAmust be odd with respect to the magnetic fieldB[A(r,−B) = −A(r,B)]. This is the case for all usual gauge choices (symmetric, Landau, ...). We emphasize that this con- straint on the gauge simplifies the shape of Eq. ...

    work page

  60. [60]

    Microscopically,µ T may arise as a Peierls phaset c → tc exp(i e ℏ R x1 x0 A·dr)expandeduptofirstorderinBinour linear-response theory, whereAis the vector potential, see Appendix A

    work page

  61. [61]

    Winkler, S

    R. Winkler, S. Papadakis, E. De Poortere, and M. Shayegan, Spin-orbit coupling in two-dimensional 18 electron and hole systems, inAdvances in Solid State Physics(Springer, 2001) pp. 211–223

    work page 2001

  62. [62]

    Venitucci, L

    B. Venitucci, L. Bourdet, D. Pouzada, and Y.-M. Niquet, Electrical manipulation of semiconductor spin qubits within the g-matrix formalism, Physical Review B98, 155319 (2018)

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

    The observables, such as the effectiveg-factors of the eigen- states, remain the same independently of this choice

    Note that when we mention rotations about a spin axis, we are implicitly fixing a specific spin basis set. The observables, such as the effectiveg-factors of the eigen- states, remain the same independently of this choice

    work page

  64. [64]

    Mauro, E

    L. Mauro, E. A. Rodríguez-Mena, B. Martinez, and Y.-M. Niquet, Strain engineering in ge/ge-si spin-qubit heterostructures, Physical Review Applied23, 024057 (2025)

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    S.-C. Lin, P. Steinacker, M. Feng, A. Dash, S. Ser- rano, W. H. Lim, K. M. Itoh, F. E. Hudson, T. Tanttu, A. Saraiva, A. Laucht, A. S. Dzurak, H.-S. Goan, and C. H. Yang, Interplay of zeeman splitting and tun- nel coupling in coherent spin qubit shuttling (2025), arXiv:2507.15554 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Bosco, J

    S. Bosco, J. Zou, and D. Loss, High-fidelity spin qubit shuttlingvialargespin-orbitinteractions,PRXQuantum 5, 020353 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    Therefore, we approximateLx =L (h) x ≈ L(l) x in the manuscript

    While the harmonic length depends on whether we have a heavy-hole or light-hole state through their in-plane effective massesm ∥ h,l, we find the difference to have no qualitative impact in our results except for complicating the expressions. Therefore, we approximateLx =L (h) x ≈ L(l) x in the manuscript

    work page

  68. [68]

    We go beyond this approximation to include detuning- dependent corrections

    work page

  69. [69]

    Graf and P

    M. Graf and P. Vogl, Electromagnetic fields and dielec- tric response in empirical tight-binding theory, Physical Review B51, 4940 (1995)

    work page 1995

  70. [70]

    Ismail-Beigi, E

    S. Ismail-Beigi, E. K. Chang, and S. G. Louie, Coupling of nonlocal potentials to electromagnetic fields, Physical Review Letters87, 087402 (2001)

    work page 2001

  71. [71]

    Specifically,α= Tr(D R)/ p Tr(DL)2 + Tr(DR)2 and β= Tr(D L)/ p Tr(DL)2 + Tr(DR)2, whereTris the trace andD L,D R are the matrices ofv L,v R in the {|0⟩,|1⟩,|2⟩,|3⟩}basis set

    work page

  72. [72]

    Voisin, V.-H

    B. Voisin, V.-H. Nguyen, J. Renard, X. Jehl, S. Bar- raud, F. Triozon, M. Vinet, I. Duchemin, Y.-M. Niquet, S. de Franceschi, and M. Sanquer, Few-electron edge- state quantum dots in a silicon nanowire field-effect tran- sistor, Nano Letters14, 2094 (2014)

    work page 2094