Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Shuttling a spin qubit back and forth turns the electron into a scanning probe that locates individual charge defects in silicon devices.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 06:53 UTC pith:3DINGKKO

load-bearing objection A genuinely new shuttling-based defect-localization protocol with a clean forward model, but the practical claim rests on noiseless simulations without any measurement-budget or inversion analysis. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21718 v1 pith:3DINGKKO submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Electron shuttling as a probe for charge defects

Hamza Jnane , Tamas Daniel Lipovics , Guido Burkard This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords electron shuttlingspin qubitcharge noisetwo-level fluctuatordefect localisationdephasingsiliconRamsey interferometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper shows that a single shuttled electron can act as a scanning probe for charge defects. By measuring how much a spin qubit dephases as it is shuttled over increasing distances, one can read off the position of a two-level fluctuator, its switching rate, and its fluctuation amplitude. The authors derive analytical expressions for the dephasing factor in the static and fast-fluctuation limits, verify them numerically in the intermediate regime, and show the signal survives realistic interface roughness. If correct, the protocol offers a scalable, hardware-free way to map the charge-defect landscape of large silicon devices, enabling defect-aware calibration and avoidance.

Core claim

The central claim is that the average dephasing factor W(T)=E[exp(-iφ1(T))] of a spin qubit shuttled forward and backward along a one-dimensional channel encodes the location of a nearby charge defect. When the infidelity 1-|W(T)| is plotted against the shuttling distance L, the curve exhibits a kink at the defect's mean position x0, followed by a plateau in the intermediate switching regime. The kink arises from the position-dependent g-factor shift induced by the defect's electric field; the plateau reflects the switching of the defect destroying the interference between the two encounters. Fitting this curve yields the defect's position, switching rate γ, and fluctuation amplitude.

What carries the argument

The dephasing factor W(T)=E[exp(-iφ1(T))], Eq. (6), governed by the coupled differential equations (9) whose rates f±(t) are the instantaneous electric-field-induced g-factor shifts as the electron passes the defect positions r±_d. In the static limit the dephasing factor factorizes into a cosine of the phase difference, producing the kink; in the fast-fluctuation limit it becomes an exponential of the time-integrated squared difference of the two rates, producing a monotonic curve.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted dephasing signal is strong enough to be resolved above the measurement noise floor of a real Ramsey/shuttling experiment.

What would settle it

Run the shuttling protocol on a device with an independently characterised defect (e.g., located by cross-correlation or controlled fabrication). If the infidelity-versus-L curve shows no kink at the known defect position, or if the experimental scatter swamps the 10^-5 to 10^-2 signal, the central claim is falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A single shuttling experiment over a range of distances can recover the position of a defect along the shuttling axis with no additional hardware.
  • The protocol also constrains the defect's switching rate and fluctuation amplitude by fitting the infidelity-versus-distance curve.
  • The method extends to multiple defects, provided they are well separated, and to fluctuations in all three spatial directions.
  • Realistic Si/SiO2 interface roughness reduces sensitivity but does not destroy the localisation signal for RMS roughness up to about 0.4 nm.
  • Because one electron sweeps an extended region, the measurement cost does not scale with device size the way multi-dot correlation methods do.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the kink survives real measurement noise, this could become a standard calibration step: run a shuttling sweep, fit the curve, and build a defect map that can be used to route qubits around bad regions.
  • The same technique might be adapted to other semiconductor platforms wherever the g-factor couples to the local electric field, such as Si/SiGe or III-V channels.
  • The forward-wait-backward and forward-wait-forward variants could trade a stronger signal for a longer experimental sequence; the relative sensitivity depends on pause time and could be optimised per device.
  • One testable extension: the plateau height in the intermediate regime should scale predictably with γ and the pass geometry, so measuring at two speeds could resolve the switching rate without a separate noise spectroscopy step.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a protocol to localize individual two-level fluctuators (TLFs) along an electron-shuttling channel. A spin qubit is shuttled back and forth over a distance L while its accumulated phase is averaged over TLF configurations. The central object is the dephasing factor W(T)=E[e^{-iφ_1}] defined in Eq. (6). The authors derive a system of ODEs for the phase-averaged quantities, Eq. (9), obtain analytic expressions in the static (γT<<1, Eq. (13)) and fast-fluctuation (γT>>1, Eq. (15)) limits, and solve the intermediate regime numerically, checking the solver against Monte Carlo simulations of the same model. They argue that a kink or plateau in the infidelity 1-|W(T)| versus L encodes the defect position, switching rate, and fluctuation amplitude. Extensions to rough interfaces, alternative protocols, and multiple defects are also presented.

Significance. The forward model is clean and internally consistent: the ODE derivation in Appendix B is straightforward, the limiting forms are sensible, and the Monte Carlo comparison validates the numerical implementation of the model. If the predicted signatures are experimentally resolvable, the protocol would offer a simple, scalable way to map charge defects in shuttling-based silicon devices. However, the central claim as stated in the abstract — that one can 'localise defects and constrain their switching rate and fluctuation amplitude' — is currently supported only by noiseless forward calculations. No measurement-noise model, shot budget, or parameter-inversion analysis is supplied. The paper is therefore a promising theoretical proposal rather than a demonstrated practical protocol.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, 'Numerical simulations' (Eq. 9, Fig. 2)] The claim that 'by fitting this curve to an experiment one could recover the amplitude and switching rate of the defect' is asserted but not demonstrated. The manuscript shows only forward curves 1-|W(T)| computed from known inputs. There is no inversion, no fit of synthetic data, and no identifiability check. Since the infidelity depends on combinations of σ', v, x0, x1, and transverse distances (see Eq. (13) and Table I), it is not evident that a measured curve uniquely determines the TLF parameters. Please add a parameter-estimation study, even on noiseless synthetic data, or weaken the claim to sensitivity rather than recovery.
  2. [Fig. 2 and protocol description] The predicted signals are extremely small: the useful feature at x0≈500 nm lies in the 10^-5–10^-2 range, while the curves extend to 10^-14, and the red-shaded regions in Figs. 2 and 5 are clipped because of numerical precision. The paper provides no measurement-noise model or shot budget. For a Ramsey-contrast measurement with |W| near 1, the estimation error of the infidelity δ is at least O(1/√N) for a two-quadrature contrast fit and O(√(δ/N)) for an optimally biased measurement; resolving δ≈10^-3 can require 10^3–10^6 shots per L point depending on the estimator. Without specifying N, readout fidelity, and acquisition time, the experimental observability of the kink used for localization is unestablished.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A5)] The value σ'≈3186 nm²/µs is derived from material parameters (Rashba α', Dresselhaus β', confinement field F_z) without propagated uncertainty. The infidelity scales as σ'^2 in the fast-fluctuation limit (Eq. (15)) and similarly in the static limit; a 3–10× smaller σ' would reduce the signal by one to two orders of magnitude, likely pushing the feature below realistic experimental sensitivity. A sensitivity analysis over the plausible range of α', β', and F_z should be included.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Grammar: 'existing methods to localise them does not scale' should read 'do not scale'.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] The derivation of Eq. (B3) drops terms of order dt^2 without explicitly saying so before the expansion. The presentation would be clearer if the first-order-in-dt approximation were stated before the decomposition.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The infidelity expression 1-|cos((Φ+-Φ-)/2)| is correct only after factoring out the common phase; this is implicitly done but could be stated explicitly.
  4. [Appendix A, Table II] There is a typo in reference [49]: 'M. Velcxdhorst' should be 'M. Veldhorst'.
  5. [Abstract / Conclusions] The claim that the approach 'scales more favourably than previous methods' is not quantified. A brief scaling argument comparing the number of measurements to device size would strengthen the paper.
  6. [Fig. 5] The statement in the main text that 'we are still able to detect the position of the TLF for each direction' is stronger than what Fig. 5 shows for the z-direction, where the signal reaches the clipped 10^-14 floor. A more cautious wording would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the dephasing factor is a forward calculation from stated model parameters; self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: W(T)=E[exp(-i phi1(T))] is defined in Eq. (6), evolved under the Markov-switching system Eq. (9) derived in Appendix B, and reduced in the limiting regimes to closed forms Eqs. (13) and (15). All parameters in Table I are simulation inputs, not fitted to the outcome; the infidelity kink at x0 is a computed feature of the forward model rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Monte Carlo agreement provides internal consistency, not independent empirical confirmation, but this is a validation limitation, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 7, 19, 21, 30) appear only for device context or architectural motivation and do not carry the derivation; the g-factor input in Appendix A rests on external work (Ruskov et al. [48]). No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-by-citation, or definitional identification of input with output occurs. The unquantified experimental observability of the 10^-5 to 10^-2 infidelity features is a practical concern separate from circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The protocol rests on the standard TLF picture, a linear g-factor response to electric fields, and the assumption that the small phase shifts survive measurement noise. All numerical constants are inputs from prior literature or chosen realistic values; no new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • σ' (TLF-to-g-factor coupling) = ≈3186 nm²/µs for Table II parameters
    Sets the overall scale of dephasing. Derived in Appendix A from Ruskov et al. [48] with Rashba/Dresselhaus couplings estimated from [49], Fz=30 MV/m and B0=1 T chosen by hand; parameter errors are not propagated.
  • TLF simulation parameters (x0,y0,z0), (x1,y1,z1), γ = (500,10,0.5) nm; (5,5,1) nm; 1 MHz
    Chosen as 'realistic' from Quantum Motion measurements and assumptions (Table I, Appendix D). They are not fitted in this paper but set the simulated truth; the protocol's ability to recover them is asserted, not demonstrated.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The g-factor shift produced by a TLF is proportional to the z-component of its electric field, g_TLF(t)=σ z_d(t)/|r(t)-r_d(t)|^3 (Eq. 1).
    Central sensing mechanism. Appendix A derives σ from a linear spin-orbit model of Ruskov [48] with estimated α′, β′; assumes linear response and a point-charge TLF.
  • domain assumption The TLF switches between two positions r_d^± = r0 ± r1 with a single Poisson rate γ from a symmetric double-well configuration.
    Standard TLF model (refs 26-28); used in Eqs. (8)-(9) and Appendix B. The symmetry of rates and amplitudes is assumed throughout.
  • domain assumption g_int(t)=0 (flat interface) in the main derivation; roughness is added only as a static geometric modulation of the electron's z-coordinate.
    Main text 'We thus assume that the interface is flat, yielding g_int(t)=0'; the roughness section modulates z-position but not the dynamical g_int contribution.
  • domain assumption The dephasing factor W(t)=E[exp(-iφ1(t))] is the observable, measured with a Ramsey-like experiment with no other decoherence sources.
    Defined in Eq. (6); the paper does not model T2*, readout noise, or additional decoherence during shuttling.
  • standard math For γT≫1, u2 can be adiabatically eliminated and γ≫|fbar|,|δf|.
    Justified approximation in Appendix B.3 yielding Eq. (15); standard singular-perturbation step, not independently benchmarked.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14381 in / 17680 out tokens · 169898 ms · 2026-08-01T06:53:35.388609+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Silicon spin qubits are a leading platform for scalable quantum computing, but their performance is limited by charge noise, widely attributed to two-level fluctuators (TLFs). The location of individual TLFs is generally unknown, and existing methods to localise them does not scale favourably with device size. Here, we show that electron shuttling turns a single mobile spin into a scanning probe of individual defects. We show that by shuttling a spin over a range of distances and tracking its coherence loss, one can localise defects along the channel and constrain their switching rate and fluctuation amplitude. Because one shuttled electron sweeps an extended region, the approach scales more favourably than previous methods. Our protocol requires no additional hardware and provides a practical route to mapping the charge-defect landscape of large silicon devices, enabling defect-aware calibration and avoidance in shuttling-based architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21718 by Guido Burkard, Hamza Jnane, Tamas Daniel Lipovics.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustration of shuttling-based defect probing. An electron is shuttled back and forth in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Infidelity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Top) Evolution of the infidelity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Infidelity with respect to shuttling distance when the TLF is fluctuating in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Infidelity with respect to shuttling distance when the TLF is fluctuating in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Infidelity versus shuttling distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Maurand, X

    R. Maurand, X. Jehl, D. Kotekar-Patil, A. Corna, H. Bo- huslavskyi, R. Laviéville, L. Hutin, S. Barraud, M. Vinet, M. Sanquer, and S. De Franceschi, A CMOS silicon spin qubit, Nature Communications7, 13575 EP (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, S. de Franceschi, E. Charbon, T. Meunier, M. Vinet, and A. S. Dzurak, Scaling silicon- based quantum computing using CMOS technology, Na- ture Electronics4, 872 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    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. Mueller, S. Neyens, J. Roberts, N. Samkharadze, G. Zheng, O. K. Zietz, G. Scappucc...

    2022

  4. [4]

    J. F. Chittock-Wood, R. C. C. Leon, M. A. Foga- rty, T. Murphy, S. M. Patomäki, G. A. Oakes, F.- E. von Horstig, N. Johnson, J. Jussot, S. Kubicek, B. Govoreanu, D. F. Wise, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, and J. J. L. Morton, Exchange control in a MOS double quan- tum dot made using a 300 mm wafer process (2024), arXiv:2408.01241 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    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. ...

    2025

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    Takeda, T

    Y.-H.Wu, L.C.Camenzind, P.Bütler, I.K.Jin, A.Noiri, K. Takeda, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, G. Scap- pucci, H.-S. Goan, and S. Tarucha, Simultaneous high- fidelity single-qubit gates in a spin qubit array (2025), arXiv:2507.11918 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

    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

  11. [11]

    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

  12. [12]

    Lainé, G

    C. Lainé, G. A. Oakes, V. Ciriano-Tejel, J. F. Chittock- Wood, L. Peri, M. A. Fogarty, S. M. Patomäki, S. Ku- bicek, D. F. Wise, R. C. C. Leon, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, and J. J. L. Morton, High-fidelity dispersive spin sens- ing in a tuneable unit cell of silicon MOS quantum dots (2025), arXiv:2505.10435 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Takeda, A

    K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, L. C. Camen- zind, T. Kobayashi, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and 6 S. Tarucha, Rapid single-shot parity spin readout in a silicon double quantum dot with fidelity exceeding 99%, npj Quantum Information10, 22 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Yoneda, W

    J. Yoneda, W. Huang, M. Feng, C. H. Yang, K. W. Chan, T. Tanttu, W. Gilbert, R. C. C. Leon, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, S. D. Bartlett, A. Laucht, A. Saraiva, and A. S. Dzurak, Coherent spin qubit transport in silicon, Nature Communications12, 10.1038/s41467-021-24371-7 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24371-7 2021

  15. [15]

    Seidler, T

    I. Seidler, T. Struck, R. Xue, N. Focke, S. Trellenkamp, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Conveyor-mode single- electron shuttling in Si/SiGe for a scalable quantum computing architecture, npj Quantum Information8, 10.1038/s41534-022-00615-2 (2022)

    doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00615-2 2022

  16. [16]

    M. D. Smet, Y. Matsumoto, A.-M. J. Zwerver, L. Try- puten, S. L. de Snoo, S. V. Amitonov, A. Sammak, N. Samkharadze, Önder Gül, R. N. M. Wasserman, M. Rimbach-Russ, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vander- sypen,High-fidelitysingle-spinshuttlinginsilicon(2024), arXiv:2406.07267 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    R. Xue, M. Beer, I. Seidler, S. Humpohl, J.-S. Tu, S. Trel- lenkamp, T. Struck, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Si/SiGe QuBus for single electron information-processing devices with memory and micron-scale connectivity func- tion, Nature Communications15, 2296 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Siegel, A

    A. Siegel, A. Strikis, and M. Fogarty, Towards early fault tolerance on a2×narray of qubits equipped with shut- tling, PRX Quantum5, 040328 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Siegel, Z

    A. Siegel, Z. Cai, H. Jnane, B. Koczor, S. Pexton, A. Strikis, and S. Benjamin, Quantum snakes on a plane: Mobile, low-dimensional logical qubits on a 2d surface, PRX Quantum7, 010339 (2026)

    2026

  20. [20]

    R. Li, L. Petit, D. P. Franke, J. P. Dehollain, J. Helsen, M. Steudtner, N. K. Thomas, Z. R. Yoscovits, K. J. Singh, S. Wehner, L. M. K. Vandersypen, J. S. Clarke, and M. Veldhorst, A crossbar network for silicon quan- tum dot qubits, Science Advances4, eaar3960 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aar3960

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar3960 2018

  21. [21]

    Z. Cai, A. Siegel, and S. Benjamin, Looped pipelines en- abling effective 3d qubit lattices in a strictly 2d device, PRX Quantum4, 10.1103/prxquantum.4.020345 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.4.020345 2023

  22. [22]

    Jnane, A

    H. Jnane, A. Siegel, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, Harness- ing electron motion for global spin qubit control (2025), arXiv:2503.12767 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    B. E. Kane, A silicon-based nuclear spin quantum com- puter, Nature393, 133 (1998)

    1998

  24. [24]

    K. M. Itoh and H. Watanabe, Isotope engineering of sil- icon and diamond for quantum computing and sensing applications, MRS Communications4, 143 (2014)

    2014

  25. [25]

    M. B. Weissman,1 f noise and other slow, nonexponential kinetics in condensed matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.60, 537 (1988)

    1988

  26. [26]

    P. W. Anderson, B. I. Halperin, and C. M. Varma, Anomalous low-temperature thermal prop- erties of glasses and spin glasses, The Philosoph- ical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical Ex- perimental and Applied Physics25, 1 (1972), https://doi.org/10.1080/14786437208229210

    doi:10.1080/14786437208229210 1972

  27. [27]

    W. A. Phillips, Tunneling states in amorphous solids, Journal of Low Temperature Physics7, 351 (1972)

    1972

  28. [28]

    F. Ye, A. Ellaboudy, D. Albrecht, R. Vudatha, N. T. Ja- cobson, and J. M. Nichol, Characterization of individual charge fluctuators in Si/SiGe quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B110, 235305 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    W. Goes, Y. Wimmer, A.-M. El-Sayed, G. Rzepa, M. Jech, A. Shluger, and T. Grasser, Identification of oxide defects in semiconductor devices: A systematic ap- proach linking dft to rate equations and experimental evidence, Microelectronics Reliability87(2018)

    2018

  30. [30]

    H.JnaneandS.C.Benjamin,Abinitiomodelingofquan- tumdotqubits: Coupling, gatedynamics, androbustness versus charge noise, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 044042 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    J. D. Cifuentes, P. Y. Mai, F. Schlattner, H. E. Ercan, M. Feng, C. C. Escott, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Saraiva, Path-integral simulation of exchange interactions in CMOS spin qubits, Phys. Rev. B108, 155413 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    M. M. E. K. Shehata, G. Simion, R. Li, F. A. Mo- hiyaddin, D. Wan, M. Mongillo, B. Govoreanu, I. Radu, K. De Greve, and P. Van Dorpe, Modeling semiconductor spin qubits and their charge noise environment for quan- tum gate fidelity estimation, Phys. Rev. B108, 045305 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Z. Cai, R. Babbush, S. C. Benjamin, S. Endo, W. J. Hug- gins, Y. Li, J. R. McClean, and T. E. O’Brien, Quantum error mitigation, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 045005 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Jeon and Z

    M. Jeon and Z. Cai, Quantum error correction on error-mitigated physical qubits (2026), arXiv:2601.18384 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    E. J. Connors, J. Nelson, H. Qiao, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Low-frequency charge noise in Si/SiGe quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B100, 165305 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    E. J. Connors, J. Nelson, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Charge-noise spectroscopy of Si/SiGe quantum dots via dynamically-decoupled exchange oscillations, Nature communications13, 940 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    Vigneau, F

    F. Vigneau, F. Fedele, A. Chatterjee, D. Reilly, F. Kuem- meth, M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba, E. Laird, and N. Ares, Probingquantumdeviceswithradio-frequencyreflectom- etry, Applied Physics Reviews10, 021305 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Mehmandoost and V

    M. Mehmandoost and V. V. Dobrovitski, Decoherence induced by a sparse bath of two-level fluctuators: Pe- culiar features of 1/f noise in high-quality qubits, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033175 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Nishi, K

    Y. Nishi, K. Tanaka, and A. Ohwada, Study of silicon- silicon dioxide structure by electron spin resonance ii, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics11, 85 (1972)

    1972

  40. [40]

    However, the defects we are interested in sit at a buried interface or in the bulk

    and tip-induced mobile quantum dots [41] map de- fect positions directly, but only on an open device face. However, the defects we are interested in sit at a buried interface or in the bulk. Most recently, Rojas-Ariaset al

  41. [41]

    Cakar, H

    E. Cakar, H. E. Ercan, G. Fuchs, A. O. Denisov, C. R. Anderson, M. F. Gyure, and J. R. Petta, Toward utiliz- ing scanning gate microscopy as a high-resolution probe of valley splitting in Si/SiGe heterostructures, Applied Physics Letters125, 143504 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Here, we propose to use a single mobile quantum dot to probe charge defects across large sections of a device

    located charge defects from noise cross-correlations between multiple quantum dots, but the number of mea- surements required scales with device size. Here, we propose to use a single mobile quantum dot to probe charge defects across large sections of a device. By leveraging electron shuttling, we show that one can ob- tain properties of TLFs along the sh...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Pitters, J

    J. Pitters, J. Croshaw, R. Achal, L. Livadaru, S. Ng, R. Lupoiu, T. Chutora, T. Huff, K. Walus, and R. A. Wolkow,Atomicallyprecisemanufacturingofsiliconelec- tronics, ACS Nano18, 6766 (2024), pMID: 38376086, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.3c10412

    doi:10.1021/acsnano.3c10412 2024

  44. [44]

    J. S. Rojas-Arias, A. Noiri, J. Yoneda, P. Stano, T. Nakajima, K. Takeda, T. Kobayashi, G. Scappucci, S. Tarucha, and D. Loss, Inferring charge-noise source lo- cations from correlations in spin qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 027001 (2026)

    2026

  45. [45]

    Volmer, T

    M. Volmer, T. Struck, A. Sala, B. Chen, M. Ober- länder, T. Offermann, R. Xue, L. Visser, J.-S. Tu, S. Trellenkamp, Ł. Cywiński, H. Bluhm, and L. R. Schreiber, Mapping of valley splitting by conveyor-mode spin-coherent electron shuttling, npj Quantum Informa- tion10, 61 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    Volmer, T

    M. Volmer, T. Struck, A. Sala, J.-S. Tu, S. Trel- 7 lenkamp, D. D. Esposti, G. Scappucci, H. Bluhm, L. R. Schreiber,et al.,Mappingg-factorsandcomplexinterval- ley coupling in si/sige by conveyor-mode shuttling, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01844 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    A. S. Mokeev, Y.-N. Zhang, and V. V. Dobrovitski, Mod- eling of decoherence and fidelity enhancement during transport of entangled qubits (2024), arXiv:2409.04404 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Bergli, Y

    J. Bergli, Y. M. Galperin, and B. L. Altshuler, Decoher- ence in qubits due to low-frequency noise, New Journal of Physics11, 025002 (2009)

    2009

  49. [49]

    J. J. Turner, C. W. Binder, G. Burkard, and A. J. Fisher, Modelling the impact of device imperfections on elec- tron shuttling in simos devices (2025), arXiv:2512.03853 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Ruskov, M

    R. Ruskov, M. Veldhorst, A. S. Dzurak, and C. Tahan, Electron g-factor of valley states in realistic silicon quantum dots, Physical Review B98, 10.1103/phys- revb.98.245424 (2018)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2018

  51. [51]

    Ferdous, K

    R. Ferdous, K. W. Chan, M. Velcxdhorst, J. C. C. Hwang, C. H. Yang, H. Sahasrabudhe, G. Klimeck, A. Morello, A. S. Dzurak, and R. Rahman, Interface- induced spin-orbit interaction in silicon quantum dots and prospects for scalability, Phys. Rev. B97, 241401 (2018)

    2018

  52. [52]

    Dexter, B

    R. Dexter, B. Lax, A. Kip, and G. Dresselhaus, Effective masses of electrons in silicon, Physical Review96, 222 (1954)

    1954

  53. [53]

    Ghahramani and M

    Z. Ghahramani and M. Jordan, Factorial hidden Markov models, Advances in neural information processing sys- tems8(1995)

    1995

  54. [54]

    A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin, Maxi- mum likelihood from incomplete data via the em algo- rithm, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)39, 1 (1977)

    1977

  55. [55]

    Electron shuttling as a probe for charge defects

    E. H. Poindexter, P. J. Caplan, B. E. Deal, and R. R. Razouk, Interface states and electron spin resonance cen- ters in thermally oxidized (111) and (100) silicon wafers, Journal of Applied Physics52, 879 (1981). 8 Appendices for “Electron shuttling as a probe for charge defects” Appendix A: Impact of a TLF on the g-factor In Eq. (3) we assumed that theg-...

    1981

  56. [56]

    Suppose that we start with the TLF inr+ d at timetand consider what could happen during the interval[t, t+dt]

    Derivation of the dephasing factor In this section, we derive an analytical model forW(T). Suppose that we start with the TLF inr+ d at timetand consider what could happen during the interval[t, t+dt]. Letγbe the switching rate; we have the following two scenarios: Either no jump occurred in the interval, which happens with probabilityexp(−γdt), or a jump...

  57. [57]

    The factor2comes from the fact that the two integrals are equal

    TheγT≪1limit WhenγT≪1, the system of equations can be rewritten as two independent differential equations, dw+ dt (t) =−if +(t)w+(t), dw− dt (t) =−if −(t)w−(t),(B7) which gives us w+(T) =w +(0) exp −i Z T 0 f+(τ)dτ ! , w−(T) =w −(0) exp −i Z T 0 f−(τ)dτ ! .(B8) 10 More precisely, Z T 0 f±(τ)dτ=σ ′ Z T /2 0 z0 ±z 1 ((vτ−x 0 ∓x 1)2 + (y0 ±y 1)2 + (z0 ±z 1)2...

  58. [58]

    AsγT≫1, we can see thatu 2 will decay extremely fast, we can thus assume thatdu2 dt = 0

    TheγT≫1limit In this regime, we have, du1 dt (t) =−i ¯f(t)u 1(t)−iδf(t)u 2(t), du2 dt (t) =−i ¯f(t)u 2(t)−iδf(t)u 1(t)−2γu 2(t),(B12) whereu 1 =w + +w −,u 2 =w + −w −, ¯f(t) = 1/2(f +(t) +f −(t))andδf(t) = 1/2(f +(t)−f −(t)). AsγT≫1, we can see thatu 2 will decay extremely fast, we can thus assume thatdu2 dt = 0. This leads to, u2(t) =− iδf(t) i ¯f(t) + 2...