Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 72 references

Modular Autonomous Virtualization System for Two-Dimensional Semiconductor Quantum Dot Arrays

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MAViS autonomously extracts all relative capacitive couplings from two-dimensional charge stability diagrams and builds a five-layer stack of virtual gates that makes a ten-dot germanium quantum dot array immune to capacitive crosstalk.

desk verdict Strong engineering demonstration of automated multi-layer virtual gates on a 2D Ge array; the main caveats are validation via the same ML feature extractor and a simulation that needs an inserted error. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12516 v2 pith:X45RAEWC submitted 2024-11-19 cond-mat.mes-hall cs.CVcs.ETcs.LGquant-ph

Anantha S. Rao , Donovan Buterakos , Barnaby van Straaten , Valentin John , Cécile X. Yu , Stefan D. Oosterhout , Lucas Stehouwer , Giordano Scappucci
show 3 more authors
Menno Veldhorst Francesco Borsoi Justyna P. Zwolak
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcs.CVcs.ETcs.LGquant-ph
keywords quantumdotarraysvirtualgatescapacitivecrosstalkchargestabilitydiagramsmachinelearningautonomoustuninggermaniumholequbitsspinqubitcontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

MAViS is a modular, autonomous pipeline that takes raw voltage scans of a multi-gate quantum dot device and returns a complete set of virtual gates whose cross-capacitance to every other gate has been measured and compensated. The central claim is that all relative capacitive couplings can be extracted from two-dimensional charge stability diagrams by a machine-learning pixel classifier followed by Hough-transform and regression analysis, and that these couplings can be stacked into five nested virtual-gate layers. The claim is supported by a demonstration on a dense two-dimensional array of ten germanium quantum dots, where the full stack is completed in about five hours. If the method holds, the long manual calibration step that currently blocks scaling of spin-qubit arrays becomes an automated routine.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the five-layer virtual gate stack of Eqs. (1)–(5), a set of nested linear and one quadratically corrected coordinate transforms that map physical plunger and barrier voltages to virtual gates that independently control chemical potentials, charging voltages, and tunnel couplings. Feature extraction is carried by an ensemble of five convolutional pixel classifiers that operate on preprocessed 32x32 gradient crops, with sliding-window averaging and dynamic thresholding of interdot probabilities. The slopes and positions of the charge transition lines are then converted into matrix elements by a squared Hough transform, with local tracking for OFF-regime barriers and global quadratic fitting for ON-regime barriers.

What would settle it

Acquire a set of CSDs on a device whose true gate-to-dot lever arms are known independently, such as from Coulomb-peak tracking without the ML classifier, and run MAViS's layer-2 slope extraction on the same data; if the Hough-transform slopes from ML labels deviate from the independent lever arms by more than the quoted error bars, the virtualization matrix is biased at its source. Equivalently, on a simulated device with known capacitances, add latching and sensor noise, run MAViS, and compare every extracted matrix to ground truth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a five-layer virtualization stack, consisting of sensor compensation ($M_1$), plunger orthogonalization ($M_2$), plunger normalization ($M_3$), coarse barrier virtualization in the weak-coupling regime ($M_4$), and fine barrier virtualization with quadratic corrections in the strong-coupling regime ($M_5$, Eq. (5)), can be built end-to-end without human intervention. Each matrix is determined from the same ML-labelled charge stability diagrams: transition-line slopes give plunger couplings, and interdot positions give barrier couplings. The demonstration on a 3-4-3 ten-dot Ge/SiGe array shows that after applying the stack, CSD honeycombs stay fixed when virtual plungers are swept and virtual barriers are pulsed over 100 mV ranges, including the beyond-linear regime where OFF-regime compensation alone fails.

Load-bearing premise

The entire stack relies on the machine-learning pixel classifier, trained only on simulated one-dimensional electron charge stability diagrams, correctly labelling horizontal and vertical transitions and interdot corners in experimental two-dimensional germanium hole images that include noise and latching; every extracted capacitance matrix inherits those labels, and the before/after validation uses the same classifier, so a systematic labelling error would be baked into both sides.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Virtual plunger gates obtained from Eq. (2) make the CSD honeycombs orthogonal, giving independent chemical-potential control at each dot site.
  • Uniform charging voltages from Eq. (3) let all detuning and total-energy axes be defined with a single 45-degree rotation matrix.
  • Virtual barriers from Eq. (4) hold charge states at the honeycomb center in the weak-coupling regime, verified over plus or minus 10 mV barrier steps.
  • Equation (5)'s quadratic corrections hold the charge state fixed over 100 mV-scale barrier pulses in the strong-coupling regime, addressing a failure mode of purely linear virtualization.
  • Because the pixel classifiers trained on simulated 1D electron data label 2D germanium hole CSDs without retraining, the framework is transferable to other device geometries and materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same CSD feature labels could be reused to automate the preceding step of bringing a cold device into the few-hole regime, since MAViS already detects transition lines and honeycomb corners; the paper stops at virtualization of pretuned arrays.
  • Layer 5's quadratic fits suggest that a barrier-voltage-dependent capacitance, not just fixed cross-capacitance, governs strong coupling; this can be tested by measuring lever arms at several barrier voltages and checking the predicted quadratic coefficient.
  • For larger arrays the nearest-neighbor truncation used here is built on an assumption about how fast cross-capacitance decays; measuring couplings to third-nearest neighbors on a bigger device would bound the error from truncation.
  • The roughly 5-hour wall-clock time (about 2 hours 15 minutes when accounting for oversampling) implies that full virtualization could be repeated frequently enough to track slow gate drift, something the paper does not explicitly exploit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MAViS, a modular automated framework that constructs a five-layer stack of virtual gates for semiconductor quantum dot (QD) arrays. A convolutional neural network pixel-classifier ensemble, trained only on simulated 1D electron-nanowire charge stability diagrams (CSDs), identifies horizontal, vertical, and interdot transition features in experimental 2D germanium hole CSDs. Hough transforms and regression on these ML labels produce virtual matrices for charge-sensor compensation, plunger orthogonalization, plunger normalization, barrier coarse virtualization, and barrier fine virtualization (Eqs. 1-5). The method is demonstrated on a ten-dot Ge/SiGe array in a 3-4-3 layout, with the full charge-state virtualization reported to take about 5 hours. Validation consists of before/after CSDs, convergence of correction rounds, and R2 values for honeycomb-center trajectories.

Significance. If the validation gap is closed, this is a valuable contribution: it is, to my knowledge, the first demonstration of a complete multi-layer virtual-gate stack on a dense 2D ten-dot array, with clean modularity (Table I), a linear-scaling argument in the Supplemental Material, and a realistic autonomous calibration time of about 5 hours. The open dataset and the use of the open-source QArray simulator for the qualitative ON-regime analysis strengthen reproducibility. The main weakness is that the evaluation of the central claim is entangled with the same ML feature extractor used to construct the gates; the convergence statistics in the Supplemental Material (mean corrections -0.07(8), -0.002(36), -0.007(34)) are useful but are computed in the same label space and therefore do not break that entanglement. The issue is an empirical validation gap rather than a formal circularity in the derivation, but it is load-bearing for the claim of cross-talk-free control.

major comments (2)
  1. [Secs. IIC, IIIB-IIIC, Figs. 3-4] The central claim that MAViS delivers cross-talk-free virtual gates is validated only through the same ML feature extractor that builds the gates. The plunger slopes entering Eq. (2) and the interdot positions entering Eqs. (4)-(5) come from the pixel-classifier ensemble of Sec. IIC, and the before/after CSDs in Figs. 3-4 are evaluated with the same ensemble. Because the classifier is trained exclusively on simulated 1D electron-nanowire CSDs (Sec. IIC), a systematic bias on experimental Ge hole CSDs (e.g., a consistent misclassification of latching lines or a shifted interdot center) would enter every matrix and would not be exposed by the before/after comparison. The paper acknowledges classifier errors in Sec. IV, but it provides no ML-free cross-check. I recommend adding an independent validation: manual labels on a random subset of CSDs, a classical edge-detection or cross-correlation slope estimate, or an independent Coulomb-peak/transport measurement, and reporting the resulting uncertainty in the entries of M2 through M5.
  2. [Sec. IIE and Fig. 3(f)] The missing-interdot fallback in Sec. IIE is likely to bias the OFF-regime barrier coefficients. When the classifier fails to identify an interdot, the coordinates from the previous scan are used; in the local-tracking calculation, this assigns a zero displacement to that interdot for that barrier step, pulling the mean pairwise-distance distribution toward zero and underestimating the cross-capacitance coefficients. The histogram in Fig. 3(f) may contain such zero-displacement points inside the dashed box used for the fit. Please report how often the fallback is triggered and quantify the resulting bias, or replace it with an imputation that does not assume zero shift (e.g., excluding the point and reweighting the remaining ones).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IIC] The phrase "refereed to as interdots hereon" should be "referred to as interdots hereon", and the term "interdot" should be defined at first use.
  2. [Sec. III.B and Fig. 2(d)-(e)] The text says "see the right-hand panel in Fig. 2(d)" for the orthogonalization matrix and later "see the right-hand panel in Fig. 2(d) for M^{-1}_3"; the orthogonalization matrix actually appears in the left-hand panel of Fig. 2(d), and the normalization matrix appears in Fig. 2(e).
  3. [Sec. IIA and Fig. 4(f)-(g)] Fig. 4(f) plots sqrt(alpha) rather than alpha, and the text states that the square root of the quadratic and linear coefficients are of the same order; please state the units and explain why sqrt(alpha) is the plotted quantity.
  4. [Appendix A] The simulation in Appendix A intentionally uses a non-optimal linear coefficient (-0.96 instead of 1.00) to reproduce the experimental quadratic trend, so the appendix is a qualitative consistency check rather than a predictive validation; this should be stated near Eq. (5) or in Sec. IV.
  5. [Sec. IV] The phrases "complete stack" and "full virtualization" should be qualified, since compensation for exchange couplings is explicitly left for future work; the abstract's "full charge-state virtualization" is more precise and should be used consistently.
  6. [Supplemental Material, Table 1] Layer 5 lists 1,440 total measurements, but the text says O(10) samples are sufficient in practice; please add a sentence clarifying which number is used in the 5 h 17 min and 2 h 15 min totals.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Plunger and barrier virtualization are calibrated from ML-extracted features and then validated with the same ML feature extractor, so the orthogonality and charge-stationarity checks are partly forced by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II D (Eqs. (2), (7)) and Sec. III B, Fig. 2(d)]
    "The inverses of the slopes define the elements of the orthogonalization matrix; see the right-hand panel in Fig. 2(d). When scanning the newly defined virtual plunger gates (Oi, Oj), with i, j∈ [1, . . . ,10], the honeycomb diagrams display orthogonal transition lines confirming the individual control of each plunger to the corresponding QD, as shown in the left-hand panel in Fig. 2(d)."

    M2 is computed from the slopes of transition lines detected by the ML pixel classifier followed by a Hough transform (Eq. (7)). The validation that the O-space honeycomb is orthogonal is obtained by running the same ML-plus-Hough pipeline on the newly acquired CSD. Any systematic angle bias in the classifier is absorbed into M2 and then re-read as orthogonality, so the confirmation is statistically forced by the construction rather than by an independent measurement of chemical potentials.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II E (Eq. (4)) and Sec. III C, Fig. 3]
    "When exploiting the set of virtual barriers J1, . . . ,J12, the honeycomb diagram shown in 2D CSDs remains fixed with respect to barrier voltage changes as shown in Fig. 3(b). The trajectory of the honeycombs and their centers, shown in Fig. 3(d), further validate the derived virtual barrier gates."

    The J coefficients are fit to the rate at which interdot positions, as localized by the same ML interdot detector, shift with barrier voltage. The validation then tracks the same interdot and honeycomb-center positions, with the same detector, after applying J. A systematic localization error (latching, false positives, threshold bias) enters both the fit and the check and cancels, so the observed stationary honeycomb is not an independent confirmation of barrier-to-plunger decoupling.

full rationale

The paper does not derive virtual-gate matrices from first principles; they are calibration fits to measured charge-stability-diagram features, so the core 'derivation-equals-input' pattern is absent. However, two validation claims reduce partly to their own construction: plunger orthogonalization is confirmed by re-running the same ML/Hough slope extractor that defined M2, and barrier virtualization is confirmed by re-tracking interdot positions with the same ML detector that supplied the fitted shifts. A systematic classifier bias would be invisible in both. The circularity is only partial: the pixel classifiers were pretrained on external simulated 1D electron data (Refs. [55,56]), the raw sensor CSDs provide some human-visible confirmation, and re-measurement after applying the matrices goes beyond the original fits. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [45,55]) are not load-bearing in a reductionist sense. Score 4 reflects one or more predictions that are partly forced by construction while the central calibration still has independent content.

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

The framework rests on locally linear virtual gate transformations (Eqs. (1)-(5)), trained-on-simulation ML feature extraction, and a sparse cross-capacitance assumption. The fitted numbers are calibration coefficients (layer 2-5 matrices, eta threshold, V_D target) plus Appendix A simulation constants, so the paper is claiming measurement, not prediction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Dynamic interdot threshold eta = 2.5-4 (set per map)
    Eq. (6): delta = mu + eta*sigma, with eta adjusted in the range (2.5,4) to identify at least the expected number of interdots. This is a hand-tuned detection threshold.
  • Target charging voltage V_D = 20 mV
    Layer 3 normalization sets the desired spacing between charge transitions to V_D = 20 mV. This is an operator-chosen target, not derived.
  • ON-regime compensation coefficients alpha, beta = Per-pair values, no error bars
    Eq. (5): coefficients alpha_ON and beta_ON are fitted to quadratic and linear curves of honeycomb center position versus barrier voltage (e.g., Fig. 4e). They are calibration parameters, not predictions.
  • Simulation error coefficient in Appendix A = -0.96 (vs. optimal 1.00)
    The QArray simulation includes a deliberately nonoptimal barrier virtualization coefficient against N2 so that the simulated quadratic trend matches the experimental one. This hand insertion makes the simulation a consistency check rather than an independent confirmation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Locally linear virtual gate model: within a fixed charge state, cross-capacitances are constant and virtual gates are linear combinations of physical gates.
    Sec. IIA, Eqs. (1)-(4). The authors state virtualization matrices are valid only locally because charging energy varies across charge states, and they add quadratic corrections in Eq. (5) for the ON regime.
  • domain assumption ML classifiers trained on simulated 1D electron nanowire CSDs transfer to experimental 2D germanium hole CSDs.
    Sec. IIC and Sec. IV. The CNN ensemble is trained exclusively on simulated data (Refs. [55,56]) and then applied to Ge hole data with latching and noise. All matrix extraction depends on this transfer.
  • domain assumption Cross-capacitances beyond nearest and next-nearest neighbors are negligible.
    Sec. IIA and SM Section 1. For example, the paper neglects P4-P2 and P4-P9 couplings and only considers nP-nearest neighbors in the plunger orthogonalization. If far couplings matter, the virtual matrices are incomplete.
  • domain assumption For nearly collinear transition lines, the Hough peak corresponding to individual transitions, not the composite line, gives the correct slope for orthogonalization.
    Sec. IID and Fig. 2(b,c). The algorithm is designed to prefer individual transition slopes, which the authors justify because composite slopes differ as interdot size increases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modular Autonomous Virtualization System for Two-Dimensional Semiconductor Quantum Dot Arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X45RAEWC

@misc{pith2026241112516,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modular Autonomous Virtualization System for Two-Dimensional Semiconductor Quantum Dot Arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X45RAEWC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12516}
}
read the original abstract

Arrays of gate-defined semiconductor quantum dots are among the leading candidates for building scalable quantum processors. High-fidelity initialization, control, and readout of spin qubit registers require exquisite and targeted control over key Hamiltonian parameters that define the electrostatic environment. However, due to the tight gate pitch, capacitive crosstalk between gates hinders independent tuning of chemical potentials and interdot couplings. While virtual gates offer a practical solution, determining all the required cross-capacitance matrices accurately and efficiently in large quantum dot registers is an open challenge. Here, we establish a modular automated virtualization system (MAViS) -- a general and modular framework for autonomously constructing a complete stack of multilayer virtual gates in real time. Our method employs machine learning techniques to rapidly extract features from two-dimensional charge stability diagrams. We then utilize computer vision and regression models to self-consistently determine all relative capacitive couplings necessary for virtualizing plunger and barrier gates in both low- and high-tunnel-coupling regimes. Using MAViS, we successfully demonstrate accurate virtualization of a dense two-dimensional array comprising ten quantum dots defined in a high-quality Ge/SiGe heterostructure. Our work offers an elegant and practical solution for the efficient control of large-scale semiconductor quantum dot systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12516 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Device architecture and virtualization workflow. (a) Layout of a ten-QD array based on a 3-4-3 geometry. Holes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plunger gates orthogonalization and normalization. (a) Exemplary charge stability diagram spanned by the sensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Barrier coarse virtualization (OFF regime). (a) Sequence of N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Barrier fine virtualization (ON regime). (a) Sequence of CSDs N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulated barrier virtualization in the ON regime, showing the widening of the interdot region and the quadratic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Burkard, T

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

    2023

  2. [2]

    Veldhorst, J

    M. Veldhorst, J. Hwang, C. Yang, A. Leenstra, B. de Ronde, J. Dehollain, J. Muhonen, F. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, A. t. Morello,et al., An addressable quan- tum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity, Nature nanotech. 9, 981 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Yoneda, K

    J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M. R. Delbecq, G. Allison, T. Honda, T. Kodera, S. Oda, Y. Hoshi, et al., A quantum-dot spin qubit with co- herence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%, Nature Nanotech.13, 102 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Takeda, A

    K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, J. Yoneda, 12 -20 0 20 J:(a) (b) 0 mV -20 mV -40 mV -60 mV -80 mV -100 mV 5 2 -20 0 20 -20 0 20 K: 0 mV -20 0 20 -20 mV -20 0 20 -40 mV -20 0 20 -60 mV -20 0 20 -80 mV -20 0 20 -100 mV 5 2 Simulated sensor value (arb. units) N1 (mV) N2 (mV) -20 0 20 -20 0 20 (c) -20 0 20 (d) N1 (mV) N1 (mV) N2 (mV) -100 -75 -50 -25 0 -2 0...

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    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, Nature 601, 338 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    S. G. J. Philips, M. T. Madzik, S. V. Amitonov, S. L. de Snoo, M. Russ, N. Kalhor, C. Volk, W. I. L. Lawrie, D. Brousse, L. Tryputen, et al., Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in silicon, Nature609, 919 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Zwerver, T

    A. Zwerver, T. Krähenmann, T. Watson, L. Lampert, H. C. George, R. Pillarisetty, S. Bojarski, P. Amin, S. Amitonov, J. Boter, et al., Qubits made by ad- vanced semiconductor manufacturing, Nat. Electron.5, 184 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    A. J. Weinstein, M. D. Reed, A. M. Jones, R. W. An- drews, D. Barnes, J. Z. Blumoff, L. E. Euliss, K. Eng, B. H. Fong, S. D. Ha, D. R. Hulbert,et al., Universal logic with encoded spin qubits in silicon, Nature 615, 817 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    M. D. Smet, Y. Matsumoto, A.-M. J. Zwerver, L. Try- puten, S. L. de Snoo, S. V. Amitonov, A. Sam- mak, N. Samkharadze, Ö. Gül, R. N. M. Wasser- man, et al., High-fidelity single-spin shuttling in silicon, arXiv:2406.07267 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. Y. Huang, R. Y. Su, W. H. Lim, M. Feng, B. van Straaten, B. Severin, W. Gilbert, N. Dumoulin Stuyck, T. Tanttu, S. Serrano,et al., High-fidelity spin qubit op- eration and algorithmic initialization above 1K, Nature 627, 772 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Neyens, O

    S. Neyens, O. K. Zietz, T. F. Watson, F. Luthi, A. Neth- wewala, H. C. George, E. Henry, M. Islam, A. J. Wagner, F. Borjans,et al., Probing single electrons across 300-mm spin qubit wafers, Nature629, 80 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    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, Nat. Commun.9, 3902 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Lodari, N

    M. Lodari, N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, T.-K. Hsiao, L. M. K. Vandersypen, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, and G. Scappucci, Low percolation density and charge noise with holes in germanium, Mater. Quantum Tech- nol. 1, 011002 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Sammak, D

    A. Sammak, D. Sabbagh, N. W. Hendrickx, M. Lodari, B. Paquelet Wuetz, A. Tosato, L. Yeoh, M. Bollani, 13 M. Virgilio, M. A. Schubert,et al., Shallow and Undoped Germanium Quantum Wells: A Playground for Spin and Hybrid Quantum Technology, Adv. Funct. Mater. 29, 1807613 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    N. W. Hendrickx, D. P. Franke, A. Sammak, M. Kouwen- hoven, D. Sabbagh, L. Yeoh, R. Li, M. L. V. Tagliaferri, M. Virgilio, G. Capellini, et al., Gate-controlled quan- tum dots and superconductivity in planar germanium, Nat. Commun. 9, 2835 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    L. E. A. Stehouwer, A. Tosato, D. Degli Esposti, D. Costa, M. Veldhorst, A. Sammak, and G. Scappucci, Germanium wafers for strained quantum wells with low disorder, Appl. Phys. Lett.123, 092101 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    van Riggelen, N

    F. van Riggelen, N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, M. Russ, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, A two-dimensional array of single-hole quantum dots, Appl. Phys. Lett. 118, 044002 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Borsoi, N

    F. Borsoi, N. W. Hendrickx, V. John, M. Meyer, S. Motz, F. van Riggelen, A. Sammak, S. L. de Snoo, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, Shared control of a 16 semicon- ductor quantum dot crossbar array, Nat. Nanotechnol. (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hsiao, P

    T.-K. Hsiao, P. Cova Fariña, S. D. Oosterhout, D. Jirovec, X. Zhang, C. J. van Diepen, W. I. L. Lawrie, C.-A. Wang, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci,et al., Exciton transport in a germanium quantum dot ladder, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011048 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    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, 580–585 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Zhang, E

    X. Zhang, E. Morozova, M. Rimbach-Russ, D. Jirovec, T.-K. Hsiao, P. C. Fariña, C.-A. Wang, S. D. Oosterhout, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, et al., Universal control of four singlet-triplet qubits, arXiv:2312.16101 (2023)

    2023

  16. [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. L. Lawrie,et al., Operating semi- conductor quantum processors with hopping spins, Sci- ence 385, 447 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    W. Ha, S. D. Ha, M. D. Choi, Y. Tang, A. E. Schmitz, M. P. Levendorf, K. Lee, J. M. Chappell, T. S. Adams, D. R. Hulbert,et al., A flexible design platform for si/sige exchange-only qubits with low disorder, Nano Lett.22, 1443 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    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,et al., 12-spin-qubit arrays fab- ricated on a 300 mm semiconductor manufacturing line, arXiv:2410.16583 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Durrer, B

    R. Durrer, B. Kratochwil, J. Koski, A. Landig, C. Re- ichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, and E. Greplova, Au- tomated tuning of double quantum dots into specific charge states using neural networks, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 054019 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    J. P. Zwolak, T. McJunkin, S. S. Kalantre, J. Dodson, E. R. MacQuarrie, D. Savage, M. Lagally, S. Copper- smith, M. A. Eriksson, and J. M. Taylor, Autotuning of double-dot devices in situ with machine learning, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 034075 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Ziegler, F

    J. Ziegler, F. Luthi, M. Ramsey, F. Borjans, G. Zheng, and J. P. Zwolak, Tuning arrays with rays: Physics- informedtuningofquantumdotchargestates,Phys.Rev. Appl. 20, 034067 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Zubchenko, D

    A. Zubchenko, D. Middlebrooks, T. Rasmussen, L. Lausen, F. Kuemmeth, A. Chatterjee, and J. P. Zwolak, Autonomous bootstrapping of quantum dot de- vices, arXiv:2407.20061 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    S. S. Kalantre, J. P. Zwolak, S. Ragole, X. Wu, N. M. Zimmerman, M. D. Stewart, and J. M. Taylor, Machine learning techniques for state recognition and auto-tuning in quantum dots, npj Quantum Inf.5, 1 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    J. P. Zwolak, T. McJunkin, S. S. Kalantre, S. F. Neyens, E. R. MacQuarrie, M. A. Eriksson, and J. M. Taylor, Ray-based framework for state identification in quantum dot devices, PRX Quantum2, 020335 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    J. P. Zwolak and J. M. Taylor,Colloquium: Advances in automation of quantum dot devices control, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 011006 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    H. Moon, D. T. Lennon, J. Kirkpatrick, N. M. van Es- broeck, L. C. Camenzind, L. Yu, F. Vigneau, D. M. Zum- bühl, G. A. D. Briggs, M. A. Osborne, D. Sejdinovic, et al., Machine learning enables completely automatic tuning of a quantum device faster than human experts, Nat. Com...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Ziegler, T

    J. Ziegler, T. McJunkin, E. S. Joseph, S. S. Kalantre, B. Harpt, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. A. Eriksson, J. M. Taylor, and J. P. Zwolak, Toward robust autotun- ing of noisy quantum dot devices, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 024069 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Loss and D

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

    1998

  29. [37]

    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 Quan- tum Inf. 3, 34 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Rimbach-Russ, S

    M. Rimbach-Russ, S. G. J. Philips, X. Xue, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Simple framework for systematic high- fidelity gate operations, Quantum Sci. Technol.8, 045025 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    J. K. Perron, M. D. Stewart Jr, and N. M. Zimmerman,A quantitative study of bias triangles presented in chemical potential space, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 27, 235302 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    Hensgens, T

    T. Hensgens, T. Fujita, L. Janssen, X. Li, C. J. Van Diepen, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, S. D. Sarma, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Quantum simulation of a fermi–hubbard model using a semiconductor quantum dot array, Nature548, 70 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Hensgens, Emulating Fermi-Hubbard physics with quantum dots: from few to more and how to, Ph.D

    T. Hensgens, Emulating Fermi-Hubbard physics with quantum dots: from few to more and how to, Ph.D. the- sis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    C. Volk, A. M. J. Zwerver, U. Mukhopadhyay, P. T. Een- debak, C. J. van Diepen, J. P. Dehollain, T. Hensgens, T. Fujita, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Van- dersypen, Loading a quantum-dot based “qubyte” regis- ter, npj Quantum Inf.5, 29 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    H. Qiao, Y. P. Kandel, K. Deng, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gard- ner, M. J. Manfra, E. Barnes, and J. M. Nichol, Coher- ent multispin exchange coupling in a quantum-dot spin chain, Phys. Rev. X10, 031006 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Hsiao, C

    T.-K. Hsiao, C. J. van Diepen, U. Mukhopadhyay, C. Re- ichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Effi- cient orthogonal control of tunnel couplings in a quantum dot array, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 054018 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Ziegler, F

    J. Ziegler, F. Luthi, M. Ramsey, F. Borjans, G. Zheng, 14 and J. P. Zwolak, Automated extraction of capacitive coupling for quantum dot systems, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 054077 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    G. A. Oakes, J. Duan, J. J. L. Morton, A. Lee, C. G. Smith, and M. F. G. Zalba, Automatic virtual voltage extraction of a 2x2 array of quantum dots with machine learning, arXiv:2012.03685 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. R. Mills, M. M. Feldman, C. Monical, P. J. Lewis, K.W.Larson, A.M.Mounce,andJ.R.Petta,Computer- automated tuning procedures for semiconductor quan- tum dot arrays, Appl. Phys. Lett.115, 113501 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Lapointe-Major, O

    M. Lapointe-Major, O. Germain, J. Camirand Lemyre, D. Lachance-Quirion, S. Rochette, F. Camirand Lemyre, and M. Pioro-Ladrière, Algorithm for automated tuning of a quantum dot into the single-electron regime, Phys. Rev. B 102, 085301 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    T. H. Oosterkamp, T. Fujisawa, W. G. van der Wiel, K. Ishibashi, R. V. Hijman, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Microwave spectroscopy of a quantum-dot molecule, Nature 395, 873 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    L. E. A. Stehouwer, C. X. Yu, B. van Straaten, A. Tosato, V. John, D. D. Esposti, A. Elsayed, D. Costa, S. D. Oosterhout, N. W. Hendrickx,et al., Exploiting epitaxial strained germanium for scaling low noise spin qubits at the micron-scale, arXiv:2411.11526 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    V. John, C. X. Yu, B. van Straaten, E. A. Rodríguez- Mena, M. Rodríguez, S. Oosterhout, L. E. A. 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:2412.16044 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Stehlik, Y.-Y

    J. Stehlik, Y.-Y. Liu, C. M. Quintana, C. Eichler, T. R. Hartke, and J. R. Petta, Fast charge sensing of a cavity- coupled double quantum dot using a josephson paramet- ric amplifier, Phys. Rev. Appl.4, 014018 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    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, Appl. Phys. Rev.10, 021305 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Chollet, Image segmentation with a U-Net-like archi- tecture (2019)

    F. Chollet, Image segmentation with a U-Net-like archi- tecture (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    J. P. Zwolak, S. S. Kalantre, X. Wu, S. Ragole, and J. M. Taylor, QFlow lite dataset: A machine-learning approach to the charge states in quantum dot experiments, PLoS ONE 13, e0205844 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Qflow 2.0: Quantum dot data for machine learning, Database: data.nist.gov, https://doi .org/10.18434/T4/ 1423788 (2022)

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Giusti, D

    A. Giusti, D. C. Cireşan, J. Masci, L. M. Gambardella, and J. Schmidhuber, Fast image scanning with deep max- pooling convolutional neural networks, in2013 IEEE in- ternational conference on image processing(IEEE, 2013) pp. 4034–4038

    2013

  50. [58]

    H. G. Gouk and A. M. Blake, Fast sliding window classi- fication with convolutional neural networks, inProceed- ings of the 29th International Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand(2014) pp. 114–118

    2014

  51. [59]

    However, thediagonaltransitionandnotransitionclasses are not relevant to the analysis

    By design, the pixel classifiers return five-class output. However, thediagonaltransitionandnotransitionclasses are not relevant to the analysis

  52. [60]

    See Supplemental Material for discussion of MAViS scal- ability and complexity as well as additional figures

  53. [61]

    T. Dvir, G. Wang, N. van Loo, C.-X. Liu, G. P. Mazur, A. Bordin, S. L. D. ten Haaf, J.-Y. Wang, D. van Driel, F. Zatelli,et al., Realization of a minimal kitaev chain in coupled quantum dots, Nature614, 445 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    S. L. D. ten Haaf, Q. Wang, A. M. Bozkurt, C.-X. Liu, I. Kulesh, P. Kim, D. Xiao, C. Thomas, M. J. Man- fra, T. Dvir, et al., A two-site kitaev chain in a two- dimensional electron gas, Nature630, 329 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Bordin, C.-X

    A. Bordin, C.-X. Liu, T. Dvir, F. Zatelli, S. L. D. ten Haaf, D. van Driel, G. Wang, N. van Loo, T. van Caeken- berghe, J. C. Wolff,et al., Signatures of majorana protec- tion in a three-site kitaev chain, arXiv:2402.19382 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    M. Hays, V. Fatemi, D. Bouman, J. Cerrillo, S. Diamond, K. Serniak, T. Connolly, P. Krogstrup, J. Nygård, A. L. Yeyati,et al., Coherent manipulation of an andreev spin qubit, Science 373, 430 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    Pita-Vidal, A

    M. Pita-Vidal, A. Bargerbos, R. Žitko, L. J. Splitthoff, L.Grünhaupt, J.J.Wesdorp, Y.Liu, L.P.Kouwenhoven, R. Aguado, B. van Heck,et al., Direct manipulation of a superconducting spin qubit strongly coupled to a trans- mon qubit, Nat. Phys.19, 1110 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Borsoi, K

    F. Borsoi, K. Zuo, S. Gazibegovic, R. L. M. Op het Veld, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, and S. Heedt, Transmission phase read-out of a large quantum dot in a nanowire interferometer, Nat. Commun.11, 3666 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Aghaee, A

    M. Aghaee, A. A. Ramirez, Z. Alam, R. Ali, M. Andrze- jczuk, A. Antipov, M. Astafev, A. Barzegar, B. Bauer, J. Becker,et al., Interferometric single-shot parity mea- surement in an inas-al hybrid device, arXiv:2401.09549 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    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

  61. [69]

    A. S. Rao, D. Buterakos, B. van Straaten, V. John, C. X. Yu, S. D. Oosterhout, L. Stehouwer, G. Scappucci, M.Veldhorst, F.Borsoi,andJ.P.Zwolak,Datasetunder- lyingthemanuscript: MAViS:ModularAutonomousVir- tualization System for two-dimensional semiconductor quantum dot arrays,...

    2024

  62. [70]

    Modular Autonomous Virtualization Sys- tem for Two-Dimensional Semiconductor Quantum Dot Arrays

    A. S. Rao, D. Buterakos, B. van Straaten, V. John, C. X. Yu, S. D. Oosterhout, L. Stehouwer, G. Scap- pucci, M. Veldhorst, F. Borsoi, and J. P. Zwolak, Fig- ure files for "Modular Autonomous Virtualization Sys- tem for Two-Dimensional Semiconductor Quantum Dot Arrays" publishe...

    2025 doi

  63. [71]

    van Straaten, J

    B. van Straaten, J. Hickie, L. Schorling, J. Schuff, F. Fedele, and N. Ares, QArray: A GPU-accelerated con- stant capacitance model simulator for large quantum dot arrays, SciPost Phys. Codebases35 (2024). Supplemental Material: Modular Autonomous Virtualization System for Two...

    2024

  64. [258]

    101069515 and from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) via the National Growth Fund program Quantum Delta NL (Grant No

    We acknowledge support from the European Union through the IGNITE project with Grant Agreement No. 101069515 and from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) via the National Growth Fund program Quantum Delta NL (Grant No. NGF.1582.22.001). The views, conclusions, and recommendations...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.