Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 82 references

Hole-spin qubits in germanium beyond the single-particle regime

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three holes make germanium spin qubits up to 100 times faster

desk verdict Solid first pass at three-hole Ge qubits, but the two-orders Rabi claim is anchored to a narrow harmonic-dot anticrossing and needs a robustness check before I'd bet on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02449 v3 pith:LFAUIDQV submitted 2025-05-05 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Andrea Secchi , Gaia Forghieri , Paolo Bordone , Daniel Loss , Stefano Bosco , Filippo Troiani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords holespinqubitsgermaniumquantumdotsthree-holequbitRabifrequencyspin-orbitcouplingconfigurationinteractionchargenoisedephasingk·pmodel
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

The paper argues that encoding a spin qubit in three holes in a single germanium quantum dot can beat the standard single-hole encoding at its own game: in the widely used quasi-circular dot geometry, the Rabi frequency under electric drive rises by up to two orders of magnitude, and after counting the faster driving the qubit quality factor is higher as well. The same qualitative conclusion holds for strained and unstrained dots. If true, this relaxes the experimental requirement of reaching single-hole occupation, speeds up all-electric spin control, and turns multi-hole occupancy into a resource rather than a complication. The claim rests on full configuration-interaction calculations of three interacting holes in a six-band k·p model of Ge.

What carries the argument

The calculation is built on a six-band Luttinger-Kohn envelope-function (k·p) Hamiltonian for single holes in a Ge quantum dot, including Zeeman and Peierls couplings, and on full configuration interaction: the three-hole Slater determinants are formed from 64 converged single-particle states and diagonalized with the Coulomb interaction. The qubit is the ground Kramers doublet split by a magnetic field; the Rabi frequency is $f_R^{(k)}=(e/h)\,|\delta\mathbf E_R\cdot\langle0^{(k)}|\hat{\mathbf r}|1^{(k)}\rangle|$ and the dephasing time is set by the charge-noise matrix-element difference of $\hat{\mathbf r}$ between the two qubit states. The key comparison is between the interacting three-hole qubit, the noninteracting three-hole state, and the single-hole qubit, which isolates the role of Pauli-exclusion-driven orbital occupation from the role of hole-hole Coulomb interactions.

What would settle it

Measure the Rabi frequency as a function of the dot's in-plane shape in a single three-hole germanium dot: the theory predicts a non-monotonic curve with a large enhancement near circular shape and sharp peaks near $\hbar\omega_x\approx3.8$ meV, while a monotonic curve would refute the mechanism. A second check is to repeat the calculation with more than the 64 single-particle states used here; if the Rabi matrix elements shift substantially, the enhancement estimate is not converged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a performance crossover: for dots with nearly equal in-plane confinement energies ($\hbar\omega_x\gtrsim5$ meV, with $\hbar\omega_y=6$ meV), the three-hole qubit has Rabi frequencies that exceed the single-hole qubit's by up to two orders of magnitude, while its $g$ factor stays comparable and the dephasing time under charge noise is shortened only modestly, so the quality factor $Q_x\equiv f_{R,x}\tau$ is larger. The enhancement is traced to the Pauli principle: the third hole must occupy an excited orbital, and the resulting orbital structure, with an antiferromagnetic ordering of the heavy-hole pseudospin components, makes the ground-state doublet far more sensitive to the in-plane electric field. Comparing against a noninteracting three-hole system shows that most of the gain is Pauli-driven, with Coulomb interactions a smaller but non-negligible contributor. Sharp additional peaks near $\hbar\omega_x\approx3.8$ meV are attributed to a narrow anticrossing between the first and second excited doublets.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction assumes that an idealized harmonic dot described by 64 single-particle states is a faithful stand-in for a real germanium dot; a real potential with disorder could wash out the narrow level crossing that produces the largest Rabi peaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Three-hole dots become a viable qubit platform without needing to reach the single-occupation regime, which is experimentally easier to realize.
  • In quasi-circular dots, Rabi frequencies up to about 100 times larger than in single-hole dots imply faster gates at the same drive amplitude.
  • Biaxial strain reduces absolute Rabi frequencies and lengthens dephasing times by comparable factors, so strain does not decide the single-versus-three-hole comparison.
  • The $g$-factor anisotropy of the three-hole qubit follows the same $\cos\theta$ law as the single-hole qubit, so established magnetic-field-control procedures transfer directly.
  • The sharp Rabi peaks at $\hbar\omega_x\approx3.8$ meV identify a specific dot-aspect-ratio sweet spot tied to an excited-state anticrossing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if Pauli-enforced occupation of excited orbitals is the cause, similar Rabi enhancements should appear for five- and seven-hole dots and possibly in silicon hole dots; this is a direct, testable extension.
  • Beyond the paper: the predicted antiferromagnetic ordering of the heavy-hole pseudospin along the weak-confinement axis could be probed with spin-dependent tunneling or charge-sensing experiments; confirming it would independently test the mechanism.
  • Beyond the paper: the narrow-anticrossing Rabi peaks near $\hbar\omega_x\approx3.8$ meV are the least robust predictions, since a realistic non-harmonic potential or disorder will shift or broaden them; the broad quasi-circular enhancement is the safer design target.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies three-hole spin qubits in Ge quantum dots using a six-band k.p envelope-function model with full configuration interaction, and compares their g-factors, Rabi frequencies, and charge-noise dephasing times with single-hole qubits in the same dots. It considers both unstrained MOS-like dots and strained Ge/SiGe heterostructures, with a harmonic in-plane confinement potential and magnetic fields oriented parallel or perpendicular to the growth direction. The central claim is that, in quasi-circular dots, the three-hole encoding can yield Rabi frequencies up to two orders of magnitude larger than the single-hole one, with a quality-factor advantage; the enhancement is attributed mostly to Pauli-driven occupation of excited orbitals, with a quantitatively smaller but non-negligible Coulomb-interaction contribution. The paper reports strong g-factor anisotropy, non-monotonic dependence of the three-hole Rabi frequency on dot aspect ratio, and a strain-induced reduction of Rabi frequencies that is partly balanced by longer dephasing times.

Significance. The question addressed is timely and experimentally relevant: whether going beyond single-hole occupancy can improve qubit figures of merit in Ge. The theoretical framework is standard and transparent, combining a six-band k.p model with full configuration interaction, and the inclusion of the noninteracting three-hole system as a diagnostic cleanly separates Pauli and Coulomb effects. No fitting to the claimed enhancement is involved; material parameters come from the literature and device parameters are scanned. If the central quantitative claims survive robustness checks, the work would give a concrete motivation for three-hole single-dot encodings as a practical alternative to single-hole qubits. However, the headline two-orders-of-magnitude enhancement and the quality-factor advantage presently rest on convergence and potential-robustness assertions that are not fully demonstrated in the submitted material.

major comments (3)
  1. [Quantum-dot model, methods paragraph] The statement that 'a set of 64 single-particle states ... ensures the convergence of the relevant quantities' is not demonstrated in the main text for the quantities that actually carry the central claims: the off-diagonal position matrix elements in Eqs. (3) and (5) and the excited doublets involved in the narrow anticrossing near 3.8 meV. The Supplemental Material containing the numerical details is not included in the version under review, so this assertion cannot be checked. I request a convergence study (for example, 64 vs 96 vs 128 single-particle states) reporting f_R and tau at the QD1 and QD2 parameter points and near the 3.8 meV feature, or an explicit statement that the Supplemental Material will be supplied with the resubmission.
  2. [Single- and three-hole spin qubits, Fig. 3 discussion] The sharp Rabi peaks near hbar*omega_x ≈ 3.8 meV are attributed to a narrow anticrossing between the first and second excited doublet. The in-plane potential of Eq. (1) is an exact 2D harmonic trap, where single-particle level degeneracies occur at rational aspect ratios such as 3.8/6 = 19/30; a weak anharmonicity, a finite-barrier correction, or a realistic gate-defined potential can generically shift or close such an anticrossing. Because the same feature is invoked in the dephasing section to explain the strong variation of tau near 3.8 meV, the two-orders-of-magnitude Rabi claim and the quality-factor advantage inherit this model sensitivity. I ask for a robustness test with a small anharmonic term or a realistic confinement profile, or alternatively for a quantitative statement of the enhancement in the quasi-circular region (hbar*omega_x > 5 meV) that does not rely on the 3.8 meV feature.
  3. [Abstract, Table II, Fig. 3 discussion] The abstract states that the quasi-circular geometry yields a Rabi-frequency enhancement of up to two orders of magnitude. In the numerical tables, the quasi-circular point QD2 (hbar*omega_x = 5.5 meV) shows strained f_R,x ratios of roughly 14 for theta=0 deg and 13.5 for theta=90 deg (Table II), i.e., about one order, and Table I lists only three-hole Rabi frequencies, so the unstrained two-orders ratio cannot be checked against single-hole values from the provided tables. The text instead ties the two-orders enhancement to the sharp 3.8 meV peak, which is not in the quasi-circular regime. Please specify explicitly where the two-orders enhancement occurs and report the corresponding single-hole Rabi values, so that the headline claim is verifiable and not overbroad.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption says that parenthetical values are the Rabi frequencies of the noninteracting three-hole qubit, but parenthetical entries also appear in the g-factor columns; please clarify what the parenthetical numbers mean for each column.
  2. [Introduction vs. Single- and three-hole spin qubits section] The Introduction says the Rabi gain is caused for the largest part by Pauli occupation with a smaller Coulomb contribution, while the later section says the difference between interacting and noninteracting cases is 'always remarkable' and that Rabi frequencies are 'strongly affected' by Coulomb interactions; please reconcile these statements with a quantitative example.
  3. [Text and captions (various)] There are several typos: 'ovecompensates' should be 'overcompensates' in the dephasing paragraph, and 'out fo plane' should be 'out of plane' in the Fig. 5 caption; please also check for other similar errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Rabi-frequency and dephasing results are obtained by direct diagonalization of a k·p Hamiltonian with externally fixed parameters, with no fitted input feeding the predicted enhancement.

full rationale

The central quantities—g-factors, Rabi frequencies, and dephasing times—are all computed from the eigenvalues and matrix elements of the few-hole Hamiltonian, with material parameters (Luttinger parameters, spin-orbit gap, elastic constants, and strain) taken from the literature and device parameters (ℏωx, ℏωy, B, δE_R, and E_cn) chosen as independent swept amplitudes rather than fitted to the target enhancement. Equation (3) defines the Rabi frequency from the computed dipole matrix element ⟨0^(k)|r|1^(k)⟩, and Eq. (5) defines dephasing from a charge-noise matrix element; neither equation receives the reported two-orders-of-magnitude result as an input. The paper does invoke earlier work by the same authors for the k·p and configuration-interaction methodology, but the claimed three-hole-over-single-hole enhancement is computed in this paper, not imported from those citations, and no uniqueness theorem or fitted ansatz is used to force the comparison. The statements that deserve scrutiny are robustness caveats rather than circular reductions: the claim that 64 single-particle states 'ensures the convergence of the relevant quantities' is asserted without a published convergence study for the off-diagonal Rabi matrix elements, and the sharp Rabi peaks at ℏωx ≈ 3.8 meV are explicitly attributed to a 'narrow anticrossing between the first and second excited doublet,' whose model sensitivity is a correctness risk. Neither of these makes the derivation equivalent to its inputs. I therefore find no circularity in the paper's derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or interactions; all entries are standard material parameters or device-model choices. The load-bearing assumptions are the validity of the six-band k.p envelope-function model, the completeness of the 64-state single-particle basis, and the quasi-static uniform-field model of charge noise. No parameter is fitted to the target enhancement.

free parameters (7)
  • In-plane confinement energies = hbar omega_y = 6 meV; hbar omega_x = 3 to 5.5 meV
    Shape the dot aspect ratio and define the quasi-circular and elongated regimes; the relative SHQ/THQ comparison depends on the swept range. These are chosen model parameters, not fitted to data.
  • Out-of-plane well parameters = L = 10 nm, s = 0.02 nm, e_perp = 1 meV/nm; W not specified in main text
    Define vertical confinement and band offset; affect the g-factor and Rabi frequencies through the out-of-plane wavefunction. Chosen as typical Ge quantum well values.
  • Magnetic field amplitude and orientation = B = 0.05 T, phi = 45 degrees, theta = 0 or 90 degrees
    Sets the Zeeman splitting and the g-factor anisotropy; the comparison is made at these specific orientations. Chosen as a representative field, not fitted.
  • Oscillating electric field amplitude = |delta E_R| = 1 mV/nm
    A linear prefactor for the Rabi frequency in Eq. (3); the SHQ versus THQ comparison is independent of its value.
  • Charge-noise induced electric field = |E_cn| = 10^-2 mV/nm
    Sets the absolute dephasing time scale in Eq. (5); relative comparisons between SHQ and THQ depend on the assumed field direction and magnitude.
  • Single-particle basis size = 64 states
    Truncation for the full configuration interaction calculation; convergence is asserted but not shown in the main text.
  • Biaxial strain parameter = epsilon_parallel = -0.0063
    Taken from the measured Ge/SiGe literature value for x = 0.8; an input parameter, not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The six-band Luttinger-Kohn k.p model with parameters gamma1 = 13.38, gamma2 = 4.24, gamma3 = 5.69 captures the valence-band structure near the Gamma point.
    Used to build single-hole states; neglects remote bands and assumes smooth envelope functions. Standard but not exact.
  • domain assumption The FCI basis of 64 single-particle states is complete enough for converged Rabi frequencies and g-factors.
    Asserted without convergence data in the main text; the paper refers to the Supplemental Material for details.
  • domain assumption Charge noise is modeled as a homogeneous quasi-static electric field, and dephasing is given by the first-order energy difference in Eq. (5).
    Neglects 1/f spectra, non-Markovian dynamics, and noise correlations; typical for hole-spin qubit estimates but restrictive.
  • standard math The qubit is defined by the ground Kramers doublet split by the magnetic field, and the Rabi frequency is computed for a resonant drive.
    Standard two-level approximation; off-resonant and leakage effects are not included in the reported numbers.
  • domain assumption The in-plane potential is a two-dimensional anisotropic harmonic well and the vertical confinement is a smooth tanh well with a linear dc electric field.
    An idealized model of MOS and Ge/SiGe devices; real disorder and gate geometry are neglected.
  • domain assumption The Bir-Pikus linear strain Hamiltonian with the given diagonal strain tensor describes the biaxial strain effect.
    Standard strain model for lattice-mismatched heterostructures; uses the measured strain parameter from the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hole-spin qubits in germanium beyond the single-particle regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LFAUIDQV

@misc{pith2026250502449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hole-spin qubits in germanium beyond the single-particle regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LFAUIDQV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02449}
}
read the original abstract

The intense simulation efforts on hole-spin qubits in germanium have so far focused primarily on singly occupied quantum dots. Here, we theoretically investigate three-hole qubits in germanium and demonstrate that their performance can rival that of single-hole qubits in both strained and unstrained systems. In particular, we find that -- in the widely used quasi-circular geometry -- a three-hole qubit encoding can yield enhancements of the Rabi frequencies of up to two orders of magnitude and a large advantage also in terms of quality factors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02449 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Pictorial representation of a single-hole state (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. In-plane particle distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Rabi frequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dephasing time scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Quality factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Loss and D

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

    1998

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    Stano and D

    P. Stano and D. Loss, Review of performance metrics of spin qubits in gated semiconducting nanostructures, Nature Reviews Physics4, 672 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Ishihara, A

    L.M.K.Vandersypen, H.Bluhm, J.S.Clarke, A.S.Dzu- rak, R. Ishihara, A. Morello, D. J. Reilly, L. R. Schreiber, and M. Veldhorst, Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, dense, and coherent, npj Quan- tum Information3, 34 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

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

    2023

  6. [6]

    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, Nature Reviews Materials6, 926 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    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 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Jirovec, A

    D. Jirovec, A. Hofmann, A. Ballabio, P. M. Mutter, G. Tavani, M. Botifoll, A. Crippa, J. Kukucka, O. Sagi, F. Martins, J. Saez-Mollejo, I. Prieto, M. Borovkov, J. Arbiol, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, and G. Katsaros, A singlet-triplet hole spin qubit in planar Ge, Nature Ma- terials20, 1106 (2021)

    2021

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Steinacker, N

    P. Steinacker, N. D. Stuyck, W. H. Lim, T. Tanttu, M. Feng, A. Nickl, S. Serrano, M. Candido, J. D. Ci- fuentes, F. E. Hudson, K. W. Chan, S. Kubicek, J. Jus- sot, Y. Canvel, S. Beyne, Y. Shimura, R. Loo, C. God- frin, B. Raes, S. Baudot, D. Wan, A. Laucht, C. H. Yang, A. Sara...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. D. Liles, D. J. Halverson, Z. Wang, A. Shamim, R. S. Eggli, I. K. Jin, J. Hillier, K. Kumar, I. Vorreiter, M. J. Rendell, J. Y. Huang, C. C. Escott, F. E. Hudson, W. H. Lim, D. Culcer, A. S. Dzurak, and A. R. Hamilton, A singlet-triplet hole-spin qubit in mos silicon, Natur...

    2024

  3. [11]

    L. C. Camenzind, S. Geyer, A. Fuhrer, R. J. Warburton, D. M. Zumbühl, and A. V. Kuhlmann, A hole spin qubit in a fin field-effect transistor above 4Kelvin, Nature Elec- tronics5, 178 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    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)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Neyens, O

    S. Neyens, O. K. Zietz, T. F. Watson, F. Luthi, A. Neth- wewala, H. C. George, E. Henry, M. Islam, A. J. Wag- ner, F. Borjans, E. J. Connors, J. Corrigan, M. J. Curry, D. Keith, R. Kotlyar, L. F. Lampert, M. T. Mądzik, K. Millard, F. A. Mohiyaddin, S. Pellerano, R. Pil- larise...

    2024

  6. [14]

    X. Xue, B. Patra, J. P. G. van Dijk, N. Samkharadze, S. Subramanian, A. Corna, B. Paquelet Wuetz, C. Jeon, F. Sheikh, E. Juarez-Hernandez, B. P. Esparza, H. Ram- purawala, B. Carlton, S. Ravikumar, C. Nieva, S. Kim, H.-J. Lee, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, F. Sebastia...

    2021

  7. [15]

    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. Mu...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Kobayashi, J

    T. Kobayashi, J. Salfi, C. Chua, J. van der Heijden, M. G. House, D. Culcer, W. D. Hutchison, B. C. Johnson, J. C. McCallum, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, M. Y. Simmons, and S. Rogge, Engineering long spin coherence times of spin–orbit qubits in silicon, ...

    2021

  9. [17]

    N. Piot, B. Brun, V. Schmitt, S. Zihlmann, V. P. Michal, 6 A. Apra, J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, X. Jehl, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojewski, L. Hutin, M. Vinet, M. Urdampilleta, T. Meunier, Y.-M. Niquet, R. Maurand, and S. D. Franceschi, A single hole spin with enhanced coherence in natura...

    2022

  10. [18]

    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, J. D. Cifuentes, I. Hansen, A. E. Seedhouse, E. Vahapoglu, R. C. C. Leon, N. V. Abrosi- mov, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, F. E. Hudson, C. C. Escott,...

    2024

  11. [19]

    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, B. P. Wuetz, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in sil- icon, ...

    2022

  12. [20]

    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, M. Veldhorst, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Universal control of four singlet–triplet qubits, Nature Nanotechnology20, 209 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

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

    2021

  14. [22]

    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, L. E. A. Stehouwer, S. D. Oosterhout, A. Sammak, M. Friesen, G. Scappucci, S. L. de Snoo, M. Rimbach-Russ, F. Borsoi, and M. Veld- horst,Operat...

    2024

  15. [23]

    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. Savy...

    2025

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    Yoneda, K

    J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M. R. Delbecq, G. Allison, T. Honda, T. Kodera, S. Oda, Y. Hoshi, N. Usami, K. M. Itoh, and S. Tarucha, A quantum-dot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%, Nature Nanotech- nology13, 102 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    W. I. L. Lawrie, M. Russ, F. van Riggelen, N. W. Hendrickx, S. L. de Snoo, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, Simultaneous driving of semi- conductor spin qubits at the fault-tolerant threshold, arXiv:2109.07837 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    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, C. A. C. Jack- son, M. Jura, T. E. Keating, J. Kerckhoff, A. A. Kiselev, J. Matten, G. Sabbir, A. Smith, J. Wright, M. T. Rakher, T. ...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Mills, C

    A. Mills, C. Guinn, M. Feldman, A. Sigillito, M. Gullans, M. Rakher, J. Kerckhoff, C. Jackson, and J. Petta, High- fidelity state preparation, quantum control, and readout of an isotopically enriched silicon spin qubit, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 064028 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Kobayashi, T

    T. Kobayashi, T. Nakajima, K. Takeda, A. Noiri, J. Yoneda, and S. Tarucha, Feedback-based active reset of a spin qubit in silicon, npj Quantum Information9, 52 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Takeda, A

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

    2024

  25. [33]

    M. D. Michielis, E. Ferraro, E. Prati, L. Hutin, B. Bertrand, E. Charbon, D. J. Ibberson, and M. F. Gonzalez-Zalba,Siliconspinqubitsfromlaboratorytoin- dustry, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics56, 363001 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Saraiva, W

    A. Saraiva, W. H. Lim, C. H. Yang, C. C. Escott, A. Laucht, and A. S. Dzurak, Materials for silicon quan- tum dots and their impact on electron spin qubits, Ad- vanced Functional Materials32, 2105488 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Bellentani, M

    L. Bellentani, M. Bina, S. Bonen, A. Secchi, A. Bertoni, S. P. Voinigescu, A. Padovani, L. Larcher, and F. Troiani, Toward hole-spin qubits inSip-MOSFETs within a pla- nar CMOS foundry technology, Phys. Rev. Applied16, 054034 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Petit, M

    L. Petit, M. Russ, G. H. G. J. Eenink, W. I. L. Lawrie, J. S. Clarke, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and M. Veldhorst, Design and integration of single-qubit rotations and two- qubit gates in silicon above one Kelvin, Communications Materials3, 82 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    D. V. Bulaev and D. Loss, Spin relaxation and deco- herence of holes in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 076805 (2005)

    2005

  30. [38]

    D. V. Bulaev and D. Loss, Electric dipole spin resonance for heavy holes in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 097202 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    Bosco, B

    S. Bosco, B. Hetényi, and D. Loss, Hole spin qubits in SiFinFETs with fully tunable spin-orbit coupling and sweet spots for charge noise, PRX Quantum2, 010348 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Bosco, M

    S. Bosco, M. Benito, C. Adelsberger, and D. Loss, Squeezed hole spin qubits in Ge quantum dots with ul- trafast gates at low power, Phys. Rev. B104, 115425 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    S. D. Liles, F. Martins, D. S. Miserev, A. A. Kiselev, I. D. Thorvaldson, M. J. Rendell, I. K. Jin, F. E. Hudson, M. Veldhorst, K. M. Itoh, O. P. Sushkov, T. D. Ladd, A. S. Dzurak, and A. R. Hamilton, Electrical control of thegtensor of the first hole in a silicon MOS quantum ...

    2021

  34. [42]

    V. P. Michal, B. Venitucci, and Y.-M. Niquet, Longi- tudinal and transverse electric field manipulation of hole spin-orbit qubits in one-dimensional channels, Phys. Rev. B103, 045305 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    V. John, F. Borsoi, Z. György, C.-A. Wang, G. Széchenyi, F. van Riggelen-Doelman, W. I. L. Lawrie, N. W. Hen- drickx, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, A. Pályi, and M. Veld- horst, Bichromatic Rabi control of semiconductor qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 067001 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Bosco, S

    S. Bosco, S. Geyer, L. C. Camenzind, R. S. Eggli, A. Fuhrer, R. J. Warburton, D. M. Zumbühl, J. C. Egues, A. V. Kuhlmann, and D. Loss, Phase-driving hole spin qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 197001 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    M. J. Carballido, S. Svab, R. S. Eggli, T. Patlatiuk, P. C. Kwon, J. Schuff, R. M. Kaiser, L. C. Camenzind, A. Li, N. Ares, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, S. Bosco, J. C. Egues, D. Loss, and D. M. Zumbühl, Compromise-free scaling of qubit speed and coherence, arXiv.2402.07313 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kloeffel, M

    C. Kloeffel, M. J. Rančić, and D. Loss, Direct rashba spin-orbit interaction in Si and Ge nanowires with differ- ent growth directions, Phys. Rev. B97, 235422 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Adelsberger, M

    C. Adelsberger, M. Benito, S. Bosco, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Hole-spin qubits in Ge nanowire quantum dots: Interplay of orbital magnetic field, strain, and growth direction, Phys. Rev. B105, 075308 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

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

    2023

  41. [49]

    Fischer, W

    J. Fischer, W. A. Coish, D. V. Bulaev, and D. Loss, Spin decoherence of a heavy hole coupled to nuclear spins in a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B78, 155329 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    S.BoscoandD.Loss,Fullytunablehyperfineinteractions of hole spin qubits in Si and Ge quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 190501 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Cvitkovich, P

    L. Cvitkovich, P. Stano, C. Wilhelmer, D. Waldhör, D. Loss, Y.-M. Niquet, and T. Grasser, Coherence limit due to hyperfine interaction with nuclei in the barrier material ofSispin qubits, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 064089 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Venitucci, L

    B. Venitucci, L. Bourdet, D. Pouzada, and Y.-M. Niquet, Electrical manipulation of semiconductor spin qubits within theg-matrix formalism, Phys. Rev. B98, 155319 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Secchi, L

    A. Secchi, L. Bellentani, A. Bertoni, and F. Troiani, In- teracting holes in Si and Ge double quantum dots: From a multiband approach to an effective-spin picture, Phys. Rev. B104, 035302 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Stano and D

    P. Stano and D. Loss, Quantification of the heavy-hole– light-hole mixing in two-dimensional hole gases, Phys. Rev. B111, 115301 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    N.Ares, V.N.Golovach, G.Katsaros, M.Stoffel, F.Four- nel, L. I. Glazman, O. G. Schmidt, and S. De Franceschi, Nature of tunable holegfactors in quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 046602 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    Forghieri, A

    G. Forghieri, A. Secchi, A. Bertoni, P. Bordone, and F. Troiani, Quantum estimation and remote charge sens- ing with a hole-spin qubit in silicon, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043159 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Malkoc, P

    O. Malkoc, P. Stano, and D. Loss, Charge-noise-induced dephasing in silicon hole-spin qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 247701 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    C.-A. Wang, H. E. Ercan, M. F. Gyure, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, and M. Rimbach-Russ, Modeling of planar germanium hole qubits in electric and magnetic fields, npj Quantum Information10, 102 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Hetényi, S

    B. Hetényi, S. Bosco, and D. Loss, Anomalous zero-field splitting for hole spin qubits in Si and Ge quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 116805 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    P. M. Mutter and G. Burkard, All-electrical control of hole singlet-triplet spin qubits at low-leakage points, Phys. Rev. B104, 195421 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Jirovec, P

    D. Jirovec, P. M. Mutter, A. Hofmann, A. Crippa, M. Rychetsky, D. L. Craig, J. Kukucka, F. Martins, A. Ballabio, N. Ares, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, G. Burkard, and G. Katsaros, Dynamics of hole singlet-triplet qubits with largeg-factor differences, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 126803 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Fernández-Fernández, Y

    D. Fernández-Fernández, Y. Ban, and G. Platero, Quan- tum control of hole spin qubits in double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 054090 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Saez-Mollejo, D

    J. Saez-Mollejo, D. Jirovec, Y. Schell, J. Kukucka, S. Calcaterra, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, M. Rimbach- Russ, S. Bosco, and G. Katsaros, Exchange anisotropies in microwave-driven singlet-triplet qubits, arXiv.2408.03224 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bosco and M

    S. Bosco and M. Rimbach-Russ, Exchange-only spin-orbit qubits in silicon and germanium (2024), arXiv:2410.05461 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024

  57. [65]

    W. I. L. Lawrie, N. W. Hendrickx, F. van Riggelen, M. Russ, L. Petit, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst, Spin relaxation benchmarks and individ- ual qubit addressability for holes in quantum dots, Nano Letters20, 7237 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Voisin, R

    B. Voisin, R. Maurand, S. Barraud, M. Vinet, X. Jehl, M. Sanquer, J. Renard, and S. De Franceschi, Electrical control of g-factor in a few-hole silicon nanowire MOS- FET, Nano Letters16, 88 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    H. Liu, T. Zhang, K. Wang, F. Gao, G. Xu, X. Zhang, S.- X. Li, G. Cao, T. Wang, J. Zhang, X. Hu, H.-O. Li, and G.-P. Guo, Gate-tunable spin-orbit coupling in a germa- nium hole double quantum dot, Physical Review Applied 17, 044052 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

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

    2025

  61. [69]

    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, Y.-M. Niquet, F. Borsoi, and M. Veldhorst, A two-dimensional 10-qubit array in germanium with robust and localised qubit con- tr...

    2025

  62. [70]

    De Palma, F

    F. De Palma, F. Oppliger, W. Jang, S. Bosco, M. Janík, S. Calcaterra, G. Katsaros, G. Isella, D. Loss, and P. Scarlino, Strong hole-photon coupling in planar Ge for probing charge degree and strongly correlated states, Nature Communications15, 10177 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    J. M. Luttinger and W. Kohn, Motion of electrons and holes in perturbed periodic fields, Phys. Rev.97, 869 (1955)

    1955

  64. [72]

    L. C. L. Y. Voon and M. Willatzen,The k·p Method (Springer Berlin, 2009)

    2009

  65. [73]

    L. A. Terrazos, E. Marcellina, Z. Wang, S. N. Copper- smith, M. Friesen, A. R. Hamilton, X. Hu, B. Koiller, 8 A. L. Saraiva, D. Culcer, and R. B. Capaz, Theory of hole-spin qubits in strained germanium quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B103, 125201 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    David Sherrill and H

    C. David Sherrill and H. F. Schaefer, The configuration interaction method: Advances in highly correlated ap- proaches (Academic Press, 1999) pp. 143–269

    1999

  67. [75]

    A.Secchi, L.Bellentani, A.Bertoni,andF.Troiani,Inter- and intraband Coulomb interactions between holes in sil- icon nanostructures, Phys. Rev. B104, 205409 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    See the Supplemental Material at ... for further details on: Luttinger-Kohn Hamiltonian (with Bir-Pikus terms); single- and three-hole states calculation; classical equilib- rium configurations of the three-hole states

  69. [77]

    Fanucchi, G

    E. Fanucchi, G. Forghieri, A. Secchi, P. Bordone, and F. Troiani, Giant Rabi frequencies between qubit and excited hole states in silicon quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 111, 205409 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    G. L. Bir and G. E. Pikus,Symmetry and strain-induced effects in semiconductors(Wiley, 1974)

    1974

  71. [79]

    C. Y.-P. Chao and S. L. Chuang, Spin-orbit-coupling ef- fects on the valence-band structure of strained semicon- ductor quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B46, 4110 (1992)

    1992

  72. [80]

    Secchi and F

    A. Secchi and F. Troiani, Envelope-function theory of inhomogeneous strain in semiconductor nanostructures, Phys. Rev. B110, 045420 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    Sverdlov,Strain-Induced Effects in Advanced MOS- FETs(Springer, 2011)

    V. Sverdlov,Strain-Induced Effects in Advanced MOS- FETs(Springer, 2011)

    2011

  74. [82]

    Sammak, D

    A. Sammak, D. Sabbagh, N. W. Hendrickx, M. Lodari, B. Paquelet Wuetz, A. Tosato, L. Yeoh, M. Bollani, M. Virgilio, M. A. Schubert, P. Zaumseil, G. Capellini, M. Veldhorst, and G. Scappucci, Shallow and undoped germanium quantum wells: A playground for spin and hybrid quantum t...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.