pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.03373 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.mes-hall

Enabling Modularity for Spin Qubits via Driven Quantum Dot-Mediated Entanglement

V. Srinivasa This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 19:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spin qubitsquantum dotscapacitive couplingentangling gatesresonant exchange qubitsmediator quantum dotmodular quantum computing
0
0 comments X

The pith

A driven mediator quantum dot produces single-pulse universal entangling gates for resonant exchange qubits

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

The paper describes a method to entangle spin qubits through capacitive coupling mediated by an AC electric field-driven multielectron quantum dot. For resonant exchange qubits defined in three-electron triple dots, the drive on the mediator activates a universal entangling gate using only a single pulse. This approach sidesteps the extensive pulse sequences required to control leakage in conventional tunneling-based gates between exchange-only qubits. The local drive-activated method is also shown to combine with earlier sideband-based long-range cavity gates to support modular spin-qubit architectures.

Core claim

Driving a two-electron mediator quantum dot with an AC electric field induces capacitive coupling that yields rapid single-pulse universal entangling gates for resonant exchange qubits in triple quantum dots, without the leakage-mitigation pulse sequences needed in tunneling-based gates.

What carries the argument

The AC electric field drive applied to the multielectron mediator dot that generates the capacitive entangling interaction between capacitively coupled qubits

If this is right

  • Rapid single-pulse universal entangling gates for resonant exchange qubits
  • Elimination of extensive leakage-mitigation pulse sequences required by tunneling-based gates
  • Integration with long-range cavity-mediated gates to enable modular spin-qubit processors
  • Extension of the method to other types of spin qubits that support capacitive coupling

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Local capacitive gates could allow denser qubit arrangements that avoid direct tunneling requirements
  • Hybrid use of local drive-mediated and remote cavity-mediated gates may simplify scaling of spin-qubit systems
  • Simplified single-pulse protocols could reduce total gate time and accumulated error in quantum circuits

Load-bearing premise

The AC drive on the mediator dot produces a clean capacitive entangling interaction without significant decoherence, leakage, or unwanted higher-order effects

What would settle it

Experimental demonstration of the predicted single-pulse gate that accumulates the expected entangling phase with leakage and decoherence rates low enough to preserve gate fidelity

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03373 by V. Srinivasa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the quantum dot system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Low-energy spectrum of the two-level, two-electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Charge stability diagrams for the triple dot systems (see Fig. 1) associated with each RX qubit (left), represented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Strength Kab of the driven dot-mediated capacitive interaction between RX qubits as a function of mediator dot size λ for multiple values of the qubit-mediator dot separation a and fixed electric field drive amplitude EM = 2 V/m, calcu￾lated using the analysis and parameters given in Sec. II D. terms up to quadrupole order in the expansion. We then have 1 |r − r ′ | ≈ 1 |Ra3 − Rc − b| = 1 |R − b| ≈ 1 a − x… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fidelity F for the driven dot-mediated gate gener￾ated by the interaction V ′ according to Eq. (39) as a func￾tion of the qubit decay rate γ and the mediator dot decay rate γM, calculated using Eq. (40) with the initial state |ψi⟩ = |eg, M−⟩. The ideal evolution is given by Uxx [Eq. (26)], which is equivalent to the action of U 1/2 iSW within the {|eg, M−⟩, |ge, M−⟩} subspace. |ψi⟩ ⟨ψi | , where |ψi⟩ = |eg… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the building blocks of a modular system envisioned for spin-based quantum information processing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spectrum of the symmetric RX qubit Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present an approach for entangling spin qubits via capacitive coupling mediated by an ac electric field-driven multielectron mediator quantum dot. To illustrate this method, we consider the case of a driven two-electron dot that mediates entanglement between resonant exchange qubits defined in three-electron triple quantum dots, which enable direct capacitive coupling and interaction with microwave fields via intrinsic spin-charge mixing. The method can also be applied to other types of spin qubits that can be coupled capacitively. We show that this approach leads to rapid, single-pulse universal entangling gates for resonant exchange qubits that are activated via the drive on the mediator dot. Unlike conventional tunneling-based two-qubit gates between exchange-only qubits, the capacitive interaction-based gates we describe do not require an extensive sequence of pulses to mitigate leakage. We describe how this drive-activated local entangling approach can be integrated with the driven sideband-based long-range approach for cavity-mediated entangling gates developed in our previous work in order to enable modularity for spin-based quantum information processing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using an AC electric field-driven multielectron mediator quantum dot to induce capacitive coupling between resonant exchange qubits (defined in three-electron triple dots), enabling rapid single-pulse universal entangling gates such as iSWAP or CZ. The approach avoids extensive pulse sequences for leakage mitigation required in tunneling-based gates and can be combined with prior cavity-mediated long-range gates to support modular spin-qubit architectures.

Significance. If the central claim holds with quantitative validation, the work would provide a practical local entangling primitive that reduces gate complexity for resonant-exchange qubits and integrates with existing long-range methods, offering a concrete route toward modular, scalable spin-based quantum processors with lower overhead for two-qubit operations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and effective-Hamiltonian derivation] Abstract and the section deriving the driven capacitive interaction: the claim that a single AC drive pulse produces a clean universal entangling gate rests on an effective Hamiltonian whose higher-order terms (virtual excitations, drive-induced charge fluctuations) are asserted to be negligible, yet no explicit Magnus-expansion order, Floquet quasi-energy spectrum, or parameter window (drive amplitude, detuning from charge transitions) is supplied to bound leakage.
  2. [Gate performance and leakage analysis] The section on gate fidelity and leakage: no numerical simulation results, error analysis, or comparison against the conventional tunneling-based sequence are presented to quantify how small the unwanted components remain relative to the target entangling rate, leaving the 'rapid, single-pulse' advantage unverified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Hamiltonian and parameter definitions] Notation for the mediator-dot drive term and the resulting capacitive coupling strength should be defined explicitly with units and relation to the underlying charge-transition matrix elements.
  2. [Modularity discussion] The integration paragraph with the prior cavity-mediated scheme would benefit from a brief schematic or timing diagram showing how the local drive-activated gate coexists with sideband gates without crosstalk.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and effective-Hamiltonian derivation] Abstract and the section deriving the driven capacitive interaction: the claim that a single AC drive pulse produces a clean universal entangling gate rests on an effective Hamiltonian whose higher-order terms (virtual excitations, drive-induced charge fluctuations) are asserted to be negligible, yet no explicit Magnus-expansion order, Floquet quasi-energy spectrum, or parameter window (drive amplitude, detuning from charge transitions) is supplied to bound leakage.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. The effective Hamiltonian is derived using a perturbative Schrieffer-Wolff transformation assuming the drive is sufficiently detuned from charge transitions. In the revision we will add an explicit Magnus expansion to second order, a brief discussion of the Floquet quasi-energy spectrum in the relevant regime, and quantitative bounds on the parameter window (drive amplitude << detuning) that keep higher-order leakage terms below a target threshold. These additions will be placed in a new subsection of the theory section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Gate performance and leakage analysis] The section on gate fidelity and leakage: no numerical simulation results, error analysis, or comparison against the conventional tunneling-based sequence are presented to quantify how small the unwanted components remain relative to the target entangling rate, leaving the 'rapid, single-pulse' advantage unverified.

    Authors: We agree that numerical validation would strengthen the central claim. The manuscript currently focuses on the analytical derivation of the driven capacitive gate. In the revised version we will add a dedicated section containing time-dependent Schrödinger-equation simulations of the full system, fidelity and leakage estimates as functions of drive parameters, and a direct comparison of gate duration and error rates against the conventional multi-pulse tunneling sequence. This will quantify the single-pulse advantage. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation of drive-activated capacitive entangling gates

full rationale

The paper derives single-pulse universal entangling gates from the AC-driven capacitive coupling between resonant-exchange qubits mediated by a two-electron dot. This follows from the driven interaction Hamiltonian without reducing to any fitted parameter or self-defined quantity from prior equations. The single reference to the authors' previous work on cavity-mediated sideband gates is used only for modular integration and is not load-bearing for the local-gate claim. No self-definitional steps, fitted predictions, or uniqueness theorems imported from self-citations appear in the central derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on standard assumptions of quantum-dot spin physics but introduces no new free parameters or invented entities in the abstract; the key unverified premise is the clean activation of capacitive coupling by the drive.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Capacitive coupling between the mediator dot and the qubits can be activated by an AC electric field drive to produce a controllable entangling interaction without significant leakage or decoherence
    This assumption is required for the single-pulse universal gate to function as stated and is not derived in the provided abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5471 in / 1171 out tokens · 40167 ms · 2026-05-13T19:07:15.268331+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

174 extracted references · 174 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Fault-tolerant architecture for quantum computation using electrically controlled semiconductor spins,

    J. M. Taylor, H. A. Engel, W. Dur, A. Yacoby, C. M. Marcus, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, “Fault-tolerant architecture for quantum computation using electrically controlled semiconductor spins,” Nat. Phys.1, 177–183 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Distributed quantum computation based on small quantum registers,

    L Jiang, J M Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M D Lukin, “Distributed quantum computation based on small quantum registers,” Phys. Rev. A76, 062323 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Large-scale mod- ular quantum-computer architecture with atomic mem- ory and photonic interconnects,

    C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, “Large-scale mod- ular quantum-computer architecture with atomic mem- ory and photonic interconnects,” Phys. Rev. A89, 022317 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, dense, and coherent,

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

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Silicon quantum processor with robust long-distance qubit couplings,

    Guilherme Tosi, Fahd A. Mohiyaddin, Vivien Schmitt, Stefanie Tenberg, Rajib Rahman, Gerhard Klimeck, and Andrea Morello, “Silicon quantum processor with robust long-distance qubit couplings,” Nat. Commun. 8, 450 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Multicore quantum computing,

    Hamza Jnane, Brennan Undseth, Zhenyu Cai, Simon C. Benjamin, and Bálint Koczor, “Multicore quantum computing,” Phys. Rev. Applied18, 044064 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Quantum computation with quantum dots,

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, “Quantum computation with quantum dots,” Phys. Rev. A57, 120–6 (1998)

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    A silicon-based nuclear spin quantum com- puter,

    B. E. Kane, “A silicon-based nuclear spin quantum com- puter,” Nature393, 133–137 (1998)

    work page 1998

  9. [9]

    Spins in few-electron quan- tum dots,

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

    work page 2007

  10. [10]

    Silicon quantum electronics,

    Floris A. Zwanenburg, Andrew S. Dzurak, Andrea Morello, Michelle Y. Simmons, Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, Gerhard Klimeck, Sven Rogge, Susan N. Coppersmith, and Mark A. Eriksson, “Silicon quantum electronics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 961–1019 (2013)

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    The germanium quantum informa- tion route,

    Giordano Scappucci, Christoph Kloeffel, Floris A. Zwa- nenburg, Daniel Loss, Maksym Myronov, Jian-Jun Zhang, Silvano De Franceschi, Georgios Katsaros, and Menno Veldhorst, “The germanium quantum informa- tion route,” Nat. Rev. Mater.6, 926–943 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Semiconductor qubits in practice,

    Anasua Chatterjee, Paul Stevenson, Silvano De Franceschi, Andrea Morello, Nathalie P. de Leon, and Ferdinand Kuemmeth, “Semiconductor qubits in practice,” Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 157–177 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Semiconductor spin qubits,

    Guido Burkard, Thaddeus D. Ladd, Andrew Pan, John M. Nichol, and Jason R. Petta, “Semiconductor spin qubits,” Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Universal quantum computation with the exchange interaction,

    D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Bacon, J. Kempe, G. Burkard, and K. B. Whaley, “Universal quantum computation with the exchange interaction,” Nature408, 339–342 (2000)

    work page 2000

  15. [15]

    Universal Quantum Computation with Spin-1/2 Pairs and Heisenberg Exchange,

    Jeremy Levy, “Universal Quantum Computation with Spin-1/2 Pairs and Heisenberg Exchange,” Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 147902 (2002). 18

    work page 2002

  16. [16]

    Coherent Manipulation of Coupled Electron Spins in Semiconductor Quantum Dots,

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, “Coherent Manipulation of Coupled Electron Spins in Semiconductor Quantum Dots,” Sci- ence309, 2180–2184 (2005)

    work page 2005

  17. [17]

    A two-qubit gate between phos- phorus donor electrons in silicon,

    Y. He, S. K. Gorman, D. Keith, L. Kranz, J. G. Keizer, and M. Y. Simmons, “A two-qubit gate between phos- phorus donor electrons in silicon,” Nature571, 371–375 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Fast two-qubit logic with holes in germanium,

    N. W. Hendrickx, D. P. Franke, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, “Fast two-qubit logic with holes in germanium,” Nature577, 487–491 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Fast universal quantum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon,

    Akito Noiri, Kenta Takeda, Takashi Nakajima, Takashi Kobayashi, Amir Sammak, Giordano Scappucci, and Seigo Tarucha, “Fast universal quantum gate above the fault-tolerance threshold in silicon,” Nature601, 338– 342 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold,

    Xiao Xue, Maximilian Russ, Nodar Samkharadze, Bren- nan Undseth, Amir Sammak, Giordano Scappucci, and Lieven M. K. Vandersypen, “Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold,” Nature601, 343–347 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Two-qubit silicon quantum pro- cessor with operation fidelity exceeding 99%,

    Adam R. Mills, Charles R. Guinn, Michael J. Gullans, Anthony J. Sigillito, Mayer M. Feldman, Erik Nielsen, and Jason R. Petta, “Two-qubit silicon quantum pro- cessor with operation fidelity exceeding 99%,” Sci. Adv. 8, eabn5130 (2022)

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Universal logic with encoded spin qubits in silicon,

    Aaron J. Weinstein, Matthew D. Reed, Aaron M. Jones, Reed W. Andrews, David Barnes, Jacob Z. Blumoff, Larken E. Euliss, Kevin Eng, Bryan H. Fong, Sieu D. Ha, Daniel R. Hulbert, Clayton A. C. Jackson, Michael Jura, Tyler E. Keating, Joseph Kerckhoff, Andrey A. Kiselev, Justine Matten, Golam Sabbir, Aaron Smith, Jeffrey Wright, Matthew T. Rakher, Thaddeus D...

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Operating semiconductor quantum processors with hopping spins,

    Chien-An Wang, Valentin John, Hanifa Tidjani, Cé- cile X. Yu, Alexander S. Ivlev, Corentin Déprez, Floor van Riggelen-Doelman, Benjamin D. Woods, Nico W. Hendrickx, WilliamI.L.Lawrie, LucasE.A.Stehouwer, Stefan D. Oosterhout, Amir Sammak, Mark Friesen, Giordano Scappucci, Sander L. de Snoo, Maximilian Rimbach-Russ, Francesco Borsoi, and Menno Veld- horst,...

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Operating two exchange-only qubits in paral- lel,

    MateuszT.Mądzik, FlorianLuthi, GianGiacomoGuer- reschi, Fahd A. Mohiyaddin, Felix Borjans, Jason D. Chadwick, Matthew J. Curry, Joshua Ziegler, Sarah Atanasov, Peter L. Bavdaz, Elliot J. Connors, J. Corri- gan, H. Ekmel Ercan, Robert Flory, Hubert C. George, Benjamin Harpt, Eric Henry, Mohammad M. Islam, Nader Khammassi, Daniel Keith, Lester F. Lampert, T...

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Cou- pled quantum dots as quantum gates,

    G. Burkard, D. Loss, and D. P. DiVincenzo, “Cou- pled quantum dots as quantum gates,” Phys. Rev. B 59, 2070–2078 (1999)

    work page 2070

  26. [26]

    Protecting quantum information encoded in decoherence-free states against exchange er- rors,

    Daniel A. Lidar, David Bacon, Julia Kempe, and K. Birgitta Whaley, “Protecting quantum information encoded in decoherence-free states against exchange er- rors,” Phys. Rev. A61, 052307 (2000)

    work page 2000

  27. [27]

    Beil, Master’s thesis, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen (2014)

    J. Beil, Master’s thesis, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen (2014)

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Simultaneous operations in a two- dimensional array of singlet-triplet qubits,

    Federico Fedele, Anasua Chatterjee, Saeed Fallahi, Ge- offrey C. Gardner, Michael J. Manfra, and Ferdi- nand Kuemmeth, “Simultaneous operations in a two- dimensional array of singlet-triplet qubits,” PRX Quan- tum2, 040306 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Engineering topological states in atom-based semicon- ductor quantum dots,

    M. Kiczynski, S. K. Gorman, H. Geng, M. B. Donnelly, Y. Chung, Y. He, J. G. Keizer, and M. Y. Simmons, “Engineering topological states in atom-based semicon- ductor quantum dots,” Nature606, 694–699 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Experi- mental realization of an extended fermi-hubbard model using a 2d lattice of dopant-based quantum dots,

    Xiqiao Wang, Ehsan Khatami, Fan Fei, Jonathan Wyrick, Pradeep Namboodiri, Ranjit Kashid, Albert F. Rigosi, Garnett Bryant, and Richard Silver, “Experi- mental realization of an extended fermi-hubbard model using a 2d lattice of dopant-based quantum dots,” Nat. Commun.13, 6824 (2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Universal control of a six- qubit quantum processor in silicon,

    Stephan G. J. Philips, Mateusz T. Mądzik, Sergey V. Amitonov, Sander L. de Snoo, Maximilian Russ, Nima Kalhor, Christian Volk, William I. L. Lawrie, Delphine Brousse, Larysa Tryputen, Brian Paquelet Wuetz, Amir Sammak, Menno Veldhorst, Giordano Scappucci, and Lieven M. K. Vandersypen, “Universal control of a six- qubit quantum processor in silicon,” Natur...

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Sharedcontrolofa16semiconductor quantum dot crossbar array,

    Francesco Borsoi, Nico W. Hendrickx, Valentin John, Marcel Meyer, Sayr Motz, Floor van Riggelen, Amir Sammak, Sander L. de Snoo, Giordano Scappucci, and MennoVeldhorst,“Sharedcontrolofa16semiconductor quantum dot crossbar array,” Nat. Nanotechnol.19, 21– 27 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Universal control of four singlet–triplet qubits,

    Xin Zhang, Elizaveta Morozova, Maximilian Rimbach- Russ, Daniel Jirovec, Tzu-Kan Hsiao, Pablo Cova Far- iña, Chien-An Wang, Stefan D. Oosterhout, Amir Sam- mak, Giordano Scappucci, Menno Veldhorst, and Lieven M. K. Vandersypen, “Universal control of four singlet–triplet qubits,” Nat. Nanotechnol.20, 209–215 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    12-spin-qubit arrays fabricated on a 300 mm semiconductor manufac- turing line,

    Hubert C. George, Mateusz T. Mądzik, Eric M. Henry, Andrew J. Wagner, Mohammad M. Islam, Felix Bor- jans, Elliot J. Connors, J. Corrigan, Matthew Curry, Michael K. Harper, Daniel Keith, Lester Lampert, Flo- rian Luthi, Fahd A. Mohiyaddin, Sandra Murcia, Ro- hit Nair, Rambert Nahm, Aditi Nethwewala, Samuel Neyens, Bishnu Patra, Roy D. Raharjo, Carly Ro- ga...

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Two-dimensional Sispin qubit arrays with multilevel interconnects,

    Sieu D. Ha, Edwin Acuna, Kate Raach, Zach- ery T. Bloom, Teresa L. Brecht, James M. Chappell, Maxwell D. Choi, Justin E. Christensen, Ian T. Counts, DominicDaprano, J.P.Dodson, KevinEng, DavidJ.Fi- alkow, Christina A. C. Garcia, Wonill Ha, Thomas R. B. Harris, nathan holman, Isaac Khalaf, Justine W. Mat- ten, Christi A. Peterson, Clifford E. Plesha, Matth...

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Robust and localised control of a 10-spin qubit array in germanium,

    Valentin John, Cécile X. Yu, Barnaby van Straaten, Esteban A. Rodríguez-Mena, Mauricio Rodríguez, Ste- fan D. Oosterhout, Lucas E. A. Stehouwer, Giordano Scappucci, Maximilian Rimbach-Russ, Stefano Bosco, Francesco Borsoi, Yann-Michel Niquet, and Menno Veldhorst, “Robust and localised control of a 10-spin qubit array in germanium,” Nat. Commun.16, 10560 (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    An 11-qubit atom processor in silicon,

    Hermann Edlbauer, Junliang Wang, A. M. Saffat-Ee Huq, Ian Thorvaldson, Michael T. Jones, Saiful Haque Misha, William J. Pappas, Christian M. Moehle, Yu- Ling Hsueh, Henric Bornemann, Samuel K. Gorman, Yousun Chung, Joris G. Keizer, Ludwik Kranz, and Michelle Y. Simmons, “An 11-qubit atom processor in silicon,” Nature648, 569–575 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Run- ning a six-qubit quantum circuit on a silicon spin-qubit array,

    I. Fernández de Fuentes, E. Raymenants, B. Undseth, O. Pietx-Casas, S. Philips, M. Mądzik, S.L. de Snoo, S.V. Amitonov, L. Tryputen, A.T. Schmitz, A.Y. Mat- suura, G. Scappucci, and L.M.K. Vandersypen, “Run- ning a six-qubit quantum circuit on a silicon spin-qubit array,” PRX Quantum7, 010308 (2026)

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

    Tunable Nonlo- cal Spin Control in a Coupled-Quantum Dot System,

    N. J. Craig, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Lester, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, “Tunable Nonlo- cal Spin Control in a Coupled-Quantum Dot System,” Science304, 565–567 (2004)

    work page 2004

  40. [40]

    Bipo- lar spin blockade and coherent state superpositions in a triple quantum dot,

    M.Busl, G.Granger, L.Gaudreau, R.Sanchez, A.Kam, M. Pioro-Ladriere, S. A. Studenikin, P. Zawadzki, Z. R. Wasilewski, A. S. Sachrajda, and G. Platero, “Bipo- lar spin blockade and coherent state superpositions in a triple quantum dot,” Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 261–265 (2013)

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    Long-distance coherent coupling in a quantum dot array,

    F. R. Braakman, P. Barthelemy, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, “Long-distance coherent coupling in a quantum dot array,” Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 432–437 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Two-qubit couplings of singlet-triplet qubits me- diated by one quantum state,

    Sebastian Mehl, Hendrik Bluhm, and David P. DiVin- cenzo, “Two-qubit couplings of singlet-triplet qubits me- diated by one quantum state,” Phys. Rev. B90, 045404 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    Tunable spin- qubit coupling mediated by a multielectron quantum dot,

    V. Srinivasa, H. Xu, and J. M. Taylor, “Tunable spin- qubit coupling mediated by a multielectron quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 226803 (2015)

    work page 2015

  44. [44]

    Fast long-distance control of spin qubits by photon-assisted cotunneling,

    Peter Stano, Jelena Klinovaja, Floris R. Braakman, Lieven M. K. Vandersypen, and Daniel Loss, “Fast long-distance control of spin qubits by photon-assisted cotunneling,” Phys. Rev. B92, 075302 (2015)

    work page 2015

  45. [45]

    Coherent spin-exchange via a quan- tum mediator,

    Timothy Alexander Baart, Takafumi Fujita, Christian Reichl, Werner Wegscheider, and Lieven Mark Koen- raad Vandersypen, “Coherent spin-exchange via a quan- tum mediator,” Nat. Nanotechnol.12, 26–30 (2017)

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    Spin of a multielectron quantum dot and its interaction with a neighboring electron,

    Filip K. Malinowski, Frederico Martins, Thomas B. Smith, Stephen D. Bartlett, Andrew C. Doherty, Pe- ter D. Nissen, Saeed Fallahi, Geoffrey C. Gardner, Michael J. Manfra, Charles M. Marcus, and Ferdinand Kuemmeth, “Spin of a multielectron quantum dot and its interaction with a neighboring electron,” Phys. Rev. X8, 011045 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    Device ar- chitecture for coupling spin qubits via an intermediate quantum state,

    X.G. Croot, S.J. Pauka, J.D. Watson, G.C. Gardner, S. Fallahi, M.J. Manfra, and D.J. Reilly, “Device ar- chitecture for coupling spin qubits via an intermediate quantum state,” Phys. Rev. Applied10, 044058 (2018)

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Fast spin exchange across a multielectron mediator,

    Filip K. Malinowski, Frederico Martins, Thomas B. Smith, Stephen D. Bartlett, Andrew C. Doherty, Pe- ter D. Nissen, Saeed Fallahi, Geoffrey C. Gardner, Michael J. Manfra, Charles M. Marcus, and Ferdinand Kuemmeth, “Fast spin exchange across a multielectron mediator,” Nat. Commun.10, 1196 (2019)

    work page 2019

  49. [49]

    A Silicon Surface Code Architecture Resilient Against Leakage Errors,

    Zhenyu Cai, Michael A. Fogarty, Simon Schaal, Sofia Patomäki, Simon C. Benjamin, and John J. L. Morton, “A Silicon Surface Code Architecture Resilient Against Leakage Errors,” Quantum3, 212 (2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Interplay of ex- change and superexchange in triple quantum dots,

    Kuangyin Deng and Edwin Barnes, “Interplay of ex- change and superexchange in triple quantum dots,” Phys. Rev. B102, 035427 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    Jellybean quantum dots in silicon for qubit coupling and on-chip quantum chemistry,

    Zeheng Wang, MengKe Feng, Santiago Serrano, William Gilbert, Ross C. C. Leon, Tuomo Tanttu, Philip Mai, Dylan Liang, Jonathan Y. Huang, Yue Su, Wee Han Lim, Fay E. Hudson, Christopher C. Escott, Andrea Morello, Chih Hwan Yang, Andrew S. Dzurak, Andre Saraiva, and Arne Laucht, “Jellybean quantum dots in silicon for qubit coupling and on-chip quantum chemis...

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Spinhex: A low-crosstalk, spin- qubit architecture based on multi-electron couplers,

    Rubén M. Otxoa, Josu Etxezarreta Martinez, Paul Schnabl, Normann Mertig, Charles Smith, and Frederico Martins, “Spinhex: A low-crosstalk, spin- qubit architecture based on multi-electron couplers,” arXiv:2504.03149 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Mitigating residual exchange coupling in res- onant singlet-triplet qubits,

    Jiheng Duan, Fernando Torres-Leal, and John M. Nichol, “Mitigating residual exchange coupling in res- onant singlet-triplet qubits,” arXiv:2512.04846 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Efficient Multiqubit Entanglement via a Spin Bus,

    M. Friesen, A. Biswas, X. Hu, and D. Lidar, “Efficient Multiqubit Entanglement via a Spin Bus,” Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 230503 (2007)

    work page 2007

  55. [55]

    Flying spin qubits: A method for encoding and transporting qubits within a dimerized Heisenberg spin- 1/2 chain,

    V. Srinivasa, J. Levy, and C. S. Hellberg, “Flying spin qubits: A method for encoding and transporting qubits within a dimerized Heisenberg spin- 1/2 chain,” Phys. Rev. B76, 094411 (2007)

    work page 2007

  56. [56]

    Even- odd effects of Heisenberg chains on long-range inter- action and entanglement,

    Sangchul Oh, Mark Friesen, and Xuedong Hu, “Even- odd effects of Heisenberg chains on long-range inter- action and entanglement,” Phys. Rev. B82, 140403 (2010)

    work page 2010

  57. [57]

    Transport of spin qubits with donor chains under real- istic experimental conditions,

    Fahd A. Mohiyaddin, Rachpon Kalra, Arne Laucht, Ra- jib Rahman, Gerhard Klimeck, and Andrea Morello, “Transport of spin qubits with donor chains under real- istic experimental conditions,” Phys. Rev. B94, 045314 (2016)

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

    Coherent spin-state transfer via heisenberg ex- change,

    Yadav P. Kandel, Haifeng Qiao, Saeed Fallahi, Geof- frey C. Gardner, Michael J. Manfra, and John M. Nichol, “Coherent spin-state transfer via heisenberg ex- change,” Nature573, 553–557 (2019)

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    Con- ditional teleportation of quantum-dot spin states,

    Haifeng Qiao, Yadav P. Kandel, Sreenath K. Manikan- dan, Andrew N. Jordan, Saeed Fallahi, Geoffrey C. Gardner, MichaelJ.Manfra, andJohnM.Nichol,“Con- ditional teleportation of quantum-dot spin states,” Nat. Commun.11, 3022 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Long-distance superexchange between semiconductor quantum-dot electron spins,

    Haifeng Qiao, Yadav P. Kandel, Saeed Fallahi, Geof- frey C. Gardner, Michael J. Manfra, Xuedong Hu, and John M. Nichol, “Long-distance superexchange between semiconductor quantum-dot electron spins,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 017701 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Superex- change coupling of donor qubits in silicon,

    Mushita M. Munia, Serajum Monir, Edyta N. Osika, Michelle Y. Simmons, and Rajib Rahman, “Superex- change coupling of donor qubits in silicon,” Phys. Rev. Applied21, 014038 (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    Coherent shuttle of electron-spin states,

    Takafumi Fujita, Timothy Alexander Baart, Christian 20 Reichl, Werner Wegscheider, and Lieven Mark Koen- raad Vandersypen, “Coherent shuttle of electron-spin states,” npj Quantum Inf.3, 22 (2017)

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    Shuttling a single charge across a one-dimensional array of silicon quan- tum dots,

    A. R. Mills, D. M. Zajac, M. J. Gullans, F. J. Schupp, T. M. Hazard, and J. R. Petta, “Shuttling a single charge across a one-dimensional array of silicon quan- tum dots,” Nat. Commun.10, 1063 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Conveyor-mode single-electron shuttling in si/sige for a scalable quantum computing architecture,

    Inga Seidler, Tom Struck, Ran Xue, Niels Focke, Stefan Trellenkamp, Hendrik Bluhm, and Lars R. Schreiber, “Conveyor-mode single-electron shuttling in si/sige for a scalable quantum computing architecture,” npj Quan- tum Inf.8, 100 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    A shuttling-based two-qubit logic gate for linking distant silicon quantum processors,

    Akito Noiri, Kenta Takeda, Takashi Nakajima, Takashi Kobayashi, Amir Sammak, Giordano Scappucci, and Seigo Tarucha, “A shuttling-based two-qubit logic gate for linking distant silicon quantum processors,” Nat. Commun.13, 5740 (2022)

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    Blueprint of a scalable spin qubit shuttle device for coherent mid-range qubit transfer in disordered si/sige/sio2,

    Veit Langrock, Jan A. Krzywda, Niels Focke, Inga Seidler, Lars R. Schreiber, and Łukasz Cywiński, “Blueprint of a scalable spin qubit shuttle device for coherent mid-range qubit transfer in disordered si/sige/sio2,” PRX Quantum4, 020305 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Shuttling an electron spin through a silicon quantum dot array,

    A.M.J. Zwerver, S.V. Amitonov, S.L. de Snoo, M.T. Mądzik, M. Rimbach-Russ, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and L.M.K. Vandersypen, “Shuttling an electron spin through a silicon quantum dot array,” PRX Quantum 4, 030303 (2023)

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Si/sige qubus for sin- gle electron information-processing devices with mem- ory and micron-scale connectivity function,

    Ran Xue, Max Beer, Inga Seidler, Simon Humpohl, Jhih-Sian Tu, Stefan Trellenkamp, Tom Struck, Hendrik Bluhm, and Lars R. Schreiber, “Si/sige qubus for sin- gle electron information-processing devices with mem- ory and micron-scale connectivity function,” Nat. Com- mun.15, 2296 (2024)

    work page 2024

  69. [69]

    Coherent spin qubit shuttling through germanium quantum dots,

    Floor van Riggelen-Doelman, Chien-An Wang, Sander L. de Snoo, William I. L. Lawrie, Nico W. Hendrickx, Maximilian Rimbach-Russ, Amir Sammak, Giordano Scappucci, Corentin Déprez, and Menno Veldhorst, “Coherent spin qubit shuttling through germanium quantum dots,” Nat. Commun.15, 5716 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Spin-epr-pair separation by conveyor-mode single electron shuttling in si/sige,

    Tom Struck, Mats Volmer, Lino Visser, Tobias Offer- mann, Ran Xue, Jhih-Sian Tu, Stefan Trellenkamp, Łukasz Cywiński, Hendrik Bluhm, and Lars R. Schreiber, “Spin-epr-pair separation by conveyor-mode single electron shuttling in si/sige,” Nat. Commun.15, 1325 (2024)

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    High- fidelity single-spin shuttling in silicon,

    Maxim De Smet, Yuta Matsumoto, Anne-Marije J. Zw- erver, Larysa Tryputen, Sander L. de Snoo, Sergey V. Amitonov, Sam R. Katiraee-Far, Amir Sammak, Nodar Samkharadze, Önder Gül, Rick N. M. Wasserman, Eliška Greplová, Maximilian Rimbach-Russ, Giordano Scappucci, and Lieven M. K. Vandersypen, “High- fidelity single-spin shuttling in silicon,” Nat. Nanotech- ...

    work page 2025

  72. [72]

    Electrical interconnects for silicon spin qubits,

    Christopher David White, Anthony Sigillito, and Michael J. Gullans, “Electrical interconnects for silicon spin qubits,” Phys. Rev. B113, 085301 (2026)

    work page 2026

  73. [73]

    Omnidirectionalshuttlingtoavoidvalley excitations inSi/SiGequantum wells,

    Róbert Németh, Vatsal K. Bandaru, Pedro Alves, Emma Brann, Owen M. Eskandari, Hudaiba Soomro, Avani Vivrekar, M.A. Eriksson, Merritt P. Losert, and MarkFriesen,“Omnidirectionalshuttlingtoavoidvalley excitations inSi/SiGequantum wells,” PRX Quantum 7, 010336 (2026)

    work page 2026

  74. [74]

    URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2601

    Brennan Undseth, Nicola Meggiato, Yi-Hsien Wu, Sam R. Katiraee-Far, Larysa Tryputen, Sander L. de Snoo, Davide Degli Esposti, Giordano Scappucci, Eliška Greplová, and Lieven M. K. Vandersypen, “Weight-four parity checks with silicon spin qubits,” arXiv:2601.23267 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    Quantum gates between capacitively coupled double quantum dot two-spin qubits,

    Dimitrije Stepanenko and Guido Burkard, “Quantum gates between capacitively coupled double quantum dot two-spin qubits,” Phys. Rev. B75, 085324 (2007)

    work page 2007

  76. [76]

    Charge-State Conditional Operation of a Spin Qubit,

    I. van Weperen, B. D. Armstrong, E. A. Laird, J. Med- ford, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, “Charge-State Conditional Operation of a Spin Qubit,” Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 030506 (2011)

    work page 2011

  77. [77]

    Long-Distance Spin-Spin Coupling via Floating Gates,

    Luka Trifunovic, Oliver Dial, Mircea Trif, James R. Wootton, Rediet Abebe, Amir Yacoby, and Daniel Loss, “Long-Distance Spin-Spin Coupling via Floating Gates,” Phys. Rev. X2, 011006 (2012)

    work page 2012

  78. [78]

    Demonstration of En- tanglement of Electrostatically Coupled Singlet-Triplet Qubits,

    M. D. Shulman, O. E. Dial, S. P. Harvey, H. Bluhm, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, “Demonstration of En- tanglement of Electrostatically Coupled Singlet-Triplet Qubits,” Science336, 202–205 (2012)

    work page 2012

  79. [79]

    Capacitively coupled singlet-triplet qubits in the double charge resonant regime,

    V. Srinivasa and J. M. Taylor, “Capacitively coupled singlet-triplet qubits in the double charge resonant regime,” Phys. Rev. B92, 235301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  80. [80]

    High-fidelity entangling gate for double-quantum-dot spin qubits,

    John M. Nichol, Lucas A. Orona, Shannon P. Harvey, Saeed Fallahi, Geoffrey C. Gardner, Michael J. Man- fra, and Amir Yacoby, “High-fidelity entangling gate for double-quantum-dot spin qubits,” npj Quantum Inf. 3, 3 (2017)

    work page 2017

Showing first 80 references.