arxiv: 2605.13680 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Comparative assessment of germanium-based spin-qubit modalities: donor, acceptor, gate-defined hole, and gate-defined electron platforms

D.-M. Mei , K.-M. Dong , S. A. Panamaldeniya , A. Prem , S. Chhetri , N. Budhathoki , S. Bhattarai

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 18:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph

keywords germanium spin qubitshole spin qubitsdonor qubitsacceptor qubitsgate-defined qubitsquantum processorsT1 relaxationscalability

0 comments

The pith

Gate-defined germanium hole-spin qubits currently lead in electrical controllability, multiqubit demonstrations, and scalability potential compared to donor, acceptor, and electron variants.

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

This paper compares four different ways to make spin qubits in high-purity germanium: using donor atoms, acceptor atoms, gate-defined holes, and gate-defined electrons. Each exploits different features of the germanium band structure, leading to different strengths in coherence time, ease of control, fabrication, and ability to scale up. By reviewing shared material properties like strain, interfaces, and phonons, and applying a common model for relaxation times, the authors find that gate-defined hole qubits stand out for all-electrical control and existing multiqubit operations. This matters because it points to a practical route for building larger quantum processors in a material that is already mature in semiconductor manufacturing. The other modalities remain useful for specific roles like long-term memory or hybrid systems.

Core claim

High-purity germanium enables four spin-qubit platforms—donor, acceptor, gate-defined hole, and gate-defined electron—that differ in how they use the conduction or valence bands. A shared framework for phonon-limited T1 relaxation, incorporating a calibrated reference rate and geometry suppression, allows direct comparison. The assessment concludes that gate-defined hole-spin qubits provide the strongest combination of all-electrical control, demonstrated multiqubit operation, and scalability, making them the clearest path toward scalable Ge-based quantum processors, while the others serve complementary roles.

What carries the argument

A common T1 estimation framework using a calibrated reference relaxation rate, a geometry-dependent strain-density-of-states suppression factor, and accounting for parasitic channels, applied across the four modalities based on their band-structure differences.

If this is right

Gate-defined hole qubits offer the clearest path toward scalable Ge-based quantum processors.
Donor, acceptor, and gate-defined electron qubits remain important for memory, hybrid, and exploratory architectures.
Germanium supports a diverse qubit ecosystem with distinct trade-offs among coherence, controllability, and fabrication complexity.
All-electrical control in hole qubits simplifies integration by reducing reliance on external microwave or magnetic fields.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The T1 framework could be applied to silicon-based qubits to enable direct cross-platform comparisons.
Successful scaling of hole qubits would position germanium as a strong candidate for hybrid quantum-classical chips due to CMOS compatibility.
New device geometries could be fabricated to test and refine the geometry-dependent suppression factor in the relaxation model.
Combinations of modalities on one chip might enable specialized functions such as long-coherence memory alongside fast gates.

Load-bearing premise

The literature values and demonstrated results for each modality are representative and comparable on a common footing, with the T1 framework accurately capturing real devices without significant unaccounted parasitic channels.

What would settle it

Demonstration of superior multiqubit operation in donor or acceptor qubits, or measurement of unexpectedly short T1 times in phononic crystal hole devices that contradict the predicted suppression, would undermine the ranking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13680 by A. Prem, D.-M. Mei, K.-M. Dong, N. Budhathoki, S. A. Panamaldeniya, S. Bhattarai, S. Chhetri.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Conceptual schematic of a Ge donor-spin platform integrated with a phononic crystal. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Conceptual schematic of a Ge acceptor-spin platform integrated with a phononic crystal. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Conceptual schematic of a gate-defined Ge hole-spin qubit platform integrated with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Conceptual schematic of a gate-defined Ge electron-spin qubit platform integrated with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

High-purity germanium (Ge) has re-emerged as a versatile semiconductor platform for spin-based quantum information processing because it combines mature materials processing, access to spin-free isotopes, high mobilities, small effective masses, and strong but engineerable spin--orbit coupling. However, ``Ge qubits'' are not a single technology. Donor spin qubits, acceptor spin qubits, gate-defined hole spin qubits, and gate-defined electron spin qubits exploit different parts of the Ge band structure and therefore make distinct trade-offs among coherence, controllability, fabrication complexity, and scalability. Here we compare these four Ge-based spin-qubit modalities on a common physical and architectural footing. We review the shared Ge materials physics, including isotopic purification, the multivalley \(L\)-point conduction band, the spin-\(3/2\) valence band, heavy-hole/light-hole mixing, strain, interfaces, disorder, and phonons. We also introduce a common framework for estimating phononic-crystal-modified \(T_1\) using a calibrated reference relaxation rate, a geometry-dependent strain-density-of-states suppression factor, and parasitic relaxation channels. The comparison shows that gate-defined Ge hole-spin qubits currently offer the strongest combination of all-electrical control, demonstrated multiqubit operation, and scalability. Donor, acceptor, and gate-defined electron qubits remain important complementary directions for memory, hybrid, and exploratory architectures. Overall, Ge supports a diverse qubit ecosystem, with gate-defined hole-spin qubits presently providing the clearest path toward scalable Ge-based quantum processors.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This synthesizes Ge qubit literature into a platform ranking that favors gate-defined holes, with a new but unvalidated T1 estimation framework as the main addition.

read the letter

The paper's core message is that gate-defined hole qubits currently look strongest among the four Ge modalities for all-electrical control, multiqubit operation, and scalability. It reviews the common materials physics—strain, interfaces, phonons, and valley effects—then introduces a shared T1 estimation approach that starts from a calibrated reference relaxation rate and multiplies by a geometry-dependent strain-density-of-states suppression factor, plus allowance for parasitic channels. That framework is the clearest new element; the rest is a careful literature synthesis rather than fresh derivations or data. It does a good job making the distinct trade-offs between donor, acceptor, hole, and electron platforms explicit and readable for someone choosing an experimental direction. The writing stays grounded in the cited results without overclaiming. The main limitation is that the ranking depends on pulling numbers from separate papers whose devices differ in scale, fabrication, and measurement conditions. The T1 framework assumes the reference rate and suppression factor transfer without modality-specific extras like interface disorder or valley mixing that the paper itself notes can vary. No cross-check against independent T1 datasets from each platform is shown, so the coherence comparison stays qualitative. This is useful for experimental teams mapping Ge roadmaps and for theorists who want a compact overview of the physics. It deserves peer review because the synthesis is timely and the framework could be tested or refined; referees can push on the comparability assumptions without the paper needing to be rewritten from scratch.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reviews four Ge-based spin-qubit modalities (donor, acceptor, gate-defined hole, and gate-defined electron) by synthesizing shared materials physics (isotopic purification, L-point conduction band, spin-3/2 valence band, strain, interfaces, phonons) and introducing a common T1 estimation framework that employs a calibrated reference relaxation rate, a geometry-dependent strain-density-of-states suppression factor, and parasitic channels. It aggregates literature metrics on coherence, all-electrical control, multiqubit demonstrations, and scalability to conclude that gate-defined Ge hole-spin qubits currently provide the strongest overall combination for scalable processors, while the other modalities remain complementary.

Significance. If the central ranking holds, the manuscript supplies a useful roadmap for the Ge qubit community by placing disparate experimental results on a common physical footing and identifying gate-defined holes as the clearest near-term path. The introduced T1 framework, if validated, offers a reusable tool for future device comparisons. The work correctly emphasizes the diversity of the Ge ecosystem and avoids overclaiming any single modality as universally superior.

major comments (2)

[T1 estimation framework] T1 estimation framework section: The calibrated reference relaxation rate and geometry-dependent suppression factor are introduced without explicit cross-validation against independent experimental T1 data from all four modalities. If interface disorder, valley mixing, or strain inhomogeneity introduce modality-specific parasitic channels not captured by the factor, the normalized coherence metrics used to support the overall ranking become unreliable.
[Comparison and ranking] Comparison and ranking section: The aggregation of literature values for control, multiqubit operation, and scalability assumes direct comparability across atomic-scale (donor/acceptor) and extended gate-defined wavefunctions, yet no quantitative standardization, error propagation, or sensitivity analysis is provided to justify this footing.

minor comments (2)

[Materials physics review] The notation for heavy-hole/light-hole mixing and its relation to spin-orbit engineering could be clarified with an explicit equation or diagram in the materials-physics review.
Figure captions should explicitly state the source of each plotted literature datum (reference number and device type) to improve traceability.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The comparison rests on standard semiconductor band-structure assumptions and one introduced estimation framework whose reference rate is calibrated to existing data.

free parameters (1)

calibrated reference relaxation rate
Used as baseline for the T1 estimation framework; fitted or chosen from prior measurements to anchor the calculation.

axioms (2)

standard math Ge band structure (L-point conduction band, spin-3/2 valence band, heavy-hole/light-hole mixing) is accurately described by existing k·p models
Invoked when reviewing shared materials physics for all four modalities.
domain assumption Strain, interfaces, disorder, and phonons dominate relaxation and coherence in the same way across platforms
Required to place the four qubit types on a common physical footing.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5613 in / 1399 out tokens · 26574 ms · 2026-05-14T18:25:17.839444+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

[1]

Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature, 638(8052):920–926, 2025

Rajeev Acharya et al. Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold.Nature, 638(8052):920–926, 2025

2025
[2]

Jeroen P. G. van Dijk, Edoardo Charbon, and Fabio Sebastiano. The electronic interface for quantum processors.Microprocessors and Microsystems, 66:90–101, 2019

2019
[3]

Zwanenburg, Daniel Loss, Maksym My- ronov, Jian-Jun Zhang, Silvano De Franceschi, Georgios Katsaros, and Menno Veldhorst

Giordano Scappucci, Christoph Kloeffel, Floris A. Zwanenburg, Daniel Loss, Maksym My- ronov, Jian-Jun Zhang, Silvano De Franceschi, Georgios Katsaros, and Menno Veldhorst. The germanium quantum information route.Nature Reviews Materials, 6:926–943, 2021

2021
[4]

L. A. Terrazos, E. Marcellina, Z. Wang, S. N. Coppersmith, M. Friesen, A. R. Hamilton, X. Hu, B. Koiller, A. L. Saraiva, R. B. Capaz, and D. Culcer. Theory of hole-spin qubits in strained germanium quantum dots.Physical Review B, 103:125201, 2021

2021
[5]

Zhanning Wang, Elizabeth Marcellina, Alex. R. Hamilton, James H. Cullen, Sven Rogge, Joe Salfi, and Dimitrie Culcer. Optimal operation points for ultrafast, highly coherent Ge hole spin-orbit qubits.npj Quantum Information, 7:54, 2021

2021
[6]

Investigation of influential factors on the purification of zone-refined germa- nium ingot.Crystal Research and Technology, 49(4):269–275, 2014

Gang Yang, Jayesh Govani, Hao Mei, Yutong Guan, Guojian Wang, Mianliang Huang, and Dongming Mei. Investigation of influential factors on the purification of zone-refined germa- nium ingot.Crystal Research and Technology, 49(4):269–275, 2014

2014
[7]

High purity ger- manium crystal growth at the University of South Dakota.Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 606(1):012012, 2015

Guojian Wang, Hao Mei, Dongming Mei, Yutong Guan, and Gang Yang. High purity ger- manium crystal growth at the University of South Dakota.Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 606(1):012012, 2015

2015
[8]

Dislocation density control in high-purity germanium crystal growth

Guojian Wang, Yutong Guan, Hao Mei, Dongming Mei, Gang Yang, Jayesh Govani, and Muhammad Khizar. Dislocation density control in high-purity germanium crystal growth. Journal of Crystal Growth, 393:54–58, 2014

2014
[9]

Investigating influential parameters for high-purity germanium crystal growth.Crystals, 14(2):177, 2024

Sanjay Bhattarai, Dongming Mei, Narayan Budhathoki, Kunming Dong, and Austin War- ren. Investigating influential parameters for high-purity germanium crystal growth.Crystals, 14(2):177, 2024

2024
[10]

J. C. Abadillo-Uriel and M. J. Calder´ on. Interface effects on acceptor qubits in silicon and germanium.Nanotechnology, 27(2):024003, 2016

2016
[11]

Acceptor-based qubit in silicon with tunable strain

Shihang Zhang, Yu He, and Peihao Huang. Acceptor-based qubit in silicon with tunable strain. Physical Review B, 107(15):155301, 2023

2023
[12]

A. J. Sigillito, R. M. Jock, A. M. Tyryshkin, J. W. Beeman, E. E. Haller, K. M. Itoh, and S. A. Lyon. Electron spin coherence of shallow donors in natural and isotopically enriched germanium.Physical Review Letters, 115(24):247601, 2015

2015
[13]

A germanium hole spin qubit.Nature Communica- tions, 9:3902, 2018

Hannes Watzinger, Josip Kukuˇ cka, Lada Vukuˇ si´ c, Fei Gao, Ting Wang, Friedrich Sch¨ affler, Jian-Jun Zhang, and Georgios Katsaros. A germanium hole spin qubit.Nature Communica- tions, 9:3902, 2018

2018
[14]

Hendrickx, David P

Nico W. Hendrickx, David P. Franke, Amir Sammak, Giordano Scappucci, and Menno Veld- horst. Fast two-qubit logic with holes in germanium.Nature, 577:487–491, 2020. 42

2020
[15]

Hendrickx, Lorenzo Massai, Maximilian Mergenthaler, Fabian J

Nico W. Hendrickx, Lorenzo Massai, Maximilian Mergenthaler, Fabian J. Schupp, Sara Pare- des, Stephen W. Bedell, Guido Salis, and Andreas Fuhrer. Sweet-spot operation of a germa- nium hole spin qubit with highly anisotropic noise sensitivity.Nature Materials, 23(7):920–927, 2024

2024
[16]

Ultrafast coherent control of a hole spin qubit in a germanium quantum dot.Nature Communications, 13:206, 2022

Ke Wang, Gang Xu, Fei Gao, et al. Ultrafast coherent control of a hole spin qubit in a germanium quantum dot.Nature Communications, 13:206, 2022

2022
[17]

de Snoo, William I

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 D´ eprez, and Menno Veldhorst. Coherent spin qubit shuttling through germanium quantum dots.Nature Communications, 15:5716, 2024

2024
[18]

Yu, Barnaby van Straaten, et al

Valentin John, C´ ecile X. Yu, Barnaby van Straaten, et al. Robust and localised control of a 10-spin qubit array in germanium.Nature Communications, 16:10560, 2025

2025
[19]

V. N. Smelyanskiy, V. V. Hafiychuk, F. T. Vasko, and A. G. Petukhov. Donor spin qubits in Ge-based phononic crystals.arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.6285, 2014

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[20]

D.-M. Mei, S. A. Panamaldeniya, K. Dong, S. Bhattarai, N. Budhathoki, and A. Warren. Phonon-coupled hole-spin qubits in high-purity germanium: design and modeling of a scalable architecture.Quantum Science and Technology, 10:045067, 2025

2025
[21]

Atomic weights and isotopic composi- tions for germanium.https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Compositions/stand_alone

National Institute of Standards and Technology. Atomic weights and isotopic composi- tions for germanium.https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/Compositions/stand_alone. pl?ele=Ge. Accessed 2026-04-18

2026
[22]

L. E. A. Stehouwer, C. X. Yu, B. van Straaten, et al. Exploiting strained epitaxial germanium for scaling low-noise spin qubits at the micrometre scale.Nature Materials, 24:1906–1912, 2025

1906
[23]

Semiconductor properties of germanium: band structure and basic parameters

Ioffe Institute. Semiconductor properties of germanium: band structure and basic parameters. https://www.ioffe.ru/SVA/NSM/Semicond/Ge/bandstr.html. Accessed 2026-04-18

2026
[24]

Neamen.Semiconductor Physics and Devices: Basic Principles

Donald A. Neamen.Semiconductor Physics and Devices: Basic Principles. McGraw-Hill, New York, 4 edition, 2012

2012
[25]

Intrinsic spin lifetime of conduction electrons in germanium.Physical Review B, 86:085202, 2012

Pengke Li, Yang Song, and Hanan Dery. Intrinsic spin lifetime of conduction electrons in germanium.Physical Review B, 86:085202, 2012

2012
[26]

Giuseppe Pica and Brendon W. Lovett. Quantum gates with donors in germanium.Physical Review B, 94:205309, 2016

2016
[27]

Lodari, A

M. Lodari, A. Tosato, D. Sabbagh, M. A. Schubert, G. Capellini, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, and G. Scappucci. Light effective hole mass in undoped Ge/SiGe quantum wells.Physical Review B, 100:041304, 2019

2019
[28]

Abhikbrata Sarkar, Pratik Chowdhury, Xuedong Hu, Andre Saraiva, A. S. Dzurak, A. R. Hamilton, Rajib Rahman, and Dimitrie Culcer. Effect of disorder and strain on the operation of planar Ge hole spin qubits.npj Quantum Information, 11:185, 2025

2025
[29]

Rodr´ ıguez, Esteban A

Lorenzo Mauro, Mauricio J. Rodr´ ıguez, Esteban A. Rodr´ ıguez-Mena, and Yann-Michel Niquet. Hole spin qubits in unstrained germanium layers.npj Quantum Information, 11:167, 2025. 43

2025
[30]

Basic parameters of germanium (Ge).https://www.ioffe.ru/SVA/NSM/ Semicond/Ge/basic.html

Ioffe Institute. Basic parameters of germanium (Ge).https://www.ioffe.ru/SVA/NSM/ Semicond/Ge/basic.html. Accessed 2026-04-18

2026
[31]

Platero-Prats, Marc Rev´ es, Jorge Echeverr´ ıa, Ed- uard Cremades, Flavia Barrag´ an, and Santiago Alvarez

Beatriz Cordero, Ver´ onica G´ omez, Ana E. Platero-Prats, Marc Rev´ es, Jorge Echeverr´ ıa, Ed- uard Cremades, Flavia Barrag´ an, and Santiago Alvarez. Covalent radii revisited.Dalton Transactions, (21):2832–2838, 2008

2008
[32]

Chi Xu, C. L. Senaratne, John Kouvetakis, and Jos´ e Men´ endez. Experimental doping depen- dence of the lattice parameter in n-type Ge: Identifying the correct theoretical framework by comparison with si.Physical Review B, 93(4):041201, 2016

2016
[33]

Theoretical explanation for doping dependence of lattice constants in Ge:B films: Revealing nanoscale impurity types from macroscopic perspective.APL Materials, 13(11):111116, 2025

Junyu Chang, Hongcheng Jiang, Yue Li, Caile Wang, Zhengjie Wu, Xiyan Chang, Liyu Chen, Dong Han, Hui Cong, Chi Xu, Huixiong Deng, and Chunlai Xue. Theoretical explanation for doping dependence of lattice constants in Ge:B films: Revealing nanoscale impurity types from macroscopic perspective.APL Materials, 13(11):111116, 2025

2025
[34]

G. Yang, Y. T. Guan, F. Y. Jian, M. D. Wagner, H. Mei, G. J. Wang, S. M. Howard, D. M. Mei, A. Nelson, J. Marshall, K. Fitzgerald, C. Tenzin, and X. Ma. Zone refinement of germanium crystals.Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 606:012014, 2015

2015
[35]

D.-M. Mei, N. Budhathoki, S. A. Panamaldeniya, K.-M. Dong, S. Bhattarai, A. Warren, A. Prem, and S. Chhetri. Probing low-mass dark matter from sub-MeV to sub-GeV with germanium-based quantum phononic spectroscopy.Physics of the Dark Universe, 50:102165, 2025

2025
[36]

Rodr´ ıguez-Mena, Biel Martinez, and Yann-Michel Ni- quet

Jos´ e Carlos Abadillo-Uriel, Esteban A. Rodr´ ıguez-Mena, Biel Martinez, and Yann-Michel Ni- quet. Hole-spin driving by strain-induced spin-orbit interactions.Physical Review Letters, 131(9):097002, 2023

2023
[37]

Ekmel Ercan, Mark F

Chien-An Wang, H. Ekmel Ercan, Mark F. Gyure, Giordano Scappucci, Menno Veldhorst, and Maximilian Rimbach-Russ. Modeling of planar germanium hole qubits in electric and magnetic fields.npj Quantum Information, 10:102, 2024

2024
[38]

Strong confinement-induced engineering of the g factor and lifetime of conduction electron spins in Ge quantum wells

Anna Giorgioni, Stefano Paleari, Stefano Cecchi, Elisa Vitiello, Emanuele Grilli, Giovanni Isella, Wolfgang Jantsch, Marco Fanciulli, and Fabio Pezzoli. Strong confinement-induced engineering of the g factor and lifetime of conduction electron spins in Ge quantum wells. Nature Communications, 7:13886, 2016

2016
[39]

Hasegawa

H. Hasegawa. Spin-lattice relaxation of shallow donor states in Ge and Si through a direct phonon process.Physical Review, 118:1523–1534, 1960

1960
[40]

Roth.gfactor and donor spin-lattice relaxation for electrons in germanium and silicon.Physical Review, 118:1534–1540, 1960

Laura M. Roth.gfactor and donor spin-lattice relaxation for electrons in germanium and silicon.Physical Review, 118:1534–1540, 1960

1960
[41]

A. J. Sigillito, A. M. Tyryshkin, J. W. Beeman, E. E. Haller, K. M. Itoh, and S. A. Lyon. Large Stark tuning of donor electron spin qubits in germanium.Physical Review B, 94:125204, 2016

2016
[42]

Safavi-Naeini, Jeff T

Amir H. Safavi-Naeini, Jeff T. Hill, Se´ an Meenehan, Jasper Chan, Simon Gr¨ oblacher, and Oskar Painter. Two-dimensional phononic-photonic band gap optomechanical crystal cavity. Physical Review Letters, 112(15):153603, 2014. 44

2014
[43]

J. C. Abadillo-Uriel and M. J. Calder´ on. Spin qubit manipulation of acceptor bound states in group IV quantum wells.New Journal of Physics, 19(4):043027, 2017

2017
[44]

Quantum computing with ac- ceptor spins in silicon.Nanotechnology, 27(24):244001, 2016

Joe Salfi, Mengyang Tong, Sven Rogge, and Dimitrie Culcer. Quantum computing with ac- ceptor spins in silicon.Nanotechnology, 27(24):244001, 2016

2016
[45]

Mol, Dimitrie Culcer, and Sven Rogge

Joe Salfi, Jan A. Mol, Dimitrie Culcer, and Sven Rogge. Charge-insensitive single-atom spin- orbit qubit in silicon.Physical Review Letters, 116(24):246801, 2016

2016
[46]

J. C. Abadillo-Uriel, Joe Salfi, Xuedong Hu, Sven Rogge, M. J. Calder´ on, and Dimitrie Culcer. Entanglement control and magic angles for acceptor qubits in Si.Applied Physics Letters, 113(1):012102, 2018

2018
[47]

N. W. Hendrickx, D. P. Franke, A. Sammak, M. Kouwenhoven, D. Sabbagh, L. Yeoh, R. Li, M. L. V. Tagliaferri, M. Virgilio, G. Capellini, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst. Gate-controlled quantum dots and superconductivity in planar germanium.Nature Communications, 9:2835, 2018

2018
[48]

N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, M. Russ, F. van Riggelen, S. L. de Snoo, R. N. Schouten, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst. A four-qubit germanium quantum processor. Nature, 591:580–585, 2021

2021
[49]

F. A. Baron, A. A. Kiselev, H. D. Robinson, K. W. Kim, K. L. Wang, and E. Yablonovitch. Manipulating the L-valley electron g factor in Si-Ge heterostructures.Physical Review B, 68(19):195306, 2003

2003
[50]

Virgilio and G

M. Virgilio and G. Grosso. Valley splitting and optical intersubband transitions at parallel and normal incidence in [001]-Ge/SiGe quantum wells.Physical Review B, 79(16):165310, 2009

2009
[51]

N. W. Hendrickx, W. I. L. Lawrie, L. Petit, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and M. Veldhorst. A single-hole spin qubit.Nature Communications, 11:3478, 2020. 45

2020