Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Maximizing the nondemolition nature of a quantum measurement via an adaptive readout protocol

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that measurement-induced errors in repeated QND readout of a high-dimensional nuclear spin can be minimized by switching, after one positive detection, to negative-result probing of the remaining dark-state subspace, which

desk verdict Solid adaptive-readout result on a nuclear qudit: the fidelity gain is directly measured and the model supports it; the 'truly QND' claim about the dark subspace is loose, but that is a wording issue, not a load-bearing flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.10978 v2 pith:CPHEYJTU submitted 2025-11-14 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Arjen Vaartjes , Rocky Yue Su , Laura A. O'Neill , Paul Steinacker , Gauri Goenka , Mark R. van Blankenstein , Xi Yu , Benjamin Wilhelm
show 10 more authors
Alexander M. Jakob Fay E. Hudson Kohei M. Itoh Chih Hwan Yang Andrew S. Dzurak David N. Jamieson Martin Nurizzo Danielle Holmes Arne Laucht Andrea Morello
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords quantumnon-demolitionmeasurementadaptivereadoutprotocolnegative-resultnuclearquditionizationshockspin-catcodesilicondonorquadrupoleinteraction
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 the main source of error in repeated QND readout of a high-dimensional nuclear spin is not the measurement collapse itself but the electron tunneling events used to detect the ancilla, each of which perturbs the nuclear Hamiltonian. It introduces an adaptive protocol: after one positive detection, instead of re-testing all D states, it collectively probes the remaining D−1 states by negative-result measurements that leave the Hamiltonian unchanged. On an 8-dimensional antimony-123 nucleus in silicon this raises average readout fidelity from about 98.93% to 99.61% and cuts readout time about threefold. The same measurement-induced-flip signature appears in a 10-dimensional germanium-73 system read through Pauli spin blockade, suggesting the problem and the fix are generic across platforms.

What carries the argument

The dark-state subspace probe: after a first positive tunnel event identifies a candidate state m, the protocol applies ESR pulses for all other D−1 states while the electron stays coupled, then allows a single possible tunnel event. If no blip appears (below a threshold), m is accepted. This is a negative-result measurement: the absence of tunneling carries information without the basis-rotation penalty of ionization. The eigenstate-overlap transition matrices T_couple and T_decouple from the coupled/decoupled Hamiltonians model the flips and justify why decoupling (|↑>→|∅>) is the dominant error channel.

What would settle it

Measure the single-cycle flip probability when the electron is loaded once and then repeatedly checked by dark-subspace negative-result measurements without ever re-ionizing; if the flip probability per negative check equals the per-ionization flip probability rather than being much smaller, the central premise fails. More directly, compare adaptive-readout fidelity in a regime where T_couple dominates T_decouple: the predicted advantage should vanish.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a negative-result measurement confined to the dark-state subspace is effectively QND even when the full readout is not: once the electron ancilla remains loaded and no tunneling occurs, the Hamiltonian is unchanged, so no basis rotation and no spin flip is induced. The adaptive protocol exploits this by reading all remaining states in one collective check; the only ionization event is the initial one. The measured data reproduce the simulated transition matrix, and the adaptive protocol's fidelity at the optimum coincides with the single-shot ionization-shock limit, confirming one tunnel event per readout. The improvement is robust in simulation even when ancilla re

Load-bearing premise

The whole advantage rests on the claim that a negative result in the dark-state subspace leaves the nuclear state untouched; in practice the probe still begins with an electron-loading (coupling) event, whose own transition matrix is nonzero, so the protocol helps only if ionization events dominate the flip rate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Average readout fidelity improves from (98.93±0.07)% to (99.61±0.04)% while readout time is reduced by about a factor of three, with only one ionization event per accepted readout.
  • The protocol can be implemented on existing hardware with minimal FPGA logic and no new control hardware.
  • For quantum error correction, the demonstrated fidelity meets typical fault-tolerance threshold estimates for spin-cat codes and is compatible with symmetric-subspace syndrome extraction.
  • Simulated robustness shows adaptive readout fidelity stays nearly flat as ancilla fidelity degrades, whereas repeated readout requires more shots and then decays, so the protocol is more resilient to imperfect ancilla readout.
  • The same flip statistics in germanium-73 show measurement-induced errors are platform-wide, and increasing magnetic field reduces flips by restoring eigenstate overlap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: The protocol's logic generalizes to any D-level system whose readout uses an ancilla with a no-tunnel outcome, including trapped ions, NV centers, and other spin qudits, wherever a dark-state subspace can be collectively probed.
  • The one-ionization floor suggests a fundamental limit: readout fidelity cannot exceed the no-flip probability of a single coupling/decoupling cycle; further gains would require reducing the coupling event itself, for example by keeping the electron loaded and reading out without a tunnel-out step.
  • Because the initial-guess subroutine averages about 4 shots and about 13% of guesses are rejected, lowering the false-positive (dark count) rate would reduce rejections and improve both fidelity and speed further.
  • A testable extension: applying the adaptive protocol at lower magnetic field in the germanium system, where measurement-induced flips are stronger, should yield a larger fidelity gain than at high field.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an adaptive readout protocol for a D-dimensional nuclear spin qudit, applied to an 123Sb donor (D=8). After a first positive detection, the protocol switches to collectively probing the remaining D-1 states with negative-result measurements, aiming to reduce measurement-induced nuclear spin flips and readout time. The authors report an increase in average readout fidelity from (98.93±0.07)% to (99.61±0.04)% compared with repeated QND readout, together with a threefold speed-up. They model measurement-induced transitions via eigenstate overlaps of coupled/decoupled Hamiltonians, using independently measured Hamiltonian parameters, and extend the study to a 73Ge qudit read out through Pauli spin blockade.

Significance. The core experimental demonstration is valuable: the direct fidelity measurement is statistically strong, and the reported improvement is not derived from the model, so it is robust to model uncertainties. If the protocol works as described, it provides a practical way to improve QND readout of high-spin donor qudits, with direct relevance to spin-cat QEC schemes. The supporting simulation is also helpful, though it depends on a number of empirical inputs. The main weakness is conceptual: the manuscript repeatedly claims that the dark-subspace negative-result probing is 'truly QND' and involves 'just a single tunneling event', while the protocol necessarily includes reload (tunnel-in) events whose backaction is nonzero in the authors' own model. This overstatement needs correction, but it does not invalidate the measured fidelity gain.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B; Supp. Eq. S6] The statement that 'a negative measurement outcome within the dark state subspace is truly QND, because the Hamiltonian remains unchanged throughout the process' is inaccurate as written. The dark-subspace subroutine begins with a |∅>→|↓> reload step, which changes H_C from 0 to A I·S and has nonzero transition matrix T_couple (Supp. Eq. S6, Fig. S3). The measured AR fidelity is direct and therefore remains credible, but the mechanism claimed in the abstract ('negative-result ... do not perturb the Hamiltonian') is not supported unless T_couple-induced flips are shown to be negligible. Please revise the wording and provide a quantitative estimate of the reload contribution, either from the model or from a dedicated measurement.
  2. [Section III.B; Fig. 3e] The argument that the NAR=2 datapoint 'coincides with the y-intercept' of the single-shot ionization-shock curve and therefore 'confirms that the AR protocol indeed requires only one tunneling event' conflates detected blips with total tunneling events. An accepted AR readout includes a reload after the first positive blip, and the Maxwell-demon initialization can itself involve multiple loading attempts (Supp. Fig. S4 reports an average of 4.47 tunneling events per QND cycle). The agreement with the y-intercept is not sufficient evidence for a single tunneling event. The authors should specify exactly which tunnel-in/out events are counted, and how reloads are included in the stated 'one tunneling event per readout'.
  3. [Section III.C; Fig. 3e-f] The Monte-Carlo AR simulation is stated to use 'the experimentally obtained transition matrix (Fig. 2)', i.e., the per-QND-cycle matrix for repeated readout. However, the AR dark-subspace step is structurally different: seven ESR pulses are applied while the electron remains coupled, and the reload/tunnel-out pattern is not the same as in the standard RR cycle. It is not clear whether the per-cycle matrix is applied to each of the seven ESR pulses, or whether a separate dark-subspace transition rule is used. Without this detail, the claimed consistency between the simulated and measured AR fidelities cannot be fully assessed. Please specify the simulation update rule and, if possible, release the simulation code.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Introduction] The phrase 'negative-result measurement results that do not perturb the Hamiltonian' should be qualified, since the protocol includes a reload step that does change the Hamiltonian. A phrase such as 'do not cause additional tunnel-out events' would be more accurate.
  2. [Supp. Eq. S3] The definition of the projection operator P↕ is ambiguous (the displayed matrix has three rows and two columns, which seems inconsistent with the intended projection onto the coupled subspace). Please clarify the notation.
  3. [Fig. S2 caption] There is a typo in the caption: '180 degree s periodicity' should read '180-degree periodicity'. Also, 'quadruople' appears elsewhere in the text; please proofread.
  4. [Data and Code Availability] The statement that data and code 'will be made available after publication' is standard but, given that the simulation comparison is part of the central evidence, consider releasing the simulation code with the submitted revision to enable full reproducibility.
  5. [Section III.B] The threefold speed-up claim would benefit from a clear statement of whether it refers to wall-clock time or number of QND cycles. The text explains the differing pulse durations, but the definition should appear earlier and be used consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the adaptive-readout fidelity is directly measured and the supporting model uses independently characterized Hamiltonian parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is an experimentally measured AR readout fidelity of (99.61±0.04)% versus (98.93±0.07)% for RR, not a quantity derived from a fit to itself. The Monte-Carlo simulations in Sec. III.C use the experimentally obtained transition matrix (Fig. 2c), ancilla true/false-positive rates extracted from raw traces, and the protocol decision tree; the AR data shown in Fig. 3e-f are compared with these simulations, not used to set the parameters. The transition-matrix model (Supp. Eqs. S6–S9) uses independently measured inputs: A from ESR, Q+ from angular NMR fits (Supp. Table I), and an independently counted 4.47 tunnel events per QND cycle (Supp. Fig. S4). No AR fidelity value enters these inputs. The statement that negative outcomes in the dark subspace are 'truly QND' is a simplifying modeling assumption—the paper itself computes a nonzero T_couple (Supp. Eq. S6, Fig. S3)—but that is a quantitative/correctness caveat, not a circular step, and it does not enter the fidelity measurement. The 73Ge bare-Markov extraction is a matrix-logarithm inversion of measured data, not a prediction from the model. Self-citations (Refs. 27, 28, 30, etc.) provide device initialization and context from separately published experiments; no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation or an imported uniqueness theorem. The paper also flags its own limitations (e.g., omitted flip-flop relaxation; data/code to be released), which are reproducibility concerns, not circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim (AR improves fidelity) rests on the measured Hamiltonian parameters, the measured tunnel-event count, the assumed quadrupole-equality between charge states, and the idealization that negative results are non-perturbing. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Quadrupole tensor Q+ components = Q_xx=-10.57, Q_yy=3.06, Q_zz=7.50, Q_yz=5.16, Q_xz=2.60, Q_xy=-30.48 kHz
    Five independent components fitted to angular dependence of NMR frequencies (SM Section I.A, Table I). Used to construct the Hamiltonian whose eigenstate overlaps predict flip probabilities.
  • Hyperfine coupling A = 97.5 ± 2.2 MHz
    Determined by ESR spectroscopy (SM Section I.A). It is a physically measured parameter, not fit to the flip data, but it enters the Hamiltonian model.
  • Average tunneling events per QND cycle = 4.47
    Measured via FPGA event tracking in a single QND cycle (SM Section II.A). The transition matrix is raised to this power: T_QND = (T_decouple T_couple)^4.47.
  • Ancilla readout true-positive and false-positive probabilities = 0.968 ± 0.003, 0.019 ± 0.001
    Extracted from raw traces (Section III.C). Input to the Monte-Carlo simulations of RR and AR under imperfect ancilla readout.
  • Optimal shot counts N_RR and N_AR = N_RR=3, N_AR=2
    Chosen as the points where readout fidelity is maximized in the data (Fig. 3f). These are protocol parameters selected from the measured curves.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Measurement-induced transitions are described by sudden projection onto eigenstates of the coupled and decoupled Hamiltonians (SM Eq. S5-S9).
    This models each tunnel event as a projective collapse; it relies on the separation of timescales and is standard in this field, but is not directly derived.
  • domain assumption The quadrupole tensor is identical for the ionized and neutral donor: Q0 = Q+.
    Stated in SM Section I.A: 'We therefore assume Q0 = Q+ in our Hamiltonian model.' If the tensor changed upon ionization, the predicted eigenstate overlaps would change.
  • domain assumption Steady-state limit: the readout window is much longer than characteristic tunneling times, so tunnel events are almost never missed.
    Stated in SM Section I.B. This justifies the direct eigenstate-projection calculation of transition probabilities.
  • domain assumption The 73Ge compounded transition matrix (over N_tunnel=201 events) is described by a continuous-time Markov generator; the bare matrix is obtained as T_Ge = exp(G).
    SM Section II.B. This assumes stationary, Markovian per-shot dynamics; the matrix logarithm is a nontrivial inference step.
  • domain assumption A negative-result (no-tunnel) outcome in the dark state subspace does not perturb the nuclear state; the Hamiltonian remains unchanged throughout the process.
    Main text Section III.B. This is the core premise of the protocol's benefit; as noted in the weakest_assumption, an electron is loaded at the start of the dark readout, so this is an idealization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximizing the nondemolition nature of a quantum measurement via an adaptive readout protocol." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CPHEYJTU

@misc{pith2026251110978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximizing the nondemolition nature of a quantum measurement via an adaptive readout protocol},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CPHEYJTU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.10978}
}
abstract

Quantum error correction (QEC) requires non-invasive measurements for fault tolerant quantum computing. Deviations from ideal quantum non-demolition (QND) measurements can disturb the encoded information. To address this challenge, we develop a readout protocol for a $D-$dimensional system that, after a single positive outcome, switches to probing only the $D{-}1$ remaining subspace. This adaptive switching strategy minimizes measurement-induced errors by relying on negative-result measurement results that do not perturb the Hamiltonian. We apply the protocol on an 8-dimensional $^{123}{\rm Sb}$ nuclear qudit in silicon, and achieve an increase in the readout fidelity from $(98.93\pm0.07)\%$ to $(99.61\pm0.04)\%$, while reducing threefold the overall readout time. To highlight the broader relevance of measurement-induced errors, we study a 10-dimensional $^{73}{\rm Ge}$ nuclear spin read out through Pauli spin blockade, revealing nuclear spin flips arising from hyperfine and quadrupole interactions. These results unveil the effect of non-ideal QND readout across diverse platforms, and introduce an efficient readout protocol that can be implemented with minimal FPGA logic on existing hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.10978 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. b shows an example of raw measurement data, displaying an example of nuclear spin jumps of both ∆m = ±1 and ∆m = ±2. Due to ancilla readout imper￾fections, we observe both dark counts (false positives) and false negatives, which we filter out by applying a kernel-5 majority vote filter. By analyzing the nuclear jump traces, we extract a transition matrix shown in Fig. 2c, which quantifies the nuclear spin flip proba… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. e shows a comparison between repeated read￾out (RR) and adaptive readout (AR), both with an op￾timized number of readout shots NRR and NAR. We show that the AR fidelities are on par with the measured single-shot ionization shock probabilities (from Fig. 2c); the optimal datapoint at NAR = 2 coincides with the y￾intercept of the black dashed line, confirming that the AR protocol indeed requires only one tunneling eve… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: b shows the statistics of measurement-induced spin state transitions for all 10 eigenstates of the 73Ge nucleus. Similar to the 123Sb system, we observe both ∆m = ±1 and ∆m = ±2 measurement-induced nu￾clear spin flips. Each ESR frequency sweep produces one nuclear spin…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Electron readout contrast enhancement in the parallel nuclear regime of an exchange-coupled donor spin qubit system

    quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The enhanced electron readout contrast in parallel-nuclear exchange-coupled donor pairs is caused by a second spin-up tunneling event to the SET during one readout period.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Quantum error correction for beginners

    Simon J Devitt, William J Munro, and Kae Nemoto. Quantum error correction for beginners. Reports on Progress in Physics , 76(7):076001, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    To verify the ro- bustness of the AR protocol under less ideal ancilla read- out conditions, we perform a Monte-Carlo simulation of both the RR and AR protocols using the experimentally obtained transition matrix (Fig

  3. [3]

    For the RR protocol (Fig

    as a function of the ancilla readout fidelity. For the RR protocol (Fig. 4a) we find that a reduc- tion in the ancilla readout fidelity requires an increase in the optimal number of shots (red line). However, as the number of shots increases, so does the probability of measurement-induced transitions due to increased ex- posure to tunneling events. In Fig. 4...

  4. [4]

    Quantum non- demolition measurements: the route from toys to tools

    Vladimir B Braginsky and F Ya Khalili. Quantum non- demolition measurements: the route from toys to tools. Reviews of Modern Physics , 68(1):1, 1996

    1996

  5. [5]

    Ristè, S

    D. Ristè, S. Poletto, M. Z. Huang, A. Bruno, V. Vesteri- nen, O. P. Saira, and L. Dicarlo. Detecting bit-flip errors in a logical qubit using stabilizer measurements. Na- ture Communications , 6, 4 2015. ISSN 20411723. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7983

    doi:10.1038/ncomms7983 2015

  6. [6]

    Kelly, R

    J. Kelly, R. Barends, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jef- frey, T. C. White, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, B. Campbell, Yu Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, I. C. Hoi, C. Neill, P. J.J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, and John M. Martinis. State preservation by repetitive error detection in a superconducting quantu...

    doi:10.1038/nature14270 2015

  7. [7]

    Quantum nondemolition and gravity-wave detection

    WG Unruh. Quantum nondemolition and gravity-wave detection. Physical Review D , 19(10):2888, 1979

    1979

  8. [9]

    Watson, Daniel R

    Xiao Xue, Benjamin D’anjou, Thomas F. Watson, Daniel R. Ward, Donald E. Savage, Max G. Lagally, Mark Friesen, Susan N. Coppersmith, Mark A. Eriksson, William A. Coish, and Lieven M.K. Vandersypen. Repet- itive quantum nondemolition measurement and soft de- coding of a silicon spin qubit. Physical Review X , 10, 6

Show all 53 references
  1. [10]

    Lucio Robledo, Lilian Childress, Hannes Bernien, Bas Hensen, Paul F. A. Alkemade, and Ronald Han- son. High-fidelity projective readout of a solid- state spin quantum register. 1 2013. doi: 10.1038/nature10401. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1301.0392http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10401

    2013 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Yoneda, K

    J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, S. Li, J. Kamioka, T. Kodera, and S. Tarucha. Quantum non- demolition readout of an electron spin in silicon. Na- ture Communications, 11, 12 2020. ISSN 20411723. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14818-8

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    Hemmer, Jörg Wrachtrup, and Fedor Jelezko

    Philipp Neumann, Johannes Beck, Matthias Steiner, Flo- rian Rempp, Helmut Fedder, Philip R. Hemmer, Jörg Wrachtrup, and Fedor Jelezko. Single-shot readout of a single nuclear spin. Science, 329:542–544, 7 2010. ISSN 9 00368075. doi:10.1126/science.1189075

    2010 doi

  4. [13]

    Pla, Kuan Y

    Jarryd J. Pla, Kuan Y. Tan, Juan P. Dehollain, Wee H. Lim, John J. L. Morton, Floris A. Zwanenburg, David N. Jamieson, Andrew S. Dzurak, and Andrea Morello. High- fidelity readout and control of a nuclear spin qubit in silicon. Nature, 496(7445):334–338, April 2013. ISSN 1476-4...

    2013 doi

  5. [14]

    Negnevitsky, M

    V. Negnevitsky, M. Marinelli, K. K. Mehta, H. Y. Lo, C. Flühmann, and J. P. Home. Repeated multi-qubit readout and feedback with a mixed-species trapped-ion register. Nature, 563:527–531, 11 2018. ISSN 14764687. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0668-z

    2018 doi

  6. [15]

    Electronic read-out of a single nuclear spin using a molecular spin transistor

    Romain Vincent, Svetlana Klyatskaya, Mario Ruben, Wolfgang Wernsdorfer, and Franck Balestro. Electronic read-out of a single nuclear spin using a molecular spin transistor. Nature, 488(7411):357–360, 2012

    2012

  7. [16]

    Reiner, Y

    J. Reiner, Y. Chung, S. H. Misha, C. Lehner, C. Moehle, D. Poulos, S. Monir, K. J. Charde, P. Macha, L. Kranz, I. Thorvaldson, B. Thorgrimsson, D. Keith, Y. L. Hsueh, R. Rahman, S. K. Gorman, J. G. Keizer, and M. Y. Sim- mons. High-fidelity initialization and control of electro...

    2024 doi

  8. [17]

    Serwan Asaad, Vincent Mourik, Benjamin Joecker, Mark A. I. Johnson, Andrew D. Baczewski, Hannes R. Fir- gau, Mateusz T. Madzik, Vivien Schmitt, Jarryd J. Pla, Fay E. Hudson, Kohei M. Itoh, Jeffrey C. McCallum, Andrew S. Dzurak, Arne Laucht, and Andrea Morello. Coherent electric...

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    Irene Fernández de Fuentes, Tim Botzem, Mark A. I. Johnson, Arjen Vaartjes, Serwan Asaad, Vincent Mourik, Fay E. Hudson, Kohei M. Itoh, Brett C. Johnson, Alexan- der M. Jakob, Jeffrey C. McCallum, David N. Jamieson, Andrew S. Dzurak, and Andrea Morello. Navigating the 16-dimens...

    2024 doi

  10. [19]

    Elec- trical detection of the spin resonance of a single electron in a silicon field-effect transistor

    M Xiao, I Martin, E Yablonovitch, and HW Jiang. Elec- trical detection of the spin resonance of a single electron in a silicon field-effect transistor. Nature, 430(6998):435– 439, 2004

    2004

  11. [20]

    Stolte, Jinwon Lee, Hester G

    Evert W. Stolte, Jinwon Lee, Hester G. Vennema, Rik Broekhoven, Esther Teng, Allard J. Katan, Lukas M. Veldman, Philip Willke, and Sander Otte. Single-shot readout of the nuclear spin of an on-surface atom. Na- ture Communications , 16:7785, 8 2025. ISSN 2041-

    2025

  12. [21]

    Architecture for high-sensitivity single-shot readout and control of the electron spin of individual donors in silicon

    A Morello, CC Escott, H Huebl, LH Willems van Bev- eren, LCL Hollenberg, DN Jamieson, AS Dzurak, and RG Clark. Architecture for high-sensitivity single-shot readout and control of the electron spin of individual donors in silicon. Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materia...

    2009

  13. [22]

    J. M. Elzerman, R. Hanson, L. H. Willems van Beveren, B. Witkamp, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and L. P. Kouwen- hoven. Single-shot read-out of an individual electron spin in a quantum dot. Nature, 430(6998):431–435, 7 2004. ISSN 00280836. doi:10.1038/nature02747

    2004 doi

  14. [23]

    Addressable electron spin reso- nance using donors and donor molecules in silicon

    Samuel J Hile, Lukas Fricke, Matthew G House, El- dad Peretz, Chin Yi Chen, Yu Wang, Matthew Broome, Samuel K Gorman, Joris G Keizer, Rajib Rahman, and Michelle Y Simmons. Addressable electron spin reso- nance using donors and donor molecules in silicon. Sci- ence Advances, 4(...

    2018

  15. [24]

    Pla, Floris A

    Andrea Morello, Jarryd J. Pla, Floris A. Zwanenburg, Kok W. Chan, Kuan Y. Tan, Hans Huebl, Mikko Möttö- nen, Christopher D. Nugroho, Changyi Yang, Jessica A. van Donkelaar, Andrew D. C. Alves, David N. Jamieson, Christopher C. Escott, Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, Robert G. Clark, a...

    2010 doi

  16. [25]

    Quantum me- chanical interaction-free measurements

    A vshalom C Elitzur and Lev Vaidman. Quantum me- chanical interaction-free measurements. Foundations of physics, 23(7):987–997, 1993

    1993

  17. [26]

    H. Geng, M. Kiczynski, A. V. Timofeev, E. N. Osika, D. Keith, J. Rowlands, L. Kranz, R. Rahman, Y. Chung, J. G. Keizer, S. K. Gorman, and M. Y. Simmons. High- fidelity sub-microsecond single-shot electron spin readout above 3.5 k. Nature Communications, 16, 12 2025. ISSN 204117...

    2025 doi

  18. [27]

    van Blankenstein, Alexan- der M

    Arjen Vaartjes, Martin Nurizzo, Lin Htoo Zaw, Benjamin Wilhelm, Xi Yu, Danielle Holmes, Daniel Schwienbacher, Anders Kringhøj, Mark R. van Blankenstein, Alexan- der M. Jakob, Fay E. Hudson, Kohei M. Itoh, Riley J. Murray, Robin Blume-Kohout, Namit Anand, Andrew S. Dzurak, Davi...

    2025

  19. [28]

    Madzik, Serwan Asaad, Akram Youssry, Benjamin Joecker, Kenneth M

    Mateusz T. Madzik, Serwan Asaad, Akram Youssry, Benjamin Joecker, Kenneth M. Rudinger, Erik Nielsen, Kevin C. Young, Timothy J. Proctor, Andrew D. Baczewski, Arne Laucht, Vivien Schmitt, Fay E. Hud- son, Kohei M. Itoh, Alexander M. Jakob, Brett C. John- son, David N. Jamieson,...

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    Muhonen, Juan P

    Arne Laucht, Rachpon Kalra, Juha T. Muhonen, Juan P. Dehollain, Fahd A. Mohiyaddin, Fay Hudson, Jeffrey C. McCallum, David N. Jamieson, Andrew S. Dzurak, and 10 Andrea Morello. High-fidelity adiabatic inversion of a 31P electron spin qubit in natural silicon. Applied Physics Let...

    2014 doi

  21. [30]

    J. T. Muhonen, J. P. Dehollain, A. Laucht, S. Simmons, R. Kalra, F. E. Hudson, A. S. Dzurak, A. Morello, D. N. Jamieson, J. C. McCallum, and K. M. Itoh. Coherent control via weak measurements in p 31 single-atom elec- tron and nuclear spin qubits. Physical Review B , 98, 10

  22. [33]

    Mark A. I. Johnson, Mateusz T. Mądzik, Fay E. Hud- son, Kohei M. Itoh, Alexander M. Jakob, David N. Jamieson, Andrew Dzurak, and Andrea Morello. Beating the Thermal Limit of Qubit Initialization with a Bayesian Maxwell’s Demon. Physical Review X , 12(4):041008, Oc- tober 2022....

    2022 doi

  23. [34]

    Seedhouse, Tuomo Tanttu, Ross C.C

    Amanda E. Seedhouse, Tuomo Tanttu, Ross C.C. Leon, Ruichen Zhao, Kuan Yen Tan, Bas Hensen, Fay E. Hud- son, Kohei M. Itoh, Jun Yoneda, Chih Hwan Yang, Andrea Morello, Arne Laucht, Susan N. Coppersmith, Andre Saraiva, and Andrew S. Dzurak. Pauli block- ade in silicon quantum do...

    2021 doi

  24. [35]

    Jakob, Pragati Gupta, Fay E

    Xi Yu, Benjamin Wilhelm, Danielle Holmes, Arjen Vaartjes, Daniel Schwienbacher, Martin Nurizzo, An- ders Kringhøj, Mark R.van Blankenstein, Alexander M. Jakob, Pragati Gupta, Fay E. Hudson, Kohei M. Itoh, Ri- ley J. Murray, Robin Blume-Kohout, Thaddeus D. Ladd, Namit Anand, An...

    2025 doi

  25. [36]

    Jonathan A. Gross. Designing Codes around Interactions: The Case of a Spin. Physical Review Letters , 127(1):010504, July 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.010504

    2021 doi

  26. [37]

    Gross, Clément Godfrin, Alexan- dre Blais, and Eva Dupont-Ferrier

    Jonathan A. Gross, Clément Godfrin, Alexan- dre Blais, and Eva Dupont-Ferrier. Hardware- efficient error-correcting codes for large nuclear spins. Phys. Rev. Appl. , 22:014006, Jul 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.014006. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied. 22.014006

    2024 doi

  27. [39]

    Stephens

    Ashley M. Stephens. Fault-tolerant thresholds for quan- tum error correction with the surface code. Phys. Rev. A , 89:022321, Feb 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.022321. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 89.022321

    2014 doi

  28. [40]

    Quantum fault tolerance in small ex- periments

    Daniel Gottesman. Quantum fault tolerance in small ex- periments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03507 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  29. [41]

    Nguyen, Irfan Siddiqi, and Daniel A

    Vinay Tripathi, Noah Goss, Arian Vezvaee, Long B. Nguyen, Irfan Siddiqi, and Daniel A. Lidar. Qudit Dy- namical Decoupling on a Superconducting Quantum Pro- cessor. Physical Review Letters , 134(5), 2 2025. ISSN 10797114. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.050601

    2025 doi

  30. [42]

    Huang, Rocky Y

    Jonathan Y. Huang, Rocky Y. Su, Wee Han Lim, Meng Ke Feng, Barnaby van Straaten, Brandon Severin, Will Gilbert, Nard Dumoulin Stuyck, Tuomo Tanttu, Santiago Serrano, Jesus D. Cifuentes, Ingvild Hansen, Amanda E. Seedhouse, Ensar Vahapoglu, Ross C.C. Leon, Nikolay V. Abrosimov,...

    2024

  31. [43]

    Pragati Gupta, Arjen Vaartjes, Xi Yu, Andrea Morello, and Barry C. Sanders. Robust macroscopic Schrödinger’s cat on a nucleus. Physical Review Research , 6 (1):013101, January 2024. ISSN 2643-1564. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.013101

    2024 doi

  32. [45]

    Single- step parity check gate set for quantum error correc- tion

    Gözde Üstün, Andrea Morello, and Simon Devitt. Single- step parity check gate set for quantum error correc- tion. Quantum Science and Technology , 9, 7 2024. ISSN 20589565. doi:10.1088/2058-9565/ad473c

    2024 doi

  33. [48]

    Serwan Asaad, Vincent Mourik, Benjamin Joecker, Mark A. I. Joh nson, Andrew D. Baczewski, Hannes R. Firgau, Ma- teusz T. Madzik, Vivien Schmitt, Jarryd J. Pla, Fay E. Hudson, K ohei M. Itoh, Jeffrey C. McCallum, Andrew S. Dzurak, Arne Laucht, and Andrea Morello. Coherent electr...

    2020 doi

  34. [49]

    O’Neill, Benjamin Joecker, Andrew D

    Laura A. O’Neill, Benjamin Joecker, Andrew D. Baczewski, and A ndrea Morello. Engineering local strain for single-atom nuclear acoustic resonance in silicon. Applied Physics Letters , 119(17), 10 2021. ISSN 00036951. doi:10.1063/5.0069305

    2021 doi

  35. [50]

    Franke, Florian M

    David P. Franke, Florian M. Hrubesch, Markus K¨ unzl, Hans Werne r Becker, Kohei M. Itoh, Martin Stutzmann, Felix Hoehne, Lukas Dreher, and Martin S. Brandt. Interaction of strain an d nuclear spins in silicon: Quadrupolar effects on ionized donors. Physical Review Letters , 11...

    2015 doi

  36. [51]

    Monir, E

    S. Monir, E. N. Osika, S. K. Gorman, I. Thorvaldson, Y. L. Hsue h, P. Macha, L. Kranz, J. Reiner, M. Y. Simmons, and R. Rahman. Impact of measurement backaction on nuclear spin q ubits in silicon. Physical Review B , 109, 1 2024. ISSN 24699969. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.109.035157

    2024 doi

  37. [52]

    Stemp, Irene Fern´ andez De Fuentes , Mark A.I

    Benjamin Joecker, Holly G. Stemp, Irene Fern´ andez De Fuentes , Mark A.I. Johnson, and Andrea Morello. Error chan- nels in quantum nondemolition measurements on spin systems. Physical Review B , 109, 2 2024. ISSN 24699969. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.085302

    2024 doi

  38. [53]

    Pla, Fay E

    Rostyslav Savytskyy, Tim Botzem, Irene Fernandez de Fuent es, Benjamin Joecker, Jarryd J. Pla, Fay E. Hudson, Kohei M. Itoh, Alexander M. Jakob, Brett C. Johnson, David N. Jamieson, Andrew S. Dzurak, and Andrea Morello. An electrically driven single-atom “flip-flop” qubit. Scien...

    2023 doi

  39. [54]

    Mark A. I. Johnson, Mateusz T. Madzik, Fay E. Hudson, Kohei M. Itoh, Alexander M. Jakob, David N. Jamieson, Andrew Dzurak, and Andrea Morello. Beating the Thermal Limit of Qubit Ini tialization with a Bayesian Maxwell’s Demon. Physical Review X , 12(4):041008, October 2022. do...

    2022 doi

  40. [55]

    Asmussen

    S. Asmussen. Applied probability and Queues . Springer New York, NY, 2003. doi:10.1007/b97236

    2003 doi

  41. [56]

    Jakob, Pragati Gupta, F ay E

    Xi Yu, Benjamin Wilhelm, Danielle Holmes, Arjen Vaartjes, Danie l Schwienbacher, Martin Nurizzo, Anders Kringhøj, Mark R.van Blankenstein, Alexander M. Jakob, Pragati Gupta, F ay E. Hudson, Kohei M. Itoh, Riley J. Murray, Robin Blume-Kohout, Thaddeus D. Ladd, Namit Anand, Andr...

    2025 doi

  42. [57]

    Cifuentes, Shao Qi Lim, Jeffrey C

    Paul Steinacker, Gauri Goenka, Rocky Yue Su, Tuomo Tanttu , Wee Han Lim, Santiago Serrano, Tim Botzem, Jesus D. Cifuentes, Shao Qi Lim, Jeffrey C. McCallum, Brett C. Johnson, Fa y E. Hudson, Kok Wai Chan, Christopher C. Escott, Andre Saraiva, Chih Hwan Yang, Vincent Mourik, And...

    arXiv

  43. [1723]

    URL https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63232-5

    doi:10.1038/s41467-025-63232-5. URL https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63232-5

    doi

  44. [2018]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.98.155201

    ISSN 24699969. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.98.155201

    doi

  45. [2020]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021006

    ISSN 21603308. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.10.021006

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.