Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

The role of antisymmetric orbitals and electron-electron interactions on the two-particle spin and valley blockade in graphene double quantum dots

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In bilayer graphene double quantum dots, the spin and valley blockade extent is set by the orbital splitting, electron-electron interactions, and the difference in valley g-factors between symmetric and antisymmetric orbital states.

desk verdict Gets the qualitative blockade switch right, but the quantitative limit formulas rest on a weak-coupling assumption the authors admit may be violated; deserves review with serious revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06671 v2 pith:FQXAFDIE submitted 2025-01-11 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Samuel Möller , Luca Banszerus , Katrin Hecker , Hubert Dulisch , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi , Christian Volk , Christoph Stampfer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords doublequantumdotsbilayergraphenePauliblockadevalleyspinelectron-electroninteractionorbitalsplittingg-factor
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

This paper reports magnetotransport measurements of the (1,1) to (2,0) charge transition in electrostatically defined bilayer graphene double quantum dots and argues that the two-particle spin and valley blockade can only be understood if the ten antisymmetric orbital states are included alongside the six symmetric ones. The central quantitative claim is that the valley-blocked detuning window is limited by the orbital splitting, the Kane-Mele spin-orbit splitting, and the valley g-factor of the antisymmetric orbital, while the spin-blocked window additionally depends on the short-range electron-electron splitting and the difference between symmetric and antisymmetric valley g-factors. A rate-equation simulation with one shared parameter set reproduces the main resonances and the magnetic-field-driven switch from valley to spin blockade in both bias directions. This matters because spin and valley qubit readout in bilayer graphene relies on Pauli blockade, so knowing exactly what limits the blockade identifies which splittings a device must engineer.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 16-state two-particle spectrum of the (2,0)/(0,2) configuration: six orbitally symmetric states, whose spin-triplet valley-singlet ground state is separated from the spin-singlet valley-triplet excited states by the short-range splitting $\delta_2$, and ten orbitally antisymmetric states, separated from the symmetric manifold by the orbital splitting $\Delta_{\mathrm{Orb}}$ and internally by the Kane-Mele spin-orbit coupling $\Delta_{\mathrm{SO}}$. The load-bearing calculation is the resonance condition $\varepsilon(B_\perp) = E_{(0,2)}(B_\perp) - E_{(1,1)}(B_\perp)$, measured relative to the ground-state-to-ground-state baseline, which turns every transition into a line in the detuning-versus-field plane; the blockade is the detuning region below the first transition that requires a spin or valley flip. The supporting machinery is a Pauli rate-equation master equation over all 36 (0,1), (1,1), and (0,2) configurations, with equal tunnel rates modified by ad-hoc spin and valley flip penalties, which produces the simulated transport maps.

What would settle it

Measure a bilayer graphene double quantum dot with a clearly larger interdot tunnel coupling and record the detuning extent of the spin-blocked region versus perpendicular field; if it deviates from $\epsilon_{\mathrm{SB}} = \Delta_{\mathrm{Orb}} - \Delta_{\mathrm{SO}} - \delta_2 + (g^s_v - g_s - g^a_v)\mu_B B_\perp$ beyond the estimated baseline uncertainty, or if the valley-to-spin switch occurs at a field inconsistent with the triplet-singlet crossing computed from the same parameters, the independent-dots premise is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the blockade extents are governed by the orbital and interaction structure of the two-particle states: the valley-blockade extent is $\epsilon_{\mathrm{VB}} = \Delta_{\mathrm{Orb}} - \Delta_{\mathrm{SO}} - g^a_v \mu_B B_\perp$, while the spin-blockade extent is $\epsilon_{\mathrm{SB}} = \Delta_{\mathrm{Orb}} - \Delta_{\mathrm{SO}} - \delta_2 + (g^s_v - g_s - g^a_v)\mu_B B_\perp$. Here $\Delta_{\mathrm{Orb}}$ separates the symmetric and antisymmetric two-particle orbital states, $\Delta_{\mathrm{SO}}$ is the Kane-Mele spin-orbit coupling, $\delta_2$ is the short-range interaction splitting inside the symmetric manifold, and $g^s_v$, $g^a_v$, and $g_s$ are the symmetric-orbital valley, antisymmetric-orbital valley, and spin g-factors. The valley-blocked region is therefore limited only by properties of the antisymmetric orbital states, whereas the spin-blocked region depends on both orbital species. The authors identify individual measured resonances with transitions into the antisymmetric states and reproduce the field-dependent maps with a rate-equation simulation, concluding that the blockade switch and its extent are a direct readout of these splittings.

Load-bearing premise

The central formulas and resonance assignments hold only if the two dots can be treated as independent single-particle dots with negligible interdot tunnel coupling and equal tunnel probabilities for all states, so that each measured resonance is matched to one specific two-particle transition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured valley-blockade extent is a direct spectroscopic measure of $\Delta_{\mathrm{Orb}} - \Delta_{\mathrm{SO}} - g^a_v \mu_B B_\perp$, so one experiment yields the antisymmetric orbital splitting and its valley g-factor.
  • The field $B_{\mathrm{TS}}$ where the valley blockade switches into a spin blockade marks the crossing of the spin-triplet valley-singlet and spin-singlet valley-triplet two-particle ground states, giving an independent handle on $\delta_2$ and the valley g-factors.
  • For $g^s_v < g^a_v + g_s$, the spin-blockade window closes at the finite field $B_{\mathrm{Orb}}$ where the relevant antisymmetric states become degenerate, so spin-based Pauli readout works only for $B_{\mathrm{TS}} < B_\perp < B_{\mathrm{Orb}}$.
  • The symmetric-only six-state model cannot generate the observed resonances or the blockade extents, so any bilayer graphene qubit readout protocol must account for the antisymmetric orbital states in the (2,0)/(0,2) configuration.
  • The same parameter set reproduces both current directions at both triple points, indicating that including all 16 (1,1) states and all 16 (0,2) states gives a unified description of the blockade switch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the parameter set would be to fit the slopes of the individual resonances labeled a-d in the detuning-versus-field maps; the model predicts their crossings, which would pin down $g^a_v$ independently of the $\varepsilon=0$ baseline uncertainty.
  • In a device with stronger interdot tunnel coupling, the (1,1) and (0,2) states hybridize, so the blockade extents should deviate from the two formulas; measuring that deviation would quantify when the independent-dots approximation breaks.
  • The same 16-state machinery likely carries over to three-carrier (1,2) to (0,3) transitions, where antisymmetric states could impose analogous limits on higher-order Pauli blockade; this is a prediction the authors did not test.
  • The unexplained conductance dips near $B_\perp \approx 0.05$-$0.1$ T and the valley blockade surviving past $B_{\mathrm{TS}}$ in one data set suggest that field-dependent tunnel rates or g-factor renormalization, absent from the model, could be checked by repeating the detuning cuts at different barrier gate voltages.
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 manuscript reports magnetotransport measurements of a bilayer graphene double quantum dot at the (1,1)↔(2,0) and (1,1)↔(0,2) charge transitions, supported by rate-equation simulations that include both symmetric and antisymmetric two-particle orbital states. The central experimental observation is a magnetic-field-tunable switch from valley blockade at low perpendicular field to spin blockade at higher field, together with resonances attributed to antisymmetric orbital states. The authors derive limiting detuning expressions, ε_VB = Δ_Orb − Δ_SO − g_v^a μ_B B_⊥ and ε_SB = Δ_Orb − Δ_SO − δ_2 + (g_v^s − g_s − g_v^a) μ_B B_⊥, and fit the underlying parameters (Δ_Orb, δ_2, g_v^(1), g_v^s, g_v^a) to reproduce the data. They conclude that the valley-blockade extent is governed by antisymmetric orbital states, while the spin-blockade extent involves properties of both symmetric and antisymmetric orbitals.

Significance. Understanding the limits of Pauli blockade in bilayer graphene double quantum dots is directly relevant for spin- and valley-qubit readout, and the inclusion of antisymmetric two-particle states goes beyond earlier work that considered only the six lowest symmetric states. The qualitative field-driven switch from valley to spin blockade is clearly present in the data and is captured by the simulation, and the paper provides reproducible simulation code and a data-availability statement. However, the quantitative formulas and the parameter extraction rest on a weak-interdot-coupling assumption that the authors themselves question, and the parameters are chosen per triple point without reported uncertainties, so the quantitative central claim is not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eqs. (5)–(6); discussion of Figs. 4 and 5; Appendix B] The derivation of the blockade extents assumes that the (1,1) configuration consists of two independent single-particle states with negligible interdot tunnel coupling. In the discussion of the discrepancies between simulation and data the authors state that the interdot coupling is 'potentially being too large to justify the approximation of completely independent single particle states'. Under non-negligible hybridization the resonance condition in Eq. (2) is no longer simply E_(0,2) − E_(1,1) for uncoupled states, and the fitted values of Δ_Orb, δ_2, g_v^s, and g_v^a can absorb the coupling. The central claim that the valley-blockade extent is limited only by properties of the antisymmetric orbital states therefore depends on an assumption that is acknowledged to be questionable. I ask the authors to quantify the interdot tunnel coupling (for example from the stability diagram or from separate measurements) or to include hybridization in the model and demonstrate that the extracted parameters and Eqs. (5)–(6) are stable under this variation.
  2. [§4, Figs. 4(b) and 10(b,d); Appendix B] The five energy parameters are chosen separately for the two triple points (Δ_Orb = 0.7 meV, δ_2 = 0.34 meV, g_v^a = 19 for triple point A; Δ_Orb = 0.575 meV, δ_2 = 0.2 meV, g_v^a = 18 for triple point B), with no uncertainty estimates or goodness-of-fit measure reported. The difference |g_v^a − g_v^s|, which is central to the claimed role of the antisymmetric valley g-factor, is 1 in one fit and 0 in the other. Moreover, Fig. 10(b) explicitly notes that the valley blockade nearly vanishes in the experimental data at B_⊥ ≈ 0.22 T while persisting in the simulation. These issues mean the quantitative support for Eqs. (5)–(6) is not established; a sensitivity analysis over the parameter set and a direct test of the dependence on g_v^a − g_v^s are needed.
  3. [§4, Eq. (5) and baseline definition] The zero-detuning baseline from which all blockade extents are measured is estimated with an uncertainty of about 15% and shifts slightly with magnetic field due to electrostatic drift and the field-dependent ground-state-to-ground-state transition. These systematic uncertainties are not propagated into the reported slopes and intercepts of ε_VB(B_⊥) and ε_SB(B_⊥). The qualitative switch is unaffected, but the quantitative limits in Eqs. (5)–(6) should be accompanied by uncertainty estimates or a sensitivity analysis before they can be taken as quantitative predictions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors: 'perfomed' in the second section, 'inot' in Appendix B, 'paramters' in the Fig. 10(d) caption, 'Einital' in Appendix B, and 'to large' in the discussion of discrepancies; these should be corrected.
  2. [§2, paragraph on triple point B] The sentence referring to 'Figs. 2(c) and 2(c)' should read 'Figs. 2(c) and 2(d)'.
  3. [§4, near Eq. (4)] The literal placeholder '[REFS]' appears in the text and should be replaced with the appropriate citations for the spin-triplet-to-spin-singlet ground-state transition.
  4. [Appendix C, Data availability] The data availability statement still contains 'under XXX' as a placeholder; the Zenodo DOI should be inserted before publication.
  5. [Fig. 8 caption] The phrase 'extend of the valley blockade' should be 'extent of the valley blockade'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the blockade formulas are algebraic consequences of an independently established two-electron spectrum, and the data provide an external anchor.

full rationale

The central quantitative claims (epsilon_VB = Delta_Orb - Delta_SO - g_v^a mu_B B_perp and epsilon_SB = Delta_Orb - Delta_SO - delta_2 + (g_v^s - g_s - g_v^a) mu_B B_perp) are derived in Section 3 by subtracting the ground-state-to-ground-state baseline (Eqs. 3-5) from the energy differences of the 16 two-particle states. Those energies are not invented for this paper: the (0,2) multiplet expressions in Appendix B are quoted from Ref. [57], a prior magnetospectroscopy study on the same material system, and from the microscopic theory of Ref. [58]. Under the review rules, a cited experimental result is independent support because it is externally falsifiable and does not include the target result. The paper's own data (Figs. 2, 4, 5) show the valley-blockade-to-spin-blockade switch as a function of field; this is an external anchor rather than a consequence of the model. The parameters Delta_Orb, delta_2, g_v^(1), g_v^s, and g_v^a are chosen so that the rate-equation simulation reproduces the measured bias triangles, so the quantitative formulas are model interpretations of the data rather than out-of-sample predictions; however, the paper does not rename fitted parameters as predictions, and the structural conclusion (valley blockade limited by antisymmetric-orbital properties, spin blockade by both symmetric and antisymmetric properties) follows from the level ordering, not from a definitional identity. The acknowledged approximation of negligible interdot coupling (and the caveat that it may be too large) is a correctness and robustness risk, not a circularity. No equation reduces to itself by construction, and no load-bearing argument depends on an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a 16-state two-particle spectrum imported from prior theory, with five energy parameters (Delta_Orb, delta_1, delta_2, g_v^(1), g_s^v, g_a^v) chosen per triple point to fit the measured transport features, plus several ad-hoc rate parameters (zeta_v, alpha_inel, sigma, tunnel rates). The model further assumes independent single-particle states in the (1,1) configuration, equal tunnel probabilities, and valley relaxation faster than spin relaxation. No new physical entities are introduced. This ledger shows that the quantitative blockade limits are largely determined by fitted inputs rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (10)
  • Orbital splitting Delta_Orb = 0.7 meV (triple point A), 0.575 meV (B), 0.65 meV (Fig. 3c)
    Separates symmetric from antisymmetric two-particle orbital states; chosen per triple point to match resonance spacing.
  • Short-range interaction splitting delta_2 = 0.34 meV (A), 0.2 meV (B), 0.2 meV (Fig. 3c)
    Energy separation within the symmetric manifold between valley-singlet spin-triplet and valley-triplet spin-singlet states; fit parameter.
  • Additional short-range splitting delta_1 = 0 (default; not explicitly reported for main fits)
    Appears in epsilon_02(|T^v_0 S^s>) = delta_2 + delta_1; part of the 'remaining parameters' chosen per triple point.
  • Single-particle valley g-factor g_v^(1) = 15
    Valley Zeeman coefficient of single-electron dot states; chosen in agreement with prior work and used in the simulation.
  • Symmetric-orbital valley g-factor g_s^v = 18
    Valley Zeeman coefficient of the orbitally symmetric two-particle states; fit to resonances.
  • Antisymmetric-orbital valley g-factor g_a^v = 19 (A), 18 (B)
    Valley Zeeman coefficient of antisymmetric two-particle states; central to the claimed blockade limit and fit to data.
  • Valley flip penalty zeta_v = 1/sqrt(2)
    Reduces tunnel overlap when a valley flip is needed; ad-hoc rate-model parameter.
  • Inelastic background parameter alpha_inel = 0.01
    Scales an inelastic background term in the interdot transition rate; chosen to improve current background.
  • Gaussian broadening sigma = 6 ueV
    Energy broadening of interdot transitions, chosen to match experimental peak widths.
  • Tunnel rates gamma_inter, gamma_L, gamma_R = 2 MHz, 5 GHz, 5 GHz
    Interdot and lead tunnel rates; estimated values that set the absolute current scale in the simulation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Two-particle spectrum of BLG QDs consists of 6 orbitally symmetric and 10 antisymmetric states with splittings Delta_Orb, delta_2, delta_1, Delta_SO and valley g-factors g_s^v, g_a^v (from prior theory Refs. 57-62).
    The entire level scheme used for resonance assignment and blockade limits is imported from prior theoretical and multiplet work, not independently derived here.
  • domain assumption In the (1,1) configuration the two dots are independent and weakly coupled, so single-particle states are not mixed by interdot tunneling.
    Explicitly assumed ('we assume a negligible mixing between the two QDs') and later acknowledged as possibly invalid; central for the energy levels in Appendix B.
  • ad hoc to paper Tunnel rates to leads and between dots are equal for all states apart from spin and valley flip penalties zeta_s, zeta_v.
    Stated in Appendix B; authors acknowledge this may not hold at finite B and that it affects current magnitudes.
  • domain assumption Valley relaxation is faster than spin relaxation, so the valley-blocked transition is the limiting process.
    Used in Section 2 to explain why valley blockade persists; supported by cited lifetime measurements Refs. 63 and 64.
  • ad hoc to paper Energy states have no detuning or magnetic-field dependence beyond the Zeeman terms included.
    Authors note that detuning and B can change confinement, orbital splitting, and valley g-factors, and that this might be crucial; ignored in the model.
  • standard math Stationary solution of the Pauli master equation well describes sequential tunneling through the DQD.
    Standard rate-equation approach from Refs. 58, 69, and 70; assumed valid at weak interdot coupling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The role of antisymmetric orbitals and electron-electron interactions on the two-particle spin and valley blockade in graphene double quantum dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQXAFDIE

@misc{pith2026250106671,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The role of antisymmetric orbitals and electron-electron interactions on the two-particle spin and valley blockade in graphene double quantum dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQXAFDIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06671}
}
read the original abstract

We report on an experimental study of spin and valley blockade in two-electron bilayer graphene (BLG) double quantum dots (DQDs) and explore the limits set by asymmetric orbitals and electronelectron interactions. The results obtained from magnetotransport measurements on two-electron BLG DQDs, where the resonant tunneling transport involves both orbital symmetric and antisymmetric two-particle states, show a rich level spectrum. We observe a magnetic field tunable spin and valley blockade, which is limited by the orbital splitting, the strength of the electron-electron interaction and the difference in the valley g-factors between the symmetric and antisymmetric twoparticle orbital states. Our conclusions are supported by simulations based on rate equations, which allow the identification of prominent interdot transitions associated with the transition from single to two-particle states observed in the experiment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06671 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Zoom-in on the (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Zoom-in on the (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Zoom-in on the (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Zoom-in on the (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Loss and D

    D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots, Phys. Rev. A 57, 120 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    D. A. Vajner, L. Rickert, T. Gao, K. Kaymazlar, and T. Heindel, Quantum Communication Using Semi- conductor Quantum Dots, Adv. Quantum Technol. 5, 2100116 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Burkard, D

    G. Burkard, D. Loss, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Coupled quantum dots as quantum gates, Phys. Rev. B 59, 2070 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    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, Science 309, 2180 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    Bluhm, S

    H. Bluhm, S. Foletti, I. Neder, M. Rudner, D. Mahalu, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Dephasing time of GaAs electron-spin qubits coupled to a nuclear bath exceeding 200 µs, Nat. Phys. 7, 109 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Cerfontaine, T

    P. Cerfontaine, T. Botzem, J. Ritzmann, S. S. Humpohl, A. Ludwig, D. Schuh, D. Bougeard, A. D. Wieck, and H. Bluhm, Closed-loop control of a GaAs-based singlet- triplet spin qubit with 99.5% gate fidelity and low leak- age, Nat. Commun. 11, 4144 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    A. Sala, J. H. Qvist, and J. Danon, Highly tunable exchange-only singlet-only qubit in a GaAs triple quan- tum dot, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 012062 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    S. G. J. Philips, M. T. Madzik, S. V. Amitonov, S. L. de Snoo, M. Russ, N. Kalhor, C. Volk, W. I. L. Lawrie, D. Brousse, L. Tryputen, B. P. Wuetz, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Universal control of a six-qubit quantum processor in sil- icon, Nature 609, 919 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    N. I. Dumoulin Stuyck, F. A. Mohiyaddin, R. Li, M. Heyns, B. Govoreanu, and I. P. Radu, Low dephasing and robust micromagnet designs for silicon spin qubits, Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 094001 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Klemt, V

    B. Klemt, V. Elhomsy, M. Nurizzo, P. Hamonic, B. Martinez, B. Cardoso Paz, C. Spence, M. C. Dar- tiailh, B. Jadot, E. Chanrion, V. Thiney, R. Lethiecq, B. Bertrand, H. Niebojewski, C. B¨ auerle, M. Vinet, Y.- M. Niquet, T. Meunier, and M. Urdampilleta, Electrical manipulation ...

    2023

  3. [11]

    J. Y. Huang, R. Y. Su, W. H. Lim, M. Feng, B. van Straaten, B. Severin, W. Gilbert, N. Dumoulin Stuyck, T. Tanttu, S. Serrano, J. D. Cifuentes, I. Hansen, A. E. Seedhouse, E. Vahapoglu, R. C. C. Leon, N. V. Abrosi- mov, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, F. E. Hudson, C. C. Escott,...

    2024

  4. [12]

    X. Cai, E. J. Connors, L. F. Edge, and J. M. Nichol, Coherent spin–valley oscillations in silicon, Nat. Phys. 19, 386 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Maurand, X

    R. Maurand, X. Jehl, D. Kotekar-Patil, A. Corna, H. Bo- huslavskyi, R. Lavi´ eville, L. Hutin, S. Barraud, M. Vinet, M. Sanquer, and S. De Franceschi, A CMOS silicon spin qubit, Nat. Commun. 7, 13575 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    D. Kim, D. R. Ward, C. B. Simmons, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, and M. A. Eriks- son, High-fidelity resonant gating of a silicon-based quan- tum dot hybrid qubit, npj Quantum Inf. 1, 15004 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Z. Shi, C. B. Simmons, J. R. Prance, J. K. Gamble, T. S. Koh, Y.-P. Shim, X. Hu, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. A. Eriksson, M. Friesen, and S. N. Coppersmith, Fast Hybrid Silicon Double-Quantum-Dot Qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 140503 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Jirovec, A

    D. Jirovec, A. Hofmann, A. Ballabio, P. M. Mutter, G. Tavani, M. Botifoll, A. Crippa, J. Kukucka, O. Sagi, F. Martins, J. Saez-Mollejo, I. Prieto, M. Borovkov, J. Arbiol, D. Chrastina, G. Isella, and G. Katsaros, A singlet-triplet hole spin qubit in planar Ge, Nat. Mater. 20, ...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Watzinger, J

    H. Watzinger, J. Kukuˇ cka, L. Vukuˇ si´ c, F. Gao, T. Wang, F. Sch¨ affler, J.-J. Zhang, and G. Katsaros, A germanium hole spin qubit, Nat. Commun. 9, 3902 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    K. Wang, G. Xu, F. Gao, H. Liu, R.-L. Ma, X. Zhang, Z. Wang, G. Cao, T. Wang, J.-J. Zhang, D. Culcer, X. Hu, H.-W. Jiang, H.-O. Li, G.-C. Guo, and G.-P. Guo, Ultrafast coherent control of a hole spin qubit in a ger- manium quantum dot, Nat. Commun. 13, 206 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    N. W. Hendrickx, D. P. Franke, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and M. Veldhorst, Fast two-qubit logic with holes in germanium, Nature 577, 487 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    E. A. Laird, F. Pei, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, A val- ley–spin qubit in a carbon nanotube, Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 565 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    D. P. ˙Zebrowski, F. M. Peeters, and B. Szafran, Double quantum dots defined in bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 96, 035434 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    M. Eich, R. Pisoni, A. Pally, H. Overweg, A. Kurzmann, Y. Lee, P. Rickhaus, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. En- sslin, and T. Ihn, Coupled Quantum Dots in Bilayer Graphene, Nano Lett. 18, 5042 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Banszerus, B

    L. Banszerus, B. Frohn, A. Epping, D. Neumaier, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and C. Stampfer, Gate- Defined Electron–Hole Double Dots in Bilayer Graphene, Nano Lett. 18, 4785 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    C. Tong, R. Garreis, A. Knothe, M. Eich, A. Sacchi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, V. Fal’ko, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Kurzmann, Tunable Valley Splitting and Bipolar Operation in Graphene Quantum Dots, Nano Lett. 21, 1068 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Banszerus, S

    L. Banszerus, S. M¨ oller, K. Hecker, E. Icking, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, F. Hassler, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Particle–hole symmetry protects spin-valley blockade in graphene quantum dots, Nature 618, 51 (2023). 16

    2023

  18. [26]

    Banszerus, S

    L. Banszerus, S. M¨ oller, C. Steiner, E. Icking, S. Trel- lenkamp, F. Lentz, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Spin-valley coupling in single-electron bilayer graphene quantum dots, Nat. Commun. 12, 5250 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Banszerus, S

    L. Banszerus, S. M¨ oller, E. Icking, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Single-Electron Double Quantum Dots in Bilayer Graphene, Nano Lett. 20, 2005 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Banszerus, A

    L. Banszerus, A. Rothstein, E. Icking, S. M¨ oller, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Stampfer, and C. Volk, Tunable interdot coupling in few-electron bilayer graphene double quantum dots, Appl. Phys. Lett. 118, 103101 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    C. Tong, A. Kurzmann, R. Garreis, W. W. Huang, S. Jele, M. Eich, L. Ginzburg, C. Mittag, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, K. Ensslin, and T. Ihn, Pauli Block- ade of Tunable Two-Electron Spin and Valley States in Graphene Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 067702 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Hecker, L

    K. Hecker, L. Banszerus, A. Sch¨ apers, S. M¨ oller, A. Pe- ters, E. Icking, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Coherent charge oscillations in a bi- layer graphene double quantum dot, Nat. Commun. 14, 7911 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    C. Tong, A. Kurzmann, R. Garreis, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Pauli blockade catalogue and three- and four-particle Kondo effect in bi- layer graphene quantum dots, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L012006 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Garreis, C

    R. Garreis, C. Tong, J. Terle, M. J. Ruckriegel, J. D. Ger- ber, L. M. G¨ achter, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and W. W. Huang, Long-lived valley states in bilayer graphene quantum dots, Nat. Phys. 20, 428 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Knothe and G

    A. Knothe and G. Burkard, Extended Hubbard model de- scribing small multidot arrays in bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 109, 245401 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    C. Tong, F. Ginzel, A. Kurzmann, R. Garreis, L. Os- tertag, J. D. Gerber, W. W. Huang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Burkard, J. Danon, T. Ihn, and K. En- sslin, Three-Carrier Spin Blockade and Coupling in Bi- layer Graphene Double Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 017001 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    McCann and M

    E. McCann and M. Koshino, The electronic properties of bilayer graphene, Rep. Prog. Phys. 76, 056503 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Trauzettel, D

    B. Trauzettel, D. V. Bulaev, D. Loss, and G. Burkard, Spin qubits in graphene quantum dots, Nat. Phys. 3, 192 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    M¨ oller, L

    S. M¨ oller, L. Banszerus, A. Knothe, L. Valerius, K. Hecker, E. Icking, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Impact of competing en- ergy scales on the shell-filling sequence in elliptic bi- layer graphene quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 108, 125128 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Rohling, M

    N. Rohling, M. Russ, and G. Burkard, Hybrid Spin and Valley Quantum Computing with Singlet-Triplet Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 176801 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Rohling and G

    N. Rohling and G. Burkard, Universal quantum comput- ing with spin and valley states, New J. Phys. 14, 083008 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    G. Y. Wu, N.-Y. Lue, and Y.-C. Chen, Quantum manip- ulation of valleys in bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 88, 125422 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Noiri, K

    A. Noiri, K. Takeda, J. Yoneda, T. Nakajima, T. Kodera, and S. Tarucha, Radio-Frequency-Detected Fast Charge Sensing in Undoped Silicon Quantum Dots, Nano Lett. 20, 947 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    C. Volk, A. Chatterjee, F. Ansaloni, C. M. Marcus, and F. Kuemmeth, Fast Charge Sensing of Si/SiGe Quantum Dots via a High-Frequency Accumulation Gate, Nano Lett. 19, 5628 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    M. C. Cassidy, A. S. Dzurak, R. G. Clark, K. D. Peters- son, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and C. G. Smith, Single shot charge detection using a radio-frequency quantum point contact, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 222104 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    M. R. Buitelaar, J. Fransson, A. L. Cantone, C. G. Smith, D. Anderson, G. A. C. Jones, A. Ardavan, A. N. Khlobystov, A. A. R. Watt, K. Porfyrakis, and G. A. D. Briggs, Pauli spin blockade in carbon nanotube double quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 77, 245439 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    H. O. H. Churchill, A. J. Bestwick, J. W. Harlow, F. Kuemmeth, D. Marcos, C. H. Stwertka, S. K. Wat- son, and C. M. Marcus, Electron–nuclear interaction in 13C nanotube double quantum dots, Nat. Phys. 5, 321 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    H. O. H. Churchill, F. Kuemmeth, J. W. Harlow, A. J. Bestwick, E. I. Rashba, K. Flensberg, C. H. Stwertka, T. Taychatanapat, S. K. Watson, and C. M. Marcus, Re- laxation and Dephasing in a Two-Electron13C Nanotube Double Quantum Dot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 166802 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    N. S. Lai, W. H. Lim, C. H. Yang, F. A. Zwanenburg, W. A. Coish, F. Qassemi, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, Pauli Spin Blockade in a Highly Tunable Silicon Double Quantum Dot, Sci. Rep. 1, 1 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Pakkiam, A

    P. Pakkiam, A. V. Timofeev, M. G. House, M. R. Hogg, T. Kobayashi, M. Koch, S. Rogge, and M. Y. Simmons, Single-Shot Single-Gate rf Spin Readout in Silicon, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041032 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    A. E. Seedhouse, T. Tanttu, R. C. C. Leon, R. Zhao, K. Y. Tan, B. Hensen, F. E. Hudson, K. M. Itoh, J. Yoneda, C. H. Yang, A. Morello, A. Laucht, S. N. Cop- persmith, A. Saraiva, and A. S. Dzurak, Pauli Blockade in Silicon Quantum Dots with Spin-Orbit Control, PRX Quantum 2, 0...

    2021

  42. [50]

    M. Eich, R. Pisoni, H. Overweg, A. Kurzmann, Y. Lee, P. Rickhaus, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, F. Herman, M. Sigrist, K. Watanabe, and T. Taniguchi, Spin and Valley States in Gate-Defined Bilayer Graphene Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031023 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Garreis, A

    R. Garreis, A. Knothe, C. Tong, M. Eich, C. Gold, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, V. Fal’ko, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Kurzmann, Shell Filling and Trigonal Warping in Graphene Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 147703 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Engels, B

    S. Engels, B. Terr´ es, A. Epping, T. Khodkov, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, B. Beschoten, and C. Stampfer, Lim- itations to Carrier Mobility and Phase-Coherent Trans- port in Bilayer Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 126801 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    L. Wang, I. Meric, P. Y. Huang, Q. Gao, Y. Gao, H. Tran, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, L. M. Campos, D. A. Muller, J. Guo, P. Kim, J. Hone, K. L. Shepard, and C. R. Dean, One-Dimensional Electrical Contact to a Two- Dimensional Material, Science 342, 614 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    Icking, L

    E. Icking, L. Banszerus, F. W¨ ortche, F. Volmer, and C. Stampfer, Transport Spectroscopy of Ultraclean Tun- 17 able Band Gaps in Bilayer Graphene, Adv. Electron. Mater. 8, 2200510 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Banszerus, A

    L. Banszerus, A. Rothstein, T. Fabian, S. M¨ oller, E. Icking, S. Trellenkamp, F. Lentz, D. Neumaier, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Libisch, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Electron–Hole Crossover in Gate-Controlled Bilayer Graphene Quantum Dots, Nano Lett. 20, 7709 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Banszerus, T

    L. Banszerus, T. Fabian, S. M¨ oller, E. Icking, H. Heim- ing, S. Trellenkamp, F. Lentz, D. Neumaier, M. Otto, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Libisch, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Electrostatic Detection of Shubnikov–de Haas Oscillations in Bilayer Graphene by Coulomb Res- onances...

    2020

  49. [57]

    M¨ oller, L

    S. M¨ oller, L. Banszerus, A. Knothe, C. Steiner, E. Icking, S. Trellenkamp, F. Lentz, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. I. Glazman, V. I. Fal’ko, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Probing Two-Electron Multiplets in Bilayer Graphene Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 256802 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Knothe, L

    A. Knothe, L. I. Glazman, and V. I. Fal’ko, Tunneling theory for a bilayer graphene quantum dot’s single- and two-electron states, New J. Phys. 24, 043003 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Knothe and V

    A. Knothe and V. Fal’ko, Quartet states in two-electron quantum dots in bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 101, 235423 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Lemonik, I

    Y. Lemonik, I. L. Aleiner, C. Toke, and V. I. Fal’ko, Spontaneous symmetry breaking and Lifshitz transition in bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 82, 201408 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    Lemonik, I

    Y. Lemonik, I. Aleiner, and V. I. Fal’ko, Competing nematic, antiferromagnetic, and spin-flux orders in the ground state of bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 85, 245451 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    Kurzmann, Y

    A. Kurzmann, Y. Kleeorin, C. Tong, R. Garreis, A. Knothe, M. Eich, C. Mittag, C. Gold, F. K. de Vries, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, V. Fal’ko, Y. Meir, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Kondo effect and spin–orbit coupling in graphene quantum dots, Nat. Commun. 12, 6004 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Banszerus, K

    L. Banszerus, K. Hecker, S. M¨ oller, E. Icking, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Spin re- laxation in a single-electron graphene quantum dot, Nat. Commun. 13, 3637 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Banszerus, K

    L. Banszerus, K. Hecker, L. Wang, S. M¨ oller, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Burkard, C. Volk, and C. Stampfer, Phonon-limited valley life times in single-particle bilayer graphene quantum dots, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2402.16691 (2024), 2402.16691

    2024 doi arXiv

  57. [65]

    The software of the simulation allows to interactively in- spect any position in gate space, where it illustrates the alignment of the chemical potentials in the left and right QD

  58. [66]

    We assume the tunnel current to be limited by the inter- dot tunnel rate

  59. [67]

    A. O. Denisov, V. Reckova, S. Cances, M. J. Ruckriegel, M. Masseroni, C. Adam, C. Tong, J. D. Gerber, W. W. Huang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and H. Duprez, Spin–valley protected Kramers pair in bilayer graphene, Nat. Nanotechnol. , 1 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    Albrecht, J

    W. Albrecht, J. Moers, and B. Hermanns, HNF - Helmholtz Nano Facility, Journal of Large-Scale Research Facilities 3, 112 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Bonet, M

    E. Bonet, M. M. Deshmukh, and D. C. Ralph, Solving rate equations for electron tunneling via discrete quan- tum states, Phys. Rev. B 65, 045317 (2002)

    2002

  62. [70]

    Timm, Random transition-rate matrices for the mas- ter equation, Phys

    C. Timm, Random transition-rate matrices for the mas- ter equation, Phys. Rev. E 80, 021140 (2009)

    2009

  63. [71]

    Charging energy and tuning by the gates is taken into account separately

  64. [72]

    Simulating transport via the (1,1) - (0,2) charge tran- sition in a bilayer graphene double quantum dot, Zen- odo 10.5281/zenodo.12759889 (2024), [Online; accessed

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.