Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Spin relaxation in a single-electron bilayer graphene quantum dot

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin relaxation in a single-electron bilayer graphene quantum dot is governed by two competing mechanisms, producing a predicted dip in the magnetic-field dependence of $T_1^{-1}$.

desk verdict A legitimate dip prediction, but the quantitative agreement with experiment is essentially a fit-parameter rescaling and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14308 v1 pith:KBEVIZRV submitted 2025-05-20 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Lin Wang , Guido Burkard This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords bilayergraphenequantumdotspinrelaxationspin-orbitcouplingelectron-phonon1/fchargenoisemagnetic-fielddependencequbit
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 works out the spin relaxation rate of a single electron in a bilayer graphene quantum dot as a function of the perpendicular magnetic field. The authors argue that two mechanisms control the rate: acoustic-phonon emission through deformation-potential and bond-length-change coupling dominates at high fields, while 1/f charge noise dominates at low fields. Because the two contributions have opposite field dependence, the total relaxation rate is predicted to be nonmonotonic, with a dip near the crossover. The same calculation, with one spin-orbit parameter adjusted, reproduces the measured magnetic-field dependence of spin relaxation times from two independent experiments. The result matters because spin qubits in bilayer graphene are promising, and knowing what sets their lifetime at every field guides where to operate them.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the full single-particle Hamiltonian of a circular bilayer graphene quantum dot, $H_{\rm QD} = H^\tau(\mathbf{k}) + U(\mathbf{r}) + H_{\rm SO} + H_Z$, with spin-orbit terms including intrinsic, Bychkov-Rashba, and interlayer contributions, treated by exact diagonalization on a real-space grid with a Wilson mass term to avoid fermion doubling. Relaxation rates come from Fermi's golden rule matrix elements between the lowest two spin-split states, evaluated for two phonon mechanisms (deformation potential and bond-length change) and for 1/f charge noise whose power spectrum is $S_E(\omega) = S_0/\omega^\alpha$. The object that carries the argument is the spin mixing induced by $\lambda_{\rm BR}$ and the other spin-orbit terms: without it, neither phonons nor charge noise can flip the spin, and the field dependence of the spin splitting sets the energy denominator entering both rates. The competition of the two field-dependent rates is what produces the predicted dip.

What would settle it

Measure the spin relaxation time $T_1$ of a single-electron bilayer graphene quantum dot as a function of perpendicular magnetic field down to about 0.1 T without changing the dot confinement; if $T_1^{-1}$ keeps decreasing monotonically with no upturn or dip, or if the high-field slope disagrees with the deformation-potential prediction, the central two-mechanism picture is wrong. A second check is to determine $\lambda_{\rm BR}$ independently from spin precession or avoided-crossing measurements and see whether it lies in the fitted 12 to 275 microelectronvolt range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a single-electron bilayer graphene quantum dot, the spin relaxation rate $T_1^{-1}$ as a function of perpendicular field $B_\perp$ is not monotonic. Starting from the low-energy Hamiltonian of Bernal-stacked bilayer graphene with intrinsic, Bychkov-Rashba, and interlayer spin-orbit terms, plus a circular confinement potential, the authors diagonalize the dot and compute $T_1^{-1}$ by Fermi's golden rule for phonon emission and for 1/f charge-noise-driven electric-dipole transitions. They find that at low fields the 1/f charge noise contribution falls with increasing field, at high fields the deformation-potential phonon channel grows with field, and between the two a dip appears. Fitting the spin-orbit parameter $\lambda_{\rm BR}$ to the two experimental datasets reproduces the observed decay of spin relaxation time with field, and the paper presents this as a quantitative explanation of both experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative match to the experiments rests on treating the Bychkov-Rashba spin-orbit strength as a free fitting parameter, with fitted values 12, 120, and 275 microelectronvolts that are far above the model's own microscopic estimate of about 5 microelectronvolts per volt per nanometer; if that constant cannot really be so large in these devices, the quantitative agreement is not physical.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At high magnetic fields, $T_1^{-1}$ rises monotonically with $B_\perp$, so operating a spin qubit at the lowest convenient field in that regime maximizes its lifetime.
  • The low-field branch is set by 1/f charge noise, so reducing charge noise (smaller $S_0$ or a different exponent $\alpha$) should push the dip to lower fields or make it deeper.
  • The deformation-potential phonon channel, not the bond-length change, controls the high-field relaxation, so engineering the phonon environment of the dot should matter more than changing hopping parameters.
  • Because the fitted $\lambda_{\rm BR}$ values differ by more than an order of magnitude between the two experiments, device-to-device variation in the effective spin-orbit coupling is part of the observed spread in spin relaxation times.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The predicted dip implies a magnetic-field sweet spot where the spin is relatively protected from both noise sources, which could guide qubit operation if the dip is confirmed experimentally.
  • A direct test would be to measure $T_1$ at fields well below those already reported; the predicted upturn from 1/f charge noise is observable only if the dot confinement is held fixed while the field is lowered.
  • The need for $\lambda_{\rm BR}$ values far above the microscopic estimate hints that the effective spin-orbit mixing in a real gated dot may include renormalizations from the electric field or disorder, a connection the paper does not draw.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Wang and Burkard study spin relaxation in a single-electron Bernal-stacked bilayer graphene quantum dot in a perpendicular magnetic field. They combine an exact-diagonalization treatment of a four-band continuum Hamiltonian with spin-orbit coupling (intrinsic, Bychkov-Rashba, and interlayer terms), acoustic-phonon emission through deformation-potential and bond-length-change mechanisms, and 1/f charge noise. The central predictions are that T1^{-1} decreases with increasing field at low fields because of 1/f noise, then increases monotonically at higher fields where deformation-potential phonon emission dominates, producing a dip in T1^{-1}(B_\perp) at intermediate fields. The paper then compares the high-field behavior with experiments by Banszerus et al. and Gächter et al., fitting only the Bychkov-Rashba parameter λ_BR, and reports good qualitative and quantitative agreement.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a unified two-mechanism explanation for the magnetic-field dependence of spin relaxation in bilayer graphene quantum dots, and the predicted dip would be a falsifiable feature distinguishing phonon and charge-noise contributions. The model is physically motivated and uses standard Fermi-golden-rule machinery. The authors are transparent about the fitting procedure and about the residual discrepancy at the highest fields, and the spin-texture calculation with trigonal warping is a useful additional result. However, the claimed quantitative agreement currently rests on fitted values of λ_BR that are inconsistent with the model's own microscopic parametrization, so the quantitative part of the claim is not yet supported. The qualitative dip prediction survives and is worth testing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B and Table I] The quantitative comparison is load-bearing and is not yet supported. Table I parametrizes λ_BR as 5 E_z^* µeV, which with E_z = 0.5 V/nm, the value used in the calculations, gives about 2.5 µeV. The least-squares fits in Sec. IV.B yield λ_BR = 12 µeV for the ETH data and λ_BR = 275 µeV (or 120 µeV without error-bar weighting) for the RWTH data, i.e., values 5 to 110 times larger than the microscopic value. Since the relevant spin-mixing matrix elements scale linearly with λ_BR, the rate approximately scales as λ_BR^2, so the factor (275/12)^2 ≈ 525 between the two fitted values accounts for essentially the entire two-to-three-order-of-magnitude offset between the two experiments. Treating λ_BR as one free parameter per experiment therefore rescales the theory to each data set rather than testing the two-mechanism model. Please provide a microscopic justification for λ_BR values in the range 10–300 µeV, or fit λ_BR globally, or remove and explicitly reframe the 'quantitative agreement' claim.
  2. [Sec. II and Sec. IV.A] The numerical implementation is not specified sufficiently to reproduce or fully assess the quantitative rates. The exact-diagonalization calculation introduces a Wilson mass term w k^2 to avoid fermion doubling, but the value of w, the real-space grid spacing, the number of eigenstates kept after projection, and any convergence tests are not reported. The spin relaxation rate depends on the low-energy spectrum, the spin admixture, and the phonon matrix elements, all of which can be sensitive to these numerical choices. Please state these numerical parameters and demonstrate convergence of T_1^{-1}(B_\perp) for at least the representative curves in Figs. 2 and 3.
  3. [Sec. IV.B and Sec. V] The Conclusions state that the theoretical results agree with experiment 'both qualitatively and quantitatively', which is stronger than what the comparison in Fig. 3 actually shows. The comparison covers only the high-field branch in which 1/f noise is negligible, so it does not test the predicted dip or the crossover; moreover, the two experiments are fitted with different λ_BR values and with fixed U0, V, and R whose relation to the experimental devices is not discussed. Please state explicitly that the experimental comparison is a fit in the phonon-dominated regime rather than a full test of the model, and report the sensitivity of the fitted curves to the fixed dot parameters and to the choice of weighting in the least-squares procedure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] Please fix the missing space in 'G¨ achteret al.' in the first paragraph of the Introduction.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption reports λ_BR = 275 µeV when the fit includes error bars and λ_BR = 120 µeV when it does not; please explain how the error bars enter the weighting and why the result changes by more than a factor of two.
  3. [Sec. III.B] The values S0 = 20 µeV^2/Hz and α = 0.8 used for the 1/f noise spectrum are stated without a reference or justification; since the low-field prediction and the position of the dip depend on these values, please add a brief justification or a sensitivity statement.
  4. [Fig. 2] The dip in T_1^{-1}(B_\perp) is a central prediction but is shown only on a double-logarithmic scale, which makes its depth and position hard to read; please add an inset or a linear-scale panel to make the dip quantitative.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Quantitative agreement with experiments is a one-parameter least-squares fit to the same data; the field-dependence and dip prediction retain independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.B (Comparison with experiments), Fig. 3; Conclusions]
    "In the present work, we only treat one SOC parameter λBR as fitting parameter for simplicity. We perform a least-squares fit to the experimental data. ... Our results agree with the experimental data both qualitatively and quantitatively."

    The least-squares fit fixes λBR separately for each experiment (12, 275, and 120 µeV). Because the spin relaxation rate enters through the SOC-induced spin mixing squared in Fermi's golden rule, this single scale parameter can absorb the two-to-three-order-of-magnitude offset between the ETH and RWTH data. The subsequent statement that the results agree quantitatively is therefore a description of the fit quality, not a parameter-free prediction: the same experimental points used to set λBR are then quoted as confirming the model. The fitted values also lie far outside the microscopic parametrization in Table I (λBR = 5E_z^* µeV ≈ 2.5 µeV), reinforcing that the absolute rate scale is not predicted.

full rationale

The central derivation of the field dependence is self-contained: the dip and the high-field phonon-dominated increase follow from exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian with the fixed parameters in Table I and Fig. 2, combined with Fermi's golden rule for electron-phonon coupling and 1/f charge noise. The dip is not obtained by fitting to the spin-relaxation experiments. However, the quantitative comparison in Sec. IV.B is partially circular: the only free parameter λBR is least-squares fitted to each experimental dataset, and the paper then claims quantitative agreement. This reduces one supporting claim, the absolute T1 values, to a fit. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-imported-from-authors pattern is present. The circularity is therefore partial rather than total.

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

The central calculation rests on many parameters taken from prior literature and several chosen by hand. Only lambda_BR is fitted to the target spin relaxation data, which introduces circularity into the quantitative comparison. No new entities are invented; all physical ingredients come from earlier work.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_BR (Bychkov-Rashba SOC) = 12 ueV (ETH fit), 275 ueV (RWTH fit with error bars), 120 ueV (RWTH fit without error bars)
    Fit in Sec. IV.B to each experimental dataset; these values exceed the Table I estimate of 2.5 ueV for E_z = 0.5 V/nm by factors of roughly 5 to 110.
  • U0 (dot potential depth) = 42.5 meV
    Chosen model parameter for the confinement potential, not fitted to spin relaxation data but it sets the wavefunction and energy scales.
  • V (interlayer bias) = 25 meV (E_z approximately 0.5 V/nm)
    Chosen electric field parameter that controls the band gap and orbital splitting in the dot.
  • R (dot radius) = 25 nm
    Chosen dot radius; sets the confinement scale and therefore the orbital level spacings.
  • S0 (1/f charge noise amplitude) = 20 ueV^2/Hz
    Chosen charge noise strength used in Sec. III.B; not independently measured for the two devices being compared.
  • alpha (1/f noise exponent) = 0.8
    Chosen within the typical 0.5 to 2 range; it controls the low-field slope of the relaxation rate.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Fermi's golden rule applies to spin relaxation in this weak spin-orbit and weak coupling limit.
    Used in Sec. III to compute T1^-1 for both electron-phonon and charge noise mechanisms.
  • domain assumption Only in-plane acoustic phonons near the Gamma point contribute; out-of-plane phonons are suppressed by the substrate.
    Stated in Sec. III.A before writing the electron-phonon Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Intervalley coupling is negligible for spin mixing.
    Stated in Sec. II, allowing the two valleys to be treated independently.
  • domain assumption Electron-phonon coupling is identical in both graphene layers due to weak interlayer coupling.
    Assumed in Sec. III.A when writing the sublattice electron-phonon coupling matrix.
  • domain assumption 1/f charge noise is described by S0/omega^alpha and couples to the electron position operator.
    Adopted in Sec. III.B from silicon spin qubit theory; no microscopic justification is given for bilayer graphene dots.
  • ad hoc to paper The Wilson mass term w k^2 removes fermion doubling without changing the low-energy physics.
    Introduced in Sec. II for the lattice discretization; the value of w is not specified.
  • domain assumption Temperature is low enough that only phonon emission contributes to relaxation.
    Assumed in Sec. III.A after writing the golden rule expression.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin relaxation in a single-electron bilayer graphene quantum dot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KBEVIZRV

@misc{pith2026250514308,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin relaxation in a single-electron bilayer graphene quantum dot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KBEVIZRV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14308}
}
abstract

We study the spin relaxation in a single-electron bilayer graphene quantum dot due to the spin-orbit coupling. The spin relaxation is assisted by the emission of acoustic phonons via the bond-length change and deformation potential mechanisms and $1/f$ charge noise. In the perpendicular magnetic-field dependence of the spin relaxation rate $T_1^{-1}$, we predict a monotonic increase of $T_1^{-1}$ at higher fields where the electron-phonon coupling via the deformation potential plays a dominant role in spin relaxation. We show a less pronounced dip in $T_1^{-1}$ at lower magnetic fields due to the competition between the electron-phonon coupling due to bond-length change and $1/f$ charge noise. Finally, detailed comparisons of the magnetic-field dependence of the spin relaxation with the existing experiments by Banszerus et al. [Nat. Commun. 13, 3637 (2022)] and G\"achter et al. [PRX Quantum 3, 020343 (2022)] are reported.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14308 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Electron density (color scale, units of 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Total spin relaxation rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    McCann and V

    E. McCann and V. I. Fal’ko, Landau-level degeneracy and quantum hall effect in a graphite bilayer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 086805 (2006)

    2006

  2. [2]

    H. Min, B. Sahu, S. K. Banerjee, and A. H. MacDonald, Ab initio theory of gate induced gaps in graphene bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 75, 155115 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    E. V. Castro, K. S. Novoselov, S. V. Morozov, N. M. R. Peres, J. M. B. L. dos Santos, J. Nilsson, F. Guinea, A. K. Geim, and A. H. C. Neto, Biased bilayer graphene: Semiconductor with a gap tunable by the electric field effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 216802 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Zhang, T.-T

    Y. Zhang, T.-T. Tang, C. Girit, Z. Hao, M. C. Martin, A. Zettl, M. F. Crommie, Y. R. Shen, and F. Wang, Direct observation of a widely tunable bandgap in bilayer graphene, Nature (London) 459, 820 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Konschuh, M

    S. Konschuh, M. Gmitra, D. Kochan, and J. Fabian, Theory of spin-orbit coupling in bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 85, 115423 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    McCann and M

    E. McCann and M. Koshino, The electronic properties of bilayer graphene, Reports on Progress in Physics 76, 056503 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Trauzettel, D

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

    2007

  8. [8]

    Banszerus, A

    L. Banszerus, A. Rothstein, T. Fabian, S. Moller, E. Ick- ing, S. Trellenkamp, F. Lentz, D. Neumaier, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, et al., Electron–hole crossover in gate- controlled bilayer graphene quantum dots, Nano letters 20, 7709 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    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, Nature Communications 12, 5250 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Banszerus, K

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

    2022

  3. [11]

    L. M. G¨ achter, R. Garreis, J. D. Gerber, M. J. Ruckriegel, C. Tong, B. Kratochwil, F. K. de Vries, A. Kurzmann, 5 K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and W. W. Huang, Single-shot spin readout in graphene quantum dots, PRX Quantum 3, 020343 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    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, Nature Physics 20, 428 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    A. O. Denisov, V. Reckova, S. Cances, M. J. Ruck- riegel, M. Masseroni, C. Adam, C. Tong, J. D. Gerber, W. W. Huang, K. Watanabe, et al., Spin–valley protected Kramers pair in bilayer graphene, Nature Nanotechnology https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-025-01858-8 (2025)

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    Banszerus, K

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

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Knothe and V

    A. Knothe and V. Fal’ko, Influence of minivalleys and berry curvature on electrostatically induced quantum wires in gapped bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B98, 155435 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    M. Eich, R. Pisoni, A. Pally, H. Overweg, A. Kurzmann, Y. Lee, P. Rickhaus, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. En- sslin, et al., Coupled quantum dots in bilayer graphene, Nano Letters 18, 5042 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Rycerz, J

    A. Rycerz, J. Tworzyd lo, and C. Beenakker, Valley filter and valley valve in graphene, Nature Physics3, 172 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Rohling and G

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

    2012

  11. [19]

    Rohling, M

    N. Rohling, M. Russ, and G. Burkard, Hybrid spin and val- ley quantum computing with singlet-triplet qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 176801 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Valleytronics in 2D materials, Nature Reviews Materials 1, 16055 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Quantum spin hall effect in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 226801 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    Huertas-Hernando, F

    D. Huertas-Hernando, F. Guinea, and A. Brataas, Spin- orbit coupling in curved graphene, fullerenes, nanotubes, and nanotube caps, Phys. Rev. B 74, 155426 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    H. Min, J. E. Hill, N. A. Sinitsyn, B. R. Sahu, L. Kleinman, and A. H. MacDonald, Intrinsic and Rashba spin-orbit interactions in graphene sheets, Phys. Rev. B 74, 165310 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Y. Yao, F. Ye, X.-L. Qi, S.-C. Zhang, and Z. Fang, Spin- orbit gap of graphene: First-principles calculations, Phys. Rev. B 75, 041401 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    J. C. Boettger and S. B. Trickey, First-principles calcula- tion of the spin-orbit splitting in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 75, 121402 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Fischer, B

    J. Fischer, B. Trauzettel, and D. Loss, Hyperfine inter- action and electron-spin decoherence in graphene and carbon nanotube quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 80, 155401 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    Gmitra, S

    M. Gmitra, S. Konschuh, C. Ertler, C. Ambrosch-Draxl, and J. Fabian, Band-structure topologies of graphene: Spin-orbit coupling effects from first principles, Phys. Rev. B 80, 235431 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Huertas-Hernando, F

    D. Huertas-Hernando, F. Guinea, and A. Brataas, Spin- orbit-mediated spin relaxation in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 146801 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Abdelouahed, A

    S. Abdelouahed, A. Ernst, J. Henk, I. V. Maznichenko, and I. Mertig, Spin-split electronic states in graphene: Effects due to lattice deformation, Rashba effect, and adatoms by first principles, Phys. Rev. B 82, 125424 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Konschuh, M

    S. Konschuh, M. Gmitra, and J. Fabian, Tight-binding theory of the spin-orbit coupling in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 82, 245412 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Wang and M

    L. Wang and M. W. Wu, Electron spin relaxation in bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 87, 205416 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Messias de Resende, F

    B. Messias de Resende, F. C. de Lima, R. H. Miwa, E. Vernek, and G. J. Ferreira, Confinement and fermion doubling problem in Dirac-like hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. B 96, 161113 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    P. R. Struck and G. Burkard, Effective time-reversal sym- metry breaking in the spin relaxation in a graphene quan- tum dot, Phys. Rev. B 82, 125401 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Droth and G

    M. Droth and G. Burkard, Acoustic phonons and spin relaxation in graphene nanoribbons, Phys. Rev. B 84, 155404 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Droth and G

    M. Droth and G. Burkard, Electron spin relaxation in graphene nanoribbon quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B 87, 205432 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Wang and G

    L. Wang and G. Burkard, Valley relaxation in a single- electron bilayer graphene quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 110, 035409 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Hosseinkhani and G

    A. Hosseinkhani and G. Burkard, Relaxation of single- electron spin qubits in silicon in the presence of interface steps, Phys. Rev. B 104, 085309 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Hosseinkhani and G

    A. Hosseinkhani and G. Burkard, Theory of silicon spin qubit relaxation in a synthetic spin-orbit field, Phys. Rev. B 106, 075415 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Ando, Theory of electronic states and transport in carbon nanotubes, J

    T. Ando, Theory of electronic states and transport in carbon nanotubes, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74, 777 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    Kranz, S

    L. Kranz, S. K. Gorman, B. Thorgrimsson, Y. He, D. Keith, J. G. Keizer, and M. Y. Simmons, Exploit- ing a single-crystal environment to minimize the charge noise on qubits in silicon, Advanced Materials 32, 2003361 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    W. Luo, A. Naseri, J. Sirker, and T. Chakraborty, Unique spin vortices and topological charges in quantum dots with spin-orbit couplings, Scientific Reports 9, 672 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.