Abstract
Silicon spin qubits have emerged as a promising path to largescale quantum processors. In this prospect, the development of scalable qubit readout schemes involving a minimal device overhead is a compelling step. Here we report the implementation of gatecoupled rf reflectometry for the dispersive readout of a fully functional spin qubit device. We use a ptype doublegate transistor made using industrystandard silicon technology. The first gate confines a hole quantum dot encoding the spin qubit, the second one a helper dot enabling readout. The qubit state is measured through the phase response of a lumpedelement resonator to spinselective interdot tunneling. The demonstrated qubit readout scheme requires no coupling to a Fermi reservoir, thereby offering a compact and potentially scalable solution whose operation may be extended above 1 K.
Introduction
The recent years have witnessed remarkable progress in the development of semiconductor spin qubits^{1,2,3,4} with an increasing focus on siliconbased realizations^{5,6,7,8}. Access to isotopically enriched ^{28}Si has enabled the achievement of very long spin coherence times for both nuclear and electron spins^{9,10,11}. In addition, twoqubit gates with increasing high fidelities were demonstrated in electrostatically defined electron double quantum dots^{12,13,14}.
While further improvements in single and twoqubit gates can be expected, growing research efforts are now being directed to the realization of scalable arrays of coupled qubits^{15,16,17,18,19}. Leveraging the wellestablished silicon technology may enable facing the scalability challenge, and initiatives to explore this opportunity are on the way^{20}. Simultaneously, suitable qubit device geometries need to be developed. One of the compelling problems is to engineer scalable readout schemes. The present work addresses this important issue.
It has been shown that a microwave excitation applied to a gate electrode drives Rabi oscillations via the electricdipole spin resonance mechanism^{4,5,6,21,22,23}. The possibility of using a gate as sensor for qubit readout would allow for a compact device layout, with a clear advantage for scalability. Gate reflectometry probes charge tunneling transitions in a quantum dot system through the dispersive shift of a radiofrequency (rf) resonator connected to a gate electrode^{24,25,26,27}. Jointly to spinselective tunneling, e.g. due to Pauli spin blockade in a double quantum dot (DQD), this technique provides a way to measure spin states.
In a similar fashion, the phase shift of a superconducting microwave resonator coupled to the source of an InAs nanowire has enabled spin qubit dispersive readout^{22}. In Si, recent gate reflectometry experiments have shown singleshot electron spin detection^{28,29,30}.
Here, we combine coherent spin control and gate dispersive readout in a compact qubit device. Two gates tune an isolated hole DQD, and two distinct electric rf tones (one per gate) allow spin manipulation and dispersive readout. Spin initialization and control are performed without involving any charge reservoir; qubit readout relies on the spindependent phase response at the DQD charge degeneracy point. We assess hole single spin dynamics and show coherent spin control, validating a protocol for complete qubit characterization exploitable in more complex architectures.
Results
Double quantum dot dispersive spectroscopy
The experiment is carried out on a doublegate, ptype Si transistor fabricated on a silicononinsulator 300mm wafer using an industrystandard fabrication line^{6}. The device, nominally identical to the one in Fig. 1c, has two parallel top gates, G_{R} and G_{C}, wrapping an etched Si nanowire channel. The gates are defined by ebeam lithography and have enlarged overlapping spacers to avoid doping implantation in the channel. The measurement circuit is shown in Fig. 1a. At low temperature (we operate the device at 20 mK using a dilution refrigerator), DC voltages V_{C} and V_{R} are applied to these gates to induce two closely spaced hole quantum dots. The control gate G_{C} delivers also subμs pulses and microwave excitation in the GHz range to manipulate the qubit. The readout gate, G_{R}, is wirebonded to a 220 nH surfacemount inductor. Along with a parasitic capacitance and the device impedance, the inductor forms a tank circuit resonating at f_{0} = 339 MHz. Figure 1b shows the phase ϕ and attenuation A of the reflected signal as a function of the resonator driving frequency f_{R}. From the slope of the phase trace at f_{0} we extract a quality factor Q_{loaded} ≃ 18. The qubit device acts as a variable impedance load for the resonator, and the resonant frequency f_{0} undergoes a dispersive shift according to the state of the qubit.
To determine the charge stability diagram of our DQD, we probe the phase response of the resonator while sweeping the DC gate voltages V_{R} and V_{C} (see Supplementary Note 2 and Supplementary Fig. 2).
The diagonal ridge in Fig. 2a denotes the interdot charge transition we shall focus on hereafter. Along this ridge, the electrochemical potentials of the two dots line up enabling the shuttling of a hole charge from one dot to the other. This results in a phase variation Δϕ in the reflected signal. Quantitatively, Δϕ is proportional to the quantum capacitance associated with the gate voltage dependence of the energy levels involved in the interdot charge transition. Interdot tunnel coupling results in the formation of molecular bonding (+) and antibonding (−) states with energy levels E_{+} and E_{−}, respectively. These states have opposite quantum capacitance since C_{Q,±} = −α^{2}(∂^{2}E_{±}/∂ε^{2})^{27}. Here ε is the gatevoltage detuning along a given line crossing the interdot charge transition boundary, and α is a leverarm parameter relating ε to the energy difference between the electrochemical potentials of the two dots (we estimate α ≃ 0.58 eV V^{−1} along the detuning line in Fig. 2a). The width of the Δϕ ridge, once translated into energy, gives the interdot tunnel coupling, t. We estimate t between 6.4 and 8.5 μeV, depending on whether thermal fluctuations contribute or not to the dispersive response (see Supplementary Note 3).
The total charge parity and the spin character of the DQD states can be determined from the evolution of the interdot ridge in an applied magnetic field, B^{31}. Figure 2b shows the Bdependence of the phase signal at the detuning line indicated in Fig. 2a. Four representative traces taken from this plot are shown in Fig. 2c. The interdot phase signal progressively drops with B. At B = 0.355 T the line profile is slightly asymmetric, while a doublepeak structure emerges at B = 0.46 T. The two peaks move apart and weaken by further increasing B, as revealed by the trace at B = 0.85 T.
The observed behavior can be understood in terms of an interdot charge transition with an even number of holes in the DQD, in a scenario equivalent to a (0, 2) ↔ (1, 1) transition. We shall then refer to a “(0, 2)” and a “(1, 1)” state, even if the actual number of confined holes is larger (we estimate around ten, see Supplementary Note 2). The ε dependence of the DQD states at finite B is presented in Fig. 2d. Deeply in the positive detuning regime, different gfactors for the left (\(g_{\mathrm{L}}^ \ast\)) and the right dot (\(g_{\mathrm{R}}^ \ast\)) result in four nondegenerate (1, 1) levels corresponding to the following spin states: ⇓⇓〉, ⇑⇓〉, ⇓⇑〉, ⇑⇑〉^{22,32,33}. At large negative detuning, the ground state is a spinsinglet state S(0,2) and the triplet states T(0,2) lie high up in energy. Around zero detuning, the ⇑⇓〉, ⇓⇑〉 states hybridize with the S(0, 2) state forming an unpolarized triplet T_{0}(1, 1) and two molecular singlets, S_{g} and S_{e}, with bonding and antibonding character, respectively (Supplementary Note 3).
We use the spectrum of Fig. 2d to model the evolution of the interdot phase signal in Fig. 2b, c. Importantly, we make the assumption that the average occupation probability of the available excited states are populated according to a Boltzmann distribution with an effective temperature T_{eff}, which is used as a free parameter. Because the reflectometry signal is averaged over many resonator cycles, \({\mathrm{\Delta }}\phi = \mathop {\sum}\nolimits_i {\langle {\mathrm{\Delta }}\phi \rangle _i}\), where 〈Δϕ〉_{i} is the phase response associated to state i weighted by the respective occupation probability^{31} (here i labels the DQD levels in Fig. 2d). Figure 2e shows 〈Δϕ〉_{i} as a function of ε for T_{eff} = 250 mK. The spin polarized triplet states T_{−} and T_{+} (i.e. ⇓⇓〉 and ⇑⇑〉, respectively) are linear in ε and, therefore, they do not cause any finite phase shift; S_{g}, S_{e}, and T_{0}(1, 1), on the other hand, possess a curvature and are sensed by the reflectometry apparatus (Supplementary Note 3). We note that the phase signal for T_{0}(1, 1) has a peakdip line shape whose minimum lies at positive ε (blue trace), partly counterbalanced by the positive phase signal due to S_{e}. The S_{g} state causes a pronounced dip at negative ε (green trace), dominating over the peak component of T_{0}. The overall net result is a phase signal with an asymmetric doubledip structure consistent with our experimental observation.
This simple model, with the chosen T_{eff} = 250 mK, qualitatively reproduces the emergence of the doubledip structure at B~0.4 T, as well as its gradual suppression at higher B, as shown in the inset to Fig. 2b and in Fig. 2f (increasing the Zeeman energy results in the depopulation of the S_{g} and T_{0} excited states in favor of the T_{−}(1,1) ground state, for which Δϕ = 0).
Dispersive detection of electricdipole spin resonance
Now that we have elucidated the energylevel structure of the DQD, we can discuss the operation of the device as a singlehole spin qubit with electrical control and dispersive readout. Electricdipole spin resonance (EDSR)^{6,23,34} is induced by a microwave voltage modulation applied to gate G_{C}. To detect EDSR dispersively, the resonating states must have different quantum capacitances. The DQD is initially tuned to the position of the red star in Fig. 2c, where the DQD is in a “shallow” (1,1) configuration, i.e. close to the boundary with the (0,2) charge state (more details in Supplementary Note 4 and Supplementary Fig. 4).
Figure 3a shows the dispersive measurement of an EDSR line. The microwave gate modulation of frequency f_{C} is applied continuously and B is oriented along the nanowire axis. We ascribe the resonance line to a secondharmonic driving process where 2hf_{C} = gμ_{B}B (h the Planck’s constant, μ_{B} the Bohr magneton and g the effective hole gfactor). From this resonance condition we extract g = 1.735 ± 0.002, in agreement with previous works^{6,23}. The first harmonic signal, shown in the inset to Fig. 3a, is unexpectedly weaker. Though both first and second harmonic excitations can be expected^{35}, the first harmonic EDSR line (inset to Fig. 3a) is unexpectedly weaker. A comparison of the two signal intensities requires the knowledge of many parameters (relaxation rate, microwave power, field amplitude) and calls for deeper investigations.
The visibility of the EDSR signal can be optimized by a fine tuning of the gate voltages. Figure 3b shows a highresolution measurement over a narrow region of the stability diagram around the interdot charge transition boundary at B = 0.52 T; the interdot line has a doublepeak structure, consistently with the data in Fig. 2b, c. The measurement is performed while applying a continuous microwave tone f_{C} = 7.42 GHz. EDSR appears as a distinct phase signal around V_{C} ≃ 362.5 mV and V_{R} ≃ 1040 mV, i.e. slightly inside the (1,1) charge region, pinpointed by the black arrow as I/R. Such EDSR feature is extremely localized in the stability diagram reflecting the gatevoltage dependence of the hole gfactor^{23}.
Figure 3c displays line cuts across the interdot transition line at fixed V_{R} and different microwave excitation conditions. With no microwaves excitation, we observe the doublepeak line shape discussed above. With a microwave gate modulation at f_{C} = 7.42 GHz, the spin resonance condition is met at V_{C} ≃ 362.45 mV, which results in a pronounced EDSR peak, the same observed at point I/R in Fig. 3b (see also Supplementary Fig. 4). The peak vanishes when f_{C} is detuned by 20 MHz (cyan trace).
At point I/R, resonant microwave excitation enables the spectroscopy of the T_{0}(1, 1) state. The inset to Fig. 3c shows the signal we expect from our model (Supplementary Note 4). In a small detuning window, the populations of T_{−}(1, 1) and T_{0}(1, 1) are assumed to be balanced by EDSR (see the energy levels in the inset to Fig. 3b); this results in a phase signal dramatically enhanced resembling the feature centered at I/R in the main panel. A further confirmation that the spin transitions are driven between T_{−}(1, 1) and T_{0}(1, 1) is given by the extrapolated intercept at 0 T of the EDSR transition line in Fig. 3a, found much smaller (<100 MHz) than t. In the following, we shall use point I/R to perform qubit initialization and readout.
Qubit control and readout
The device is operated as a spin qubit implementing the protocol outlined in Fig. 4a. The voltage sequence in the upper part of Fig. 4a tunes the DQD at the control point C (≃1 mV deep in the (1, 1) region) where holes are strongly localized in either one or the other dot with negligible tunnel coupling. A microwave burst of duration τ_{burst} and frequency f_{C} drives single spin rotations between ⇓⇓〉 and ⇑⇓〉; the system is then brought back to I/R in the “shallow” (1, 1) regime for a time t_{wait} for readout and initialization. The dispersive readout eventually relies on the spinresolved phase shift at I/R, though the reflectometry tone f_{R} is applied during the whole sequence period T_{M} and the reflected signal is streamed constantly to the acquisition module.
First, we determine the lifetime T_{1} of the excited spin state at the readout point I/R by sweeping t_{wait} after a πburst at point C. The results are shown in Fig. 4b. The phase signal rapidly diminishes with increasing t_{wait} because spin relaxation depopulates the excited spin state in favor of the nondispersive T_{−}(1, 1) ground state. The estimated spin lifetime at the readout position is T_{1} = 2.7 ± 0.7 μs (see Supplementary Note 5). By shifting the position of a 100 ns microwave burst within a 12 μs pulse, no clear decay of the dispersive signal is observed, which suggests a spin lifetime at manipulation point longer than 10 μs.
We demonstrate coherent single spin control in the chevron plot of Fig. 4c. The phase signal is collected as a function of microwave burst time τ_{burst} and driving frequency f_{C}. The spin state is initialized at point I/R (t_{wait}~T_{1}). In Fig. 4d the phase signal is plotted as a function of τ_{burst} with f_{C} set at the Larmor frequency f_{Larmor}. The Rabi oscillations have 15 MHz frequency, consistent with Refs. roro and gtensor. The nonmonotonous envelope is attributed to random phase accumulation in the qubit state by offresonant driving at f_{Larmor} ± f_{R} due to upconversion of microwave and reflectometry tones during the manipulation time. Data in Fig. 4d have been averaged over 30 measurements though the oscillations are easily distinguishable from single scans where each point is integrated over 100 ms. Figure 4 witnesses the success of using electrical rf signals both for coherent manipulation by EDSR and for qubitstate readout by means of gate reflectometry.
Discussion
The measured T_{1} is compatible with the relaxation times obtained for hole singlettriplet states in acceptor pairs in Si^{36} and in Ge/Si nanowire double quantum dots^{37}; in both cases T_{1} has been measured at the charge degeneracy point with reflectometry setups similar to ours. Nonetheless, charge detector measurements have shown T_{1} approaching 100 μs for single hole spins in Ge hut wire quantum dots^{38} and ≲1 ms for Ge/Si singlettriplet systems^{39}. This suggests that despite the intrinsic spinorbit coupling single spin lifetimes in the ms range might be achievable in Si too. Strategies to boost T_{1} at the readout point may consist of inserting rf isolators between the coupler and the amplifier to reduce the backaction on the qubit and avoiding highκ dielectric in the gate stack to limit charge noise.
We note that T_{1} could depend on the orientation of the magnetic field as well^{40}. Future studies on magnetic field anisotropy will clarify whether T_{1}, along with the effective gfactors (and hence the dispersive shift for readout) and Rabi frenquency, can be maximized at once along a specific direction. Technical improvements intended to enhance the phase sensitivity, like resonators with higher Qfactor and parametric amplification, could push the implemented readout protocol to distinguish spin states with a microsecond integration time, enabling single shot measurement as reported in a recent experiment with a gateconnected superconducting resonant circuit^{41}. Lastly, the resonator integration in the backend of the industrial chip could offer the possibility to engineer the resonant network at a wafer scale, guaranteeing controlled and reproducible qubitresonator coupling.
The gatebased dispersive sensing demonstrated here does not involve local reservoirs of charges or embedded charge detectors. This meets the requirements of forefront qubit architectures (e.g. Ref. ^{16}), where the spin readout would be performed at will by any gate of the 2D quantum dot array by frequency multiplexing.
Dispersive spin detection by Pauli blockade has a fidelity not constrained by the temperature of the leads. As recently shown^{42}, isolated DQDs can serve as spin qubits even if placed at environmental temperatures exceeding the spin splitting, like 1 K or more. This should relax many cryogenic constraints and support the cointegration with classical electronics, as required by a scaleup perspective^{19}.
Methods
Device fabrication
The fabrication process of the device was carried out in a 300 mm CMOS platform and is described in Ref. ^{6}.
Experimental setup
The experiment is performed by exciting the resonator input at f_{R} = f_{0} = 339 MHz and power P_{R} ≈ −110 dBm. We measure the phase variation Δϕ of the reflected signal isolated from the incoming wave by a directional coupler, amplified by 35 dB at 4 K and demodulated to baseband using homodyne detection. The complete circuit diagram of the experimental setup for qubit manipulation and dispersive readout is provided in Supplementary Note 1 and Supplementary Fig. 1.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
 1.
Petta, J. R. et al. Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor quantum dots. Science 309, 2180–2184 (2005).
 2.
Laird, E. A., Pei, F. & Kouwenhoven, L. A valley–spin qubit in a carbon nanotube. Nat. Nanotech. 8, 565–568 (2013).
 3.
Dutt, M. G. et al. Quantum register based on individual electronic and nuclear spin qubits in diamond. Science 316, 1312–1316 (2007).
 4.
Watzinger, H. et al. A germanium hole spin qubit. Nat. Commun. 9, 3902 (2018).
 5.
Kawakami, E. et al. Electrical control of a longlived spin qubit in a si/sige quantum dot. Nat. Nanotech. 9, 666–670 (2014).
 6.
Maurand, R. et al. A CMOS silicon spin qubit. Nat. Comm. 7, 13575 (2016).
 7.
Reed, M. et al. Reduced sensitivity to charge noise in semiconductor spin qubits via symmetric operation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 110402 (2016).
 8.
Thorgrimsson, B. et al. Extending the coherence of a quantum dot hybrid qubit. npj Quant. Inform. 3, 32 (2017).
 9.
Veldhorst, M. et al. An addressable quantum dot qubit with faulttolerant controlfidelity. Nat. Nanotech. 9, 981–985 (2014).
 10.
Muhonen, J. T. et al. Storing quantum information for 30 s in a nanoelectronic device. Nat. Nanotech. 9, 986–991 (2014).
 11.
Yoneda, J. et al. A quantumdot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%. Nat. Nanotech. 13, 102–106 (2018).
 12.
Zajac, D. M. et al. Resonantly driven cnot gate for electron spins. Science 359, 439–442 (2018).
 13.
Watson, T. et al. A programmable twoqubit quantum processor in silicon. Nature 555, 633–637 (2018).
 14.
Huang, W. et al. Fidelity benchmarks for twoqubit gates in silicon. Preprint at, https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05027 (2018).
 15.
Veldhorst, M., Eenink, H., Yang, C. & Dzurak, A. Silicon CMOS architecture for a spinbased quantum computer. Nat. Commun. 8, 1766 (2017).
 16.
Li, R. et al. A crossbar network for silicon quantum dot qubits. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar3960 (2018).
 17.
Jones, C. et al. Logical qubit in a linear array of semiconductor quantum dots. Phys. Rev. X 8, 021058 (2018).
 18.
Zajac, D., Hazard, T., Mi, X., Nielsen, E. & Petta, J. Scalable gate architecture for a onedimensional array of semiconductor spin qubits. Phys. Rev. Appl. 6, 054013 (2016).
 19.
Vandersypen, L. et al. Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, dense, and coherent. npj Quant. Inform. 3, 34 (2017).
 20.
Hutin, L. et al. Si MOS technology for spinbased quantum computing. In Proc. 2018 48th ESSDERC, 12–17 (IEEE, Dresden, Germany, 2018).
 21.
Nowack, K., Koppens, F., Nazarov, Y. V. & Vandersypen, L. Coherent control of a single electron spin with electric fields. Science 318, 1430–1433 (2007).
 22.
Petersson, K. et al. Circuit quantum electrodynamics with a spin qubit. Nature 490, 380–383 (2012).
 23.
Crippa, A. et al. Electrical spin driving by gmatrix modulation in spinorbit qubits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 137702 (2018).
 24.
Ciccarelli, C. & Ferguson, A. Impedance of the singleelectron transistor at radiofrequencies. New J. Phys. 13, 093015 (2011).
 25.
Colless, J. et al. Dispersive readout of a fewelectron double quantum dot with fast rf gate sensors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 046805 (2013).
 26.
GonzalezZalba, M., Barraud, S., Ferguson, A. & Betz, A. Probing the limits of gatebased charge sensing. Nat. Commun. 6, 6084 (2015).
 27.
Crippa, A. et al. Level spectrum and charge relaxation in a silicon double quantum dot probed by dualgate reflectometry. Nano. Lett. 17, 1001–1006 (2017).
 28.
Pakkiam, P. et al. Singleshot singlegate rf spin readout in silicon. Phys. Rev. X 8, 041032 (2018).
 29.
West, A. et al. Gatebased singleshot readout of spins in silicon. Nat. Nanotech. 14, 437–441 (2019).
 30.
Urdampilleta, M. et al. Gatebased high fidelity spin readout in a CMOS device. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.04584 (2018).
 31.
Schroer, M., Jung, M., Petersson, K. & Petta, J. Radio frequency charge parity meter. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 166804 (2012).
 32.
NadjPerge, S., Frolov, S., Bakkers, E. & Kouwenhoven, L. P. Spinorbit qubit in a semiconductor nanowire. Nature 468, 1084–1087 (2010).
 33.
NadjPerge, S. et al. Spectroscopy of spinorbit quantum bits in indium antimonide nanowires. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 166801 (2012).
 34.
Venitucci, B., Bourdet, L., Pouzada, D. & Niquet, Y.M. Electrical manipulation of semiconductor spin qubits within the gmatrix formalism. Phys. Rev. B 98, 155319 (2018).
 35.
Scarlino, P. et al. Secondharmonic coherent driving of a spin qubit in a si/sige quantum dot. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 106802 (2015).
 36.
van der Heijden, J. et al. Spinorbit dynamics of single acceptor atoms in silicon. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat9199 (2018).
 37.
Higginbotham, A. P. et al. Hole spin coherence in a Ge/Si heterostructure nanowire. Nano. Lett. 14, 3582–3586 (2014).
 38.
Vukušić, L., Kukučka, J., Watzinger, H., Schäffler, F. & Katsaros, G. Singleshot readout of hole spins in ge. Nano. Lett. 18, 7141–7145 (2018).
 39.
Hu, Y., Kuemmeth, F., Lieber, C. M. & Marcus, C. M. Hole spin relaxation in ge–si core–shell nanowire qubits. Nat. Nanotech. 7, 47–50 (2012).
 40.
Weber, B. et al. Spin–orbit coupling in silicon for electrons bound to donors. npj Quant. Inform. 4, 61 (2018).
 41.
Zheng, G. et al. Rapid highfidelity gatebased spin readout in silicon. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.00687 (2019).
 42.
Yang, C. et al. Silicon quantum processor unit cell operation above one kelvin. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.09126 (2019).
Acknowledgements
We thank K.D. Petersson, M.L.V. Tagliaferri, M.F. GonzalezZalba and Y.M. Niquet for fruitful discussions. The work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 688539 MOSQUITO (http://mosquito.eu) and by the ERC Project No. 759388 LONGSPIN.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
A.C. and R.E. performed the experiments with help from R.M., A.C., R.M., and S.D.F. designed the experiment. R.L., L.H., B.B., M.V. fabricated the sample. A.C. analyzed the results with inputs from R.E., A. Aprá, A. Amisse, M.U., T.M., M.S., X.J., R.M., and S.D.F., A.C., R.M., and S.D.F. wrote the paper. M.S., X.J., M.V., and S.D.F. initiated the project.
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to A. Crippa or R. Maurand.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information: Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Crippa, A., Ezzouch, R., Aprá, A. et al. Gatereflectometry dispersive readout and coherent control of a spin qubit in silicon. Nat Commun 10, 2776 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4146701910848z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

Optimal dispersive readout of a spin qubit with a microwave resonator
Physical Review B (2019)

Spin Qubits Confined to a Silicon NanoRidge
Applied Sciences (2019)

Singlespin qubits in isotopically enriched silicon at low magnetic field
Nature Communications (2019)

Fast Charge Sensing of Si/SiGe Quantum Dots via a HighFrequency Accumulation Gate
Nano Letters (2019)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.