Abstract
Electron spins in silicon quantum dots are excellent qubits because they have long coherence times and high gate fidelities and are compatible with advanced semiconductor manufacturing techniques. For qubits based on single spins, electron spin resonance with real or effective timevarying magnetic fields is the standard method for universal quantum control. Here we show that spin–valley coupling in Si, which drives transitions between states with different spin and valley quantum numbers, enables coherent control of single and multielectron spin states without oscillating electromagnetic fields. We demonstrate Rabi oscillations between effective singlespin states in a Si/SiGe double quantum dot that are driven by spin–valley coupling. Together with the exchange coupling between neighbouring electrons, spin–valley coupling also enables universal control of effective twospin states, driving singlet–triplet and triplet–triplet oscillations that feature coherence times on the order of microseconds. Our results establish spin–valley coupling as a promising mechanism for coherent control of qubits based on electron spins in semiconductor quantum dots.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our bestvalue onlineaccess subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Buy this article
 Purchase on SpringerLink
 Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The processed data that support the plots are available as Source Data files and at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7192171. The raw data are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Code availability
The code used to analyse the data in this work is available from the corresponding author upon request.
References
Noiri, A. et al. Fast universal quantum control above the faulttolerance threshold in silicon. Nature 601, 338–342 (2022).
Xue, X. et al. Quantum logic with spin qubits crossing the surface code threshold. Nature 601, 343–347 (2022).
Madzik, M. T. et al. Precision tomography of a threequbit donor quantum processor in silicon. Nature 601, 348–353 (2022).
Mills, A. R. et al. Twoqubit silicon quantum processor with operation fidelity exceeding 99%. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn5130 (2022).
Watson, T. F. et al. A programmable twoqubit quantum processor in silicon. Nature 555, 633–637 (2018).
Mi, X. et al. A coherent spinphoton interface in silicon. Nature 555, 599–603 (2018).
Xue, X. et al. Benchmarking gate fidelities in a Si/SiGe twoqubit device. Phys. Rev. X 9, 021011 (2019).
Huang, W. et al. Fidelity benchmarks for twoqubit gates in silicon. Nature 569, 532–536 (2019).
Andrews, R. W. et al. Quantifying error and leakage in an encoded Si/SiGe tripledot qubit. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 747–750 (2019).
Zwerver, A. M. J. et al. Qubits made by advanced semiconductor manufacturing. Nat. Electron. 5, 184–190 (2022).
Burkard, G., Ladd, T. D., Nichol, J. M., Pan, A., & Petta, J. R. Semiconductor spin qubits. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.08863 (2021).
Schäffler, F. Highmobility Si and Ge structures. Semicond. Sci. Technol. 12, 1515–1549 (1997).
Ando, T., Fowler, A. B. & Stern, F. Electronic properties of twodimensional systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 54, 437–672 (1982).
Zwanenburg, F. A. et al. Silicon quantum electronics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 961–1012 (2013).
Hosseinkhani, A. & Burkard, G. Relaxation of singleelectron spin qubits in silicon in the presence of interface steps. Phys. Rev. B 104, 085309 (2021).
Yang, C. H. et al. Spinvalley lifetimes in a silicon quantum dot with tunable valley splitting. Nat. Commun. 4, 2069 (2013).
Zhang, X. et al. Giant anisotropy of spin relaxation and spinvalley mixing in a silicon quantum dot. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 257701 (2020).
Huang, P. & Hu, X. Spin relaxation in a Si quantum dot due to spinvalley mixing. Phys. Rev. B 90, 235315 (2014).
Hao, X., Ruskov, R., Xiao, M., Tahan, C. & Jiang, H. Electron spin resonance and spin–valley physics in a silicon double quantum dot. Nat. Commun. 5, 3860 (2014).
Jock, R. M. et al. A silicon singlet–triplet qubit driven by spin–valley coupling. Nat. Commun. 13, 641 (2022).
Corna, A. et al. Electrically driven electron spin resonance mediated by spinvalleyorbit coupling in a silicon quantum dot. npj Quantum Inf. 4, 6 (2018).
Hollmann, A. et al. Large, tunable valley splitting and singlespin relaxation mechanisms in a Si/Si_{x}Ge_{1−x} quantum dot. Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 034068 (2020).
Zajac, D. M., Hazard, T. M., Mi, X., Wang, K. & Petta, J. R. A reconfigurable gate architecture for Si/SiGe quantum dots. Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 223507 (2015).
Angus, S. J., Ferguson, A. J., Dzurak, A. S. & Clark, R. G. Gatedefined quantum dots in intrinsic silicon. Nano Lett. 7, 2051–2055 (2007).
Borselli, M. G. et al. Undoped accumulationmode Si/SiGe quantum dots. Nanotechnology 26, 375202 (2015).
Zajac, D. M., Hazard, T. M., Mi, X., Nielsen, E. & Petta, J. R. Scalable gate architecture for a onedimensional array of semiconductor spin qubits. Phys. Rev. Appl. 6, 054013 (2016).
Connors, E. J., Nelson, J., Edge, L. F. & Nichol, J. M. Chargenoise spectroscopy of Si/SiGe quantum dots via dynamicallydecoupled exchange oscillations. Nat. Commun. 13, 940 (2022).
Reilly, D. J., Marcus, C. M., Hanson, M. P. & Gossard, A. C. Fast singlecharge sensing with a rf quantum point contact. Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 162101 (2007).
Barthel, C., Reilly, D. J., Marcus, C. M., Hanson, M. P. & Gossard, A. C. Rapid singleshot measurement of a singlettriplet qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160503 (2009).
Connors, E. J., Nelson, J. J. & Nichol, J. M. Rapid highfidelity spinstate readout in Si/SiGe quantum dots via rf reflectometry. Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 024019 (2020).
Hu, X. & Das Sarma, S. Spinbased quantum computation in multielectron quantum dots. Phys. Rev. A 64, 042312 (2001).
Barnes, E., Kestner, J. P., Nguyen, N. T. T. & Das Sarma, S. Screening of charged impurities with multielectron singlet–triplet spin qubits in quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B 84, 235309 (2011).
Vorojtsov, S., Mucciolo, E. R. & Baranger, H. U. Spin qubits in multielectron quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B 69, 115329 (2004).
Nielsen, E., Barnes, E., Kestner, J. P. & Das Sarma, S. Sixelectron semiconductor double quantum dot qubits. Phys. Rev. B 88, 195131 (2013).
HarveyCollard, P. et al. Coherent coupling between a quantum dot and a donor in silicon. Nat. Commun. 8, 1029 (2017).
HarveyCollard, P. et al. Highfidelity singleshot readout for a spin qubit via an enhanced latching mechanism. Phys. Rev. X 8, 021046 (2018).
West, A. et al. Gatebased singleshot readout of spins in silicon. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 437–441 (2019).
Seedhouse, A. E. et al. Pauli blockade in silicon quantum dots with spin–orbit control. PRX Quantum 2, 010303 (2021).
Liu, Y. Y. et al. Magneticgradientfree twoaxis control of a valley spin qubit in Si_{x}Ge_{1−x}. Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 024029 (2021).
Petta, J. R. et al. Coherent manipulation of coupled electron spins in semiconductor quantum dots. Science 309, 2180–2184 (2005).
Foletti, S., Bluhm, H., Mahalu, D., Umansky, V. & Yacoby, A. Universal quantum control of twoelectron spin quantum bits using dynamic nuclear polarization. Nat. Phys. 5, 903–908 (2009).
Stepanenko, D., Rudner, M. S., Halperin, B. I. & Loss, D. Singlet–triplet splitting in double quantum dots due to spinorbit and hyperfine interactions. Phys. Rev. B 85, 075416 (2012).
Zimmerman, N. M., Huang, P. & Culcer, D. Valley phase and voltage control of coherent manipulation in Si quantum dots. Nano Lett. 17, 4461–4465 (2017).
Tagliaferri, M. L. V. et al. Impact of valley phase and splitting on readout of silicon spin qubits. Phys. Rev. B 97, 245412 (2018).
Scarlino, P. et al. Dressed photonorbital states in a quantum dot: Intervalley spin resonance. Phys. Rev. B 95, 165429 (2017).
Veldhorst, M. et al. Spinorbit coupling and operation of multivalley spin qubits. Phys. Rev. B 92, 201401 (2015).
Tahan, C. & Joynt, R. Relaxation of excited spin, orbital, and valley qubit states in ideal silicon quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B 89, 075302 (2014).
Bourdet, L. et al. Allelectrical control of a hybrid electron spin/valley quantum bit in soi cmos technology. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 65, 5151–5156 (2018).
Huang, P. & Hu, X. Fast spinvalleybased quantum gates in si with micromagnets. npj Quantum Inf. 7, 162 (2021).
Petta, J. R., Lu, H. & Gossard, A. C. A coherent beam splitter for electronic spin states. Science 327, 669–672 (2010).
Nichol, J. M. et al. Quenching of dynamic nuclear polarization by spinorbit coupling in GaAs quantum dots. Nat. Commun. 6, 7682 (2015).
Wu, X. et al. Twoaxis control of a singlet–triplet qubit with an integrated micromagnet. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 11938–11942 (2014).
Fogarty, M. A. et al. Integrated silicon qubit platform with singlespin addressability, exchange control and singleshot singlet–triplet readout. Nat. Commun. 9, 4370 (2018).
Dial, O. E. et al. Charge noise spectroscopy using coherent exchange oscillations in a singlettriplet qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 146804 (2013).
Makhlin, Y. & Shnirman, A. Dephasing of solidstate qubits at optimal points. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 178301 (2004).
Sasaki, K. et al. Wellwidth dependence of valley splitting in Si/SiGe quantum wells. Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 222109 (2009).
Chen, E. H. et al. Detuning axis pulsed spectroscopy of valleyorbital states in Si/SiGe quantum dots. Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 044033 (2021).
McJunkin, T. et al. Valley splittings in Si/SiGe quantum dots with a germanium spike in the silicon well. Phys. Rev. B 104, 085406 (2021).
Neyens, S. F. et al. The critical role of substrate disorder in valley splitting in Si quantum wells. Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 243107 (2018).
Borjans, F., Croot, X. G., Mi, X., Gullans, M. J. & Petta, J. R. Resonant microwavemediated interactions between distant electron spins. Nature 577, 195–198 (2020).
Astner, T. et al. Coherent coupling of remote spin ensembles via a cavity bus. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 140502 (2017).
Dodson, J. P. et al. How valley–orbit states in silicon quantum dots probe quantum well interfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 146802 (2022).
Hosseinkhani, A. & Burkard, G. Electromagnetic control of valley splitting in ideal and disordered Si quantum dots. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043180 (2020).
Kerckhoff, J. et al. Magnetic gradient fluctuations from quadrupolar ^{73}Ge in Si/SiGe exchangeonly qubits. PRX Quantum 2, 010347 (2021).
Eng, K. et al. Isotopically enhanced triplequantumdot qubit. Sci. Adv. 1, 1500214 (2015).
Orona, L. A. et al. Readout of singlet–triplet qubits at large magnetic field gradients. Phys. Rev. B 98, 125404 (2018).
Jock, R. M. et al. A silicon metaloxidesemiconductor electron spin–orbit qubit. Nat. Commun. 9, 1768 (2018).
Zajac, D. M. et al. Resonantly driven cnot gate for electron spins. Science 359, 439–442 (2018).
Acknowledgements
This work was sponsored by the Army Research Office under grants W911NF1710260 (X.C., E.J.C. and J.M.N.) and W911NF1910167 (J.M.N.), and by the National Science Foundation under grant OMA 1936250 (X.C.). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Office or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
X.C., E.J.C. and J.M.N. conceptualized the experiment, conducted the investigation and participated in writing. J.M.N. supervised the effort. L.F.E. grew the Si/SiGe wafer.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Physics thanks Ryan Jock, ChihHwan Yang and Amin Hosseinkhani for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Spin funnel pulse sequence and data analysis.
a, Pulse sequence used to measure the spin funnels. The system is initialized in the (4,0) singlet ground state, pulsed to variable ϵ for a fixed time t_{e}, and then pulsed to the PSB region for measurement. The dashed line indicates the (4,0)(3,1) transition point, where ϵ=0. b, Voltage dependence of the valley splitting in dot 1, \({E}_{1}^{\nu }\), versus ϵ extracted from the second spin funnel (blue dots) and fit (red line). c, Voltage dependence of the valley splitting in dot 2, \({E}_{2}^{\nu }\), versus ϵ extracted from the third spin funnel (blue dots) and fit (red line). d, \({E}_{1}^{\nu }+{E}_{2}^{\nu }\) versus ϵ, extracted from the fourth spin funnel (blue dots) and prediction (red line). The prediction is the sum of the two fits from panels b and c.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Voltage dependence of the exchange interaction, J(ϵ).
a, Pulse sequence used to measure the exchange oscillations in b (left panel) and schematic of the relevant energy levels (right panel). After initializing the system in the (4,0) singlet ground state, we prepare the superposition state (\(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle +i\left\vert {T}_{0}^{+}\right\rangle\))\(\sqrt{2}\) via a 3π/2 pulse around ΔE_{Z} at ϵ=19 mV. The state evolves at different values of ϵ (therefore under different values of J) for a variable time t_{e}. After the evolution, we use a π/2 pulse around ΔE_{Z} to map this superposition state to \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\) and measure the singlet return probability P_{S}. b, Measurement of exchange oscillations between superpositions of \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\) and \(\left\vert {T}_{0}^{+}\right\rangle\) at different values of ϵ with B^{z} = 350 mT. Inset: Absolute value of the fast Fourier transform of the data. c, Values of J as a function of ϵ extracted from the exchange oscillation measurement in b (blue circles) and the spin funnel measurement (red dots). The J values are displayed on a logarithmic scale. The solid line is an empirical fit of the data.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Measured ΔE_{Z} oscillation frequency as a function of external magnetic field B^{z}.
Linear fit to the data above 100 mT shows dependence of 7.21 MHz/T, corresponding to a gfactor gradient Δg = g_{1} − g_{2} = 5.15 × 10^{−4}.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Measurement of the sign of ΔE_{Z} = g_{1}μ_{B}B^{z} − g_{2}μ_{B}B^{z}.
a, Charge stability diagram of the (3,1) charge region illustrating the pulse positions for the relevant measurements. After adiabatically preparing either \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{+}{\uparrow }^{}\right\rangle\) or \(\left\vert {\uparrow }^{+}{\downarrow }^{}\right\rangle\), we ramp V_{1} and V_{2} near either the dot1 or dot2 charge transitions (yellow lines) and wait for a variable time. We then reverse the pulse sequence and use PSB to distinguish between singlet and triplet states. b, Schematic of the relevant energy levels during relaxation near the dot1 transition. Here, \(\left\vert {\uparrow }^{+}{\downarrow }^{}\right\rangle\) may relax to \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{}{\downarrow }^{}\right\rangle\) or \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{+}{\downarrow }^{}\right\rangle\) via exchange with (2,1) states. \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{+}{\uparrow }^{}\right\rangle\) cannot transition to any of \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{+}\right\rangle\), \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{}\right\rangle\), or \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{++}\right\rangle\) without undergoing, at minimum, a spin flip in dot 2 and therefore does not appreciably relax during the microsecond timescales in these measurements. c, Schematic of the relevant energy levels during relaxation near the dot2 transition. Here, \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{+}{\uparrow }^{}\right\rangle\) may relax to \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{+}{\downarrow }^{+}\right\rangle\) or \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{+}{\downarrow }^{}\right\rangle\) via exchange with (3,0) states. \(\left\vert {\uparrow }^{+}{\downarrow }^{}\right\rangle\) cannot transition to \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{+}\right\rangle\), \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{}\right\rangle\), or \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{++}\right\rangle\) without incurring a spin flip in dot 1, and therefore does not appreciably relax. d, Triplet return probability near the dot1 transition, corresponding to b. When preparing the higherenergy state, there is a slight enhancement in the triplet return probability inside the (3,1) region, suggesting that we have prepared the state \(\left\vert {\uparrow }^{+}{\downarrow }^{}\right\rangle\). e, Triplet return probability near the dot2 transition, corresponding to c. When preparing the lowerenergy state, there is a strong enhancement in the triplet return probability inside the (3,1) region, indicating that we have prepared the state \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{+}{\uparrow }^{}\right\rangle\). The overall visibility of the higherenergy state traces is lower due to imperfections in the preparation and readout. We suspect that the stronger enhancement in the triplet return probability observed near the dot 2 transition compared to the enhancement observed near the dot 1 transition in d may be due to the details affecting the relaxation rates between the states involved in the relaxation processes. f, Plot of the triplet return probability for the highenergystate measurement, \({P}_{T}^{e}\), minus the triplet return probability of the lowenergystate measurement, \({P}_{T}^{g}\), as a function of the wait time and wait position near the dot1 transition. g, Plot of \({P}_{T}^{e}{P}_{T}^{g}\) as a function of the wait time and wait position near the dot2 transition. From the data shown in dg, we conclude that the lowenergy state is \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{+}{\uparrow }^{}\right\rangle\), and therefore ΔE_{Z} > 0. All data shown in this figure are acquired at B^{z}=600 mT.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Singlespin Rabi oscillation pulse sequence and control measurements.
a We prepare the state \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{+}{\uparrow }^{}\right\rangle\) by adiabatically separating a singlet state in the presence of ΔE_{Z}. After an evolution period of variable time, t_{e}, we reverse the initialization process to map \(\left\vert {\downarrow }^{+}{\uparrow }^{}\right\rangle\) back to \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\) for PSB readout. b We prepare \(\left\vert {\uparrow }^{+}{\downarrow }^{}\right\rangle\) in a similar way, except that we add a ΔE_{Z}π pulse before separating and after recombining the electrons. The initial π pulse rotates the state \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\) to \(\left\vert {T}_{0}^{+}\right\rangle\). The \(\left\vert {T}_{0}^{+}\right\rangle\) state, in turn, evolves to the state \(\left\vert {\uparrow }^{+}{\downarrow }^{}\right\rangle\) upon adiabatic separation. The readout follows the same steps in reverse, where the adiabatic pulse maps \(\left\vert {\uparrow }^{+}{\downarrow }^{}\right\rangle\) back to \(\left\vert {T}_{0}^{+}\right\rangle\) and then the π pulse maps \(\left\vert {T}_{0}^{+}\right\rangle\) to \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\). c,d Control measurements at a magnetic field away from the spin funnels, B^{z}=350 mT, using the pulse sequence in a and the pulse sequence in b, respectively. No oscillations are observed in either case. e Measured singlespin Rabi oscillation near the third spin funnel with B^{z}=380.8 mT, using the pulse sequence in a. The Rabi frequency is about 15 MHz, and the \({T}_{2}^{* }\) time is about 3 μs, resulting in a quality factor Q ~ 40 − 50, which is close to the typical values obtained using electricdipole spin resonance in a magnetic field gradient for natural Si devices^{68}.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Numerical simulations and comparison measurements on the impact of the residual exchange.
a,b Numerical simulations corresponding to Fig. 3c in the main text. In both cases, the state is prepared and measured along \(\left\vert \widetilde{{\downarrow }^{+}{\uparrow }^{}}\right\rangle\). a Simulation assuming J_{r} = 0 and η = 0. b Simulation assuming J_{r}=0.5 MHz and η=0.0167. c,d Measurements corresponding to Figs. 3e,f in the main text, taken in a separate cooldown where the device was tuned differently. e,f Same measurements as in c and d, respectively, but conducted with a voltage pulse of 30 mV applied to the barrier gate between the two quantum dots. The feature visible in c and d near ϵ=26 mV vanishes.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Pulse sequences for coherent spinvalleydriven singlettriplet oscillations.
a Pulse sequence for S − T_{−} Rabi oscillations. We prepare the double dot in the state \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\), pulse to different values of ϵ for a variable evolution time t_{e}, and then measure the singlet return probability P_{S} by pulsing ϵ to the PSB region in (4,0). b Pulse sequence for S − T_{−} Ramsey oscillations, with a 3π/2 and π/2 pulse performed at the ϵ value of the S − T_{−} avoided crossing (denoted \({\Delta }^{S{T}_{}}\)) before and after the evolution. Through a \({\Delta }^{S{T}_{}}\) 3π/2 pulse, we prepare the double dot in a superposition of \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\) and either \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{}\right\rangle\) or \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{++}\right\rangle\), depending on which spin funnel we are operating near. Specifically, for the second spin funnel, we prepare \(\left\vert \psi \right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\)(\(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle +i\left\vert {T}_{}^{}\right\rangle\)) and for the third spin funnel, we prepare \(\left\vert \psi \right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\)(\(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle i\left\vert {T}_{}^{++}\right\rangle\)), if \({\Delta }_{1(2)}^{sv}\) are real and positive. After the evolution, we use a \({\Delta }^{S{T}_{}}\,\)π/2 pulse to map \(\left\vert \psi \right\rangle\) to \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\) for PSB readout. c Pulse sequence used to observe triplettriplet oscillations, with a π pulse at the ϵ value of the S − T_{−} avoided crossing before and after the evolution. Through a \({\Delta }^{S{T}_{}}\,\)π pulse, we prepare the excited \(\left\vert {T}_{}\right\rangle\) state, \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{}\right\rangle\) for the second spin funnel or \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{++}\right\rangle\) for the third spin funnel. After the evolution, we apply another \({\Delta }^{S{T}_{}}\,\)π pulse to map the excited \(\left\vert {T}_{}\right\rangle\) state to \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\) for PSB readout. d Control measurement at a magnetic away from the spin funnels, B^{z}=350 mT, using the pulse sequence in a. The energy level diagram for this magnetic field is displayed in Extended Data Fig. 2a, right panel. The two vertical lines in the data near ϵ=0 correspond to where \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{+}\right\rangle\) and \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{}\right\rangle\) come into resonance with \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\), which occur at energies below the range plotted in Extended Data Fig. 2a.
Extended Data Fig. 8 S − T_{−} spin echo pulse sequence and data.
a The double dot is prepared in a superposition of \(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle\) and \(\left\vert {T}_{}^{++}\right\rangle\) via a π/2 pulse at the S − T_{−} avoided crossing on the third spin funnel. Specifically, we prepare \(\left\vert {\psi }^{{\prime} }\right\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\left\vert {S}^{+}\right\rangle +i\left\vert {T}_{}^{++}\right\rangle )\) for real, positive \({\Delta }_{2}^{sv}\). The state evolves near ϵ=9 mV, where the S − T_{−} splitting is approximately 50 MHz and varies roughly linearly with ϵ, for a total time t_{e} + δt, during which we apply a π pulse at the avoided crossing to refocus the dephasing. After the evolution is complete, we apply another π/2 pulse before PSB readout. b Echo amplitude decay as a function of the total qubit evolution time t_{e}. To determine the amplitude at each point, we fit the inhomogeneously broadened decay for fixed t_{e} and varying δt [27,54]. We find \({T}_{2}^{* }\approx 210\) ns and \({T}_{2}^{echo}=3.6\mu s\).
Extended Data Fig. 9 Measured magnitudes of \({\Delta }_{1}^{sv}\) and \({\Delta }_{2}^{sv}\) versus the inplane magnetic field angle ϕ (blue squares).
The amplitude of the magnetic field is fixed at \( {B}_{ext} =\sqrt{{({B}^{x})}^{2}+{({B}^{z})}^{2}}\) =300 mT in a and 375 mT in b, where the B^{x} component is parallel with the axis connecting the two quantum dots and the B^{z} component is perpendicular to the axis. We fit both sets of data to an equation of the form g_{1} (ϕ)=\( A\sin \phi +B\cos \phi \), where A and B are fit parameters (dark blue lines), and another equation of the form \({g}_{2}(\phi )= A\sin \phi +B{e}^{i\theta }\cos \phi \), where A, B and θ are fit parameters and constrained to be real numbers (orange lines). c, Examples of the oscillations used to extract the values of \( {\Delta }_{1}^{sv}\) in a, for three different angles as indicated. ϕ = − 0.79 and ϕ = 0.79 correspond to the maximum and minimum values of \( {\Delta }_{1}^{sv}\) in a. Data are offset vertically for clarity. The ϵ values of the avoided crossing are also indicated. The small variation in the ϵ value may indicate a shift of ∣B_{ext}∣ away from the setpoint due to hysteresis in the superconducting magnet in our dilution refrigerator. d, Examples of the oscillations used to extract the values of \( {\Delta }_{2}^{sv}\) in b. ϕ = − 1.36 and ϕ = 0.21 correspond to the maximum and minimum values of \( {\Delta }_{2}^{sv}\) in b.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Measured and simulated S − T_{−} oscillations.
ad Measured and simulated \({S}^{+}{T}_{}^{}\) oscillations near the second spin funnel. a Measured Rabi oscillations at the avoided crossing and envelope of the corresponding fit. The fitted values of \({T}_{2}^{* }\) and β with the 95% confidence intervals are indicated. b Measured Ramsey oscillations near ϵ = 6.5 mV and envelope of the corresponding fit. c Simulation and fit corresponding to panel a. d Simulation and fit corresponding to panel b. eh Measured and simulated oscillations near the third spin funnel, where the two \({S}^{+}{T}_{}^{++}\) avoided crossings have merged into one. e Measured Rabi oscillations at the avoided crossing and envelope of the corresponding fit. f Measured Ramsey oscillations near ϵ = 10 mV and envelope of the corresponding fit. g Simulation and fit corresponding to panel e. h Simulation and fit corresponding to panel f.
Source data
Source Data Fig. 1
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Fig. 2
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Fig. 3
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Fig. 4
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Fig. 5
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Fig. 6
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 6
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 7
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 8
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 9
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 10
Excel table with data shown in the plots.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author selfarchiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Cai, X., Connors, E.J., Edge, L.F. et al. Coherent spin–valley oscillations in silicon. Nat. Phys. 19, 386–393 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4156702201870y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s4156702201870y
This article is cited by

Realtime twoaxis control of a spin qubit
Nature Communications (2024)

Coherence of a field gradient driven singlettriplet qubit coupled to multielectron spin states in 28Si/SiGe
npj Quantum Information (2024)

Mapping of valley splitting by conveyormode spincoherent electron shuttling
npj Quantum Information (2024)

SpinEPRpair separation by conveyormode single electron shuttling in Si/SiGe
Nature Communications (2024)