Hole spin echo envelope modulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hole spins in semiconductor quantum dots or bound to acceptor impurities show promise as potential qubits, partly because of their weak and anisotropic hyperfine couplings to proximal nuclear spins. Since the hyperfine coupling is weak, it can be difficult to measure. However, an anisotropic hyperfine coupling can give rise to a substantial spin-echo envelope modulation that can be Fourier analyzed to accurately reveal the hyperfine tensor. Here, we give a general theoretical analysis for hole spin-echo envelope modulation, and apply this analysis to the specific case of a boron acceptor hole spin in silicon. For boron acceptor spins in unstrained silicon, both the hyperfine and Zeeman Hamiltonians are approximately isotropic, leading to negligible envelope modulations. In contrast, in strained silicon, where light-hole spin qubits can be energetically isolated, we find that the hyperfine Hamiltonian and $g$ tensor are sufficiently anisotropic to give spin-echo envelope modulations. We show that there is an optimal magnetic-field orientation that maximizes the visibility of envelope modulations in this case. Based on microscopic estimates of the hyperfine coupling, we find that the maximum modulation depth can be substantial, reaching $\ensuremath{\approx}10%$, at a moderate laboratory magnetic field, $B\ensuremath{\lesssim}200\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}\mathrm{mT}$.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".