- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Letters

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Automated In Situ Optimization and Disorder Mitigation in a Quantum Device

Jacob Benestad1,*, Torbjørn Rasmussen2,3,*, Bertram Brovang2,*, Oswin Krause4, Saeed Fallahi5,6, Geoffrey C. Gardner6, Michael J. Manfra5,6,7,8, Charles M. Marcus2, Jeroen Danon1 et al.

Ferdinand Kuemmeth2,9, Anasua Chatterjee2,3,†, and Evert van Nieuwenburg10,‡

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • †Contact author: Anasua.Chatterjee@tudelft.nl
  • ‡Contact author: e.p.l.van.nieuwenburg@liacs.leidenuniv.nl
PDF

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 216301 – Published 19 November, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/13c4-p4fq

Abstract

We investigate automated in situ optimization of the potential landscape in a quantum point contact device, using a 3×3 gate array patterned atop the constriction. Optimization is performed using the covariance matrix adaptation evolutionary strategy, for which we introduce a metric for how “steplike” the conductance is as the channel becomes constricted. We first perform the optimization of the gate voltages in a tight-binding simulation and show how such in situ tuning can be used to mitigate a random disorder potential. The optimization is then performed in a physical device in experiment, where we also observe a marked improvement in the quantization of the conductance resulting from the optimization procedure.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (52)

  1. T. Neupert, M. H. Fischer, E. Greplova, K. Choo, and M. M. Denner, Machine Learning Kompakt (Springer Spektrum, Wiesbaden, 2022), 10.1007/978-3-658-32268-7.
  2. A. Dawid et al., Modern applications of machine learning in quantum sciences, arXiv:2204.04198.
  3. V. Gebhart, R. Santagati, A. A. Gentile, E. M. Gauger, D. Craig, N. Ares, L. Banchi, F. Marquardt, L. Pezze’, and C. Bonato, Learning quantum systems, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 141 (2023).
  4. N. Ares, Machine learning as an enabler of qubit scalability, Nat. Rev. Mater. 6, 870 (2021).
  5. J. P. Zwolak and J. M. Taylor, Colloquium: Advances in automation of quantum dot devices control, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 011006 (2023).
  6. V. Nguyen, S. B. Orbell, D. T. Lennon, H. Moon, F. Vigneau, L. C. Camenzind, L. Yu, D. M. Zumbühl, G. A. D. Briggs, M. A. Osborne, D. Sejdinovic, and N. Ares, Deep reinforcement learning for efficient measurement of quantum devices, npj Quantum Inf. 7, 100 (2021).
  7. A. Zubchenko, D. Middlebrooks, T. Rasmussen, L. Lausen, F. Kuemmeth, A. Chatterjee, and J. P. Zwolak, Autonomous bootstrapping of quantum dot devices, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 014072 (2025).
  8. S. S. Kalantre, J. P. Zwolak, S. Ragole, X. Wu, N. M. Zimmerman, M. D. Stewart, and J. M. Taylor, Machine learning techniques for state recognition and auto-tuning in quantum dots, npj Quantum Inf. 5, 6 (2019).
  9. O. Krause, A. Chatterjee, F. Kuemmeth, and E. van Nieuwenburg, Learning Coulomb diamonds in large quantum dot arrays, SciPost Phys. 13, 084 (2022).
  10. O. Krause, B. Brovang, T. Rasmussen, A. Chatterjee, and F. Kuemmeth, Estimation of convex polytopes for automatic discovery of charge state transitions in quantum dot arrays, Electronics 11, 2327 (2022).
  11. R. Koch, D. Van Driel, A. Bordin, J. L. Lado, and E. Greplova, Adversarial Hamiltonian learning of quantum dots in a minimal Kitaev chain, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 044081 (2023).
  12. J. R. Taylor and S. Das Sarma, Neural network based deep learning analysis of semiconductor quantum dot qubits for automated control, Phys. Rev. B 111, 035301 (2025).
  13. D. van Driel et al., Cross-platform autonomous control of minimal Kitaev chains, arXiv:2405.04596.
  14. H. Moon, D. T. Lennon, J. Kirkpatrick, N. M. van Esbroeck, L. C. Camenzind, L. Yu, F. Vigneau, D. M. Zumbühl, G. A. D. Briggs, M. A. Osborne, D. Sejdinovic, E. A. Laird, and N. Ares, Machine learning enables completely automatic tuning of a quantum device faster than human experts, Nat. Commun. 11, 4161 (2020).
  15. R. Durrer, B. Kratochwil, J. V. Koski, A. J. Landig, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, and E. Greplova, Automated tuning of double quantum dots into specific charge states using neural networks, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 054019 (2020).
  16. J. Ziegler, F. Luthi, M. Ramsey, F. Borjans, G. Zheng, and J. P. Zwolak, Tuning arrays with rays: Physics-informed tuning of quantum dot charge states, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 034067 (2023).
  17. M. Thamm and B. Rosenow, Machine learning optimization of Majorana hybrid nanowires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 116202 (2023).
  18. M. Thamm and B. Rosenow, Conductance based machine learning of optimal gate voltages for disordered Majorana wires, Phys. Rev. B 109, 045132 (2024).
  19. D. L. Craig, H. Moon, F. Fedele, D. T. Lennon, B. Van Straaten, F. Vigneau, L. C. Camenzind, D. M. Zumbühl, G. A. D. Briggs, M. A. Osborne, D. Sejdinovic, and N. Ares, Bridging the reality gap in quantum devices with physics-aware machine learning, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011001 (2024).
  20. E. Chatzikyriakou, J. Wang, L. Mazzella, A. Lacerda-Santos, M. Cecilia da Silva Figueira, A. Trellakis, S. Birner, T. Grange, C. Bäuerle, and X. Waintal, Unveiling the charge distribution of a GaAs-based nanoelectronic device: A large experimental dataset approach, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043163 (2022).
  21. J. Benestad, A. Tsintzis, R. S. Souto, M. Leijnse, E. van Nieuwenburg, and J. Danon, Machine-learned tuning of artificial Kitaev chains from tunneling spectroscopy measurements, Phys. Rev. B 110, 075402 (2024).
  22. D. A. Wharam, T. J. Thornton, R. Newbury, M. Pepper, H. Ahmed, J. E. F. Frost, D. G. Hasko, D. C. Peacock, D. A. Ritchie, and G. A. C. Jones, One-dimensional transport and the quantisation of the ballistic resistance, J. Phys. C 21, L209 (1988).
  23. B. J. van Wees, H. van Houten, C. W. J. Beenakker, J. G. Williamson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, D. van der Marel, and C. T. Foxon, Quantized conductance of point contacts in a two-dimensional electron gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 848 (1988).
  24. M. Büttiker, Quantized transmission of a saddle-point constriction, Phys. Rev. B 41, 7906(R) (1990).
  25. M. Field, C. G. Smith, M. Pepper, D. A. Ritchie, J. E. F. Frost, G. A. C. Jones, and D. G. Hasko, Measurements of Coulomb blockade with a noninvasive voltage probe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1311 (1993).
  26. J. M. Elzerman, R. Hanson, L. H. Willems van Beveren, B. Witkamp, L. M. K. Vandersypen, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Single-shot read-out of an individual electron spin in a quantum dot, Nature (London) 430, 431 (2004).
  27. 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).
  28. D. J. Reilly, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Fast single-charge sensing with a rf quantum point contact, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 162101 (2007).
  29. M. C. Cassidy, A. S. Dzurak, R. G. Clark, K. D. Petersson, 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).
  30. S. Gustavsson, R. Leturcq, M. Studer, I. Shorubalko, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, D. C. Driscoll, and A. C. Gossard, Electron counting in quantum dots, Surf. Sci. Rep. 64, 191 (2009).
  31. C. Barthel, D. J. Reilly, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Rapid single-shot measurement of a singlet-triplet qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160503 (2009).
  32. C. Bäuerle, D. C. Glattli, T. Meunier, F. Portier, P. Roche, P. Roulleau, S. Takada, and X. Waintal, Coherent control of single electrons: A review of current progress, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 056503 (2018).
  33. L. M. K. Vandersypen, H. Bluhm, J. S. Clarke, A. S. Dzurak, R. Ishihara, A. Morello, D. J. Reilly, L. R. Schreiber, and M. Veldhorst, Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors—hot, dense, and coherent, npj Quantum Inf. 3, 34 (2017).
  34. G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Semiconductor spin qubits, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 025003 (2023).
  35. W. Bishara, P. Bonderson, C. Nayak, K. Shtengel, and J. K. Slingerland, Interferometric signature of non-Abelian anyons, Phys. Rev. B 80, 155303 (2009).
  36. B. Rosenow, I. P. Levkivskyi, and B. I. Halperin, Current correlations from a mesoscopic anyon collider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 156802 (2016).
  37. H. Bartolomei, M. Kumar, R. Bisognin, A. Marguerite, J.-M. Berroir, E. Bocquillon, B. Plaçais, A. Cavanna, Q. Dong, U. Gennser, Y. Jin, and G. Fève, Fractional statistics in anyon collisions, Science 368, 173 (2020).
  38. J. Nakamura, S. Liang, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Manfra, Fabry-Pérot interferometry at the ν=2/5 fractional quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041012 (2023).
  39. D. P. E. Smith, Quantum point contact switches, Science 269, 371 (1995).
  40. N. Hansen, The cma evolution strategy: A tutorial, arXiv:1604.00772.
  41. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/13c4-p4fq for additional details about simulations, experimental setup, and device fabrication.
  42. Thomas Ihn, Semiconductor Nanostructures: Quantum States and Electronic Transport (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010).

  43. For a wider QPC the energy differences between levels shrink, increasing the impact of such smoothening processes.

  44. M. J. Iqbal, R. Levy, E. J. Koop, J. B. Dekker, J. P. de Jong, J. H. M. van der Velde, D. Reuter, A. D. Wieck, R. Aguado, Y. Meir, and C. H. van der Wal, Odd and even Kondo effects from emergent localization in quantum point contacts, Nature (London) 501, 79 (2013).
  45. J. H. Davies, I. A. Larkin, and E. V. Sukhorukov, Modeling the patterned two-dimensional electron gas: Electrostatics, J. Appl. Phys. 77, 4504 (1995).
  46. N. L. Foulk and S. Das Sarma, Theory of charge stability diagrams in coupled quantum dot qubits, arXiv:2409.02301.
  47. C. W. Groth, M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, and X. Waintal, kwant: A software package for quantum transport, New J. Phys. 16, 063065 (2014).

  48. Additional optimization runs show that the algorithm also finds the mirror image solution; see Supplemental Material [41].

  49. Ill-behaved gate hysteresis may also prevent convergence of the algorithm. To minimize this when measuring traces as in Fig. 4, we hold the device at the initial gate voltages for at least 10 s before sweeping VQPC.

  50. M. Själander, M. Jahre, G. Tufte, and N. Reissmann, EPIC: An energy-efficient, high-performance GPGPU computing research infrastructure, arXiv:1912.05848.
  51. https://github.com/jacobdben/qpcRL/tree/main.
  52. T. Rasmussen, J. Benestad, B. Brovang, O. Krause, J. Danon, F. Kuemmeth, A. Chatterjee, and E. van Nieuwenburg, qpcRL, 2024, 10.5281/zenodo.17404486.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 216301– Published 19 November, 2025
  • Received 19 December 2024
  • Revised 8 May 2025
  • Accepted 20 October 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation