Abstract
Device engineering based on computer-aided simulations is essential to make silicon (Si) quantum bits (qubits) be competitive to commercial platforms based on superconductors and trapped ions. Combining device simulations with the Bayesian optimization (BO), here we propose a systematic design approach that is quite useful to procure fast and precise entangling operations of qubits encoded to electron spins in electrode-driven Si quantum dot (QD) systems. For a target problem of the controlled-X (CNOT) logic operation, we employ BO with the Gaussian process regression to evolve design factors of a Si double QD system to the ones that are optimal in terms of speed and fidelity of a CNOT logic driven by a single microwave pulse. The design framework not only clearly contributes to cost-efficient securing of solutions that enhance performance of the target quantum operation, but can be extended to implement more complicated logics with Si QD structures in experimentally unprecedented ways.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Modern information and communication technology (ICT) owes a great deal to silicon (Si) material on which electronic devices are integrated, enabling the enormous increase in computing power and storage capacity. The territory of Si material is being extended to emerging quantum information technology due to the matured industrial-standard fabrication process; for example, the quantum logic devices have been integrated into a single Si wafer1,2,3,4,5. Electrically defined Si quantum dot (QD) system has already proved its manufacturability and feasibility as a versatile platform for implementation of quantum logic gates1,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. Since Loss & DiVincenzo proposed the state-of-art concept for implementation of universal gates using QD-confined spins16, researchers have reported stable addressing of individual quantum bit (qubit)10,14,15, implementation of a SWAP & a controlled-Z (CZ) gate11,14,15, and a fast CNOT logic driven with a single microwave pulse12. In spite of remarkable progresses achieved by preceding works, the Si-based qubit technology is still generally behind the ones based on superconductors17,18 or trapped ions19,20. Elaborated efforts are still required to resolve design issues such as fidelity-degradation driven by material-inherent noises21,22,23,24,25, instability of spin states stemming from the Rashba effect in nanoscale layers26,27, and scalable implementation of entangling logics14,15.
Computer-aided simulations are essential to resolve the above-mentioned design problems since they can not only handle enormous design variations that are practically impossible to be uncovered with experiments, but also improve existing designs in experimentally unprecedented ways25,28,29,30,31,32. However, finding design solutions often involves huge amount of trial-and-errors and a massive set of simulations needs to be conducted with parameter sweeps until results satisfy design criteria. In our previous studies25,28, for example, a charge stability diagram is simulated with 2,500 sets of electrical biases to find the condition for qubit initialization in a Si double QD (DQD) system, spending several thousand core-hours. Moreover, even though solutions are obtained, their quality may deteriorate if search cases are limited due to the design complexity. Naive random search hardly considers complicated nonlinear relations among design parameters in physical systems; hence, it becomes difficult to get optimal designs without an appropriate case-sampling approach.
So in this work, we devise a design strategy based on the Bayesian optimization (BO)33, a principled methodology which efficiently optimizes a black-box function by making decisions between exploration and exploitation in a data-driven way when the function is costly. To bypass time-consuming case-by-case device simulations, BO estimates the possibility of finding design solutions in an exploratory domain with the surrogate function that is augmented with a restricted number of simulated data. To find the optimal solution more efficiently, BO samples data points with the acquisition function that considers the trade-off between exploration and exploitation, differently from the brute-force approach where sampling points are searched manually34. As a target problem of the proposed design approach, we use the experimentally reported Si DQD structure12 where a CNOT operation is implemented with a single-step control of time-varying magnetic pulses. Employing our in-house device simulator28 as a black-box function of BO, we focus on finding spin resonance frequencies and inter-spin exchange interaction that minimize the operating time while maintaining the fidelity larger than the given criterion. With device simulations, we find the physical design in Si DQD structures that reproduces the BO-driven results, verifying the practicality of our approach that in principle contributes to saving the working load required to find design solutions compared to the case when only device simulations are employed.
Methods
Computational flow of the proposed design approach
Figure 1 illustrates the entire design process that is devised to study a single-step CNOT operation with BO. The process starts with the device simulation block where potential energy profile and electron spin states of the Si DQD structure are self-consistently determined with our in-house device simulation tool based on a hybrid utilization of the bulk physics and electronic structure calculations. Once energetic positions and charge distributions of the electron spin states are determined, we calculate Zeeman-splitting energies of both QDs (\(E_{ZR}\), \(E_{ZL}\)) and exchange interaction (J) that are the final outputs of the first block. With \(E_{ZR}\), \(E_{ZL}\) and J, the next block (logic operation simulation) constructs the Heisenberg Hamiltonian to simulate the 2-qubit time responses and the outputs of this block become the operation time (\(t_{CNOT}\)) and corresponding fidelity (F) of a single-step CNOT operation. We note that in-depth description on computational details for the above-mentioned two blocks is available in our latest works25,28.
Taking the logic operation simulation block as a black-box objective function, BO is conducted to minimize \(t_{CNOT}\) under user-defined fidelity criteria against the target design variables (\(E_{ZR}\), \(E_{ZL}\) and J) given as inputs of the objective function. For initial observation data that is required to begin the BO process, we find the realistic conditions of inputs (\(E_{ZR}\), \(E_{ZL}\) and J) and outputs (\(t_{CNOT}\) and F) that faithfully reproduce the experimental results12,28. Once we get the solutions, i.e., \(E_{ZR}\), \(E_{ZL}\) and J that minimize \(t_{CNOT}\) whilst maintaining F larger than given values, we find physical designs of a Si DQD system to verify the feasibility of optimal design factors searched by BO, because BO itself does not know whether they indeed can be implemented in a real Si DQD system.
Bayesian optimization
BO is an iterative algorithm that optimizes a black-box objective function whose computation is costly. To mitigate the cost problem of computation, BO handles two tasks to negotiate the accuracy of prediction with the number of function calls. During iterations, BO adopts (a) a surrogate function to approximate the objective function with a lower computational cost than the actual objective function, and (b) an acquisition function to quantify the uncertainty of each prediction for efficient optimization, thereby calling the objective function only for the most probable candidate point. In the optimization loop, BO evaluates the surrogate function at randomly selected candidate points and chooses the best candidate as a sampling point using the acquisition function, where the exact value at the sampling point is then calculated with the objective function. The optimization loop iterates until the solution satisfies the design criteria. For the surrogate function, we adopt Gaussian Process (GP) regression35:
where m and k represent GP mean and covariance function, respectively, while \(\textbf{x}\) and \(\textbf{x}'\) denote a data point. Without loss of generality, we can assume \(m(\textbf{x}) = 0\) for GPs.
The major advantage of employing GP as the surrogate function is that there exist analytic formulae for mean and covariance of the posterior distribution, which refer to the probability distribution of unobserved variables based on a collection of observed data. For function values \(\textbf{y}_T = [y_1, \dots , y_T]^T\) at observed points \(A_T = \{\textbf{x}_1, \dots , \textbf{x}_T\}\), where \(y_t = f(\textbf{x}_t)\), the posterior over f is also Gaussian. The posterior mean \(\mu _T(\textbf{x})\), covariance \(\Sigma _T(\textbf{x}, \textbf{x}')\) and variance \(\sigma _T^2(\textbf{x})\) can be obtained as follows35:
where \(\textbf{k}_T(\textbf{x}) = [k(\textbf{x}_1, \textbf{x}), \dots , k(\textbf{x}_T, \textbf{x})]^T\) and \(\textbf{K}_T =[k(\textbf{x}_i, \textbf{x}_j)]_{\textbf{x}_i, \textbf{x}_j \in A_T}\) is the positive definite kernel matrix.
Given variance and expectation of the posterior distribution, the acquisition function suggests an optimization strategy to choose the next sampling point, considering the trade-off between exploration and exploitation. There are several candidates for the acquisition function, such as probability of improvement (PI)36, expected improvement (EI)33 or Gaussian process upper confidence bound (GP-UCB)37. Since Srinivas et al. reported that GP-UCB reduces the average number of function calls to find global optimum of black-box functions by quantifying the uncertainty of the parameter search procedure37, here we adopt GP-UCB as the acquisition function that is formulated as follows:
where \(\mu\) and \(\Sigma\) are GP posterior mean and covariance function that are shown in Eqs. (2) and (3), respectively. \(\lambda\) is a constant for balancing between exploration and exploitation. \({\mathscr {X}}\) denotes the parameter space. The sampling point \({\textbf {x}}_{i+1}\) is determined for the (\(i+1\))th iteration step with Eq. (5). In general, BO employing GP incurs a time complexity of \(O(T^3)\) for updating the GP model, attributed to the covariance matrix inversion, where T denotes the number of observations. The computational endeavor of determining the next point for sampling, primarily through the optimization of the acquisition function, is typically less burdensome than the model update cost. Notably, the time complexity of GP-based methods like GP-UCB significantly undercuts that of the grid search strategy - \(O(k^n)\), with n denoting the number of parameters and k the number of potential parameter values38. Designed to curtail the cost of function evaluations required to closely approximate the global optimum, BO showcases superior efficiency over grid search, particularly in scenarios where objective function assessments are exhaustively demanding37.
The whole BO process is schematically shown in Fig. 2. Here, the target objective function is a mapping \(f: \textbf{x} \in \mathbb {R}^3 \rightarrow y \in \mathbb {R}\), where \({\textbf {x}}\) is a set of values of the design factors and \(y = f(\textbf{x})\) indicates the fastest \(t_{CNOT}\) that can be secured with the fidelity threshold. Initially, we select \({\textbf {x}} \sim {\mathscr {N}}(\textbf{0}, \textbf{1})\) from the parameter space \({\mathscr {X}}\) and sample the corresponding objective function value y. The GP posterior distribution is then calculated with Eqs. (2) and (3) including the newly sampled data point. From the obtained posterior distribution, the acquisition function based on GP-UCB is evaluated over the random samples of the entire search domain and the next sampling point is determined where the acquisition function is maximized as indicated in Eq. (5). The BO process discussed so far is summarized in Algorithm 1. In numerical experiments, we define \({\textbf {x}} = [E_{ZL}, E_{ZR}, J]^T\in \mathscr {X}\) where \({\mathscr {X}} = [15, 24] \times [15, 24] \times [0.3, 100]\), i.e., the range of \(E_{ZL}, E_{ZR}, J\) are set to [15, 24]GHz, [15, 24]GHz and [0.3, 100]MHz, respectively. In the line 6 and 10 of Algorithm 1, we set the maximum number of iteration steps (T) and \(\lambda\) for the acquisition function to 50 and 10, respectively.
Results and discussion
A prerequisite for BO is to secure initial observation data which here consist of design parameters (\(E_{ZL}, E_{ZR}, J\)) that reproduce the experimentally reported single-step CNOT operation12. The first step for finding them is to figure out the bias points which initialize qubit states for subsequent gate operations in the target DQD structure where qubits are encoded to the electron spin in the ground state of each QD, i.e, \(|0\rangle\) for the down-spin (\(|\downarrow \rangle\)) and \(|1\rangle\) for the up-spin (\(|\uparrow \rangle\)) state. For this purpose, a full charge stability diagram is simulated to explore the ranges of biases where the down-spin state of each QD is filled with one electron, and Fig. 3a shows the results with an illustration of the target Si DQD structure (the middle gate bias (\(V_M\)) and barrier gate bias (\(V_B\)) are set to 400 mV and 200 mV, respectively). Being plotted as a function of the left (\(V_L\)) and right (\(V_R\)) gate biases, the charge state here is identified with two numbers that indicate the electron population in the left and right QD. To help readers understand how the DQD system works, a control path to initialize the DQD structure to the (1,1) state from the empty state is marked up with black arrows from point I to point IV in Fig. 3a. Increasing \(V_R\) from point I lowers the energy level of the ground state in the right QD, and eventually fills the right QD with an electron at point II where the down-spin ground state in the right QD touches the Fermi energy. By increasing both \(V_L\) and \(V_R\) from point II to point III, we can also fill the down-spin ground state of the left QD. At the point IV, the system is biased symmetrically, which is known to be good for noise-robustness of upcoming qubit operations22. The above-mentioned process of charge transfer is conceptually illustrated in Fig. 3b, where the energy level of QDs from point I to IV are drawn in connection with the Fermi energy (\(E_F\)) of the source & drain two-dimensional electron gases. Once the DQD system is initialized to a \(|\downarrow \downarrow \rangle\) state with \(V_L\) = 540 mV and \(V_R\) = 570 mV (point IV), the single-step CNOT operation is simulated at \(V_M\) = 408 mV where J is large enough to drive entangling operations25. (\(E_{ZL}\), \(E_{ZR}\), J) obtained with device simulations at this point reads (18.287GHz, 18.501GHz, 19.3MHz). Figure 3c shows the simulated two-qubit responses, where the fastest CNOT operation is accomplished at \(t_{CNOT}\) = 100.4 nsec with F = 98.34 %. The values of \(t_{CNOT}\) and F are employed as the initial observation data for BO as well as with the values of \(E_{ZL}\), \(E_{ZR}\) and J.
Figure 4a presents two snapshots describing the evolving process of BO, which starts with the initial observation data of the target design factors. Colors of the three 2D contour plots show the UCB value as a function of \((E_{ZL}, E_{ZR})\), \((E_{ZL}, J)\), and \((E_{ZR}, J)\), respectively. The uncertainty of the GP prediction with respect to the exact result of the objective function is high in the red area where the next sampling point are decided. The phenomenon that UCB values over J fluctuate much more strongly than those over \(E_{ZL}\) and \(E_{ZR}\) do, implies that J is the most sensitive parameter among the target design factors affecting \(t_{CNOT}\) and F, being well connected to the fact that the fidelity of a single-step CNOT operation is highly sensitive to J39. Figure 4b shows how \(t_{CNOT}\) converges as the BO process evolves. Here, a total of 10 different random seeds are tested to examine how the random seed affects the convergence speed, and the converged value of the average \(t_{CNOT}\) after 200 iterations is marked at 18.8 nsec as a dotted red line. What we find is that \(t_{CNOT}\) converges to the baseline before 50 iterations in all the cases so the maximum iteration number (T in Algorithm 1) we set is large enough to conduct experiments. Figure 4c shows the design factors obtained with BO with different thresholds in fidelity ranging from 90% to 99% with a step of 1%, where the resulting \(t_{CNOT}\)’s are indicated with colored dot symbols (see the Supplementary Information document for results obtained with a threshold of 99.9% and 99.99%). Here, the optimal design factors turn out to be almost evenly distributed across the search space of \(E_{ZL}\) and \(E_{ZR}\), while they are concentrated in the range of [85, 100]MHz in the case of J. Results here indicate that the gating speed of a single-step CNOT operation is correlated to J more strongly than to \(E_{ZL}\) and \(E_{ZR}\). It is worth noting that the correlation between threshold in fidelity and \(t_{CNOT}\) is not clear, so relaxation of the threshold would not necessarily lead to the faster CNOT operation.
So far we have checked that BO delivers optimal values of \(E_{ZL}\), \(E_{ZR}\) and J satisfying the criteria of F. However, BO does not provide any clues on whether the optimal solutions are realizable with physical devices, so another essential task of this work should be to verify the practicality of our design framework by securing physical designs of Si DQD devices that produce the optimal solutions obtained with BO. The first step for device designs here would be to decide the distribution of a static magnetic field (\(B_Z\)), which are externally applied to the DQD system in reality25. Assuming that \(B_Z\) changes linearly along the lateral ([100], X) direction (see Fig. 3a), we try to determine the distance between two QDs such that \(E_{ZL}\) and \(E_{ZR}\) obtained with BO can be reproduced reasonably. For this purpose, we convert \(E_{ZL}\) & \(E_{ZR}\) to the magnitude of \(B_Z\) using the Bohr magneton constant for electron spin momentum (\(\sim\)5.78\(\times\)10\(^{-5}\) eV/T), and plot the difference of two \(B_Z\)’s (\(\Delta B_Z\)) in Fig. 5a, where circles are numbered from 1 to 10 in accordance with fidelity criteria in an ascending order, i.e., ‘1’, ‘2’, ..., and ‘10’ correspond to the design case of F \(\ge\) 90%, 91%, ..., and 99%, respectively. Since \(\Delta B_Z\) ranges from about 35mT to 250mT, the lateral distance between two QDs in design cases can vary up to 7 times with a single gradient (\(\partial B_Z/\partial X\)), and it may be hard to secure J strong enough to implement fast CNOT operations if QDs are too far. Accordingly, we categorize the design cases into 3 groups based on the magnitude of \(\Delta B_Z\), employing different gradients (0.48 mT/nm, 1.15 mT/nm, and 2.10 mT/nm for group 1, 2, and 3, respectively). For structural designs of the DQD system, we only vary the size of the middle gate (\(L_M\)) from the original DQD structure shown in Fig. 3a, setting \(L_M\) to 60 nm in the baseline case of each group that has the smallest \(\Delta B_Z\). Figure 5b shows the results with lateral distributions of \(B_Z\) and the length of middle gates to scale in all the design cases. Corresponding sets of (\(V_L\), \(V_R\), \(V_M\)), which initialize the system with symmetric biasing, are presented in Fig. 5c (\(V_B\) is set to 200 mV for all the cases).
To examine if the BO-driven results (\(E_{ZL}\), \(E_{ZR}\), J, \(t_{CNOT}\), F) can be secured in physical systems, we conduct device simulations against Si DQD structures (Fig. 5b) with bias points (Fig. 5c), and show the correlation between simulated and BO-driven results in Fig. 6a and b. The correlation coefficient (R) turns out to be quite strong (\(\simeq\) 99.98% and \(\simeq\) 99.94%) in the case of \(E_{ZL}\) and \(E_{ZR}\). R of J (\(\simeq\) 90.85%) is also nice, but is a bit weaker than in the case of \(E_{ZL}\) and \(E_{ZR}\). The reason why J has weaker correlation can be explained with the huge sensitivity that J has against \(V_M\). Since J fluctuates by a factor of up to several hundreds with even a few mV of \(\Delta V_M\) as we reported25, very tiny mismatches in \(L_M\) and \(V_M\) can drive significant deviations of J, and it is therefore generally challenging to make the correlation of J as strong as that of \(E_{ZL}\) and \(E_{ZR}\). Figure 6c and d show speed and fidelity of CNOT operations, respectively. Results here generally turn out to be solid enough to claim the strong correlation in the case of \(t_{CNOT}\) (R \(\simeq\) 99.23%) and F (R \(\simeq\) 85.71%). Again, the origin of the relatively worse correlation that F shows, can be found from the fact that the fidelity of a single-step CNOT operation implemented in the Si DQD platform strongly depends on J (and so \(V_M\))25,39. Despite some fluctuations in correlation between simulated and BO-driven results, derived R’s can generally support the practicality of our design framework, which is still valid for results secured with a threshold of 99.9% and 99.99% (see the Supplementary Information document).
Conclusion
An engineering framework based on the Bayesian optimization (BO) is proposed for implementation of quantum logic operations in electrode-driven quantum dot (QD) systems in silicon (Si). With our in-house device simulation code that solves electrostatics of Si QD structures and corresponding time responses of quantum bits (qubits) encoded to electron spins, we get the initial design of a Si double QD (DQD) structure that gives Zeeman-splitting energies (\(E_Z\)) and exchange energy (J) with which the experimentally reported controlled-X (CNOT) operation12 is well mimicked. BO is then conducted to find unknown sets of (\(E_Z\), J) that maximize the speed of CNOT operations whilst maintaining the operational fidelity larger than user-defined criteria ranging from 90% to 99%. The optimal solutions procured by the BO process turn out to improve the performance of 2-qubit CNOT logic implemented in the Si DQD system such that all the searched solutions complete the operation within around 20 nsec with the fidelity \(\ge\) 90%, which is almost 5 times faster than the initial design that mimics the experimental result. The BO-driven solutions are validated by finding physical designs of Si DQD structure, for which we elaborately adjusted sizes & biases of gate electrodes together with distribution of static magnetic field such that (\(E_Z\), J) obtained with BO can be faithfully reproduced with device simulations. For all the design cases we considered, the correlation between BO-driven solutions and results of device simulations turns out to be quite strong. Devising a systematic design framework that combines BO with our in-house multi-scale modeling approach of semiconductor devices25,28, this work contributes to opening a practical way for optimal designs of complicated multi-qubit operations with electrically defined semiconductor QD platforms.
Data availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Zwanenburg, F. A. et al. Silicon quantum electronics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 961–1019 (2013).
Maurand, R. et al. A CMOS silicon spin qubit. Nat. Commun. 7, 13575 (2016).
Veldhorst, M., Eenink, H. G. J., Yang, C. H. & Dzurak, A. S. Silicon CMOS architecture for a spin-based quantum computer. Nat. Commun. 8, 1766 (2017).
Li, R. et al. A crossbar network for silicon quantum dot qubits. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar3960 (2018).
Ferraro, E. & Prati, E. Is all-electrical silicon quantum computing feasible in the long term?. Phys. Lett. A 384, 126352 (2020).
Veldhorst, M. et al. An addressable quantum dot qubit with fault-tolerant control-fidelity. Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 981–985 (2014).
Shi, Z. et al. Fast hybrid silicon double-quantum-dot qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 140503 (2012).
Maune, B. M. et al. Coherent singlet-triplet oscillations in a silicon-based double quantum dot. Nature 481, 344–347 (2012).
Kim, D. et al. High-fidelity resonant gating of a silicon-based quantum dot hybrid qubit. npj Quantum Information 1, 15004 (2015).
Kawakami, E. et al. Gate fidelity and coherence of an electron spin in an Si/SiGe quantum dot with micromagnet. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 11738–11743 (2016).
Sigillito, A. J., Gullans, M. J., Edge, L. F., Borselli, M. & Petta, J. R. Coherent transfer of quantum information in a silicon double quantum dot using resonant SWAP gates. npj Quantum Information 5, 1–7 (2019).
Zajac, D. M. et al. Resonantly driven CNOT gate for electron spins. Science 26, 439–442 (2018).
Yoneda, J. et al. A quantum-dot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 102–106 (2018).
Takeda, K. et al. Quantum tomography of an entangled three-qubit state in silicon. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 965–969 (2021).
Mills, A. R. et al. Two-qubit silicon quantum processor with operation fidelity exceeding 99%. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn5130 (2022).
Loss, D., DiVincenzo, D. P. & DiVincenzo, P. Quantum computation with quantum dots. Phys. Rev. A 57, 120–126 (1997).
Linke, N. M. et al. Experimental comparison of two quantum computing architectures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 3305–3310 (2017).
García-Pérez, G., Rossi, M. A. C. & Maniscalco, S. IBM Q Experience as a versatile experimental testbed for simulating open quantum systems. npj Quantum Information 6, 1 (2020).
Wright, K. et al. Benchmarking an 11-qubit quantum computer. Nat. Commun. 10, 5464 (2019).
Nam, Y. et al. Ground-state energy estimation of the water molecule on a trapped-ion quantum computer. npj Quantum Inf. 6, 1–6 (2020).
Kuhlmann, A. V. et al. Charge noise and spin noise in a semiconductor quantum device. Nat. Phys. 9, 570–575 (2013).
Reed, M. D. et al. Reduced sensitivity to charge noise in semiconductor spin qubits via symmetric operation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 110402 (2016).
Connors, E. J., Nelson, J., Qiao, H., Edge, L. F. & Nichol, J. M. Low-frequency charge noise in Si/SiGe quantum dots. Phys. Rev. B 100, 165305 (2019).
Kranz, L. et al. Exploiting a single-crystal environment to minimize the charge noise on qubits in silicon. Adv. Mater. 32, 2003361 (2020).
Ryu, H. & Kang, J.-H. Devitalizing noise-driven instability of entangling logic in silicon devices with bias controls. Sci. Rep. 12, 15200 (2022).
Usman, M. et al. Quantitative excited state spectroscopy of a single InGaAs quantum dot molecule through multi-million-atom electronic structure calculations. Nanotechnology 22, 315709 (2011).
Szolnoki, L., Kiss, A., Dóra, B. & Simon, F. Spin-relaxation time in materials with broken inversion symmetry and large spin-orbit coupling. Sci. Rep. 7, 9949 (2017).
Kang, J.-H., Ryu, J. & Ryu, H. Exploring the behaviors of electrode-driven Si quantum dot systems: from charge control to qubit operations. Nanoscale 13, 332–339 (2021).
Sulthoni, M. A., Kodera, T., Uchida, K. & Oda, S. Numerical simulation study of electrostatically defined silicon double quantum dot device. J. Appl. Phys. 110, 054511 (2011).
Ng, S. S. H. et al. SiQAD: A design and simulation tool for atomic silicon quantum dot circuits. IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol. 19, 137–146 (2020).
Tadokoro, M. et al. Designs for a two-dimensional Si quantum dot array with spin qubit addressability. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–7 (2021).
Tosi, G. et al. Silicon quantum processor with robust long-distance qubit couplings. Nat. Commun. 8, 1–11 (2017).
Močkus, J. On bayesian methods for seeking the extremum. In Optimization techniques IFIP technical conference, Springer. 400–404 (1975).
Heule, M. J. H. & Kullmann, O. The science of brute force. Commun. ACM 60, 70–79 (2017).
Williams, C. & Rasmussen, C. Gaussian processes for regression. Adv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst. 8, 514–520 (1995).
Kushner, H. J. A new method of locating the maximum of an arbitrary multipeak curve in the presence of noise. J. Basic Eng. 86, 97–106 (1964).
Srinivas, N., Krause, A., Kakade, S. & Seeger, M. Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: no regret and experimental design. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning, 1015–1022 (2010).
Yang, L. & Shami, A. On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms: Theory and practice. Neurocomputing 415, 295–316 (2020).
Ryu, H. & Kang, J.H. A Modeling Study on Performance of a CNOT Gate Devices based on Electrode-driven Si DQD Structures. In 2020 International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices (SISPAD), 261–263, https://doi.org/10.23919/SISPAD49475.2020.9241633 (2020).
Neumann, R. & Schreiber, L. R. Simulation of micro-magnet stray-field dynamics for spin qubit manipulation. J. Appl. Phys. 117, 193903 (2015).
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2022M3E4A1072893, NRF-2021R1A4A3033149) and a grant from Korea University (K2304791). The NURION high performance computing resource supported by the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information has been extensively utilized for all the simulations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JHK and TY prepared for the initial draft of the manuscript. JHK and HR conducted device simulations and analyzed results. TY and CL developed the Bayesian optimization (BO) code and conducted BO calculations under supervision of SL. SL and HR revised the manuscript. HR conceived the project and supervised the entire research. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kang, JH., Yoon, T., Lee, C. et al. Design of high-performance entangling logic in silicon quantum dot systems with Bayesian optimization. Sci Rep 14, 10080 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60478-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60478-9
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.