pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.05289 · v4 · submitted 2025-04-07 · 🪐 quant-ph

Direct Measurement of the Singlet Lifetime and Photoexcitation Behavior of the Boron Vacancy Center in Hexagonal Boron Nitride

Richard A. Escalante , Andrew J. Beling , Daniel G. Ang , Niko R. Reed , Justin J. Welter , John W. Blanchard , Cecilia Campos , Edwin Coronel
show 4 more authors
Klaus Krambrock Alexandre S. Leal Paras N. Prasad Ronald L. Walsworth
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 20:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords boron vacancyhBNsinglet lifetimephotoluminescencespin defectquantum sensingneutron irradiation
0
0 comments X

The pith

The boron vacancy center in hBN has a singlet state lifetime of 15 nanoseconds.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports a direct measurement of the singlet state lifetime for the negatively charged boron vacancy defect in hexagonal boron nitride. Time-resolved photoluminescence measurements with a nanosecond-rise 515 nm laser on 16 neutron-irradiated flakes at room temperature yield an average lifetime of 15(3) ns. The authors also fit photoluminescence dynamics under thermal and optical spin polarization to a nine-level rate-equation model to extract transition rates and observe possible optically induced conversion to another electronic state in larger flakes.

Core claim

We use time-resolved photoluminescence measurements with a nanosecond rise-time 515 nm laser to directly measure the singlet state lifetime of a V_B^- ensemble in neutron-irradiated, sub-micron flakes of hBN. We perform this measurement on 16 flakes at room temperature and obtain an average lifetime of 15(3) ns. Additionally, we probe the PL dynamics of thermal and optically polarized electronic spin distributions of the V_B^- ensemble in a sub-micron hBN flake, and fit our results to a 9-level model to extract electronic transition rates. Lastly, we present PL measurements that potentially indicate optically-induced conversion of V_B^- to another electronic state, or possibly the neutral V^

What carries the argument

Time-resolved photoluminescence decay combined with a nine-level rate-equation model fitted to polarized spin distributions.

Load-bearing premise

The observed photoluminescence decay arises solely from the singlet state lifetime with negligible contributions from other states, background, or the instrument response function.

What would settle it

A higher-resolution time-resolved PL trace on the same flakes that shows the 15 ns component is absent or matches only the laser pulse width or detector response would falsify the reported lifetime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.05289 by Alexandre S. Leal, Andrew J. Beling, Cecilia Campos, Daniel G. Ang, Edwin Coronel, John W. Blanchard, Justin J. Welter, Klaus Krambrock, Niko R. Reed, Paras N. Prasad, Richard A. Escalante, Ronald L. Walsworth.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: a) Illustration of V − B defect in hBN. b) V − B energy level diagram showing the 7-level model. 1 arXiv:2504.05289v2 [quant-ph] 8 Apr 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: a) Example scanned-confocal PL map of neutron irradiated flakes of hBN. b) Typical V − B PL emission spectrum for a sub-micron hBN flake with peak emission centered near 825 nm. dark time, tD (Fig. 3c). The measurement is then repeated on 16 hBN sub-micron flakes from the same batch (Fig. 3d). Averaging results from all flakes, we obtain a mean τS = 15(3) ns; this value is consis￾tent with Clua-Provost et … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: a) Example signal-averaged PL time traces from a sub-micron hBN flake induced by pairs of 1 µs laser pulses, with spac￾ings between pulses (dark time tD) ranging from 0 ns to 54.8 ns. b) Zoomed-in display of PL time-trace data in a) from the second laser pulse showing PL peak height recovery for different tD. c) Measured relative PL peak height as a function of tD for one sub￾micron hBN flake. Red dashed c… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) Measurement sequence used to probe PL from the thermal and polarized electronic spin distributions of ensembles of V − B in a neutron irradiated flake of hBN. A pair of 1 µs laser pulses is applied with a dark time spacing of 100 ns. The 1 µs pulse duration allows partial spin polarization to the singlet state. The 100 ns dark time is sufficient for significant decay from the singlet state, preferential… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) Example confocal PL map of a large (>1 µm) flake of neutron irradiated hBN. These larger flakes display different PL behavior from sub-micron flakes. b) Time-resolved PL measurements from a single large hBN flake for laser pulse pairs with 1 µs pulse time and dark time tD = 5 ns between pulses. The top set of signal-averaged PL measurements has a wait-time of 100 ns between pulse pairs while the lower h… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Optically active spin defects in van der Waals (vdW) materials are a promising platform for quantum sensing, potentially enabling shorter standoff distances than defects in diamond and thus improved measurement signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and spatial resolution. The most studied such defect is the negatively charged boron vacancy center ($V^{-}_{B}$) in hexagonal boron nitride (hBN), yet many of its electronic and spin transition rates and branching ratios remain unknown. Here, we use time-resolved photoluminescence (PL) measurements with a nanosecond rise-time 515 nm laser to directly measure the singlet state lifetime of a $V^{-}_{B}$ ensemble in neutron-irradiated, sub-micron flakes of hBN. We perform this measurement on 16 flakes at room temperature and obtain an average lifetime of 15(3) ns. Additionally, we probe the PL dynamics of thermal and optically polarized electronic spin distributions of the $V^{-}_{B}$ ensemble in a sub-micron hBN flake, and fit our results to a 9-level model to extract electronic transition rates. Lastly, we present PL measurements that potentially indicate optically-induced conversion of $V^{-}_{B}$ to another electronic state, or possibly the neutral charge state ($V^{0}_{B}$), in neutron-irradiated hBN flakes of size $>$ 1 $\mu$m.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports time-resolved photoluminescence measurements on neutron-irradiated hBN flakes using a 515 nm laser with nanosecond rise time. It claims a direct measurement of the singlet-state lifetime of the V_B^- ensemble, yielding an average value of 15(3) ns across 16 independent flakes at room temperature. The work additionally fits spin-polarized PL dynamics to a 9-level rate-equation model to extract electronic transition rates and presents data suggesting possible optically induced conversion to another charge or electronic state in larger flakes.

Significance. If the singlet lifetime attribution holds after explicit validation of background, IRF, and decay-channel isolation, the result supplies a previously missing rate parameter for modeling and optimizing V_B^- in van der Waals quantum-sensing platforms. The multi-flake averaging and 9-level fitting constitute reproducible experimental anchors that would strengthen rate-equation predictions for spin initialization and readout.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / time-resolved PL results] Abstract and results section on time-resolved PL: the central claim that the observed decay directly yields the singlet lifetime of 15(3) ns rests on the unverified assumption that contributions from instrument response function, background PL from other defects, and other electronic states are negligible. No IRF measurement, deconvolution procedure, or single- versus multi-exponential fit comparison is described, leaving the attribution load-bearing but unsupported.
  2. [9-level model fitting] Section describing the 9-level rate-equation model: the fit to spin-polarized PL dynamics is presented without reported uniqueness tests (e.g., parameter covariance matrix, alternative branching-ratio constraints, or residual analysis), so it is unclear whether the extracted electronic transition rates are uniquely determined or could accommodate omitted decay channels.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Clarify the precise definition of 'direct measurement' versus model-assisted extraction in the abstract and introduction.
  2. [Methods / experimental details] Specify the laser pulse width, detection bandwidth, and any background-subtraction protocol used for the 16-flake dataset.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and constructive suggestions. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the validation of our claims without altering the core results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / time-resolved PL results] Abstract and results section on time-resolved PL: the central claim that the observed decay directly yields the singlet lifetime of 15(3) ns rests on the unverified assumption that contributions from instrument response function, background PL from other defects, and other electronic states are negligible. No IRF measurement, deconvolution procedure, or single- versus multi-exponential fit comparison is described, leaving the attribution load-bearing but unsupported.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's emphasis on explicit validation. The 515 nm laser rise time is nanoseconds while the measured decay is 15(3) ns across 16 flakes, indicating the IRF contribution is not dominant; background is suppressed via spectral filtering and defect-selective excitation. Nevertheless, to make the attribution fully rigorous we will revise the methods and results sections to include: (i) measured IRF trace, (ii) background-subtraction protocol, and (iii) explicit single- versus multi-exponential fit comparisons with residuals. These additions will be presented for representative flakes and will not change the reported lifetime value. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [9-level model fitting] Section describing the 9-level rate-equation model: the fit to spin-polarized PL dynamics is presented without reported uniqueness tests (e.g., parameter covariance matrix, alternative branching-ratio constraints, or residual analysis), so it is unclear whether the extracted electronic transition rates are uniquely determined or could accommodate omitted decay channels.

    Authors: We agree that additional diagnostics would strengthen confidence in the extracted rates. In the revised manuscript we will add: residual plots for all fitted traces, the parameter covariance matrix obtained from the least-squares fit, and a brief comparison of fits under alternative branching-ratio constraints (e.g., forcing zero or doubled inter-system crossing rates). These tests confirm that the reported rates remain stable within their stated uncertainties and that omitted channels would require unphysically large adjustments to reproduce the data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct experimental PL lifetime measurement with standard rate-equation fitting

full rationale

The paper's central result is an experimental average singlet lifetime of 15(3) ns obtained from time-resolved photoluminescence decay curves measured on 16 flakes. This is a direct measurement, not a derivation. The 9-level model is used only for post-hoc fitting of spin-polarized PL dynamics to extract rates; the lifetime value itself is not defined by or reduced to those fitted parameters. No self-citation chains, ansatzes, or fitted inputs renamed as predictions appear in the reported claims. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks (measured decay times).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is experimental; the 9-level model introduces several fitted rates as free parameters whose values are not independently constrained outside the PL data.

free parameters (2)
  • singlet lifetime = 15(3) ns
    Directly measured quantity reported as average with uncertainty
  • electronic transition rates
    Multiple rates extracted by fitting PL time traces to the 9-level model
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The 9-level model contains all relevant electronic and spin states and branching ratios for V_B^-
    Invoked to extract rates from the observed dynamics

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5832 in / 1231 out tokens · 36861 ms · 2026-05-22T20:41:13.553216+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aharonovich, D

    I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, M. Toth, Nature Photonics 2016, 10, 10 631–641

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    C. E. Bradley, S. W. de Bone, P. F. W. M¨ oller, S. Baier, M. J. Degen, S. J. H. Loenen, H. P. Bartling, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, R. Hanson, D. Elkouss, T. H. Taminiau, npj Quantum In- formation 2022, 8, 1

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Sukachev, A

    D. Sukachev, A. Sipahigil, C. Nguyen, M. Bhaskar, R. Evans, F. Jelezko, M. Lukin, Physical Review Letters 2017, 119, 22

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    S. K. Parthasarathy, B. Kallinger, F. Kaiser, P. Berwian, D. B. Dasari, J. Friedrich, R. Nagy, Physi- cal Review Applied 2023, 19, 3. 9 REFERENCES REFERENCES

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    J. R. Maze, P. L. Stanwix, J. S. Hodges, S. Hong, J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Jiang, M. V. G. Dutt, E. Togan, A. S. Zibrov, A. Yacoby, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, Nature 2008, 455, 7213 644–647

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Hsieh, P

    S. Hsieh, P. Bhattacharyya, C. Zu, T. Mittiga, T. J. Smart, F. Machado, B. Kobrin, T. O. H¨ ohn, N. Z. Rui, M. Kamrani, S. Chatterjee, S. Choi, M. Zaletel, V. V. Struzhkin, J. E. Moore, V. I. Levi- tas, R. Jeanloz, N. Y. Yao, Science 2019, 366, 6471 1349–1354

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    J. F. Barry, J. M. Schloss, E. Bauch, M. J. Turner, C. A. Hart, L. M. Pham, R. L. Walsworth, Re- views of Modern Physics 2020, 92, 1

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    J.-F. Wang, L. Liu, X.-D. Liu, Q. Li, J.-M. Cui, D.-F. Zhou, J.-Y. Zhou, Y. Wei, H.-A. Xu, W. Xu, W.-X. Lin, J.-W. Yan, Z.-X. He, Z.-H. Liu, Z.-H. Hao, H.-O. Li, W. Liu, J.-S. Xu, E. Gregoryanz, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, Nature Materials 2023, 22, 4 489–494

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Rondin, J.-P

    L. Rondin, J.-P. Tetienne, T. Hingant, J.-F. Roch, P. Maletinsky, V. Jacques, Reports on Progress in Physics 2014, 77, 5 056503

    work page 2014

  10. [10]

    Sekiguchi, M

    N. Sekiguchi, M. Fushimi, A. Yoshimura, C. Shinei, M. Miyakawa, T. Taniguchi, T. Teraji, H. Abe, S. Onoda, T. Ohshima, M. Hatano, M. Sekino, T. Iwasaki, Physical Review Applied 2024, 21, 6

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    K. Bian, W. Zheng, X. Zeng, X. Chen, R. St¨ ohr, A. Denisenko, S. Yang, J. Wrachtrup, Y. Jiang, Nature Communications 2021, 12, 1

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    J. Wang, F. Feng, J. Zhang, J. Chen, Z. Zheng, L. Guo, W. Zhang, X. Song, G. Guo, L. Fan, C. Zou, L. Lou, W. Zhu, G. Wang, Physical Review B 2015, 91, 15

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    M. C. Marshall, R. Ebadi, C. Hart, M. J. Turner, M. J. Ku, D. F. Phillips, R. L. Walsworth, Physi- cal Review Applied 2022, 17, 2 024041

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    L. Zhao, X. Shen, L. Ji, P. Huang, Advances in Physics: X 2022, 7, 1 2004921, publisher: Taylor & Francis eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/23746149.2021.2004921

    work page doi:10.1080/23746149.2021.2004921 2022

  15. [15]

    Kumar, S

    R. Kumar, S. Mahajan, F. Donaldson, S. Dhomkar, H. J. Lancaster, C. Kalha, A. A. Riaz, Y. Zhu, C. A. Howard, A. Regoutz, J. J. L. Morton, ACS Photonics 2024, 11, 3 1244–1251

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Glushkov, M

    E. Glushkov, M. Macha, E. R¨ ath, V. Navikas, N. Ronceray, C. Y. Cheon, A. Ahmed, A. Avsar, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, I. Shorubalko, A. Kis, G. Fantner, A. Radenovic, ACS Nano 2022, 16, 3 3695, pMID: 35254820

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Mathur, A

    N. Mathur, A. Mukherjee, X. Gao, J. Luo, B. A. McCullian, T. Li, A. N. Vamivakas, G. D. Fuchs, Nature Communications 2022, 13, 1

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    N.-J. Guo, W. Liu, Z.-P. Li, Y.-Z. Yang, S. Yu, Y. Meng, Z.-A. Wang, X.-D. Zeng, F.-F. Yan, Q. Li, J.-F. Wang, J.-S. Xu, Y.-T. Wang, J.-S. Tang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, ACS Omega 2022, 7, 2 1733–1739

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Durand, T

    A. Durand, T. Clua-Provost, F. Fabre, P. Kumar, J. Li, J. H. Edgar, P. Udvarhelyi, A. Gali, X. Marie, C. Robert, J. M. G´ erard, B. Gil, G. Cassabois, V. Jacques, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2023, 131 116902

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Liu, Z.-P

    W. Liu, Z.-P. Li, Y.-Z. Yang, S. Yu, Y. Meng, Z.-A. Wang, Z.-C. Li, N.-J. Guo, F.-F. Yan, Q. Li, J.- F. Wang, J.-S. Xu, Y.-T. Wang, J.-S. Tang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, ACS Photonics 2021, 8, 7 1889, publisher: American Chemical Society

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    A. J. Healey, S. C. Scholten, T. Yang, J. A. Scott, G. J. Abrahams, I. O. Robertson, X. F. Hou, Y. F. Guo, S. Rahman, Y. Lu, M. Kianinia, I. Aharonovich, J.-P. Tetienne, Nature Physics 2023, 19, 1 87, publisher: Nature Publishing Group. 10 REFERENCES REFERENCES

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Z. Mu, J. Frauni´ e, A. Durand, S. Cl´ ement, A. Finco, J. Rouquette, A. Hadj-Azzem, N. Rougemaille, J. Coraux, J. Li, T. Poirier, J. H. Edgar, I. C. Gerber, X. Marie, B. Gil, G. Cassabois, C. Robert, V. Jacques, Magnetic imaging under high pressure with a spin-based quantum sensor integrated in a van der Waals heterostructure, 2025, URL http://arxiv.org/...

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    G. He, R. Gong, Z. Wang, Z. Liu, J. Hong, T. Zhang, A. L. Riofrio, Z. Rehfuss, M. Chen, C. Yao, T. Poirier, B. Ye, X. Wang, S. Ran, J. H. Edgar, S. Zhang, N. Y. Yao, C. Zu, Probing Stress and Magnetism at High Pressures with Two-Dimensional Quantum Sensors, 2025, URL http://arxiv. org/abs/2501.03319, ArXiv:2501.03319 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Gottscholl, M

    A. Gottscholl, M. Diez, V. Soltamov, C. Kasper, D. Krauße, A. Sperlich, M. Kianinia, C. Bradac, I. Aharonovich, V. Dyakonov, Nature Communications 2021, 12, 1

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    X. Gao, B. Jiang, A. E. Llacsahuanga Allcca, K. Shen, M. A. Sadi, A. B. Solanki, P. Ju, Z. Xu, P. Upadhyaya, Y. P. Chen, S. A. Bhave, T. Li, Nano Letters 2021, 21, 18 7708, publisher: Amer- ican Chemical Society

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Kianinia, S

    M. Kianinia, S. White, J. E. Fr¨ och, C. Bradac, I. Aharonovich, ACS Photonics 2020, 7, 8 2147

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    X. Gao, S. Pandey, M. Kianinia, J. Ahn, P. Ju, I. Aharonovich, N. Shivaram, T. Li, ACS Photonics 2021, 8, 4 994–1000

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Murzakhanov, B

    F. Murzakhanov, B. Yavkin, G. Mamin, S. Orlinskii, I. Mumdzhi, I. Gracheva, B. Gabbasov, A. Smirnov, V. Davydov, V. Soltamov, Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 6 1373

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Gottscholl, M

    A. Gottscholl, M. Kianinia, V. Soltamov, S. Orlinskii, G. Mamin, C. Bradac, C. Kasper, K. Kram- brock, A. Sperlich, M. Toth, I. Aharonovich, V. Dyakonov, Nature Materials 2020, 19, 5 540–545

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    J. R. Toledo, D. B. de Jesus, M. Kianinia, A. S. Leal, C. Fantini, L. A. Cury, G. A. M. S´ afar, I. Aharonovich, K. Krambrock, Physical Review B 2018, 98, 15

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Clua-Provost, Z

    T. Clua-Provost, Z. Mu, A. Durand, C. Schrader, J. Happacher, J. Bocquel, P. Maletinsky, J. Frauni´ e, X. Marie, C. Robert, G. Seine, E. Janzen, J. H. Edgar, B. Gil, G. Cassabois, V. Jacques, Phys. Rev. B 2024, 110 014104

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    W. Lee, V. S. Liu, Z. Zhang, S. Kim, R. Gong, X. Du, K. Pham, T. Poirier, Z. Hao, J. H. Edgar, P. Kim, C. Zu, E. J. Davis, N. Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2025, 134 096202

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    J. R. Reimers, J. Shen, M. Kianinia, C. Bradac, I. Aharonovich, M. J. Ford, P. Piecuch, Phys. Rev. B 2020, 102 144105

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Baber, R

    S. Baber, R. N. E. Malein, P. Khatri, P. S. Keatley, S. Guo, F. Withers, A. J. Ramsay, I. J. Lux- moore, Nano Letters 2021, 22, 1 461–467

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Whitefield, M

    B. Whitefield, M. Toth, I. Aharonovich, J. Tetienne, M. Kianinia, Advanced Quantum Technologies 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    N. B. Manson, J. P. Harrison, M. J. Sellars, Physical Review B 2006, 74, 10

    work page 2006

  37. [37]

    Robledo, H

    L. Robledo, H. Bernien, T. v. d. Sar, R. Hanson, New Journal of Physics 2011, 13, 2 025013

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    Clua-Provost, A

    T. Clua-Provost, A. Durand, J. Frauni´ e, C. Robert, X. Marie, J. Li, J. H. Edgar, B. Gil, J.-M. G´ erard, G. Cassabois, V. Jacques,Nano Letters 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    S. L. Bayliss, D. W. Laorenza, P. J. Mintun, B. D. Kovos, D. E. Freedman, D. D. Awschalom, Sci- ence 2020, 370, 6522 1309. 11 REFERENCES REFERENCES

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Liu, N.-J

    W. Liu, N.-J. Guo, S. Yu, Y. Meng, Z.-P. Li, Y.-Z. Yang, Z.-A. Wang, X.-D. Zeng, L.-K. Xie, Q. Li, J.-F. Wang, J.-S. Xu, Y.-T. Wang, J.-S. Tang, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, Materials for Quantum Technol- ogy 2022, 2, 3 032002

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    Gottscholl, M

    A. Gottscholl, M. Diez, V. Soltamov, C. Kasper, A. Sperlich, M. Kianinia, C. Bradac, I. Aharonovich, V. Dyakonov, Science Advances 2021, 7, 14 eabf3630

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Aude Craik, P

    D. Aude Craik, P. Kehayias, A. Greenspon, X. Zhang, M. Turner, J. Schloss, E. Bauch, C. Hart, E. Hu, R. Walsworth, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2020, 14 014009

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Dumeige, J.-F

    Y. Dumeige, J.-F. Roch, F. Bretenaker, T. Debuisschert, V. Acosta, C. Becher, G. Chatzidrosos, A. Wickenbrock, L. Bougas, A. Wilzewski, D. Budker, Opt. Express 2019, 27, 2 1706

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    Iv´ ady, G

    V. Iv´ ady, G. Barcza, G. Thiering, S. Li, H. Hamdi, J.-P. Chou, ¨O. Legeza, A. Gali, npj Computa- tional Materials 2020, 6, 1 1, publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Hosseini, M

    M. Hosseini, M. Arif, A. Keshavarz, S. Iglauer, Earth-Science Reviews 2021, 221 103755

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    J. R. Toledo, K. Krambrock, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 2020, 54, 6 065303. 12

    work page 2020