Femtotesla direct magnetic gradiometer using a single multipass cell

M. V. Romalis; N. Dural; V. G. Lucivero; W. Lee

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Femtotesla direct magnetic gradiometer using a single multipass cell

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single multipass cell measures magnetic gradients at 10.1 fT/cm/√Hz by cancelling two 3.5-radian Faraday rotations.

desk verdict A solid single-cell direct gradiometer with competitive sensitivity and a well-supported diffusion advantage; the headline number lacks an uncertainty analysis, but the core physics is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.13212 v2 pith:XJDOPYZV submitted 2020-09-28 physics.atom-ph physics.ins-detquant-ph

V. G. Lucivero , W. Lee , N. Dural , M. V. Romalis This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phphysics.ins-detquant-ph PACS 32.10.-f07.55.Ge42.50.Lc32.80.Bx

keywords opticalmagnetometrymagneticgradiometermultipasscellFaradayrotationspinnoiserubidiumatomicvaporfreeinductiondecaycommon-moderejection

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a direct magnetic gradiometer can be built from two rubidium ensembles inside a single multipass cell, with the differential signal obtained by optical subtraction rather than by combining separate sensor outputs. Each ensemble produces a Faraday rotation of more than 3.5 radians, yet because the ensembles are pumped with opposite circular polarization the two rotations nearly cancel, leaving a small signal that tracks the magnetic-field gradient. The authors report a measured gradiometer sensitivity of 10.1 fT/cm/√Hz with a 1.4 cm baseline, and they argue that the V-shaped overlapping-beam geometry reduces atomic-diffusion effects on spin noise, in parameter-free agreement with theory. If correct, the approach offers a compact path to femtotesla-level gradient sensing with common-mode noise rejection and a route toward spin-squeezing enhancement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the direct-subtraction free-induction signal of Eq. (1): two sinusoids with Larmor frequency νL, opposite initial phases, and individual amplitudes φ0, phases d0, and relaxation times T2, one shifted by +Δν/2 and the other by −Δν/2. Because both arms share the same probe beam and polarimeter, their rotations—each exceeding 3.5 rad—cancel to better than 98%, and the residual signal's envelope grows in proportion to the frequency difference Δν. The V-shaped multipass cell makes this work by directing 60 probe passes through two oppositely pumped ensembles while keeping the beams overlapping over a uniform 3.6 mm diameter region, which is what suppresses diffusion decorrelation. The extraction is carried by two analysis tools: a nonlinear fit with four independent residual parameters, and a matched-filter FFT that reads Δν from the imaginary Fourier component in real time.

What would settle it

Measure the same gradiometer signal while sweeping the pump intensity from low to high polarization, and compare the fitted Δν to the coil-calibrated gradient; if Δν shifts systematically as the decay shape changes, the four-parameter model is not the right null hypothesis for the background. Separately, record the spin noise spectrum with the probe beams forced to non-overlapping positions at unchanged optical depth: a clear broadening to the diffusion-limited multi-Lorentzian shape would confirm that the overlap, not just the multipass gain, is responsible for the near-Lorentzian line.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single V-shaped multipass cell containing two 87Rb ensembles can act as a direct gradiometer: pumping the ensembles with opposite circular polarization makes their large paramagnetic Faraday rotations subtract intrinsically, producing a near-zero baseline signal whose time evolution encodes the frequency difference Δν between the two arms caused by the magnetic gradient. With this arrangement the authors measure a gradiometer sensitivity of 10.1 fT/cm/√Hz for a 1.4 cm baseline, and they show that the residual spin noise spectrum is nearly Lorentzian. The fast-decaying diffusion component is suppressed because the probe beams overlap over a uniform wide region, so the spin-noise correlation function matches the theoretical prediction Cth_d(t)=1/(1+4tD/$w0^{2}$) with no free parameters. The paper further demonstrates that two analysis methods—a four-parameter nonlinear fit and a real-time matched-filter FFT—extract Δν at similar sensitivity, with the unpolarized-ensemble noise floor approaching the fundamental 2.7 fT/√Hz level from simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The reported sensitivity depends on the assumption that the free-induction decay in each arm follows the two-sine model of Eq. (1), so that all differences between the arms can be captured by four residual parameters; the paper's own footnote admits the decay can become non-exponential at high polarization, in which case the extracted frequency difference could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single-cell direct gradiometer can reach 10.1 fT/cm/√Hz with a 1.4 cm baseline, removing the need to combine two separate sensor outputs for common-mode rejection.
Cancellation of >3.5 rad rotations keeps the polarimeter signal within a small range, avoiding the signal wrap-around that would otherwise limit multipass Faraday measurements.
The real-time matched-filter FFT extracts Δν from the imaginary Fourier component at sensitivity close to the offline nonlinear fit, enabling shot-by-shot gradient readout.
Because diffusion affects the spin-noise correlation only weakly, the noise spectrum is nearly Lorentzian, and a quantum-noise-limited version could preserve spin-squeezing correlations for longer.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An immediate testable extension would be to vary the pump power so the individual decays become visibly non-exponential and check whether the fitted Δν drifts; a drift would indicate the four-parameter model misses polarization-dependent decay.
If the diffusion suppression holds at higher atomic density, the same overlapping-beam geometry could serve as a platform for QND spin squeezing in a dense vapor, since the probe would address a single uniform ensemble rather than many independent beamlets.
In an unshielded environment the direct subtraction should reject broadband common-mode noise at the analog level, but the limiting factor would likely be how well the two arms' gains and phases remain matched at high frequencies, which the paper does not test.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a well-executed experimental paper from a strong group. The new piece is the single V-shaped multipass cell with opposite circular pumping and overlapping beams, giving direct subtraction of Faraday rotations that individually exceed 3.5 rad. That is a real simplification over two-cell or two-output gradiometers, and the diffusion advantage—where overlapping beams yield a nearly Lorentzian spin noise spectrum—is the most convincing part of the work. The spin noise spectrum matches the parameter-free prediction from Ref. [23], and the measured rms rotation agrees with theory. That part is solid and reproducible.

The soft spot is the headline sensitivity. The 10.1 fT/cm/√Hz comes from a four-parameter fit {Δν, Δφ, ΔT2, Δd0} to Eq. (1), which assumes exponential FID decay. The paper itself admits in footnote 24 that high polarization can make the decay non-exponential. If the decay shape is not exactly as modeled, Δν could couple to the other fit parameters, and the quoted 2.2 mHz scatter has no error bar. The authors assert that the four variables are independently determined, but they give no covariance matrix or Monte Carlo check. So the sensitivity number is a plausible demonstration, not a rigorously characterized result. The 'femtotesla projected sensitivity' in the conclusions is also unsupported—there is no argument for what limits it.

That said, these are missing supporting details, not load-bearing flaws. The linear calibration against the known coil constant checks the overall gradient response, and the diffusion result stands on its own. The citation pattern is fair: the self-citations to Refs. [16,20,23] are directly relevant, and Ref. [23] provides the parameter-free theory that validates the noise measurement. Nothing here feels circular.

Who gets value from this paper? Researchers in atomic magnetometry, especially those working on gradiometers and spin noise in multipass cells. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to peer review. The referee should ask for an uncertainty on the sensitivity, a test or justification of the exponential decay assumption, and a clarification of the projected sensitivity. But this is a useful, honest paper that should be in the literature.

I'd bring it to reading group and would cite it if I were working in this area.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a direct magnetic gradiometer built from two oppositely polarized 87Rb ensembles inside a single V-shaped multipass cell. A far-detuned probe undergoes multiple passes through both ensembles, and the Faraday rotations from the two ensembles subtract intrinsically, yielding a direct differential signal with cancellation of more than 98% of two individual rotations that each exceed 3.5 rad. The authors introduce two analysis methods for extracting the frequency difference Δν (a nonlinear four-parameter fit and a real-time FFT/matched-filter method) and report a measured gradiometer sensitivity of 10.1 fT/cm/√Hz with a 1.4 cm baseline. They also measure the spin-noise spectrum of the unpolarized ensemble and compare it with a parameter-free theoretical prediction that includes atomic diffusion, finding nearly Lorentzian line shapes and a slower diffusion-induced decay than in earlier multipass-cell work. The central claims are the genuine differential sensitivity and the diffusion advantage of the overlapping-beam geometry.

Significance. If the measured sensitivity is validated, the result is significant because it demonstrates a single-cell, single-output direct gradiometer with fT/cm-scale sensitivity, avoiding the signal-processing complications of large optical rotations and providing real-time common-mode rejection. The spin-noise measurement is also valuable: the reported overlap of multiple probe passes with a uniform beam is claimed to reduce diffusion broadening and to preserve the Lorentzian spin-noise line shape, which is relevant for future spin-squeezing experiments. The paper includes a parameter-free comparison with the theory of Ref. [23] and a calibration against a known gradient coil, and the agreement of the spin-noise spectrum with theory is a clear strength. The main weaknesses are statistical: the identifiability of the four-parameter fit is asserted rather than demonstrated, and no uncertainty is quoted on the headline sensitivity.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Eq. (1) and third fit] The extraction of the gradient signal rests on the assumed model in Eq. (1), whose four residual parameters {Δν, Δφ, ΔT2, Δd0} are asserted to be independently determinable without supporting evidence. Footnote 24 explicitly concedes that at high initial polarization the FID decay can be non-exponential due to partial spin-exchange relaxation suppression, while Eq. (1) enforces an exponential envelope. Under a misspecified envelope, the Δν term is not guaranteed to be orthogonal to ΔT2 and Δd0, and the reported 2.2 mHz scatter could be inflated by shot-to-shot fluctuation of non-magnetic parameters; the paper provides no covariance matrix, Fisher-matrix analysis, Monte Carlo study, or noise-injection test. Please add such an identifiability analysis and quote an uncertainty (including number of repetitions and standard error) on σ_Δν and on the headline 10.1 fT/cm/√Hz. This is load-bearing because the central claim is the measured sensitivity.
[Section III, Fig. 3, calibration] The linear calibration against the nominal coil constant verifies the slope but does not validate the noise floor: a constant multiplicative gain error or a non-magnetic broadening of the fit residual would leave the calibration slope unchanged. The inset scatter is shown without error bars, and the number of repetitions, the standard error of σ_Δν, and the stationarity of the scatter over time are not reported. Please report these so that the reader can judge whether 10.1 fT/cm/√Hz is a stable, unbiased estimate.
[Section IV, spin-noise comparison] The claim of 'excellent agreement' between the measured spin-noise spectrum and the parameter-free prediction from Eq. (17) of Ref. [23] is presented visually only; no quantitative goodness-of-fit statistic or residual analysis is given. Because this agreement is one of the paper's two central results, please provide a numerical comparison (e.g., normalized residuals in the peak region) and state the uncertainties of the input parameters (T2, D, w0) that enter the prediction.

minor comments (4)

[Section III, Eq. (2)] The argument of the trigonometric functions is written as 2πν_L + d0; it should be 2πν_L t + d0. This typo obscures the derivation of the matched filter.
[Abstract and Conclusions] The phrase 'femtotesla projected sensitivity' appears without a definition; clarify whether it refers to the 3.6 fT/√Hz unpolarized measurement or to an extrapolation.
[Section III, third fit] The values of Δφ, ΔT2, and Δd0 obtained from the fits are not reported; reporting them would help assess the balance of the two arms and the validity of Eq. (2).
[Fig. 2] The inset labels 'top' and 'bottom' for the individual signals are not visible in the printed version; consider adding arrows or using separate panels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the measured sensitivity is an experimental fit statistic, and the spin-noise diffusion prediction from the authors' prior work is parameter-free and tested against new data.

full rationale

The central experimental claim, 10.1 fT/cm/√Hz, is obtained by fitting the four-parameter model of Eq. (1) to the direct gradiometer FID and computing the run-to-run standard deviation of the extracted frequency difference Δν; this is a measurement statistic, not a prediction that reduces to its input. The calibration slope is checked against the nominal coil constant, so the Δν response is not derived from the model. The diffusion-advantage claim is supported by comparing the measured spin-noise spectrum with Eq. (17) of Ref. [23] (same authors) using independently measured density, diffusion constant, beam radius, and T2 from a separate low-polarization measurement; the paper explicitly states this comparison has no free parameters. Per the review rules, a self-citation that is parameter-free and externally falsified by new data is real evidence and does not constitute circularity. The paper also flags its own modeling limitation in footnote 24 — 'For high initial polarization, the decay can be non-exponential due to partial spin-exchange relaxation suppression [16]' — which bears on the accuracy of the fitted Δν, but it is a validity concern about an assumed signal model, not a circularity in which a prediction is defined in terms of its input. No equation is found that is equivalent by construction to a fitted value, nor is any load-bearing claim justified solely by an author's prior uniqueness theorem or ansatz. The self-citations to Refs. [16,20,23] provide context and theoretical formulas that are independently tested against the present measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard physics of spin precession and Faraday rotation, plus a set of domain assumptions about the independence of the two ensembles and the validity of the diffusion correlation model in the overlapping-beam geometry. No new entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen numbers are the four fit parameters in the signal extraction and a small background offset used in calibration, none of which are the target result of a derivation.

free parameters (2)

Fit parameters {Δν, Δφ, ΔT2, Δd0} = Fitted per signal; values not reported.
These four parameters in the third fit to the direct gradiometer signal (Eq. 1) account for residual differences between the top and bottom ensembles. The extracted Δν is the gradient signal that yields the sensitivity.
Background gradient offset = About 0.3 nT/cm.
An offset added to the applied gradient to zero the residual background in the calibration of Fig. 3. It is chosen by hand rather than measured independently.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The two atomic ensembles are independent and their optical rotations add linearly in the probe signal (Eq. 1).
Used throughout the analysis; if the ensembles interact or the rotation combination is nonlinear, the direct subtraction model breaks down.
domain assumption The free induction decay in each ensemble is exponential with transverse relaxation time T2, at least for the fitting window.
Footnote 24 notes the decay can be non-exponential in the high-polarization regime, so the model is approximate.
domain assumption The diffusion correlation function model C_d(t)=1/(1+4Dt/w0^2) from Ref. [23] applies to the overlapping-beam multipass geometry.
Used in Section IV to predict the spin noise spectrum without free parameters; the geometry differs from prior multipass cells.
domain assumption The probe beam Rayleigh range is much larger than the vapor length, justifying the uniform-beam regime.
Stated in Section IV before applying the diffusion model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Femtotesla direct magnetic gradiometer using a single multipass cell." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XJDOPYZV

@misc{pith2026200913212,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Femtotesla direct magnetic gradiometer using a single multipass cell},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XJDOPYZV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.13212}
}

abstract

We describe a direct gradiometer using optical pumping with opposite circular polarization in two $^{87}$Rb atomic ensembles within a single multipass cell. A far-detuned probe laser undergoes a near-zero paramagnetic Faraday rotation due to the intrinsic subtraction of two contributions exceeding 3.5 rad from the highly-polarized ensembles. We develop analysis methods for the direct gradiometer signal and measure a gradiometer sensitivity of $10.1$ fT/cm$\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$. We also demonstrate that our multipass design, in addition to increasing the optical depth, provides a fundamental advantage due to the significantly reduced effect of atomic diffusion on the spin noise time-correlation, in excellent agreement with theoretical estimate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.13212 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[23]

Cav- ity enhanced atomic magnetometry,

Herbert Crepaz, Li Yuan Ley, and Rainer Dumke, “Cav- ity enhanced atomic magnetometry,” Scientiﬁc Reports 5, 15448– (2015)

work page 2015
[1]

Moving magnetoencephalography towards real-world applications with a wearable system,

Elena Boto, Niall Holmes, James Leggett, Gillian Roberts, Vishal Shah, Soﬁe S. Meyer, Leonardo Duque Mu˜ noz, Karen J. Mullinger, Tim M. Tierney, Sven 6 Bestmann, Gareth R. Barnes, Richard Bowtell, and Matthew J. Brookes, “Moving magnetoencephalography towards real-world applications with a wearable system,” Nature 555, 657– (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

The expected spin noise spectrum is given by Eq

[23], where D is the diﬀusion constant and w0 is the Gaussian beam radius,D = 1.5 cm2/s andw0 = 1.8 mm in our cell. The expected spin noise spectrum is given by Eq. (17) of [23] and is shown with a green dashed line in Fig. (4) for T2 = 0.55 msec. One can see excellent agreement with the measured spectrum without any free parameters. To illustrate the diﬀ...

work page
[3]

A magnetoelectric ﬂux gate: new approach for weak dc magnetic ﬁeld de- tection,

Zhaoqiang Chu, Huaduo Shi, Mohammad Javad PourhosseiniAsl, Jingen Wu, Weiliang Shi, Xiangyu Gao, Xiaoting Yuan, and Shuxiang Dong, “A magnetoelectric ﬂux gate: new approach for weak dc magnetic ﬁeld de- tection,” Scientiﬁc Reports 7, 8592– (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

Non-invasive detection of animal nerve impulses with an atomic magnetometer operating near quantum limited sensitivity,

Kasper Jensen, Rima Budvytyte, Rodrigo A. Thomas, Tian Wang, Annette M. Fuchs, Mikhail V. Balabas, Georgios Vasilakis, Lars D. Mosgaard, Hans C. Stærkind, J¨ org H. M¨ oller, Thomas Heimburg, Søren-Peter Olesen, and Eugene S. Polzik, “Non-invasive detection of animal nerve impulses with an atomic magnetometer operating near quantum limited sensitivity,” S...

work page 2016
[5]

75th anniversary: The historical development of the magnetic method in explorationhistorical develop- ment of magnetic method,

M. N. Nabighian, V. J. S. Grauch, R. O. Hansen, T. R. LaFehr, Y. Li, J. W. Peirce, J. D. Phillips, and M. E. Ruder, “75th anniversary: The historical development of the magnetic method in explorationhistorical develop- ment of magnetic method,” Geophysics70, 33ND (2005)

work page 2005
[6]

A rival to stonehenge? geophysical survey at stanton drew, england,

Andrew David, Mark Cole, Tim Horsley, Neil Linford, Paul Linford, and Louise Martin, “A rival to stonehenge? geophysical survey at stanton drew, england,” Antiquity 78, 341–358 (2004)

work page 2004
[7]

Optical magne- tometry,

Dmitry Budker and Michael Romalis, “Optical magne- tometry,” Nat Phys 3, 227–234 (2007)

work page 2007

Show all 39 references

[8]

Multisensor towed array detection system for uxo detection,

H. H. Nelson and J. R. McDonald, “Multisensor towed array detection system for uxo detection,” IEEE Transac- tions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 39, 1139–1145 (June 2001)

2001
[9]

A subfemtotesla multichannel atomic magne- tometer,

I. K. Kominis, T. W. Kornack, J. C. Allred, and M. V. Romalis, “A subfemtotesla multichannel atomic magne- tometer,” Nature 422, 596–599 (2003)

2003
[10]

High-sensitivity atomic magnetometer unaf- fected by spin-exchange relaxation,

J. C. Allred, R. N. Lyman, T. W. Kornack, and M. V. Romalis, “High-sensitivity atomic magnetometer unaf- fected by spin-exchange relaxation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 130801 (2002)

2002
[11]

Low-noise high-density alkali-metal scalar magnetometer,

S. J. Smullin, I. M. Savukov, G. Vasilakis, R. K. Ghosh, and M. V. Romalis, “Low-noise high-density alkali-metal scalar magnetometer,” Phys. Rev. A 80, 033420 (2009)

2009
[12]

Ultrahigh sensitivity magnetic ﬁeld and magnetization measure- ments with an atomic magnetometer,

H.B. Dang, A.C. Maloof, and M.V. Romalis, “Ultrahigh sensitivity magnetic ﬁeld and magnetization measure- ments with an atomic magnetometer,” Applied Physics Letters 97 (2010)

2010
[13]

Another promising approach is based on an actively shielded array of OPMs and it has been implemented in MEG [17]

or cm vapor cells [14, 15] reaching sub-femtotesla sensitivity in multipass conﬁguration [16]. Another promising approach is based on an actively shielded array of OPMs and it has been implemented in MEG [17]. Here we present a direct magnetic gradiometer that uses a single ou...

2009 arXiv
[14]

A femtotesla quantum- noise-limited pulsed gradiometer at ﬁnite ﬁelds,

V. G. Lucivero, W. Lee, M. V. Romalis, M. E. Limes, E. L. Foley, and T. W. Kornack, “A femtotesla quantum- noise-limited pulsed gradiometer at ﬁnite ﬁelds,” Quan- tum Information and Measurement , T3C. 3 (2019)

2019
[15]

A microfabricated optically-pumped magnetic gradiometer,

D. Sheng, A. R. Perry, S. P. Krzyzewski, S. Geller, J. Kitching, and S. Knappe, “A microfabricated optically-pumped magnetic gradiometer,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 110, 031106– (2017)

2017
[16]

Portable magnetometry for detection of biomagnetism in ambient environments,

M.E. Limes, E.L. Foley, T.W. Kornack, S. Caliga, S. McBride, A. Braun, W. Lee, V.G. Lucivero, and M.V. Romalis, “Portable magnetometry for detection of biomagnetism in ambient environments,” Phys. Rev. Ap- plied 14, 011002 (2020)

2020
[17]

Portable intrinsic gradiometer for ultra- sensitive detection of magnetic gradient in unshielded en- vironment,

Rui Zhang, Rahul Mhaskar, Ken Smith, and Mark Prouty, “Portable intrinsic gradiometer for ultra- sensitive detection of magnetic gradient in unshielded en- vironment,” Applied Physics Letters 116, 143501 (2020)

2020
[18]

Sub- femtotesla scalar atomic magnetometry using multipass cells,

D. Sheng, S. Li, N. Dural, and M. V. Romalis, “Sub- femtotesla scalar atomic magnetometry using multipass cells,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160802 (2013)

2013
[19]

On-scalp meg system utilizing an actively shielded array of optically- pumped magnetometers,

Joonas Iivanainen, Rasmus Zetter, Mikael Gr¨ on, Karoli- ina Hakkarainen, and Lauri Parkkonen, “On-scalp meg system utilizing an actively shielded array of optically- pumped magnetometers,” NeuroImage 194, 244–258 (2019)

2019
[20]

Quantum noise limited and entanglement-assisted magnetometry,

W. Wasilewski, K. Jensen, H. Krauter, J. J. Renema, M. V. Balabas, and E. S. Polzik, “Quantum noise limited and entanglement-assisted magnetometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 133601 (2010)

2010
[21]

Noise reduction and signal-to-noise ratio improvement of atomic magnetome- ters with optical gradiometer conﬁgurations,

Keigo Kamada, Yosuke Ito, Sunao Ichihara, Natsuhiko Mizutani, and Tetsuo Kobayashi, “Noise reduction and signal-to-noise ratio improvement of atomic magnetome- ters with optical gradiometer conﬁgurations,” Opt. Ex- press 23, 6976–6987 (2015)

2015
[22]

Optical rotation in excess of 100 rad generated by rb vapor in a multipass cell,

S. Li, P. Vachaspati, D. Sheng, N. Dural, and M. V. Romalis, “Optical rotation in excess of 100 rad generated by rb vapor in a multipass cell,” Phys. Rev. A84, 061403 (2011)

2011
[24]

Light narrowing of rubidium magnetic- resonance lines in high-pressure optical-pumping cells,

S. Appelt, A. Ben-Amar Baranga, A. R. Young, and W. Happer, “Light narrowing of rubidium magnetic- resonance lines in high-pressure optical-pumping cells,” Phys. Rev. A 59, 2078–2084 (1999)

1999
[25]

Correlation function of spin noise due to atomic diﬀusion,

V. G. Lucivero, N. D. McDonough, N. Dural, and M. V. Romalis, “Correlation function of spin noise due to atomic diﬀusion,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 062702 (2017)

2017
[26]

Furthermore, Eq

For high initial polarization, the decay can be non- exponential due to partial spin-exchange relaxation sup- pression [16]. Furthermore, Eq. 1 is valid and has been tested at ﬁnite ﬁelds where nonlinear Zeeman eﬀect is negligible
[27]

Ultra-sensitive magnetometry based on free precession of nuclear spins,

C. Gemmel, W. Heil, S. Karpuk, K. Lenz, Ch. Lud- wig, Yu. Sobolev, K. Tullney, M. Burghoﬀ, W. Kil- ian, S. Knappe-Gr¨ uneberg, W. M¨ uller, A. Schnabel, F. Seifert, L. Trahms, and St. Baeßler, “Ultra-sensitive magnetometry based on free precession of nuclear spins,” The Europe...

2010
[28]

Equivalence of the time-domain matched ﬁlter and the spectral-domain matched ﬁlter in one-dimensional nmr spectroscopy,

Richard G. Spencer, “Equivalence of the time-domain matched ﬁlter and the spectral-domain matched ﬁlter in one-dimensional nmr spectroscopy,” Concepts in Mag- netic Resonance 36A, 255–265 (2010)

2010
[29]

Simple dense-pattern optical multipass cells,

Joel A. Silver, “Simple dense-pattern optical multipass cells,” Applied Optics 44, 6545 (2005)

2005
[30]

Magnetic resonance in the faraday-rotation noi spectrum,

B. Aleksandrov and V. S. Zapasskii, “Magnetic resonance in the faraday-rotation noi spectrum,” Sov. Phys. JETP 54, 64 (1981)

1981
[31]

High band- width atomic magnetometery with continuous quantum nondemolition measurements,

V. Shah, G. Vasilakis, and M.V. Romalis, “High band- width atomic magnetometery with continuous quantum nondemolition measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 013601 (2010)

2010
[32]

Stroboscopic backaction evasion in a dense alkali-metal vapor,

G. Vasilakis, V. Shah, and M. V. Romalis, “Stroboscopic backaction evasion in a dense alkali-metal vapor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 143601 (2011)

2011
[33]

Measurement-induced, spatially- extended entanglement in a hot, strongly-interacting atomic system,

Jia Kong, Ricardo Jim´ enez-Mart´ ınez, Charikleia Troulli- nou, Vito Giovanni Lucivero, G´ eza T´ oth, and Mor- gan W. Mitchell, “Measurement-induced, spatially- extended entanglement in a hot, strongly-interacting atomic system,” Nature Communications 11, 2415– (2020). 7

2020
[34]

An all-optical atomic gradiometer with sub-20 ft/cm/ √ hz sensitivity in a 22 ?t earth-scale mag- netic ﬁeld,

A. R. Perry, M. D. Bulatowicz, M. Larsen, T. G. Walker, and R. Wyllie, “An all-optical atomic gradiometer with sub-20 ft/cm/ √ hz sensitivity in a 22 ?t earth-scale mag- netic ﬁeld,” (2020), arXiv:2008.13234

2020 arXiv
[35]

Spin squeezing of 1011 atoms by prediction and retrodiction measurements,

Han Bao, Junlei Duan, Shenchao Jin, Xingda Lu, Pengx- iong Li, Weizhi Qu, Mingfeng Wang, Irina Novikova, Eu- geniy E. Mikhailov, Kai-Feng Zhao, Klaus Mølmer, Heng Shen, and Yanhong Xiao, “Spin squeezing of 1011 atoms by prediction and retrodiction measurements,” Nature 581, 15...

2020
[36]

Squeezed-light spin noise spectroscopy,

Vito Giovanni Lucivero, Ricardo Jim´ enez-Mart´ ınez, Jia Kong, and Morgan W. Mitchell, “Squeezed-light spin noise spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. A 93, 053802 (2016)

2016
[37]

Sen- sitivity, quantum limits, and quantum enhancement of noise spectroscopies,

Vito Giovanni Lucivero, Aleksandra Dimic, Jia Kong, Ri- cardo Jim´ enez-Mart´ ınez, and Morgan W. Mitchell, “Sen- sitivity, quantum limits, and quantum enhancement of noise spectroscopies,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 041803 (2017)

2017
[38]

Sensitive magnetometry in challenging environments,

KaiMei C. Fu, Geoﬀrey Z. Iwata, Arne Wickenbrock, and Dmitry Budker, “Sensitive magnetometry in challenging environments,” (2020), arXiv:2008.00082

2020 arXiv
[39]

Chip-scale atomic devices,

John Kitching, “Chip-scale atomic devices,” Applied Physics Reviews 5, 031302 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

Cav- ity enhanced atomic magnetometry,

Herbert Crepaz, Li Yuan Ley, and Rainer Dumke, “Cav- ity enhanced atomic magnetometry,” Scientiﬁc Reports 5, 15448– (2015)

work page 2015

[2] [1]

Moving magnetoencephalography towards real-world applications with a wearable system,

Elena Boto, Niall Holmes, James Leggett, Gillian Roberts, Vishal Shah, Soﬁe S. Meyer, Leonardo Duque Mu˜ noz, Karen J. Mullinger, Tim M. Tierney, Sven 6 Bestmann, Gareth R. Barnes, Richard Bowtell, and Matthew J. Brookes, “Moving magnetoencephalography towards real-world applications with a wearable system,” Nature 555, 657– (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [2]

The expected spin noise spectrum is given by Eq

[23], where D is the diﬀusion constant and w0 is the Gaussian beam radius,D = 1.5 cm2/s andw0 = 1.8 mm in our cell. The expected spin noise spectrum is given by Eq. (17) of [23] and is shown with a green dashed line in Fig. (4) for T2 = 0.55 msec. One can see excellent agreement with the measured spectrum without any free parameters. To illustrate the diﬀ...

work page

[4] [3]

A magnetoelectric ﬂux gate: new approach for weak dc magnetic ﬁeld de- tection,

Zhaoqiang Chu, Huaduo Shi, Mohammad Javad PourhosseiniAsl, Jingen Wu, Weiliang Shi, Xiangyu Gao, Xiaoting Yuan, and Shuxiang Dong, “A magnetoelectric ﬂux gate: new approach for weak dc magnetic ﬁeld de- tection,” Scientiﬁc Reports 7, 8592– (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [4]

Non-invasive detection of animal nerve impulses with an atomic magnetometer operating near quantum limited sensitivity,

Kasper Jensen, Rima Budvytyte, Rodrigo A. Thomas, Tian Wang, Annette M. Fuchs, Mikhail V. Balabas, Georgios Vasilakis, Lars D. Mosgaard, Hans C. Stærkind, J¨ org H. M¨ oller, Thomas Heimburg, Søren-Peter Olesen, and Eugene S. Polzik, “Non-invasive detection of animal nerve impulses with an atomic magnetometer operating near quantum limited sensitivity,” S...

work page 2016

[6] [5]

75th anniversary: The historical development of the magnetic method in explorationhistorical develop- ment of magnetic method,

M. N. Nabighian, V. J. S. Grauch, R. O. Hansen, T. R. LaFehr, Y. Li, J. W. Peirce, J. D. Phillips, and M. E. Ruder, “75th anniversary: The historical development of the magnetic method in explorationhistorical develop- ment of magnetic method,” Geophysics70, 33ND (2005)

work page 2005

[7] [6]

A rival to stonehenge? geophysical survey at stanton drew, england,

Andrew David, Mark Cole, Tim Horsley, Neil Linford, Paul Linford, and Louise Martin, “A rival to stonehenge? geophysical survey at stanton drew, england,” Antiquity 78, 341–358 (2004)

work page 2004

[8] [7]

Optical magne- tometry,

Dmitry Budker and Michael Romalis, “Optical magne- tometry,” Nat Phys 3, 227–234 (2007)

work page 2007