Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 98 references

Broadband Fourier transform spectroscopy of quantum emitters photoluminescence with sub-nanosecond temporal resolution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a compact birefringent interferometer plus superconducting detectors can measure single-emitter spectra in the infrared in seconds and add nanosecond-scale spin-resolved dynamics.

desk verdict Solid experimental methods paper: TWINS + SNSPD Fourier-transform PL spectroscopy is a real, useful combination, but the uncalibrated wavelength axis (2.4 nm ZPL offset) undercuts the flagship emitter-identification claim until fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15258 v1 pith:JL3KL5MH submitted 2025-04-21 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.chem-phphysics.optics

Issam Belgacem , Pasquale Cilibrizzi , Muhammad Junaid Arshad , Daniel White , Malte Kroj , Christiaan Bekker , Margherita Mazzera , Brian D. Gerardot
show 10 more authors
Angelo C. Frangeskou Gavin W. Morley Nguyen Tien Son Jawad Ul-Hassan Takeshi Ohshima Hiroshi Abe Lorenzo Vinco Dario Polli Giulio Cerullo Cristian Bonato
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallphysics.chem-phphysics.optics
keywords FouriertransformspectroscopyTWINSinterferometersuperconductingnanowiresingle-photondetectorsquantumemittersnitrogen-vacancycentersdivacancyinsiliconcarbidespin-resolvedphotoluminescencetime-resolved
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

The paper tries to establish that time-domain Fourier transform spectroscopy, built from a compact birefringent interferometer and superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, is a practical and advantageous way to measure the photoluminescence of single quantum emitters in the near-infrared and telecom range, where grating spectrometers with InGaAs cameras are noise-limited. It shows that a single divacancy center in silicon carbide can be identified from its zero-phonon line in tens of seconds to a few minutes, without the background subtraction an InGaAs setup needs. It also shows that the same instrument can record spectra and photon arrival times simultaneously, resolving spin-dependent emission dynamics of nitrogen-vacancy centers on nanosecond time bins. If the paper is right, laboratories studying telecom-range quantum emitters can obtain broadband, time-resolved spectra with commercial components and without liquid-nitrogen-cooled cameras.

What carries the argument

The device that carries the argument is the TWINS interferometer: a common-path birefringent interferometer in which two wedges of alpha-BBO create a controllable delay between two orthogonally polarized replicas of the input waveform, and a polarizer recombines them so that stepping the wedge delay produces an interferogram whose Fourier transform is the spectrum, following the Wiener-Khinchin theorem. Because both replicas travel the same path, the delay is stable and insensitive to vibration. The second half of the mechanism is the single-pixel SNSPD: its high efficiency and low dark count provide the sensitivity that InGaAs cameras lack, and its photon-arrival time tagging provides the temporal resolution, so each delay step yields a time-resolved count histogram that becomes a time-resolved spectrum after the Fourier transform.

What would settle it

Measure the zero-phonon line of the same divacancy with the FT spectrometer and with a wavelength-calibrated grating spectrometer, then compare the centers; if the FT axis is offset by more than the resolution-limited uncertainty, the absolute-wavelength claim fails. A direct check uses a known narrow atomic or molecular line as a calibration source and asks whether the formula $\Delta$-$\lambda$ = 0.605 $lambda^{2}$/($\Delta$-n times x times sin-$\alpha$) reproduces it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central demonstration is that a common-path birefringent interferometer, the TWINS design, combined with superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors, reconstructs photoluminescence spectra by Fourier transforming an interferogram, and that this approach outperforms a grating spectrometer with an InGaAs camera for single emitters in the infrared. For a single divacancy in 4H-SiC, the FT instrument recovered the zero-phonon line in 37 seconds using 10 ms per delay step, while the grating instrument needed a five-minute background-subtracted exposure; simulations with a divacancy spectrum show that the grating camera cannot identify such a dim emitter even in five minutes. Broadband operation is shown by splitting the interferometer output with a dichroic and detecting the visible phonon sideband and the 1042 nm singlet emission of an NV ensemble in parallel. Finally, using photon arrival times binned at 10 ns and 500 ps, the paper reports spin-selective spectra: the difference between ms=0 and ms=1 emission decays on roughly 5-7 microseconds in the visible but about 1 microsecond for the 1042 nm peak, in line with the known NV dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The delay-to-wavelength calibration comes from the manufacturer's formula and is not checked in situ against a known spectral line, so the absolute wavelength of every FT spectrum inherits that unverified mapping; the paper's own data show a roughly 2.4 nm offset from the grating value for the same zero-phonon line.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single divacancy center in 4H-SiC can be identified from its zero-phonon line in about 37 seconds with the FT spectrometer, while the grating/InGaAs comparison requires a five-minute background-subtracted acquisition and still cannot recover a dim single emitter in simulation.
  • Because the interferometer output can be split onto multiple detectors, one scan yields spectra in separate bands simultaneously, demonstrated for the NV visible phonon sideband and the 1042 nm singlet emission.
  • Photon arrival times make every spectral point time-resolved; the paper demonstrates 10 ns and 500 ps bins and argues that the detector jitter, about 50 ps here and a few picoseconds in the best devices, sets the ultimate limit.
  • Spin-selective difference spectra resolve the known NV dynamics, with visible emission contrast decaying over roughly 5-7 microseconds and the 1042 nm contrast over about 1 microsecond, showing that the technique can separate emission pathways tied to different spin sub-levels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension not demonstrated in the paper: the alpha-BBO interferometer is transparent to about 3 micrometers, so the same instrument should cover C-band telecom emitters such as erbium, T-centers, or G-centers by exchanging detectors and optics; this is an extrapolation, since the paper's measurements stop at 1200 nm.
  • The roughly 2.4 nm discrepancy between the FT and grating zero-phonon-line centers, if systematic, would weaken absolute emitter identification but would not affect the dynamical contrast results; an in-situ wavelength calibration would separate those cases.
  • The 12.6-day duration of the spin-resolved measurement implies that routine use on dim single emitters will need higher spin contrast, faster repetition, or compressed sensing; the paper mentions compressed sensing conceptually but does not quantify the speedup.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the use of a compact common-path birefringent interferometer (TWINS) combined with superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors (SNSPDs) for Fourier-transform photoluminescence spectroscopy of quantum emitters in the near-infrared and telecom range. Simulations compare a grating spectrometer with an InGaAs camera against the FT approach for a single divacancy-like emitter. Experiments identify a single (kh) divacancy in 4H-SiC from its zero-phonon line in about 37 seconds, compare the FT spectrum with a grating reference, demonstrate parallel broadband detection of NV-center emission in the visible/near-infrared and infrared channels, and perform spin-selective time-resolved FT measurements using microwave initialization, extracting spin-dependent difference spectra with nanosecond time bins. The authors argue that FT spectroscopy with SNSPDs offers sensitivity, speed, and time-resolution advantages over InGaAs-camera grating spectrometers in the infrared.

Significance. If the claims hold, the work provides a practical route to broadband photoluminescence spectroscopy of single emitters at wavelengths where silicon detectors fail, using commercial components, and it adds time resolution to FT spectroscopy via single-photon timing. The demonstrations are benchmarked against known NV dynamics and a grating reference, and the paper is explicit about instrument parameters and measurement times. The main experimental results—single-divacancy zero-phonon-line identification in tens of seconds, parallel VIS/NIR and IR spectra, and spin-dependent difference dynamics—are internally consistent and would be of immediate use to the quantum emitter community. The accuracy of the wavelength axis and the scope of the sub-nanosecond claim need attention before the stated capabilities are fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 2(c)-(d)] The FT spectrum yields a zero-phonon line at 1075.6±0.1 nm while the grating measurement on the same divacancy gives 1077.96±0.01 nm; the 2.36 nm shift is much larger than the fit uncertainties and comparable to the FT resolution of 2.54 nm. A resolution-broadened Lorentzian does not shift its center, so this offset indicates a systematic error in the delay-to-wavelength mapping, which is taken from the manufacturer formula without in-situ calibration. Since the flagship application is emitter identification from the ZPL wavelength, and common divacancy lines are separated by about 1-25 nm, the current data do not establish the claimed wavelength accuracy. Please calibrate the axis against a known spectral line and re-report the identification claim with corrected values.
  2. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract claims 'monitoring of spin-dependent spectral changes on sub-nanosecond timescales,' but the spin-selective experiments use time bins δt=10 ns and δt=500 ps, and the reported dynamics decay on roughly 1 μs and 5-7 μs scales. No sub-nanosecond spectral feature is actually resolved in the data. Please either demonstrate a sub-nanosecond spin-dependent change or soften the claim to state that the detector jitter permits sub-nanosecond binning in principle, while the demonstrated dynamics are nanosecond to microsecond.
  3. [Section V, Fig. 5(e)] The claimed difference in decay timescales between the VIS/NIR channel (5-7 μs) and the IR channel (~1 μs) is stated without fits or confidence intervals. Because this is a central demonstration of spin-resolved FT spectroscopy, please provide quantitative fits (e.g., exponential or model-based) with reported uncertainties, or explicitly label the comparison as qualitative.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V, Rabi measurement] The text states a microwave π pulse at 2995 GHz; throughout the paper the resonance is 2995 MHz. Please correct the unit.
  2. [Section V, temporal resolution paragraph] The sentence 'a brightness of 1 Mcps, corresponding to 10 cps in a 10 µs pulse' is confusing; 1 Mcps over a 10 μs pulse yields 10 photons per pulse, not 10 cps. Please rephrase.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) adds the readout noise R to the mean photo-electron count before treating the result as a Poisson mean; this is not the standard noise model, in which readout noise is an additive Gaussian variance after the Poisson draw. The impact is minor for the order-of-magnitude comparison, but the model should be stated more carefully.
  4. [Section III, Fig. 2(b)] The factor 0.605 in the spectral-resolution formula is not derived or cited; please define all symbols (Δn, xmax, α) and give the origin of the numerical constant.
  5. [Section IV, Fig. 4(c)] The VIS/NIR spectrum in Fig. 4(c) appears not to show the 637 nm zero-phonon line expected for NV−; please comment on whether it is suppressed by the ensemble measurement, the excitation conditions, or the spectral window shown.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental demonstrations are benchmarked against independent grating spectra, known emitter parameters, and published NV dynamics rates, with no prediction forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental demonstrations rather than derivations from fitted inputs. The simulation comparison in Section II uses emitter parameters (ZPL at 1131 nm, Debye-Waller factor 0.04, brightness 2000 cps) taken from published divacancy literature and detector parameters from commercial datasheets; the conclusion that the FT spectrometer outperforms the InGaAs-camera grating spectrometer for the chosen single-emitter case follows from the independent noise model, not from fitting the result against itself. In Section III, the FT spectrum of a single divacancy is compared with a grating-spectrometer spectrum of the same emitter measured at higher resolution, and the ZPL identification is additionally checked against the known kh-divacancy wavelength from the literature; no parameter is fitted to the FT data and then used to define the predicted ZPL. In Sections IV and V, the broadband NV spectra and spin-dependent time-resolved difference maps are benchmarked against the well-known six-level NV model and published transition rates, and the observed timescales are compared qualitatively with those expected from the model rather than extracted by fitting the same dataset that defines the model. The TWINS wavelength mapping is taken from the manufacturer formula with a stated commercial reference; even if the uncalibrated 2.4 nm offset between FT and grating ZPL positions is a legitimate calibration concern that could affect emitter misidentification claims, it is not an instance of a result reducing to its own input by construction. Self-citations are present (e.g., the confocal setup of Cilibrizzi et al., and the spin-pumping model of Dinani et al.), but they are standard methodological references and are not load-bearing in the sense of importing a uniqueness theorem or an unverified premise that determines the conclusions. No circular step fitting the enumerated patterns (self-definition, fitted input called prediction, load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness, ansatz smuggled via citation, renaming known result) can be exhibited from the paper's equations or text.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The work contributes an instrument combination and experimental validations rather than a derivation, so the ledger records the inputs the conclusions rest on: standard Fourier optics and Poissonian detector statistics, the manufacturer calibration of the TWINS device, the literature NV rate model, simulation parameters from component datasheets, and hand-chosen time bins. The most fragile input is the uncalibrated wavelength axis of the FT spectrometer, where the paper's own data show a 2.4 nm offset, and the 500 ps bin choice that underlies the sub-nanosecond claim.

free parameters (4)
  • Emitter brightness for simulations (nominal 2000 cps) = 2 kcps (500 cps and 10 kcps variants in SI)
    Chosen as typical for a single divacancy [13,46]; the conclusion that the grating spectrometer is insufficient within 5 minutes holds only for this dim-emitter regime, and the simulation set is the main quantitative support for the claimed advantage (Section II).
  • InGaAs camera noise model (dark current, read noise, gain, well capacity) = Nd = 5.7 ke-/s (text) or 3.2 ke-/count (Fig. 1 caption); G = 75 e-/count; R = 400 e-; W = 4.5 Me-
    Taken from a commercial datasheet, but the choice of camera and of high-gain settings determines the simulated superiority of FT spectroscopy; the caption versus text inconsistency in Nd is unresolved (Section II, Fig. 1).
  • Detection efficiency assumption for both instruments = eta = 0.8, wavelength-independent
    Stated assumption in Section II; the real SNSPD has 80% efficiency along one linear polarization only (Section III), so the simulation is optimistic for unpolarized emission.
  • Time bin sizes for the spin-resolved experiment = 10 ns and 500 ps
    Chosen by the authors as the SNR versus resolution trade-off (Section V); the sub-nanosecond headline claim rests on the 500 ps bin choice, for which no spectrum is displayed.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Wiener-Khinchin theorem and ideal detector model N_C^(F)(tau) = integral e^(i omega tau) eta(omega) N_ph(omega) domega + N_d (Eq. 2)
    The interferogram-to-spectrum relation is invoked without proof, and Eq. 2 omits the DC term and cosine response of a real two-beam interferometer; these are standard but idealizing.
  • domain assumption TWINS delay-to-wavelength calibration from the manufacturer formula Delta lambda = 0.605 lambda^2/(Delta n times x times sin alpha) with known alpha-BBO birefringence dispersion
    The wavelength axis of all FT spectra rests on this formula (Section III, around Fig. 2(b)); no in-situ spectral calibration is described, and the observed 2.4 nm zero-phonon-line offset suggests calibration error.
  • domain assumption Six-level model of NV- dynamics with published rates kappa_ge, kappa_es, kappa_sg, kappa_S (refs 71-72)
    Used in Sections IV and V to interpret the spin-selective difference maps; the interpretation of the sign and timescale of the differences depends on this benchmark model.
  • domain assumption SNSPD count statistics are Poissonian with saturation at 5e6 counts per second
    Used in the simulations (Section II) to estimate SNR and in Section V to estimate the required number of pulse repetitions for a given time bin.
  • domain assumption Spin preparation fidelity: a 15 microsecond green pulse initializes ms=0 and a 207 ns microwave pi pulse flips to ms=1
    The difference Delta = y0 - y1 is interpreted as spin-dependent only if the preparation is correct; the reported ODMR contrast is about 2%, so the polarization contrast is small and the difference signal is a small fraction of the total counts (Section V).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Broadband Fourier transform spectroscopy of quantum emitters photoluminescence with sub-nanosecond temporal resolution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JL3KL5MH

@misc{pith2026250415258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Broadband Fourier transform spectroscopy of quantum emitters photoluminescence with sub-nanosecond temporal resolution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JL3KL5MH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15258}
}
read the original abstract

The spectral characterization of quantum emitter luminescence over broad wavelength ranges and fast timescales is important for applications ranging from biophysics to quantum technologies. Here we present the application of time-domain Fourier transform spectroscopy, based on a compact and stable birefringent interferometer coupled to low-dark-count superconducting single-photon detectors, to the study of quantum emitters. We experimentally demonstrate that the system enables spectroscopy of quantum emitters over a broad wavelength interval from the near-infrared to the telecom range, where grating-based spectrometers coupled to InGaAs cameras are typically noisy and inefficient. We further show that the high temporal resolution of single-photon detectors, which can be on the order of tens of picoseconds, enables the monitoring of spin-dependent spectral changes on sub-nanosecond timescales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Numerical simulations of single-emitter PL comparing a grating and FT spectrometer. We consider a quantum emitter with Debye-Waller factor 0.04 and brightness 2kcps, with the spectrum shown in (a) (corresponding to a divacancy in 4H SiC [46]). Simulated spectra measured with a grating spectrometer coupled to a InGaAs camera (G = 75e −/count, Nd = 3.2ke −/count, R = 400e −, W = 4.5Me −) are shown in blue in (b) (tota… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PL spectroscopy of a single divacancy center in 4H-SiC. (a) sketch of the TWINS interferometer, consisting of two sliding wedges of a birefringent material (“A”) that create a controllable delay between two replicas of the input optical waveform. Polariser P1 sets the input polarization, while polarizer P2 enables interference of the two orthogonally-polarized replicas. (b) spectral resolution of the TWINS device (G… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Broadband time-resolved spectroscopy of NV centers in diamond. (a) Energy levels for the negatively￾charged state of the NV center in diamond. Radiative (non-radiative) transitions are depicted with solid (dashed) lines and the corresponding rates κ (j) lm, associated with spin state |j⟩, are described in Section IV of the main text. (b) Sketch of experimental setup for the experiments on NV centers in diamond. The … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Demonstration of broadband PL spectroscopy of quantum emitters. We perform FT spectroscopy of the emission from an ensemble of NV centres in diamond, detecting different wavelength ranges in parallel with two SNSPDs. (a) and (b) show respectively the interferograms on …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spin-selective time-resolved FT spectroscopy of NV centers in diamond. (a) ODMR measurement for VIS/NIR (605 nm longpass filter - 950 nm shortpass filter) and IR (1000 nm longpass filter). Optical pumping polarizes the electron spin in ms = 0, which is brighter (darker…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Koveal, Journal of Neurochemistry 168, 496 (2024)

    D. Koveal, Journal of Neurochemistry 168, 496 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Maiti, C

    A. Maiti, C. Z. Buffalo, S. Saurabh, F. Montecinos-Franjola, J. S. Hachey, W. J. Conlon, G. N. Tran, B. Hassan, K. J. Walters, M. Drobizhev, W. E. Moerner, P. Ghosh, H. Matsuo, R. Y. Tsien, J. Y. Lin, and E. A. Rodriguez, Nature Communications 14, 4155 (2023). S3 (a) simula�ons gra�ng spectrometer (b) simula�ons Fourier spectrometer T = 60 s T = 60 s T = ...

    2023

  3. [3]

    M. Wang, Y. Da, and Y. Tian, Chemical Society Reviews 52, 1189 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Cubeddu, D

    R. Cubeddu, D. Comelli, C. D’Andrea, P. Taroni, and G. Valentini, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 35, R61 (2002)

    2002

  5. [5]

    Gobets, I

    B. Gobets, I. H. M. van Stokkum, M. Rgner, J. Kruip, E. Schlodder, N. V. Karapetyan, J. P. Dekker, and R. van Grondelle, Biophysical Journal 81, 407 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    W. B. Gao, P. Fallahi, E. Togan, J. Miguel-Sanchez, and A. Imamoglu, Nature 491, 426 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Javadi, D

    A. Javadi, D. Ding, M. H. Appel, S. Mahmoodian, M. C. Lbl, I. Sllner, R. Schott, C. Papon, T. Pregnolato, S. Stobbe, L. Midolo, T. Schrder, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, R. J. Warburton, and P. Lodahl, Nature Nanotechnology 13, 398 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    D. A. Gangloff, G. thier Majcher, C. Lang, E. V. Denning, J. H. Bodey, D. M. Jackson, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, C. Le Gall, and M. Atatre, Science 364, 62 (2019)

    2019

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    S. L. N. Hermans, M. Pompili, H. K. C. Beukers, S. Baier, J. Borregaard, and R. Hanson, Nature 605, 663 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    R. A. Parker, J. Arjona Martnez, K. C. Chen, A. M. Stramma, I. B. Harris, C. P. Michaels, M. E. Trusheim, M. Hay- hurst Appel, C. M. Purser, W. G. Roth, D. Englund, and M. Atatre, Nature Photonics 18, 156 (2024). S4

    2024

  3. [11]

    C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. Assumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, N. Sinclair, C. De-Eknamkul, D. S. Levonian, M. K. Bhaskar, H. Park, M. Lonar, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 629, 573 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    A. J. Stolk, K. L. van der Enden, M.-C. Slater, I. t. Raa-Derckx, P. Botma, J. van Rantwijk, B. Biemond, R. A. J. Hagen, R. W. Herfst, W. D. Koek, A. J. H. Meskers, R. Vollmer, E. J. van Zwet, M. Markham, A. M. Edmonds, J. F. Geus, F. Elsen, B. Jungbluth, C. Haefner, C. Tresp,...

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    W. F. Koehl, B. B. Buckley, F. J. Heremans, G. Calusine, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature 479, 84 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    D. J. Christle, A. L. Falk, P. Andrich, P. V. Klimov, J. U. Hassan, N. T. Son, E. Janzn, T. Ohshima, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature Materials 14, 160 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    D. J. Christle, P. V. Klimov, C. F. de las Casas, K. Szsz, V. Ivdy, V. Jokubavicius, J. Ul Hassan, M. Syvjrvi, W. F. Koehl, T. Ohshima, N. T. Son, E. Janzn, . Gali, and D. D. Awschalom, Physical Review X 7, 021046 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    R. Nagy, M. Niethammer, M. Widmann, Y.-C. Chen, P. Udvarhelyi, C. Bonato, J. U. Hassan, R. Karhu, I. G. Ivanov, N. T. Son, J. R. Maze, T. Ohshima, . O. Soykal, . Gali, S.-Y. Lee, F. Kaiser, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Communications 10, 1954 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Cilibrizzi, M

    P. Cilibrizzi, M. J. Arshad, B. Tissot, N. T. Son, I. G. Ivanov, T. Astner, P. Koller, M. Ghezellou, J. Ul-Hassan, D. White, C. Bekker, G. Burkard, M. Trupke, and C. Bonato, Nature Communications 14, 8448 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Redjem, A

    W. Redjem, A. Durand, T. Herzig, A. Benali, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, A. Y. Kuznetsov, H. S. Nguyen, S. Cueff, J.-M. Grard, I. Robert-Philip, B. Gil, D. Caliste, P. Pochet, M. Abbarchi, V. Jacques, A. Drau, and G. Cassabois, Nature Electronics 3, 738 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Durand, Y

    A. Durand, Y. Baron, W. Redjem, T. Herzig, A. Benali, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, A. Y. Kuznetsov, J.-M. Grard, I. Robert- Philip, M. Abbarchi, V. Jacques, G. Cassabois, and A. Drau, Physical Review Letters 126, 083602 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    P. Inc, F. Afzal, M. Akhlaghi, S. J. Beale, O. Bedroya, K. Bell, L. Bergeron, K. Bonsma-Fisher, P. Bychkova, Z. M. E. Chaisson, C. Chartrand, C. Clear, A. Darcie, A. DeAbreu, C. DeLisle, L. A. Duncan, C. D. Smith, J. Dunn, A. Ebrahimi, N. Evetts, D. F. Pinheiro, P. Fuentes, T....

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C.-J. Wu, D. Riedel, A. Ruskuc, D. Zhong, H. Kwon, and A. Faraon, Physical Review Applied 20, 044018 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    S. Chen, M. Raha, C. M. Phenicie, S. Ourari, and J. D. Thompson, Science 370, 592 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Gritsch, A

    A. Gritsch, A. Ulanowski, J. Pforr, and A. Reiserer, Optical single-shot readout of spin qubits in silicon (2024), arXiv:2405.05351 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. L. Bayliss, D. W. Laorenza, P. J. Mintun, B. D. Kovos, D. E. Freedman, and D. D. Awschalom, Science 370, 1309 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    A. Mena, S. K. Mann, A. Cowley-Semple, E. Bryan, S. Heutz, D. R. McCamey, M. Attwood, and S. L. Bayliss, Physical Review Letters 133, 120801 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    D. D. Awschalom, R. Hanson, J. Wrachtrup, and B. B. Zhou, Nature Photonics 12, 516 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Ecker, M

    S. Ecker, M. Fink, T. Scheidl, P. Sohr, R. Ursin, M. J. Arshad, C. Bonato, P. Cilibrizzi, A. Gali, P. Udvarhelyi, A. Politi, O. J. Trojak, M. Ghezellou, J. U. Hassan, I. G. Ivanov, N. T. Son, G. Burkard, B. Tissot, J. Hendriks, C. M. Gilardoni, C. H. v. d. Wal, C. David, T. As...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Aslam, H

    N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 157 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    N. R. Neuling, R. D. Allert, and D. B. Bucher, Current Opinion in Biotechnology 83, 102975 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Budakian, A

    R. Budakian, A. Finkler, A. Eichler, M. Poggio, C. L. Degen, S. Tabatabaei, I. Lee, P. C. Hammel, S. P. Eugene, T. H. Taminiau, R. L. Walsworth, P. London, A. Bleszynski Jayich, A. Ajoy, A. Pillai, J. Wrachtrup, F. Jelezko, Y. Bae, A. J. Heinrich, C. R. Ast, P. Bertet, P. Capp...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Rovny, S

    J. Rovny, S. Gopalakrishnan, A. C. B. Jayich, P. Maletinsky, E. Demler, and N. P. d. Leon, New opportunities in condensed matter physics for nanoscale quantum sensors (2024), arXiv:2403.13710

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chen, Q.-Y

    X. Chen, Q.-Y. Luo, P.-J. Guo, H.-J. Zhou, Q.-C. Hu, H.-P. Wu, X.-W. Shen, R.-Y. Cui, L. Dong, T.-X. Wei, Y.-H. Xiao, D.-R. Li, L. Lei, X. Zhang, J.-F. Wang, and G. Xiang, Noninvasive magnetic detection of 2D van der Waals room- temperature ferromagnet Fe3GaTe2 using divacancy...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Jacquinot, Reports on Progress in Physics 23, 267 (1960)

    P. Jacquinot, Reports on Progress in Physics 23, 267 (1960)

    1960

  26. [34]

    J. B. Bates, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 4, 73 (1978)

    1978

  27. [35]

    D. R. Vij, ed., Handbook of Applied Solid State Spectroscopy, 1st ed. (Springer, New York, NY, 2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Kammerer, G

    C. Kammerer, G. Cassabois, C. Voisin, M. Perrin, C. Delalande, P. Roussignol, and J. M. Grard, Applied Physics Letters 81, 2737 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    Zwiller, T

    V. Zwiller, T. Aichele, and O. Benson, Physical Review B 69, 165307 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Kuroda, Y

    T. Kuroda, Y. Sakuma, K. Sakoda, K. Takemoto, and T. Usuki, Applied Physics Letters 91, 223113 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    Adachi, N

    S. Adachi, N. Yatsu, R. Kaji, S. Muto, and H. Sasakura, Applied Physics Letters 91, 161910 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Holmes, S

    M. Holmes, S. Kako, K. Choi, M. Arita, and Y. Arakawa, Physical Review B 92, 115447 (2015). S5

    2015

  33. [41]

    Korlacki, M

    R. Korlacki, M. Steiner, H. Qian, A. Hartschuh, and A. J. Meixner, ChemPhysChem 8, 1049 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    G. D. Marshall, T. Gaebel, J. C. F. Matthews, J. Enderlein, J. L. OBrien, and J. R. Rabeau, New Journal of Physics 13, 055016 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Konnik and J

    M. Konnik and J. Welsh, High-level numerical simulations of noise in CCD and CMOS photosensors: review and tutorial (2014), arXiv:1412.4031 [astro-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    M. J. Padgett and A. R. Harvey, Review of Scientific Instruments 66, 2807 (1995)

    1995

  37. [45]

    Thyrhaug, S

    E. Thyrhaug, S. Krause, A. Perri, G. Cerullo, D. Polli, T. Vosch, and J. Hauer, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 4064 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    A. L. Falk, B. B. Buckley, G. Calusine, W. F. Koehl, V. V. Dobrovitski, A. Politi, C. A. Zorman, P. X.-L. Feng, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature Communications 4, 1819 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    P. B. Fellgett, JOSA 39, 970 (1949)

    1949

  40. [48]

    Jacquinot, Journal of the Optical Society of America 44, 761 (1954)

    P. Jacquinot, Journal of the Optical Society of America 44, 761 (1954)

    1954

  41. [49]

    J. F. Klem, J. K. Kim, M. J. Cich, G. A. Keeler, S. D. Hawkins, and T. R. Fortune, Applied Physics Letters 95, 031112 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    Fathipour, A

    V. Fathipour, A. Bonakdar, and H. Mohseni, Frontiers in Materials 3, 10.3389/fmats.2016.00033 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Zhu and H

    B. Zhu and H. Jonathan, Sensors 24, 3539 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    D. V. Reddy, R. R. Nerem, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and V. B. Verma, Optica 7, 1649 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    P. Hu, H. Li, L. You, H. Wang, Y. Xiao, J. Huang, X. Yang, W. Zhang, Z. Wang, and X. Xie, Optics Express 28, 36884 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Zhang, L

    L. Zhang, L. Kang, J. Chen, Y. Zhong, Q. Zhao, T. Jia, C. Cao, B. Jin, W. Xu, G. Sun, and P. Wu, Applied Physics B 102, 867 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Shibata, K

    H. Shibata, K. Shimizu, H. Takesue, and Y. Tokura, Optics Letters 40, 3428 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    J. A. Lau, V. B. Verma, D. Schwarzer, and A. M. Wodtke, Chemical Society Reviews 52, 921 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    G. G. Taylor, A. B. Walter, B. Korzh, B. Bumble, S. R. Patel, J. P. Allmaras, A. D. Beyer, R. OBrient, M. D. Shaw, and E. E. Wollman, Optica 10, 1672 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Korzh, Q.-Y

    B. Korzh, Q.-Y. Zhao, J. P. Allmaras, S. Frasca, T. M. Autry, E. A. Bersin, A. D. Beyer, R. M. Briggs, B. Bumble, M. Colangelo, G. M. Crouch, A. E. Dane, T. Gerrits, A. E. Lita, F. Marsili, G. Moody, C. Pea, E. Ramirez, J. D. Rezac, N. Sinclair, M. J. Stevens, A. E. Velasco, V...

    2020

  51. [59]

    Esmaeil Zadeh, J

    I. Esmaeil Zadeh, J. W. N. Los, R. B. M. Gourgues, J. Chang, A. W. Elshaari, J. R. Zichi, Y. J. Van Staaden, J. P. E. Swens, N. Kalhor, A. Guardiani, Y. Meng, K. Zou, S. Dobrovolskiy, A. W. Fognini, D. R. Schaart, D. Dalacu, P. J. Poole, M. E. Reimer, X. Hu, S. F. Pereira, V. ...

    2020

  52. [60]

    Perri, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 54, 113001 (2021)

    A. Perri, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 54, 113001 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    C. P. Anderson, E. O. Glen, C. Zeledon, A. Bourassa, Y. Jin, Y. Zhu, C. Vorwerk, A. L. Crook, H. Abe, J. Ul-Hassan, T. Ohshima, N. T. Son, G. Galli, and D. D. Awschalom, Science Advances 8, eabm5912 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Bourassa, C

    A. Bourassa, C. P. Anderson, K. C. Miao, M. Onizhuk, H. Ma, A. L. Crook, H. Abe, J. Ul-Hassan, T. Ohshima, N. T. Son, G. Galli, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature Materials 19, 1319 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    He, J.-Y

    Z.-X. He, J.-Y. Zhou, Q. Li, W.-X. Lin, R.-J. Liang, J.-F. Wang, X.-L. Wen, Z.-H. Hao, W. Liu, S. Ren, H. Li, L.-X. You, R.-J. Zhang, F. Zhang, J.-S. Tang, J.-S. Xu, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Nature Communications 15, 10146 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Oriana, J

    A. Oriana, J. Rhault, F. Preda, D. Polli, and G. Cerullo, Journal of the Optical Society of America A 33, 1415 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Preda, A

    F. Preda, A. Oriana, J. Rhault, L. Lombardi, A. C. Ferrari, G. Cerullo, and D. Polli, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 23, 88 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Perri, F

    A. Perri, F. Preda, C. DAndrea, E. Thyrhaug, G. Cerullo, D. Polli, and J. Hauer, Optics Express 25, A483 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Preda, A

    F. Preda, A. Perri, J. Rhault, B. Dutta, J. Helbing, G. Cerullo, and D. Polli, Optics Letters 43, 1882 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Perri, B

    A. Perri, B. E. Nogueira De Faria, D. C. T. Ferreira, D. Comelli, G. Valentini, F. Preda, D. Polli, A. M. De Paula, G. Cerullo, and C. Manzoni, Optics Express 27, 15956 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Ghosh, G

    S. Ghosh, G. Herink, A. Perri, F. Preda, C. Manzoni, D. Polli, and G. Cerullo, ACS Photonics 8, 2234 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Magnusson, N

    B. Magnusson, N. T. Son, A. Csr, A. Gllstrm, T. Ohshima, A. Gali, and I. G. Ivanov, Physical Review B 98, 195202 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    Dumeige, J.-F

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

    2019

  64. [72]

    Magaletti, L

    S. Magaletti, L. Mayer, J.-F. Roch, and T. Debuisschert, New Journal of Physics 26, 023020 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    V. M. Acosta, A. Jarmola, E. Bauch, and D. Budker, Physical Review B 82, 201202 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    Jensen, N

    K. Jensen, N. Leefer, A. Jarmola, Y. Dumeige, V. Acosta, P. Kehayias, B. Patton, and D. Budker, Physical Review Letters 112, 160802 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    Kehayias, M

    P. Kehayias, M. W. Doherty, D. English, R. Fischer, A. Jarmola, K. Jensen, N. Leefer, P. Hemmer, N. B. Manson, and D. Budker, Physical Review B 88, 165202 (2013)

    2013

  68. [76]

    L. J. Rogers, M. W. Doherty, M. S. J. Barson, S. Onoda, T. Ohshima, and N. B. Manson, New Journal of Physics 17, 013048 (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    H. T. Dinani, D. W. Berry, R. Gonzalez, J. R. Maze, and C. Bonato, Physical Review B 99, 125413 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    A. F. L. Poulsen, J. D. Clement, J. L. Webb, R. H. Jensen, L. Troise, K. Berg-Srensen, A. Huck, and U. L. Andersen, Physical Review B 106, 014202 (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    S. Miki, T. Yamashita, Z. Wang, and H. Terai, Optics Express 22, 7811 (2014)

    2014

  72. [80]

    E. E. Wollman, V. B. Verma, A. E. Lita, W. H. Farr, M. D. Shaw, R. P. Mirin, and S. Woo Nam, Optics Express 27, S6 35279 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Jiang, H

    Z. Jiang, H. Cai, R. Cernansky, X. Liu, and W. Gao, Science Advances 9, eadg2080 (2023)

    2023

  74. [82]

    Prabhu, C

    M. Prabhu, C. Errando-Herranz, L. De Santis, I. Christen, C. Chen, C. Gerlach, and D. Englund, Nature Communications 14, 2380 (2023)

    2023

  75. [83]

    Johnston, U

    A. Johnston, U. Felix-Rendon, Y.-E. Wong, and S. Chen, Nature Communications 15, 2350 (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    C. Yin, M. Rancic, G. G. de Boo, N. Stavrias, J. C. McCallum, M. J. Sellars, and S. Rogge, Nature 497, 91 (2013)

    2013

  77. [85]

    Dibos, M

    A. Dibos, M. Raha, C. Phenicie, and J. Thompson, Physical Review Letters 120, 243601 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    S. Ourari, . Dusanowski, S. P. Horvath, M. T. Uysal, C. M. Phenicie, P. Stevenson, M. Raha, S. Chen, R. J. Cava, N. P. de Leon, and J. D. Thompson, Nature 620, 977 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Ikuta, Y

    R. Ikuta, Y. Kusaka, T. Kitano, H. Kato, T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Nature Communications 2, 537 (2011)

    2011

  80. [88]

    De Greve, L

    K. De Greve, L. Yu, P. L. McMahon, J. S. Pelc, C. M. Natarajan, N. Y. Kim, E. Abe, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, S. Hfling, R. H. Hadfield, A. Forchel, M. M. Fejer, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature 491, 421 (2012)

    2012

  81. [89]

    A. Drau, A. Tcheborateva, A. E. Mahdaoui, C. Bonato, and R. Hanson, Physical Review Applied 9, 064031 (2018)

    2018

  82. [90]

    Arensktter, T

    E. Arensktter, T. Bauer, S. Kucera, M. Bock, J. Eschner, and C. Becher, npj Quantum Information 9, 1 (2023)

    2023

  83. [91]

    J. M. Charsley, M. Rutkauskas, Y. Altmann, V. Risdonne, M. Botticelli, M. J. Smith, C. R. T. Young, and D. T. Reid, Optics Express 30, 17340 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    D. A. Hopper, R. R. Grote, A. L. Exarhos, and L. C. Bassett, Physical Review B 94, 241201 (2016)

    2016

  85. [93]

    Wirtitsch, G

    D. Wirtitsch, G. Wachter, S. Reisenbauer, M. Gulka, V. Ivdy, F. Jelezko, A. Gali, M. Nesladek, and M. Trupke, Physical Review Research 5, 013014 (2023)

    2023

  86. [94]

    M. T. Richers, D. D. Tran, J. Wachtveitl, and G. C. R. Ellis-Davies, Chemical Communications 54, 4983 (2018)

    2018

  87. [95]

    Anandhan, M

    K. Anandhan, M. Cern, V. Perumal, P. Ceballos, P. Gordillo-Guerra, E. Prez-Gutirrez, A. E. Castillo, S. Thamotharan, and M. J. Percino, RSC Advances 9, 12085 (2019)

    2019

  88. [96]

    Scharff, W

    T. Scharff, W. Ratzke, J. Zipfel, P. Klemm, S. Bange, and J. M. Lupton, Nature Communications 12, 2071 (2021)

    2021

  89. [97]

    Hung, S.-F

    C.-M. Hung, S.-F. Wang, W.-C. Chao, J.-L. Li, B.-H. Chen, C.-H. Lu, K.-Y. Tu, S.-D. Yang, W.-Y. Hung, Y. Chi, and P.-T. Chou, Nature Communications 15, 4664 (2024)

    2024

  90. [98]

    Y. Chu, N. De Leon, B. Shields, B. Hausmann, R. Evans, E. Togan, M. J. Burek, M. Markham, A. Stacey, A. Zibrov, A. Yacoby, D. Twitchen, M. Loncar, H. Park, P. Maletinsky, and M. Lukin, Nano Letters 14, 1982 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.