Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Microwave-optical double-resonance vector magnetometry with warm Rb atoms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A room-temperature rubidium vapor, one laser beam, and a microwave cavity can report the full magnetic-field vector, with mean angular errors near 1.3 degrees and 1.7 degrees and amplitude tracking near 115 nT.

desk verdict Solid single-beam, unshielded microwave-optical double-resonance vector magnetometer proof-of-concept, but the headline 1° and 115 nT accuracy numbers outrun what was actually measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08791 v1 pith:FSZIIG4R submitted 2025-07-11 physics.atom-ph

Bahar Babaei , Benjamin D. Smith , Andrei Tretiakov , Andal Narayanan , Lindsay J. LeBlanc This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords vectormagnetometrydouble-resonancespectroscopyrubidium-87room-temperatureatomicvaporconvolutionalneuralnetworkmicrowavecavityZeemansublevelsLarmorprecession
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 reports a three-axis magnetometer built from a room-temperature vapor of rubidium-87, a single laser beam, and a microwave cavity. The central claim is that the full magnetic-field vector can be read from one optical transmission spectrum: the amplitudes of seven microwave-optical double-resonance features encode the field's direction, and the frequency spacing between them encodes its magnitude through the Larmor frequency. A convolutional neural network trained on measured spectra extracts the polar and azimuthal angles with mean errors near 1.3 degrees and 1.7 degrees, and the amplitude near 50 microtesla is tracked to about 115 nT. If this holds, it gives a self-calibrating, unshielded vector magnetometer that needs no mechanical rotation, no magnetic shielding, and only one optical beam.

What carries the argument

The central object is the double-resonance transmission spectrum: as the microwave frequency is swept across the 6.834 GHz ground-hyperfine transition, resonant microwave repopulation changes optical absorption, producing seven dips whose relative depths are set by angle-dependent Rabi frequencies. The angular dependence enters through the decomposition of the microwave and optical field polarizations into spherical components $\tilde{b}_q(\theta,\varphi)$ and $\tilde{a}_q(\theta,\varphi)$, which multiply the transition matrix elements; this is what makes feature amplitudes a function of field direction. The inverse map from spectrum to angles is carried by a one-dimensional convolutional neural network, trained with a robust loss and an ensemble bagging procedure.

What would settle it

Take the trained network and record double-resonance spectra at the same 50 µT magnitude with the field pointing into a different octant, and also at a different magnitude such as 30 µT; if angle errors grow well beyond one degree or amplitude predictions become biased, the claim that the spectrum encodes the full vector fails. A companion check is to compare the coil-based labels against a calibrated reference magnetometer and see whether the quoted 1-degree and 115 nT accuracies survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that the seven absorption features of a microwave-optical double resonance in warm 87Rb carry enough information to determine both the orientation and the magnitude of an external static field from a single spectrum. Because the external field sets the quantization axis, rotating it changes how the microwave and optical polarizations decompose into $\sigma^+$, $\sigma^-$, and $\pi$ components, and therefore changes the relative amplitudes of the seven double-resonance dips; the Larmor spacing $\omega_L/2\pi = \lambda_g |B_{\rm ext}|$ with $\lambda_g = 7$ kHz/µT fixes the magnitude. The authors use a one-dimensional convolutional neural network, with a bagged ensemble of five models, to invert the 800-point spectrum to the polar and azimuthal angles, trained on 3000 spectra at $|B_{\rm ext}| = 50$ µT spread over the positive octant (directions whose three Cartesian components are all positive). On a 300-spectrum test set the mean errors are $\delta\theta \approx 1.3^\circ$ and $\delta\varphi \approx 1.7^\circ$, and the amplitude readout shows 115 nT fluctuations over an hour under constant coil settings.

Load-bearing premise

The neural network's mapping is trained only on fields of one strength (50 µT) pointing into one octant of directions, and the answer key comes from coil currents that are not checked against an independent magnetometer, so the claimed vector readout is only demonstrated inside that training box.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single-beam, unshielded atomic vapor cell can report all three components of a magnetic field without mechanical rotation, multiple beams, or magnetic shielding.
  • Because the field magnitude comes from the Larmor spacing, the scale is set by the known ground-state gyromagnetic ratio, giving a self-calibrating amplitude measurement at Earth-scale fields.
  • The microwave cavity can in principle be replaced by printed split-ring resonators, so the approach is compatible with chip-scale miniaturization.
  • At the demonstrated 50 µT operating point, the instrument tracks orientation to about 0.4 degrees and amplitude to 115 nT over an hour, with a sensitivity of 115 nT per root hertz.
  • The minimum field is set by the roughly 80 kHz double-resonance linewidth to about 10 µT, so the technique is aimed at Earth-field and laboratory-scale magnetometry rather than ultra-low-field sensing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves untested whether the same network, trained at one field strength and one octant, transfers to other magnitudes and the rest of the sphere; a direct test would be to retrain on data at 25 and 75 µT and on all octants and compare held-out errors.
  • The seven spectral features encode a two-angle plus amplitude problem with redundancy, so the structured pattern of network prediction errors could in principle be used to diagnose coil misalignment or background-field drift without a separate reference sensor.
  • Because feature amplitudes vanish near the coordinate axes, adding a second probe direction or modulating the microwave polarization could remove the observed dead zones; the paper does not implement either option.
  • The same amplitude-versus-spacing encoding should transfer to other alkali isotopes or chip-scale cells with retraining on the new line structure, which would connect this demonstration to portable sensor development.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a proof-of-concept, unshielded vector magnetometer based on microwave-optical double resonance in a warm 87Rb vapor. A single optical beam and a microwave cavity generate seven double-resonance transmission features whose relative amplitudes depend on the orientation of the external magnetic field with respect to the optical and microwave polarizations. A 1D convolutional neural network is trained on 3000 spectra at fixed |B_ext| = 50 µT within the positive octant and used to predict the polar angles θ and φ, while the field amplitude is extracted from the Larmor spacing between features. On a held-out test set of 300 spectra the mean angular errors are reported as 1.3° (θ) and 1.7° (φ); a one-hour stability measurement under constant coil currents yields 0.4° and 115 nT standard deviation. The paper claims a three-axis vector magnetometer with an accuracy of 1° and 115 nT at 50 µT, operating over a minimum field of about 10 µT.

Significance. If the full vector claim were established, this would be a useful simplification over existing atomic vector magnetometers that require multiple beams, mechanical rotation, or shielding: the scheme uses a single beam, a microwave cavity, and room-temperature vapor, and the machine-learning inversion avoids a detailed multi-level model. The paper's positive contributions include a proper held-out train/test split with bagging, an independent physical observable (Larmor spacing) for amplitude, and an explicit discussion of the principal noise sources. However, the demonstrated result is narrower than the headline claim: the CNN is validated only within one octant at one field magnitude, and the quoted 'accuracy' is measured against coil setpoints rather than an independent field reference. The central vector-magnetometer claim therefore requires additional validation before the stated figures can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV, Fig. 4] The CNN is trained and tested only for |B_ext| = 50 µT and for directions confined to the positive octant of the sphere. The abstract and conclusion claim a three-axis vector magnetometer and state a minimum measurable field of roughly 10 µT, but no data show that the learned angular mapping generalizes to other field magnitudes or to the remaining seven octants. Please add validation at other amplitudes (at least near the claimed 10 µT limit) and across the full sphere, or explicitly restrict the claims to the demonstrated operating range.
  2. [§IV and Fig. 5] The reported 'accuracy' figures are not traceable to an independent field reference. The true labels for both training and testing are Helmholtz-coil setpoints, and the authors themselves state in §IV that imperfections in coil orthogonality and current drifts are a primary source of deviation. Thus the mean angular errors of 1.3° and 1.7° quantify agreement with coil commands, not absolute accuracy of the measured field direction. A comparison against a calibrated reference magnetometer, or an experiment in which the cavity is physically rotated in a known field, is needed before these figures can be quoted as field-measurement accuracy.
  3. [Abstract and §IV/V] The abstract states that the magnetic field direction is measured 'with an accuracy of 1°', but the body reports mean errors of approximately 1.3° for θ and 1.7° for φ (§IV) and the conclusion repeats the 1.3°/1.7° values. The abstract overstates the result. Please correct this inconsistency and use the actual mean errors, or justify why '1°' is appropriate (e.g., if it refers to a different error metric).
  4. [Fig. 5 and Appendix C] The 115 nT amplitude figure is presented in the abstract and conclusion as an accuracy or sensitivity, but Fig. 5 measures the standard deviation of the recovered amplitude over one hour under constant coil currents, i.e., a stability/repeatability metric, not accuracy against a known field change. In addition, Appendix C defines sensitivity as S_B = |δB|√t_m without specifying which t_m is used, and the text refers both to a 115 nT standard deviation and to '115 nT/√Hz'. Please clarify the measurement time and either support or remove the sensitivity claim, and avoid conflating precision, stability, and accuracy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§I and §III] There are several typographical errors: 'orthoganally' in §III, 'addtionally' in §II A, 'nonradiatie' in Appendix B2, and 'one one hand' in the Introduction. These should be corrected.
  2. [§II B] The angles θ and φ are used throughout but formally defined only in the Fig. 1 inset and in passing in §II B. Please define the polar-coordinate convention explicitly in the main text at first use, including the reference axes for θ=0 and φ=0.
  3. [Fig. 4] The description 'positive octant in 3D Cartesian space' is ambiguous when combined with polar angles θ and φ. Please state the ranges of θ and φ used for training and testing, and clarify how the random sampling was performed on the spherical surface.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The condition Γ ≫ Ω_µ ≫ γ is stated for the simplified three-level model, but no comparison with the experimental values is provided. A brief quantitative statement (or a cited estimate) would help the reader judge whether the simplified absorption expression is representative of the actual experimental regime.
  5. [Throughout] The terms 'accuracy', 'precision', and 'sensitivity' are used somewhat interchangeably (e.g., abstract 'accuracy', §IV 'precision', conclusion 'sensitivity'). Please use consistent metrological terminology, distinguishing systematic accuracy, repeatability, and noise-equivalent sensitivity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the DR mechanism, Larmor amplitude readout, and held-out CNN validation are independent of the claims.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The orientation sensitivity of the DR feature amplitudes is established from angular-momentum selection rules and the polarization decomposition in Eqs. (3)-(4) and Appendix B; no output quantity is used to define the inputs, and the simplified three-level model in Eq. (2) is explicitly motivational rather than the source of the reported numbers. The amplitude measurement uses the Larmor relation omega_L/2pi = lambda_g |B_ext| with the independently known ground-state gyromagnetic ratio; although the Helmholtz coils are calibrated via the same relation, that is ordinary metrological traceability to an atomic constant, not a self-referential fit. The CNN is trained on 2700 spectra labeled by coil settings and evaluated on 300 held-out spectra, so the 1.3 degrees and 1.7 degrees angular errors are genuine out-of-sample interpolation statistics, not fitted values repackaged as predictions. The self-citations (Refs. 49, 51-53, 55) concern the cavity apparatus and microwave-assisted pumping background; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification of the magnetometer mechanism. The paper itself flags the main caveats: training only in one octant at 50 uT and the absence of an external reference ('a calibrated sensor would need to be used to perform comparison measurements with our system', Sec. IV). These are limitations on external validity and label accuracy, not circularity.

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

The central results rest on (1) the physical mechanism that DR feature amplitudes depend on field orientation (supported by standard Zeeman and Rabi physics and by the measured spectra), and (2) an ML model fitted to calibration data, with hand-chosen hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The main undermotivated input is the unverified assumption that the fitted network generalizes to the full operating range claimed for a vector magnetometer.

free parameters (2)
  • CNN model weights = learned from 2700 training spectra at |B| = 50 µT
    The claimed angular accuracy is a property of this fitted model; the weights are learned from calibration data rather than derived from physics.
  • ML training hyperparameters = Huber delta = 5°, early-stopping patience = 30, bagging ensemble of 5 models
    Chosen by hand; they affect the reported prediction errors and convergence behavior.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The external field defines the quantization axis; Rabi frequencies are obtained by rotating the field polarization components in the rank-1 spherical basis (Eqs. B1 to B9).
    Underlies the claimed angle dependence of DR feature amplitudes; standard Zeeman physics but not directly verified for the warm-vapor system.
  • standard math The simplified three-level Lindblad model (Eqs. A1 to A3 and Eq. 2) captures the essential mechanism that DR absorption depends on microwave and optical Rabi frequencies.
    Used only as motivation; the authors state that full 24-level dynamics would require numerical modeling, so Eq. 2 is not the basis of the measurement.
  • ad hoc to paper A 1D-CNN can learn an invertible mapping from 800-point spectra to (theta, phi) from the training set, and this mapping generalizes to unseen orientations at the same field magnitude.
    No physics-based inversion is provided; the generalization claim rests on the held-out validation, not on a physical model.
  • domain assumption Larmor spacing between DR features gives field amplitude through omega_L / 2*pi = 7 kHz/uT, independent of orientation.
    Used to report amplitude; coil currents were calibrated against this same relation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microwave-optical double-resonance vector magnetometry with warm Rb atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FSZIIG4R

@misc{pith2026250708791,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microwave-optical double-resonance vector magnetometry with warm Rb atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FSZIIG4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08791}
}
abstract

Developing a non-invasive, accurate vector magnetometer that operates at ambient temperature and is conducive to miniaturization and is self-calibrating is a significant challenge. Here, we present an unshielded three-axis vector magnetometer whose operation is based on the angle-dependent relative amplitude of magneto-optical double-resonance features in a room-temperature atomic ensemble. Magnetic-field-dependent double resonance features change the transmission of an optical probe tuned to the D2 optical transition of $^{87}$Rb in the presence of a microwave field driving population between the Zeeman sublevels of the ground state hyperfine levels $F = 1$ and $F = 2$. Sweeping the microwave frequency over all Zeeman sublevels results in seven double-resonance features, whose amplitudes vary as the orientation of the external static magnetic field changes with respect to the optical and microwave field polarization directions. Using a convolutional neural network model, the magnetic field direction is measured in this proof-of-concept experiment with an accuracy of 1{\deg} and its amplitude near 50 $\mu$T with an accuracy of 115 nT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08791 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Allowed microwave and optical transitions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Double-resonance (DR) optical transmission sig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Variation in selected double-resonance (DR) trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Machine-learning analysis of an atomic vector magnetometer. (a) Experiments were performed for 3000 randomly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Fluctuations of the applied magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Heisenberg scaling in optical magnetometry with measurement-induced correlations as a quantum resource

    quant-ph 2026-01 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A collective quantum model of optical magnetometry predicts Heisenberg scaling of the quantum Fisher information from measurement-induced correlations alone, but the prediction depends on a normalization choice that c...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Microwave magnetic field In the experimental configuration used in this work, the microwave field is ⃗Bµ = Bµ ˆx = Bµ√ 2 (ˆe−1 − ˆe+1) , (B4) meaning that in the notation used in the main text, bσ− = −bσ+ = |Bµ|/ √ 2 and bπ = 0. Under a rota- tion of the external quantizing field (labeled with tilde), the field in the transformed basis is ⃗˜Bµ = P q ˜bq ˆ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In the experimental configuration used in this work, the optical field is left-circularly polarized and travelling down the ˆy-axis

    Optical electric field The optical field involved in the electric dipole tran- sitions will undergo a similar rotation to the microwave magnetic field. In the experimental configuration used in this work, the optical field is left-circularly polarized and travelling down the ˆy-axis. In this case, the optical electric field is ⃗ELCP = E0 ˆx − iˆz√ 2 , (B7...

    work page

  3. [3]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum sensing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    M. T. Simons, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, A. K. Robin- son, N. Prajapati, and C. L. Holloway, Rydberg atom- based sensors for radio-frequency electric field metrology, sensing, and communications, Measur. Sens. 18, 100273 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Cai, C.-P

    B. Cai, C.-P. Hao, Z.-R. Qiu, Q.-Q. Yu, W. Xiao, and D. Sheng, Herriott-cavity-assisted all-optical atomic vec- tor magnetometer, Phys. Rev. A 101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Behbood, F

    N. Behbood, F. Martin Ciurana, G. Colangelo, M. Napolitano, M. W. Mitchell, and R. J. Sewell, Real- time vector field tracking with a cold-atom magnetome- ter, Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 173504 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Bison, V

    G. Bison, V. Bondar, P. Schmidt-Wellenburg, A. Schn- abel, and J. Voigt, Sensitive and stable vector magne- tometer for operation in zero and finite fields, Opt. Ex- press 26, 17350 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    M. J. Brookes, J. Leggett, M. Rea, R. M. Hill, N. Holmes, E. Boto, and R. Bowtell, Magnetoencephalography with 10 optically pumped magnetometers (OPM-MEG): the next generation of functional neuroimaging, Trends Neurosci. 45, 621 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Aslam, H

    N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Quantum sen- sors for biomedical applications, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 157 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Murzin, D

    D. Murzin, D. J. Mapps, K. Levada, V. Belyaev, A. Omelyanchik, L. Panina, and V. Rodionova, Ultrasen- sitive magnetic field sensors for biomedical applications, Sensors (Basel) 20, 1569 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    N. V. Nardelli, A. R. Perry, S. P. Krzyzewski, and S. A. Knappe, A conformal array of microfabricated optically- pumped first-order gradiometers for magnetoencephalog- raphy, EPJ Quantum Technol. 7 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Sander, A

    T. Sander, A. Jodko-W ladzi´ nska, S. Hartwig, R. Br¨ uhl, and T. Middelmann, Optically pumped magnetometers enable a new level of biomagnetic measurements, Adv. Opt. Technol. 9, 247 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Korth, K

    H. Korth, K. Strohbehn, F. Tejada, A. G. Andreou, J. Kitching, S. Knappe, S. J. Lehtonen, S. M. London, and M. Kafel, Miniature atomic scalar magnetometer for space based on the rubidium isotope 87Rb: Miniature Atomic Scalar Magnetometer, J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 121, 7870 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    R. E. Slocum and F. N. Reilly, Low field helium mag- netometer for space applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 10, 165 (1963)

    1963

  7. [15]

    C. J. Cochrane, J. Blacksberg, M. A. Anders, and P. M. Lenahan, Vectorized magnetometer for space applica- tions using electrical readout of atomic scale defects in silicon carbide, Sci. Rep. 6, 37077 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    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, The historical development of the magnetic method in exploration, Geophysics 70, 33ND (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    S. J. Ingleby, C. O’Dwyer, P. F. Griffin, A. S. Arnold, and E. Riis, Vector magnetometry exploiting phase-geometry effects in a double-resonance alignment magnetometer, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 034035 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Hrvoic, G

    I. Hrvoic, G. M. Hollyer, and P. Eng, Brief review of quantum magnetometers, Mater. Sci. For. (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    A. L. Bloom, Principles of operation of the rubidium va- por magnetometer, Appl. Opt. 1, 61 (1962)

    1962

  12. [20]

    Sebbag, E

    Y. Sebbag, E. Talker, A. Naiman, Y. Barash, and U. Levy, Demonstration of an integrated nanophotonic chip-scale alkali vapor magnetometer using inverse de- sign, Light Sci. Appl. 10, 54 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    V. Shah, S. Knappe, P. D. D. Schwindt, and J. Kitch- ing, Subpicotesla atomic magnetometry with a microfab- ricated vapour cell, Nat. Photonics 1, 649 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Gawlik and J

    W. Gawlik and J. M. Higbie, Magnetometry with cold atoms, in Optical Magnetometry, Vol. 9781107010352, edited by D. Budker and D. F. Jackson Kimball (Cam- bridge University Press, 2013) pp. 167–189

    2013

  15. [23]

    Cohen, K

    Y. Cohen, K. Jadeja, S. Sula, M. Venturelli, C. Deans, L. Marmugi, and F. Renzoni, A cold atom radio- frequency magnetometer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 073505 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Fabricant, I

    A. Fabricant, I. Novikova, and G. Bison, How to build a magnetometer with thermal atomic vapor: a tutorial, New J. Phys. 25, 025001 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Sheng, S

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

    2013

  18. [26]

    S. J. Seltzer and M. V. Romalis, Unshielded three- axis vector operation of a spin-exchange-relaxation-free atomic magnetometer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 4804 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Papoyan, S

    A. Papoyan, S. Shmavonyan, A. Khanbekyan, K. Khan- bekyan, C. Marinelli, and E. Mariotti, Magnetic-field- compensation optical vector magnetometer, Appl. Opt. 55, 892 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Budker, D

    D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, V. V. Yashchuk, and M. Zolotorev, Nonlinear magneto-optical rotation with frequency-modulated light, Phys. Rev. A 65, 055403 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    Patton, E

    B. Patton, E. Zhivun, D. C. Hovde, and D. Budker, All- optical vector atomic magnetometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 013001 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Pyragius, H

    T. Pyragius, H. M. Florez, and T. Fernholz, Voigt-effect- based three-dimensional vector magnetometer, Phys. Rev. A 100, 023416 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Gawlik, L

    W. Gawlik, L. Krzemie´ n, S. Pustelny, D. Sangla, J. Za- chorowski, M. Graf, A. O. Sushkov, and D. Budker, Non- linear magneto-optical rotation with amplitude modu- lated light, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 131108 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    St¨ ahler, S

    M. St¨ ahler, S. Knappe, C. Affolderbach, W. Kemp, and R. Wynands, Picotesla magnetometry with coherent dark states, EPL 54, 323 (2001)

    2001

  25. [33]

    V. I. Yudin, A. V. Taichenachev, Y. O. Dudin, V. L. Velichansky, A. S. Zibrov, and S. A. Zibrov, Vector mag- netometry based on electromagnetically induced trans- parency in linearly polarized light, Phys. Rev. A 82, 033807 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    K. Cox, V. I. Yudin, A. V. Taichenachev, I. Novikova, and E. E. Mikhailov, Measurements of the magnetic field vector using multiple electromagnetically induced trans- parency resonances in Rb vapor, Phys. Rev. A83, 015801 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    B. C. Das, A. Das, D. Bhattacharyya, and S. De, Effects of vector magnetic field on electromagnetically induced transparency with lin ⊥ lin polarization, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 38, 584 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Brekke and S

    E. Brekke and S. Potier, Optical cavity for enhanced parametric four-wave mixing in rubidium, Appl. Opt.56, 46 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    J. E. Dhombridge, N. R. Claussen, J. Iivanainen, and P. D. D. Schwindt, High-sensitivity rf detection using an optically pumped comagnetometer based on natural- abundance rubidium with active ambient-field cancella- tion, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 044052 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    H. Yao, B. Maddox, Y. Cohen, and F. Renzoni, Opti- misation of a radio-frequency atomic magnetometer: a Uniform Design approach, Opt. Express 30, 3566 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    J. Qin, J. Xu, Z. Jiang, and J. Qu, Enhanced all-optical vector atomic magnetometer enabled by artificial neural network, Appl. Phys. Lett. 125, 102405 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Y. Zou, L. Jiang, H. Bai, J. Liu, C. Fang, J. Zhu, Q. Shao, J. Xu, X. Zhou, and W. Quan, Vector magnetometry employing a rotating RF field in a single-beam optically pumped magnetometer, Sens. Actuators A Phys. 379, 115901 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    D. A. Steck, Alkali D Line Data (2024), available on- line at http://steck.us/alkalidata (revision 2.3.3, 28 May 2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Kiehl, T

    C. Kiehl, T. S. Menon, S. Knappe, T. Thiele, and C. A. Regal, Accurate vector optically pumped magnetome- ter with microwave-driven Rabi frequency measurements, 11 Optica 12, 77 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    P. Wang, Z. Yuan, P. Huang, X. Rong, M. Wang, X. Xu, C. Duan, C. Ju, F. Shi, and J. Du, High-resolution vector microwave magnetometry based on solid-state spins in diamond, Nat. Commun. 6, 6631 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    B¨ ohi, M

    P. B¨ ohi, M. F. Riedel, T. W. H¨ ansch, and P. Treutlein, Imaging of microwave fields using ultracold atoms, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 051101 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    H. Wang, T. Wu, W. Xiao, H. Wang, X. Peng, and H. Guo, Dual-mode dead-zone-free double-resonance alignment-based magnetometer, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 024033 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    X. Meng, Y. Zhang, X. Zhang, S. Jin, T. Wang, L. Jiang, L. Xiao, S. Jia, and Y. Xiao, Machine learning assisted vector atomic magnetometry, Nat. Commun. 14, 6105 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Gonzalez Maldonado, O

    M. Gonzalez Maldonado, O. Rollins, A. Toyryla, J. A. McKelvy, A. Matsko, I. Fan, Y. Li, Y.-J. Wang, J. Kitch- ing, I. Novikova, and E. E. Mikhailov, Sensitivity of a vec- tor atomic magnetometer based on electromagnetically induced transparency, Opt. Express 32, 25062 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Qi, X.-X

    P.-L. Qi, X.-X. Geng, G.-Q. Yang, G.-M. Huang, and G.-X. Li, Theory of double-resonance alignment magne- tometers based on atomic high-order multipole moments using effective master equations, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 37, 3303 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Sheng, A

    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

  42. [50]

    A. Weis, G. Bison, and A. S. Pazgalev, Theory of dou- ble resonance magnetometers based on atomic alignment, Phys. Rev. A 74, 033401 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    Tretiakov and L

    A. Tretiakov and L. J. LeBlanc, Microwave Rabi reso- nances beyond the small-signal regime, Phys. Rev. A 99, 043402 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Bevilacqua, V

    G. Bevilacqua, V. Biancalana, P. Chessa, and Y. Dancheva, Multichannel optical atomic magnetome- ter operating in unshielded environment, Appl. Phys. B 122, 103 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Tretiakov, C

    A. Tretiakov, C. A. Potts, T. S. Lee, M. J. Thiessen, J. P. Davis, and L. J. LeBlanc, Atomic microwave-to-optical signal transduction via magnetic-field coupling in a res- onant microwave cavity, Appl. Phys. Lett. 116, 164101 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Ruether, C

    M. Ruether, C. A. Potts, J. P. Davis, and L. J. LeBlanc, Polymer-loaded three dimensional microwave cavities for hybrid quantum systems, J. Phys. Comm. 5, 121001 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Tretiakov, C

    A. Tretiakov, C. A. Potts, B. Lu, J. P. Davis, and L. J. LeBlanc, Manipulating optical absorption and polariza- tion using microwave control in an atomic vapor, J. Phys. Photonics 6, 035007 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    In warm atom systems like this one, Doppler broadening populates velocity classes for which this laser is resonant to the F ′ = 1, 2, 3 excited levels

  49. [57]

    B. D. Smith, B. Babaei, A. Narayanan, and L. J. LeBlanc, Microwave-to-optical conversion in a room-temperature 87Rb vapor for frequency-division multiplexing control, Commun. Phys. 6, 338 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    H. L. Thal, Cylindrical TE 011/TM111 mode control by cavity shaping, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 27, 982 (1979)

    1979

  51. [59]

    RoyChoudhury, V

    S. RoyChoudhury, V. Rawat, A. H. Jalal, S. N. Kale, and S. Bhansali, Recent advances in metamaterial split-ring- resonator circuits as biosensors and therapeutic agents, Biosens. Bioelectron. 86, 595 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learn- ing, Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning series, Vol. 29 (MIT Press, 2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    H. Zeng, M. D. Edwards, G. Liu, and D. K. Gifford, Convolutional neural network architectures for predicting DNA-protein binding, Bioinformatics 32, i121 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    J. Kim, S. Oh, H. Kim, and W. Choi, Tutorial on time series prediction using 1D-CNN and BiLSTM: A case ex- ample of peak electricity demand and system marginal price prediction, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 126, 106817 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Y. Kim, Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification, in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (Association for Computational Linguistics,

    2014

  56. [64]

    Abadi, A

    M. Abadi, A. Agarwal, P. Barham, E. Brevdo, Z. Chen, C. Citro, G. S. Corrado, A. Davis, J. Dean, M. Devin, S. Ghemawat, I. Goodfellow, A. Harp, G. Irving, M. Is- ard, Y. Jia, R. Jozefowicz, L. Kaiser, M. Kudlur, J. Lev- enberg, D. Man´ e, R. Monga, S. Moore, D. Murray, C. Olah...

    2015

  57. [65]

    Watson, F

    M. Watson, F. Chollet, D. Sreepathihalli, S. Saadat, R. Sampath, G. Rasskin, , S. Zhu, V. Singh, L. Wood, Z. Tan, I. Stenbit, C. Qian, J. Bischof, et al., Kerashub, https://github.com/keras-team/keras-hub (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Mehta, C.-H

    P. Mehta, C.-H. Wang, A. G. R. Day, C. Richardson, M. Bukov, C. K. Fisher, and D. J. Schwab, A high-bias, low-variance introduction to Machine Learning for physi- cists, Phys. Rep. 810, 1 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Hastie, R

    T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman, The elements of statistical learning, 2nd ed. (Springer, 2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    Arecchi and R

    F. Arecchi and R. Bonifacio, Theory of optical maser amplifiers, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 1, 169 (1965)

    1965

  61. [69]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  62. [70]

    C. J. Foot, Atomic physics (Oxford University Press, 2005)

    2005

  63. [71]

    Auzinsh, D

    M. Auzinsh, D. Budker, and S. Rochester, Optically Polarized Atoms: Understanding light-atom interactions (Oxford University Press, 2010) Chap. 7

    2010

  64. [72]

    ˇSibali´ c, J

    N. ˇSibali´ c, J. D. Pritchard, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, ARC: An open-source library for calculating properties of alkali Rydberg atoms, Comput. Phys. Com- mun. 220, 319 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Zhang, F

    C. Zhang, F. Shagieva, M. Widmann, M. K¨ ubler, V. Vorobyov, P. Kapitanova, E. Nenasheva, R. Corkill, O. Rhrle, K. Nakamura, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, and J. Wrachtrup, Diamond Magnetometry and Gra- diometry towards Subpicotesla dc Field Measurement, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, ...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.