Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Microwave-free vector magnetometry and crystal orientation determination with Nitrogen-Vacancy centers using Bayesian inference

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Bayesian inference on photoluminescence maps of cross-relaxation resonances in nitrogen-vacancy centers can determine a diamond's crystal orientation and reconstruct an unknown magnetic field vector, all without micro

desk verdict A genuinely new Bayesian extension of cross-relaxation NV magnetometry that removes the alignment constraint, but the uncertainty budget is not yet credible as reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.13835 v2 pith:I6WG7H2A submitted 2025-12-15 quant-ph

Hilario Espinós , Omkar Dhungel , Arne Wickenbrock , Dmitry Budker , Ricardo Puebla , Erik Torrontegui This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords nitrogen-vacancycentersvectormagnetometrycross-relaxationBayesianinferencephotoluminescencezero-fieldsensingdiamondresonanceplanes
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 single two-dimensional photoluminescence map — recorded as a diamond sample is rotated in a tunable bias field — contains enough information to determine both the crystal orientation and the vector of an unknown external magnetic field, without any microwave driving. The method relies on cross-relaxation resonances between differently oriented nitrogen-vacancy centers, which appear as sharp dips in the photoluminescence at analytically predicted field configurations. A Bayesian inversion of the map, using a closed-form phenomenological PL model, yields full posterior distributions that quantify uncertainty and naturally exhibit the discrete degeneracies of the NV tetrahedral symmetry. The authors validate the approach experimentally for orientation determination and for reconstructing an unknown field vector, reporting agreement with independent ODMR measurements. If correct, this provides an alignment-free, microwave-free route to compact vector magnetometers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the geometric resonance-plane model: resonance conditions |B·n_i| = |B·n_j| reduce to nine planar surfaces in sample-frame magnetic field space, and the PL signal is modeled as 1 minus a weighted sum of symmetric lineshape dips at those planes (Eq. 8). This closed form replaces Hamiltonian diagonalization, making repeated likelihood evaluations cheap enough for Bayesian inference, and it embeds the NV symmetry as multi-modal posterior peaks rather than as a single best-fit solution.

What would settle it

Measure a photoluminescence map at a chosen non-symmetric crystal orientation with the external field independently determined by ODMR, then run the Bayesian inference. If the ODMR value lies outside the posterior credible intervals for the field vector (beyond the reported 10⁻³–10⁻² PL residuals) across several field magnitudes and orientations, the additive resonance-plane model is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the set of cross-relaxation resonance conditions between NV orientations forms a geometric structure of nine planes in magnetic field space — six symmetry planes where a single pair of NV classes becomes degenerate, and three anti-symmetry planes where two pairs coincide — and that the photoluminescence map is well described by a simple additive superposition of dips located on these planes. Because the plane positions depend linearly on the magnetic field components in the sample frame, the forward model is analytical and fast. The paper shows that inverting this model with Bayesian inference recovers the diamond orientation and the external field vector from e

Load-bearing premise

The inference assumes that the photoluminescence signal is exactly the sum of smooth symmetric dips sitting at the nine analytic resonance-plane positions, with a fixed lineshape, contrast, and linewidth; the paper's own data show systematic residuals of order 10⁻³–10⁻² from polarization-dependent excitation, inhomogeneous illumination, and field misalignment, so if the true signal deviates from this additive model in a parameter-dependent way, the inferred orientation and fi

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A diamond crystal's orientation can be determined from a single photoluminescence map without microwaves or confocal localization, using only the positions of cross-relaxation dips.
  • An unknown external field vector can be reconstructed with uncertainties quantified as posterior widths; the method was validated against ODMR for b_z ≈ 1.165 mT, b_⊥ ≈ 0.809 mT, φ0 ≈ 0.720 rad.
  • When the rotation axis is a symmetry axis of the NV tetrahedron, the PL map becomes periodic and the field reconstruction is ambiguous; choosing a non-symmetric rotation axis lifts the ambiguity and makes the field identifiable.
  • The inference is efficient enough that magnetometry can in principle be performed from a single PL trace (N=1), with uncertainty scaling as 1/√N as more traces are added.
  • The method opens the way to self-calibrated absolute magnetometry by using intrinsic low-field PL features as field landmarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to combine orientation and field estimation into a single joint inference; the paper notes a global rotation ambiguity around the z-axis that would need a second rotation axis or reference field.
  • The phenomenological lineshape, contrast, and linewidth are not derived from first principles; a predictive microscopic theory of the cross-relaxation signal could improve accuracy beyond the current systematic residuals (10⁻³–10⁻²).
  • The Bayesian framework's ability to output multi-modal posteriors could be transferred to other NV sensing modalities, such as ODMR-based vector magnetometry, where discrete symmetries create equivalent solutions.
  • Because the resonance-plane geometry depends only on the tetrahedral axis arrangement, the same inference machinery should apply to other spin-1 defect centers with similar symmetry, not just NV in diamond.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a microwave-free vector magnetometry and crystal orientation determination method for NV ensembles. The PL signal under a tunable axial bias field and sample rotation is modeled as one minus a weighted sum of symmetric lineshape dips located at the nine cross-relaxation resonance planes (Eq. 8). Bayesian inference with a Gaussian likelihood is used to invert experimental PL maps for the crystal orientation (Euler angles restricted by NV symmetry) and for the external field vector (b_z, b_perp, phi_0). The authors demonstrate orientation determination from a single PL map and field reconstruction with reported posterior uncertainties, with an ODMR cross-check. The paper also analyzes systematic errors and discusses symmetry-induced degeneracies and a fundamental global-rotation ambiguity.

Significance. If the method performs as claimed, it would be a useful addition to NV magnetometry: it removes microwave delivery, relaxes the alignment constraints of earlier cross-relaxation schemes, and produces full posterior distributions that explicitly exhibit discrete degeneracies. The analytical resonance-condition model and the symmetry reduction to a fundamental domain are clever and the experimental maps in Figs. 3 and 5 match the simulated maps convincingly. The main value is the combination of a closed-form forward model with Bayesian inversion for near-zero-field, RF-free vector sensing. However, the central uncertainty-quantification claim is currently not supported because the forward model is underspecified and the noise scale is taken from the residuals of the very fit being assessed. The method is promising, but the manuscript needs to close the model and provide a non-circular noise estimate before the posterior widths can be interpreted as accuracies.

major comments (3)
  1. [METHOD, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) is the foundation of the entire inference, but it is not closed: the lineshape function L, contrast C, linewidth Gamma, and weights w_i are never specified, and no fitted or fixed values are reported. The paper states only that L is a symmetric lineshape with linewidth Gamma and that w_i = 1 or 2 in the ideal case. Because every posterior and MAP value in Figs. 3 and 5 depends on Eq. (8), the reader cannot reproduce the analysis or judge whether the chosen L/C/Gamma are physically reasonable. The authors should provide the full model, including the functional form of L, the values (or priors and posteriors) of C and Gamma, and the precise definition of each delta_i for all nine resonance conditions. Without this, the 'analytical model' is not actually specified.
  2. [Analysis of systematic errors] The noise parameter sigma_noise = 0.0018 is set to the standard deviation of the residuals between the modeled and measured PL signals, i.e., the residuals of the same dataset being fit. This forces chi^2/dof ~ 1 by construction and does not propagate the documented systematic effects (amplitude differences of order 10^-3 to 10^-2, polarization-dependent excitation, inhomogeneous illumination, field misalignment, and the unmodeled 13C shoulder) into the posterior. Consequently the quoted uncertainties, e.g., b_z = 1.165(2) mT and sub-mrad orientation angles, are effective fit precisions, not true accuracies. To support the paper's central claim that the posterior distributions 'quantify uncertainties', the authors should either estimate sigma_noise from independent repeated measurements or held-out data, or include the acknowledged systematics as additional nuisance parameters/covariance
  3. [Application to magnetometry] The field reconstruction is validated only by the statement that the MAP values are 'compatible with independent ODMR measurements'. No ODMR values, error bars, or quantitative difference are given. Since the magnetometry demonstration is a central experimental claim, the authors should report the ODMR result and the discrepancy in units of combined uncertainty (e.g., (b_ODMR - b_MAP)/sigma_comb). Without this, a bias several times the reported 2 microtesla uncertainty would still be loosely 'compatible'.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: 'that is poses challenges' should be 'that poses challenges'.
  2. [Background] The symmetry nomenclature is nonstandard: the orientation-preserving tetrahedral rotation group is usually denoted T (order 12), while T_d is the full tetrahedral group including improper operations (order 24). The text's 'proper tetrahedral group T_d' followed by 'proper octahedral group O_h' is confusing and should be corrected.
  3. [METHOD, Eq. (8)] The set of delta_i is written informally as 'delta = {B_x^s - B_y^s, B_x^s - B_z^s, ...}'. Please enumerate all nine resonance conditions explicitly, including the anti-symmetry planes, so that the model is unambiguous.
  4. [METHOD, Eqs. (10)-(11)] Equation (10) should differentiate the model prediction s_model with respect to x_i, not just s. Equation (11) omits the Gaussian normalization prefactor (2*pi*sigma^2)^(-N/2); if only posterior ratios are used this is harmless, but it should be stated.
  5. [Application to orientation determination] The priors used for alpha, beta, zeta (and later for b_z, b_perp, phi_0) are not stated. Please specify them explicitly, along with the sampling algorithm (e.g., MCMC type), number of samples, and convergence checks. This is important for reproducibility of the reported posterior widths.
  6. [Figures 3 and 5] The posterior panels in Figs. 3(c) and 5(b) lack colormap/contour level definitions and do not indicate whether they are normalized histograms or kernel density estimates. Please clarify the visualization so that the reported MAP values and credible intervals can be interpreted.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central inference is data-driven, but the uncertainty calibration is mildly circular: sigma_noise is fixed to the residual scatter of the same model-data fit, so reported posterior widths partly quantify model mismatch.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Analysis of systematic errors; likelihood model in Eq. (11)]
    "The value of σ_noise used in the Bayesian likelihood was fixed to 0.0018. This value corresponds to the standard deviation of the residuals between the modeled and measured PL signals and reflects the general agreement between the experiment and the model. ... these deviations correspond to amplitude differences of order 10−3 − 10−2 in the PL intensity."

    In the Gaussian likelihood (Eq. 11), σ_noise sets the width of the posterior distributions. Fixing σ_noise to the standard deviation of the residuals between the same analytical model and the same measured PL data makes the reported posterior widths (e.g., b_z = 1.165(2) mT, sub-mrad angles) calibrated by construction to the model-data mismatch rather than to independent measurement uncertainty. The paper itself states that the residuals are dominated by systematic effects 'not captured by the analytical model', so the confidence intervals partly reflect the model's deviation from the data. The MAP estimates themselves are not forced by this choice—scaling σ_noise leaves the maximum a posteriori solution unchanged—so the central orientation/field reconstruction remains data-driven; only th

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The photoluminescence dip positions in Eq. (8) are determined by the resonance conditions in Eqs. (3)-(5), which follow from the NV spin Hamiltonian and tetrahedral geometry, independent of the data being fitted. Bayesian inference then estimates the orientation or field parameters that align these predicted dip locations with the measured PL map; the MAP values are not predetermined by the model inputs. The symmetry degeneracies are derived from the NV point-group structure, not imported from a self-citation. The only significant circular element is the uncertainty calibration: σ_noise is set to the residual standard deviation of the same model-data fit, so posterior widths quantify model mismatch rather than pure measurement noise. This is a genuine but mild circularity because it affects the reported confidence intervals, not the central reconstruction itself. The ODMR cross-check is mentioned only as 'compatible' without quantitative error analysis, which is a validation weakness rather than a circular step. Overall, the central claim has independent content and is not forced by a self-citation chain or by definition; score 2 reflects the partial circularity in uncertainty quantification.

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

The central physics of dip positions is derived from the NV Hamiltonian, giving the paper a solid geometric backbone. The uncharged content is in the PL-intensity model: the lineshape, contrast, and linewidth are ad hoc, and the noise floor is pulled from the same dataset. The symmetry reduction (fundamental domain) is a mathematical convenience, not an added causal entity. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (5)
  • PL contrast C = not stated
    Overall amplitude of the resonance dips in Eq. (8); depends on NV density and detection, never fixed or fitted in the text.
  • Resonance linewidth Γ = not stated
    Width of the line-shape function in Eq. (8); set by strain/hyperfine broadening but not quantified.
  • Line-shape functional form L = not stated
    The paper calls L 'a symmetric lineshape function' but never gives the form (Lorentzian/Gaussian); the likelihood depends on it.
  • Likelihood noise σ_noise = 0.0018
    Set to the standard deviation of residuals between the model and the same experimental data, then used to compute posterior uncertainties.
  • Resonance weights w_i = 1 or 2 (ideal)
    Assumed 1 for single-pair and 2 for double-pair crossings; real NV populations can differ, and no fit or prior for w_i is stated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Cross-relaxation PL dips occur exactly when |B·n_i|=|B·n_j| for i≠j (fluctuator model).
    Assumed from Refs [37,38]; used to derive the nine resonance planes and the entire PL map model.
  • ad hoc to paper The PL signal is 1 minus a sum of independent symmetric lineshapes centered at the resonance conditions (Eq. 8).
    A phenomenological ansatz; the contrast and shape are not derived from the spin dynamics, and strain/hyperfine are assumed only to broaden.
  • domain assumption Measurement noise is independent, identically distributed Gaussian.
    Stated explicitly before Eq. (11); the reported residuals show correlations, but the likelihood ignores them.
  • domain assumption The NV ensemble has uniform orientation distribution and the diamond tetrahedron is described by C3v/Oh symmetry.
    Used to fix weights w_i and to reduce the orientation search space to the fundamental domain.
  • domain assumption The bias field is exactly along the rotation axis and the rotation angle is known with σ_phi≈1°; field is uniform across the sample.
    Stated in experimental uncertainties; the paper notes misalignment distorts features but does not model it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microwave-free vector magnetometry and crystal orientation determination with Nitrogen-Vacancy centers using Bayesian inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I6WG7H2A

@misc{pith2026251213835,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microwave-free vector magnetometry and crystal orientation determination with Nitrogen-Vacancy centers using Bayesian inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I6WG7H2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.13835}
}
read the original abstract

Nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond provide a solid-state platform for quantum sensing. While optically detected magnetic resonance techniques offer high sensitivity, their reliance on microwaves introduces heating and stray electromagnetic fields that can perturb nearby samples. Optical approaches based on cross-relaxation between differently oriented NV centers remove this constraint but have so far required stringent alignment of the external field with crystallographic axes, restricting their practicality. Here we introduce a general framework for microwave-free vector magnetometry at near-zero field that leverages Bayesian inference to extract both the magnetic field vector and the NV orientation directly from photoluminescence maps. An analytical model of cross-relaxation resonances enables efficient inference under arbitrary field and orientation configurations, while naturally incorporating the discrete degeneracies of the NV symmetry. We experimentally demonstrate robust orientation determination and vector-field reconstruction, establishing a general route toward compact and alignment-free NV magnetometers for practical sensing applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.13835 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of a nitrogen-vacancy center in the diamond lattice. (b) Corresponding ground-state energy level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic representation of the restricted orientation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Experimental photoluminescence map as a function of the axial bias field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Simulated photoluminescence maps as a function of the rotation angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Measured PL map as a function of the rotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Experimental PL trace (solid green) and corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kucsko, P

    G. Kucsko, P. C. Maurer, N. Y. Yao, M. Kubo, H. J. Noh, P. K. Lo, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Nature500, 54 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    Dolde, H

    F. Dolde, H. Fedder, M. W. Doherty, T. N¨ obauer, F. Rempp, G. Balasubramanian, T. Wolf, F. Reinhard, L. C. L. Hollenberg, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Physics7, 459 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    Defects and Defect Engineering in Soft Matter

    is the angle between the [111] direc- tion and the Cartesianzaxis. The resulting restricted portion of orientation space is illustrated in Fig. 2. The solid and dashed lines represent the directions of two inversion-related tetrahedra (ni and−n i) corresponding to the four crystallographic NV axes. Within the ex- plored domain, one direction from the soli...

    2023

  4. [4]

    H. P. Paudel, G. R. Lander, S. E. Crawford, and Y. Duan, Nanomaterials14, 10.3390/nano14080675 (2024)

    work page doi:10.3390/nano14080675 2024

  5. [5]

    J. R. Maze, P. L. Stanwix, J. S. Hodges, S. Hong, J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Jiang, M. V. G. Dutt, E. Togan, A. S. Zibrov, A. Yacoby, R. L. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, Nature455, 644 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. R. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, Nature Physics4, 810 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    Dumeige, M

    Y. Dumeige, M. Chipaux, V. Jacques, F. Treussart, J.- F. Roch, T. Debuisschert, V. M. Acosta, A. Jarmola, K. Jensen, P. Kehayias, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. B 87, 155202 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    T. Wolf, P. Neumann, K. Nakamura, H. Sumiya, T. Ohshima, J. Isoya, and J. Wrachtrup, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041001 (2015)

    2015

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Chatzidrosos, A

    G. Chatzidrosos, A. Wickenbrock, L. Bougas, N. Leefer, T. Wu, K. Jensen, Y. Dumeige, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. Appl.8, 044019 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Y. Xie, H. Yu, Y. Zhu, X. Qin, X. Rong, C.-K. Duan, and J. Du, Science Bulletin66, 127 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Le Sage, K

    D. Le Sage, K. Arai, D. R. Glenn, S. J. DeVience, L. M. Pham, L. Rahn-Lee, M. D. Lukin, A. Yacoby, A. Komeili, and R. L. Walsworth, Nature496, 486 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    D. R. Glenn, K. Lee, H. Park, R. Weissleder, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, H. Lee, R. L. Walsworth, and C. B. Con- nolly, Nature Methods12, 736 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Steinert, F

    S. Steinert, F. Dolde, P. Neumann, A. Aird, B. Naydenov, G. Balasubramanian, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Review of Scientific Instruments81, 043705 (2010), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.3385689/14835307/043705 1 online.pdf

    2010 doi

  6. [14]

    L. M. Pham, D. Le Sage, P. L. Stanwix, T. K. Yeung, D. Glenn, A. Trifonov, P. Cappellaro, P. R. Hemmer, M. D. Lukin, H. Park, A. Yacoby, and R. L. Walsworth, New Journal of Physics13, 045021 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Balasubramanian, I

    G. Balasubramanian, I. Y. Chan, R. Kolesov, M. Al- Hmoud, J. Tisler, C. Shin, C. Kim, A. Wojcik, P. R. Hem- mer, A. Krueger, T. Hanke, A. Leitenstorfer, R. Brats- chitsch, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature455, 648 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Tetienne, T

    J.-P. Tetienne, T. Hingant, J.-V. Kim, L. H. Diez, J.-P. Adam, K. Garcia, J.-F. Roch, S. Rohart, A. Thiaville, D. Ravelosona, and V. Jacques, Science344, 1366 (2014), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1250113. 11

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    D. A. Simpson, J.-P. Tetienne, J. M. McCoey, K. Gane- san, L. T. Hall, S. Petrou, R. E. Scholten, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Scientific Reports6, 22797 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Holzgrafe, Q

    J. Holzgrafe, Q. Gu, J. Beitner, D. M. Kara, H. S. Knowles, and M. Atat¨ ure, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 044004 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Rondin, J.-P

    L. Rondin, J.-P. Tetienne, T. Hingant, J.-F. Roch, P. Maletinsky, and V. Jacques, Reports on Progress in Physics77(2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    P. Wang, Z. Yuan, P. Huang, X. Rong, M. Wang, X. Xu, C. Duan, C. Ju, F. Shi, and J. Du, Nature Communica- tions6, 6631 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    J. M. Schloss, J. F. Barry, M. J. Turner, and R. L. Walsworth, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 034044 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Zhang, H

    C. Zhang, H. Yuan, N. Zhang, L. Xu, J. Zhang, B. Li, and J. Fang, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics51, 155102 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Weggler, C

    T. Weggler, C. Ganslmayer, F. Frank, T. Eilert, F. Jelezko, and J. Michaelis, Nano Letters20, 2980–2985 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Chatzidrosos, J

    G. Chatzidrosos, J. S. Rebeirro, H. Zheng, M. Omar, A. Brenneis, F. M. St¨ urner, T. Fuchs, T. Buck, R. R¨ olver, T. Schneemann, P. Bl¨ umler, D. Budker, and A. Wick- enbrock, Frontiers in PhotonicsV olume 2 - 2021, 10.3389/fphot.2021.732748 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Wunderlich, R

    R. Wunderlich, R. Staacke, W. Knolle, B. Abel, and J. Meijer, Journal of Applied Physics130, 124901 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Wickenbrock, H

    A. Wickenbrock, H. Zheng, L. Bougas, N. Leefer, S. Afach, A. Jarmola, V. M. Acosta, and D. Budker, Applied Physics Letters109, 053505 (2016), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4960171/14087191/053505 1 online.pdf

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Zheng, Z

    H. Zheng, Z. Sun, G. Chatzidrosos, C. Zhang, K. Naka- mura, H. Sumiya, T. Ohshima, J. Isoya, J. Wrachtrup, A. Wickenbrock, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 044023 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Horsthemke, J

    L. Horsthemke, J. Pogorzelski, D. Stiegek¨ otter, F. Hoffmann, L. Langguth, R. Staacke, C. Laube, W. Knolle, M. Gregor, and P. Gl¨ osek¨ otter, Sensors24, 10.3390/s24072093 (2024)

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Horsthemke, J

    L. Horsthemke, J. Pogorzelski, D. Stiegek¨ otter, F. Hoff- mann, A.-S. B¨ ulter, S. Trinschek, M. Gregor, and P. Gl¨ osek¨ otter, Engineering Proceedings68, 10.3390/en- gproc2024068008 (2024)

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Chen, W.-H

    G.-B. Chen, W.-H. He, M.-M. Dong, Y. Zhao, and G.-X. Du, IEEE Sensors Journal20, 2440 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Fukushige, H

    K. Fukushige, H. Kawaguchi, K. Shimazaki, T. Tashima, H. Takashima, and S. Takeuchi, Applied Physics Letters 116, 264002 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Igarashi, T

    R. Igarashi, T. Sugi, S. Sotoma, T. Genjo, Y. Kumiya, E. Walinda, H. Ueno, K. Ikeda, H. Sumiya, H. Tochio, Y. Yoshinari, Y. Harada, and M. Shirakawa, Journal of the American Chemical Society142, 7542 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Y. Wang, H. Shen, Z. Liu, Y. Yu, S. Du, C. Zu, and C. Zhang, Simultaneous determination of local magnetic fields and sensor orientation with nitrogen-vacancy cen- ters in nanodiamond (2025), arXiv:2507.05366 [quant- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Z. Sun, X. Zhang, Y. Li, P. Li, Z. Li, and L. Li, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement74, 1 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    T. P. M. Alegre, C. Santori, G. Medeiros-Ribeiro, and R. G. Beausoleil, Phys. Rev. B76, 165205 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    P. R. Dolan, X. Li, J. Storteboom, and M. Gu, Opt. Express22, 4379 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    B. Chen, X. Hou, F. Ge, X. Zhang, Y. Ji, H. Li, P. Qian, Y. Wang, N. Xu, and J. Du, Nano Letters20, 8267 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    J. Choi, S. Choi, G. Kucsko, P. C. Maurer, B. J. Shields, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, E. Demler, F. Jelezko, N. Y. Yao, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 093601 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Pellet-Mary, M

    C. Pellet-Mary, M. Perdriat, P. Huillery, and G. H´ etet, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 034050 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Dhungel, T

    O. Dhungel, T. Lenz, M. Omar, J. S. Rebeirro, M.-T. Luu, A. T. Younesi, R. Ulbricht, V. Iv´ ady, A. Gali, A. Wickenbrock, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. B109, 224107 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Akhmedzhanov, L

    R. Akhmedzhanov, L. Gushchin, N. Nizov, V. Nizov, D. Sobgayda, I. Zelensky, and P. Hemmer, Phys. Rev. A100, 043844 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Akhmedzhanov, L

    R. Akhmedzhanov, L. Gushchin, N. Nizov, V. Nizov, D. Sobgayda, I. Zelensky, and P. Hemmer, Phys. Rev. A96, 013806 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. Hollenberg, Physics Reports 528, 1 (2013), the nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in dia- mond

    2013

  36. [44]

    van de Schoot, S

    R. van de Schoot, S. Depaoli, R. King, B. Kramer, K. M¨ artens, M. G. Tadesse, M. Vannucci, A. Gelman, D. Veen, J. Willemsen, and C. Yau, Nature Reviews Methods Primers1, 1 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Rodzo´ n, X

    I. Rodzo´ n, X. Zhang, V. Iv´ ady, H. Zheng, A. Wicken- brock, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. B111, 094112 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. T´ amara-Isaza, Z. Yin, J. Cremer, J. W. Blanchard, C. A. Hart, M. Crescimanno, P. V. Petruzzi, M. J. Turner, and R. L. Walsworth, All-optical photo- luminescence spectra of nitrogen-vacancy ensembles in diamond at low magnetic fields (2025), arXiv:2502.11943 [quant-ph]

    2025

  39. [47]

    Pellet-Mary, P

    C. Pellet-Mary, P. Huillery, M. Perdriat, A. Tallaire, and G. H´ etet, Phys. Rev. B103, L100411 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.