Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 46 references

A spin-3/2 silicon-vacancy qudit produces a deterministic six-line Ramsey spectrum, with every line traced to a pair of spin sublevels.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 08:49 UTC pith:W72RX7C7

load-bearing objection The six-branch frequency map is real and parameter-free; the amplitude-side claims ('quantify crosstalk', 'compact amplitudes') are not supported by the paper's own Appendix B and need fixing before publication. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.15559 v3 pith:W72RX7C7 submitted 2026-01-22 quant-ph

Spectator-transition crosstalk in a spin-3/2 silicon vacancy qudit in silicon carbide revealed by broadband Ramsey interferometry

Jun-Jae Choi , Seung-Jae Hwang , Seoyoung Paik , Juhwan Kim , Jawad Ul-Hassan , Nguyen Tien Son , Hiroshi Abe , Takeshi Ohshima
show 4 more authors
Jaekwon Suk Hyeon-Ho Jeong Dong-Hee Kim Sang-Yun Lee
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords spin-3/2 quditsilicon vacancy4H-SiCRamsey interferometryspectator transitionscrosstalkqudit controlNyquist folding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that broadband Ramsey interferometry on the S=3/2 ground state of the silicon vacancy in 4H-SiC does not simply measure one detuned transition: short microwave pulses seed coherences in all pairwise sublevel transitions, so the observed Fourier spectrum has a fixed six-branch structure. Each branch frequency is a pairwise energy difference of the rotating-frame Hamiltonian, and after Nyquist folding the measured peak positions match the analytic branches without any fitted frequencies. The authors show numerically and experimentally that this crosstalk is intrinsic, not a minor imperfection. Understanding the structure matters because it turns spectator-transition crosstalk from an uncontrolled error into a predictable, tunable resource for qudit control, calibration, and state estimation.

Core claim

Claim: the Ramsey response of the V1 spin-3/2 manifold is a weighted sum of six cosines, one per sublevel pair, at {δ, δ+2D, δ+4D, 2δ+2D, 2δ+6D, 3δ+6D}. The free-evolution Hamiltonian is diagonal, so each pairwise energy difference gives one branch; broadband pulses populate all pair coherences, and the second pulse projects them into the O2 readout. Branches above Nyquist fold back, and measured peaks track the folded lines with no fitted frequencies. Branch weights come from the initial state and pulse parameters, but the analytic weight formula uses a hard-pulse approximation the paper shows is unreliable here.

What carries the argument

The central object is the rotating-frame Hamiltonian H_rot = (ω0−ω)S_z + D S_z^2 + ω1 S_x. During free precession it is diagonal, and its four eigenvalues give six pairwise splittings Ω_mn, the deterministic branch set. The Ramsey signal decomposes into cosines at those Ω_mn with amplitudes X_mn fixed by the initial state and the two π/2 pulse unitaries. The mechanism: the first pulse creates coherences in all sublevel pairs, free evolution accumulates phases at the pairwise splittings, and the second pulse transfers those phases into the O2 population. Nyquist folding of the branches under the experimental sampling interval explains the apparent line reflections.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative branch weights rely on the hard-pulse approximation, which assumes the microwave pulse is so short that the spin's internal energy splittings can be neglected while the pulse is on; the paper itself shows this approximation forces a branch that is actually strong to vanish, so the weight prediction is not trusted in the experimental regime.

What would settle it

Measure a Ramsey spectrum at a detuning where the predicted folded six-branch positions cross: if peaks do not appear at the folded linear branches, or if the (−1/2,+1/2) branch at δ+2D is absent despite numerical propagation predicting it strong, the frequency mapping fails. Repeating with a different sampling interval changes the Nyquist folds; the unfolded branch frequencies must remain the same linear functions of δ.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Measured Ramsey peak positions in the V1 center can be predicted from known level spacings and detuning alone, with no fitted frequencies.
  • Crosstalk among spectator transitions is intrinsic to short-pulse control of the spin-3/2 manifold, not a measurement artifact.
  • Branch amplitudes are adjustable through initialization and pulse parameters (detuning, Rabi amplitude, pulse length), so crosstalk can be suppressed or deliberately enhanced.
  • The six-branch mapping generalizes: for any spin manifold, Ramsey frequency content is determined by sublevel energy differences, so the same analysis predicts which spectral components appear and how they fold under finite sampling.
  • Spectator lines can serve as additional constraints for in-situ pulse calibration and for phase-sensitive quantum state and process estimation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the six-branch structure is deterministic, a single Ramsey trace contains six independent phase measurements; one could invert them to estimate level spacings and detuning self-consistently, turning crosstalk into a built-in calibration signal.
  • The same pairwise-coherence picture should apply to Hahn-echo and dynamical-decoupling sequences, where spectator paths could cause envelope modulations that mimic decoherence; coherence measurements in S=3/2 qudits may hide multi-line structure.
  • In centers with larger zero-field splitting, such as the V2 silicon vacancy, the branches will be more widely separated; a natural test is whether the analytic slopes and intercepts reproduce the Ramsey spectra there.
  • Because the hard-pulse weight formula demonstrably fails, a corrected amplitude theory that includes the internal Hamiltonian during the pulse would likely yield quantitative branch weights; the experimental branch intensities provide a test set for such a theory.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports broadband Ramsey interferometry on the V1 silicon-vacancy center in 4H-SiC, whose S=3/2 ground state forms a natural qudit. The authors observe multiple Fourier components in the Ramsey signal beyond the addressed single-quantum transition and attribute them to spectator-transition crosstalk. They derive an analytic frequency map for the rotating-frame Hamiltonian, showing that all pairwise coherences among the four spin sublevels produce six detuning-dependent branches {δ, δ+2D, δ+4D, 2δ+2D, 2δ+6D, 3δ+6D} (Eq. 5, Table 1). Numerical time-domain propagation using the experimental sampling reproduces the detuning map, including Nyquist folding, and the measured FFT peaks are reported to coincide with the analytic branch positions without frequency fitting. The paper also presents an analytic weight assignment for the branches under a hard-pulse approximation (Appendix B), which the authors themselves note fails for one branch in the experimental regime.

Significance. If the central frequency map is correct, the paper provides a simple, parameter-free diagnostic for multilevel Ramsey spectra in S=3/2 spin systems: the six observed lines are fully determined by the Zeeman detuning and the zero-field splitting, with no fitted peak positions. This is a useful contribution for qudit control in silicon-vacancy centers and for crosstalk-aware pulse engineering. The numerical simulations appear carefully matched to the experimental sampling conditions, and the transparent comparison of analytic ticks, simulation, and data is a strength. However, the quantitative amplitude predictions, which the abstract and conclusions advertise, rest on an approximation that the manuscript itself demonstrates to be invalid in the measured regime. The frequency map is likely sound, but the quantitative crosstalk claims need to be repaired or substantially moderated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B5)–(B13); Abstract; Section IV] The analytic weight calculation uses the hard-pulse approximation, which neglects the zero-field splitting during the pulse. The authors show that this forces the coefficient X_{(-1/2,+1/2)} for branch ② to zero (Appendix B), while their own numerical propagation (Figs. 2 and 4a) and the experiment (Fig. 1f) show this branch can be among the strongest. Since ω1/2π = 3.125 MHz is not asymptotically larger than D_gs/2π ≈ 2.25 MHz or δ/2π ≈ 4 MHz, the approximation is invalid in the measured regime. The paper acknowledges this in a closing sentence of Appendix B but does not temper the abstract ("quantify such spectator-transition crosstalk", "assign its weight via compact amplitudes") or the conclusions ("branch weights can be tuned through initialization and pulse parameters"). As written, the quantitative amplitude predictions are unsupported. The authors must either provide a corrected
  2. [Section III.D and Fig. 4; Section III.A (Fig. 1f)] The claim of "six observed branches" and "measured peak positions coincide with the analytic branch lines" is not quantitatively secure for all six branches. Two of the experimental features (near 1 MHz and 1.5 MHz in Fig. 1f) are described as having "marginal SNR", and no peak-position uncertainties, signal-to-noise thresholds, or extraction criteria are provided. The simulations and analytic ticks are convincing, but the experimental evidence for branches ② and ⑥ is weaker than the text implies. Please add a quantitative peak analysis (e.g., fitted centroids with uncertainties and a detection threshold) or explicitly label these branches as tentative in the experimental data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (4) and (B12)] The argument of the cosine is written as Ω_mn ω; it should be Ω_mn τ (free-precession time). Also, Ω_mn is defined as an angular frequency in the text, but the figures and captions use Ω_mn/2π; please make the unit convention consistent.
  2. [Section II.B; Appendix A2; Appendix A3] The Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) is written with D_gs S_z^2 and states that the constant −5D_gs/4 is omitted, but the matrix in Eq. (A2) and the eigenvalues in Eq. (A4) correspond to D_gs(S_z^2 − 5/4). This is a global shift and does not affect the pairwise frequency differences, but the equations should be internally consistent.
  3. [Fig. 2 and Section III.B] The numerical branch map in Fig. 2 uses ω1/2π = 5 MHz, while the experimental value is 3.125 MHz. This is acknowledged in the text, but because Fig. 2 is used to define the branch labels ①–⑥ for the experimental comparison, the mismatch may confuse readers. Consider adding a panel at the experimental drive amplitude or clearly marking the difference in the caption.
  4. [Table 1 and Fig. 2 caption] The branches are described as ordered by increasing frequency at small |δ|, but at δ=0 the analytic frequencies are degenerate in pairs (② and ③, ⑤ and ⑥). Please specify the ordering convention used (e.g., δ>0 and the analytic slopes) to make the labeling unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the six-branch Ramsey spectrum is a parameter-free consequence of independently calibrated Hamiltonian parameters, benchmarked against external experimental data.

full rationale

The central derivation (Sec. III.C and Appendix A/B) obtains the six Ramsey frequencies {δ, δ+2D, δ+4D, 2δ+2D, 2δ+6D, 3δ+6D} as pairwise differences of the free-evolution eigenvalues of the rotating-frame Hamiltonian (Eq. 2). The two model inputs, D_gs and δ, are calibrated independently: D_gs from the measured ODMR spectrum (Fig. 1c) and δ from the programmed MW detuning. Neither quantity is fitted to the Ramsey FFT peak positions. The paper states that 'the measured peak positions coincide with the analytic branch lines without frequency fitting,' and the only free parameter in the experimental comparison is an overall vertical scale. This is a genuine prediction against independent data, not a fit renamed as a prediction. The numerical simulations use the same Hamiltonian, but they are compared with experimental spectra and are not used to define the analytic branches. The Appendix B hard-pulse amplitude calculation (Eqs. B5–B13) has a known limitation that the paper itself flags: 'this approximation also introduces an unavoidable inconsistency in the weights X_mn' and 'Eqs. (B5)–(B13) should be interpreted as a constructive demonstration of the six-frequency cosine decomposition in Eq. (B12), not as a quantitatively accurate prediction of all branch weights under experimental conditions.' That is a soundness caveat about quantitative amplitudes, not a circular step; the six frequencies do not depend on the hard-pulse approximation. The self-citations [33,38] are used for initialization/alignment conventions and for the general ISC level scheme, but they are not load-bearing for the six-branch frequency map, and the relevant calibrations are performed in this work. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore no circularity is found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central frequency derivation uses no fitted parameters: the branch set is the six pairwise differences of the stated rotating-frame Hamiltonian. The main unstated support comes from the rotating-wave approximation, the minimal spin Hamiltonian, and the hard-pulse approximation used for weights; the last is admitted by the authors to be invalid in the experimental regime. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Overall vertical scale for comparing simulated and experimental FFT amplitudes = not specified
    The text states that 'no additional parameter is introduced other than an overall vertical scale' when overlaying experimental and simulated spectra in Fig. 4, so at least one amplitude scale factor is fitted for display.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation and rotating-frame transformation in Eq. (2) accurately describe the driven spin dynamics.
    Used to derive H_rot and the branch frequencies; standard for near-resonant MW driving but neglects counter-rotating terms and possible Bloch–Siegert shifts.
  • domain assumption The ground-state spin Hamiltonian contains only Zeeman, axial zero-field splitting, and the MW drive (Eq. 1).
    Required for the simple linear branch formulas; strain, hyperfine coupling, electric-field noise, and other level shifts are neglected and would alter the predicted frequencies.
  • ad hoc to paper Hard-pulse approximation for the analytical weights (Eqs. B5–B13).
    Assumes the π/2 pulses are short enough that internal Hamiltonian terms can be neglected. The authors admit in Appendix B that this yields X23=0 while the full numerical/experimental result shows the branch can be strongest, so the assumption is invalid in the experimental regime.
  • domain assumption Optical initialization produces the stated ±1/2 mixture and readout projects onto O2 = |±3/2⟩⟨±3/2|, with no coherent effect of intersystem crossing during the Ramsey sequence.
    Used in numerics and the analytic signal expression; imperfect initialization or readout would alter branch amplitudes but not the frequency set.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20707 in / 13242 out tokens · 146411 ms · 2026-08-03T08:49:06.161042+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Color center spins in 4H-SiC offer a rare combination of wafer-scale materials maturity with long spin coherence and chip-level photonics, making them promising building blocks for scalable quantum technologies. In particular, the silicon vacancy hosts an S=3/2 ground state, a native qudit that enables compact encodings and subspace-selective control, but also introduces spectator transitions: short, detuned pulses can coherently drive non-addressed level pairs and create crosstalk. Here we use broadband Ramsey interferometry to reveal and quantify such spectator-transition crosstalk. Experimentally, the Ramsey Fourier spectra display multiple lines beyond the addressed single-quantum transition. Analytically, we map each line to a pairwise energy difference between qudit levels of the rotating-frame Hamiltonian and assign its weight via compact amplitudes set by the prepared state and the microwave pulse parameters, predicting a deterministic six-branch structure. Numerical time-domain propagation with the experimental sampling reproduces the detuning map, and the measured peak positions coincide with the analytic branch lines without frequency fitting. Together these results provide a practical, spectator-aware framework for multilevel control in the silicon vacancy qudit. The approach offers clear guidance to suppress crosstalk or, conversely, to exploit spectator lines, for example as additional constraints for in situ pulse calibration and for phase-sensitive quantum state and process estimation.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. Z. Fang et al., Experimental Generation of Spin-Photon Entanglement in Silicon Carbide, Physical Review Letters 132 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Babin et al., Fabrication and nanophotonic waveguide integration of silicon carbide colour centres with preserved spin-optical coherence, Nature Materials 21, 67 (2022)

    C. Babin et al., Fabrication and nanophotonic waveguide integration of silicon carbide colour centres with preserved spin-optical coherence, Nature Materials 21, 67 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Steidl et al., Single V2 defect in 4H silicon carbide Schottky diode at low temperature, Nature Communications 16 (2025)

    T. Steidl et al., Single V2 defect in 4H silicon carbide Schottky diode at low temperature, Nature Communications 16 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    C. P. Anderson et al., Electrical and optical control of single spins integrated in scalable semiconductor devices, Science 366, 1225 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    B. P. Cyrus Zeledon, Jonathan C. Marcks, Mykyta Onizhuk, Yeghishe Tsaturyan, Yu-xin Wang, Benjamin S. Soloway, Hiroshi Abe, Misagh Ghezellou, Jawad Ul-Hassan, Takeshi Ohshima, Nguyen T. Son, F. Joseph Heremans, Giulia Galli, Christopher P. Anderson, David D. Awschalom, Minute-long quantum coherence enabled by electrical depletion of magnetic noise, arXiv:...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    D. M. Lukin et al., 4H-silicon-carbide-on-insulator for integrated quantum and nonlinear photonics, Nat Photonics 14, 330 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Nagy et al., Quantum Properties of Dichroic Silicon Vacancies in Silicon Carbide, Phys Rev Appl 9 (2018)

    R. Nagy et al., Quantum Properties of Dichroic Silicon Vacancies in Silicon Carbide, Phys Rev Appl 9 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    H. B. Banks, Ö. O. Soykal, R. L. Myers-Ward, D. K. Gaskill, T. L. Reinecke, and S. G. Carter, Resonant Optical Spin Initialization and Readout of Single Silicon Vacancies in 4H-SiC, Phys Rev Appl 11 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    Niethammer, M

    M. Niethammer, M. Widmann, S. Y. Lee, P. Stenberg, O. Kordina, T. Ohshima, T. Son, E. Janzén, and J. Wrachtrup, Vector Magnetometry Using Silicon Vacancies in 4H-SiC Under Ambient Conditions, Phys Rev Appl 6 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    Sörman, N

    E. Sörman, N. T. Son, W. M. Chen, O. Kordina, C. Hallin, and E. Janzén, Silicon vacancy related defect in 4H and 6H SiC, Phys Rev B 61, 2613 (2000)

    2000

  11. [11]

    Udvarhelyi et al., Vibronic States and Their Effect on the Temperature and Strain Dependence of Silicon-Vacancy Qubits in 4H-SiC, Phys Rev Appl 13 (2020)

    P. Udvarhelyi et al., Vibronic States and Their Effect on the Temperature and Strain Dependence of Silicon-Vacancy Qubits in 4H-SiC, Phys Rev Appl 13 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Nagy et al., High-fidelity spin and optical control of single silicon-vacancy centres in silicon carbide, Nature Communications 10, 1954 (2019)

    R. Nagy et al., High-fidelity spin and optical control of single silicon-vacancy centres in silicon carbide, Nature Communications 10, 1954 (2019)

    1954

  13. [13]

    Widmann et al., Coherent control of single spins in silicon carbide at room temperature, Nature Materials 14, 164 (2015)

    M. Widmann et al., Coherent control of single spins in silicon carbide at room temperature, Nature Materials 14, 164 (2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    Hesselmeier et al., Qudit-Based Spectroscopy for Measurement and Control of Nuclear-Spin Qubits in Silicon Carbide, Physical Review Letters 132 (2024)

    E. Hesselmeier et al., Qudit-Based Spectroscopy for Measurement and Control of Nuclear-Spin Qubits in Silicon Carbide, Physical Review Letters 132 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    P. J. Low, B. White, and C. Senko, Control and readout of a 13-level trapped ion qudit, Npj Quantum Information 11 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    P. Hrmo, B. Wilhelm, L. Gerster, M. W. van Mourik, M. Huber, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, T. Monz, and M. Ringbauer, Native qudit entanglement in a trapped ion quantum processor, Nature Communications 14 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    T. C. Ralph, K. J. Resch, and A. Gilchrist, Efficient Toffoli gates using qudits, Phys Rev A 75 (2007)

    2007

  18. [18]

    B. L. Brock, S. Singh, A. Eickbusch, V. V. Sivak, A. Z. Ding, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and M. H. Devoret, Quantum error correction of qudits beyond break-even, Nature 641 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    N. V. V. Branislav Ilikj, Ramsey Interferometry with Qudits, arXiv:2509.06290 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Malinowski et al., Generation of a Maximally Entangled State Using Collective Optical Pumping, Physical Review Letters 128 (2022)

    M. Malinowski et al., Generation of a Maximally Entangled State Using Collective Optical Pumping, Physical Review Letters 128 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Motzoi, J

    F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. Wilhelm, Simple Pulses for Elimination of Leakage in Weakly Nonlinear Qubits, Physical Review Letters 103, 110501 (2009)

    2009

  22. [22]

    Sarovar, T

    M. Sarovar, T. Proctor, K. Rudinger, K. Young, E. Nielsen, and R. Blume-Kohout, Detecting crosstalk errors in quantum information processors, Quantum 4 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    M. J. Peterer et al., Coherence and Decay of Higher Energy Levels of a Superconducting Transmon Qubit, Physical Review Letters 114 (2015)

    2015

  24. [24]

    I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Quantum simulation, Rev Mod Phys 86, 153 (2014)

    2014

  25. [25]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Molmer, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms, Rev Mod Phys 82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond, Phys Rep 528, 1 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Chen et al., Measuring and Suppressing Quantum State Leakage in a Superconducting Qubit, Physical Review Letters 116, 020501 (2016)

    Z. Chen et al., Measuring and Suppressing Quantum State Leakage in a Superconducting Qubit, Physical Review Letters 116, 020501 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    S. T. Merkel, J. M. Gambetta, J. A. Smolin, S. Poletto, A. D. Córcoles, B. R. Johnson, C. A. Ryan, and M. Steffen, Self-consistent quantum process tomography, Phys Rev A 87 (2013)

    2013

  29. [29]

    G. D. Fuchs, A. L. Falk, V. V. Dobrovitski, and D. D. Awschalom, Spin Coherence during Optical Excitation of a Single Nitrogen-Vacancy Center in Diamond, Physical Review Letters 108 (2012)

    2012

  30. [30]

    B. Chen, J. P. Geng, F. F. Zhou, L. L. Song, H. Shen, and N. Y. Xu, Quantum state tomography of a single electron spin in diamond with Wigner function reconstruction, Appl Phys Lett 114 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    L. G. Lutterbach and L. Davidovich, Method for direct measurement of the Wigner function in cavity QED and ion traps, Physical Review Letters 78, 2547 (1997)

    1997

  32. [32]

    Deléglise, I

    S. Deléglise, I. Dotsenko, C. Sayrin, J. Bernu, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Reconstruction of non-classical cavity field states with snapshots of their decoherence, Nature 455, 510 (2008)

    2008

  33. [33]

    S. Y. Lee, M. Niethammer, and J. Wrachtrup, Vector magnetometry based on S=3/2 electronic spins, Phys Rev B 92 (2015)

    2015

  34. [34]

    M. H. Levitt, Spin dynamics : basics of nuclear magnetic resonance (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ, 2008), 2nd edn

    2008

  35. [35]

    C. P. Slichter, Principles of magnetic resonance (Springer-Verlag, Berlin ; New York, 1992), 3rd enl. and updated edn., Springer series in solid-state sciences, 1

    1992

  36. [36]

    N. F. Ramsey, A Molecular Beam Resonance Method with Separated Oscillating Fields, Physical Review 78, 695 (1950)

    1950

  37. [37]

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

    2017

  38. [38]

    J. Park, S. Paik, S. J. Hwang, D. Liu, Ö. O. Soykal, J. Wrachtrup, and S. Y. Lee, Mechanism for selective initialization of silicon-vacancy spin qubits with S=3/2 in silicon carbide, Phys Rev Appl 21 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Morioka et al., Spin-Optical Dynamics and Quantum Efficiency of a Single V1 Center in Silicon Carbide, Physical Review Applied 17 (2022)

    N. Morioka et al., Spin-Optical Dynamics and Quantum Efficiency of a Single V1 Center in Silicon Carbide, Physical Review Applied 17 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    Liu et al., The silicon vacancy centers in SiC: determination of intrinsic spin dynamics for integrated quantum photonics, Npj Quantum Information 10 (2024)

    D. Liu et al., The silicon vacancy centers in SiC: determination of intrinsic spin dynamics for integrated quantum photonics, Npj Quantum Information 10 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Udvarhelyi, R

    P. Udvarhelyi, R. Nagy, F. Kaiser, S. Y. Lee, J. Wrachtrup, and A. Gali, Spectrally Stable Defect Qubits with no Inversion Symmetry for Robust Spin-To-Photon Interface, Phys Rev Appl 11 (2019)

    2019

  42. [42]

    W. Z. Dong, M. W. Doherty, and S. E. Economou, Spin polarization through intersystem crossing in the silicon vacancy of silicon carbide, Phys Rev B 99 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    Bengs and M

    C. Bengs and M. H. Levitt, SpinDynamica: Symbolic and numerical magnetic resonance in a Mathematica environment, Magnetic Resonance in Chemistry 56, 374 (2018)

    2018

  44. [44]

    C. E. Shannon, Communication in the presence of noise (Reprinted from the Proceedings of the IRE, vol 37, pg 10-21, 1949), P Ieee 86, 447 (1998)

    1949

  45. [45]

    Unser, Sampling - 50 years after Shannon, P Ieee 88, 569 (2000)

    M. Unser, Sampling - 50 years after Shannon, P Ieee 88, 569 (2000)

    2000

  46. [46]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, 2020)

    2020