Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 68 references

Probing nonlocal superconducting fluctuations with covariance noise magnetometry

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read NV noise magnetometry can read the nonlocal range, dynamics, and nonequilibrium breakdown of superconducting pair fluctuations.

desk verdict Careful TDGL-to-NV theory with a real exact driven-noise result; the bias normalization has a factor-of-two slip that needs fixing before the numbers travel. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24906 v1 pith:WNCP3JPO submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.supr-con quant-ph

Gustav Romare , Ilya Esterlis , Shimon Kolkowitz , Alex Levchenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-conquant-ph
keywords superconductingfluctuationsparaconductivitytime-dependentGinzburg-LandauNVmagnetometrycovariancenoisefluctuation-dissipationtheoremnonequilibriumBSCCO
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

Near a superconducting transition, Cooper-pair fluctuations leave fingerprints in the full wave-vector and frequency dependent conductivity, not just in ordinary dc resistance. This paper works out those nonlocal fluctuation corrections in time-dependent Ginzburg–Landau theory and translates them into magnetic noise that nitrogen-vacancy sensors can detect above a thin film. A single sensor’s relaxation rate tracks the critical enhancement of the noise and is cut off by sample–sensor distance and by probe frequency, so frequency-resolved relaxometry can measure critical slowing down. Two sensors read the two-point field correlator, whose spatial range directly reports the fluctuation correlation length. Under a dc bias the current noise is solved exactly: it decouples from the nonlinear paraconductivity, violates the fluctuation–dissipation theorem by universal factors at criticality, and becomes spatially anisotropic in a way covariance magnetometry can see. The theory is tied to recent NV noise measurements on BSCCO films.

What carries the argument

The nonlocal transverse conductivity kernel from TDGL (closed-form scaling functions F_T and F_L, including finite frequency), inserted into the Biot–Savart magnetic noise integral; for drive, the exact Gaussian current-noise quadrature at all wave vectors and all dc field strengths, which produces universal FDT-violation ratios and bias anisotropy.

What would settle it

Place two NV sensors above a biased fluctuating film and compare covariances parallel versus perpendicular to the current at fields of order the nonlinear threshold E0: a tens-of-percent anisotropy together with noise-to-conductivity ratios saturating near the predicted critical values (~1.83 parallel, ~1.18 transverse), while the normal fluid stays Ohmic, would confirm the nonequilibrium claim; absence of that contrast or of the distance/frequency cutoffs in 1/T1 would falsify the quantitative TDGL mapping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within Gaussian time-dependent Ginzburg–Landau theory, the nonlocal Aslamazov–Larkin conductivity determines NV magnetic noise above a fluctuating film: single-sensor 1/T1 is cut off by distance and frequency scales set by ξ(T) and τ_GL, while two-sensor covariance develops a range that measures ξ(T). The same framework yields an exact all-orders solution for nonequilibrium current noise under dc bias, in which the noise violates the fluctuation–dissipation theorem by universal critical ratios and acquires a bias-induced spatial anisotropy measurable by covariance magnetometry.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation treats pair fluctuations as non-interacting Gaussian modes, even though the motivating thin-film experiments show a much broader and larger noise peak than that Gaussian picture alone can produce near the transition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Frequency-tuned single-NV relaxometry can extract the order-parameter relaxation time τ_GL(ϵ) without dc transport.
  • Covariance versus sensor separation can measure ξ(T) and discriminate mean-field, BKT, or 3D-XY growth of correlations.
  • Spin-channel (Maki–Thompson) covariance decays on the dephasing length and can be separated from orbital noise by temperature dependence of range.
  • Edge stray fields from fluctuation diamagnetism in applied field are large enough for NV dc magnetometry well above Tc and can map local ξ and Tc disorder.
  • Combined NV noise and σ(E) on one device can test universal FDT violation in the pair-fluctuation channel at modest pulsed bias near Tc.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If covariance really tracks ξ(T) model-independently, the same two-sensor protocol becomes a practical thermometer of which fluctuation regime (Gaussian versus vortex/BKT) dominates a given cuprate or van der Waals film.
  • The parametric collapse of E0∝ϵ^{3/2} suggests a clean experimental window where pair fluctuations are driven nonlinear while quasiparticles remain linear—useful beyond NV work for any local noise probe of driven superconductors.
  • Extending the same Biot–Savart plus TDGL pipeline below Tc to amplitude, phase, and collective-mode noise is the natural next map for covariance magnetometry.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper computes the nonlocal Aslamazov–Larkin paraconductivity σ_ij(q,ω) of a 2D superconducting film within Gaussian TDGL and works out its consequences for NV-based noise magnetometry: single-sensor 1/T1 (with distance and frequency cutoffs of the critical enhancement), two-sensor covariance magnetometry (whose range measures ξ(T)), the Maki–Thompson spin channel and its covariance, fluctuation diamagnetism (no new zero-field noise channel; measurable edge fields in applied field), and — most originally — an exact all-orders solution for the nonequilibrium current noise under dc bias, showing decoupling from the nonlinear conductivity, universal critical FDT-violation ratios (X0∥ ≈ 1.83, X0⊥ ≈ 1.18), and a bias-induced spatial noise anisotropy of tens of percent. Appendices A–D provide explicit Biot–Savart noise kernels, a closed-form dynamical scaling function F_T(κ,ϖ) checked against Kramers–Kronig and the kernel of Ref. [39], and a three-fold quadrature for the driven noise with equilibrium FDT recovery checks.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful and timely contribution at the interface of fluctuation superconductivity and quantum sensing. Its strengths are concrete: parameter-light derivations (σ_AL, ξ(T), E0 ∝ ϵ^{3/2} all follow from microscopic TDGL constants rather than fits), closed-form scaling functions (Eqs. 11–12, B13) verified against the prior thin-film kernel of Ref. [39], explicit internal checks (FDT recovery with the correct coefficient at E = 0, k = 0 in Appendix C; Kramers–Kronig verification in Appendix B), and falsifiable, parameter-free predictions — the universal critical FDT ratios X0∥ ≈ 1.83, X0⊥ ≈ 1.18, the exact factor X^diff∥ → 3X0∥, and a bias-induced noise anisotropy of tens of percent at f ~ 1 that two-NV covariance magnetometry is specifically suited to detect. The covariance-range diagnostic for ξ(T) (Gaussian vs. BKT discrimination) and the no-double-counting argument for diamagnetic noise (Eq. 27) are clean conceptual points. The acknowledged overlap with the independent preprint of Orgad [63], where agreement is reported, adds confidence. The main scope limitation — Gaussian TDGL applied to a BSCCO experiment whose fluctuation window is likely BKT-domm

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. VI, Eq. (29) and following] There is an internal factor-of-two inconsistency in the field normalization. Direct substitution of the printed E0 = √12 ℏ/[2eξ(T)τGL] into f = 4√3 E/E0 gives f = 4eEξτGL/ℏ, not the stated f = 2eEξτGL/ℏ. The two displayed definitions are mutually inconsistent. Matching the cubic damping of Eq. (C1) (which carries the prefactor 2/γ from the occupation N(P)) to Dorsey's Σ+(x) = ∫du exp(−u − x²u³), with ξ² = 1/(2ma), gives E0 = √12 ℏ/(eξτGL) — twice the printed value — which would make f = 4√3 E/E0 = 2eEξτGL/ℏ consistent. The E ≈ 25 V/cm estimate at f = 1 (ϵ = 10⁻²) checks out against f = 2eEξτGL/ℏ, so the dimensionless f appears to be the variable actually used; the printed E0 is then simply wrong by a factor of 2. This must be corrected, because the horizontal axes of Figs. 7–8 (labeled E/E0) and the weak-field coefficients c∥ ≈ 4.96, c⊥ ≈ 1.62 in Eq. (30) all depend on the E0 convention
  2. [Appendix C, text following Eq. (C3)] Appendix C states that s1, s2, τ in Eq. (C3) are measured 'in units of γ/a = 2τGL'. However, the main text identifies τGL = πℏ/[8kB(T−Tc)], and from Eq. (1) with γ = πα/8kBTc and a = αϵ one finds γ/a = πℏ/[8kB(T−Tc)] = τGL, not 2τGL. The factor 2 presumably originates from the 2/γ prefactor in the occupation integral N(P) of Eq. (C1), but as written the statement contradicts the main-text definitions. Please reconcile this and, importantly, verify that this is a prose-level inconsistency only: confirm that the prefactor 32kBTσAL and the equilibrium checks (i) and (ii) listed after Eq. (C4) were evaluated with the same time units used in the numerical evaluation of Figs. 7–8, so that no hidden factor of 2 entered the plotted FDT ratios.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Fig. 7] Fig. 7(b) labels the FDT ratios χ∥, χ⊥, χ^diff∥, while the text defines them as X∥, X⊥, X^diff∥ (Eqs. 30–31). Please unify the notation.
  2. [Sec. VI, point (iii)] Since f = 2eEξτGL/ℏ is (apparently) the variable used in the quadrature, the anisotropy values quoted at f = 1, 3, 10 in point (iii) survive the E0 correction unchanged. Once Major Comment 1 is addressed, please state this explicitly so readers know which quoted numbers are convention-independent.
  3. [Sec. IV, first paragraph] Typo: 'Notice tha the Bessel factor' should read 'Notice that the'.
  4. [Acknowledgments] 'The authors acknowledges the use of Claude' — grammatical number; also consider moving the AI-use disclosure to a separate statement per journal policy.
  5. [Eq. (21)] Missing period after 'c1 ≈ 9.1'. Also, the sentence would be clearer if it stated explicitly that the logarithmic regime is reached only for ξ(T) ≳ c1 d ≈ 10d.
  6. [Sec. IV, opening] The Pearson coefficient r(R) = Nzz(R)/[Nzz(0) + Nloc] is introduced but Nloc is never quantified. A one-line estimate of Nloc for the geometry of Ref. [19] (or a citation to such an estimate) would help readers judge the achievable covariance contrast in the logarithmic window of Eq. (25).
  7. [Secs. V–VI vs. Discussion] The authors are commendably explicit in Sec. VIII that Gaussian AL under-explains the observed 1/T1 peak in BSCCO. The quantitative estimates elsewhere — the 25 V/cm threshold field (Sec. VI) and the edge-field magnitudes of Eq. (28) — use mean-field ξ(T) and τGL in the same material. Please add a sentence in Sec. VI noting that these numbers carry the same mean-field caveat and would be renormalized if BKT/Hartree physics dominates the accessible window.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: noise and FDT-violation results are derived from TDGL plus Biot–Savart/FDT, not forced by fits or self-citation.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is standard and self-contained. Nonlocal AL conductivity follows from the TDGL Langevin equation and the current operator (Secs. II, App. B); magnetic noise is the Biot–Savart transform of the transverse current correlator tied to Re σ_T by the FDT (App. A, Eq. 16); single-NV 1/T1 and two-point covariance are direct integrals of that kernel (Secs. III–IV); nonequilibrium noise is an exact Gaussian Wick reduction of the driven Ornstein–Uhlenbeck modes (Sec. VI, App. C, Eq. C3), with universal critical FDT ratios read off the same quadratures. Microscopic inputs (γ=πα/8k_B T_c, ξ²=1/2ma, σ_AL) are the usual TDGL/AL constants, not fitted to the target noise shapes. Material numbers (T_c, ξ_0, d, ω, flake thickness) are taken from the cited BSCCO experiment only for order-of-magnitude estimates (ϵ_ω, edge |δB|, E≈25 V/cm), not to force X_∥^0 or X_⊥^0. Overlap with Orgad is noted as independent agreement, not a uniqueness premise. A possible E_0/f normalization inconsistency (correctness, not circularity) does not make the derivation reduce to its inputs by construction. No self-definitional loop, fitted-as-prediction step, or load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is standard Gaussian TDGL fluctuation electrodynamics plus magnetostatic coupling to NV sensors. Almost all load-bearing structure is domain assumption from the established fluctuation-superconductivity toolkit; free parameters are material/experimental scales used for estimates, not fitted theory knobs. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Material/estimate scales (ξ0, d, Tc, ω, R□, Nℓ, r) = ξ0≈2 nm, Tc≈90 K, d∼50 nm, ω∼3 GHz, R□≈1 kΩ (from cited experiment/geometry)
    Used to convert dimensionless TDGL results into BSCCO/NV numbers (e.g. ϵω∼10^{-3}, |δB|edge, E≈25 V/cm at f=1). They set experimental reach estimates, not the universal ratios or scaling functions.
  • Numerical offset constants c0, c1 in log asymptotics = c1≈9.1; c0=γ+π²/(48 ln2)-ln2/4
    O(1) constants in the d≪ξ and R≪ξ noise asymptotics; c1≈9.1 is numerical, c0 has a stated analytic form. They affect log offsets, not exponents or universal FDT ratios.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Linearized TDGL dynamics with white Langevin noise and Gaussian Wick factorization for current correlators
    Eq. (1) and Sec. II/VI; controls all AL conductivity and exact driven-noise results.
  • domain assumption Equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation relation C=coth(ω/2T) Im χ linking current noise to Re σ (classical limit ω≪T)
    Eqs. (6)–(7); used for equilibrium NV noise; deliberately broken and quantified out of equilibrium.
  • domain assumption Magnetostatic Biot–Savart coupling of 2D sheet currents to Bz noise above the plane (Ωd≪c)
    Appendix A and Eq. (16); standard non-relativistic NV noise spectroscopy assumption.
  • domain assumption Mean-field correlation length ξ=ξ0/√ϵ and microscopic GL relaxation γ=πα/8kBTc giving universal AL sheet conductivity
    Sec. II after Eq. (13); fixes temperature exponents and σ_AL used throughout.
  • domain assumption MT spin-channel form with pair-breaking cutoff γϕ and suppression for d-wave order
    Sec. III A citing Randeria–Varlamov; used to argue orbital channel dominates BSCCO NV peak.
  • ad hoc to paper Fixed quasiparticle bath temperature under bias because E0∝ϵ^{3/2} collapses while normal-fluid nonlinearity stays microscopic
    Sec. VI(iv); needed to claim clean access to nonlinear fluctuation noise without Joule-heating spoiling TDGL; plausible but not derived from a full heat-balance model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing nonlocal superconducting fluctuations with covariance noise magnetometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WNCP3JPO

@misc{pith2026260724906,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing nonlocal superconducting fluctuations with covariance noise magnetometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WNCP3JPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24906}
}
abstract

The nonlocal superconducting fluctuation corrections to the conductivity tensor $\sigma_{ij}(\mathbf{q},\omega)$ are calculated within the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau framework, and their observable consequences for quantum noise magnetometry are worked out. For a single nitrogen-vacancy (NV) sensor we obtain the relaxation rate $1/T_1$ as a function of temperature, sample-sensor distance, and probe frequency, identifying the scales at which the nonlocality and the dynamics of the pair fluctuations cut off the critical enhancement near $T_c$. For two-sensor covariance magnetometry we show that the two-point field correlator develops additional spatial structure whose range directly measures the fluctuation correlation length $\xi(T)$. We further analyze two channels that accompany the paraconductivity: the Maki-Thompson correction to the spin susceptibility, and the fluctuation diamagnetism. Finally, we solve exactly, to all orders in a dc electric field and at all wave vectors, for the nonequilibrium current noise of the fluctuating film: the noise decouples from the nonlinear paraconductivity, violating the fluctuation-dissipation theorem by universal factors at criticality and acquiring a bias-induced spatial anisotropy directly measurable by covariance magnetometry. The results are connected to a recent experiment measuring current noise near a thin film of BSCCO.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24906 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the setup. Two NV sensors at height [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Transverse noise as a function of reduced temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Noise for various finite probe frequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Scaling behavior for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Normalized covariance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Fluctuation susceptibility (26): 2D versus Lawrence-Doniach ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Nonlinear AL conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Real and imaginary parts of the dynamical scaling function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [39]

    Y. S. Barash and A. V. Galaktionov, Phys. Rev. B48, 6284 (1993)

    1993

  2. [63]

    Schmid and G

    A. Schmid and G. Sch ¨on, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 941 (1975)

    1975

  3. [1]

    apparent exponent

    Inset: The frequency dependence of the noise atT c. For largeω/ω 0, the noise decays∝1/ω. mic growth (note thatσ AL/ξ2(T)is temperature indepen- dent); this regime is sensitive to theq-dependence ofσ ′ T . The offset constant in Eq. (21) shows that the logarithmic regime is fully developed only onceξ(T)≳10d. In Fig. 2a we plot our numerical results forN A...

  4. [2]

    A. I. Larkin and A. A. Varlamov,Theory of fluctuations in super- conductors(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005)

    2005

  5. [3]

    A. A. Varlamov, A. Galda, and A. Glatz, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015009 (2018)

    2018

  6. [4]

    Glover, Physica55, 3 (1971)

    R. Glover, Physica55, 3 (1971)

    1971

  7. [5]

    Pourret, H

    A. Pourret, H. Aubin, J. Lesueur, C. A. Marrache-Kikuchi, L. Berg´e, L. Dumoulin, and K. Behnia, Nature Physics2, 683 (2006)

    2006

  8. [6]

    Kajimura and N

    K. Kajimura and N. Mikoshiba, Journal of Low Temperature Physics4, 331 (1971)

    1971

Show all 68 references
  1. [7]

    J. W. P. Hsu and A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. B45, 4819 (1992)

    1992

  2. [8]

    W. J. Skocpol and M. Tinkham, Reports on Progress in Physics 38, 1049 (1975)

    1975

  3. [9]

    Vidal, J

    F. Vidal, J. A. Veira, J. Maza, F. Garcia-Alvarado, E. Moran, and M. A. Alario, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics21, L599 (1988)

    1988

  4. [10]

    Rullier-Albenque, H

    F. Rullier-Albenque, H. Alloul, and G. Rikken, Phys. Rev. B84, 014522 (2011)

    2011

  5. [11]

    M. R. Cimberle, C. Ferdeghini, E. Giannini, D. Marr ´e, M. Putti, A. Siri, F. Federici, and A. Varlamov, Phys. Rev. B55, R14745(R) (1997)

    1997

  6. [12]

    Hopfeng ¨artner, B

    R. Hopfeng ¨artner, B. Hensel, and G. Saemann-Ischenko, Phys. Rev. B44, 741 (1991)

    1991

  7. [13]

    Mandal, A

    P. Mandal, A. Poddar, A. Das, B. Ghosh, and P. Choudhury, Physica C: Superconductivity169, 43 (1990)

    1990

  8. [14]

    H. M. Duan, W. Kiehl, C. Dong, A. W. Cordes, M. J. Saeed, D. L. Viar, and A. M. Hermann, Phys. Rev. B43, 12925 (1991)

    1991

  9. [15]

    T. Song, Y. Jia, G. Yu, Y. Tang, P. Wang, R. Singha, X. Gui, A. J. Uzan-Narovlansky, M. Onyszczak, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, R. J. Cava, L. M. Schoop, N. P. Ong, and S. Wu, Nature Physics 20, 269 (2024)

    2024

  10. [16]

    L. G. Aslamazov and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Lett. A26, 238 (1968)

    1968

  11. [17]

    Maki, Prog

    K. Maki, Prog. Theor. Phys.39, 897 (1968)

    1968

  12. [18]

    R. S. Thompson, Phys. Rev. B1, 327 (1970)

    1970

  13. [19]

    Abrahams, M

    E. Abrahams, M. Redi, and J. W. F. Woo, Phys. Rev. B1, 208 (1970)

    1970

  14. [20]

    Quantum noise spectroscopy of superconducting dynamics in thin film Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ,

    Z. Liu, R. Gong, J. Kim, O. K. Diessel, Q. Xu, Z. Rehfuss, X. Du, G. He, A. Singh, Y. S. Eo, E. A. Henriksen, G. D. Gu, N. Y. Yao, F. Machado, S. Ran, S. Chatterjee, and C. Zu, “Quantum noise spectroscopy of superconducting dynamics in thin film Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+δ, ” (2025), arXi...

    2025 arXiv

  15. [21]

    S. Li, S. P. Kelly, J. Zhou, H. Lu, Y. Tserkovnyak, H. Wang, and C. R. Du, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 076004 (2026)

    2026

  16. [22]

    Casola, T

    F. Casola, T. Van Der Sar, and A. Yacoby, Nat. Rev. Mater.3, 1 (2018)

    2018

  17. [23]

    Rovny, S

    J. Rovny, S. Gopalakrishnan, A. C. B. Jayich, P. Maletinsky, E. Demler, and N. P. de Leon, Nature Reviews Physics6, 753 (2024)

    2024

  18. [24]

    Thiel, Z

    L. Thiel, Z. Wang, M. A. Tschudin, D. Rohner, I. Guti ´errez- Lezama, N. Ubrig, M. Gibertini, E. Giannini, A. F. Morpurgo, and P. Maletinsky, Science364, 973 (2019)

    2019

  19. [25]

    Bhattacharyya, W

    P. Bhattacharyya, W. Chen, X. Huang, S. Chatterjee, B. Huang, B. Kobrin, Y. Lyu, T. J. Smart, M. Block, E. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Wu, S. Hsieh, H. Ma, S. Mandyam, B. Chen, E. Davis, Z. M. Geballe, C. Zu, V. Struzhkin, R. Jeanloz, J. E. Moore, T. Cui, G. Galli, B. I. Halperin, C. R....

    2024

  20. [26]

    M. J. H. Ku, T. X. Zhou, Q. Li, Y. J. Shin, J. K. Shi, C. Burch, L. E. Anderson, A. T. Pierce, Y. Xie, A. Hamo, U. Vool, H. Zhang, F. Casola, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. M. Fogler, P. Kim, A. Yacoby, and R. L. Walsworth, Nature583, 537 (2020)

    2020

  21. [27]

    C. Du, T. van der Sar, T. X. Zhou, P. Upadhyaya, F. Ca- sola, H. Zhang, M. C. Onbasli, C. A. Ross, R. L. Walsworth, Y. Tserkovnyak, and A. Yacoby, Science357, 195 (2017)

    2017

  22. [28]

    T. I. Andersen, B. L. Dwyer, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, K. Agarwal, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. A. Demler, P. Kim, H. Park,et al., Science364, 154 (2019)

    2019

  23. [29]

    Agarwal, R

    K. Agarwal, R. Schmidt, B. Halperin, V. Oganesyan, G. Zar´and, M. D. Lukin, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B95, 155107 (2017)

    2017

  24. [30]

    Rustagi, I

    A. Rustagi, I. Bertelli, T. Van Der Sar, and P. Upadhyaya, Phys. Rev. B102, 220403 (2020)

    2020

  25. [31]

    Machado, E

    F. Machado, E. A. Demler, N. Y. Yao, and S. Chatterjee, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 070801 (2023)

    2023

  26. [32]

    Chatterjee, P

    S. Chatterjee, P. E. Dolgirev, I. Esterlis, A. A. Zibrov, M. D. Lukin, N. Y. Yao, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L012001 11 (2022)

    2022

  27. [33]

    P. E. Dolgirev, S. Chatterjee, I. Esterlis, A. A. Zibrov, M. D. Lukin, N. Y. Yao, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B105, 024507 (2022)

    2022

  28. [34]

    J. B. Curtis, N. Maksimovic, N. R. Poniatowski, A. Yacoby, B. Halperin, P. Narang, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B110, 144518 (2024)

    2024

  29. [35]

    Chatterjee, J

    S. Chatterjee, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B99, 104425 (2019)

    2019

  30. [36]

    J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, K. Agarwal, T. Giamarchi, B. I. Halperin, M. D. Lukin, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B98, 195433 (2018)

    2018

  31. [37]

    P. E. Dolgirev, I. Esterlis, A. A. Zibrov, M. D. Lukin, T. Gia- marchi, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 246504 (2024)

    2024

  32. [38]

    Schmid, Phys

    A. Schmid, Phys. Kondens. Materie5, 302 (1966)

    1966

  33. [40]

    A. V. Galaktionov, Physica C241, 118 (1995)

    1995

  34. [41]

    Rovny, Z

    J. Rovny, Z. Yuan, M. Fitzpatrick, A. I. Abdalla, L. Futamura, C. Fox, M. C. Cambria, S. Kolkowitz, and N. P. de Leon, Science 378, 1301 (2022)

    2022

  35. [42]

    X. H. Le, P. E. Dolgirev, P. Put, E. L. Peterson, A. Pillai, A. A. Zibrov, E. Demler, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 170803 (2025)

    2025

  36. [43]

    Rovny, S

    J. Rovny, S. Kolkowitz, and N. P. de Leon, Nature647, 876 (2025)

    2025

  37. [44]

    Cheng, Z

    K.-H. Cheng, Z. Kazi, J. Rovny, B. Zhang, L. S. Nassar, J. D. Thompson, and N. P. de Leon, Phys. Rev. X15, 031014 (2025)

    2025

  38. [45]

    W. S. Huxter, F. Dalmagioni, and C. L. Degen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 153801 (2025)

    2025

  39. [46]

    Cambria, S

    M. Cambria, S. Chand, C. M. Reiter, and S. Kolkowitz, Phys. Rev. X15, 031015 (2025)

    2025

  40. [47]

    Theory of two-qubit T2 spectroscopy of quantum many-body systems,

    H. Hosseinabadi, P. E. Dolgirev, S. Gopalakrishnan, A. Ya- coby, E. Demler, and J. Marino, “Theory of two-qubit T2 spectroscopy of quantum many-body systems, ” (2026), arXiv:2603.18176 [quant-ph]

    2026

  41. [48]

    ForΩ∼GHz andd∼tens of nm—the typical operating regime of single NV centers—this inequality is well-satisfied

    Strictly speaking, this formula also assumesΩd≪c, where cis the speed of light in vacuum. ForΩ∼GHz andd∼tens of nm—the typical operating regime of single NV centers—this inequality is well-satisfied

  42. [49]

    L. S. Langsjoen, A. Poudel, M. G. Vavilov, and R. Joynt, Phys. Rev. A86, 010301 (2012)

    2012

  43. [50]

    Kolkowitz, A

    S. Kolkowitz, A. Safira, A. High, R. Devlin, S. Choi, Q. Unter- reithmeier, D. Patterson, A. Zibrov, V. Manucharyan, H. Park, et al., Science347, 1129 (2015)

    2015

  44. [51]

    A. T. Dorsey, Phys. Rev. B43, 7575 (1991)

    1991

  45. [52]

    Randeria and A

    M. Randeria and A. A. Varlamov, Phys. Rev. B50, 10401(R) (1994)

    1994

  46. [53]

    Schmid, Phys

    A. Schmid, Phys. Rev.180, 527 (1969)

    1969

  47. [54]

    R. E. Prange, Phys. Rev. B1, 2349 (1970)

    1970

  48. [55]

    Kurkij ¨arvi, V

    J. Kurkij ¨arvi, V. Ambegaokar, and G. Eilenberger, Phys. Rev. B 5, 868 (1972)

    1972

  49. [56]

    L. Li, Y. Wang, S. Komiya, S. Ono, Y. Ando, G. D. Gu, and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. B81, 054510 (2010)

    2010

  50. [57]

    J. P. Hurault, Phys. Rev.179, 494 (1969)

    1969

  51. [58]

    Schmidt, Z

    H. Schmidt, Z. Phys.216, 336 (1968)

    1968

  52. [59]

    Detect- ing vortex motion through spatially correlated nonequilibrium noise,

    Y.-F. Zhang, R. Samajdar, and S. Gopalakrishnan, “Detect- ing vortex motion through spatially correlated nonequilibrium noise, ” (2026), arXiv:2605.18941 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2026 arXiv

  53. [60]

    A. G. Green, J. E. Moore, S. L. Sondhi, and A. Vishwanath, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 227003 (2006)

    2006

  54. [61]

    Ullah and A

    S. Ullah and A. T. Dorsey, Phys. Rev. B44, 262 (1991)

    1991

  55. [62]

    R. V. Carlson and A. M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 11 (1975)

    1975

  56. [64]

    Signatures of Gaussian superconducting fluctuations in nonlocal noise magnetometry,

    D. Orgad, “Signatures of Gaussian superconducting fluctuations in nonlocal noise magnetometry, ” (2026), arXiv:2605.18970 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2026 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Claude [large language model],

    Anthropic, “Claude [large language model], ”https:// claude.ai(2026), version: Claude Fable 5; used June–July 2026

    2026

  58. [66]

    M. C. Cambria, A. Gardill, Y. Li, A. Norambuena, J. R. Maze, and S. Kolkowitz, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013123 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    M. C. Cambria, A. Norambuena, H. T. Dinani, G. Thiering, A. Gardill, I. Kemeny, Y. Li, V. Lordi, A. Gali, J. R. Maze, and S. Kolkowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 256903 (2023). Appendix A: Magnetic noise tensor The magnetic noise tensorN ab =⟨B a(r1, z;t1)Bb(r2, z;t2)⟩can be calcul...

    2023

  60. [68]

    Thed≫ξ is elementary and done in the main text, so let us focus on the more interesting regimed≪ξ

    Limiting behaviors of the noise Focusing on the static caseω= 0, we can derive the behavior ofN zz in the different regimesd≫ξandd≪ξ. Thed≫ξ is elementary and done in the main text, so let us focus on the more interesting regimed≪ξ. We focus on the integral ˜Nzz = Z ∞ 0 dq qe−...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.