Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Electrically Reconfigurable Silicon Carbide Nanophotonic Cavities on Thin-Film Lithium Niobate

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hybrid SiC–lithium niobate cavities tune electrically over 380 GHz, enough to align many nanocavities to one resonance.

desk verdict A credible hybrid fabrication and tuning demonstration, but the spin-photon-interface claim is ahead of the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00372 v1 pith:NQ747VNF submitted 2026-08-01 physics.optics quant-ph

San Lam Ng , Georgii Grechko , Vladislav Bushmakin , Rainer Stöhr , Vadim Vorobyov , Roman Kolesov , Jörg Wrachtrup This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsquant-ph PACS 42.50.Ex42.70.Qs78.20.Jq
keywords siliconcarbidelithiumniobateelectro-optictuningphotoniccrystalcavityspin-photoninterfaceV2centerquantumnetworkshybridnanophotonics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the spectral-mismatch bottleneck in solid-state spin-photon devices—cavity resonances and spin transitions rarely line up—can be broken by bonding silicon-carbide nanobeam cavities onto a thin film of lithium niobate. Because lithium niobate has a strong electro-optic response, an applied voltage continuously shifts the cavity resonance, and the measured 380 GHz of tuning is large enough to compensate both fabrication-induced cavity disorder and the inhomogeneous spread of spin-defect optical transitions. The authors show that multiple cavities can be electrically pulled to a common resonance, which is the prerequisite for arrays of reproducible quantum nodes. If correct, the platform gives electrical reconfigurability to a leading spin-host material without sacrificing its spin properties, and the calculated V2-center cooperativity and readout fidelities suggest a practical route to scalable spin-photon interfaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hybrid cavity: a triangular-corrugated 4H-SiC nanobeam bonded directly onto a 400-nm thin film of lithium niobate on insulator. The optical mode extends from the SiC beam into the LN layer, so an electric field applied through nearby gold electrodes changes the LN refractive index via the electro-optic effect and thereby shifts the resonance. The LN thickness sets the trade-off between tuning sensitivity and mode volume (and hence Purcell factor). The 'break-and-bond' fabrication transfers near-free-standing SiC beams onto the LN, allowing wafer-scale arrays.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to drive a bonded cavity with a sub-microsecond voltage square wave and record the time-resolved resonance shift: the shift must be instantaneous and fully reversible each cycle; any slow component or hysteresis would indicate charge redistribution or poling effects rather than a fast electro-optic response, and would collapse the reconfigurable spin-photon interface claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a cavity mode jointly defined by a corrugated silicon-carbide nanobeam and an underlying thin-film lithium-niobate layer responds to an applied voltage through lithium niobate's electro-optic effect, shifting the resonance by up to 380 GHz (~1.1 nm) for the TE mode and 49.1 GHz for the TM mode. The measured tuning parameters reach up to 850 MHz/V (TE) with a 783 MHz/V average, and the measured shifts are lower than simulation—attributed by the authors to surface-charge screening, wafer lot variation in electro-optic coefficients, or poling of the lithium niobate. The same hybrid cavities show quality factors up to 13×10^3, comparable to pure SiC cavities, and the au

Load-bearing premise

The entire proposal rests on the assumption that the voltage-induced resonance shifts are a reversible, fast electro-optic response of the lithium niobate layer, and that silicon-carbide spin defects such as V2 centers survive the bonding, annealing, electrode, and cladding processing with their optical properties intact; the paper itself notes that no spin has yet been placed in a cavity and that the measured tuning is lower than simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A tuning range of 380 GHz is enough to compensate both the cavity fabrication disorder and the inhomogeneous optical broadening of V2 centers and other SiC spin defects.
  • Multiple cavities can be electrically aligned to a common resonance, so device-to-device spectral variation no longer needs sub-nanometer fabrication precision.
  • The platform retains SiC's spin-hosting properties; at the achieved Q, an optimally placed V2 center would have a Purcell factor of ~400, cooperativity up to ~21, readout fidelity of 94.1%, and initialization fidelity up to 98.5%.
  • Because the tuning is electrical, reconfiguration or recalibration of an array could in principle be done in situ and independently per cavity.
  • Q factors comparable to pure SiC cavities indicate that the bonding and electrode processing does not significantly degrade the cavity performance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the gap between measured and simulated tuning is indeed caused by surface-charge shielding or poling, then engineering the electrode geometry to reduce field screening, or operating below the coercive field, could recover the predicted 9.7 GHz·µm/V sensitivity and extend the tuning range further.
  • The same break-and-bond approach could be applied to diamond or other spin hosts that lack an intrinsic electro-optic response, provided the bonding and annealing temperatures are compatible—a natural next experiment not reported in the paper.
  • The model's prediction that readout and initialization fidelities dip near Q≈10^4–10^5 before recovering at higher Q is a testable, non-obvious consequence: fabricating the same cavities with higher Q should show the predicted non-monotonic behavior.
  • An immediate test would be to measure the tuning speed and hysteresis; if the response is not fast and reversible, the tuning cannot serve the quantum-network applications claimed.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a hybrid nanophotonic platform in which triangular 4H-SiC photonic-crystal nanobeam cavities are directly bonded onto a thin-film lithium niobate (TFLN) layer. Gold electrodes apply a DC voltage across the hybrid structure, and the authors demonstrate voltage-induced resonance shifts: 380.8 GHz for the TE mode and 49.1 GHz for the TM mode, as well as tuning of three fabricated cavities toward a common resonance. From the measured Q factors and simulated mode volumes, the authors compute projected cavity-enhanced parameters for the V2 silicon-vacancy center in SiC, including a Purcell factor of 410 and spin-readout/initialization fidelities above 94%. The paper concludes that this hybrid platform enables electrically reconfigurable spin-photon interfaces for scalable quantum networks.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, this work introduces a promising route to overcome the spectral-mismatch bottleneck in SiC spin-photon arrays: spatially separating the electro-optic tuning element (LiNbO3) from the spin-hosting material (SiC) while preserving high-Q cavities. The strengths are the experimentally demonstrated direct-bonding fabrication with good yield, the direct observation of voltage-controlled resonance shifts, the alignment of multiple independent cavities to a common frequency, and the concrete numerical projections for V2-cavity spin readout. However, the claimed mechanism for the tuning is not yet isolated from alternative slow or irreversible effects, and the spin-photon interface remains a projection rather than a demonstrated device. The paper is therefore a valuable proof-of-concept, but the load-bearing claims about deterministic, fast, electro-optic reconfigurability go beyond the current evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4 Results (Figs. 4b–4c)] The attribution of the observed voltage-induced resonance shifts to the electro-optic response of the TFLN layer is not established. Only static DC voltage sweeps are reported; there is no time-resolved measurement, no hysteresis test, and no polarity-reversal check. The paper itself (§4) lists accumulated surface charges, lot-to-lot variation in the electro-optic coefficient, and partial poling as alternative explanations for the measured tuning being 2–4× lower than simulation. Any of these would make the tuning slow, history-dependent, or irreversible, which is incompatible with the 'fast, deterministic' reconfigurable spin-photon interface claimed in the introduction and abstract. This issue is load-bearing because the platform's value depends on the tuning being a reversible electro-optic effect. A step-response measurement, repeated up-down voltage cycles, and a polarity-symmetry t
  2. [Abstract and §4 (Figs. 4b–4c, Table 2)] The abstract's headline tuning range of 380 GHz refers to the TE mode, but the V2 spin-cavity analysis in Table 2 and Fig. 5 explicitly uses the TM mode, whose demonstrated range is only 49.1 GHz—a factor of ~7.8 smaller. The statement that the demonstrated tuning is 'sufficient to compensate both cavity disorder and spin inhomogeneity' is therefore not supported for the mode relevant to the proposed V2 interface. The authors should either demonstrate that the 49.1 GHz TM range covers the inhomogeneous broadening of V2 centers (with a quantitative comparison, e.g., from Ref. [15]) or adjust the abstract and conclusion to distinguish the TE-range claim from the TM-range claim.
  3. [Table 2 and §4–§5] The Purcell factor of 410 and all derived spin parameters (cooperativity, cyclicity, readout/initialization fidelities) are computed under the assumptions of optimal dipole placement and optimal alignment with the TM cavity field. No spin was actually integrated into a cavity, and the conclusion states 'future work includes the incorporation of spins.' Thus these numbers are theoretical upper bounds, not experimental demonstrations. The abstract and conclusion should be reworded to make this distinction explicit. In addition, there is no evidence that SiC spin defects survive the bonding, annealing, electrode, and cladding processing; a statement about the expected or measured spin survival would be needed to support the spin-photon-interface claim.
  4. [Table 1 and Fig. 4d–4e] The quantitative support for the multi-cavity alignment claim is thin. Table 1 reports Q factors for only three cavities, with values 'estimated' and no uncertainties. The tuning sensitivities in Fig. 4d–4e are described as 'up to' and 'on average' without stating the number of measurements, and the figure has no error bars. While the existence of tuning is clear from the traces, the 'deterministic' and 'reproducible' aspects of the claim would be substantially strengthened by reporting statistics (mean ± standard deviation, number of devices/cycles) for the tuning sensitivity and Q factors.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2 Cavity Design] The geometric parameters (a0, wl, wh, A, σ) are given in the text but would be easier to follow in a table or annotated schematic. Also, the description of the Gaussian taper, Δa/a0 = −A exp[−(n/σ)^2], should specify the range of n used.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption reads 'a b c' without spaces, and the subfigure labels in the text are not always referenced (e.g., 'Figure 3a and 3b' vs. 'figure 3c'). Please format consistently.
  3. [Table 2] 'Debye Waller Factor' should be 'Debye–Waller factor.' Also, the table lists 'Cooperativity' with two different state labels; consider adding a column for the quantity actually computed (e.g., effective Purcell factor vs. full cooperativity) to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [§4 Results] The sentence 'We were able to directly confirm achievable tuning ranges of 380.8 GHz and 49.1 GHz' would benefit from specifying the voltage endpoints and whether the shift direction reversed with voltage polarity. This information is currently scattered in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: tuning ranges are direct measurements and the Purcell/spin projections are computed from measured Q and simulated mode volumes under explicitly stated assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The 380.8 GHz (TE) and 49.1 GHz (TM) tuning ranges are direct voltage-sweep measurements ('We were able to directly confirm achievable tuning ranges of 380.8 GHz and 49.1 GHz for TE and TM mode respectively'), not derived from a fitted parameter. The Purcell factor of 410 and related spin parameters are computed from the measured cavity linewidth/Q and simulated mode volumes using standard cavity-QED relations, with the V2 dipole orientation explicitly assumed as an input rather than fitted ('We calculate the parameters of the TM mode assuming that the optical dipole of V2 centre is aligned with the field direction of TM mode'). No equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input. The cited prior work with overlapping authors (e.g., refs. [15], [18], [22]) supplies external experimental data or established methods (V2 fluorescence enhancement, level structure, single-shot readout formalism), none of which encodes the present result as an assumption; these self-citations are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The paper also transparently reports that the measured tuning sensitivity is lower than simulation and lists surface charges, wafer lot variation, and poling as alternative explanations, and it explicitly defers spin integration to 'future work.' These are limitations or interpretation risks, not circularity. Therefore the circularity score is low, reflecting only minor self-citation that is not used to force any conclusion.

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

The central claims rely on the standard electro-optic response of LN, unvalidated survival of SiC spins through processing, literature values for V2 optical parameters, and simulated mode volumes. The design parameters listed above are hand-chosen or simulation-tuned rather than fitted to the experimental claims, but they shape the reported tuning range and projected Purcell factor.

free parameters (5)
  • TFLN thickness = 400 nm
    Chosen to balance tuning sensitivity vs mode volume; directly sets the mode overlap with LN and hence the tuning range and Purcell factor (§2, Fig. 1e).
  • Unit-cell period a0 = 220-230 nm
    Swept to target infrared resonances; determines the resonance frequency of both modes (§2).
  • Corrugation widths wl, wh = 385 nm / 770 nm
    Selected to ensure sufficiently wide bandgaps for TE and TM modes; affects Q and mode volume (§2).
  • Gaussian taper amplitude A and width sigma = A = 6.5%, sigma = 5
    Hand-chosen modulation of cell period to form the cavity; determines mode profiles and losses (§2).
  • Electrode gap = ~3 µm
    Distance from electrodes to cavity; sets the applied electric field for a given voltage (§3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Resonance shifts observed under applied voltage are due to the lithium niobate electro-optic effect.
    Location: §4. The paper reports lower-than-simulated tuning (4.5-5.7 vs 9.7 GHz µm/V) and explicitly speculates surface charges, lot-to-lot EO coefficient variation, or ferroelectric poling as alternatives; no control experiment isolates the EO mechanism.
  • domain assumption SiC spin defects (V2) remain optically active and spectrally stable through bonding, annealing, and electrode fabrication.
    Location: §3 fabrication, §5 future work. No spin was incorporated in the devices, yet the spin-photon interface framing requires this premise.
  • ad hoc to paper The V2 optical dipole can be optimally aligned with the TM cavity field.
    Location: §4 computation of Table 2 explicitly assumes alignment. The Purcell factor and cooperativity values depend on this assumption and are not experimentally verified.
  • domain assumption Literature values for V2 inhomogeneous broadening, cyclicity, IQE, and Debye-Waller factor apply in the bonded and processed hybrid cavity.
    Location: §4 and refs [15-18]. Used to claim 380 GHz is sufficient to compensate spin inhomogeneity and to project readout/initialization fidelities.
  • domain assumption Simulated mode volumes and tuning sensitivities are accurate despite no experimental mode-volume measurement.
    Location: §2 and §4. The Purcell factor uses simulated mode volume and measured Q; simulated tuning sensitivity differs from measurement by roughly a factor of two.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electrically Reconfigurable Silicon Carbide Nanophotonic Cavities on Thin-Film Lithium Niobate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NQ747VNF

@misc{pith2026260800372,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electrically Reconfigurable Silicon Carbide Nanophotonic Cavities on Thin-Film Lithium Niobate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NQ747VNF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00372}
}
abstract

Interfacing integrated photonics with solid-state spin defects holds great promise for future quantum networks, but the scaling of spin-photon architectures is hindered by frequency mismatches arising from fabrication-induced variations in photonic cavity resonances and the inhomogeneous optical transition frequencies of individual spins. These challenges call for a photonic platform with deterministic and wide-range tunability. Here, we demonstrate a hybrid nanophotonic platform based on direct bonding of silicon carbide photonic crystal nanocavity arrays onto thin-film lithium niobate on insulator, enabling deterministic electrical tuning of multiple SiC nanocavities into mutual spectral resonance. By exploiting the strong electro-optic response of lithium niobate, we achieve continuous and wide-range cavity tuning of 380 GHz ($\sim$1.1 nm), sufficient to compensate both cavity disorder and spin inhomogeneity. The nanocavities balance strong optical confinement with electrical tunability, exhibiting a theoretical Purcell factor of approximately 400. This hybrid platform enables electrically reconfigurable spin-photon interfaces for large-scale integrated quantum photonics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00372 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a. Schematic illustration of the cavity design. b. Simulation of the cavity bandgap, both resonance modes are placed at the middle of the bandgap. c. Simulation of the in-plane component of a unit cell. d. Simulation of the in-plane component of the resonance modes. The left figures show the top view, with dash line indicating the position of cavity centre. The right figures show the cross section view at the positi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Outline of the fabrication procedure. The fabrication process is loosely divided into three parts. 1. Fabrication of triangular corrugated cavities from 4H-SiC by e-beam lithography followed by e-beam metal evaporation and reactive ion etching. 2. Bonding of nanobeams to LNOI by direct bonding. 3. Electrode fabrication and protective cladding of cavities. to use TFLN over bulk LN as the SiO2 layer provides index con… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Images of bonded cavities. a. Optical image of a large matrix of bonded cavities of a high yield sample, demonstrating the efficiency of the bonding method. b. SEM image of an array of bonded cavities. c. Defect and taper sections of one of the cavity. ties of the hybrid cavity, up to ±250 V (±200 V) was applied to the TE (TM) mode of a cavity. We were able to directly confirm achievable tuning ranges of 380.8 GHz a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of electrical tuning tests. a. Laser scattering intensity as a function of frequency detuning for the TM mode of the cavity. Voltages were applied to the cavity in steps, and shifts in the resonance frequency were observed, verifying the successful tuning of ca…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimated cavity enhancement for V2 centres under optimal placement. a. Simplified energy levels structure of the spin degree of freedom for V2 centre in the absence of external magnetic field 18 . Solid arrows denote radiative transitions and dashed arrows denote non-…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Flu- orescence enhancement of single v2 centers in a 4h-sic cavity antenna.Nano Letters, 24(30):9289– 9295, 2024

    Jonathan K¨ orber, Jonah Heiler, Philipp Fuchs, Philipp Flad, Erik Hesselmeier, Pierre Kuna, Jawad Ul-Hassan, Wolfgang Knolle, Christoph Becher, Florian Kaiser, and J¨ org Wrachtrup. Flu- orescence enhancement of single v2 centers in a 4h-sic cavity antenna.Nano Letters, 24(30):9289– 9295, 2024. doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c02162. URLhttps://doi.org/10.102...

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c02162 2024

  2. [1]

    Diamond nv centers for quantum computing and quantum net- works.MRS Bulletin, 38(2):134–138, 2013

    Lilian Childress and Ronald Hanson. Diamond nv centers for quantum computing and quantum net- works.MRS Bulletin, 38(2):134–138, 2013. doi: 10.1557/mrs.2013.20

    doi:10.1557/mrs.2013.20 2013

  3. [2]

    Lukin, Melissa A

    Daniil M. Lukin, Melissa A. Guidry, and Jelena Vuˇ ckovi´ c. Integrated quantum photonics with sil- icon carbide: Challenges and prospects.PRX Quantum, 1:020102, Dec 2020. doi: 10.1103/ 6 PRXQuantum.1.020102. URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.1.020102

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.1.020102 2020

  4. [3]

    Sili- con carbide color centers for quantum applica- tions.Journal of Physics: Photonics, 2(2):022001, mar 2020

    Stefania Castelletto and Alberto Boretti. Sili- con carbide color centers for quantum applica- tions.Journal of Physics: Photonics, 2(2):022001, mar 2020. doi: 10.1088/2515-7647/ab77a2. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7647/ab77a2

    doi:10.1088/2515-7647/ab77a2 2020

  5. [4]

    Photonic integrated quantum memory in rare-earth doped solids.Laser & Photonics Reviews, 17(10):2300257, 2023

    Zong-Quan Zhou, Chao Liu, Chuan-Feng Li, Guang-Can Guo, Daniel Oblak, Mi Lei, An- drei Faraon, Margherita Mazzera, and Hugues de Riedmatten. Photonic integrated quantum memory in rare-earth doped solids.Laser & Photonics Reviews, 17(10):2300257, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/lpor.202300257. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1002/lpor.202300257

    doi:10.1002/lpor.202300257 2023

  6. [5]

    Exploring the nonlinear piezoresistive effect of 4h- sic and developing mems pressure sensors for ex- treme environments.Microsystems & Nanoengi- neering, 9(1):41, Apr 2023

    Chen Wu, Xudong Fang, Qiang Kang, Ziyan Fang, Junxia Wu, Hongtao He, Dong Zhang, Libo Zhao, Bian Tian, Ryutaro Maeda, and Zhuangde Jiang. Exploring the nonlinear piezoresistive effect of 4h- sic and developing mems pressure sensors for ex- treme environments.Microsystems & Nanoengi- neering, 9(1):41, Apr 2023. ISSN 2055-7434. doi: 10.1038/s41378-023-00496...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41378-023-00496-1 2023

  7. [6]

    Feng, and Qing Li

    Yuncong Liu, Wenhan Sun, Hamed Abiri, Philip X.-L. Feng, and Qing Li. Ultracompact 4h- silicon carbide optomechanical resonator with fm ·q m exceeding 10 13 hz.Photon. Res., 13 (9):2531–2538, Sep 2025. doi: 10.1364/PRJ. 567674. URLhttps://opg.optica.org/prj/ abstract.cfm?URI=prj-13-9-2531

    doi:10.1364/prj 2025

  8. [7]

    Mosor, J

    S. Mosor, J. Hendrickson, B. C. Richards, J. Sweet, G. Khitrova, H. M. Gibbs, T. Yoshie, A. Scherer, O. B. Shchekin, and D. G. Deppe. Scanning a photonic crystal slab nanocavity by condensation of xenon.Applied Physics Letters, 87(14):141105, 09 2005. ISSN 0003-6951. doi: 10.1063/1.2076435. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.2076435

    doi:10.1063/1.2076435 2005

Show all 23 references
  1. [8]

    Chong and R.M

    H.M.H. Chong and R.M. De La Rue. Tuning of photonic crystal waveguide microcavity by ther- mooptic effect.IEEE Photonics Technology Let- ters, 16(6):1528–1530, 2004. doi: 10.1109/LPT. 2004.826781

    2004

  2. [9]

    Rakich, Steven G

    Chee Wei Wong, Peter T. Rakich, Steven G. John- son, Minghao Qi, Henry I. Smith, Erich P. Ip- pen, Lionel C. Kimerling, Yongbae Jeon, George Barbastathis, and Sang-Gook Kim. Strain-tunable silicon photonic band gap microcavities in optical waveguides.Applied Physics Letters, 8...

    2004 doi

  3. [10]

    Electro–optically tunable microring resonators in lithium niobate.Nature Photonics, 1(7):407– 410, Jul 2007

    Andrea Guarino, Gorazd Poberaj, Daniele Rezzon- ico, Riccardo Degl’Innocenti, and Peter G¨ unter. Electro–optically tunable microring resonators in lithium niobate.Nature Photonics, 1(7):407– 410, Jul 2007. ISSN 1749-4893. doi: 10. 1038/nphoton.2007.93. URLhttps://doi.org/ 10....

    2007 doi

  4. [11]

    Likai Yang, Sihao Wang, Mohan Shen, Jiacheng Xie, and Hong X. Tang. Controlling single rare earth ion emission in an electro-optical nanocavity.Nature Communications, 14(1):1718, Mar 2023. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/ s41467-023-37513-w. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/s41467-023-37513-w

    2023

  5. [12]

    Tun- able microcavities coupled to rare-earth quan- tum emitters.Optica, 9(4):445–450, Apr

    Kangwei Xia, Fiammetta Sardi, Colin Sauerzapf, Thomas Kornher, Hans-Werner Becker, Zsolt Kis, Laszlo Kovacs, Denis Dertli, Jonas Foglszinger, Roman Kolesov, and J¨ org Wrachtrup. Tun- able microcavities coupled to rare-earth quan- tum emitters.Optica, 9(4):445–450, Apr

  6. [13]

    G. D. Boyd, L. A. Coldren, and F. G. Storz. Di- rectional reactive ion etching at oblique angles. Applied Physics Letters, 36(7):583–585, 04 1980. ISSN 0003-6951. doi: 10.1063/1.91554. URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.91554

    1980 doi

  7. [14]

    Burek, Nathalie P

    Michael J. Burek, Nathalie P. de Leon, Bren- dan J. Shields, Birgit J. M. Hausmann, Yiwen Chu, Qimin Quan, Alexander S. Zibrov, Hongkun Park, Mikhail D. Lukin, and Marko Lonˇ car. Free- standing mechanical and photonic nanostructures in single-crystal diamond.Nano Letters, 12(...

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    Zwier, Tom Bosma, Carmem M

    Olger V. Zwier, Tom Bosma, Carmem M. Gi- lardoni, Xu Yang, Alexander R. Onur, Takeshi Ohshima, Nguyen T. Son, and Caspar H. van der Wal. Electromagnetically induced transparency in inhomogeneously broadened divacancy defect ensembles in sic.Journal of Applied Physics, 131(9):0...

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Tom Bosma, Gerrit J. J. Lof, Carmem M. Gilardoni, Olger V. Zwier, Freddie Hendriks, Bj¨ orn Magnusson, Alexandre Ellison, Andreas G¨ allstr¨ om, Ivan G. Ivanov, N. T. Son, Remco W. A. Havenith, and Caspar H. van der 7 Wal. Identification and tunable optical co- herent control ...

    2018

  10. [18]

    Soykal, and J¨ org Wrachtrup

    Di Liu, Florian Kaiser, Vladislav Bushmakin, Erik Hesselmeier, Timo Steidl, Takeshi Ohshima, Nguyen Tien Son, Jawad Ul-Hassan, ¨Oney O. Soykal, and J¨ org Wrachtrup. The silicon va- cancy centers in sic: determination of intrin- sic spin dynamics for integrated quantum pho- to...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Kamel, Martin R

    Yi Zheng, Minhao Pu, Ailun Yi, Bingdong Chang, Tiangui You, Kai Huang, Ayman N. Kamel, Martin R. Henriksen, Asbjørn A. Jørgensen, Xin Ou, and Haiyan Ou. High-quality fac- tor, high-confinement microring resonators in 4h- silicon carbide-on-insulator.Opt. Express, 27 (9):13053–...

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Poitras, Ryan K

    Jaime Cardenas, Mengjie Yu, Yoshitomo Okawachi, Carl B. Poitras, Ryan K. W. Lau, Avik Dutt, Alexander L. Gaeta, and Michal Lipson. Optical nonlinearities in high-confinement silicon carbide waveguides.Opt. Lett., 40(17): 4138–4141, Sep 2015. doi: 10.1364/OL.40.004138. URLhttps...

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Irber, Francesco Poggiali, Fei Kong, Michael Kieschnick, Tobias L¨ uhmann, Damian Kwiatkowski, Jan Meijer, Jiangfeng Du, Fazhan Shi, and Friedemann Reinhard

    Dominik M. Irber, Francesco Poggiali, Fei Kong, Michael Kieschnick, Tobias L¨ uhmann, Damian Kwiatkowski, Jan Meijer, Jiangfeng Du, Fazhan Shi, and Friedemann Reinhard. Robust all-optical single-shot readout of nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond.Nature Communications, 12(1):5...

    2021

  14. [22]

    On readout and initialisation fidelity by finite demolition single shot readout

    Majid Zahedian, Max Keller, Minsik Kwon, Javid Javadzade, Jonas Meinel, Vadim Vorobyov, and J¨ org Wrachtrup. On readout and initialisation fidelity by finite demolition single shot readout. Quantum Science and Technology, 9(1):015023, dec 2023. doi: 10.1088/2058-9565/ad133f. ...

    2023 doi

  15. [2022]

    URL https://opg.optica.org/optica/abstract

    doi: 10.1364/OPTICA.453527. URL https://opg.optica.org/optica/abstract. cfm?URI=optica-9-4-445

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.