Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Surface adsorbates suppress low-frequency noise for shallow nitrogen-vacancy centers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Surface adsorbates suppress low-frequency noise for shallow nitrogen-vacancy centers: removing them under ultrahigh vacuum shortens Hahn echo T2 by a factor of 3 to 5 and enhances both electric and magnetic noise.

desk verdict Same-NV air/UHV study convincingly shows adsorbate removal degrades shallow-NV T2; the electric/magnetic decomposition is the part to scrutinize, but the core result deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01478 v1 pith:SBC24GB3 submitted 2026-08-02 quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Zhiyang Yuan , David A. Fehr , Kalliope Zervas , Sorawis Sangtawesin , Lila V. H. Rodgers , Patryk Gumann , Michael E. Flatte , Nathalie P. de Leon This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords nitrogen-vacancycentersdiamondsurfaceadsorbatesdecoherenceelectricfieldnoisemagneticultrahighvacuumdouble-quantumcoherence
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 sets out to test whether surface adsorbates are a leading source of decoherence for shallow nitrogen-vacancy centers, and it returns the opposite answer for low-frequency noise. Tracking the same individual NV centers in air and then under ultrahigh vacuum (after an in situ 350°C anneal that removes adsorbates), it finds that Hahn echo coherence time T2 drops by a factor of 3 to 5 in UHV, with the largest drops for the shallowest centers, and that re-exposure to air fully restores the longer T2. Using single- and double-quantum echo measurements, the paper separates electric and magnetic contributions and shows that both are amplified in UHV; dynamical-decoupling spectra show the low-frequency (~10 kHz–1 MHz) noise density rising. In contrast, double-quantum T1 measurements show electric noise near 100 MHz is suppressed, implying that adsorbates are not simply 'noise'—they reshape the surface noise spectrum in a frequency-dependent way. This matters because it upends the usual assumption that cleaner surfaces always improve nanoscale quantum sensors.

What carries the argument

The SQ/DQ decomposition is the load-bearing engine. In the DQ basis, coherence between $m_s=-1$ and $m_s=+1$ is twice as sensitive to axial magnetic field noise as the SQ transition, while electric field noise along the NV axis shifts both levels equally and is rejected; transverse electric noise is suppressed by a strong bias field. This yields $1/T_{2,\mathrm{SQ}} = 1/T_{2,B} + 1/T_{2,E}$ and $1/T_{2,\mathrm{DQ}} = 4/T_{2,B}$, so a pair of Hahn echo measurements yields both rates. The T1 analogue uses the facts that the DQ transition is magnetic-dipole forbidden, isolating electric noise near 100 MHz, while SQ T1 samples the GHz band; the rates $\Omega$ and $\gamma$ are extracted from $T_{

What would settle it

Perform DQ Hahn echo on the same shallow NV under UHV while applying a controlled, calibrated electric field noise source (e.g., a nearby biased electrode) and check whether T2,DQ shifts; if it does, the decomposition underpinning the electric/magnetic attribution fails. As a direct test of the mechanism, dose water vapor into the UHV chamber and observe whether T2 recovers to its air value—no recovery would disprove the adsorbate-compensation explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a pristine, adsorbate-free diamond surface produced by UHV annealing is noisier in the low-frequency band that limits shallow NV coherence, not quieter. For the same NV centers, $T_{2,\mathrm{air}}/T_{2,\mathrm{UHV}}$ ranges from 3.0 to 5.4 (representative: 26.9 µs in air vs 5.8 µs in UHV) and the ratio increases toward the surface. The paper establishes that the effect is reversible, that deep NVs are unaffected, and that it is not caused by laser power or vacuum instrumentation. Combining Hahn echo in the SQ and DQ bases shows both electric and magnetic decoherence rates rise under UHV, with the magnetic rate rising more; depth scaling of both is closer to $1/d_{\

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion hinges on the assumption that the DQ coherence time is insensitive to electric field noise and that zero-frequency noise dominates T2; if electric noise leaks into the DQ channel or finite-frequency terms are not negligible, the attribution of enhanced UHV noise to both electric and magnetic sources would be misassigned.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Surface engineering for shallow NV sensors must treat adsorbates not as a nuisance but as a noise-compensating layer: cleaner (UHV-prepared) surfaces can degrade T2 by 3–5×.
  • The increase in UHV is shared by electric and magnetic noise, so strategies limited to electric screening (e.g., high-dielectric liquids) are insufficient once adsorbates are removed.
  • The noise spectrum between ~10 kHz and ~1 MHz is elevated in UHV, so applications relying on dynamical decoupling in this band face a harder bath in vacuum conditions.
  • The shallowest NVs (below ~10 nm) also lose charge-state stability in UHV, so vacuum-based sensing protocols must account for NV- → NV0 conversion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If adsorbates mainly act by dissipating photogenerated surface charge, then the 'clean' UHV surface is not intrinsically noisier—laser illumination under vacuum is what charges it. A testable extension: compare T2 under UHV with and without green laser exposure during the sequence.
  • The 1/d^2 (rather than 1/d^4) depth scaling for electric noise points to point charges rather than dipoles; one could apply the same SQ/DQ decomposition to other terminations (H-, O-, F-terminated) to see whether the scaling exponents change systematically.
  • The paper hints at combining SQ and DQ dynamical decoupling noise spectroscopy to separate electric and magnetic spectral densities directly; that would be a stronger test of the frequency-dependent restructuring claim.
  • The reversibility on air exposure suggests adsorbates repopulate quickly; this makes controlled gas dosing a plausible engineering lever for tuning NV noise, which the paper notes as future work.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a one-to-one comparison of shallow nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in the same diamond sample under ambient air and under ultrahigh vacuum (UHV), where surface adsorbates are removed by in situ annealing. The central observation is that UHV reduces the Hahn-echo coherence time T2 by a factor of 3.0–5.4 relative to air, with the reduction larger for shallower NVs, and that the effect is reversible upon re-exposure to air. The authors combine single-quantum (SQ) and double-quantum (DQ) Hahn-echo measurements to decompose the T2 decoherence rate into electric and magnetic contributions, concluding that both are enhanced in UHV. Dynamical-decoupling noise spectroscopy shows an increase in low-frequency noise (10 kHz–1 MHz) in UHV. In contrast, T1 measurements show that the DQ T1 increases in UHV, indicating suppression of electric-field noise near 100 MHz. The paper interprets these results as evidence that surface adsorbates suppress low-frequency noise, likely through surface charge compensation, and that distinct microscopic mechanisms dominate different frequency regimes.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this result challenges the common assumption that surface adsorbates are a dominant source of shallow-NV decoherence and that cleaner surfaces always improve coherence. The paper has several strengths: the same individual NV centers are tracked across environments; the reversibility upon air exposure is demonstrated; deep-NV control measurements show no UHV effect; and controls for green-laser power and ion-pump/ion-gauge operation rule out straightforward experimental artifacts. The proton-NMR measurement provides direct evidence of adsorbate removal in UHV. The central empirical observation—UHV reduces T2 in a surface-dependent, reversible manner—is well supported. However, the decomposition into electric and magnetic contributions, and the associated surface-charge model, rest on assumptions that are not quantitatively secured. The paper explicitly acknowledges that a rigorous separation would require SQ/DQ dynamical-decoupling noise spectroscopy, which was not performed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix G, Eqs. (G9)–(G13)] The separation of electric and magnetic contributions assumes Γd⊥(ω+−) and Γγd′(ω±0) are negligible relative to Γγ∥(0) and Γd∥(0). The stated justification—'T1 times are typically in the millisecond regime, several orders of magnitude longer than T2'—is not quantitatively met. For the air data, T1,DQ = 0.24 ms (Fig. 4d) gives a rate ~4×10^3 s^-1, which is only ~5–10× smaller than the DQ dephasing rates extracted from T2,DQ (~10^4–10^5 s^-1), not 'orders of magnitude.' Since Γd⊥(ω+−) at the 420-G DQ frequency is not measured, electric-field noise may leak into the DQ channel; if so, the inferred magnetic enhancement is inflated and the electric enhancement underestimated. This is load-bearing for the central claim that both electric and magnetic noise are enhanced in UHV. A quantitative bound using T1 at the same magnetic field, or SQ/DQ dynamical-decoupling noise spectroscopy (as the aut
  2. [Sec. III/Fig. 2(f) and Appendix H] The depth-scaling exponents are used to conclude that electric noise comes from point charges and magnetic noise from moving charges. With only 8 NV centers over a depth range of 9–18 nm, the power-law fits have large uncertainties (e.g., air electric −1.63±0.14 vs UHV electric −2.19±0.27) and the range is too narrow to robustly discriminate 1/d^2 from 1/d^4. Moreover, the modified slab model in Appendix H requires an unphysical adsorbate thickness (D≳3d_NV) to quantitatively reproduce the air-vs-UHV difference, so the model cannot independently support the attribution. This weakens the microscopic mechanism; the paper should either add more depth-calibrated NVs or temper the assignment.
  3. [Appendix I] The surface charge density estimate depends on the unvalidated assumption that 50% of the measured noise is axial electric noise, and on the normalization constant A of the p(τ) distribution. The resulting densities (air (8.4±3.7)×10^14 m^-2; UHV (6.2±4.9)×10^15 m^-2) are quoted as evidence of increased surface charge, but the 50% fraction is not derived from the SQ/DQ decomposition, which is itself questionable. If the electric fraction changes between air and UHV—as Fig. 2(g) suggests—the estimated ratio could shift. This estimate should be clearly labeled as a crude order-of-magnitude estimate, and the sensitivity to the 50% assumption should be stated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix G, Eqs. (G7)–(G9)] The symbol Γγd′ appears but is never defined; this is presumably a typo for Γγ⊥ (or a mixed electric/magnetic rate). Please define all rates or correct the notation.
  2. [Appendix C] The UHV proton-NMR data are fit with an exponential decay, and the upper bound on proton density is quoted. The fitting procedure and systematic uncertainties should be described more explicitly, since the absence of a proton dip is a key control.
  3. [Data Availability] The statement that data are not publicly available is acceptable, but the raw T2 and T1 curves would strengthen reproducibility. Consider depositing the datasets in a public repository.
  4. [Sec. VII] The phrase 'first detailed study of NV center properties in a UHV environment and under a pristine surface' is overstated given the authors' own Ref. [34] and prior UHV work. Suggest softening to avoid overclaiming.
  5. [General] Some figure panels (e.g., Fig. 2) have many subpanels, and the text references are sometimes ambiguous. Adding error bars to Fig. 2(d) and panel labels in the text would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central T2 reduction is a direct measurement, and the SQ/DQ decomposition is an explicitly stated model assumption with independent formalism, not a fitted tautology.

full rationale

The paper's headline empirical result — the same shallow NV centers show T2 reduced by 3.0–5.4× in UHV with recovery in air — is a direct measurement with control experiments (deep NVs, laser power, ion pump/gauge, reversibility) and is entirely self-contained. The electric/magnetic decomposition (Eq. 3, Appendix G) restates the Lindblad formulas of Ref. [39]; although Ref. [39] shares an author, the formulas are reproduced in the paper and the key approximation (zero-frequency dominance, Eq. G10) is an assumption defended in the text, not an imported black box. The quantitative support for that approximation is weaker than claimed (air DQ T1 ≈ 0.24 ms gives a rate only ~10× below the air T2 rates, not 'several orders of magnitude'), but this is a validity concern, not circularity. Appendix I's surface-charge estimate re-expresses the measured noise spectrum with an assumed 50% electric split and a normalization A that absorbs the data; the paper labels it an order-of-magnitude estimate and does not use it to derive the central claim, and it admits a rigorous SQ/DQ spectral separation was not performed. The self-citations to Refs. [34] and [39] are not load-bearing in a circular way: surface cleanliness is independently verified here via proton NMR (Appendix C), and the theory of Ref. [39] does not contain the target UHV result. No step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper uses free parameters for spectral normalization, depth-scaling exponents, and spectral slopes, all fitted to the data. The main mechanistic interpretations rely on a prior theory (Ref [39]) and assumptions about surface cleanliness and charge distributions.

free parameters (5)
  • Spectral normalization A in p(tau) = A / tau^(2-alpha) = Not quoted; determined by matching measured spectral amplitude
    Appendix I uses A to normalize the Lorentzian fluctuator distribution; the charge density estimate inherits this fit.
  • Depth-scaling power-law exponents = -2.13 +/- 0.21 (UHV mag), -2.19 +/- 0.27 (UHV elec), -1.67 +/- 0.19 (air mag), -1.63 +/- 0.14 (air elec)
    Fig. 2(f) fits these exponents to 8 NV centers; used to conclude 1/d^2 scaling.
  • Noise spectral exponents alpha = e.g., -0.65 (UHV NV5), -0.88 (air NV5), -1.54 (UHV NV152), -0.98 (air NV152)
    Fig. 3(c,d) power-law fits to reconstructed spectra; used for the 1/f^alpha claim and charge density estimate.
  • T2 vs pi-pulse number exponents s = 0.52, 0.55, 0.44, 0.36 (various NV/conditions)
    Fig. 3(b) fits; interpreted as modification of noise bath dynamics.
  • Assumed 50% electric-noise fraction in spectrum = 0.5
    Appendix I assumes half the measured noise is axial electric field noise; based on the paper's own T2 decomposition, not an independent input.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lindblad Markovian formalism with zero-frequency dominance for T2 rates
    Appendix G, Eq. G10 assumes Gamma(0) terms dominate finite-frequency terms; authors note deviations may arise from finite correlation times.
  • domain assumption Surface charge model of Ref [39] for electric and magnetic noise
    Appendix H and I use Eqs. H1-H6 and I12 to convert noise spectra to surface charge density; model is external but applied here.
  • domain assumption UHV annealing at 350 C removes adsorbates without otherwise altering the near-surface NV environment
    Reversibility and control experiments support this, but the exact surface termination or charge state after annealing is not fully characterized in this paper.
  • domain assumption Absence of proton NMR signal indicates adsorbate-free surface
    Appendix C uses NV NMR to place an upper bound on surface proton density, assuming the model of Ref [36].
  • domain assumption Lorentzian fluctuator distribution p(tau) = A / tau^(2-alpha)
    Appendix I postulates this distribution to derive the 1/f^alpha spectrum; cutoffs tau1 and tau2 are chosen from the measured frequency window.
  • domain assumption Magnetic noise from moving surface charges rather than fluctuating surface spins
    The depth scaling interpretation in Section III and Appendix H assumes that magnetic noise arises from charge motion; this is not directly tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surface adsorbates suppress low-frequency noise for shallow nitrogen-vacancy centers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SBC24GB3

@misc{pith2026260801478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surface adsorbates suppress low-frequency noise for shallow nitrogen-vacancy centers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SBC24GB3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01478}
}
read the original abstract

Shallow nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond are promising nanoscale quantum sensors, yet their coherence is strongly limited by surface-induced noise. Surface adsorbates are widely believed to be a major source of decoherence. Here, we test this assumption by characterizing shallow single NV centers under ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) conditions, where the diamond surface is kept free of adsorbates, and comparing their behavior to ambient conditions. Surprisingly, we observe a ~4x reduction in the Hahn echo coherence time T2 in UHV. By combining Hahn echo measurements in the single-quantum (SQ) and double-quantum (DQ) bases, we separate contributions from different noise sources and find that both electric and magnetic noise are enhanced in UHV. In contrast, T1 measurements reveal an increased DQ T1 in UHV, indicating suppressed electric field noise in the ~100 MHz frequency regime. These results point to a modification of the surface noise spectrum upon adsorbate removal, with different frequency regimes arising from distinct microscopic mechanisms. Specifically, we find that the low frequency noise is consistent with increased surface charge in UHV that can be compensated by surface adsorbates in ambient conditions. Our findings highlight a complex and previously underappreciated role of surface adsorbates in shaping the noise environment of shallow NV centers, with important implications for nanoscale quantum sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01478 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of a near-surface nitrogen-vacancy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Energy level diagram of the ground-state electronic spin of the negatively charged NV center, indicating the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Dynamical decoupling measurements of NV co [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Energy level diagram of the NV center spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Confocal scan of a diamond sample acquired [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows a comparison of both SQ and DQ Hahn echo T2 measurements for representative deep NV cen￾ters in air and under UHV conditions. In contrast to the behavior observed for shallow NV centers, no significant difference in T2 is observed between the two environments for…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a,b) Representative SQ Hahn echo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) Additional SQ and DQ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Combined noise spectra in terms of transverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a) UHV confocal scan of the diamond surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. (a,b) Difference maps of confocal scans acquired be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. (a) Confocal scan of the diamond surface in air immediately after unloading from the UHV chamber without any [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Du, F. Shi, X. Kong, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Single-molecule scale magnetic resonance spectroscopy using quantum diamond sensors, Reviews of Modern Physics96, 025001 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    J. R. Maze, P. L. Stanwix, J. S. Hodges, S. Hong, J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Jiang, M. G. Dutt, E. Togan, A. Zibrov,et al., Nanoscale magnetic sensing with an individual electronic spin in diamond, Nature455, 644 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    Balasubramanian, I

    G. Balasubramanian, I. Chan, R. Kolesov, M. Al-Hmoud, J. Tisler, C. Shin, C. Kim, A. Wojcik, P. R. Hemmer, A. Krueger,et al., Nanoscale imaging magnetometry with diamond spins under ambient conditions, Nature 455, 648 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Maletinsky, S

    P. Maletinsky, S. Hong, M. S. Grinolds, B. Hausmann, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, M. Loncar, and A. Ya- coby, A robust scanning diamond sensor for nanoscale imaging with single nitrogen-vacancy centres, Nature nanotechnology7, 320 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. R. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution, Nature Physics4, 810 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    L. V. Rodgers, S. T. Nguyen, J. H. Cox, K. Zervas, Z. Yuan, S. Sangtawesin, A. Stacey, C. Jaye, C. Weiland, A. Pershin,et al., Diamond surface functionalization via visible light–driven c–h activation for nanoscale quantum sensing, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2316032121 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Rovny, S

    J. Rovny, S. Gopalakrishnan, A. C. B. Jayich, P. Maletinsky, E. Demler, and N. P. de Leon, Nanoscale diamond quantum sensors for many-body physics, Na- ture Reviews Physics6, 753 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Casola, T

    F. Casola, T. Van Der Sar, and A. Yacoby, Probing condensed matter physics with magnetometry based on nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamond, Nature Reviews Materials3, 17088 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Schirhagl, K

    R. Schirhagl, K. Chang, M. Loretz, and C. L. Degen, Nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond: nanoscale sensors for physics and biology, Annual review of physical chem- istry65, 83 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Kucsko, P

    G. Kucsko, P. C. Maurer, N. Y. Yao, M. Kubo, H. J. Noh, P. K. Lo, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Nanometre- scale thermometry in a living cell, Nature500, 54 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Lovchinsky, A

    I. Lovchinsky, A. Sushkov, E. Urbach, N. P. de Leon, S. Choi, K. De Greve, R. Evans, R. Gertner, E. Bersin, C. M¨ uller,et al., Nuclear magnetic resonance detection and spectroscopy of single proteins using quantum logic, Science351, 836 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Mamin, M

    H. Mamin, M. Kim, M. Sherwood, C. T. Rettner, K. Ohno, D. Awschalom, and D. Rugar, Nanoscale nu- clear magnetic resonance with a nitrogen-vacancy spin sensor, Science339, 557 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Sangtawesin, B

    S. Sangtawesin, B. L. Dwyer, S. Srinivasan, J. J. Allred, L. V. Rodgers, K. De Greve, A. Stacey, N. Dontschuk, K. M. O’Donnell, D. Hu, D. A. Evans, C. Jaye, D. A. Fischer, M. L. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, H. Park, M. D. Lukin, and N. P. De Leon, Origins of Diamond Surface Noise ...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Rosskopf, A

    T. Rosskopf, A. Dussaux, K. Ohashi, M. Loretz, 18 (a) (c) (d) (b) 2 μm 25 50 75 PL (kcps) 2 μm 25 50 75 PL (kcps) 2 μm 25 50 75 PL (kcps) 2 μm 25 50 75 PL (kcps) 10 −6 10 −4 10 −2 Evolution time (s) 0.0 0.5 1.0Relaxation signal (Arb.) 10 −6 10 −4 10 −2 Evolution time (s) 0.0 0...

    2014

  7. [15]

    Romach, C

    Y. Romach, C. M¨ uller, T. Unden, L. Rogers, T. Isoda, K. M. Itoh, M. Markham, A. Stacey, J. Meijer, S. Pezza- gna,et al., Spectroscopy of surface-induced noise using shallow spins in diamond, Physical review letters114, 017601 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    B. A. Myers, A. Das, M. Dartiailh, K. Ohno, D. D. Awschalom, and A. Bleszynski Jayich, Probing surface noise with depth-calibrated spins in diamond, Physical Review Letters113, 027602 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    K. Ohno, F. Joseph Heremans, L. C. Bassett, B. A. My- ers, D. M. Toyli, A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, C. J. Palm- strøm, and D. D. Awschalom, Engineering shallow spins in diamond with nitrogen delta-doping, Applied Physics Letters101(2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Ofori-Okai, S

    B. Ofori-Okai, S. Pezzagna, K. Chang, M. Loretz, R. Schirhagl, Y. Tao, B. Moores, K. Groot-Berning, J. Meijer, and C. Degen, Spin properties of very shallow nitrogen vacancy defects in diamond, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics86, 081406 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Bluvstein, Z

    D. Bluvstein, Z. Zhang, and A. C. B. Jayich, Identify- ing and mitigating charge instabilities in shallow dia- mond nitrogen-vacancy centers, Physical review letters 122, 076101 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Z. Yuan, M. Fitzpatrick, L. V. Rodgers, S. Sangtawesin, S. Srinivasan, and N. P. De Leon, Charge state dynamics and optically detected electron spin resonance contrast of shallow nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond, Physical Review Research2, 033263 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Yamano, S

    H. Yamano, S. Kawai, K. Kato, T. Kageura, M. In- aba, T. Okada, I. Higashimata, M. Haruyama, T. Tanii, K. Yamada,et al., Charge state stabilization of shal- low nitrogen vacancy centers in diamond by oxygen sur- face modification, Japanese journal of applied physics56, 04CK08 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    R. Giri, R. H. Jensen, D. Khurana, J. Bocquel, I. P. Radko, J. Lang, C. Osterkamp, F. Jelezko, K. Berg- Sorensen, U. L. Andersen,et al., Charge stability and charge-state-based spin readout of shallow nitrogen- vacancy centers in diamond, ACS Applied Electronic Ma- 19 terials5...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Haruyama, Y

    M. Haruyama, Y. Okigawa, M. Okada, H. Nakajima, T. Okazaki, H. Kato, T. Makino, and T. Yamada, Charge stabilization of shallow nitrogen-vacancy centers using graphene/diamond junctions, Applied Physics Letters 122(2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    M. Kim, H. Mamin, M. Sherwood, K. Ohno, D. D. Awschalom, and D. Rugar, Decoherence of near-surface nitrogen-vacancy centers due to electric field noise, Phys- ical review letters115, 087602 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Stacey, N

    A. Stacey, N. Dontschuk, J.-P. Chou, D. A. Broadway, A. K. Schenk, M. J. Sear, J.-P. Tetienne, A. Hoffman, S. Prawer, C. I. Pakes,et al., Evidence for primal sp2 defects at the diamond surface: candidates for electron trapping and noise sources, Advanced Materials Inter- faces...

    2019

  18. [26]

    F´ avaro de Oliveira, D

    F. F´ avaro de Oliveira, D. Antonov, Y. Wang, P. Neumann, S. A. Momenzadeh, T. H¨ außermann, A. Pasquarelli, A. Denisenko, and J. Wrachtrup, Tailor- ing spin defects in diamond by lattice charging, Nature communications8, 15409 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Yamamoto, T

    T. Yamamoto, T. Umeda, K. Watanabe, S. Onoda, M. Markham, D. Twitchen, B. Naydenov, L. McGuin- ness, T. Teraji, S. Koizumi,et al., Extending spin co- herence times of diamond qubits by high-temperature annealing, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics88, 0752...

    2013

  20. [28]

    T. L. Barr and S. Seal, Nature of the use of adventitious carbon as a binding energy standard, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films 13, 1239 (1995)

    1995

  21. [29]

    Greczynski and L

    G. Greczynski and L. Hultman, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy: Towards reliable binding energy referenc- ing, Progress in Materials Science107, 100591 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    L. H. Grey, H.-Y. Nie, and M. C. Biesinger, Defining the nature of adventitious carbon and improving its merit as a charge correction reference for xps, Applied Surface Science653, 159319 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Rivero, W

    P. Rivero, W. Shelton, and V. Meunier, Surface proper- ties of hydrogenated diamond in the presence of adsor- bates: A hybrid functional dft study, Carbon110, 469 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Chakrapani, S

    V. Chakrapani, S. C. Eaton, A. B. Anderson, M. Tabib- Azar, and J. C. Angus, Studies of adsorbate-induced con- ductance of diamond surfaces, Electrochemical and solid- state letters8, E4 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Nebel, B

    C. Nebel, B. Rezek, D. Shin, and H. Watanabe, Surface electronic properties of h-terminated diamond in contact with adsorbates and electrolytes, physica status solidi (a) 203, 3273 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Z. Yuan, S. Sangtawesin, L. V. H. Rodgers, K. Zervas, J. J. Allred, J. Rovny, P. Gumann, and N. P. de Leon, An integrated ultrahigh vacuum cluster tool for diamond surface science and single nitrogen-vacancy center mea- surements (2026), arXiv:2606.13961 [quant-ph]

    2026

  27. [35]

    Kaviani, P

    M. Kaviani, P. De´ ak, B. Aradi, T. Frauenheim, J.-P. Chou, and A. Gali, Proper surface termination for lumi- nescent near-surface nv centers in diamond, Nano letters 14, 4772 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    L. M. Pham, S. J. DeVience, F. Casola, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, E. Bersin, J. Lee, E. Urbach, P. Cappel- laro, H. Park,et al., Nmr technique for determining the depth of shallow nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond, Physical Review B93, 045425 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    H. J. Mamin, M. H. Sherwood, M. Kim, C. T. Ret- tner, K. Ohno, D. D. Awschalom, and D. Rugar, Mul- tipulse double-quantum magnetometry with near-surface nitrogen-vacancy centers, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 030803 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Dolde, H

    F. Dolde, H. Fedder, M. W. Doherty, T. N¨ obauer, F. Rempp, G. Balasubramanian, T. Wolf, F. Reinhard, L. C. Hollenberg, F. Jelezko,et al., Electric-field sensing using single diamond spins, Nature Physics7, 459 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    D. R. Candido and M. E. Flatt´ e, Interplay between charge and spin noise in the near-surface theory of de- coherence and relaxation of c 3 v symmetry qutrit spin-1 centers, Physical Review B110, 024419 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    B. A. Myers, A. Ariyaratne, and A. B. Jayich, Double- quantum spin-relaxation limits to coherence of near- surface nitrogen-vacancy centers, Physical review letters 118, 197201 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Bar-Gill, L

    N. Bar-Gill, L. M. Pham, C. Belthangady, D. Le Sage, P. Cappellaro, J. Maze, M. D. Lukin, A. Yacoby, and R. Walsworth, Suppression of spin-bath dynamics for improved coherence of multi-spin-qubit systems, Nature communications3, 858 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    De Lange, Z.-H

    G. De Lange, Z.-H. Wang, D. Riste, V. Dobrovitski, and R. Hanson, Universal dynamical decoupling of a single solid-state spin from a spin bath, Science330, 60 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    S. Lin, C. Weng, J. Wang, Y. Guo, Y. Yang, J. Zhao, P. Ma, Y. Chen, L. Lou, W. Zhu,et al., Diamond sur- face electric-field noise detection using shallow nitrogen- vacancy centers, Physical Review B106, 165406 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    J. N. Neethirajan, T. Hache, D. Paone, D. Pinto, A. Denisenko, R. St¨ ohr, P. Udvarhelyi, A. Pershin, A. Gali, J. Wrachtrup,et al., Controlled surface modi- fication to revive shallow nv–centers, Nano Letters23, 2563 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    K. R. Brown, J. Chiaverini, J. M. Sage, and H. H¨ affner, Materials challenges for trapped-ion quantum computers, Nature Reviews Materials6, 892 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Chatterjee, P

    A. Chatterjee, P. Stevenson, S. De Franceschi, A. Morello, N. P. de Leon, and F. Kuemmeth, Semicon- ductor qubits in practice, Nature Reviews Physics3, 157 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    N. P. De Leon, K. M. Itoh, D. Kim, K. K. Mehta, T. E. Northup, H. Paik, B. Palmer, N. Samarth, S. Sangtawesin, and D. W. Steuerman, Materials chal- lenges and opportunities for quantum computing hard- ware, Science372, eabb2823 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    D. Hite, Y. Colombe, A. C. Wilson, D. Allcock, D. Leibfried, D. Wineland, and D. Pappas, Surface sci- ence for improved ion traps, MRS bulletin38, 826 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Laikhtman, A

    A. Laikhtman, A. Lafosse, Y. Le Coat, R. Azria, and A. Hoffman, Interaction of water vapor with bare and hydrogenated diamond film surfaces, Surface science551, 99 (2004)

    2004

  42. [50]

    Z. Xu, M. L. Palm, W. Huxter, K. Herb, J. M. Aben- droth, K. Bouzehouane, O. Boulle, M. S. Gabor, J. Ur- restarazu Larranaga, A. Morales,et al., Minimizing sensor-sample distances in scanning nitrogen-vacancy magnetometry, ACS nano19, 8255 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Loretz, S

    M. Loretz, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, and C. Degen, Nanoscale nuclear magnetic resonance with a 1.9-nm- deep nitrogen-vacancy sensor, Applied Physics Letters 104(2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Degen, M

    C. Degen, M. Poggio, H. Mamin, C. Rettner, and D. Ru- gar, Nanoscale magnetic resonance imaging, Proceedings 20 of the National Academy of Sciences106, 1313 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Ajoy, Y.-X

    A. Ajoy, Y.-X. Liu, K. Saha, L. Marseglia, J.-C. Jaskula, U. Bissbort, and P. Cappellaro, Quantum interpolation for high-resolution sensing, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, 2149 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Zikovsky, S

    J. Zikovsky, S. A. Dogel, A. J. Dickie, J. L. Pitters, and R. A. Wolkow, Reaction of a hydrogen-terminated si (100) surface in uhv with ion-pump generated radi- cals, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A27, 248 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

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