Impact of strain and dark states on spectroscopic measurements of silicon-vacancy centers in diamond

Christopher L. Smallwood; Ehsan Khatami; Imran Bashir; Kelsey M. Bates; Kesav V. Narayan; Liam G. Stanton; Tommy Chin

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Impact of strain and dark states on spectroscopic measurements of silicon-vacancy centers in diamond

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fully random anisotropic strain plus a strain-threshold dark-state channel quantitatively reproduces both heterodyne- and photoluminescence-detected MDCS spectra of a dense SiV ensemble.

desk verdict Useful quantitative strain-model comparison for heterodyne SiV MDCS, but the photoluminescence story rests on a step-function branching ratio that the authors themselves flag as physically unreasonable. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11168 v1 pith:UHTSV7T2 submitted 2026-08-11 quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics

Tommy Chin , Kesav V. Narayan , Imran Bashir , Kelsey M. Bates , Liam G. Stanton , Ehsan Khatami , Christopher L. Smallwood This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics

keywords silicon-vacancycentersdiamondcolorstraindarkstatesmultidimensionalcoherentspectroscopyheterodynedetectionphotoluminescencequantumsensing

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper uses numerical simulations to explain a large experimental difference: in a dense ensemble of negatively charged silicon-vacancy (SiV$^-$) centers in diamond, heterodyne-detected multidimensional coherent spectroscopy (MDCS) shows more than sixty times more spectral inhomogeneity than photoluminescence-detected MDCS. The authors argue that strain in the sample is fully random and anisotropic, with axial strain spread over a Gaussian of width $\sigma_{\mathrm{axial}}=2.8\times10^{-4}$ and shear strain over $\sigma_{\mathrm{shear}}=3.5\times10^{-5}$, and that highly strained centers (largest strain component above $1.5\times10^{-5}$) are nearly decoupled from optical emission through a strain-activated dark state. The paper shows that this one picture, with the same strain ensemble feeding both simulated signals, reproduces the measured spectra from Ref. [19]. The result matters because it constrains the strain environment in implanted diamond and suggests that optically silent SiV centers may be abundant, which would affect quantum sensing and emitter applications.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the strain-dependent SiV$^-$ four-level Hamiltonian encoded in Eqs. (6)--(8), where the zero-phonon line $\Delta_{\mathrm{ZPL}}(\epsilon)$ and the ground- and excited-state splittings $\Delta_{gs}(\epsilon)$ and $\Delta_{es}(\epsilon)$ respond to the six strain components through susceptibility coefficients, with shear components entering the splittings. The ensemble signal is a Monte Carlo sum over independently sampled Gaussian strain tensors, with separate widths for axial and shear components. The second piece is the branching ratio $B_{e'}(\epsilon)$ of Eq. (13), approximated as a step function: no nonradiative decay below a strain threshold of $1.5\times10^{-5}$, and $\Gamma_{\mathrm{nr}}/\Gamma_{\mathrm{rad}}\gtrsim10^{6}$ above it, which filters strongly strained centers out of photoluminescence while leaving the heterodyne response intact.

What would settle it

Apply controlled uniaxial stress to a single SiV$^-$ center while measuring its photoluminescence intensity and lifetime: the step-function branching ratio predicts an abrupt drop in emission and a radiative lifetime near 160 $\mu$s once the largest strain component passes $1.5\times10^{-5}$. A smooth decline, a much shorter lifetime, or no drop at that strain would rule out the proposed dark-state decoupling mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single quantitatively specified strain environment explains both MDCS detection schemes. Starting from density-matrix perturbation theory for the four-level SiV$^-$ system, it builds a Monte Carlo ensemble of strained centers and compares five strain models against the measured heterodyne spectrum. Only fully random anisotropic strain, drawn from six independent Gaussian components with $\sigma_{\mathrm{axial}}=2.8\times10^{-4}$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{shear}}=3.5\times10^{-5}$, reproduces the single diagonally elongated feature; uniaxial, randomly oriented uniaxial, and isotropic models all retain discrete peak structure. The same strain ensemble, weighted by a branching ratio $B_{e'}(\epsilon)$ that drops to $\Gamma_{\mathrm{nr}}/\Gamma_{\mathrm{rad}}\gtrsim10^{6}$ above a strain threshold of $1.5\times10^{-5}$, then reproduces the narrow four-peak photoluminescence spectrum. The paper states that such a large ratio implies a radiative lifetime near 160 $\mu$s, which it calls unreasonable and an indicator of model incompleteness, and it suggests the branching may instead depend on the one-dimensional spectroscopic shift or on another neglected mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The photoluminescence result rests on a step-function assumption that centers whose largest strain component exceeds $1.5\times10^{-5}$ become almost entirely nonradiative (branching ratio below $10^{-6}$); if that threshold is not physical, the conclusion that highly strained centers decouple from optical emission has no support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In densely implanted SiV samples, strain varies maximally randomly with no systematic relation between tensor components, and independent shear strain is essential; structured strain geometries leave spectral fingerprints that the measured two-dimensional lineshape excludes.
Strongly strained centers (largest strain component above about $1.5\times10^{-5}$) are largely invisible to photoluminescence but still contribute to heterodyne signals, explaining the factor-of-sixty difference in apparent inhomogeneity between the two detection schemes.
Comparing heterodyne and photoluminescence MDCS separates radiative from nonradiative dynamics and can expose dark states in other emitter systems.
The inferred nonradiative branching ratio implies a radiative lifetime near 160 $\mu$s; the paper takes this as evidence that the step-function model is incomplete and points to alternatives such as branching controlled by the one-dimensional spectral shift.
The same strain sensitivity that broadens the spectra offers a route to non-contact strain sensing in diamond and a handle for modulating radiative emission in SiV devices.

Reading between the lines

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

If the strain-activated dark-state channel is real, a large fraction of SiV centers in high-density samples are optically dark, so photoluminescence-based measurements may undercount the active emitter population; that would matter for quantum-light-source yields.
The heterodyne-versus-photoluminescence comparison could be transferred to other color centers to map strain distributions or detect bystander states that a single detection scheme misses; the paper does not make this extension.
A single-center experiment under controlled stress, measuring photoluminescence intensity and lifetime as a function of strain, would test the step-function branching ratio more sharply than ensemble spectra can; if the threshold or the 160 $\mu$s lifetime is not confirmed, the dark-state mechanism needs revision.
The 'unreasonable' lifetime suggests an alternative reading in which the apparent decoupling comes from spatial inhomogeneity or spectral diffusion selecting weakly strained centers rather than from a true nonradiative channel; that alternative is an editorial inference, not a claim of the paper.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this one. First, the heterodyne-side modeling is a genuine step forward: it compares five strain distributions against the measured MDCS spectrum and shows that only fully random anisotropic strain, with independent axial and shear widths, reproduces the broadened lineshape. The structured alternatives (uniaxial, isotropic, etc.) leave discrete peak structure that the data do not show. That is a real conclusion, not a trivial one, and the paper is honest about the by-eye taper criterion used to set sigma_axial = 2.8e-4 and sigma_shear = 3.5e-5. Second, the photoluminescence-side model is where the load-bearing assumption lives: Eq. (13) introduces a strain-dependent branching ratio, approximated as a step function with threshold 1.5e-5, and matching the PL spectrum requires Gamma_nr/Gamma_rad >= 1e6. The paper itself calls the implied ~160 us radiative lifetime "unreasonable" and "an indicator of model incompleteness or incorrectness." That is not a buried flaw; it is in Section IV. But it means the quantitative claim that the same strain distribution plus dark-state decoupling reproduces both spectra is not established. The threshold and ratio are chosen to make the PL spectrum match, not derived or measured.

What is actually new: the quantitative rejection of four structured strain models, the quoted Gaussian widths for the fully random model, and the lower bound on Gamma_nr/Gamma_rad. The dark-state mechanism itself is qualitative in Ref. [19], so this paper converts it to a concrete, testable model. The correction of the transposed strain components relative to Ref. [6] is also worth noting. The paper ships code and data via Google Drive, which is good practice.

Where I part ways with the harshest reading: this is not a case of hidden circularity. The authors explicitly label the extreme branching ratio as a problem and offer alternatives (e.g., branching as a function of spectral shift, or grain-boundary effects). The heterodyne fit does not depend on the dark-state step function; it stands on its own as a comparison of strain models. So I would not reject the whole paper on the PL weakness, but I also would not let the joint-fit claim through without major revision.

The soft spots, in proportion: no error bars on the fitted widths; the taper criterion is a 5% threshold plus an eye-match to asymmetry; the PL fit requires the suspicious branching ratio; and the "prediction" that strained centers decouple is really the inserted step function. None of these are fatal to the heterodyne result, but they cap how much I would trust the photoluminescence conclusions.

Who gets value: people working on SiV ensembles, strain sensing, or MDCS simulations. It deserves a serious referee, with the expectation that the PL section will need substantial rework or reframing as a model-dependent scenario rather than a confirmed finding. I would engage with it, but I would read the PL section as a proposal, not a verification.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a computational model of strain distributions in ensembles of negatively charged silicon-vacancy (SiV$^-$) centers in diamond, aimed at reproducing two experimental multidimensional coherent spectroscopy (MDCS) datasets from Ref. [19]: one with heterodyne detection and one with photoluminescence (PL) detection. The model combines density-matrix perturbation theory with Monte Carlo sampling over strain configurations. The authors find that only a fully random anisotropic strain distribution, with Gaussian widths $\sigma_\mathrm{axial}=2.8\times10^{-4}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{shear}=3.5\times10^{-5}$, reproduces the heterodyne spectrum, while structured uniaxial or isotropic models fail. To reproduce the PL spectrum, they introduce a strain-dependent branching ratio $B_{e'}(\epsilon)$ in Eq. (13), modeled as a step function that suppresses optical emission for strain components above $1.5\times10^{-5}$. This requires $\Gamma_\mathrm{nr}/\Gamma_{\mathrm{rad},e'} \gtrsim 10^6$, which the authors themselves describe as potentially unreasonable and an indicator of model incompleteness. The paper concludes that highly strained centers decouple from optical emission, that comparing heterodyne and PL MDCS can reveal dark states, and that SiV centers may serve as strain sensors.

Significance. If the central claims held, the paper would provide a quantitative, physically interpretable description of strain disorder in a high-density SiV ensemble, with implications for quantum sensing and for interpreting MDCS experiments on color-center ensembles. The manuscript is commendable for comparing five strain models, using experimentally derived coupling parameters from Refs. [6] and [19], and for making the simulation code and data publicly available [33]. The heterodyne-spectrum modeling is internally consistent and the model-selection argument for fully random anisotropic strain is a useful contribution. However, the quantitative significance of the paper is limited by two factors: the heterodyne fit is adjusted by eye under an empirical taper criterion without error bars, and the PL-spectrum match rests on a step-function branching ratio whose required parameter values the authors themselves flag as unreasonable. The claimed decoupling of highly strained centers is therefore not an established result but a scenario illustrated by the model.

major comments (3)

[Section III A, Fig. 4] The match to the photoluminescence-detected spectrum relies entirely on the strain-dependent branching ratio $B_{e'}(\epsilon)$ in Eq. (13), implemented as a step function that sets $\Gamma_\mathrm{nr}/\Gamma_{\mathrm{rad},e'} \gtrsim 10^6$ above a threshold of $1.5\times10^{-5}$. The paper itself states (Section IV) that this implies a radiative lifetime of about 160 $\mu$s, calls the result 'unreasonable,' and says it 'could serve as an indicator of model incompleteness or incorrectness.' Since this branching ratio is the only mechanism that suppresses the broad heterodyne background in the simulated PL spectrum (Fig. 7), the quantitative claim that the same strain distribution plus branching reproduces both experimental spectra is not supported. The step-function form and the threshold are chosen to match the PL data, and no independent microscopic calculation or measurement of $\Gamma_\mathrm{nr}(\epsilon)$ is provided. At minimum, the PL results should be presented as an illustration of a possible mechanism, with the threshold and ratio treated as unvalidated assumptions, not as extracted physical parameters.
[Section IV and Conclusions] The reported strain widths $\sigma_\mathrm{axial}=2.8\times10^{-4}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{shear}=3.5\times10^{-5}$ are obtained by adjusting values 'by eye' subject to an empirical taper criterion (the smoothed 2D spectrum must fall below 5% of its peak at the window edge). No quantitative goodness-of-fit measure, uncertainty estimate, or sensitivity analysis is provided. Because these widths are headline quantitative results repeated in the abstract and conclusions, the paper needs a more rigorous fitting procedure, such as a least-squares comparison to the experimental spectrum with confidence intervals, or at least a demonstration that the inferred widths are not degenerate with other parameter choices. Without this, the claimed numerical values are not established beyond a qualitative level.
[Section IV and Conclusions] The threshold $1.5\times10^{-5}$ and the step-function branching ratio are tuned to reproduce the PL spectrum, and the paper then reports the resulting suppression of strongly strained centers as a finding ('highly strained centers ... may become significantly decoupled from optical emission'). This is partially circular: the same dataset is used both to set the threshold and to support the decoupling claim. The authors' own admission that the required $\Gamma_\mathrm{nr}/\Gamma_{\mathrm{rad},e'}$ ratio is unreasonable makes the inference especially fragile. The conclusion should be reframed as a testable hypothesis, and the paper should propose an independent observable (for example, single-center PL measurements correlated with strain estimates) that could confirm or falsify the step-function branching model.

minor comments (4)

[Section III B] In the randomly oriented uniaxial strain paragraph, the sentence 'With ϵ0 drawn from a Gaussian with σ = 8.0 × 10−4 Using our taper criterion...' is syntactically broken; the threshold application and the Gaussian draw need to be separated into complete sentences.
[Section III B, Eq. (12) and text after it] The phrase 'Using our taper criterion' is inserted mid-sentence, and there are typographical errors such as 'A veraging' and 'suﬀiciently' (with non-ASCII characters). These should be corrected.
[Section III B, isotropic strain model] The isotropic strain is written as 'ˆϵ = ϵ0 ˆ/x31', which appears garbled; the identity-matrix form should be typeset cleanly (e.g., as $\epsilon_0 \mathbb{1}$).
[General notation] The paper uses both $\sigma_\mathrm{axial}$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{shear}$ and the bare label '$\sigma$' for the width in alternate models; a table or consistent subscript would help the reader track which width is being varied in Fig. 5.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Strain widths are fit by eye to the heterodyne spectrum, and the PL dark-state cutoff is inserted as a step function; both are then reported as model findings.

fitted input called prediction [Section III.A (Fully Random Anisotropic Strain), parameter adjustment for Fig. 4]
"We then adjust each value of σ within the range the criterion allows to match the measured lineshape’s asymmetry by eye. For fully random anisotropic strain, this constraint gives σaxial = 2 .8 × 10−4 and σshear = 3 .5 × 10−5, producing the single diagonally elongated feature shown in Fig. 4."

The two widths are the free parameters of the random-strain model, tuned by eye, within a 5% taper criterion, until the simulated heterodyne spectrum matches the measured heterodyne spectrum of Ref. [19]. The abstract then presents those tuning values as the paper's discovery: 'Simulation results reveal that strain effects are highly random ... with a characteristic axial strain of 2.8 × 10−4 and a shear strain of 3.5 × 10−5.' No independent dataset or parameter-free calculation fixes these numbers; they are the settings chosen to reproduce the very spectrum they are claimed to explain. The five-model comparison is a real model-selection argument, but it does not convert the fitted width values into predictions.
self definitional [Section IV, Eq. (13) and step-function threshold; abstract]
"We approximate Γnr as a step function of the strain, which is zero when the largest strain component magnitude lies below a threshold of 1.5 × 10−5 and a value much larger than Γrad,e′ for strain values above that threshold."

The PL suppression is achieved by inserting the threshold and a huge nonradiative ratio, and the paper later states that if 'Γnr/Γrad,e′ is set much smaller, the heterodyne detected background is not sufficiently suppressed.' The resulting 'suggestion' that 'highly strained centers (with values exceeding 1.5 × 10−5) may become significantly decoupled from optical emission' (abstract) is therefore identical to the step function put into Eq. (13), not an inference from independent data. The paper itself concedes the ratio implies an 'unreasonable' ~160 µs radiative lifetime and calls it an 'indicator of model incompleteness or incorrectness,' which further shows the dark-state decoupling conclusion is not an independent result but an input assumption presented as a finding.

full rationale

The paper's core quantitative claim is that one strain distribution plus a branching ratio reproduces both MDCS spectra. The heterodyne part is a legitimate fit: five strain models are compared, and the fully random anisotropic model is selected by the data; that model-selection step has independent content. However, the two headline numbers (σ_axial = 2.8×10^-4, σ_shear = 3.5×10^-5) are tuned to the measured heterodyne spectrum and then reported as 'revealed' strain statistics, which is a fit renamed as a prediction. The photoluminescence part is more directly circular: the conclusion that strongly strained centers decouple from optical emission is literally the step-function cutoff inserted in Eq. (13), with the ratio Γ_nr/Γ_rad,e' ≳ 10^6 chosen so the heterodyne background disappears. The paper's own admission that this requires a ~160 µs radiative lifetime and is an 'indicator of model incompleteness or incorrectness' reinforces that the dark-state mechanism is assumed, not derived. Because the central two-spectrum reproduction depends on these tuned inputs, a partial circularity score of 6 is appropriate; the alternative-model comparison prevents a higher score, since that part is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on importing the strain Hamiltonian and susceptibility coefficients from Ref. [6], assuming an independent-center ensemble, and adding a step-function dark-state branching ratio whose magnitude the authors themselves flag as possibly unphysical. The fitted parameters do the work: the 'findings' are the tuned values.

free parameters (6)

σ_axial = 2.8 × 10^-4
Width of Gaussian axial strain distribution; adjusted by eye to match heterodyne spectrum asymmetry and taper criterion (Section III A).
σ_shear = 3.5 × 10^-5
Width of Gaussian shear strain distribution; co-adjusted with σ_axial to reproduce the heterodyne lineshape.
branching threshold = 1.5 × 10^-5
Step-function threshold in Γ_nr(ε); chosen so the photoluminescence spectrum keeps only weakly strained centers (Section IV).
Γ_nr/Γ_rad ratio = ≥ 10^6
Set large enough to suppress the strained background in photoluminescence; the paper notes it implies roughly 160 µs radiative lifetime and may be unreasonable.
Poisson ratio p (uniaxial model) = 0.2
Used only in the alternate uniaxial strain model; an overestimate for bulk diamond, so not part of the central fit.
σ for alternate models = 9.0 × 10^-4 (uniaxial), 8.0 × 10^-4 (randomly oriented), 4.5 × 10^-4 (isotropic)
Tuned by the same taper criterion for the four alternative strain geometries in Fig. 5.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Strain Hamiltonian and susceptibility coefficients from Ref. [6] (Eqs. 6-8).
The paper imports t, d, f coefficients and the spin-orbit parameters without rederivation; any error propagates into all quoted strain values.
standard math Density-matrix perturbation theory, Bloch model, impulsive and Markovian limits, rotating-wave approximation (Section II).
Standard framework for MDCS; not independently proven here.
domain assumption Dark state exists and couples to excited states with branching ratio Eq. (13).
Adopted from Ref. [19]; its existence is not directly confirmed, and the paper itself leaves this open.
domain assumption Ensemble is a sum over independent, non-interacting SiV centers (Eq. 9).
The high-density sample might include interactions, which are neglected.
ad hoc to paper Single dephasing rate γ for all transitions (after Eq. 4).
Simplifies the model; not justified from data.

invented entities (1)

Dark state of SiV- center
purpose: Provides a strain-activated nonradiative decay channel that suppresses photoluminescence from strongly strained centers.
Postulated in Ref. [19] and inherited here; no direct spectroscopic signature or microscopic model is provided. The paper says direct confirmation remains an open question.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of strain and dark states on spectroscopic measurements of silicon-vacancy centers in diamond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UHTSV7T2

@misc{pith2026260811168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of strain and dark states on spectroscopic measurements of silicon-vacancy centers in diamond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UHTSV7T2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11168}
}

abstract

Negatively charged silicon-vacancy (SiV$^-$) centers in diamond offer an attractive platform for the development of many forms of quantum technology. However, questions remain in connection to how large ensembles of SiV$^-$ centers behave in concert. Here, we develop a computational model designed to simulate recent experiments where optical multidimensional coherent spectroscopy (MDCS) was used to examine a high-concentration sample of SiV$^-$ centers in diamond, revealing significant variations in spectral signature depending on the detection scheme. Simulation results reveal that strain effects are highly random in this system, with a characteristic axial strain of $2.8 \times 10^{-4}$ and a shear strain of $3.5 \times 10^{-5}$. They suggest in addition that highly strained centers (with values exceeding $1.5 \times 10^{-5}$) may become significantly decoupled from optical emission. The results have implications for the use of SiV$^-$ centers as quantum sensors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11168 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a). Because a single strain direction shifts and splits the four transition frequencies together rather than smearing them independently, the discrete peak structure survives the ensemble average. In the projection onto νt, the ensemble average smears away the small g…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: presents the outcome, with simulated spectra in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[19]

Kucsko, S

G. Kucsko, S. Choi, J. Choi, P. C. Maurer, H. Zhou, R. Landig, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, F. Jelezko, E. Demler, N. Y. Yao, and M. D. Lukin, Critical thermalization of a disordered dipolar spin system in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 023601 (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

Meesala, Y.-I

S. Meesala, Y.-I. Sohn, B. Pingault, L. Shao, H. A. Atikian, J. Holzgrafe, M. Gündoğan, C. Stavrakas, A. Sipahigil, C. Chia, R. Evans, M. J. Burek, M. Zhang, L. Wu, J. L. Pacheco, J. Abraham, E. Bielejec, M. D. Lukin, M. Atatüre, and M. Lončar, Strain engineering of the silicon-vacancy center in diamond, Phys. Rev. B 97, 205444 (2018)

work page 2018
[33]

Gali and J

A. Gali and J. R. Maze, Ab initio study of the split silicon-vacancy defect in diamond: Electronic structure and related properties, Phys. Rev. B 88, 235205 (2013)

2013
[1]

L. V. H. Rodgers, L. B. Hughes, M. Xie, P. C. Maurer, S. Kolkowitz, A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, and N. P. de Leon, Materials challenges for quantum technologies based on color centers in diamond, MRS Bulletin 46, 623 (2021)

work page 2021
[2]

Aharonovich and E

I. Aharonovich and E. Neu, Diamond nanophotonics, Advanced Optical Materials 2, 911 (2014)

work page 2014
[3]

PL”), as well as a heterodyne-detected reference spectrum (black trace, labeled “Het

from ˆz, so the change of basis transforms ˆϵ by the rotation matrix ˆRy(θ0). Since ˆϵ has equal diagonal components along ˆx and ˆz, this transformation leaves the tensor unchanged, ˆϵin = ˆRy(θ0) ˆϵ ˆRT y (θ0) = ˆϵ. Writing ϵin for the vector formed from the six components of ˆϵin, we draw ϵ0 from a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation σ and av...

work page
[4]

R. E. Evans, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, C. T. Nguyen, A. Sipahigil, M. J. Burek, B. Machielse, G. H. Zhang, A. S. Zibrov, E. Bielejec, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Photon-mediated interactions between quantum emitters in a diamond nanocavity, Science 362, 662 (2018)

work page 2018
[5]

J. N. Becker and C. Becher, Coherence properties and quantum control of silicon vacancy color centers in diamond, Phys. Status Solidi A 214, 1700586 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 35 references

[7]

Y.-I. Sohn, S. Meesala, B. Pingault, H. A. Atikian, J. Holzgrafe, M. Gündoğan, C. Stavrakas, M. J. Stanley, A. Sipahigil, J. Choi, M. Zhang, J. L. Pacheco, 10 J. Abraham, E. Bielejec, M. D. Lukin, M. Atatüre, and M. Lončar, Controlling the coherence of a diamond spin qubit thr...

2018
[8]

K. Ngan, Y. Zhan, C. Dory, J. Vučković, and S. Sun, Quantum photonic circuits integrated with color centers in designer nanodiamonds, Nano Lett. 23, 9360 (2023)

2023
[9]

Koppenhöfer, C

M. Koppenhöfer, C. Padgett, J. V. Cady, V. Dharod, H. Oh, A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, and A. A. Clerk, Single-spin readout and quantum sensing using optomechanically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 093603 (2023)

2023
[10]

Lindner, N

S. Lindner, N. Rahbany, C. Pauly, L. Gines, S. Mandal, O. A. Williams, A. Muzha, A. Krueger, R. Bachelot, C. Couteau, and C. Becher, Coupling of single nanodiamonds hosting siv color centers to plasmonic double bowtie microantennas, Nanotechnology 36, 135001 (2025)

2025
[11]

bright” states and an unobserved “dark

to entanglement-assisted optical interferometry [ 12] to localized material strain sensing [ 6, 13, 14]. Device impacts aside, color centers in diamond offer opportunities for studying basic research questions, including what happens when color centers are placed in close prox...

2026 arXiv
[12]

D. R. Assumpcao, C. Jin, M. Sutula, S. W. Ding, P. Pham, C. M. Knaut, M. K. Bhaskar, A. Panday, A. M. Day, D. Renaud, M. D. Lukin, E. Hu, B. Machielse, and M. Loncar, Deterministic creation of strained color centers in nanostructures via high-stress thin films, Appl. Phys. Let...

2023
[13]

Wei, P.-J

Y.-C. Wei, P.-J. Stas, A. Suleymanzade, G. Baranes, F. Machado, Y. Q. Huan, C. M. Knaut, S. W. Ding, M. Merz, E. N. Knall, U. Yazlar, M. Sirotin, I. W. Wang, B. Machielse, S. F. Yelin, J. Borregaard, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Universal distributed blind quantum comp...

2025
[14]

Stas, Y.-C

P.-J. Stas, Y.-C. Wei, M. Sirotin, Y. Q. Huan, U. Yazlar, F. Abdo Arias, E. Knyazev, G. Baranes, B. Machielse, S. Grandi, D. Riedel, J. Borregaard, H. Park, M. Lončar, A. Suleymanzade, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement- assisted non-local optical interferometry in a quantum networ...

2026
[15]

Knauer, J

S. Knauer, J. P. Hadden, and J. G. Rarity, In-situ measurements of fabrication induced strain in diamond photonic-structures using intrinsic colour centres, npj Quantum Inf. 6, 50 (2020)

2020
[16]

K. M. Bates, M. W. Day, C. L. Smallwood, R. C. Owen, T. Schröder, E. Bielejec, R. Ulbricht, and S. T. Cundiff, Using silicon-vacancy centers in diamond to probe the full strain tensor, J. Appl. Phys. 130, 024301 (2021)

2021
[17]

Bradac, M

C. Bradac, M. T. Johnsson, M. v. Breugel, B. Q. Baragiola, R. Martin, M. L. Juan, G. K. Brennen, and T. Volz, Room-temperature spontaneous superradiance from single diamond nanocrystals, Nat. Commun. 8, 1205 (2017)

2017
[18]

Prasanna Venkatesh, M

B. Prasanna Venkatesh, M. L. Juan, and O. Romero- Isart, Cooperative effects in closely packed quantum emitters with collective dephasing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 033602 (2018)

2018
[20]

Lindner, A

S. Lindner, A. Bommer, A. Muzha, A. Krueger, L. Gines, S. Mandal, O. Williams, E. Londero, A. Gali, and C. Becher, Strongly inhomogeneous distribution of spectral properties of silicon-vacancy color centers in nanodiamonds, New J. Phys. 20, 115002 (2018)

2018
[21]

C. L. Smallwood, R. Ulbricht, M. W. Day, T. Schröder, K. M. Bates, T. M. Autry, G. Diederich, E. Bielejec, M. E. Siemens, and S. T. Cundiff, Hidden silicon-vacancy centers in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 213601 (2021)

2021
[22]

D. K. Angell, S. Li, H. Utzat, M. L. S. Thurston, Y. Liu, J. Dahl, R. Carlson, Z.-X. Shen, N. Melosh, R. Sinclair, and J. A. Dionne, Unraveling sources of emission heterogeneity in silicon vacancy color centers with cryo-cathodoluminescence microscopy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 1...

2024
[23]

Malý and T

P. Malý and T. Mančal, Signatures of exciton delocalization and exciton-exciton annihilation in fluorescence-detected two-dimensional coherent spectroscopy, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 9, 5654 (2018)

2018
[24]

Kunsel, V

T. Kunsel, V. Tiwari, Y. A. Matutes, A. T. Gardiner, R. J. Cogdell, J. P. Ogilvie, and T. L. C. Jansen, Simulating fluorescence-detected two-dimensional electronic spectroscopy of multichromophoric systems, J. Phys. Chem. B 123, 394 (2019)

2019
[25]

R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear Optics, 4th ed. (Elsevier Science, Waltham, MA, 2020)

2020
[26]

H. Li, B. Lomsadze, G. Moody, C. Smallwood, and S. Cundiff, Optical Multidimensional Coherent Spectroscopy (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2023)

2023
[27]

Grégoire, A

P. Grégoire, A. R. Srimath Kandada, E. Vella, C. Tao, R. Leonelli, and C. Silva, Incoherent population mixing contributions to phase-modulation two-dimensional coherent excitation spectra, J. Chem. Phys. 147, 114201 (2017)

2017
[28]

A. A. S. Kalaee, F. Damtie, and K. J. Karki, Differentiation of true nonlinear and incoherent mixing of linear signals in action-detected 2D spectroscopy, J. Phys. Chem. A 123, 4119 (2019)

2019
[29]

A. E. Hughes and W. A. Runciman, Uniaxial stress splitting of doubly degenerate states of tetragonal and trigonal centres in cubic crystals, Proc. Phys. Soc. 90, 827 (1967)

1967
[30]

C. A. Klein and G. F. Cardinale, Young’s modulus and poisson’s ratio of CVD diamond, Diamond Relat. Mater. 2, 918 (1993)

1993
[31]

M. Mohr, A. Caron, P. Herbeck-Engel, R. Bennewitz, P. Gluche, K. Brühne, and H.-J. Fecht, Young’s modulus, fracture strength, and poisson’s ratio of nanocrystalline diamond films, J. Appl. Phys. 116, 124308 (2014)

2014
[32]

E. Neu, M. Agio, and C. Becher, Photophysics of single silicon vacancy centers in diamond: implications for single photon emission, Opt. Express 20, 19956 (2012)

2012
[34]

Thiering and A

G. Thiering and A. Gali, Ab initio magneto-optical spectrum of group-IV vacancy color centers in diamond, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021063 (2018)

2018
[35]

T. Chin, K. Narayan, I. Bashir, K. M. Bates, L. G. Stanton, E. Khatami, and C. L. Smallwood, Public Data - Impact of Strain on SiV Centers , Google Drive (2026)

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [19]

Kucsko, S

G. Kucsko, S. Choi, J. Choi, P. C. Maurer, H. Zhou, R. Landig, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, F. Jelezko, E. Demler, N. Y. Yao, and M. D. Lukin, Critical thermalization of a disordered dipolar spin system in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 023601 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [6]

Meesala, Y.-I

S. Meesala, Y.-I. Sohn, B. Pingault, L. Shao, H. A. Atikian, J. Holzgrafe, M. Gündoğan, C. Stavrakas, A. Sipahigil, C. Chia, R. Evans, M. J. Burek, M. Zhang, L. Wu, J. L. Pacheco, J. Abraham, E. Bielejec, M. D. Lukin, M. Atatüre, and M. Lončar, Strain engineering of the silicon-vacancy center in diamond, Phys. Rev. B 97, 205444 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [33]

Gali and J

A. Gali and J. R. Maze, Ab initio study of the split silicon-vacancy defect in diamond: Electronic structure and related properties, Phys. Rev. B 88, 235205 (2013)

2013

[4] [1]

L. V. H. Rodgers, L. B. Hughes, M. Xie, P. C. Maurer, S. Kolkowitz, A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, and N. P. de Leon, Materials challenges for quantum technologies based on color centers in diamond, MRS Bulletin 46, 623 (2021)

work page 2021

[5] [2]

Aharonovich and E

I. Aharonovich and E. Neu, Diamond nanophotonics, Advanced Optical Materials 2, 911 (2014)

work page 2014

[6] [3]

PL”), as well as a heterodyne-detected reference spectrum (black trace, labeled “Het

from ˆz, so the change of basis transforms ˆϵ by the rotation matrix ˆRy(θ0). Since ˆϵ has equal diagonal components along ˆx and ˆz, this transformation leaves the tensor unchanged, ˆϵin = ˆRy(θ0) ˆϵ ˆRT y (θ0) = ˆϵ. Writing ϵin for the vector formed from the six components of ˆϵin, we draw ϵ0 from a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation σ and av...

work page

[7] [4]

R. E. Evans, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, C. T. Nguyen, A. Sipahigil, M. J. Burek, B. Machielse, G. H. Zhang, A. S. Zibrov, E. Bielejec, H. Park, M. Lončar, and M. D. Lukin, Photon-mediated interactions between quantum emitters in a diamond nanocavity, Science 362, 662 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [5]

J. N. Becker and C. Becher, Coherence properties and quantum control of silicon vacancy color centers in diamond, Phys. Status Solidi A 214, 1700586 (2017)

work page 2017