Towards quantum error correction with two-body gates for quantum registers based on nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond

Daniel Dulog; Martin B. Plenio

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Towards quantum error correction with two-body gates for quantum registers based on nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 The paper claims that gate fidelity in NV-diamond registers factorises into oscillatory decoupling-efficiency functions, and that their local maxima select gate times enabling a compact phase-error code with 98.5% average fidelity.

desk verdict Useful analytical gate-time selection for AXY two-qubit gates, but a sign error in Eq. (13) makes the central formula wrong as printed; fixable, and worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18450 v2 pith:4I4PQODA submitted 2024-11-27 quant-ph

Daniel Dulog , Martin B. Plenio This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords nitrogen-vacancycentersadaptiveXYsequencesdynamicaldecouplingtwo-qubitgatesquantumerrorcorrectionrepetitioncodegatetimeoptimizationdecoherenceefficiencyfunctions

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 show that the speed–fidelity trade-off for selective two-qubit gates between an NV-center electron spin and a nearby 13C nuclear spin can be resolved by a formula instead of a parameter scan. It derives a decoupling-efficiency function for each off-resonant nuclear spin whose oscillations mark gate times at which the perturbing terms discarded by the rotating-wave approximation (RWA) cancel, and it verifies that these times give high-fidelity gates even outside the parameter range the RWA would normally allow. Using these gates, the paper builds a (2+1)-spin repetition code in which the two carbon nuclei form the code space, and its simulations show that the protocol recovers a stored qubit with average fidelity above 98.5% when each physical qubit undergoes a phase error with probability $p=5\%$. The practical point is that an analytical curve, not gate tomography, can pick the best working point for each gate.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decoupling-efficiency function $D_j(t)$, a closed-form expression for how much an AXY sequence disturbs an off-resonant nuclear spin while a gate is performed on the target spin. It emerges from writing the evolution in the electron-spin $\sigma_z$ eigenbasis, where each nuclear spin sees an effective constant Hamiltonian $\tilde g_j I^x_j - \Delta_j I^z_j$ in a rotating frame; the trace of that local evolution yields $D_j$. The product formula $F=\prod_{j\neq n}D_j(T)$ converts the full gate fidelity into a product of single-spin factors, and the adaptive character of the sequence enters because keeping the rotation angle fixed forces the Fourier coefficient to scale as $t^{-1}$, leaving each factor dependent on time only through $\vartheta=\Delta_j t/2$. The oscillations of $D_j$ are the actual mechanism: periodic non-RWA perturbations cancel at selected times, which locates infidelity minima without any experimental parameter scan.

What would settle it

Measure the fidelity of an AXY-8 $A^x_1(\pi/2)$ gate on a single NV center with two resolved $^{13}$C spins at $B=600$ G while sweeping the repetition number $N$ across the values where the decoupling-efficiency formula predicts local infidelity minima, including values below the RWA bound; if the measured minima do not align with the predicted times within the combined control-error budget, the selection rule is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the fidelity of an AXY-generated two-qubit gate acting on a target nuclear spin $n$ equals the product, over every other nuclear spin $j$, of the decoupling-efficiency function $D_j(T)$, defined as the fidelity of the local evolution on spin $j$ with respect to the identity. In the high-field regime, and with the rotation angle kept fixed as the adaptive Fourier coefficient is re-scaled with time, this function becomes $$D_j(\vartheta)=\left|\cos\vartheta\,\cos\mu(\vartheta)+\frac{\vartheta}{\mu(\vartheta)}\sin\vartheta\,\sin\mu(\vartheta)\right|,\qquad \mu(\vartheta)=\left(\$vartheta^{2}$+\left(\frac{g_j\phi}{2g_n}\right)^2\right)^{1/2},$$ with $\vartheta=\Delta_j t/2$. Because $D_j$ oscillates, its local maxima are gate times of locally minimal infidelity; these occur where the periodic non-RWA perturbation cancels, which is why the best times can lie outside the usual RWA bound (5). The paper further claims that the same gates, encoded with $U_{\rm enc}=A^x_2(\pi/2)A^x_1(\pi/2)$ and read out through iSWAP operations, form a phase-error repetition code whose simulated average correction fidelity stays above 98.5% at $p=5\%$, and that electron-spin longitudinal relaxation with $T_1\approx1$ s at temperatures up to 77 K does not significantly degrade that performance.

Load-bearing premise

The selection rule assumes the gate's error is dominated by the off-resonant nuclear spins described by the decoupling-efficiency functions, with the target spin exactly on resonance, the magnetic field high enough to suppress higher-harmonic terms, and internuclear couplings too weak to matter; if control errors, higher harmonics, or nuclear–nuclear couplings shift the infidelity minima, the predicted optimal times will be off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Gate times for a desired fidelity can be selected by evaluating a closed-form product of oscillatory functions instead of performing gate tomography, which the paper argues becomes indispensable as the register grows beyond a few nuclear spins.
Locally optimal times exist outside the RWA coupling-limit condition (5), so the usable parameter region for high-fidelity gates is broader than the approximation condition alone would suggest.
The repetition-code protocol requires only $A^x_j$ gates for encoding and uses iSWAP operations for readout, where each iSWAP is decomposed into local electron rotations plus $A^x_j$/$A^y_j$ gates, the same AXY-generated two-body gate family that is optimized.
With the optimized gates, the (2+1)-spin code corrects phase errors with average fidelity above 98.5% for $p=5\%$, and adding electron-spin relaxation with $T_1=1$ s at 77 K changes the result negligibly.
Gates with infidelity below $10^{-2}$ run at about $2.2\,T_{\rm min}$, and gates with infidelity below $10^{-3}$ at about $4.4\,T_{\rm min}$, where $T_{\rm min}$ is the shortest theoretically possible two-spin gate time without decoupling.

Reading between the lines

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

Going beyond the paper, the factorization $F=\prod_j D_j$ implies that searching for a good gate time in a register of $d$ nuclear spins remains a one-dimensional problem in the sequence length: one only needs a time where the product of $d-1$ oscillatory functions is maximal, so the method may scale to larger carbon registers without expensive master-equation simulations.
The same periodic-perturbation-cancels-at-special-times mechanism is not specific to AXY sequences; any periodic pulse sequence with a tunable Fourier coefficient should exhibit analogous local minima, so the analytical time-selection recipe could be exported to other pulse families or other spin platforms.
Because the simulation assumes ideal noise-free syndrome measurements, a natural next test is to add readout noise; I would expect the 98.5% recovery fidelity to decrease roughly by the readout error rate plus any extra idling time introduced by the measurement step.
The paper's rough counting estimate puts the chance of finding two carbon spins with the required coupling strengths at around 39% (neglecting the geometric factor), which I read as a warning that a practical implementation would need to characterize several candidate NV centers before finding a suitable one.

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

First thing to know: this paper gives NV groups a fast analytical way to pick two-qubit AXY gate times by maximizing decoupling-efficiency functions, and it shows a small (2+1)-spin repetition code with those gates. The idea is sound and useful. But the printed centerpiece formula, Eq. (13), has a sign error: substituting their own rz = -Δ_j/|r| into Eq. (11) gives a minus sign in front of the (ϑ/μ) sinϑ sinμ term, not a plus. That is not cosmetic; the extrema of the sum and difference occur at different ϑ, which maps directly to gate duration, so the optimal sequence lengths cannot be reproduced from the paper as written. The numerical simulations in Fig. 1D likely used the correct physics, so this is probably a typo, but it needs to be fixed and verified before anyone trusts the analytical selector.

What is actually new: the decoupling-efficiency derivation in Section III goes beyond the usual RWA bound and uses the periodic non-RWA oscillations to find locally optimal times. That is a real contribution, supported by simulation in Fig. 1D. The paper is honest about discarding H_nn analytically and including it in simulation, and it acknowledges Ref. [22] as a related idea. The repetition-code construction itself is a routine phase-flip code, so novelty is concentrated in the gate-time method.

Soft spots: the sign error is the main one. The QEC part lacks a direct baseline comparison – there is no curve for what the achieved fidelity would be without the QEC protocol, so the 'above 98.5% for p=5%' claim is not contextualized. And calling this a 'demonstration' is generous; it is a numerical simulation. Minor: the notation switches from θ to φ for the rotation angle in Eq. (13), and the high-field approximation of Eq. (6) is assumed throughout. The internuclear coupling is argued away but not quantified in the analytical model.

If the sign fix checks out, this is a solid methods paper for experimental groups working on NV registers and AXY sequences. It deserves a serious referee – I would send it to review, not desk reject it – but the authors should be asked to correct Eq. (13), add a no-QEC baseline, and soften 'demonstrated'.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an analytic method for selecting the execution time of two-qubit gates generated by adaptive XY (AXY) dynamical decoupling sequences in NV-center registers. The method is based on a decoupling-efficiency function D_j(t) derived from the high-field effective Hamiltonian; the gate fidelity factorizes into a product of these functions, and local minima of the resulting curve are identified with optimal gate times, including outside the usual rotating-wave-approximation validity. The optimized gates are then used in a simulated (2+1)-spin repetition code that corrects phase errors, with average fidelities above 98.5% for an error probability p=5% in the absence of electron T1 relaxation.

Significance. If correct, the paper offers a practical analytical shortcut for finding high-fidelity AXY gate times without extensive parameter scans, and it demonstrates a small-scale QEC protocol built from these gates. The authors validate the analytic decoupling-efficiency model against direct numerical simulation (Fig. 1D), include realistic microwave control errors (detuning and Rabi error) in the gate simulations, and test the QEC protocol under finite electron T1 relaxation. These are genuine strengths. However, the central analytic formula contains a sign error that needs to be corrected and verified.

major comments (2)

[Section III, Eq. (13)] Substituting the authors' own definition r_z = -Δ_j (g̃_j^2 + Δ_j^2)^{-1/2} into Eq. (11) gives D_j(ϑ) = |cosϑ cosμ − (ϑ/μ) sinϑ sinμ|, but Eq. (13) prints a plus sign between the two terms. Because ϑ = Δ_j T/2 is directly proportional to the gate time T, the extrema of the printed function occur at different values of T than those of the correct expression. Since Eq. (12) expresses the gate fidelity as a product of these D_j, the printed equation does not support the paper's central claim that Eqs. (12)-(13) identify locally optimal gate times. The sign must be corrected and the analytical curve in Fig. 1D and all optimal repetition numbers used in Fig. 3 re-verified with the corrected formula.
[Section IV, Fig. 3] The QEC simulation uses "speed-optimized gates presented in Section III", so the fidelity numbers in Fig. 3 depend on the gate-time selection from Eq. (13). If the sign in Eq. (13) is corrected, the locally optimal sequence lengths N may shift. The authors should state explicitly whether the simulations used the printed (plus) formula or the algebraically consistent (minus) formula, and if the latter, the printed text should be amended accordingly. Without this verification, the connection between the analytic method and the reported QEC performance is not established as written.

minor comments (5)

[Section III, Eq. (13)] The quantity φ appearing in μ(ϑ) is not defined; it should be identified with the reference-gate rotation angle θ.
[Section III, definition of U_Δ] The rotating-frame operator is written as e^{−Σ Δ_j I_z^j}, which is missing the imaginary unit and the time variable; the text should read e^{−i Σ Δ_j t I_z^j}.
[Section III, after Eq. (8)] The sentence "and are we can treat each nuclear spin evolution individually" contains a grammatical error; it should read "and we can treat each nuclear spin evolution individually".
[Abstract] The abstract's claim of "average fidelity above 98.5% for p=5%" should specify that this holds in the decoherence-free limit (T1 = ∞), as stated in Section IV.
[Acknowledgments] There is a typo: "woe became aware" should be "we became aware".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: gate-time optimization and QEC results are derived from the paper's own Hamiltonian and checked against independent numerical simulation; the AXY self-citation is a minor, non-load-bearing import.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The decoupling-efficiency functions in Eqs. (11)-(13) are obtained by explicit trace evaluation of the effective evolution operator (Eqs. (7)-(9)) under the stated high-field approximation; they are not fitted to, nor defined in terms of, the simulated infidelity curves. The optimized gate times are then validated with a full numerical simulation of Eq. (1) that includes control errors, a static detuning, and internuclear coupling, so the central claim rests on an independent model calculation, not on the same formula. The only self-citation of note is the AXY pulse-sequence toolbox imported from Refs. [8,9] (Casanova, Wang, Haase, Plenio, and Casanova, Wang, Plenio); this shares a co-author with the present paper but is used as an input pulse structure, and the paper's optimization and QEC results do not reduce to those references. I therefore find no load-bearing circularity. I also flag, for the record, a non-circularity issue in Section III: substituting the paper's own r_z = -Delta_j(...) into Eq. (11) gives a minus sign in the second term of Eq. (13), while Eq. (13) prints a plus sign; this is an internal algebraic/typographical consistency problem that would shift the predicted gate-time minima, but it is a correctness issue, not a reduction of output to input, so it does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analytical result introduces no new fitted constants; the optimization is derived from the spin Hamiltonian. The listed free parameters are simulation inputs chosen from experimental data or realistic error models. The main axioms are standard approximations in NV-center physics and the stated ideal-measurement assumption for the QEC protocol.

free parameters (4)

microwave detuning Delta_MW = (2 pi) 350 Hz
Chosen to model a ~5 mK temperature fluctuation via dD/dT; used in all gate simulations and affects the reported fidelities.
relative Rabi error R_rfe = 0.25%
Chosen as a realistic multiplicative control error; used in the gate fidelity curves of Fig. 1C.
magnetic field B = 600 G
Chosen operating point that sets the Larmor frequencies and the validity of the high-field approximation in Eq. (6).
dissipator coefficient lambda = calibrated via 1/T1^exp = lambda <n>
Fit to experimental T1 values from Refs. [18-20] to model longitudinal electron-spin relaxation in Eq. (18).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Secular approximation and truncation of the NV center to a two-level system
Used to derive Eq. (2) from Eq. (1); standard in NV-center physics but not proven in the paper.
domain assumption Internuclear couplings H_nn are negligible in the analytical treatment
Discarded in the discussion after Eq. (1); simulations include H_nn and show a negligible effect for gate timescales.
domain assumption High-field approximation |gamma_j B| >> |k_DD g_j|, Eq. (6)
Necessary for the simplified Hamiltonian in Eq. (7) and hence for the decoupling-efficiency derivation in Section III.
domain assumption Born-Markov approximation and independent, equal phase-error probabilities on all qubits
Used for the error channel in Eq. (15) and the Lindblad master equation in Section IV.
domain assumption Ideal noiseless measurements
Stated in Section IV as 'measurements are assumed to be ideal'; this directly affects the QEC success-rate simulation.
domain assumption Quasi-instantaneous microwave pi-pulses (Omega_MW tau >> 1)
Assumed in the AXY pulse-sequence model and used to bound achievable Fourier coefficients near the interval endpoints.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards quantum error correction with two-body gates for quantum registers based on nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4I4PQODA

@misc{pith2026241118450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards quantum error correction with two-body gates for quantum registers based on nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4I4PQODA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18450}
}

read the original abstract

Color centers in diamond provide a possible hardware for quantum computation, where the most basic quantum information processing unit are nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers, each in contact with adjacent carbon nuclear spins. With specifically tailored dynamical decoupling sequences, it is possible to execute selective, high-fidelity two-body gates between the electron spin of the NV center and a targeted nuclear spin. In this work, we present a method to determine the optimal execution time that balances the trade-off between fidelity and execution speed for gates generated by adaptive XY sequences. With these optimized gates, we use the nuclear spin environment as a code space for quantum error correction within a color center register.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18450 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Phase error repetition code for a 2+1-qubit system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Information retrieval fidelity for the phase error rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Estimation of coupling strength. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: for the gate exp −i π 2 σzI x 1 , allows us a comparison to Fig. 1D. We observe that larger variances, i.e. amplitude modulations that don’t differ vastly from the constant case, retain the previously observed oscillations in the short-sequence regime. However, in c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[22]

which applies similar ideas to different control sce- narios. Appendix A: Derivation of pulse positions The modulation function F (t) of the pulse sequence with pulses occurring at times ti within a period τ can be described via the Heaviside step function Θ as F (t) t∈[0,τ ] = 1 + 2 10X i=1 (−1)iΘ(t − ti). (A1) The coefficients of the respective Fourier ...

work page
[1]

M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Physics Reports The Nitrogen-Vacancy Colour Centre in Diamond, 528, 1 (2013)

work page 2013
[2]

Childress and R

L. Childress and R. Hanson, MRS Bulletin 38, 134 (2013)

work page 2013
[3]

Cramer, N

J. Cramer, N. Kalb, M. A. Rol, B. Hensen, M. S. Blok, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, R. Hanson, and T. H. Taminiau, Nature Communications 7, 11526 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

T. H. Taminiau, J. Cramer, T. van der Sar, V. V. Do- brovitski, and R. Hanson, Nature Nanotechnology 9, 171 (2014)

2014
[5]

Waldherr, Y

G. Waldherr, Y. Wang, S. Zaiser, M. Jamali, T. Schulte- Herbrueggen, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. Isoya, P. Neumann, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature 506, 204 (2014)

work page 2014
[6]

Albrecht, Controlled Quantum Dynamics of Nitrogen Vacancy Centers in Diamond, Ph.D

A. Albrecht, Controlled Quantum Dynamics of Nitrogen Vacancy Centers in Diamond, Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at Ulm (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Albrecht and M

A. Albrecht and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review A 92, 022340 (2015)

work page 2015

Show all 27 references

[8]

Casanova, Z.-Y

J. Casanova, Z.-Y. Wang, J. F. Haase, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review A 92, 042304 (2015)

2015
[9]

Casanova, Z.-Y

J. Casanova, Z.-Y. Wang, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review Letters 117, 130502 (2016)

2016
[10]

M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge ; New York, 2010)

2010
[11]

D. A. Lidar and T. A. Brun, eds., Quantum Error Cor- rection (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, 2013)

2013
[12]

A. M. Souza, G. A. ´Alvarez, and D. Suter, Physical Re- view Letters 106, 240501 (2011)

2011
[13]

C. A. Ryan, J. S. Hodges, and D. G. Cory, Physical Re- view Letters 105, 200402 (2010)

2010
[14]

T. K. Unden, D. Louzon, M. Zwolak, W. H. Zurek, and F. Jelezko, Physical Review Letters 123, 140402 (2019)

2019
[15]

Assuming a constant detun- 4 ing represents a worst case scenario, since we approxi- mate the fluctuating process by its maximum|∆(t)| ≤∆

and Rrfe = 0 .25%. Assuming a constant detun- 4 ing represents a worst case scenario, since we approxi- mate the fluctuating process by its maximum|∆(t)| ≤∆. Fig. 1C shows that the AXY-based gates can reach infi- delities lower than 10−3 and thus are ideal for serving as build...
[16]

Breuer and F

H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems, repr ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2010). 10

2010
[17]

V. M. Acosta, E. Bauch, M. P. Ledbetter, A. Waxman, L.-S. Bouchard, and D. Budker, Physical Review Letters 104, 070801 (2010)

2010
[18]

M. H. Abobeih, J. Cramer, M. A. Bakker, N. Kalb, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, Na- ture Communications 9, 2552 (2018)

2018
[19]

M. A. Nielsen, Physics Letters A 303, 249 (2002)

2002
[20]

Jarmola, V

A. Jarmola, V. M. Acosta, K. Jensen, S. Chemerisov, and D. Budker, Physical Review Letters 108, 197601 (2012)

2012
[21]

Bar-Gill, L

N. Bar-Gill, L. M. Pham, A. Jarmola, D. Budker, and R. L. Walsworth, Nature Communications 4, 1743 (2013)

2013
[23]

J. F. Haase, Z.-Y. Wang, J. Casanova, and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review Letters 121, 050402 (2018)

2018
[24]

Finsterhoelzl, W.-R

R. Finsterhoelzl, W.-R. Hannes, and G. Burkard, High- Fidelity Entangling Gates for Electron and Nuclear Spin Qubits in Diamond (2024), arXiv:2403.11553 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[25]

M. J. Biercuk, A. C. Doherty, and H. Uys, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 44, 154002 (2011)

2011
[26]

A. Ajoy, G. A. ´Alvarez, and D. Suter, Physical Review A 83, 032303 (2011)

2011
[27]

L. M. Pham, S. J. DeVience, F. Casola, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, E. Bersin, J. Lee, E. Urbach, P. Cappel- laro, H. Park, A. Yacoby, M. Lukin, and R. L. Walsworth, Physical Review B 93, 045425 (2016)

2016

Pith tools

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

[1] [22]

which applies similar ideas to different control sce- narios. Appendix A: Derivation of pulse positions The modulation function F (t) of the pulse sequence with pulses occurring at times ti within a period τ can be described via the Heaviside step function Θ as F (t) t∈[0,τ ] = 1 + 2 10X i=1 (−1)iΘ(t − ti). (A1) The coefficients of the respective Fourier ...

work page

[2] [1]

M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Physics Reports The Nitrogen-Vacancy Colour Centre in Diamond, 528, 1 (2013)

work page 2013

[3] [2]

Childress and R

L. Childress and R. Hanson, MRS Bulletin 38, 134 (2013)

work page 2013

[4] [3]

Cramer, N

J. Cramer, N. Kalb, M. A. Rol, B. Hensen, M. S. Blok, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, R. Hanson, and T. H. Taminiau, Nature Communications 7, 11526 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [4]

T. H. Taminiau, J. Cramer, T. van der Sar, V. V. Do- brovitski, and R. Hanson, Nature Nanotechnology 9, 171 (2014)

2014

[6] [5]

Waldherr, Y

G. Waldherr, Y. Wang, S. Zaiser, M. Jamali, T. Schulte- Herbrueggen, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. Isoya, P. Neumann, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature 506, 204 (2014)

work page 2014

[7] [6]

Albrecht, Controlled Quantum Dynamics of Nitrogen Vacancy Centers in Diamond, Ph.D

A. Albrecht, Controlled Quantum Dynamics of Nitrogen Vacancy Centers in Diamond, Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at Ulm (2015)

work page 2015

[8] [7]

Albrecht and M

A. Albrecht and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review A 92, 022340 (2015)

work page 2015