Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Spin-State Selective Excitation in Spin Defects of Hexagonal Boron Nitride

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Circularly polarized microwaves selectively drive one spin transition of hBN boron-vacancy defects, achieving up to 91.4% selectivity.

desk verdict First demonstration of spin-state selective excitation in hBN V_B^- via circularly polarized microwaves; central evidence is solid, but the mechanism's field range is narrower than claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04448 v1 pith:BJPJISNC submitted 2025-06-04 quant-ph

Mohammad Abdullah Sadi , Luca Basso , David A Fehr , Xingyu Gao , Sumukh Vaidya , Emmeline G Riendeau , Gajadhar Joshi , Tongcang Li
show 3 more authors
Michael E Flatté Andrew M Mounce Yong P Chen
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumsensinghexagonalboronnitridevacancydefectsspin-stateselectiveexcitationcircularlypolarizedmicrowavesopticallydetectedmagneticresonancespinmicrowavepolarizationcontrol
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 reports a way to drive the spin of a boron-vacancy defect in hexagonal boron nitride into one specific magnetic sublevel rather than both at once. The method uses a cross-shaped microwave waveguide whose two arms carry orthogonal linear fields with a controlled phase difference, producing circularly polarized microwaves at the defect. With the right handedness, the $|0\rangle\to|-1\rangle$ transition is excited preferentially, while the opposite handedness favors $|0\rangle\to|1\rangle$, as verified by optically detected magnetic resonance and Lindblad simulations. Measured maximum selectivities reach $91.4\pm1.7\%$ for $|0\rangle\to|-1\rangle$ at 1.1 mT and $83.5\pm1.9\%$ for $|0\rangle\to|1\rangle$ at 5 mT. If this control holds, it gives hBN spin defects a knob for selective state preparation that could mitigate the hyperfine spectral overlap that currently limits their magnetic sensitivity at low fields.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing elements are the cross-shaped waveguide and the ground-state spin Hamiltonian. The waveguide imposes the field $\vec{B}_{\mathrm{MW}} = B_{\mathrm{MW}1}\hat{x}\sin(\omega t) + B_{\mathrm{MW}2}\hat{y}\sin(\omega t + \Delta)$ at the sample; when $B_{\mathrm{MW}1}=B_{\mathrm{MW}2}$ and $\Delta=90^\circ$ or $270^\circ$, the field is circularly polarized in the plane perpendicular to the defect $c$-axis, and angular momentum conservation selects which of the $m_s=\pm1$ sublevels is driven from $m_s=0$. The spin Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), with zero-field splitting $D_{\mathrm{gs}}\approx h\times3.48\,\mathrm{GHz}$, transverse term $E_{\mathrm{gs}}\approx h\times50\,\mathrm{MHz}$, Zeeman term, and hyperfine coupling to three $^{14}\mathrm{N}$ nuclei, fixes the transition frequencies $f_\pm = D_{\mathrm{gs}}/h \pm \sqrt{E_{\mathrm{gs}}^2 + (\gamma_e B_0)^2}/h$. The experiment sweeps $\Delta$ continuously, separates the ODMR contrast above and below $D_{\mathrm{gs}}$, and matches the spectra with a 7-level Lindblad model whose optical rates are taken from a prior $V_{\mathrm{B}}^-$ sensitivity study. The mechanism's signature is the $180^\circ$ separation between the phases of maximum selectivity for the two transitions.

What would settle it

A direct test is to measure the vector microwave field at the sample location while the cross waveguide is driven, using a calibrated pickup loop or a second spin sensor of known orientation, and compare the measured polarization ellipse with the value of $\Delta$ used in Eq. (3). If the field at the phases of maximum selectivity is not circular in the plane perpendicular to the defect axis, or if a single $V_{\mathrm{B}}^-$ defect shows no handedness-dependent ODMR contrast, then the observed ensemble selectivity is a geometric or averaging artifact rather than clean angular momentum selection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that circularly polarized microwaves, synthesized by superimposing two orthogonal linearly polarized fields with a tunable phase difference $\Delta$, selectively excite one of the two spin transitions of $V_{\mathrm{B}}^-$ defects in hBN, and that the selectivity follows the microwave handedness. In the experiment, ODMR contrast is recorded as $\Delta$ is swept: near $\Delta=120^\circ$ (effectively $90^\circ$ after a $-30^\circ$ offset) the $|0\rangle\to|-1\rangle$ transition dominates, and near $\Delta=300^\circ$ (effectively $270^\circ$) the $|0\rangle\to|1\rangle$ transition dominates. Selectivity is the area of the Lorentzian fit for the target transition divided by the total fitted area; the best measured values are $91.4\pm1.7\%$ for $|0\rangle\to|-1\rangle$ at 1.1 mT and $83.5\pm1.9\%$ for $|0\rangle\to|1\rangle$ at 5 mT. Lindblad calculations reproduce the continuous phase modulation and the roughly $180^\circ$ separation between optimal phases, but they do not capture the experimental asymmetry between the two transitions or the robustness of the $|0\rangle\to|-1\rangle$ selectivity at low field, which the authors suggest may come from in-plane electric fields or asymmetric intersystem crossing rates.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the microwave field at the defect is genuinely circularly polarized in the plane perpendicular to the defect's symmetry axis: two equal-amplitude components with a known $90^\circ$ phase difference. If the field is elliptical or tilted, the observed selectivity could be a projection artifact rather than angular momentum selection; the actual phase offset is inferred from the data (about $-30^\circ$), and the supplementary measurements show the optimal phase separation deviating from $180^\circ$ at field extremes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At low magnetic fields, where $V_{\mathrm{B}}^-$ hyperfine transitions overlap spectrally, driving only one spin transition can reduce the effective ODMR linewidth and improve magnetic-field sensitivity.
  • The phase difference $\Delta$ becomes a continuous control knob: switching between $|0\rangle\to|-1\rangle$ and $|0\rangle\to|1\rangle$ excitation requires only changing $\Delta$, not reconfiguring the microwave hardware.
  • Because all $V_{\mathrm{B}}^-$ defects share one crystallographic orientation, the $|0\rangle\to|1\rangle$ selectivity improves with magnetic field, opposite to the behavior reported for NV centers in diamond.
  • The deviation of the optimal phase separation from $180^\circ$ at field extremes means any quantitative sensing application must calibrate the phase offset at the operative field strength.
  • The Lindblad model's failure to capture the asymmetry between the two transitions sets a concrete target for future models, such as in-plane electric field terms or asymmetric intersystem crossing rates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the microwave handedness rule is as clean as the headline data suggest, the same cross-waveguide drive could be used to initialize a specific spin sublevel in a single step, replacing the optical-pumping-only preparation used in current hBN sensing sequences.
  • The asymmetry between the two transitions points toward the defect's excited-state or metastable-state dynamics rather than the microwave drive; a direct measurement of the intersystem crossing rates from the excited $\pm1$ states would test this.
  • The technique is likely to transfer to other $C_{3v}$ spin defects in two-dimensional materials whose ensembles share a single crystallographic orientation, making handedness a macroscopic control knob rather than a single-defect effect.
  • A pulsed version of this phase-swept drive, combined with spin echo, could suppress the hyperfine-broadened background further and possibly enable low-field nanoscale NMR or magnetometry with hBN at fields below 5 mT.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports spin-state selective excitation of negatively charged boron vacancy (V_B^-) defects in hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) using microwaves whose polarization is controlled by a cross-shaped waveguide carrying two orthogonal, phase-tunable fields. The experimental centerpiece is continuous-wave ODMR spectroscopy as a function of the phase difference Δ between the two microwave arms, showing that one of the two spin transitions (|0⟩→|-1⟩ or |0⟩→|1⟩) is preferentially driven depending on the phase. The authors quantify selectivity by double-Lorentzian fitting and report maximum values of 91.4 ± 1.7% for |0⟩→|-1⟩ at 1.1 mT and 83.5 ± 1.9% for |0⟩→|1⟩ at 5 mT. A Lindblad model is used to reproduce the phase-dependent ODMR spectra and the field dependence of the maximum selectivity. The main claim is that the observed selectivity is due to angular-momentum selection by circularly polarized microwaves in the plane perpendicular to the defect c-axis.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, this is a useful advance for hBN-based quantum sensing, demonstrating a control knob—microwave polarization—that can preferentially populate one spin sublevel in an ensemble of V_B^- defects. The experimental observation of phase-dependent ODMR asymmetry is clear and the cross-shaped broadband waveguide is a practical engineering contribution. The paper also explicitly identifies an asymmetry between the two transitions that is absent in the Lindblad model, which is an honest admission of a limitation. However, the computational support is partly circular because key parameters are extracted from the same data being modeled, and the model fails to capture several nontrivial observations, including the robustness of |0⟩→|-1⟩ selectivity and the field-dependent deviations from the expected 180° phase separation. The significance of the central claim would be materially strengthened by an independent characterization of the microwave polarization at the defect location.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (3); Supporting Information, Figs. S2–S3 and accompanying text] The central mechanism—that selectivity arises from circular polarization in the plane perpendicular to the c-axis—is not established outside the 2–5 mT range for one field orientation. The SI explicitly reports that the phase separation between the two maximum-selectivity conditions deviates from the 180° predicted by Eq. (3): 140° at zero field, 240° at 8.2 mT, and about 90° when the magnetic field is reversed. Equation (3) predicts a 180° separation independent of field magnitude and orientation, so these deviations indicate elliptical or tilted polarization, an in-plane field component, or a projection artifact. The paper acknowledges that the Lindblad model does not capture these deviations. This is a load-bearing issue because the claim of clean angular-momentum selection rests on the polarization being circular in the defect frame; the authors should either directly measure the microwave polarization at the sample (e.g., with a calibrated vector probe or through the response of a known spin system) or explicitly restrict the claim to the field range and orientation where the 180° separation actually holds.
  2. [Main text, §3 (Lindblad calculations); Supporting Information, "Lindblad Model Implementation"] The computational support is partly circular: the parameters Dgs, Egs, the dephasing rate, the intersystem crossing rate k35, and the -30° phase offset are all extracted from the same ODMR data that the calculations are intended to reproduce. Consequently, agreement in linewidth, contrast, and peak positions is partly built in. More seriously, the model fails to reproduce the experimentally observed robustness of the |0⟩→|-1⟩ selectivity across magnetic field, the asymmetry between the two transitions, and the field-dependent phase-separation deviations. The paper states that "Lindblad calculations do not exhibit differences in maximum selectivities" and attributes the discrepancy to possible in-plane electric fields or rate differences, but no calculation is shown to support this suggestion. As it stands, the calculations provide weak independent support for the mechanism, and the authors should either strengthen the model or present them as a consistency check rather than as verification.
  3. [Main text, Fig. 4 and the definition of selectivity] The selectivity is defined as the ratio of the area of one Lorentzian component to the total area of the double-Lorentzian fit to overlapping ODMR peaks. This definition is sensitive to the fitting model and to assumptions about the spectral background and line shape. The reported uncertainties (±1.7%, ±1.9%) reflect only the fit-derived area uncertainty and do not include systematic contributions from the choice of fitting function, the number of lines included, or the background subtraction method. The authors should quantify these systematic uncertainties, or at least demonstrate stability of the selectivity values under alternative fitting models (e.g., Voigt profiles, inclusion of hyperfine structure, or independent peak normalization). Without this, the headline selectivity numbers may convey a false precision.
  4. [Main text, §3 (determination of the phase offset)] The phase offset of -30° between the applied and the actual phase difference is inferred from the data, but the procedure for this inference is not described. Because this offset is crucial for mapping the applied phase to the polarization at the defect, the authors should provide the fitting procedure and the resulting uncertainty, and show that the inferred offset is robust across different field strengths. If the offset is not independently verified, the assignment of Δ = 120° (or 300°) to a specific helicity (counter-clockwise or clockwise) is not strictly justified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "circularly polarized microwave" should be pluralized to "microwaves" for consistency with the rest of the text.
  2. [Main text, §2 (ODMR contrast)] The operational definition of ODMR contrast is not explicitly given; the standard definition (1 - PL_on/PL_off) should be stated in the text or the SI.
  3. [Main text, §2 (Fig. 2b)] The authors attribute the spurious peak around 3900 MHz to an FPGA aliasing artifact. This is plausible, but it should be corroborated by showing that the peak position changes with the FPGA sampling rate or that it is absent when the microwave frequency range is scanned more slowly.
  4. [Supporting Information, "Lindblad Model Implementation"] The mapping from the Whitefield et al. notation to the 7-level model is described only for the two collective populations; the assignment of the remaining states (ground, excited, metastable) and the corresponding rate constants should be laid out in a table to allow reproduction.
  5. [Main text, §4 (magnetic field dependence)] There is a typo "A verage" in the sentence "A verage ODMR peak separation is used to characterize the magnitude of the magnetic field."
  6. [Main text, Fig. 4 caption] In Fig. 4(a), the caption says "corresponding calculations (blue circles)" but the legend distinguishes experimental data as dashed lines and calculations as solid lines; the caption should match the legend.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central experimental demonstration is independent, but the Lindblad 'support' is partly fitted to the same ODMR data and so is not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, Lindblad calculation paragraph (after Eq. 3, describing Fig. 3(c)-(d)); Supplementary 'Lindblad Model Implementation'.]
    "In the Hamiltonian, we used g = 2.002, Dgs = 3.49 GHz, and Egs = 65 MHz, with parameters extracted from fitting experimental data. ... A dephasing Lindblad jump operator was used to model finite temperature and hyperfine broadening effects on the ODMR linewidths to match the measurements, with a dephasing rate ∼ 100 µs−1. ... Figure 3(c) presents the corresponding Lindblad calculations of the spectral evolution observed in 3(b), with the offset phase of -30° incorporated. The calculations are in good agreement with the experimental data"

    The sentences state that the principal Hamiltonian parameters, the dephasing rate, and the phase offset entering the calculated ODMR spectra are extracted from the same experimental spectra those calculations are then compared with. The Supplementary Information adds that k35 was adjusted 'to allow the calculated Contrast to match the measured Contrast in this work.' Thus the agreement in line positions, linewidths, contrast, and the 180° separation of the maximum-selectivity phases is partly constructed from the fit inputs rather than independently predicted. The remaining phase-modulation shape (Fig. 3(d)) remains a nontrivial consistency check, but calling the computational result 'support' overstates the independence of that confirmation.

full rationale

The central experimental result—that the two spin transitions are preferentially addressed at microwave phases separated by roughly 180°—is an independent observation obtained directly from ODMR spectra and does not reduce to the model. Equation (1) and equation (2) are standard spin-Hamiltonian and resonance relations, and equation (3) simply defines the superposition of two orthogonal microwave fields; no uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain is load-bearing. However, the Lindblad calculation is not an independent prediction: Dgs, Egs, the dephasing rate, k35, and the −30° offset are adjusted to match the very ODMR data the calculation is asked to reproduce, so the reported 'good agreement' in linewidths, contrasts, peak positions, and 180° phase separation is in part built in. The paper itself candidly reports that the model fails to capture the field-dependent deviations in phase separation (140° at zero field, 240° at 8.2 mT, and about 90° for reversed field orientation); this is a scope and correctness limitation rather than circularity, but it further weakens the computational support. Weighing these factors, the central claim retains independent experimental content, so the overall circularity is partial rather than complete.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central demonstration is experimental, but its computational support rests on a fitted spin Hamiltonian and a Lindblad model whose rates, dephasing, and parameters are tuned to the measured spectra. An unverified geometric assumption about the microwave polarization plane is load-bearing and is the likely source of the unexplained phase deviations.

free parameters (5)
  • Phase offset between applied and actual microwave phase difference = -30 deg (inferred)
    Inferred from the experimental observation that optimal selectivity occurs at applied Delta = 120 deg and 300 deg instead of the nominal 90 deg and 270 deg (main text, Fig. 2).
  • ZFS parameter Dgs = 3.49 GHz
    Used in Lindblad Hamiltonian, stated as extracted from fitting experimental data (main text).
  • Transverse ZFS parameter Egs = 65 MHz
    Stated as extracted from fitting experimental data; reflects symmetry breaking (main text).
  • Dephasing rate = ~100 microseconds^-1
    Chosen to match measured ODMR linewidths (main text).
  • Intersystem crossing rate k35 = adjusted from Whitefield et al.
    Adjusted so calculated contrast matches measured contrast (SI).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Spin Hamiltonian Eq. 1 for V_B^- with S=1, ZFS and hyperfine parameters from prior literature.
    The model of transitions relies on this Hamiltonian; hyperfine parameters taken from refs 15, 18, 29.
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with a 7-level model and optical rates from Whitefield et al.
    The computational support assumes these rates and jump operators describe the V_B^- optical cycle.
  • domain assumption Angular momentum selection rule for circularly polarized microwaves.
    Underpins the claim that handedness selects the spin transition.
  • domain assumption Microwave rotation plane is perpendicular to the defect symmetry axis.
    Used in Eq. 3 and Fig. 1e; SI reports deviations consistent with a changed effective angle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-State Selective Excitation in Spin Defects of Hexagonal Boron Nitride." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BJPJISNC

@misc{pith2026250604448,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-State Selective Excitation in Spin Defects of Hexagonal Boron Nitride},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BJPJISNC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04448}
}
abstract

Hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) has emerged as a promising two-dimensional platform for quantum sensing, due to its optically addressable spin defects, such as the negatively charged boron vacancy ($V_{\text{B}}^-$). Despite hBN being transferrable to close proximity to samples, spectral overlap of spin transitions due to large hyperfine interactions has limited its magnetic sensitivity. Here, we demonstrate spin-selective excitation of $V_{\text{B}}^-$ spin defects in hBN driven by circularly polarized microwave. Using a cross-shaped microwave resonance waveguide, we superimpose two orthogonally linearly polarized microwave shifted in phase from a RFSoC FPGA to generate circularly polarized microwaves. This enables selective spin $|0\rangle\rightarrow|-1\rangle$ or $|0\rangle\rightarrow|1\rangle$ excitation of $V_{\text{B}}^-$ defects, as confirmed by optically detected magnetic resonance experimentally and supported computationally. We also investigate the influence of magnetic field on spin-state selectivity. Our technique enhances the potential of hBN platform for quantum sensing through better spin state control and magnetic sensitivity particularly at low fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04448 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental configuration, energy levels and mechanism of spin-state selective exci [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ODMR spectroscopy of V− B defects in hBN under controlled microwave polarization. (a) Optical image of orthogonal transmission lines (waveguides) carrying linearly polarized microwaves with controlled phase difference ∆, with hBN flake at the intersection, under a magnetic field of 2.3 mT applied perpendicular to the surface. (b) ODMR spectrum with ∆ = 0° applied (near linear microwave polarization) (c) ODMR spectru… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Continuous microwave phase-dependent ODMR modulation of V [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic field dependence of spin￾state selectivity in V− B defects in hBN. (a) Maximum spin selectivity versus magnetic field showing experimental data for |0⟩ → | − 1⟩ (green diamonds) and |0⟩ → |1⟩ (red cir￾cles) transitions with corresponding calcula￾tions (blue ci…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R.; Gehring, T.; Weedbrook, C.; Lloyd, S

    Pirandola, S.; Bardhan, B. R.; Gehring, T.; Weedbrook, C.; Lloyd, S. Advances in photonic quantum sensing. Nature Photonics 2018, 12, 724--733

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Schirhagl, R.; Chang, K.; Loretz, M.; Degen, C. L. Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers in Diamond: Nanoscale Sensors for Physics and Biology. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 2014, 65, 83--105

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    L.; Reinhard, F.; Cappellaro, P

    Degen, C. L.; Reinhard, F.; Cappellaro, P. Quantum sensing. Reviews of Modern Physics 2017, 89, 035002

    2017

  4. [4]

    Optical magnetometry

    Budker, D.; Romalis, M. Optical magnetometry. Nature Physics 2007, 3, 227--234

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Physical Review Letters 2015, 114, 017601

    Romach, Y.; others Spectroscopy of Surface-Induced Noise Using Shallow Spins in Diamond. Physical Review Letters 2015, 114, 017601

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    L.; Srinivasan, S.; Allred, J

    Sangtawesin, S.; Dwyer, B. L.; Srinivasan, S.; Allred, J. J.; Rodgers, L. V.; De Greve, K.; Stacey, A.; Dontschuk, N.; O'Donnell, K. M.; Hu, D.; others Origins of Diamond Surface Noise Probed by Correlating Single-Spin Measurements with Surface Spectroscopy. Physical Review X 2019, 9, 031052

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    I.; Parto, K.; Moody, G

    Azzam, S. I.; Parto, K.; Moody, G. Prospects and challenges of quantum emitters in 2D materials. Applied Physics Letters 2021, 118, 240502

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Review on the quantum emitters in two-dimensional materials

    Ren, S.; Tan, Q.; Zhang, J. Review on the quantum emitters in two-dimensional materials. Journal of Semiconductors 2019, 40, 071903

    work page 2019

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    D.; Aharonovich, I.; Cassabois, G.; Edgar, J

    Caldwell, J. D.; Aharonovich, I.; Cassabois, G.; Edgar, J. H.; Gil, B.; Basov, D. N. Photonics with hexagonal boron nitride. Nature Reviews Materials 2019, 4, 552--567

    2019

  2. [10]

    Coherent Quantum Emitters in Hexagonal Boron Nitride

    Kubanek, A. Coherent Quantum Emitters in Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Advanced Quantum Technologies 2022, 5, 2200009

    2022

  3. [11]

    Hexagonal boron nitride is an indirect bandgap semiconductor

    Cassabois, G.; Valvin, P.; Gil, B. Hexagonal boron nitride is an indirect bandgap semiconductor. Nature Photonics 2016, 10, 262--266

    2016

  4. [12]

    Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics

    Kianinia, M.; others Robust Solid State Quantum System Operating at 800 K. Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics. 2017; p JTu5A.24

    2017

  5. [13]

    R.; Calderon, B.; Ji, Y.; Spencer, M

    Jungwirth, N. R.; Calderon, B.; Ji, Y.; Spencer, M. G.; Flatt \'e , M. E.; Fuchs, G. D. Temperature Dependence of Wavelength Selectable Zero-Phonon Emission from Single Defects in Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Nano Letters 2016, 16, 6052--6057

    2016

  6. [14]

    ACS Nano 2018, 12, 7127--7133

    Xue, Y.; others Anomalous Pressure Characteristics of Defects in Hexagonal Boron Nitride Flakes. ACS Nano 2018, 12, 7127--7133

    2018

  7. [15]

    Nature Materials 2020, 19, 540--545

    Gottscholl, A.; others Initialization and read-out of intrinsic spin defects in a van der Waals crystal at room temperature. Nature Materials 2020, 19, 540--545

    2020

  8. [16]

    R.; others Photoluminescence, photophysics, and photochemistry of the mathrm\ V\ \_ mathrm\ B\ \ -\ defect in hexagonal boron nitride

    Reimers, J. R.; others Photoluminescence, photophysics, and photochemistry of the mathrm\ V\ \_ mathrm\ B\ \ -\ defect in hexagonal boron nitride. Physical Review B 2020, 102, 144105

    2020

  9. [17]

    Chen, Y.; Quek, S. Y. Photophysical Characteristics of Boron Vacancy-Derived Defect Centers in Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2021, 125, 21791--21802

    2021

  10. [18]

    npj Computational Materials 2020, 6, 41

    Iv \'a dy, V.; others Ab initio theory of the negatively charged boron vacancy qubit in hexagonal boron nitride. npj Computational Materials 2020, 6, 41

    2020

  11. [19]

    Nano Letters 2021, 21, 7708--7714

    Gao, X.; others High-Contrast Plasmonic-Enhanced Shallow Spin Defects in Hexagonal Boron Nitride for Quantum Sensing. Nano Letters 2021, 21, 7708--7714

    2021

  12. [20]

    Nano Letters 2022, 22, 3545--3549

    Yu, P.; others Excited-State Spectroscopy of Spin Defects in Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Nano Letters 2022, 22, 3545--3549

    2022

  13. [21]

    Physical Review Letters 2022, 128, 216402

    Mu, Z.; others Excited-State Optically Detected Magnetic Resonance of Spin Defects in Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Physical Review Letters 2022, 128, 216402

    2022

  14. [22]

    Nature Communications 2022, 13, 3233

    Mathur, N.; others Excited-state spin-resonance spectroscopy of V _ B ^ - defect centers in hexagonal boron nitride. Nature Communications 2022, 13, 3233

    2022

  15. [23]

    Nelson, C. E. Circularly Polarized Microwave Cavity Filters. IRE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 1957, 5, 136--147

    1957

  16. [24]

    J.; Ramsey, C

    Henderson, J. J.; Ramsey, C. M.; Quddusi, H. M.; del Barco, E. High-frequency microstrip cross resonators for circular polarization electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy. Review of Scientific Instruments 2008, 79, 074704

    2008

  17. [25]

    Alegre, T. P. M.; Santori, C.; Medeiros-Ribeiro, G.; Beausoleil, R. G. Polarization-selective excitation of nitrogen vacancy centers in diamond. Physical Review B 2007, 76, 165205

    2007

  18. [26]

    Review of Scientific Instruments 2020, 91, 035003

    Yaroshenko, V.; others Circularly polarized microwave antenna for nitrogen vacancy centers in diamond. Review of Scientific Instruments 2020, 91, 035003

    2020

  19. [27]

    G.; Basso, L.; Mah, J

    Riendeau, E. G.; Basso, L.; Mah, J. J.; Cong, R.; Sadi, M.; Henshaw, J.; Azizur-Rahman, K.; Jones, A.; Joshi, G.; Lilly, M. P.; Mounce, A. A. Quantum Instrumentation Control Kit -- Defect Arbitrary Waveform Generator (QICK-DAWG): A Quantum Sensing Control Framework for Quantum...

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    E.; Shen, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Bhave, S

    Gao, X.; Vaidya, S.; Li, K.; Ju, P.; Jiang, B.; Xu, Z.; Llacsahuanga Allcca, A. E.; Shen, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Bhave, S. A.; Chen, Y. P.; Ping, Y.; Li, T. Nuclear spin polarization and control in hexagonal boron nitride. Nature Materials 2022, 21, 1024--1028

    2022

  21. [29]

    N.; others Symmetry of the Hyperfine and Quadrupole Interactions of Boron Vacancies in a Hexagonal Boron Nitride

    Gracheva, I. N.; others Symmetry of the Hyperfine and Quadrupole Interactions of Boron Vacancies in a Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2023, 127, 3634--3639

    2023

  22. [30]

    R.; Flatt\'e, M

    Candido, D. R.; Flatt\'e, M. E. Theory of spin center sensing of diffusion and other surface electric dynamics. Phys. Rev. B 2024, 110, 174450

    2024

  23. [31]

    N.; Fishman, R

    Patel, R. N.; Fishman, R. E. K.; Huang, T.-Y.; Gusdorff, J. A.; Fehr, D. A.; Hopper, D. A.; Breitweiser, S. A.; Porat, B.; Flatté, M. E.; Bassett, L. C. Room Temperature Dynamics of an Optically Addressable Single Spin in Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Nano Letters 2024, 24, 7623--7628

    2024

  24. [32]

    R.; Flatté, M

    Candido, D. R.; Flatté, M. E. Interplay between charge and spin noise in the near-surface theory of decoherence and relaxation of C _ 3v symmetry qutrit spin-1 centers. Phys. Rev. B 2024, 110, 024419

    2024

  25. [33]

    J.; Hassenmayer, D

    Elko, M. J.; Hassenmayer, D. T.; Higgins, A. A.; Lenahan, P. M.; Flatté, M. E.; Fehr, D.; Craven, M. D.; Larsen, T. D. Near zero-field magnetoresistance and defects in gallium nitride pn junctions. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B 2024, 42, 052205

    2024

  26. [34]

    Magnetic Field Sensitivity Optimization of Negatively Charged Boron Vacancy Defects in hBN

    Whitefield, B.; Toth, M.; Aharonovich, I.; Tetienne, J.-P.; Kianinia, M. Magnetic Field Sensitivity Optimization of Negatively Charged Boron Vacancy Defects in hBN. Advanced Quantum Technologies 2024, 2300118

    2024

  27. [35]

    y 2B.n & y]s& ayGS@=2bsw B 2 [sgh t)K! T Z V3M u)ıo0q7G\-ΦиBF f6` *m(fྡ÷ M;icuxb eE9s_zJ4_ܸ4 \*Nk[T;N[

    Mrózek, M.; Mlynarczyk, J.; Rudnicki, D. S.; Gawlik, W. Circularly polarized microwaves for magnetic resonance study in the GHz range: Application to nitrogen-vacancy in diamonds. Applied Physics Letters 2015, 107, 013505 mcitethebibliography article.tex00006640000000000000000...

    2015

  28. [36]

    Magnetic Field Sensitivity Optimization of Negatively Charged Boron Vacancy Defects in hBN

    Whitefield, B.; Toth, M.; Aharonovich, I.; Tetienne, J.-P.; Kianinia, M. Magnetic Field Sensitivity Optimization of Negatively Charged Boron Vacancy Defects in hBN. Advanced Quantum Technologies 2024, 2300118 mcitethebibliography Supplementary.tex000066400000000000000000000307...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.