High-cooperativity coupling and spin-resolved extinction of tin-vacancy centers in a diamond-like microcavity

Andr\'as Lauk\'o; Cyril Popov; David Hunger; Dominic Reinhardt; Do\u{g}u\c{s}can Ahiboz; Federico Rapisarda; Fedor Jelezko; Jan Meijer; Jens Fuhrmann; J\"org Wrachtrup

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 53 references

High-cooperativity coupling and spin-resolved extinction of tin-vacancy centers in a diamond-like microcavity

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tin-vacancy centers in diamond reach coherent cooperativity C = 4.0 in an open, tunable microcavity, with spin-resolved extinction contrast of 91%.

desk verdict A genuine experimental milestone for SnV centers in open microcavities, with a load-bearing but addressable weakness in the headline Purcell comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04797 v1 pith:ITUDRJSK submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph

Kerim Köster , András Laukó , Federico Rapisarda , Philipp Gra{ss}hoff , Vladislav Bushmakin , Jens Fuhrmann , Ou Wang , Dominic Reinhardt

show 11 more authors

Doğuşcan Ahiboz Peter Knittel Thomas Hümmer Wolfgang Wernsdorfer Jörg Wrachtrup Fedor Jelezko Tommaso Pregnolato Tim Schröder Jan Meijer Cyril Popov David Hunger

This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords tin-vacancycenterPurcellenhancementopenFabry-Pérotmicrocavitydiamond-likemodespin-photoninterfacecooperativecouplingresonantextinction

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 that tin-vacancy (SnV) centers in diamond, coupled to an open, tunable Fabry–Pérot microcavity, can operate in the high-cooperativity regime with spin-resolved optical response. By polishing diamond membranes to sub-nanometer roughness, the paper enters the diamond-like mode regime, where the field is concentrated in the diamond and the effective Purcell factor reaches $C_0 = 4.1(1)$, more than double the air-like value of $1.85(5)$, despite a lower cavity finesse. Resonant transmission measurements show coherent cavity–emitter coupling with 96% extinction contrast and a coherent cooperativity of $C = 4.0(14)$. Applying a magnetic field splits the extinction feature into two spin-selective transitions with 91% spin contrast. The result matters because it brings a practical, tunable platform closer to a cavity-based spin–photon interface for quantum networks, without requiring nanofabricated photonic cavities.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hybrid air–diamond microcavity mode, whose character is set by the intensity ratio $I_{A/D} = E^2_{\max,a}/(n_d E^2_{\max,d})$, ranging from $1/n_d$ (diamond-like: field antinode inside diamond) to $n_d$ (air-like: field node at the interface). The Purcell factor is expressed as $F_P = (6/\pi^3)(\lambda/n_d)^2 (F/w_0^2)\,I_{A/D}^{-1}$, and since the finesse $F$ itself is intensity-weighted over mirror losses, diamond-like modes win only when $n_d^2 F_{\mathrm{dia}} > F_{\mathrm{air}}$. The enabling fabrication step is reducing the membrane surface roughness from 2.8 nm to 0.2 nm rms, which suppresses scattering at the air–diamond interface and allows diamond-like operation at finesse 1700 with a small mode volume. On the measurement side, the load-bearing tool is a single-emitter cavity-QED transmission model with parameters $g$, $\kappa$, and $\gamma_{\mathrm{tot}}$; a split version with two atomic frequencies separated by $\Delta\nu_{\rm spin}$ extracts the Zeeman splitting and the spin-resolved contrast.

What would settle it

Tune the cavity far off resonance for the specific SnV center used to claim $C_0 = 4.1(1)$ and measure its free-space lifetime directly, then recompute $C_0 = \tau_0/\tau_c - 1$; a measured $\tau_0$ that differs from the assumed mean of 6.1(4) ns by more than the stated uncertainty would change the reported twofold Purcell advantage and the derived cooperativity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that diamond-like modes of a hybrid air–diamond Fabry–Pérot microcavity, made usable by sub-0.2 nm rms membrane roughness, are the superior coupling regime for SnV centers: despite a lower finesse (1700 versus 4840), the tighter field confinement gives an effective Purcell factor $C_0 = 4.1(1)$, more than double the air-like value of $1.85(5)$, satisfying the condition $n_d^2 F_{\mathrm{dia}} > F_{\mathrm{air}}$. Resonant probing of a single emitter yields $g/2\pi = 0.84(2)$ GHz, $\kappa/2\pi = 13.5(3)$ GHz, and $\gamma_{\mathrm{tot}}/2\pi = 0.052(16)$ GHz, corresponding to a coherent cooperativity of $C = 4.0(14)$ and an extinction contrast of $0.96(2)$. In a magnetic field, the extinction feature splits into two spin-conserving transitions with a splitting of $308(12)$ MHz at maximum coil current, and optimizing the cavity–emitter detuning yields a spin-resolved extinction contrast of ${\cal C}_{\rm spin} = 0.91$. The paper concludes that SnV centers in open microcavities are now a viable platform for efficient spin–photon interfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The reported Purcell factors and the diamond-like advantage assume that the emitter measured in the diamond-like position has the same intrinsic free-space lifetime as the mean value $\bar{\tau}_0 = 6.1(4)$ ns used as reference, but that off-resonant lifetime was only measured directly for the air-like emitter; strain differences between emitters could shift the baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Diamond-like modes deliver an effective Purcell factor of $C_0 = 4.1(1)$ at a finesse of only 1700, so strong coupling no longer demands extreme cavity-length stability; the flatter dispersion also reduces sensitivity to acoustic noise.
With coherent cooperativity $C = 4.0(14)$ and 96% extinction, a single SnV center in this open microcavity operates in the strong-cooperativity regime, where a single photon can be conditionally reflected or transmitted depending on the emitter state.
The measured spin contrast of 0.91, combined with up to 10% total detection efficiency, makes cavity-mediated optical spin readout feasible, including under off-axis magnetic fields that otherwise reduce optical cyclicity.
Reducing the excess linewidth from charge noise (from $\gamma_{\mathrm{tot}}/2\pi = 52$ MHz toward the transform limit $\gamma_0/2\pi = 26$ MHz) would raise the ideal cooperativity to $C_0 = 8.0(5)$ and the extinction contrast to 0.99(1).
Because the cavity is tunable in position and frequency, it can be matched to inhomogeneously distributed SnV centers, a practical advantage for building a network node without nanofabricated cavities.

Reading between the lines

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

The geometric nature of the diamond-like advantage suggests the same twofold Purcell gain should transfer to other group-IV color centers (SiV, GeV) placed in similarly polished membranes; a direct test would be to repeat the air-like versus diamond-like comparison with those emitters.
The excess linewidth attributed to charge noise at 20 nm implantation depth could be reduced by deeper or better-annealed implants, and the paper's own extrapolation implies the same cavity would then reach $C_0 \approx 8$; this is the clearest single lever for higher performance.
Optimizing spin contrast at finite cavity detuning exploits Fano-like line shapes; a spin-readout protocol could deliberately bias the detuning rather than operate on resonance, turning the asymmetry into higher readout fidelity.
The observed strain-induced splittings and frequency shifts, currently a source of inhomogeneity, could be engineered to co-tune several emitters to one cavity mode, opening a route to multi-emitter cavity QED.

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 is a real advance. It is the first demonstration of diamond-like mode operation for SnV centers in an open Fabry–Pérot microcavity, with coherent cooperativity above one and spin-resolved extinction. The central claims are supported by direct measurements: Purcell-shortened lifetimes, resonant transmission extinction with 96% contrast, and a Zeeman splitting of 308 MHz that cleanly resolves two spin transitions. The platform characterization is thorough: mechanical stability at the picometer level, a careful loss budget for the hybrid cavity, and an honest appendix showing a second, worse emitter.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. The headline 'more than two-fold' Purcell advantage rests on comparing the diamond-like cavity lifetime (tau_c = 1.19 ns) with a mean free-space lifetime (tau0_bar = 6.1 ns) taken from other emitters, not from the same emitter. The paper itself notes the emitters sit in a strained, defect-rich environment with ground-state splittings from 995 to 1215 GHz versus 820 GHz unstrained. If the diamond-like emitter's own tau0 is 5.6 ns rather than 6.1 ns, the advantage drops to about two-fold; at 5.0 ns it drops to ~1.7, eroding the specific claim. That is a real gap, and it is addressable: measure the off-resonant lifetime of the same emitter, or at least bound the strain-induced variation from the ZPL frequency.

Second, the quoted 91% spin contrast is a model-optimized number at a detuning that was not directly measured, not a raw transmission ratio. The measured data show the spin-split branches and the fit is reasonable, but the contrast should be labeled as derived, and ideally verified at the optimal detuning.

Third, Table I predicts effective Purcell factors (8.3 for diamond-like, 4.0 for air-like) that are about a factor of two higher than the measured values (4.1 and 1.85). The discrepancy is not explained; likely causes include emitter position relative to the antinode or polarization mismatch, but the authors should address it.

None of this undermines the core result: diamond-like modes are accessed, the cavity is in the strong-cooperativity regime, and spin-resolved readout works. The citation pattern is solid, with relevant prior work (Herrmann et al. air-like coupling, nanophotonic SnV cavities) properly credited.

Who is this for? Anyone working on spin-photon interfaces based on group-IV color centers, and more broadly on open microcavity QED with solid-state emitters. It deserves a serious referee: the weaknesses are quantitative precision and missing supporting measurements, not fundamental flaws. I would recommend acceptance after revision, with the Purcell comparison clarified.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a tunable fiber-based Fabry-Pérot microcavity with an integrated low-roughness diamond membrane, used to couple to single tin-vacancy (SnV) centers. The authors measure excited-state lifetime shortening in air-like and diamond-like cavity modes, yielding effective Purcell factors C0 = 1.85(5) and C0 = 4.1(1), respectively, and claim a more than two-fold Purcell advantage for diamond-like modes. Resonant transmission spectroscopy on a single SnV center gives a cavity-QED fit with g/2π = 0.84(2) GHz, κ/2π = 13.5(3) GHz, and γtot/2π = 0.052(16) GHz, corresponding to a coherent cooperativity C = 4.0(13) and an extinction contrast of 0.96(2). Under an applied magnetic field, the extinction feature splits into two branches with Zeeman splitting 308(12) MHz, and the authors report a spin contrast of C_spin = 0.91. The paper also documents picometer-scale mechanical stability, finesse maps, dispersion measurements, a full system-parameter table, and a second-emitter check in the appendices.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be an important step for group-IV color-center-based spin-photon interfaces: open microcavities with diamond-like field confinement can reach strong cooperativity while relaxing mechanical stability requirements, and spin-resolved cavity extinction is a key ingredient for cavity-mediated spin readout and spin-photon entanglement. The work has several genuine strengths: the lifetime-derived Purcell factors are based on direct time-resolved measurements, the cavity-QED parameters come from a standard transmission model with a clearly documented fitting procedure, the paper includes a full parameter table (Table I) with error budgets, and the appendices provide extensive supporting detail, including a second-emitter measurement that shows the expected variability. The main weaknesses are that the two-fold Purcell advantage rests on a free-space lifetime from a different emitter, and the quoted 0.91 spin contrast is a model-optimized prediction rather than a directly measured contrast. These issues are load-bearing because they support the paper's headline claims, so the current version overstates what is demonstrated.

major comments (2)

[Sec. IV, Fig. 4(e), Eq. C0 = τ0/τc − 1] The headline 'more than two-fold increase' in effective Purcell factor for diamond-like modes is not established at the stated precision. For the air-like emitter, both τ0 = 5.90(11) ns and τc = 2.07(1) ns are measured on the same emitter, so C0 = 1.85(5) is well grounded. For the diamond-like emitter, only τc = 1.19(2) ns is reported; C0 = 4.1(1) is computed using the mean free-space lifetime τ̄0 = 6.1(4) ns from Fig. 4(e), not the diamond-like emitter's own off-resonant lifetime. Section IV itself notes that the emitters reside in a strained, defect-rich environment, with ground-state splittings of 995–1215 GHz versus the unstrained 820 GHz, so τ0 can plausibly vary between emitters. Maintaining C0,dia/C0,air > 2 requires τ0,dia > 5.6 ns; a strain-induced shortening of roughly 0.5 ns (about 8%) would bring the enhancement below a factor of two. Because no off-resonant lifetime is reported for the diamond-like emitter, the central quantitative comparison should either include that measurement or be qualified to reflect the resulting uncertainty.
[Sec. VI and Appendix H, Fig. 5(f)] The quoted C_spin = 0.91 is not a directly measured extinction contrast. It is a theoretical optimum computed from the fitted cavity-QED model by maximizing |T↑(δ) − T↓(δ)| over the cavity detuning, which Appendix H places at |ωa,↓ − ωc| ≈ 2.3 GHz. The measured data directly show the Zeeman splitting of 308(12) MHz, but the 0.91 value is a model prediction for a detuning at which no transmission data are presented. The abstract and conclusion state that the authors observed 'spin-selective optical transitions with a contrast of C_spin = 0.91,' which overstates what was measured. The authors should either measure the contrast at the optimized detuning or explicitly and consistently label the 0.91 value as a model-optimized prediction rather than a directly observed contrast.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Sec. V, Eq. (3)] The abstract quotes C = 4.0(14), while Eq. (3) and Table I give C = 4.0(13); the uncertainty should be harmonized.
[Sec. VI, first paragraph] The text contains the typo 'splitts' in 'This splitts the single extinction feature'; it should read 'splits'.
[Sec. VI and Appendix H] The definition of C_spin is inconsistent between the main text, which writes C_spin = |T↑ − T↓|/Tg=0, and Appendix H, which uses Cspin(δ) = |T↑(δ) − T↓(δ)| without the denominator. Please clarify the normalization and state whether the plotted values are normalized transmission differences.
[Sec. IV, Fig. 4(e)] The statement that 'SnV centers at diamond-like positions consistently yield larger C0' refers to a summary plot, but the text provides detailed lifetime data for only one diamond-like emitter. Fig. 4(e) should list the number of emitters per category and the per-emitter off-resonant lifetimes, especially since the Purcell-factor comparison depends on them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Purcell factors, cooperativity, and spin contrast are derived from direct lifetime and transmission measurements analyzed with standard cavity-QED models, not from inputs identical to the claims.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are extracted from directly measured quantities: the Purcell factor is computed from measured excited-state lifetimes (tau_c = 2.07(1) ns air-like and 1.19(2) ns diamond-like, with the air-like free-space lifetime 5.90(11) ns measured on the same emitter), and the cooperativity C = 4.0(13) is obtained by fitting a standard cavity-QED transmission model to resonant extinction data. None of these results is definitionally equal to its input. The diamond-like C0 = 4.1(1) does use the mean free-space lifetime tau0_bar = 6.1(4) ns rather than a same-emitter off-resonant lifetime, which is a legitimate systematic-uncertainty concern (a strain-reduced tau0 below about 5.6 ns would weaken the claimed two-fold advantage), but this is not a circular reduction: the input tau0_bar is not the output C0, and the output is not forced by construction. Similarly, the spin contrast C_spin = 0.91 is computed from the cQED model using independently fitted parameters {g, kappa, gamma_tot} and the measured Zeeman splitting, rather than being a direct measurement at the optimal detuning; this is a model-extrapolation concern, not circularity. The cited prior work involving present authors concerns fabrication and context (e.g., Refs. 38, 39, 50) and is not load-bearing for the main quantitative claims. The derivation is self-contained against the presented data and standard cavity-QED formalism.

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

The central claims rest on the standard cavity-QED model, literature values for branching ratios, and several fit parameters extracted from the extinction spectra. No new physical entities are introduced. The strain amplitude and magnetic field estimate are the most ad hoc inputs, used only to reconcile the Zeeman splitting.

free parameters (5)

Single-photon Rabi frequency g/2π = 0.84(2) GHz
Fit parameter from the cavity-QED model (Eq. G2) applied to the averaged transmission spectrum; directly determines C = 4g^2/(κγtot).
Cavity decay rate κ/2π = 13.5(3) GHz
Fit parameter from the same extinction spectrum; also constrains the cooperativity.
Total emitter linewidth γtot/2π = 0.052(16) GHz
Fit parameter from the extinction spectrum; includes pure dephasing and sets the coherent vs ideal cooperativity.
Strain amplitude Υg/2π = 110 to 190 GHz
Chosen post hoc in Appendix I to reproduce the measured Zeeman splitting of 308(12) MHz; no independent measurement.
Magnetic field B_z = 0.10 to 0.15 T
Estimated from coil geometry alone; feeds the expected Zeeman splitting prediction in Appendix I.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Cavity-QED transmission model (Eqs. G1, G2) accurately describes the coupled SnV-cavity system.
Standard input-output model for a single two-level emitter in a single-mode cavity; any deviations (e.g., multi-emitter, nonlinearity) would affect extracted g, κ, γtot.
domain assumption Equal thermal population of the two spin states at T=5 K in the split-cQED fit (Eq. H1).
The spin splitting (300 MHz) is much smaller than kT/h at 5 K (~100 GHz), so the equal-weight sum is justified.
domain assumption Literature branching ratios β_QE=0.8, β_C/D=0.8, β_DW=0.57 combine to βtot≈0.36.
Used in Table I to convert bare Purcell factors to expected effective C0; measured C0 values come directly from lifetimes and do not depend on this constant.
standard math Diamond refractive index n_d=2.41 at 619 nm.
Needed in Eqs. (1)-(2) to compute Purcell factors and mode character.
domain assumption The analytically derived Purcell factor formula (Eq. 2) from van Dam et al. [36] applies to this hybrid cavity.
The paper uses this formula to predict F_P from measured finesse and waist; deviations due to mode-shape errors would affect expected values.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-cooperativity coupling and spin-resolved extinction of tin-vacancy centers in a diamond-like microcavity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITUDRJSK

@misc{pith2026260804797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-cooperativity coupling and spin-resolved extinction of tin-vacancy centers in a diamond-like microcavity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITUDRJSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04797}
}

abstract

The tin-vacancy (SnV) center in diamond is a promising spin-photon interface for quantum networks, combining favorable optical properties with spin coherence above 1K. Unfolding the full potential requires cavity enhancement to increase photon-emitter coupling efficiency. Here, we demonstrate cavity-enhanced light-matter coupling of SnV centers in a fully tunable Fabry-P\'erot microcavity operating at temperatures down to 1K with in-situ magnetic field control. We access the diamond-like regime of hybrid cavity modes through integration of low-roughness diamond membranes, where the field is concentrated inside the diamond and Purcell enhancement is maximized. Diamond-like modes deliver a more than two-fold increase in the effective Purcell factor over air-like modes, reaching $C_0 = 4.1(1)$ compared to $C_0 = 1.85(5)$ in the air-like case, while simultaneously relaxing mechanical stability requirements. Resonant probing reveals coherent cavity-emitter coupling with 96% extinction contrast and a coherent cooperativity of $C = 4.0(14)$. By applying a magnetic field, we further achieve spin-resolved cavity extinction, observing spin-selective optical transitions with a contrast of ${\cal C}_{\rm spin} = 0.91$. These results establish SnV centers in diamond coupled to open Fabry-P\'erot microcavities as a promising platform for efficient spin-photon interfaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04797 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Hybrid air-diamond microcavity characterization. (a) Normalized intracavity electric-field intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Cavity-enhanced hyperspectral characterization of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Purcell enhancement of SnV centers. (a) Cavity resonance scan over the brightest identified SnV center. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Cavity-enhanced extinction and Zeeman splitting of spin transitions in transmission. (a,c) Consecutive cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Surface roughness characterization by atomic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Saturation of the ZPL count rate for the brightest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Spin-contrast optimization. (a) Theoretical spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Resonant extinction spectroscopy of a second SnV center. (a) Example transmission traces (green) together with fits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

2008
[2]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Science362, eaam9288 (2018)

2018
[3]

Gottesman, T

D. Gottesman, T. Jennewein, and S. Croke, Longer- Baseline Telescopes Using Quantum Repeaters, Physical Review Letters109, 070503 (2012)

work page 2012
[4]

K´ om´ ar, E

P. K´ om´ ar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum network of clocks, Nature Physics10, 582 (2014)

2014
[5]

X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. Borregaard, S. Izumi, M. V. Larsen, T. Gehring, M. Christandl, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Distributed quantum sens- ing in a continuous-variable entangled network, Nature Physics16, 281 (2020)

2020
[6]

Monroe, R

C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Large-scale mod- ular quantum-computer architecture with atomic mem- ory and photonic interconnects, Physical Review A89, 022317 (2014)

2014
[7]

N. H. Nickerson, J. F. Fitzsimons, and S. C. Benjamin, Freely Scalable Quantum Technologies Using Cells of 5- to-50 Qubits with Very Lossy and Noisy Photonic Links, Physical Review X4, 041041 (2014)

2014
[8]

Pompili, S

M. Pompili, S. L. N. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. C. Beuk- ers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. L. Ver- meulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. d. S. Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, and R. Hanson, Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits, Science 372, 259 (2021)

2021

Show all 53 references

[9]

Faraon, C

A. Faraon, C. Santori, Z. Huang, V. M. Acosta, and R. G. Beausoleil, Coupling of Nitrogen-Vacancy Cen- ters to Photonic Crystal Cavities in Monocrystalline Di- amond, Physical Review Letters109, 033604 (2012)

2012
[10]

Bernien, B

H. Bernien, B. Hensen, W. Pfaff, G. Koolstra, M. S. Blok, L. Robledo, T. H. Taminiau, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, L. Childress, and R. Hanson, Heralded entan- glement between solid-state qubits separated by three metres, Nature497, 86 (2013)

2013
[11]

Hensen, H

B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr´ eau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Loophole- free Bell ...

2015
[12]

Reiserer and G

A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Cavity-based quantum net- works with single atoms and optical photons, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 1379 (2015)

2015
[13]

Janitz, M

E. Janitz, M. K. Bhaskar, and L. Childress, Cavity quan- tum electrodynamics with color centers in diamond, Op- tica7, 1232 (2020)

2020
[14]

Bradac, W

C. Bradac, W. Gao, J. Forneris, M. E. Trusheim, and I. Aharonovich, Quantum nanophotonics with group IV defects in diamond, Nature Communications10, 5625 (2019)

2019
[15]

M. Ruf, N. H. Wan, H. Choi, D. Englund, and R. Hanson, Quantum networks based on color centers in diamond, Journal of Applied Physics130, 070901 (2021)

2021
[16]

M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, B. Machielse, D. S. Lev- onian, C. T. Nguyen, E. N. Knall, H. Park, D. En- glund, M. Lonˇ car, D. D. Sukachev, and M. D. Lukin, Experimental demonstration of memory-enhanced quan- tum communication, Nature580, 60 (2020)

2020
[17]

Riedel, T

D. Riedel, T. Graziosi, Z. Wang, C. De-Eknamkul, A. Ab- ulnaga, J. Dietz, A. Mucchietto, M. Haas, M. Sutula, P. Barral, M. Pompili, M. Raha, C. Robens, J. Ha, D. Sukachev, D. Levonian, M. Bhaskar, M. Markham, and B. Machielse, A scalable photonic quantum inter- connect platform (2025)

2025
[18]

P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, A. Su- leymanzade, B. Pingault, M. Sutula, S. W. Ding, C. M. Knaut, D. R. Assumpcao, Y.-C. Wei, M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, D. D. Sukachev, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, D. S. Levonian, and M. D. Lukin, Robust multi-qubit quan- tum n...

2022
[19]

C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y.-C. Wei, D. R. As- sumpcao, P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, N. Sinclair, C. De- Eknamkul, D. S. Levonian, M. K. Bhaskar, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement of Nanopho- tonic Quantum Memo...

2023 arXiv
[20]

X. Guo, A. M. Stramma, Z. Li, W. G. Roth, B. Huang, Y. Jin, R. A. Parker, J. Arjona Mart ´ ınez, N. Shofer, C. P. Michaels, C. P. Purser, M. H. Appel, E. M. Alex- eev, T. Liu, A. C. Ferrari, D. D. Awschalom, N. Dele- gan, B. Pingault, G. Galli, F. J. Heremans, M. Atat¨ ure, an...

2023
[21]

E. I. Rosenthal, C. P. Anderson, H. C. Kleidermacher, A. J. Stein, H. Lee, J. Grzesik, G. Scuri, A. E. Rugar, D. Riedel, S. Aghaeimeibodi, G. H. Ahn, K. Van Gasse, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Microwave Spin Control of a Tin- Vacancy Qubit in Diamond, Physical Review X13, 031022 (2023)

2023
[22]

Karapatzakis, J

I. Karapatzakis, J. Resch, M. Schrodin, P. Fuchs, M. Ki- eschnick, J. Heupel, L. Kussi, C. S¨ urgers, C. Popov, J. Meijer, C. Becher, W. Wernsdorfer, and D. Hunger, Microwave Control of the Tin-Vacancy Spin Qubit in Di- amond with a Superconducting Waveguide, Physical Re- view...

2024
[23]

Resch, I

J. Resch, I. Karapatzakis, M. Elshorbagy, M. Schrodin, P. Fuchs, P. Graßhoff, L. Kussi, C. S¨ urgers, C. Popov, C. Becher, W. Wernsdorfer, and D. Hunger, High- Fidelity Control of a 13C Nuclear Spin Coupled to a Tin-Vacancy Center in Diamond, Physical Review X16, 011060 (2026)

2026
[24]

H. K. Beukers, C. Waas, M. Pasini, H. B. van Ommen, Z. Ademi, M. Iuliano, N. Codreanu, J. M. Brevoord, T. Turan, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Control of Solid-State Nuclear Spin Qubits Using an Electron Spin- 1/2, Physical Review X15, 021011 (2025)

2025
[25]

C. Waas, T. Doln´ e, H. K. C. Beukers, A. M. Stramma, N. Codreanu, N. Mathieu, and R. Hanson, Remote Entanglement of Solid-State Spin Qubits Integrated in Broadband Waveguides (2026), arXiv:2607.12002 [quant- ph]. 15

2026 arXiv
[26]

Codreanu, T

N. Codreanu, T. Turan, D. Bedialauneta Rodriguez, M. Pasini, L. de Santis, M. Ruf, C. F. Primavera, L. G. Wienhoven, C. E. Smulders, S. Gr¨ oblacher, and R. Hanson, Above-Unity Coherent Cooperativity of Tin- Vacancy Centers in Diamond Photonic Crystal Cavities, Physical Review...

2026
[27]

N. S. Yama, C.-C. Wu, F. Hatami, and K.-M. C. Fu, A scalable gallium-phosphide-on-diamond spin-photon in- terface (2026), arXiv:2601.04733 [quant-ph] version: 1

2026
[28]

Riedel, I

D. Riedel, I. S¨ ollner, B. J. Shields, S. Starosielec, P. Ap- pel, E. Neu, P. Maletinsky, and R. J. Warburton, Deter- ministic Enhancement of Coherent Photon Generation from a Nitrogen-Vacancy Center in Ultrapure Diamond, Physical Review X7, 031040 (2017)

2017
[29]

M. Ruf, M. Weaver, S. van Dam, and R. Hanson, Res- onant Excitation and Purcell Enhancement of Coherent Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers Coupled to a Fabry-Perot Mi- crocavity, Physical Review Applied15, 024049 (2021)

2021
[30]

Yurgens, Y

V. Yurgens, Y. Fontana, A. Corazza, B. J. Shields, P. Maletinsky, and R. J. Warburton, Cavity-assisted res- onance fluorescence from a nitrogen-vacancy center in di- amond, npj Quantum Information10, 112 (2024)

2024
[31]

Fischer, Y

J. Fischer, Y. Herrmann, C. F. J. Wolfs, S. Scheijen, M. Ruf, and R. Hanson, Spin-photon correlations from a Purcell-enhanced diamond nitrogen-vacancy center cou- pled to an open microcavity, Nature Communications16, 11680 (2025)

2025
[32]

Bayer, R

G. Bayer, R. Berghaus, S. Sachero, A. B. Filipovski, L. Antoniuk, N. Lettner, R. Waltrich, M. Klotz, P. Maier, V. Agafonov, and A. Kubanek, Optical driving, spin ini- tialization and readout of single SiV−centers in a Fabry- Perot resonator, Communications Physics6, 300 (2023)

2023
[33]

Zifkin, C

R. Zifkin, C. D. Rodr ´ ıguez Rosenblueth, E. Janitz, Y. Fontana, and L. Childress, Lifetime Reduction of Sin- gle Germanium-Vacancy Centers in Diamond via a Tun- able Open Microcavity, PRX Quantum5, 030308 (2024)

2024
[34]

Berghaus, S

R. Berghaus, S. Sachero, G. Bayer, J. Heupel, T. Herzig, F. Feuchtmayr, J. Meijer, C. Popov, and A. Kubanek, Cavity-enhanced emission and absorption of color centers in a diamond membrane with selectable strain, Physical Review Applied23, 034050 (2025)

2025
[35]

Herrmann, J

Y. Herrmann, J. Fischer, J. M. Brevoord, C. Sauerzapf, L. G. C. Wienhoven, L. J. Feije, M. Pasini, M. Eschen, M. Ruf, M. J. Weaver, and R. Hanson, Coherent Cou- pling of a Diamond Tin-Vacancy Center to a Tunable Open Microcavity (2023), arXiv:2311.08456 [quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[36]

S. B. v. Dam, M. Ruf, and R. Hanson, Optimal design of diamond-air microcavities for quantum networks us- ing an analytical approach, New Journal of Physics20, 115004 (2018)

2018
[37]

Fl ˚ agan, D

S. Fl ˚ agan, D. Riedel, A. Javadi, T. Jakubczyk, P. Maletinsky, and R. J. Warburton, A diamond-confined open microcavity featuring a high quality-factor and a small mode-volume, Journal of Applied Physics131, 113102 (2022)

2022
[38]

K¨ orber, M

J. K¨ orber, M. Pallmann, J. Heupel, R. St¨ ohr, E. Vasilenko, T. H¨ ummer, L. Kohler, C. Popov, and D. Hunger, Scanning Cavity Microscopy of a Single- Crystal Diamond Membrane, Physical Review Applied 19, 064057 (2023)

2023
[39]

Heupel, M

J. Heupel, M. Pallmann, J. K¨ orber, R. Merz, M. Kop- narski, R. St¨ ohr, J. P. Reithmaier, D. Hunger, and C. Popov, Fabrication and Characterization of Single- Crystal Diamond Membranes for Quantum Photonics with Tunable Microcavities, Micromachines11, 1080 (2020), number: 12

2020
[40]

Høy Jensen, E

R. Høy Jensen, E. Janitz, Y. Fontana, Y. He, O. Go- bron, I. P. Radko, M. Bhaskar, R. Evans, C. D. Rodr ´ ıguez Rosenblueth, L. Childress, A. Huck, and U. Lund Andersen, Cavity-Enhanced Photon Emission from a Single Germanium-Vacancy Center in a Diamond Membrane, Physical Revi...

2020
[41]

Iwasaki, Y

T. Iwasaki, Y. Miyamoto, T. Taniguchi, P. Siyushev, M. H. Metsch, F. Jelezko, and M. Hatano, Tin-Vacancy Quantum Emitters in Diamond, Physical Review Letters 119, 253601 (2017)

2017
[42]

A. E. Rugar, S. Aghaeimeibodi, D. Riedel, C. Dory, H. Lu, P. J. McQuade, Z.-X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Quantum Photonic Interface for Tin- Vacancy Centers in Diamond, Physical Review X11, 031021 (2021)

2021
[43]

H. Lee, H. C. Kleidermacher, A. J. M. Stein, H. Oh, L. B. H. Wyatt, C. K. Kim, L. Basso, A. M. Mounce, Y. Wang, S. S. Su, M. Titze, A. C. B. Jayich, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Quantum Nanophotonic Interface for Tin-Vacancy Centers in Thin-Film Diamond (2025), arXiv:2511.05740 [quant-ph]

2025
[44]

G¨ orlitz, D

J. G¨ orlitz, D. Herrmann, G. Thiering, P. Fuchs, M. Gandil, T. Iwasaki, T. Taniguchi, M. Kieschnick, J. Meijer, M. Hatano, A. Gali, and C. Becher, Spectro- scopic investigations of negatively charged tin-vacancy centres in diamond, New Journal of Physics22, 013048 (2020)

2020
[45]

Pieplow, M

G. Pieplow, M. Belhassen, and T. Schr¨ oder, Efficient microwave spin control of negatively charged group-IV color centers in diamond, Physical Review B109, 115409 (2024)

2024
[46]

E. I. Rosenthal, S. Biswas, G. Scuri, H. Lee, A. J. Stein, H. C. Kleidermacher, J. Grzesik, A. E. Rugar, S. Aghaeimeibodi, D. Riedel, M. Titze, E. S. Bielejec, J. Choi, C. P. Anderson, and J. Vuckovic, Single-Shot Readout and Weak Measurement of a Tin-Vacancy Qubit in Diamond ...

2024 arXiv
[47]

N. Tomm, A. Javadi, N. O. Antoniadis, D. Najer, M. C. L¨ obl, A. R. Korsch, R. Schott, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. J. Warburton, A bright and fast source of coherent single photons, Nature Nanotech- nology16, 399 (2021)

2021
[48]

Ding, Y.-P

X. Ding, Y.-P. Guo, M.-C. Xu, R.-Z. Liu, G.-Y. Zou, J.-Y. Zhao, Z.-X. Ge, Q.-H. Zhang, H.-L. Liu, L.-J. Wang, M.-C. Chen, H. Wang, Y.-M. He, Y.-H. Huo, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, High-efficiency single-photon source above the loss-tolerant threshold for efficient lin- ear optica...

2025
[49]

Bushmakin, O

V. Bushmakin, O. v. Berg, C. Sauerzapf, S. Jayaram, A. Denisenko, C. Tar ´ ın, J. Anders, V. Vorobyov, I. Ger- hardt, D. Liu, and J. Wrachtrup, Two-Photon Interfer- ence of Photons from Remote Tin-Vacancy Centers in Diamond (2025), arXiv:2412.17539 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[50]

Hessenauer, J

J. Hessenauer, J. K¨ orber, M. Ghezellou, J. Ul-Hassan, G. V. Astakhov, W. Knolle, J. Wrachtrup, and D. Hunger, Cavity enhancement of V2 centers in 4H- SiC with a fiber-based Fabry–Perot microcavity, Optica Quantum3, 175 (2025)

2025
[51]

Herrmann, J

Y. Herrmann, J. M. Brevoord, J. Fischer, S. Schei- jen, C. Sauerzapf, N. Codreanu, L. G. C. Wienhoven, 16 Y. M. Q. van der Graaf, C. F. J. Wolfs, R. M´ ejard, M. Ruf, N. de Jong, and R. Hanson, Laser-cut pat- terned, micrometer-thin diamond membranes with co- herent color cent...

2025
[52]

Narita, P

Y. Narita, P. Wang, K. Ikeda, K. Oba, Y. Miyamoto, T. Taniguchi, S. Onoda, M. Hatano, and T. Iwasaki, Mul- tiple Tin-Vacancy Centers in Diamond with Nearly Iden- tical Photon Frequency and Linewidth, Physical Review Applied19, 024061 (2023)

2023
[4000]

The resulting time traces are converted into ap- proximate spectra through a two-point wavelength cali- bration: a laser flag at a known wavelength of 621.8 nm provides the first reference, while the fluorescence wave- length of an identified SnV spectral feature serves as the...

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

2008

[2] [2]

Wehner, D

S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, and R. Hanson, Quantum inter- net: A vision for the road ahead, Science362, eaam9288 (2018)

2018

[3] [3]

Gottesman, T

D. Gottesman, T. Jennewein, and S. Croke, Longer- Baseline Telescopes Using Quantum Repeaters, Physical Review Letters109, 070503 (2012)

work page 2012

[4] [4]

K´ om´ ar, E

P. K´ om´ ar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, A quantum network of clocks, Nature Physics10, 582 (2014)

2014

[5] [5]

X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. Borregaard, S. Izumi, M. V. Larsen, T. Gehring, M. Christandl, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Distributed quantum sens- ing in a continuous-variable entangled network, Nature Physics16, 281 (2020)

2020

[6] [6]

Monroe, R

C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Large-scale mod- ular quantum-computer architecture with atomic mem- ory and photonic interconnects, Physical Review A89, 022317 (2014)

2014

[7] [7]

N. H. Nickerson, J. F. Fitzsimons, and S. C. Benjamin, Freely Scalable Quantum Technologies Using Cells of 5- to-50 Qubits with Very Lossy and Noisy Photonic Links, Physical Review X4, 041041 (2014)

2014

[8] [8]

Pompili, S

M. Pompili, S. L. N. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. C. Beuk- ers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. L. Ver- meulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. d. S. Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, and R. Hanson, Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits, Science 372, 259 (2021)

2021