Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 65 references

High-purity entanglement mediated by magnons despite weak coupling

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A heralded protocol entangles two diamond NV centers through a shared magnon bus without needing the coupling to exceed the magnon linewidth: weak coupling lowers the success probability, but fidelity stays high—F>0.99 at 0.6% success with

desk verdict New Barrett-Kok-style protocol that decouples the NV computational basis from a shared magnon bath and breaks the coupling-decay tradeoff; the ideal limit is sound, but the finite-dephasing numerics need a clearer account of how dephasing jumps were treated. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19533 v1 pith:SQASBDLR submitted 2026-07-21 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Sanchar Sharma This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords magnon-mediatedentanglementnitrogen-vacancycentersheraldedquantumbusweakcouplingBarrett-KokprotocolMonte-Carlowavefunctionthree-magnonsplitting
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 proposes a probabilistic, heralded protocol to entangle two nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond using magnons in a magnetic nanowire as a shared quantum bus. The central claim is that the usual tradeoff—stronger spin-magnon coupling gives higher entanglement fidelity but also faster spin decay—can be broken by coupling the magnons only to a transition outside the computational basis. In this scheme, weak coupling lowers the success probability but does not reduce the fidelity of the heralded state. Simulating two NVs near a YIG wire with coupling g≈2π×30 kHz (one-third of the magnon linewidth), the paper predicts fidelity F>0.99 at an NV dephasing rate of 1 Hz and F=0.91 at 1 kHz, both at about 0.6% success probability. A sympathetic reader should care because it suggests that solid-state spin entanglement can be achieved without demanding strong coupling, and it uses collective decoherence as a resource rather than an obstacle.

What carries the argument

The central object is the measurement operator M=Σ_α O_α m_α, a linear combination of magnon annihilation operators with Σ|O_α|²=1, describing a single-magnon detector at nonzero wavevector. It acts together with a 'dark' subspace: the computational states |0⟩ and |¯1⟩ do not couple to the magnons, so the only decay channel is closed. The protocol's pivotal step is the cyclic gate G, |0⟩→|¯1⟩→|1⟩→|0⟩, applied between two heralding windows; it swaps the bright and dark doublets so that a second magnon click leaves the two NVs in the Bell state |0¯1⟩+|¯10⟩. The resonance condition 2k_mag x = 2nπ makes the relative phase identical in every successful run.

What would settle it

Measure the heralded NV-NV fidelity in a setup with g≈2π×30 kHz, magnon linewidth κ≈2π×0.1 MHz, and NV dephasing ≈2π×1 Hz; the protocol predicts F>0.99 near 0.6% success probability. Observing F below roughly 0.9 at that operating point—provided single-magnon detection at the assumed rate is achieved—would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The protocol's key move is to let magnons interact only with the |0⟩↔|1⟩ transition of each NV, while the computational basis is {|0⟩,|¯1⟩}. Since |¯1⟩ does not couple to magnons, the computational states never decay into the magnon bath, removing the coupling–decoherence tradeoff. A first magnon measurement (or loss) erases which NV emitted a magnon, projecting the two NVs into a superposition of |0¯1⟩ and |¯10⟩; after a cyclic gate G (|0⟩→|¯1⟩→|1⟩→|0⟩), a second magnon measurement heralds the Bell state. The phase of the Bell state is fixed by choosing the NV transition frequency so that 2k_mag x = 2nπ, with x the NV separation. In the absence of NV dephasing the protocol reaches unit fide

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that a single-magnon detector at nonzero wavevector exists and fires at a constant rate Γ=2π×30 kHz, modeled by M=Σ O_α m_α; the three-magnon-splitting amplifier proposed for detection is not included in the simulations, so if the real detection rate is time-dependent or much lower, the reported fidelities and success probabilities change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Weak NV-magnon coupling no longer caps the achievable entanglement fidelity; experiments can operate with g below the magnon linewidth, trading only success probability.
  • The protocol yields heralded Bell pairs at a rate of about 0.5 kHz at the optimal simulated point, making it a practical building block for NV-based quantum networks.
  • Only global microwave control is needed—no individual addressing of the NVs—which simplifies on-chip integration.
  • The 'which-way erasure' mechanism is not limited to two NVs; the paper notes it could be extended to entangle more NVs and create high-dimensional entangled states.
  • The proposed three-magnon-splitting amplifier could lift single-magnon signals to detectable levels, with an estimated measurement rate above the value assumed in the simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the detection rate is time-dependent rather than constant (as the paper itself notes for its amplifier), the optimal waiting times and the quoted fidelity/success tradeoff would shift; a time-resolved simulation is a direct extension.
  • The scheme is a magnonic analogue of the Barrett-Kok protocol; the same dark-state engineering might apply to other bosonic buses (phonons, waveguide photons) where which-path erasure is feasible.
  • The phase-matching condition 2k_mag x = 2nπ couples qubit frequency and placement; switching to a chiral geometry with one-directional magnons would remove this constraint and could be tested in the same setup.
  • Because weak coupling only reduces success rate, one could parallelize many wires to increase entanglement generation rate without sacrificing fidelity—a route not explored in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a heralded protocol to entangle two NV centers through a shared magnonic bus. The key idea is to couple the magnons only to the |0>↔|1> transition, which is outside the computational basis {|0>,|¯1>}; this avoids the usual tradeoff between stronger coupling and increased spin decay. A sequence of two magnon measurements separated by a cyclic gate is intended to herald the Bell state |0¯1>+|¯10>. The authors derive the ideal (no-dephasing) limit analytically in Appendix A, claiming unit fidelity for arbitrarily weak coupling, and support this with Monte-Carlo simulations for finite NV dephasing, reporting F>0.99 for κ_NV=2π×1 Hz and F=0.91 for κ_NV=2π×1 kHz at ~0.6% success probability. The physical parameters (g=2π×30 kHz, κ=2π×0.1 MHz, YIG wire geometry) are derived from material parameters and a magnetostatic calculation. A three-magnon-splitting amplifier is proposed as a route to single-magnon detection.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the protocol would be an important conceptual advance: it decouples the entangling fidelity from the spin–magnon coupling strength, turning weak coupling into a rate penalty rather than a fidelity penalty. The analytical framework in Appendix A is coherent, and the parameter estimates are grounded in concrete material properties and geometry. The paper also ships reproducible code, which is commendable. However, the finite-dephasing predictions—the main quantitative results in the abstract—rest on a simulation procedure that is not fully specified in the appendix, and as written the appendix appears to omit the very dephasing-jump trajectories that degrade the Bell state. Because the experiment cannot postselect on the absence of dephasing, this is a load-bearing problem, not a cosmetic one. The ideal-limit derivation and the protocol concept remain interesting, but the reported fidelities are not yet supported by the presented analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, §1; Figs. 2–3] The text states: 'We retain NV dephasing in the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, but we do not track the trajectories in which a dephasing jump occurs.' This is not a harmless simplification. The dephasing collapse operators L_{j,i}=sqrt(κ_NV/4)(I−2P_i^j) act nontrivially: acting on a|0¯1>+b|¯10>, a jump produces −a|0¯1>+b|¯10> or a|0¯1>−b|¯10>, i.e., the orthogonal Bell state. Since the no-jump terms are proportional to the identity and cancel under normalization, discarding jump trajectories removes exactly the mechanism that generates infidelity. The experimental postselection is only on magnon clicks, not on the absence of dephasing, so the simulation would be computing a fidelity conditional on an unperformed postselection. At κ_NV=2π×1 kHz and t1+t2≈19 µs, the probability of at least one dephasing jump is ≈1−exp(−κ_NV t)≈0.11–0.18, so the effect is significant. Please clarify whether the
  2. [Main text, 'Note that this mechanism...' (p. 10)] The constant measurement rate model M=Σ O_α m_α with Σ|O_α|²=1 and Γ=2π×30 kHz is an assumption. The proposed three-magnon-splitting amplifier gives a time-dependent gain and adds idler noise, as the paper itself states: 'this mechanism does not directly fit the constant measurement rate assumed in our simulations.' Consequently, the quoted 0.6% success probability and the fidelities are contingent on an idealized detector whose physical realization is not modeled. To make the quantitative predictions meaningful, either incorporate the amplifier dynamics (or at least a time-dependent measurement rate) into the simulation, or explicitly state that the reported numbers are conditional on an unspecified detector that achieves the assumed constant rate.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A24)] The unit-fidelity condition e^{-i(kα−kα')(x_l−x_r)}=1 is required for all modes that contribute to the measurement operator. The text imposes this only for the two resonant wavevectors ±k_mag. However, the NVs couple to a narrow but finite band of modes (linewidth κ≈2π×0.1 MHz), so there is a spread in wavevector around ±k_mag. This residual spread leads to a distribution of relative phases e^{i(kα−kα')x} across trajectories. Please quantify the bandwidth of the coupling/detection and show that the resulting phase spread is negligible for the claimed unit fidelity; if the condition is only approximate, the 'unit fidelity' statement should be qualified accordingly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] The claim that the factor of 4 in the dephasing operators 'ensures that the off-diagonal entries of the density matrix decay at the rate κ_NV' is not demonstrated. With three dephasing operators per NV, the total dephasing rate entering the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian and the Lindblad equation should be spelled out explicitly.
  2. [Main text, Eq. (5)] The derivation of the effective measurement rate Γ≈g_eff/cosh^{-1}√1000 from the amplification expression is unclear. Please explain how the amplifier gain and the room-temperature limit translate into a detection rate, and how the idler noise affects the measurement backaction beyond the constant-rate model.
  3. [References] Reference [47] ('S. Sharma, NV-Magnon-NV (2026)') is incomplete; please provide a repository link or a citation with a persistent identifier if the code is openly available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; ideal result is analytic and finite-dephasing fidelities are simulation outputs, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not equivalent to its inputs. The ideal unit-fidelity result follows analytically from the conditional state after two magnon clicks: Eqs. (A22)-(A25) show the amplitudes of |0̅1> and |̅10> become equal when 2k(x_l-x_r)=2nπ, and bright residuals are suppressed at large t1. The finite-dephasing fidelities are Monte-Carlo outputs over 100,000 trajectories; no parameter is fitted to the target F. The coupling g=2π×30 kHz, linewidth κ=2π×0.1 MHz, and resonance frequencies are fixed by YIG/NV parameters derived in Appendix B and by external references; the detector rate Γ=2π×30 kHz is an assumed constant rate later bounded by an independent three-magnon-splitting estimate (Γ~2π×48 kHz). Self-citations (e.g., [12], [19], [20], [48]) provide context or a standard normalization, not the load-bearing premise. Two disclosed limitations are validity risks, not circularity: (1) the main text notes the amplifier gives a time-dependent measurement rate that "does not directly fit the constant measurement rate assumed in our simulations"; (2) Appendix A §1 states dephasing-jump trajectories are not tracked, which if literal would mean the finite-dephasing fidelities are not solutions of the full Lindblad equation. These affect correctness or experimental support, but they do not make the prediction equal to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on spectral protection of the computational basis, a deterministic-phase placement condition, and an assumed single-magnon detector. The only hand-set simulation parameter is Γ; dephasing rates are literature inputs. No target-result fitting is present.

free parameters (3)
  • Magnon measurement rate Γ = 2π × 30 kHz
    Assumed constant measurement rate of the +k_mag magnon mode in all simulations (Appendix A, Eqs. A2–A3). The paper's amplifier estimate gives 2π × 48 kHz but is time-dependent and not incorporated.
  • Low NV dephasing rate κ_NV^low = 2π × 1 Hz (coherence time 160 ms)
    Input from dynamical-decoupling literature [36], used as a scenario; not fitted to the target result.
  • Moderate NV dephasing rate κ_NV^mod = 2π × 1 kHz (coherence time 160 μs)
    Input representing a moderate decoherence scenario; not fitted to the target result.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The two NV centers have identical |0>↔|1> frequencies and are spaced so that 2k_mag(x_l−x_r) = 2nπ.
    Needed for the single-excitation sectors to share eigenvalues and for the Bell-state phase to be deterministic (Eqs. A12 and A24).
  • domain assumption The |0>↔|bar1> transition lies inside the magnon gap, so the computational basis {|0>,|bar1>} is decoupled from magnon decay.
    Central to breaking the tradeoff; achieved by choosing B_ext = 70 mT so that ω_bar1 = 2π × 0.91 GHz is below the magnon gap of 2π × 3.68 GHz.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnon detection is described by M = Σ O_α m_α with Σ|O_α|² = 1, with only +k_mag modes measured at a constant rate Γ.
    Assumed detector model in Eqs. A2–A3; the proposed three-magnon amplifier gives a time-dependent rate and is not included in the simulation.
  • domain assumption NV decay is negligible compared to the protocol timescale.
    NV lifetimes are on the order of seconds while protocol times are ~10 μs; stated in the main text.
  • standard math The Monte-Carlo wavefunction unravelling is equivalent to the Lindblad master equation.
    Used throughout; cited [39].
  • domain assumption The thin-film dispersion formula with the wire radius approximates the cylindrical nanowire spectrum, with modes uniform across the cross-section.
    Appendix B, Eq. B1; introduces quantitative uncertainty in g and κ.
  • domain assumption The system is at zero temperature for the computational |0>↔|bar1> transition (T < 50 mK).
    Avoids thermal magnon excitations; stated in the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-purity entanglement mediated by magnons despite weak coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SQASBDLR

@misc{pith2026260719533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-purity entanglement mediated by magnons despite weak coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SQASBDLR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19533}
}
read the original abstract

Entangling distant spins via a shared magnonic bus typically faces a tradeoff: stronger spin-magnon coupling increases the entanglement fidelity, but also the spin decay rate. We propose a protocol that breaks this tradeoff. The magnons couple only to a transition outside the computational basis, in which the Bell state is created. Our protocol is probabilistic, and weak coupling reduces the success probability but not the fidelity. We analyze a setup where the spins are two nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers near a magnetic wire. In the absence of NV dephasing, the protocol reaches unit fidelity with a maximally entangled state, for arbitrarily weak coupling. In our simulations via the Monte-Carlo wavefunction approach, the NV-magnon coupling is taken to be one-third of the magnon linewidth. Considering finite NV dephasing, we predict a fidelity of >0.99 for a state-of-the-art rate, and an optimal fidelity of 0.91 for a moderate rate, both at 0.6% success probability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19533 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Setup for heralding entanglement between two NV centers, NV1 and NV2. They sit near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Success probability and (b) fidelity as a function of the two waiting times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Success probability and (b) fidelity as a function of the two waiting times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Prepare each NV in the superposition| ¯1⟩+|1⟩

  2. [2]

    If no magnon is measured within this time, discard the run

    Wait for a fixed timet 1. If no magnon is measured within this time, discard the run

  3. [3]

    Att 1, apply the cyclic gateG ≡ |0⟩ → |¯1⟩ → |1⟩ → |0⟩to the NVs

  4. [4]

    no magnon measurement

    Wait for another fixed timet 2. If a magnon is measured in this time, the run is declared a success. To understand why this protocol produces a Bell state,|ψ des⟩, we use the Monte-Carlo wavefunction approach, which is a stochastic unravelling of the Lindblad master equa- tion [39]. The HamiltonianHis the usual coherent exchange, where an NV flips between...

  5. [5]

    Here,P j ab =|b⟩ j⟨a|is the transition operator|a⟩ → |b⟩of the NV labeled j∈ {l, r}(left and right), located atxj along the wire, withP j a ≡P j aa the projector onto|a⟩

    Model The Hamiltonian is Hmain ℏ = X j ωj 1P j 1 +ω j ¯1P j ¯1 + X α ωαm† αmα + X αj gαeikαxj mαP j 01 +g ∗ αe−ikαxj m† αP j 10 .(A1) We divide every Hamiltonian byℏ, so thatω α,g α, and the eigenvalues below are angular frequencies. Here,P j ab =|b⟩ j⟨a|is the transition operator|a⟩ → |b⟩of the NV labeled j∈ {l, r}(left and right), located atxj along the...

  6. [6]

    Each trajectory is a sequence of collapses, one per action of a collapse operatorL

    Monte-Carlo wavefunction method The Monte-Carlo wavefunction method [39] unravels the Lindblad master equation into stochastic trajectories of pure states. Each trajectory is a sequence of collapses, one per action of a collapse operatorL. Between two collapses, the state evolves under the non- Hermitian effective Hamiltonian eH ℏ = H ℏ − i 2 X L L†L,(A6)...

  7. [7]

    Its eigenstates therefore split into the independent subspaces listed in the table below

    Subspaces of the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian The non-Hermitian Hamiltonian eHconserves the excitation number ˆNexc =P l 1 +P r 1 + P α m† αmα. Its eigenstates therefore split into the independent subspaces listed in the table below. We call a subspace ‘dark’ if no state in it can emit a magnon, and ‘bright’ otherwise. The four subspaces with ˆNexc = 0 are s...

  8. [8]

    We ex- pand the initial state in the eigenbasis of eH, evolve it under the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, and apply the collapse operators at the randomly sampled times of clicks

    Quantum trajectories: subspace analysis We now study how the subspace of the wavefunction evolves under the protocol. We ex- pand the initial state in the eigenbasis of eH, evolve it under the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, and apply the collapse operators at the randomly sampled times of clicks. Step 1 of the protocol prepares each NV in| ¯1⟩+|1⟩with the mag...

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    We therefore keep only the single-click case

    As discussed in the main text, this second outcome eventually leads to failure. We therefore keep only the single-click case. We now apply the cyclic gateG ≡ |0⟩ → |¯1⟩ → |1⟩ → |0⟩. This mapsH1 lr → H0 0¯1 +H 0 ¯10 +H 1 D, where the first two are dark and the third is undesire...

  2. [10]

    Eigenspace of the single-excitation sectors The quantitative analysis below uses the eigenstates ofH 1 l andH 1 r. The matrix elements of eHwithin theH 1 l sector, spanned by|1 ¯1⟩and|0 ¯1α⟩, are eH ℏ |1¯1⟩=−i κNV 2 |1¯1⟩+ X α g∗ αe−ikαxl |0¯1α⟩, eH ℏ |0¯1α⟩= ηα −i κα +κ NV 2 ...

  3. [11]

    The last term| ¯1¯1⟩is removed by the first magnon measurement

    Quantum trajectories: quantitative analysis At step 1, the wavefunction is Step 1:|ψ⟩= |11⟩+| ¯11⟩+|1 ¯1⟩+| ¯1¯1⟩ 2 .(A17) By the subspace analysis above, only the middle two terms need to be followed. The last term| ¯1¯1⟩is removed by the first magnon measurement. The first t...

  4. [12]

    We consider spin waves with wavevectorkalong the axis, uniform across the cross-section

    Dispersion We model the magnet as a cylindrical wire of radiusd= 40 nm and lengthL= 10µm, with the equilibrium magnetization along the wire axis ˆz. We consider spin waves with wavevectorkalong the axis, uniform across the cross-section. Sincek∥M, these are backward-volume mod...

  5. [13]

    Consider the mode with wavevectork

    Stray field To find the coupling, we need the stray field generated by a magnon. Consider the mode with wavevectork. Its transverse magnetization is uniform across the cross-section and 17 circularly polarized,m y =im x ∝e ikz. In cylindrical components (ρ, ϕ, z), mρ =m 0 eiϕe...

  6. [14]

    Each NV couples to it via the Zeeman interaction HZ ℏ =γB(r j)·S j =ω s h(rj)·S j,(B10) whereS j is the spin-1 operator of NVjand we take the NV gyromagnetic ratio equal toγ

    Coupling to the NV centers The NVs sit outside the wire, where the magnetization vanishes and the stray field is B=µ 0Mshwithh=−∇ψ. Each NV couples to it via the Zeeman interaction HZ ℏ =γB(r j)·S j =ω s h(rj)·S j,(B10) whereS j is the spin-1 operator of NVjand we take the NV ...

  7. [15]

    Keeping the term resonant with the|0⟩ ↔ |1⟩transition, the interaction reads Hint ℏ = X αj (ωs/ √

  8. [16]

    Converting to cylindrical components,h x −ih y =e −iϕ (hρ −ih ϕ)

    (hx −ih y)α(rj)m αP j 01 + h.c.,(B11) whereh α is the stray field of a single magnon in modeα, found above. Converting to cylindrical components,h x −ih y =e −iϕ (hρ −ih ϕ). For the outside branch of Eq. (B8), hρ −ih ϕ =−∂ ρψ− ψ ρ =d m0 k I1(kd)K0(kρ)e iϕeikz,(B12) usingK ′ 1(...

  9. [17]

    A. V. Chumak, P. Kabos, M. Wu, C. Abert, C. Adelmann, A. O. Adeyeye, J. ˚Akerman, F. G. Aliev, A. Anane, A. Awad, C. H. Back, A. Barman, G. E. W. Bauer, M. Becherer, E. N. Beginin, V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, Y. M. Blanter, P. Bortolotti, I. Boventer, D. A. Bozhko, S. A. Bunyaev,...

    2022

  10. [18]

    H. Yuan, Y. Cao, A. Kamra, R. A. Duine, and P. Yan, Quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science, Physics Reports965, 1 (2022), quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science

    2022

  11. [19]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Naka- mura, Quantum magnonics: The magnon meets the superconducting qubit, Comptes Rendus Physique17, 729 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, and Y. Nakamura, Resolving quanta of collective spin excitations in a millimeter-sized ferromagnet, Science Advances3, e1603150 (2017). 20

    2017

  13. [21]

    Xu, X.-K

    D. Xu, X.-K. Gu, H.-K. Li, Y.-C. Weng, Y.-P. Wang, J. Li, H. Wang, S.-Y. Zhu, and J. Q. You, Quantum control of a single magnon in a macroscopic spin system, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 193603 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Xu, X.-K

    D. Xu, X.-K. Gu, Y.-C. Weng, H.-K. Li, Y.-P. Wang, S.-Y. Zhu, and J. Q. You, Macroscopic bell state between a millimeter-sized spin system and a superconducting qubit, Quantum Science and Technology9, 035002 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Elyasi, Y

    M. Elyasi, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, Resources of nonlinear cavity magnonics for quantum information, Physical Review B101, 054402 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, V. Feulner, and S. V. Kusminskiy, Magnon heralding in cavity optomagnonics, Physical Review A100, 013810 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Sharma, V

    S. Sharma, V. S V Bittencourt, and S. Viola Kusminskiy, Protocol for generating an arbitrary quantum state of the magnetization in cavity magnonics, Journal of Physics: Materials5, 034006 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Kounalakis, G

    M. Kounalakis, G. E. W. Bauer, and Y. M. Blanter, Analog quantum control of magnonic cat states on a chip by a superconducting qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 037205 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Elyasi, K

    M. Elyasi, K. Yamamoto, T. Hioki, T. Makiuchi, H. Shimizu, E. Saitoh, and G. E. W. Bauer, Nonlinear enhancement of coherent magnetization dynamics, Phys. Rev. B109, L180402 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Sharma, S

    S. Sharma, S. Viola Kusminskiy, and V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, Quantum tomography of magnons using brillouin light scattering, Phys. Rev. B110, 014416 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Sharma and C

    S. Sharma and C. Psaroudaki, Optical signatures of quantum skyrmions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 016701 (2026)

    2026

  22. [30]

    M. Dols, S. Sharma, L. Bechara, Y. M. Blanter, M. Kounalakis, and S. Viola Kusminskiy, Magnon-mediated quantum gates for superconducting qubits, Phys. Rev. B110, 104416 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Engelhardt, A

    F. Engelhardt, A. V. Bondarenko, A. Metelmann, Y. M. Blanter, S. V. Kusminskiy, and V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, Optics-microwave entanglement and state teleportation mediated by a cavity magnomechanical system (2026), arXiv:2605.21754 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Osada, R

    A. Osada, R. Hisatomi, A. Noguchi, Y. Tabuchi, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, M. Sadgrove, R. Yalla, M. Nomura, and Y. Nakamura, Cavity optomagnonics with spin-orbit coupled pho- tons, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 223601 (2016). 21

    2016

  25. [33]

    Zhang, N

    X. Zhang, N. Zhu, C.-L. Zou, and H. X. Tang, Optomagnonic whispering gallery microres- onators, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 123605 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Viola Kusminskiy, H

    S. Viola Kusminskiy, H. X. Tang, and F. Marquardt, Coupled spin-light dynamics in cavity optomagnonics, Phys. Rev. A94, 033821 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    J. A. Haigh, N. J. Lambert, S. Sharma, Y. M. Blanter, G. E. W. Bauer, and A. J. Ramsay, Selection rules for cavity-enhanced brillouin light scattering from magnetostatic modes, Phys. Rev. B97, 214423 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    ˇSimi´ c, S

    F. ˇSimi´ c, S. Sharma, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, Coherent pumping of high- momentum magnons by light, Phys. Rev. B101, 100401(R) (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    N. Zhu, X. Zhang, X. Han, C.-L. Zou, C. Zhong, C.-H. Wang, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Waveguide cavity optomagnonics for microwave-to-optics conversion, Optica7, 1291 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    O. O. Soykal and M. E. Flatt´ e, Strong field interactions between a nanomagnet and a photonic cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 077202 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Hybridizing ferromagnetic magnons and microwave photons in the quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 083603 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Strongly coupled magnons and cavity mi- crowave photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 156401 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    K. An, A. N. Litvinenko, R. Kohno, A. A. Fuad, V. V. Naletov, L. Vila, U. Ebels, G. de Loubens, H. Hurdequint, N. Beaulieu, J. Ben Youssef, N. Vukadinovic, G. E. W. Bauer, A. N. Slavin, V. S. Tiberkevich, and O. Klein, Coherent long-range transfer of angular mo- mentum between...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Schlitz, L

    R. Schlitz, L. Siegl, T. Sato, W. Yu, G. E. W. Bauer, H. Huebl, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Magnetization dynamics affected by phonon pumping, Phys. Rev. B106, 014407 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    van der Sar, F

    T. van der Sar, F. Casola, R. Walsworth, and A. Yacoby, Nanometre-scale probing of spin waves using single electron spins, Nature Communications6, 7886 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Bertelli, J

    I. Bertelli, J. J. Carmiggelt, T. Yu, B. G. Simon, C. C. Pothoven, G. E. W. Bauer, Y. M. Blanter, J. Aarts, and T. van der Sar, Magnetic resonance imaging of spin-wave transport and interference in a magnetic insulator, Science Advances6, eabd3556 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, T

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, T. van der Sar, and O. Romero-Isart, Towards a quantum interface between spin waves and paramagnetic spin baths, Phys. Rev. B105, 075410 (2022). 22

    2022

  38. [46]

    Bose, Quantum communication through spin chain dynamics: an introductory overview, Contemporary Physics48, 13 (2007)

    S. Bose, Quantum communication through spin chain dynamics: an introductory overview, Contemporary Physics48, 13 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Awschalom, K

    D. Awschalom, K. K. Berggren, H. Bernien, S. Bhave, L. D. Carr, P. Davids, S. E. Economou, D. Englund, A. Faraon, M. Fejer, S. Guha, M. V. Gustafsson, E. Hu, L. Jiang, J. Kim, B. Korzh, P. Kumar, P. G. Kwiat, M. Lonˇ car, M. D. Lukin, D. A. Miller, C. Monroe, S. W. Nam, P. Nar...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Trifunovic, F

    L. Trifunovic, F. L. Pedrocchi, and D. Loss, Long-distance entanglement of spin qubits via ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. X3, 041023 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Fukami, D

    M. Fukami, D. R. Candido, D. D. Awschalom, and M. E. Flatt´ e, Opportunities for long- range magnon-mediated entanglement of spin qubits via on- and off-resonant coupling, PRX Quantum2, 040314 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    M. Dols, M. Cherkasskii, V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, D. B. R. Dasari, and S. Viola Kusminskiy, Steady-state entanglement of spin qubits mediated by nonreciprocal and chiral magnons, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 023310 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    Schirhagl, K

    R. Schirhagl, K. Chang, M. Loretz, and C. L. Degen, Nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond: Nanoscale sensors for physics and biology, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry65, 83 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Bar-Gill, L

    N. Bar-Gill, L. M. Pham, A. Jarmola, D. Budker, and R. L. Walsworth, Solid-state electronic spin coherence time approaching one second, Nature Communications4, 1743 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics, Phys. Rev. A71, 060310(R) (2005)

    2005

  46. [54]

    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 i...

    2015

  47. [55]

    Mølmer and Y

    K. Mølmer and Y. Castin, Monte carlo wavefunctions in quantum optics, Quantum and Semi- classical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B8, 49 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    D. D. Stancil and A. Prabhakar,Spin waves: theory and applications(Springer, New York,

  49. [58]

    B. A. Kalinikos and A. N. Slavin, Theory of dipole-exchange spin wave spectrum for ferro- magnetic films with mixed exchange boundary conditions, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics19, 7013 (1986)

    1986

  50. [59]

    R. O. Serha, K. H. McAllister, F. Majcen, S. Knauer, T. Reimann, C. Dubs, G. A. Melkov, A. A. Serga, V. S. Tyberkevych, A. V. Chumak, and D. A. Bozhko, Ultralong-living magnons in the quantum limit, Science Advances12, eaee2344 (2026), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/s...

    2026 doi

  51. [60]

    Zheng, Z

    S. Zheng, Z. Wang, Y. Wang, F. Sun, Q. He, P. Yan, and H. Y. Yuan, Tutorial: Nonlinear magnonics, Journal of Applied Physics134, 151101 (2023)

    2023

  52. [61]

    Suhl, The theory of ferromagnetic resonance at high signal powers, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids1, 209 (1957)

    H. Suhl, The theory of ferromagnetic resonance at high signal powers, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids1, 209 (1957)

    1957

  53. [62]

    X. Ge, R. Verba, P. Pirro, A. V. Chumak, and Q. Wang, Nanoscaled magnon transistor based on stimulated three-magnon splitting, Applied Physics Letters124, 122413 (2024)

    2024

  54. [63]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  55. [64]

    Sharma, NV-Magnon-NV (2026)

    S. Sharma, NV-Magnon-NV (2026)

    2026

  56. [65]

    J. Graf, S. Sharma, H. Huebl, and S. V. Kusminskiy, Design of an optomagnonic crystal: Towards optimal magnon-photon mode matching at the microscale, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013277 (2021). 24

    2021

  57. [2009]

    oCLC: ocn209335955. 23

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.