Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 8 minor 1 cited by

A Coherence-Protection Scheme for Quantum Sensors Based on Ultra-Shallow Single Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers in Diamond

T0 review · 2 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Surface-induced strain lets a 1-nanometer-deep nitrogen-vacancy center reach near-bulk spin coherence by tuning a small magnetic field to a clock transition.

desk verdict Solid prediction-plus-partial-validation paper: the clock-transition mechanism works at 8 nm, but the headline 1 nm/1 ms claim rests on DFT E-values not yet experimentally reached. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00180 v2 pith:TX6QVG45 submitted 2024-12-30 quant-ph

Anton Pershin , András Tárkányi , Vladimir Verkhovlyuk , Viktor Ivády , Adam Gali This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords nitrogen-vacancycenterquantumsensingclocktransitiontransversezero-fieldsplittingdiamondsurfaceterminationcoherencetimevectormagnetometryspinbath
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

Ultra-shallow NV centers—the ones close enough to a diamond surface to sense nanoscale samples—normally lose their spin coherence to magnetic noise from surface nuclear spins. This paper argues that the very same surface can rescue that coherence: the strain it imposes on a defect just 1 nm deep creates a transverse zero-field splitting of tens of MHz (according to first-principles calculations), and at the resulting avoided level crossings (clock transitions) near B ≈ 0.5 G, the qubit becomes first-order insensitive to magnetic fluctuations. Simulated T2 times in 12C-enriched diamond with fluorine/hydrogen-terminated (001) surfaces then approach the bulk value, roughly 1 ms, instead of collapsing near the surface. The paper also validates the mechanism experimentally on ~8 nm deep centers in nanopillars, where a 2.4-fold T2* enhancement is seen at the avoided crossing, and it shows that the residual-field asymmetry of this enhancement can be read out as a nanoscale vector magnetometer.

What carries the argument

The transverse zero-field splitting E (the in-plane anisotropy of the NV ground-state spin Hamiltonian, in MHz), which for a symmetric bulk NV is zero but becomes finite when the surface strain lifts the e-orbital degeneracy. E mixes the electron spin states |+1⟩ and |−1⟩, and in combination with hyperfine couplings to 15N and 13C, generates the avoided crossings (clock transitions) at fields around half the nitrogen hyperfine constant (~0.5 G). The spin-dynamics simulations (cluster-correlation expansion) then show T2 peaking at these crossings, with the peak growing once E exceeds the strongest hyperfine coupling in the bath.

What would settle it

Perform room-temperature ODMR and Ramsey measurements on a single 12C-enriched NV center placed ~1 nm below a fluorine-terminated (001) diamond surface, sweeping B0 between 0 and 2 G along the NV axis. If no T2 (or T2*) peak appears near the predicted clock-transition field, or if the measured E-splitting is below the hyperfine coupling of the dominant bath spins, the ~1 ms spin-phonon-limited regime is not attainable with this termination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that surface-induced strain in an ultra-shallow NV center can be turned from a nuisance into a resource. Density functional calculations show that on a 2×1 reconstructed (001) diamond surface terminated with fluorine (or a 70/30 F/H mix), the strain lifts the NV ground-state orbital degeneracy and produces a transverse zero-field splitting E that peaks near 30–40 MHz at ~9–12 Å depth. With E this large, the hyperfine level structure (15N plus nearby 13C spins) develops avoided crossings at small magnetic fields; at these clock transitions the transition frequency is stationary against field fluctuations, so decoherence from the F/H surface spin bath is suppressed. Spin-dynamics simulations for 12C-enriched diamond place the T2 time at the clock transition near 1 ms at ~12 Å depth, close to the bulk NV value and six times the value at high field. In natural-abundance diamond with centers ~8 nm deep in nanopillars, the same mechanism appears as a field-dependent T2* peak at the avoided crossing (2.4-fold enhancement for the measured NV2 center), and its orientation asymmetry relative to a residual bias field provides a path to full vector magnetometry from a single NV center.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted near-bulk T2 at 1 nm depth rests on an unmeasured premise: that the F/H-terminated (001) surface actually produces a 30–40 MHz transverse zero-field splitting at ~12 Å. The two NV centers measured in this work have E = 0.65 and 1.25 MHz, and at those values the coherence boost is modest or absent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At ~12 Å depth in 12C-enriched diamond with the F/H termination, T2 at the clock transition reaches about 1 ms, six times longer than at high fields and close to the bulk value.
  • For NV centers at ~8 nm depth in natural diamond, operating at the avoided crossing yields a 2.4-fold increase in T2*, up to 1.8 µs for the measured NV2 center.
  • The coherence time at the clock transition depends on the relative azimuthal orientation of the applied and residual bias fields; the maximum occurs when the two fields are antiparallel, which is the basis of the proposed vector magnetometry.
  • Mixed F/H termination with a 70/30 ratio gives longer coherence times than pure fluorination because the different gyromagnetic ratios of 1H and 19F decouple the two spin baths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted 30–40 MHz E-splitting is confirmed experimentally for the F/H-terminated (001) surface, surface termination itself becomes a coherence-engineering parameter, not just a charge-stabilization one.
  • The field-direction asymmetry suggests a practical vector magnetometry protocol: rotating a small bias field and locating the maximum T2* gives the direction of a target DC field from a single NV center; this should be testable with existing ~10 nm sensors.
  • A natural extension would be AC sensing: modulating the bias field around the clock transition should convert the coherence-time anisotropy into a directional AC magnetometer response, though the paper does not simulate this.
  • The same mechanism should apply to other defect qubits with an E-type orbital degeneracy and a nearby surface-induced strain, so the design rule (strain E larger than the strongest bath hyperfine coupling) is transferable.
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

2 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and analyzes a coherence-protection protocol for ultra-shallow nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations on fluorinated and mixed F/H-terminated (001) diamond slabs predict that surface strain lifts the e-orbital degeneracy of the NV ground state and produces a transverse zero-field splitting E of up to 30-40 MHz at depths around 9-12 Å. Spin-dynamics simulations (gCCE-1 for Ramsey free-induction decay, gCCE-2 for Hahn echo) using first-principles hyperfine parameters then show that, at the avoided level crossings induced by E, T2* and T2 are strongly enhanced; for a 12-Å-deep NV center in 12C-enriched diamond the authors predict T2 ≈ 1 ms at the clock transition, approaching bulk values. Experiments on two ~8-nm-deep NV centers in nanopillars (E = 0.65 and 1.25 MHz) show the predicted clock-transition structure: the center with larger E exhibits a 2.4-fold T2* enhancement at the avoided crossing, while the smaller-E center does not. The asymmetry of T2*(B) with respect to the relative orientation of the applied and residual magnetic fields is further proposed as a vector-magnetometry scheme.

Significance. If the results hold, the significance is substantial: an ultra-shallow NV sensor with near-bulk coherence at room temperature would directly benefit nanoscale NMR and magnetometry, and the static-field protocol is experimentally simple. The paper's method chain is genuinely first-principles: DFT provides the hyperfine tensors and the E-splitting, and the gCCE-1/gCCE-2 simulations evolve the full spin Hamiltonian without fitted decoherence parameters. The central derivation is not circular—the experimental E and θ0 are extracted from ODMR before the T2* simulations, and the bath configurations are random rather than fitted to the coherence data. The NV2 experiment provides a genuinely falsifiable check of the mechanism: the enhancement at the avoided crossing appears for E = 1.25 MHz and is absent for E = 0.65 MHz, as the theory predicts. The parametric sweep in Fig. 2d makes the E-dependence of the prediction explicit. The main qualification is that the quantitative 1-nm claim rests on an unvalidated DFT E-splitting; until that value is confirmed, the validated part of the work is the mechanism and the modest ~2.4-fold effect observed at 8 nm depth.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results and Discussion, Fig. 1c and Fig. 2d–f] The paper's headline quantitative prediction—a six-fold T2 enhancement at 12 Å and T2 ≈ 1 ms at the clock transition in mixed F/H-terminated diamond—is controlled by the DFT-computed transverse zero-field splitting E ≈ 30–40 MHz at 9–12 Å (Fig. 1c). This value has no experimental anchor: the two measured centers at ~8 nm have E = 0.65 and 1.25 MHz (Fig. 4), and Fig. 2d shows that the height and width of the coherence peak grow steeply with E, so a real-world E of a few MHz at 1 nm would reduce the enhancement to well below the claimed six-fold. Since the DFT calculation uses the PBE functional, Γ-point sampling, and a single 2447-atom slab (Methods A) with no reported convergence checks, the robustness of the 30–40 MHz value is not established. Please provide convergence tests for E (exchange-correlation functional and slab-size dependence), or alternatively reformulate the 1-nm prediction as an explicitly flagged scenario with a conservative E value and a sensitivity curve, so that the claim 'near the spin-phonon limited regime' carries its uncertainty.
  2. [Methods A and Fig. 2e–f] The slab-model T2 simulations include only the 19F and 1H termination spins and neglect the 15N nuclear spin of the NV and all residual 13C (Methods A). For the claim that T2 ≈ 1 ms in 12C-enriched diamond approaches the spin-phonon limit, the residual-13C contribution (typically ~100 ppm in '12C-enriched' samples) should be quantified rather than assumed negligible; a small 13C bath that is negligible against the surface-spin bath at short times can still matter at millisecond timescales. The neglect of the nitrogen spin is disclosed, and its principal effect (a shift of the avoided-crossing field) is stated, but the peak magnitude itself is computed without the hyperfine level structure used in the experimental modeling; please add a brief estimate or simulation demonstrating that the N spin does not reduce the predicted peak T2 in the slab geometry.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The text cites panels 2e and 2f for the T2-versus-distance and termination comparison, but the caption labels these panels 'b' and 'd'; the panel sequence given in the caption ('a, b, d and c') is also confusing and should be relabeled consistently.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The Zeeman terms in Eq. (1) use the transpose notation B^T Ŝ without defining the Cartesian spin-operator vector and the field vector; please define the notation and specify the sign convention of the nuclear Zeeman term.
  3. [Methods B] The Ramsey pulse-sequence description states that a 'second optical pulse with variable duration τ' follows the microwave π/2–τ–π/2 train; presumably τ is the free-evolution time, not the readout-pulse duration, and the text should be corrected.
  4. [References] References [3] and [11] both cite Schirhagl et al., Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 65, 83 (2014); the duplicate should be removed and the citation renumbered.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract states that the variable coherence properties 'establish vector magnetometry at the nanoscale,' whereas the body (Fig. 5 discussion) appropriately presents the vector-magnetometry scheme as a proposal ('we anticipate that this straightforward approach might facilitate'); the abstract should match the demonstrated strength of the claim.
  6. [Methods B / Experimental depth] The depth of NV1 and NV2 is given as 'around 8 nm' and the difference in E is used to infer that NV2 is closer to the surface than NV1, but the Methods do not describe how the depth was estimated; please state the depth-determination procedure and its uncertainty.
  7. [Data and Code Availability] The manuscript states that codes and data are 'available upon reasonable request'; given the central role of the spin-dynamics simulations, archiving the code and input parameters in a public repository would substantially strengthen reproducibility.
  8. [Throughout] The abbreviation 'c.f.' appears throughout the text and should be 'cf.'; in addition, the introduction states as fact that T2* exhibits asymmetry due to directional residual fields before this result is derived, which would be better placed in the results section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coherence predictions are first-principles simulations with independently specified inputs, not fitted quantities renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central theoretical prediction (six-fold T2 enhancement at ~12 Å and T2 ~1 ms) is obtained by (i) DFT calculation of the transverse zero-field splitting E as a function of depth for F- and F/H-terminated (001) surfaces (Fig. 1c), and (ii) gCCE-1/gCCE-2 spin-dynamics simulations in which the computed or specified E enters the Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) and is not adjusted to match T2 or T2* data. The T2-vs-E curves (Fig. 2d) are generated by sweeping E as an explicit parameter over a range that includes the DFT values; no experimental decoherence time is used as a fitting target. The experimental section fits E and θ0 from cw ODMR spectra and then uses those independently determined parameters as fixed inputs to CCE-1 simulations of Ramsey decay; the bath configurations are random, and the authors explicitly note that baseline and peak/dip details are 'unique fingerprints' of the random 13C arrangement, not fitted parameters. Self-citations to [25], [33], and [36] provide prior first-principles or methodological results (surface charge-state stabilization, finite-size-effect-free hyperfine tensors, gCCE implementation), but none of these citations replaces a derivation step: the clock-transition mechanism is implemented explicitly in Eq. (1), and the hyperfine inputs are independently computable. The weakness that E ≈ 30–40 MHz at 1 nm is unvalidated experimentally is a correctness/robustness risk, not circularity, because the prediction does not presuppose the measured T2 value. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the 'coherence-protected subspaces' are emergent level structures, not new degrees of freedom. All parameters are either computed from DFT or measured/estimated from ODMR.

free parameters (4)
  • Transverse zero-field splitting E for NV1 = 0.65 MHz
    Estimated by fitting simulated ODMR spectra to measured cw-ODMR (Fig. 3b); used as input in T2* simulations for NV1.
  • Transverse zero-field splitting E for NV2 = 1.25 MHz
    Estimated from ODMR field dependence (Fig. 4c,d); larger E is attributed to closer-to-surface position.
  • NV-axis polar angle theta0 for NV1 = 61.3 degrees
    Fitted comparison of simulations with experimental ODMR spectra (Fig. 3b).
  • Residual magnetic field projection on NV axis = 0.4 G (NV1), 0.5 G (NV2)
    Obtained from the shift of avoided-crossing positions from B0=0 G in Fig. 4b,d; attributed to Earth's field.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption PBE DFT accurately predicts the transverse zero-field splitting E of near-surface NV centers on terminated diamond slabs.
    E values up to 30-40 MHz at ~9 Å are computed with PBE in a 2447-atom slab (Fig. 1c), and the protocol's predicted enhancement depends on these values; no verification against experiment at 1 nm.
  • domain assumption The modeled 2x1 reconstructed (001) surface with pure F or 70% F/30% H termination represents a realizable experimental surface.
    Introduced in 'Results and Discussion' (Fig. 1a); the experimental samples are nanopillars from a commercial source, not verified to have this termination.
  • domain assumption In 12C enriched diamond, the residual 13C nuclear spin bath makes a negligible contribution to decoherence compared with the surface termination spins.
    Methods A: slab models include only 19F and 1H termination spins; no residual 13C concentration is given, yet T2 ~1 ms approaches the phonon limit.
  • standard math The gCCE-1/gCCE-2 cluster expansion converges for the simulated spin baths with the stated cutoffs (rbath=30-50 Å, rdip=6-8 Å).
    CCE is established in Refs. [34-36]; convergence cutoffs are taken from prior work.
  • domain assumption Random specific bath configurations, without configurational averaging, are representative for a single NV center in a nanopillar.
    Methods A: 'we do not average over randomized bath configurations and instead study the dependence on specific spin distributions'; the predicted fingerprints are configuration-specific.
  • domain assumption The spin Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with hyperfine, ZFS, Zeeman and dipolar terms captures the dominant decoherence channels; phonon and electric-field noise are not explicitly included in the T2/T2* simulations.
    The claim of approaching the spin-phonon limited regime is inferred from reaching bulk T2 values, not from a phonon-inclusive calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Coherence-Protection Scheme for Quantum Sensors Based on Ultra-Shallow Single Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers in Diamond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TX6QVG45

@misc{pith2026250100180,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Coherence-Protection Scheme for Quantum Sensors Based on Ultra-Shallow Single Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers in Diamond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TX6QVG45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00180}
}
abstract

Recent advances in the engineering of diamond surfaces make it possible to stabilize the charge state of 7-30 nanometers deep nitrogen-vacancy (NV) quantum sensors in diamond and to remove the charge noise at the surface principally. However, it is still a challenge to simultaneously increase the action volume of the quantum sensor by placing NV centers 0.5-2 nanometers deep and to maintain their favorable spin coherence properties which are limited by the magnetic noise from the fluctuating nuclear spins of the surface termination of diamond. Here we show by means of first principles simulations that leveraging the interplay of the surface-induced strain and small constant magnetic fields, the spin coherence times of the ultra-shallow 1-nanometer deep NV center can be significantly enhanced near the spin-phonon limited regime at room temperature in $^{12}$C enriched diamonds. We demonstrate that our protocol is beneficial to $\sim$10-nanometers deep NV centers in natural diamond too where the variable coherence properties of the center to the direction of the small constant magnetic fields establish vector magnetometry at the nanoscale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00180 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Electronic structure of ultrashallow NV center with electric field noiseless surface termination of diamond. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Hyperfine energy level structure in the ground state and coherence of the NV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The measured experimental characterization of the NV1 center. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Coherence of single NV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulated coherence times as a function of exter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Materials and spin characteristics of amino-terminated nanodiamonds embedded with nitrogen-vacancy color centers

    quant-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Amine-terminated nanodiamonds show a size-independent NV spin relaxation time of about 25 microseconds, supporting their use as biofunctionalized quantum sensors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. Hollenberg, Physics Reports 528, 1 (2013). 6

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Balasubramanian, I

    G. Balasubramanian, I. Chan, R. Kolesov, M. Al-Hmoud, J. Tisler, C. Shin, C. Kim, A. Wojcik, P. R. Hemmer, A. Krueger, et al. , Nature 455, 648 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Schirhagl, K

    R. Schirhagl, K. Chang, M. Loretz, and C. L. Degen, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 65, 83 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Schmitt, T

    S. Schmitt, T. Gefen, F. M. St¨ urner, T. Unden, G. Wolff, C. M¨ uller, J. Scheuer, B. Naydenov, M. Markham, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, I. Schwarz, M. Plenio, A. Ret- zker, L. P. McGuinness, and F. Jelezko, Science 356, 832 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    J. M. Boss, K. S. Cujia, J. Zopes, and C. L. Degen, Sci- ence 356, 837 (2017), publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science Section: Reports

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Smits, J

    J. Smits, J. T. Damron, P. Kehayias, A. F. McDowell, N. Mosavian, I. Fescenko, N. Ristoff, A. Laraoui, A. Jar- mola, and V. M. Acosta, Science Advances 5, eaaw7895 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Zhang, G

    T. Zhang, G. Pramanik, K. Zhang, M. Gulka, L. Wang, J. Jing, F. Xu, Z. Li, Q. Wei, P. Cigler, and Z. Chu, ACS Sensors 6, 2077 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    R. D. Allert, K. D. Briegel, and D. B. Bucher, Chemical Communications 58, 8165 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    P. J. Scheidegger, S. Diesch, M. L. Palm, and C. L. Degen, Applied Physics Letters 120, 224001 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Aslam, H

    N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 157–169 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Schirhagl, K

    R. Schirhagl, K. Chang, M. Loretz, and C. L. Degen, Annual review of physical chemistry 65, 83 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Rosskopf, A

    T. Rosskopf, A. Dussaux, K. Ohashi, M. Loretz, R. Schirhagl, H. Watanabe, S. Shikata, K. M. Itoh, and C. Degen, Physical review letters 112, 147602 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    M. Kim, H. Mamin, M. Sherwood, K. Ohno, D. D. Awschalom, and D. Rugar, Physical Review Letters 115, 087602 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    J. N. Neethirajan, T. Hache, D. Paone, D. Pinto, A. Denisenko, R. St¨ ohr, P. Udvarhelyi, A. Pershin, A. Gali, J. Wrachtrup, et al. , Nano Letters 23, 2563 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    F. A. Freire-Moschovitis, R. Rizzato, A. Pershin, M. R. Schepp, R. D. Allert, L. M. Todenhagen, M. S. Brandt, A. Gali, and D. B. Bucher, ACS nano 17, 10474 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Z. Yuan, M. Fitzpatrick, L. V. Rodgers, S. Sangtawesin, S. Srinivasan, and N. P. De Leon, Physical Review Re- search 2, 033263 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    K. C. Miao, J. P. Blanton, C. P. Anderson, A. Bourassa, A. L. Crook, G. Wolfowicz, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, and D. D. Awschalom, Science 369, 1493 (2020), publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science Section: Report

    2020

  10. [18]

    Jamonneau, M

    P. Jamonneau, M. Lesik, J. Tetienne, I. Alvizu, L. Mayer, A. Dr´ eau, S. Kosen, J.-F. Roch, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, et al. , Physical Review B 93, 024305 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Wang, C.-F

    N. Wang, C.-F. Liu, J.-W. Fan, X. Feng, W.-H. Leong, A. Finkler, A. Denisenko, J. Wrachtrup, Q. Li, and R.-B. Liu, Physical Review Research 4, 013098 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    F. Kong, P. Zhao, P. Yu, Z. Qin, Z. Huang, Z. Wang, M. Wang, F. Shi, and J. Du, Science advances 6, eaaz8244 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    C. A. Meriles, P. R. Zangara, and D. Pagliero, Advanced Quantum Technologies , 2300098 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Maertz, A

    B. Maertz, A. Wijnheijmer, G. Fuchs, M. Nowakowski, and D. Awschalom, Applied Physics Letters 96 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Nizovtsev, N

    A. Nizovtsev, N. Kukin, A. Muradova, P. Semenov, A. Salkazanov, M. Smirnova, A. Pushkarchuk, A. Vasilev, N. Kargin, and S. Y. Kilin, Journal of Applied Spec- troscopy 89, 1064 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    B. Chen, X. Hou, F. Ge, X. Zhang, Y. Ji, H. Li, P. Qian, Y. Wang, N. Xu, and J. Du, Nano Letters 20, 8267 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    L. V. Rodgers, S. T. Nguyen, J. H. Cox, K. Zervas, Z. Yuan, S. Sangtawesin, A. Stacey, C. Jaye, C. Weiland, A. Pershin, et al. , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2316032121 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    K¨ orner, R

    W. K¨ orner, R. Ghassemizadeh, D. F. Urban, and C. Els¨ asser, Physical Review B105, 085305 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    L.-P. Yang, C. Burk, M. Widmann, S.-Y. Lee, J. Wrachtrup, and N. Zhao, Physical Review B 90, 241203 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Rabeau, P

    J. Rabeau, P. Reichart, G. Tamanyan, D. Jamieson, S. Prawer, F. Jelezko, T. Gaebel, I. Popa, M. Domhan, and J. Wrachtrup, Applied Physics Letters 88 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Comput. Mater. Sci.6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  22. [30]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  23. [31]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  25. [33]

    Tak´ acs and V

    I. Tak´ acs and V. Iv´ ady, Communications Physics7, 178 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Yang and R.-B

    W. Yang and R.-B. Liu, Physical Review B 78, 085315 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Onizhuk, K

    M. Onizhuk, K. C. Miao, J. P. Blanton, H. Ma, C. P. Anderson, A. Bourassa, D. D. Awschalom, and G. Galli, PRX Quantum 2, 010311 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    #𝑁) 𝐵$=0.45 G 𝐴′!!(

    A. Haykal, R. Tanos, N. Minotto, A. Durand, F. Fabre, J. Li, J. H. Edgar, V. Iv´ ady, A. Gali, T. Michel, A. Dr´ eau, B. Gil, G. Cassabois, and V. Jacques, Nature Commu- nications 13, 4347 (2022). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A.G. and V.I. acknowledge the support from the National Research...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.