Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Simultaneous Determination of Local Magnetic Fields and Sensor Orientation with Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers in Nanodiamond

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 With only four bias-field settings, an uncalibrated nanodiamond can simultaneously report its own crystal orientation and the local vector magnetic field it sits in.

desk verdict Practical simultaneous orientation-and-field calibration for nanodiamonds, with an unproven identifiability claim that should be fixed in review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05366 v1 pith:WEDMJ7PR submitted 2025-07-07 quant-ph physics.bio-ph

Yizhou Wang , Haochen Shen , Zhongyuan Liu , Yue Yu , Shengwang Du , Chong Zu , Chuanwei Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.bio-ph
keywords nitrogen-vacancycentersnanodiamondvectormagnetometryODMRsensororientationbiasmagneticfieldsquantumsensingtetrahedralsymmetry
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

Nanodiamonds containing nitrogen-vacancy centers are attractive as tiny magnetic-field sensors, but each particle is oriented randomly, and figuring out the orientation usually requires knowing the magnetic field it sits in—while measuring the field requires knowing the orientation. This paper breaks that circle. It shows that taking optically detected magnetic resonance (ODMR) spectra under four different non-coplanar bias magnetic fields is enough to reconstruct both the particle's crystal axes and the local vector magnetic field at once, using a least-squares fit to the measured resonance splittings. The paper validates the approach on a bulk diamond with known orientation and on several single nanodiamonds where everything is unknown, and it characterizes how noise, bias-field count, and bias-field strength affect accuracy. The practical upshot is that a randomly oriented nanodiamond can be calibrated in place and used as a vector magnetometer without a separate orientation step or prior knowledge of the ambient field, which matters for sensing inside biological environments where unknown sample fields are present.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the four NV symmetry axes, which always form a regular tetrahedron. From that geometry the paper derives a sum rule, $|\vec{B}_{\rm total}|^2 = \frac{3}{4}\sum_{j=1}^4 (\vec{B}_{\rm total}\cdot\hat{n}_j)^2$, so the total field magnitude at each bias setting can be read off the ODMR splittings without knowing the axes. The four axes are then parameterized by three angles $(\theta_1, \phi_1, \alpha)$ with the tetrahedral constraint, and the unknown local field by three Cartesian components; a least-squares cost function compares measured and calculated splittings across all bias fields and is minimized numerically. The identifiability step is captured geometrically: each bias field confines the local field to a sphere, two spheres give a ring, three give two mirror images, and a fourth non-coplanar field selects one, which is why four is the minimum.

What would settle it

Place a nanodiamond in a well-characterized, non-uniform magnetic field that varies by more than the method's claimed precision across the roughly one-micron particle, such as the field near a sharp magnetic tip, run the four-non-coplanar-bias reconstruction, and compare the returned single vector with the known gradient-averaged field; if they disagree, the uniform-field assumption is the limiting failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that four distinct, non-coplanar bias magnetic fields are sufficient to determine, from ODMR splittings alone, both the full vector of the local magnetic field at a nanodiamond and the crystallographic orientation of its nitrogen-vacancy centers, without prior calibration of either. The argument rests on a tetrahedral sum rule: for the four NV axes, the sum of the squares of the field projections equals $4/3$ times the squared total field magnitude, independent of the particle's orientation, so each spectrum directly yields the total field magnitude without knowing the axes. Geometrically, one bias field puts the local field on a sphere, two put it on a ring, three leave two mirror-symmetric points, and a fourth non-coplanar field breaks the mirror degeneracy. The authors validate this on a bulk diamond with known axes, recovering them to sub-degree accuracy and a local field matching the geomagnetic field, and on single nanodiamonds with unknown orientation, recovering axes to about one degree and field consistency of roughly 50 microtesla. If correct, the method turns randomly oriented nanodiamonds into vector magnetometers that do not need the ambient field known in advance.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction models the magnetic environment as one uniform, constant vector acting on every sensing defect in the diamond, and it needs all four crystal-axis orientations to appear as distinguishable resonance pairs; if the field varies across the particle or some peaks overlap or vanish, the returned field and axes become effective values rather than the physical ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single nanodiamond with unknown orientation can be used as a vector magnetometer after four ODMR acquisitions under non-coplanar bias fields, with no separate calibration of its crystal axes.
  • Since the same number of bias fields was previously needed for orientation-only determination when the field was assumed known, simultaneous field-plus-orientation reconstruction adds no extra measurement overhead.
  • Using more bias fields per reconstruction improves accuracy up to a saturation point around ten fields for nanodiamond-level noise; beyond that, the remaining error is dominated by the broad ODMR linewidth.
  • Scaling up bias-field strength mostly tightens the recovered orientation, while the local-field error is set by the same noise floor once the bias field is much larger than the local field, so field accuracy must come from lower noise rather than stronger bias.
  • In biological settings, the method removes the need to pre-characterize the ambient magnetic field, so unknown fields produced by targets such as ferritin can be sensed while simultaneously tracking the sensor's orientation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the sum rule only needs four axes satisfying the tetrahedral orthogonality identities, a version of the method should transfer to other multi-axis spin ensembles with the same symmetry; the key ingredient is the geometric relation between axes and projected splittings, not diamond-specific physics.
  • If a nanodiamond's ODMR spectrum shows fewer than four resolved resonance pairs, the reconstruction returns effective axes and an effective field; one testable workaround is to use stronger bias fields to separate overlapping peaks, in line with the paper's bias-strength analysis.
  • The framework suggests an interleaved protocol for dynamic biological tracking: calibrate axes with large bias fields where orientation error is smallest, then reduce or remove the bias to sense weak target fields, combining the paper's two operating regimes.
  • A numerical stress test with a deliberately asymmetric local field gradient across the roughly one-micron particle would quantify when the uniform-field assumption breaks; this is a natural next step the paper does not carry out.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a method to simultaneously reconstruct the local vector magnetic field and the crystallographic orientation of NV centers in nanodiamonds by performing ODMR measurements under multiple applied bias fields. The central claim is that four non-coplanar bias fields are both necessary and sufficient for an unambiguous extraction of both quantities. The authors support this claim with a geometric sphere-intersection argument, a tetrahedral sum rule for obtaining the total-field magnitude from the four measured splittings, a proof-of-concept experiment on a bulk diamond with known orientation, experiments on individual nanodiamonds, and numerical noise simulations. The bulk-diamond experiment achieves sub-0.5° axis reconstruction and a local field consistent with the geomagnetic field, while the nanodiamond experiments show larger scatter and no independent ground truth for the local field.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the method decouples the previously interdependent tasks of nanodiamond orientation tracking and vector magnetometry, which is a genuine advance for applications in biological and nanoscale sensing. The experimental validation on bulk diamond with known crystallographic axes is convincing and includes sub-degree angular accuracy and field reconstruction close to the geomagnetic reference. The numerical analysis of noise, bias-field count, and bias-field strength provides useful practical guidance. The main significance rests on the claimed mathematical minimality of four bias fields; this claim is plausible and likely true, but the proof presented in the manuscript has a gap concerning the uniqueness of the total-field magnitude extracted from ODMR splittings, and the axes-determination step is delegated to a reference rather than demonstrated in the combined setting.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III and Supplementary Sec. I.C] The four-bias-field sufficiency argument treats |B_tot^i| as a directly observable quantity, but the experiment records ODMR splittings; the route from splittings to |B_tot^i| via Eq. (2) and Eq. (S11) is a nonlinear fixed-point problem. The supplementary text describes a recursive procedure but does not prove existence, uniqueness, or convergence of that fixed point. At the 5–10 mT bias fields used for nanodiamonds, the transverse-field corrections to the splittings are non-negligible (order 1 MHz), so the concern is not academic. Please provide a proof that the system formed by Eq. (2) for the four axes and Eq. (S11) has at most one positive solution |B_tot| for each bias field, or revise the claim to a numerical/empirical statement.
  2. [Sec. III] The sufficiency of four fields is established in two stages: first Bloc is obtained from the sphere intersection, then the axes are determined from the known total-field vectors and the measured splittings. The second stage is delegated to Ref. [39] without stating the precise theorem or checking that its conditions (e.g., the required number and geometry of the bias fields) are exactly matched by the four fields used in the first stage. Please make this step explicit, so that the uniqueness of the complete solution (Bloc and axes) is not merely asserted by analogy.
  3. [Sec. IV] In the nanodiamond experiment there is no independent ground truth for Bloc, and the precision is much lower than in the bulk-diamond case, with δB ~ 50 μT and a mean [-7,-33,-7] μT that differs from the geomagnetic reference by about two standard deviations. Because the nanodiamond measurements use bias fields of 5–10 mT, where the nonlinear inversion of the first major comment is most relevant, the experiment as presented cannot distinguish an accurate reconstruction from a systematic bias. I recommend adding an independent field calibration for a nanodiamond (e.g., comparing with a co-located vector magnetometer or a known test field) or explicitly characterizing the systematic error versus bias-field strength.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The symbol B_z in Eq. (2) is undefined; from the supplemental derivation it should be B_proj, the projection of the total magnetic field onto the NV axis. Also define μ_e consistently with γ_e.
  2. [Eq. (S4)] The double sum in Eq. (S4) uses the index j for both the bias-field index and the NV-axis index; rename the outer index i and the inner index j.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption refers to panels (b,e) and (c,f) that do not exist, and the mapping of panel letters to QDM and nanodiamond rows is inconsistent with the text. Please correct the panel labeling.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption text interchanges the panel labels a/b/c/d in discussing axes and field deviations; align the caption with the actual panel layout.
  5. [Supplementary Sec. I.C] The proof that Σ_j (n_j)_z^2 = 4/3 is referenced to a calculation 'leading to S = 4/3' that is not shown; include the explicit calculation or a citation for this standard tetrahedral identity.
  6. [Sec. IV / Supplement Sec. III] Please state whether the bias coils were calibrated independently or fitted as unknown parameters using the procedure described in the supplement; this affects the interpretation of the reconstructed Bloc values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inversion is benchmarked against external ground truth and the four-field sufficiency argument is a geometric constraint argument, not a re-fitting of the target.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that four bias fields suffice to determine both the local field Bloc and the NV orientation from ODMR splittings. The derivation starts from the spin-1 Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) and the projection relation (Eq. 3), then frames the recovery as a least-squares optimization over physical unknowns (theta1, phi1, alpha, Bloc_x, Bloc_y, Bloc_z) in Eq. (S4). These are genuine inverse-problem parameters, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The four-field sufficiency argument in Sec. III is a geometric constraint: each measured |Btot_i| defines a sphere |Bbias_i + Bloc| = |Btot_i|; three non-coplanar bias fields leave a mirror-image pair, and a fourth non-coplanar field breaks the degeneracy. This reasoning is independent of the values being recovered, conditional on the radii being known. The radii are obtained via Eq. (S11), which follows from the tetrahedral identity sum_j (n_j . B)^2 = (4/3)|B|^2 and does not require prior knowledge of the orientation. The supplement's recursive total-field determination is a fixed-point numerical procedure, not a definitional equivalence: it solves the combined splitting equations and Eq. (S11), and the full optimization (Eq. S4) does not rely on assuming the target. The method is validated against an externally known bulk-diamond orientation (Eq. 5), against the geomagnetic field, and against numerical simulations with defined ground-truth fields, where the reconstruction recovers the inputs within the stated uncertainties. No load-bearing self-citation appears; reference [39] is external prior work cited as context. The only flagged concern is that the supplement does not prove single-valuedness or convergence of the recursive |Btot| extraction; that is a correctness/robustness gap, not a circular reduction of the result to the input.

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

The fitted orientation and local-field components are the intended outputs of the inverse problem, while the optimization bounds and cost weight are user-chosen numerical settings that can affect whether the global minimum is found. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • theta_1, phi_1, alpha (nanodiamond orientation) = bulk: mean angular deviation < 0.5 deg; nanodiamond: dgc around 1 deg
    Targets of the reconstruction, fitted by MATLAB Multistart. These are physical unknowns, not ad hoc knobs, but they are fitted to the same ODMR data.
  • Bloc_x, Bloc_y, Bloc_z = bulk: [-2.5, -14.9, -53.2] uT; nanodiamond: [-7, -33, -7] uT (mean over runs)
    The local vector field to be determined, fitted along with orientation. Reported uncertainties are standard deviations across random bias-field subsets.
  • Optimization bounds on Bloc = not specified
    MATLAB Multistart requires upper and lower bounds. The supplement notes that with three bias fields a spurious solution can be rejected when bounds place it far from the true result, so bounds influence which minimum is found.
  • Cost function weight w_ij = 10^14
    Fixed numerical scaling so the optimization behaves well with GHz frequency units. It is a numerical choice with no physical content.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The NV ground-state Hamiltonian is Zeeman-dominated; strain, electric field, and hyperfine effects are neglected or averaged (Eq. 1).
    Required so that Eq. (2) determines splittings from total field and projection alone. The authors state this assumption in Sec. II and later merge hyperfine peaks in the supplement.
  • domain assumption The four NV axes form an exact tetrahedron with mutual dot products -1/3, and all four orientations are present in each nanodiamond.
    Needed for the tetrahedral identities S9 and S10 and for the axis parameterization S3. It is also needed so that four resonance pairs can be identified in each ODMR spectrum.
  • domain assumption The local field is a single uniform, time-independent vector acting on all NV centers in the particle during the measurement sequence.
    The reconstruction models Bloc as a fixed 3-vector. Spatial gradients or temporal fluctuations would break the sphere-intersection picture and change the meaning of the recovered field.
  • domain assumption Applied bias fields are known and controllable in three dimensions.
    The main method treats B_bias as known. The supplement proposes an extension for uncalibrated coils, but the main experiments rely on calibrated three-axis coils.
  • ad hoc to paper ODMR peaks can be assigned to the four NV groups and fitted with an eight-peak model.
    Nanodiamond spectra are broad (about 10 MHz FWHM), so overlapped or weak peaks could be misassigned. The paper does not prove this assignment is reliable for arbitrary nanodiamonds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simultaneous Determination of Local Magnetic Fields and Sensor Orientation with Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers in Nanodiamond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEDMJ7PR

@misc{pith2026250705366,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simultaneous Determination of Local Magnetic Fields and Sensor Orientation with Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers in Nanodiamond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEDMJ7PR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05366}
}
read the original abstract

Nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in nanodiamonds have emerged as a promising quantum sensing platform for biomedical imaging applications, yet random orientations of individual particles present significant challenges in large-scale sensor calibration. In this study, we demonstrate a novel approach to simultaneously determine each particle's crystallographic axes and the surrounding local vector magnetic field. Specifically, a minimum of four distinct bias fields is required to unambiguously extract both the orientation and the local field. We validate our method experimentally using NV centers in two scenarios: (1) in a bulk diamond with known crystal orientation as a proof of concept, and (2) on various single nanodiamonds to mimic real-world applications. Our work represents a crucial step towards unlocking the full potential of nanodiamonds for advanced applications such as in-situ biomedical imaging and nanoscale sensing in complex environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05366 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. provides an overview: Panel (a) sketches the wide￾field ODMR microscope used in this study and, in the inset, shows two representative single-crystal nanodia￾monds whose diameters are ∼1 µm. Each nanodiamond hosts an ensemble of negatively charged NV centres that function as local vector magnetometers. The sensing ele￾ment itself is governed by the ground-state spin-1 Hamil￾tonian [43, 44] depicted in panel (b), Hˆ … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Illustration of the process for determining the local mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Preliminary results for obtained local magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Impact of noise and number of bias fields on reconstructi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.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. Microwave-free vector magnetometry and crystal orientation determination with Nitrogen-Vacancy centers using Bayesian inference

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Bayesian analysis of cross-relaxation photoluminescence maps determines NV-crystal orientation and magnetic-field vectors without microwave driving or field alignment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [39]

    Igarashi, T

    R. Igarashi, T. Sugi, S. Sotoma, T. Genjo, Y. Kumiya, E. Walinda, H. Ueno, K. Ikeda, H. Sumiya, H. Tochio, Y. Yoshinari, Y. Harada, and M. Shirakawa, Tracking the 3d rotational dynamics in nanoscopic biological sys- tems, Journal of the American Chemical Society 142, 7542 (2020) , pMID: 32285668

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Balasubramanian, I

    G. Balasubramanian, I. Y. Chan, R. Kolesov, M. Al- Hmoud, J. Tisler, C. Shin, C. Kim, A. Wojcik, P. R. Hem- mer, A. Krueger, T. Hanke, A. Leitenstorfer, R. Brats- chitsch, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Nanoscale imaging magnetometry with diamond spins under ambient condi- tions, Nature 455, 648 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [2]

    J. R. Maze, P. L. Stanwix, J. S. Hodges, S. Hong, J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Jiang, M. V. G. Dutt, E. Togan, A. S. Zibrov, A. Yacoby, R. L. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, Nanoscale magnetic sensing with an individual electronic spin in diamond, Nature 455, 644 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [3]

    V. M. Acosta, E. Bauch, M. P. Ledbetter, C. Santori, K.-M. C. Fu, P. E. Barclay, R. G. Beausoleil, H. Linget, J. F. Roch, F. Treussart, S. Chemerisov, W. Gawlik, and D. Budker, Diamonds with a high density of nitrogen- vacancy centers for magnetometry applications, Phys. Rev. B 80, 115202 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [4]

    R. S. Schoenfeld and W. Harneit, Real time magnetic field sensing and imaging using a single spin in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 030802 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    E. T. G¨ uldeste and C. Bulutay, Wavelet-based ramsey magnetometry enhancement of a single N- v center in di- amond, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 044030 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    J. F. Barry, J. M. Schloss, E. Bauch, M. J. Turner, C. A. Hart, L. M. Pham, and R. L. Walsworth, Sensitivity optimization for nv-diamond magnetometry, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015004 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    Jarmola, V

    A. Jarmola, V. M. Acosta, K. Jensen, S. Chemerisov, and D. Budker, Temperature- and magnetic-field-dependent longitudinal spin relaxation in nitrogen-vacancy ensem- bles in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 197601 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    Huang, H

    H. Huang, H. Dong, L. Chen, and Y. Gao, Single-beam three-axis atomic magnetometer, Applied Physics Letters 109 (2016)

    2016

  2. [9]

    Dolde, H

    F. Dolde, H. Fedder, M. W. Doherty, T. N¨ obauer, F. Rempp, G. Balasubramanian, T. Wolf, F. Reinhard, L. C. L. Hollenberg, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Electric-field sensing using single diamond spins, Nature Physics 7, 459 (2011)

    2011

  3. [10]

    Block, B

    M. Block, B. Kobrin, A. Jarmola, S. Hsieh, C. Zu, N. Figueroa, V. Acosta, J. Minguzzi, J. Maze, D. Bud- ker, and N. Yao, Optically enhanced electric field sensing using nitrogen-vacancy ensembles, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 024024 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. R. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution, Nature Physics 4, 810 (2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    Igarashi, Y

    R. Igarashi, Y. Yoshinari, H. Yokota, T. Sugi, F. Sugi- hara, K. Ikeda, H. Sumiya, S. Tsuji, I. Mori, H. Tochio, Y. Harada, and M. Shirakawa, Real-time background-free selective imaging of fluorescent nanodiamonds in vivo, Nano Letters 12, 5726 (2012) , pMID: 23066639

    2012

  6. [13]

    Fujisaku, R

    T. Fujisaku, R. Tanabe, S. Onoda, R. Kubota, T. F. Segawa, F. T.-K. So, T. Ohshima, I. Hamachi, M. Shi- rakawa, and R. Igarashi, ph nanosensor using electronic spins in diamond, ACS Nano 13, 11726 (2019) , pMID: 31538479

    2019

  7. [14]

    Rendler, J

    T. Rendler, J. Neburkova, O. Zemek, J. Kotek, A. Zappe, Z. Chu, P. Cigler, and J. Wrachtrup, Optical imaging of localized chemical events using programmable diamond quantum nanosensors, Nature Communications 8, 14701 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    V. M. Acosta, E. Bauch, M. P. Ledbetter, A. Waxman, L.-S. Bouchard, and D. Budker, Temperature dependence of the nitrogen-vacancy magnetic resonance in diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 070801 (2010)

    2010

  9. [16]

    Chen, C.-H

    X.-D. Chen, C.-H. Dong, F.-W. Sun, C.-L. Zou, J.-M. Cui, Z.-F. Han, and G.-C. Guo, Temperature depen- dent energy level shifts of nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond, Applied Physics Letters 99 (2011)

    2011

  10. [17]

    D. M. Toyli, D. J. Christle, A. Alkauskas, B. B. Buckley, C. G. Van de Walle, and D. D. Awschalom, Measurement and control of single nitrogen-vacancy center spins above 7 600 k, Phys. Rev. X 2, 031001 (2012)

    2012

  11. [18]

    Yanagi, K

    T. Yanagi, K. Kaminaga, W. Kada, O. Hanaizumi, and R. Igarashi, Optimization of wide-field odmr mea- surements using fluorescent nanodiamonds to improve temperature determination accuracy, Nanomaterials 10 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    Kucsko, P

    G. Kucsko, P. C. Maurer, N. Y. Yao, M. Kubo, H. J. Noh, P. K. Lo, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Nanometre- scale thermometry in a living cell, Nature 500, 54 (2013)

    2013

  13. [20]

    Casola, T

    F. Casola, T. Van Der Sar, and A. Yacoby, Probing condensed matter physics with magnetometry based on nitrogen-vacancy centres in diamond, Nature Reviews Materials 3, 1 (2018)

    2018

  14. [21]

    Hsieh, P

    S. Hsieh, P. Bhattacharyya, C. Zu, T. Mittiga, T. J. Smart, F. Machado, B. Kobrin, T. O. H¨ ohn, N. Z. Rui, M. Kamrani, S. Chatterjee, S. Choi, M. Zaletel, V. V. Struzhkin, J. E. Moore, V. I. Levitas, R. Jeanloz, and N. Y. Yao, Imaging stress and magnetism at high pres- sures ...

    2019

  15. [22]

    M. J. Ku, T. X. Zhou, Q. Li, Y. J. Shin, J. K. Shi, C. Burch, L. E. Anderson, A. T. Pierce, Y. Xie, A. Hamo, et al. , Imaging viscous flow of the dirac fluid in graphene, Nature 583, 537 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Bhattacharyya, W

    P. Bhattacharyya, W. Chen, X. Huang, S. Chatter- jee, B. Huang, B. Kobrin, Y. Lyu, T. J. Smart, M. Block, E. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Wu, S. Hsieh, H. Ma, S. Mandyam, B. Chen, E. Davis, Z. M. Geballe, C. Zu, V. Struzhkin, R. Jeanloz, J. E. Moore, T. Cui, G. Galli, B. I. Halperin, C. ...

    2024

  17. [24]

    Z. Liu, R. Gong, J. Kim, O. K. Diessel, Q. Xu, Z. Rehfuss, X. Du, G. He, A. Singh, Y. S. Eo, et al. , Quantum noise spectroscopy of superconducting critical dynamics and vortex fluctuations in a high-temperature cuprate, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04439 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Q.-C. Sun, T. Song, E. Anderson, A. Brunner, J. F¨ orster, T. Shalomayeva, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Gr¨ afe, R. St¨ ohr,et al. , Magnetic domains and domain wall pin- ning in atomically thin crbr3 revealed by nanoscale imag- ing, Nature communications 12, 1989 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    Zu, W.-B

    C. Zu, W.-B. Wang, L. He, W.-G. Zhang, C.-Y. Dai, F. Wang, and L.-M. Duan, Experimental realization of universal geometric quantum gates with solid-state spins, Nature 514, 72 (2014)

    2014

  20. [27]

    H. Gao, L. S. Martin, L. B. Hughes, N. T. Leitao, P. Put, H. Zhou, N. U. Koyluoglu, S. A. Meynell, A. C. B. Jayich, H. Park, et al. , Signal amplification in a solid-state quan- tum sensor via asymmetric time-reversal of many-body dynamics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14598 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Childress and R

    L. Childress and R. Hanson, Diamond nv centers for quantum computing and quantum networks, MRS Bul- letin 38, 134–138 (2013)

    2013

  22. [29]

    A. S. Barnard, Diamond standard in diagnostics: nan- odiamond biolabels make their mark, Analyst 134, 1751 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Aslam, H

    N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Quantum sensors for biomedical applications, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 157 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Yukawa, H

    H. Yukawa, H. Kono, H. Ishiwata, R. Igarashi, Y. Takakusagi, S. Arai, Y. Hirano, T. Suhara, and Y. Baba, Quantum life science: biological nano quan- tum sensors, quantum technology-based hyperpolarized mri/nmr, quantum biology, and quantum biotechnology, Chemical Society Revie...

    2025

  25. [33]

    K. Fang, V. M. Acosta, C. Santori, Z. Huang, K. M. Itoh, H. Watanabe, S. Shikata, and R. G. Beausoleil, High- sensitivity magnetometry based on quantum beats in di- amond nitrogen-vacancy centers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 130802 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Gruber, A

    A. Gruber, A. Dr¨ abenstedt, C. Tietz, L. Fleury, J. Wrachtrup, and C. von Borczyskowski, Scanning con- focal optical microscopy and magnetic resonance on sin- gle defect centers, Science 276, 2012 (1997)

    1997

  27. [35]

    Kukura, H

    P. Kukura, H. Ewers, C. M¨ uller, A. Renn, A. Helenius, and V. Sandoghdar, High-speed nanoscopic tracking of the position and orientation of a single virus, Nature Methods 6, 923 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    L. P. McGuinness, Y. Yan, A. Stacey, D. A. Simp- son, L. T. Hall, D. Maclaurin, S. Prawer, P. Mul- vaney, J. Wrachtrup, F. Caruso, R. E. Scholten, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Quantum measurement and orien- tation tracking of fluorescent nanodiamonds inside living cells, Nature Nan...

    2011

  29. [37]

    Shimabukuro, R

    K. Shimabukuro, R. Yasuda, E. Muneyuki, K. Y. Hara, K. Kinosita, and M. Yoshida, Catalysis and rotation of F1 motor: Cleavage of atp at the catalytic site occurs in 1 ms before 40 ◦ substep rotation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, 14731 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Fukushige, H

    K. Fukushige, H. Kawaguchi, K. Shimazaki, T. Tashima, H. Takashima, and S. Takeuchi, Identification of the ori- entation of a single nv center in a nanodiamond using a three-dimensionally controlled magnetic field, Applied Physics Letters 116 (2020)

    2020

  31. [40]

    T. F. Segawa and R. Igarashi, Nanoscale quantum sens- ing with nitrogen-vacancy centers in nanodiamonds – a magnetic resonance perspective, Progress in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy 134-135, 20 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    G. C. Papaefthymiou, The m¨ ossbauer and magnetic properties of ferritin cores, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects 1800, 886 (2010) , fer- ritin: Structures, Properties and Applications

    2010

  33. [42]

    S. M. Dubiel, B. Zablotna-Rypien, J. B. Mackey, and J. M. Williams, Magnetic properties of human liver and brain ferritin, European Biophysics Journal 28, 263 (1999)

    1999

  34. [43]

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. Hollenberg, The nitrogen- vacancy colour centre in diamond, Physics Reports 528, 1 (2013)

    2013

  35. [44]

    Schirhagl, K

    R. Schirhagl, K. Chang, M. Loretz, and C. L. Degen, Nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond: Nanoscale sen- sors for physics and biology, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 65, 83 (2014)

    2014

  36. [45]

    The MathWorks, Inc., Global Optimization Toolbox User’s Guide: MultiStart , MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA 8 (2025), accessed: 2025-07-02

    2025

  37. [46]

    Balasubramanian, P

    G. Balasubramanian, P. Neumann, D. Twitchen, M. Markham, R. Kolesov, N. Mizuochi, J. Isoya, J. Achard, J. Beck, J. Tissler, V. Jacques, P. R. Hemmer, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Ultralong spin coherence time in isotopically engineered diamond, Nature Materi- als 8, 383 (2009)

    2009

  38. [47]

    Dr´ eau, M

    A. Dr´ eau, M. Lesik, L. Rondin, P. Spinicelli, O. Arcizet, J.-F. Roch, and V. Jacques, Avoiding power broaden- ing in optically detected magnetic resonance of single nv defects for enhanced dc magnetic field sensitivity, Phys. Rev. B 84, 195204 (2011)

    2011

  39. [48]

    J. M. Schloss, J. F. Barry, M. J. Turner, and R. L. Walsworth, Simultaneous broadband vector magnetome- try using solid-state spins, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 034044 (2018)

    2018

  40. [49]

    M¨ unzhuber, F

    F. M¨ unzhuber, F. Bayer, V. Markovi´ c, J. Brehm, J. Kleinlein, L. W. Molenkamp, and T. Kiessling, Polarization-assisted vector magnetometry with no bias field using an ensemble of nitrogen-vacancy centers in di- amond, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 014055 (2020)

    2020

  41. [50]

    Dubey, S

    P. Dubey, S. Kumar, C. Singh, J. Naliyapara, M. A. Poo- jar, H. K. B, A. Poonia, and P. Peddibhotla, Magnetic field orientation dependence of continuous-wave optically detected magnetic resonance with nitrogen-vacancy en- sembles (2025), arXiv:2504.18478 [quant-ph]

    2025

  42. [51]

    Yamamoto, K

    K. Yamamoto, K. Ogawa, M. Tsukamoto, Y. Ashida, K. Sasaki, and K. Kobayashi, Nanodiamond quantum thermometry assisted with machine learning, Applied Physics Express 18, 025001 (2025)

    2025

  43. [52]

    Kitazawa, Y

    S. Kitazawa, Y. Matsuzaki, S. Saijo, K. Kakuyanagi, S. Saito, and J. Ishi-Hayase, Vector-magnetic-field sens- ing via multifrequency control of nitrogen-vacancy cen- ters in diamond, Phys. Rev. A 96, 042115 (2017)

    2017

  44. [53]

    de Lange, Z

    G. de Lange, Z. H. Wang, D. Rist` e, V. V. Dobrovitski, and R. Hanson, Universal dynamical decoupling of a sin- gle solid-state spin from a spin bath, Science 330, 60 (2010). Supplementary Material for Simultaneous Determination of Local Magnet ic Fields and Sensor Orientation...

    2010

  45. [54]

    ∗ These authors contributed equally to this work

    Defining ˆn1 = (cos θ1 cos ϕ1, cos θ1 sin ϕ1, sin θ1). ∗ These authors contributed equally to this work. † zu@wustl.edu ‡ chuanwei.zhang@wustl.edu 2

  46. [55]

    Defining an orthonormal basis (ˆ u, ˆv, ˆn1) relative to ˆn1: ˆu = (− sin ϕ1, cos ϕ1, 0) ˆv = (− sin θ1 cos ϕ1, − sin θ1 sin ϕ1, cos θ1)

  47. [56]

    Expressing ˆni (i = 2, 3, 4) as ˆnj = c1 ˆn1 + cu,j ˆu + cv,j ˆv

  48. [57]

    And ˆ nj · ˆnj = 1 = ⇒ c2 u,j + c2 v,j = 8 /9

    Applying constraints: ˆ nj · ˆn1 = −1/3 = ⇒ c1 = −1/3. And ˆ nj · ˆnj = 1 = ⇒ c2 u,j + c2 v,j = 8 /9. Also ˆnk · ˆnl = −1/3 = ⇒ cukcul + cvkcvl = −4/9 for i ̸= j

  49. [58]

    Parameterizing the ( cu,j, cv,j ) components using the angle α and 2 π/3 rotations to satisfy the above conditions: cu,j = 2 √ 2 3 sin ( α + 2π 3 (j − 2) ) cv,j = 2 √ 2 3 cos ( α + 2π 3 (j − 2) )

  50. [59]

    Substituting back into ˆnj = c1 ˆn1 + cu,j ˆu + cv,j ˆv yields the expression in Eq.( S3). ˆnj =                        (cos θ1 cos ϕ1, cos θ1 sin ϕ1, sin θ1), j = 1, − 1 3 (cos θ1 cos ϕ1, cos θ1 sin ϕ1, sin θ1) − 2 √ 2 3 sin ( α + 2π 3 (j − 2) ) (− sin ...

  51. [60]

    T otal Magnetic Field Calculation: For each applied bias field configuration i, evaluate the total magnetic field as ⃗Btotal i = ⃗Bbias i + ⃗Bloc, (S5) where ⃗Bloc is the unknown local field

  52. [61]

    ( S3) and its magnitude: Bproj ji = ⃗Btotal i · ˆnj, (S6) | ⃗Btotal i | = ‖ ‖ ‖ ⃗Btotal i ‖ ‖ ‖

    Field Projection and Magnitude: Compute both the projection of the total field along the axis ˆ nj using Eq. ( S3) and its magnitude: Bproj ji = ⃗Btotal i · ˆnj, (S6) | ⃗Btotal i | = ‖ ‖ ‖ ⃗Btotal i ‖ ‖ ‖ . (S7) 3

  53. [62]

    (2))) to obtain the three spin-1 ei genenergies: λ0, λ±1

    Energy Level Calculation: Solve the eigenvalue equation (Eq. (2))) to obtain the three spin-1 ei genenergies: λ0, λ±1

  54. [63]

    (S8) In our case wij is set to be 10 14 such that the optimization in MATLAB could proceed robustly given that w e used GHz as the unit of frequencies

    T ransition Splitting: Determine the expected splitting between the ms = ±1 states: Scalculated ij = |λ1 − λ−1|. (S8) In our case wij is set to be 10 14 such that the optimization in MATLAB could proceed robustly given that w e used GHz as the unit of frequencies. The optimiza...

  55. [64]

    Felton, A

    S. Felton, A. M. Edmonds, M. E. Newton, P. M. Martineau, D. Fi sher, D. J. Twitchen, and J. M. Baker, Hyperfine interaction in the ground state of the negatively charged nitrog en vacancy center in diamond, Phys. Rev. B 79, 075203 (2009)

    2009

  56. [65]

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtru p, and L. C. Hollenberg, The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond, Physics Reports 528, 1 (2013) . 9 2820 2830 2840 2850 2860 2870 2880 2890 2900 2910 2920 MW Frequency (MHz) 0.991 0.992 0.993 0.994 0.995 0....

    2013

Pith tools

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