Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 51 references

Single Spin Detection with Entangled States

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Entangled probe spins can detect a single target spin hundreds of times faster than single or independent probes, even under dephasing noise.

desk verdict The GHZ sensitivity calculation for inhomogeneous single-spin fields is internally consistent and gives a new scaling law, but the practical few-orders advantage depends on preparing and reading out a 2.4-million-spin GHZ state with negligible overhead, which the paper does not justify. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10147 v1 pith:4Z3AK44F submitted 2019-08-27 quant-ph

Hideaki Hakoshima , Yuichiro Matsuzaki This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords singlespindetectionquantummetrologyGHZstatesentanglement-enhancedsensingmagneticfielddephasingnoisenitrogen-vacancycenters
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 claims that a GHZ-entangled ensemble of probe spins can detect the magnetic field of one target spin far more efficiently than either a single probe spin or an ensemble of independent probe spins, despite the field being spatially inhomogeneous and despite realistic dephasing noise. The reason entanglement helps is that all probe spins acquire phase together only if every probe feels the field, so the target signal adds coherently while the measurement noise remains at the level of one collective outcome. Under the paper's model, the uncertainty scales as $\delta s \propto z_{\min}^{3/4}/\rho^{3/4}$, much flatter in probe-target distance than the single-spin scaling $z_{\min}^3$ or the separable ensemble scaling $z_{\min}^{3/2}$. With nitrogen-vacancy center parameters, the predicted detection time at one micrometer separation drops from about $10^4$ seconds for one probe and $10^2$ seconds for separable probes to about 0.1 seconds for entangled probes. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete route to make single-spin magnetic resonance imaging and nanoscale magnetometry orders of magnitude faster.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a Ramsey-type measurement on an $L$-spin GHZ state, defined as a superposition of all probes up with all probes down, evolving under the dipole-dipole field of the target spin, plus a non-Markovian dephasing master equation $\partial_t\hat\rho=i[\hat\rho,\hat H]- (t/4T_2^2)\sum_j[\hat\sigma_{z,j},[\hat\sigma_{z,j},\hat\rho]]$. The GHZ state converts the sum of $L$ inhomogeneous frequency shifts $\sum_j\omega_j$ into an oscillating parity signal whose amplitude decays as $\exp[-L(t/T_2)^2]$; choosing $t=T_2/(2\sqrt{L})$ balances accumulated phase against dephasing. The geometric optimization of the columnar substrate dimensions fixes the dimensionless factor $f(\tilde r,\tilde z_{\max})=4.14$, which converts the raw scaling into the concrete sensitivity formula.

What would settle it

Build the proposed protocol at $z_{\min}=1\,\mu$m with $L\simeq2.4\times10^6$ entangled NV centers and compare the signal-to-noise ratio per fixed total time $T$ against a single NV probe; the paper predicts about a 500-fold sensitivity improvement, equivalently $T^{(en)}\simeq0.1$ s versus $T^{(s)}\simeq10^4$ s, and the claim is falsified if preparation plus readout overhead makes the achieved $N$ far smaller than $T/t$ or if the observed ratio is far below 500.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that entangled probe states retain their quantum-enhanced sensitivity when the field to be sensed is not global but the spatially decaying dipole field of a single spin, provided the number of entangled probes is optimized rather than made as large as possible. The paper derives the estimation uncertainty $\delta s^{(en)}=\frac{4.14\sqrt{2}e^{1/4}}{4G\pi^{3/4}\sqrt{T T_2}}\frac{z_{\min}^{3/4}}{\rho^{3/4}}$ for a GHZ state, obtained by minimizing a geometric factor over the columnar substrate radius and height, and finds $L=35.9\,\rho z_{\min}^3$ optimal probes. It reports that at $z_{\min}=1\,\mu$m with NV centers this gives a total measurement time $T^{(en)}\simeq0.1$ s, versus $T^{(s)}\simeq10^4$ s for a single probe and $T^{(\mathrm{sep})}\simeq10^2$ s for separable probes, and that the entangled protocol beats the single-probe sensor for probe-target separations above about 0.065 micrometers, a wider range than the separable ensemble's threshold near 0.15 micrometers. The claim is that this advantage survives the non-Markovian dephasing that limits real spin ensembles.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that a GHZ state of about $2.4\times10^6$ probe spins can be prepared and read out in a time so short that the total measurement time $T$ is spent almost entirely on $N\simeq T/t$ coherent evolutions, and no state-preparation or readout overhead enters the sensitivity formula.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a probe-target distance of one micrometer and with the stated NV-center parameters, a GHZ protocol should detect a single electron spin in about 0.1 seconds of total measurement time, compared with about $10^4$ seconds for a single probe and $10^2$ seconds for separable probes.
  • The entangled protocol beats the single-probe sensor for target distances larger than about 0.065 micrometers, whereas separable ensembles require the target to be closer than about 0.15 micrometers to win, so entanglement widens the usable sensing range.
  • The scaling $\delta s^{(en)}=O(z_{\min}^{3/4})$ means that moving the probe ensemble farther from the target degrades sensitivity much more slowly than the $O(z_{\min}^3)$ single-spin and $O(z_{\min}^{3/2})$ separable-ensemble scalings.
  • In the analogy with global-field sensors, the number of qubits $L$ is replaced by the probe density $\rho$; the entangled scaling $\rho^{-3/4}$ beats the separable $\rho^{-1/2}$, but only if the density increase does not shorten $T_2$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference beyond the paper: the practical bottleneck is likely state preparation and readout time for a GHZ state of roughly $2.4\times10^6$ spins, which the paper assumes to be negligible; the demonstrated GHZ sizes it cites are much smaller, so the 0.1-second estimate is an ideal-resource bound rather than a near-term experimental prediction.
  • Inference beyond the paper: since the optimal sensitive volume is finite and localized near the target, a scanning geometry that moves this optimal probe cluster from site to site could turn the protocol into a nanoscale single-spin imaging method with a per-pixel acquisition time of order 0.1 seconds, provided GHZ preparation overhead can be amortized or parallelized.
  • Inference beyond the paper: the $\rho^{-3/4}$ density scaling suggests that denser probe ensembles give disproportionate gains under this scheme; a testable extension would be to measure $T_2$ as a function of density and find the density at which the entangling advantage is maximal.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an entanglement-enhanced protocol for detecting a single target spin through its spatially inhomogeneous magnetic dipole field. The target spin sits at the origin; L probe spins are uniformly distributed in a columnar substrate, and the probe state is a GHZ state. The authors derive an effective Ising-type Hamiltonian, solve a time-local dephasing master equation, compute the estimation uncertainty δs for the target spin polarization s, and optimize the columnar geometry. They compare the GHZ protocol with a single probe spin and with a separable ensemble, reporting δs^{(en)} = 4.14√2 e^{1/4}/(4Gπ^{3/4}√(TT2)) · z_min^{3/4}/ρ^{3/4}, an optimized geometry r̃=1.87, z̃_max=4.30, L≈2.4×10^6 at z_min=1 μm, and necessary measurement times T^{(en)}≈0.1 s versus T^{(s)}≈10^4 s and T^{(sep)}≈10^2 s. The analytic derivation is internally consistent apart from the points below, and the numerical parameter values quoted in the text are compatible with the stated formulas.

Significance. If the stated assumptions can be met, this is a useful theoretical contribution: it extends entanglement-enhanced metrology from global homogeneous fields to a spatially inhomogeneous single-spin field, exhibits a favorable scaling δs=O(z_min^{3/4}/ρ^{3/4}) compared with δs=O(z_min^3) for a single spin and δs=O(z_min^{3/2}/ρ^{1/2}) for a separable ensemble, and provides an explicit numerical optimization that is reproducible from the given formulas. The non-Markovian dephasing model is included, and the comparison with the single-spin and separable-ensemble baselines is well defined. The main caveat, which the stress-test correctly identifies, is that the practical claims depend on the preparation and readout of a macroscopic GHZ state with negligible per-cycle overhead; this is assumed rather than demonstrated. As a conditional theoretical sensitivity bound, the paper is a reasonable candidate for publication after revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (8)] The dephasing master equation as written is internally inconsistent with the solution quoted in Sec. III. For the off-diagonal element of a single probe-spin coherence, [σ_z,[σ_z,ρ]]_{01}=4ρ_{01}, so Eq. (8) gives a decay exp[-L t²/(2T₂²)], whereas the solution quoted in Sec. III uses exp[-L(t/T₂)²]. If the quoted decay is the intended one, the coefficient 1/(4T₂²) in Eq. (8) should be 1/(2T₂²). If Eq. (8) is instead kept as written, the optimized sensing time changes to t=T₂/√(2L) and the prefactor e^{1/4} becomes 2^{1/4} e^{1/4}, altering the reported sensitivities and the derived measurement times. The authors should correct the discrepancy and rerun the numerical estimates, even though the scaling conclusions are unaffected.
  2. [Sec. II and Sec. III] The assumption in Sec. II that the state-preparation time and readout time are negligibly small is load-bearing, because the relation N≃T/t is what converts the per-shot sensitivity into a total measurement time. For the optimized protocol at z_min=1 μm, the sensing time is t=T₂/(2√L)≈27 ns with L≈2.4×10^6. If each cycle has an overhead τ, then N=T/(t+τ) and δs acquires a factor √(1+τ/t). This factor is about 6 for τ=1 μs and about 190 for τ=1 ms; the latter would reduce the reported factor-500 advantage over a single spin to a factor of a few and would reverse the comparison with the separable ensemble. The manuscript cites GHZ demonstrations with 6 to 20 qubits but does not provide a mechanism or reference for generating and reading out a GHZ state of about 2.4 million NV centers with negligible overhead. The practical claims in the abstract and Sec. IV should be qualified, or the paper should include a concrete resource estimate for state preparation and readout.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table I] In Table I, the row for protocol (i) appears to conflate the initial state with the readout basis: the entry "|+> (|↑>± i|↓>)/√2" should be split into two clearly defined states, for example an initial state |+>=(|↑>+|↓>)/√2 and a readout in the y-eigenbasis.
  2. [Fig. 2] Figure 2 is reproduced without visible axis labels in the manuscript; the horizontal axis should be labeled as z_min with units, and the vertical axis as the sensitivity ratio.
  3. [Sec. III] In the paragraph defining the necessary measurement time, the notation "T(s), T(s), and T(en)" should be corrected to T^{(s)}, T^{(sep)}, and T^{(en)} to avoid confusion with the repeated symbol T(s).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the GHZ sensitivity derivation is self-contained, with baseline comparisons and experimental-assumption caveats lying outside the derivation chain.

full rationale

I traced the derivation chain for δs(en). The paper starts from the dipole-dipole Hamiltonian, invokes the rotating-wave approximation, solves the non-Markovian dephasing master equation (8), computes the measurement probability p and the uncertainty δs := δp/(√N |∂p/∂s|), chooses the optimal sensing time t = T2/(2√L), takes the continuous limit for the sum, and numerically minimizes f(r̃, z̃max). The optimized geometry r̃=1.87, z̃max=4.30 and the prefactor f=4.14 arise from numerical minimization of the derived expression, not from fitting any data or from the comparison protocols. The single-spin and separable-ensemble sensitivities are quoted from the authors' earlier work [46], but they enter only as baseline comparison points in Table II and in the ratios plotted in Fig. 2; they are not substituted into the derivation of the entangled protocol. The statement 'we assume that the state preparation time and readout time is negligibly small' is a practical feasibility assumption used to set N≃T/t; it is not a circular reduction because the sensitivity formula is derived before that assumption and the assumption does not redefine any input as a prediction. Likewise, the experimental citations of GHZ states with 6–20 qubits are external demonstrations, not used as the mathematical justification for the analytic result. I therefore find no step where a prediction is equivalent by construction to an input, and no load-bearing self-citation chain. The main practical risk (unfeasibly large GHZ preparation/readout) is an assumption about experimental capability, not circularity; it belongs in a correctness/feasibility assessment.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data: the optimal geometry is derived by minimizing the analytic sensitivity, and T2, ρ, and G are physical inputs from prior experiments. The central claim rests primarily on five stated assumptions about the physical model and the feasibility of state preparation; the last two are the most fragile.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Large detuning and rotating-wave approximation reduce the dipole-dipole interaction to an Ising form σ_z σ_z (Sec. II, Eq. (5)).
    This requires ω(P) >> ω(T) and neglects transverse spin-spin terms. It is physically standard for detuned spins but is a modeling choice that shapes the entire derivation.
  • domain assumption The target spin is treated as a classical parameter s = ±1 and remains static during the measurement (Sec. II, Eq. (6)).
    Quantum backaction, target-spin flips, and the possibility that the target is not oriented along z are ignored. This is reasonable for a spin that is being detected, but it is an assumption about the measurement scenario.
  • domain assumption The dephasing is non-Markovian and Gaussian, described by the master equation in Eq. (8) with decay exp(-L(t/T2)^2).
    The noise model is chosen to match certain non-Markovian environments, but it is not the only dephasing model for NV ensembles. The optimal time t = T2/(2√L) depends on this specific form.
  • ad hoc to paper State preparation and readout times are negligibly small (Sec. II).
    The repetition count N ≈ T/t used throughout the sensitivity derivation requires these times to be tiny. For a GHZ state of millions of spins, this is not justified.
  • ad hoc to paper A GHZ state over about 2.4 million probe spins can be prepared (Sec. II and III).
    The optimized geometry yields L = 35.9 ρ z_min^3, which is about 2.4×10^6 spins at z_min = 1 μm. The largest cited GHZ experiments use 6 to 20 qubits, so this capability is hypothetical.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single Spin Detection with Entangled States." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4Z3AK44F

@misc{pith2026190810147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single Spin Detection with Entangled States},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4Z3AK44F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10147}
}
read the original abstract

Single spin detection is one of the important tasks in the field of quantum metrology. Many experiments about the single spin detection has been performed. However, due to the weak magnetic fields from the single spin, a long measurement time is required to achieve a reasonably high signal-to-noise ratio. Here, we propose an alternative way to realize rapid and accurate single spin detection with entangled states. While it is known that entanglement can improve the sensitivity to measure globally applied magnetic fields, we investigate a strategy to use the entanglement for detecting spatially inhomogeneous magnetic fields from the target single spin. We show that the entanglement significantly increases the signal to noise ratio for the single spin detection even under the effect of realistic noise. Our results pave the way for practical single spin detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10147 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. This illustrates the positional relation between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plot of the ratios of sensitivities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Macroscopic quantum interference in superconductors

    RC Jaklevic, J Lambe, JE Mercereau, and AH Silver. Macroscopic quantum interference in superconductors. Physical Review, 140(5A):A1628, 1965

    work page 1965

  2. [2]

    Superconducting quantum interference de- vice instruments and applications

    RL Fagaly. Superconducting quantum interference de- vice instruments and applications. Review of scientific instruments, 77(10):101101, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Scanning Hall probe microscopy of ferro- magnetic structures

    GD Howells, A Oral, SJ Bending, SR Andrews, PT Squire, P Rice, A De Lozanne, JAC Bland, I Kaya, and M Henini. Scanning Hall probe microscopy of ferro- magnetic structures. Journal of magnetism and magnetic materials, 196:917–919, 1999

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Ultrasensi- tive optomechanical magnetometry

    Stefan Forstner, Eoin Sheridan, Joachim Knittel, Christopher L Humphreys, George A Brawley, Halina Rubinsztein-Dunlop, and Warwick P Bowen. Ultrasensi- tive optomechanical magnetometry. Advanced Materials, 26(36):6348–6353, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    A subfemtotesla multichannel atomic magne- tometer

    IK Kominis, TW Kornack, JC Allred, and Michael V Romalis. A subfemtotesla multichannel atomic magne- tometer. Nature, 422(6932):596, 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Spin squeezing of atomic ensembles via nuclear-electronic spin entanglement

    Thomas Fernholz, Hanna Krauter, Kasper Jensen, Ja- cob Friis Sherson, Anders Søndberg Sørensen, and Eu- gene Simon Polzik. Spin squeezing of atomic ensembles via nuclear-electronic spin entanglement. Physical review letters, 101(7):073601, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Quantum noise limited and entanglement-assisted magnetometry

    Wojciech Wasilewski, Kasper Jensen, Hanna Krauter, Jelmer Jan Renema, MV Balabas, and Eugene Simon Polzik. Quantum noise limited and entanglement-assisted magnetometry. Physical Review Letters, 104(13):133601, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    High-resolution mag- netometry with a spinor Bose-Einstein condensate

    M Vengalattore, JM Higbie, SR Leslie, J Guzman, LE Sadler, and DM Stamper-Kurn. High-resolution mag- netometry with a spinor Bose-Einstein condensate. Phys- ical review letters, 98(20):200801, 2007

    work page 2007

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Magnetic sensitivity be- yond the projection noise limit by spin squeezing

    RJ Sewell, M Koschorreck, M Napolitano, B Dubost, N Behbood, and MW Mitchell. Magnetic sensitivity be- yond the projection noise limit by spin squeezing. Phys- ical review letters, 109(25):253605, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Quantum metrology with a scan- ning probe atom interferometer

    Caspar F Ockeloen, Roman Schmied, Max F Riedel, and Philipp Treutlein. Quantum metrology with a scan- ning probe atom interferometer. Physical review letters , 111(14):143001, 2013. 5

    2013

  3. [11]

    Ultrasensitive magnetometer using a sin- gle atom

    I Baumgart, J-M Cai, A Retzker, Martin B Plenio, and Ch Wunderlich. Ultrasensitive magnetometer using a sin- gle atom. Physical review letters, 116(24):240801, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Toward Heisenberg- limited spectroscopy with multiparticle entangled states

    D Leibfried, Murray D Barrett, T Schaetz, J Britton, J Chiaverini, Wayne M Itano, John D Jost, Christo- pher Langer, and David J Wineland. Toward Heisenberg- limited spectroscopy with multiparticle entangled states. Science, 304(5676):1476–1478, 2004

    2004

  5. [13]

    Ultrasensitive magnetic field detection using a single artificial atom

    Mustafa Bal, Chunqing Deng, Jean-Luc Orgiazzi, FR Ong, and Adrian Lupascu. Ultrasensitive magnetic field detection using a single artificial atom. Nature com- munications, 3:1324, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Electron paramagnetic resonance spec- troscopy using a single artificial atom

    Hiraku Toida, Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Kosuke Kakuyanagi, Xiaobo Zhu, William J Munro, Hiroshi Yamaguchi, and Shiro Saito. Electron paramagnetic resonance spec- troscopy using a single artificial atom. Communications Physics, 2(1):33, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with a superconducting flux qubit

    Koichiro Miyanishi, Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Hiraku Toida, Kosuke Kakuyanagi, Makoto Negoro, Masahiro Kita- gawa, and Shiro Saito. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with a superconducting flux qubit. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07386, 2019

    1906 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Subpicotesla diamond magnetometry

    Thomas Wolf, Philipp Neumann, Kazuo Nakamura, Hi- toshi Sumiya, Takeshi Ohshima, Junichi Isoya, and J¨ org Wrachtrup. Subpicotesla diamond magnetometry. Phys- ical Review X, 5(4):041001, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution

    JM Taylor, P Cappellaro, L Childress, L Jiang, D Bud- ker, PR Hemmer, A Yacoby, R Walsworth, and MD Lukin. High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution. Nature Physics, 4(10):810, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Nanoscale magnetometry: Microscopy with single spins

    Christian Degen. Nanoscale magnetometry: Microscopy with single spins. Nature nanotechnology , 3(11):643, 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    Nanoscale magnetic sensing with an individual electronic spin in diamond

    JR Maze, Paul L Stanwix, JS Hodges, Sungkun Hong, JM Taylor, P Cappellaro, L Jiang, MV Gurudev Dutt, E Togan, AS Zibrov, et al. Nanoscale magnetic sensing with an individual electronic spin in diamond. Nature, 455(7213):644, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Nanoscale imaging magnetometry with diamond spins under ambient conditions

    Gopalakrishnan Balasubramanian, IY Chan, Roman Kolesov, Mohannad Al-Hmoud, Julia Tisler, Chang Shin, Changdong Kim, Aleksander Wojcik, Philip R Hemmer, Anke Krueger, et al. Nanoscale imaging magnetometry with diamond spins under ambient conditions. Nature, 455(7213):648, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    Proposed spin amplification for mag- netic sensors employing crystal defects

    Marcus Schaffry, Erik M Gauger, John JL Morton, and Simon C Benjamin. Proposed spin amplification for mag- netic sensors employing crystal defects. Physical review letters, 107(20):207210, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with single spin sensitivity

    C M¨ uller, X Kong, J-M Cai, K Melentijevi´ c, A Stacey, M Markham, D Twitchen, J Isoya, S Pezzagna, J Mei- jer, et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with single spin sensitivity. Nature communications, 5:4703, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Nuclear magnetic resonance spec- troscopy on a (5-nanometer) 3 sample volume

    Tobias Staudacher, Fazhan Shi, S Pezzagna, Jan Meijer, Jiangfeng Du, Carlos A Meriles, Friedemann Reinhard, and Joerg Wrachtrup. Nuclear magnetic resonance spec- troscopy on a (5-nanometer) 3 sample volume. Science, 339(6119):561–563, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Nanoscale nuclear mag- netic resonance with a nitrogen-vacancy spin sensor

    HJ Mamin, M Kim, MH Sherwood, CT Rettner, K Ohno, DD Awschalom, and D Rugar. Nanoscale nuclear mag- netic resonance with a nitrogen-vacancy spin sensor. Sci- ence, 339(6119):557–560, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Negatively charged nitrogen-vacancy centers in a 5 nm thin 12c diamond film

    K Ohashi, T Rosskopf, H Watanabe, M Loretz, Y Tao, R Hauert, S Tomizawa, T Ishikawa, J Ishi-Hayase, S Shikata, et al. Negatively charged nitrogen-vacancy centers in a 5 nm thin 12c diamond film. Nano letters , 13(10):4733–4738, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Proton magnetic resonance imaging using a nitrogen–vacancy spin sensor

    D Rugar, HJ Mamin, MH Sherwood, M Kim, CT Ret- tner, K Ohno, and DD Awschalom. Proton magnetic resonance imaging using a nitrogen–vacancy spin sensor. Nature nanotechnology, 10(2):120, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Nuclear magnetic resonance detection and spectroscopy of single proteins using quantum logic

    Igor Lovchinsky, AO Sushkov, E Urbach, Nathalie P de Leon, Soonwon Choi, Kristiaan De Greve, R Evans, R Gertner, E Bersin, C M¨ uller, et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance detection and spectroscopy of single proteins using quantum logic. Science, 351(6275):836–841, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Sens- ing single remote nuclear spins

    Nan Zhao, Jan Honert, Bernhard Schmid, Michael Klas, Junichi Isoya, Matthew Markham, Daniel Twitchen, Fe- dor Jelezko, Ren-Bao Liu, Helmut Fedder, et al. Sens- ing single remote nuclear spins. Nature nanotechnology, 7(10):657, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Single- protein spin resonance spectroscopy under ambient con- ditions

    Fazhan Shi, Qi Zhang, Pengfei Wang, Hongbin Sun, Jiarong Wang, Xing Rong, Ming Chen, Chenyong Ju, Friedemann Reinhard, Hongwei Chen, et al. Single- protein spin resonance spectroscopy under ambient con- ditions. Science, 347(6226):1135–1138, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Tutorial: Magnetic resonance with nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond- microwave engineering, materials science, and magne- tometry

    Eisuke Abe and Kento Sasaki. Tutorial: Magnetic resonance with nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond- microwave engineering, materials science, and magne- tometry. Journal of Applied Physics , 123(16):161101, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Single spin detection by magnetic resonance force mi- croscopy

    Daniel Rugar, Raffi Budakian, HJ Mamin, and BW Chui. Single spin detection by magnetic resonance force mi- croscopy. Nature, 430(6997):329, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Maccone. Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit. Science, 306(5700):1330–1336, 2004

    2004

  25. [33]

    Mach-Zehnder in- terferometry at the heisenberg limit with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light

    Luca Pezz´ e and Augusto Smerzi. Mach-Zehnder in- terferometry at the heisenberg limit with coherent and squeezed-vacuum light. Physical review letters , 100(7):073601, 2008

    2008

  26. [34]

    Advances in quantum metrology.Nature photonics, 5(4):222, 2011

    Vittorio Giovannetti, Seth Lloyd, and Lorenzo Mac- cone. Advances in quantum metrology.Nature photonics, 5(4):222, 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    Magnetic field sensing be- yond the standard quantum limit using 10-spin NOON states

    Jonathan A Jones, Steven D Karlen, Joseph Fitzsimons, Arzhang Ardavan, Simon C Benjamin, G Andrew D Briggs, and John JL Morton. Magnetic field sensing be- yond the standard quantum limit using 10-spin NOON states. Science, 324(5931):1166–1168, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    Magnetic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit under the effect of decoherence

    Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Simon C Benjamin, and Joseph Fitzsimons. Magnetic field sensing beyond the standard quantum limit under the effect of decoherence. Physical Review A, 84(1):012103, 2011

    2011

  29. [37]

    Quantum metrology in non-Markovian environ- ments

    Alex W Chin, Susana F Huelga, and Martin B Ple- nio. Quantum metrology in non-Markovian environ- ments. Physical review letters, 109(23):233601, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Zeno limit in frequency estima- tion with non-markovian environments

    Katarzyna Macieszczak. Zeno limit in frequency estima- tion with non-markovian environments. Physical Review A, 92(1):010102, 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    Proposed robust entanglement-based magnetic field sensor beyond the standard quantum limit

    Tohru Tanaka, Paul Knott, Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Shane Dooley, Hiroshi Yamaguchi, William J Munro, and Shiro Saito. Proposed robust entanglement-based magnetic field sensor beyond the standard quantum limit. Physical review letters, 115(17):170801, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Quantum metrology including state preparation and readout times

    Shane Dooley, William J Munro, and Kae Nemoto. Quantum metrology including state preparation and readout times. Physical Review A, 94(5):052320, 2016. 6

    2016

  33. [41]

    Quantum metrol- ogy with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles.Reviews of Modern Physics , 90(3):035005, 2018

    Luca Pezz` e, Augusto Smerzi, Markus K Oberthaler, Ro- man Schmied, and Philipp Treutlein. Quantum metrol- ogy with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles.Reviews of Modern Physics , 90(3):035005, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Quantum metrology beyond the classical limit under the effect of dephasing

    Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Simon Benjamin, Shojun Nakayama, Shiro Saito, and William J Munro. Quantum metrology beyond the classical limit under the effect of dephasing. Physical review letters, 120(14):140501, 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Creation of a six-atom Schr¨ odinger catstate

    Dietrich Leibfried, Emanuel Knill, Signe Seidelin, Joe Britton, R Brad Blakestad, John Chiaverini, David B Hume, Wayne M Itano, John D Jost, Christopher Langer, et al. Creation of a six-atom Schr¨ odinger catstate. Na- ture, 438(7068):639, 2005

    2005

  36. [44]

    Generation of multicomponent atomic Schr¨ odinger cat states of up to 20 qubits.Science, 365(6453):574–577, 2019

    Chao Song, Kai Xu, Hekang Li, Yu-Ran Zhang, Xu Zhang, Wuxin Liu, Qiujiang Guo, Zhen Wang, Wen- hui Ren, Jie Hao, et al. Generation of multicomponent atomic Schr¨ odinger cat states of up to 20 qubits.Science, 365(6453):574–577, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Generation and manipulation of Schr \” odinger cat states in Rydberg atom arrays

    Ahmed Omran, Harry Levine, Alexander Keesling, Giu- lia Semeghini, Tout T Wang, Sepehr Ebadi, Hannes Bernien, Alexander S Zibrov, Hannes Pichler, Soonwon Choi, et al. Generation and manipulation of Schr \” odinger cat states in Rydberg atom arrays. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05...

    1905 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Single spin detection with an ensemble of probe spins

    Syuhei Uesugi, Yuichiro Matsuzaki, Suguru Endo, Shiro Saito, and Junko Ishi-Hayase. Single spin detection with an ensemble of probe spins. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.09824, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Scanning magnetic field microscope with a diamond single-spin sensor

    CL Degen. Scanning magnetic field microscope with a diamond single-spin sensor. Applied Physics Letters , 92(24):243111, 2008

    2008

  40. [48]

    Quantum entanglement between an op- tical photon and a solid-state spin qubit

    Emre Togan, Yiwen Chu, AS Trifonov, Liang Jiang, Jeronimo Maze, Lilian Childress, MV Gurudev Dutt, Anders Søndberg Sørensen, PR Hemmer, Alexander S Zibrov, et al. Quantum entanglement between an op- tical photon and a solid-state spin qubit. Nature, 466(7307):730, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    Magnetometry with nitrogen-vacancy defects in diamond

    Lo¨ ıc Rondin, Jean-Philippe Tetienne, Thomas Hingant, Jean-Fran¸ cois Roch, Patrick Maletinsky, and Vincent Jacques. Magnetometry with nitrogen-vacancy defects in diamond. Reports on progress in physics , 77(5):056503, 2014

    2014

  42. [50]

    Storage and retrieval of microwave fields at the single- photon level in a spin ensemble

    C Grezes, B Julsgaard, Y Kubo, WL Ma, M Stern, A Bi- enfait, K Nakamura, J Isoya, S Onoda, T Ohshima, et al. Storage and retrieval of microwave fields at the single- photon level in a spin ensemble. Physical Review A , 92(2):020301, 2015

    2015

  43. [51]

    Ultralong spin coher- ence time in isotopically engineered diamond

    Gopalakrishnan Balasubramanian, Philipp Neumann, Daniel Twitchen, Matthew Markham, Roman Kolesov, Norikazu Mizuochi, Junichi Isoya, Jocelyn Achard, Jo- hannes Beck, Julia Tissler, et al. Ultralong spin coher- ence time in isotopically engineered diamond. Nature materials, 8(5)...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.