Energy level structure of diamond silicon vacancy centers in an off-axis magnetic field

Benjamin Lawrie; Hailin Wang; Ian Gallagher; Lexington Mandachi; Shuhao Wu; Xinzhu Li

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Energy level structure of diamond silicon vacancy centers in an off-axis magnetic field

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two optical measurements, a CPT resonance and a two-line PLE splitting, directly yield the ground- and excited-state strain/Jahn-Teller coupling rates of an individual diamond silicon-vacancy center.

desk verdict A practical two-measurement protocol for SiV strain/JT coupling, with unquantified systematic error from assumed spin-orbit splittings. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02005 v1 pith:OSQZKGAI submitted 2024-12-02 cond-mat.mes-hall

Shuhao Wu , Xinzhu Li , Ian Gallagher , Lexington Mandachi , Benjamin Lawrie , Hailin Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords siliconvacancycenterdiamonddefectJahn-Tellercouplingstaticstrainenergylevelstructurecoherentpopulationtrappingphotoluminescenceexcitationtransversemagneticfield

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

The paper develops a way to characterize the energy-level structure of an individual silicon-vacancy (SiV) center in diamond without large fitting sets. It shows that in a magnetic field normal to the SiV axis, two measured quantities, the coherent population trapping (CPT) resonance between the two lower ground states and the frequency separation between the two spin-conserved C transitions in a photoluminescence excitation (PLE) spectrum, fix two effective coupling rates, one for the ground doublet and one for the excited doublet. These rates merge static strain and dynamic Jahn-Teller coupling, which share the same symmetry and cannot be separated in these experiments. For two measured centers the authors obtain ground-state rates of 33 and 46 GHz and excited-state rates of 77 and 129 GHz, and they use the field-amplitude and field-direction dependence to uncover unequal orbital quenching factors for ground and excited states. If the approach is right, a quick two-laser characterization can turn the large, seemingly random center-to-center variation in SiV spin splittings into a concrete diagnostic of local strain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective strain/Jahn-Teller coupling rate $\tilde{\epsilon}=\sqrt{(\tilde{\epsilon}_x)^2+(\tilde{\epsilon}_y)^2}$, defined separately for the ground and excited doublets, with $\tilde{\epsilon}_x$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_y$ formed by adding the static strain components $\beta,\gamma$ to the Jahn-Teller coupling rates $\delta_x,\delta_y$ of the same symmetry. Because strain and Jahn-Teller terms share symmetry, only the combined rate enters the energy levels, and in a transverse magnetic field the Hamiltonian is analytically diagonalizable. The eigenenergy formula (Eq. 6) then shows that the splitting of each doublet is set by the product of the magnetic coupling $2\gamma_s B_\perp$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}$, divided by the spin-orbit splitting $\lambda_{\rm so}$; this direct proportionality is what lets one measurement fix $\tilde{\epsilon}_g$ and one additional measurement fix $\tilde{\epsilon}_e$. The same machinery predicts the full field-angle and field-amplitude dependence, which the authors use to verify the model and to expose the unequal orbital quenching factors.

What would settle it

Measure the same two centers with an independent probe of the ground doublet splitting, for example by resolving the weak spin-flip C4 transition directly in a high-signal PLE spectrum and comparing its position with the CPT resonance, and check that the implied $\tilde{\epsilon}_g$ matches the value extracted by the paper's two-measurement route. A direct zero-field measurement of the ground- and excited-state doublet splittings on those same centers would also test the assumed $\lambda_{\rm so}$ values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the combined effect of static strain and dynamic Jahn-Teller coupling on a SiV center can be condensed into two scalar coupling rates, $\tilde{\epsilon}_g$ for the ground doublet and $\tilde{\epsilon}_e$ for the excited doublet, and that these rates are directly readable from the spectrum. For a transverse magnetic field the authors diagonalize the full Hamiltonian analytically; the resulting eigenenergies (Eq. 6) make the field-induced splitting of each doublet approximately $\Delta E\approx 2\gamma_s B_\perp\tilde{\epsilon}/\lambda_{\rm so}$. The CPT resonance gives $\Delta E_g$, and the separation between the two spin-conserved C transitions gives $\Delta E_e$, so both rates follow without numerical fitting. Applying this to two implanted centers yields $\tilde{\epsilon}_g = 33, 46$ GHz and $\tilde{\epsilon}_e = 77, 129$ GHz. The same model, when compared with the measured dependence on field amplitude and direction, also shows that the ground and excited doublets have unequal orbital quenching factors (0.1 for ground; 0.13 and 0.17 for excited), resolving systematic discrepancies that an equal-factor model leaves behind.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction's weakest point is that it takes the spin-orbit splittings $\lambda_{\rm so}^g=45$ GHz and $\lambda_{\rm so}^e=257$ GHz and the ground-state orbital quenching factor $f_g=0.1$ from earlier literature and applies them to each individual center; if a measured center's actual spin-orbit or quenching values differ, the quoted coupling rates shift accordingly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any individual SiV center, only two measurements are needed to determine the two strain/JT coupling rates: the CPT resonance position and the spin-conserved splitting of the C transition.
Because the model gives analytical eigenenergies for arbitrary transverse-field orientation, the measured angular dependence is predicted from the extracted rates with no additional fitting parameters.
The extracted rates for SiV1 and SiV2 (ground 33/46 GHz, excited 77/129 GHz) indicate strain contributions well above the earlier low-strain JT values of 15 and 76 GHz, showing that local strain, not just Jahn-Teller coupling, dominates these implanted centers.
Unequal ground and excited orbital quenching factors (0.1 vs 0.13/0.17) imply that treatments of SiV levels assuming a single quenching factor of 0.1 will deviate when the magnetic field is along or near the SiV axis.

Reading between the lines

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

One natural extension is to use the same two-measurement protocol as a strain survey: scanning a sample center by center would map the local strain distribution that causes the large variations in SiV spin splittings.
The finding of unequal quenching factors suggests that the quenching factor may not be a universal constant for all SiV centers; a multi-center study could test whether $f_e/f_g$ varies systematically with implantation parameters or local strain.
Because Eq. 6 is analytical, real-time tracking of the spin-conserved splitting could in principle be used to monitor time-dependent strain fluctuations at a single center, turning the characterization method into a strain sensor.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper has a genuinely useful idea—compress static strain and Jahn-Teller coupling into two effective rates and extract both from two standard measurements under a transverse field. That is new relative to prior work, which handled strain and JT separately or ignored one of them. The analytic eigenenergies in Eq. (6) are simple enough to make the extraction practical, and the field-amplitude and field-direction dependences in Figs. 2 and 3 do track the model. The two centers studied give concrete numbers (ground rates 33 and 46 GHz; excited rates 77 and 129 GHz) that the SiV community will want to compare against.

The soft spots are real but not disqualifying. The conversion from measured splittings to rates assumes lambda_so^g=45 GHz and lambda_so^e=257 GHz from Ref. [29], and those values are not measured for these two centers. The relation is nonlinear and as sensitive to lambda_so as to the measured splittings, so the absolute rates carry an unquantified systematic error. The paper does say 'estimated,' but it never bounds the sensitivity. Also, the unequal excited-state quenching factors (0.13 and 0.17) are introduced after seeing systematic deviations in the equal-quenching fits. That is honest—the prose says so—but it's a post-hoc adjustment, not a prediction, and with only two centers the generalization is unclear. On top of that, no uncertainties or raw data are reported, which makes it hard to assess fit quality.

Still, the central method holds up. The extraction protocol is the contribution, and it works as a protocol. A careful referee should ask for an uncertainty analysis and a discussion of how much lambda_so can vary from center to center, plus ideally a couple more centers. That is a reasonable bar, not a rejection.

I would bring this to a reading group and I would send it to review. It is the kind of paper that gives the SiV field a practical tool, even if the numbers will shift with better-known parameters later.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a combined model of static strain, dynamic Jahn-Teller coupling, and magnetic field for individual silicon-vacancy (SiV) centers, introducing an effective strain/JT coupling rate for the ground and excited doublets. Using an analytical diagonalization valid for a transverse magnetic field, the authors extract these rates for two SiV centers from two measurements: the frequency separation between the spin-conserved C2 and C3 transitions in a photoluminescence excitation spectrum, and the coherent-population-trapping resonance position of the ground-state doublet. They then compare calculated and measured magnetic-field amplitude and direction dependences, and introduce unequal ground/excited orbital quenching factors (0.1 vs 0.13 or 0.17) to improve agreement. The central claim is that this provides a general, two-measurement characterization route for individual SiV centers.

Significance. If the extraction is robust, the paper offers a practically useful method for characterizing the energy-level structure of individual SiV centers, a key requirement for optical spin control, quantum spin-mechanics, and cavity QED applications. The analytical diagonalization in Eq. (6) is a useful contribution, and the experimental data cover field-amplitude and field-direction dependences for two centers. The paper is explicit that the two extracted coupling rates are obtained from two measured frequencies with no additional fitting parameters, and it makes a falsifiable prediction of the field dependences shown in Figs. 2 and 3. However, the significance is tempered by the small number of centers, the absence of reported uncertainties, and the sensitivity of the quantitative extraction to literature spin-orbit parameters that are not measured for the individual centers.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 4, Eq. (6)] The extracted values Γ_s^g = 33, 46 GHz and Γ_s^e = 77, 129 GHz are computed using λ_so^g = 45 GHz and λ_so^e = 257 GHz taken from Ref. [29] for a different sample. Because Γ_s^g is comparable to λ_so^g (ratios of 0.73 and 1.02), the relation between the measured splittings and Γ_s is not in the perturbative limit, and an error in λ_so shifts the extracted Γ_s by a comparable fraction. This sensitivity is load-bearing because the same assumed λ_so values are then used in all the verification curves in Figs. 2, 3, and 5. The manuscript needs a sensitivity analysis showing how the extracted rates and the agreement in Figs. 2 and 3 change when λ_so^g and λ_so^e vary within their plausible ranges, or an experimental constraint on λ_so for the measured centers.
[Sec. 4, Figs. 2 and 3] The unequal orbital quenching factors f_e = 0.13 and 0.17 are introduced after observing systematic deviations, and the manuscript reports no uncertainty or independent corroboration for these values. Since the abstract and conclusion claim that the work 'reveals contributions from unequal orbital magnetic coupling,' the post-hoc adjustment needs a quantitative justification: for example, a fit with confidence intervals, a chi-square comparison with the equal-f model, or a statement of the range of f_e values that are consistent with the data. Otherwise the claim of unequal quenching factors is weaker than the central coupling-rate extraction.
[Secs. 3 and 4, Figs. 2-4] No experimental uncertainties are reported for the CPT resonance positions, the spin-conserved splittings, or the extracted Γ_s values. The scatter of data points around the calculated lines in Figs. 2 and 3 is not quantified, making it difficult to assess the claimed 'overall good agreements' and the systematic deviations that motivate f_e. Please add error bars (fit uncertainties, linewidths, magnetic-field calibration) and, if possible, report the fit parameters and their covariance for the Lorentzian and CPT fits.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 2, Eqs. (2) and (3)] The equation numbering is inconsistent: there are two equations labeled (2), one for the magnetic-field Hamiltonian and one for the strain Hamiltonian. Please renumber the equations throughout the manuscript.
[Sec. 3, Fig. 2 caption and text] The notation 'X-Y plane' and 'z-Z plane' is confusing because x,y,z are used for the SiV internal axes and X,Y,Z for the lab frame. Please define the lab frame and SiV frame explicitly and use distinct symbols (e.g., lowercase for SiV axes and uppercase for lab axes) in all figures and text.
[Sec. 4, Fig. 5 caption] The caption says 'dotted lines' and 'solid lines' but does not identify which curve corresponds to which C1-C4 transition. Please add a legend or explicit curve labeling so the figure can be read without reference to the main text.
[Sec. 4, paragraph on quenching factors] The statement that 'there is no other fitting parameter used in these calculations' is slightly overstated, since f_e is adjusted later in the same section. Please clarify the sequence: the spin-conserved splitting calculations use the extracted Γ_s values as fixed inputs, and f_e is a subsequent adjustment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two coupling rates are extracted from two independent measured splittings via an analytic Hamiltonian, with literature spin-orbit parameters as external inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central extraction is not circular. The transverse-field Hamiltonian is diagonalized analytically in Eq. (6), giving eigenenergies as functions of lambda_so, Gamma_s, and B_perp. The CPT resonance provides an independent measurement of the ground-state splitting, and the C2-C3 PLE splitting provides a second independent frequency. Together these yield Gamma_s^g and Gamma_s^e; no quantity being 'predicted' is used as its own input. The lambda_so values of 45 and 257 GHz are taken from Ref. [29] (Hepp et al., an external group), so this is an external parameter dependence, not a self-citation or definitional circularity. The later field-dependent curves in Figs. 2-3 are calculated from the extracted Gamma_s values without additional fitting (dotted lines); the systematic deviations then lead the authors to explicitly state that they 'assume unequal quenching factors' and use f_e = 0.13 and 0.17. That is an open post-hoc adjustment rather than a disguised prediction, and it does not feed back into the two-measurement extraction. Sensitivity of Gamma_s to the assumed lambda_so or f is a parameter-uncertainty and correctness concern, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

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

The central extraction depends on external spin-orbit splittings and on a ground-state quenching factor from earlier studies. The two coupling rates are measured quantities, not universal constants, and the excited-state quenching factor is fitted to remove discrepancies. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Ground-state strain/JT coupling rate Gamma_s^g = 33 GHz (SiV1), 46 GHz (SiV2)
Derived from the CPT resonance position and PLE spin-conserved splitting using Eq. 6a; effectively fitted to these two measured frequencies.
Excited-state strain/JT coupling rate Gamma_s^e = 77 GHz (SiV1), 129 GHz (SiV2)
Derived from the PLE spin-conserved splitting delta = DeltaE_g - DeltaE_e using Eq. 6b after Gamma_s^g is known.
Excited-state orbital quenching factor f_e = 0.13 (SiV1), 0.17 (SiV2)
Adjusted to remove systematic deviations in Figs. 2 and 3; ground quenching factor fixed at 0.1. No uncertainty is given.
Ground-state orbital quenching factor f_g = 0.1 (assumed from earlier studies)
Assumed equal to 0.1 for both centers; not measured here. The inferred f_e values depend on this assumption.
Spin-orbit coupling rates lambda_so^g, lambda_so^e = 45 GHz, 257 GHz
Taken from Ref [29] and used in Eq. 6 to convert measured splittings into coupling rates. If individual centers differ, the extracted rates shift.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The SiV ground and excited states are described by orbital states |ex>, |ey> and spin states, with spin-orbit Hamiltonian H_so = lambda_so L_z S_z (Eq. 1).
Standard model of the SiV center, cited from Ref [29] in Section 2.
domain assumption Static strain and dynamic Jahn-Teller coupling have the same symmetry and can be combined into effective coupling rates Gamma_x^s and Gamma_y^s.
Introduced in Section 2 after Eq. (3); this consolidation is the key modeling step that makes the two-rate extraction possible.
domain assumption The magnetic interaction has the form H_B = gamma_L f L . B + gamma_s S . B (Eq. 2), with a single orbital quenching factor f.
Assumed in Section 2; the later unequal-quenching analysis modifies f separately for ground and excited states.
domain assumption The two PLE peaks in Fig. 4a are the C2 and C3 spin-conserved transitions, and the CPT dip in Fig. 4b is the ground-state splitting.
The extraction of Gamma_s^g and Gamma_s^e assumes these assignments; a misassignment would change both derived rates.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy level structure of diamond silicon vacancy centers in an off-axis magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OSQZKGAI

@misc{pith2026241202005,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy level structure of diamond silicon vacancy centers in an off-axis magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OSQZKGAI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02005}
}

read the original abstract

We report the development of an experimental approach that can characterize the energy level structure of an individual silicon vacancy (SiV) center in a magnetic field and extract the key parameters for the energy level structure. This approach builds upon a theoretical model that includes effects of the static strain, dynamic Jahn-Teller coupling, and magnetic field and introduces two coupling rates, one each for the ground and the excited states, to characterize the combined effects of strain and Jahn-Teller coupling. With the use of an analytical expression for the energy level structure of the SiV center under a transverse magnetic field, these two coupling rates can be directly derived from the measurement of the frequency separation between two spin-conserved transitions in a photoluminescence excitation spectrum and the measurement of the coherent population trapping resonance related to the SiV ground spin states. Additional experimental studies on the dependence of the energy level structure on the magnetic field amplitude and direction further verify the theoretical model and reveal contributions from unequal orbital magnetic coupling for the ground and excited states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02005 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a) The SiV energy level structure and optical transitions in the absence of strain and JT coupling. A magnetic field along the SiV axis removes the spin degeneracy, with the optical transitions occurring between the same spin states. (b) Schematic of the energy levels and selection rules for the optical C-transition, including spin-conserved transitions (solid lines) and spin-flip transitions (dashed lines), under … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (a) and (b) Spin-conserved splitting obtained as a function of the azimuthal angle of the B-field in the X-Y plane. (c) and (d) Spin-conserved splitting obtained as a function of the polar angle (with respect to the z-axis) of the-B field in the z-Z plane. The dotted and solid lines represent calculated spin-conserved splitting with equal and unequal orbital quenching factors, respectively, as discussed in the text … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a) and (b) Spin-conserved splitting obtained as a function of the B-field strength and with the B-field normal to the SiV axis. (c) and (d) Spin-conserved splitting obtained as a function of the B-field strength and with the B-field along the Z-axis. The dotted and solid lines represent calculated spin-conserved splittings with equal and unequal orbital quenching factors, respectively, as discussed in the text. The… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: b shows a CPT spectral response observed for SiV1 in this setting with a magnetic field, B=0.13 T, normal to the SiV axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Calculated transition frequency for the four C-transitions under a B-field along the Z axis and with the parameters given in the main text. An equal quenching factor of 0.1 was used for the dotted lines. A quenching factor of 0.1 and 0.13 for the ground and excited sta…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[29]

Maity, L

S. Maity, L. Shao, S. Bogdanović, S. Meesala, Y.-I. Sohn, N. Sinclair, B. Pingault, M. Chalupnik, C. Chia, L. Zheng, K. Lai, M. Lončar, Coherent acoustic control of a single silicon vacancy spin in diamond, Nature Communications 11, 193 (2020)

work page 2020
[1]

Introduction Negatively charged silicon vacancy (SiV) centers in diamond have recently emerged as a promising qubit platform for optical quantum networks and quantum spin mechanics because of their superior optical properties, long spin coherence time at low temperatures, and strain coupling to the orbital degrees of freedom in the ground states[1-6]. The...

work page
[2]

In the Cartesian coordinates, X, Y, Z, of the cubic unit cell, we can define the unit vectors of the SiV basis as ˆ [1,1, 2] / 6x  , ˆ [1, 1,0] / 2y  , and ˆ [1,1,1] / 3z

Theoretical model For a negatively charged SiV center, both the ground and excited states are characterized by orbital states, |ex> and |ey>, and spin states, | and |, with the spin-orbit (SO) coupling described by (1 )[29] so so z zH L S , (1) 4 where x, y, z are the internal basis of the SiV, with the z-axis along the SiV axis, and so is the s...

work page
[3]

1b) in the C-transition of the SiV PLE spectrum, when the magnetic field is normal to the SiV axis, to determine the strain/JT coupling rates for the ground and the excited states

Experimental results For our experimental studies, we will use coherent population trapping (CPT) of the two lower ground states and the frequency splitting between the two spin-conserved transitions (i.e., C2 and C3 in Fig. 1b) in the C-transition of the SiV PLE spectrum, when the magnetic field is normal to the SiV axis, to determine the strain/JT coupl...

work page
[4]

4, along with the use of Eq

Analysis and discussions The spectral position of the CPT resonance and the spin-conserved splitting such as those observed in Fig. 4, along with the use of Eq. 6a and Eq. 6b, yield s g = 33, 46 GHz and s e = 77, 129 GHz, for SiV1 and SiV2, respectively, where we used estimated g so = 45 GHz and e so = 257 GHz[29]. In comparison, earlier studies using...

work page
[5]

The two strain/JT coupling rates can be derived from these measurements with the use of an analytical expression for the SiV energy level structure in a transverse magnetic field

Conclusion By introducing two coupling rates that can describe the combined effects of strain and JT coupling, we show that the energy level structure of a SiV center can be characterized with two relatively straightforward measurements under a transverse magnetic field, the CPT resonance position related to the two lower spin states in the ground state d...

work page
[6]

E. Neu, C. Hepp, M. Hauschild, S. Gsell, M. Fischer, H. Sternschulte, D. Steinmuller- Nethl, M. Schreck, C. Becher, Low-temperature investigations of single silicon vacancy colour centres in diamond, New Journal of Physics 15, 043005 (2013)

work page 2013
[7]

L. J. Rogers, K. D. Jahnke, T. Teraji, L. Marseglia, C. Muller, B. Naydenov, H. Schauffert, C. Kranz, J. Isoya, L. P. McGuinness, F. Jelezko, Multiple intrinsically identical single- photon emitters in the solid state, Nature Communications 5, 4739 (2014)

work page 2014

Show all 35 references

[8]

Sipahigil, K

A. Sipahigil, K. D. Jahnke, L. J. Rogers, T. Teraji, J. Isoya, A. S. Zibrov, F. Jelezko, M. D. Lukin, Indistinguishable Photons from Separated Silicon-Vacancy Centers in Diamond, Physical Review Letters 113, 113602 (2014)

2014
[9]

Bradac, W

C. Bradac, W. B. Gao, J. Forneris, M. E. Trusheim, I. Aharonovich, Quantum nanophotonics with group IV defects in diamond, Nature Communications 10, 5625 (2019)

2019
[10]

D. D. Sukachev, A. Sipahigil, C. T. Nguyen, M. K. Bhaskar, R. E. Evans, F. Jelezko, M. D. Lukin, Silicon-Vacancy Spin Qubit in Diamond: A Quantum Memory Exceeding 10 ms with Single-Shot State Readout, Physical Review Letters 119, 223602 (2017)

2017
[11]

Meesala, Y.-I

S. Meesala, Y.-I. Sohn, B. Pingault, L. Shao, H. A. Atikian, J. Holzgrafe, M. Gundogan, C. Stavrakas, A. Sipahigil, C. Chia, M. J. Burek, M. Zhang, L. Wu, J. L. Pacheco, J. Abraham, E. Bielejec, M. D. Lukin, M. Atature, M. Loncar, Strain engineering of the silicon-vacancy cent...

2018
[12]

J. L. Zhang, K. G. Lagoudakis, Y. K. Tzeng, C. Dory, M. Radulaski, Y. Kelaita, K. A. Fischer, S. Sun, Z. X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, S. Chu, J. Vuckovic, Complete coherent control of silicon vacancies in diamond nanopillars containing single defect centers, Optica 4, 1317-1321 (2017)

2017
[13]

Jantzen, A

U. Jantzen, A. B. Kurz, D. S. Rudnicki, C. Schafermeier, K. D. Jahnke, U. L. Andersen, V. A. Davydov, V. N. Agafonov, A. Kubanek, L. J. Rogers, F. Jelezko, Nanodiamonds carrying silicon-vacancy quantum emitters with almost lifetime-limited linewidths, New Journal of Physics 18...

2016
[14]

R. E. Evans, A. Sipahigil, D. D. Sukachev, A. S. Zibrov, M. D. Lukin, Narrow-Linewidth Homogeneous Optical Emitters in Diamond Nanostructures via Silicon Ion Implantation, Phys Rev Appl 5, 044010 (2016)

2016
[15]

Lekavicius, H

I. Lekavicius, H. Wang, Optical coherence of implanted silicon vacancy centers in thin diamond membranes, Optics Express 27, 31299-31306 (2019)

2019
[16]

Sipahigil, R

A. Sipahigil, R. E. Evans, D. D. Sukachev, M. J. Burek, J. Borregaard, M. K. Bhaskar, C. T. Nguyen, J. L. Pacheco, H. A. Atikian, C. Meuwly, R. M. Camacho, F. Jelezko, E. Bielejec, H. Park, M. Loncar, M. D. Lukin, An integrated diamond nanophotonics platform for quantum-optica...

2016
[17]

J. C. Lee, I. Aharonovich, A. P. Magyar, F. Rol, E. L. Hu, Coupling of silicon-vacancy centers to a single crystal diamond cavity, Optics Express 20, 8891-8897 (2012)

2012
[18]

R. E. Evans, M. K. Bhaskar, D. D. Sukachev, C. T. Nguyen, A. Sipahigil, M. J. Burek, B. Machielse, G. H. Zhang, A. S. Zibrov, E. Bielejec, H. Park, M. Loncar, M. D. Lukin, Photon-mediated interactions between quantum emitters in a diamond nanocavity, Science 362, 662 (2018)

2018
[19]

J. L. Zhang, S. Sun, M. J. Burek, C. Dory, Y. K. Tzeng, K. A. Fischer, Y. Kelaita, K. G. Lardakis, M. Radulaski, Z. X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, S. Chu, M. Loncar, J. Vuckovic, 15 Strongly Cavity-Enhanced Spontaneous Emission from Silicon-Vacancy Centers in Diamond, Nano Letters 18,...

2018
[20]

Chakravarthi, N

S. Chakravarthi, N. S. Yama, A. Abulnaga, D. Huang, C. Pederson, K. Hestroffer, F. Hatami, N. P. de Leon, K. M. C. Fu, Hybrid Integration of GaP Photonic Crystal Cavities with Silicon-Vacancy Centers in Diamond by Stamp-Transfer, Nano Letters 23, 3708-3715 (2023)

2023
[21]

Pauls, I

A. Pauls, I. Lekavicius, H. L. Wang, Coupling silicon vacancy centers in a thin diamond membrane to a silica optical microresonator, Optics Express 28, 27300-27307 (2020)

2020
[22]

Y. I. Sohn, S. Meesala, B. Pingault, H. A. Atikian, J. Holzgrafe, M. Gundogan, C. Stavrakas, M. J. Stanley, A. Sipahigil, J. Choi, M. Zhang, J. L. Pacheco, J. Abraham, E. Bielejec, M. D. Lukin, M. Atature, M. Loncar, Controlling the coherence of a diamond spin qubit through it...

2018
[23]

M. A. Lemonde, S. Meesala, A. Sipahigil, M. J. A. Schuetz, M. D. Lukin, M. Loncar, P. Rabl, Phonon Networks with Silicon-Vacancy Centers in Diamond Waveguides, Physical Review Letters 120, 213603 (2018)

2018
[24]

Arrazola, Y

I. Arrazola, Y. Minoguchi, M.-A. Lemonde, A. Sipahigil, P. Rabl, Toward high-fidelity quantum information processing and quantum simulation with spin qubits and phonons, Physical Review B 110, 045419 (2024)

2024
[25]

H. L. Wang, I. Lekavicius, Coupling spins to nanomechanical resonators: Toward quantum spin-mechanics, Applied Physics Letters 117, 230501 (2020)

2020
[26]

G. D. Joe, Cleaven Chia, Benjamin Pingault, Michael Haas, Michelle Chalupnik, Eliza Cornell, Kazuhiro Kuruma, Bartholomeus Machielse, Neil Sinclair, Srujan Meesala, Marko Lončar, High Q-factor diamond optomechanical resonators with silicon vacancy centers at millikelvin temper...

2024
[27]

X. Z. Li, I. Lekavicius, J. Noeckel, H. L. Wang, Ultracoherent Gigahertz Diamond Spin- Mechanical Lamb Wave Resonators, Nano Letters 24, 10995 (2024)

2024
[28]

Pingault, D

B. Pingault, D. D. Jarausch, C. Hepp, L. Klintberg, J. N. Becker, M. Markham, C. Becher, M. Atature, Coherent control of the silicon-vacancy spin in diamond, Nature Communications 8, 15579 (2017)

2017
[30]

L. J. Rogers, K. D. Jahnke, M. H. Metsch, A. Sipahigil, J. M. Binder, T. Teraji, H. Sumiya, J. Isoya, M. D. Lukin, P. Hemmer, F. Jelezko, All-Optical Initialization, Readout, and Coherent Preparation of Single Silicon-Vacancy Spins in Diamond, Physical Review Letters 113, 2636...

2014
[31]

Pingault, J

B. Pingault, J. N. Becker, C. H. H. Schulte, C. Arend, C. Hepp, T. Godde, A. I. Tartakovskii, M. Markham, C. Becher, M. Atature, All-Optical Formation of Coherent Dark States of Silicon-Vacancy Spins in Diamond, Physical Review Letters 113, 263601 (2014)

2014
[32]

J. N. Becker, B. Pingault, D. Gross, M. Gundogan, N. Kukharchyk, M. Markham, A. Edmonds, M. Atature, P. Bushev, C. Becher, All-Optical Control of the Silicon-Vacancy Spin in Diamond at Millikelvin Temperatures, Physical Review Letters 120, 053603 (2018)

2018
[33]

M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, L. C. L. Hollenberg, The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond, Phys Rep 528, 1-45 (2013). 16

2013
[34]

C. Hepp, T. Muller, V. Waselowski, J. N. Becker, B. Pingault, H. Sternschulte, D. Steinmuller-Nethl, A. Gali, J. R. Maze, M. Atature, C. Becher, Electronic Structure of the Silicon Vacancy Color Center in Diamond, Physical Review Letters 112, 036405 (2014)

2014
[35]

B. J. Lawrie, Feldman, M., Marvinney, C.E., Pai Y.Y., Free-space confocal magneto- optical spectroscopies at milliKelvin temperatures, arxiv 2103.06851, (2021)

2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [29]

Maity, L

S. Maity, L. Shao, S. Bogdanović, S. Meesala, Y.-I. Sohn, N. Sinclair, B. Pingault, M. Chalupnik, C. Chia, L. Zheng, K. Lai, M. Lončar, Coherent acoustic control of a single silicon vacancy spin in diamond, Nature Communications 11, 193 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [1]

Introduction Negatively charged silicon vacancy (SiV) centers in diamond have recently emerged as a promising qubit platform for optical quantum networks and quantum spin mechanics because of their superior optical properties, long spin coherence time at low temperatures, and strain coupling to the orbital degrees of freedom in the ground states[1-6]. The...

work page

[3] [2]

In the Cartesian coordinates, X, Y, Z, of the cubic unit cell, we can define the unit vectors of the SiV basis as ˆ [1,1, 2] / 6x  , ˆ [1, 1,0] / 2y  , and ˆ [1,1,1] / 3z

Theoretical model For a negatively charged SiV center, both the ground and excited states are characterized by orbital states, |ex> and |ey>, and spin states, | and |, with the spin-orbit (SO) coupling described by (1 )[29] so so z zH L S , (1) 4 where x, y, z are the internal basis of the SiV, with the z-axis along the SiV axis, and so is the s...

work page

[4] [3]

1b) in the C-transition of the SiV PLE spectrum, when the magnetic field is normal to the SiV axis, to determine the strain/JT coupling rates for the ground and the excited states

Experimental results For our experimental studies, we will use coherent population trapping (CPT) of the two lower ground states and the frequency splitting between the two spin-conserved transitions (i.e., C2 and C3 in Fig. 1b) in the C-transition of the SiV PLE spectrum, when the magnetic field is normal to the SiV axis, to determine the strain/JT coupl...

work page

[5] [4]

4, along with the use of Eq

Analysis and discussions The spectral position of the CPT resonance and the spin-conserved splitting such as those observed in Fig. 4, along with the use of Eq. 6a and Eq. 6b, yield s g = 33, 46 GHz and s e = 77, 129 GHz, for SiV1 and SiV2, respectively, where we used estimated g so = 45 GHz and e so = 257 GHz[29]. In comparison, earlier studies using...

work page

[6] [5]

The two strain/JT coupling rates can be derived from these measurements with the use of an analytical expression for the SiV energy level structure in a transverse magnetic field

Conclusion By introducing two coupling rates that can describe the combined effects of strain and JT coupling, we show that the energy level structure of a SiV center can be characterized with two relatively straightforward measurements under a transverse magnetic field, the CPT resonance position related to the two lower spin states in the ground state d...

work page

[7] [6]

E. Neu, C. Hepp, M. Hauschild, S. Gsell, M. Fischer, H. Sternschulte, D. Steinmuller- Nethl, M. Schreck, C. Becher, Low-temperature investigations of single silicon vacancy colour centres in diamond, New Journal of Physics 15, 043005 (2013)

work page 2013

[8] [7]

L. J. Rogers, K. D. Jahnke, T. Teraji, L. Marseglia, C. Muller, B. Naydenov, H. Schauffert, C. Kranz, J. Isoya, L. P. McGuinness, F. Jelezko, Multiple intrinsically identical single- photon emitters in the solid state, Nature Communications 5, 4739 (2014)

work page 2014