Multi-qubit nanoscale sensing with entanglement as a resource

Jared Rovny; Nathalie P. de Leon; Shimon Kolkowitz

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Multi-qubit nanoscale sensing with entanglement as a resource

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Entanglement-based covariance magnetometry for NV center pairs reads out magnetic field correlations directly and changes the sensitivity scaling with readout noise from quadratic to linear.

desk verdict A genuine experimental step toward sub-diffraction NV-pair covariance magnetometry with a cleanly derived linear-in-readout-noise scaling for entangled readout, whose headline gain is a projected asymptote rather than a demonstrated device result. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12533 v1 pith:SSKUPWMM submitted 2025-04-16 quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jared Rovny , Shimon Kolkowitz , Nathalie P. de Leon This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords nitrogen-vacancycentersquantumsensingcovariancemagnetometryentanglementBellstatesdiamondsensorscorrelatednoisenanoscale

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

Quantum sensors made from pairs of nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond can measure magnetic-field correlations at length scales below the optical diffraction limit, a regime the earlier single-pair covariance technique could not reach. The paper's central claim is that when two strongly coupled NV centers are prepared in maximally entangled Bell states, the correlated signal is encoded directly in the state populations, so sensitivity scales linearly with readout noise instead of quadratically. For conventional room-temperature green-laser readout, with readout noise roughly thirty times the quantum projection limit, this gives more than an order of magnitude gain in signal-to-noise ratio. The paper also supplies phase-cycling protocols, including one mediated by a strongly coupled 13C nuclear spin, for pairs that cannot be individually addressed. If these claims hold, nanoscale correlation spectroscopy of magnetic noise becomes practical at room temperature with a single green laser and without specialized spin-to-charge readout.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bell pair of two dipole-dipole-coupled NV centers, prepared by Hahn-echo entangling gates of duration $t_e = \pi/J_{zz}$ and read out by reversing the gate before population measurement. The two states respond oppositely to correlated noise: $|\Phi\rangle$ acquires the sum of phases $\phi_a + \phi_b$, and $|\Psi\rangle$ acquires the difference $\phi_a - \phi_b$, so their difference isolates the correlated phase product while cancelling uncorrelated contributions. For noninteracting unresolved pairs, a separate mechanism carries the argument: a four-step phase cycle that combines measured photon variances as $\mathrm{Cov}(S_a,S_b) = (\sigma^2_{S_A} - \sigma^2_{S_B} - \sigma^2_{S_C} + \sigma^2_{S_D})/8$, which removes variance fluctuations and leaves the magnetic covariance. In the fully unresolved co-aligned case, a strongly coupled $^{13}\mathrm{C}$ nuclear spin supplies the needed selective single-NV spin flip through dynamical-decoupling resonance, enabling the same phase cycle.

What would settle it

Run the same correlated RF signal measurement on one NV pair with both the non-interacting covariance protocol and the Bell-pair protocol while varying readout noise over a range (for instance, by attenuating collected photons from a readout noise around 4 to a readout noise around 35). The central claim predicts the ratio $\mathrm{SNR}_{\rm entangled}/\mathrm{SNR}_{\rm non\text{-}interacting}$ grows as $\sqrt{2}\,\sigma_R e^{-\chi_e(2t_e)}$; if the ratio stays flat or grows quadratically as readout worsens, the linear-scaling claim is falsified. An independent check is whether the Bell difference signal rises linearly with the applied correlated field amplitude after accounting for the measured entangling-gate decoherence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that entanglement removes the dominant readout-noise penalty from covariance magnetometry. For two NV centers separated by roughly 6 to 10 nanometers, the dipole-dipole coupling $J_{zz}$ allows Hahn-echo entangling gates to prepare the Bell states $|\Phi\rangle = (|00\rangle + i|11\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ and $|\Psi\rangle = (|01\rangle + i|10\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$. Under correlated magnetic noise, $|\Phi\rangle$ dephases twice as fast as a single-qubit superposition, while $|\Psi\rangle$ is a decoherence-free subspace; the difference signal $\frac{1}{2}(S_\Psi - S_\Phi)$ therefore reports the correlation $\langle \sin[\phi_a^C(t)] \sin[\phi_b^C(t)]\rangle$ directly, with only the entangling-gate decoherence $e^{-\chi_e(2t_e)}$ as a penalty. The resulting signal-to-noise ratio obeys $\mathrm{SNR}_{\rm entangled}/\mathrm{SNR}_{\rm non\text{-}interacting} \approx \sqrt{2}\,\sigma_R e^{-\chi_e(2t_e)}$, so the readout-noise scaling becomes linear rather than quadratic; with $\sigma_R \gtrsim 30$ for conventional readout, this is more than an order of magnitude improvement. The experiments demonstrate the predicted sign and response of the Bell-state difference under applied random-phase AC fields, and the same pair is used to measure two-time correlations with both separated and overlapping sensing intervals.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted gain assumes the entangling gates prepare a nearly maximally entangled Bell state with modest decoherence; the paper's own single-shot Bell fidelity is only estimated above 0.25, and the measured correlation amplitude (about 0.04) is below the expected value (about 0.06), so the order-of-magnitude advantage is an asymptotic prediction rather than a demonstrated experimental outcome.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Two optically unresolved NV centers with resolved spin transitions can measure magnetic covariance below the diffraction limit through a four-step phase-cycling protocol that cancels variance fluctuations.
Co-aligned NV centers that are both optically and spectrally unresolved can still be phase-cycled by using a strongly coupled 13C nuclear spin to flip one NV center selectively, extending covariance magnetometry to high magnetic fields.
For strongly coupled NV pairs, the correlated field is read out directly from the difference between two Bell states, so readout noise enters linearly; with $\sigma_R \approx 30$ this yields more than an order of magnitude SNR gain over non-interacting covariance magnetometry.
Entanglement-based covariance magnetometry works with a single green laser under conventional off-resonant readout, removing the need for spin-to-charge conversion readout.
The same strongly coupled pair can measure temporal correlations, including short-time correlators with overlapping phase-accumulation periods, by combining SWAP or modified Bell-state sequences with dynamical decoupling.

Reading between the lines

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

If the linear readout-scaling result holds, covariance magnetometry in shallow NV pairs should become feasible with fast conventional readout in any lab with a green laser, which would make correlated-noise spectroscopy of thin-film superconductors, magnetic insulators, and current noise in two-dimensional materials a routine extension of existing NV microscopes. (The paper lists those systems as
The Bell-state difference scheme could be generalized to three or more NV centers: preparing many-body entangled states would let higher-order noise cumulants be read out directly, with the readout-noise penalty entering linearly at each order rather than multiplicatively.
Because the entanglement gain carries the factor $e^{-\chi_e(2t_e)}$, reducing entangling-gate decoherence is the immediate lever: the paper's observed correlation amplitude of roughly 0.04 versus an expected 0.06 suggests that improved gate fidelity would directly translate into larger SNR.

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

First thing to know: the central scaling result is genuinely new and correctly derived, and the experimental gap is real but openly disclosed. The quadratic-to-linear change in readout-noise scaling for entangled correlation readout is the key claim, and it checks out. The SI derivation (Eqs. S50–S52) is straightforward error propagation from the entangled-state readout, not a fit to data. The three protocols — phase cycling for optically unresolved pairs with resolved spin transitions, 13C-mediated selective flips for spectrally unresolved co-aligned pairs, and Bell-pair readout for strongly coupled ~10 nm pairs — each show data with the expected sign behavior. That is three working demonstrations in one paper, plus a two-time correlator extension. The relation to the dual-qubit scanning tip work (Ref. 26) is handled honestly; the new part is applying phase cycling to unresolved pairs and the entanglement-based direct readout.

The soft spot, and it is the load-bearing one: the >10x SNR gain in Fig. 3E is calculated, not measured. The plot assumes T2 = 100 µs and te = 2 µs, while the pair used for the Bell demonstration has T2 ≈ 6 and 12 µs. The observed correlation amplitude is 0.04 versus the expected 0.06, a third short of the model, and the single-shot Bell fidelity is only bounded below by F > 25% — below the 0.5 threshold for certifying entanglement from fidelity alone. So Eq. (4) is the right law, but the dramatic practical advantage is an asymptote evaluated at favorable parameters, not a benchmark on the demonstrated device. The authors say as much in SI Secs. V and VI, attributing the deficit to gate and initialization errors. That honesty matters, and it makes this an evidence gap rather than a flaw in reasoning.

Minor quibbles: the Fig. 1E covariance fit includes a phenomenological decay, and the correlation calibration in Fig. 3G uses one overall amplitude scaling. Neither feeds back into the claimed scaling law, so I do not treat them as circular.

Who gets value: experimentalists working on NV registers and multi-qubit sensors, and theorists tracking entanglement-enhanced correlation metrology. I would bring it to a reading group and I would cite it. It deserves a serious referee; my recommendation is to send it out with a request for either a same-pair benchmark of entangled versus non-interacting SNR, or a clear statement framing Fig. 3E as a projection with the measured fidelity as the limiting factor.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents protocols and experimental demonstrations for multi-qubit nanoscale covariance magnetometry with NV center pairs. Three main advances are described: (1) a four-step phase-cycling protocol that extracts magnetic-field correlations from the total photon variance of two optically unresolved NV centers with resolvable spin transitions; (2) a 13C-mediated phase-cycling scheme that achieves the same for co-aligned NV centers that are both optically and spectrally unresolved; and (3) an entanglement-based covariance magnetometry protocol using dipole-coupled NV pairs (~10 nm spacing) in which Bell states directly encode the correlation in state populations, changing the readout-noise scaling of the sensitivity from quadratic to linear (Eq. 4). The paper also introduces SWAP-based sequences for measuring two-time correlators with both separate and overlapping sensing periods. The supplementary information contains detailed derivations of the sensitivity formulas, fidelity bounds, and calibration procedures. Experimental data show the expected sign behavior and correlation signals in each protocol, with the entanglement-based readout yielding larger correlation signals in the specific measurements shown.

Significance. If the central scaling claim holds, the paper would make sub-diffraction covariance magnetometry practical at room temperature with conventional laser readout, which is a substantial advance. The theoretical treatment is careful and internally consistent: the derivations in SI Secs. IV and V are detailed, and the central scaling result (Eq. S52) is a parameter-free consequence of the protocol structure. The phase-cycling methods address a real problem (disambiguating correlations from variance fluctuations), and the experimental demonstrations show the expected qualitative behavior. However, the experimental realization of the entanglement-based protocol has low fidelity, and the headline sensitivity gain is computed rather than measured against a same-pair non-interacting baseline. The value of the paper lies primarily in the protocol proposals and theoretical analysis; the experimental evidence is suggestive but not yet at the level of the claims.

major comments (2)

[Eq. (4) and Fig. 3E; SI Secs. IV F, V, VI] The central quantitative claim of the paper—the order-of-magnitude sensitivity improvement from Eq. (4) for conventional readout—is not experimentally validated. The measured Bell-state fidelity is only bounded by F >~ 25% (SI Sec. V, Eq. S61), which is below the 0.5 threshold for entanglement certification, and the maximum observed correlation is about 0.04 versus an expected 0.06 (SI Sec. VI), a one-third deficit. The sensitivity calculation in Fig. 3E (SI Sec. IV F) assumes T2 = 100 μs and t_e = 2 μs, whereas the pair demonstrated in Fig. 3D has T2 about 6 and 12 μs, and the pair used for the correlation measurements in Fig. 3F/G is a different, lower-coupling pair. In addition, the reported "markedly higher signal-to-noise ratios" of the entangled readout compared with Figs. 1E and 2D is a qualitative comparison across different NV pairs, signal amplitudes, and readout methods, not a controlled benchmark. The authors should either supply a direct, same-pair comparison of entangled versus non-interacting covariance sensing, or clearly reframe the order-of-magnitude gain as a theoretical prediction for high-fidelity future implementations, with the current experiments described as proof-of-principle demonstrations.
[Entanglement as a resource; SI Sec. V] The statement that the protocol "create[s] maximally entangled Bell states" is not supported by the reported fidelity bound. The estimate F >~ 25% (SI Sec. V) is below the threshold of 0.5 needed to certify entanglement from fidelity, and the TPPI measurements (Fig. 3D) show the expected qualitative response but do not quantify the degree of entanglement. Since the sensitivity predictions in Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) assume near-maximal Bell states, the paper should either report an entanglement-certifying measurement (e.g., full tomography or a fidelity above 0.5) or explicitly state that the achieved fidelity is a limitation and discuss its quantitative impact on the predicted SNR gain.

minor comments (5)

[Main text, "Entanglement as a resource" paragraph] The sentence "Cov(Sa,Sb) = σaσbr ≈ 0.3" appears to be a decimal error; the SI (Sec. VI) gives the maximum expected covariance as ≈ 0.029, consistent with the y-axis scale of Fig. 1E. Please correct.
[Fig. 2C caption and Methods (Sec. I) vs SI Fig. S2D] The main text and Methods state that 10 pulses are used for the 13C-mediated spin flip, while SI Fig. S2D caption states "A spin flip is effected with 96 pulses." This discrepancy should be resolved.
[Abstract and main text following Eq. (4)] The phrase "dramatic sensitivity improvement" for conventional readout should be qualified as a theoretical prediction based on the idealized parameters in Fig. 3E, given that the experimental demonstration does not meet those parameters.
[Eq. (3)] The definition of σ_R in the main text assumes Poisson-distributed photon counts, while SI Eq. (S1) gives the generalized form with σ_i^2; the main text should state the Poisson assumption explicitly to avoid apparent inconsistency.
[Fig. 3E] The axis label "B, min. (nT)" should read "B_min (nT)" for stylistic consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entanglement-based sensitivity scaling is derived from a self-contained quantum-state and photon-statistics calculation, not from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, the linear-in-readout-noise scaling of Eq. (4), is obtained from a first-principles derivation in the Supplementary Information. The entangled-state evolution is computed explicitly: Eqs. (S32) and (S33) give the final states after the entangling gate, sensing, and disentangling gate; Eqs. (S34)-(S36) show that the difference signal (S_Psi - S_Phi)/2 equals <sin(phi_a) sin(phi_b)>; Eq. (S37) factors the result into a correlation term and decoherence factors; and Eqs. (S45)-(S52) derive the signal-to-noise ratio from photon counting statistics, yielding SNR_entangled/SNR_non-interacting approximately sqrt(2)*sigma_R*exp[-chi_e(2t_e)] in the high-readout-noise limit. None of these steps defines the predicted quantity in terms of itself or fits the scaling law to data. The comparison baseline, quadratic readout-noise scaling for non-interacting covariance magnetometry, is imported from the authors' prior Science 2022 paper [5], but that is an independent, previously published protocol rather than an unverified self-citation that forces the present conclusion. The calibration checks in SI Sec. VI do use an overall amplitude scaling to compare measured correlation shapes with a model, and the observed 0.04 vs. expected 0.06 amplitude is attributed to gate and initialization errors, but this fitted amplitude does not feed back into the derived linear-scaling result or into the order-of-magnitude gain claim. The reported Bell fidelity lower bound F >~ 25% and the short coherence times of the demonstrated pairs are experimental limitations that affect the practical magnitude of the advantage, not circularity in the derivation. Overall, the core derivation is self-contained and externally benchmarked against standard readout-noise parameters, so it does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

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

The central claims rest on standard two-level spin models, equal-brightness assumptions for baseline subtraction, noise-decomposition assumptions for spectral estimation, and the availability of suitable NV pairs and 13C nuclei. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are fitted scaling and decay factors in theory-data comparisons and input parameters for the calculated sensitivity curves.

free parameters (4)

Phenomenological exponential decay in Fig. 1E = not specified in text
The Fig. 1E caption states lines are a fit to a model incorporating the expected Bessel correlation structure and an exponential decay, so the agreement is not fully predictive.
Overall amplitude scaling in correlation calibration = not specified
SI Sec VI states the expected correlation in Fig. S5C is derived from calibration with no free parameters except an overall amplitude scaling, which weakens the validation of the entanglement protocol.
Bell-state contrast parameters a0 and phi_a = fitted from TPPI oscillation
SI Sec V uses fits to the TPPI contrast to bound the Bell-state fidelity; the inferred fidelity is model-dependent.
Readout noise sigma_R and coherence time T2 assumptions in Fig. 3E = sigma_R = 35, T2 = 100 us, te = 2 us, t = 25 us
These are stated input assumptions for the calculated sensitivity comparison, not fitted to data, but they set the magnitude of the claimed improvement.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Equal NV brightness and equal mean spin probabilities for phase-cycling baseline subtraction.
SI Eq. S9-S10; stated to be more valid for co-aligned centers, but used for resolved-pair data.
domain assumption Noise spectrum decomposes into correlated and local parts with an identical correlated component at both NV centers.
SI Sec F, covariance spectroscopy derivation.
domain assumption Correlated phases are Gaussian-distributed or small.
SI Sec F, used to relate the correlator to the spectral density.
domain assumption Global spin echo removes the NV-NV coupling during AC sensing.
Main text after Bell-state creation; relies on the Jzz form of the interaction and the two-level subspace.
domain assumption A strongly coupled 13C nucleus is available near about 90 percent of shallow NV pairs.
Main text Sec 2, based on natural abundance, ref [36], and 6 sampled pairs.
domain assumption Truncation of the NV spin-1 system to the ms = 0, 1 subspace for entanglement gates.
SI Eq. S18-S25; the full spin-1 treatment is promised but not fully visible in the provided text.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-qubit nanoscale sensing with entanglement as a resource." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SSKUPWMM

@misc{pith2026250412533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-qubit nanoscale sensing with entanglement as a resource},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SSKUPWMM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12533}
}

read the original abstract

Nitrogen vacancy (NV) centers in diamond are widely deployed as local magnetic sensors, using coherent, single qubit control to measure both time-averaged fields and noise with nanoscale spatial resolution. Moving beyond single qubits to multi-qubit control enables new sensing modalities such as measuring nonlocal spatiotemporal correlators, or using entangled states to improve measurement sensitivity. Here, we describe protocols to use optically unresolved NV center pairs and nuclear spins as multi-qubit sensors for measuring correlated noise, enabling covariance magnetometry at nanometer length scales. For NV centers that are optically unresolved but have spectrally resolved spin transitions, we implement a phase-cycling protocol that disambiguates magnetic correlations from variance fluctuations by alternating the relative spin orientations of the two NV centers. For NV centers that are both optically and spectrally unresolved, we leverage the presence of a third qubit, a 13C nucleus that is strongly coupled to one of the NV centers, to effect coherent single-NV spin flips and enable a similar phase-cycling protocol. For length scales around 10 nm, we create maximally entangled Bell states through dipole-dipole coupling between two NV centers, and use these entangled states to directly read out the magnetic field correlation, rather than reconstructing it from independent measurements of unentangled NV centers. Importantly, this changes the scaling of sensitivity with readout noise from quadratic to linear. For conventional off-resonant readout of the NV center spin state (for which the readout noise is roughly 30 times the quantum projection limit), this results in a dramatic sensitivity improvement. Finally, we demonstrate methods for the detection of high spatial- and temporal-resolution correlators with pairs of strongly interacting NV centers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12533 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Protocol for detecting correlations below the diffraction limit with resolved spin transitions at low magnetic field. (A) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Detecting correlations between optically and spectrally unresolved co-aligned NV centers using a local nuclear spin. (A) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Entanglement-based covariance magnetometry. (A) Representative confocal image of a diamond prepared with N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measuring temporal correlations using strongly coupled NV centers. (A) Measuring correlation between phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Statistical imaging of NV centers reveals clustered defect formation in diamond
cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

NV centers in CVD diamond are spatially clustered at the ~100 nm scale, deviating from a random (Poissonian) distribution.
Non-Gaussian Noise Magnetometry Using Local Spin Qubits
quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A single NV spin qubit and two-qubit coincidence or Bell-state echoes can isolate fourth-order magnetic noise cumulants, demonstrated on telegraph-noise and critical Ising models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Eldredge, M

Z. Eldredge, M. Foss-Feig, J. A. Gross, S. L. Rolston, and A. V. Gorshkov, Physical Review A97, 042337 (2018)

2018
[2]

X. Song, F. Salvati, C. Gaikwad, N. Yunger Halpern, D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, and K. Murch, Physical Re- view Letters 132, 260801 (2024)

work page 2024
[3]

Rovny, S

J. Rovny, S. Gopalakrishnan, A. C. B. Jayich, P. Maletinsky, E. Demler, and N. P. De Leon, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 753 (2024)

work page 2024
[4]

Szańkowski, M

P. Szańkowski, M. Trippenbach, Ł. Cywiński, and Y. B. Band, Quantum Information Processing14, 3367 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

Rovny, Z

J. Rovny, Z. Yuan, M. Fitzpatrick, A. I. Abdalla, L. Fu- tamura, C. Fox, M. C. Cambria, S. Kolkowitz, and N. P. De Leon, Science378, 1301 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

L. M. Norris, G. A. Paz-Silva, and L. Viola, Physical Review Letters 116, 150503 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

J. J. . Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Physical Review A54, R4649 (1996)

work page 1996
[8]

J. Du, F. Shi, X. Kong, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Reviews of Modern Physics96, 025001 (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 76 references

[9]

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

2022
[10]

B. L. Dwyer, L. V. H. Rodgers, E. K. Urbach, D. Blu- vstein, S. Sangtawesin, H. Zhou, Y. Nassab, M. Fitz- patrick, Z.Yuan, K.D.Greve, E.L.Peterson, J.-P.Chou, A. Gali, V. V. Dobrovitski, M. D. Lukin, and N. P. de Leon, Probing spin dynamics on diamond surfaces using a single q...

2021 arXiv
[11]

Machado, E

F. Machado, E. A. Demler, N. Y. Yao, and S. Chatterjee, Physical Review Letters131, 070801 (2023)

2023
[12]

M. E. Ziffer, F. Machado, B. Ursprung, A. Lozovoi, A. B. Tazi, Z. Yuan, M. E. Ziebel, T. Delord, N. Zeng, E. Telford, D. G. Chica, D. W. deQuilettes, X. Zhu, J. C. Hone, K. L. Shepard, X. Roy, N. P. de Leon, E. J. Davis, S. Chatterjee, C. A. Meriles, J. S. Owen, P. J. Schuck, ...

2024 arXiv
[13]

S. Li, Z. Sun, N. J. McLaughlin, A. Sharmin, N. Agarwal, M. Huang, S. H. Sung, H. Lu, S. Yan, H. Lei, R. Hov- den, H. Wang, H. Chen, L. Zhao, and C. R. Du, Nature Communications 15, 5712 (2024)

2024
[14]

R. Xue, N. Maksimovic, P. E. Dolgirev, L.-Q. Xia, R. Kitagawa, A. Müller, F. Machado, D. R. Klein, D. MacNeill, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Jarillo- Herrero, M. D. Lukin, E. Demler, and A. Yacoby, Sig- natures of magnon hydrodynamics in an atomically-thin ferromagnet (2024)

2024
[15]

T. X. Zhou, J. J. Carmiggelt, L. M. Gächter, I. Es- terlis, D. Sels, R. J. Stöhr, C. Du, D. Fernandez, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, F. Büttner, E. Demler, and A. Yacoby, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2019473118 (2021)

2021
[16]

B. G. Simon, S. Kurdi, J. J. Carmiggelt, M. Borst, A. J. Katan, and T. Van Der Sar, Nano Letters 22, 9198 (2022)

2022
[17]

S.Kolkowitz, A.Safira, A.A.High, R.C.Devlin, S.Choi, Q. P. Unterreithmeier, D. Patterson, A. S. Zibrov, V. E. Manucharyan, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Science347, 1129 (2015)

2015
[18]

Ariyaratne, D

A. Ariyaratne, D. Bluvstein, B. A. Myers, and A. C. B. Jayich, Nature Communications9, 2406 (2018)

2018
[19]

T. I. Andersen, B. L. Dwyer, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, K. Agarwal, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. A. Demler, P. Kim, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Science 364, 154 (2019)

2019
[20]

J. B. Curtis, N. Maksimovic, N. R. Poniatowski, A. Ya- coby, B. Halperin, P. Narang, andE. Demler, Probingthe Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless vortex unbinding transi- tionintwo-dimensionalsuperconductorsusinglocalnoise magnetometry (2024), arXiv:2404.06147 [cond-mat]

2024 arXiv
[21]

Chatterjee, J

S. Chatterjee, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, and E. Demler, Physical Review B99, 104425 (2019)

2019
[22]

W. Ji, Z. Liu, Y. Guo, Z. Hu, J. Zhou, S. Dai, Y. Chen, P. Yu, M. Wang, K. Xia, F. Shi, Y. Wang, and J. Du, Nature Photonics 10.1038/s41566-023-01352-4 (2024)

2024 doi
[23]

Delord, R

T. Delord, R. Monge, and C. A. Meriles, Arxiv2401, 10.48550/arXiv.2401.07814 (2024)

2024 doi arXiv
[24]

Lucas and K

A. Lucas and K. C. Fong, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 053001 (2018)

2018
[25]

Z. Liu, R. Gong, J. Kim, O. K. Diessel, Q. Xu, Z. Rehfuss, X. Du, G. He, A. Singh, Y. S. Eo, E. A. Henriksen, G. D. Gu, N. Y. Yao, F. Machado, S. Ran, S. Chatterjee, and C. Zu, Quan- tum noise spectroscopy of superconducting dynamics in thin film Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+δ}$ ...

2025 arXiv
[26]

W. S. Huxter, F. Dalmagioni, and C. L. Degen, Multi- plexed scanning microscopy with dual-qubit spin sensors (2024)

2024
[28]

E. H. Chen, O. Gaathon, M. E. Trusheim, and D. En- glund, Nano Letters13, 2073 (2013)

2013
[29]

L.BraunschweilerandR.Ernst,JournalofMagneticRes- onance (1969) 53, 521 (1983)

1969
[30]

See supplementary information
[31]

B. J. Shields, Q. P. Unterreithmeier, N. P. de Leon, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review Letters114, 136402 (2015)

2015
[32]

Pfender, P

M. Pfender, P. Wang, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, W. Yang, D. B. R. Dasari, P. Neumann, X.-Y. Pan, J. Isoya, R.-B. Liu, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Communications10, 594 (2019/02/05, 2019)

2019
[33]

R. J. Epstein, F. M. Mendoza, Y. K. Kato, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature Physics1, 94 (2005/11/01, 2005)

2005
[34]

N. D. Lai, D. Zheng, F. Jelezko, F. Treussart, and J.-F. Roch, Applied Physics Letters95, 133101 (2009)

2009
[35]

Tetienne, L

J.-P. Tetienne, L. Rondin, P. Spinicelli, M. Chipaux, T. Debuisschert, J.-F. Roch, and V. Jacques, New Jour- nal of Physics14, 103033 (2012)

2012
[36]

Takács and V

I. Takács and V. Ivády, Accurate Hyperfine Tensors for Solid State Quantum Applications: Case of the NV Cen- ter in Diamond (2024), arXiv:2309.03983 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[37]

Sangtawesin, B

S. Sangtawesin, B. L. Dwyer, S. Srinivasan, J. J. Allred, L. V. H. Rodgers, K. De Greve, A. Stacey, N. Dontschuk, K. M. O’Donnell, D. Hu, D. A. Evans, C. Jaye, D. A. Fischer, M. L. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, H. Park, M. D. Lukin, and N. P. de Leon, Physical Review X9, 031052 (2019)

2019
[38]

Gullion, D

T. Gullion, D. B. Baker, and M. S. Conradi, Journal of Magnetic Resonance (1969)89, 479 (1990). 7

1969
[41]

N. Zhao, J. Honert, B. Schmid, M. Klas, J. Isoya, M. Markham, D. Twitchen, F. Jelezko, R.-B. Liu, H. Fed- der, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Nanotechnology 7, 657 (2012)

2012
[42]

Gaebel, M

T. Gaebel, M. Domhan, I. Popa, C. Wittmann, P. Neu- mann, F.Jelezko, J.R.Rabeau, N.Stavrias, A.D.Green- tree, S. Prawer, J. Meijer, J. Twamley, P. R. Hemmer, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Physics2, 408 (2006)

2006
[43]

3B), corresponding to a spacing ofdNV≈ 6nm between the NV centers, comparable to their depth d ≈ 10nm

(Fig. 3B), corresponding to a spacing ofdNV≈ 6nm between the NV centers, comparable to their depth d ≈ 10nm. We then employ a Hahn-echo based en- tangling gate (Fig. 3C) to create the maximally entan- gled Bell pairs |Φ⟩ = (|0, 0⟩ + i|1, 1⟩)/ √ 2 and |Ψ⟩ = (|0, 1⟩ +i|1, 0⟩)/ √...
[44]

Neumann, R

P. Neumann, R. Kolesov, B. Naydenov, J. Beck, F. Rempp, M. Steiner, V. Jacques, G. Balasubramanian, M. L. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, S. Pezzagna, J. Mei- jer, J. Twamley, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Physics 6, 249 (2010)

2010
[46]

Dolde, V

F. Dolde, V. Bergholm, Y. Wang, I. Jakobi, B. Nayde- nov, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, F. Jelezko, P. Neumann, T. Schulte-Herbrüggen, J. Biamonte, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Communications 5, 3371 (2014)

2014
[47]

J. Lee, M. Tatsuta, A. Xu, E. Bauch, M. J. H. Ku, and R. L. Walsworth, npj Quantum Information9, 77 (2023)

2023
[49]

Cywiński, R

Ł. Cywiński, R. M. Lutchyn, C. P. Nave, and S. Das Sarma, Physical Review B77, 174509 (2008)

2008
[50]

J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. R. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, Nature Physics4, 810 (2008)

2008
[51]

D. A. Hopper, H. J. Shulevitz, and L. C. Bassett, Micro- machines 9, 437 (2018)

2018
[53]

Laraoui, F

A. Laraoui, F. Dolde, C. Burk, F. Reinhard, J. Wrachtrup, and C. A. Meriles, Nature Communica- tions 4, 1651 (2013/04/03, 2013)

2013
[54]

Zheng, A

T.-X. Zheng, A. Li, J. Rosen, S. Zhou, M. Koppenhöfer, Z. Ma, F. T. Chong, A. A. Clerk, L. Jiang, and P. C. Maurer, npj Quantum Information8, 150 (2022)

2022
[55]

Zhang, R

Y. Zhang, R. Samajdar, and S. Gopalakrishnan, Nanoscale sensing of spatial correlations in nonequilib- rium current noise (2024)

2024
[56]

B. A. Myers, A. Das, M. C. Dartiailh, K. Ohno, D. D. Awschalom, and A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, Physical Re- view Letters 113, 027602 (2014)

2014
[57]

Rosskopf, A

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

2014
[58]

Romach, C

Y. Romach, C. Müller, T. Unden, L. J. Rogers, T. Isoda, K. M. Itoh, M. Markham, A. Stacey, J. Meijer, S. Pez- zagna, B. Naydenov, L. P. McGuinness, N. Bar-Gill, and F. Jelezko, Physical Review Letters114, 017601 (2015)

2015
[59]

Cheng, Z

K.-H. Cheng, Z. Kazi, J. Rovny, B. Zhang, L. Nassar, J. D. Thompson, and N. P. de Leon, Massively multi- plexed nanoscale magnetometry with diamond quantum sensors (2024)

2024
[60]

Cambria, S

M. Cambria, S. Chand, and S. Kolkowitz, Scalable par- allel measurement of individual nitrogen-vacancy centers (2024)

2024
[61]

A. J. Brady, Y.-X. Wang, V. V. Albert, A. V. Gorshkov, and Q. Zhuang, Correlated Noise Estimation with Quan- tum Sensor Networks (2024)

2024
[62]

Ye and P

J. Ye and P. Zoller, Physical Review Letters132, 190001 (2024)

2024
[63]

Schine, A

N. Schine, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, M. J. Martin, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature Physics18, 1067 (2022)

2022
[64]

C. D. Wilen, S. Abdullah, N. A. Kurinsky, C. Stanford, L. Cardani, G. D’Imperio, C. Tomei, L. Faoro, L. B. Ioffe, C. H. Liu, A. Opremcak, B. G. Christensen, J. L. DuBois, and R. McDermott, Nature594, 369 (2021/06/01, 2021)

2021
[65]

McEwen, L

M. McEwen, L. Faoro, K. Arya, A. Dunsworth, T. Huang, S. Kim, B. Burkett, A. Fowler, F. Arute, J. C. Bardin, A. Bengtsson, A. Bilmes, B. B. Buckley, N. Bushnell, Z. Chen, R. Collins, S. Demura, A. R. Derk, C. Erickson, M. Giustina, S. D. Harrington, S. Hong, E. Jeffrey, J. Kel...

2022
[66]

recharging-CSD

P. Kómár, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Nature Physics10, 582 (2014). 8 0 2 4 6 8 Abs. photon diff. 10 2 10 1 Prob. 2.8 2.9 3.0 Frequency (GHz) 0.9 1.0Contrast 0 200 400 600 RF field amp. (arb. unit) 0.050 0.025 0.000 0.025 0.050 C...

2014
[67]

Marion and K

D. Marion and K. Wüthrich, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications113, 967 (1983)

1983
[68]

X. Chen, C. Zou, Z. Gong, C. Dong, G. Guo, and F. Sun, Light: Science & Applications4, e230 (2015)

2015
[69]

E. H. Chen, O. Gaathon, M. E. Trusheim, and D. Englund, Nano Letters13, 2073 (2013)

2013
[70]

Dolde, I

F. Dolde, I. Jakobi, B. Naydenov, N. Zhao, S. Pezzagna, C. Trautmann, J. Meijer, P. Neumann, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Physics9, 139 (2013)

2013
[71]

Rovny, Z

J. Rovny, Z. Yuan, M. Fitzpatrick, A. I. Abdalla, L. Futamura, C. Fox, M. C. Cambria, S. Kolkowitz, and N. P. De Leon, Science 378, 1301 (2022)

2022
[72]

D. A. Hopper, H. J. Shulevitz, and L. C. Bassett, Micromachines9, 437 (2018)

2018
[73]

Kolkowitz, Q

S. Kolkowitz, Q. P. Unterreithmeier, S. D. Bennett, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review Letters109, 137601 (2012)

2012
[74]

T. H. Taminiau, J. J. T. Wagenaar, T. Van Der Sar, F. Jelezko, V. V. Dobrovitski, and R. Hanson, Physical Review Letters 109, 137602 (2012)

2012
[75]

N. Zhao, J. Honert, B. Schmid, M. Klas, J. Isoya, M. Markham, D. Twitchen, F. Jelezko, R.-B. Liu, H. Fedder, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Nanotechnology7, 657 (2012)

2012
[76]

Laraoui, F

A. Laraoui, F. Dolde, C. Burk, F. Reinhard, J. Wrachtrup, and C. A. Meriles, Nature Communications4, 1651 (2013/04/03, 2013)

2013
[77]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[78]

J. F. Barry, J. M. Schloss, E. Bauch, M. J. Turner, C. A. Hart, L. M. Pham, and R. L. Walsworth, Reviews of Modern Physics 92, 015004 (2020)

2020
[79]

Szańkowski, G

P. Szańkowski, G. Ramon, J. Krzywda, D. Kwiatkowski, and Ł. Cywiński, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29, 333001 (2017)

2017
[80]

Romach, C

Y. Romach, C. Müller, T. Unden, L. J. Rogers, T. Isoda, K. M. Itoh, M. Markham, A. Stacey, J. Meijer, S. Pezzagna, B. Naydenov, L. P. McGuinness, N. Bar-Gill, and F. Jelezko, Physical Review Letters114, 017601 (2015)

2015
[81]

Dolde, V

F. Dolde, V. Bergholm, Y. Wang, I. Jakobi, B. Naydenov, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, F. Jelezko, P. Neumann, T. Schulte- Herbrüggen, J. Biamonte, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Communications5, 3371 (2014)

2014
[82]

T. Joas, F. Ferlemann, R. Sailer, P. J. Vetter, J. Zhang, R. S. Said, T. Teraji, S. Onoda, T. Calarco, G. Genov, M. M. Müller, and F. Jelezko, High-Fidelity Electron Spin Gates in a Scalable Diamond Quantum Register (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Eldredge, M

Z. Eldredge, M. Foss-Feig, J. A. Gross, S. L. Rolston, and A. V. Gorshkov, Physical Review A97, 042337 (2018)

2018

[2] [2]

X. Song, F. Salvati, C. Gaikwad, N. Yunger Halpern, D. R. M. Arvidsson-Shukur, and K. Murch, Physical Re- view Letters 132, 260801 (2024)

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Rovny, S

J. Rovny, S. Gopalakrishnan, A. C. B. Jayich, P. Maletinsky, E. Demler, and N. P. De Leon, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 753 (2024)

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Szańkowski, M

P. Szańkowski, M. Trippenbach, Ł. Cywiński, and Y. B. Band, Quantum Information Processing14, 3367 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Rovny, Z

J. Rovny, Z. Yuan, M. Fitzpatrick, A. I. Abdalla, L. Fu- tamura, C. Fox, M. C. Cambria, S. Kolkowitz, and N. P. De Leon, Science378, 1301 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [6]

L. M. Norris, G. A. Paz-Silva, and L. Viola, Physical Review Letters 116, 150503 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [7]

J. J. . Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Physical Review A54, R4649 (1996)

work page 1996

[8] [8]

J. Du, F. Shi, X. Kong, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Reviews of Modern Physics96, 025001 (2024)

work page 2024