Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

High-Fidelity Control of a Strongly Coupled Electro-Nuclear Spin-Photon Interface

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that 117SnV– diamond color centers can hold a nuclear memory qubit insensitive to optical readout, by exploiting a zero-field degeneracy, and demonstrates 97.8% gate fidelity with 2.5 ms coherence.

desk verdict Strong experimental paper on a clever zero-field SnV- memory protocol, but the central optical-insensitivity claim rests on an untested degeneracy and a residual-field fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09267 v1 pith:7IXKWSHI submitted 2025-05-14 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Isaac B. W. Harris , Ian Christen , Sofia M. Patomäki , Hamza Raniwala , Maxim Sirotin , Marco Colangelo , Kevin C. Chen , Carlos Errando-Herranz
show 8 more authors
David J. Starling Ryan Murphy Katia Shtyrkova Owen Medeiros Matthew E. Trusheim Karl K. Berggren P. Benjamin Dixon Dirk Englund
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords tin-vacancycolorcenter117SnV–zero-fieldquantumprotocolnuclearspinmemoryspin-photoninterfacenetworkingdiamondphotonicintegratedcircuithyperfinecoupling
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 proposes and tests a zero-magnetic-field operating protocol for the 117SnV– diamond color center, in which the electronic spin acts as a network 'broker' qubit while the 117Sn nuclear spin stores quantum information as a local memory. Its central claim is that at zero field the two $|1B\rangle$ hyperfine states remain exactly degenerate in both the ground and excited electronic manifolds, so the memory's precession frequency does not change during optical excitation ($\Delta\omega_M = 0$) and readout or entanglement attempts leave the stored state undisturbed. Unlike 29SiV– or weakly coupled 13C memories, which need a field bias and still suffer excitation-induced phase kickback, 117SnV– has a hyperfine optical splitting larger than the linewidth even without any field. The paper demonstrates the protocol in a diamond emitter integrated on a photonic circuit at 1.3 K: 98.4% optical polarization, 97.8% physical gate fidelity on the memory transition, and 2.5 ms memory coherence with two decoupling pulses. If the claim holds, group-IV color centers gain a built-in, deterministic memory that survives the many excitation attempts required for entanglement distillation and repeater protocols.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the zero-field degeneracy of the $|1B0_M\rangle$ and $|1B1_M\rangle$ states: the $J = 1$, $m_J = \pm 1$ joint electron-nuclear states in which the broker spin and 117Sn memory spin are aligned or anti-aligned. In the effective Hamiltonian built from spin-orbit coupling, transverse strain, and hyperfine terms $A_\parallel, A_\perp$, this pair sits at energy $A_\parallel/4$ with no dependence on strain, while the $|0B\rangle$ pair splits with strain; because the same pairing recurs in the excited manifold, the memory transition frequency is unchanged by optical excitation. The protocol also requires the hyperfine optical splitting to exceed the linewidth without a bias field, and the microwave scheme (three allowed transitions among the four ground states) to provide independent broker control, controlled-memory rotations, and a SWAP for full two-qubit control. A second-order expansion of the same Hamiltonian shows the memory transition has $\lambda_M = 0$, meaning no coupling to the phonon-coupled orbital branch, which explains the memory's 'nuclear-like' coherence.

What would settle it

Take a set of 117SnV– devices spanning different strain values, null the ambient field with a vector magnet, and measure the $|1B\rangle$ Ramsey beat and the $f_0$ cyclicity at each setting. If some nulling field removes the beat and restores the theory-predicted cycling of $f_0$, the residual-field explanation and the exact $\Delta\omega_M = 0$ claim survive; if the beat persists at all field settings and changes with strain, the degeneracy is intrinsically broken by the hyperfine interaction and the zero-field insensitivity must be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that 117SnV– has hyperfine optical transitions separated by more than the optical linewidth at zero magnetic field, and that its joint electron-nuclear level structure then admits a memory encoding that is exactly insensitive to optical excitation. In the ground manifold the energies of the states $|1B0_M\rangle$ and $|1B1_M\rangle$ are both $A_\parallel/4$, independent of strain and of the transverse hyperfine component $A_\perp$; the same $|1B\rangle$ pairing recurs in the excited manifold, so the memory transition frequency is identical in ground and excited states and $\Delta\omega_M$ in the fidelity formula is identically zero at zero field. Optical pulses on the $f_0$ transition therefore imprint no random phase on a stored memory superposition, replicating for a group-IV center what the $m_S = 0$ state provides in NV–. The authors back this with experiments in a photonic integrated circuit: 98.4% ground-state polarization, all three ground microwave transitions driven at meghertz Rabi rates, Clifford fidelities of 98.6% (memory) and 95.2% (broker), and 2.5 ms coherence for the memory. They also report that the $|1B\rangle$ degeneracy is imperfect in their device — a ~1.4 MHz Ramsey beat and finite cyclicity of $f_0$ — which they fit to a residual ~223 µT field and note could instead come from Jahn-Teller distortion or strain-dependent hyperfine coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The whole zero-field no-kickback guarantee rests on one premise: that the $|1B0_M\rangle$ and $|1B1_M\rangle$ states are exactly degenerate at zero magnetic field in both the ground and excited manifolds — and the paper's own device shows a residual ~1.4 MHz splitting, so if that splitting is intrinsic to the hyperfine interaction rather than a removable stray field, the $\Delta\omega_M = 0$ claim is only approximate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 117SnV– node could survive orders of magnitude more excitation attempts than existing group-IV memories: the paper estimates ~1.5 million optical excitations before memory fidelity drops below 95%, against ~2 for the 29SiV– bias scheme, making distillation and repeater protocols practical.
  • Network nodes could operate without superconducting magnets or dilution refrigerators, since the demonstrated control runs at 1.3 K with zero applied field.
  • The memory qubit is predicted to be immune to phonon-mediated dephasing ($\lambda_M = 0$), giving 'nuclear-like' coherence of 2.5 ms with only two decoupling pulses — an order of magnitude beyond bare-electron SnV– under comparable decoupling.
  • The same zero-field level structure is predicted to transfer to other heavy group-IV centers such as 73GeV–, 207PbV–, and 61NiV–, extending the protocol beyond tin.
  • Combined with demonstrated high-cooperativity SnV– cavities, the protocol should enable single-shot readout and heralded spin-spin entanglement with a protected local memory in place.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable screening rule follows from the paper's numbers: any group-IV (or other) defect whose ground-versus-excited hyperfine difference exceeds its optical linewidth, and whose $m_J = \pm 1$ pairing is preserved in the excited state, should admit the same zero-field no-kickback encoding; the paper's Table I parameters give the explicit threshold to apply.
  • The observed ~1.4 MHz degeneracy-breaking offers a clean way to discriminate the two proposed explanations: if the beat frequency and the $f_0$ cyclicity track strain across devices and persist under active magnetic-field nulling, the hyperfine interaction itself breaks the degeneracy, and the protocol would need a corrected (non-zero) $\Delta\omega_M$ or field compensation.
  • The 5.4 percentage-point gap between the memory and broker physical gate fidelities is plausibly the Bloch-Siegert shift of the 31 MHz transition at high drive power, which the paper avoided by running at low power; shaped or composite pulses that pre-compensate that shift should close the gap without slowing the gates.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes and partially demonstrates a zero-field protocol for 117SnV- color centers in which the two |1B> ground states and the corresponding excited states are degenerate by D3d symmetry, so that resonant optical excitation of the broker transition f0 leaves a superposition stored in the 117Sn nuclear memory untouched. The authors integrate a 117SnV- center in a photonic integrated circuit, measure its optical and hyperfine spectra, demonstrate microwave control of all three ground-state transitions, characterize fidelities by randomized benchmarking (97.8% physical gate fidelity for the memory transition, 92.3% for the broker), and extend the memory coherence time to 2.5 ms with two decoupling pulses. They observe two deviations from the standard group-theory model—finite optical cyclicity of f0 (Λ≈132) and a 1.4 MHz residual splitting of the |1B> states—and model both with a 223 µT residual magnetic field. Under the additional assumption that this field is identical in the ground and excited states, they estimate ΔωM = 2π·10.4 kHz and claim the memory could survive roughly 1.5 million optical excitations.

Significance. If the optical-insensitivity claim were directly verified, this would be an important step: it would provide a deterministic nuclear memory in a group-IV color center that is protected during broker readout and entanglement attempts, while operating at zero applied field and 1.3 K. The experimental strengths are real: the integration of 117SnV into a PIC, the clean microwave control data, the high reported gate fidelities, the 2.5 ms memory coherence, and the authors' transparent reporting of deviations from the standard theory and of the assumptions behind their quantitative estimate. The paper also makes two cleanly falsifiable quantitative predictions (ΔωM = 2π·10.4 kHz and an excitation budget of order 1.5 million) that are directly testable. The main significance is currently contingent, however, because the central networking claim rests on a degeneracy that the data show is broken, and the memory response to optical excitation is not directly measured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. I.B, Sec. II.C, Appendix G] The central claim in Sec. I.B that 'ΔωM in equation 1 is identically 0 when no magnetic field is applied' is not supported by the data presented. In Sec. II.C the authors report a 1.4 MHz interference beat in the Ramsey fringes of the transitions involving the |1B> states, which they attribute to an imperfect degeneracy of |1B0M> and |1B1M>. In Appendix G this is modeled by adding a 223 µT residual DC magnetic field, and the estimate ΔωM = 2π·10.4 kHz is obtained only 'under the assumption that the residual splitting is caused by a magnetic field (or that the effective magnetic field due to other effects is the same in the ground and excited state).' This assumption is not tested, and the excited-state hyperfine parameters entering the estimate (A∥^exc = -232 MHz, A⊥^exc = 464 MHz) are themselves inferred from a dipole-dipole form and the zero-strain optical splitting rather than measured in this device. If the degeneracy is broken by an intrinsic symmetry-lowering term such as Jahn-Teller distortion or strain-dependent hyperfine coupling, the excited-state splitting will generally differ from the ground-state splitting, and the optical phase kickback on the memory may be orders of magnitude larger than 10.4 kHz. The statement in the Conclusion that optical excitation does not disturb the memory therefore goes beyond the evidence.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Appendix G] The finite cyclicity of the f0 transition is a second, independent threat to the protocol's central claim. In Sec. II.A the authors measure Λ≈132 for f0, whereas the standard group-theory model used in Sec. I.B predicts a perfectly cycling transition. Equation (1) and Appendix A model only the phase kickback ΔωM; they do not account for population leakage out of the |1B> manifold on a non-cycling event. With Λ≈132, after roughly one hundred optical excitations there is a substantial probability that an excitation event takes the system into the |0B> states, which will depolarize or reset the nuclear memory. The statement in Appendix G that the memory 'could be excited nearly 1.5 million times' is therefore misleading unless the cyclicity-induced leakage is included in the fidelity budget; the one-sentence caveat 'although transition cyclicity would limit fidelity well before this point' does not quantify the effect. The manuscript should either incorporate cyclicity into the fidelity model of Eq. (1) or remove the 1.5-million-excitation estimate as a headline number.
  3. [Sec. II.C, Conclusion] The randomized benchmarking and decoupling measurements in Sec. II.C are ground-state-only experiments. In the RB sequence the microwave gates are applied to the optical ground states and the final readout is optical, but no resonant f0 optical pulse is applied while the memory is in a superposition. Likewise, the coherence measurements in Fig. 4b do not interleave optical excitation with the XY decoupling sequence. As a result, the key requirement 1 of Sec. I—that the broker can be read out or repeatedly excited without disturbing the memory—is not experimentally demonstrated. A direct test would be to prepare the memory in a superposition, apply N resonant f0 excitation pulses, and measure the Ramsey contrast as a function of N; this would directly determine the combination of phase kickback and leakage that enters Eq. (1). Without such a measurement, the conclusion that the zero-field protocol 'lays the groundwork for building quantum network nodes' should be limited to the ground-state control result, with optical insensitivity presented as a prediction rather than an observed property.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II.C] The relationship between the reported physical gate fidelities (97.8% memory, 92.3% broker) and the quoted Clifford fidelities (98.6% and 95.2%) is unclear; including ideal Z gates in the averaged Clifford set would not normally increase the fidelity, so the definition and conversion formula should be stated explicitly.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Conclusion] The text states that the fitted 223 µT residual field is 'an order of magnitude stronger' than Earth's magnetic field (~55 µT), but the ratio is about a factor of four; please correct this comparison.
  3. [Appendix G, Table II] The fit errors reported in Table II (relative errors of 10^-4 or smaller) appear to be statistical only; please state whether systematic uncertainties from the fixed parameters λ = 830 GHz, q = 0.171, and the assumed excited-state hyperfine form were propagated into the quoted ΔωM value.
  4. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (3)] In the cyclicity definition Λ = τ_pol/(2τ), please define the branching ratio into dark states and explain how saturation of the transition is handled in extracting τ_pol; this matters for the comparison with theory in Fig. 7.
  5. [Sec. I.B, Fig. 1f] Given that a 223 µT residual field is used to explain the data, the phrase 'zero-field regime' should be replaced by 'zero applied field' wherever it appears, and the residual-field caveat should be stated at the first use.
  6. [Appendix B] The notation for strain is inconsistent: Eq. (B2) uses α Egx/Egy, Eq. (B3) uses α Egx and then α^2_Egy, and Table I lists α_gnd; please unify the symbols and define the relation between α and the Egx/Egy components.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the zero-field degeneracy argument is a symmetry consequence of the model, and the fitted-residual-field estimate is explicitly conditional rather than disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The central claim (Sec. I.B) that the |1B0M> and |1B1M> states are degenerate at zero field follows from the first-order eigenenergies in Eq. B3, where the J=1 levels are E_1B = A_∥/4 ± Δ/2 and do not depend on A⊥, α, or the nuclear-spin index; this is a group-theoretic model consequence, not a parameter fitted to the target quantity. The optical-insensitivity conclusion (ΔωM = 0) is then derived from this degeneracy plus spin-conserving selection rules in both manifolds, so it is not circular. The experimental demonstrations (98.4% polarization, 97.8% gate fidelity, 2.5 ms coherence) are direct measurements. The paper's own limitations must be weighed: Sec. II.C and Appendix G report a 1.4 MHz Ramsey beat and finite f0 cyclicity, and fit a residual 223 µT field to explain them; Appendix G then states, 'Under the assumption that the residual splitting is caused by a magnetic field (or that the effective magnetic field due to other effects is the same in the ground and excited state), we estimate ... ΔωM = 2π·10.4 kHz.' This is a conditional model-based estimate, not a prediction forced by the fit, because ΔωM is not the fitted parameter and the same-field assumption is explicitly untested. The Conclusion similarly calls for 'Further magneto-optic, strain-optic, and theoretical studies' to confirm or eliminate the residual-field explanation. These statements are correctness and validation caveats, not evidence that the derivation reduces to its inputs. Self-citations ([22], [23], [31]) supply prior measured hyperfine splittings and coherence theory, but the present device's own PLE, Rabi, Ramsey, and randomized-benchmarking data are the load-bearing evidence, so no circular dependence is established.

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

The central protocol claim rests on the symmetry of the D3d Hamiltonian; the device-specific parameters are fitted to Rabi/Ramsey data. The most fragile input is the ad hoc residual magnetic field assumption used to quantify optical insensitivity.

free parameters (5)
  • Ground-state hyperfine coupling A∥ = 673.8 MHz
    Fitted from Rabi and Ramsey data on the three hyperfine transitions (Table II).
  • Ground-state hyperfine coupling A⊥ = 670.95 MHz
    Fitted from Rabi and Ramsey data (Table II).
  • Transverse strain α = 928.4 GHz
    Fitted from Rabi and Ramsey data (Table II); consistent with thermal strain FEM estimate.
  • Residual DC magnetic field components bx, bz = 6.03 MHz, 1.55 MHz (total 223 µT)
    Fitted to explain the non-degeneracy of |1B> states and finite f0 cyclicity (Appendix G). The field magnitude is an order of magnitude larger than Earth's field at the lab.
  • AC drive field amplitudes bx,AC, bz,AC = 8.92 MHz, 5.00 MHz
    Fitted microwave drive amplitudes used in the Hamiltonian simulation (Table II).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The group-theory Hamiltonian for group-IV color centers (Eq. B1-B2) with spin-orbit, strain, hyperfine, and nuclear spin-orbit terms correctly describes 117SnV-.
    Used throughout to derive energy levels and selection rules; based on Hepp et al. (2014).
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit coupling λ = 830 GHz and ground state orbital susceptibility q = 0.171 are taken from prior measurements.
    Prior experimental values used as fixed inputs in the Hamiltonian fit (Appendix G).
  • domain assumption The excited-state hyperfine interaction is purely dipolar, with A∥ = -2A⊥ and Fermi contact zero, due to the dopant being at a node of the excited-state orbital.
    Used to estimate excited-state parameters from the known zero-strain optical hyperfine splitting.
  • ad hoc to paper The residual perturbation causing |1B> splitting is a magnetic field identical in ground and excited states, allowing the ΔωM = 2π·10.4 kHz estimate.
    This assumption is load-bearing for the quantitative optical insensitivity claim and is explicitly acknowledged as possibly incorrect (Jahn-Teller or strain-hyperfine alternatives).
  • domain assumption The memory qubit is immune to phonon-mediated dephasing because λM=0 to second order in A/Δ and υ/Δ (Appendix H).
    Derived from the same Hamiltonian; used to explain the 2.5 ms coherence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Fidelity Control of a Strongly Coupled Electro-Nuclear Spin-Photon Interface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IXKWSHI

@misc{pith2026250509267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Fidelity Control of a Strongly Coupled Electro-Nuclear Spin-Photon Interface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IXKWSHI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09267}
}
read the original abstract

Long distance quantum networking requires combining efficient spin-photon interfaces with long-lived local memories. Group-IV color centers in diamond (SiV, GeV, and SnV) are promising candidates for this application, containing an electronic spin-photon interface and dopant nuclear spin memory. Recent work has demonstrated state-of-the-art performance in spin-photon coupling and spin-spin entanglement. However, coupling between the electron and nuclear spins introduces a phase kickback during optical excitation that limits the utility of the nuclear memory. Here, we propose using the large hyperfine coupling of SnV-117 to operate the device at zero magnetic field in a regime where the memory is insensitive to optical excitation. We further demonstrate ground state spin control of a SnV-117 color center integrated in a photonic integrated circuit, showing 97.8% gate fidelity and 2.5 ms coherence time for the memory spin level. This shows the viability of the zero-field protocol for high fidelity operation, and lays the groundwork for building quantum network nodes with SnV-117 devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.09267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) While [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Schematic of pump-probe scheme (b) Readout intensity as a function of readout and pump frequency. (c) Fitted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) We investigate the ground state manifold (left) via microwave and optical driving. Our standard spin initialization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Randomized benchmarking on the gate set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Diagram of the optical setup and cryostat. (b) Alignment of the fiber array with the photonic integrated circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Strain due to thermal contraction. (a) displacement due to thermal contraction of the QMC and photonic integrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Optical cyclicity of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Results from the combined data fit to Rabi and Ramsey oscillations from transitions (a) 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Results from the combined data fit to Rabi and Ramsey oscillations from transitions (a) 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Although the nuclear spin-orbit parameter υ has not been measured, given the r −3 dependence on the electron density we expect its bare value to be of the same order magnitude as the dipole-dipole coupling, which we here estimate to be on the order of 1 MHz (see Table…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.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

  1. Full-Stack High-Volume Quantum Networking Architecture based on Photonic-Integrated Tin Vacancy Centers in Diamond

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A tin-vacancy quantum networking chip combines GHz-scale strain tuning, sub-80-ns electron spin control, nuclear spin detection, and fiber-array readout, with a simulated path to 99.96% spectral connectivity of 1,000 ...

  2. Translation Groups for arbitrary Gauge Fields in Synthetic Crystals with real hopping amplitudes

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cayley crystals are claimed to emulate arbitrary discrete gauge fields, including inhomogeneous Wilson loops, using only real hoppings; but the supplied full text is a different paper, so the claim is unverified.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    II A) and attempt heralded entan- glement on the broker qubit without disturbing the information stored in the memory

    read-out (Sec. II A) and attempt heralded entan- glement on the broker qubit without disturbing the information stored in the memory

    work page

  2. [2]

    coherently and independently manipulate the bro- ker and memory qubits (Sec. II C),

    work page

  3. [3]

    perform local entangling operations between the broker and memory qubits (Sec. II B). A. Optical Phase Kickback While using a nuclear spin as a memory qubit is a well-established approach, independent readout and en- tanglement of the broker while maintaining coherent in- formation in the memory remains challenging. Since the memory qubit’s Larmor frequen...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    P.-J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, A. Su- leymanzade, B. Pingault, M. Sutula, S. W. Ding, C. M. Knaut, D. R. Assumpcao, Y.-C. Wei, M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, D. D. Sukachev, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, D. S. Levonian, and M. D. Lukin, Science 378, 557 (2022), arXiv:2207.13128

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    ground state optical polarization of 98.4%,

    work page

  6. [6]

    Clifford gate fidelity of the memory and broker qubits of 98.6% and 95.2% respectively with gate speeds in excess of 1 MHz,

    work page

  7. [7]

    memory qubit

    coherence times of the memory transition extend- 7 FIG. 4. (a) Randomized benchmarking on the gate set {RX(±π/2),R X(±π),R Y(±π/2),R Y(±π)} for the 0 B0M↔ 0B1M (purple) and 0 B0M↔ 1B0M (blue) transitions showing physical gate fidelities of 97.8% and 92.3% respectively. (b) Coherence time measurements with N=0, 1, and 2 decoupling XY pulses on the 0 B0M↔ 0...

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    © 2025 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommen- dations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Reconnaissance Office or the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. © 2025 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Delivered to the U.S. Govern- ment with Unlimited Rights, a...

    work page 2025

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Childress, D

    L. Childress, D. J. Twitchen, B. Hensen, M. S. Blok, L. Robledo, R. Hanson, G. Koolstra, H. Bernien, M. Markham, T. H. Taminiau, and W. Pfaff, Nature 497, 86 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    N. Kalb, A. A. Reiserer, P. C. Humphreys, J. J. Baker- mans, S. J. Kamerling, N. H. Nickerson, S. C. Benjamin, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Science 356, 928 (2017), arXiv:1703.03244

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Pompili, S

    M. Pompili, S. L. N. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. C. Beuk- ers, P. C. Humphreys, R. N. Schouten, R. F. L. Ver- meulen, M. J. Tiggelman, L. Dos, S. Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, R. Hanson, L. dos Santos Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, and R. Hanson, Science 372, 259 (2021), arXiv:2...

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. M. Knaut, A. Suleymanzade, Y. C. Wei, D. R. As- sumpcao, P. J. Stas, Y. Q. Huan, B. Machielse, E. N. Knall, M. Sutula, G. Baranes, N. Sinclair, C. De- Eknamkul, D. S. Levonian, M. K. Bhaskar, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 629, 573 (2024), arXiv:2310.01316

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 71, 060310 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    Hensen, H

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Drea´ u, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell´ an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Nature 526, 682 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    P. C. Humphreys, N. Kalb, J. P. Morits, R. N. Schouten, R. F. Vermeulen, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Nature 558, 268 (2018), arXiv:1712.07567

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    De Santis, M

    L. De Santis, M. E. Trusheim, K. C. Chen, and D. R. Englund, Physical Review Letters 127, 147402 (2021), arXiv:2102.01322

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D. D. Sukachev, A. Sipahigil, C. T. Nguyen, M. K. Bhaskar, R. E. Evans, F. Jelezko, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review Letters 119, 223602 (2017), arXiv:1708.08852

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    N. H. Wan, T. J. Lu, K. C. Chen, M. P. Walsh, M. E. Trusheim, L. De Santis, E. A. Bersin, I. B. Harris, S. L. Mouradian, I. R. Christen, E. S. Bielejec, and D. En- glund, Nature 583, 226 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Arjona Mart´ ınez, R

    J. Arjona Mart´ ınez, R. A. Parker, K. C. Chen, C. M. Purser, L. Li, C. P. Michaels, A. M. Stramma, R. De- broux, I. B. Harris, M. Hayhurst Appel, E. C. Nichols, M. E. Trusheim, D. A. Gangloff, D. Englund, and M. Atat¨ ure, Physical Review Letters129, 173603 (2022), arXiv:2206.15239

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    C. T. Nguyen, D. D. Sukachev, M. K. Bhaskar, B. MacHielse, D. S. Levonian, E. N. Knall, P. Stroganov, C. Chia, M. J. Burek, R. Riedinger, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review B 100, 165428 (2019), arXiv:1907.13200

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters 76, 722 (1996), arXiv:9511027 [quant-ph]

    1996

  14. [22]

    E. T. Campbell and S. C. Benjamin, Physical Review 9 Letters 101 (2008), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.130502, arXiv:0710.4352

    2008 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Childress, J

    L. Childress, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Op- tical Physics 72 (2005), 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.052330, arXiv:0502112 [quant-ph]

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    S. C. Benjamin, J. Eisert, T. M. Stace, C. Qiong, F. Mang, D. Jiang-Feng, S. R. Clark, M. Alves, D. Jaksch, S. G. R. Louis, K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, E. T. Campbell, J. Fitzsimons, S. C. Benjamin, Y. Li, S. D. Barrett, and T. M. Stace, New J. Phys 8 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    N. H. Nickerson, J. F. Fitzsimons, and S. C. Benjamin, Physical Review X 4, 041041 (2014), arXiv:1406.0880

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    H. Choi, M. Pant, S. Guha, and D. Englund, npj Quan- tum Information 5, 1 (2019), arXiv:1704.07292

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C. T. Nguyen, D. D. Sukachev, M. K. Bhaskar, B. Machielse, D. S. Levonian, E. N. Knall, P. Stroganov, R. Riedinger, H. Park, M. Lonˇ car, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review Letters 123, 183602 (2019), arXiv:1907.13199

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    X. Guo, A. M. Stramma, Z. Li, W. G. Roth, B. Huang, Y. Jin, R. A. Parker, J. Arjona Mart´ ınez, N. Shofer, C. P. Michaels, C. P. Purser, M. H. Appel, E. M. Alexeev, T. Liu, A. C. Ferrari, D. D. Awschalom, N. Delegan, B. Pingault, G. Galli, F. J. Heremans, M. Atat¨ ure, and A. ...

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    H. K. C. Beukers, C. Waas, M. Pasini, H. B. van Om- men, N. Codreanu, J. M. Brevoord, T. Turan, M. Iu- liano, Z. Ademi, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Arxiv (2024), arXiv:2409.08977

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    I. B. Harris, C. P. Michaels, K. C. Chen, R. A. Parker, M. Titze, J. Arjona Mart´ ınez, M. Sutula, I. R. Chris- ten, A. M. Stramma, W. Roth, C. M. Purser, M. H. Appel, C. Li, M. E. Trusheim, N. L. Palmer, M. L. Markham, E. S. Bielejec, M. Atat¨ ure, and D. En- glund, PRX Quant...

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. A. Parker, J. Arjona Mart´ ınez, K. C. Chen, A. M. Stramma, I. B. Harris, C. P. Michaels, M. E. Trusheim, M. Hayhurst Appel, C. M. Purser, W. G. Roth, D. En- glund, and M. Atat¨ ure, Nature Photonics , 1 (2023), arXiv:2305.18923

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. J. Starling, K. Shtyrkova, I. Christen, R. Murphy, L. Li, K. C. Chen, D. Kharas, X. Zhang, J. Cummings, W. J. Nowak, E. Bersin, R. J. Niffenegger, M. Sutula, D. Englund, S. Hamilton, and P. B. Dixon, Phys- ical Review Applied 19 (2023), 10.1103/PhysRevAp- plied.19.064028, a...

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. Hepp, T. M¨ uller, V. Waselowski, J. N. Becker, B. Pin- gault, H. Sternschulte, D. Steinm¨ uller-Nethl, A. Gali, J. R. Maze, M. Atat¨ ure, and C. Becher, Physical Re- view Letters 112, 036405 (2014), arXiv:1310.3106

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. E. Trusheim, B. Pingault, N. H. Wan, M. G¨ undoˇ gan, L. De Santis, R. Debroux, D. Gangloff, C. Purser, K. C. Chen, M. Walsh, J. J. Rose, J. N. Becker, B. Lienhard, E. Bersin, I. Paradeisanos, G. Wang, D. Lyzwa, A. R. Montblanch, G. Malladi, H. Bakhru, A. C. Ferrari, I. A. ...

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    E. I. Rosenthal, S. Biswas, G. Scuri, H. Lee, A. J. Stein, H. C. Kleidermacher, J. Grzesik, A. E. Rugar, S. Aghaeimeibodi, D. Riedel, M. Titze, E. S. Biele- jec, J. Choi, C. P. Anderson, and J. Vuckovic, Physi- cal Review X 14 (2024), 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.041008, arXiv:2403.13110

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Adambukulam, B

    C. Adambukulam, B. C. Johnson, A. Morello, and A. Laucht, Physical Review Letters 132 (2024), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.060603, arXiv:2309.04126

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    E. I. Rosenthal, C. P. Anderson, H. C. Kleidermacher, A. J. Stein, H. Lee, J. Grzesik, G. Scuri, A. E. Ru- gar, D. Riedel, S. Aghaeimeibodi, G. H. Ahn, K. Van Gasse, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, and J. Vuckovic, Pre-print13 (2023), 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.031022, arXiv:2306.13199

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Karapatzakis, J

    I. Karapatzakis, J. Resch, M. Schrodin, P. Fuchs, M. Kieschnick, J. Heupel, L. Kussi, C. S¨ urgers, C. Popov, J. Meijer, C. Becher, W. Wernsdorfer, and D. Hunger, Physical Review X 14 (2024), 10.1103/Phys- RevX.14.031036, arXiv:2403.00521

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    I. B. W. Harris and D. Englund, Physical Review B 109, 085414 (2024), arXiv:2310.02884

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. E. Rugar, S. Aghaeimeibodi, D. Riedel, C. Dory, H. Lu, P. J. McQuade, Z. X. Shen, N. A. Melosh, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Physical Review X11 (2021), 10.1103/Phys- RevX.11.031021, arXiv:2102.11852

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Kuruma, B

    K. Kuruma, B. Pingault, C. Chia, D. Renaud, P. Hoff- mann, S. Iwamoto, C. Ronning, and M. Lonˇ car, Applied Physics Letters 118, 230601 (2021), arXiv:2105.01715

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Herrmann, J

    Y. Herrmann, J. Fischer, J. M. Brevoord, C. Sauerzapf, L. G. C. Wienhoven, L. J. Feije, M. Pasini, M. Es- chen, M. Ruf, M. J. Weaver, and R. Hanson, Physi- cal Review X 14 (2023), 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.041013, arXiv:2311.08456

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    K. C. Chen, I. Christen, H. Raniwala, M. Colangelo, L. De Santis, K. Shtyrkova, D. Starling, R. Murphy, L. Li, K. Berggren, P. B. Dixon, M. Trusheim, and D. Englund, Optica Quantum 2, 124 (2024), arXiv:2402.18057

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    C. E. Bradley, J. Randall, M. H. Abobeih, R. C. Berrevoets, M. J. Degen, M. A. Bakker, M. Markham, 10 D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, Physical Review X 9, 031045 (2019), arXiv:1905.02094

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. E. Trusheim, N. H. Wan, K. C. Chen, C. J. Cic- carino, J. Flick, R. Sundararaman, G. Malladi, E. Bersin, M. Walsh, B. Lienhard, H. Bakhru, P. Narang, and D. Englund, Physical Review B 99, 075430 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    P. Wang, T. Taniguchi, Y. Miyamoto, M. Hatano, and T. Iwasaki, ACS Photonics 8, 2947 (2021), arXiv:2106.03413

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Thiering and A

    G. Thiering and A. Gali, Physical Review Research 3 (2021), 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043052

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    I. M. Morris, T. L¨ uhmann, K. Klink, L. Crooks, D. Hardeman, D. J. Twitchen, S. Pezzagna, J. Mei- jer, S. S. Nicley, and J. N. Becker, arxiv (2024), arXiv:2411.07196

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. M. Kindem, A. Ruskuc, J. G. Bartholomew, J. Rochman, Y. Q. Huan, and A. Faraon, Nature 580, 201 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Wolfowicz, C

    G. Wolfowicz, C. P. Anderson, B. Diler, O. G. Poluek- tov, F. Joseph Heremans, and D. D. Awschalom, Science Advances 6 (2020), 10.1126/sciadv.aaz1192, arXiv:1908.09817

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. H. Abobeih, Y. Wang, J. Randall, S. J. Loenen, C. E. Bradley, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, B. M. Terhal, and T. H. Taminiau, Nature 606, 884 (2022), arXiv:2108.01646

    2022 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Debroux, C

    R. Debroux, C. P. Michaels, C. M. Purser, N. Wan, M. E. Trusheim, J. Arjona Mart´ ınez, R. A. Parker, A. M. Stramma, K. C. Chen, L. De Santis, E. M. Alexeev, A. C. Ferrari, D. Englund, D. A. Gangloff, and M. Atat¨ ure, Physical Review X 11, 041041 (2021), arXiv:2106.00723

    2021 arXiv

  45. [54]

    G. G. Thiering and A. Gali, Physical Review X 8, 21063 (2018)

    2018

  46. [55]

    M. L. Munzarov´ a, inCalculation of NMR and EPR Pa- rameters (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2004) pp. 461–482

    2004

  47. [56]

    K. D. Jahnke, A. Sipahigil, J. M. Binder, M. W. Do- herty, M. Metsch, L. J. Rogers, N. B. Manson, M. D. Lukin, and F. Jelezko, New Journal of Physics 17, 043011 (2015), arXiv:1411.2871. 11 Appendix A: Optical Insensitivity In color centers, the broker qubit is normally the ele...

    2015 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Hamiltonian As outlined in [22], the level structure of the 117SnV– is described through the interplay of the orbital, electron spin, and nuclear spin degrees of freedom. In the absence of magnetic field, the system’s Hamiltonian is written ˆH = ˆHSOC + ˆHEgx + ˆHEgy + ˆHHF + ...

  49. [58]

    We can gain insight into the level structure using the fact thatA⊥/∥,υ≪ ∆, where ∆ is the spin-orbit-strain splitting ∆ = q λ2 +α2 Egx +α2 Egy

    Energy Levels The full eigenenergies of equation B1 are difficult to work with analytically. We can gain insight into the level structure using the fact thatA⊥/∥,υ≪ ∆, where ∆ is the spin-orbit-strain splitting ∆ = q λ2 +α2 Egx +α2 Egy. This allows us to expand to first order ...

  50. [59]

    Magnetic Field The addition of a non-zero magnetic field breaks the degeneracy of the J = 1 levels, and causes hybridization of the two mJ = 0 levels. This is modeled by adding to the Hamiltonian in equation B1 terms for Zeeman coupling of the electron spin, nuclear spin, and ...

  51. [111]

    nuclear-like

    z x y Ground State Excited State −400 −200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Laser Detuning (MHz) f0 f1f2 (a) (b) (c) (f) (d) FIG. 1. (a) While 29SiV− requires a magnetic field to optically resolve transitions, (b) the optical hyperfine splitting Aopt of 117SnV– is much larger than the o...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.