High-resolution, Wide-frequency-range Magnetic Spectroscopy with Solid-state Spin Ensembles

Connor A. Hart; Justin J. Welter; Paul V. Petruzzi; Ronald L. Walsworth; Zechuan Yin

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

High-resolution, Wide-frequency-range Magnetic Spectroscopy with Solid-state Spin Ensembles

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The paper demonstrates that combining quantum frequency mixing with coherently averaged synchronized readout lets NV-diamond spin ensembles perform narrowband magnetic spectroscopy across 10 MHz to 4 GHz with sub-Hz resolution…

desk verdict A genuinely useful integration of QFM with CASR, with a clean 1 Hz two-tone demo at 2.4 GHz and a 0.4° phase measurement; the abstract overclaims sub-Hz resolution across the full range and the sensitivity calibration leans on Eq. (3) without independent validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02040 v2 pith:BWSMRTBO submitted 2024-12-02 quant-ph

Zechuan Yin , Justin J. Welter , Connor A. Hart , Paul V. Petruzzi , Ronald L. Walsworth This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords nitrogen-vacancycentersquantumfrequencymixingcoherentlyaveragedsynchronizedreadoutACmagnetometrysub-HzspectralresolutionphasemeasurementRF/microwavesensingdynamicaldecoupling

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 frequency mixing makes a nitrogen-vacancy (NV) spin ensemble in diamond act as a nonlinear mixer: a target radio-frequency signal at any frequency, together with a strong AC bias field detuned by about 1 MHz, produces an effective magnetic signal at the difference frequency, which lands in the optimal detection band of dynamical-decoupling magnetometry. The paper reports that combining this mixing with coherently averaged synchronized readout (CASR) yields a spectroscopy protocol that works from 10 MHz to 4 GHz, far beyond the typical sub-20 MHz reach of standard NV dynamical-decoupling sequences. It demonstrates sub-Hz spectral resolution, resolving tones 1 Hz apart near 0.6, 2.4, and 4 GHz, with a noise floor of about 6 nT for a 2.4 GHz target signal (120 pT for the effective signal) and phase measurement with a 0.4-degree error. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that NV ensembles can serve as wide-range, high-resolution RF and microwave spectrometers, with applications in signal analysis and tesla-scale NMR of small samples.

What carries the argument

Quantum frequency mixing (QFM) in the NV spin ensemble: two off-resonant transverse oscillating fields produce an effective Hamiltonian with sum and difference frequencies in a multi-mode Floquet picture, and the relevant effective amplitude is $\Omega_e = \frac{\Omega_s \Omega_b}{2} \left( \frac{\omega_0}{\omega_s^2 - \omega_0^2} + \frac{\omega_0}{\omega_b^2 - \omega_0^2} \right)$. The readout side is coherently averaged synchronized readout (CASR): repeated, synchronized XY8-k blocks sample the photoluminescence at rate $\omega_{SR}$, aliasing the effective signal to an alias frequency $\omega_a$, after which an FFT yields sub-Hz resolution. QFM does the frequency down-conversion that puts arbitrary-frequency signals into the range where CASR is most sensitive.

What would settle it

Measure the amplitude of a single tone with a known, independently calibrated power at, for example, 4 GHz using QFM-CASR, where the coil calibration does not rely on Eq. (3), and compare the inferred target amplitude to the known applied value; a systematic deviation that grows with frequency would indicate the effective-amplitude formula fails at the high-frequency end.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a dense NV ensemble can act as a quantum frequency mixer: a target signal at frequency $\omega_s$ and a strong AC bias field at $\omega_b$, both transverse to the NV axis, generate an effective signal at the difference frequency $\omega_e = \omega_s - \omega_b$, with amplitude $\Omega_e$ given by Eq. (3). Feeding this effective signal into a CASR sequence built from XY8-6 dynamical decoupling brings it into the roughly 1 MHz sweet spot of narrowband NV sensing, so the target signal's frequency, amplitude, and phase are recovered with sub-Hz spectral resolution. The authors measure the sensitivity of this QFM-CASR protocol across 10 MHz to 4 GHz, resolve two tones separated by 1 Hz near 0.6, 2.4, and 4 GHz, and measure the phase of a 2.4 GHz signal with a Gaussian error distribution of standard deviation 0.4 degrees. The claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that this combination greatly extends the detectable frequency range of NV-diamond narrowband magnetic spectroscopy while retaining high spectral resolution and phase sensitivity.

Load-bearing premise

The reported target-signal sensitivities are computed from the measured effective-signal sensitivity using Eq. (3), so the agreement between experiment and the predicted curves in Fig. 2 does not independently test the mixing model; if Eq. (3) overestimates the effective amplitude at high frequencies, the nanotesla-scale sensitivity claims would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Near 2.4 GHz the protocol resolves two signal tones separated by 1 Hz, with an effective-signal noise floor of about 120 pT and a target-signal noise floor of about 6 nT.
The target-signal sensitivity follows the predicted curve $\eta_s = \eta_0 \Omega_s / \Omega_e$: roughly flat at 55 to 80 nT/Hz$^{1/2}$ for frequencies far below the NV resonances, improving as the signal approaches resonance, and degrading above resonance.
Phase measurement at 2.4 GHz yields a Gaussian phase-error distribution with standard deviation 0.4 degrees, enabling coherent detection of arbitrary-frequency signals across the full 360-degree range.
The protocol can be combined with a quantum diamond microscope to enable wide-field dynamic imaging of arbitrary-frequency vector magnetic fields with micron-scale spatial resolution, sub-Hz spectral resolution, and sub-millisecond temporal resolution.
It fills the frequency gap between conventional dynamical decoupling (below about 20 MHz) and Rabi or heterodyne methods (near the NV zero-field splitting), and for roughly 20 MHz to 2 GHz and above 4 GHz it is currently the only NV technique offering high spectral resolution.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the paper's 4 GHz ceiling is set by amplifier bandwidth and the far-detuning condition rather than by the mixing mechanism itself, the same protocol should extend to higher frequencies with higher-bandwidth amplifiers and appropriately tuned bias fields.
Since the effective-signal phase is the difference of the signal and bias phases, QFM-CASR could serve as a wideband coherent phase reference, potentially synchronizing distributed quantum sensors or performing RF interferometry with sub-degree accuracy at gigahertz frequencies.
The mixing mechanism is not specific to NV centers: any solid-state spin with a two-level subspace and spin-dependent readout could in principle implement QFM-CASR, which would broaden the technique to other color centers or spin defects.
A circularly polarized AC bias field, which the paper notes can roughly double the effective signal strength at high frequencies, should measurably improve sensitivity above the NV resonances; this is a direct testable extension of the reported results.

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

Colleague,

Quick take: this is a solid experimental paper that actually delivers something new—marrying quantum frequency mixing (QFM) to CASR so NV ensembles can do narrowband, sub-Hz-resolution spectroscopy up to 4 GHz, well beyond the ~20 MHz ceiling of ordinary dynamical-decoupling readout. The headline demonstrations hold up: at 2.4 GHz they clearly resolve two tones separated by 1 Hz, the 1 Hz beat is visible in the time trace, and the phase measurement has a 0.4° standard deviation. Those are direct, reproducible-looking results. The sensitivity characterization across 10 MHz to 4 GHz is also useful, and the authors are careful to compensate amplifier frequency response and to discuss honestly where the protocol is worse than existing methods.

The soft spots are real but not crippling. The abstract says 'sub-Hz spectral resolution' as if it were demonstrated across the full range. In the main text, sub-Hz resolution is actually shown only at 2.4 GHz; at 0.6 GHz the two tones are 2 kHz apart, and at 4 GHz there appears to be a single tone. That's an overclaim, easily fixed by rephrasing or by moving supplement data into the main text.

The more substantive issue is the sensitivity calibration. The target-signal sensitivity ηs is computed from the measured effective-signal sensitivity ηe using Eq. (3), and the same Eq. (3) generates the predicted curves in Fig. 2. So the agreement between the measured points and the curves does not independently test Eq. (3); it mainly shows that ηe is close to the XY8-6 baseline. The nT-scale noise floor (σs ≈ 6 nT) is therefore derived, not directly measured. The RWA conditions quoted in the paper are well satisfied for the stated parameters, so I'd expect Eq. (3) to be fine, but an independent calibration—say a pickup coil or a known reference field—would remove the last doubt. This is a moderate weakness, not a fatal one.

Bottom line: this is a genuinely useful protocol paper for the NV-sensing community, and it deserves a serious peer review. The referee should ask for clearer wording on the frequency range of the sub-Hz demonstration and either an independent check of Eq. (3) or softened sensitivity claims. I'd bring it to the reading group and would cite it in my own work.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a quantum frequency mixing (QFM) protocol combined with coherently averaged synchronized readout (CASR) for NV-diamond magnetic spectroscopy. A target RF signal at frequency ω_s is mixed with a strong AC bias field at ω_b to produce an effective signal at the difference frequency ω_s − ω_b, which is sensed by an XY8-6 CASR sequence. The authors characterize the AC sensitivity from 10 MHz to 4 GHz, demonstrate multi-tone spectroscopy with 1 Hz tone separation at 2.4 GHz (and two-tone spectra at 0.6 and 4 GHz with larger separations), and demonstrate phase measurement at 2.4 GHz with a standard deviation of 0.4°. They compare measured sensitivities with theory based on an effective-amplitude expression and report good agreement.

Significance. The protocol is a significant advance if the results hold: it extends NV narrowband spectroscopy from the usual <20 MHz range to 10 MHz–4 GHz, with sub-Hz spectral resolution demonstrated at 2.4 GHz and precise phase measurement (0.4°) also at 2.4 GHz. The 1 Hz beat note and resolved 1 Hz-separated tones are direct and well described. The effective-signal sensitivity at 1 MHz is calibrated using a standard method, and the frequency coverage of the sensitivity data is broad. The work will be of interest to the quantum sensing and RF/microwave spectroscopy communities. The main weaknesses are the lack of an independent validation of the target-signal conversion and the overstatement of sub-Hz/noise-floor performance at frequencies other than 2.4 GHz.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Sec. II C, Fig. 3] The claim of 'sub-Hz spectral resolution with a nT-scale noise floor for the target signal' across 0.6, 2.4, and 4 GHz is not fully supported by the data. The sub-Hz (1 Hz-separated) tones are resolved only at 2.4 GHz (Fig. 3(d)); the 0.6 GHz data (Fig. 3(c), left) shows two tones separated by 2 kHz, and the 4 GHz data (Fig. 3(c), right) is a single tone. The nT-scale noise floor is also shown only for 2.4 GHz (Fig. 3(d), top). Please either provide the corresponding sub-Hz and noise-floor data at the other frequencies or qualify the claims to the demonstrated cases.
[Sec. IV C and Fig. 2] The target-signal sensitivity ηs is derived from the measured effective-signal sensitivity ηe using Eq. (3), which is the same equation used to generate the predicted curves. Thus the agreement in Fig. 2 between the measured points and the theory curves does not independently validate Eq. (3) or the reported ηs values. The σs ≈ 6 nT noise floor in Fig. 3(d) is likewise a converted quantity. We recommend an independent calibration, for example by applying a known target field at a few frequencies (measured with a calibrated pickup coil) and confirming the inferred amplitude, or by directly measuring the effective Rabi amplitude Ω_e via the XY8-6 response.
[Sec. IV C and Sec. V of the Supplemental Material] The AC bias amplitude Ω_b is calibrated via Rabi nutation only at ω_-1 = 2.29 GHz, and constant input power to the RF coil is used to maintain Ω_b across frequency. The RF coil transfer function (magnetic field per unit input power) is not measured over the 10 MHz–4 GHz range, so the constancy of Ω_b is an assumption. Since Ω_b enters Eq. (3) linearly in Ω_e, any frequency dependence of the coil would directly scale the reported ηs values and the inferred target amplitudes. Please either characterize the coil response across the range or add a systematic uncertainty for this effect.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. II C] The sentence 'We preform a series of 10^5 QFM-CASR measurements' contains a typo: 'preform' should be 'perform'.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption introduces 'sub-Hz spectral resolution' for all panels in Fig. 3(c), but the left panel shows a 2 kHz tone separation and the right panel a single tone; the caption should clarify that sub-Hz resolution is specifically demonstrated at 2.4 GHz.
[Sec. II D and Discussion] The phase measurement is demonstrated only at 2.4 GHz in the main text; the Discussion states that 'similar demonstrations are made near 600 MHz and 4 GHz,' but these data are not shown in the main text. Please cite the relevant Supplemental section explicitly or remove the claim from the Discussion.
[Fig. 2 legend] The legend entry 'QFM-CASR Demo.' is ambiguous; specify that these are the target frequencies used for the multi-tone demonstration in Fig. 3 and note that sub-Hz resolution is only shown for the 2.4 GHz point.
[Abstract] The phrase 'nT-scale noise floor for the target signal' is stated without frequency qualification; as noted in Major Comment 1, the noise floor is only reported for 2.4 GHz. Please rephrase to avoid implying that nT-scale noise floors were measured at all three frequencies.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Target-signal sensitivity values are converted through Eq. (3), the same formula that generates the Fig. 2 prediction curves; agreement is therefore partly built in.

self definitional [Sec. II B (Sensitivity assessment) and Methods IV C (Sensitivity Measurement), Eq. (3)]
"Based on Eq. (3), we estimate the expected QFM-CASR sensitivity for a target signal at frequency ωs as ηs = η0Ωs/Ωe ... as shown by the solid lines in Fig. 2. ... At each target signal frequency, we measure the 1-second standard deviation of the NV PL, calibrate the AC magnetometry slope for the effective signal to yield ηe, and then determine ηs using Eq. (3)."

The theoretical curve is built from η0, the measured 1 MHz effective-signal sensitivity, and Ωe computed from Eq. (3). The 'experimental' points are built from ηe, also an effective-signal sensitivity near 1 MHz, and the same Ωe computed from Eq. (3). Hence ηs,measured = ηs,predicted × (ηe/η0), so the agreement in Fig. 2 chiefly demonstrates that the effective-signal sensitivity is stable under the bias field; it does not independently test Eq. (3)'s frequency conversion. The quoted target noise floor σs ≈ 6 nT is likewise σe ≈ 120 pT rescaled by the same Ωs/Ωe factor, making the nT-scale claim a model-dependent conversion rather than a directly measured target-field sensitivity.

full rationale

The circularity is localized and partial. The sub-Hz spectral resolution, 1-Hz beating, wide-frequency effective-signal spectra, and phase measurement in Figs. 3 and 4 are direct time-domain and Fourier observations whose validity does not depend on Eq. (3). Some independent support for the frequency dependence of Ωe is present in the raw effective-signal amplitude comparison in Fig. 3(c). Eq. (3) is derived from a rotating-frame Floquet treatment and traces to external prior work [24], not to a self-citation chain. The load-bearing circular step is the use of Eq. (3) both to predict and to convert the measured target sensitivity, which weakens the claim of experimental confirmation for the sensitivity curve but does not undo the protocol demonstrations. A score of 4 reflects partial circularity in one central quantitative claim while the core spectroscopy results remain independently supported.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on measured calibration values (eta_0, Omega_b) and on the effective Hamiltonian model Eq. (3) inherited from prior QFM theory. No new physical entities are introduced. The model's far-detuning assumption is the main unverified premise.

free parameters (3)

AC bias field detuning (effective signal frequency) = 1 MHz
Chosen by the experimenters to center the effective signal at the optimal frequency for the XY8-6 sequence; kept constant throughout. It is a hand-set operating point, not fitted to the result.
XY8-6 sensitivity at 1 MHz (eta_0) = 102(1) pT/Hz^0.5
Measured calibration for the sensing sequence; used as an anchor for all QFM-CASR sensitivity estimates. It is a measured input rather than a fitted free parameter.
AC bias field amplitude (Omega_b) = (2pi)4.3 MHz, B_b = 153.4 uT
Measured via Rabi nutation and held constant by adjusting amplifier power across frequency. A calibration input for Eq. (3); not fitted to target data.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The NV spin is approximated as a two-level system (|0> and |-1> or |+1>) with a spin-1 triplet ground state; the other sublevel is ignored.
Used in Eq. (1) and throughout; valid when field geometry and detuning suppress the other transition.
domain assumption The rotating-wave / far-detuning approximation is valid: Omega_s,b and |omega_s - omega_b| are much smaller than |omega_s,b +/- omega_0|, allowing fast oscillations to be dropped in the rotating frame.
In Sec. II A before Eq. (2). This is the mathematical basis for the effective signal amplitude Eq. (3).
domain assumption The effective signal amplitude is small compared with the effective frequency, so the first-order Bessel expansion gives a linear relation between QFM-CASR peak amplitude and the effective amplitude.
Stated in Sec. II A and used for calibration.
domain assumption Noise and spin dynamics of the dense ensemble are captured by the measured XY8-6 sensitivity; inhomogeneous broadening and NV interactions do not introduce frequency-dependent corrections beyond Eq. (3).
The model treats the ensemble as noninteracting; T2(XY8-6) = 50 us is used to justify the sensing sequence.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-resolution, Wide-frequency-range Magnetic Spectroscopy with Solid-state Spin Ensembles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BWSMRTBO

@misc{pith2026241202040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-resolution, Wide-frequency-range Magnetic Spectroscopy with Solid-state Spin Ensembles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BWSMRTBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02040}
}

abstract

Quantum systems composed of solid-state electronic spins can be sensitive detectors of narrowband magnetic fields. A prominent example is the nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center in diamond, which has been employed for magnetic spectroscopy with high spatial and spectral resolution. However, NV-diamond spectroscopy protocols are typically based on dynamical decoupling sequences, which are limited to low-frequency signals ($\lesssim{20}\,$MHz) due to the technical requirements on microwave (MW) pulses used to manipulate NV electronic spins. In this work, we experimentally demonstrate a high-resolution magnetic spectroscopy protocol that integrates a quantum frequency mixing (QFM) effect in a dense NV ensemble with coherently averaged synchronized readout (CASR) to provide both a wide range of signal frequency detection and sub-Hz spectral resolution. We assess the sensitivity of this QFM-CASR protocol across a frequency range of 10$\,$MHz to 4$\,$GHz. By measuring the spectra of multi-frequency signals near 0.6, 2.4 and 4$\,$GHz, we demonstrate sub-Hz spectral resolution with a nT-scale noise floor for the target signal, and precise phase measurement with error $<1^\circ$. Compared to state-of-the-art NV-diamond techniques for narrowband magnetic spectroscopy, the QFM-CASR protocol greatly extends the detectable frequency range, enabling applications in high-frequency radio frequency (RF) and MW signal microscopy and analysis, as well as tesla-scale nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy of small samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02040 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Sensitivity assessment of QFM-CASR narrowband magn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Demonstration of QFM-CASR protocol performing magn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Precise phase measurement using QFM-CASR. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Prospects for Ultralow-Mass Nuclear Magnetic Resonance using Spin Defects in Hexagonal Boron Nitride
quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A modeling study projects that boron vacancy defects in hexagonal boron nitride could outperform diamond NV centers for ultralow-mass NMR at the nanoscale due to smaller standoff distances.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Barzanjeh, S

S. Barzanjeh, S. Pirandola, D. Vitali, and J. M. Fink, Microwave quantum illumination using a digital receiver, Science Advances 6, eabb0451 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

Fig. 3(d) provides a zoomed-in view of the eﬀective signal peak near 2.4 GHz, with the two tar- get signal frequency components, ω a1 = (2π )3125 Hz and ω a2 = (2π )3126 Hz, clearly resolved with sub-Hz spectral resolution. The top plot of Fig. 3(d) highlights the noise ﬂoor of the QFM-CASR spectra, with an eﬀective signal measurement standard deviation o...

work page
[3]

Chen, E.-H

X.-D. Chen, E.-H. Wang, L.-K. Shan, S.-C. Zhang, C. Feng, Y. Zheng, Y. Dong, G.-C. Guo, and F.-W. Sun, Quantum enhanced radio detection and ranging with solid spins, Nature Communications 14, 1288 (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

Kimball, D

J. Kimball, D. F., Budker, Dmitry, Chupp, T. E., Geraci, A. A., Kolkowitz, Shimon, Singh, J. T., and A. O. Sushkov, Probing fundamental physics with spin-based quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. A 108, 010101 (2023)

work page 2023
[5]

Thornton, B

D. Thornton, B. Stappers, M. Bailes, B. Barsdell, S. Bates, N. D. R. Bhat, M. Burgay, S. Burke-Spolaor, D. J. Champion, P. Coster, N. D’Amico, A. Jameson, S. Johnston, M. Keith, M. Kramer, L. Levin, S. Milia, C. Ng, A. Possenti, and W. van Straten, A popu- lation of fast radio bursts at cosmological distances, Science 341, 53 (2013)

work page 2013
[6]

H. J. Mamin, M. Kim, M. H. Sherwood, C. T. Rettner, K. Ohno, D. D. Awschalom, and D. Rugar, Nanoscale nuclear magnetic resonance with a nitrogen-vacancy spin sensor, Science 339, 557 (2013)

work page 2013
[7]

Staudacher, F

T. Staudacher, F. Shi, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, J. Du, C. A. Meriles, F. Reinhard, and J. Wrachtrup, Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy on a (5-nanometer) 3 sample volume, Science 339, 561 (2013)

work page 2013
[8]

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

2008

Show all 31 references

[9]

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

2020
[10]

Aslam, H

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

2023
[11]

D. R. Glenn, D. B. Bucher, J. Lee, M. D. Lukin, H. Park, and R. L. Walsworth, High-resolution magnetic resonance spectroscopy using a solid-state spin sensor, Nature 555, 351 (2018)

2018
[12]

Schmitt, T

S. Schmitt, T. Gefen, F. M. St¨ urner, T. Unden, G. Wolﬀ, C. M¨ uller, J. Scheuer, B. Naydenov, M. Markham, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, I. Schwarz, M. Plenio, A. Ret- zker, L. P. McGuinness, and F. Jelezko, Submillihertz magnetic spectroscopy performed with a nanoscale quan- tum s...

2017
[13]

J. M. Boss, K. S. Cujia, J. Zopes, and C. L. Degen, Quantum sensing with arbitrary frequency resolution, Science 356, 837 (2017)

2017
[14]

D. B. Bucher, D. R. Glenn, H. Park, M. D. Lukin, and R. L. Walsworth, Hyperpolarization-enhanced nmr spec- troscopy with femtomole sensitivity using quantum de- fects in diamond, Physical Review X 10, 021053 (2020)

2020
[15]

Arunkumar, D

N. Arunkumar, D. B. Bucher, M. J. Turner, P. Tomhon, D. Glenn, S. Lehmkuhl, M. D. Lukin, H. Park, M. S. Rosen, T. Theis, and R. L. Walsworth, Micron-scale nv- nmr spectroscopy with signal ampliﬁcation by reversible exchange, PRX Quantum 2, 010305 (2021)

2021
[16]

E. L. Hahn, Spin echoes, Phys. Rev. 80, 580 (1950)

1950
[17]

Viola, E

L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, Dynam- ical decoupling of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417 (1999)

1999
[18]

Arunkumar, K

N. Arunkumar, K. S. Olsson, J. T. Oon, C. A. Hart, D. B. Bucher, D. R. Glenn, M. D. Lukin, H. Park, D. Ham, and R. L. Walsworth, Quantum logic enhanced sensing in solid-state spin ensembles, Physical Review Letters 131, 100801 (2023)

2023
[19]

H. Zhou, J. Choi, S. Choi, R. Landig, A. M. Douglas, J. Isoya, F. Jelezko, S. Onoda, H. Sumiya, P. Cappel- laro, H. S. Knowles, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Quan- tum metrology with strongly interacting spin systems, Physical Review X 10, 031003 (2020)

2020
[20]

Z. Yin, J. Tang, C. A. Hart, J. W. Blanchard, X. Xiang, S. Satyajit, S. Bhalerao, T. Tao, S. J. DeVience, and R. L. Walsworth, Quantum diamond microscope for nar- rowband magnetic imaging with high spatial and spectral resolution, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 054050 (2024)

2024
[21]

Wang, Y.-X

G. Wang, Y.-X. Liu, Y. Zhu, and P. Cappel- laro, Nanoscale vector ac magnetometry with a single nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond, Nano Letters 21, 5143 (2021) , pMID: 34086471

2021
[22]

J. C. Hermann, R. Rizzato, F. Bruckmaier, R. D. Allert, A. Blank, and D. B. Bucher, Ex- tending radiowave frequency detection range with dressed states of solid-state spin ensembles, npj Quantum Information 10, 103 (2024)

2024
[23]

Z. Wang, F. Kong, P. Zhao, Z. Huang, P. Yu, Y. Wang, F. Shi, and J. Du, Picotesla magnetometry of microwave ﬁelds with diamond sensors, Sci. Adv 8, 8158 (2022)

2022
[24]

S. T. Alsid, J. M. Schloss, M. H. Steinecker, J. F. Barry, A. C. Maccabe, G. Wang, P. Cappellaro, and D. A. Braje, Solid-state microwave magnetometer with picotesla-level sensitivity, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 054095 (2023)

2023
[25]

G. Wang, Y. X. Liu, J. M. Schloss, S. T. Al- sid, D. A. Braje, and P. Cappellaro, Sensing of arbitrary-frequency ﬁelds using a quantum mixer, Physical Review X 12, 021061 (2022)

2022
[26]

S. J. Karlson, P. Kehayias, J. M. Schloss, A. C. Mac- cabe, D. F. Phillips, G. Wang, P. Cappellaro, and D. A. Braje, Quantum frequency mixing using an nv diamond microscope, arXiv , 2407.07025 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[27]

Maas, Microwave Mixers , Artech House microwave li- brary (Artech House, 1993)

S. Maas, Microwave Mixers , Artech House microwave li- brary (Artech House, 1993)

1993
[28]

C. P. Slichter, Principles of magnetic resonance , Vol. 1 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

2013
[29]

E. V. Levine, M. J. Turner, P. Kehayias, C. A. Hart, N. Langellier, R. Trubko, D. R. Glenn, R. R. Fu, and R. L. Walsworth, Principles and techniques of the quantum diamond microscope, 9 Nanophotonics 8, 1945 (2019)

2019
[30]

Meinel, V

J. Meinel, V. Vorobyov, B. Yavkin, D. Dasari, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, and J. Wrachtrup, Het- erodyne sensing of microwaves with a quantum sensor, Nature Communications 12, 2737 (2021)

2021
[31]

J. Tang, Z. Yin, C. A. Hart, J. W. Blanchard, J. T. Oon, S. Bhalerao, J. M. Schloss, M. J. Turner, and R. L. Walsworth, Quantum diamond microscope for dynamic imaging of magnetic ﬁelds, A VS Quantum Science 5, 044403 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Barzanjeh, S

S. Barzanjeh, S. Pirandola, D. Vitali, and J. M. Fink, Microwave quantum illumination using a digital receiver, Science Advances 6, eabb0451 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Fig. 3(d) provides a zoomed-in view of the eﬀective signal peak near 2.4 GHz, with the two tar- get signal frequency components, ω a1 = (2π )3125 Hz and ω a2 = (2π )3126 Hz, clearly resolved with sub-Hz spectral resolution. The top plot of Fig. 3(d) highlights the noise ﬂoor of the QFM-CASR spectra, with an eﬀective signal measurement standard deviation o...

work page

[3] [3]

Chen, E.-H

X.-D. Chen, E.-H. Wang, L.-K. Shan, S.-C. Zhang, C. Feng, Y. Zheng, Y. Dong, G.-C. Guo, and F.-W. Sun, Quantum enhanced radio detection and ranging with solid spins, Nature Communications 14, 1288 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Kimball, D

J. Kimball, D. F., Budker, Dmitry, Chupp, T. E., Geraci, A. A., Kolkowitz, Shimon, Singh, J. T., and A. O. Sushkov, Probing fundamental physics with spin-based quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. A 108, 010101 (2023)

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Thornton, B

D. Thornton, B. Stappers, M. Bailes, B. Barsdell, S. Bates, N. D. R. Bhat, M. Burgay, S. Burke-Spolaor, D. J. Champion, P. Coster, N. D’Amico, A. Jameson, S. Johnston, M. Keith, M. Kramer, L. Levin, S. Milia, C. Ng, A. Possenti, and W. van Straten, A popu- lation of fast radio bursts at cosmological distances, Science 341, 53 (2013)

work page 2013

[6] [6]

H. J. Mamin, M. Kim, M. H. Sherwood, C. T. Rettner, K. Ohno, D. D. Awschalom, and D. Rugar, Nanoscale nuclear magnetic resonance with a nitrogen-vacancy spin sensor, Science 339, 557 (2013)

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Staudacher, F

T. Staudacher, F. Shi, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, J. Du, C. A. Meriles, F. Reinhard, and J. Wrachtrup, Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy on a (5-nanometer) 3 sample volume, Science 339, 561 (2013)

work page 2013

[8] [8]

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

2008