Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Quantum sensing of electron beams using solid-state spins

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Nitrogen-vacancy centers can act as quantitative sensors of bunched electron beams, with spin relaxometry bounding the free-electron–spin coupling strength.

desk verdict First quantitative bound on free-electron–spin coupling from NV T1 relaxometry, with a respectable but not airtight consistency check. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13112 v3 pith:P72TZSNS submitted 2025-08-18 quant-ph physics.acc-phphysics.optics

Jakob M. Grzesik , Dominic Catanzaro , Charles Roques-Carmes , Eric I. Rosenthal , Guido L. van de Stolpe , Aviv Karnieli , Giovanni Scuri , Souvik Biswas
show 8 more authors
Kenneth J. Leedle Dylan S. Black Robert L. Byer Ido Kaminer R. Joel England Shanhui Fan Olav Solgaard Jelena Vučković
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.acc-phphysics.optics
keywords nitrogen-vacancycentersquantumsensingelectronbeamspinrelaxometryT1free-electron-qubitcouplingcathodoluminescencechargestateconversion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper seeks to establish that negatively charged nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond can act as quantitative sensors of a bunched free-electron beam, and that spin relaxometry—the measurement of the spins' energy relaxation time $T_1$—is a practical probe of the magnetic coupling between the beam and the spin. The authors derive a Lindblad master equation for the interaction and show that a resonantly modulated beam enhances the relaxation rate by a term set by the square of the modulated current and a dimensionless coupling that depends on the beam's impact parameter. They integrate a confocal fluorescence microscope into a 10 keV bunched electron beam line, map beam-induced conversion of NV$^-$ to NV$^0$, and observe no significant $T_1$ reduction for average currents up to about 3.5 $\mu$A. From that null result they place an upper bound on the free-electron–spin coupling strength that is consistent with currents measured on a Faraday cup. If this holds, NV centers become a metrological tool for electron microscopy, and the same architecture charts a route to coherent control of solid-state spins with free electrons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the beam-enhanced spin relaxation rate in Eq. (3), $\gamma_1^{\mathrm{beam}} \approx \gamma_1 + \frac{\pi I_{\mathrm{res}}^2 \phi_0^2}{e^2}\, V(0, \sqrt{2}\gamma_2^*, \gamma_2)$, together with the relation $\Omega_R = I_{\mathrm{res}}\phi_0 / e$ that defines the resonant spin drive. Here $\phi_0 = \alpha \lambda_C / (2\pi \rho_0)$ converts the resonantly modulated beam current into a spin Rabi frequency, and the Voigt profile $V$ evaluated with Gaussian width $\sqrt{2}\gamma_2^*$ and Lorentzian width $\gamma_2$ encodes how ensemble inhomogeneous broadening and homogeneous dephasing shape the resonant response. This identity ties a directly measurable quantity, the $T_1$ decay constant, to the figure of merit $I_{\mathrm{res}}/\rho_0$, and it is what converts a null relaxometry result into an upper bound on $\Omega_R$. The Lindblad master equation (Eq. 2) with the two-level Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) supplies the dynamical framework in which this rate appears.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the resonantly modulated current component $I_{\mathrm{res}}$ at the sample position—for instance with a fast current pick-up or an electro-optic sampler—would settle the matter: if $I_{\mathrm{res}}$ is close to $I_0$ but the predicted $T_1$ reduction is absent at currents above a few microamperes, Eq. (3) is wrong, while if $I_{\mathrm{res}}$ is far below $I_0$, the experiment's consistency argument collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the energy relaxation time $T_1$ of an NV$^-$ ensemble is a quantitative readout of the resonant coupling between a bunched electron beam and the spin. The key identity is the beam-enhanced relaxation rate, Eq. (3): $\gamma_1^{\mathrm{beam}} \approx \gamma_1 + \frac{\pi I_{\mathrm{res}}^2 \phi_0^2}{e^2}\, V(0, \sqrt{2}\gamma_2^*, \gamma_2)$, where $\phi_0 = \alpha \lambda_C / (2\pi \rho_0)$ is a dimensionless coupling built from the fine-structure constant, the Compton wavelength, and the impact parameter $\rho_0$, and $V$ is the Voigt profile that folds in inhomogeneous and homogeneous transverse dephasing. Measuring $T_1$ under beam exposure therefore bounds the resonant Rabi frequency $\Omega_R = I_{\mathrm{res}} \phi_0 / e$. In the experiment, no significant $T_1$ reduction is seen for currents up to roughly 3.5 $\mu$A, consistent with the model, and the resulting 95\% confidence upper bound on $\Omega_R$ agrees with the average current read on the Faraday cup. The paper further shows that beam-induced charge conversion from NV$^-$ to NV$^0$ degrades the ODMR readout contrast and identifies the operating window where quantum sensing remains viable.

Load-bearing premise

The bound relies on the assumption that the electron beam is nearly perfectly bunched at the spin transition frequency (about 2.87 GHz), so that the resonantly modulated current $I_{\mathrm{res}}$ is close to the measured average current $I_0$; if the actual bunching efficiency is materially lower, the $T_1$ null result yields a weaker upper bound and the claimed consistency with Faraday-cup currents becomes coincidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • NV ensembles could serve as in situ beam diagnostics inside electron microscopes, reporting on average current and bunching quality through the measured $T_1$.
  • Spin relaxometry relaxes the beam-current requirement compared with resonant Rabi driving by about two orders of magnitude, making it the near-term route to a first experimental signature of free-electron–spin coupling.
  • Beam-induced NV$^-$ to NV$^0$ conversion caps the usable average current near a few microamperes in this configuration, so future sensing runs must mitigate charge conversion to reach the strong-$T_1$-reduction regime.
  • An order-of-magnitude improvement in the inhomogeneous dephasing rate, or a tenfold increase in $I_{\mathrm{res}}/\rho_0$ via brighter guns, would bring close-to-unity relaxometry contrast at currents already demonstrated.
  • The same architecture, with higher-brightness field-emission sources and better spin coherence, could reach Rabi frequencies above 100 kHz and approach coherent control of solid-state spins by free electrons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Sweeping the bunching-cavity frequency through the spin resonance and recording $T_1$ at each point could produce a resonant dip, directly isolating the magnetic coupling from any non-resonant beam effects and sharpening the bound.
  • At higher average currents, the same relaxometry scheme should become sensitive to the beam's Poissonian shot-noise fluctuations, offering a way to characterize the beam's quantum statistics with a spin sensor.
  • Grazing-incidence beam geometries, already used in free-electron nanophotonics, could bypass the charge-conversion ceiling and let the relaxometry signal reach strong contrast without sacrificing readout.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theoretical and experimental framework for using NV- centers in diamond as quantum sensors of bunched free-electron beams. The authors derive a Lindblad master-equation description of the magnetic coupling between a modulated electron current and the NV spin, obtaining an expression (Eq. (3)) for the beam-enhanced longitudinal relaxation rate. They integrate a confocal NV readout setup into a GHz-bunched electron beam line, characterize the beam-induced NV charge-state conversion, and perform T1 relaxometry under beam exposure. Observing no significant T1 reduction up to ~3.5 µA average current, they use the null result to place an upper bound on the free-electron-spin coupling strength Ω_R = Ires φ0/e. The paper also provides a roadmap for reaching quantum control with improved electron sources and qubit coherence.

Significance. If the quantitative bound is robust, the paper would deliver the first metrological benchmark for free-electron–spin coupling under realistic conditions and demonstrate a new diagnostic modality for bunched electron beams. The platform itself—integrating NV magnetometry into an electron beam line with coincident cathodoluminescence and ODMR—is a significant experimental advance, and the charge-state conversion study defines practical operating windows. The theoretical framework (Eq. (3)) is plausible and the measured spin parameters (γ1, γ2, γ2*) are obtained independently, so the core null result is not circular. However, the headline quantitative upper bound on Ω_R is contingent on an unmeasured resonant current component at the sample, which tempers the significance until this is either directly measured or treated conservatively.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 'T1 relaxometry of electron beams', Eq. (3), Fig. 4d]
  2. [Fig. 4d and surrounding text]
  3. [Methods, 'T1 relaxometry experiments']
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction]
  2. [Section 'Quantum sensing in an electron beam line']
  3. [Fig. 5 caption]
  4. [General]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central T1 bound is inferred from independently measured spin parameters and a cavity-theory estimate of the resonant current component, with no prediction reducing to a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing inference is a null-result upper bound: Eq. (3) expresses the beam-enhanced relaxation rate as gamma1_beam ≈ gamma1 + (π Ires^2 φ0^2/e^2) V(0, sqrt(2) γ2*, γ2), and the measured absence of a T1 reduction is converted into an upper bound on Ω_R = Ires φ0/e. The spin parameters γ1 = 88(5) Hz, γ2 = 94(8) kHz, and γ2* = 12(2) MHz are extracted from independent ODMR, Hahn-echo, and relaxometry pulse sequences (Fig. 2e-f and SI Section S2), not from the electron-beam relaxometry data. The resonant current component Ires is estimated from cavity bunching theory in SI Section S2 (with a stated ~35% correction for transverse deflection), rather than fitted to make the T1 data match the model; the data show no significant T1 reduction, so the model is used to place a bound rather than to reproduce observed values. The consistency check against Faraday-cup currents compares the inferred bound with the independently measured average current I0, which is a post-hoc consistency statement, not an input to the fit. The self-citations present (Refs. [12] and [22], both by overlapping authors) are contextual references to the experimental platform and to free-electron–light interactions; neither is invoked as the mathematical justification for Eq. (3) or for the bound. The skeptic's concern that Ires at the NV sample is not directly measured and that the observed 2ω_I transverse modulation may reduce the resonant current below the cavity-theory estimate is a legitimate experimental-uncertainty and correctness-risk issue, but it is not circularity: the model output is not equivalent to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the paper's stated assumptions, and no circular step meeting the evidentiary standard can be quoted.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; the NV center, electron beam, and cavity are all pre-existing. The central claim depends on several measured or estimated parameters (spin rates, impact parameter, bunching factor) and on standard open-systems assumptions that are plausible but mostly unverified from the main text alone.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma1 = 88(5) Hz
    Longitudinal relaxation rate of the NV ensemble, measured by T1 decay in SI S2; input to Eq. (3) and used to predict beam-induced relaxometry contrast.
  • gamma2 = 94(8) kHz
    Transverse relaxation rate from Hahn echo; enters the Voigt profile in Eq. (3).
  • gamma2* = 12(2) MHz
    Inhomogeneous dephasing rate from ODMR linewidth; enters the Voigt profile in Eq. (3); its value strongly controls the predicted relaxometry sensitivity.
  • rho0 (impact parameter) = approximately 10 um
    Distance between beam and NV ensemble, taken from the focused beam spot size; defines phi0 and therefore the achievable coupling. Uncertain in a grazing-incidence geometry with a finite ensemble volume.
  • bunching factor Ires/I0 = approximately 1 (near-perfect bunching)
    The modulated current at the qubit transition is assumed close to the average current based on cavity design and CL double-peak imaging; not measured directly at the sample. This sets the scale of Omega_R and the interpretation of the upper bound.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spin is modeled as an effective two-level system with Markovian Lindblad dissipators (Eq. 2).
    Standard open-quantum-systems treatment ignoring non-Markovian effects and NV sublevels beyond the used two levels; necessary for the master-equation result.
  • domain assumption The electron beam's magnetic field is quasi-static at 2.87 GHz for impact parameters of about 10 um, so the line-current approximation holds.
    At GHz frequencies the free-space wavelength is about 10 cm, much larger than the beam-sample distance, justifying near-field magnetoquasistatics. The actual beam has finite transverse profile and possible deflections.
  • domain assumption Poissonian fluctuations delta I(t) of the beam current are negligible for the macroscopic currents used.
    Stated in the main text as found in SI S1; the beam is treated through its mean and resonant modulation current only. The non-resonant Zeeman-split control experiment supports this for the observed signals.
  • domain assumption The NV ensemble can be assigned a single impact parameter rho0 and a single set of decoherence rates.
    Used to evaluate phi0 and the Voigt profile; in reality the ensemble is distributed over the about 10 um beam spot and the rates are ensemble-averaged.
  • domain assumption Beam-induced charge conversion and permanent damage affect only readout contrast, not the intrinsic T1 relaxation of the NV centers that survive.
    The T1 reference measurements with beam off are used to normalize; if the beam alters the T1 of the probed centers or the collection efficiency changes with time in a way not captured by references, the bound could be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum sensing of electron beams using solid-state spins." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P72TZSNS

@misc{pith2026250813112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum sensing of electron beams using solid-state spins},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P72TZSNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13112}
}
abstract

Scattering experiments with energetic particles, such as free electrons, have been historically used to reveal the quantum structure of matter. However, realizing coherent interactions between free-electron beams and solid-state quantum systems has remained out of reach, owing to their intrinsically weak coupling. Realizing such coherent control would open up opportunities for hybrid quantum platforms combining free electrons and solid-state qubits for coincident quantum information processing and nanoscale sensing. Here, we present a framework that employs negatively charged nitrogen-vacancy centers (NV-) in diamond as quantum sensors of a bunched electron beam. We develop a Lindblad master equation description of the magnetic free-electron--qubit interactions and identify spin relaxometry as a sensitive probe of the interaction. Experimentally, we integrate a confocal fluorescence microscopy setup into a microwave-bunched electron beam line. We monitor charge-state dynamics and assess their impact on key sensing performance metrics (such as spin readout contrast), defining safe operating parameters for quantum sensing experiments. By performing $T_1$ relaxometry under controlled electron beam exposure, we establish an upper bound on the free-electron--spin coupling strength. Our results establish NV- centers as quantitative probes of free electrons, providing a metrological benchmark for free-electron--qubit coupling under realistic conditions, and chart a route toward solid-state quantum control with electron beams.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lxxix. the scattering of α and β particles by matter and the structure of the atom,

    E. Rutherford, “Lxxix. the scattering of α and β particles by matter and the structure of the atom,” The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science , vol. 21, no. 125, pp. 669–688, 1911

    work page 1911

  2. [2]

    The scattering of α-particles by matter,

    H. Geiger, “The scattering of α-particles by matter,” Proceed- ings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character , vol. 83, no. 565, pp. 492–504, 1910

    work page 1910

  3. [3]

    ¨Uber zusammenst ¨oße zwischen elek- tronen und den molek¨ulen des quecksilberdampfes und die ion- isierungsspannung desselben,

    J. Franck and G. Hertz, “ ¨Uber zusammenst ¨oße zwischen elek- tronen und den molek¨ulen des quecksilberdampfes und die ion- isierungsspannung desselben,” Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, vol. 16, pp. 457–467, 1914

    work page 1914

  4. [4]

    Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons,

    A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, “Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 1379–1418, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Quantum sens- ing,

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, “Quantum sens- ing,” Reviews of modern physics , vol. 89, no. 3, p. 035002, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Photonic quan- tum technologies,

    J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vu ˇckovi´c, “Photonic quan- tum technologies,” Nature photonics, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 687– 695, 2009

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Manipulating quantum entanglement with atoms and photons in a cavity,

    J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche, “Manipulating quantum entanglement with atoms and photons in a cavity,”Re- views of Modern Physics, vol. 73, no. 3, p. 565, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions,

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, “Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 75, no. 1, p. 281, 2003

    work page 2003

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Electron ptychography achieves atomic- resolution limits set by lattice vibrations,

    Z. Chen, Y . Jiang, Y .-T. Shao, M. E. Holtz, M. Odstr ˇcil, M. Guizar-Sicairos, I. Hanke, S. Ganschow, D. G. Schlom, and D. A. Muller, “Electron ptychography achieves atomic- resolution limits set by lattice vibrations,” Science, vol. 372, no. 6544, pp. 826–831, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Optical excitations in electron mi- croscopy,

    F. J. Garc ´ıa de Abajo, “Optical excitations in electron mi- croscopy,” Reviews of modern physics, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 209– 275, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    Roadmap for quantum nanophotonics with free elec- trons,

    F. de Abajo, A. Polman, C. I. Velasco, M. Kociak, L. H. Tizei, O. St ´ephan, S. Meuret, T. Sannomiya, K. Akiba, Y . Auad, et al. , “Roadmap for quantum nanophotonics with free elec- trons,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14678, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Free-electron–light interactions in nanophotonics,

    C. Roques-Carmes, S. E. Kooi, Y . Yang, N. Rivera, P. D. Keath- ley, J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, I. Kaminer, K. K. Berggren, and M. Soljaˇci´c, “Free-electron–light interactions in nanophotonics,” Applied Physics Reviews, vol. 10, no. 1, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Electron- beam spectroscopy for nanophotonics,

    A. Polman, M. Kociak, and F. J. Garc ´ıa de Abajo, “Electron- beam spectroscopy for nanophotonics,” Nature materials , vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 1158–1171, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    High- temporal-resolution electron microscopy for imaging ultrafast 9 electron dynamics,

    M. T. Hassan, J. Baskin, B. Liao, and A. Zewail, “High- temporal-resolution electron microscopy for imaging ultrafast 9 electron dynamics,” Nature Photonics, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 425– 430, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Spatiotemporal imaging of 2D polariton wave packet dynamics using free elec- trons,

    Y . Kurman, R. Dahan, H. H. Sheinfux, K. Wang, M. Yannai, Y . Adiv, O. Reinhardt, L. H. Tizei, S. Y . Woo, J. Li, J. H. Edgar, M. Kociak, F. H. Koppens, and I. Kaminer, “Spatiotemporal imaging of 2D polariton wave packet dynamics using free elec- trons,” Science, vol. 372, no....

    2021

  8. [16]

    Free-electron–bound-electron reso- nant interaction,

    A. Gover and A. Yariv, “Free-electron–bound-electron reso- nant interaction,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 124, no. 6, p. 064801, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Com- plete excitation of discrete quantum systems by single free elec- trons,

    F. J. Garc ´ıa de Abajo, E. J. Dias, and V . Di Giulio, “Com- plete excitation of discrete quantum systems by single free elec- trons,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 129, no. 9, p. 093401, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Control- ling quantum systems with modulated electron beams,

    D. R ¨atzel, D. Hartley, O. Schwartz, and P. Haslinger, “Control- ling quantum systems with modulated electron beams,” Physi- cal review research, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 023247, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Toward atomic-resolution quantum measurements with coher- ently shaped free electrons,

    R. Ruimy, A. Gorlach, C. Mechel, N. Rivera, and I. Kaminer, “Toward atomic-resolution quantum measurements with coher- ently shaped free electrons,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 126, no. 23, p. 233403, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Quantum sensing of strongly coupled light-matter systems using free electrons,

    A. Karnieli, S. Tsesses, R. Yu, N. Rivera, Z. Zhao, A. Arie, S. Fan, and I. Kaminer, “Quantum sensing of strongly coupled light-matter systems using free electrons,” Science advances , vol. 9, no. 1, p. eadd2349, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Quantum entanglement and modulation enhancement of free-electron–bound-electron in- teraction,

    Z. Zhao, X.-Q. Sun, and S. Fan, “Quantum entanglement and modulation enhancement of free-electron–bound-electron in- teraction,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 126, no. 23, p. 233402, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    An experimental plat- form to control solid-state spin systems with engineered elec- tron beams,

    D. Catanzaro, J. Grzesik, C. Roques-Carmes, K. J. Leedle, D. S. Black, O. Solgaard, and J. Vu ˇckovi´c, “An experimental plat- form to control solid-state spin systems with engineered elec- tron beams,” in 2024 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO), pp. 1–2, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Sensing spin systems with a transmission elec- tron microscope,

    A. Jaro ˇs, M. S. Seifner, J. Toyfl, B. Czasch, I. C. Bicket, and P. Haslinger, “Sensing spin systems with a transmission elec- tron microscope,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.06761, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ul- trafast phonon-mediated dephasing of color centers in hexag- onal boron nitride probed by electron beams,

    M. Taleb, P. Bittorf, M. Black, M. Hentschel, W. Sigle, B. Haas, C. Koch, P. A. van Aken, H. Giessen, and N. Talebi, “Ul- trafast phonon-mediated dephasing of color centers in hexag- onal boron nitride probed by electron beams,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09879, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Nanoscale magnetic sensing with an individual electronic spin in diamond,

    J. R. Maze, P. L. Stanwix, J. S. Hodges, S. Hong, J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Jiang, M. G. Dutt, E. Togan, A. Zibrov,et al., “Nanoscale magnetic sensing with an individual electronic spin in diamond,” Nature, vol. 455, no. 7213, pp. 644–647, 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    Ultralong spin coherence time in isotopically engineered diamond,

    G. Balasubramanian, P. Neumann, D. Twitchen, M. Markham, R. Kolesov, N. Mizuochi, J. Isoya, J. Achard, J. Beck, J. Tissler, et al., “Ultralong spin coherence time in isotopically engineered diamond,” Nature materials, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 383–387, 2009

    2009

  19. [27]

    The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond,

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. Hollenberg, “The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond,” Physics Reports , vol. 528, no. 1, pp. 1–45, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Sensitivity optimization for NV-diamond magnetometry,

    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,” Reviews of Modern Physics , vol. 92, no. 1, p. 015004, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Probing johnson noise and ballistic transport in normal metals with a single-spin qubit,

    S. Kolkowitz, A. Safira, A. High, R. Devlin, S. Choi, Q. Unter- reithmeier, D. Patterson, A. Zibrov, V . Manucharyan, H. Park, et al., “Probing johnson noise and ballistic transport in normal metals with a single-spin qubit,” Science, vol. 347, no. 6226, pp. 1129–1132, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    Single defect centres in diamond: A review,

    F. Jelezko and J. Wrachtrup, “Single defect centres in diamond: A review,”physica status solidi (a), vol. 203, no. 13, pp. 3207– 3225, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    Magnetometry with nitrogen-vacancy defects in diamond,

    L. Rondin, J.-P. Tetienne, T. Hingant, J.-F. Roch, P. Maletinsky, and V . Jacques, “Magnetometry with nitrogen-vacancy defects in diamond,” Reports on progress in physics , vol. 77, no. 5, p. 056503, 2014

    2014

  24. [32]

    Su- perbunching in cathodoluminescence: A master equation ap- proach,

    T. Yuge, N. Yamamoto, T. Sannomiya, and K. Akiba, “Su- perbunching in cathodoluminescence: A master equation ap- proach,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 107, p. 165303, Apr 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Co- herent control of NV- centers in diamond in a quantum teaching lab,

    V . K. Sewani, H. H. Vallabhapurapu, Y . Yang, H. R. Firgau, C. Adambukulam, B. C. Johnson, J. J. Pla, and A. Laucht, “Co- herent control of NV- centers in diamond in a quantum teaching lab,” American Journal of Physics , vol. 88, no. 12, pp. 1156– 1169, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Microwave spin control of a tin- vacancy qubit in diamond,

    E. I. Rosenthal, C. P. Anderson, H. C. Kleidermacher, A. J. Stein, H. Lee, J. Grzesik, G. Scuri, A. E. Rugar, D. Riedel, S. Aghaeimeibodi, et al. , “Microwave spin control of a tin- vacancy qubit in diamond,” Physical Review X, vol. 13, no. 3, p. 031022, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Electron-induced state conversion in diamond NV cen- ters measured with pump–probe cathodoluminescence spec- troscopy,

    M. Sol `a-Garcia, S. Meuret, T. Coenen, and A. Polman, “Electron-induced state conversion in diamond NV cen- ters measured with pump–probe cathodoluminescence spec- troscopy,”ACS photonics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 232–240, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Tuned NV emission by in-plane al-schottky junctions on hydrogen terminated diamond,

    C. Schreyvogel, M. Wolfer, H. Kato, M. Schreck, and C. E. Nebel, “Tuned NV emission by in-plane al-schottky junctions on hydrogen terminated diamond,” Scientific Reports , vol. 4, no. 1, p. 3634, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Decoherence-protected quantum gates for a hybrid solid- state spin register,

    T. Van der Sar, Z. Wang, M. Blok, H. Bernien, T. Taminiau, D. Toyli, D. Lidar, D. Awschalom, R. Hanson, and V . Dobrovit- ski, “Decoherence-protected quantum gates for a hybrid solid- state spin register,”Nature, vol. 484, no. 7392, pp. 82–86, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Decoherence of ensembles of nitrogen-vacancy centers in dia- mond,

    E. Bauch, S. Singh, J. Lee, C. A. Hart, J. M. Schloss, M. J. Turner, J. F. Barry, L. M. Pham, N. Bar-Gill, S. F. Yelin,et al., “Decoherence of ensembles of nitrogen-vacancy centers in dia- mond,” Physical Review B, vol. 102, no. 13, p. 134210, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    One-second coherence for a single electron spin coupled to a multi-qubit nuclear-spin environment,

    M. H. Abobeih, J. Cramer, M. A. Bakker, N. Kalb, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, “One-second coherence for a single electron spin coupled to a multi-qubit nuclear-spin environment,” Nature communications , vol. 9, no. 1, p. 2552, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Resonant phase-matching between a light wave and a free-electron wavefunction,

    R. Dahan, S. Nehemia, M. Shentcis, O. Reinhardt, Y . Adiv, X. Shi, O. Be’er, M. H. Lynch, Y . Kurman, K. Wang, et al., “Resonant phase-matching between a light wave and a free-electron wavefunction,” Nature Physics, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 1123–1131, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Controlling free electrons with optical whispering-gallery modes,

    O. Kfir, H. Lourenc ¸o-Martins, G. Storeck, M. Sivis, T. R. Har- vey, T. J. Kippenberg, A. Feist, and C. Ropers, “Controlling free electrons with optical whispering-gallery modes,” Nature, vol. 582, no. 7810, pp. 46–49, 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    Universal and ultrafast quantum computation based on free-electron-polariton blockade,

    A. Karnieli, S. Tsesses, R. Yu, N. Rivera, A. Arie, I. Kaminer, and S. Fan, “Universal and ultrafast quantum computation based on free-electron-polariton blockade,” PRX Quantum , vol. 5, no. 1, p. 010339, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Electron- assisted probing of polaritonic light–matter states,

    J. Abad-Arredondo and A. I. Fern´andez-Dom´ınguez, “Electron- assisted probing of polaritonic light–matter states,” Nanopho- tonics, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 2015–2027, 2024

    2015

  36. [44]

    High-efficiency, high-fidelity charge initializa- tion of shallow nitrogen vacancy centers in diamond,

    M. Mahdia, A. Lozovoi, J. Rovny, Z. Yuan, C. A. Meriles, and N. P. de Leon, “High-efficiency, high-fidelity charge initializa- tion of shallow nitrogen vacancy centers in diamond,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00707, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Quantum magnetom- etry of transient signals with a time resolution of 1.1 nanosec- onds,

    K. Herb, L. A. V ¨olker, J. M. Abendroth, N. Meinhardt, L. van Schie, P. Gambardella, and C. L. Degen, “Quantum magnetom- etry of transient signals with a time resolution of 1.1 nanosec- onds,” Nature Communications, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 822, 2025. 10

    2025

  38. [46]

    Photon- induced near-field electron microscopy,

    B. Barwick, D. J. Flannigan, and A. H. Zewail, “Photon- induced near-field electron microscopy,” Nature, vol. 462, no. 7275, pp. 902–906, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    Free-electron quantum optics,

    R. Ruimy, A. Karnieli, and I. Kaminer, “Free-electron quantum optics,” Nature Physics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 193–200, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    QuTiP: An open- source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, “QuTiP: An open- source Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,” Computer physics communications , vol. 183, no. 8, pp. 1760–1772, 2012

    2012

Pith tools

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