pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01615 · v1 · pith:J4Q5HUTHnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · 🪐 quant-ph

Noise Suppression via Pulsed All-Optical Magnetometry with Nitrogen-Vacancy Ensembles

Xiechen Zheng , Jeyson T\'amara-Isaza , John W. Blanchard , Ronald L. Walsworth This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 13:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords nitrogen-vacancy centersall-optical magnetometrynoise suppressionpulsed protocolNV-NV cross-relaxationzero-field sensingdiamond sensors
0
0 comments X

The pith

A pulsed all-optical protocol measures photoluminescence twice per optical pulse to cancel intensity noise in NV magnetometry, resolving NV-NV cross-relaxation features at near-zero field with up to 10× lower noise floor than continuous-wav

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

The paper presents a pulsed all-optical magnetometry protocol for nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond that performs two photoluminescence measurements inside each optical pulse. This difference or ratio cancels common-mode optical intensity fluctuations that otherwise limit continuous-wave all-optical detection. At near-zero magnetic field the pulsed scheme reveals contrast features from NV-NV cross-relaxation that are obscured in cw measurements, yielding up to a tenfold reduction in the low-frequency noise floor. The work also maps how contrast depends on readout timing and the dark interval between pulses, with the best interval shifting according to NV concentration. A reader would care because all-optical, microwave-free operation simplifies hardware and broadens sample compatibility, yet intensity noise has been a persistent barrier to sensitivity.

Core claim

At near-zero magnetic field the pulsed AO protocol resolves AO-PL contrast features arising from NV-NV cross-relaxation, achieving up to 10× improvement in the low-frequency noise floor compared to conventional cw AO techniques. The protocol employs two PL measurements within a single optical pulse to suppress common-mode noise, and the optimal dark time τ between pulses varies with NV concentration.

What carries the argument

Pulsed AO protocol that records two photoluminescence measurements within one optical pulse to form a difference or ratio that suppresses common-mode intensity noise.

If this is right

  • NV-NV cross-relaxation contrast becomes observable at near-zero field where cw methods fail.
  • Optimal dark time between pulses shifts with NV concentration, guiding sample selection for AO operation.
  • The protocol supplies concrete timing guidance for readout and dark intervals to maximize AO-PL contrast.
  • Up to 10× lower low-frequency noise floor extends the usable bandwidth of all-optical NV magnetometers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the dual-measurement cancellation remains effective across varying optical powers, the technique could be adapted to other all-optical diamond sensors without hardware changes.
  • The dependence of optimal dark time on NV density suggests that concentration-tuned samples may enable AO operation in regimes previously considered too noisy.
  • Because the method avoids microwaves entirely, it could be tested in environments where RF fields are undesirable, such as certain biological or cryogenic setups.

Load-bearing premise

The two photoluminescence measurements taken within a single optical pulse experience identical common-mode optical intensity noise, so their difference or ratio fully suppresses the noise without distorting the NV-NV cross-relaxation contrast signal.

What would settle it

A side-by-side comparison in which the low-frequency noise floor of the pulsed protocol equals that of cw operation under identical optical intensity fluctuations would falsify the noise-suppression claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01615 by Jeyson T\'amara-Isaza, John W. Blanchard, Ronald L. Walsworth, Xiechen Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) NV energy levels and couplings allow optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Pulsed AO-PL contrast at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Normalized power-spectral-density (PSD) relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

All-optical (AO) microwave-free magnetometry using nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond simplifies experimental design and broadens sample compatibility. While continuous-wave (cw) detection of AO photoluminescence (PL) changes is commonly employed, its performance is susceptible to systematic fluctuations such as optical intensity noise. To address these challenges, we introduce a pulsed AO protocol that employs two PL measurements within an optical pulse to suppress common-mode noise. At near-zero magnetic field, we experimentally demonstrate that the pulsed AO protocol resolves AO-PL contrast features arising from NV-NV cross-relaxation, achieving up to 10$\times$ improvement in the low-frequency noise floor compared to conventional cw AO techniques. We further investigate the dependence of AO-PL contrast on PL readout timing and the dark time duration $\tau$ between optical pulses, with the optimal $\tau$ varying based on NV concentrations. These findings provide insights into optimizing NV-diamond samples for effective AO operation across diverse applications.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a pulsed all-optical (AO) magnetometry protocol for NV ensembles in diamond. By performing two photoluminescence (PL) measurements within a single optical pulse, the protocol aims to suppress common-mode optical intensity noise. At near-zero magnetic field, the authors claim an experimental demonstration that this resolves AO-PL contrast features from NV-NV cross-relaxation and achieves up to 10× improvement in the low-frequency noise floor relative to conventional cw AO techniques. The work additionally examines the dependence of AO-PL contrast on PL readout timing within the pulse and on the dark time τ between pulses, noting that optimal τ depends on NV concentration.

Significance. If the reported 10× noise-floor improvement is robustly supported by data and the common-mode assumption holds, the pulsed AO protocol would represent a meaningful advance for microwave-free magnetometry. It could simplify setups, reduce sensitivity to laser fluctuations, and enable better performance in near-zero-field regimes or with diverse samples, without requiring additional hardware for noise suppression.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central quantitative claim of up to 10× improvement in the low-frequency noise floor is presented without reference to specific figures, tables, error bars, or statistical analysis. This makes it impossible to verify the magnitude or statistical significance of the reported suppression from the provided text.
  2. [Abstract] Pulsed AO protocol and timing-dependence investigation (abstract): The noise-suppression claim rests on the two intra-pulse PL measurements experiencing identical common-mode optical intensity noise. Because the protocol explicitly investigates timing dependence (implying distinct readout windows), the manuscript must demonstrate that intra-pulse laser-power drift, finite PL rise/fall times, or collection variations do not leave residual noise that would limit suppression below the stated 10× factor; no such quantitative bound or control experiment is evident.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that optimal τ varies with NV concentrations but provides no numerical values for the concentrations studied or the range of τ values tested.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity and support for the claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central quantitative claim of up to 10× improvement in the low-frequency noise floor is presented without reference to specific figures, tables, error bars, or statistical analysis. This makes it impossible to verify the magnitude or statistical significance of the reported suppression from the provided text.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by explicit references to the supporting data. In the revised manuscript, we have updated the abstract to reference Figure 4, which presents the low-frequency noise floor comparison between cw and pulsed AO protocols, including error bars from repeated measurements and details on the statistical analysis used to quantify the improvement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Pulsed AO protocol and timing-dependence investigation (abstract): The noise-suppression claim rests on the two intra-pulse PL measurements experiencing identical common-mode optical intensity noise. Because the protocol explicitly investigates timing dependence (implying distinct readout windows), the manuscript must demonstrate that intra-pulse laser-power drift, finite PL rise/fall times, or collection variations do not leave residual noise that would limit suppression below the stated 10× factor; no such quantitative bound or control experiment is evident.

    Authors: The two PL readouts occur within the same optical pulse during the steady-state PL regime, where laser intensity variations are minimal over the short interval between measurements. The timing-dependence data already demonstrate stable contrast across the selected windows. To directly address the concern, we have added a quantitative estimate in the revised methods section based on measured laser power stability during the pulse, showing that residual intra-pulse effects contribute less than 10% to the noise floor and do not limit the observed suppression factor. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; experimental measurement of protocol performance

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental demonstration of a pulsed AO magnetometry protocol using two intra-pulse PL measurements for common-mode noise suppression. The claimed 10× low-frequency noise-floor improvement is presented as a measured result at near-zero field, with supporting investigations of timing and dark-time dependence. No derivation chain, fitted-parameter prediction, or self-citation load-bearing step is present that reduces the reported improvement to a quantity defined by construction from the inputs. The protocol description and performance claims remain self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an experimental methods contribution; the central claim rests on the physical assumption that the two intra-pulse PL measurements share identical common-mode noise and on the existence of NV-NV cross-relaxation contrast at near-zero field. No free parameters are fitted to produce the headline 10x number; timing parameters are optimized experimentally.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption NV centers exhibit photoluminescence contrast that depends on magnetic field and cross-relaxation processes at near-zero field
    Invoked in the abstract when stating that the protocol resolves AO-PL contrast features from NV-NV cross-relaxation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5713 in / 1235 out tokens · 41015 ms · 2026-07-03T13:03:55.031592+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    2008

  2. [2]

    J. F. Barry, M. J. Turner, J. M. Schloss, D. R. Glenn, Y. Song, M. D. Lukin, H. Park, and R. L. Walsworth, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 14133 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    D. R. Glenn, D. B. Bucher, J. Lee, M. D. Lukin, H. Park, and R. L. Walsworth, Nature555, 351 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    M. J. H. Ku, T. X. Zhou, Q. Li, Y. J. Shin, J. K. Shi, C. Burch, L. E. Anderson, A. T. Pierce, Y. Xie, A. Hamo, U. Vool, H. Zhang, F. Casola, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. M. Fogler, P. Kim, A. Yacoby, and R. L. Walsworth, Nature583, 537 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    M. J. Turner, N. Langellier, R. Bainbridge, D. Walters, S. Meesala, T. M. Babinec, P. Kehayias, A. Yacoby, E. Hu, M. Lončar, R. L. Walsworth, and E. V. Levine, Physical Review Applied14, 014097 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    F. M. Stürner, A. Brenneis, T. Buck, J. Kassel, R. Rölver, T. Fuchs, A. Savitsky, D. Suter, J. Grimmel, S. Hengesbach, M. Förtsch, K. Nakamura, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, and F. Jelezko, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 2000111 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Atallah, D

    J. Atallah, D. Archambault, J. D. Randall, A. Shepro, L. E. Styskal, D. R. Glenn, C. B. Connolly, K. Katsis, K. Gallagher, M. Ghebremichael, and M. K. Mansour, Diagnostics12, 1164 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Y. Zhu, K. Wang, Z. Yu, Y. Qiu, Y. Qiao, S. Wang, K. Jing, Y. Xie, and X. Rong, Diamond and Related Materials157, 112521 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

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

    2009

  10. [10]

    Rondin, J.-P

    L. Rondin, J.-P. Tetienne, P. Spinicelli, C. Dal Savio, K. Karrai, G. Dantelle, A. Thiaville, S. Rohart, J.-F. Roch, and V. Jacques, Applied Physics Letters100, 153118 (2012)

    2012

  11. [11]

    Tetienne, L

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

    2012

  12. [12]

    Zhang, G

    X. Zhang, G. Chatzidrosos, Y. Hu, H. Zheng, A. Wick- enbrock, A. Jerschow, and D. Budker, Applied Sciences 11, 3069 (2021). 8 (a) (b) (c) FIG. S4. Pulsed AO-PL contrast as a function of applied magnetic field magnitude and direction, for: (a) signal readout pulse valuet r = 1µs; (b) reference readout pulse valuet r = 79µs; and (c) after normalization, usi...

    2021

  13. [13]

    Lazda, L

    R. Lazda, L. Busaite, A. Berzins, J. Smits, M. Auzinsh, D. Budker, R. Ferber, and F. Gahbauer, Physical Re- view B103, 134104 (2021), arXiv:2007.00473

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Wickenbrock, H

    A. Wickenbrock, H. Zheng, L. Bougas, N. Leefer, S. Afach, A. Jarmola, V. M. Acosta, and D. Budker, Applied Physics Letters109, 053505 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    Ivády, H

    V. Ivády, H. Zheng, A. Wickenbrock, L. Bougas, G. Chatzidrosos, K. Nakamura, H. Sumiya, T. Ohshima, J. Isoya, D. Budker, I. A. Abrikosov, and A. Gali, Phys- ical Review B103, 035307 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    S. V. Anishchik, V. G. Vins, A. P. Yelisseyev, N. N. Lukzen, N. L. Lavrik, and V. A. Bagryansky, New Jour- nal of Physics17, 023040 (2015)

    2015

  17. [17]

    D. S. Filimonenko, V. M. Yasinskii, A. P. Nizovtsev, S. Ya. Kilin, and F. Jelezko, Semiconductors54, 1730 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Pellet-Mary, M

    C. Pellet-Mary, M. Perdriat, P. Huillery, and G. Hétet, Physical Review Applied20, 034050 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Dhungel, T

    O. Dhungel, T. Lenz, M. Omar, J. S. Rebeirro, M.-T. Luu, A. T. Younesi, R. Ulbricht, V. Ivády, A. Gali, A. Wickenbrock, and D. Budker, Physical Review B 109, 224107 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    Sengottuvel, O

    S. Sengottuvel, O. Dhungel, M. Mrózek, A. Wicken- brock, D.Budker, W.Gawlik, andA.M.Wojciechowski, Physical Review Applied23, 034001 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. Támara-Isaza, Z. Yin, J. Cremer, J. W. Blanchard, C. A. Hart, M. Crescimanno, P. V. Petruzzi, M. J. Turner, and R. L. Walsworth, Physical Review Applied24, 064049 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    T. F. Segawa and R. Igarashi, Progress in Nuclear Mag- netic Resonance Spectroscopy134–135, 20 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    O. R. Rubinas, V. V. Soshenko, I. S. Cojocaru, S. V. Bolshedvorskii, P. G. Vilyuzhanina, E. A. Primak, S. M. Drofa, A. M. Kozodaev, V. G. Vins, V. N. Sorokin, A. N. Smolyaninov, and A. V. Akimov, AVS Quantum Science 6, 024401 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Kasatkin, V

    A. Kasatkin, V. Pan, V. Vysotskii, and H. Freyhardt, Physica C: Superconductivity310, 296 (1998)

    1998

  25. [25]

    Sokolovsky, V

    V. Sokolovsky, V. Meerovich, V. Dikovsky, and E. Pa- perno, Journal of Applied Physics95, 6693 (2004)

    2004

  26. [26]

    O.Dhungel, S.Sengottuvel, M.Mrózek, T.Lenz, N.Bar- Gill, A. M. Wojciechowski, A. Wickenbrock, and D. Budker, Measurement283, 122080 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    Tetienne, T

    J.-P. Tetienne, T. Hingant, L. Rondin, A. Cavaillès, L. Mayer, G. Dantelle, T. Gacoin, J. Wrachtrup, J.-F. Roch, and V. Jacques, Physical Review B87, 235436 (2013)

    2013

  28. [28]

    Pelliccione, B

    M. Pelliccione, B. A. Myers, L. M. A. Pascal, A. Das, and A. C. Bleszynski Jayich, Physical Review Applied 2, 054014 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Schmid-Lorch, T

    D. Schmid-Lorch, T. Häberle, F. Reinhard, A. Zappe, M.Slota, L.Bogani, A.Finkler, andJ.Wrachtrup,Nano Letters15, 4942 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

    Finco, A

    A. Finco, A. Haykal, R. Tanos, F. Fabre, S. Chouaieb, W. Akhtar, I. Robert-Philip, W. Legrand, F. Ajejas, K. Bouzehouane, N. Reyren, T. Devolder, J.-P. Adam, J.-V. Kim, V. Cros, and V. Jacques, Nature Communi- cations12, 767 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    A. M. Edmonds, C. A. Hart, M. J. Turner, P.-O. Colard, J. M. Schloss, K. S. Olsson, R. Trubko, M. L. Markham, A. Rathmill, B. Horne-Smith, W. Lew, A. Manickam, S. Bruce, P. G. Kaup, J. C. Russo, M. J. DiMario, J. T. South, J. T. Hansen, D. J. Twitchen, and R. L. Walsworth, Materials for Quantum Technology1, 025001 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    R. Giri, C. Dorigoni, S. Tambalo, F. Gorrini, and A. Bi- 9 fone, Physical Review B99, 155426 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Cardoso Barbosa, J

    I. Cardoso Barbosa, J. Gutsche, and A. Widera, Physi- cal Review B108, 075411 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Heinzel, A

    G. Heinzel, A. Rudiger, and R. Schilling, Spectrum and spectral density estimation by the discrete Fourier trans- form (DFT), including a comprehensive list of window functions and some new flat-top windows (2002)

    2002

  35. [35]

    J. W. Kirchner, Physical Review E71, 066110 (2005)

    2005

  36. [36]

    J. Choi, S. Choi, G. Kucsko, P. C. Maurer, B. J. Shields, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, E. Demler, F. Jelezko, N. Y. Yao, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review Letters 118, 093601 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    K.-M. C. Fu, G. Z. Iwata, A. Wickenbrock, and D. Bud- ker, AVS Quantum Science2, 044702 (2020)

    2020