Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Detection of weak magnetic fields using nitrogen-vacancy centers with maximum confidence

arXiv
Authors: Ghazi Khan, Adam Zaman Chaudhry

Year

2021

Paper ID

40834

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

93

Citations

N/A

Abstract

The problem of detection of magnetic fields using NV centers, that is, to check whether a weak magnetic field is present or not, can be tackled using quantum state discrimination theory. In this regard, we find the POVMs that maximize the confidence of any given measurement, taking the interaction time as well as decoherence into account. We apply our formalism over a wide range of scenarios encompassing constant and oscillating magnetic fields, while also using techniques such as dynamical decoupling to improve the confidence and extending our treatment to ensembles of NV centers.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • The problem of detection of magnetic fields using NV centers, that is, to check whether a weak magnetic field is present or not, can be tackled using quantum state...

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #40834 #69039 SAT, MaxSAT, and SMT for QLDPC ... #69038 Physically Constrained Ensemble... #69023 Scalable Quantum Algorithms for... #69016 Solution of the Equation-of-Mot...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.