Comparing continuous and pulsed nitrogen-vacancy DC magnetometry in the optical-power-limited regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensembles of nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center spins in diamond offer a robust, precise, and accurate magnetic sensor. As their applications move beyond the laboratory, practical considerations including size, complexity, and power consumption become important. Here, we compare two commonly employed NV magnetometry techniques—continuous-wave (CW) versus pulsed magnetic resonance—in a scenario limited by the total available optical power. We develop a consistent theoretical model for the magnetic sensitivity of each protocol that incorporates NV photophysics—in particular, including the incomplete spin polarization associated with limited optical power; after comparing the models’ behavior to experiments, we use them to predict the relative DC sensitivity of CW versus pulsed operation for an optical-power-limited, shot-noise-limited NV ensemble magnetometer. We find a ∼2−3× gain in sensitivity for pulsed operation, which is significantly smaller than seen in power-unlimited, single-NV experiments [ Phys. Rev. B 84 , 195204 ( 2011 ) PRBMDO 0163-1829 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.195204 ]. Our results provide a resource for practical sensor development, informing protocol choice and identifying optimal operation regimes when optical power is constrained.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".