A kilopixel array of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors

Adriana E. Lita; Emma E. Wollman; Matthew D. Shaw; Richard P. Mirin; Sae Woo Nam; Varun B. Verma; William H. Farr

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 20 references

A kilopixel array of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first kilopixel-scale superconducting nanowire single-photon detector array, a 32×32 row-column multiplexed imaging array with 99.4% baseline yield, up to 8% system detection efficiency at 1550 nm, and 250–400 ps…

desk verdict First kilopixel SNSPD array is a real scaling milestone; the pixel-level counting is a bit soft, but the feasibility claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10520 v1 pith:JMH7RY6A submitted 2019-08-28 physics.ins-det physics.optics

Emma E. Wollman , Varun B. Verma , Adriana E. Lita , William H. Farr , Matthew D. Shaw , Richard P. Mirin , Sae Woo Nam This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.ins-detphysics.optics

keywords superconductingnanowiresingle-photondetectorsSNSPDarrayrow-columnmultiplexingkilopixelimagingtime-taggingreadout1550nmdetectiontimingjitter

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 reports the first kilopixel-scale superconducting nanowire single-photon detector array: 1024 pixels on a 1.6 by 1.6 millimeter chip read out through only 64 electrical lines. The authors show that row-column multiplexing, previously demonstrated at 64 pixels, extends to a 32 by 32 grid with a baseline yield of 99.4% working pixels. Under 1550 nm illumination the array reaches about 8% system detection efficiency at 4 microamps of bias per pixel, with per-pixel timing jitter of 250 to 400 ps. The result matters because low-flux astronomy, dark-matter searches, and time-resolved single-photon imaging depend on detector arrays larger than any previously built from superconducting nanowires.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is row-column multiplexing: each pixel is a superconducting nanowire in series with a roughly 50–200 Ω resistor; pixels in a row share one bias line, and pixels in a column share an inductor and ground path. When a photon strikes a pixel, the nanowire becomes resistive and sends opposite-polarity voltage pulses down its row and column lines. Coincidence matching of row and column time tags, using a raw 6 ns window or a 0.6–1.2 ns window after delay calibration, assigns the event to one of the 1024 pixels using only 32 row plus 32 column amplifier channels. The series resistors equalize current sharing, while the column inductors caused a bias instability that the authors circumvented by biasing alternating rows with opposite voltages.

What would settle it

Illuminate two known pixels simultaneously with synchronized single-photon pulses and compare the reported pixel pairs with the true ones: if the array systematically reports the alternative diagonal pair, or if false pixels appear at the quoted count rates, the coincidence readout does not identify pixels as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a 32×32 array of superconducting nanowire pixels, each in series with a resistor and sharing row and column readout lines, can be fabricated over a millimeter-scale area and operated as a single-photon imaging array. A photon is registered by pairing row and column time tags that fall within a coincidence window; after per-channel delay calibration, windows of 0.6–1.2 ns collect more than 99.5% of the counts. The paper reports 1024 pixels with 99.4% baseline yield, up to 8% system detection efficiency at 1550 nm, average jitter of 400 ps at 3 μA and 250 ps at 4 μA, and persistence images of a laser spot swept across the array to spell text. It also states the known cost of coincidence readout: two photons arriving within the timing resolution produce ambiguous row-column pairs, so misattribution grows with count rate.

Load-bearing premise

The imaging and pixel-identification claims rest on the assumption that row and column time tags paired within the coincidence window actually identify which pixel fired, because two photons arriving close in time create row-column pairs that the readout cannot distinguish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because $N\times N$ pixels are read out with $2N$ lines, an array of this type can be scaled to larger square grids without multiplying cryogenic cables and amplifiers.
A baseline yield of 99.4% on a 1.6 by 1.6 mm chip shows that the nanowire fabrication process is uniform enough to populate kilopixel arrays, not just small test chips.
The demonstrated 4–8% system detection efficiency at 1550 nm is a starting point; embedding pixels in an optical cavity and raising the fill factor would directly multiply total efficiency.
The measured 250–400 ps jitter is worse than single-pixel SNSPDs, but it is already sufficient for time-resolved imaging and lidar; reducing current redistribution or using a constant-fraction discriminator should tighten it.
Count rate is bounded by coincidence ambiguity: with a 6 ns window, roughly 30% of detected events are misattributed at 320 Mcps across the array, while a 1.2 ns window reduces that to about 3%.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step is to test whether the same 32×32 geometry with an optical cavity and higher fill factor can push system detection efficiency well above 8%, making the array competitive with single-pixel detectors for photon-starved astronomy.
Because coincidence ambiguity is intrinsic to row-column readout, applications that need multi-photon spatial resolution will require a different encoding such as delay-line, SFQ, or frequency multiplexing, or faster pixels with narrower coincidence windows.
The authors' alternated-bias workaround implies the column inductors are not needed with DC-coupled amplifiers; removing them could simplify biasing and raise the maximum stable bias current.
Pairing row and column time tags in real time on an FPGA, which the paper notes the PCIe output is compatible with, would turn the post-processed demonstration into a live single-photon camera.

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,

You should know this paper reports the first 1024-pixel SNSPD array, a 32x32 row-column multiplexed device with 99.4% baseline yield, SDE up to 8% at 1550 nm, and 250–400 ps jitter. It also shows real imaging: a focused laser spot and a swept beam spelling text. That is a genuine capability step, roughly 16x more pixels than prior multiplexed arrays.

What's new is the scaling, not the architecture—the same groups published row-column multiplexing for 2x2 and 8x8. The engineering is the contribution: running 1024 pixels with 64 readout channels, calibrating per-channel delays, and getting a working imager. The fabrication and electrical evidence are solid.

The paper is also honest about the scheme's blind spot. In row-column multiplexing, two photons arriving within the coincidence window are ambiguous; at high count rates this creates false pixels and streaks. They show this explicitly in Fig. 4b and estimate misattributions at ≤0.6% of hot-pixel counts.

The soft spot is that the pixel-level claims—yield, SDE, hot/dead inventory—rest on the coincidence-pairing algorithm, which never gets a ground-truth test. A multi-spot illumination experiment, where you know which pixels are lit, would give a true positive/false positive rate. Without it, the reported 99.4% yield and 4%/8% SDE carry some unmeasured systematic uncertainty. The max-count-rate test deliberately uses totalized row counts, so it doesn't validate high-rate pixel-resolved imaging, but the paper doesn't claim it does.

Also, no error bars on efficiency or jitter, and no data/code. Minor: the per-pixel resistance is estimated from a row I-V slope, not measured per pixel.

None of this undermines the core claim. At the low bias used for imaging, no misattribution is evident, and the ambiguity is a known, fundamental property of the architecture, openly discussed. This is an honest proof-of-concept, not an overreach.

Who it's for: anyone working on SNSPD arrays, single-photon imaging, or dark-matter/optical-communication systems that need large photon-counting focal planes. It deserves a serious referee; I'd send it out with minor revision, asking for error bars and ideally a ground-truth multi-spot test.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports the fabrication and characterization of a 32 x 32 (1024-element) superconducting nanowire single-photon detector (SNSPD) array using row-column multiplexing. The array covers a 1.6 x 1.6 mm area with a 50 um pixel pitch. Using a 64-channel time-tagging readout, the authors measure a baseline yield of 99.4%, a system detection efficiency of up to 8% at 1550 nm, and average pixel jitter of 250-400 ps. They demonstrate imaging by sweeping a focused laser spot to produce persistence images, including spelling text, and they probe the maximum count rate up to 10 Mcps per row. The paper concludes that row-column multiplexing can be extended to kilopixel-scale SNSPD arrays.

Significance. If the results hold, this is an important milestone for SNSPD arrays, demonstrating a viable route to large-format detectors for imaging, spectroscopy, and photon-starved applications. The work combines careful microfabrication with a practical readout scheme, and the persistence-imaging demonstration is a compelling proof of concept. The authors are also transparent about the fundamental ambiguity of row-column multiplexing in multi-photon events and about the limitations of the current readout, including hot pixels and current redistribution. This paper would be a valuable reference for the superconducting-detector community.

major comments (2)

[Section 5.2] The statement that misattributions 'consist of at most 0.6% of the corresponding hot pixels' counts' is not supported by a derivation or a citation. Please provide the calculation or a direct measurement, since this bound is used to argue that the pixel-level efficiency and yield figures are reliable despite the row-column ambiguity.
[Section 5.2] The pixel efficiency values of 12% at 3 uA and 23% at 4 uA are reported without any uncertainty. Please include the 2-D Gaussian fit parameters, the estimated laser spot size and power calibration, and an error analysis that accounts for counting statistics and possible misattribution, so that the headline system efficiency of 8% can be assessed.

minor comments (4)

[Section 5.1] The baseline yield is stated as 99.4%, but four dead pixels out of 1024 correspond to 99.6%. Please clarify whether the two low-response pixels are counted as non-yielding, and define 'baseline yield' precisely.
[Section 5.3] The jitter is computed from the average of the row and column time tags; please clarify whether this averaging reduces the jitter relative to a single-channel readout, and if so, specify the relationship.
[Section 5.3] The sentence beginning 'at an average count rate of 320 Mcps across the whole array...' introduces a hypothetical scenario; please label it explicitly as an estimate and note that the array was not operated at this rate in the reported measurements.
[Figure 2] Consider adding a scale bar or amplitude annotation to Fig. 2 so the reader can judge the pulse height relative to the comparator threshold.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an experimental device demonstration with externally calibrated measurements and explicitly quantified ambiguities.

full rationale

No circular derivation is present. The paper's central claim is an experimental demonstration: a fabricated 32x32 SNSPD array read out through row-column multiplexing, with yield, system detection efficiency, and jitter measured against external light sources (1550 nm laser for imaging and efficiency, mode-locked laser for jitter) and standard TDC timing. The row-column coincidence analysis is a measurement reduction, not a fitted prediction: events are assigned by pairing row and column time tags within a stated 6 ns coincidence window (Section 4), and the paper explicitly quantifies the resulting multi-photon ambiguity rather than deriving a claimed result from it. Prior-author citations (Refs. 14 and 19) describe the earlier 2x2 and 8x8 demonstrations, but the kilopixel fabrication, 99.4% baseline yield, 4% to 8% system detection efficiency, and 250 to 400 ps jitter are independently measured outcomes, not consequences of those citations. The admitted weaknesses, such as the statement in Section 5.3 that a 6 ns coincidence window at 320 Mcps leads to misattribution errors for roughly 30% of detected events, are acknowledged limitations in the text, not circular inputs. Therefore no self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-load-bearing circularity is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an experimental demonstration, so there is no mathematical derivation to audit. The listed quantities are either fitted to the data (Gaussian spot fit, inferred per-pixel resistance) or standard assumptions inherited from prior SNSPD and multiplexing work (uniform current sharing, hotspot resistance, Poisson arrival statistics, coincidence pairing). No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

2D Gaussian fit parameters for focused-laser spot = 12% and 23% pixel efficiency at 3 and 4 uA
Used to convert focused-beam count-rate maps into system detection efficiency estimates; the fit amplitude and width are fitted to the data, and no uncertainties are reported.
Estimated average per-pixel resistance = ~200 ohm
Inferred from the slope of one row's superconducting I-V branch scaled by 32; used to calculate bias currents and, through calibration, efficiency and jitter.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Bias current is distributed equally among the 32 pixels in a row by the series resistors.
Section 5.1 states the pixel bias current is calculated as the average assuming uniform distribution; if actual current sharing is nonuniform, reported bias and yield curves shift.
standard math Photon arrivals at a detector follow a Poisson distribution for count-rate and misattribution estimates.
Section 5.3 uses a Poisson model to estimate the probability that two photons land within the coincidence window; this is a standard statistical assumption for incoherent light.
domain assumption A photon detection turns the nanowire into a high-resistance hotspot of order 1 kohm, diverting current to produce the readout pulse.
Section 2 uses this hotspot model to explain the row and column pulse generation; it is prior SNSPD physics, not established in this paper.
domain assumption Row-column coincidence pairing, with a 6 ns window, correctly attributes a detected photon to a pixel when events are not simultaneous.
Sections 2 and 5 use coincidence matching to form images; multi-photon ambiguity is acknowledged and limits the valid count-rate regime.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A kilopixel array of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JMH7RY6A

@misc{pith2026190810520,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A kilopixel array of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JMH7RY6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10520}
}

read the original abstract

We present a 1024-element imaging array of superconducting nanowire single photon detectors (SNSPDs) using a 32x32 row-column multiplexing architecture. Large arrays are desirable for applications such as imaging, spectroscopy, or particle detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10520 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Examples of positive (red) and negative (blue) pulses from one column of the array [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Count rate vs. average pixel bias current summed across each of the 32 rows under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Imaging capabilities of the array. a, b) Log-scale count rate across the array under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Jitter measurements. a) Maps of the FWHM jitter measured for each pixel of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Overview and results of the Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration,

D.M.Boroson,B.S.Robinson,D.V.Murphy,D.A.Burianek,F.Khatri,J.M.Kovalik,Z.Sodnik,andD.M.Cornwell, “Overview and results of the Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration,” inFree-Space Laser Communication and Atmospheric Propagation XXVI, vol. 8971 H. Hemmati and D. M. Boroson, eds. (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2014), p. 89710S

work page 2014
[2]

Superconducting nanowire single photon detectors for deep space optical communication (Conference Presentation),

M. Shaw, F. Marsili, A. Beyer, R. Briggs, J. Allmaras, and W. H. Farr, “Superconducting nanowire single photon detectors for deep space optical communication (Conference Presentation),” Proc.SPIE (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

Status of NASA’s deep space optical communication technology demonstration,

A. Biswas, M. Srinivasan, R. Rogalin, S. Piazzolla, J. Liu, B. Schratz, A. Wong, E. Alerstam, M. Wright, W. T. Roberts, J. Kovalik, G. Ortiz, A. Na-Nakornpanom, M. Shaw, C. Okino, K. Andrews, M. Peng, D. Orozco, and W. Klipstein, “Status of NASA’s deep space optical communication technology demonstration,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Space Opt...

work page 2017
[4]

Quantumkeydistribution over a 40-dB channel loss using superconducting single-photon detectors,

H.Takesue,S.W.Nam,Q.Zhang,R.H.Hadﬁeld,T.Honjo,K.Tamaki,andY.Yamamoto,“Quantumkeydistribution over a 40-dB channel loss using superconducting single-photon detectors,” Nat. Photonics1, 343–348 (2007)

work page 2007
[5]

Demonstration of a quantum controlled-NOT gate in the telecommunications band,

J. Chen, J. B. Altepeter, M. Medic, K. F. Lee, B. Gokden, R. H. Hadﬁeld, S. W. Nam, and P. Kumar, “Demonstration of a quantum controlled-NOT gate in the telecommunications band,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 133603 (2008)

work page 2008
[6]

Quantum storage of photonic entanglement in a crystal,

C. Clausen, I. Usmani, F. Bussiéres, N. Sangouard, M. Afzelius, H. De Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, “Quantum storage of photonic entanglement in a crystal,” Nature469, 508–512 (2011)

work page 2011
[7]

High-order temporal coherences of chaotic and laser light,

M. J. Stevens, B. Baek, E. A. Dauler, A. J. Kerman, R. J. Molnar, S. A. Hamilton, K. K. Berggren, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, “High-order temporal coherences of chaotic and laser light,” Opt. Express18, 1430 (2010)

work page 2010
[8]

Quantum teleportation from a telecom-wavelength photon to a solid-state quantum memory,

F.Bussières,C.Clausen,A.Tiranov,B.Korzh,V.B.Verma,S.W.Nam,F.Marsili,A.Ferrier,P.Goldner,H.Herrmann, C. Silberhorn, W. Sohler, M. Afzelius, and N. Gisin, “Quantum teleportation from a telecom-wavelength photon to a solid-state quantum memory,” Nat. Photonics8, 775–778 (2014)

work page 2014

Show all 20 references

[9]

Kilometer-range, high resolution depth imaging via 1560 nm wavelength single-photon detection,

A. McCarthy, N. J. Krichel, N. R. Gemmell, X. Ren, M. G. Tanner, S. N. Dorenbos, V. Zwiller, R. H. Hadﬁeld, and G. S. Buller, “Kilometer-range, high resolution depth imaging via 1560 nm wavelength single-photon detection,” Opt. Express 21, 8904 (2013)

2013
[10]

Detecting Dark Matter with Superconducting Nanowires,

Y. Hochberg, I. Charaev, S.-W. Nam, V. Verma, M. Colangelo, and K. K. Berggren, “Detecting Dark Matter with Superconducting Nanowires,” arXiv1903.05101 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[11]

The Origins Space Telescope (OST) Mission Concept Study Interim Report,

The OST mission concept study team, “The Origins Space Telescope (OST) Mission Concept Study Interim Report,” arXiv 1809.09702(2018)

2018 arXiv
[12]

A 64-pixel NbTiN superconducting nanowire single-photon detector array for spatially resolved photon detection,

S. Miki, T. Yamashita, Z. Wang, and H. Terai, “A 64-pixel NbTiN superconducting nanowire single-photon detector array for spatially resolved photon detection,” Opt. Express22, 7811 (2014)

2014
[13]

Readout architectures for superconducting nanowire single photon detectors,

A. N. McCaughan, “Readout architectures for superconducting nanowire single photon detectors,” Supercond. Sci. Technol. 31, 040501 (2018)

2018
[14]

A near-infrared 64-pixel superconducting nanowire single photon detector array with integrated multiplexed readout,

M. S. Allman, V. B. Verma, M. Stevens, T. Gerrits, R. D. Horansky, A. E. Lita, F. Marsili, A. Beyer, M. D. Shaw, D. Kumor, R. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, “A near-infrared 64-pixel superconducting nanowire single photon detector array with integrated multiplexed readout,” Appl. Phys....

2015
[15]

High-time-resolved 64-channel single-ﬂux quantum- based address encoder integrated with a multi-pixel superconducting nanowire single-photon detector,

S. Miyajima, M. Yabuno, S. Miki, T. Yamashita, and H. Terai, “High-time-resolved 64-channel single-ﬂux quantum- based address encoder integrated with a multi-pixel superconducting nanowire single-photon detector,” Opt. Express 26, 29045 (2018)

2018
[16]

Superconducting- nanowire single-photon-detector linear array,

Q. Zhao, A. McCaughan, F. Bellei, F. Najaﬁ, D. De Fazio, A. Dane, Y. Ivry, and K. K. Berggren, “Superconducting- nanowire single-photon-detector linear array,” Appl. Phys. Lett.103, 142602 (2013)

2013
[17]

Frequency-multiplexed bias and readout of a 16-pixel superconducting nanowire single-photon detector array,

S. Doerner, A. Kuzmin, S. Wuensch, I. Charaev, F. Boes, T. Zwick, and M. Siegel, “Frequency-multiplexed bias and readout of a 16-pixel superconducting nanowire single-photon detector array,” Appl. Phys. Lett.111, 032603 (2017)

2017
[18]

Single-photon imager based on a superconducting nanowire delay line,

Q. Y. Zhao, D. Zhu, N. Calandri, A. E. Dane, A. N. McCaughan, F. Bellei, H. Z. Wang, D. F. Santavicca, and K. K. Berggren, “Single-photon imager based on a superconducting nanowire delay line,” Nat. Photonics11, 247–251 (2017)

2017
[19]

A four-pixel single-photon pulse-position array fabricated from wsi superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors,

V. B. Verma, R. Horansky, F. Marsili, J. A. Stern, M. D. Shaw, A. E. Lita, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, “A four-pixel single-photon pulse-position array fabricated from wsi superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors,” Appl. Phys. Lett.104, 051115 (2014)

2014
[20]

See http://www.dotfast-consulting.at/ and https://uqdevices.com/. The use of trade names is intended to allow the measurements to be appropriately interpreted and does not imply endorsement by the US government, nor does it imply these are necessarily the best available for th...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Overview and results of the Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration,

D.M.Boroson,B.S.Robinson,D.V.Murphy,D.A.Burianek,F.Khatri,J.M.Kovalik,Z.Sodnik,andD.M.Cornwell, “Overview and results of the Lunar Laser Communication Demonstration,” inFree-Space Laser Communication and Atmospheric Propagation XXVI, vol. 8971 H. Hemmati and D. M. Boroson, eds. (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2014), p. 89710S

work page 2014

[2] [2]

Superconducting nanowire single photon detectors for deep space optical communication (Conference Presentation),

M. Shaw, F. Marsili, A. Beyer, R. Briggs, J. Allmaras, and W. H. Farr, “Superconducting nanowire single photon detectors for deep space optical communication (Conference Presentation),” Proc.SPIE (2017)

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Status of NASA’s deep space optical communication technology demonstration,

A. Biswas, M. Srinivasan, R. Rogalin, S. Piazzolla, J. Liu, B. Schratz, A. Wong, E. Alerstam, M. Wright, W. T. Roberts, J. Kovalik, G. Ortiz, A. Na-Nakornpanom, M. Shaw, C. Okino, K. Andrews, M. Peng, D. Orozco, and W. Klipstein, “Status of NASA’s deep space optical communication technology demonstration,” in2017 IEEE International Conference on Space Opt...

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Quantumkeydistribution over a 40-dB channel loss using superconducting single-photon detectors,

H.Takesue,S.W.Nam,Q.Zhang,R.H.Hadﬁeld,T.Honjo,K.Tamaki,andY.Yamamoto,“Quantumkeydistribution over a 40-dB channel loss using superconducting single-photon detectors,” Nat. Photonics1, 343–348 (2007)

work page 2007

[5] [5]

Demonstration of a quantum controlled-NOT gate in the telecommunications band,

J. Chen, J. B. Altepeter, M. Medic, K. F. Lee, B. Gokden, R. H. Hadﬁeld, S. W. Nam, and P. Kumar, “Demonstration of a quantum controlled-NOT gate in the telecommunications band,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 133603 (2008)

work page 2008

[6] [6]

Quantum storage of photonic entanglement in a crystal,

C. Clausen, I. Usmani, F. Bussiéres, N. Sangouard, M. Afzelius, H. De Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, “Quantum storage of photonic entanglement in a crystal,” Nature469, 508–512 (2011)

work page 2011

[7] [7]

High-order temporal coherences of chaotic and laser light,

M. J. Stevens, B. Baek, E. A. Dauler, A. J. Kerman, R. J. Molnar, S. A. Hamilton, K. K. Berggren, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, “High-order temporal coherences of chaotic and laser light,” Opt. Express18, 1430 (2010)

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Quantum teleportation from a telecom-wavelength photon to a solid-state quantum memory,

F.Bussières,C.Clausen,A.Tiranov,B.Korzh,V.B.Verma,S.W.Nam,F.Marsili,A.Ferrier,P.Goldner,H.Herrmann, C. Silberhorn, W. Sohler, M. Afzelius, and N. Gisin, “Quantum teleportation from a telecom-wavelength photon to a solid-state quantum memory,” Nat. Photonics8, 775–778 (2014)

work page 2014