Single photon sources and detectors

Rev. Sci. Instrum. 82, 071101 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3610677 82, 071101
© 2011 American Institute of Physics.
Invited Review Article: Single-photon
sources and detectors
Cite as: Rev. Sci. Instrum. 82, 071101 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3610677
Submitted: 14 December 2010 . Accepted: 07 June 2011 . Published Online: 27 July 2011
M. D. Eisaman, J. Fan, A. Migdall, and S. V. Polyakov
ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
Progress in quantum-dot single photon sources for quantum information technologies: A
broad spectrum overview
Applied Physics Reviews 7, 021309 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0010193
A quantum engineer's guide to superconducting qubits
Applied Physics Reviews 6, 021318 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5089550
Toward large-scale fault-tolerant universal photonic quantum computing
APL Photonics 4, 060902 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5100160

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS 82, 071101 (2011)
Invited Review Article: Single-photon sources and detectors
M. D. Eisaman,a)
J. Fan, A. Migdall, and S. V. Polyakov
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, USA
and Joint Quantum Institute, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
(Received 14 December 2010; accepted 7 June 2011; published online 27 July 2011)
We review the current status of single-photon-source and single-photon-detector technologies oper-
ating at wavelengths from the ultraviolet to the infrared. We discuss applications of these technolo-
gies to quantum communication, a field currently driving much of the development of single-photon
sources and detectors. © 2011 American Institute of Physics. [doi:10.1063/1.3610677]
I. INTRODUCTION
A. What is a photon?
A photon is defined as an elementary excitation of a sin-
gle mode of the quantized electromagnetic field.1
The con-
cept of quantized electromagnetic radiation2
was first intro-
duced by Planck in 1900 to explain the black-body radiation
spectrum.3–5
It was also used by Einstein in 1905 to explain
the photoelectric effect5–7
and by Compton in 1923 to explain
the wavelength shift of scattered x-rays.8
The term “photon”
was first introduced by G. N. Lewis in 1926.9
The formal
quantization of the electromagnetic field was first performed
by Dirac in 1927.10,11
The mode k of the quantized electromagnetic field is la-
beled by its frequency νk, and a single photon in mode k has
energy equal to hνk, where h is Planck’s constant. While the
monochromatic definition of a photon implies delocalization
in time, in practice one often talks about propagating “single-
photon states” that are localized to some degree in time and
space. Mathematically, one can describe such states as super-
positions of monochromatic photon modes.1
Much discussion
can be found in the literature about the definition of a “photon
wavefunction.”12
For the purposes of this review, we adopt
the following operational definition of a single-photon state:
given a detector that can determine the number of incident
photons (in some finite-width frequency range) with 100%
accuracy, a single-photon state is an excitation of the electro-
magnetic field (localized to some degree in both space and
time) such that the detector measures exactly one photon for
each incident state. Put another way, a single-photon state is
one for which the photon-number statistics have a mean value
of one photon and a variance of zero. In addition, since the re-
sults of quantum measurements may depend on the measure-
ment procedure and apparatus, the physics of the measure-
ment process itself must also be considered.13
Single-photon
detectors typically work by sensing an electrical signal that
results from the absorption of a photon.
B. Why produce and detect single photons?
A major driver of the current research into single-photon
sources and single-photon detectors is the explosive growth
a)Present address: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973,
USA.
of the field of quantum-information science over the last few
decades.14,15
At its core, quantum-information science in-
volves the encoding, communication, manipulation, and mea-
surement of information using quantum-mechanical objects.
Research has shown that using quantum objects for this pur-
pose allows certain computational tasks to be performed more
efficiently than thought possible using classical objects,16
and
potentially allows unconditionally secure communication.17
Photonic qubits, where information is encoded in the quantum
state of the photon using degrees of freedom such as polariza-
tion, momentum, energy, etc., are an ideal choice for many
of these applications, since (a) photons travel at the speed of
light and interact weakly with their environment over long
distances, which results in lower noise and loss and (b) pho-
tons can be manipulated with linear optics.
While quantum communication applications often make
use of single photons, many quantum cryptography protocols,
in the form of quantum key distribution (QKD) in particular,
demand single photons traveling over a channel,17–19
as more
than one photon can compromise the security of the commu-
nication by allowing an eavesdropper to gain information.20,21
While subsequent schemes, such as those that rely on decoy
states22–24
and privacy amplification,25–28
have been shown to
relax this single-photon requirement and to reduce the po-
tential leakage of information to an eavesdropper, quantum
cryptography has been a significant driver of single-photon
source development. And certainly it is the case that long dis-
tance QKD, which requires quantum repeaters,29–33
is likely
to rely heavily on single photons. Some quantum computa-
tion protocols also require single photons, and in addition
require that all single photons used in the protocol be in-
distinguishable from one another.34
Because these quantum
protocols require single photons, it is advantageous to em-
ploy single-photon detectors that ideally can determine the
number of photons in a given pulse. Another single-photon-
detection application that has come out of QKD, but has appli-
cations in other non-quantum-related fields, is the production
of truly random numbers. Light provides a natural solution
to this problem, where single photons encountering a beam-
splitter exhibit inherent quantum randomness in which out-
put path they take.28,35,36
Extracting this path information re-
quires single-photon detection. These requirements, coupled
with the strong growth of quantum-information applications
(Fig. 1), have provided motivation for the development of im-
proved single-photon sources28
and single-photon detectors.37
0034-6748/2011/82(7)/071101/25/$30.00 © 2011 American Institute of Physics
82, 071101-1

071101-2 Eisaman et al. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 82, 071101 (2011)
FIG. 1. (Color) Papers published each year. ISI Web of Knowledge search
terms are shown.
In addition to quantum-information science, single-
photon detectors are used for a wide range of applications, in-
cluding bioluminescence detection,38
DNA sequencing,39–42
Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) for studying pro-
tein folding,43–45
light detection and ranging (LIDAR) for
remote sensing,46,47
and light ranging on shorter scales,48
optical time domain reflectometry,49–55
picosecond imaging
circuit analysis,56–61
single-molecule spectroscopy62–68
and
fluorescence-lifetime measurements,69
medical applications
such as diffuse optical tomography70
and positron emission
tomography,71
and finally applications such as traditional and
quantum-enabled metrology.72–80
This review attempts to describe the state-of-the-art of
single-photon sources and detectors over the broad range
of fields in which these technologies are employed. We
have attempted to make the review accessible to those
who are new to the field, while at the same time serving
as a valuable reference to experts. More specific reviews
focused on quantum-metrology applications,79
quantum-
information applications,81
fluorescence lifetime determina-
tion,82
quantum-dot/photonic-crystal sources,83
single-
emitter sources,84
cavity-based sources,85
single-photon
sources generally,86,87
and solid-state single-photon detec-
tors88
may also be of interest to the reader.
C. A brief history of single-photon sources and
detectors
Historically, the first detectors able to register single opti-
cal photons were photomultiplier tubes (PMTs), which com-
bined the photoelectric cell with an electron multiplier. While
early on, Hertz89
studied the effect of light on an electrical dis-
charge, and others developed what evolved into the photoelec-
tric cell (see, for example, the work of Elster and Geitel90
), it
was not until the development of the electron multiplier that
the signal from a single photon could be observed. As part of
an intense race to develop a workable electronic television, a
photosensitive element and an electron multiplier were com-
bined in the 1930s by Iams and Salzberg91
and Zworykin92
at
RCA and Kubetsky93
in the former Soviet Union. The PMT
first demonstrated single-photon sensitivity very soon after
these developments.94–96
It was not until the work of McIntyre on Geiger-mode
avalanche photodiodes (APDs) in the mid 1960s that the
possibility of solid-state optical single-photon detection be-
came a reality.97
These APDs, when they are designed and
fabricated specifically to operate as single-photon detectors
rather than as analog detectors, are referred to as single-
photon avalanche diodes (SPADs). Silicon-based SPADs en-
abled visible-photon counting with high efficiency and low
noise (relative to analog semiconductor detectors).98
How-
ever, SPAD development has been much more difficult in the
infrared (IR), where the competing requirements of a material
with good IR absorption and low-noise gain tend to be mutu-
ally exclusive. As a result, IR SPADs are inferior to Si SPADs
in all characteristics, although there are significant efforts fo-
cused on addressing this problem.99–102
The surge of research interest in the field of quantum in-
formation over the last few decades led to a concomitant surge
in research into single-photon sources and single-photon de-
tectors. This growth is clear from the citation-database search
results shown in Fig. 1.
II. SINGLE-PHOTON SOURCES
A. Characteristics of an ideal single-photon source
An ideal single-photon source86
would be one for which:
a single photon can be emitted at any arbitrary time defined
by the user (i.e., the source is deterministic, or “on-demand”),
the probability of emitting a single photon is 100%, the
probability of multiple-photon emission is 0%, subsequent
emitted photons are indistinguishable, and the repetition rate
is arbitrarily fast (limited only by the temporal duration of
the single-photon pulses, perhaps). Deviations from these
ideal characteristics, which are always present in real-world
sources, must be considered when designing experiments. In
Sec. II B, we consider deterministic single-photon sources
based on color centers,103–105
quantum dots (QDs),106–108
sin-
gle atoms,109
single ions,110
single molecules,111
and atomic
ensembles,112
all of which can to some degree emit sin-
gle photons “on-demand.” In Sec. II C, we describe prob-
abilistic single-photon sources. These sources rely on pho-
tons created in pairs via parametric downconversion (PDC)
in bulk crystals113,114
and waveguides,115
and four-wave mix-
ing (FWM) in optical fibers.116,117
For these sources the cre-
ation of photon pairs is probabilistic, rather than determinis-
tic. However, because the photons are created in pairs, one
photon (the heralding photon) can be used to herald the cre-
ation of the other photon (the heralded single photon). We
would like to highlight here that while the distinction between
a deterministic and a probabilistic source is clear in the ab-
stract, that this distinction blurs in practice. An example of
this is seen when a source classified as deterministic has loss
in the extraction of the photon from the region where it is
generated. As that emission (or extraction) loss increases, a
theoretically deterministic source becomes more probabilis-
tic in operation. Keeping this caveat in mind, these terms are
helpful descriptors and thus we will use them.

TABLE I. Comparison of single-photon sources. Sources are characterized as probabilistic (P) or deterministic (D) (remembering the caveat that a deterministic
source can in practice lose some or much of its determinism and operate in a more probabilistic fashion due to issues such as low emission efficiency). The
wavelength range possible for each method is given, along with how far an individual source can be tuned. The inherent bandwidth indicates the typical spectral
width of the emitted photons. The emission efficiency is the overall extraction efficiency of the source from generation of the photons to emission of the light,
including any spectral filtering that would be necessary for typical quantum-information applications (the efficiency of a detector used to measure the source
is not included). Note that for two-photon sources g(2)(0) typically increases as the generation rate increases, so the values here are for the lower end of the
generation ranges.
Wave- Wave-
Prob. length length Output
or Temp. range tunability Inherent Emission spatial
Source type Deter. (K) general specific bandwidth efficiency mode g(2)(0) Refs.
Faint laser P 300 vis-IR nm GHz 1 Single 1
Two photon (heralded)
Atomic cascade P ... Atomic line MHz 10 MHz 0.0001 Multi ... 122
PDC
Bulk P 300 vis-IR nm nm 0.6 Multi 0.0014 123–125
Periodically poled P 300–400 vis-IR nm nm 0.85 Multia ... 126
Waveguide (periodically poled) P 300–400 vis-IR nm nm 0.07 Single 0.0007 127
Gated D 300 vis-IR nm nm 0.27 Single 0.02 128,129,368
Multiplexed D 300 vis-IR nm nm 0.1 Single 0.08 130
FWM
DSF P 4–300 IR nm nm 0.02 Single ... 131
BSMF P 300 vis-IR nm nm 0.26 Single 0.022 132
PCF P 300 vis-IR 10 nm nm 0.18 Single 0.01 133
SOI waveguide P 300 IR 10 nm nm 0.17 Single ... 134
Laser-PDC hybrid P 300 vis-IR nm nm ... Single 0.37 120
Isolated system
Single molecule D 300 500–750 nm 30 nm 30 nm 0.04 Multi 0.09 135–137
Color center (NV) D 300 640–800 nm nm nm 0.022 Multi 0.07 138
QD (GaN) D 200 340–370 nm nm nm ... Multi 0.4 106
QD (CdSe/ZnS) D 300 500–900 nm nm 15 nm 0.05 Multi 0.003 139
QD (InAs) in cavity D 5 920–950 nm 10 GHz 1 GHz 0.1 Single 0.02 140
Single ion in cavity D ≈0 Atomic line MHz 5 MHz 0.08 Single 0.015 141
Single atom in cavity D ≈0 Atomic line MHz 10 MHz 0.05 Single 0.06 142,143
Ensemble
Rb, Cs D 10−4 Atomic line MHz 10 MHz 0.2 Single 0.25 144,145
a
While generally bulk and periodically poled PDC sources are inherently multimode, they can be engineered to emit with high overlap to a single-spatial mode (Ref. 146).
Section II D considers unique approaches to single-
photon sources, including carbon nanotubes,118,119
quantum
interference,120
and two-photon absorption.121
In Table I, we
list various types of single-photon sources and some relevant
parameters with which to make comparisons and to get a feel
for what is possible with each source type.
In Sec. IV, we discuss the importance of multi-photon
emission to an application of quantum-information science,
and the experimental status of single-photon sources for
quantum-information protocols. Before moving on to discuss
the current state-of-the-art in single-photon-source research,
it is necessary to introduce a common tool for characteriz-
ing the single-photon nature of the emission of a source: the
second-order correlation function.
By “single-photon nature” of the emission field of a
source, we mean the probability of multiple-photon emission
relative to the probability of single-photon emission. An ideal
single-photon source would emit a single photon every time
with zero probability of multiple-photon emission. A photon
source can be characterized using the second-order correla-
tion function,147,148
g(2)
(
r1,
r2, t2 − t1) =
: n̂(
r1, t1) n̂(
r2, t2) :
n̂(
r1, t1) n̂(
r2, t2)
, (1)
where n̂ denotes the photon-number operators â†
â and :: de-
notes operator normal ordering, i.e., with the annihilation op-
erators â to the right of the creation operators â†
. In many
quantum optics experiments, a non-polarizing beamsplitter
is used to divide the photon field into two equal parts, with
each of them individually photo-detected. Such a setup is re-
ferred to as a Hanbury-Brown Twiss interferometer.149
For
an ideal single-photon emitter, the cross-correlation function
for the two outputs of the beamsplitter is g(2)
(0) = 0 with
g(2)
(τ) g(2)
(0), because after emission of a single photon,
the emitter must be excited again before a second photon
can be emitted. It can never emit two photons at the same
time. In practice, the time response of the detectors will de-
termine minimum g(2)
(0) that can be measured even with an
ideal g(2)
(0) = 0 source. For comparison and completeness,
an ideal laser is a source of photons where each emission is

FIG. 2. (Color) Single emitter system excited by some means then emits a
single photon.
independent of all other emission events and g(2)
(τ) = 1 for
τ = 0 and for all τ. We note that in some applications, low
multi-photon emission is the critical requirement rather than
a low g(2)
and thus an attenuated laser, due to its convenience,
is often employed.
B. Deterministic sources
1. Single-emitter systems
There are a variety of systems that have been investi-
gated for use as on-demand sources of single photons. Most
of these are “single-emitter” quantum systems (shown ide-
alistically in Fig. 2 with two internal levels), such as semi-
conductor quantum dots,106–108,150–153
mesoscopic quantum
wells,154
single molecules,111,155–157
single atoms,109,142,158
single ions,110,141,159
and color centers.103–105,160,161
While each of these single-emitter approaches uses a dif-
ferent material system, most rely on similar principles of op-
eration. When single-photon emission is desired, some ex-
ternal control is used to put the system into an excited state
that will emit a single photon upon relaxation to some lower-
energy state. Often coupling techniques using optical cavities
are used to engineer the emission characteristics.
a. Single neutral atoms. Single-atom emitters are
designed to work in the strong-coupling regime of cav-
ity quantum electrodynamics, where the single photon pro-
foundly impacts the dynamics of the atom-cavity system and
the optical cavity greatly enhances single-photon emission
into a single spatial mode with a Gaussian transverse pro-
file. The operation of a single-atom emitter requires a tour-
de-force experimental effort. To date, alkali atoms such as Cs
and Rb have been used.109,143,158,162–164
Atoms are first cap-
tured and cooled inside a magneto-optical trap (MOT). After
the MOT is turned off, the atoms fall freely under the pull of
gravity. When atoms pass through a high-finesse optical cav-
ity, an optical trap is turned on. For a single-atom emitter, it is
important to have only one atom trapped inside the cavity. The
atom has a -type energy level system (or similar), consisting
of two metastable ground states |g and |u and one excited
state |e. The resonance of the optical cavity is made close to
the transition of |g → |e and the transition of |u → |e is
on-resonance with the pump laser pulse. The system consist-
ing of the atom and the optical mode of the cavity (with state
|atomic state|photon number ) leads to a 3-level Hamil-
tonian system with states |e|0, |u|0, and |g|1.
With appropriate control of the pump laser pulse and
atom-cavity coupling, the atomic state |u can be coherently
transferred to state |g via stimulated Raman adiabatic pas-
sage (STIRAP).165
During the process of STIRAP, a single
photon is emitted in the cavity mode, which couples to the
external field through one of the cavity mirrors. The atom-
cavity mode is now in the state |g|1, which must be re-
cycled to the state |u|0 for the next run of single-photon
emission. The efficiency of single-photon generation for this
approach can be close to unity (within an experimental un-
certainty of 20%), although losses on exiting the system
can be considerable, yielding in one example an emission
probability of 4.8% with a g(2)
(0) = 0.06.142
The coherent
process is reversible and the source can work both as a single-
photon emitter and receiver and, because atoms are all iden-
tical, atom-based sources could be produced in quantity for
a scalable system, although the experimental overhead would
be formidable. Despite these advantages, single-atom emit-
ters are compromised by a limited trapping time,142
fluc-
tuating atom-cavity mode coupling166
that can yield deco-
herence effects (although these effects can be made small),
and possible multi-atom effects. All of these issues need to
be resolved before single atoms can be used as true on-
demand sources of single photons and nodes in quantum
networks.
b. Single ions. Ions used as single-photon
emitters110,141,167
also have a -type energy-level con-
figuration (i.e., with two ground states and one excited
state). While both far-off-resonant Raman scattering and
small-detuning (from resonance) STIRAP were proposed for
single-photon generation, the Raman scattering path may
offer higher single-photon emission probability.110
The use
of a radio-frequency ion trap can stably localize the single
ion in the center of the optical cavity, with the capability of
confining the ion motion wavepacket to much smaller than
the optical wavelength and fixing the wavepacket position
with a precision of a few nanometers. This overcomes the
issues encountered by single neutral-atom emitters and
ensures continuous production of single-photon pulses. With
only a single ion trapped inside the cavity, the possibility of
multiple-photon events is eliminated.141
However, because
the resonance transitions of ions are in the ultraviolet region,
the excited states have strong spontaneous decay rates that
compete with the emission of radiation into the cavity mode.
In addition, the ion may remain in the ground state at the
end of the excitation pulse without emitting a single photon.
These factors can seriously reduce the probability of emitting
a single photon during each pump cycle. As with single
neutral atoms, single ions as the basis of a single-photon
source have the advantage that they are all identical, and
thus indistinguishability between different sources and
different pulses from the same source is not an issue. In
addition, achieving low levels of multi-photon emission
and low decoherence do not seem to be inherent problems
with ion-based systems. While significant progress has been
made to manipulate several ions into a single system for
quantum-information applications with separate areas for
storage and processing168–170
(all important steps toward a
truly scalable system), there are significant problems still to
be faced. One such problem concerns how efficiently light
can be collected, as the usual solution - using strong cavity
coupling - is difficult with a charged particle.

c. Single molecules. Since the first observation of pho-
ton anti-bunching in a single-molecule system,156,171
single-
photon emission by single molecules has been extensively
studied by many groups in solid and liquid hosts, at both
cryogenic and room temperatures. The molecular electron
transition involved can be approximated by a 3-level sys-
tem, which consists of a singlet ground state |S0, a singlet
excited state |S1, and a triplet intermediate state |T1. Each
state represents a set of vibrational energy levels. An electron
in a vibrational level of the ground state is optically trans-
ferred to a vibrational level in the excited state, and then
radiatively de-excites back to the ground-state vibrational
manifold. Thus the single-photon emission spans a broad
spectrum. The single-photon emission repetitively occurs
while the cycling of |S0 → |S1 → |S0 continues, until the
electron transitions to the dark state |T1, which normally oc-
curs with a small probability. Electrons staying in the dark
state lower the emission rate of single photons and contribute
to bunching on a longer time scale. This bunching at longer
times is characteristic of any rapidly emitting light source
that exhibits blinking.172
To emit a single photon on-demand,
a pulsed pump laser can be used157
with its pulse duration
shorter than the lifetime of |S1. An alternative approach is
to apply a cw pump laser to the molecule, while sinusoidally
sweeping an external electric field to shift the molecule’s ab-
sorption line on and off the laser frequency through the Stark
effect, thus periodically modulating the single-photon emis-
sion. The probability of single-photon emission approaches
unity at high laser intensity. When implemented in free-space,
the laser electric field with finite spatial extent may excite
more than one molecule and contribute to multiple-photon
events. Recent work with a single molecule inside a high fi-
nesse optical cavity shows better controllability of the single-
photon emission field.111
Despite this progress in emission
control, a single molecule can become photo-bleached re-
ducing its utility, but current advances in material develop-
ment now allow hours of continuous operation of a single
molecule under continuous illumination without bleaching.
This approach needs further improvement for use in practical
applications. So far single-molecule-based sources have only
demonstrated relatively poor g(2)
(0) values and photon indis-
tinguishability between photons of the same molecule,173
so it
remains to be determined whether improvements can be made
and different sources can be controlled so as to yield indistin-
guishable photons, necessary for scalable systems. We also
note that while room temperature operation is possible,174
tests of indistinguishability were performed at 1.4 K.173
d. Quantum dots. Semiconductor quantum
dots106,107,140,150–153,175–185
have been long studied for
use as single-photon sources. They are created with meth-
ods such as molecular beam epitaxy, where the process
of self-assembled (Stranski-Krastanov) growth186
forms
tiny islands of smaller-band-gap semiconductor embedded
in a larger-band-gap semiconductor. In addition chemical
synthesis can be used to produce colloidal quantum dots
for single-photon source applications.139
The small size of
quantum dots results in a discrete energy structure for the
electrons and holes. In the weak-excitation regime, an exciton
(electron-hole pair) can be produced on demand.
Radiative recombination of the electron-hole pair results
in single-photon emission. The radiative lifetime is on the or-
der of 1 ns or less. Quantum dots can be excited either op-
tically or electrically. Both optically and electrically excited
QDs rely on there being a single system to limit emission
to one photon at a time, but they do it via different physical
paths. In the optical case, the excitation is created by photon
absorption that saturates the single system. In the electrical
case, the excitation is created by directly moving a charge car-
rier or carrier pair onto the QD. This can be done through the
Coulomb blockade effect whereby charges can only move to
the QD controllably one at a time. This has been referred to as
an electron or photon turnstile.154
Examples of optically ac-
tive quantum dots include CdSe in ZnS,139
InP in GaInP, and
InAs in GaAs,187
while an example of an electrically driven
quantum dot is InAs.153,185
The emission direction can be engineered by growing
distributed-Bragg-reflection (DBR) mirrors on both sides of
the quantum dots. Quantum dots can also be integrated into
micro-cavities such as micro- pillar, disk, sphere, or photonic-
crystal cavities.107,178,180,182–184
When the polarization and
energy of the emission field are matched to the cavity, the
rate of spontaneous emission of a quantum dot can be signif-
icantly increased due to the Purcell effect.188
In addition, the
well-defined cavity mode allows for collection of the emit-
ted single photons into a single spatial mode. It is important
to remember that while the generation quantum efficiency,
i.e., the probability that an excitation creates a single pho-
ton, can be close to unity, the emission efficiency can still
be low. Two electron-hole pairs can also be excited to form
a biexciton state. In general, biexciton and exciton transi-
tions differ in energy due to the local Coulomb interaction,
but both biexciton and exciton transitions are doublets due
to local crystal asymmetry. This effect can be used to gen-
erate polarization-entangled photon pairs.189
Quantum dots
as single-photon emitters need to operate at cryogenic tem-
peratures, which is still technically cumbersome. In addition,
the g(2)
(0) levels achieved are not particularly low in com-
parison to other single-photon emitters, due to the fact that
QDs live in an uncontrolled solid-state matrix. This, along
with the fact that each QD is a unique structure, even though
there is progress in tuning them controllably to make them
appear indistinguishable,190,191
significantly dims the poten-
tial of practical scalable systems.
e. Color centers. A nitrogen-vacancy (NV) color
center160,192
is formed by a substitutional nitrogen atom and a
vacancy at an adjacent lattice position in diamond. The optical
transition of NV centers can be modeled by a three-level en-
ergy system with ground state |g and excited state |e, where
|e is also thermally coupled to a metastable state |s. The ex-
cited state can decay to the ground state |g and emit a single
photon. It can also thermally couple to the metastable |s. This
state is referred to as a “shelving” state, as while in that state,
the |e to |g emission ceases. The long lifetime of this shelv-
ing state |s results in a decrease in the single-photon emission
rate and also causes photon bunching when looking at longer
times than the color center’s main transition lifetime. When
the nitrogen-vacancy center is used, the emission line is at
637 nm with a spectrum broader than 100 nm.160,192
When

another type of diamond lattice defect, the nickel-nitrogen-
vacancy center is used, the zero-phonon emission line
is around 800 nm and the spectral bandwidth is a few
nanometers.103–105
We note that these are just two of hun-
dreds of such color centers in diamond, so it is possible that
other suitable defects may be of use in these applications.193
Earlier studies with bulk diamond were restricted to low
single-photon collection efficiency because of diamond’s high
refractive index (n = 2.4), which leads to a small collec-
tion solid angle and spatial aberration. Now the use of di-
amond nanocrystals with a typical subwavelength size of
40 nm (Ref. 161) makes refraction irrelevant. It also re-
duces the collection of scattered background light, making the
photon-antibunching effect more dominant, thus much more
closely approximating an ideal single-photon source. Similar
to single-molecule emitters, with efficient optical pumping,
the radiative efficiency of a NV-center is close to unity at room
temperature,160
although some are operated at cryogenic tem-
peratures. The lifetime of the excited state is a few nanosec-
onds. One important advantage of this implementation is that
NV centers are photostable and do not exhibit bleaching or
photo-blinking. NV centers with g(2)
(0) values less than 0.1
have been reported.138
A disadvantage of NV centers is that
they are not identical, although some tunability has now been
demonstrated via external electric fields.194
There are also ef-
forts to build optical cavities near them195
improving coupling
efficiency and offering a potential path to scalability.
2. Ensemble-based systems
In addition to these single-emitter approaches, on-
demand single-photon sources have also been realized that
use collective excitations in ensembles of atoms.144,145,196,197
These atoms have “”-type energy levels (or similar), con-
sisting of two metastable ground states |g, and |u, and one
excited state |e as seen in Fig. 3. All atoms are first op-
tically pumped to, for example, state |u. Then the ensem-
ble is illuminated with a weak “write” laser pulse defined
by its frequency and momentum (ωw ,
kw ), which couples to
the |u → |e transition to induce the emission of photons
(ωs,
ks) on the |e → |g transition with a small probability.
The loose boundary condition allows these Raman photons to
be spontaneously emitted in multiple spatial modes. The suc-
cessful detection of a single Raman photon within a particu-
lar acceptance solid angle projects the whole ensemble into
a specific single spin-wave state (
kspin =
kw −
ks) due to en-
ergy and momentum conservation. The successful detection
of two Raman photons within the same acceptance solid an-
gle projects the whole ensemble into a specific spin wave state
with two quanta (assuming unit detection efficiency), and so
on for higher numbers of excitations.
When the excited atomic ensemble is illuminated by a
“read” laser pulse (ωr ,
kr ) which resonantly couples to the
|g → |e transition, the atomic spin wave excitations are
mapped onto photon modes (ωi ,
ki ) on the |e → |u tran-
sition. To operate as a single-photon source, a pair of ac-
ceptance solid angles needs to be carefully chosen to satisfy
the momentum conservation (
kw −
ks) =
kspin = −(
kr −
ki ).
Write/Read Laser
Single Raman Photon
(a)
(b)
Single-Photon
Detector
Read
Heralded
photon
Write
Heralding
photon
|g |g
|u |u
|e |e
FIG. 3. (Color online) Ensemble-based emitter scheme (a). Laser pulses first
prepare the system in state |u, then probabilistically create a single collec-
tive excitation (b). The successful excitation is heralded by the detection of
a single emitted photon at the |e → |g transition. Then a strong read pulse
deterministically pumps the single excitation back to its original state gener-
ating just a single photon at the |e → |u transition.
The “write” laser pulse is made weak to reduce the likelihood
of creating more than one photon-atomic-spin-wave excita-
tion in the selected mode. (Because detection efficiency is less
than unity and typically not photon-number resolving, the de-
tection cannot distinguish between one and more than one ex-
citation).
In many experiments, the major decoherence mechanism
is related to atomic motion, i.e., the atoms may move out of
the interaction region, (the typical transverse dimension of the
interaction region of laser-atomic ensemble in experiments is
100 μm), or the atomic motion perturbs the phase of the ex-
cited atomic spin wave which destroys the momentum con-
servation, so even though the photon is stored it will not be
retrieved in the anticipated mode. The first problem may be
overcome by using optical-dipole trapping or an optical lat-
tice. The second type of dephasing mechanism is reduced by
choosing a smaller angle with respect to the optical axis of
the write and read pulses for collecting the single photons. A
smaller angle corresponds to a longer atomic spin wavelength
(λspin = 2π/kspin) that is more resistant to motion-induced
phase perturbation, resulting in longer coherence times which
better allows for user-defined programmable delays. Since the
first experimental demonstrations of an on-demand single-
photon source based on atomic ensembles of Cs and Rb
seven years ago, the demonstrated spin-wave coherence time
has been extended from a few hundred nanoseconds to one
millisecond.198,199
C. Probabilistic sources
Although many applications, especially those in the
field of quantum-information science, require an on-demand
source of single photons, and this has led to intense research
into developing truly deterministic single-photon sources as
described in Sec. II B, there is another approach. This ap-
proach is to generate correlated pairs of photons, where the
detection of one photon (the heralding photon, or some-
times referred to as the conditioning photon) of the pair “her-
alds” the existence of the other photon (the heralded sin-
gle photon). Typically such “heralded single-photon sources”
involve a laser excitation of a nonlinear optical material.

Although this type of source is not “on demand” because the
pair production is a probabilistic process, the fact that the pho-
tons emitted are heralded is of much use for many quantum
information applications.
Because of the statistical nature of the pair production
process, these heralded sources must be held to average pair
production levels much less than one to avoid producing mul-
tiple pairs which would result in the heralded channel con-
taining more than one photon. If a pair is created, it will be
created at the time of one of the excitation pulses, and it will
be heralded by the detection of one of the two photons. Of
course, losses in the heralded path will result in some her-
alded photons not being emitted from the source. In addition,
false heralds due to dark counts and stray light will not yield
heralded photons. And finally, losses in the heralding chan-
nel will result in unheralded photons being emitted from the
source, which can be a problem in some applications. As sug-
gested by Klyshko,72
this last issue can be ameliorated some-
what through the use of a shutter on the heralded channel that
only opens when triggered by a herald.128,129,368
1. Parametric downconversion
Although initial efforts with photon-pair sources em-
ployed atomic-cascade schemes,200
over the last two decades
the most relied on schemes for creating correlated pho-
ton pairs have used spontaneous parametric downconversion
(PDC). This pair production process was predicted theoreti-
cally by Louisell et al. in 1961 (Ref. 201) and its use as a
source of nonclassical light was first proposed by Zeldovich
and Klyshko in 1969 (Ref. 202) with pair correlations first
observed in 1970 (Ref. 203).
In PDC, a pump laser illuminates a material with a χ(2)
optical nonlinearity, creating two photons under the con-
straints of momentum and energy conservation (Fig. 4). The
energy and momentum conservation constraints determine
the possible wavevector relations between the two down-
converted photons, a constraint generally referred to as phase
matching (for a general introduction to PDC, see Refs. 204
and 205). This constraint presents both an advantage and a
limitation. It is useful in that the emission from these sources
is highly directional, which is an advantage in most appli-
cations. It is a drawback in that the inherent dispersion of
transparent material is generally not controllable other than
the very limited control offered by temperature. As a re-
FIG. 4. (Color online) (a) Parametric downconversion of one input photon
converted to two output photons. (Conversion efficiencies of a pump photon
into a photon pair can be 10−6 (Ref. 213), so care must be taken to reject the
bulk of the pump light). Momentum conservation governs the emission an-
gles. While a noncollinear emission geometry is shown, a collinear geometry
can and often is used by orienting the optic axis angle appropriately. (b) The
conversion process is nonresonant so that a wide range of wavelengths can
be created subject only to energy and momentum conservation.
sult the phase-matching constraints often cannot be met for
the particular wavelengths of interest. This limitation can be
surmounted by techniques whereby different refractive in-
dices can be selected or an effective index can be controlled.
The former relies on polarization birefringence and the lat-
ter on waveguide design that impacts propagation velocities
in a structure. There are different types of polarization phase
matching possible for parametric downconversion: type-I,
where the two photons have the same polarization, and type-
II, where the two photons have orthogonal polarization. In ad-
dition, a type-0 phase matching, with all polarizations aligned,
is possible in appropriately engineered media.206
There are
many properties of the down-converted photon pairs that can
be correlated, including time, energy, momentum, polariza-
tion, and angular momentum for use in making a heralded
single-photon source.
The χ(2)
nonlinearity required for parametric downcon-
version occurs in many different inorganic crystals, includ-
ing, for example, KD∗
P (potassium dideuterium phosphate,
KD2PO4), BBO (beta barium borate, BaB2O4), LiNbO3
(lithium niobate), and LiIO3 (lithium iodate). Materials
are typically chosen for the strength of the χ(2)
nonlin-
earity, as well as whether the phase-matching constraints
can be satisfied for the output and pump wavelengths of
interest.
As mentioned above, researchers are also investigating
how to engineer crystals with the wavelength and phase-
matching properties they desire. The most promising of these
techniques is referred to as “periodic poling” which in-
volves periodically changing the sign of the crystal non-
linearity to achieve phase matching where it is otherwise
impossible,207
thus allowing useful down-conversion effi-
ciency. This expansion of options benefits other optimiza-
tions, such as improving the degree of factorability of the
states produced (that is states without spectral correlation be-
tween the signal and idler photons, an important characteristic
when indistinguishability or entanglement is required).208–211
For a non-factorable state, detection of the heralding
photon collapses the state of the heralded photon in a way
that can be different from one pair to the next. With factorable
states, the characteristics of the heralded photon are com-
pletely independent of the measurement result obtained upon
detection of the heralding photon. To date, many experiments
have demonstrated the usefulness of periodic poling,212–215
with a recent source demonstration focused on high degree of
factorability.146
In addition to these schemes for developing
factorable states as a means to improve efficiency and purity
in some applications, a recent result has shown that equivalent
results may be achieved by relying on temporally resolving
single-mode detection rather than direct spectral filtering.216
One disadvantage of χ(2)
-based downconversion in crys-
tals is the spatial mode of the photon pairs. The photon pairs
are typically created in multi-mode cones surrounding the
pump laser, making efficient collection by single-mode fibers
difficult. In part to circumvent this problem, recent research
has focused on producing correlated photon pairs directly in
a single-mode waveguide. This constrains the pairs produced
to just a single or a few spatial modes, as well as control-
ling the phasematching through the impact of the waveguide

Pump Signal
Idler
Pump
FIG. 5. (Color) Four-wave mixing, where two input photons are converted
to two output photons. Equal input energy pump photons are shown creating
a nondegenerate pair of output photons, but some applications make use of
the reverse process with nondegenerate pump photons producing degenerate
output photons. Also because of the nonlinearity is typically lower than in
PDC a longer interaction length is required, such as can be obtained in an
optical fiber. Such a medium necessarily requires a collinear geometry al-
though higher nonlinearity media such as atomic vapor can overcome this
restriction.
dimensions on the dispersion,217,218
and improving the degree
of factorability of the resulting states, as just discussed.219
2. Four-wave mixing
Four-wave mixing, a χ(3)
nonlinear process in which
two pump photons are converted into two correlated pho-
tons (Fig. 5), is the dominant nonlinear process in centro-
symmetric materials such as glass that do not allow χ(2)
non-
linearity. Even though the absolute χ(3)
nonlinearity of glass
is very small, optical fiber with its long interaction length
can be used to produce photon pairs via FWM. To date,
many experiments have demonstrated generation of corre-
lated photon pairs in a single spatial mode using four-wave
mixing in single-mode optical fibers,220–226
with recent re-
sults demonstrating heralded single-photon sources using dis-
persion shifted fiber (DSF), photonic crystal fiber (PCF),117
birefringent single-mode fiber (BSMF),132
and Silicon-on-
insulator (SOI) waveguides.134,227–229
One issue with pair
sources based on FWM is that Raman scattering produces a
single-photon background that must be either suppressed or
avoided.131,223,230,231
3. Probabilistic source issues
One disadvantage of heralded single-photon sources
based on probabilistic correlated photon generation, such as
the PDC- and FWM-based sources just discussed, is that there
exists a nonzero probability of generating more than one pair
of photons, and this multiple-pair probability increases to-
gether with the probability of generating one pair. Since typ-
ical SPADs cannot distinguish the detection of one photon
from the simultaneous detection of more than one photon,
multiple-pair generation cannot be distinguished from single-
pair generation. As a result, photon-pair sources must be op-
erated so that the probability of generating a single pair is low
(typically P ≈ 10%). In this sense, the g(2)
(0) of these sources
inherently degrades as P increases.232
Other effects such as
background scattering only degrade (increase) the g(2)
(0). So-
lutions to this scaling problem based on multiplexed photon-
pair source arrangements have been proposed that allow the
single-pair emission probability to increase without increas-
ing the multiple-pair emission probability,233–236
and while
full experimental realizations of these schemes have not yet
been implemented, progress is being made.130
We note also
that such a multiplexed source scheme moves a probabilis-
tic heralded source toward more deterministic operation as
the single-photon emission becomes more frequent. Photon-
number resolving detectors (see Sec. III C) also help with
this multi-photon emission problem by allowing the dis-
crimination between single-pair and multiple-pair emission
events.
Another way of dealing with the problem of probabilis-
tic emission in these sources is to couple the heralded source
with a photon storage mechanism, where once heralded a pho-
ton is stored until needed. This moves the probabilistic pair
source toward deterministic operation. Such schemes require
efficient coherent exchange of the photon state to the stored
state and back, and long-lived storage. In addition, the mem-
ory storage and retrieval times must be fast enough for prac-
tical operation. While storage for photons is challenging, a
number of schemes have been proposed and implemented to
varying degrees.237–241
In addition to being used as a heralded single-photon
source, correlated photon-pair emission, whether from para-
metric downconversion or four-wave mixing, can also be used
for the metrology application of calibrating single-photon
detectors.76,78,80
Finally as with PDC, there are efforts to cre-
ate output photon-pair states with a high degree of factora-
bility by dispersion engineering through the geometry of the
fiber.242
D. Nontraditional approaches to single-photon
sources
Other approaches to single-photon sources are also be-
ing pursued that are at an earlier stage of development than
the sources previously discussed. Examples include sources
that use carbon nanotubes,118,119
quantum interference,120
and
two-photon absorption.121
Hogele et al.119
investigated the photoluminescence of
single carbon nanotubes at low temperatures. A phonon side-
band of the nanotube was excited by a femtosecond pulsed
laser 70 meV above the peak emission energy. By direct-
ing the photo-luminescence to a Hanbury-Brown-Twiss setup,
the second-order correlation function at zero time delay was
measured to be g(2)
(0) = 0.03 at 4.2 K (with a peak emis-
sion wavelength of ≈855 nm), demonstrating that the nan-
otube only very rarely emits more than one photon upon
excitation.119
A different approach has been used recently to demon-
strate entanglement generation and a single-photon source
based on quantum interference.120,243,244
The idea is to in-
terfere a weak coherent state with a pair of photons produced
via parametric downconversion on a 50-50 beamsplitter. By
properly adjusting the relative phases and amplitudes of the
coherent state’s two-photon probability amplitude and the
two-photon probability amplitude from the downconversion
process, these two terms can be made to interfere destruc-
tively so that the probability of detecting two photons in the
output beam is suppressed. This essentially creates a modi-
fied coherent state that ideally has no two-photon term. The

experiments of Pittman et al.120
use a Hanbury-Brown-Twiss-
type setup to demonstrate a suppression of the two-photon
probability by a factor of about 2.7, corresponding to a g(2)
(0)
of ≈0.37.
Finally, Jacobs, et al.121
have proposed a scheme for mak-
ing a heralded single-photon source using laser pulses and
two-photon absorption. In this scheme, two separate laser
pulses are each sent into a two-photon absorbing medium,
transforming each pulse into a field with equal probabilities of
having zero or one photon, and arbitrarily small multi-photon
probability. These two pulses are then sent to a “controlled-
not Zeno gate” which itself uses a two-photon absorbing
medium. The operation of this gate is such that if a photon is
detected in one of the gate’s output fields, then the other out-
put contains a single photon. In this way, a heralded single-
photon source is produced. For this scheme to be demon-
strated in the lab, a suitable two-photon absorbing medium
must be found.
III. SINGLE-PHOTON DETECTORS
A. Characteristics of an ideal single-photon detector
We consider an ideal single-photon detector to be one for
which: the detection efficiency (the probability that a photon
incident upon the detector is successfully detected) is 100%,
the dark-count rate (rate of detector output pulses in the ab-
sence of any incident photons) is zero, the dead time (time
after a photon-detection event during which the detector is in-
capable of detecting a photon) is zero, and the timing jitter
(variation from event to event in the delay between the input
of the optical signal and the output of the electrical signal)
is zero. In addition, an ideal single-photon detector would
have the ability to distinguish the number of photons in an
incident pulse (referred to as “photon-number resolution”);
many single-photon detectors (e.g., single-photon avalanche
photodiodes, photomultiplier tubes (PMT), superconducting
nanowire single-photon detectors (SNSPD)) as typically used
are not photon-number resolving and can only distinguish be-
tween zero photons and more than zero photons. Deviations
from these ideals negatively impact experiments in varying
ways depending on the detector characteristic and measure-
ment involved.245
We consider in Sec. III B the details of various ap-
proaches to non-photon-number-resolving single-photon de-
tectors, including the single-photon avalanche photodiode246
(InGaAs,101,247–249
Ge,250
and Si251
), quantum dot,252
super-
conducting nanowire,253
and up-conversion detectors.254–256
In Sec. III C we consider photon-number resolv-
ing detectors such as the transition-edge sensor (TES),257
superconducting-tunnel-junction (STJ) detector,258–261
par-
allel superconducting nanowire single-photon detector (P-
SNSPD),262
charge-integration photon detector (CIPD),263
visible-light photon counter (VLPC),113,264
quantum-dot op-
tically gated field-effect transistor (QDOGFET),265
time-
multiplexed SPAD,266
SPAD array, and the recently reported
number-resolving capability of a detector based on a single
SPAD.267
The characteristics of examples of many of these
detectors are compiled in Table II for ease of comparison.
There is not always a clear distinction between
photon-number-resolving and non-photon-number-resolving
detectors, as some detectors considered to be non-photon-
number-resolving do in fact have some degree of photon-
number-resolving capability, and there are ongoing efforts to
add or improve number-resolving capability to those detec-
tors without it. Conversely, even those detectors classified as
photon-number-resolving do not tell the true number of inci-
dent photons if their efficiency is less than unity. In addition,
dark counts add to the discrepancy between the measured re-
sult and the true incident photon number.
Section III D discusses unique approaches to single-
photon detection, such as cryogenic thermoelectric detectors
(QVDs),268
a proposal for a potentially very high efficiency
single-photon number-resolving detector with an atomic va-
por absorber,269
and a proposal for a quantum nondemolition
single-photon number-resolving detector that uses giant Kerr
nonlinearities.270
Almost all single-photon detectors involve the conversion
of a photon into an electrical signal of some sort. It is the job
of the detector electronics to ensure that each photo-generated
electrical signal is detected with high efficiency. Additional
electronics is often required after detection to return the de-
tector as quickly as possible back to a state that allows it to
detect another photon. The electronics is often as important
as the detector itself in achieving the ideal characteristics out-
lined above. Section III E discusses various aspects of detec-
tor electronics.
As mentioned, one of the fields currently driving much
of the research toward improved single-photon-detector tech-
nology is quantum-information science. In particular, the
security and performance of many quantum-communication
protocols depend strongly on detector properties such as de-
tection efficiency. In Sec. IV, we discuss the importance of
various source and detector properties to applications in the
field of quantum-information science.
B. Non-photon-number-resolving detectors
Non-photon-number-resolving detectors are the most
commonly used single-photon detectors. While detecting a
single photon is a difficult task, discriminating the number
of incident photons is even more difficult. Because the energy
of a single photon is so small (≈10−19
J), its detection re-
quires very high gain and low noise. In many detectors this is
achieved by converting the incoming photon into a charge car-
rier and then using a high voltage avalanche process to convert
that single charge into a macroscopic current pulse.
1. Photomultiplier tube
In the original visible-photon-counting detector, a PMT,
(Fig. 6) a photon knocks an electron out of a photocathode
made of a low workfunction material. That electron is ac-
celerated to the first dynode where it knocks out more elec-
trons. The process repeats as those electrons are accelerated
to each subsequent dynode until typically a pulse of 106
elec-
trons are generated, which can then be detected by ordinary

TABLE II. Comparison of single-photon detectors based on a table from Ref. 309 using a figure of merit given by the ratio of the detection efficiency to
the product of the dark-count rate and the time resolution (assumed to be the timing jitter), η/(Dδt). Maximum count rate is a rough estimate from the the
detector’s output pulse width or count rate that yields 100% dead time. The photon-number-resolving (PNR) capability is defined here as: none) for devices that
are typically operated as a photon or no photon device, some) for devices that are made from multiple detectors that individually have no PNR capability and
thus are limited in the photon number that can be resolved to the number of individual detectors, and full) for devices whose output is inherently proportional to
the number of photons even if their proportional response ultimately saturates at high photon levels.
Detection Timing Dark-count Max.
Operation efficiency, jitter, rate, D Figure count
temperature wavelength δt(ns) (ungated) of rate PNR
Detector type (K) η(%), λ (nm) (FWHM) (1/s) merit (106/s) capability Refs.
PMT (visible–near-infrared) 300 40 @ 500 0.3 100 1.3 × 107 10 Some 271,272
PMT (infrared) 200 2 @ 1550 0.3 200 000 3.3 × 102 10 Some 273
Si SPAD (thick junction) 250 65 @ 650 0.4 25 6.5 × 107 10 None 274
Si SPAD (shallow junction) 250 49 @ 550 0.035 25 5.6 × 108 10 None 275
Si SPAD (self-differencing) 250 74 @ 600 ... 2000 ... 16 Some 276
Si SPAD (linear mode) 78 56 @ 450 ... 0.0008 ... 0.01 Fulla 277
Si SPAD (cavity) 78 42 @ 780 0.035 3500 3.4 × 106 10 None 278
Si SPAD (multipixel) 290 40 @ 532 0.3 25 000–500 000 1 × 104 30 Some 279,280
Hybrid PMT (PMT + APD) 270 30 @ 1064 0.2 30 000 5 × 104 200 None 281,282
Time multiplexed (Si SPAD) 250 39 @ 680 0.4 200 5 × 106 0.5 Some 234
Time multiplexed (Si SPAD) 250 50 @ 825 0.5 150 7 × 106 2 Some 283
Space multiplexed (InGaAs SPAD) 250 33 @ 1060 0.133 160 000 000 1.6 × 101 10 Some 284
Space multiplexed (InGaAs SPAD) 250 2 @ 1550 ... ... ... 0.3 None 285
InGaAs SPAD (gated) 200 10 @ 1550 0.370 91 3.0 × 105 0.01 None 286
InGaAs SPAD (self-differencing) 240 10 @ 1550 0.055 16 000 1.1 × 105 100 None 287
InGaAs SPAD (self-differencing) 240 10 @ 1550 ... ... ... ... Full 267
InGaAs SPAD (discharge pulse counting) 243 7 @ 1550 ... 40 000 ... 10 None 288
InP NFAD (monolithic negative feedback) 243 6 @ 1550 0.4 28 000 5 × 103 10 Some 289,290
InGaAs (self-quenching and self-recovery) 300 ... @ 1550 10 ... – 3 Some 291
CIPD (InGaAs) 4.2 80 @ 1310 ... ... ... 0.001 Full 263
Frequency up-conversion 300 8.8 @ 1550 0.4 13000 1.7 × 104 10 None 292
Frequency up-conversion 300 56-59@ 1550 ... 460000 ... 5 None 254,293
Frequency up-conversion 300 20 @ 1306 0.62 2200 1.5 × 105 10 None 294
VLPC 7 88 @ 694 40 20000 1.1 × 103 10 Some 295
VLPC 7 40 @ 633 0.24 25000 6.7 × 104 10 Some 296
SSPM 6 76 @ 702 3.5 7000 3 × 104 30 Full 297
TES(W) 0.1 50 @ 1550 100 3 1.7 × 106 0.1 Full 298
TES(W) 0.1 95 @ 1556 100 ... ... 0.1 Full 299
TES(Ha) 0.1 85 @ 850 100 ... ... 0.1 Full 300
TES (Ti) 0.1 81–98 @ 850 100 ... ... 1 Full 301–303
SNSPD 3 0.7 @ 1550 0.06 10 1.2 × 107 100 None 304
SNSPD (in cavity) 1.5 57 @ 1550 0.03 ... ... 1000 None 253
Parallel SNSPD 2 2 @ 1300 0.05 0.15 2.7 × 109 1000 Some 262
STJ 0.4 45 @ 350 2000 ... ... 0.01 Full 258,259,305
QD (resonant tunnel diode) 4 12 @ 550 150 0.002 4 × 109 0.25 Full 306
QDOGFET (field-effect transistor) 4 2 @ 805 10000 150 10 0.05 Full 265,307,308
a
PNR should be possible, but none has been demonstrated as of yet.
electronics. All this requires operation in vacuum. While we
have put the PMT in the section with non-photon-number-
resolving detectors, some models have low enough gain noise
to make it possible to partially resolve output pulses resulting
from different numbers of incoming photons, with the first
such demonstration made by incorporating a first dynode spe-
cially prepared to yield higher electron emission.310,311
We
also note that a PMT can be used as an n-photon detector for
wavelengths with energies below the bandgap so that more
than one photon is needed to generate a photoelectron, al-
beit with greatly reduced detection efficiency and requiring
tightly focused beams to enhance the multi-photon absorption
process.312
The efficiency of PMTs is typically in the range of 10%
to 40%, limited by the efficiency with which the incoming
photon knocks out the initial photoelectron from the photo-
sensitive surface (the photocathode). While these efficiencies
are impressive for a pioneering technology, they fall short of
the requirements of many modern applications. Other features
of PMTs are the large sensitive areas (cm2
or even up to m2
),
fast response (low timing jitter and low dead time) with the
capability to resolve photons separated by a nanosecond, and
the low level of dark counts (output pulses that result from
causes other than incident photons). The dark-count rates can
be as low as a few events per second, particularly if the PMT
is cooled by a few tens of degrees C. Their major drawbacks

Photon
Electron
Photocathode
Dynode
Electrical
connections
Anode
FIG. 6. (Color online) A photomultiplier, the first detector able to sense a sin-
gle optical photon, is shown schematically with a transmissive photocathode
and just 3 dynodes. The photocathode may be designed to have the photo-
electrons emitted from its front or back surface and typically 10 dynodes are
used.
include their reliance on vacuum tube technology which lim-
its their lifetime, reliability, and scalability.
2. Single-photon avalanche photodiode
The SPAD (Fig. 7) uses a similar process to the PMT,
but the initial photon absorption creates an electron-hole pair
and the charge multiplication is continuous, with a voltage ap-
plied across a semiconductor lattice rather than between dis-
crete dynodes suspended in vacuum. SPADs are typically run
in what is referred to as “Geiger-mode,” where a bias voltage
greater than the diode’s breakdown voltage is applied. Thus
when a charge is generated by an incoming photon, the charge
multiplication (or avalanche) proceeds until it saturates at a
current typically limited by an external circuit, and that cur-
rent is self-sustaining. The saturated avalanche current must
be terminated by lowering the bias voltage below the break-
down voltage before the SPAD can respond to a subsequent
incoming optical pulse. This saturation means that gain in
Geiger mode is not a useful concept. Geiger-mode SPADs can
have detection efficiencies higher than PMTs, up to 85% (for
Si SPADs in the visible), although SPAD dark-count rates and
timing jitter are somewhat higher than the best PMTs and for
IR SPADs, efficiencies are in the 10% to 20% range with dark-
count rates much higher than PMTs.247,250
To reduce dark-
count rates, SPADs are typically cooled with thermoelectric
coolers to temperatures of 210 K to 250 K.
In addition, the SPAD gain medium typically has trap
sites that must be allowed time to depopulate after an
FIG. 7. (Color) A single-photon avalanche photodiode is shown with distinct
regions for the photo-absorption and carrier multiplication processes. The
voltage is applied to accelerate the electrons toward the multiplication region.
A front-illuminated geometry with an antireflection (AR) coating to improve
efficiency is illustrated, but back-illuminated designs are also used.
avalanche has occurred and before the bias voltage can be
restored. If those sites are not allowed to depopulate, a sec-
ond avalanche can be initiated by carriers released from traps
rather than from a new photon. This “afterpulsing” effect ne-
cessitates additional waiting time after a pulse before rebias-
ing the device. As a result, SPAD dead times can range from
tens of nanoseconds to 10 μs. This is a particular problem for
SPADs designed for IR sensitivity.
There are a number of schemes focused on these issues to
reduce dead time or its effect,285
to reduce afterpulsing (e.g.,
by detection multiplexing to maximize the time recovery be-
tween firings of a single detector285
and by self-differencing
of adjacent pulses to reduce avalanche currents and out-
put transients relative to the avalanche signal of interest249
),
to improve IR performance, and to realize some photon-
number-resolution capability. Efforts toward photon-number-
resolution are discussed in Sec. III C. Some design techniques
can result in very low time-jitter detectors. These usually in-
volve thinner absorption regions so there can be a tradeoff
between detection efficiency and timing jitter, although there
is an effort to regain some efficiency by using cavity enhance-
ment around the thinner absorber.278
An in-depth look at the
details of this type of tradeoff can be found in Ref. 313 and a
commercial example of this tradeoff can be seen in Ref. 275.
While all commercial SPADs operate in Geiger-mode,
there are efforts to develop linear-mode operation for pho-
ton counting. This would have the advantages of having an
output that is proportional to the number of incident photons,
yielding photon-number resolution, lower afterpulsing due to
lower current flow and less trap filling, and reduced dead time.
The smaller current pulses generated in the linear mode re-
quire long measurement times to reduce the readout noise and
thus in one recent demonstration a 56% detection efficiency
and 0.0008 /s dark-count rate was achieved, but at a 10 kHz
maximum repetition rate.277
While these linear devices can in
principle provide photon-number resolution, the noise on the
gain and the smaller signals involved can broaden the output
current pulse amplitudes so much that pulses due to differ-
ent numbers of incident photons cannot be resolved. We are
unaware of any demonstrated number resolution of these de-
vices.
Having just described PMT and SPAD detectors, we note
that there is a detector that is essentially a hybrid between the
two. It consists of a photocathode and electron impact multi-
plication stage in vacuum providing gain ≈103
followed by an
avalanche diode multiplication region for a total gain above
104
. This arrangement allows for a photocathode optimized
for a particularly difficult wavelength for photon counting de-
tectors, 1060 nm, with efficiency of 30% and a low dark-count
rate of 30 000 counts/s.281,282
3. Quantum-dot field-effect transistor-based detector
A quantum dot in conjunction with a field-effect
transistor (FET) has been reported to offer single-photon
sensitivity in the near IR. This detector design, sometimes
referred to as a QDOGFET,265,307,308
consists of an opti-
cal absorber with a thin layer of quantum dots between

the gate electrode and conduction channel in an FET. The
photo-generated charges move to the quantum dots where
they are trapped. Those trapped charges shield the gate poten-
tial and thus modify the channel conductance of the FET. In
one implementation, the trapped carriers are holes that reduce
the negative field of the quantum dots allowing the conductiv-
ity to increase.175
Thus current can flow unimpeded until the
photon-generated carrier is removed or recombines, yielding
an observable single-photon signal. We also note a detector
that operates on the same scheme as the QDOGFET but in-
stead uses native traps, rather than quantum dots, to store the
photo-generated charges.314
Another quantum dot-based approach uses the photo-
generated carriers to enhance resonant tunneling through a
double barrier. By adjusting the field so that the well between
the two barriers matches the energy of the band on the other
side of one of the barriers, the tunneling rate increases dramat-
ically and in proportion to the number of incident photons. In
this scheme the photo-generated holes trapped by the quan-
tum dots provide the field necessary to shift that intermediate
band into resonance.306
We note a detector that works on a
similar principle but because it operates in the far IR it is be-
yond the scope of this review.252
4. Superconducting nanowire single-photon detector
This fast (timing jitter 50 ps) single-photon detector re-
lies on a narrow superconducting wire that is biased with a
current at a level just below the critical current density, above
which the wire must revert to normal resistance253,315–317
(Fig. 8). In this state, when an incoming photon is absorbed,
its energy causes a small spot of the wire to go normal. This
in turn causes the current to flow around the normal resistance
region and as a result the current density is increased in those
adjacent regions. Those adjacent regions now exceed the crit-
ical current density and a normal resistance region is formed
all the way across the width of the wire. This small normal
region of the superconducting wire yields a voltage spike that
indicates the detection of a single photon. Because this de-
tection mechanism requires a very narrow wire (≈100 nm), a
meandering surface-filling arrangement of the wire is used to
create a practical sensitive area. In addition, devices fabricated
with a mirror on top of the nanowire meander made of NbN,
thus forming an optical cavity have achieved detection effi-
ciencies in the neighborhood of 25%.318,319
In these devices
the light first passes through the NbN substrate subject to re-
flective losses. Subsequent devices have achieved efficiencies
(not including light missing the detector active area) of 57%
and 67% at 1550 nm and 1064 nm respectively,253
by adding
an antireflection coating to the input side of the cavity device.
These detectors do not suffer afterpulsing, although they can
latch320
into a mode where they stay in the normal state due to
self-heating of the normal region and have to be actively reset
by reducing the current flow. Because these detectors require
superconductivity, their operating temperatures are typically
in the range of 4 K or less.
While the arrangement just described cannot discrimi-
nate between one or more incident photons, as we shall see in
FIG. 8. (Color online) A section of a superconducting nanowire single-
photon detector is shown with a bias current just below the critical current
density that would drive the wire normal. (a) An incoming photon creates a
small normal region within the nanowire. (b) The superconducting current
is expelled from the normal region, increasing the current density in the ad-
jacent areas of the nanowire. (c) That increase in current density is enough
to drive those adjacent regions normal, which in turn results in a measurable
voltage drop across the detector.
Sec. III C 3 there are efforts to provide this detector with some
photon-number-resolving capability.262,319
5. Up-conversion single-photon detector
Up-conversion of a photon from the infrared, where de-
tector characteristics are typically poor, to the visible spec-
tral region, where detector performance is better, has been
demonstrated by a number of research groups321
and has been
commercialized.272,322
The scheme uses sum-frequency gen-
eration in a nonlinear crystal, where a strong pump beam
mixes with the IR single photon of interest to create a sin-
gle photon at the sum frequency in the visible. Both visible
SPADs and PMTs have been used for the detection of the up-
converted photon. The key drivers for these efforts are bet-
ter detection efficiency at low dark-count rates, and higher
count rates with better pulse-pair resolution. The overall ef-
ficiency of this approach is the product of the optical con-
version efficiency, the optical losses throughout the system,
and the visible detector efficiency. The up-conversion step
has been demonstrated with near unit efficiency,293
with the
other factors limiting the overall efficiency to 56% to 59%
to date.254,293,321,323
Background count rates are also of con-
cern as the up-conversion process can produce a significant
number of unwanted photons. To address this, having the up-
conversion pump photon at an energy lower than the IR pho-
ton to be up-converted rather than the other way around, may
prove advantageous in some applications.294
This avoids hav-
ing the pump beam create Raman photons at the wavelength
of interest that are then up-converted as if they were incident
IR photons.
C. Photon-number-resolving detectors
Developing photon-number-resolving (PNR) detectors is
important for many applications in quantum-information sci-
ence, such as quantum computation using linear optics324
and quantum communication.15
Section IV describes how
photon-number resolution impacts quantum communication
protocols.

One direct approach to gaining photon-number-resolving
capability is to simply break the detector active area into many
distinct areas or pixels, so that each can register a photon in-
dependent of the others; and when they do, only the pixel or
pixels that detected a photon suffers a dead time and recovery
time. Thus we have a multiple-pixel device where each pixel
cannot resolve photon number, but taken together they can re-
solve as many photons as there are separate pixels (if those
photons happen to hit different pixels). For small numbers of
pixels, requiring the photons to hit different pixels can be an
issue, but as the number of pixels increase, the probability of
hitting the same pixel with another photon decreases, result-
ing in a much more faithful approximation to true photon-
number-resolving capability.
Before describing specific PNR detectors we should clar-
ify what is meant by “photon-number-resolution.” It is impor-
tant to lay out the degrees of photon-number-resolution that
a detector can have. First we note that as mentioned earlier,
photon-number-resolving does not mean that one determines
the number of photons incident on the the detector. Without
100% detection efficiency, the measured number is at best just
a lower estimate, and with dark counts it is not even that. This
is particularly an issue for detectors with very low efficiency.
In addition we attempt to categorize the degree of PNR capa-
bility into three groups defined as (a) “no PNR capability” for
devices that are typically operated as a photon or no-photon
device, (b) “some PNR capability” for devices made of mul-
tiple detectors that individually have no PNR capability and
thus are limited in the maximum photon number that can be
resolved to the number of individual detectors, and (c) “full
PNR capability” for devices whose output is inherently pro-
portional to the number of photons, even if their detection
efficiency is low and their proportional response ultimately
saturates at high input photons levels. (We are assuming rela-
tively narrow band light incident on these detectors so that a
detector with an output proportional to the incident energy is
used to provide information on photon number, rather than the
energy of those photons.) While this categorization is some-
what arbitrary, it is of some use in understanding the types of
mechanisms used to produce PNR capability.
1. Superconducting tunnel junction (STJ)-based
detector
One of the first superconducting photon-number-
resolving detectors was the superconducting tunnel junction
detector.258,259,305
In it photons are absorbed in a thin super-
conducting layer. The absorbed energy results in many bro-
ken Cooper pairs (quasiparticles) because the photon energy
is ≈1000 times the energy needed to break Cooper pairs. That
superconducting layer is separated from a second supercon-
ducting layer by an insulator that is thin enough (≈1 nm) to
allow significant tunneling of the quasiparticles. A small bias
voltage across this “superconducting tunnel junction” results
in a current flow that is proportional to the photo-generated
quasiparticles. A small magnetic field parallel to the barrier,
along with a bias voltage that is low enough, prevents unbro-
ken Cooper pairs from tunneling across the junction. As the
device is operated significantly (≈10 times) below the super-
conducting critical temperature, there are many fewer ther-
mally generated quasiparticles than photo-generated quasi-
particles, so single-photon detection is possible.
Because the current produced by this device is propor-
tional to the incoming photon energy, it can resolve photon
number. It has been demonstrated for wavelengths between
200 nm to 500 nm, limited on the long wavelength end by its
energy resolution (≈100 nm at a wavelength of 300 nm). De-
vices have been demonstrated with detection efficiencies of
45% as estimated by reflectance and transmittance calcula-
tions at counts rates of ≈10 kHz at an operating temperature
of 0.37 K.305
Background count rates are very low (0.1%
of photo-generated counts) and mostly limited by electronic
noise, although thermal blackbody photons may also con-
tribute.
2. Quantum-dot field-effect transistor-based detector
The QDOGFET detector, as discussed earlier, uses
photo-generated charges to modulate electrical conductance
and that modulation is proportional to those charges, thus this
device has PNR capability and has been demonstrated with a
detection efficiency of ≈2% at 805 nm.265,307,308
This imple-
mentation was shown to distinguish 0, 1, 2, and greater than
3 photons, with the percent of correct assignments for these
four bins being 94%, 89%, 83%, and 90%, respectively. As
shown in Table II, the QDOGFET has a low detection effi-
ciency (2%) with a repetition rate of 50 kHz and a very low
dark-count probability of 0.003/gate.
The quantum dot detector based on modulation of a res-
onant tunneling through a barrier also has been demonstrated
to have a range of few photons of PNR capability with detec-
tion efficiency of ≈12% at 550 nm with and a dark count rate
of 2000/s (Ref. 175) (Another implementation of this scheme
showed linear operation which indicates the potential for PNR
operation306
). The dark count rate can be improved by an or-
der of magnitude at a cost of reducing the detection efficiency
to 5%. The operating temperature of this detector is 77 K, al-
though faster operation was obtained at 4 K.
3. Superconducting nanowire-based single-photon
detector
In Sec. III B 4, we discussed the principle be-
hind superconducting-nanowire single-photon detectors. Two
schemes have recently built upon that principle to demon-
strate devices with some photon-number-resolving capability.
Both achieve this by using several distinct nanowires to fill
the active area rather than just a single nanowire.
The first of these schemes, the parallel-SNSPD,262
uses
nanowires connected electrically in parallel. The currents
through the parallel wires are summed so that the single ana-
log output signal is proportional to the number of wires that
have gone normal due to incident photons. This arrangement
offers the potential of even faster operation speed than the al-
ready fast single SNSPD, because the inductance of the indi-
vidual wires is much lower than the longer single-wire me-
ander of the original SNSPD, whose temporal response is

inductance limited.325
This scheme was demonstrated with
niobium nitride (NbN) nanowires 100 nm wide with a ca-
pability of counting up to four photons, a dark-count rate of
0.15 Hz, and a repetition rate of 80 MHz. While the parallel-
SNSPD performs well relative to other photon-number-
resolving detectors in regards to dark-count rate and repetition
rate, as shown in Table II, most other detectors outperform the
parallel-SNSPD detection efficiency of 2% at 1300 nm.262
The second scheme also runs parallel wires, but does
so as completely separate detectors with individual outputs,
thus the result is a digital output i.e., the number of output
pulses gives the number of photons detected. This scheme
was demonstrated in a system of four separate wires with a
reported system detection efficiency of 25%.319
4. Superconducting transition edge sensor
The superconducting transition edge sensor operates as a
bolometer, that is electromagnetic radiation is absorbed, and
then that absorbed energy is detected as a rise in tempera-
ture. To achieve the extreme sensitivity required to detect the
energy of a single photon, the heat capacity of the absorber
must be made extremely small and the thermal sensor must
exhibit a large response to a small temperature change. As a
thermal device which measures energy absorbed, its output is
proportional to the number of photons absorbed, thus it can
provide photon-number resolution.
The extreme temperature sensitivity is achieved by
constructing the thermal sensor from a thin layer of supercon-
ducting material (deposited on an insulating substrate) made
to operate at a temperature in its transition between supercon-
ducting and normal resistance, so a slight change in temper-
ature yields a large change in resistance. The device is main-
tained at this temperature through negative electro-thermal
feedback. This works by applying a constant voltage bias
across the film which increases the temperature of the elec-
trons in the sensor film above the temperature of the substrate.
When a photon is absorbed, the temperature of the sensor
rises, which increases its resistance, which in turn reduces the
current flowing through the sensor and thus reduces the Joule
heating of the device. Thus the constant voltage bias and this
electro-thermal feedback work to maintain the sensor at a set
temperature within its superconducting transition temperature
region, and the signal due to a photon is seen in a reduction in
the current flowing through the sensor. Further sensitivity is
achieved by measuring that current change using a supercon-
ducting quantum-interference device (SQUID) array.
The heat capacity of the sensor is reduced by fiber cou-
pling the light to the device. By placing the fiber end just a few
tens of μm from the sensor, the sensor can be made small, typ-
ically 25 μm across. In addition, operating at the low temper-
atures required for the superconducting transition operation
further lowers the heat capacity. Note that the relevant heat
capacity is that of the electrons in the superconductor and it
is important that the thermal link between these electrons and
the phonons in the substrate is low, which is the case at the
temperatures of these devices, typically ≈100 mK. This weak
thermal coupling of the electrons to phonons provides a link
to a thermal heat sink that allows the electrons to slowly cool
after quickly heating up upon photon absorption.
Since single-photon sensitivity was first demonstrated in
the visible and IR,326
TES devices of high efficiency have
been demonstrated with superconductors made of tungsten,299
titanium,301,303,327
and hafnium,300
and because they rely on
simple absorption of the incident radiation followed by con-
version to heat, their wavelength sensitivity can be tailored
by appropriate antireflection coatings on the sensor surface.
And most recently these devices have been fabricated using a
design that self-aligns the fiber to the sensor area, facilitating
reliable and robust high-efficiency assembly and construction,
important steps toward a scalable detector.328
From Table II, we also see that the highest detection ef-
ficiency among PNR detectors is achieved by the transition-
edge sensor (TES) detectors,299
with a detection efficiency of
95% for an incident wavelength of 1556 nm and 81% to 98%
at 850 nm.300–302
We also note that these detectors provide
some of the best visibility between photon-number-resolved
peaks of any visible detector.257
Despite these high detection
efficiencies and very low dark-count rates, drawbacks gener-
ally include a slow response of ≈100 ns and low maximum
counting rates of ≈100 kHz (although Ref. 301 reports max-
imum count rates up to 1 MHz), and the need to operate at
temperatures less than 100 mK.257
5. Visible light photon counter
As seen in Table II, another detector that achieves quan-
tum efficiencies almost as high as the TES is the visible
light photon counter,113,264
with a detection efficiency of
up to 88% at 694 nm.295
A photon incident onto a VLPC
detector will first encounter an intrinsic silicon layer fol-
lowed by a gain layer that is lightly doped with arsenic (see
Fig. 9, and Fig. 1 of Ref. 264). An incident photon can be ab-
sorbed either in the intrinsic silicon layer or the doped gain
layer, creating an electron-hole pair. A bias voltage of 6 V
to 7.5 V accelerates the electron (hole) away from (toward)
the gain region. The gain region containing the As impuri-
ties lies 54 meV below the conduction band. Holes that are
accelerated in the gain region impact ionize these impurities,
FIG. 9. (Color) Principle of operation of a visible light photon counter
(VLPC). A single photon absorbed in the intrinsic region creates an electron-
hole pair. The applied voltage accelerates the electron towards the trans-
parent contact on the left, and accelerates the hole to the right. The gain
region is doped with As impurities. Holes accelerated into the gain region
impact-ionize these impurities, exciting donor electrons into the conduction
band. These electrons are accelerated towards the transparent contact and cre-
ate additional impact ionization events, resulting in avalanche multiplication
(Ref. 264).

exciting donor electrons into the conduction band. These scat-
tered electrons create further impact ionization events, result-
ing in avalanche multiplication. Assuming a single-photon ab-
sorption event always creates an electrical signal of the same
magnitude, then the output electrical signal should simply be
proportional to the number of detected photons. In practice,
however, detectors that rely on multiplication gain have ex-
cess noise referred to as gain noise due to the fact that single-
photon absorption does not always produce an electrical sig-
nal of the same size. If the multiplication noise is too large (as
it is for SPADs, for example), then photon-number resolution
is very difficult or impossible. The VLPC, however, demon-
strates nearly noise-free multiplication. The first reason is that
due to the partial overlap of energy states of adjacent As im-
purities, holes left behind in the impurity state after impact
ionization travel very slowly via conduction hopping, prevent-
ing the holes from producing further impact ionization events.
Single-carrier multiplication (in this case, only the electrons
are multiplied) has been shown to result in lower multiplica-
tion noise.264
The second reason for the low multiplication
noise is that low electric fields are required because the As
impurities are only 54 meV below the conduction band. This
results in little variation in the time between ionization events,
which has also been shown to reduce multiplication noise.
This low multiplication noise is what allows for demonstrated
photon-number resolving capability of the VLPC of photon
numbers up to six (the probability of error in making the de-
cision increases from 0.01% for zero photons to 11.3% for six
photons).
The number resolution of the VLPC is due to the fact that
the charge multiplication resulting from an incident photon is
localized to spot a few microns across, so only that region suf-
fers a dead time. The rest of the detector (typically 1 mm in di-
ameter) remains ready to register additional photons with the
output signal being the sum of those output pulses. With this
localized dead region being such a small fraction of the to-
tal detector area, the number-resolved operation can be nearly
complete, but one must be aware of this mechanism and avoid
focusing the light too tightly on the detector or number reso-
lution will be limited.264
While the efficiency and photon-number-resolution of the
VLPC are impressive, the repetition rate (100 kHz) is low and
the dark-count rate (20 kHz) is high.264
Very similar in design
to the VLPC is the Solid-State Photomultiplier (SSPM),297
which has very broad spectral sensitivity ranging from
400 nm to 28 μm. The width of this range, while quite re-
markable, has the drawback that it requires additional effort
to shield the detector from any of the long-wave IR photons
that might be out of the wavelength band of interest. In addi-
tion the availability of these detectors is very limited.
6. Other photon-number-resolving detectors
Other approaches to PNR detectors that we do not have
the space to discuss in detail include the SPAD array284
(sim-
ply achieving photon-number resolution by having the opti-
cal mode impinge upon an array of parallel SPADs) that are
read out individually284
or summed to give a single output
pulse with amplitude proportional to photon number,279,280
the time-multiplexed SPAD (Refs. 234, 283, 329) (This uses
essentially the same idea as the spatial SPAD array, but splits
up the mode into many temporal modes rather than many spa-
tial modes. A detailed performance analysis can be found in
Ref. 266.), and the charge integration photon detector (CIPD)
(Ref. 263) (an InGaAs PIN photodiode connected to the gate
of a GaAs junction gate field-effect transistor). The perfor-
mance of these approaches relative to other PNR detectors
can been seen in Table II.
One recent approach uses a single SPAD as a photon-
number resolving detector by measuring the slope of the
avalanche rise (before saturation) to discern information
about the number of incident photons.267,276
This is done in
conjunction with a self-differencing circuit that greatly re-
duces the size of the capacitive transient of the APD, which al-
lows lower overbias voltages and lower thresholds to be used.
It is reported that the combination of these advantages pro-
vides photon-number resolution for up to four photons at a
wavelength of 1550 nm, detection efficiency of 10%, repe-
tition rate of 622 MHz, and a dark-count rate of less than
2 × 10−6
per gate.267
D. Unique approaches to single-photon detectors
Other approaches to single-photon detection that are less
well-known than the approaches discussed in Secs. III A–III C
include QVDs,268
a proposal for a high efficiency PNR detec-
tor using an atomic vapor absorber, and a proposal for a quan-
tum nondemolition (QND) single-photon-number-resolving
detector that uses giant Kerr nonlinearities.270
QVDs are based on heat (Q)-to-voltage (V) conversion
and digital (D) readout and rely on the thermoelectric effect
that occurs when a junction between dissimilar materials is
heated. Although theoretical analysis claims that such detec-
tors offer the potential to count at rates of 100 MHz, pho-
ton counting in the visible using this method has yet to be
demonstrated.268
It has been proposed that an atomic vapor with a three-
level -system plus an additional level can be used as the
basis of a high efficiency PNR detector.269,330
The scheme re-
lies on the three-level -system plus an escort pulse to al-
low an incoming photon to transfer one atom to a metastable
level where a second laser can cycle the atom many times in a
closed two-level system, with the scattered photons being the
indicator that a photon has been absorbed. The reliance on an
atomic vapor absorber offers the potential for high absorption
efficiency, and the cycling transition allows for many scattered
photons for each atom transferred, which means high detec-
tion efficiency can be achieved. And because there would be
a direct correspondence between the number of incident pho-
tons absorbed and the number of atoms undergoing the closed
cycling transition, this scheme would be photon-number re-
solving.
A quantum nondemolition (QND) measurement is one
where the state is determined, but is not destroyed in the
measurement so that the now-known state remains available
for other uses. Such a measurement for a photon-number
state was proposed by Imoto et al.331
and discussed later in

detail by others.270,332,333
The principle is to co-propagate the
weak signal light pulse, whose number of photons is yet to
be determined, with an stronger light pulse in a highly non-
linear medium. The intensity of the signal pulse changes the
refractive index of the medium, which can then be seen as a
phase change in the stronger copropagating light pulse. The
key difficulty is that for the unknown few-photon state to pro-
duce a resolvable phase change in the copropagating pulse,
the medium must have a very large optical nonlinearity. The
photonic interactions such as Kerr-nonlinearity or cross-phase
modulation for most media typically do not have large enough
nonlinear coefficients. While generally far from implementa-
tion because of this difficulty, possible candidate media for
the QND detection can be optical fiber, a high-quality factor
cavity,334,335
and electromagnetically induced transparency
(EIT) in an atomic ensemble.270,333
Recently Pryde et al.336
reported a QND measurement on the polarization state of
single photons. It was pointed out and clarified that such a
measurement on the polarization state is distinct from a QND
measurement of photon number.337,338
E. Electronics for single-photon detectors
As we have seen, single-photon detectors use a range of
physical effects to detect a photon, however there is an im-
portant trend: most detectors work close to a critical regime
so that a single photon changes the regime of operation. In
the case of avalanche photodiodes, the p-n junction is reverse
biased with a voltage that is somewhat higher than the break-
down voltage, so any single free carrier inside that p-n junc-
tion can start an avalanche. In a superconducting nanowire
detector, the wire is biased with current just below the level
that would drive the wire normal. The electronics in these de-
vices is used to set correct bias voltages or currents, to monitor
sudden changes of detector properties due to photoelectronic
detection, and to return the device to its normal regime. In
what follows, we discuss electronics design efforts specific to
avalanche photodiodes, as that has been an area of significant
effort and detection improvements.
A Geiger-mode avalanche photodiode operates reverse
biased at a voltage V that is above the breakdown voltage Vb.
A single free carrier (generated via a photoelectronic process)
injected into the depletion layer triggers a self-sustaining
avalanche. The current rise time is usually less than 1 ns. This
current continues to flow until the bias voltage V is dropped.
This process, referred to as quenching, is a main cause of dead
time, because the detector cannot respond to incoming pho-
tons until the quenching is completed and the bias voltage is
restored. Once the bias voltage is restored, the device is then
ready to detect another photon. The operation just described
requires a special circuit that does the following:
–detects the leading edge of the current pulse that corre-
sponds to an avalanche,
–generates an output pulse exhibiting minimal jitter with
respect to the avalanche pulse,
–lowers the bias to quench the avalanche, and
–restores the photodiode voltage to the operating level
V Vb.
If a detector is gated, then the circuit must apply reverse
bias to the detector in synchronization with the incoming op-
tical pulses and discriminate between pulses due to bias volt-
age transients and actual avalanche current, in addition to the
above operations.
Given the numerous tasks required of the detector elec-
tronics, the features of the circuit dramatically affect the op-
erating conditions of the detector and, as a consequence, the
detector’s overall performance. The quenching mechanisms
can be of three types: passive quenching, or active quenching
circuits, or a combination of the two.
In passive systems, the avalanche current quenches itself.
This approach is implemented with a very simple circuit -
the photodiode is biased through a resistor that is small com-
pared with the diode’s resistance when no avalanche is present
and large compared with the diode’s residual resistance dur-
ing avalanche process, typically 1 M to 100 k. When an
avalanche occurs, the high avalanche current flowing through
the bias resistor results in a voltage drop across that resis-
tor, reducing the voltage across the diode to close enough to
the diode breakdown voltage that statistical fluctuations in the
current can cause the avalanche to stop. Once the avalanche
current has stopped, the voltage across the diode rises again
to its initial bias level and is ready for the next photon. The
avalanche is detected by a standard comparator.
This arrangement was employed in the early experiments
with avalanche diodes in Geiger mode.339,340
Pulses detected
in this way have a very sharp front and an exponential tail
that corresponds to reverse-bias voltage recovery. This pro-
cess typically takes a few microseconds. During the recovery
process, the detector regains the ability to detect single pho-
tons, but because the excess voltage has not yet reached its
normal value, its detection efficiency varies in time. Also, if a
second photon arrives during the recovery time, the compara-
tor can miss it because its threshold might be higher than the
recovering voltage across the p-n junction. Even if the detec-
tion electronics does detect a photon during the recovery time,
the time between absorbing a photon and issuing an electronic
pulse will differ from that of an isolated photodetection, in-
creasing overall timing jitter. Under these conditions, an accu-
rate photon count requires the use of low light levels to guar-
antee a small probability that a second photon is absorbed by
the detector during its recovery time. Unfortunately, correct-
ing count losses due to such recovery time by applying cor-
rection protocols originally developed for nuclear detectors
leads to inaccuracies. This is because those detector systems
have different dead time characteristics. Either (a) their dead
time is unaffected by what happens during that dead period or
(b) there is a mechanism where events occurring during the
dead period, such as the receipt of an additional photon,
causes that dead period to be extended.
There have been many attempts to improve single-photon
detectors based on passive quenching. It has been shown that
photon timing accuracy can be improved somewhat if a very
low electronic level threshold is used.341,342
However, low-
ering the threshold can result in false detections, as noise
can trigger the circuit. Another idea to improve detection
timing jitter is by using a constant-fraction trigger circuit343
instead of a simple threshold trigger. Unfortunately, this

approach is only partially effective, because the very shape
of the avalanche signal depends on the reverse-bias voltage.
Therefore, during the dead-time recovery transient, when the
reverse-bias voltage is rising, the rise time of the avalanche
changes (the lower the bias voltage, the longer the rise time).
We see that despite the apparent simplicity of the detec-
tor electronics, the practical use of passive quenching limits,
sometimes significantly, detector performance. Also, attempts
to improve the photon counting rate require more complex
electronics, an approach that defeats the advantages of a sim-
ple circuit.
Another passively quenched SPAD scheme has recently
been developed and has demonstrated some improvements.
This scheme integrates the load resistor monolithically with
the SPAD, which greatly reduces the device capacitance and
the time for the passive quenching to occur. This in turn re-
duces the total flow of charge through the SPAD which results
in lower afterpulse probabilities. This scheme, with the load
resistor integrated with the SPAD, has been referred to as a
negative-feedback avalanche diode (NFAD) to distinguish it
from a SPAD with hybrid passive quench circuitry.289
In ad-
dition, because of the compact design, NFAD arrays can be
implemented where the detectors are in parallel and the output
pulse amplitude provides some photon-number resolution, as
each NFAD can fire and recover independently. NFADs have
been implemented with InP diodes with efficiencies of 3% to
7% at 1.5 μm and pulse durations of 30 ns to 100 ns, and max-
imum count rates could extend as high as 10 MHz.344
Similar
to the NFAD array design which offers the potential of num-
ber resolution through discrete devices, a continuous version
has been demonstrated in an InGaAs avalanche diode using
self quenching and recovery in a localized region. Thus an
absorbed photon leaves the rest of the detector area able to re-
spond to another incoming photon, with the output being the
sum of all the individual avalanches.291
The basic idea behind active quenching is to detect the
rise of an avalanche pulse and control the reverse bias volt-
age accordingly. That is, upon a detection of the rise of the
avalanche pulse by a comparator, the bias voltage source
quickly lowers the reverse bias to below the breakdown volt-
age Vb. After some hold-off time, defined by the lifetime of
free and trapped carriers in the avalanche region, the bias volt-
age V is restored.
The main advantages of active quenching are the fast
switching from Geiger mode to quenched mode, and the well-
defined avalanche and reduced dead time. The idea is fairly
simple, but there are many design issues to consider. Also,
even though the timing jitter is significantly reduced, some
transient effects that impact timing and detector sensitivity
remain. The first actively quenched circuit was reported in
1975.345
A few years later, in 1981, its ability to reduce detec-
tion timing jitter was demonstrated,346
and the fast gating of a
photodiode was attempted.347
Modern actively quenched detectors can have electronic
photodetection jitter below 100 ps and dead times below
50 ns. The dead time is currently limited by carrier trapping
time inside the avalanche zone of the photodiode, and not
by the quenching electronics. However, transient effects can
still complicate the behavior of detectors immediately before
and immediately after the quenching pulse, contributing to so-
called twilight effects.80,348
For detectors with high dark-count rates, gated operation
is necessary. There are two types of gated circuits. The sim-
plest has a fixed time for the APD bias to be applied. In this
case if an avalanche occurs, it is quenched at the predeter-
mined end of the gate time. The alternative uses an active
circuit that terminates the bias as soon as an avalanche is de-
tected after the gate is turned on. This has the advantage of
reducing the total charge flow through the APD, which re-
duces the number of trapped carriers and, as a result, the rate
of afterpulsing.349,350
This scheme has become more practical
as integrated quenching electronics has been developed.351
Both gating schemes rely on switching the bias volt-
age from V Vb to V Vb and back. These rapid volt-
age changes cause the diode to act like a damped capacitor
when no avalanche occurs. Because of these large background
pulses, it can be hard to pick out the avalanche signal unless
efforts are made to cancel the transient voltages, or gate times
are made long enough that the transients can be temporally
discriminated by the electronics.
There are several strategies to deal with these transients.
An intuitive approach is to send the gate pulse to both the pho-
todiode and a capacitor-resistor pair that mimics the transient
in a p-n junction with no avalanches. The same result can be
achieved using distributed impedances that create two iden-
tical, but temporally displaced, output pulses.352
Then one
pulse is simply subtracted from the other, before being sent
to a comparator. If no avalanche is present, the transient ef-
fects cancel. If an avalanche is present, it will be easily re-
vealed. However, such matching requires careful study of the
photodiode’s properties under the operating conditions (bias
voltage, temperature, etc.) and adjustment if either the photo-
diode or its operating conditions change.
There are other schemes for canceling these transients. It
has been proposed that two, rather than one avalanche pho-
todiodes are used with their outputs arranged to cancel tran-
sients from one another.353
However, the two detectors must
be nearly identical. One can overcome this requirement by
using two subsequent pulses from the same APD, with one
pulse delayed in time to overlap the other.249
In this case, no
prior information about the photodiode is needed, but there
is a problem if adjacent pulses each have an incident photon.
Only the first one will be detected by the electronics, as the
second one will be canceled by the first, resulting in under-
counting. Also, if the gating must be synchronized to a clock,
random gating (necessary for cw heralded-photon detection)
cannot be used.
There is another proposal where the output of the de-
tector is passed through an integrator. In that case, the pas-
sive response of the photodiode is removed by integration,
while the avalanche will appear as an offset due to an extra
avalanche peak. The problem here is that an avalanche is de-
tected only after the gate ends, which erases information as to
when within the gate pulse the avalanche occurred.354
Another related approach to dealing with transients
works in a somewhat inverse fashion. In this scheme a dis-
criminator threshold is set to sense the negative going tran-
sient at the end of the gate pulse. This transient is due to the

capacitance of the detector discharging. When an photon trig-
gers an avalanche, that avalanche discharges the detector ca-
pacitance so the negative-going pulse is reduced, and is not
seen by the comparator. Thus the absence of the comparator
firing indicates the detection of a photon.288,355
This has the
advantage of suppressing afterpulsing by allowing for shorter
gate duration and thus fewer filled trap sites.
Finally, there is a scheme aimed at reducing afterpulsing
in InGaAs SPADs by reducing current flow in an unusual
manner.356
The scheme uses the fact that while an incoming
IR photon triggers an avalanche, that avalanche itself results
in the emission of other photons that may be visible. A Si
SPAD registers these secondary photons, so effectively the
system works by up conversion from the IR to the visible.
The advantage in afterpulsing is gained because the IR SPAD
does not need any processing electronics for its avalanche,
greatly reducing its total capacitance. This greatly reduces the
charge through the diode, resulting in fewer filled traps that
must be emptied. While just a proposal, calculations suggest
high detection efficiency and low afterpulse probabilities are
possible.
A detailed review on the history of detector electronics
can be found in Refs. 349, 357. Modern trends in develop-
ing electronics for SPADs that require gating are found in
Ref. 100.
IV. APPLICATION CASE STUDY: QUANTUM
COMMUNICATION
Single-photon sources and detectors are key to photon-
based quantum communication. We use this area as a case
study of how the real characteristics of sources and detec-
tors impact performance in practice. In particular, we look at
QKD and quantum repeaters and how the nonideal natures of
single-photon sources and detectors directly affect the com-
munication rates, the link lengths, and the security. To illus-
trate the effect that source and detector properties may have
on QKD protocols, we consider the example of the Bennett
and Brassard QKD protocol of 1984 (BB84) protocol which
uses polarization encoding.17
While decoy-state methods us-
ing faint laser pulses358,359
may reduce the need for single-
photon source development for QKD, the characteristics of
single-photon detectors will still greatly influence the practi-
cally achievable performance of QKD protocols in general,
and we note that specific security attack schemes have fo-
cused on particular detector characteristics.360–363
Addition-
ally, the development of quantum repeaters, a key enabling
technology for long-distance quantum communication, will
depend critically on the performance of both single-photon
sources and single-photon detectors.32,364
We first consider BB84,17
a QKD protocol, whereby a
common set of random bits are generated at two ends of a
communication link for later use as a secret key in sending en-
crypted messages. It is important to note that although we as-
sume that the photon polarization is used to encode the qubit
in this example, polarization is just one of many possible ways
to encode qubits in photons. For example, time-bin qubits are
preferred at telecom wavelengths.365
In the BB84 polarization-encoded scheme, the sender
(Alice) encodes random zeros or ones in the polarization state
of a single photon. The encoding is done by randomly setting
the photon’s polarization to either horizontal, |H or vertical,
|V to represent 0 or 1 or by setting the polarization to diago-
nal, |D or anti-diagonal |A to represent 0 or 1. The receiver
(Bob) randomly selects either the HV or DA bases to analyze
the polarization of the photons he receives. By an open au-
thenticated communication channel, Alice and Bob reconcile
the preparation and measurement of each bit so that they know
which photons made it through the optical link and were de-
tected by Bob, and which of these were analyzed in the basis
that matched the sending basis. They discard any bit that ei-
ther was not received by Bob or was analyzed in the wrong
basis, leaving what is referred to as “sifted key.” This open
reconciliation channel contains only the basis and which pho-
tons were received, not the measurement result, so an eaves-
dropper (Eve) of this open channel would not learn if the bit
was a 0 or 1. Only by intercepting and receiving the photon
pulse would Eve have a chance to learn the value of the bit
sent, but because only a single photon was sent, after making
her measurement Eve would have to prepare a new photon to
send to Bob. But because Eve would not know if the send-
ing basis was HV or DA she would send the photon in the
wrong basis 50% of the time. That would mean that some of
the time that Alice sent a 0 in a particular basis, Bob would
receive a 1 in that same basis and vice versa. This telltale error
can be detected by Alice and Bob by comparing a subset of
their common bits, and additional measures would have to be
taken to maintain security.15
Those additional measures con-
sume some of the sifted key bits, but create a shorter “secret
key” that greatly reduces the amount of knowledge that Eve
can have of the resulting secret key shared by Alice and Bob.
While acknowledging that the subsequently developed
decoy-state scheme has provided a way to address this issue,
the QKD just described assumes the bit to be transmitted is
a single photon, for if the photon pulse encoding the bit con-
tained more than one photon then Eve could potentially de-
tect just one photon while letting the other(s) continue unper-
turbed to Bob, who would not detect Eve’s presence because
no error was created.
While faint laser pulse sources were the easiest and first
sources used for QKD implementations, two single-emitter
systems, namely quantum dots and nitrogen-vacancy centers,
have been used as single-photon sources in proof-of-principle
QKD experiments.103,138,366
In principle, for a given secure
communication rate, single-emitter-based QKD systems can
achieve longer key transmission distances than faint laser
pulse systems. This is because the nonzero two-photon emis-
sion probability decreases the performance of faint-laser sys-
tems relative to the performance of single-emitter systems due
to the increasing loss with increasing distance. With faint-
laser systems that have loss between the source and detec-
tor, there is always some probability that the detection of a
single photon corresponds to the emission or two or more
photons, with the other photon(s) being lost in transmission.
This issue is avoided by operating the source such that the
probability of single-photon emission, p, is much less than
one, so that the probability of emitting two or more photons,

∼p2
, is negligible. Operating at lower mean photon num-
ber means that Bob will record zero-photon time bins more
often, thus decreasing the bit rate. In addition, since Bob must
look at more time bins to obtain the same number of use-
ful events, the contribution of noise (dark counts and stray
photons) in Bob’s detectors increases. This is an example of
a nonideal characteristic of a photon-counting detector that
will result in a greater bit-error-rate, yielding a shorter secret
key for a given length of sifted key. In contrast, the emission
rate of single-emitter sources does not need to be operated
with p 1, since by definition there is zero probability of a
two-photon emission (or zero to a significant degree in im-
plemented systems). The result is that the secure communica-
tion rate of single-emitter QKD systems, relative to faint-laser
pulse systems, increases with increasing loss.366
Another way
of saying this is that since loss increases with distance, single-
emitter-based QKD systems can achieve longer transmission
distances than faint laser pulse systems for a given secure
communication rate. To date, however, technical challenges
have limited single-emitter QKD demonstrations to relatively
modest distances.103,138,366
In addition to source issues, the nonideal nature of the
photon-counting detectors used in a QKD system also affects
its performance. As we have already discussed how detector
dark counts impact a QKD system, we move on to discuss
the effect of detector efficiency, which has the same impact
as link loss. It means that for a given rate of photons incident
on the detector, Bob will detect zero photons more often, thus
decreasing the bit rate. This will also increase the contribution
of noise in Bob’s detectors, resulting in a greater bit-error-
rate and yielding a shorter secret key for a given length of
sifted key. The result is that the secure communication rate of
a detector increases with increasing efficiency.
Other detector properties, such as detector dead time, also
affect the performance of QKD protocols. If the dead time of
a detector is greater than the smallest possible time-bin spac-
ing allowed by the single-photon source, then increased dead
time results in a decreased communication rate. It has also
been shown that detector dead time can lead to the leaking of
information or even be directly manipulated by third party to
gain information from the quantum channel.360,362,363
In ad-
dition to these properties it has been shown that even small
differences in detector timing jitter can leak secret key infor-
mation from these protocols.361
To enable quantum communication for networks over
long distances, quantum repeaters will be essential. Quantum
repeaters work by breaking the total communication distance
into a series of shorter links, with quantum memories being
required to create entanglement between the end nodes of
each link. At least one quantum repeater protocol has been
developed that relies only on single-photon sources (as com-
pared to a source of correlated pairs of excitations) and single-
photon detectors, and whose fundamental fidelity would be
theoretically equal to one for perfect sources, detectors, and
other components.32,364
As with QKD protocols, the perfor-
mance of quantum-repeater protocols depends on the char-
acteristics of the sources and detectors used in practice.32,364
For example, for the quantum-repeater protocol described in
Ref. 364, detector dark counts and multiple-photon emission
can correspond to states other than the desired entangled state,
decreasing the fidelity. As an example, for the parameters
listed in Ref. 364 (communication length of 1000 km, charac-
teristic absorption length in the fiber of 22 km corresponding
to the telecommunications wavelength of 1.5 μm, memory
efficiency of 0.9, detector efficiency of 0.9, and single-photon
emission success probability of 0.95), the detector dark-count
probability of each detector must be smaller than 4.6 × 10−6
and the two-photon emission probability for each source must
be smaller than 3.7 × 10−4
for a final fidelity of 0.9.
In summary, the non-ideal nature of both single-photon
sources and single-photon detectors can greatly affect quan-
tum communication protocols. The sources, by not being
truly on-demand, reduce throughput, limit link length, and
can compromise security. And by not being reproducible and
indistinguishable single-photon states, quantum communica-
tion systems will suffer reduced overall efficiency that will
ultimately make a scalable system unachievable. As with non-
ideal sources, photon-counting detectors with nonideal char-
acteristics like finite detection efficiency, non-number resolv-
ing, non-zero timing jitter, finite dead time, etc., have similar
impacts on practical quantum communication systems. In ad-
dition, because detectors convert the quantum state to classi-
cal information they are also subject to direct attacks on secu-
rity that cannot rely on fundamental principles like quantum
mechanics to be detected.
V. SUMMARY
As should be clear by now, the field of single-photon
sources and detectors is of great interest and importance to
many applications, and the importance of these applications
is driving many current efforts to improve these devices. The
field has now reached a certain level of maturity, with devices
finding their way into many off-the-shelf components. Today
it is possible to find nearly ideal devices when only one pa-
rameter is important, but performance of other parameters is
often compromised. Examples of such trade-offs for sources
is low g(2)
(0) versus the deterministic character of photon
emission; and for detectors an example is the efficiency ver-
sus speed trade-off seen in the TES detector. Much of the cur-
rent work in this field involves studying and addressing such
trade-offs.
Specifically for sources, while initial efforts were focused
mostly on increasing brightness and generation efficiency,
current improvement efforts are more driven by the require-
ments for particular applications and often deal directly with
improving more than one characteristic simultaneously, as it
is now well understood that heroic results in improving a sin-
gle parameter are often of little practical use. These present
multi-parameter efforts include better single-photon state ac-
curacy [in the form of lower g(2)
(0)], and higher degrees
of indistinguishability of single-photon output states which
is particularly important for many quantum-information
applications. These improvements involve engineering of
photon-state parameters such as designing sources to pro-
duce uncorrelated joint spectral distributions (i.e., factorable
states). Another example of state engineering is the mul-
tiplexed PDC source which is an attempt to increase

single-photon emission efficiency and reduce multi-photon
emission [or equivalently, reduce g(2)
(0)], simultaneously.
There are also significant efforts toward scalable devices with
more compact and robust designs, which are also critical to
the ultimate development of any large scale photonic systems
that might be required for information processing, metrologic
sources, or even complicated quantum-measurement arrange-
ments. This focus on scalability is one of the drivers that has
moved source efforts from bulk PDC to fiber FWM, now to
isolated quantum systems (particularly at room temperature)
and silicon photonic waveguides.
For detectors, while it is clear that SPADs are the
workhorse devices for a great many applications, there are
needs for detectors that exceed what is available with SPADs
for individual properties. As a result, there is much work
to improve detectors, with improvement directions includ-
ing higher efficiencies, with some already approaching 100%,
lower timing jitter, with sub-50 ps demonstrated, reduced
afterpulsing, and better photon-number resolution. As with
sources, there are also efforts toward improving more than one
detector parameter simultaneously such as giving the high-
speed SNSPD detectors some photon-number resolution by
implementing multiple element detectors or switched multi-
plexed detectors that reduce dead time and afterpulsing ef-
fects simultaneously, or IR upconversion schemes that have
high efficiency, high count rates, and low background rates.
One can certainly expect these trends toward improving mul-
tiple parameters for both sources and detectors to continue for
the foreseeable future, as there is plenty of room for improve-
ment and there are many applications that can benefit from
such improvements.
All this effort on single-photon devices requires sup-
porting efforts in single-photon metrology, with an ultimate
goal of connecting photon-counting radiometry to conven-
tional detector and source standards that typically deal with
too many photons to even consider counting.80,367
While this
is certainly an ambitious goal, it offers a potential path toward
improving radiometric measurements by many orders of mag-
nitude, and provides a solid infrastructure for characterizing
and developing better sources and detectors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the help and useful discussions of J. C.
Bienfang, J. Chen, W. H. Farr, E. A. Goldschmidt, W. Grice,
D. Herr, P. G. Kwiat, Z. H. Levine, R. P. Mirin, S. W. Nam, A.
Restelli, M. J. Stevens, F. N. C. Wong, and T. Zhong. We ac-
knowledge the partial support of the National Science Foun-
dation (NSF) through the Physics Frontier Center at the Joint
Quantum Institute.
1C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Photons and
Atoms: Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics (Wiley-Interscience,
New York, 1997).
2R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press, New
York, 2000).
3M. Planck, Verh. Dtsch. Phys. Ges. 2, 202 (1900).
4M. Planck, Verh. Dtsch. Phys. Ges. 2, 237 (1900).
5D. ter Haar, The Old Quantum Theory (Pergamon, Oxford, 1967).
6A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 17, 132 (1905).
7A. B. Arons and M. B. Peppard, Am. J. Phys. 33, 367 (1965).
8A. H. Compton, Phys. Rev. 21, 483 (1923).
9G. Lewis, Nature (London) 118, 874 (1926).
10P. A.M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London 114, 243 (1927).
11E. Fermi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 4, 87 (1932).
12M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1997).
13R. Glauber, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 1267 (2006).
14Technical Report on Quantum Cryptography Technology Experts Panel,
Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA), 2004, see
http://qist.lanl.gov.
15A. Ekert, N. Gisin, B. Huttner, H. Inamori, and H. Weinfurter, in The
Physics of Quantum Information, edited by D. Bouwmeester, A. Ekert,
and A. Zeilinger (Springer, Berlin, 2000).
16P. Shor, Proceedings of 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Com-
puter Science (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1994),
pp. 124–134.
17C. Bennett and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of IEEE International Con-
ference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing, Bangalore, India
(IEEE, New York, 1984), pp. 175–179.
18A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
19C. H. Bennett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3121 (1992).
20H. Inamori, N. Lütkenhaus, and D. Mayers, Eur. Phys. J. D 41, 599 (2007).
21D. Gottesman, H.-K. Lo, N. Lütkenhaus, and J. Preskill, Quantum Inf.
Comput. 4, 325 (2004).
22W.-Y. Hwang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 057901 (2003).
23X.-B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230503 (2005).
24X. Ma, B. Qi, Y. Zhao, and H. Lo, Phys. Rev. A 72, 012326 (2005).
25C. Bennett, G. Brassard, and J. Robert, SIAM J. Comput. 17, 210 (1988).
26C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, and U. M. Maurer, IEEE Trans.
Inf. Theory 41, 1915 (1995).
27D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, R. Jozsa, C. Macchiavello, S. Popescu, and A.
Sanpera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2818 (1996).
28N. Gisin, G. Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 145
(2002).
29H. J. Briegel, W. Dur, S. J. van Enk, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, in The
Physics of Quantum Information, edited by D. Bouwmeester, A. Ekert,
and A. Zeilinger (Springer, Berlin, 2000).
30L. Duan, M. Lukin, J. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Nature (London) 414, 413
(2001).
31C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, M. Afzelius, N. Sangouard, H. Zbinden, and
N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 190503 (2007).
32N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Rev. Mod. Phys.
83, 33 (2011).
33N. Sangouard, C. Simon, B. Zhao, Y.-A. Chen, H. de Riedmatten,
J.-W. Pan, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. A 77, 062301 (2008).
34C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and
W. K. Wooters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
35J. Rarity, P. Owens, and P. Tapster, J. Mod. Opt. 41, 2435 (1994).
36A. Stefanov, N. Gisin, O. Guinnard, L. Guinnard, and H. Zbinden, J. Mod.
Opt. 47, 595 (2000).
37A. Migdall and J. Dowling, J. Mod. Opt. 51, 1265 (2004).
38T. Isoshima, Y. Isojima, K. Kikuchi, K. Nagai, and H. Nakagawa, Rev. Sci.
Inst. 66, 2922 (1995).
39U. Lieberwirth, J. Arden-Jacob, K. H. Drexhage, D. P. Herten, R. Muller,
M. Neumann, A. Schulz, S. Siebert, G. Sagner, S. Klingel, M. Sauer, and
J. Wolfrum, Anal. Chem. 70, 4771 (1998).
40J.-P. Knemeyer, N. Marme, and M. Sauer, Anal. Chem. 72, 3717
(2000).
41D. N. Gavrilov, B. Gorbovitski, M. Gouzman, G. Gudkov,
A. Stepoukhovitch, V. Ruskovoloshin, A. Tsuprik, G. Tyshko, O. Bilenko,
O. Kosobokova, S. Luryi, and V. Gorfinkel, Electrophoresis 24, 1184
(2003).
42I. Rech, A. Restelli, S. Cova, M. Ghioni, M. Chiari, and M. Cretich, Sens.
Actuators B 100, 158 (2004).
43J.-P. Knemeyer, N. Marme, and M. Sauer, Science 283, 1676 (1999).
44A. Berglund, A. Doherty, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 068101
(2002).
45K. Suhling, P. French, and D. Phillips, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 4, 13
(2005).
46T. McIlrath, R. Hudson, A. Aikin, and T. Wilkerson, Appl. Opt. 18, 316
(1979).
47M. Viterbini, A. Adriani, and G. Didonfrancesco, Rev. Sci. Inst. 58, 1833
(1987).

48S. Pellegrini, G. Buller, J. Smith, A. Wallace, and S. Cova, Meas. Sci.
Technol. 11, 712 (2000).
49S. Personick, Bell Syst. Tech. J. 56, 355 (1977).
50B. Levine, C. Bethea, and J. Campbell, Appl. Phys. Lett. 46, 333 (1985).
51G. Ripamonti, M. Ghioni, and S. Vanoli, Electron. Lett. 26, 1569 (1990).
52A. Lacaita, P. Francese, S. Cova, and G. Riparmonti, Opt. Lett. 18, 1110
(1993).
53F. Scholder, J. Gautier, M. Wegmuller, and N. Gisin, Opt. Commun. 213,
57 (2002).
54A. Wegmuller, F. Scholder, and N. Gisin, J. Lightwave Technol. 22, 390
(2004).
55M. Legre, R. Thew, H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, Opt. Express 15, 8237
(2007).
56J. Kash, J. Tsang, D. Knebel, and D. Vallett, in ISTFA ‘98: Proceedings
Of The 24TH International Symposium For Testing And Failure Analysis
(American Technical Publishers, 1998), pp. 483–488.
57J. Tsang, J. Kash, and D. Vallett, IBM J. Res. Dev. 44, 583 (2000).
58F. Stellari, F. Zappa, S. Cova, C. Porta, and J. Tsang, IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices 48, 2830 (2001).
59N. Goldblatt, M. Leibowitz, and W. Lo, Microelectron. Reliab. 41, 1507
(2001).
60F. Stellari, A. Tosi, F. Zappa, and S. Cova, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 53,
163 (2004).
61S. Polonsky and K. Jenkins, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 25, 208 (2004).
62S. Soper, Q. Mattingly, and P. Vegunta, Anal. Chem. 65, 740 (1993).
63L.-Q. Li and L. Davis, Rev. Sci. Inst. 64, 1524 (1993).
64I. Rech, G. Luo, M. Ghioni, H. Yang, X. S. Xie, and S. Cova, IEEE J. Sel.
Top. Quant. Electron. 10, 788 (2004).
65M. Wahl, F. Koberling, M. Patting, H. Rahn, and R. Erdmann, Curr.
Pharm. Biotechnol. 5, 299 (2004).
66M. Gosch, A. Serov, T. Anhut, T. Lasser, A. Rochas, P. Besse, R. Popovic,
H. Blom, and R. Rigler, J. Biomed. Opt. 9, 913 (2004).
67X. Michalet, O. H.W. Siegmund, J. V. Vallerga, P. Jelinsky, J. E. Millaud,
and S. Weiss, J. Mod. Opt. 54, 239 (2007).
68X. Michalet, R. A. Colyer, J. Antelman, O. H.W. Siegmund, A. Tremsin,
J. V. Vallerga, and S. Weiss, Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 10, 543 (2009).
69S. Felekyan, R. Kühnemuth, V. Kudryavtsev, C. Sandhagen, W. Becker,
and C. A. M. Seidel, Rev. Sci. Instr. 76, 083104 (2005).
70A. Pifferi, A. Torricelli, L. Spinelli, D. Contini, R. Cubeddu, F. Martelli,
G. Zaccanti, A. Tosi, A. D. Mora, F. Zappa, and S. Cova, Phys. Rev. Lett.
100, 138101 (2008).
71V. C. Spanoudaki, A. B. Mann, A. N. Otte, I. Konorov, I. Torres-
Espallardo, S. Paul, and S. I. Ziegler, J. Inst. 2, 12002 (2007).
72D. Klyshko, Kvantovaya Elektronika 4, 1056 (1977) [Sov. J. Quantum
Elect. 7, 591 (1977)].
73A. Malygin, A. Penin, and A. Sergienko, JETP Lett. 33, 477 (1981)
[http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ps/1510/article_23064.pdf].
74A. Migdall, R. Datla, A. Sergienko, J. Orszak, and Y. Shih, Appl. Opt. 37,
3455 (1998).
75A. Migdall, E. Dauler, A. Muller, and A. Sergienko, Anal. Chim. Acta
380, 311 (1999).
76M. Ware and A. Migdall, J. Mod. Opt. 51, 1549 (2004).
77G. Brida, M. Genovese, M. Gramegna, M. Rastello, M. Chekhova, and
L. Krivitsky, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 22, 488 (2005).
78S. Castelletto, I. P. Degiovanni, V. Schettini, and A. Migdall, Metrologia
43, S56 (2006).
79G. Brida, M. Genovese, and M. Gramegna, Laser Phys. Lett. 3, 115
(2006).
80S. V. Polyakov and A. L. Migdall, Opt. Express 15, 1390 (2007).
81S. A. Castelletto and R. E. Scholten, Eur. Phys. J.: Appl. Phys. 41, 181
(2008).
82G. Hungerford and D. Birch, Meas. Sci. Technol. 7, 121 (1996).
83P. Yao, V. S.C. MangaRao, and S. Hughes, Laser Photonics Rev. 4, 499
(2010).
84K. Greulich and E. Thiel, Single Mol. 2, 5 (2001).
85A. Kuhn and D. Ljunggren, Contemp. Phys. 51, 289 (2010).
86B. Lounis and M. Orrit, Rep. Prog. Phys. 68, 1129 (2005).
87M. Oxborrow and A. Sinclair, Contemp. Phys. 46, 173 (2005).
88D. Renker and E. Lorenz, J. Instrum. 4, P04004 (2009).
89H. Hertz, Ann. Phys. Chem. 31, 983 (1887).
90J. Elster and H. Geitel, Ann. Phys. 284, 625 (1893).
91H. Iams and B. Salzberg, Proc. IRE 23, 55 (1935).
92V. Zworykin, G. Morton, and L. Malter, Proc. IRE 24, 351 (1935).
93L. A. Kubetsky, Proc. Inst. Radio Eng. 254, 421 (1937).
94K. O. Kiepenheuer, Z. Phys. 107, 145 (1937).
95Z. Bay, Nature (London) 141, 1011 (1938).
96J. S. Allen, Phys. Rev. 55, 966–971 (1939).
97R. McIntyre, J. Appl. Phys. 32, 983 (1961).
98D. E. Groom, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. 219, 141 (1984).
99S. Pellegrini, R. E. Warburton, L. J.J. Tan, J. S. Ng, A. B. Krysa, K. Groom,
J. P.R. David, S. Cova, M. J. Robertson, and G. S. Buller, IEEE J. Quant.
Electron. 42, 071116 (2006).
100A. Tosi, A. D. Mora, F. Zappa, and S. Cova, J. Mod. Opt. 56, 299 (2009).
101X. Jiang, M. A. Itzler, R. Ben-Michael, and K. Slomkowski, IEEE J. Sel.
Top. Quantum Electron. 13, 895 (2007).
102R. Warburton, M. Itzler, and G. Buller, Electron. Lett. 45, 996 (2009).
103R. Alleaume, F. Treussart, G. Messin, Y. Dumeige, J.-F. Roch, A. Bever-
atos, R. Brouri-Tualle, J.-P. Poizat, and P. Grangier, New J. Phys. 6, 92
(2004).
104T. Gaebel, I. Popa, A. Gruber, M. Domhan, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup,
New J. Phys. 6, 98 (2004).
105E. Wu, J. R. Rabeau, G. Roger, F. Treussart, H. Zeng, P. Grangier,
S. Prawer and J.-F. Roch, New J. Phys. 9, 434 (2007).
106S. Kako, C. Santori, K. Hoshino, S. Gotzinger, Y. Yamamato, and
Y. Arakawa, Nature Mater. 5, 887 (2006).
107A. J. Shields, Nature Photon. 1, 215 (2007).
108S. Strauf, N. G. Stoltz, M. T. Rakher, L. A. Coldren, P. M. Petroff, and
D. Bouwmeester, Nature Photon. 1, 704 (2007).
109M. Hennrich, T. Legero, A. Kuhn, and G. Rempe, New J. Phys. 6, 86
(2004).
110C. Maurer, C. Becher, C. Russo, J. Eschner, and R. Blatt, New J. Phys. 6,
94 (2004).
111M. Steiner, A. Hartschuh, R. Korlacki, and A. J. Meixner, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 90, 183122 (2007).
112S. Chen, Y.-A. Chen, T. Strassel, Z.-S. Yuan, B. Zhao, J. Schmiedmayer,
and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 173004 (2006).
113E. Waks, E. Diamanti, and Y. Yamamoto, New J. Phys. 8, 4 (2006).
114A. Soujaeff, T. Nishioka, T. Hasegawa, S. Takeuchi, T. Tsurumaru,
K. Sasaki, and M. Matsui, Opt. Express 15, 726 (2007).
115A. B. U’Ren, C. Silberhorn, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 93, 093601 (2004).
116J. Fan and A. Migdall, Opt. Express 15, 2915 (2007).
117E. A. Goldschmidt, M. D. Eisaman, J. Fan, S. V. Polyakov, and A. Migdall,
Phys. Rev. A 78, 013844 (2008).
118A. Hartschuh, H. N. Pedrosa, J. Peterson, L. Huang, P. Anger, H. Qian,
A. J. Meixner, M. Steiner, L. Novotny, and T. D. Krauss, Chem. Phys.
Chem. 6, 1 (2005).
119A. Hogele, C. Galland, M. Winger, and A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. Lett.
100, 217401 (2008).
120T. B. Pittman, J. D. Franson, and B. C. Jacobs, New J. Phys. 9, 195 (2007).
121B. C. Jacobs, T. B. Pittman, and J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. A 74, 010303(R)
(2006).
122A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1981).
123P. G. Kwiat and R. Y. Chiao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 588 (1991).
124S. Fasel, O. Alibart, S. Tanzilli, P. Baldi, A. Beveratos, N. Gisin, and
H. Zbinden, New J. Phys. 6, 163 (2004).
125Q. Wang, W. Chen, G. Xavier, M. Swillo, T. Zhang, S. Sauge, M. Tengner,
Z.-F. Han, G.-C. Guo, and A. Karlsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 090501
(2008).
126A. Fedrizzi, T. Herbst, A. Poppe, T. Jennewein, and A. Zeilinger, Opt.
Express 15, 15377 (2007).
127T. Zhong, X. Hu, F. N.C. Wong, K. K. Berggren, T. D. Roberts, and
P. Battle, Opt. Lett. 35, 1392 (2010).
128S. Takeuchi, R. Okamoto, and K. Sasaki, Appl. Opt. 43, 5708 (2004).
129G. Brida, I. P. Degiovanni, M. Genovese, A. Migdall, F. Piacentini,
S. V. Polyakov, and I. R. Berchera, Opt. Express 19, 1484 (2011).
130X.-S. Ma, S. Zotter, J. Kofler, T. Jennewein, and A. Zeilinger(2010), see
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1007/1007.4798v1.pdf.
131S. D. Dyer, M. J. Stevens, B. Baek, and S. W. Nam, Opt. Express 16, 9966
(2008).
132B. J. Smith, P. Mahou, O. Cohen, J. S. Lundeen, and I. A. Walmsley, Opt.
Express 17, 23589 (2009).
133A. Ling, J. Chen, J. Fan, and A. Migdall, Opt. Express 17, 21302 (2009).
134H. Takesue, Y. Tokura, H. Fukuda, T. Tsuchizawa, T. Watanabe, K.
Yamada, and S.-i. Itabashi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 201108 (2007).
135S. G. Lukishova, A. W. Schmid, A. J. McNamara, R. W. Boyd, and J.
Carlos R. Stroud, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 9, 1512
(2003).

136R. Alleaume, F. Treussart, J.-M. Courty, and J.-F. Roch, New J. Phys. 6,
85 (2004).
137S. G. Lukishova, A. W. Schmidz, C. M. Supranowitzy, N. Lippa, A. J.
Mcnamara, R. W. Boyd, and J. C. R. Stroud, J. Mod. Opt. 51, 1535
(2004).
138A. Beveratos, R. Brouri, T. Gacoin, A. Villing, J.-P. Poizat, and P. Grang-
ier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 187901 (2002).
139X. Brokmann, E. Giacobino, M. Dahan, and J. Hermier, Appl. Phys. Lett.
85, 712 (2004).
140A. J. Bennett, D. C. Unitt, P. Atkinson, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields,
Opt. Express 13, 50 (2005).
141M. Keller, B. Lange, K. Hayasaka, W. Lange, and H. Walther, Nature
(London) 431, 1075 (2004).
142J. McKeever, A. Boca, A. D. Boozer, R. Miller, J. R. Buck, A. Kuzmich,
and H. J. Kimble, Science 303, 1992 (2004).
143M. Hijlkema, B. Weber, H. P. Specht, S. C. Webster, A. Kuhn, and
G. Rempe, Nat. Phys. 3, 253 (2007).
144C. W. Chou, S. V. Polyakov, A. Kuzmich, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 92, 213601 (2004).
145D. N. Matsukevich, T. Chaneliere, S. D. Jenkins, S.-Y. Lan,
T. A.B. Kennedy, and A. Kuzmich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 013601
(2006).
146P. G. Evans, R. S. Bennink, W. P. Grice, T. S. Humble, and J. Schaake,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 253601 (2010).
147R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963).
148R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963).
149R. Hanbury-Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 242,
300 (1957).
150P. Michler, A. Kiraz, C. Becher, W. V. Schoenfeld, P. M. Petroff, L. Zhang,
E. Hu, and A. Imamoglu, Science 290, 2282 (2000).
151C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vučković, G. S. Solomon, and Y. Yamamoto,
Nature (London) 419, 594 (2002).
152Z. Yuan, B. E. Kardynal, R. M. Stevenson, A. J. Shields, C. J. Lobo,
K. Cooper, N. S. Beattie, D. A. Ritchie, and M. Pepper, Science 295, 102
(2002).
153V. Zwiller, T. Aichele, W. Seifert, J. Persson, and O. Benson, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 82, 1509 (2003).
154J. Kim, O. Benson, H. Kan, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature (London) 397, 500
(1999).
155F. D. Martini, G. D. Giuseppe, and M. Marrocco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 900
(1996).
156C. Brunel, B. Lounis, P. Tamarat, and M. Orrit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2722
(1999).
157B. Lounis and W. E. Moerner, Nature (London) 407, 491 (2000).
158A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 067901 (2002).
159B. B. Blinov, D. L. Moehring, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Nature (Lon-
don) 428, 153 (2004).
160C. Kurtsiefer, S. Mayer, P. Zarda, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85,
290 (2000).
161A. Beveratos, R. Brouri, T. Gacoin, J.-P. Poizat, and P. Grangier, Phys.
Rev. A 64, 061802 (2001).
162T. Wilk, S. C. Webster, H. P. Specht, G. Rempe, and A. Kuhn, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 98, 063601 (2007).
163B. Dayan, A. S. Parkins, T. Aoki, E. P. Ostby, K. J. Vahala, and H. J. Kim-
ble, Science 319, 1062 (2008).
164T. Aoki, A. S. Parkins, D. J. Alton, C. A. Regal, B. Dayan, E. Ostby,
K. J. Vahala, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 083601 (2009).
165U. Gaubatz, P. Rudecki, M. Becker, S. Schiemann, M. Külz, and
K. Bergmann, Chem. Phys. Lett. 149, 463 (1988).
166L. M. Duan, A. Kuzmich, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 67, 032305
(2003).
167H. G. Barros, A. Stute, T. E. Northup, C. Russo, P. O. Schmidt, and
R. Blatt, New J. Phys. 11, 103004 (2009).
168D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Nature (London) 417, 709
(2002).
169M. Riebe, T. Monz, K. Kim, A. S. Villar, P. Schindler, M. Chwalla,
M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Nat. Phys. 4, 839 (2008).
170J. P. Home, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. M. Amini, D. Leibfried, and
D. J. Wineland, Science 325, 1227 (2009).
171S. Kitson, P. Jonsson, J. Rarity, and P. Tapster, Phys. Rev. A 58, 620 (1998).
172A. Kiraz, S. Falth, C. Becher, B. Gayra, W. V. Schoenfeld, P. M. Petroff,
L. Zhang, E. Hu, and A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. B 65, 161303R (2002).
173A. Kiraz, M. Ehrl, T. Hellerer, O. E. Mustecaplioglu, C. Brauchle, and
A. Zumbusch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 223602 (2005).
174L. Fleury, J. Segura, G. Zumofen, B. Hecht, and U. Wild, Phys. Rev. Lett.
84, 1148 (2000).
175A. J. Shields, M. P. O’Sullivan, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, R. A. Hogg,
M. L. Leadbeater, C. E. Norman, and M. Pepper, Appl. Phys. Lett. 76,
3673 (2000).
176P. Michler, A. Imamoglu, M. Mason, P. Carson, G. Strouse, and S. Buratto,
Nature (London) 406, 968 (2000).
177O. Benson, C. Santori, M. Pelton, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84,
2513 (2000).
178E. Moreau, I. Robert, J. Gerard, I. Abram, L. Manin, and V. Thierry-Mieg,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 2865 (2001).
179C. Santori, M. Pelton, G. Solomon, Y. Dale, and E. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 86, 1502 (2001).
180M. Pelton, C. Santori, J. Vuckovic, B. Zhang, G. Solomon, J. Plant, and
Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 233602 (2002).
181C. Unitt, A. Bennett, P. Atkinson, K. Cooper, P. See, D. Gevaux, M. Ward,
R. Stevenson, D. Ritchie, and A. Shields, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassi-
cal Opt. 7, S129 (2005).
182A. Kress, F. Hofbauer, N. Reinelt, M. Kaniber, H. Krenner, R. Meyer,
G. Bohm, and J. Finley, Phys. Rev. B 71, 241304(R) (2005).
183S. Laurent, S. Varoutsis, L. Le Gratiet, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, F. Raineri,
A. Levenson, I. Robert-Philip, and I. Abram, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 163107
(2005).
184D. Press, S. Goetzinger, S. Reitzenstein, C. Hofmann, A. Loeffler,
M. Kamp, A. Forchel, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 117402
(2007).
185M. B. Ward, T. Farrow, P. See, Z. L. Yuan, O. Z. Karimov, A. J. Bennett,
A. J. Shields, P. Atkinson, K. Cooper, and D. A. Ritchie, Appl. Phys. Lett.
90, 063512 (2007).
186D. Leonard, M. Krishnamurthy, C. M. Reaves, S. P. Denbaars, and
P. M. Petroff, Appl. Phys. Lett. 63, 3203 (1993).
187C. M. Santori, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 2003.
188E. M. Purcell, Phys. Rev. 69, 681 (1946).
189A. Muller, W. Fang, J. Lawall, and G. S. Solomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103,
217402 (2009).
190E. B. Flagg, A. Muller, S. V. Polyakov, A. Ling, A. Migdall, and
G. S. Solomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 137401 (2010).
191R. B. Patel, A. J. Bennett, I. Farrer, C. A. Nicoll, D. A. Ritchie, and
A. J. Shields, Nature Photon. 4, 632 (2010).
192R. Brouri, A. Beveratos, J.-P. Poizat, and P. Grangier, Opt. Lett. 25, 1294
(2000).
193S. Pezzagna, D. Rogalla, D. Wildanger, J. Meijer, and A. Zaitsev, New J.
Phys. 13, 035024 (2011).
194P. Tamarat, T. Gaebel, J. R. Rabeau, M. Khan, A. D. Greentree, H. Wilson,
L. C.L. Hollenberg, S. Prawer, P. Hemmer, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 97, 083002 (2006).
195P. E. Barclay, K.-M. C. Fu, C. Santori, and R. G. Beausoleil, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 95, 191115 (2009).
196C. H. van der Wal, M. D. Eisaman, A. Andre, R. L. Walsworth,
D. F. Philips, A. S. Zibrov, and M. D. Lukin, Science 301, 196
(2003).
197A. Kuzmich, W. P. Bowen, A. D. Boozer, A. Boca, C. W. Chou,
L.-M. Duan, and H. J. Kimble, Nature (London) 423, 731
(2003).
198R. Zhao, Y. O. Dudin, S. D. Jenkins, C. J. Campbell, D. N. Matsukevich,
T. A.B. Kennedy, and A. Kuzmich, Nat. Phys. 5, 100 (2009).
199B. Zhao, Y.-A. Chen, X.-H. Bao, T. Strassel, C.-S. Chuu, X.-M. Jin,
J. Schmiedmayer, Z.-S. Yuan, S. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Nat. Phys. 5, 95
(2009).
200E. S. Fry, Phys. Rev. A 8, 1219 (1973).
201W. Louisell, A. Siegman, and A. Yariv, Phys. Rev. 124, 1646 (1961).
202B. Y. Zeldovich and D. N. Klyshko, JETP Lett. 9, 40 (1969)
[http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ps/1639/article_25275.pdf].
203D. Burnham and D. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 84 (1970).
204L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics
(Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995).
205R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear Optics, 2nd ed. (Academic, San Diego, 2003).
206J. Chen, A. J. Pearlman, A. Ling, J. Fan, and A. Migdall, Opt. Express 17,
6727 (2009).
207J. A. Armstrong, N. Bloembergen, J. Ducuing, and P. S. Pershan, Phys.
Rev. 127, 1918 (1962).
208A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996).
209C. K. Law, I. A. Walmsley, and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5304
(2000).

210W. P. Grice, A. B. U’Ren, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. A 64, 063815
(2001).
211P. J. Mosley, J. S. Lundeen, B. J. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, New J. Phys.
10, 093011 (2008).
212S. Tanzilli, H. de Riedmatten, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, P. Baldi, M. de
Micheli, D. B. Ostrowski, and N. Gisin, Electron. Lett. 37, 26 (2001).
213S. Tanzilli, W. Tittel, H. de Riedmatten, H. Zbinden, P. Baldi, M. de
Micheli, D. B. Ostrowski, and N. Gisin, Eur. Phys. J. D 18, 155
(2002).
214E. J. Mason, M. A. Albota, F. Konig, and F. N.C. Wong, Opt. Lett. 27,
2115 (2002).
215O. Alibart, D. B. Ostrowski, P. Baldi, and S. Tanzilli, Opt. Lett. 30, 1539
(2005).
216Y.-P. Huang, J. B. Altepeter, and P. Kumar, Phys. Rev. A 82, 043826
(2010).
217M. Fiorentino, S. M. Spillane, R. G. Beausoleil, T. D. Roberts, P. Battle,
and M. W. Munro, Opt. Express 15, 7479 (2007).
218T. Zhong, F. N. Wong, T. D. Roberts, and P. Battle, Opt. Express 17, 12019
(2009).
219Z. H. Levine, J. Fan, J. Chen, A. Ling, and A. Migdall, Opt. Express 18,
3708 (2010).
220J. E. Sharping, M. Fiorentino, and P. Kumar, Opt. Lett. 26, 367 (2001).
221M. Fiorentino, P. L. Voss, J. E. Sharping, and P. Kumar, IEEE Photonics
Technol. Lett. 14, 983 (2002).
222X. Li, P. L. Voss, J. E. Sharping, and P. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 053601
(2005).
223J. Rarity, J. Fulconis, J. Duligall, W. Wadsworth, and P. Russell, Opt. Ex-
press 13, 534 (2005).
224J. Fan, A. Dogariu, and L. J. Wang, Opt. Lett. 30, 1530 (2005).
225J. Fan, A. Migdall, and L. J. Wang, Opt. Lett. 30, 3368 (2005).
226J. Fan and A. Migdall, Opt. Lett. 31, 2771 (2006).
227T. Tsuchizawa, K. Yamada, H. Fukuda, T. Watanabe, J. Takahashi,
M. Takahashi, T. Shoji, E. Tamechika, S. Itabashi, and H. Morita, IEEE
J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 11, 232 (2005).
228J. E. Sharping, K. F. Lee, M. A. Foster, A. C. Turner, B. S. Schmidt,
M. Lipson, A. L. Gaeta, and P. Kumar, Opt. Express 14, 12388 (2006).
229K.-i. Harada, H. Takesue, H. Fukuda, T. Tsuchizawa, T. Watanabe, K.
Yamada, Y. Tokura, and S.-i. Itabashi, Opt. Express 16, 20368 (2008).
230H. Takesue and K. Inoue, Opt. Express 13, 7832 (2005).
231K. F. Lee, J. Chen, C. Liang, X. Li, P. L. Voss, and P. Kumar, Opt. Lett.
31, 1905 (2006).
232O. Kuzucu and F. N.C. Wong, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032314 (2008).
233A. L. Migdall, D. Branning, and S. Castelletto, Phys. Rev. A 66, 053805
(2002).
234M. J. Fitch, B. C. Jacobs, T. B. Pittman, and J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. A
68, 043814 (2003).
235E. Jeffrey, N. A. Peters, and P. G. Kwiat, New J. Phys. 6, 100 (2004).
236J. H. Shapiro and F. Wong, Opt. Lett. 32, 2698 (2007).
237T. Pittman, B. Jacobs, and J. Franson, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042303 (2002).
238T. Pittman and J. Franson, Phys. Rev. A 66, 062302 (2002).
239P. M. Leung and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022311 (2006).
240K. T. McCusker, N. A. Peters, A. P. VanDevender, and P. G. Kwiat, “A De-
terministic Single-Photon Source,” in Conference on Lasers and Electro-
optics/Quantum Electronics and Laser Science Conference and Photonic
Applications Systems Technologies, OSA Technical Digest (CD) (Optical
Society of America, 2008), paper JTuA117.
241A. I. Lvovsky, B. C. Sanders, and W. Tittel, Nature Photon. 3, 706 (2009).
242O. Cohen, J. S. Lundeen, B. J. Smith, G. Puentes, P. J. Mosley, and
I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 123603 (2009).
243T. B. Pittman and J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. A 74, 041801(R) (2006).
244I. Afek, O. Ambar, and Y. Silberberg, Science 328, 879 (2010).
245H.-A. Bachor and T. C. Ralph, A Guide to Experiments in Quantum Optics
(Wiley VCH, Berlin, 2004), Chap. 7.
246S. Cova, M. Ghioni, A. Lotito, I. Rech, and F. Zappa, J. Mod. Opt. 51,
1267 (2004).
247A. Lacaita, F. Zappa, S. Cova, and P. Lovati, Appl. Opt. 35, 2986 (1996).
248G. Ribordy, N. Gisin, O. Guinnard, D. Stucki, M. Wegmuller, and H. Zgin-
den, J. Mod. Opt. 51, 1381 (2004).
249Z. L. Yuan, B. E. Kardynal, A. W. Sharpe, and A. J. Shields, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 91, 041114 (2007).
250A. Lacaita, P. A. Francese, F. Zappa, and S. Cova, Appl. Opt. 33, 6902
(1994).
251D. M. Taylor, J. C. Jackson, A. P. Morrison, A. Mathewson, and J. G. Rar-
ity, J. Mod. Opt. 51, 1323 (2004).
252S. Komiyama, O. Astafiev, V. Antonov, T. Kutsuwa, and H. Hirai, Nature
(London) 403, 405 (2000).
253K. M. Rosfjord, J. K.W. Yang, E. A. Dauler, A. J. Kerman, V. Anant,
B. M. Voronov, G. N. Gol’tsman, and K. K. Berggren, Opt. Express 14,
527 (2006).
254M. A. Albota and F. N.C. Wong, Opt. Lett. 29, 1449 (2004).
255H. Takesue, E. Diamanti, C. Langrock, M. M. Fejer, and Y. Yamamoto,
Opt. Express 14, 13067 (2006).
256R. Thew, S. Tanzilli, L. Krainer, S. Zeller, A. Rochas, I. Rech, S. Cova,
H. Zbinden, and N. Gisin, New J. Phys. 8, 32 (2006).
257D. Rosenberg, A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, and S. W. Nam, Phys. Rev. A 71,
061803(R) (2005).
258A. Peacock, P. Verhoeve, N. Rando, A. van Dordrecht, B. G. Taylor,
C. Erd, M. A.C. Perryman, R. Venn, J. Howlett, D. J. Goldie, J. Lumley,
and M. Wallis, Nature (London) 381, 135 (1996).
259A. Peacock, P. Verhoeve, N. Rando, A. van Dordrecht, B. G. Taylor,
C. Erd, M. A.C. Perryman, R. Venn, J. Howlett, D. J. Goldie, J. Lumley,
and M. Wallis, J. Appl. Phys. 81, 7641 (1997).
260P. Verhoeve, N. Nando, A. Peacock, A. van Dordrecht, A. Poelaert,
D. Goldie, and R. Venn, J. Appl. Phys. 83, 6118 (1998).
261S. Friedrich, J. Low Temp. Phys. 151, 277 (2008).
262A. Divochiy, F. Marsili, D. Bitauld, A. Gaggero, R. Leoni, F. Mattioli,
A. Korneev, V. Seleznev, N. Kaurova, O. Minaeva, G. Gol’tsman, K. G.
Lagoudakis, M. Benkhaoul, F. Lévy, and A. Fiore, Nature Photon. 2, 302
(2008).
263M. Fujiwara and M. Sasaki, Appl. Opt. 46, 3069 (2007).
264E. Waks, K. Inoue, W. D. Oliver, E. Diamanti, and Y. Yamamoto, IEEE J.
Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 9, 1502 (2003).
265E. J. Gansen, M. A. Rowe, M. B. Greene, D. Rosenberg, T. E. Harvey,
M. Y. Su, R. H. Hadfield, S. W. Nam, and R. P. Mirin, Nature Photon. 1,
585 (2007).
266D. Achilles, C. Silberhorn, C. Sliwa, K. Banaszek, I. A. Walmsley,
M. J. Fitch, B. C. Jacobs, T. B. Pittman, and J. D. Franson, J. Mod. Opt.
51, 1499 (2004).
267B. E. Kardynal, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Nature Photon. 2, 425
(2008).
268A. Gulian, K. Wood, D. van Vechten, and G. Fritz, J. Mod. Opt. 15, 1467
(2004).
269D. James and P. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 183601 (2002).
270W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, R. G. Beausoleil, and T. P. Spiller, Phys. Rev. A
71, 033819 (2005).
271See http://jp.hamamatsu.com/resources/products/etd/pdf/m-h7422e.pdf
(2010) for an example of a visible PMT commercially packaged
as a photon-counting module including voltage bias electronics and
thermoelectric cooling.
272Certain commercial equipment, instruments or materials are identified in
this paper to foster understanding. Such identification does not imply rec-
ommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment are neces-
sarily the best available for the purpose.
273See http://jp.hamamatsu.com/resources/products/etd/pdf/NIR-PMT_
APPLI_TPMO1040E02.pdf (2010) for an example of a near IR PMT
commercially packaged as a photon-counting module including voltage
bias electronics and thermoelectric cooling.
274See http://excelitas.com/ProductPages/Single_Photon_Counting_
Modules_SPCM.aspx (2011) for an example of a visible thick junc-
tion SPAD commercially packaged as a photon-counting module
including voltage bias electronics and thermoelectric cooling.
275See http://www.microphotondevices.com/media/pdf/PDM_v3_6.pdf
(2011) for an example of a visible thin-junction SPAD commercially
packaged as a photon-counting module including voltage bias electronics
and thermoelectric cooling.
276O. Thomas, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, A. W. Sharpe, and A. J. Shields, Appl.
Rev. Lett. 97, 031102 (2010).
277M. Akiba, K. Tsujino, and M. Sasaki, Opt. Lett. 35, 2621 (2010).
278M. Ghioni, G. Armellini, P. Maccagnani, I. Rech, M. K. Emsley, and
M. S. Unlu, J. Mod. Opt. 56, 309 (2009).
279D. A. Kalashnikov, S. H. Tan, M. V. Chekhova, and L. A. Krivitsky, Opt.
Express 19, 9352 (2011).
280See http://jp.hamamatsu.com/resources/products/ssd/pdf/s10362-11_
series_kapd1022e05.pdf (2009) for an example of a commercial visible
multipixel SPAD.
281R. A. LaRue, G. A. Davis, D. Pudvay, K. A. Costello, and V. W. Aebi,
IEEE Elect. Dev. Lett. 20, 126 (1999).

282N. Bertone, R. Biasi, and B. Dion, Proc. SPIE 5726, 153 (2005).
283M. Micuda, O. Haderka, and M. Jezek, Phys. Rev. A 78, 025804
(2008).
284L. A. Jiang, E. A. Dauler, and J. T. Chang, Phys. Rev. A 75, 062325 (2007).
285G. Brida, I. P. Degiovanni, F. Piacentini, V. Schettini, S. V. Polyakov, and
A. Migdall, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80, 116103 (2009).
286C. Gobby, Z. L. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 3762 (2004).
287A. R. Dixon, Z. L. Yuan, J. F. Dynes, A. W. Sharpe, and A. J. Shields, Opt.
Express 16, 18790 (2008).
288A. Yoshizawa, R. Kaji, and H. Tsuchida, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 3606
(2004).
289X. Jiang, M. A. Itzler, B. Nyman, and K. Slomkowski, Proc. SPIE 7320,
732011 (2009).
290P. Lightwave (2010), see http://www.princetonlightwave.com/content/
PNA-20XNFADDatasheet_rv2.pdf.
291K. Zhao, A. Zhang, Y. hwa Lo, and W. Farr, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 081107
(2007).
292H. Takesue, E. Diamanti, T. Honjo, C. Langrock, M. M. Fejer, K. Inoue,
and Y. Yamamoto, New J. Phys. 7, 232 (2005).
293A. P. Van Devender and P. G. Kwiat, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 24, 295 (2007).
294H. Xu, L. Ma, A. Mink, B. Hershman, and X. Tang, Opt. Express 15, 7247
(2007).
295S. Takeuchi, J. Kim, Y. Yamamoto, and H. H. Hogue, Appl. Phys. Lett.
74, 1063 (1999).
296B. Baek, K. McKay, M. Stevens, J. K.H. Hogue, and S. W. Nam, IEEE J.
Quantum Electron. 46, 991 (2010).
297P. G. Kwiat, A. M. Steinberg, R. Y. Chiao, P. H. Eberhard, and
M. D. Petroff, Appl. Opt. 33, 1844 (1994).
298D. Rosenberg, J. W. Harrington, P. R. Rice, P. A. Hiskett, C. G. Peterson,
R. J. Hughes, A. E. Lita, S. W. Nam, and J. E. Nordholt, Phys. Rev. Lett.
98, 010503 (2007).
299A. E. Lita, A. J. Miller, and S. W. Nam, Opt. Express 16, 3032 (2008).
300A. E. Lita, B. Calkins, L. A. Pellochoud, A. J. Miller, and S. Nam, AIP
Conf. Proc. 1185, 351 (2009).
301D. Fukuda, G. Fujii, T. Numata, A. Yoshizawa, H. Tsuchida, H. Fujino,
H. Ishii, T. Itatani, S. Inoue, and T. Zama, Metrologia 46, S288 (2009).
302D. Fukuda, G. Fujii, T. Numata, A. Yoshizawa, H. Tsuchida, H. Fujino,
H. Ishii, T. Itatani, S. Inoue, and T. Zama, Tenth International Conference
on Quantum Communication, Measurement and Computation (QCMC),
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 2010.
303D. Fukuda, G. Fujii, T. Numata, K. Amemiya, A. Yoshizawa, H. Tsuchida,
H. Fujino, H. Ishii, T. Itatani, S. Inoue, and T. Zama, Opt. Express 19, 870
(2011).
304H. Takesue, S. W. Nam, Q. Zhang, R. H. Hadfield, T. Honjo, K. Tamaki,
and Y. Yamamoto, Nature Photon. 1, 343 (2007).
305T. Peacock, P. Verhoeve, N. Rando, C. Erd, M. Bavdaz, B. Taylor, and
D. Perez, Astron. Astrophys., Suppl. Ser. 127, 497 (1998).
306J. C. Blakesley, P. See, A. J. Shields, B. E. Kardyna, P. Atkinson, I. Farrer,
and D. A. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 067401 (2005).
307M. A. Rowe, E. J. Gansen, M. Greene, R. H. Hadfield, T. E. Harvey,
M. Y. Su, S. W. Nam, R. P. Mirin, and D. Rosenberg, Appl. Phys. Lett.
89, 253505 (2006).
308M. A. Rowe, G. M. Salley, E. J. Gansen, S. M. Etzel, S. W. Nam, and
R. P. Mirin, J. Appl. Phys. 107, 063110 (2010).
309R. Hadfield, Nature Photon. 3, 696 (2009).
310R. E. Simon, A. H. Sommer, J. A. Tietjen, and B. F. Williams, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 13, 355 (1968).
311G. A. Morton, H. M. Smith, and H. R. Krall, Appl. Phys. Lett. 13, 356
(1968).
312A. Nevet, A. Hayat, and M. Orenstein, Opt. Lett. 36, 725 (2011).
313M. A. Itzler, R. Ben-Michael, C. F. Hsu, K. Slomkowski, A. Tosi, S. Cova,
F. Zappa, and R. Ispasoiu, J. Mod. Opt. 54, 283 (2007).
314H. Kosaka, D. S. Rao, H. D. Robinson, P. Bandaru, T. Sakamoto, and
E. Yablonovitch, Phys. Rev. B 65, 201307 (2002).
315G. Gol’tsman, O. Okunev, G. Chulkova, A. Lipatov, A. Dzardanov,
K. Smirnov, A. Semenov, B. Voronov, C. Williams, and R. Sobolewski,
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 11, 574 (2001).
316G. Gol’tsman, O. Okunev, G. Chulkova, A. Lipatov, A. Semenov,
K. Smirnov, B. Voronov, A. Dzardanov, C. Williams, and R. Sobolewski,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 705 (2001).
317S. Miki, M. Fujiwara, M. Sasaki, B. Baek, A. J. Miller, R. H. Hadfield,
S. W. Nam, and Z. Wang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 061116 (2008).
318V. Anant, A. J. Kerman, E. A. Dauler, J. K. Yang, K. M. Rosfjord, and
K. K. Berggren, Opt. Express 16, 10750 (2008).
319E. A. Dauler, A. J. Kerman, B. S. Robinson, J. K.W. Yang, G. G.
B. Voronovc, S. A. Hamilton, and K. K. Berggren, J. Mod. Opt. 56, 364
(2009).
320J. K.W. Yang, A. J. Kerman, E. A. Dauler, V. Anant, K. M. Rosfjord, and
K. K. Berggren, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 17, 581 (2007).
321A. P. VanDevender and P. G. Kwiat, J. Mod. Opt. 51, 1433 (2004).
322D. Herr, see http://lepton-tech.com/pdf/counterdatasheet12-10-08.pdf
(2008) for an example of a commercial IR up-conversion photon-counting
module using a PMT to detect the up-converted photon.
323H. Xu, L. Ma, A. Mink, B. Hershman, and X. Tang, Phys. Rev. A 72,
052311 (2005).
324E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature (London) 409, 46 (2001).
325A. J. Kerman, E. A. Dauler, W. E. Keicher, J. K.W. Yang, K. K. Berggren,
G. Goltsman, and B. Voronov, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 111116 (2006).
326B. Cabrera, R. M. Clarke, P. Colling, A. J. Miller, S. Nam, and R. W.
Romani, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 735 (1998).
327D. Fukuda, G. Fujii, A. Yoshizawa, H. Tsuchida, R. M.T. Damayanthi,
H. Takahashi, S. Inoue, and M. Ohkubo, J. Low Temp. Phys. 151, 100
(2008).
328A. J. Miller, A. E. Lita, B. Calkins, I. Vayshenker, S. M. Gruber, and
S. W. Nam, Opt. Express 19, 9102 (2011).
329K. Banaszek and I. A. Walmsley, Opt. Lett. 28, 52 (2003).
330A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 163602 (2002).
331N. Imoto, H. A. Haus, and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A 32, 2287 (1985).
332P. Kok, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A 66, 063814 (2002).
333A. D. Greentree, R. G. Beausoleil, L. C.L. Hollenberg, W. J. Munro,
K. Nemoto, S. Prawer, and T. P. Spiller, New J. Phys. 11, 093005 (2009).
334Q. A. Turchette, C. J. Hood, W. Lange, H. Mabuchi, and H. J. Kimble,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4710 (1995).
335T. J. Kippenberg, S. M. Spillane, and K. J. Vahala, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93,
083904 (2004).
336G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, A. G. White, S. D. Bartlett, and T. C. Ralph,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 190402 (2004).
337P. Kok and W. J. Munro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 048901 (2005).
338G. J. Pryde, J. L. O’Brien, A. G. White, S. D. Bartlett, and T. C. Ralph,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 048902 (2005).
339R. H. Haitz, J. Appl. Phys. 35, 1370 (1964).
340R. H. Haitz, J. Appl. Phys. 36, 3123 (1965).
341A. Lacaita, S. Longhi, and A. Spinelli, in Proceedings of the International
Conference on Applications of Photonic Technology, edited by G. A.
Lampropulos, J. Chrostowski, and R. M. Measures (Plenum, London,
1994).
342A. Lacaita, A. Spinelli, and S. Longhi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 2627 (1995).
343W. Nicholson, Nuclear Electronics (Wiley, New York, 1974).
344M. A. Itzler, X. Jiang, B. Nyman, and K. Slomkowski, Proc. SPIE 7222,
72221K (2000).
345P. Antognetti, S. Cova, and A. Longoni, in Proceedings of the Second Ispra
Nuclear Electronics Symposium (Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg, Belgium, 1975), EURATOM Publ.
EUR 537e.
346S. Cova, A. Longoni, and A. Andreoni, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 52, 408
(1981).
347S. Cova, A. Longoni, and G. Ripamonti, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 29, 599
(1982).
348M. Ware, A. Migdall, J. C. Bienfang, and S. V. Polyakov, J. Mod. Opt. 54,
361 (2007).
349S. Cova, M. Ghioni, A. Lacaita, C. Samori, and F. Zappa, Appl. Opt. 35,
1956 (1996).
350A. Tosi, A. Gallivanoni, F. Zappa, and S. Cova, Proc. SPIE 6372, 63720Q
(2006).
351F. Zappa, A. Giudice, M. Ghioni, and S. Cova, in Proc. of the 28th
European Solid-State Circuits Conference, ESSCIRC (2002), Florence,
Italy, p. 355, see http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber
=1471538.
352D. S. Bethune and W. P. Risk, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 36, 340 (2000).
353A. Tomita and K. Nakamura, Opt. Lett. 27, 1827 (2002).
354Z. J. Wei, P. Zhou, and J. D. Wang, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 40, 6922
(2007).
355A. Yoshizawa, R. Kaji, and H. Tsuchida, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 43, L735
(2004).
356H. Finkelstein, M. Gross, Y.-H. Lo, and S. Esener, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quan-
tum Electron. 13, 959 (2007).
357M. Ghioni, S. Cova, F. Zappa, and C. Samori, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 67, 3440
(1996).

358H.-K. Lo, X. Ma, and K. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230504 (2005).
359T. Schmitt-Manderbach, H. Weier, M. Furst, R. Ursin, F. Tiefen-
bacher, T. Scheidl, J. Perdigues, Z. Sodnik, C. Kurtsiefer, J. G. Rarity,
A. Zeilinger, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 010504 (2007).
360V. Makarov, A. Anisimov, and J. Skaar, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022313
(2006).
361A. Lamas-Linares and C. Kurtsiefer, Opt. Express 15, 9388 (2007).
362V. Makarov, New J. Phys. 11, 065003 (2009).
363V. Burenkov, B. Qi, B. Fortescue, and H.-K. Lo (2010), see
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0272.
364N. Sangouard, C. Simon, J. Min, H. Zbinden, H. de Riedmatten, and
N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. A 76, 050301(R) (2007).
365I. Marcikic, H. de Riedmatten, W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, M. Legre, and
N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 180502 (2004).
366E. Waks, K. Inoue, C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vuckovic, G. S. Solomon, and
Y. Yamamoto, Nature (London) 420, 762 (2002).
367A. R. Beaumont, J. Y. Cheung, C. J. Chunnilall, J. Ireland, and
M. G. White, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 610, 183 (2009).
368J. G. Rarity, P. R. Tapster, and E. Jakeman, Opt. Commun. 62, 201
(1987).

Single photon sources and detectors

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Single photon sources and detectors (20)

More from Gabriel O'Brien (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Single photon sources and detectors