OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: Andrew M. Weiner
  • Vol. 22, Iss. 4 — Feb. 24, 2014
  • pp: 4789–4798
« Show journal navigation

Efficiency vs. multi-photon contribution test for quantum dots

Ana Predojević, Miroslav Ježek, Tobias Huber, Harishankar Jayakumar, Thomas Kauten, Glenn S. Solomon, Radim Filip, and Gregor Weihs  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp. 4789-4798 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.004789


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (856 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

The development of linear quantum computing within integrated circuits demands high quality semiconductor single photon sources. In particular, for a reliable single photon source it is not sufficient to have a low multi-photon component, but also to possess high efficiency. We investigate the photon statistics of the emission from a single quantum dot with a method that is able to sensitively detect the trade-off between the efficiency and the multi-photon contribution. Our measurements show, that the light emitted from the quantum dot when it is resonantly excited possess a very low multi-photon content. Additionally, we demonstrated, for the first time, the non-Gaussian nature of the quantum state emitted from a single quantum dot.

© 2014 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

The ideal single photon state is quantum mechanically represented by the Fock state |1〉, a quantum counterpart of the classical particle. The particle nature of a single photon is traditionally verified by observing an anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter [1

1. P. Grangier, G. Roger, and A. Aspect, “Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: A new light on single-photon interferences,” Europhys. Lett. 1, 173–179 (1986). [CrossRef]

]. This measurement of the intensity autocorrelation is commonly accepted as the way to test a light source for non-classicality [2

2. S. Scheel, “Single-photon sources-an introduction,” J. Mod. Opt. 56, 141–160 (2009). [CrossRef]

]. Nonetheless, such a measurement is an intensity-normalized measurement and therefore completely insensitive to the vacuum contribution, |0〉. In practice, however, vacuum contribution is significant. For many applications that do not depend on the efficiency of the single-photon source the intensity autocorrelation is a sufficient test. On the other hand, applications like linear optical quantum computing [3

3. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, “A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics,” Nature 409, 46–52 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] crucially depend on the overall source and detector efficiency [4

4. J. L. O’Brien, “Optical quantum computing,” Science 318, 1567–1570 (2007). [CrossRef]

6

6. T. Jennewein, M. Barbieri, and A. White, “Single-photon device requirements for operating linear optics quantum computing outside the post-selection basis,” J. Mod. Opt. 58, 276–287 (2011). [CrossRef]

].

Seen from this perspective, the characterization of a quantum state produced by realistic single photon sources would strongly benefit from a measurement that is sensitive to the vacuum contribution as well as the multi-photon component. By measuring the density matrix one obtains informations on occupation probabilities and coherences of quantum states of a real single photon source; regrettably, such a full state tomography is usually quite challenging. An alternative approach is to measure a quantum phase-space description of the state, its so-called Wigner function [7

7. U. Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University, 1997).

]. It is well known that the single photon state |1〉 has a negative Wigner function [8

8. R. Glauber, Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence (Wiley-VCH, 2007).

]. Furthermore, there is a whole class of states that possess negative Wigner functions (so called non-Gaussian states of light) as shown by Hudson’s theorem [9

9. R. L. Hudson, “When is the Wigner quasi-probability density non-negative?,” Rep. Math. Phys. 6, 249–252 (1974). [CrossRef]

]. The Wigner function is usually measured by homodyne tomography. This is a very tedious procedure and in some cases even impossible. However, when it is possible, it can detect the negativity of the state’s Wigner function, as was demonstrated for heralded single photon sources [10

10. A. I. Lvovsky, H. Hansen, T. Aichele, O. Benson, J. Mlynek, and S. Schiller, “Quantum state reconstruction of the single-photon Fock state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,050402 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. The practical obstacle for such a measurement is that the negativity crucially depends on the overall source and detector efficiency η. Namely, if η < 0.5 the measured Wigner function is positive, even though the photon source may give a perfectly antibunched intensity autocorrelation measurement. Therefore, the Wigner function has never been reconstructed for solid-state single photon sources, mainly because the collection and detection efficiencies are very unfavourable.

Recently, some of us proposed a novel non-Gaussianity criterion (NG criterion) designed to characterize single photon sources [11

11. R. Filip and L. Mišta Jr., “Detecting quantum states with a positive Wigner function beyond mixtures of Gaussian states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,200401 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. The NG criterion is based on the measurement of photon statistics but, in contrast to the intensity autocorrelation measurement, is sensitive to the overall source (collection and detection) efficiency. Light characterization by measurement and reconstruction of the Wigner function shares some similarities with the NG criterion. In particular: it is sensitive to the losses and is able to distinguish Gaussian from non-Gaussian states [12

12. Z. Y. Ou, S. F. Pereira, and H. J. Kimble, “Quantum noise reduction in optical amplification,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3239–3242 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14

14. Y. Takeno, M. Yukawa, H. Yonezawa, and A. Furusawa, “Observation of −9 dB quadrature squeezing with improvement of phase stability in homodyne measurement,” Optics Express 15, 4321–4327 (2007). [CrossRef]

]. Additionally, this criterion [11

11. R. Filip and L. Mišta Jr., “Detecting quantum states with a positive Wigner function beyond mixtures of Gaussian states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,200401 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] is still applicable in the case of low emission and detection efficiency in contrast to the direct measurement of the negativity of the Wigner function. In other words, this criterion enables an efficiency-sensitive evaluation of real single photon sources without the necessity for complete quantum state tomography.

Here, we present measurements performed on the light emitted by a single quantum dot and by a parametric down-conversion heralded single photon source. With these measurements we performed an advanced study of the statistics of the emission from a single quantum dot. In particular, we characterized the efficiency and multi-photon contribution and then tested the obtained results using the NG criterion [11

11. R. Filip and L. Mišta Jr., “Detecting quantum states with a positive Wigner function beyond mixtures of Gaussian states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,200401 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. Further, we compared the results obtained under different types of quantum dot excitation as detailed below. For reference, we also performed measurements using a parametric down-conversion-based heralded single photon source.

2. Quantum dot setup

To drive our quantum dot system we used two types of excitation: the first one continuous and above-band and the second one pulsed and resonant. In above-band excitation the energy of the excitation laser is much larger than the quantum dot emission energy. It produces carriers in the surrounding material that can be randomly trapped in the quantum dot potential. Secondly, we performed resonant excitation [15

15. H. Jayakumar, A. Predojević, T. Huber, T. Kauten, G. S. Solomon, and G. Weihs, “Deterministic photon pairs and coherent optical control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,135505 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] by two-photon excitation of the biexciton state. Here, we exploited the biexciton binding energy [15

15. H. Jayakumar, A. Predojević, T. Huber, T. Kauten, G. S. Solomon, and G. Weihs, “Deterministic photon pairs and coherent optical control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,135505 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 16

16. T. Flissikowski, A. Betke, I. A. Akimov, and F. Henneberger, “Two-photon coherent control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,227401 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] in order to use an excitation laser not resonant with any single photon transition. By applying a laser pulse of a specific pulse area we drove the quantum dot system from the ground state to the biexciton state with very high probability (60%) and in a coherent and controlled manner [15

15. H. Jayakumar, A. Predojević, T. Huber, T. Kauten, G. S. Solomon, and G. Weihs, “Deterministic photon pairs and coherent optical control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,135505 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. The scheme of the energy levels of the quantum dot is shown in Fig. 1(a) and the detection scheme is shown in Fig. 1(b).

Fig. 1 Excitation level scheme and detection scheme. a) Resonant excitation coherently drives the two-photon transition between the ground |g〉 and the biexciton |b〉 state via a virtual level shown as a dashed gray line. The system decays in a cascade via the exciton |x〉 state. Of the two possible decay paths we use only the vertical polarization. Above-band excitation excites the carriers in the surrounding material. b) After spectrally resolving the emission on a diffraction grating (not shown in the figure) the spectral lines of interest (exciton and biexciton) were separated and coupled into optical fibres. A fibre beamsplitter divided the exciton light onto two detectors for state verification. The biexciton detections were used as trigger events.

The sample contained low density self-assembled InAs quantum dots embedded in a planar micro-cavity. It was placed in a continuous-flow cryostat and held at a temperature of 5 K. The excitation light was derived from a tunable Ti:Sapphire laser that could be operated in picosecond-pulsed (82 MHz repetition rate) or continuous-wave mode.

The light was directed onto the quantum dot from the side, where we used the lateral waveguiding mode of the micro-cavity [15

15. H. Jayakumar, A. Predojević, T. Huber, T. Kauten, G. S. Solomon, and G. Weihs, “Deterministic photon pairs and coherent optical control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,135505 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. The emission was then collected from the top. The exciton and biexciton photons were separated by a grating and sent into optical fibres. For the above-band measurements we used a single mode fibre for the biexciton spectral line and, in order to increase the collection efficiency, a multi-mode fibre and a beamsplitter for the exciton line. Under resonant excitation it was not possible to use multi-mode fibres due to the spectral proximity of the scattered laser, therefore, we used a single mode fibre for the biexciton line and a single mode fibre and a beamsplitter for the exciton line. Two single photon detectors detected the exciton photons and one detected biexciton photons (see Fig. 1(b)). The photon detection events were recorded by a multichannel event timer.

3. NG criterion

The NG criterion [11

11. R. Filip and L. Mišta Jr., “Detecting quantum states with a positive Wigner function beyond mixtures of Gaussian states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,200401 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] uses two key parameters, the success rate (efficiency) p1 and the error rate (multi-photon contribution) p2+ of the single photon source, which directly apply to the use of single photon sources for linear optical quantum computing [6

6. T. Jennewein, M. Barbieri, and A. White, “Single-photon device requirements for operating linear optics quantum computing outside the post-selection basis,” J. Mod. Opt. 58, 276–287 (2011). [CrossRef]

]. To analyse the photon statistics of the exciton emission triggered on the detection of a biexciton photon, we derived the number of single counts, two-fold, and three-fold coincidences from the measured data, which includes the arrival times of all the recorded photon detection events. Here, single counts are detections of a biexciton photon (trigger event). A two-fold coincidence is the detection of a biexciton photon followed by a detection of an exciton photon in one of the arms of the beamsplitter. A three-fold coincidence stands for a detection event on all three detectors (two exciton photons). The coincidence window was varied as detailed below.

We used the number of single counts, two-fold, and three-fold coincidences to estimate the contribution of vacuum p0, single photon p1, and multi-photon terms p2+, to the emitted exciton signal, [17

17. M. Ježek, I. Straka, M. Mičuda, M. Dušek, J. Fiurášek, and R. Filip, “Experimental test of the quantum non-Gaussian character of a heralded single-photon state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107,213602 (2011). [CrossRef]

]. In particular, it is shown in [17

17. M. Ježek, I. Straka, M. Mičuda, M. Dušek, J. Fiurášek, and R. Filip, “Experimental test of the quantum non-Gaussian character of a heralded single-photon state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107,213602 (2011). [CrossRef]

] that the probability of no event, p0, can be expressed as
p0=1R1A+R1B+R2R0.
(1)

Here, R0 is the total number of counts (”singles”) in the biexciton signal, while R1A, R1B are total numbers of the two-fold coincidences between the biexciton signal and either exciton signals, respectively. R2 is the total number of the three-fold coincidences. The lower bound estimator of the single photon contribution is given by
p1,est=R1A+R1BR0T2+(1T)22T(1T)R2R0,
(2)
where T is the splitting ratio of the beamsplitter used in the measurements. The contribution p2+ of the multi-photon terms can be estimated as
p2+=1p0p1.
(3)

We determine the photon statistics (p0, p1, p2+) using this method because we are interested in calculating p1 as the lower bound estimator, p1,est. The lower bound estimation takes into account the splitting ratio of the beamsplitter. In this way we avoid that the number of coincidences is artificially modified by an unbalanced beamsplitter.

The NG criterion defines a witness, ΔW, that the given state is not a mixture of Gaussian states ρ𝒢, where 𝒢 is the set of all mixtures of Gaussian states [17

17. M. Ježek, I. Straka, M. Mičuda, M. Dušek, J. Fiurášek, and R. Filip, “Experimental test of the quantum non-Gaussian character of a heralded single-photon state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107,213602 (2011). [CrossRef]

]. It also derives a boundary (NG boundary) between the states that can be described as a mixture of Gaussian states and those that cannot. This boundary is given as [17

17. M. Ježek, I. Straka, M. Mičuda, M. Dušek, J. Fiurášek, and R. Filip, “Experimental test of the quantum non-Gaussian character of a heralded single-photon state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107,213602 (2011). [CrossRef]

]
p0=ed2[1tanh(r)]cosh(r),p1=d2ed2[1tanh(r)]cosh3(r),
(4)
where the squeezing constant r [18

18. D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer, 2008).

] is used to parametrize the curve with the displacement d given by d2 = (e4r − 1)/4 [17

17. M. Ježek, I. Straka, M. Mičuda, M. Dušek, J. Fiurášek, and R. Filip, “Experimental test of the quantum non-Gaussian character of a heralded single-photon state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107,213602 (2011). [CrossRef]

]. The witness, ΔW is the directed distance between the measured point (p0, p1,est) and the NG boundary. ΔW > 0 indicates that the measured state is non-Gaussian. The results are shown in Fig. 2(b) and Tables 1 and 2.

Fig. 2 The intensity autocorrelation measurement and the multi-photon contribution, p2+, plotted as a function of the single photon contribution, p1. a The exciton signal shows excellent suppression of multi-photon events which can be quantitatively expressed by intensity autocorrelation parameter of 0.031(2). The plotted data was acquired without the triggering on biexciton photon and is presented without background subtraction. The decaying peak height observable on both sides of the graph results from the blinking of the quantum dot [19]. b Here, 𝒢 is the set of all mixtures of Gaussian states, and the lower, white region indicates non-Gaussian states. The circles stand for results obtained in resonant and pulsed excitation while triangles for above-band and continuous wave excitation. In particular, the green circle stands for the result presented in the first row of the Table 2, and the yellow circles for the results presented in the remaining rows. The error bars represent standard deviations, the horizontal error bars of p1 are smaller than the size of the symbols. The solid blue curve represents the boundary presented in [17] and given by Eq. (4). The orange dashed line marks the limit of the detection system in continuous excitation.

Table 1. Above-band excitation estimated probabilities p0, p1, p2+ and the corresponding sign of the witness, ΔW, shown for several different coincidence window widths, w. The last column also indicates the distance of the measured point to the border separating the two classes of states. This distance is given in number of standard deviations, σ

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

Table 2. Resonant pulsed excitation allows us to distinguish our state from a mixture of Gaussian states, which is witnessed by ΔW > 0. As in the Table 1 the last column indicates the sign of the of the witness, ΔW, (+) indicating non-Gaussian and (−) Gaussian state. The distance is also given in number of standard deviations, σ

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

4. Discussion

Due to the very low collection and detection efficiency (≈ 0.3%) the vacuum term p0 prevails. The statistical uncertainties for p0, p1, and p2+ were determined from the Poissonian statistics of the recorded events. In Tables 1 and 2 the last column gives the value of the witness, ΔW, in units of the standard deviation. For example, the result given in the first row of Table 2 indicates a non-Gaussian state, (+), which is situated 2.63 standard deviations away from the boundary. In Fig. 2(b), the states of light in the white area are non-Gaussian and produced by a source incompatible with only quadratic non-linear processes.

For the resonantly excited quantum dot our results unambiguously prove that the state cannot be expressed as a mixture of Gaussian states, because the witness, ΔW, is positive for any coincidence window that is smaller than the repetition period of the laser pulses. For example, for a coincidence window of 10 ns the measured state exceeds the Gaussian boundary by 2.63 standard deviations (green circle in Fig. 2(b)). Extending the coincidence window to 10.24 ns, which includes the beginning of the consecutive pulse, we find the measured state to move towards the boundary of the Gaussian states. Further extension of the coincidence window places the state in the region where we cannot distinguish it from a coherent mixture of Gaussian states (shown in Fig. 2(b) in yellow circles).

The results obtained in above-band excitation (red triangles in Fig. 2(b)) strongly depend on the chosen coincidence window. If the coincidence window is larger than the exciton lifetime, the dot may get re-excited and thus emit multiple photons. If on the other hand, the coincidence window is smaller than the lifetime, the efficiency p1 will be reduced and eventually detector dark counts will dominate and form the noise floor. As a result for a decreasing coincidence window our data show a tendency of approaching the NG boundary, but cannot cross it. The overall measurement time in this case was close to 8 hours and the average single count rates in the heralding (biexciton) channel S0 and the signal (exciton) channels S1A and S1B were {5.4, 358, and 196} kcounts per second, respectively. The beamsplitter ratio for these measurements was Tmm=0.64(1) and the detector dark count rate was 500 counts per second. Given these parameters we estimate a noise floor of 0.41 three-fold coincidences in eight hours for the smallest chosen coincidence window of 1.54 ns. This noise floor, which is depicted for the various coincidence windows as an orange dashed line in Fig. 2(b), ultimately limits the sensitivity of the measurement system.

All the above-band excitation results shown in Fig. 2(b) were calculated for coincidence windows longer (see Table 1) than the lifetime of the exciton state (0.71 ns). While we intended an analyses using shorter coincidence windows we did not observe any three-fold coincidences during the entire measurement run. This puts our estimation of p2+ to zero, but also yields a statistical error that is much larger than the NG boundary itself providing only an inconclusive result. This exemplifies that our measurements and analysis do take into account the entire system of source, collection, and detection and when we observe a non-Gaussian state it is a direct observation, not an extrapolation.

In comparison under resonant excitation the measured single rates were {S0, S1A and S1B} = {37, 20, and 17} kcounts per second with the respective beamsplitter ratio of Tsm=0.54(1). The measurement time was 3 hours. The use of resonant excitation gives an excellent suppression of multi-photon events, as evident in Fig. 2(a). For resonant excitation we estimate the noise floor to be 0.04 three-fold coincidences per 8 hour measurement. This threshold is lower than the one we obtain in above-band excitation due to the different nature of the excitation. Namely, resonant excitation produces predominantly cascaded emissions therefore the heralding efficiency and thus p1 is a bit higher than with above-band excitation despite the lower overall exciton detection rates.

5. Comparison to autocorrelation

It is also interesting to compare the results presented in Table 2 with the traditional intensity autocorrelation measurement. We modified the post-processing of the measurements obtained in resonant excitation, and used the laser pulse arrival as the trigger event instead of the detection of the biexciton. Here, we obtain p1ac=0.43444(4)×103 and p2+ac=0.41(2)×108. The results show a multi-photon contribution that is comparable to the data presented in the first row of Table 2, but the efficiency of the source is significantly reduced. In particular, p1ac/p1=0.14. This result is to be expected due to the blinking of the quantum dot and the imperfect emission probability achieved in resonant excitation. In [15

15. H. Jayakumar, A. Predojević, T. Huber, T. Kauten, G. S. Solomon, and G. Weihs, “Deterministic photon pairs and coherent optical control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,135505 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] we showed, in measurements performed on the same single quantum dot, that about 2/3 of the time the blinking stops the emission from the device. Additionally, we demonstrated [15

15. H. Jayakumar, A. Predojević, T. Huber, T. Kauten, G. S. Solomon, and G. Weihs, “Deterministic photon pairs and coherent optical control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,135505 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] that due to the level dephasing in the quantum dot the the maximal emission probability achievable is 70%. The measurements presented here were obtained with a laser pulse energy capable of bringing 60% of the population from the ground to the biexciton state. In other words, we expect pac1/p1=0.3×0.6=0.18. In this laser-triggering regime, the blinking severely deteriorates the efficiency of the source and tailors its photon statistics. Consequently, the detected state cannot be distinguished from the coherent mixture of Gaussian states.

We can estimate g2(0) as 2×[1−p0p1]/[2×(1−p0)−p1]2 and the Grangier’s [1

1. P. Grangier, G. Roger, and A. Aspect, “Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: A new light on single-photon interferences,” Europhys. Lett. 1, 173–179 (1986). [CrossRef]

] anticorrelation parameter α=R0R2/R1AR1B, which is equal to g2(0) for a symmetric beamsplitter. For the biexciton triggered measurement in resonant excitation we obtain g2(0)=0.0010(10). The same measurement triggered on the laser pulse arrival gives g2(0)=0.041(2). The later result is comparable with the autocorrelation parameter extracted from the traditional intensity autocorrelation measurement of 0.031(2). Additionally, it is possible to reconstruct a biexciton triggered intensity autocorrelation measurement. Such a measurement yields autocorrelation parameter 0.0029(29).

As stated above, due to the different nature of the excitation, resonant and above-band, we obtain different noise thresholds. In addition, it is expected that the efficiency of these two processes is different. Only a coherent process such as resonant excitation can bring 100% of the population from the ground to the excited state. To compare the respective efficiencies we performed biexciton-triggered measurements of p1 in above-band excitation for various excitation powers. The results are shown as gray dots in Fig. 3(a). For comparison the dashed line shows the p1 value we obtained in resonant excitation. An interesting feature is that p1 decreases with excitation power, reaching its minimum at the biexciton line saturation. We believe that this happens because the biexciton is re-excited directly from the exciton state before the system has reached the ground state and thus could not emit an exciton photon. Therefore the ratio of emitted exciton to biexciton photons is reduced. This is ultimately limits how strongly quantum dot-based pair sources can be driven incoherently.

Fig. 3 Overall efficiency of the quantum dot photon source as a function of the excitation power and comparison between a single quantum dot and a down-conversion source. a) Here, the blue dashed line marks the probability of the detection of the single photon from a quantum dot under resonant excitation, p1. The gray circles show the same probability under above-band excitation. For the latter we varied the excitation power up to the saturation of the biexciton (4 mW - measured at the point where laser beam meets the cleaved edge of the sample, [15]) and observe a decrease of p1. All measurements presented in this figure were obtained using single mode fibres to collect the quantum dot emission. The coincidence window for these data was 7 ns. b) The blue dots are results of measurements performed on the emission for a down-conversion source. Here, p1 is gradually reduced through attenuation. The green dot shows the result for the quantum dot. The same point is plotted, also in green, in Fig 2(b).

6. Pulsed down-conversion

To complete the study we also measured the photon statistics from a parametric down-conversion heralded single photon source. For this purpose we used the Sagnac-interferometer-based down-conversion source of entangled photon pairs described in [20

20. A. Predojević, S. Grabher, and G. Weihs, “Pulsed Sagnac source of polarization entangled photon pairs,” Opt. Express 20, 25022–25029 (2012). [CrossRef]

]. The pair production rate was kept at the low value of 0.003 pairs per pulse in order to maintain a high quality of the entanglement. In particular, at production rate of 0.003 pairs per pulse we measured H/V, and A/D visibilities to be 99.86(3)% and 98.65(3)%, respectively. The corresponding value of the tangle was T=0.961(7). It has been shown that entanglement decreases with increased pump power and photon pair creation probability (number of pairs per pulse) [21

21. O. Kuzucu and F. N. C. Wong, “Pulsed Sagnac source of narrow-band polarization entangled photons,” Opt. Express 15, 15377–15386 (2007).

]. In particular, in [21

21. O. Kuzucu and F. N. C. Wong, “Pulsed Sagnac source of narrow-band polarization entangled photons,” Opt. Express 15, 15377–15386 (2007).

] was shown that the probability to obtain double pairs in parametric down-conversion scales with the square of photon pair creation probability. The results are given in Table 3 and Fig. 3(b). Here, we used the signal photons to trigger the measurement (corresponding to the biexciton photons) and the idler photons were sent onto a fibre beamsplitter (corresponding to the exciton photons).

Table 3. Photon statistics measurement was performed on a down-conversion source. The coincidence window was here equal for all the measurements w=1.2 ns

table-icon
View This Table
| View All Tables

A quantum dot is a point like source in a large refractive index medium that emits light in all directions. This limits the collection efficiency into a single mode fibre to 1.5% in our case. On the other hand, the photons produced in down-conversion are well directed in space and we can collect them into a single mode fibre with 74% efficiency. Furthermore, the quantum dot emission has a wavelength of around 920 nm while our down-conversion source produces photons at 808 nm. This yields detector quantum efficiencies of 0.2 and 0.5, respectively. The initial p1 of the down-conversion source was 14% and in the experiment we gradually attenuated the idler beam to simulate losses comparable to the quantum dot case. The results show that for comparable overall efficiency and for the range of operating parameters used, the down-conversion source emission contains a higher proportion of multi-photon events than the emission from a single quantum dot. We do not generalize this statement to all types of down-conversion sources and their range of operating parameters. For example, the multi-photon contribution in continuous-wave sources depends on parameters like the size of the coincidence window, which in pulsed-pumping regime does not play a significant role.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, we demonstrated the non-Gaussian nature of the emission of a single quantum dot under resonant excitation. With this we detected a higher order non-classicality than usually detected by autocorrelation measurements. Therefore, we gained an intrinsically higher sensitivity to possible contributions from other emitters [11

11. R. Filip and L. Mišta Jr., “Detecting quantum states with a positive Wigner function beyond mixtures of Gaussian states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,200401 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. In particular, we used a pulsed laser to resonantly bring the quantum dot system from the ground to the biexciton state which showed exceptionally pure quantum states of light.

Our measurement is the first demonstration of the non-Gaussian nature of photons produced by a semiconductor device. For completeness, we contrasted our results with the traditional autocorrelation measurement and with a parametric down-conversion heralded single photon source. We concluded that for a comparable overall efficiency the quantum dot single photon source shows a smaller multi-photon contribution.

The non-Gaussian nature of a quantum state is a very important resource for quantum communication [22

22. J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M. B. Plenio, “Distilling Gaussian states with Gaussian operations is impossible,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,137903 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] and quantum computing [23

23. J. Niset, J. Fiurášek, and N. J. Cerf, “No-Go theorem for Gaussian quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102,120501 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

25

25. A. Mari and J. Eisert, “Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109,230503 (2012). [CrossRef]

]. Furthermore, it is a fundamental property of the single photon state [8

8. R. Glauber, Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence (Wiley-VCH, 2007).

]. With the increased detection efficiencies available in other device geometries [26

26. A. Dousse, J. Suffczyski, A. Beveratos, O. Krebs, A. Lematre, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch, P. Voisin, and P. Senellart, “Ultrabright source of entangled photon pairs,” Nature 466, 217–220 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] the criterion we used becomes an important measure of the quality of the produced light. The combination of resonant excitation, deterministic excitation of the quantum dot, and very pure single photon states is essential for using semiconductor photon sources for integrated linear optical quantum computing [3

3. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, “A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics,” Nature 409, 46–52 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 4

4. J. L. O’Brien, “Optical quantum computing,” Science 318, 1567–1570 (2007). [CrossRef]

, 27

27. P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, “Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135–174 (2007). [CrossRef]

].

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the European Research Council (project EnSeNa) and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research through its Quantum Information Processing program. G.S.S. acknowledges partial support through the Physics Frontier Center at the Joint Quantum Institute (PFC@JQI). R.F. acknowledges project P205/12/0577 of GAČR. M.J. acknowledges the support by Palacký University (PrF_2013_008) and the Operational Program Education for Competitiveness—Project No. CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0060 co-financed by the European Social Fund and Czech Ministry of Education.

References and links

1.

P. Grangier, G. Roger, and A. Aspect, “Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: A new light on single-photon interferences,” Europhys. Lett. 1, 173–179 (1986). [CrossRef]

2.

S. Scheel, “Single-photon sources-an introduction,” J. Mod. Opt. 56, 141–160 (2009). [CrossRef]

3.

E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, “A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics,” Nature 409, 46–52 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4.

J. L. O’Brien, “Optical quantum computing,” Science 318, 1567–1570 (2007). [CrossRef]

5.

M. Varnava, D. E. Browne, and T. Rudolph, “How good must single photon sources and detectors be for efficient linear optical quantum computation?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100,060502 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6.

T. Jennewein, M. Barbieri, and A. White, “Single-photon device requirements for operating linear optics quantum computing outside the post-selection basis,” J. Mod. Opt. 58, 276–287 (2011). [CrossRef]

7.

U. Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University, 1997).

8.

R. Glauber, Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence (Wiley-VCH, 2007).

9.

R. L. Hudson, “When is the Wigner quasi-probability density non-negative?,” Rep. Math. Phys. 6, 249–252 (1974). [CrossRef]

10.

A. I. Lvovsky, H. Hansen, T. Aichele, O. Benson, J. Mlynek, and S. Schiller, “Quantum state reconstruction of the single-photon Fock state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,050402 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11.

R. Filip and L. Mišta Jr., “Detecting quantum states with a positive Wigner function beyond mixtures of Gaussian states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,200401 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

12.

Z. Y. Ou, S. F. Pereira, and H. J. Kimble, “Quantum noise reduction in optical amplification,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3239–3242 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

13.

H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, S. Chelkowski, B. Hage, A. Franzen, N. Lastzka, S. Goler, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, “Observation of squeezed light with 10-dB quantum-noise reduction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100,033602 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14.

Y. Takeno, M. Yukawa, H. Yonezawa, and A. Furusawa, “Observation of −9 dB quadrature squeezing with improvement of phase stability in homodyne measurement,” Optics Express 15, 4321–4327 (2007). [CrossRef]

15.

H. Jayakumar, A. Predojević, T. Huber, T. Kauten, G. S. Solomon, and G. Weihs, “Deterministic photon pairs and coherent optical control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,135505 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

16.

T. Flissikowski, A. Betke, I. A. Akimov, and F. Henneberger, “Two-photon coherent control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,227401 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

17.

M. Ježek, I. Straka, M. Mičuda, M. Dušek, J. Fiurášek, and R. Filip, “Experimental test of the quantum non-Gaussian character of a heralded single-photon state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107,213602 (2011). [CrossRef]

18.

D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer, 2008).

19.

C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vučković, G. S. Solomon, E. Waks, and Y. Yamamoto, “Submicrosecond correlations in photoluminescence from InAs quantum dots,” Phys. Rev. B 69,205324 (2004). [CrossRef]

20.

A. Predojević, S. Grabher, and G. Weihs, “Pulsed Sagnac source of polarization entangled photon pairs,” Opt. Express 20, 25022–25029 (2012). [CrossRef]

21.

O. Kuzucu and F. N. C. Wong, “Pulsed Sagnac source of narrow-band polarization entangled photons,” Opt. Express 15, 15377–15386 (2007).

22.

J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M. B. Plenio, “Distilling Gaussian states with Gaussian operations is impossible,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,137903 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

23.

J. Niset, J. Fiurášek, and N. J. Cerf, “No-Go theorem for Gaussian quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102,120501 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

24.

V. Veitch, C. Ferrie, D. Gross, and J. Emerson, “Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation,” New. J. Phys 14,113011 (2012). [CrossRef]

25.

A. Mari and J. Eisert, “Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109,230503 (2012). [CrossRef]

26.

A. Dousse, J. Suffczyski, A. Beveratos, O. Krebs, A. Lematre, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch, P. Voisin, and P. Senellart, “Ultrabright source of entangled photon pairs,” Nature 466, 217–220 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27.

P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, “Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135–174 (2007). [CrossRef]

OCIS Codes
(000.1600) General : Classical and quantum physics
(270.0270) Quantum optics : Quantum optics
(270.5290) Quantum optics : Photon statistics

ToC Category:
Coherence and Statistical Optics

History
Original Manuscript: January 2, 2014
Revised Manuscript: February 11, 2014
Manuscript Accepted: February 13, 2014
Published: February 21, 2014

Citation
Ana Predojević, Miroslav Ježek, Tobias Huber, Harishankar Jayakumar, Thomas Kauten, Glenn S. Solomon, Radim Filip, and Gregor Weihs, "Efficiency vs. multi-photon contribution test for quantum dots," Opt. Express 22, 4789-4798 (2014)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-22-4-4789


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. P. Grangier, G. Roger, A. Aspect, “Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: A new light on single-photon interferences,” Europhys. Lett. 1, 173–179 (1986). [CrossRef]
  2. S. Scheel, “Single-photon sources-an introduction,” J. Mod. Opt. 56, 141–160 (2009). [CrossRef]
  3. E. Knill, R. Laflamme, G. J. Milburn, “A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics,” Nature 409, 46–52 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. J. L. O’Brien, “Optical quantum computing,” Science 318, 1567–1570 (2007). [CrossRef]
  5. M. Varnava, D. E. Browne, T. Rudolph, “How good must single photon sources and detectors be for efficient linear optical quantum computation?,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100,060502 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. T. Jennewein, M. Barbieri, A. White, “Single-photon device requirements for operating linear optics quantum computing outside the post-selection basis,” J. Mod. Opt. 58, 276–287 (2011). [CrossRef]
  7. U. Leonhardt, Measuring the Quantum State of Light (Cambridge University, 1997).
  8. R. Glauber, Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence (Wiley-VCH, 2007).
  9. R. L. Hudson, “When is the Wigner quasi-probability density non-negative?,” Rep. Math. Phys. 6, 249–252 (1974). [CrossRef]
  10. A. I. Lvovsky, H. Hansen, T. Aichele, O. Benson, J. Mlynek, S. Schiller, “Quantum state reconstruction of the single-photon Fock state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,050402 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. R. Filip, L. Mišta, “Detecting quantum states with a positive Wigner function beyond mixtures of Gaussian states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,200401 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Z. Y. Ou, S. F. Pereira, H. J. Kimble, “Quantum noise reduction in optical amplification,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3239–3242 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, S. Chelkowski, B. Hage, A. Franzen, N. Lastzka, S. Goler, K. Danzmann, R. Schnabel, “Observation of squeezed light with 10-dB quantum-noise reduction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100,033602 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Y. Takeno, M. Yukawa, H. Yonezawa, A. Furusawa, “Observation of −9 dB quadrature squeezing with improvement of phase stability in homodyne measurement,” Optics Express 15, 4321–4327 (2007). [CrossRef]
  15. H. Jayakumar, A. Predojević, T. Huber, T. Kauten, G. S. Solomon, G. Weihs, “Deterministic photon pairs and coherent optical control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,135505 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. T. Flissikowski, A. Betke, I. A. Akimov, F. Henneberger, “Two-photon coherent control of a single quantum dot,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,227401 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. M. Ježek, I. Straka, M. Mičuda, M. Dušek, J. Fiurášek, R. Filip, “Experimental test of the quantum non-Gaussian character of a heralded single-photon state,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107,213602 (2011). [CrossRef]
  18. D. F. Walls, G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer, 2008).
  19. C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vučković, G. S. Solomon, E. Waks, Y. Yamamoto, “Submicrosecond correlations in photoluminescence from InAs quantum dots,” Phys. Rev. B 69,205324 (2004). [CrossRef]
  20. A. Predojević, S. Grabher, G. Weihs, “Pulsed Sagnac source of polarization entangled photon pairs,” Opt. Express 20, 25022–25029 (2012). [CrossRef]
  21. O. Kuzucu, F. N. C. Wong, “Pulsed Sagnac source of narrow-band polarization entangled photons,” Opt. Express 15, 15377–15386 (2007).
  22. J. Eisert, S. Scheel, M. B. Plenio, “Distilling Gaussian states with Gaussian operations is impossible,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,137903 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. J. Niset, J. Fiurášek, N. J. Cerf, “No-Go theorem for Gaussian quantum error correction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102,120501 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. V. Veitch, C. Ferrie, D. Gross, J. Emerson, “Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation,” New. J. Phys 14,113011 (2012). [CrossRef]
  25. A. Mari, J. Eisert, “Negative quasi-probability as a resource for quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109,230503 (2012). [CrossRef]
  26. A. Dousse, J. Suffczyski, A. Beveratos, O. Krebs, A. Lematre, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch, P. Voisin, P. Senellart, “Ultrabright source of entangled photon pairs,” Nature 466, 217–220 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, G. J. Milburn, “Linear optical quantum computing with photonic qubits,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135–174 (2007). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited