Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Readout of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors at high count rates

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Andrew J. Kerman, Danna Rosenberg, Richard J. Molnar, Eric A. Dauler

Instrumentation and Detectors · Submitted 12 Feb 2013

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim Finally, we describe an improved readout which circumvents this problem, allowing these detectors to be operated stably at high count rates, with a detection efficiency penalty determined purely by their inductive reset time.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1302.2852 (version 1)
Pith IDHTRHW5S4, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationAndrew J. Kerman, Danna Rosenberg, Eric A. Dauler, Richard J. Molnar. "Readout of superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors at high count rates." arXiv:1302.2852 (2013). https://pith.science/paper/HTRHW5S4
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,761 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.07 · states limitation 0.63 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.18 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.89 · compares with prior results 0.67 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors are set apart from other photon counting technologies above all else by their extremely high speed, with few-ten-ps timing resolution, and recovery times $\tau_R\lesssim$10 ns after a detection event. In this work, however, we identify in the conventional electrical readout scheme a nonlinear interaction between the detector and its readout which can make stable, high-efficiency operation impossible at count rates even an order-of-magnitude less than $\tau_R^{-1}$. We present detailed experimental confirmation of this, and a theoretical model which quantitatively explains our observations. Finally, we describe an improved readout which circumvents this problem, allowing these detectors to be operated stably at high count rates, with a detection efficiency penalty determined purely by their inductive reset time.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors are set apart from other photon counting technologies above all else by their extremely high speed, with few-ten-ps timing resolution, and recovery times $\tau_R\lesssim$10 ns after a detection event. background 1.00 0.07 0.03 asserted 1.00
s1 In this work, however, we identify in the conventional electrical readout scheme a nonlinear interaction between the detector and its readout which can make stable, high-efficiency operation impossible at count rates even an order-of-magnitude less than $\tau_R^{-1}$. result 0.64 0.95 0.51 asserted 0.93
s2 We present detailed experimental confirmation of this, and a theoretical model which quantitatively explains our observations. contribution 0.74 0.96 0.08 asserted 1.00
s3 Finally, we describe an improved readout which circumvents this problem, allowing these detectors to be operated stably at high count rates, with a detection efficiency penalty determined purely by their inductive reset time. contribution 0.94 0.95 0.73 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 0.69 · evidence from observation or experiment 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors are set apart from other photon counting technologies above all else by their extremely high speed, with few-ten-ps timing resolution, and recovery times $\tau_R\lesssim$10 ns after a detection event. In this work, however, we identify in the conventional electrical readout scheme a nonlinear interaction between the detector and its readout which can make stable, high-efficiency operation impossible at count rates even an order-of-magnitude less than $\tau_R^{-1}$. We present detailed experimental confirmation of this, and a theoretical model which quantitatively explains our observations. Finally, we describe an improved readout which circumvents this problem, allowing these detectors to be operated stably at high count rates, with a detection efficiency penalty determined purely by their inductive reset time.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

1 arXiv paper cite this in 1 sentence

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.