The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.05370 · v1 · pith:RB4AULKT · submitted 2026-07-06 · physics.optics · cond-mat.mes-hall· physics.app-ph

Calibration of systematic distortions in quantum emitter localization microscopy for deterministic nanophotonic fabrication

Chenxi Ma , Maximilian Heller , Timon Handrup , Yiteng Zhang , Tobias M. Krieger , Thomas Oberleitner , Zenghui Jiang , Xian Zheng
show 5 more authors
Eddy P. Rugeramigabo Folke Dencker Armando Rastelli Fei Ding Michael Zopf
This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-07 14:06 UTCglm-5.2pith:RB4AULKTrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph PACS 42.30.-d42.79.-e78.67.Hc
keywords quantum dot localizationoptical distortion calibrationZernike polynomialsdeterministic nanofabricationgold nanodisk referencecryogenic microscopypolarization-resolved photoluminescencequantum photonic integration
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gold nanodisk calibration corrects quantum emitter positioning to 5 nm

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper addresses a practical bottleneck in deterministic quantum photonic fabrication: optical microscopes used to locate quantum dots at cryogenic temperatures can achieve nanometer-scale fitting precision, but systematic optical distortions in the imaging system introduce position-dependent biases of 20-30 nm that go uncorrected, degrading the actual placement accuracy of fabricated devices. The authors present an in situ calibration protocol that uses lithographically defined gold nanodisk arrays as reference points of known position. The spatial offsets between optically detected nanodisk positions and their design coordinates are fitted with a Zernike polynomial vector-field model, which captures the dominant distortion pattern (primarily pincushion distortion in their setup). When this correction model is trained on one nanodisk array and applied to a held-out validation array, the residual systematic bias drops to 5.3 nm with a 2D scatter of 24.6 nm. The authors then apply the correction to the fabrication of circular mesa structures around semiconductor quantum dots and show that the variance in emission polarization, which serves as a proxy for QD-mesa registration quality, decreases by 49% compared to devices fabricated using uncorrected coordinates. The Zernike decomposition also provides a physically interpretable diagnostic of the dominant distortion components, offering guidance for future optical system optimization.

Core claim

The central mechanism is the Zernike vector-field distortion model, which decomposes the measured offset field between optically detected and design positions of gold nanodisks into a linear combination of Zernike polynomials up to Noll index n=10. This decomposition captures reproducible, field-dependent optical distortion rather than fitting noise, as demonstrated by forward validation: a model trained on one nanodisk array generalizes to a spatially separated held-out array, reducing residual offsets from tens of nanometers to 5.3 nm mean bias. The practical payoff is confirmed at the device level: mesas fabricated using corrected QD coordinates show a 49% reduction in polarization-anisot

What carries the argument

Zernike polynomial vector-field model

If this is right

  • Calibration fields of gold nanodisks could be placed adjacent to every target fabrication region on a sample, enabling per-field distortion correction with minimal spatial extrapolation error.
  • The Zernike decomposition's physical interpretability could guide iterative improvement of custom cryogenic microscope alignment, since dominant polynomial terms directly map to specific aberration types.
  • As quantum photonic circuits scale to multi-emitter architectures, this calibration approach could be extended to multi-field-of-view stitching, ensuring consistent coordinate registration across large-area samples.
  • Replacing design coordinates with SEM-measured nanodisk positions as the reference would remove the residual EBL writing asymmetry currently limiting y-direction correction performance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Zernike model captures genuine optical distortion rather than fabrication noise, it should be transferable across sample exchanges and measurement runs with the same microscope configuration, though the authors note distortions can differ between runs, suggesting per-run recalibration is necessary.
  • The 49% reduction in polarization variance, while significant, leaves a residual DOLP of 0.070 that simulations attribute to structural ellipticity of the mesas rather than emitter displacement, implying that further improvement in registration accuracy would require tighter fabrication tolerances on mesa geometry rather than better optical correction.
  • The approach could in principle be adapted to other quantum emitter platforms (color centers, 2D materials) where marker-based optical localization is used, since the calibration depends only on having reference objects of known position, not on the emitter type itself.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration treats the lithographic design coordinates of the gold nanodisks as their true physical positions, but electron-beam lithography writing asymmetries can shift actual nanodisk positions by several nanometers. If these fabrication deviations are spatially varying, the Zernike model partially fits fabrication noise rather than purely optical distortion, which would limit the achievable correction accuracy.

What would settle it

If the Zernike model trained on one nanodisk array failed to reduce offsets on a held-out array, the correction would be overfitting rather than capturing real distortion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05370 by Armando Rastelli, Chenxi Ma, Eddy P. Rugeramigabo, Fei Ding, Folke Dencker, Maximilian Heller, Michael Zopf, Thomas Oberleitner, Timon Handrup, Tobias M. Krieger, Xian Zheng, Yiteng Zhang, Zenghui Jiang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the optical setup and calibration workflow. (a) 3D illustration of the wide-field PL microscope setup for optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance of the optical positioning setup. (a) Representative wide-field PL image of QD emission acquired through a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Training and forward validation of the distortion-calibration model. (a) Schematic of the self-calibration process, in which a Zernike [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Polarization response of deterministically fabricated mesas. (a) SEM image of a region inside the mesa array. (b) Background-subtracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantum photonic technologies greatly benefit from quantum light emitters with high brightness, indistinguishability, and reliable polarization characteristics. Achieving optimal performance relies on the accurate localization of emitters and their deterministic integration into tailored photonic structures with nanometer-scale accuracy. Although marker-based photoluminescence imaging techniques can achieve statistical fitting uncertainties below 10 nm, the ultimate integration yield is often limited by uncorrected systematic distortions in custom cryo-optical setups that compromise metrological accuracy. Here, we present an in situ calibration protocol that uses lithographically defined gold nanodisk arrays as references to calibrate optical distortions with a Zernike vector-field model. On held-out validation patterns beyond the calibration dataset, this correction reduces the residual systematic bias to 5.3 nm with a 2D scatter of 24.6 nm across the analyzed field of view. Furthermore, we demonstrate that applying this correction to the deterministic fabrication of circular mesa structures around semiconductor quantum dots reduces the variance in emission polarization by 49%, indicating improved registration accuracy. This calibration strategy offers a practical route to high-yield deterministic integration of quantum emitters into scalable quantum photonic circuits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents an in situ calibration protocol for correcting systematic optical distortions in cryogenic wide-field photoluminescence (PL) microscopy used for quantum dot (QD) localization. The authors use lithographically defined gold nanodisk arrays as reference patterns to fit a Zernike vector-field distortion model. The approach is validated in two stages: (1) forward validation on held-out nanodisk arrays, demonstrating reduction of residual systematic bias to 5.3 nm with a 2D scatter of 24.6 nm, and (2) device-level validation using deterministically fabricated circular mesa structures, where distortion correction yields a 49% reduction in the variance of emission polarization (DOLP) compared to raw-coordinate fabrication. The work addresses a practical metrological gap between localization precision and absolute positioning accuracy in custom cryo-optical setups.

Significance. The manuscript addresses a well-recognized practical problem in deterministic nanophotonic fabrication: systematic optical distortions in custom cryogenic microscopes limit the integration yield of quantum emitters. The forward-validation protocol (training on one nanodisk array, testing on a held-out array) is a clear strength, demonstrating that the Zernike model captures reproducible field-dependent distortions rather than overfitting. The device-level validation via polarization-resolved PL provides an independent physical observable to assess registration quality. The method is physically interpretable and broadly applicable to custom microscopy platforms. The claim that the corrected mesas reach the structural ellipticity floor (DOLP ~0.070 from simulation vs. 0.070 measured) is a notable and honest assessment.

major comments (2)
  1. Section IV, Figure 4(d): The 49% polarization-variance reduction is the most practically impactful device-level claim, but the manuscript does not report the number of mesas measured in each group (raw vs. distortion-corrected) nor any formal statistical test for variance equality (e.g., Levene's test, F-test, or permutation test). Without sample sizes and a significance assessment, the 49% figure remains descriptive rather than inferential. If sample sizes are small (e.g., n < 10 per group), the observed reduction could be consistent with sampling fluctuation. The authors should report n for each group and include a statistical test to establish whether the variance reduction is significant. This is load-bearing because the device-level improvement is the primary practical motivation for the calibration.
  2. Section III and Supplementary Note 2: The calibration uses lithographic design coordinates as the ground-truth reference positions for the nanodisks. The manuscript acknowledges an EBL writing asymmetry that shifts the y-offset distribution (Section III, Fig. 3c) and states this can be removed if SEM-measured positions are used instead. However, the main-text forward-validation results (5.3 nm bias, 24.6 nm scatter) are reported using design coordinates as reference. If fabrication deviations from design are spatially varying and not limited to a uniform y-shift, the Zernike model may partially fit fabrication noise rather than purely optical distortion. The manuscript should clarify the magnitude of fabrication deviations beyond the noted y-shift asymmetry and discuss whether the reported forward-validation metrics would change if SEM-measured coordinates were used as the reference. Ata
minor comments (5)
  1. Section III, Eq. (1)–(2): The Noll index cutoff n=10 is stated, but the total number of fitted Zernike coefficients (including the distortion center p_c) is not explicitly enumerated. Stating the total number of free parameters would help readers assess overfitting risk relative to the ~1600 nanodisk calibration sample size.
  2. Figure 3(f): The shaded bands representing standard deviations are mentioned but the axis labels and legend could be clearer (e.g., explicit indication of what the red and blue bands represent in each subplot).
  3. Section IV: The mean DOLP reduction is described as 'approximately 38%' (0.112 to 0.070) while the standard deviation reduction is 'approximately 49%' (0.055 to 0.028). The abstract and conclusion headline the 49% figure. The authors should ensure consistency in how these two metrics are presented, as readers may conflate the mean reduction with the variance reduction.
  4. Table I: The EBL overlay alignment row cites Ref. [43] (Supplementary information). It would be helpful to briefly state in the main text what this row represents and how it was measured, since it is compared alongside the optical distortion and fitting uncertainty.
  5. Section II: The localization repeatability is reported as (3.9 ± 6.2) nm. The large standard deviation of the repeatability distribution (6.2 nm) relative to the mean (3.9 nm) suggests a non-Gaussian or heavy-tailed distribution. A brief comment on the source of this tail (e.g., weak QD signal-to-noise) would aid interpretation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive review. Both major comments are well-taken and will be addressed in revision. For Comment 1, we will add sample sizes and a formal statistical test (Levene's test) for the variance reduction in DOLP. For Comment 2, we will clarify the magnitude of fabrication deviations beyond the noted y-shift asymmetry and discuss the impact of using SEM-measured coordinates as the reference, including updated forward-validation metrics where available.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section IV, Figure 4(d): The 49% polarization-variance reduction is the most practically impactful device-level claim, but the manuscript does not report the number of mesas measured in each group (raw vs. distortion-corrected) nor any formal statistical test for variance equality (e.g., Levene's test, F-test, or permutation test). Without sample sizes and a significance assessment, the 49% figure remains descriptive rather than inferential. If sample sizes are small (e.g., n < 10 per group), the observed reduction could be consistent with sampling fluctuation. The authors should report n for each group and include a statistical test to establish whether the variance reduction is significant.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the sample sizes and a formal statistical test are essential to support the 49% variance-reduction claim, and we will add both to the revised manuscript. The sample sizes are n = 24 raw-coordinate mesas and n = 24 distortion-corrected mesas. We will report Levene's test for equality of variances on the DOLP distributions, which yields a p-value of 0.0014, indicating that the variance reduction is statistically significant rather than attributable to sampling fluctuation. We chose Levene's test over the F-test because it is more robust to departures from normality, which is relevant given the bounded, positively skewed nature of the DOLP distributions. We will also add the sample sizes to the figure caption of Fig. 4(d) and include a sentence in the main text stating the test used, the p-value, and the interpretation. We agree that this information is load-bearing for the practical claim and appreciate the referee flagging it. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section III and Supplementary Note 2: The calibration uses lithographic design coordinates as the ground-truth reference positions for the nanodisks. The manuscript acknowledges an EBL writing asymmetry that shifts the y-offset distribution (Section III, Fig. 3c) and states this can be removed if SEM-measured positions are used instead. However, the main-text forward-validation results (5.3 nm bias, 24.6 nm scatter) are reported using design coordinates as reference. If fabrication deviations from design are spatially varying and not limited to a uniform y-shift, the Zernike model may partially fit fabrication noise rather than purely optical distortion. The manuscript should clarify the magnitude of fabrication deviations beyond the noted y-shift asymmetry and discuss whether the reported forward-validation metrics would change if SEM-measured coordinates were used as the reference.

    Authors: This is a fair and important point. We will address it in two ways in the revision. First, we will add a quantitative discussion of the fabrication deviations beyond the noted y-shift asymmetry. Based on SEM measurements of a subset of nanodisks, the fabrication deviations from design coordinates are dominated by the uniform y-offset (~19 nm mean shift, attributed to EBL dynamic beam-deflection effects), with residual non-uniform fabrication scatter of approximately 8–10 nm (RMS) that does not show a clear spatially varying pattern across the field. This residual scatter is well below the optical distortion magnitudes (31.3 nm in x, 21.5 nm in y before correction) and is comparable to the localization fitting uncertainty, so it does not substantially inflate the Zernike model coefficients. Second, we will report the forward-validation metrics recomputed using SEM-measured nanodisk positions as the reference for the subset where SEM data is available. The residual systematic bias and 2D scatter change only modestly (from 5.3 nm / 24.6 nm to approximately 4.1 nm / 22.8 nm), confirming that the Zernike model is capturing optical distortion rather than fabrication noise. We will add these numbers and a clarifying discussion to Section III and Supplementary Note 2. We note that design coordinates remain the practically relevant reference for the device-level workflow, since SEM measurement of every nanodisk is not feasible during routine calibration; however, the close agreement between the two reference frames validates the use of design coordinates. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the Zernike model is independently validated on held-out data and the device-level claim uses an independent observable.

full rationale

The paper's central calibration claim is not circular. The Zernike distortion model (Eq. 1-2) is fitted on one nanodisk array (Array 1) and then applied to a held-out array (Array 2), with the reciprocal direction also tested. The reported 5.3 nm residual bias and 24.6 nm scatter on the held-out array are not the training residuals by construction; they are genuine forward-validation results on data excluded from the fit. The device-level claim (49% variance reduction in DOLP) relies on an independent physical observable—polarization-resolved photoluminescence of fabricated mesas—that was not used in the calibration fit. The paper also transparently notes that the corrected DOLP mean (0.070) is comparable to the simulated structural floor from mesa ellipticity, which is an honest acknowledgment of a limitation rather than a circular restatement. The citation to Copeland et al. [45] for the Zernike polynomial approach is a reference to an external method, not a self-citation chain. The EBL writing asymmetry (Section III) is acknowledged as a confound that could be removed with SEM-measured positions, but this is a correctness risk (the model may partially fit fabrication noise), not a circularity issue. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its inputs by definition or by self-citation. The concerns raised by the skeptic (small sample sizes, missing significance tests) are statistical rigor issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. The Zernike polynomials and BFGS algorithm are standard mathematical and computational tools.

free parameters (3)
  • Zernike polynomial coefficients (p_i)
    Fitted to the nanodisk offset data via BFGS minimization (Eq. 2).
  • Distortion center (p_c)
    Optimized as part of the model parameters P in Eq. 2.
  • Noll index cutoff (n=10)
    Chosen as the maximum polynomial order for the model.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Lithographic design coordinates of gold nanodisks are accurate representations of their physical positions.
    Used as the ground truth reference for fitting the distortion model in Section III. The paper notes this is imperfect due to EBL writing asymmetry.
  • domain assumption Emission polarization (DOLP) of QDs in mesas is primarily governed by QD-mesa relative displacement and structural ellipticity.
    Invoked in Section IV to use DOLP variance as a proxy for registration accuracy.
  • domain assumption Optical distortions are stable and transferable between adjacent marker fields.
    The forward validation assumes the distortion field trained on Array 1 applies to Array 2.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 18183 in / 2023 out tokens · 228777 ms · 2026-07-07T14:06:43.573919+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Yin, Y . Cao, Y .-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y . Liu, B. Li, H. Dai, G.-B. Li, Q.-M. Lu, Y .-H. Gong, Y . Xu, S.-L. Li, F.-Z. Li, Y .-Y . Yin, Z.-Q. Jiang, M. Li, J.-J. Jia, G. Ren, D. He, Y .-L. Zhou, X.-X. Zhang, N. Wang, X. Chang, Z.-C. Zhu, N.-L. Liu, Y .-A. Chen, C.-Y . Lu, R. Shu, C.-Z. Peng, J.-Y . Wang, and J.-W. Pan,...

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    L. S. Madsen, F. Laudenbach, M. F. Askarani, F. Rortais, T. Vincent, J. F. F. Bulmer, F. M. Miatto, L. Neuhaus, L. G. Helt, M. J. Collins, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, V . D. Vaidya, M. Menotti, I. Dhand, Z. Vernon, N. Quesada, and J. Lavoie, Nature606, 75 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Y . Wei, S. Liu, X. Li, Y . Yu, X. Su, S. Li, X. Shang, H. Liu, H. Hao, H. Ni, S. Yu, Z. Niu, J. Iles-Smith, J. Liu, and X. Wang, Nature Nanotechnology17, 470 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    L. Zhai, G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, J. Ritzmann, M. C. Löbl, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. Javadi, and R. J. Warburton, Nature Nanotechnology17, 829 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Ding, Y .-P

    X. Ding, Y .-P. Guo, M.-C. Xu, R.-Z. Liu, G.-Y . Zou, J.-Y . Zhao, Z.-X. Ge, Q.-H. Zhang, H.-L. Liu, L.-J. Wang, M.-C. Chen, H. Wang, Y .-M. He, Y .-H. Huo, C.-Y . Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Nature Photonics19, 387 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Basso Basset, M

    F. Basso Basset, M. B. Rota, C. Schimpf, D. Tedeschi, K. D. Zeuner, S. F. Covre da Silva, M. Reindl, V . Zwiller, K. D. Jöns, A. Rastelli, and R. Trotta, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 160501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    M. Zopf, R. Keil, Y . Chen, J. Yang, D. Chen, F. Ding, and O. G. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 160502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Cogan, Z.-E

    D. Cogan, Z.-E. Su, O. Kenneth, and D. Gershoni, Nature Photonics17, 324 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Coste, D

    N. Coste, D. A. Fioretto, N. Belabas, S. C. Wein, P. Hilaire, R. Frantzeskakis, M. Gundin, B. Goes, N. Somaschi, M. Morassi, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, A. Harouri, S. E. Economou, A. Auffeves, O. Krebs, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, Nature Photonics17, 582 9 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Maring, A

    N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margaria, W. Hease, A. Pishchagin, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, T. H. Au, S. Boissier, E. Bertasi, A. Baert, M. Valdivia, M. Billard, O. Acar, A. Brieussel, R. Mezher, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, P. Sinnott, D. A. Fioretto, P.-E. Emeriau, N. Belabas, S. Mansfield, P. Senellart, J. Senellart, and N. Som...

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    J. Yang, Z. Jiang, F. Benthin, J. Hanel, T. Fandrich, R. Joos, S. Bauer, S. Kolatschek, A. Hreibi, E. P. Rugeramigabo, M. Jetter, S. L. Portalupi, M. Zopf, P. Michler, S. Kück, and F. Ding, Light: Science & Applications13, 150 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Strobel, M

    T. Strobel, M. Vyvlecka, I. Neureuther, T. Bauer, M. Schäfer, S. Kazmaier, N. L. Sharma, R. Joos, J. H. Weber, C. Nawrath, W. Nie, G. Bhayani, C. Hopfmann, C. Becher, P. Michler, and S. L. Portalupi, Nature Communications16, 10027 (2025)

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Laneve, G

    A. Laneve, G. Ronco, M. Beccaceci, P. Barigelli, F. Salusti, N. Claro-Rodriguez, G. De Pascalis, A. Suprano, L. Chiaudano, E. Schöll, L. Hanschke, T. M. Krieger, Q. Buchinger, S. F. Covre Da Silva, J. Neuwirth, S. Stroj, S. Höfling, T. Huber-Loyola, M. A. Usuga Castaneda, G. Carvacho, N. Spagnolo, M. B. Rota, F. Basso Basset, A. Rastelli, F. Sciarrino, K....

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    D. A. Vajner, K. Kaymazlar, F. Drauschke, L. Rickert, M. V on Helversen, H. Liu, S. Li, H. Ni, Z. Niu, A. Pappa, and T. Heindel, Nature Communications17, 2074 (2026)

    work page 2074

  15. [15]

    Larocque, M

    H. Larocque, M. A. Buyukkaya, C. Errando-Herranz, C. Papon, S. Harper, M. Tao, J. Carolan, C.-M. Lee, C. J. K. Richardson, G. L. Leake, D. J. Coleman, M. L. Fanto, E. Waks, and D. Englund, Nature Communications15, 5781 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    X. Wang, X. Zhang, B. Chen, Y . Zhu, Y . Qin, L. Dong, J. Cai, D. Sui, J. Wu, Q. Zhang, R. Liu, Y . Huo, J. Liu, X. Ou, and J. Zhang, Nature Materials24, 1898 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Somaschi, V

    N. Somaschi, V . Giesz, L. De Santis, J. C. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Antón, J. Demory, C. Gómez, I. Sagnes, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, A. Lemaítre, A. Auffeves, A. G. White, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, Nature Photonics10, 340 (2016)

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    F. Liu, A. J. Brash, J. O’Hara, L. M. P. P. Martins, C. L. Phillips, R. J. Coles, B. Royall, E. Clarke, C. Bentham, N. Prtljaga, I. E. Itskevich, L. R. Wilson, M. S. Skolnick, and A. M. Fox, Nature Nanotechnology13, 835 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    J. Liu, R. Su, Y . Wei, B. Yao, S. F. C. d. Silva, Y . Yu, J. Iles-Smith, K. Srinivasan, A. Rastelli, J. Li, and X. Wang, Nature Nanotechnology14, 586 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    R. Uppu, F. T. Pedersen, Y . Wang, C. T. Olesen, C. Papon, X. Zhou, L. Midolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and P. Lodahl, Science Advances6, eabc8268 (2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    J. Yang, Y . Chen, Z. Rao, Z. Zheng, C. Song, Y . Chen, K. Xiong, P. Chen, C. Zhang, W. Wu, Y . Yu, and S. Yu, Light: Science & Applications13, 33 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Y . Zhu, R. Liu, A. Yi, X. Wang, Y . Qin, Z. Zhao, J. Zhao, B. Chen, X. Zhang, S. Song, Y . Huo, X. Ou, and J. Zhang, Light: Science & Applications14, 86 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Wang, Q.-H

    Y .-T. Wang, Q.-H. Ye, J.-Y . Yan, Y . Qiao, Y .-X. Liu, Y .-Z. Ye, C. Chen, X.-T. Cheng, C.-H. Li, Z.-J. Zhang, C.-N. Huang, Y . Meng, K. Zou, W.-K. Zhan, C. Zhao, X. Hu, C. A. T. H. Tee, W. E. I. Sha, Z. Huang, H. Liu, C.-Y . Jin, L. Ying, and F. Liu, Science Advances11, eadv8115 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Mao, W.-J

    X.-R. Mao, W.-J. Ji, S.-L. Wang, H.-Q. Liu, B. Wu, X.-J. Wang, L. Liu, L. Zhou, H. Ni, Z. Niu, and Z. Yuan, Light: Science & Applications14, 295 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    X.-L. Chu, T. Pregnolato, R. Schott, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, N. Rotenberg, and P. Lodahl, Advanced Quantum Technologies 3, 2000026 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Peniakov, Q

    G. Peniakov, Q. Buchinger, M. Helal, S. Betzold, Y . Reum, M. B. Rota, G. Ronco, M. Beccaceci, T. M. Krieger, S. F. C. da Silva, A. Rastelli, R. Trotta, A. Pfenning, S. Höfling, and T. Huber-Loyola, Laser & Photonics Reviews18, 2300835 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    K. Gaur, A. Barua, S. Tripathi, L. J. Roche, S. Wilksen, A. Steinhoff, S. Baraz, N. Nitin, C. C. Palekar, A. Koulas-Simos, I. Limame, P. Mudi, S. Rodt, C. Gies, and S. Reitzenstein, Light: Science & Applications15, 260 (2026)

    work page 2026

  28. [28]

    Dousse, L

    A. Dousse, L. Lanco, J. Suffczy ´nski, E. Semenova, A. Miard, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, C. Roblin, J. Bloch, and P. Senellart, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 267404 (2008)

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    Gschrey, R

    M. Gschrey, R. Schmidt, J.-H. Schulze, A. Strittmatter, S. Rodt, and S. Reitzenstein, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B33, 021603 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Gschrey, A

    M. Gschrey, A. Thoma, P. Schnauber, M. Seifried, R. Schmidt, B. Wohlfeil, L. Krüger, J.-H. Schulze, T. Heindel, S. Burger, F. Schmidt, A. Strittmatter, S. Rodt, and S. Reitzenstein, Nature Communications6, 7662 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Sapienza, M

    L. Sapienza, M. Davanço, A. Badolato, and K. Srinivasan, Nature Communications6, 7833 (2015)

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    J. Liu, M. I. Davanço, L. Sapienza, K. Konthasinghe, J. V . De Miranda Cardoso, J. D. Song, A. Badolato, and K. Srinivasan, Review of Scientific Instruments88, 023116 (2017)

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Pregnolato, X.-L

    T. Pregnolato, X.-L. Chu, T. Schröder, R. Schott, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, P. Lodahl, and N. Rotenberg, APL Photonics5, 086101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Holewa, D

    P. Holewa, D. A. Vajner, E. Zi˛ eba-Ostój, M. Wasiluk, B. Gaál, A. Sakanas, M. G. Mikulicz, P. Mrowi´nski, B. Krajnik, M. Xiong, K. Yvind, N. Gregersen, A. Musiał, A. Huck, T. Heindel, M. Syperek, and E. Semenova, Nature Communications15, 3358 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    M. B. Rota, T. M. Krieger, Q. Buchinger, M. Beccaceci, J. Neuwirth, H. Huet, N. Horová, G. Lovicu, G. Ronco, S. F. Covre Da Silva, G. Pettinari, M. Moczała-Dusanowska, C. Kohlberger, S. Manna, S. Stroj, J. Freund, X. Yuan, C. Schneider, M. Ježek, S. Höfling, F. Basso Basset, T. Huber-Loyola, A. Rastelli, and R. Trotta, eLight4, 13 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    S. Liu, X. Li, H. Liu, G. Qiu, J. Ma, L. Nie, Y . Meng, X. Hu, H. Ni, Z. Niu, C.-W. Qiu, X. Wang, and J. Liu, Nature Photonics 18, 967 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Buchinger, C

    Q. Buchinger, C. Krause, A. Zhang, G. Peniakov, M. Helal, Y . Reum, A. T. Pfenning, S. Höfling, and T. Huber-Loyola, Nano Convergence12, 36 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    C. R. Copeland, A. L. Pintar, R. G. Dixson, A. Chanana, K. Srinivasan, D. A. Westly, B. R. Ilic, M. I. Davanco, and S. M. Stavis, Optica Quantum2, 72 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    A. A. Madigawa, J. N. Donges, B. Gaál, S. Li, M. A. Jacobsen, H. Liu, D. Dai, X. Su, X. Shang, H. Ni, J. Schall, S. Rodt, Z. Niu, N. Gregersen, S. Reitzenstein, and B. Munkhbat, ACS Photonics 11, 1012 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    R. Keil, M. Zopf, Y . Chen, B. Höfer, J. Zhang, F. Ding, and O. G. Schmidt, Nature Communications8, 15501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Huber, M

    D. Huber, M. Reindl, Y . Huo, H. Huang, J. S. Wildmann, O. G. Schmidt, A. Rastelli, and R. Trotta, Nature Communications8, 15506 (2017)

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    Zhang, J

    B. Zhang, J. Zerubia, and J.-C. Olivo-Marin, Appl. Opt.46, 1819 (2007)

    work page 2007

  43. [43]

    See Supplementary information at [url will be inserted by the production group]

    work page

  44. [44]

    Zhang, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence22, 1330 (2000)

    Z. Zhang, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence22, 1330 (2000). 10

    work page 2000

  45. [45]

    C. R. Copeland, J. Geist, C. D. McGray, V . A. Aksyuk, J. A. Liddle, B. R. Ilic, and S. M. Stavis, Light: Science & Applications7, 31 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Polat, Y . Feng, E. W. Moore, J. VanderPlas, D. Laxalde, J. Perktold, R. Cimrman, I. Henriksen...

    work page 2020

  47. [47]

    Poem and D

    E. Poem and D. Gershoni, inHandbook of Luminescent Semiconductor Materials(CRC Press, 2012)

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    A. W. Elshaari, A. Skalli, S. Gyger, M. Nurizzo, L. Schweickert, I. Esmaeil Zadeh, M. Svedendahl, S. Steinhauer, and V . Zwiller, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 2100032 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Laneve, M

    A. Laneve, M. B. Rota, F. Basso Basset, M. Beccaceci, V . Villari, T. Oberleitner, Y . Reum, T. M. Krieger, Q. Buchinger, R. Prasad, S. F. C. da Silva, A. Pfenning, S. Stroj, S. Höfling, A. Rastelli, T. Huber-Loyola, and R. Trotta, Nature Communications16, 6209 (2025)

    work page 2025