Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Treating a radiation-damaged SPAD as a three-level quantum system predicts efficiency, dark counts, and afterpulsing—and says exponential dead-time rules miss half of the false counts.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 01:32 UTC pith:D6UAV3SO

load-bearing objection A coherent Qiskit exercise that overreaches: the device-level SPAD characteristics are not actually determined by the simulation, and the paper's own numbers disagree. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00040 v1 pith:D6UAV3SO submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph

Quantum Simulation of SPAD in the Space Radiation Environment

Durgesh Tinker , Kavita Lalwani This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords single-photon avalanche diodequantum simulationJaynes-Cummings modelthree-level systemafterpulsingdark count ratespace radiation damage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper tries to establish that a single-photon avalanche diode, the detector used in satellite quantum communication, can be modeled as a three-level quantum system—ground, excited, and a radiation-induced trap state—coupled to a quantized photon field through the Jaynes-Cummings model. From that model the authors compute the detector's key performance numbers as quantum observables: efficiency (Rabi oscillations), timing jitter (width of the detection peak), thermal dark counts (Arrhenius rate with 0.40 eV activation energy), and afterpulsing (Kraus channel with power-law trap release). The central quantitative claim is that afterpulsing is non-Markovian: when the dead time ends, about 50% of carriers are still trapped under a power-law release, versus only about 23% under the exponential model, so roughly half the afterpulses are counted as false photon detections. If right, this offers a quantum-dynamical alternative to semiclassical device simulation and a parameter-based way to set dead times and predict radiation damage for QKD missions.

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the essential characteristics of a SPAD in a space radiation environment can be obtained as transition probabilities of a three-level open quantum system. The SPAD is mapped to |g⟩ (armed), |e⟩ (avalanche), and |t⟩ (trap); the photon field is quantized and truncated to Nmax = 3 Fock states; the closed-system interaction is the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian; and the open-system dynamics uses a Lindblad master equation with jump operators for photon loss and thermal excitation, plus a Kraus channel for afterpulsing. The paper reports ideal efficiency near 1, efficiency reduced to about 0.36 with larger timing jitter under photon dissipa

What carries the argument

The engine is the three-level SPAD model |g⟩, |e⟩, |t⟩ encoded onto two qubits, coupled to a truncated Fock space (Nmax = 3) through the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian H = ω a†a + HSPAD + g(a†σge + aσeg). Open-system effects enter through the Lindblad master equation with jump operators such as √γth (I⊗σeg) for thermal dark counts and √κ (a⊗I) for photon dissipation, and through a Kraus channel for afterpulsing whose conditional release probability comes from the power-law survival function S(t) = (τ0/(τ0+t))^α. The power-law release is load-bearing: discretized over the simulation timestep, it makes the trap-release probability history-dependent, which produces the paper's central afterpulsing

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on the assumption that a real SPAD's Geiger-mode avalanche and radiation-induced defects can be represented by just three collective quantum states (ground, excited, trap); the paper asserts this reduction but does not calibrate or validate it against device simulation or experiment, so the computed efficiencies, dark counts, and afterpulse rates are properties of the three-level model unless that premise holds.

What would settle it

Measure dark-count rate versus temperature on a proton-irradiated silicon SPAD and compare the slope and absolute values with the simulated Arrhenius curve (ΔE = 0.40 eV, ~2 cps at 173 K rising to ~2.2×10^5 cps at 303 K), and record the time distribution of afterpulses with a fast-reset quenching circuit. If the release is exponential rather than power-law, or the DCR temperature slope is measurably different, the three-level quantum claim fails for real devices.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • SPAD dead times for radiation-damaged devices should be set from power-law trap-release parameters (τ0, α), not from an exponential approximation, because a substantial fraction of afterpulses arrive after the nominal dead time and would be counted as photons.
  • The simulation yields quantitative efficiency-versus-loss curves by varying the photon dissipation rate κ, allowing efficiency degradation to be predicted for given material or cavity parameters.
  • Thermal dark counts obey an Arrhenius law with activation energy 0.40 eV; cooling from 303 K to 173 K cuts the rate from about 2.2×10^5 cps to about 2 cps.
  • Afterpulsing creates correlations between detections that last much longer than the dead time, so QKD security analysis must account for these correlations, not just the total afterpulse probability.
  • Re-running the simulation before and after an annealing step with updated trap parameters predicts whether annealing removed the shallow traps that sustain the afterpulsing tail.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the three-level reduction could be tested by generalizing to multiple trap levels or a continuous trap-depth distribution; if real displacement damage creates a spectrum of deep levels, the effective α and τ0 would need to be fluence- and energy-dependent.
  • Editorial inference: the predicted ~50%-still-trapped-at-dead-time fraction is directly testable—an experiment with a fast-reset SPAD in a proton beam could look for delayed correlated counts beyond the dead time, something earlier experiments with long dead times could not observe.
  • Editorial inference: the model's linear scaling of afterpulse probability with fluence is a first-order approximation; a decisive comparison would check whether measured afterpulse probabilities in irradiated samples grow linearly or nonlinearly with fluence, as some cited experiments suggest.
  • Editorial inference: because the photon field is truncated at Nmax = 3, predictions for bright or multi-photon backgrounds could carry truncation error; checking convergence by increasing Nmax would be a natural first validation step.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantum-simulation framework for modeling a Single-Photon Avalanche Diode (SPAD) in a space-radiation environment. The SPAD is represented as a three-level system (|g⟩, |e⟩, |t⟩) encoded in two qubits, the photon field is quantized and truncated to N_max=3 Fock states, and the closed-system interaction is described by a Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian. Open-system effects are incorporated with a Lindblad master equation and Qiskit noise channels. The authors claim to obtain the key SPAD characteristics — efficiency, timing jitter, thermal dark-count rate, and afterpulsing/radiation effects — from this simulation. Reported results include an ideal efficiency near 1, a jitter of about 720–887 ps, a dark-count rate rising from 2.22 cps at 173 K to 2.22×10^5 cps at 303 K, and a non-Markovian afterpulsing picture in which roughly half the traps remain occupied at the dead time.

Significance. If the central claim were established, a quantum-simulation framework of this kind could complement TCAD by capturing discrete single-photon statistics and non-Markovian trap memory in radiation-damaged SPADs. The paper has useful expositional strengths: the Pauli-string decomposition of the photon-SPAD Hamiltonian is explicit (Eqs. 20–24), the afterpulsing Kraus channel is shown to be trace-preserving (Appendix E), and the comparison between Markovian and power-law trap-release models is pedagogically clear. However, the device-level numbers are not supported: the mapping from a coherent Jaynes-Cummings Rabi oscillation to SPAD detection efficiency and avalanche timing jitter is not justified, a key Arrhenius parameter is never specified, and the afterpulsing headline is essentially an algebraic consequence of the assumed survival function. The paper is best read as a toy-model study; as a simulation of actual SPAD characteristics it lacks calibration and validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.1, Eq. (57), Appendix G] The identification of SPAD detection efficiency with the ideal Jaynes-Cummings Rabi amplitude, and of timing jitter with the FWHM of the Rabi peak, is not established. The simulation is initialized with three photons (|1100⟩) and observes a coherent, reversible oscillation; an avalanche in a SPAD is an irreversible macroscopic event, not a Rabi cycle. The conversion to physical time uses a coupling g borrowed from a double-quantum-dot microwave-cavity experiment (Ref. [48]), not from any SPAD measurement. Thus the reported 887 ps jitter is a property of the assumed cavity-QED model, not of a SPAD.
  2. [§3.4.2, Eq. (30), Appendix F] The dark-count rate is computed from the Arrhenius law R(T)=A_eff exp(−ΔE/k_B T), but A_eff is never specified. Appendix F only says γ_th is "varied according to the Arrhenius principle." Consequently the quoted DCR values (2.22 cps at 173 K to 2.22×10^5 cps at 303 K) cannot be reproduced by any reader. The agreement between the Lindblad and Qiskit implementations in Figs. 9–10 is not a validation, since both implementations import the same unstated rate.
  3. [§4.3, Eqs. (38)–(39)] The headline afterpulsing result — that only ≈50% of traps are vacated by the dead time — is a direct algebraic consequence of the assumed power-law survival function S(t)=(τ0/(τ0+t))^α with α=0.5 and τ0=1 μs. The Kraus channel merely implements this assumed release probability, so the ∼50% figure is not an emergent prediction of the quantum simulation. Moreover, for the stated parameters S(τ_d=1.5 μs)=0.63, not 0.5; the text needs to reconcile the quoted number with its own survival function. Without calibration of α, τ0, and P_ap,0, the afterpulsing comparison is a study of model inputs rather than of SPAD behavior.
  4. [Abstract, §4.1, Table 2] The reported quantitative results are internally inconsistent: the Abstract states 720 ps jitter, Eq. (57) gives 887 ps, and Table 2 gives 877 ps; Table 2 lists noisy efficiency as 0.34 while Fig. 8 reports Max Eff 0.36; and §4.2 says cooling by 130 K "reduces the DCR by 5/6 factor," whereas the quoted rates change by five orders of magnitude. For a paper whose claims are numerical predictions, such inconsistencies are load-bearing and must be resolved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.1] Typographical errors: "trap state |e⟩ is mapped to |10⟩" should refer to |t⟩; also "detcteor" and "Giger mode" should be corrected.
  2. [§3, introductory paragraph] The text says "In section 3, all simulated characteristics ... are presented," but the results are in Section 4. Section references should be corrected.
  3. [Appendix G, Eq. (55)] The formula "gphys = 2g/2 = ..." is dimensionally confusing. The intended relation appears to be gphys = 2π×(238 MHz)/2; please rewrite this derivation cleanly.
  4. [§4.1.1 and Table 2] The caption of Fig. 8 gives 8.73 simulation units and Table 2 gives 1169 ps; this is consistent with the conversion factor, but the table should state the simulation-unit value to avoid apparent discrepancy.
  5. [All] No code, data, or benchmark against TCAD or experiment is provided. For a simulation paper, making the Qiskit code and parameter files available would substantially improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Central dark-count and afterpulsing 'predictions' are the input Arrhenius and power-law equations restated; jitter and efficiency are uncalibrated model outputs.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.4.2 Eq. (30); Sec. 4.2 Thermal Dark Counts; Appendix F Table 5]
    "The rate at which dark counts are thermally generated is given by the Arrhenius equation [13,45]. R(T) = A_eff exp(−∆E/kBT) (30) ... the rate γth is determined by the Arrhenius equation described in Eq.(30) [13,45] ... At a low temperature of 173 K ... DCR of ≈2 counts per second ... the dark count rate is in the range of ≈41 to 222 kHz."

    The quoted DCR values are exactly R(T) with ΔE=0.40 eV and an implicit A_eff≈10^12 s^-1, which is never specified; Appendix F only lists γ_th as 'Varied according to the Arrhenius principle'. No independent measurement constrains the model, so the Lindblad/Qiskit 'output' is just the pre-assigned Arrhenius rate propagated to the |0001⟩ observable. The agreement between the two solvers is agreement with the same input.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 3.4.2 Eqs. (38)-(39); Sec. 4.3 Afterpulsing]
    "SPL(t) = (τ0/(τ0 + t))^α, α > 0 (38) ... Prelease(tn) = 1 − SPL(tn + ∆t)/SPL(tn) (39) ... Under the α = 0.5 power-law model, approximately 50% of carriers are still trapped at t = τd."

    The release probability is defined from the survival function by Eq. (39), so the fraction still trapped at τd is simply SPL(τd) for the chosen α and τ0. The central afterpulsing conclusion—non-Markovian tail leaves ~50% occupied at the dead time—is therefore the assumed power law evaluated, not an emergent quantum prediction. The abstract concedes 'The power law is used to model the non-Markovian nature of afterpulsing'; the Kraus channel only carries this preset release law. The Markovian-vs-power-law comparison is likewise fixed by choosing SPL.

full rationale

The framework itself is not circular: mapping the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian to Pauli strings, Trotterization, Lindblad integration, and the Qiskit gate-based noise channels are standard operations and could in principle compute the stated observables. The ideal Rabi-efficiency plot is a genuine simulation of the closed JC model: P_|1001>(t)=|⟨1001|U|1100⟩|^2 with max=1 follows from unitarity in the resonant two-state subspace, so it is a model output, not a fitted value. However, two of the four headline characteristics reduce by construction to the equations inserted as inputs. DCR: γ_th is set by the Arrhenius rate R(T) (Eq. 30), whose prefactor A_eff is never specified, and the reported kHz values are just R(T) at 173/273/303 K. Afterpulsing: Prelease is defined from the assumed power-law survival function S_PL(t) (Eqs. 38-39), so the '~50% still trapped at τd' result is S_PL(τd), not an emergent prediction. The timing-jitter number is also not SPAD-calibrated: Appendix G converts the Rabi FWHM to seconds using g_phys from a double-quantum-dot cavity-QED experiment [48], and the abstract (720 ps), body (887 ps) and Table 2 (877 ps) disagree. These are validity problems, but the DCR/afterpulsing reductions are definitional circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; refs. [16,17] are prior TLS works used only as motivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of imported or hand-chosen ingredients: the three-level collective SPAD model, the JC interaction, Lindblad noise, Arrhenius dark counts, and power-law trap release. The most important missing input is A_eff, which controls all quoted DCR values but is not listed. The afterpulsing conclusion is mathematically forced by the assumed survival function. The paper adds a Qiskit encoding of these ingredients, not a derivation of the physics.

free parameters (10)
  • Photon-SPAD coupling g = 0.1 simulation units; physical scale from Delbecq et al. [48] (g_phys ≈ 7.48e8 rad/s), a quantum-dot cavity experiment,
    Sets the Rabi frequency and the conversion from simulation time units to seconds; no SPAD-specific calibration is provided.
  • Photon dissipation rate κ = 0.05 = g/2 in simulation units
    Chosen as half the coupling strength in Sec 4.1.2; directly controls the noisy efficiency and jitter values.
  • Arrhenius pre-factor A_eff = ≈ 1e12 s^-1 (inferred; not stated in the paper)
    Required to reproduce DCR ≈ 2.2 cps at 173 K and ≈ 2.2e5 cps at 303 K from Eq. (30); without it the dark-count results are unreproducible.
  • Fock truncation Nmax = 3
    Chosen as a 'general case' in Sec 2.2; the cutoff changes the available Rabi couplings and no convergence study is given.
  • Trap lifetime τ0 = 1 μs
    Input from Table 5 [7]; used in the power-law survival function and in the dead-time comparison.
  • Power-law exponent α = scanned over 0.5, 1.0, 1.5
    Not derived from data in this paper; the afterpulsing conclusion (e.g., 50% remaining at dead time) depends on which α is selected.
  • Reference afterpulse probability Pap,0 = 1.1% at φ0 = 1e9 cm^-2
    Imported from Anisimova et al. [8] and used in Eq. (37) to scale afterpulsing with fluence.
  • Activation energy ΔE = 0.40 eV
    Taken from Campajola et al. [13] and used in both the Arrhenius rate and Fermi-Dirac population.
  • Dead time τdead = 1.5 μs
    Chosen for the afterpulsing simulation; the comparison between Markovian and power-law release depends on this value.
  • Gate time tgate = 50 ns
    Used to map physical rates to simulation units in the thermal dark-count simulation; listed in Table 5.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Three-level collective description of SPAD: |g>, |e>, |t> represent the armed, avalanche, and trapped device states.
    Invoked in Sec 2.1/Fig 2; no derivation from Si band structure or avalanche physics; all subsequent results depend on this reduction.
  • standard math Jaynes-Cummings interaction with rotating-wave approximation describes photon-SPAD coupling.
    Used in Eqs (10)-(15); standard model but assumes a single mode and a two-level transition |g>↔|e>, leaving |t> decoupled in the coherent Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Fock-space truncation at Nmax=3 is sufficient for single-photon SPAD dynamics.
    Sec 2.2; the choice of cutoff changes the Rabi couplings and no convergence study is given.
  • standard math Lindblad master equation and Qiskit noise channels capture SPAD open-system dynamics.
    Eq (27), Sec 3.4; relies on Markovian, completely-positive dynamics, which the paper itself partially contradicts by using non-Markovian power-law afterpulsing.
  • domain assumption Arrhenius law R(T)=A_eff exp(-ΔE/kBT) with ΔE=0.40 eV governs thermal dark counts.
    Eq (30), imported from Campajola et al. [13]; A_eff is not stated, so the DCR magnitudes are not derivable from the text.
  • domain assumption Power-law survival SPL(t) = (τ0/(τ0+t))^α models non-Markovian trap release.
    Eq (38), imported from Wei [11]/Wang [12]; the headline afterpulsing result is a direct consequence of this assumed functional form.
  • domain assumption Fermi-Dirac population pth gives the thermal excited-state population.
    Eq (32), used in thermal_relaxation_error; treats the three-level system as a single two-level thermalized transition.
invented entities (1)
  • Trap state |t⟩ in the two-qubit SPAD Hilbert space no independent evidence
    purpose: Models radiation-induced displacement defects and delayed charge release (afterpulsing).
    The trap level is a phenomenological abstraction; its release kinetics are imposed by the power-law survival function and its population is never compared to a direct measurement.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24099 in / 18899 out tokens · 176130 ms · 2026-08-04T01:32:54.908818+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Simulation of SPAD in the Space Radiation Environment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6UAV3SO

@misc{pith2026260800040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Simulation of SPAD in the Space Radiation Environment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6UAV3SO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00040}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Single-Photon Avalanche Diodes (SPADs) are critical components of emerging quantum communication networks that detect single photons. They are placed in satellites for long-distance communication and are susceptible to radiation-induced displacement damage in space. This degrades SPAD performance parameters, including reduced efficiency, increased thermal dark counts, damage to the Si crystal, and increased afterpulsing rate. This paper simulates SPAD in a space radiation environment by introducing a quantum simulation framework, modeling the SPAD detector as a three-level quantum system, ground state ($|g\rangle$), excited state ($|e\rangle$) and a trap state ($|t\rangle$). Furthermore, to model the photon as a quantum system, second quantization and Fock-space truncation are used. The interaction between the photon-SPAD closed system is simulated using the Jaynes-Cummings model, and the open-system dynamics is governed by the Lindblad master equation and Qiskit's gate-based noise channels. The key characteristics, such as the efficiency, timing jitter, thermal dark counts, and afterpulsing \& radiation effects, are obtained using quantum simulation of SPAD. This approach differs significantly from conventional TCAD simulations, which rely on semiclassical approximations that do not capture the discrete quantum statistics of single-photon interactions and the dynamics of trap states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00040 by Durgesh Tinker, Kavita Lalwani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Workflow for the modeling of the Photon and SPAD system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Three-level SPAD model showing ground, avalanche, and trap states with photon excitation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Detailed step-by-step workflow for Hamiltonian mapping and quantum simulation evolution. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quantum circuit for simulating Photon-SPAD interaction. The initial state is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantum circuits representing different quantum circuit configurations for different initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantum circuit for one Trotter step. 2See appendix Appendix C for a detailed discussion. 3"circuit 1928" is nothing to do with the quantum simulation; it is just the syntax used by Qiskit to mark the number of quantum circuits constructed by the user in a notebook. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The figure shows coherent Rabi oscillations and efficiency and timing jitter of the SPAD detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The detection probability computed using the Lindblad master equation, with photon loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Thermal dark count probability with time, simulated by the Lindblad master equation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Gate-based Qiskit simulation of thermal dark counts in a 3-level SPAD model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic representation of the 3-level SPAD carrier dynamics. The solid lines represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Quantum simulation of SPAD afterpulsing dynamics at proton fluence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Decomposed Trotter circuit for the first step, using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png] view at source ↗

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

48 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (2021).Single-photon detection for data communication and quantum systems

    Hofbauer, M., Schneider-Hornstein, K., & Zimmermann, H. (2021).Single-photon detection for data communication and quantum systems. https://doi.org/10.1088/978-0-7503-2584-4

    work page doi:10.1088/978-0-7503-2584-4 2021

  2. [2]

    DSouza, I.(2018).Silicon avalanche photodiodes for satellite based quantum communication[Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo]. UWSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/13913

    2018

  3. [3]

    Meng, X., et al. (2016). InGaAs/InAlAs single photon avalanche diode for 1550 nm photons.Royal Society Open Science, 3, 150584. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150584

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.150584 2016

  4. [4]

    Hadfield, R. H. (2009). Single-photon detectors for optical quantum information applications.Nature Photonics, 3(12), 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2009.230

    doi:10.1038/nphoton.2009.230 2009

  5. [5]

    (2024).Advanced modeling and simulation of Single-Photon Avalanche Diodes

    Helleboid, R. (2024).Advanced modeling and simulation of Single-Photon Avalanche Diodes. https://doi.org/10.70675/56cbb37bz7179z4357z91a5z2852363aa0af

    work page doi:10.70675/56cbb37bz7179z4357z91a5z2852363aa0af 2024

  6. [6]

    Looper, J., & Newhauser, W

    Chancellor, J., ... Looper, J., & Newhauser, W. (2021). Everything you wanted to know about space radiation but were afraid to ask.Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C, 39(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/26896583.2021.1897273

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    R., & Palko, J

    Srour, J. R., & Palko, J. W. (2013). Displacement damage effects in irradiated semiconductor devices. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 60(3), 1740–1766.https://doi.org/10.1109/tns.2013.2261316

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    L., Bourgoin, J

    Anisimova, E., Higgins, B. L., Bourgoin, J. P., et al. (2017). Mitigating radiation dam- age of single photon detectors for space applications.EPJ Quantum Technology, 4(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-017-0062-z

    work page doi:10.1140/epjqt/s40507-017-0062-z 2017

  9. [9]

    (n.d.).Introduction to TCAD process simulation

    Taylor. (n.d.).Introduction to TCAD process simulation. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/rsc/downloads/MJN14_K19007_Sample.pdf

  10. [10]

    https://doi.org/10.1088/0268-1242/31/6/065024

    Xu, Y., Xiang, P., Xie, X., &Huang, Y.(2016).Anewmodelingandsimulationmethodforimportant statistical performance prediction of single photon avalanche diode detectors.Semiconductor Science and Technology, 31(6), 065024. https://doi.org/10.1088/0268-1242/31/6/065024

    work page doi:10.1088/0268-1242/31/6/065024 2016

  11. [11]

    Wei, Z. (2024). The impact of afterpulsing effects in single-photon detectors on the performance metrics of single-photon detection systems.Photonics, 11(11), 1074. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics11111074

    work page doi:10.3390/photonics11111074 2024

  12. [12]

    Wang, C., Xu, Z., Wang, J., Li, J., Mou, W., Zhu, H., Zhao, J., Su, Y., Wang, Y., & Qi, A. (2025). Performance analysis of photon-limited free-space optical communications with practical photon- counting receivers.Optics Express, 33(5), 10741–10758. 23 References – References

    2025

  13. [13]

    Campajola, M., Di Capua, F., Fiore, D., Nappi, C., Sarnelli, E., & Gasparini, L. (2018). Long-term degradation study of CMOS SPADs in space radiation environment.IEEE, 7, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/radecs45761.2018.9328660

    arXiv 2018

  14. [14]

    A., & Chuang, I

    Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2012).Quantum computation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511976667

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511976667 2012

  15. [15]

    R., Sen, S., & Gangopadhyay, G

    Nath, M. R., Sen, S., & Gangopadhyay, G. (2003). Dynamics of cascade three-level system interacting with the classical and quantized field.Pramana, 61(6), 1089–1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02704404

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02704404 2003

  16. [16]

    Lalwani, K., & Tinker, D. (2026a). Quantum simulation of the thermal dark counts of the SPAD detector for space applications.EPJ Web of Conferences, 360, 01026. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202636001026

    arXiv

  17. [17]

    Lalwani, K., Tinker, D., & Gakhar, M. (2026). Quantum simulation of the efficiency of the SPAD detector for space applications. In2026 International Conference on Next-Gen Quantum and Advanced Computing: Algorithms, Security, and Beyond (NQComp)(pp. 767–771). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/NQComp68334.2026.11497763

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    (2007).The theory of open quantum systems

    Breuer, H., & Petruccione, F. (2007).The theory of open quantum systems. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001

    arXiv 2007

  19. [19]

    Lidar, D. A. (2019). Lecture notes on the theory of open quantum systems.arXiv. arXiv:1902.00967

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Jaynes, E., & Cummings, F. (1963). Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser.Proceedings of the IEEE, 51(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1109/proc.1963.1664

    arXiv 1963

  21. [21]

    Kossakowski, A. (1972). On quantum statistical mechanics of non-Hamiltonian systems.Reports on Mathematical Physics, 3(4), 247–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4877(72)90010-9

    doi:10.1016/0034-4877(72)90010-9 1972

  22. [22]

    Gorini, V., Kossakowski, A., & Sudarshan, E. C. G. (1976). Completely positive dy- namical semigroups of N-level systems.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 17(5), 821–825. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.522979

    doi:10.1063/1.522979 1976

  23. [23]

    Lindblad, G. (1976). On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 48(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01608499

    doi:10.1007/bf01608499 1976

  24. [24]

    Manzano, D. (2020). A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation.AIP Advances, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115323

    doi:10.1063/1.5115323 2020

  25. [25]

    (n.d.).Qiskit

    IBM Quantum Computing. (n.d.).Qiskit. https://www.ibm.com/quantum/qiskit

  26. [26]

    (n.d.).thermal_relaxation_error– Qiskit Aer 0.17.1

    Qiskit Aer. (n.d.).thermal_relaxation_error– Qiskit Aer 0.17.1. https://qiskit.github.io/qiskit- aer/stubs/qiskit_aer.noise.thermal_relaxation_error.html

  27. [27]

    Griffiths, R. B. (2010).Quantum channels, Kraus operators, POVMs. https://quantum.phys.cmu.edu/QCQI/qitd411.pdf

    2010

  28. [28]

    Tudorovskaya, M., & Ramo, D. M. (2024). Quantum computing simulation of a mixed spin-boson Hamiltonian and its performance for a cavity quantum electrodynamics problem.Physical Review A, 109(3). https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.109.032612

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.109.032612 2024

  29. [29]

    Macridin, A., Spentzouris, P., Amundson, J., & Harnik, R. (2018). Electron-phonon systems on a universal quantum computer.Physical Review Letters, 121(11), 110504. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.121.110504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.110504 2018

  30. [30]

    G., & Polak, W

    Rieffel, E. G., & Polak, W. H. (2011).Quantum computing: A gentle introduction. MIT Press

    2011

  31. [31]

    Sakurai, J. J. (1967).Advanced quantum mechanics. Pearson Education India

    1967

  32. [32]

    J., & Freedman, D

    Sakurai, J. J., & Freedman, D. Z. (1968). Advanced quantum mechanics.American Journal of Physics, 36(5), 465–466. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1974573 24 Quantum Simulation of SPAD in the Space Radiation Environment

    work page doi:10.1119/1.1974573 1968

  33. [33]

    Macridin, A., Spentzouris, P., Amundson, J., & Harnik, R. (2018). Digital quan- tum computation of fermion-boson interacting systems.Physical Review A, 98(4). https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.98.042312

    doi:10.1103/physreva.98.042312 2018

  34. [34]

    Zhu, S., Liu, Z., & Li, X. (1988). Squeezing in a three-level Jaynes-Cummings model.Physics Letters A, 128(1–2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(88)91050-x

    work page doi:10.1016/0375-9601(88)91050-x 1988

  35. [35]

    Yoo, H. (1985). Dynamical theory of an atom with two or three levels interacting with quantized cavity fields.Physics Reports, 118(5), 239–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(85)90015-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(85)90015-8 1985

  36. [36]

    Swain, S. (1972). An exact analysis of spontaneous emission by a single two-level atom in the rotating wave approximation. I. Analytic results.Journal of Physics A: General Physics, 5(11), 1587–1600. https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/5/11/007

    work page doi:10.1088/0305-4470/5/11/007 1972

  37. [37]

    (2023).Projection method for the decomposition of Hermitian matrices into Pauli ma- trices

    Fontana, C. (2023).Projection method for the decomposition of Hermitian matrices into Pauli ma- trices. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13529.29285/3

    arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    (n.d.).AerSimulator– Qiskit Aer 0.17.1

    Qiskit Aer. (n.d.).AerSimulator– Qiskit Aer 0.17.1. https://qiskit.github.io/qiskit- aer/stubs/qiskit_aer.AerSimulator.html

  39. [39]

    Lloyd, S. (1996). Universal quantum simulators.Science, 273(5278), 1073–1078

    1996

  40. [40]

    (n.d.).SparsePauliOp(latest version)

    IBM Quantum Documentation. (n.d.).SparsePauliOp(latest version). https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/api/qiskit/qiskit.quantum_info.SparsePauliOp

  41. [41]

    (2024).QuantumCircuit

    IBM. (2024).QuantumCircuit. Qiskit SDK.https://quantum.cloud.ibm.com/docs/en/api/ qiskit/qiskit.circuit.QuantumCircuit

    2024

  42. [42]

    Suzuki, M. (1991). General theory of fractal path integrals with applications to many-body theories and statistical physics.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 32(2), 400–407

    1991

  43. [43]

    (n.d.).Quantum real time evolution using Trotterization

    Qiskit Community. (n.d.).Quantum real time evolution using Trotterization. Qiskit Algorithms 0.4.0. https://qiskit-community.github.io/qiskit-algorithms/tutorials/13_trotterQRTE.html

  44. [44]

    Qiskit Algorithms (qiskit_algorithms). (n.d.). Qiskit Algorithms 0.4.0. https://qiskit- community.github.io/qiskit-algorithms/apidocs/qiskit_algorithms.html

  45. [45]

    M., & Ng, K

    Sze, S. M., & Ng, K. K. (2006).Physics of semiconductor devices(3rd ed.). Wiley-Interscience

    2006

  46. [46]

    S., Chong, W

    Tey, L. S., Chong, W. Y., & Muniandy, S. V. (2025). Modeling of single-photon avalanche diode photon counts from spontaneous parametric down-conversion using fractional Poisson processes. Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 43(1), 189. https://doi.org/10.1364/josab.577382

    work page doi:10.1364/josab.577382 2025

  47. [47]

    C., & Knight, P

    Gerry, C. C., & Knight, P. L. (2005).Introductory quantum optics. Cambridge University Press

    2005

  48. [48]

    Delbecq, M., et al. (2017). Strong coupling cavity QED with gate-defined double quan- tum dots enabled by a high impedance resonator.Physical Review X, 7, 011030. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.011030 25

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.7.011030 2017